The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-01-15 PacketMINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2003 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on January 15, 2003, t which had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:30 p.m. in the Civic Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken Councilmembers were present: Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin Staff present: Public Utilities Director Barnes, Finance Director Manager Fierro, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Attorney Rapport, Deputy Public Works Director Seanor, Worki Planning Director Stump, and City Clerk Ulvila. ~': "~:' Counci ........ · Ilowing la. Mayor Larson expressed condolences to the the City of Willits, who recently had a fatal heart City of Willits and Mendocino County for his private citizen. ~rdon Logan, City Manager Mr. L~n will be missed by wor~::'~:'~,~i~ overnment and as a 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ana Araiza led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. PROC 3a. Proclamation: Martin Mayor Larson read a being held on January 19 and 20, the scheduled activities and of this outstanding human being. in and Martin ~ther King Day Event to actively participate in significant contributions Ana Araiza Cc program behalf of the Martin Luther King Observance . TATION prog City's the raised in co~ naming, et~i 3b. Marvin Marvin TrottE for $1 g has ra~ The' from ~ity Recreation Center Fundraising Efforts- rted that with the help of Senator Chesbro's office, they might be in in funding in February through the School District. Their $375,000 of the $500,000 goal for the Angel a $4.5 million goal. One million dollars of these funds ~unty of Mendocino Tobacco Funds and $1 million from the pment Block Grant (CDBG). They asked for $500,000 from and it is hoped it will also be funded. It is hoped that $1 million will be iunity funds, $500,000 from the 100 Angel Program and $500,00 of room .uncil expressed their appreciation for Dr. Trotter's efforts. Larson announced that item 9a has been postponed. Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 1 of 14 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Regular Meeting of December 18, 2002 Councilmember Smith recommended a correction to page 6, second paragraph, to read "M/S Baldwin/Smith selecting Councilmember participate on the General Plan Housing Element Update Committee..." last Councilmember Andersen recommended a correction to page 2, read "M/S Andersen/Baldwin nominating Judy Pruden to fill the un~ of Eric Larson ..." to term M/S Smith/Rodin approving the Regular Meeting Minutes amended, carried by the following roll call vote' Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NO ABSENT: None. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL Mayor Larson read the appeal process. 8, 20O2 Rodin ABSTAIN' None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR City Clerk Ulvila advised of a typographical error on item $5,546 rather than $5,548. ~t should read Councilmember Andersen for 2000 STIP Arterial pulled from the Consent Calendar 6g, Approval of Completion No. 02-15, be Mayor Larson advised that item 6g on the agenda. Ana Araiza, meeting's Ihat last moni had requested an item be included on this M~ .on instru~ "Au~ Araiza to g the matter to Council's attention under ~ms" on the agenda. M/S Smith/Ai ~dar as ;n approving items a through f and h through i of the Consent Report for Month of December 2002; lesoluti~ Approving City of Ukiah Qualified Contractors List for ... for Damages Received from Matt and Michelle Smith and Randy ;rs and Referred to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal for High Voltage Line Clearing and Tree Trimming at Various Locations City of Ukiah to Davey Tree Surgery Company in an Amount Not to $30,000; Bid for Sodium Hydroxide to UNIVAR USA for the Sum of $341.41 Per Dry Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 2 of 14 f. Awarded Bid for Sodium Hypochlorite to Pioneer Americas, Inc. for the Sum of $.569 Per Gallon; h. Received Report of the Acquisition of Emergency Traffic Signal Repair Servic~ From Republic Electric in the Amount of $5,546; i. Adopted Ordinance 1043 Placing a Limitation on New Connections to Ukiah Sewer System Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Coun¢ Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Ana Araiza, Ukiah, discussed the "Take Back The Nic that will be held on January 17th in front of the requesting that the Mayor attend the event confirmation that the Mayor would be able to They are Gabriela Burleson, drew attention to a Avenue area and asked that a basketball court teenagers. She also requested a copy of the park plan. ~dee Drive/Orchard led in the park for the Jan Moore, 1021 W. Perkins citizens who are concerned witl of the Patriot Act. She requ~ their intention to not be residents. They would like meeting. that she re their constitutional consider ado ~n the c¢ to con,, of Ukiah ~ce the passage ~ resolution stating itutional rights of their at their March 19th Mary Lindley, town asked Ibbi Street, felt that City lule a measure ;mbers and her preViously stated idea of holding a meetings "are" town hall meetings. She at their next or following meeting next election concerning the election be elected by the voters and that the :ilmembers. Mayor of the City Attorney if the Public Hearing portion of the meeting at any time after 6:30 p.m. ;d that the Public Hearings can be scheduled at any gly. polled Council and it was the consensus to schedule both matters for ~eir next meeting. NG ;al Filed by Rainbow Construction, Inc. Concerning the Planning ,n's Decision of Variance 02-49 C; iilmember Smith declared a conflict of interest based on a campaign contribution and' recused himself from the Public Hearing concerning this matter. Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 3 of 14 Planning Director Stump advised that this matter concerns an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a Sign Variance to Rainbow Construction. Municipal Code does not allow corporate flags/signs to be placed on top does allow the applicant to seek relief from that Code provision by filing fo~ The Planning Commission has denied the Rainbow Construction's Va~ applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council. He drew of the Staff Report outlining options available to the City Council. that a revised Sign Ordinance would be ready for Council's review ~pring. Councilmember Andersen inquired as to how the City signs to remain standing until the draft Sign Ordinance by the City Council. City Attorney Rapport advised that Staff include,, concerning the City Council's preference in en' and the time it is revised. The City has the long as it's not based on some illegal basis. Th, "s an~i~iii ~:.: and th~~iil !? section lily a I o w t:~e~ iii~::,:= ,m under New Busine~~::,:::? inance between now not enforce it as Public Hearing Opened: 7:18 p.m. Peter Richardson, owner of appeal and advised that this issue is not about cor community and is a balance b characterized the flags as creatin~ expressed an interest in the decision m~ The City tabling the the currenl be willing the matter iii concerning his ~=ntally, this ~e create a sense of private interest. He the downtown area and more discretion in their in signs. He supported n Ordinance is revised. He noted he would to cause any more conflict. U by .~mber after the cur .,rsen, Mr. Richardson advised that he postpone a decision on his appeal until revised. and Rainbow the Sawicky spoke in support of allowing the flags/banners on the and felt they are whimsical. Each discussed needed Ordinance and that the City Council is vested with Ci it Closed: 7:46 p.m. er Rodin inquired of the City Attorney if Council has to make a finding on the Variance at this meeting, as an issue separate from whether or not to enforce violations, as they are two separate issues. Rapport explained that Council could vote to continue this hearing since is the consent from the appellant. The only issue before Council is the Appeal of the Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 4 of 14 Planning Commission decision and Council's options are to uphold, reverse, or modify that decision on this agenda item. Under the New Business section of the Agenda, there is an item where Council can decide how they want to instruct staff to dg~ii,~with similar situations. However, if Council's interest were to continue the matter, t~ just do that and not act on the Appeal at this time. In that way, Council wo.:~i~t to address the issue of findings at this time. He continued to provisions and how they differ from Zoning Ordinance regulations. ~ ...... ~.,~ii??~,~iiiii!i!iiiiiii'~iii!ililii!iiii~?~i~,iiii:~ ...... Considerable discussion followed with regard to each Council er's vi' i~ts concerning the options available to the Council, the aesthetics of t s, comPJ¥~. with the current Sign Permit, and whether Council could ke all'"~::~ overturn the Planning Commission's decision to deny the ii~iii~:~,,~~ .... ':~:.,~::~!~i!~ii;,,? .... Councilmember Baldwin drew attention to the flag" as noted in the Sig:~ili flag" inserted in it§ Ordinance and felt it should be eliminated and place. He felt that Rainbow Construction's represent corporate advertising and should debated. The flags also rotate, and that is prohibited He would be supportive of a tabling motion if the signs the issues continue to be discussed. It was his opinion longest case of civil disobedience' and the City Council should u logo and therefore matter is being current Sign Ordinance. in the interim and ,r may be the of the law As a response to q explained that if Council didn't den give more legitimacy for not agreement with Mr. Richardson in initiate enforcem reason why aspects of would Attorney Rapport the question open and City has a gentleman's the Variance, he would not final action on the Variance. There is no riance and still instruct Staff not to enforce has been revised. City Staff As that City St~ series of warn' Larson, City Attorney Rapport explained to gain voluntary compliance that involves a before staff files an action in court to enforce. In the past, staff received injunctions against violations of the Zoning Ordinance but it has always been as a last resort. appeal fi in Rainb rting the Planning Commission's decision and denying the Construction, Inc., based on an inability to make the required ~tinued with regard to whether or not Council could make the findings, the violation, the granting of special privilege, the unwillingness of the make concessions, and whether the matter should be tabled until the In Ordinance is revised. Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 5 of 14 City Attorney Rapport explained that if the City Council denies the Variance, Mr. Richardson has the right to file an action in court to challenge the decision. The court would review that decision to determine whether the findings are supported evidence and whether the findings support the conclusions, or if there was ar law committed. M/S Baldwin/Rodin clarifying that the motion is to support the Planni decision and deny the appeal filed by Rainbow Construction, Planning Commission's findings; carried by the following Councilmembers Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. Andersen. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember 8:32 p.m.: Councilmember Smith returned to the 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9a. Presentation by Ross Mayfield and Diversion Project Request This item has been postponed and was removed Re ~n's the vote: :~'~":~!'-i~ES: ;ouncilm~'~ Eel River Mayor Larson advised that item 10d, Discussion and Enforcement Policy, be taken the agenda. n Violation 10. NEW BUSINESS 10d. Discussion and Planning Director Stump Council chose the option to staff would ask for direction in terms action to deny tt al, he did not at this time. ;cement Policy this agenda item that if Appeal for a Variance, ~nce. Based on the Council's a need to address that issue 8:34 Smith left to conflict of interest. concerning all or nc Iso discus~ Council should take further action to pursue Sign Ordinance as it relates to the matter Construction's flags. There was also debate as to whether to the Sign Ordinance until the current Sign Ordinance is revised. ,r to take action concerning a sign enforcement policy. Rappl that Council could decide to temporarily suspend certai~ irovisions of the current Sign Ordinance since the City is in the ising it and there may be significant changes in the Ordinance. He e City Council could determine what the scope is of the circumstances staff not to enforce the current Sign Ordinance as to violations that to continue to enforce to violations that may come into existence after M suspending enforcement of the existing Sign Ordinance against all g rooftop signs until a new Sign Ordinance is adopted. Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 6 of 14 Tim Pletcher, Ukiah, voiced strong support of enforcement of the existing Sign Ordinance. Discussion continued among Council and staff regarding enforcement has recently addressed among businesses in the City. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: M ES: Councilmember Rodin, Andersen, and Baldwin. ABSTAIN' T: Councilmember Smith. 8:50 p.m · Councilmember Smith returned to the m~ 8:50 p.m · Recessed 9:00 p.m · Reconvened 10. NEW BUSINESS 10a. Assignment of Ukiah City Councilmembers Mayor Larson advised he has proposed some ch~ appointments to various committees and his recomme~ Council. ,s Committees to the Councilmembers' distributed to James Mulheren, re recommended that Council~ Rodin, to their Board, otherwise th~ ~r Ukiah Ch of Commerce, than Councilmember Rodin. Mayor Larson discussed why ember Rodin to that committee. M/S ,rove Mayor appoint, to variou .~es. .~ndations for Councilmember carried by unanimous consensus of 10. 10b. Ado Report ~lifornia Assii rec~ Communi' August 24, strategic pie (ADE) Accepting "City of Ukiah Economic Development and Directing City Manager to Transmit Report to the of Housing and Community Development rro advised that in early 2001 the City applied for and bs Program Grant from the Department of Housing and in the amount of $100,000. The grant was executed on and is intended to fund the preparation of an economic development business targeting and outreach. Applied Development Economics by the City and was able to prepare the strategic plan. Acceptance enables the City to utilize approximately $75,000 in funds for business outreach. rvin of ADE advised that the purpose of the $100,000 grant is to identify housing im§'alances and trends, create appropriate jobs, organize for job creation, and housing Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 7 of 14 created via other programs. He reviewed the required components of the scope of work, their community assessment and elements of the assessment, Ukiah's economic base and target industries, employment opportunities, targeted manufactur~ office users, and the strengths and weaknesses of Ukiah. With regard to the Development Strategy, he proposed that Ukiah should actively businesses and provide an incentive plan. Other things to consider are retail establishments, revitalize the downtown area, promote tourism, more grants for economic development in the community. He advised the plan is to be implemented by September 30, 2003, with $55 .rd recruiting industrial type businesses and $33,000 to recruit m~ businesses in the community. Discussion followed and inquiries were made of Mr. E report. There was also discussion related to are related to recruitment, such as infrastructure he would research the matter. He explained prospective businesses and has staff by City Manager Horsley that City staff is lacking successful recruitment services. It was noted that the I: City's web site. the findings in the ability to meet with It was noted and time to provide would be posted on the James Mulheren, Ukiah, exp~ report and that housing M/S Smith/Andersen accepting "City of Ukiah Economic Develop~ Manager to transmit the report Development; c~ the foll~ Andersen, S ,, and Mayo' ABSENT: NOES: provided in the year 2000. 2003-22 accepting the ," and directing the City Housing and Community .~: Councilmembers Rodin, None. ABSTAIN: None. 10. N SINESS I .. Deputy Publi iction of Under water oals to Pollutant Discharge Elimination Director Seanor advised that the City of Ukiah falls under the rules of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ~s, the City would be required to submit a Notice of Intent ~ment plan, including best management practices and with the General Permit for NPDES Phase I1. He six control measures, public education and outreach, public d participation, illicit discharge detection and elimination (dumping into :onstruction site storm water runoff control, post-construction storm water and pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal discussion pursued regarding debris collecting in storm drains, runoff from sites, erosion control on hillsides, street sweeping operations and arranging times for sweeping when cars are not parked in front of residences. Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 8 of 14 It was the unanimous consensus of Council to receive the report. 10k. g. Approved Notice of Completion for 2000 STIP Arterial/Collector Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 02-15 Councilmember Andersen advised that he received clarification from his concerns and is supportive of the agenda item. M/S Smith/Andersen accepting Notice of Completion for 2000 Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 02-15; carried by the AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. or 10. NEW BUSINESS 10e. Discussion and Possible Action Re. Proposed Closure of Ukiah Air City Manager Horsley advised that as part budget deficit, California Department of Forestry Governor that the CDF Air Attack base in Ukiah be clos service from Santa Rosa, Chico, and Humboldt County. technology will allow Ukiah's se~ pilots and other staff disagree. agreed to write a letter to been very supportive of his office assistant, Jennifer Pus Chesbro has asked that letters be .~ Puser has also let us know that the Governor's imm; ;t proposal et Deficit and ~"~!~i~iiiii!i? .... for the State recommended to the has said that they can improved CDF tanker and they Chesbro has base in Ukiah and any changes. Senator copy be sent to him. Ms. probably be pulled off of the time. Of special '~cance ;en the hours on the variou claim ~ntial savin~ ~lainst the in line with Mike Sweeney who has spent many of the CDF operation to compare their The latest update from Mr. Sweeney reference of $405,000 per year and is more received to send to fo Iosure that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors voted Governor opposing the closure and they have also sent Director of CDF, requesting that she come to ~blic meeting to allow CDF to explain to the public why CDF kiah Air Attack base would save CDF money and to also )n from the public about this issue. She requested a letter from the ,e sent to the Governor and Senator Chesbro and also a letter of Senator Chesbro and Jennifer Puser for their participation and support in this endeavor. The letter from Council would include current to savings and Council's ideas as to the contents of the letter M y expressed a debt of gratitude to City Manager Horsley who sounded the alarm on this issue and recognized how difficult a fight this matter would become. The Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 9 of 14 Press Democrat finally received a perspective cost savings figure from CDF of $391,000 that appeared in today's paper. He discussed CDF response times from Chico and Santa Rosa. He did not understand how CDF got $391,000 when al. the information he has points to the fact that they will lose money by moving from Ukiah, not counting all of the additional fire suppression costs. He Board of Supervisors' invitation is a very productive tactic to pursue in te the issue, not only with CDF, but also with the Governor's staff and urged the City Council to second the Board of Supervisors' Councilmember Andersen concurred with Mr. Sweeney's Council's letter to the State should be different from the B~ contain additional comments specific to the impacts experience. Elizabeth Brazil advised that the Chamber of Co~ call to action of their membership regarding thi~ pushin~ ......... irs. He and f~='ii~iii~[ Board would do '~i~i~'i!i!i':~:':' Terry Poplawski, Ukiah, voiced his support to retain Attack Base in Ukiah. Discussion followed related to staff composing a letter concerns and instructions. Other the western hills and the impo~ immediate response and not Council's for fire on in Ukiah for an It was the unanimous consensul CDF to Governor Davis. a letter concerning City Manager City. There i~ Other con~ which is to h~ hurt schools. (about $65,00( licit and how it would affect the would lose a lot of transportation funding. The City receives about $865,000, revenues. Some legislators don't want is proposing because they feel it would more. Redevelopment dollars were going to not to receive booking fee reimbursements the COPS grant allocations (over $100,000 per year), or the ~t Block Grants. The City has had a 50%-100% increase in fees ~rmits. Ci of ly affect the City from $300,000 to over $800,000 next fiscal dd the recruitment for five positions until the City decides what to do about this financial situation. Staff will be conducting pre-budget asking Council for direction. She discussed the City's financial in the last seven years to get out of the $1 million deficit situation. !d current personnel in various departments and how some projects may hold until State budget cuts are determined. She will provide some ~ns to Council concerning some possibilities of staffing cuts, however, the ht need to cut its programs. She reported that there are proposals from some legislators to increase the Vehicle License Fee so that the backfill will not be Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 10 of 14 taken from cities but we will have to wait to see what happens. However, in the upcoming budget, staff will move forward under the assumption that the City will not receive these funds. More information may develop by the time the City's is considered. Discussion followed related to the State's budget deficit and how it will was noted that the League of California Cities has provided informati~ noted that the City has taken a very conservative approach to the Ci ~e City. Staff 10. NEW BUSINESS 10f. ADproval of General Plan Housing Element U Planning Director Stump advised that the City Council General Plan Housing Element Update Committee an~ those individuals who have expressed an interest in Discussion followed relative to the composition that the committee should be expanded consisting of young, middle aged or senior citizens an( to form with a list of g onthiS Committee. d it was felt by some .......... representatives are renters. M/S Baldwin/Andersen soliciting additional people to include youth, middle-aged, or set citizens and renters. :committee to Discussion followed as to for this committee, such as m~ and ne solicit candidates ,paper. Ana Araiza recommended there be Latino community. Motion carried roll Smith, Baldwi Larson. N( 3ilmembers Rodin, Andersen, None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. 10g. Ri~ the opportu the budget ~ear. E~ S~ of 2~ Mid-Year B~ Amendment that the Mid Year Budget Amendment is al implications that have occurred since ~pted or are anticipated to arise throughout the remainder of the is discussed in the Staff Report to Council. foil( addi' ative to costs and change orders for construction of the n approving Mid Year Amendment to the 2002/2003 Budget as 2002/03 Mid Year Budget Amendment-Summary of Transactions; g roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, vlayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. [W BUSINESS Award of Three-Year Bid for Printing of City Newsletter to SDN Inc. Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 11 of 14 Assistant City Manager Fierro advised that this item was presented to Council on August 21, 2002 and was deferred due to issues raised by former Councilmember Libby. Currently, $6,000 is budgeted for this publication in this fiscal year and ~7 has been expended to date. estion~¢.!ii? Is and draft Discussion followed regarding the content of the newsletter and there to have articles that would encourage citizens to attend City provide information concerning new projects. Staff d newsletter for Council to review M/S Baldwin/Smith awarding three-year contract totaling ~~4 for printing of the City's newsletter; carried by the fg~~i[~ll ca'if'~i~';~ote: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, a~~yor ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None .... ~::~::,,i~,';iiiiiiiii!ii?? .... 10. NEW BUSINESS 10i. Consideration of Request to Partici Process to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for an in Grant of the Active Living 'om the group included they may ities that are ittee by January 22nd is due on January Councilmember Rodin reported that there was a m{ Committee and both her and Suzanne Pletcher focused on issues that needed to be agreeing on a mission for the face in creating an Active unique to this area. She and comments should be 31st Discussion attributed to ti of the program. The amount of staff time CouncilJ area plan prioritize its be decided at agreed that the geographical to Redwood Valley so ultimately their the partnership may decide to focus or area or the City limits. Those are issues to the absence of senior citizens' input. Center that she has discussed the matter with the Senior ~re interested in the program. dwin approving participation by the City of Ukiah in the pre-application Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for an Active Living by Design grant; voice vote of Council. BUSINESS Award of Bid to Data Trends for Design of Community Survey Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 12 of 14 Assistant City Manager Fierro advised that the City Council budgeted funds and directed staff to explore the cost to design a community survey. The survey would be used to determine what issues Ukiahans feel are important to them in order to i~ the quality of life in Ukiah and provide the City Council with a valid measu potential policy issues in Ukiah. The proposal is only for the design of the the content. Of the three firms that were sent the RFP, only DATA with a bid of $600 to draft a survey questionnaire. Further information concerning DATA Trends was requested current clients. In general, Councilmembers felt the survey providing feedback to Council. Concern was expressed demographically and economically representative. the should or M/S Smith/Andersen awarding Data Trends a cz questionnaire. for $6'00 to draft a surve Councilmember Andersen was supportive devoted to local budgetary implications. the survey being Councilmember Baldwin advised that he would be happ with Councilmember Smith, City ~ager Horsley, and Ass regarding the survey questionn ~nager Fierro Councilmember Smith co~ recommendation. Motion carried by the following Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. Rodin, Andersen, None. ABSENT: None. 11.COUN~ Councilm, 11th an atten( the firefighters dinner on January earlier in the week. He also Councilm~ workshop schi ~ plans to attend the NCPA strategic planning for January 21-23, 2003 in preparation for their annual meeting in th~ AR~ week that he would not be able to attend the NCPA ramento with Councilmember Smith. Smith explained that NCPA would pay for three elected officials to Irkshop. He plans to attend the Washington rally that is scheduled for 3. The Main Street Board participated in a meeting on the Active Living ~nt and at their Board meeting they encouraged Joy Beeler to continue her in this project. Their annual reception for volunteer recognition and awards is scheduled for April 3, 2003. They established some community and developed objectives/work plans for each committee. They reviewed st Night for New Years Eve activities and voted to discontinue the First Night. Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 13 of 14 They cited issues involving lack of publicity, advertising, and weather. He reported that Santa Rosa also discontinued their New Years Eve program. Councilmember Baldwin reported that he attended a meeting of the Inland Power Commission with City Manager Horsley and it appears that optimism about the eventual FERC decision concerning the P.G.&E. seems like NIMPS is the challenger and to some degree is being federal and state agencies. According to the expert on the Commi: they are cautiously optimistic about that situation. Redwood they are in a desperate situation and are going to the State Emerge than negotiate with the Russian River Flood Control Distr near a virtual crisis in Redwood Valley that could ih. plant. other a re ~at ~rvices They Councilmember Baldwin reported that looking to the Mill Creek dams for water and it Mayfield discussed his Eel River Diversion in that project. They need other public ag getting it. is in dire straights and endeavor. Ros$':~:,' there is less interest they haven't been Mayor Larson reported that he attended the firefighters MC'lng poetry and belly dancing. also attended the recent Division of the League of Cai Night event pageant. He edwood Empire February 8th. 12. CITY MANGER/CITY C City Manager Horsley advised pulled from this agenda because t Supervisors who them s them. If that they will ~e Eel River Diversion was to back to the Board of to try to negotiate a deal with ~al to the City Council. She ant that 30th is be hold ~ir annual dinner. Empire Municipal Insurance Fund the Hampton Inn in Ukiah and the City ,lied Council as to who would be attending the :lerk ;ed that the annual Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) ;adline is April 1,2003. 13. None. 14. ADJOUI There bein, further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:54 p.m. City Clerk Regular City Council Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 14 of 14 CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 January 15, 2003 6:30 p.m. RESUME I · 2. 3. Mayor Read Marvin Troffer ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION a. Proclamation: Martin Luther King Day Event, January 19-20, 2003 b. Update on Ukiah Valley Cultural and Recreation Center Fundraising Efforts- Marvin Trotter 1 M/RC (5-0) As corrected Mayor Read 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting of December 18, 2002 RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. Mayor Read 6. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. M/RC (5-0) Approving Consent Calendar Items a through f and h through i (item g was pulled and heard as 10k) a. Report of Disbursements for Month of December 2002 b. Adoption of Resolution 2003-21Approving City of Ukiah Qualified Contractors List for 2003 c. Rejection of Claims for Damages Received from Matt and Michelle Smith and Randy Wilbur Peters and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund d. Award of Bid for High Voltage Line Clearing and Tree Trimming at Various Locations Within the City of Ukiah to Davey Tree Surgery Company in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000 e. Award of Bid for Sodium Hydroxide to UNIVAR USA for the Sum of $341.41 Per Dry Ton f. Award of Bid for Sodium Hypochlorite to Pioneer Americas, Inc. for the Sum of $.569 Per Gallon h. Report of the Acquisition of Emergency Traffic Signal Repair Services From Republic Electric in the Amount of $5,548 i. Adoption of Ordinance Placing a Limitation on New Connections to the City of Ukiah Sewer System Mayor Read 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (7:00 P.M.) a. Denial of Appeal Filed by Rainbow Construction, Inc. Concerning the Planning Commission's Decision of Variance 02-49 M/RC (3-1) (Councilmember Smith-recused due to possible conflict of interest) supporting the Planning Commission's decision and denying the appeal filed by Rainbow Construction, Inc. based on an inability to make the required findings. Postponed 1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Presentation by Ross Mayfield and Possible Action Regarding Eel River Diversion Project Request 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Assignment of Ukiah City Councilmembers to Various Committees M/Consensus of Council approved appointments of Councilmembers to various committees b. Adoption of Resolution Accepting "City of Ukiah Economic Development Report and Strategy" and Directing City Manager to Transmit Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development M/RC (5-0) adopting Resolution 2003-22 c. Report to Council Regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Unanimous Consensus of Council to receive the report d. Discussion and Action Concerning Sign Violation Enforcement Policy No action taken (Councilmember Smith-recused due to possible conflict of interest) e. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding State Budget Deficit and Proposed Closure of Ukiah Air Attack Base Discussed the report f. Approval of General Plan Housing Element Update Committee M/RC (5-0) approving the proposed membership of the Committee g. Approval of 2002/03Mid-Year Budget Amendment M/RC (5-0) approving Mid Year Amendment to the 2002/03 Budget h. Award of Three-Year Bid for Printing of City Newsletter to SDN Inc. M/RC (5-0) awarding three-year contract totaling $4,774 per year to SDN Inc. The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 SEMINARY AVENUE January 15, 2003 8:00 P.M.* RESUME 1. ROLL CALL Read 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments. Read 3. APPEAL PROCESS Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the Redevelopment Agency may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The Agency has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety (90) days the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/RC(5-0) a. Regular Meeting of December 18, 2002 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Approval of Mid-Year Budget Adjustment M/RC (5-0) approving Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Discussed Discussion and Possible Action Regarding State Budget 6. COMMISSIONERS REPORTS 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORTS 8. CLOSED SESSION 11:58 pm 9. ADJOURNMENT *Or as soon as the meeting may be held in conjunction with the City Council meeting. RESUME i. Consideration of Request to Participate in Pre-Application Process to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for an Active Living by Design Grant M/Unanimous Consensus ar)proving participation by the City of Ukiah in the pre-application process to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for an Active Livinq by Design grant j. Award of Bid to Data Trends for Design of Community Survey M/RC (5-0) ar)proving award of bid to Data Trends k. (6g.) Approval of Notice of Completion for 2000 STIP Arterial/Collector Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 02-15 M/RC (5-0) approved Notice of Completion 11:54 p.m. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORT 13. CLOSED SESSION 14. ADJOURNMENT Overview of Changes to Legal Rights By The Associated Press September 5, 2002 Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks: * FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation. * FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration heatings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests. * FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. * RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of' crimes. * FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. * RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. * RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C: Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) © : tr ut h o ut2002 Sweet land of iberty NAT HENTOFF Grassroots resistence to AG John Ashcroft The growing number of critics -- from liberals to conservatives -- of what they call John Ashcroft's-war on the Bill of Rights -- now includes former Manhattan United States Attorney Mary Jo White. This tough prosecutor, during her term, indicted Osama bin Laden for the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa and convicted more than 30 terrorists. Speaking before the New York City Bar Association, she questioned -- as reported in the New York Daily News --Ashcroft's policies such as detain- ing immigrants in secret proceedings. "Secrecy," she said, "is the enemy of democracy." But most remarkable in the rising resistance around the nation to Ashcroft's far-reaching expansion of elec- tronic surveillance -- and lowering of judicial super- vision in some of his edicts ~ is the ferment at the grassroots. In February, some 300 teachers, lawyers, doctors, retirees, students and nurses in Northampton, Mass. formed the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Through the committee's Web site (www. bordc.org), similar committees have formed nationwide. Now, 15 town or city councils ~ from Takoma Park, Md. to Santa Fe, N.M. ~ have passed resolutions by those local committees. On Oct. 30, for 'example, Santa Fe's City Council enacted "a resolution supporting the Bill of Rights and civil liberties for Santa Feans." It instructs the city's Congressional delegation to "actively monitor the implementation of Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act, any new Executive Orders ... and actively work for the repeal of those portions that violate the guaranteed civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights." Characteristic of most of these official disagree- ments with the attorney general is the Madison, Wis., City Council instruction that local police and prosecu- tors not be drawn into activities that threaten the con- stitutional rights of area residents -- such as random surveillance based on country of 'origin and fishing through library records to see what books people under vague suspicion of terrorist links are borrowing. Simultaneously, the American Civil Liberties Union · .(ACLU) is engaged in a "Safe and Free. Campaign," challenging many of Ashcroft's policies. The ACLU declares that, as part of this campaign, it will "work with dozens of communities around the country to go on the record against repressive legislation." ..... L-~r-~ Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, points out, "Local governments have the power to tell their law enforcement officers not to spy without evidence of crime. With the help of ACLU members and activists around the country, we will encourage them to say 'no' as strongly as possible to other violations of the Bill of Rights." Already, because of the Northhampton, Mass., Bill of Rights Defenge Committee's initiative, resolutions are being prepared for 40 other city, town and county councils in 24 states ~ in addition to the 13 that have already pa~sed official criticisms of the Justice Department's actions that diminish civil liberties. The legacy of committees that defend the Bill of Rights now stems back to the pre-American Revolutionary Committees of Correspondence, initiat- ed in Boston in 1767 by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty. · In 1805, the impact of those committees was emphasized in Mercy Otis Warren's "History of the Rise and Progress and Termination of the American Revolution": "Perhaps no single step contributed so much to cement the union of the colonies, and the final acquisi- tion of independence, as the establishment of Committees of Correspondence. This supported a chain of communication from New Hampshire to Georgia that produced unanimity and energy through- out the continent." · Through these committees, Sam Adams and other patriots reported on the assaults on Americans' liber- ties by the King, his ministers and his officers and gov- ernors in the colonies. Now, largely through the Internet, contemporary. Committees of Correspondence -- though not achiev- ing "unanimity" among AmeriCans -- are encouraging more citizens to question whether the Bush adminis- tration is indeed securing the liberties we are fighting to protect from the terrorists. As a high school student told the Madison, Wis., City Council: "We need to be more than passive observers of history, because the decisions made fight now are our future." Nat Hentoff is a First Amendment expert and a syndicated columnist. The Ukiah D3JLY JOURNAL Publisher: Kevin McConnellgditor: K.C. Meadows Advertising director. Cindy Delk Office manager. Yvonne Bell · Circulation director: Erin. WhJtsett Qroup systems director:. Sue Whitman Proposed Bill of Rights Resolution - City of Ukiah California Whereas, the City of Ukiah fully supports the United States Constitution, its first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the State of California, and Whereas the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed therein are essential to the health of democracy and to the well being of the citizens and the community of Ukiah, including: - Freedom of speech, religion, assembly and privacy; ~ The rights to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings; and - Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; All guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of California and the United States Constitution, and Whereas, we believe these civil liberties are precious and are now threatened by A. The USA PATRIOT Act, which ~ All but eliminates judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance; ~ Greatly expands the government's ability to conduct secret searches; ~ Gives the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as "terrorist organizations"; and - Grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, mental health, financial and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order; and B. Federal Executive Orders, which Establish secret military tribunals for terrorism suspects; ~ Permit wiretapping of conversations between federal prisoners and their lawyers; ~ Lift Justice Department regulations against illegal COINTELPRO-type operations by the FBI (covert activities that in the past targeted domestic groups and individuals); and ~ Limit the disclosure of public documents and records under the Freedom of Information Act; and Whereas, this law and these Executive Orders particularly target foreign nationals and people of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent, but could affect any one of us in the U.S.A. acting and speaking legally in opposing government policy; and Whereas, The Executive Order on secret military tribunals also undermines the U.S. government's ability to denounce atrocities carried out in secret by military tribunals elsewhere in the world; and, Whereas, several law enforcement officials, including previous heads of the FBI, have decried the USA PATRIOT Act and these Executive Orders as unnecessary to the prosecution of, and protection from terrorism; Therefore, we the City Council of Ukiah California, acting in the spirit of our State and Federal Constitutions request that: 1. Local law enforcement continue to preserve residents' freedom of speech, religion, assembly and CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 January 15, 2003 6:30 p.m. 1 ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PROCLAMATIONIPRESENTATION a. Proclamation: Martin Luther King Day Event, January 19-20, 2003 b. Update on Ukiah Valley Cultural and Recreation Center Fundraising Efforts- Marvin Trotter 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting of December 18, 2002 RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Report of Disbursements for Month of December 2002 b. Adoption of Resolution Approving City of Ukiah Qualified Contractors List for 2003 c. Rejection of Claims for Damages Received from Matt and Michelle Smith and Randy Wilbur Peters and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund d. Award of Bid for High Voltage Line Clearing and Tree Trimming at Various Locations Within the City of Ukiah to Davey Tree Surgery Company in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000 e. Award of Bid for Sodium Hydroxide to UNIVAR USA for the Sum of $341.41 Per Dry Ton f. Award of Bid for Sodium Hypochlorite to Pioneer Americas, Inc. for the Sum of $.569 Per Gallon g. Approval of Notice of Completion for 2000 STIP Arterial/Collector Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 02-15 h. Report of the Acquisition of Emergency Traffic Signal Repair Services From Republic Electric in the Amount of $5,548 i. Adoption of Ordinance Placing a Limitation on New Connections to the City of Ukiah Sewer System 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subJect. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. Si PUBLIC HEARING (7:00 P.M.) a. Denial of Appeal Filed by Rainbow Construction, Inc. Concerning the Planning Commission's Decision of Variance 02-49 w UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Presentation by Ross Mayfield and Possible Action Regarding Eel River Diversion Project Request 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Assignment of Ukiah City Councilmembers to Various Committees b. Adoption of Resolution Accepting "City of Ukiah Economic Development Report and Strategy" and Directing City Manager to Transmit Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development c. Report to Council on Status of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System d. Discussion and Action Concerning Sign Violation Enforcement Policy e. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding State Budget Deficit and Proposed Closure of Ukiah Air Attack Base f. Approval of General Plan Housing Element Committee g. Approval of Mid-Year Budget Amendment h. Award of Three-Year Bid for Printing of City Newsletter to SDN Inc. i. Consideration of Request to Participate in Pre-Application Process to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for an Active Living by Design Grant j. Award of Bid to Data Trends for Design of Community Survey 11. COUNCIL REPORTS 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK/DIRECTOR REPORT 13. CLOSED SESSION 14. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Januartt l9.20, 2OO3 will be Ukiah 's ninth annual observance of Dr. ~ .gtartYn I~lt1~er King dmd; and This event was established in Ukiah in 1994 topromote human harmomj and encourage the eliminah'on of lrr~udice and discrlminah'on of allpeol~le; and ~ conh'nues to be a challenging social iss~te coqfronlimj ./lmerica toda~t; and and lF'e are all responsible for the achievement of racialpeace, equalihj, and unihj in this JVah'on ~f we are to make Dr. King's dream a realihj. JVO I~, THEP~EI-~OIg~, I, E~c Larson, ~FIa!/or of the Citp of Ukiain on behaOe of mil fellow Citll Councilmember#, Phil Baldwin, lgog Smltl6 Paul Jlnder#en, and ~Iari lgodin do ]wreb~ O~Kn'all!l recognL~e the special observance of Dr: ~Iarh'n Luther King's birr&dali that is bring planned bi] the dWar~'n Zntther King Jr. Observance Committee, and enthuslastlcalhj oj~er# its sul~ort of JFI TI L UTH II KI G bei~j held on Januarlt 19 and 20, 2003, and urge all citizens to ach'veil/ I~arh'ci~ate in lite #cheduled ach'vih'es and Irrograms to honor tile memorlt and Janua~d 15, 2003 ? Eric Lar#on, JWa!/or 3a MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2002 ...... ::,~i';i'~iiii:,~;~,~:,~:, The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on December 18, 2002, t which had been legally noticed and posted, at 3:06 p.m. in the Civic ~:r CounC~iii!i"iii~i?~ Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken.,,~~llowing Councilmembers were present' Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and ~?~'~' La:~ ~,~:::Staff present: City Manager Horsley, Risk Manager/Budget Officer H , and Ci~i!~[erk Mayor Larson advised that the timed Agenda Item' ~ the "~:~ Council inte~iew all of the candidates that have applied for ~ to the City Council position. Some of Council's questions included the - What is your general overall view of land projects such as hillside development, - If you want to sit on the City Council, before in an open field of candidates? - What are your concerns relative to water in the - Some key land use planning issues heard before the City Council. Among these are the Hull/Piffero subdivision constraint analysis. How they attended regarding - Do you have a key to preVentinc - Would you like to comment on w - There is a new $3,000 vehicle been banned fro~ vehicles from - What land - VV the elected retail about zoning nces, nuisance's lion and s? in regards t'~ii? ~ment, etc.? ........ for City Council and the City? 'ssion and the Park, and hillside I meetings have ~? people can stand on and has uld you consider banning those of special privilege", in terms of ago when the voters elected to change Isition from among the Councilmembers, to an iai to the City? candidate iven 10 minutes with the City Council. The candidates included Jay Ruzicka, Mari Rodin, And Araiza, Mary Lindley, ngs, Judy Pruden, Matthew Wilson, Kay Allensworth, and Dotty 4:00 p.m. - =essed. 4:10 p.m.- ;onvened. red. 6:1 ;m.- Recess p.m.- Reconvened. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 1 of 9 Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. Staff present: Customer Service Supervisor Archibald, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent Borecky, Community Services DeKnoblough, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley, Rapport, Public Works Director Steele, Planning Director Stump, and City 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Director Stump led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. SPECIAL BUSINESS 3a. Adoption of Resolution Makinq Appointment to the Expiring November 2, 2004 Dick Arneson, 1220 Vista Verde, Ukiah, read into Mary Lindley being appointed to the City Council. M/S Larson/Baldwin nominating Kevin Jenni Eric Larson, failed by the following roll Councilmembers Andersen, Smith, and Baldwin. AB: fill the in support of )ired Council term of Larson. NOES: ABSENT: None. M/S Baldwin/Andersen nominating Dotty Coplen to fill ti Eric Larson, failed by the followi roll call vote: AYES: and Baldwin. NOES: Counc ;mith and Mayor ABSENT: None. term of ers Andersen None. M/S Smith/Andersen nominating Larson. Li Council term of Eric Co~ 'in responded" highest le recent elE many peo process that sin( there been a precec gette ~e sugg that Council appoint the next and noted that this issue should convince for selecting the Mayor. He advised avoid appointing the next highest vote Motion fail Smith. None. ;ouncilmember vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andersen and Baldwin and Mayor Larson. ABSTAIN: None. M/S Eric and B~ ABSENT: inating Judy Pruden to fill the unexpired Council term of following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andersen Councilmember Smith and Mayor Larson. ABSTAIN' None. M/S Larso nominating Mari Rodin to fill the unexpired Council term of Eric th~ ~r Andersen and Smith provided comments regarding their support of 3n. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 2 of 9 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. M/S Smith/Baldwin adopting Resolution 2003-18, making the appointme~~j Rodin to fill the unexpired Council term of Eric Larson expiring November by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andersen, Smit~.~¢~dwin, Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None .... ,~,~,~,,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'~i!~i~iii~iiiii!i~i~ City Clerk Ulvila administered the oath of office to appointed ~cilmem~'~!iilMari Rodin. Mayor Larson discussed the difficulty of making such a the candidates for taking the time to submit their a 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Regular Meeting of December 4, 2002 Councilmember Andersen advised that a last paragraph and should read, "Darca Nicholson, concern that the trees would be protected". page 5, second to Spring Street, voiced her M/S Baldwin/Andersen a as amended, carried by the Andersen, Smith, Baldwin. ABSENT: None. 4, 2002, ~rs Rodin, ;TAIN: None. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL Mayor Larson read the appeal procE . M/S 'ing items a a. of ~ursements b. RE Purchase C. d. Fi e, Inc. in thi Rejected Am~ Ado 040-74, Classi the Consent Calendar as follows: of November 2002; of Diesel Fuel Day Tank for :ewater Treatment Plant by Cummins West for and ,nce Fund; Notificatii Damages Received From John P. Banks and Roselyn to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Regarding the Award of Bid for 6,000 Ft. of 4/0 Hendrix, C/O Stephens, McCarthy & Lancaster in the No. 1042 Rezoning Portions of Assessor Parcel Numbers 003- i5, and 76 from C-1 (Community Commercial) and C-2 (Heavy Zoning Classifications to the R-3 (High Density Residential) Zoning Resolution 2003-19 Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency rnent Fund. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 3 of 9 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Jade Tippett, 814 Jackson Avenue, Ukiah, provided a personal opinion as to why a skate park is needed in Ukiah. Ana Araiza, Ukiah, invited the City Council to participate in Sanctuary is holding on January 17th at 6:30 p.m. at the Court The Night". They would like the Mayor to read a pledge to end rape for the entire Council to participate. Mary Lindley, 700 East Gobbi Street, congratulated the Council. She requested that the City Council matter of placing a ballot measure before the vote well as rotating the Mayor position. Mayor Larson advised that he would prefer to citizens can discuss the matter before it is agendized ect :k her appointment to ' i!ili!!ii? ...... a forthcoming agenda theiiiiii !!i?=' ive Councilmembers a~ii?' .... meeting" whereby City Council. Richard Shoemaker, 115 Brush Council and advised that Democracy" on a case for modified and used by the ~et, to the City Voting and that could be John McCowen was supportive elected from among the five elected · eby the Mayor would be Dick Arneso many yea Memori~ skate h; If the site is would have tht ,er of the South Ukiah Rotary Club and that was set aside for the Bob Walker opportunity to discuss the need for a of its members are supportive of the site for a skate park for the kids of Ukiah. ,~d for a skate park, he was certain that the City of the business community. for the record that the City Council has taken action and three sites and the evaluation should be completed by the sale of the North State Street. Fire Station could be to buy one of those sites. Staff has met with the Skateboard has agreed with that plan and will be making a recommendation to the ~he felt it is time to focus on fundraising to build the Skateboard Park and businesses in the community are looking forward to assisting with the 8~ lC HEARING of Resolution Revising Schedule of Permit and Meter Fees and of Fines for City of Ukiah Municipal and California State Vehicle Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 4 of 9 Code violations Within Municipal Parking District 31 Community Services Director DeKnoblough provided information concerning the City's Parking District. He discussed actions tal Council to improve parking utilization or create new spaces in the downtown discussed capital improvements needed at the parking lots that include the of parking meter heads and resurfacing and striping. Staff was s grant from Mendocino County RELEAF to plant trees in Lot C (adjace~ Main Street) and a grant to do the perimeter of the lot with landsca are three other lots that really need landscaping, pedestrian handicap access parking and alternative transportation such as vehicles. Council with background by on :here Meter and parking fees, as well as fines have not b~ consequently the operating cost for the disproportionately to revenues. He advised that increased 47% as opposed to a 12% increa parking fee and fine proposal developed by fees. in a long time and c~'ntinues to increase?:? ;ration costs ha~ He discussed the phasing of those City Manager Horsley advised that staff would be range parking study. Staff does land or to develop additional ~e Council at a future meeting the next 10 to 20 years the best ways to accomplish that pi with a long- her purchase also be asking parking needs for downtown area and Customer Service Supervisor fees over a pel ryears an maintain and a the lave a parkin! the plan is to adjust these that four-year period is to amount, and to eventually have all of $25. Di~ Iwed his is an Er discussion 's fees ing how the revenues could be used to cover improvements. It was noted by staff that ues have to pay for the expenses. There was ~g a comparison of Ukiah's fees with other cities and it was noted lower. Staff would continue to evaluate the program on a yearly ~sion was had concerning innovative ideas for selling old ': 7:32 p.m. and Judy Pruden voiced their support of increasing the parking fines should not be operating at a deficit in the Parking District. Mr. :ed that Microphor, a Willits firm, is making parking meters and the City contact them. Ms. Pruden recommended that the fee structure be higher. P Hearing Closed: 7:36 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 5 of 9 Councilmember Andersen noted that if there were some assurance that a portion of future revenue increases would be allocated toward a parking plan, building more parking lots or structures, then he would be supportive of the proposal. He did n. a problem with parking fines. Councilmember Rodin was of the opinion that the phasing is too gentl be increased more quickly. The City should discourage people regulations by increasing the fines. )arking Councilmembers Baldwin and Smith voiced their support of Mayor Larson supported staff's recommendation and comparison to other cities. He would like to revisit Phase II is implemented. M/S Baldwin/Smith adopting Resolution 200: Downtown Parking District #1. City's are Iow a year and before ......................... Lin fees and fines for Upon questioning by Councilmember Andersen, Staff should be returning to Council within the next three for a parking plan RFP. The from the fines, etc. will the parking lots. er Horsley advised that to go out )rovements to Motion carried by the and Mayor Larson. NOES: ABSENT: None. ;rsen. Smith, Baldwin, ABSTAIN: None. 9. UNFINISHED :ee Plann,n rector Stu Housi The the from the City Commi housing. ee. ~cilmember General Plan Housing Element Update advised that ~ctober, the City Council approved the uest for and approach to managing the project. to form a Committee to help manage The Committee would include representatives Planning Commission, Staff, Low and Moderate Income Housing member of the business community, and a citizen with an that Council select a Councilmember to serve on imith lecting Councilmember to participate on the General Plan ,nt Update Committee, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Rodin, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: r Andersen. ABSENT: None. SINESS of Extending Traffic Signalization Fund for South Orchard Avenue East Gobbi Street Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 6 of 9 City Manager Horsley advised that staff requests this matter be pulled and it will be rescheduled. 10b. Introduction of an Ordinance Placing a Limitation on New Connect the City of Ukiah Sewer System Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent Borecky explained that treatment plant is near capacity and the firm of Brown and Caldwell engineer the upgrades to the plant and to evaluate the current ca that this would be completed within the next six months. In needs to limit the amount of connections to its system. He ex Valley Sanitation District has adopted a similar ordinance to Council at this meeting. Councilmember Baldwin inquired if it is conceival months that things could get even tighter and concept. ired to over the next three to fou~,~:~,i:;iii::'~i!?;::~' returning with a strict~?'?: Mr. Borecky responded that it is very possible. He n plant would not be accepting septage for the near fut[ capacity. He responded to questioning by City Attorney section A on page 2 where it project greater than five units defining what is meant by th~ the wastewater treatment it would take up critical lard to sub- ~itted for any sewer main", by M/S Baldwin/Smith introducing call vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. by the following roll ,aldwin, and Mayor Larson. City Clerk City of Uki; ~nce' "Ordinance of the City Council of the ~ns to the City sewer." M/S Cou ABSTAIN' by the following roll call vote: AYES: Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. EW BUSlNI ~roval of City er session benefits or more pei 50% of the help to for Year-Round, Part-Time Employees ;ed that, as negotiator for the City, she met in closed City cil to discuss the possibility of providing health and welfare City's part-time employees who work an average of 20 hours during the year. This benefit would provide such employees with rate that full-time employees currently receive. Staff feels this would le employees that work part-time to stay with the City because they will /Baldwin approving the provision of health and welfare benefits for year- part-time employees, as presented in the Staff Report; carried by the following Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 7 of 9 roll call vote' AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10d. Cancellation of January 1,2003 City Council Meeting City Manager Horsley advised that since the January 1st New Year's the first Wednesday of the month, she requested Council cancel t scheduled City Council meeting. After polling each of the critical items of business for their Departments, it appears there that cannot be scheduled for either the December 18, 2002 or Council meetings. It was the unanimous consensus of Council to Council meeting. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Andersen reported that American Lung Association with regard to the city clean burning natural gas by their new solid waste mar Corporation) so as to significantly reduce harmful diesel and improve public health. negotiates its next contract with any ~rmation from the losa requiring the use of ~ent contractor (North Bay eighborhoods the City Councilmember Baldwin and encouraged others attend. that the Santa Rosa City Council is at the recent election that would give commissioners, very supporti' at the museum Democrat reported ;nt voted into affect the right to appoint their own Mayor La~ , lit the City's the fun, Ron merz who De The very was tree. He also represented the City at fear volunteer for the City's Fire nd well attended by firefighters and there mortuary to the cemetery. He attended the Marint given of the Officer's dinner and they awarded him a gift certificate for a hair ruiting Center. He also attended the City of Ukiah Employees He attended the Sun House Guild Open House and was ~it. 12. CITY City Mana! Flood water with CLERK REPORTS advised that a letter was received today from the Russian River Conservation Improvement District asking the City to apply for its the state budget deficit and how Ukiah may be affected as a rural city. Ti is considering closing Ukiah's CDF base and Senator Chesboro is working wi City to try to prevent this closure. The state is also considering mid-year trah'sportation cuts and the City could potentially lose a lot of money for roads and Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 8 of 9 maintenance. She has asked Phil Dow at MCOG to keep the City informed regarding transportation issues. She provided Council with information concerning a California Rural Counties Task Force issue concerning the state budget crisis and its im on transportation issues. She reported that on January 30th, REMIF, the City's insurance carrier their annual meeting and training in Ukiah and have invited Counci dinner. to their The City received a letter from the County of Mendocino Public Hel they will be holding a special forum, "The Rural Challenge",first collaborative action-planning forum. It is scheduled for D 13 Ukiah 8:09 p.m,' Adjourned meeting to Closed Sessi~ 13. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Legal Counsel. Litigation Pursuant to G.C. §54956.9 (c) - 1 C~ Initiation of 14, ADJOURNMENT There being no further busines,, ;ouncil meeting was at 9:00 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 2002 Page 9 of 9 ITEM NO.: 6a DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2002 Payments made during the month of December 2002, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 44051-44153, 44249-44449, 44528-44572 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: 44050 Accounts Payable Manual Check Stock: 44154-44168 Payroll check numbers: 44169-44246, 44450-44527 Payroll Manual check numbers: none Void check numbers: 44247-44248 This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of December 2002. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Gordon Elton, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements AP P ROVE D: ~?~.~~._.~. Ca--ce Horsley, City ~ager KRS:W ORD/AGENDAADEC02 CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2002 Demand Payments approved: Check No. 44050-44153, 44249-44361,44362-44449, 44528-44572 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $136,378.61 131 Equipment Reserve Fund 140 Park Development $1,760.00 142 National Science Foundation 143 N.E.H.1. Museum Grant $2,201.61 150 Civic Center Fund 200 Asset Seizure Fund 201 Asset Seizure (Drug/Alcohol) 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants 205 Sup Law Enforce Srv. Fd (SLESF) 206 Community Oriented Policing 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant $1,666.66 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $519.45 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund 250 Special Revenue Fund $10,846.51 260 Downtown Business Improvement 270 Signalization Fund 303 2105 Gas Tax Fund 330 Revenue Sharing Fund $15,041.99 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant $103.60 333 Comm. Development Block Grant $22,598.75 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan $2,515.50 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 341 S.T.P. 342 Trans-Traffic Congest Relief 345 Off-System Roads Fund 410 Conference Center Fund $9,174.55 550 Lake Mendocino Bond 575 Garage $1,505.71 600 Airport 612 City/District Sewer 652 REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund 660 Sanitary Disposal Site Fund 664 Disposal Closure Reserve 665 Refuse/Debris Control 670 U.S.W. Bill & Collect 675 Contracted Dispatch Services 678 Public Safety Dispatch 679 MESA (Mendocino Emergency Srv Auth) 695 Golf 696 Warehouse/Stores 697 Billing Enterprise Fund 698 Fixed Asset Fund 699 Special Projects Reserve 800 Electric 805 Street Lighting Fund 806 Public Benefits Charges 820 Water 840 Special Water Fund (Cap Imp) 900 Special Deposit Trust 910 Worker's Comp. Fund 920 Liability Fund 940 Payroll Posting Fund 950 General Service (Accts Recv) 960 Community Redev. Agency 962 Redevelopment Housing Fund 965 Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund 966 Redevelopment Debt Svc. PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 44169-44246 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 15268-15400 PAYROLL PERIOD 11/24/02-12/7/02 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 44450-44527 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 15401-15525 PAYROLL PERIOD 12/8/02-12/21/02 TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL VENDOR CHECKS TOTAL PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS $16,804.55 $21,646.32 $27,682.96 $24,111.82 $49,393:03 $2,691.43 $11,245.92 $7,792.33 $351.14 $5,653.70 $161,191.94 $11,329.00 __ $787,339.29 $9,086.50 $21.22 $66,445.95 $11,048.92 $1,346.19 $61,264.97 $48,493.00 $156,183.70 $989.11 $20,047.82 $266,000.00 $1,972,473.75 $69,239.98 $135,786.39 $311,319.61 $2,488,819.73 VOID CHECK NUMBERS: 44247-44248 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE MANUAL CHECK STOCK: 44154-44168 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance O~ > 1:2> ~ ~° Z 0 H 2H~HHOD ~ Z Z Z ~ 0 i ~-~ 0 ~ ~ 0 -1- 0,< rD · 0 0 00000 0 0000 0000 0000 U U U U UUUUU 00000 ~ ~ 0 o o ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 0 ~ ~ O~ ~ DDDDO ZZZZZ 0000~ ~Z 0 U 000 ~ ~ 0 · 0 Z Z~Z~ ~0 O00 · 0 · o ~° · , OO Z 0 Om Z Z 0 U ~ Z Z -2- U o 00 o c) o CD 0000 0 00 cO co co c~ ~ ~ o~ 000 00~ ~0 o ~ . o o o © oo ZZ~Z UUmUO HH~H~ U H~ ~00~ ~ 0 ~0 o Z OO U~ 0 O~ > ¥ r~ 0 -... H H ,-q H H 0C4(~ U ~ 0 ~U r..9 m rDm © m H O H Et] ~0 0 ZO U 0~ U ~ 0 0 E~ DU 0 ~m O0 OU -3- c o 00000000 00000000 0000000 0000000 00 o o 00000 00000 ~ oo88oo§8 0 O0 O0 0 00000000 o oo~oo~ o o~o o Z~ZZZZZ 0 ~ ~ © o o O~ UO 00000~ Z~ ~u~ OO Z 0 Z ~ O~ O0 mZ ~ , UO0000000 ZZZZZZZ~ ~00000000 ~00000000 ~ZZ~ZZZZZ -4- o o o,1 o o ~o ~o ~o~ 0000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0 0000000 ~oo~oo Lr~Lr~ L~LN UUUUUUU 0 0 ~s~. mmm DDD ~00 ~0~ 000~ ~~0 O0 O0 00000000 0 ~oo~oo UUUUUUU~ 00000000 ~oo~o~ 0000000 ~0 0000~0~ O0 U~ 0 i ~ , ~0~ ~o~0 ~o~uo -5- H ~ rJ · oooo · -I ,--I o o o o 0 0 ~ Z o o o · o · t.fi} · r~ H 000~ 00~ OO UU ~0 ~~O iM~ ~~Z o o ~ 6'4 0 Z~ D~ Oo Z 0 Z~ O~ Z~ ~0000 ~ggg~o 0 H U Z Z~ 0 Z rtl Om OZ ~ H 0 Z 0 O~ 6-* O~ ~ 0 -6- o o o o o o o o 0 0 o~ ZZ ZZ o°~ 0 ~ooo~oo~o 000~0000~0 oo~oo~oo ~ ZZ Z ZU~ ZZU~ Z U ~ UU ~ U o oo °~~ Oo U~ 0 Z~ ~O O~ Z ~ Z 0 0 ~ U ~ ~g~gg~gg~ooo o o ~~00000 0 0 -7- o o L~ L~ L~ L~ 00 ~ 0'3 000 00 O0 000 O0 000 O0 O0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 0 0 o o ~0 Z~ 0 0 o o o ~ o Oo Z 0 F-z.1 ~ > Z 0 ~: 0 r~mm ~0 0~ 0 ~ZZZZZ~ZZZZZZZZZZ~ZZZ~Z~Z ZZZZZ ~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0 0~0~0 -8- o~ E~O f--I ~ r.j , > O000000000000000000000000000000000000 o u~ ~ 0 r~ O000000000000000000000000000000000000 O000000000000000000000000000000000000 O0 O0 000 00 O0 0~ ~ ~ 000000000 ZZZZZZZ~ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ~ 0000000~00000000000000000000 ~0 00 ZZO u o ~c~ Oo Z 0 Z ~ O~ ZQ o o mZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ~Z~ZZZ ~0000000000000000000000000000000000000 d o E-, ~j H E~ Z [~ H Z ~ o -§- H H H ~o o o 0'3 ~ o,1 o ['~- ~.~ D.~ 0 0 HHHHHHHHHHHHH DDDDDDDDDDDDDffi oo~ · 0 0 · 0 HH~ 0 > d 0 H E-~ OD ~000 ~000 0 0 D..1 H 0 r.r..1 ~ U Z H ~ ~ -10- :z: o r,j . > LD c~ ~°°~°°~°°~°°~~ ~ ~ ~ U U HHH U ZZ~Z O~Z 00~ ~ Z O~aO H~Z ~:> H HH(HH ~0~ ~H~HHHHH~H~O OU UUUUU~U~ ~ ~ o o ~° Z 0 ~ H ~0 Z ~ 0 ~0000000000000000 -11- Z 0 cO 0 ¢~ °g 0'3 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 u oo~ E~ ~0 U ooo o ~o 00~ ~:> 000 · · · oEEoo§EooEooEEooEooE 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000000 ~oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 O0 ~0 ~0 O~ ~ 0~~~00~0~~0 ZZZZZZ~ZZZ~ZZZZZZZZZ~ 00000000000000000000 OO 0 Z ~ O~ © r.D r~ ~00000000000000000000 -12- gO O0 O0 O0 U 0 0 00 0 ~O~m~O~ ~0 0 oo ~4 Z 0 · g 00~: 0 ~0 · 0 E~m Z~ :Dm Oo 0-~. U~ Z 0 ~O 0 ~ > HHHHHHHH~ i~ ~ ~ ~oooooooooooooooooooo o o oooooooooooooooooooo ~Z 0 ~Z 0 0~ [.O , , 000 ~O~O~OZO H > -13- o o ,~4 ,-4 o o o o 0 O0 O0 000000000 ~ooo~oo~ ~0~0~- ~o~o~oo~ 0 ~ z 0 00~0 00~ ~00 ~ZZO ZZ U U D D ~ c~ OO U~ Z 0 ZH ~ o 0 ~ > ~HHHHHHHHHH Z ~> ~ r.~ ~Z -14- o o o Om O~ U~ Z 0 -16- o O~ -l?- 0,< u · OO C> 0 0000 O0 0 0 0000 O0 0 0 oo ~ ~ ~ 00 O~ Ch o o 0~ H o ~o o~ uZ 00 00 · . ZZO oo~ 8o o 0000 O0 0 000 · · . · . · .... ...... ~ ~ ... ~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 · ..... · · · · . o~o oo o o o oo~ ~ 0 O0 0 ~ 0 O0 z o ~ ~0 Z ~ ~ ~~ oo~ H O o O~ Z o ~ Z ~o~ u ~0 0 0 z o Z~ o~~ ~ ~ ~0 Z~ ~0 Z~ ooo o -18- o o o o o~ o~ c:, o o o 0 0 ~ . O0 0 00:~ 00~ ~:> ~oo o o O~ 0 0 m :> o> O~ 0 0 O~ 0 U 0 ~J O~ ~ ~0~ 0 o~ HO0 ~H ~ ~0000 -19- o o o o 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 goo oooggoogggooggooggooggoogoo o ooggooooooo oo oooo ooggogg°°oog 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 o U ~ · · ~: · E:i · · · o ~ 0 000 O0 000 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 ~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000~000 .... · ............... . ................... ..... .. .... ........ ...... ........... .... ~~gggooggoooggggggggggo~ oo ooo o~g~~g°° ~Z~O~~Z~O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~Z ~ ~+ ~D~ O~ODDZD~O Z 0 Om I> Z m U , 0 0 0 0 ~H 000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~ ~000000000000000000000000000000000000 -20- 00 o0 o o o o ooooooooooooooooooo 0000~ O0 o o o o c~ o o c~ (~ ~:~ o o o o o o · . o o 0 ~ ~0 000 ~0 0 0 ~0~0~00000~0 o ~ o~ooo~g~o~oo~ ' o . o · · · · · .......... ~.~.oooooooo~o~oo~ ~o~o~~~o~o~~ .......... ......... ooooo~o~~ooooooo o~ o~ ~0 ~E~E~ oo~ Z 0 Z~ O~ 0 0 0 Z~ 0 ~ ~0 °~ I.-I ~g~o o~~o o .Z ~ 0 U Z~ ~Z I.-I ~00 -21- oo o c~ ~oo oo oooo ~°°~ E~ ~ D D Z 0000 UUUU ~~0 ~~0 0 0 0 00000 ~0000 0 mum ~Z Z~ 0 ~ E~ O0 U mr..9 d HHHHH 0 ,ZZ~ZZ Z Ln O0 O0 o o o o ~ c~ o o o o o o 00 ¢0 o o OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO O0 ZZ 00 0'~ Ln Ln ,---I ,.--I O O O O ~o ~o o o 00 ¢0 o o H H 0 o o o o o o · 0 · · 0 o°~°~°°~o~ o o OOOOOOOOOO o~oo~ooo ~oo~oo oo oo~ H Z ~ H ~ Z ~ H ~0 H ~H~O OUUUH~OO~U~ mmmmO~mmmm> 0 o o o o o o · . o o o~ o~ · . ~ oD o ~ o o~ · . o o o ¢'q 0 > H H H~ ~ H ~ ~ 0 HHHHHHHHHHH ZOO00000000 ~ H OZ 0 ~-~ o O~ ~0 ZZ ~ H H 0~ 0~ ~ -23- O~ ~J · ~0 > o oo o o o o o o o co o0 o~ · . . o00 · o o © ~0 U o~ oo o oo oo oo · . o~o o Z~ O~ U~ Z 0 > H OH O~ 0 U Z Z © 0 U 0 -24- O O O O O O O O O~ O OOO O O OO O OO OO UUUUUUUUUUUOOUU oo~oo~oo~oo~go g ~ . O · 0 · 0 0 0 O O ~ O ~ H H O O O O · · 0 0 ©0 ~OO~ 00 Ln 0 C'~ CO · 0 ,---I Ln 0 · 0 rD~o ogo OO OO O OO 000000000000000 ~0 0 0 O0 0 oo°°~§°~°~°~o o o ~H~ ~HH~ 0 ZH Om > U ~000 OU~ O 0 U O~ ~mmmmmmmmmm m -25- H 0 0 0000 ~ ~ C~ ~ <2> 00 00 oo ~oo 000000000000 000000000000 ~oo~oo~Ooo oo DDDD~DDDDDDD~ ¢40 ~,~ ~ · o~ r'q Z r~O t~O oog · 0 gg Z o Z~ O~ > o ~ o o~ ZZ o~ i o o o o 00 ~0 oo ooo~oo o o o o oo oo ooooooooo 0 0 0 0 ~oo~~o~oo~ O0 000 O0 000000000000000 0000~000~0~0000 ~o~ooo~oo~ O~ ~ 0~ 000000000000000 00~0 ~ ~0~ ~ ~ ~ oo~ Z 0 ~H n~r.J O~ Z~ ~o o~z ~0 z -27- 0 0 O~ O~ o~ o 0 ,--I oo~§oo~ooo~oo~oo~§ooo O0 O0 000 O0 O0 000 oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~ooo ~~0~0~00~0~000~~ ~0000~0~~0~000~0~00 o~goo§ooo~oo~o~~oo~ 0 O0 000 O~ ~~0~ ZZZ Z ~ ZZZZ ~ Z~Z~ZZ ~ZZ~ Z~ 00000000000000000000000 OE~ o~ · . u ~o~: ~OE~ c0~o ~0 ~E~H r~mm oo ~oo -28- u-) cq co co °~ c> c> co oo o o 0 0 oo o o o go~ ~Z (::DO00 Z~m 0 Z~ O~ U~ 0 ~U OZ OO °~ ~>> 0 0 U 0 , 0 ~Z Z~ -29- O~ U . c > o o ~° 000 co o o ~Z 0 0 mm · . ~° · o · o o Z ~0 o ooo o oo o oo o · . . 00~ UUE~ 0 ~> o o o o o o · . ,-~ o o o~ · . · o o~ o o ~° Z 0 0~ Z 0 ~Z >o >ooo ~Z ~ZZZ ~U O U ~ 0~: Z 0~ -30- 0 0 Z ~ · 0 ~o Z 0 ~U O~ -31- O~ I-I .~ r.j · %.0 c) > c, o Z~. O~ m 0 -32- 0 000 t~ 000 0 0 0 0 00 000 LD LD LD I.D t.D 0 O0 0 LD t.D lr} ZZZ ooo ZZZ C~ C~ C> ~oo 0000 ZZZZ 0000 ~ZZ~ 0 o uoo D~DO ~ZZZ 000~ 0 o~o~ 0 ~ O0 · . . gg° {2> O~H~ ~o ZZ ~ o ooZZ~Z 00 DDDDO zZZZZ 0000~ 0 > o~ Z ~Jo ~000 0000 ~ZZZ -33- oo o ~ o o c~ o c) c) LD U~ o o o o o o ~o ~o o o ~° 0'3 tv3 o o o o o o u~ u~ c~ ~ c~ ~ 0 0 o° ~ ° ~ ~0 o o · o'3 ~1 · · Z 0 ZH O~ Z~ Z~ H H O~ ~0 U Z r~ U Z 0 ~ ~ H~ ~ 0 U OH ~ ~ ~ H~ ~ O~ ~ 0 0 0 0 Z I-.-t mmr~ -34- o~ > Z 0 oo o 0 o o o 0000000 o o o o o o · . o o · 0 o o LD · · o~oo o oo oooo .... ~°° · § o Z o Z~ o0~ Z~ ~oo ~:> o o oo Z~ ~z Z~ Zo ZZZZ 0 0000 ZZZZ 0000 ZO ~ .... ~ mO~O~ 0 0 ~Z Oo Zm ~0 ~0 0 Z Z Z · [~ 0o~ -35- 00000000 ZZE~ZZEZ DDDDD~DD 0000 0000 ~z oog ~o~oo O0 0 O0 Z z Z~ O~ Z 0 ZH O~ > Z~ O~ ~Z uo I.-t ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~oooo LD 0 0 · o o o o oo o ''~ z o > o E~ ~z DO U ~ O~ Om Z o ~m z Z~ ~oo~ 0 -37- o ooo t.D LD U'~ , , , o o c000 o oo ooo ID[Dm oo~ 0 000 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 CO0 0 oo~ ooo E~ ~1~10 ~EZE~ O0 ~0 ~Z ~0 ZZZ~ 000 ~0 o o o ~00 ~0 ~00~ U 0 000 O0 00000000000000 00000000000000 ~o~oo o ~o~oo ZZ ~0 ~0~ ~°g O ~Z ~0~ ~ZZ O ~000 0~ , O~ ~HHHHHHHHHHHHHH -38- 0000000000 O0 ~o ~o o~ o~ o0 c0 O0 o co 00 o o mmm~mmffimmmO 00~: 0 Z~ O~ 0 H ~000000 ~HHHHHH O~ OUO U~H 0~ ~0~ d ZZ U , O~ ~.~ ~ ~0~ 0 Z o ~m -3§- 0000 0000 o cD ,r-i L~ oo o o o o t.D LD oo° {2> g ooo ooo ooo · 0 0 LD Oh · · cr~ 0'3 · · Z E~Cq Z~ ~o~ O~ 0 O~ > 0 0 O~~0 d ~ ~0 0 D 0 mO0~ -40- o o o ~o o · . . ~° · · · o o o ~ o · o o ~~0 000~ ZZZ~O Z~ O~ U~ Z o< ~ Z ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ o ~ Zo Ho o o~ > o -41- 0 O~ Z~ -42- -43- r,.,) · o > c~ o o c~ LD LD o o o o o o LD CF} ~ C~ 00 oD o o o o o o o o o o 0 O~ ~00 O~ ~0 rJZ:> 0 000 0 O0 000000 ~o~ ~ ~0 oo mm~ mmm~mm~ ~ 000~00~ 0 O~ :> D~ H O~ 0 ~ H O~ ~0 HO0 O0 -44- O O OOOO O OOOO O O °g c~ IF} cO <2> g o o o o 00 c0 UUO ~0 000 ZZZO ~z~ ~ o o o o o · . o o o~ o~ · . · . o ~ o 0 ZH O~ Z~ ~0 H~O zzzz ~OOOO ~oo g ~O ZO O Z~ OZ Z~ O {JO OH O~ -45- [.~ t~ cO 0 00000 000000 0 00000 000000 0 00000 000 O0 O0 o o ooo · 0 0 · o o Oh I.D L~ · · o o o ~oo~ o 0 00000 0 0~00~ o oo~ o ~ ~ 0 Z o Z~ O~ Z~ o~ u ~ o H 0 0:> ~0 Z , ~E~ OZ o~ -000 ~ooo o~ o~ O~ HHHHH ~o00 O0 O~ U . 0000 0000 0000 000000 000000 000000 oo~E 000000 000000 000000 0 0 0 · 0 · 0 · 0 }--i m> ~oo~ o°E§;°Eo 000000 0~0~ 0~0~ Z Z ~ m~O o o · o · 0'3 0 , 0 Z ZZ ~ o ~ [~ · OC~ U~ Z 0 ~ H > ~0 ~E~ U Z ~o Z~ O~ {DO ~:> > 0 -4-?- 0 0 0 ~ ~° Z 0 Z H O~ Z~ > -48- U · > U~ ~° 0 mm 0 0 0 0 0 · o U E~ ~ Z ~HO 0 ~j 0~ ~ · 0 Z 0 ITEM NO. 6b DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY OF UKIAH QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS LIST FOR 2003 As required by the Informal Bidding Procedure of the City of Ukiah, Ukiah City Code §1541-1542, the City Clerk prepared and mailed a written notice to construction trade organizations and contractors in California on November 18, 2002, inviting all licensed contractors to submit information regarding their firm to the City for inclusion on the City's list of qualified bidders for the 2003 calendar year. A contractor may be included throughout the year by either submitting a written notice to the City Clerk or by bidding on a City project. All contracting firms are verified through the California State Licensing Board for license validity. All contractors who submitted their company information and construction classification designation by the deadline of December 31, 2002, together with those who bid on projects in 2002, have been included on the current updated list, attached to the Resolution as "Exhibit A". The resolution ensures that staff has a comprehensive list of qualified contractors when soliciting bids for the City of Ukiah. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Approving Qualified Contractors List for 2003 Calendar Year. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Contractors notified. N/A Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution Approving Qualified Contractors List for 2003 Calendar Year, with Exhibit A 2. Notice to construction trade organizations and contractors AP PR OVED' [-~? '~'~ __ Candace Horsley, City lanager ASR:Qualified Contractors List2003 ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS LIST FOR 2003 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, and the contractor's classification and 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 in 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 2003. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of January, 2003, by the following roll call vote' AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: A'I-I'EST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Eric Larson, Mayor City of Ukiah 2003 Qualified Contractors List As January 1, 2003 AVERY LABELS #5160) Labels:Contractors 2003 EXHIBIT A BUILDING EXCHANGES Contractors Information Network 1629 Pollasky, Ste. 113 Clovis, CA 93612-2654 Daily Construction Service 80 Swan Way, Suite 130 Oakland, CA 94621-1438 Humboldt Builders Exchange 2355 Myrtle Avenue Eureka, CA 95501 Marin Builders Exchange 110 Belvedere Street San Rafael, CA 94901-4763 North Coast Builders Exchange P.O. Box 6025 Santa Rosa, CA 95406-0025 North Coast Builders Exchange 216 West Perkins Street, Ste. 105 Ukiah, CA 95482-4858 North Coast Builders Exchange 906B South Main Street Lakeport, CA 95453 North Coast Builders Exchange 17901 N. HWY 101 Fort Bragg, CA 95437-8373 Sacramento Builders Exchange P.O. Box 1462 Sacramento, CA 95807 Solano-Napa Builders Exchange 135 Camino Dorado Napa, CA 94558-7529 Valley Contractors Exchange 951 E. 8th Street Chico, CA 95928 Valley Contractors Exchange 1641 Colusa Highway Yuba City, CA 95991 CLASS A GENERAL ENGINEERING ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 A-Z Construction P.O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 Able Maintenance, Inc. 3224 Regional Pkwy Santa Rosa, CA 95403-8214 Arcadian Enterprises P.O. Box 5475 Shasta Lake, CA 96089 Argonaut Construction P.O. Box 639 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Arnold Construction Co. 2119 Wood Road Fulton, CA 95439 BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 BRCO Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 367 Loomis, CA 95650 Beacom Construction P.O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Bell Springs Construction P.O. Box 487 Laytonville, CA 95454 Blaisdell Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 493459 Redding, CA 96049-3459 CAL Inc. 2040 Peabody Road Vacaville, CA 95687 California Pavement Maint. 9390 Elder Creek Road Sacramento, CA 95829 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Chernoh Construction P.O. Box 1426 Clearlake Oaks, CA 95423 Chrisp Company 43650 Osgood Road Fremont, CA 94539-5631 Crane of Ukiah, Inc. 4 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Cushman Contracting Corp. P.O. Box 147 Goleta, CA 93116-0147 DYK incorporated P.O. Box 696 El Cajon, CA 92022-0696 Environmental Resolutions, Inc. 73 Digital Drive, Suite 100 Novato, CA 94949 Epidendio Construction P.O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Donald Ferranti P.O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 C.R. Fedrick, Inc. P.O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 Ford Construction 639 E. Lockeford St. Lodi, CA 95240 J.A. Gonsalves & Son Construction P.O. Box 6553 Napa, CA 94581 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Gilardoni Construction 4502 Bennett Valley Road Santa Rosa, Ca 95404 Granite Construction 1324 South State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Hamman's Inc. 9550 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Harborth Excavating P.O. Box 736 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Charles A. Heath Construction 3268 Westho Trail Cottonwood, CA 96022 Hermsmeyer Paving Co. 5454 Old Redwood Highway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 L.J. Construction Co. 9460 Graton Road Sebastopol, CA 94572 JKH General Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 778 Lower Lake, CA 95457 J & M Land Restoration, Inc. 1640 James Road Bakersfield, CA 93098 Jet-Con Enterprises P.O. Box 508 Sebastopol, CA 94572 KBR Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Kernen Constructioin P.O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kernen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 Joseph LaMalfa Construction 251 Stipp Lane Ukiah, CA 95482 Tory J. Lawrence 750 East Valley Street Willits, CA 95490 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P.O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Ross Mayfield Co. P.O. Box 275 Ukiah, CA 95482 Mendocino Construction Serv. P.O. Box 1517 Willits, CA 95490 North Bay Construction Inc. P.O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955-6004 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001-3870 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Coast Drilling Co., Inc. 801 Lindberg Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 Pacific Liners 70 Union Way Vacaville, CA 95687 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P.O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Pacific Pipeline Survey 70 Union Way Vacaville, CA 95687 Performance Excavators, Inc. 103 Shoreline Parkway, 2® Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 Pipeline Excavators P.O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 94526 Reliance Enterprises P.O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 C.W. Roen Construction Co. P.O. Box 4 Danville, CA 94526 Safety Striping Service P. O. Box 102D Goshen, CA 93227 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sequoia Surfacing & Engineering 5441 Pepperwood Road Santa Rosa, CA 95409-5529 Smith Electric 875 Eureka Street Eureka, CA 95503 Soave Concrete P.O. Box 2769 Ukiah, CA 95482 Soil Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 733 Brentwood, CA 94513 Sonomarin Inc. P.O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 Daniel Steel & Machine Works 160 Brush Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Stiles Construction co. 6209 Lockwood Drive Windsor, CA 95492 T & S Construction 1525 East Hill Road Willits, CA 95490 William Turley Communication Engineering 223 2nd Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Universal Environment 4101 Industrial Way Benicia, Ca 94510 Valentine Corporation P.O. Box 9337 San Rafael, CA 94912 Valley Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 12227 Fresno, CA 93777 Valley Paving P.O. Box 559 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Valley Slurry Seal Company P.O. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 K. G. Walters Construction Co. P.O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Waters Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 Wildcat Underground & Engineering 21 Washington Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Wipf Construction P.O. Box 234 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS ASB ASBESTOS REMOVAL CERTIFICATION AFM Environmental, Inc. 852 Northport Drive, #106 West Sacramento, CA 95691 CAL Inc. 2040 Peabody Road Vacaville, CA 95687 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. P.O. Box 498 Windsor, CA 95492 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Valley Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 12227 Fresno, CA 93777 K. G. Walters Construction Co. P.O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 CLASS B GENERAL BUILDING AFM Environmental, Inc. 852 Northport Drive, #106 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Able Maintenance, Inc. 3224 Regional Pkwy Santa Rosa, CA 95403-8214 Alten Construction, Inc. 44 Woodland Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Arcadian Enterprises P.O. Box 5475 Shasta Lake, CA 96089 Argonaut Construction P.O. Box 639 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 BRCO Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 367 Loomis, CA 95650 Beacom Construction Co. P.O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Busch Construction & Electric 2020 Industry Road Ukiah, CA 95482 CAL Inc. 2040 Peabody Road Vacaville, CA 95687 B. Construction Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Carr's Construction Service 9140 Piccadilly Circle Windsor, CA 95492 Clark Construction P.O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Cline's Unlimited Construction 7200 Uva Drive Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Crane Of Ukiah 4 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Epidendio Construction P.O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Donald Ferranti P.O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ford Construction 639 E. Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 95240 C. R. Fedrick, Inc. P.O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 Hawkes Construction 708 Willow Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Jet-Con Enterprises P.O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Kernen Construction P.O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kernen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 Duane C. Kitchens & Sons Construction Company 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2378 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P.O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 McCarthy Construction P.O. Box 15246 Sacramento, CA 95851 E. Menton Builders 760 Apple Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Miller Paneling Specialties Inc. P.O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 A. E. Nelson Construction 3785 Roblar Road Petaluma, CA 94952-9787 North Bay Construction Inc. P.O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955-6004 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P.O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Mechanical Corp. P.O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Pipeline Excavators P.O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473 Rainbow Construction P.O. Box 2769 Ukiah, CA 95482 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. P.O. Box 498 Windsor, CA 95492 Reliance Enterprises P.O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Williams Scotsman C/O: Gabriele Holden 4911 Allison Parkway Vacaville, CA 65687 Sonomarin Inc. P.O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 Strong Hold Masonry & Concrete 555 Rancho Caballo Santa Rosa, CA 65401 T.D.M. Construction Co., Inc. 144 A Cherry Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Robert Frank Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Ukiah Acoustics 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Construction 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Valentine Corporation P.O. Box 9337 San Rafael, CA 94912 Valley Paving P.O. Box 559 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Valley Slurry Seal Company P.O. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 K. G. Walters Construction Co. P.O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Wildcat Underground & Engineering 21 Washington Street Petaluma, CA 94952 CLASS C-2 INSULATION & ACOUSTICAL Crown Interiors, Inc. 139 Washington Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Duane C. Kitchens & Sons Construction Company 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2378 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P.O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P.O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Ukiah Acoustics 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-4 BOILER, HOT WATER HEATING & STEAM Fl'ri'lNG Lawson Mechanical Contractors P.O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001-3870 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P.O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Reliance Enterprises P.O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 CLASS C-5 CARPENTRY Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 CLASS C-6 CABINET & MILL WORK Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 CLASS C-7 LOW VOLTAGE COMMUNICATION & WIRING SYSTEMS Deep Valley Security 960 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 C. R. Fedrick, Inc. P. O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 William Turley Communication Engineering 223 2® Street Petaluma, CA 94952 CLASS C-8 CONCRETE A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 Clark Construction P. O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Epidendio Construction P. O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Donald Ferranti P. O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Duane C. Kitchens & Sons Construction Company 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2378 Soave Concrete P. O. Box 2769 Ukiah, CA 95482 Strong Hold Masonry & Concrete 555 Rancho Caballo Santa Rosa, CA 95401 T.D.M. Construction Co., Inc. 144 A Cherry Street Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-10 GENERAL ELECTRICAL Advanced Control Systems P. O. Box 518 Cloverdale, CA 95425 Mike Brown Electric Co. 561-A Mercantile Drive Cotati, CA 94931 Busch Construction & Electric 2020 Industry Road Ukiah, CA 95482 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Clark Construction P. O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Deep Valley Security 960 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Environmental Resolutions, Inc. 73 Digital Drive, Suite 100 Novato, CA 94949 C. R. Fedrick, Inc. P. O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P. O. Box 413 Ukiah, CA 95482 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001-3870 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Pacific Lighting and Power 2406 Kerner Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94901 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Republic Electric 7120 Redwood Blvd. Novato, CA 94945-4114 Smith Electric 875 Eureka Street Eureka, CA 95503 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 Tresch Electrical Co. Inc. P. O. Box 71 Novato, CA 94948 Ukiah Acoustics 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Electric 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-12 EARTHWORK & PAVING A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 California Pavement Maint. 9390 Elder Creek Road Sacramento, CA 95829 Central Striping Service, Inc. 3489 Luyung Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 Duran Construction P. O. Box 681 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Graham Contractors, Inc. 860 Lonus Street San Jose, CA 95126 Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Landmark P. O. Box 924 Novato, CA 94948 Ross Mayfield Co. P. O. Box 275 Ukiah, CA 95482 Pipeline Excavators P. O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473 Valley Slurry Seal Company P. O. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 A.T. Wanzer Grading & Excavatinng 484 St. Marys Avenue Hopland, CA 95449 CLASS C-13 FENCING A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 Able Fence Company, Inc. P. O. Box 219 Petaluma, CA 94953-0219 Arcadian Enterprises P. O. Box 5475 Shasta Lake, CA 96089 Arrow Fencing P. O. Box 142 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Chrisp Company 43650 Osgood Road Fremont, CA 94539-5631 Robert Frank Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Jacobson Fence Co., Inc. 987 Airway Court, #35 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-15 FLOORING & FLOOR COVERING Crown Interiors, Inc. 139 Washington Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-16 FIRE PROTECTING CONTRACTOR Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Waters Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 CLASS C-17 GLAZING Builders Glass & Supply Co., Inc. 469 Observatory Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482-5641 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P. O. Box 13 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-20 WARM-AIR HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR- CONDITIONING ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 A C & R Service 539 South Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 ADNC Inc.dba Air Doctor 5625 State Farm Drive #35 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 CLASS C-21 BUILDING MOVING & WRECKING Epidendio Construction P. O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Robert Frank Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Hamman's Inc. 9550 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 JKH General Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 778 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Kernen Construction P. O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kernen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 Mendocino Construction Serv. P. O. Box 1517 Willits, CA 95490 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Soil Enterprises, Inc. P. O. Box 733 Brentwood, CA 94513 CLASS C-23 ORNAMENTAL METALS LNS Welding & Fabrication P. O. Box 636 Willits, CA 95490 Mendocino Metals 201 Clara Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-27 LANDSCAPING Creative Landscaping 1155 Boonville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 North Bay Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955-6004 Sangiacomo Landscape 3150 Guiliville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 TruGreen Land Care LCARE USA 930 Shiloh Rd. Bldg 44-B Windsor, CA 95492-9664 West Coast Arborists, Inc. 2200 E. Via Burton St. Anaheim, CA 92806 CLASS C-28 LOCK & SECURITY EQUIPTMENT J & M Locksmith 469 Observatory Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482-5641 CLASS C-29 MASONRY Mendocino Masonry P. O. Box 271 Comptche, CA 95427 Strong Hold Masonry & Concrete 555 Rancho Caballo Santa Rosa, CA 95401 CLASS C-31 CONSTRUCTION ZONE TRAFFIC .CONTROL B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Lee Howard Construction 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-32 PARKING & HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT Apply-A-Line Inc. 106 Frontage Road N Pacific, WA 98047 Apply-A- Line 5625 Eastside Road Redding, CA 96001-4531 Central Striping Service, Inc. 3489 Luyung Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 Chrisp Company 43650 Osgood Road Fremont, CA 94539-5631 D. Jones Painting P. O. Box 1787 Willits, CA 95490 Price Striping Service 1680 Elk Valley Road Crescent City, CA 95531 Riley's Striping P. O. Box 1188 Benicia, CA 94510 Safety Striping Service P. O. Box 102D Goshen, CA 93227 Traffic Ltd. P. O. Box 1721 Lodi, CA 95241 CLASS C-33 PAINTING AND DECORATING Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Excamilla Painting 1190 North State St., #233 Ukiah, CA 95482 D. Jones Painting P. O. Box 1787 Willits, CA 95490 Markos Painting Co., Inc. 15 Victor Ct. Novato, CA 94947-3919 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Spurgeom Painting, Inc. P. O. Box 2776 Petaluma, CA 94953 CLASS C-34 PIPUNE Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-36 PLUMBING ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Clark Construction P. O. Box 167 Calpella, CA 95418 Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 A. E. Nelson Construction 3785 Roblar Road Petaluma, CA 94952-9787 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Schram Construction Inc. 3162 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 Waters Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 CLASS C-38 REFRIGERATION Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 CLASS C-39 ROOFING BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 Cline's Unlimited Construction 7200 Uva Drive Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Valley Roofing 212 Thompson Street Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS C-42 SANATATION SYSTEMS ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Lee'Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Pipeline Excavators P. O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95851 CLASS C-43 SHEET METAL Lawson Mechanical Contractors P. O. Box 15224 Sacramento, CA 95851 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Reliance Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Sonomarin Inc. P. O. Box 17 Fulton, CA 95439 CLASS C-51 STRUCTURAL STEEL CONTRACTOR BCM Construction Company 1560 Humboldt Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95928 CLASS C-54 CERAMIC AND MOSAIC TILE Crown Interiors, Inc. 139 Washington Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Miller Paneling Specialties, Inc. P. O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95776 CLASS C-57 WATER WELL DRILLING Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Pacific Coast Drilling Co. 801 Lindberg Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 Performance Excavators, Inc. 103 Shoreline Parkway, 2nd Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 CLASS C-61 LIMITED SPECIALTY Atlas Tree Surgery, Inc. 1544 Ludwig Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 Family Tree Service P. O. Box 1325 Laytonville, CA 95454 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Johnson's Quality Tree Care 2700 Boonville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Marvins Garden Tree Service P. O. Box 1725 Willits, CA 95490 Miller Paneling Specialties P. O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95776 Northcoast Tree Care 26100 String Creek Road Willits, CA 95490 Timberline Tree Service P. O. Box 577 Forestville, CA 95436 West Coast Arborists, Inc. 2200 E. Via Burton St. Anaheim, CA 92806 CLASS D-12 SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS Miller Paneling Specialties, Inc. P. O. Box 270 Woodland, CA 95776 CLASS D-21 MACHINERY & PUMPS B. Cantatutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 CLASS D-28 DOORS, GATES, & ACTIVATING DEVISES Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 CLASS D-31 POLE INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 CLASS D-34 PREFRABRICATED EQUIPTMENT Kevin O'Keefe Co. P. O. Box 281 Diamond Springs, CA 95619 CLASS D-38 SAND AND WATER BLASTING Universal Environment 4101 Industrial Way Benicia, CA 94510 CLASS D-42 SIGN INSTALLATION Central Striping Service, Inc. 3489 Luyung Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 CLASS D-49 TREE SERVICE Asplundh Tree Expert Co. 4644 E. WaterLoo Rd. Stockton, CA 95212 Atlas Tree Surgery, Inc. 1544 Ludwig Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 Family Tree Service P. O. Box 1325 Laytonville, CA 95454 Johnson's Quality Tree Care 2700 Boonville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Kingsbrough Atlas Tree Surgery 1544 Ludwig Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Marvin's Garden Tree Service P. O. Box 1725 Willits, CA 95490 Matt's Custom Tree Care 1575 Elm Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Northcoast Tree Care 26100 String Creek Road Willits, CA 95490 Timberline Tree Service P. O. Box 577 Forestville, CA 95436 Timberline Tree Service P. O. Box 964 Ukiah, CA 95482 TruGreen LandCare 930 Shiloh Road, Bldg. 44, Ste. B Windsor, CA 95492 West Coast Arborists, Inc. 2200 E. Via Burton St. Anaheim, CA 92806 HAZ HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE REMOVAL CERTIFICATION Able Maintenance, Inc. 3224 Regional Pkwy Santa Rosa, CA 95403-8214 Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 CAL Inc. 2040 Peabody Road Vacaville, CA 95687 Epidendio Construction Inc. P. O. Box 452 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Ford Construction Company 639 East Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 95240 Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Hamman's Inc. 9550 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Harborth Excavating P. O. Box 736 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 JKH General Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 778 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Kernen Construction P. O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kernen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 North Bay Construction 431 Payran Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Northern Abatement Co., Inc. 4301 Highway 29 American Canyon, CA 94589 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Coast Drilling 801 Lindberg Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Performance Excavators, Inc. 103 Shoreline Parkway, 2nd Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 C. A. Rasmussen, Inc. P. O. Box 498 Windsor, CA 95492 Stiles Construction Co. 6209 Lockwood Drive Windsor, CA 95492 Universal Environmental 4101 Industrial Way Benicia, CA 94510 Valley Engineers, Inc. P. O. Box 12227 Fresno, CA 93777 K. G. Walters Construction Co. P. O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Waters Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 126 Willits, CA 95490 Wildcat Underground & Engineering 21 Washington Street Petaluma, CA 94952 HIC HOME IMPROVEMENT CERTIFICATION ABC Service 204 23rd Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Able Maintenance, Inc. 3224 Regional Pkwy Santa Rosa, CA 95403-8214 AC & R Service 539 South Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 AFM Environmental, Inc. 852 Northport Drive, #106 West Sacramento, CA 95691 ADNC Inc.dba Air Doctor 5625 State Farm Drive #35 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Arrow Fencing P. O. Box 142 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 A-Z Construction P. O. Box 375 Calpella, CA 95418 Beacom Construction Co. P. O. Box 457 Fortuna, CA 95540 Bell Springs Construction P. O. Box 487 Laytonville, CA 95454 BRCO Constructions, Inc. P. O. Box 367 Loomis, CA 95650 Mike Brown Electric 561 -A Mercantile Drive Cotati, CA94931 Busch Construction & Electric 2020 Industry Road Ukiah, CA 95482 CAL, Inc. 2040 Peabody Road, Suite 400 Vacaville, CA 95687 California Pavement Maint. Co. 9390 Elder Creek Road Sacramento, CA 95829 B. Cantarutti Electric Co. 1575 Indian Valley Road Novato, CA 94947 Cline's Unlimited Construction 7200 Uva Drive Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Crane of Ukiah, Inc. 4 Banker Blvd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Creative Landscaping 1155 Boonville Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Daniel Steel & Machine Works 160 Brush Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Davey Tree Surgery Company P. O. Box 5015 Livermore, CA 94551-5015 Deep Valley Security, Inc. 960 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Ferranti Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 259 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 Ford Construction 639 E. Lockeford Street Lodi, CA 95240 Robert Frank Construction 2806 Tarmac Road Redding, CA 96003 C. R. Fredrick, Inc. P. O. Box 688 Novato, CA 94948 J. A. Gonsalves & Son Const. P. O. Box 6553 Napa, CA 94581 Ghilotti Construction Co. 246 Ghilotti Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Hamman's Inc. 9550 Occidental Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Charles Heath Construction 3268 Westho Trail Cottonwood, CA 96022 Hermsmeyer Paving Company 5454 Old Redwood Highway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Lee Howard Construction Co. 3900 Parducci Road Ukiah, CA 95482 J & M Land Restoration 1640 James Road Bakersfield, CA 93308 Jacobson Fence Co., Inc. P. O. Box 6025 Santa Rosa, CA 95406 Jet-Con Enterprises P. O. Box 508 Ukiah, CA 95482 Kernen Construction P. O. Box 1340 Blue Lake, CA 95525-1340 Kernen Construction 2350 Glendale Drive Arcata, CA 95519 Duane C. Kitchens & Sons Construction Company 1506 Hallmark Court Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2378 Menton Builders 760 Apple Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 North Bay Construction Inc. P. O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955-6004 North Coast Energy Services, Inc. P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 95482 Northern Industrial Electric 2435 Radio Lane Redding, CA 96001-3870 Oak Grove Construction 3354 Regional Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Mechanical Corporation P. O. Box 4041 Concord, CA 94524 Pipeline Excavators P. O. Box 1755 Sebastopol, CA 95473 Rainbow Construction P. O. Box 2769 Ukiah, CA 95482 Reliable Enterprises P. O. Box 1743 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Safety Striping Service P. O. Box 102D Goshen, CA 93227 Sequoia Surfacing & Engineering 5441 Pepperwood Road Santa Rosa, CA 95409-5529 Spurgeon Painting, Inc. 1308 Dynamic Street 8 Petaluma, CA 94954 Stiles Construction Co. 6209 Lockwood Drive Windsor, CA 95492 Strong Hold Masonry & Concrete 555 Rancho Caballo Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tresch Electrical Co. Inc. P. O. Box 71 Novato, CA 94948 TruGreem LandCare 930 Shiloh Road, Bldg. 44, Ste. B Windsor, CA 95492 Ukiah Acoustics 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Construction 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Ukiah Electric 676 South Orchard Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Universal Environment, Inc. 4101 Industrial Way Benicia, CA 94510 Valentine Corporation 111 Pelican Way San Rafael, CA 94901 Valley Slurry Seal Company P. O. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 K. G. Walters Construction P. O. Box 4359 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Wildcat Underground & Engineering 21 Washington Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Williams Scotsman, Inc. 4911 Allison Parkway Vacaville, CA 95688 Wipf Construction P. O. Box 234 Ukiah, CA 95482 ATTACHMENT_~ NOTICE All Licensed Contractors who wish to be included on the City of Ukiah's list of qualified bidders for the year 2003 should submit an Application for Qualified Contractor's List, and provide required information, as per Public Contractors Code Section 22032. The Application for Qualified Contractor's List, along with City of Ukiah Insurance Requirements for Contractors, is hereby attached. Completed forms should be submitted to: City of Ukiah Attn: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Or Fax to: (707) 463-6204 DUE BY DECEMBER 31,2002 Please publish the above Notice as soon as possible: If there is a publishing cost, please call for confirmation before publication, from Marie Ulvila, City Clerk, at (707) 463-6217. Thank you. Notice Dated: 11/17/02 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 Phone# 707/463-6200 Fax'# 707/463-6204 Web Address: www. cityofukiah.com ITEM NO. 6c DATE: JANUARY 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM MATT AND MICHELLE SMITH AND RANDY WILBUR PETERS AND REFERRAL TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND The claim from Matt and Michelle Smith was received by the City of Ukiah on December 9, 2002 and alleges damages related to road surface conditions at Perkins Street and Hospital Drive on December 2, 2002. The claim from Randy Wilbur Peters was received by the City of Ukiah on December 17, 2002 and alleges damages related to a traffic incident at 1003 Luff Court on December 1, 2002. Pursuant to City policy, it is recommended the City Council reject the claims as stated and refer them to the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject Claims For Damages Received From Matt and Michelle Smith and Randy Wilbur Peters And Refer Them To The Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Yes Claimants ~ Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of Matt and Michelle Smith, pages 1-3; 2. Claim of Randy Wilbur Peters, pages 4-5. APPROVED' Candace Horsley, City~anager mfh :asrcc02 1218CLAIM NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST ~,,~r~.. ~-~" ,= ~ ,.r= ~/~' ~ :'._'~ o. This claim must be pr~ented, as pr~cribed by Pa~s 3 and 4 of Division 3. 6, e State of California, by the claimant or by a person acting on hisser behalf. ~TU~COMPLETEDFORMTO:CI~OFU~AH' Affn: City Clerk ~ ~Ci~ oF U~H ' ~ CI~ bL~r,K'S DErARTMENT · - 300 Semina~ Avenue - ' Ukiah, California 95482 If CLAIMANT'S NAME: 2. CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: Number/Street and/or Post Office Box '."[ c~ State Home Phone Number Zip Code Work Phone Number 3. PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT (if different from above): Name Number/Street and/or Post Office Box ( ). Telephone City State ,~. ~,~r~. o/= r,~. .~cct~E~r o~ OCCUrrenCE: i ~ - ~ - t Zip Code 6. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE (Attach additional page(s), if more s~ace is needed): . . . · 7. NAME(S), ff known, OF AN~UBUC EMPLOYEE(S) ALLEGEDLY CAUSING ~HE INJURY OR LOSS: 8, WITNESS(ES), if known (optional): Name Address a. Telephone be _[- . DOCTOR(S)/HOSPITAL(S), if any, WHERE CLAIMANT WAS TREA TED: Name Address a. Telephone bi 10. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBLIGATION, INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS so far as it may be known at the tim,. e of presentation of the claim: 11. STATE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED if it totals less than ten thousa.nd dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any pro~.pective injury, damage orloss, insofaras it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed (for computation use #12 below). However, if the. ~amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. H~ever, it shall indicate whetherthe claim would be a limited civil case (CCP § 85).' '~: · ., Amount Claimed $ I .09: or Applicable Jur.isdiction .~.,~ 12. THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS A~'~OLLOWS: a. Damages incurred to date: Expenses for medical/hospital care: Loss of earnings: Special damages foc General damages: b. Estimated prospective damages as far as known: Future expenses for medical and hospital care: Future loss of eamings: Other prospective special damages: Prospective general damages: This claim must 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 a~c,c~..~l of the cau,~ of a~ct~on. Dated: I ~ ['~ ) ~ .~ _ . r/'~//~~ ~ ,/,SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT(S) Received in the Office of the City Clerk this ~/~/d~ day of /(_~ ~ ' <' '~ By: ~/~,.~.~_~' ~~'~-~ NOTE: ~is form of claim is for your convenience only. Any other type of form maybe ~ed if d~ired, as long as it satisfi~ ~e requiremen~ of ~e Government Code. The use of this fo~ is not intended in any way to a~ise you of your legal righ~ or to i~teGret a~y law. ~ you are i~ doubt regarding your legai righ~ or the inteGretatio~ of any law, you should se~k legal counsel of your choice at your own e~ense. Rev. 2~ ' ' ~ ~ NapaAuto Car Center ., Statiolls, ~n(:. ASE Certified Technicians ~~.'/' 85 !);,, ,,, th .~ t,~::,; Str~.e ~i~ Preventative Maintenance ' ~.,~8.. FL ii :Service Car Wash · Complete Detail S( ! ! J" 7C7-462-J.,-:.72 i E S T I M A T E 2881F' · :. Fax ?C7-4,~2-c)379 DATE ....... CREDITACC~# V~. I ,', ':) BY KEY8 ~,' BAR ~ ACC 30472 i ~/~3.,"' ;~L.?!:?;:Z [ 191 7~ :"~AME AND ADDRESS "' Y~R MAKE MODEL M I CHELLE Shl; TH 35 GMC::.'-' "' =~.~ ,-- :~ '~ R IIlLICENSE ~ST SERVICE HOW BID YOU FIND US? TIME NEEDED ODOMETER ~ 1. REFER~L ~ OAK MANOR DR 2. DRIVE-IN I 3. YE~OW PAGES[ 81ZE LNG AIR FILTER UKIAH~ CA ~= ...... ' ~. R~D~O :.d-~o~ PART ~ PHONE(S) WHERE YOU CAN BE R~CHED 5. ~ 6. N~SPAPER SMOG DATE FUEL FILTER 707-468-925 ~ PART ~ INSTRUCTIONS / SYMPTOMS FUEL INJ OIL FILTER RENOVE YELLOW P~ZNT, R~-APPLY WAX ~YES ~NO PART~ TRANSMISSION TRAN8 FILTER D ~N D~O P~T ~ ALIGNMENT TIRE 81ZE ~ ~ ~-WHL 2/0~ PACK BEARING8 ~PE OF OIL ~[~4 ~F~ ~R~R AMOUNT 2699 REMOVE YELLOW PAINT 1.00 60.00 60.00 1914 HA~ WAX-SEALANT 1.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANGE RECOMMENDATIONS PARTS . --: $. 00 '. 25o% SALES T~ $. oo , ~BOR ~c[u~s ~RE ~S~OS~U $ i ~5.00 WORK ORDER TOTAL $ i 35. oo FUEL REVISED ESTIMATES ,~::.~:~t~- ~.~-~,~L $.~:.~.000~.~ :~ $ .00 DATE PERSON OONTAGTED PARTS ~ ~ i$~ $135.00 1 TIME ~BO~ I h~y ~o~z~ th~ ~ repot ~ to ~ ~ ~ong ~h lh~ n~ m~t~d~l ~d ~ IN PERSON ~ ~PHONE ~ ~ ~, ~y~ ~ ~m f~ ~ ~ ~f t~mi~ ~or i~on. ~ ~ DATE PERSON CONTACTED PARTS ~er~o. You will not ~ held res~nsible for I~ ~ damage to v~icle ~ aRicles left in veh~e $ ~n ~ of fire, ~, a~ident or ~ other ~u~ ~yond y~r ~ntrol. 2. TIME ~BOR - ~ . CUSTOMER'S SIGNA~RE DO YOU WANT ~E O~ PARTS? ~ IN PERSON ~TE~PHONE $ ~YES ~ NO NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALl This claim must be presented, as prescdbed by Parts 3 and4 of Division 3.6, State of California, by the claimant or by a person acting on his/her behalf. RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: 4. 5. o CITY OF UKIAH Attn: City Clerk 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 ~vernment DEC ] 7 20O2 CiTY OF UKiAH CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT .'% CLAIMANT'S NAME: i'~ CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: Number/Street and/or Post Office Box City State ?- 0 / ( ), Home Phone Number Work Phone Number PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING'THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT (if different from above): Name Number/Street and/or Post Office Box ( ) Telephone c~y DATE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: PLACE OF ACCIDENT OR oCCURRENCE: State /- ¢ Zip Code · GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE (Attach additional page(s), ff more space is needed): /.-) 7. NAME(S), ff known, OF ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) ALLEGEDLY CAUSING THE INJURY OR LOSS: Se wrrNESS(ES), ff known (optional): Namff b. Telephone 1 DOCTOR(S)/HOSPITAL(S), if any, WHERE CLAIMANT WAS TREATED: Name Address Telephone 10. GENERAL DESCRIPTION oF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBUGi~' T/ON, INJUR~', D,~MAGE (~R. LOSS so far as it maY be known at the time of presentation of the c/aim: [J/~K~ ~ 1~-~' J~ ~ ~ q ~ ,~ ~. STATE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss, insofar' as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed (for computation use #12 below). However, if the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case (CCP § 85)." Amount. Claimed $. -. or Applicable Jurfsdiction 12. THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS: a. Damages incurred to date: Expenses for medical/hospital care: Loss of earnings: Special damages loc General damages: b. Estimated prospective damages as far as known: · Fufure expenses for medical and hospital care: Future loss of earnings: Other prospective'special damages: Prospective general damages: 'This claim must 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 properly 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) ye, a~ after accrual of the cause of action. Received in the Office of the City Clerk this / ?7~day of ~/ ~.~ ~ ,20~- NOTE: This form of claim is for your convenience only. Any other type of form may Ee used if desired, as long as it satisfies the requirements of the Government Code. The use of this form is not intended in any way to adv/se you of your legal rights or to interpret any law. ff you are.in doubt regarding your legal rights or the interpretation of any law, you should seek legal counsel of your choice at your own expense. ,. ~'- Rev. 5/18/99 ITEM NO. 6d DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD BID FOR HIGH VOLTAGE LINE CLEARING AND TREE TRIMMING AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH TO DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000 Included in the 2002/03 Budget, Account No. 800.3728.250.000 is $30,000 for tree trimming. Sufficient funds are available. Bid packages were sent to ten tree trimming contractors. Three bids were received and opened by the City Clerk on December 9, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. Davey Tree Surgery Company submitted a bid based on an hourly rate of $116.89 for a three person crew. Davey Tree Surgery Company has provided all required documentation to verify high voltage line clearing experience as required in the bid package. The appropriate insurance has been provided. Therefore, staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Davey Tree Surgery Company in an amount not to exceed $30,000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for high voltage line clearing and tree trimming at various locations within the City of Ukiah to Davey Tree Surgery Company in an amount not to exceed $30,000. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject all bids and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electrical Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment: Bid results APPROVED: Candace Horsley, C'l~, Manager TREE TRIMMING BID RESULTS Davey Tree Surgery Company Family Tree Service West Coast Arborist $116.89 hr/3 man crew $144.00 hr/3 man crew $153.00 hr/3 man crew ITEM NO. 6e DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR SODIUM HYDROXIDE TO UNIVAR USA FOR THE SUM OF $341.41 PER DRY TON Each year it is necessary to purchase approximately 84 dry tons of sodium hydroxide for use at the water and wastewater treatment plants. Sodium hydroxide is used to adjust the pH of the water and for corrosion control. Total quantities are an estimate of annual usage. Orders are placed on an as needed basis by treatment plant personnel. Requests for Quotations through the formal bid process were sent to ten chemical suppliers. Five bids were returned and opened by the City Clerk on January 6, 2003. The Iow bidder is UNIVAR USA for the sum of $341.41 per dry ton totaling $28,678.44 for the estimated 84 dry tons. $60,000 is budgeted in Water Fund 820.3908.520.000 and $122,000 in Wastewater Fund 612.3580.520.000 for the purchase of chemicals. There are currently no local suppliers for this chemical. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for sodium hydroxide to UNIVAR USA for the sum of $341.41 per dry ton. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject bids and remand to staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities George Borecky, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Tabulation of Bids Candace Horsley, City M~ager January 2003 TABULATION OF BIDS FOR SODIUM HYDROXIDE UNIVAR USA $341.41 LA Chemical $345.00 * Basic Chemical Solutions $365.00 Pioneer Chemical $398.00 Jones Chemicals, Inc. $423.00 *Price firm from 1/3/03 to 6/30/03 only ITEM NO. 6f DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE TO PIONEER AMERICAS, INC. FOR THE SUM OF $.569 PER GALLON This year it will necessary to purchase approximately 76,000 gallons of 12.5% solution of sodium hypochlorite for use at the wastewater treatment plant. Sodium hypochlorite is used as a disinfectant in the 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. Three bids were returned and opened by the City Clerk on January 6, 2003. The Iow bid is from Pioneer Americas, Inc. for the sum of $.569 per gallon and a total of $43,244 based on estimated annual usage. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Pioneer Americas, Inc. for $.569 per gallon. $122,000 was budgeted in the Sewer Account 612.3580.520.000 for the purchase of chemicals. There are currently no local bulk suppliers for this chemical. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for sodium hypochlorite to Pioneer Americas, Inc. for the amount of $.569 per gallon. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject bids and remand to staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities George Borecky, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Tabulation of Bids APPROVED: Cand~'ce Horsley, citY~anager January 2003 TABULATION OF BIDS FOR SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE Company Pioneer Americas, Inc Vopak USA LA Chemical Co. Price/Gallon ,t,.569 $.675 $.99 Est. Total Usage $43,244 $51,300 $75,240 Jones Chemical No Bid No Bid AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6g DATE: January 15, 2003 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR 2000 STIP ARTERIAL ! COLLECTOR REHABILITATION PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 02-15 SUMMARY: Funding for this project was alloCated by the State of California through the Surface Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in the amount of $539,000. The City Council awarded the contract on September 4, 2002 to Granite Construction Company, contractor, in the amount of $527,406.20. The work of the contract was completed by the contractor in substantial conformance with the approved plans and specifications on November 14, 2002. The final contract cost based on actual quantities constructed and approved change orders is $522,914.92. Final payment of the 10 percent retention in the amount of $52,291.49 will be made to the contractor after 35 days from the date the Notice of Completion is filed with the County Recorder. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Accept the work as complete; 2. Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder for 2000 STIP Arterial / Collector Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 02-15. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engineer~'~ Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Notice of Completion APPROVED' t~~..~.-~ anager Candace Horsley, AG-NOC-Spec-02-15.SUM Please return to: CITY OF UKIAH 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482-5400 (707) 463-6200 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: . That the real property described is owned by the following whose address is: City of Ukiah, a Municipal Corporation, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiahl California 95482-5400 . That the nature of the title to the 2000 STIP Arterial / Collector Rehabilitation, Specification No. 02-15 of all said owners is that of fee simple. . That on the 14th day of November 2002, the Contract work for this project was actually completed. . That the name and address of the Contractor is Granite Construction Company, 1324 S. State Street, Ukiah, California, 95482-6414. . That the real property herein referred to is situated in the County of Mendocino, State of California, and is described as follows: City-owned property identified as various streets within the City of Ukiah. City Council Approval CITY OF UKIAH, a Municipal Corporation By: DATE MARIE ULVILA, City Clerk DATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF MENDOCINO) I, Marie Ulvila, being duly sworn says: That she is the Clerk of the City of Ukiah City Council, that she has read the foregoing Notice of Completion and knows the content thereof and the same is true of her own knowledge. MARIE ULVILA, City Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ,2003. Notary Public in and for the County of Mendocino, State of California f~ T Tf~H~ E t, JT ~ .~ ITEM NO. 6h DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF EMERGENCY TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIR SERVICES FROM REPUBLIC ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,546 SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 1522 of the City Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of services costing more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. The Public Works Department contacted Republic Electric to obtain a quote for emergency repairs of a traffic signal pole located on the southeast corner of the intersection of South State Street and Hastings Avenue that was knocked down in a traffic accident. Republic Electric submitted a quote in the amount of $5,546 to install a new traffic signal pole. City Manager Candace Horsley authorized this emergency work. At this time, no responsible party has been identified for the traffic signal pole knockdown; however, the City will continue to seek reimbursement for this incident. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report of the acquisition of emergency traffic signal repair services from Republic Electric in the amount of $5,546. Report is submitted pursuant to City Code. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engi.neer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Fiscal Year 2002~2003 budget sheet Cafidace Horsley, City, Manager AG-EmergTrafficSig3.SUM 0 0 0 E ._l I-' Z LU Item No. 6i Date: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE PLACING A LIMITATION ON NEW CONNECTIONS TO THE CITY OF UKIAH SEWER SYSTEM REPORT: At its December 18, 2002 meeting the City Council unanimously introduced the ordinance to place a limit on new connections to the city sewer system. The ordinance has been prepared in final form and adoption is recommended. The ordinance is one element in the city's demonstration to meet our mandated Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Ordinance Placing a Limitation on New Connections to the City of Ukiah Sewer System. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not Adopt Ordinance and provide Alternate Direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: N/A Prepared by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment:l) Ordinance for Adoption APPROVED:' '-"~"~.. Candace H~rgl~y, ~i[y M~nager ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH PLACING A LIMITATION ON NEW CONNECTIONS TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE The City Council of the City of Ukiah finds and declares that the City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant has exceeded various operating limits defined in its Pollution Discharge (NPDES) permit, resulting in the State Water Quality Control Board directing the City of Ukiah to implement measures to ensure that the plant remain in compliance with its NPDES permit. The City Council further finds that the available treatment capacity is currently uncertain. Any significant increase in new connections could place the plant's operations in violation of the NPDES permit and create a situation jeopardizing the health and safety of the public. Such new connections also increase the risk that the City may be subject to a cease-and-desist order from the State, and the imposition of fines for permit non- compliance. Because the plant is currently near or at capacity, it is necessary for City staff to study what the current level of capacity is available at the plant, and to increase its operating capacity. To that end, City Staff is currently negotiating a contract with Brown and Caldwell Engineers to perform such a study and to provide staff with data on these two subjects. Brown and Caldwell will also provide a recommendation of the number of new connections that can safely be made available at the plant. On average, the City provides approximately 10 new connections annually for projects of 5 or fewer units. Allowing connections to small projects of 5 or fewer units will therefore not increase the risk of a cease-and-desist order or additional violations during the time of the study, and will allow for small projects that are already under development to be completed during the time that the study is undertaken. Based on the above findings, and in order to allow sufficient time for the negotiation of this contract, for the performance of the study, and for review of the study by the City Council, and in order to protect the public health and safety, the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds that it is necessary to adopt an ordinance as follows: Ordinance No. Page 1 of 2 (A) No neTM cOnnection tO'the City of Ukiah sewer system shall be permitted for any project greater than 5 units in size and that requires the extension of a sewer main, whether that main is constructed by the city or otherwise. (B) This ordinance shall not affect any connection for which the city has, prior to the date of the adoption of this ordinance, accepted fees for prepaid sewer service connections, even if such connection requires an extension of a sewer main. This ordinance shall not affect any project, which requires a sewer main extension if service is needed to remedy a failed septic system. (c) As used in this ordinance, "unit" shall mean a connection to the City of Ukiah sewer system by one single-family dwelling or the equivalent average capacity use (equivalent sewer service unit). 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 Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduction by title only on December 18, 2002, by the following vote' AYES' Council Members Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson NOES: None ABSENT: None Passed and adopted on January 15 ,2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Eric Larson, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Ordinance No. Page 2 of 2 ITEM NO: 8a DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DENIAL OF APPEAL FILED BY RAINBOW CONSTRUCTION, INC. CONCERNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE 02-49 SUMMARY: Mr. Peter Richardson of Rainbow Construction, Inc. filed a Sign Variance application to allow six (6) corporate flags/signs, approximately eight feet (8') tall by one foot (1') wide, to be located on top of the roof of its office building. The Ukiah Municipal Code prohibits flags/signs to be located on the roof of buildings. The property is located at 294 West Smith Street, Ukiah. On December 11,2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the Sign Variance request. After hearing from interested citizens, and having a lengthy discussion, the Commission concluded that while the rooftop signs "look nice," they could not make all three of the required Variance findings, and subsequently voted 3-1 (Wallen absent) to deny the Variance. Mr. Richardson disagreed with the Commission's conclusions and action, and has filed a timely appeal to the City Council. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission struggled with this matter because the majority agreed that the rooftop signs were aesthetically pleasing, but the required Variance findings (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Support the Planning Commission decision and deny the appeal filed by Rainbow Construction, Inc. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1) Make the required findings, sustain the appeal, and approve the Variance application; 2) Decide not to take action at this time, secure agreement from the property owner to suspend processing of the appeal, and table the matter until the new Sign Ordinance is adopted. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: Peter Richardson, Rainbow Construction, Inc. Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager, and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 11,2002 2. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 11, 2002 3. Letter of Appeal filed by Peter Richardson, dated December 20, 2002 4. Letter to Planning Commission from Peter Richardson, dated December 6, 2002 Canal-ace H0rsley~ (~ity'~anager did not address aesthetics. They discussed the current efforts to revise the regulations, and whether it would be appropriate for them to table the matter until those regulations were adopted. Because the Variance request is a result of an enforcement action, they concluded that such a decision must be made by the City Council. Staff believes this course of action deserves consideration, and has included it as an alternative action for the Council. Background: The following text is a chronology of events that has led to the filing of the subject Sign Variance application: April 2002: The City Building Inspector notices the devices on top of the building and sends a letter alerting the property owner that they violate the City Sign Ordinance, which prohibits signs/flags to be located on the rooftop of a building. · May 2002: The property owner disagrees that the "corporate flags" on top of the building violate the Sign Ordinance, and refuses to relocate or remove them. June 2002: The City Council discusses the matter, reviews the City Sign Ordinance, and determines that the Ordinance regards flags as signs, and therefore the devices violate the regulation prohibiting signs from being located on the rooftop of buildings. The property owner was unable to attend the meeting. · June 2002: Staff sends the property owner a Variance application. July 2002: The property owner seeks an audience with the City Council to discuss the matter because he was unable to attend the June meeting. The City Council listens to and dialogs with the property owner, then chooses not to alter its earlier determination that the signs/flags are in violation of the City Sign Ordinance. August through October 2002: Letters are exchanged between the City Attorney and Attorney for the property owner. The City Attorney, City Manager, and Staff meet with the property owner and his legal counsel to discuss the matter. · November 2002: The property owner files a formal application for a Variance to allow the signs/flags to be located on top of the roof of his building. · December 2002: The Planning Commission denies the Variance application. DISCUSSION OF REQUIRED FINDINGS: The Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion of the three findings required to approve the Variance application. There seemed to be consensus that the roof-top signs "looked nice" but the Commission acknowledged that the required findings for the Variance did not specifically address aesthetics. While it could be argued that the Variance procedure for deviation from sign regulations may be inappropriate because the primary concern regarding signs is aesthetics, the Ukiah Municipal Code nevertheless currently requires the Variance 'procedure. Accordingly, as listed above as an alternative action, the City Council could, with the consent of the applicant, suspend processing of the appeal, and table the matter until the new Sign Ordinance is adopted. As the Council knows, Staff has released a Discussion Draft version of a new Sign Ordinance for public review and comment. While this Draft document will undergo changes as it evolves through the review process, Staff hopes to have it before the Council for introduction and adoption this spring. The Discussion Draft contains a section that would allow tastefully created artwork signage to be placed on a rooftop provided it roet certain guidelines, and provided a Use Permit is approved by the Planning Commission. The findings for a Use Permit deal more closely with aesthetics than those required for a Variance. Findings: In order for the City Council to sustain the appeal, and approve the requested Sign Variance to allow signs to be placed on the roof, it must make the following three findings: . Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the sign regulations deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and subject to the identical regulations. Explanation of Finding: This finding means that there has to be something physically different or unique about the Rainbow Construction Inc. property when compared to other properties subject to the same sign regulations, and that this special circumstance creates an unnecessary hardship for the property owner/applicant. Staff Analysis: Research and site visits reveal that the subject parcel is approximately 8,780 square feet in size, and the building covers most of it except for a small parking lot. It is rectangularly shaped like the other parcels on the block, and it is basically level. The 8,780 square foot size exceeds all but one of the other parcels on the block. It is surrounded by commercially zoned land, and other nearby parcels with similar sized commercial buildings essentially cover all or most of their parcels. Planning Commission Conclusion: The Commission concluded that there is nothing physically different about the subject parcel in terms of its size, shape, topography or surroundings that gives it a disadvantage compared to other nearby parcels in terms of an ability to erect signs in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. In fact, the subject property seems to have an advantage over other businesses in terms of advertising because it has what appears to be an existing legal non-conforming roof sign, where no other roof signs were observed in the area. Moreover, there are a number of window signs on the subject building advertising the business similar to other businesses in the downtown area. The Commission concluded that the physical characteristics and development on the property are similar to those of other commercial properties in the area, and that there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that create an unnecessary hardship on the owner to erect signs in compliance with the City Sign Regulations. Applicant Conclusion: The applicant believes that there is no place on the subject property to erect a standard flagpole or poles to display the signs/flags, and that none of the neighboring properties are burdened with similar circumstances. . The issuance of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations. Explanation of Finding: This finding means that it must be determined that granting the Variance would provide Rainbow Construction, Inc. the same property rights enjoyed by other properties in the area that are subject to the same sign regulations, and therefore would not give them special privileges. In other words, the Variance would place Rainbow Construction Inc. in parity with other property owners subject to the same sign regulations. Staff Analysis: Detailed field observations of the surrounding neighborhood were conducted on November 27, 2002 and December 4, 2002. Staff drove and walked the commercial and residential neighborhoods in the area to observe how businesses, churches, government offices, and other land uses displayed signage. The commercial land uses in the area, particularly along nearby School Street had window signs similar to those on the Rainbow Construction building, and many had small signs projecting from the walls below the roofline or on awnings overhanging the sidewalks. Staff could not find any signs placed on the roofs of buildings. Planning Commission Conclusion: The Planning Commission concluded that granting the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because it would allow signs on the roof of the subject building, where no other buildings in the area have roof signs. In addition, the Commission concluded that the amount of legal signage Rainbow Construction has on its property is similar to that of other commercial land uses in the area, and the Variance is not necessary to place them in parity with other property owners subject to the same sign regulations. Applicant Conclusion: The applicant believes that it has been an acceptable community tradition to erect flags on top of buildings, and therefore approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. 3. The granting of the Sign Variance to Rainbow Construction will not be detrimental to surrounding property owners. Explanation of Finding: This finding means that if the Sign Variance is granted, the rooftop signs would not have an adverse impact on the health and safety of the public or surrounding property owners. Staff Analysis: Field observations of the unauthorized roof top signs reveal that they are made of a lightweight material, and appear to be adequately secured to the building. While one of the signs is located on the northwest corner of the building above the public right-of- way (sidewalk), the City Building Inspector is of the opinion that it does not represent a hazard to pedestrians. The five remaining signs are not situated near a public right-of-way, and in the opinion of the Building Inspector, similarly do not represent a safety hazard to surrounding property owners. Planning Commission Conclusion: The Planning Commission concluded that granting the Sign Variance to Rainbow Construction would not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property owners because the rooftop signs are made of a lightweight material and are adequately secured to the building, and are situated in locations that do not represent a safety hazard. Applicant Conclusion: The applicant agrees with Staff that the granting of the Variance would not pose a threat to the health and safety of the public. OVERALL CONCLUSION: Earlier this year, the applicant innocently erected what he felt were corporate flags on top of the roof of the Rainbow Construction office building. When notified that they violated the City Sign Regulations because they were on the roof of the building, he disagreed and refused to remove them. Staff asked the City Council to discuss the matter, review the Sign Ordinance, and determine if they were in violation. The Council found that corporate flags were listed as non-prohibited signs in Section 3226(E) of the Sign Regulations, and therefore, while not prohibited in the City, they were indeed signs. The Council then found that the signs were in violation of section 3226(L), because they are located on the roof of the building (see the correspondence from the City Attorney to the applicant, dated June 13, 2002 - attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report). The applicant then filed a Variance application seeking relief from the regulation disallowing rooftop signs. Staff conducted fieldwork on the subject property and around the surrounding neighborhood. Observations of the surrounding properties, how they were developed, what type of signage they had, and how they compared with the Rainbow Construction property were made for the administrative record. Based on this information, Staffwas unable to make two of the three required findings for approval of the Variance. The Planning Commission agreed and denied the Variance request. The City Attorney has advised that the courts will defer to variance decisions by the City Council, provided the Council's legal conclusions are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. While staff believes its analysis is reasonable and based on substantial evidence, it does not mean to suggest that the City Council could not, under any circumstances, make adequate findings to support granting the variance in this case. (See Alternative Action, 1) below.) FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION: The Planning Commission made the following findings to support its denial of the Variance request: . There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that would cause a strict application of the sign regulations to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other nearby properties for the following reasons: There is nothing physically different about the subject parcel in terms of its size, shape, topography or surroundings that gives it a disadvantage compared to other nearby parcels in terms of an ability to erect signs in compliance with the Sign Ordinance; The physical characteristics and development on the property are comparable to those of other commercial properties in the area of similar size and intensity of use, and there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that create an unnecessary hardship on the owner to erect signs in compliance with the City Sign Regulations. . The issuance of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations for the following reasons: It would allow signs on the roof of the subject building, where no other buildings in the area have roof signs. The amount of legal signage Rainbow Construction has on its property is similar to that of other commercial land uses in the area, and the Variance is not necessary to place them in parity with other property owners subject to the same sign regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Support the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal filed by Rainbow Construction, Inc. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There are a number of alternative actions available to the City Council: 1) Based on written information, verbal testimony, and other information sources contained in the administrative record, the Council could make the required findings of fact, sustain the appeal, and approve the variance. If the Council chooses this alternative, it may provide direction to Staff who will prepare written findings for Council consideration and possible adoption at its next meeting. OR: 2) The Council could decide not to take action at this time, secure agreement from the property owner to suspend processing of the appeal, and table the matter until the new Sign Ordinance is adopted. As the Council knows, Staff has released a Discussion Draft version of a new Sign Ordinance for public review and comment. While this Draft document will undergo change as it evolves through the review process, Staff hopes to have it before the Council for introduction and adoption this spring. Staff Report to the Planning Commission City of Ukiah RAINBOW CONSTRUCTION INC. SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION 02-49 ITEM NO. 8B Meeting Date: December 11, 2002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property owner of 294 West Smith Street has filed a Variance application seeking relief from the sign regulations contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code. Specifically, the property owner is requesting approval to place six approximate 8-foot tall by 1-foot wide signs/corporate flags on top of his building, where the City sign regulations prohibit signs/flags from being placed on the roof of a building. Ukiah Municipal Code Section 9232 (attachment 3-1) requires Variance applicants to submit "statements, plans, and evidence" justifying or explaining how the required Variance findings can be made for their projects. At the time of Staff Report preparation, the applicant had not yet submitted any information supporting his application. However, a telephone conversation with the applicant on December 5, 2002 revealed that he was intending to submit the requested information as soon as possible. Staff encouraged the timely submittal of this information, because it would provide the Commission with the applicants perspective on how the legally required findings could be made. PROJECT LOCATION: 294 West Smith Street (APN 002-183-04). The property is situated on the northeast corner of the intersection of West Smith and Oak Streets. ZONING ON SUBJECT PROPERTY: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Staff is unable to make the required variance findings, and therefore is recommending denial of the application. ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA) DETERMINATION: Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (new construction of small structures). BACKGROUND: The following text is a chronology of events that has led to the filing of the subject Sign Variance application: April 2002: The City Building Inspector notices the devices on top of the building and sends a letter alerting the property owner that they violate the City Sign Ordinance, which prohibits signs/flags to be located on the rooftop of a building. · May 2002: The property owner disagrees that the "corporate flags" on top of the building violate the Sign Ordinance, and refuses to relocate or remove them. June 2002: The City Council discusses the matter, reviews the City Sign Ordinance, and determines that the Ordinance regards flags as signs, and therefore the devices violate the regulation prohibiting signs from being located on the rooftop of buildings. The property owner was unable to attend the meeting. Rainbow Construction Sign Variance 02-49 June 2002: Staff sends the property owner a Variance application. July 2002: The property owner seeks an audience with the City Council to discuss the matter because he was unable to attend the June meeting. The City Council listens to and dialogs with the property owner, then chooses not to alter its earlier determination that the signs/flags are in violation of the City Sign Ordinance. August through October 2002: Letters are exchanged between the City Attorney and Attorney for the property owner. The City Attorney, City Manager, and Staff meet with the property owner and his legal counsel to discuss the matter. · November 2002: The property owner files a formal application for a Variance to allow the signs/flags to be located on top of the roof of his building. DISCUSSION OF REQUIRED FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the requested Sign Variance to allow signs to be placed on the roof, it must successfully make the following three findings: . Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the sign regulations deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and subject to the identical regulations. Explanation of Finding: This finding means that there has to be something physically different or unique about the Rainbow Construction Inc. property when compared to other properties subject to the same sign regulations, and that this special circumstance creates an unnecessary hardship for the property owner/applicant. Analysis: Re'search and site visits reveal that the subject parcel is approximately 8,780 square feet in size, and the building covers most of it except for a small parking lot. It is rectangular shaped like the other parcels on the block, and it is basically level. The 8,780 square foot size exceeds all but one of the other parcels on the block. It is surrounded by commercially zoned land, and other nearby parcels with similar sized commercial buildings essentially cover all or most of their parcels. Conclusion: There is nothing physically different about the subject parcel in terms of its size, shape, topography or surroundings that gives it a disadvantage compared to other nearby parcels in terms of an ability to erect signs in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. In fact, the subject property seems to have an advantage over other businesses in terms of advertising because it has what appears to be an existing legal non-conforming roof sign, where no other roof signs were observed in the area. Moreover, there are a number of window signs on the subject building advertising the business similar to other businesses in the downtown area. Staff is able to conclude that the physical characteristics and development on the property are similar to those of other commercial properties in the area, and that there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that create an unnecessary hardship on the owner to erect signs in compliance with the City Sign Regulations. . The issuance of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations. Explanation of Finding: This finding means that it must be determined that granting the Variance would provide Rainbow Construction, Inc. the same property rights enjoyed by other properties in the area that are subject to the same sign regulations, and therefore would not give them special privileges. In other words, the Variance would place Rainbow Construction Inc. in parity with other property owners subject to the same sign regulations. /--2- Rainbow Construction Sign Variance 02-49 . Analysis: Detailed field observations of the surrounding neighborhood were conducted on November 27, 2002 and December 4, 2002. Staff drove and walked the commercial and residential neighborhoods in the area to observe how businesses, churches, government offices, and other land uses displayed signage. The commercial land uses in the area, particularly along nearby School Street had window signs similar to those on the Rainbow Construction building, and many had small signs projecting from the walls below the roofline or on awnings overhanging the sidewalks. Staff could not find any signs placed on the roofs of buildings. Conclusion: Staff is able to conclude that the granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because it would allow signs on the roof of the subject building, where no other buildings in the area have roof signs. In addition, Staff is able to conclude that the amount of legal signage Rainbow Construction has on its property is similar to that of other commercial land uses in the area, and the Variance is not necessary to place them in parity with other property owners subject to the same sign regulations. The granting of the Sign Variance to Rainbow Construction will not be detrimental to surrounding property owners. Explanation of Finding: This finding means that if the Sign Variance is granted, the rooftop signs would not have an adverse impact on the health and safety of the public or surrounding property'owners. Analysis: Field observations of the unauthorized roof top signs reveal that they are made of a lightweight material, and appear to be adequately secured to the building. While one of the signs is located on the northwest corner of the building above the public right-of-way (sidewalk), the City Building Inspector is of the opinion that it does not represent a hazard to pedestrians. The five remaining signs are not situated near a public right-of-way, and in the opinion of the Building Inspector, similarly do not represent a safety hazard to surrounding property owners. Conclusion: The granting 'of the Sign Variance to Rainbow Construction would not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property owners because the roof top signs are made of a light weight material and are adequately secured to the building, and are situated in locations that do not represent a safety hazard. OVERALL CONCLUSION: Earlier this year, the applicant innocently erected what he felt were corporate flags on top of the roof of the Rainbow Construction office building. When notified that they violated the City Sign Regulations because they were on the roof of the building, he disagreed and refused to remove them. Staff asked the City Council to discuss the matter, review the Sign Ordinance, and determine if they were in violation. The Council found that corporate flags were listed as non-prohibited signs in Section 3226(E) of the Sign Regulations, and therefore, while not prohibited in the City, they were indeed signs. The Council then found that the signs were in violation of section 3226(L), because they are located on the roof of the building. The applicant then filed a Variance application seeking relief from the regulation disallowing roof top signs. However, the applicant did not submit any written statement or justification supporting his request. Staff conducted fieldwork on the subject property and around the surrounding neighborhood. Observations of the surrounding properties, how they were developed, what type of signage they had, and how they compared with the Rainbow Construction property were made for the administrative record. Based on this information, Staff was unable to make two of the three the required findings for approval of the Variance. Rainbow Construction Sign Variance 02-49 FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION: . . There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the sign regulations deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other nearby properties for the following reasons: There is nothing physically different about the subject parcel in terms of its size, shape, topography or surroundings that gives it a disadvantage compared to other nearby parcels in terms of an ability to erect signs in compliance with the Sign Ordinance; The physical characteristics and development on the property are comparable to those of other commercial properties in the area of similar size and intensity of use, and there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that create an unnecessary hardship on the owner to erect signs in compliance with the City Sign Regulations. The issuance of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations for the following reasons: · It would allow signs on the roof of the subject building, where no other buildings in the area have roof signs. The amount of legal signage Rainbow Construction has on its property is similar to that of other commercial land uses in the area, and the Variance is not necessary to place them in parity with other property owners subject to the same sign regulations. RECOMMENDATION: based on an inability to make the required findings, Staff recommends denial of the Sign Variance application. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission, based on written information, verbal testimony, and other information sources contained in the administrative record, could disagree with Staff, make the required findings of fact, and approve the variance. ATTACHMENTS: , 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Sign Variance Application filed by Rainbow Construction Inc. Property location map Letter to applicant seeking additional information Photograph of subject property and unauthorized roof top signs Section 3226 of the Ukiah Municipal Code Correspondence from City Attorney Rapport to Peter Richardson, dated June 13, 2002 The Planner's Training Series: The Variance (Variance Background Information) REPORT PREPARED BY: Charley Stump, Director Planning and Community Development Rainbow Construction Sign Variance 02-49 CITY OF UKIA} 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, cA 9548 (707) 463-620 PLANNING DEPARTMEN' Applicant's Name: -Rainbow Construction Property Owner: Peter 'Richardson Address' ?O BO× 2769 Address:" PO ~BOX 2769 ' ;~': ~'-~" ...... Zip Code. Ukiah, CA Zip Code 95482 Phone: (70~ 468-5504 Address orpreciselocation ofsu~ectproperty: Ukiah, CA Phone: (707) 468-5504 294 W. Smith St, Number Street Name 0akStreet Cross Street Assessor Parcel No(s).: Project Description: Flags (Corporate) legal under .q~ gn ord~ nnco. I/we, the undersigned, solemnly understand and hereby certifY a~nd declare under penalty'Of pe~j;r~ information presented in this application and on required plans are acCurate, true and correct to the be~,t of mylo[ .... '~ ' .... ' ' ~' -": '"'i''''"'''¥ "'""~i information and belief. ,,,-':': , . ~ - I/we understand that intentional misrepresentation of factual information may invalidate develOpment entitleme-~ approvals granted by the City of Ukiah in reliance upon such information, l/we also understand that failure of tt property owner, applicant, or a duly authorized representative to appear at a hearing at which this application appe_at on the agenda may result in delayed processing of the application. I affirm that I am the owner of the real property which is the subject of the application, or that I am duly authoriz{ to represent said property owner or agent in this matter before the City of Ukiah. ,,~,~.' ~ .... ',,,.' · . .'- . , ,~.' ~~ .-*. :, .-.:~ ' , '~'F. ':'~.: · ,:-7-*:~':'~ ~ .- ~ - '; .. '.. - ~-~'. ; . ' ' .;'- .,'-'.- ~.~.*'~?;'~." '.?;.~ :i, ""*:*..' .'.' ~ , / :. '~.-" ::5': =,;.,'.~, Executed this '": 4th <iai'of the:month of November ;::~:,',-,-.and year,~:),..:,.:.:..?;,¢'~, ' ? .: .... : ~ ..... - ~. · ', · . , . '* ,.. ',. ' . ' :.- ~; r." ' .~:~.~;.,:'.~.' ., -: :.. . _ _ . . ;,,. ,,/:..'.~. ;:.'. · .., _ . .. ': .." X,4L.~Si~Iture of Applicant . (Property Owner is required to sign before permit, can be pr, o_~cessed.) .,., .. ,.: .~..:?- ~:. ;.. :;<*~-,~. :;,¥:..: ,. ,,~.. ,......-,~ ,, ,~...~..,:.,;%:&, en~ are required to submit wfiffen authorization from the pmpe~ owner/applicant.) ' ! ! November 14, 2002 Mr. Peter Richardson Rainbow Construction, Inc. 294 West Smith Street Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Sign Variance Application - Moving Rooftop Signs at 294 West Smith Street, Ukiah Dear Peter: We have determined that the Variance application you recently filed for relief from the requirements of the City Sign Ordinance is not acceptable for processing because it does not contain the information required by the Ukiah Municipal Code (UMC). The UMC requires such a Variance application to be accompanied by "sixteen (16) sets of statements, plans, and evidence" showing that the required findings for the Variance can be justified (see attached excerpts from the Code). In order to deem the Variance application acceptable for processing, please submit sixteen (16) sets of a written statement, plans, and/or other evidence justifying your request for the City to permit your signs to be located on top of the roof of your building. Additionally, the Code states that "signs which flash, revolve, move, or contain animated images or components are prohibited." Accordingly, your statement must also include a statement justifying the moving nature of the signs. Both justifications must be linked to the required findings. These are the same findings that Staff must consider and attempt to make in order to recommend approval of the project. If we are unable to successfully make the findings, we will be obligated to recommend denial of the Variance. Additionally, we need to know the dimensions of the signs, as well as any other signs that are located on the property. This information is necessary to understand the total amount of sign square footage on the site, and to determine if it complies with the maximum square footage permitted by the UMC. Once we have this information, will we have an adequate understanding of your sign Variance request, and will be able to process the application. We would like to present your project to the Planning Commission on December 11, 2002. In order to do so, we will need the required information no later than Friday, November 22, 2002. If you have any questions, oFwould like to discuss the Variance application requirements or review process, please c~5ntact me at 463-6219. ,// ~?'1~; r e_~ S t~m p_, D i~'e/¢~o r ~ning and ComCunity Development Encl. 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 7 3235: SIGN VARIANCES. Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships and results inconsistent with the general purpose of this Chapter may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, a variance may be granted as provided in §9231 et seq. of the Utdah Municipal Code. Economic hardship shall not be considered a practical difficulty, unnecessary hardship, or a result inconsistent with the general practice of this Chapter. Economic hardship is defined as the actual expense of removing the nonconforming sign or causing a conforming sign to be erected. Historical and architectural significance based upon age, design, oonstruction materials and other criteria as determined by the City Council shall be utilized in determining appropriateness of variances. The granting of a variance shall require a statement of findings by the Commission noting the facts of the particular sign, not applicable to other signs generally which justify issuance of a variance. (Ord. 756, §2, adopted 1981; amd. by Ord. 822, § 1, adopted 1983) 9231: VARIANCES: Where practical difficulties, unnecessary, hardships and results inconsistent with the general practice of this Chapter may result from the strict application of certain provisions hereof, variances may be granted as provided in this Article. (Ord. 793, §2, adopted 1982) 9232: APPLICATIONS; DATE; FEES; CONDITIONS: Application for variance shall be made to the Planning Department in writing on a form prescribed by the City Council and shall be accompanied by a fee established from time to time by resolution of the City Council along with sixteen (16) sets of statements, plans, and evidence showing: Ao That any variance granted shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. Bo That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this Chapter is found to deprive subject under identical zone classifications. C. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially or adversely affect the health or safety, of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (Ord. 793, {}2, adopted 1982) /-7 §3225 §3226 K) signing to ensure that it offers no hazard to the safe movement to traffic and also that it does not block permanent identification signs on neighboring properties. (Ord. 756, §2, adopted 1981; amd. by Ord. 822, §1, adopted 1983) "m~m""~ll §3226: PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are prohibited within the City: A. Flashing, rotating, animated, blinking and moving signs. Be Miscellaneous signs and posters and the tacking, pasting or otherwise affixing of signs of a miscellaneous character visible from a public right of way. Signs located on the wall of buildings, barns, sheds, trees, poles, posts, fences or other structures are prohibited unless provided for under other provisions of these regulations. Any sign affixed to any vehicle or trailer on a public right of way or public property unless the vehicle or trailer is intended to be used in its official capacity and not for the sole purpose of attracting people to a place of business. D, Banners, pennants, searchlights, twirling signs, signs on sidewalks, balloons or other gas-filled figures. Signs described above may be permitted at the opening of a new business or for special events with prior approval of the Director of Community Development only for a total period not exceeding thirty (30) days. Flags other than those of any nation or corporation. Portable or wheeled signs, unless used for real estate purposes, in which case the sign must be placed on the offered property. Go Any sign that utilizes visible guy wires, angle irons and iron frame structures, unless construction is otherwise impossible. H. Signs emitting audible sounds, odor or visible matter. Signs which purport to be, or are an imitation of, or resemble an official traffic sign or signal, or which bear the words 'stop', 'go slow", "caution", "danger", "warning" or similar words. U. Signs, which by reason of their site, location, movement, content, coloring or manner of illumination, may be confused with or constructed as a traffic-control sign, signal or device, or the light of a road or emergency equipment vehicle. ' 3041 §3226 §3226 Ke Me Ne Outlining of a building by means of exposed neon tubing, exposed incandescent lighting or other artificial lighting or an equivalent effect is prohibited. Signs which are located on or,project over the roof of a building or structure. Off-premise signs shall not be permitted within the City limits except real estate "open house" signs not exceeding six (6) square feet placed on private property with permission of the property owner (directional type). Such signs allowed only during hours of open house. Corner Properties: Signs from ground level to eight feet (8') in height shall be prohibited in the area formed measuring at the property line a distance of thirty feet (30') from the point of intersection of the two (2) streets and connecting at these lines in triangular fashion. (Ord. 756, §2, adopted 1981; amd. by Ord. 822, §1, adopted 1983) 3O42 Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 405 W. Perkins Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 e-mail: drapport@pacbell.net David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson Mary Jane Sheppard (7O7) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 Peter Richardson, President Rainbow Contruction P.O.,Box 2769 Ukia'h, CA. 95482 June 13, 2002 Re: Sign Code violation @ 294 W. Smith Street · Dear Mr. Richardson: I was given a copy of your letter to Mayor Ashiku, dated June 10. I thought I would provide you with the reading of the Ukiah City Code which led the City Council to co~ctude that the five flags mounted atop the roof of your building violate the City's sign code. It may not make any difference to your views toward the City, but the City Council voted as it did, not because the council members dislike your flags or even find them unattractive. They had the same concern you express in your letter; that the City's sign ordinance be applied even-handedly according to its terms. The Council did not feel it could ignore the violation on your property and then enforce the ordinance against another business which was violating the ordinance in the same way. Given Rainbow's past support of certain community events, the City could be accused of giving your business special treatment, if it ignores your company's violations. Ukiah City Code Section 3200.55 defines "sign" to mean: ·.. a visual communications device used to convey a message to its viewers. A sign shall mean and include every advertising message, announcement, declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, insignia, surface or space erected or maintained in view of the observer thereof for identification, advertisement or promotion of the interests of any person, entity, product or service. As you can see the basic definition of "sign" is very broad. You have described the displays on the roof of your building as "corporate flags," that is, a rectangular piece of cloth of distinctive color and design displaying the corporate logo of your company. That description comes within the City sign ordinance definition of "sign," since it is a device used to identify your business by displaying your corporate insignia. / _../ Letter to Richardson Page 2 Subject: Violations of Sign Ordinance Date: The term "corporate flag," which you rely In, is contained in Ukiah City Code Section 3226, entitled: Prohibited Signs. That section lists signs ~vhich are ~rohibited in the City. It is not, as you seem to treat it, a list of display devices which are exempt ~rom the sign ordinance. Ukiah City Code Section 3224, not Section 3226, contains a list of signs that ~re exempt from the permit requirements of the sign ordinance, and corporate flag is not listed in Section :~224. Subsection E in Section 3226 includes in ihe list of prohibited signs, "flags other than those of any nation or corporation" In other words, flags in g~neral are signs, but they are prohibited signs. Flags of any nation or corporation are signs, but they are not prohibited. Flags of any nation or corporation are sigr~s that are subject to the other provisions of the sign ordinance. Unless exempt from the permit requireme[qt, all signs require a permit. (UCC Section 3220.) Flags are not exempt from the permit requirements. (See Section 3224.) ~'iSigns cannot be constructed on the roof of a building, project over the roof of a building, or exceed the / height of the building, if attached to the building. (UCC Section 3226.L, 3227(A)7.) However, free ~ standing signs, such as a flag on a flag pole (not ~:~ached to the building), may be as high as 30 feet, j re~_.gardless of the height of the building. (Section 3227(A)7.) ,.__~.~ u'""~ased on these rules, your flags violate Sections 3220 (installed without a permit) and sections 3226L (installed on the roof and attached to the building and extending above the height of the building). There may be ways to display your flags on your property in compliance with the sign ordinance, but the current method chosen by you violates the ordinance. Section 3235 which allows you to apply to the City Council for a variance from the requirements of the sign ordinance provides another option you could pursue. If the City ignores these violations after they have been brought to its attention or expressly allows you to vioJate the ordinance without your pursuing available options to legalize your flags, it will be hard pressed to'enforce the ordinance against another business. The sign ordinance was adopted in 1983. It is under review by the Planning Department. These rules may need revision, perhaps signs like yours should be allowed, perhaps permits should not be ss extensively required as they are now. You and other concerned citizens will have opportunities to influence revisions to the sign ordinance as it undergoes review. In the meantime, the City is not intentionally singling you out for unfair treatment. On the contrary, it is striving to apply its existing rules fairly and evenhandedly. If you know of other businesses which are violating these provisions of the sign ordinance, you can bring these to the City's attention, and I believe the City will pursue those violations as well. City Attorney cc: Candace Horsley, City Manager Mayor Phil Ashiku . Charlie Stump, Planning Director /-/'-5 The Variance Page 1 of 10 THE PLANNER'S TRAINING SERIES' The Variancc Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400Tenth Street - Sacramento, CA 95814 · 916-445-0613 July 1997 This document is one in a series prepared by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on topics of general interest to planners. As with the rest of this series, its primary purpose is to provide both a reference for experienced planners and training materials for new planners, planning commissioners, and zoning board members. Citations are made to pertinent sections of the California statutes and to court decisions in order to provide the reader the opportunity to do additional research on their own. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the California Government Code. · What is a Variance? · Enablin~ Leo_islation · Procedure o Public Hearing o California Environmental Quality Act o Permit Streamlining Act · }Limitations on the Common Variances ·/other Types of Variances o Parking Variance o Open-Space Variance o "Granny" Unit Variance · Variance Findings · Conditions oFApl>roval · Examples o Cases Upholding Variance Approvals o Cases Overturning Variance Approvals · Variance Uhecklist · t3i[2!iography WHAT IS A VARIANCE? Simply put, a variance is a limited exception to the usual requirements of local zoning. As the following discussion xvill explain, when a city or county is confronted with development on an unusual piece of property, the variance procedure can lend some flexibility to the usual standards of the zoning ordinance. Approval of a variance allows the property owner "to use his property in a manner basically consistent with the established regulations with such minor variations as will place him in parity with - The Variance Page 2 of 10 other property owners in the same zone" (Longtin's California Land Use, 2nd edition). TOP ENABLING LEGISLATION State law specifies the basic rules under which counties and general law cities may consider variance proposals. Charter cities are not subject to these procedures unless they have incorporated them into their municipal ordinance. The following discussion will take a detailed look at the state law relating to variances in counties and general law cities. . The authority to consider variances is as follows: "Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification." "Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special Privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated." "A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits." (Section 65906) Later,In this paper, we will take a brief look at three other variance statutes. Section 65906.5 authorizes the grant of a variance from the parking requirements of a zoning ordinance in order to allow parking to 6ccur off-site or for in-lieu fees to be paid. Section 65911 authorizes the granting of variances in open space zones. Section 65852.1 provides that a variance may be approved allowing a second dwelling unit on property zoned for single-family residential use if the occupant is 62 years or older. TOP PROCEDURE Approval of a variance is an administrative act. Unlike a rezoning or an amendment to a general plan, consideration of a variance does not involve the establishment of new codes, regulations, or policies, but rather applies the provisions of the zoning ordinance to a particular circumstance. State law provides that the city council or county board of supervisors may delegate responsibility for considering and deciding variance requests. Commonly, responsibility is delegated to a board of zoning adjustment or a zoning administrator. Public ltearing The Variance Page 3 of 10 Section 65905 requires the city or county to hold a public hearing on proposed variances. Ten-days advance notice of the hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the community and mailed directly to the applicant and land owner, as well as to owners of properties located within 300 feet of the site boundaries (Section 65091 provides detailed requirements). Nearby property owners must be provided notice even if their property is located outside the jurisdiction's boundaries (Scott v. Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541). The hearing must comply with the open meeting requirements set out in the Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Act (Section 54950, et seq.). The notice of hearing must include a description of the proposal and the variance process, the location of the property involved, the identity of the hearing body or administrator, and the date, time, and place of the public hearing (Section 65094). The notice must also specify whether the proposal has been determined to be categorically exempt or if a negative declaration or environmental impact report has been prepared. As much as possible, the hearing notice should be written in plain language and avoid planning jargon. The purpose of the hearing is for the zoning board or zoning administrator to hear and consider the opinions of the proponent and nearby property owners. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board or administrator will decide whether or not to approve the variance. If the variance is approved, the board or administrator will adopt findings to support their action. Their decision, whether for approval or denial, can be appealed to a higher body (the planning commission, for example) in accordance with the city or county zoning ordinance. Section 65901 allows the city council or county board of supervisors to specifically authorize its board of zoning adjustment or zoning administrator to decide variance applications without a public hearing. The local zoning ordinance must set out the particular types of variances subject to this rule, as well as the maximum extent of variation from standards which may be allowed. Notwithstanding the cavalier approach of Section 65901, the Office of Planning and Research recommends providing the applicant and neighboring property owners at least the opportunity to request a public hearing on any variance proposal which may affect their property rights. For example, the city may mail notice indicating that no hearing will be held unless specifically requested. This recognizes the due process guarantee of the U.S. Constitution and complies .with the holding of the California Supreme Court in Horn v. County of Yentura (1979) 24 C.3d 605. California Environmental Quality Act Variances are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.). Prior to the public hearing on the proposed variance, the city or county must evaluate the proposal to determine whether or not it may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In most cases, a variance is sufficiently innocuous to be categorically exempt from environmental review (see Section 15305 of the state CEQA Guidelines). Where the proposal is not exempt, the city or county must prepare either a negative declaration indicating that the variance is not exempt, but nonetheless will have no significant effect, or an environmental impact report whi4h describes the expected impacts of the proposal and the means to avoid or lessen those impacts. Permit Streamlining Act Variance proceedings are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Section 65920, et seq.). Accordingly, a variance proposal for ~vhich a negative declaration was adopted or a CEQA exemption used must be acted upon within three months of that action. If an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified for the variance, the application must be acted upon within 6 months of that certification. Further, a The Variance Page 4 of 10 variance cannot be disapproved solely to comply with these deadlines. TOP LIMITATIONS ON THE COMMON VARIANCES Pursuant to Section 65906, a variance may be granted when: (1) there are specific physical circumstances that distinguish the project site from its surroundings; and (2) these unique circumstances would create an unnecessary hardship fo~ the applicant if the usual zoning standards were imposed. Variances are limited to those situations where the peculiar physical characteristics of a site make it difficult to develop under standard regulations. A variance is granted in order to bring the disadvantaged property up to the level of use enjoyed by nearby properties in the same zone. For instance, where the steep rear portion of a residential lot makes the site otherwise undevelopable, a variance might be approved to reduce the front yard setback and thereby create sufficient room for a home on the lot. Similarly, a parcel's shape might preclude construction of a garage unless side yard setback requirements are reduced by approval of a variance. Reviexv of a proposed variance must be limited solely to the physical circumstances of the property. "The standard of hardship with regard to applications for variances relates to the property, not to the person who owns it" (California Zoning Practice, Hagman, et al.). Financial hardship, community benefit, or the worthiness of the project are not considerations in determining whether to approve a variarlt:e (Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145). As California Zoning Practice succinctly explains, [t]he test of bringing property to parity is based on equality of the property rather than equality of the owners." (emphasis added) Furthermore, consideration of a variance must focus upon the zoning standard or standards from which an exception is being requested. "[Al variance applicant may not earn immunity from one code provision merely by overcompliance with others. Otherwise, the board charged with reviewing development proposals 'would then be empowered to decide which code provisions to enforce in any given case; that power does not properly repose in any administrative tribunal' (Broadway, Laguna Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767)." (Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisors, supra). Variances are only for usc in unusual, individual circumstances. There is no basis for granting a variance if the circumstances of the project site cannot be distinguished from those on surrounding lots. For example, all things being equal, in a subdivision where lots are uniformly 40 feet wide, there is no basis for allowing one lot to be developed with reduced side yard setbacks. Conditions must be imposed on a variance when necessary to avoid granting the applicant a special privilege. As will be discussed later, these conditions must be reasonably related to the development being authorized. A variance does not change the zoning of the project site, so it cannot permit uses other than those already allowed under existing zoning. Section 65906 prohibits the approval of"use variances." Nor is a /-/7 The Variance Page 5 of 10 variance intended to be used in place of design review standards. The law does not intend that every or even one-quarter of the properties on a block be granted the same kind of variance. If development within a particular area is commonly leading to requests for consideration of variances, then the city or county should reassess the standards of the applicable zone and, if necessary, change them. At the same time, the approval or denial of a variance does not create a precedent for subsequent variance requests. Because each variance is based upon special circumstances relating to the site for which it is proposed, the past grant or denial of variances for other properties in the area does not mandate similar action on the part of the hearing body (Miller v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 539). The applicant for a variance bears the burden of proving that special circ. umstances exist to justify its granting (PMIMortgage Ins. Co. v. City of Pacific Grove (1982) 128 Cal. App.3d 724). The hearing body must not approve a variance unless it can make written findings, supported by substantial evidence in the record, that the variance meets the criteria of Section 65906. A variance runs with the land. Subsequent owners of the land continue to enjoy the variance. The original land owner cannot transfer the variance to another site, nor can the local agency approve a variance on the condition that it remain owned by a particular person (Corn v. County Board of Supervisors (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 180). -FOP OTHER TYPES OF VARIANCES State law also allows variances to required parking regulations, to open space zoning, and for "granny" units. ~ach of the following statutes has its own findings requirements, some of which differ from those of Section 65906. In all cases, public notice and hearing must be provided pursuant to Section 65905. Parking variance (Section 65906.5): "Notwithstanding section 65906, a variance may be granted from the parking requirements of a zoning ordinance in order that some or all of the required parking spaces be located offsite, including locations in other local jurisdictions, or that in-lieu fees or facilities be provided instead of the required parking spaces, if both the following conditions are met: (a) The variance will be an incentive to, and a benefit for, the nonresidential development. (b) The variance will facilitate access to the nonresidential development by patrons of public transit facilities, particularly guideway facilities." Section 65906.5 authorizes variances to the non-residential (i.e., commercial, industrial, recreational, etc.), on-site parking requirements contained in a local zoning ordinance. Such a variance may authorize locating required parking spaces off site. It may also authorize the landowner to provide in-lieu fees or facilities instead of required parking spaces. It does not authorize reducing the number of required spaces unless in-lieu fees or facilities are provided. The local agency must adopt findings describing the incentive and benefit being provided to thel_/non- The Variance Page 6 of 10 residential use. These findings must also describe how the variance will facilitate access to the development by riders of public transit. Open-Space variance (Section 65911): "Variances from the terms of open-space zoning ordinance shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. "Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Thig section shall be literally and strictly interpreted and enforced so as to protect the interest of the public in the orderly growth and development of cities and counties and in the preservation and conservation of open-space lands." This statute is nearly identical to Section 65906 and is subject to basically the same findings requirements. Its purpose is to clarify that variances may be granted to the terms of open-space zoning provided that the provisions of that zoning are not compromised. "Granny" unit variance (Section 65852.1): "NomSthstanding section 65906, any city, including a charter city, county, or city and county may issue a zoning variance, special use permit, or conditional use permit for a dwelling unit to be constructed, or which is attached to or detached from, a primary residence on a parcel zoned for a single-family residence, if the dwelling unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are 62 years of age or over, and the area of floor space of the attached dwelling unit does not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area or the area of the floor space of the detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1200 square feet." , Section 65852.1 allows a variance to be used like a conditional use permit in order to allow construction of an accessory dwelling for elderly residents. Prior to approval of a variance under Section 65852.1 the city or county must find that the resident or residents meet the age criteria, and that the floor area of the proposed unit does not exceed that allowed by the statute. The findings required for a common variance under Section 65906 do not apply. In contrast to Section 65906, the granny unit statute applies both to charter and general law cities and specifically authorizes the granting of a "use" variance. VARIANCE FINDINGS When approving a variance, the hearing bodv must make "findings of fact" to support its action (Topan.ga Association for a Scenic Communit, y v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 C.3d 506). The agency must also make the findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and by local ordinance, if any. '. /-/7 The Variance Page 7 of 10 Findings are important. They explain the hearing body's reasons for approving the proposal before it. The purpose for making findings is to "bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision" (Topanga, supra). In the event that the decision is challenged, a court will examine the evidence embodied in the findings to determine whether the hearing body abused its discretion when acting on the variance. An abuse of discretion will be found when the agency did not proceed in a manner prescribed by law, when the decision is not supported by findings, and when the findings are not supported by evidence in the administrative record. Variance findings must describe the special circumstances that physically differentiate the project site from its neighbors. Further, the findings must specify the "unnecessary hardship" that would result from these circumstances in the event that a variance was not approved. Defensible findings are based on the pertinent evidence that was avail~able to the decisionmakers. Findings should be more than a mere recitation of statutory requirements; they must provide the factual basis that leads to the conclusion drawn by the approving agency. In the absence of findings, approval of the variance "would [amount] to the kind of'special privilege' explicitly prohibited by Government Code section 65906." (Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisors, supra) For a detailed discussion of findings requirements, see OPR's publication entitled Bridging the Gap. 'FOP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Section 65906 requires that the variance be subjected to those conditions of approval necessary to ensure that it?will not be a grant of special privilege. The conditions are meant to maintain parity between the variance site and surrounding properties. For example, if an increase in fence height is requested due to a steeply sloping rear yard, the approved height might be required to be low enough so that neighbors' viexvs would not be obstructed and the increased height would not be noticeable. The conditions which may be placed on a variance are limited by Section 65909. It requires that dedications of land must be "reasonably related" to the use of the property for which the variance is granted. In addition, a performance bond cannot be required for the installation of public improvements that are not reasonably related to the property use. Limitations on impact fees are described in the Mitigation Fee Act (Section 66000, et seq.). Generally, the conditions applied to the variance must have an "essential nexus" to some legitimate public need or burden created as a result of the variance approval (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 97 L.Ed2nd 677). Furthermore, there must be a "rough proportionality" between the extent of the condition and the particular demand or impact of the project.(Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 129 L.Ed2nd 304). For instance, if a variance is granted allowing a back yard fence to be built two feet higher than usual, there are probably no grounds to impose a condition requiring the landowner to contribute to a road improvement fund. Itowever, it would be proper to regulate the design of the fence. The burden of proof to justify proposed exactions rests with the city or county (Dolan, supra). The Variance Page 8 of 10 EXAMPLES The following court cases illustrate when it may be proper to grant a variance and xvhen it may not be. These cases are illustrations only and should not be used as the sole basis for granting or denying a variance. Cases Upholding Variance Approvals Special Circumstances Special circumstances supported approval of a variance from off-street parking requirements for an apartment building when the building was to be located near three public parking garages and many of the tenants would not own cars (Siller v. Board of Supervisors (1962) 58 C.2d 479). A variance reducing the amount of required off-street parking was justified when the landowner would otherwise have had to partially demolish a building and fill a portion of the bay below high tide line in order to meet the parking standard (Zakessian v. City of Sausalito (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 794). Distinction of the Site From its Surroundings A court upheld issuance of a variance allowing expansion of a hotel without satisfying a requirement that 80% of its accommodations consist of detached cottages (Miller v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 539). The court held that the hotel in question could be distinguished from the other hotels in its zone because of landscaping and design features that dated from before zoning was enacted. Cases Overturning Variance Approvals Special Circumstances Subsoil conditions that would increase the cost of building a high-rise and reduce its anticipated income, but which were common to similar high-rise structures, were not "special circumstances" sufficient to support the grant of a variance (Broadway, Laguna, Etc. Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 C.2d 767). The court reversed the city's approval. Where a showin~ could not be made that special circumstances existed sufficient to distinguish the subject property~from its neighbors, the city was not required to issue a variance (PMI Mortgage Ins. Co. v. City of Pacific Grove (1981) 128 Cal.App.3d 724). Desirable project design, community benefit, and the alleged superiority of the proposed design to development under existing zoning regulations were irrelevant for purposes of judging whether or not to grant a variance (Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145). The court held that a building height variance could not be granted, regardless of the alleged benefits of the project, absent a finding detailing the special circumstances that justified its issuance. Distinction of the Site From its Surroundings I- 2,/ The Variance Page 9 of 10 A variance allowing a 96-space mobilehome park on 28 acres in a mountainous area that was zoned for single residences on 1-acre minimum lots was overturned because the county's findings only described the subject property and not the conditions which distinguished it from surrounding properties (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles 91974) 11 C.3d 506). Unnecessary Hardship Self-induced hardship is not grounds for variance approval. Voluntary sale of an adjoining parcel of land leaving a remainder parcel that was too small for the intended purpose was not an "unnecessary hardship" for purposes of granting a variance (Town of Atherton v. Templeton (1961) 198 Cal. App.2d 146. Procedure/Public Notice A property owner's failure to receive notification of a zone change was not sufficient basis for later granting a variance from the new zone's floor area ratio standards (Cow Hollow Improvement Club v. Board of Permit Appeals (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 160). The variance approval was overturned by the court. A hearing notice which notified neighbors of a variance for a proposed garage "to provide shelter and security for vehicles no~v parked on [the] driveway" was insufficient to apprise them of the potential impacts on their property rights of the actual consideration of a two-story dwelling and garage unit (Drum v. Fresno County Department of Public Works (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 777). The inaccurate project description failed to meet statutory and Constitutional due process notice requirements. TOP APPENDIX Variance Checklist Ifa variance is to be approved, all of the following questions must be answered affirmatively, 1. Are there special circumstances applicable to the proposal site which distinguish it from nearby properties with the same zoning? II'yes, check at least one of the following to identil\? the circumstances: size shape topography location surroundings 2. I)o the above circumstances create an "unneccssaB' hardship" unique to the involved property which would deprive it of privileges enjoyed by nearby properties with the same zoning? The Variance Page 10 of 10 If yes, explain. 3. Is the use for which the variance is proposed already allowed in that zone? If yes, cite the applicable code. 4. Are the proposed conditions of approval related to and proportional to the impacts caused by the use proposed by the variance? If yes, explain. 5. Do the proposed conditions of approval ensure that the variance will .not be a grant of special privilege? If yes, explain. 6. Have findings been drafted which specify the facts supporting approval of the variance on the basis of each of the above items? TOP BIBLIOGRAPHY For more information about variances, we recommend the following references. Bridging the Gap: Using Findings in Local Land Use Decisions, by Robert Cervantes, second edition (Governor's Office of Planning and Research), 1989. This booklet outlines the principles of findings in detail. California Land Use and Planning Law, by Daniel J. Curtin Jr., 1996 edition (Solano Press, Point Arena, CA), revised annually. A look at the planning, zoning, subdivision, and environmental quality laws. including variances, as interpreted by numerous court cases. California Zoning Practice, by Donald Hagman, et al., April 1996 Supplement by John K. Chapin (Continuing Education of the Bar, Berkeley, CA), 1969. This text reviews state zoning law in detail. Longtin's California Land Use, 2nd edition, by James Longtin, 1996 Supplement (Local Government Publications, Malibu, CA), 1988. This reference text on planning and land use law contains an excellent discussion of the variance, legal considerations, and limits on exactions. "Variances and the Zoning Board." by Frederick H. Bair, Jr., Planning, July 1984, pp. 20 T()I> 8B. Major Variance No. 02-49 as filed by Rainbow Construction, Inc. to allow the placement of six approximate 8-foot tall by 1-foot wide si.qns/corporate fla.qs on top of his buildin.q, where the City Si.qn Re.qulations prohibit si.qns/fia.qs from bein; placed on the roof of a buildin.q. The property is located at 294 West Smith Street, Ukiah (^PN 002-1 ;33-04). Planning Director Stump reported a Variance application has been filed seeking relief from the sign regulations contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code, noting the City Sign Ordinance prohibits signs/flags from being placed on the roof of a building. The applicant is requesting approval to place six signs/corporate flags containing the company logo on the roof of his corporate headquarters. The staff report provides a chronology of events that has led to the filing of the Sign Variance application. The Ukiah City Council, in a hearing, determined that the signs/flags were in violation of the City Sign Ordinance. The Code requires Variance applicants to submit statements, plans, and evidence explaining how the required Variance findings can be made for their projects. Moreover, the Planning Commission must successfully make three findings in order to approve the Sign Variance to allow signs to be placed on the roof, to include: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the sign regulations deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and subject to the identical regulations. The issuance of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations. The granting of the Sign Variance to Rainbow Construction will not be detrimental to surrounding property owners. Staff conducted a study of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood in conjunction with how they were developed, what type of signage they had, and how they compared with the Rainbow Construction property. Based on this information, Staff was unable to make two of the three required findings for approval of the Variance. Staff recommended denial of the Sign Variance application due to an inability to make the required findings. He stated one favorable aspect concerning Finding no. 3 of the Variance is that the signs/flags have been appropriately secured on the building and would not pose a threat to the public health and safety. Staff concluded there is nothing physically different about the property in terms of its size, shape, topography or surroundings that gives it a disadvantage compared to other nearby parcels relative to the ability to erect signs in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. Moreover, staff concluded that the granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because it would allow signs on the roof of the subject building, where no other buildings in the area have roof signs. Therefore, staff was able to make two of the three findings required for Variance approval. The staff report provides for the Findings of Fact supporting denial of the Variance application as follows: 1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location of surroundings, that the strict application of the sign regulations deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other nearby properties for the following reasons: There is nothing physically different about the subject parcel in terms of its size, shape, topography or surroundings that gives it a disadvantage MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page .5 ,, 2002 . compared to other nearby parcels in terms of an ability to erect signs in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. ooo The physical characteristics and development on the property are comparable to those of other commercial properties in the area of similar size and intensity of use, and there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that create an unnecessary hardship on the owner to erect signs in compliance with the City Sign Regulations. The issuance of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations for the following reasons: °oo It would allow signs on the roof of the subject building, where no other buildings in the area have roof signs. °°o The amount of legal signage Rainbow Construction has on its property is similar to that of other commercial land uses in the area, and the Variance is not necessary to place them in parity with other property owners subject to the same sign regulations. Mr. Stump drew attention to correspondence from Peter Richardson provided for in the staff report and a letter hand delivered to the Planning Department today that address/question staff's Findings and conclusions relevant to approval of the Variance including the Code's definition of a sign. He requested the Planning Commission carefully consider the contents of these letters. It was noted the Ukiah City Code Sections 3226 (E) and (L), refer to the term "corporate flag" as a "prohibited sign." In other words, flags other than those of any nation or corporation and/or signs located on or project over the roof of building or structure are prohibited within the City. The City Attorney noted in his letter of June 13, 2002, that under UCC Section 3220 all signs require a permit unless exempt from the permit requirement and flags are not exempt from the permit requirements according to UCC Section 3224. Furthermore, signs cannot be constructed on the roof of a building, project over the roof of a building, or exceed the height of the building, if attached to the building. However, free standing signs such as a flag on a flagpole and not attached to the building may be as high as 30 feet regardless of the building height, according to UCC Section 3227(^)7. Therefore, flags installed without a permit and installed on the roof and attached to the building, extending above the height of the building are in violation of the existing City Sign Ordinance. Planning Commission Questions to Staff: Commissioner Chiles inquired whether a Planning Commission discretionary review would be necessary if the flags/banners were other than the corporate logo. Mr. Stump referred to the definition of "sign" provided for in the Ukiah City Code Section 3200.55 that reads in part, "a visual communications device used to convey a message to its viewers. A sign shall mean and include every advertising message, announcement, declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, insignia, surface or space erected or maintained in view of the observer thereof for identification, advertisement or promotion of the interests of any person, entity, product or service," noting the basic definition is very broad. In other words, if the Rainbow Construction corporate insignia was not on the flags, it could very well correspond with the definition of a sign. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 December 11, 2002 Commissioner Chiles stated if the flag, for example, possessed persons with hammers or saws and/or other similar graphics, it may be considered a sign. Mr, Stump replied affirmatively, noting the definition of a sign is a visual communications device used to convey a message to its viewers. It was noted staff is in the process of revising the current Sign Ordinance for the purpose of striving to apply its existing rules reasonably and evenhandedly. Commissioner Chiles inquired regarding the source of a comment by Peter Richardson that the Ukiah City Code, as it relates to signage, is an "admittedly poorly written statute." Mr. Stump stated the applicant may be referring to the Code section that addresses "Prohibited Signs." Chairman Mulheren inquired whether the revised Sign Ordinance would address rooftop signs. Mr. Stump stated although the Sign Ordinance revisions and/or discussions have not been completed, the draft language would preclude rooftop signs. He stated many communities do not allow rooftop signs. Mr. Richardson indicated Burger King and Wal-Mart have rooftop flags. Staff is researching the Wal-Mart sign issue to determine whether such allowance was granted as part of the original project approval. On the other hand, Burger King's corporate and other flags on the rooftop were removed at staff's request. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:19 p.m. Peter Richardson, 311 Sanel Drive, Ukiah, Applicant, addressed the chronology of events provided for in the staff report, noting his perspective of the Variance process may differ. The Sign Ordinance specifically provides for an exemption pertinent for flags of a nation or a corporation. He researched the definition of a "flag" as outlined in the Sign Ordinance and concluded that there is no definition in spite of the extensive glossary of associated terms. He did not intend for this issue to consume the Ukiah City Council's or the Planning Commission's time "over such a silly matter." He stated, in his opinion, the interpretation of the sign statute varies. It is obvious to the passerby that his business has flagpoles containing flags on the building. The flags were not put up to advertise anything and were put up as corporate flags. He stated there are many examples of corporate flags in this community, noting Wal-Mart has an American flag on its building. He noted the City Sign Ordinance has regulations regarding the flying of the State flag. He referred to the statute as being "poorly written." He stated the governmental buildings in town possess flagpoles, noting governmental agencies are exempt from the regulations. He was not supportive of the fact that governmental agencies are allowed special interpretations of the sign statute and that private enterprises are not. He stated the corporate flags on his building are clearly exempt from the statute. He relied on the law in good faith, stating the intent of the corporate flags was to beautify the neighborhood. Rainbow Construction consulted with the surrounding neighbors prior to placement of the corporate flags and the responses were positive. He commented on the three findings that must be made in order to approve the Variance. First, the Variance request must not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, stating that corporate flags have existed on his building in every decade since it was built in 1946. Again, there are flagpoles on buildings all over town. His concluded that by allowing him MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 December 11, 2002 corporate flags on his building as an exemption under the Sign Ordinance would not be a grant of special privilege because other businesses/agencies in the community have flags on their buildings, including the American flag. In short, allowing Rainbow Construction to have corporate flags on his building would not be a grant of special privilege since this action would be consistent with what is presently occurring on other properties in the community. Secondly, he addressed the finding that because of special circumstances/unique situations applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the sign regulations would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. He noted erecting flagpoles with a corporate flag on his property would be legal. Unfortunately, his property does not have a front lawn to place the flagpoles, as his building occupies the entire lot with the exception of six/seven tightly packed parking spaces, thus creating a unique/special circumstance applicable to his property. He noted his surrounding neighbors have the space to place flagpole and/or opportunity to display their corporate flag, noting the Law Offices of Vogel and Rosen, the U S Post Office have flagpoles, and Savings Bank of Mendocino County have flagpoles on their properties. He read the definition of a flag according to the American Heritage dictionary, "As a piece of cloth of distinctive color and design used as a symbol, a signal or an emblem." In conclusion, his rooftop flags represent an emblem of the corporation, a symbol of the company's diversity, and a sculptural signal of the wind direction. He recommended the Variance be granted to Rainbow Construction, Inc. Chairman Mulheren stated the public is familiar with the location of Rainbow Construction and inquired why six corporate flags were placed on top of the building. Mr. Richardson replied the flags were placed in various corners on the roof, incorporating no real logic other than it would be architecturally pleasing. Chairman Mulheren stated the flags look nice, but the problem is that they are mounted to the roof, which according to the statute, makes the flags illegal whether they are considered corporate flags or signs. Mr. Richardson stated the flags are illegal if the exemption was not meant to really apply. For example, there is no language in the Sign Ordinance that addresses placement of a flagpole on a lawn and/or instructions as to how to place such a pole. Mr. Stump reiterated there is text in the Sign Ordinance that addresses erecting a flag on a flagpole that cannot exceed 30 feet in height. Chairman Mulheren addressed Mr. Richardson's comment regarding Rainbow Construction's parking lot conditions, and questioned, if the flagpoles and flags must be removed from the rooftop in the event the Variance is denied, why would it be necessary to remove all of the on-site parking spaces to mount the flagpoles. Mr. Richardson responded he could erect any one of a number of flagpoles containing corporate flags on his property that are not affixed to the building and he did not observe any text stating he was not allowed to do so. He stated the aforementioned would not be his intent and he recommended an equitable compromise be formulated. He stated the flags were not initially placed as a means of being displeasing. The intent was to add some creative 'design to an otherwise dreary building. It was noted a legal non-conforming sign exists on the building. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 December 11, 2002 Commissioner Chiles inquired whether the existing metal sign could be removed and replaced with a flag whether it would be considered legal non-conforming. Mr. Stump stated staff would have to research this issue, noting a Use Permit would be required if there was an expansion of the non-conformity by making the sign larger. He stated the option of changing the sign copy to increase the non-conformity of the sign may not be allowed under the Code, as presently written. Donna Berry, 2701 Millcreek, Ukiah, stated the intent of City administrators has been to encourage local commercial businesses to assist with Downtown beautification, by creatively enhancing their buildings. She asked the public to consider whether the corporate flags enhance or detract from the overall look of the Downtown, noting from this perspective, the answer would be that the flags are actually not offensive and enhance the overall look. She requested that the Variance be granted based on the visual aspects of the flags in order to encourage property owners to make improvements, even though they may not fall within the finite guidelines, and to be thoughtfully considered by the City as to their overall effect. John McGowen, Ukiah, stated Mr. Richardson has made a "creative stab" at developing the necessary Variance findings. He suggested that there are many inconsistencies with the City's Sign Ordinance, and recommended the City be more consistent in its enforcement of the Ordinance, particularly along the main corridors. Mike Swavey, Ukiah, expressed his belief that the sign matter is really about pride of ownership and maintaining appropriate appearance of a building. The City should be more concerned with encouraging property owners to take pride in the general appearance of their buildings. Mary Lindley, 700 East Gobbi Street, Ukiah, addressed the Commission, stating the Sign Ordinance is poorly written, and for that reason, the Variance should be granted. Gary Zeek, Ukiah, explained as a neighbor of Rainbow Construction, his experience has been positive and recommended acceptance of the Variance. Doug Anderson, Ukiah, Principal of Rainbow Construction, addressed the issue of enforcement of the Sign Ordinance and the lack of consistency thereof. Maury McCIoud, Ukiah stated, as a neighbor of Rainbow Construction, he appreciates the beauty of the flags, noting many other businesses in town have similar flags on their roofs. Joy Beeler, 1031 Crystal Bay Court, Ukiah, stated the intent of the Sign Ordinance is to keep the City beautiful and maintained safely, and inquired with that in mind, if the flags conflict with this intent. Chairman Mulheren inquired whether Rainbow Construction intends to keep the flags in satisfactory condition should the Variance be granted. Mr. Richardson replied affirmatively and stated the flags would be replaced when needed so an aesthetically pleasing appearance is maintained. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:52 p.m. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 December 11, 2002 Planning Commission Discussion: Planning Director Stump stated there has been a diversity of public comment concerning the appearance of the flags. Staff is aware of other flag violations in the City, and the future City Code Compliance Officer would be working diligently to address many of the flag/sign concerns in the community. Staff agreed the appearance of Rainbow Construction's building has improved over the years, but this aspect was not the issue. He referred to the applicant's testimony regarding flags in conjunction with the existing Sign Ordinance, noting Mr. Richardson's interpretation of the Ordinance revealed that his flags/signs were exempt. He clarified that Mr. Richardson's reference of the Code section relative to exemption pertained to "Prohibited Signs" and not "Exempt Signs." He noted the Code section lists many types of signs that are prohibited, noting that item E states, "Flags other than those of any nation or corporation" are illegal. This means that corporate flags are not prohibited signs and that flags are considered signs. However, signs located on or projecting over the roof of a building or structure are prohibited. The Code contains a section entitled, "Signs Exempt," which require a permit. Corporate flags are not listed as an exempt sign. He noted there may be some misinterpretation regarding what the Code signifies as flag/sign exemptions as opposed to what flags/signs are considered prohibited. Staff believes Rainbow Construction was acting in good faith when putting the signs up. However, whether or not Rainbow Construction acted with good intentions is not the case, but the flags and/or signs, as defined in the Code, are prohibited from being placed on the roof of buildings. It is the City's responsibility to enforce the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Correll inquired regarding clarification of Variance Finding No. 2 and whether applying for a Variance actually nullifies a special privilege. Mr. Stump replied the Finding means that if the granting of a Variance constitutes giving special privilege to a particular property as opposed to other properties in the neighborhood, the finding cannot satisfactorily be made. Commissioner Edwards stated the issue of the appearance should matter in this case. She was supportive of the signs and appreciates what the statute represents, but believes the rules may not allow enough flexibility to express creativity. She supported the three findings for the granting of the Variance. Commissioner Chiles commented an Ordinance revision may allow for some rooftop signs with approval of a Use Permit, noting some discretionary view is necessary. However, at this point, granting a Variance for one person would create precedence for other persons desiring to place the same or similar flags/signs, which may not be pleasing in appearance. In other words, there is a grant of special privilege if one Variance is allowed in one case and not in another. Commissioner Edwards stated the law should allow for some subjectivity, particularly with regard to appearance. Commissioner Chiles noted there is no subjectivity when the law states that no signs are allowed on building rooftops. Commissioner Edwards agreed and stated the law precludes creativity. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 December 11, 2002 Mr. Stump acknowledged Commissioner Edward's comments and explained the Sign Ordinance is undergoing revision, and that further discussion along these lines might be premature. He recommended for purposes of this issue, the Planning Commission consider the existing statutes when making a decision relative to the Variance. He noted, in the past, people began to place various types of signs on rooftops, which prompted adoption of the current Sign Ordinance prohibiting rooftop signs. Commissioner Chiles suggested staff review the other properties utilizing rooftop flags/signs in the community. Commissioner Correll stated the signs allow for a "nice touch to the area." He stated regarding Finding No. 3 that the signs would not be detrimental to surrounding property owners. Commissioner Edwards stated if another business/property owner desired to place multiple corporate signs on a rooftop and the signs were aesthetically pleasing to the viewers and not hazardous to the health and safety of others, she would have no problem granting a Variance. Moreover, in her opinion, allowance of such a Variance would not be a grant of special privilege. Chairman Mulheren stated the definition of aesthetically pleasing would differ from individual to individual. A Commission discussion followed regarding the difference between variances and special privileges and the precedent that might be set. Commissioner Correll inquired regarding the timeline for the revisions of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Stump explained that it might be fairly lengthy, judging by the public comment thus far. Commissioner Correll inquired whether the Variance request could be postponed and/or extended. Mr. Stump replied the flag/sign issue could potentially come back before the Commission if the applicant revised the project at a later time if the Commission were to deny the Variance. Commissioner Correll commented there are many public members supporting the concept of allowing artistic opportunities in the form of flags/signs on roofs, provided they are aesthetically pleasing. He noted it is important for staff and the public to review the current Sign Ordinance and propose revisions as necessary to accommodate current artistic trends. Mr. Stump proposed Rainbow Construction comply with the terms of the present statute or consider an alternative option to see if there is a way to display the flags on the property that would conform with the Sign Ordinance and/or display the flags in such manner that does not require as much relief as presently being sought. Commissioner Mulheren inquired regarding whether the Commission must act tonight, or can the issue be delayed and/or a decision postponed. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! ! December 11, 2002 Mr. Stump replied the issue is the current violation of the Sign Ordinance, noting staff recommends action be taken at the present time. Mr. Keefer added, it was his understanding, if an applicant were to apply for a Use Permit or Site Development Permit and the applicants applied for the project under a particular Code regulation, the applicant must comply with the Code provisions in effect at the time. Mr. Stump stated if an applicant desired to postpone action on this issue, one alternative might be to remove the flags, with the hope that they might later be legal according to the revised statutes. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Chiles, seconded by Commissioner Correll, it was carried by the following roll call vote of the members present to recommend denial of Variance Application No. 02-49 with Findings 1-2, as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Chiles and Correll, Chairman Mulheren Commissioner Edwards Si NEW BUSINESS Cancellation of December 25, 2002 meeting Stump recommended the cancellation of the December 25 meeting. The Planning Commission concurred. 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT 10A. Recent City Council Actions Planning Director Stump reported that staff is working on the Sign Ordinance. He also referenced reading material that had been provided to the Commission, and expressed that he would like to continue offering related readings to the Commission, particularly relating to smart growth. 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONER REPORTS There were no Planning Commissioner reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. James Mulheren, Chairman Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 December 11, 2002 Post Office Box 2769 Phone Ukiah, Califomia 95482 707/468 5504 December 20, 2002 Rainbow Construction Ms. Marie Ulvila City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ms. Ulvila: Fax Contractor 707/462 8111 Lic. No. 715671 · CIT..v, ,,,,,..- .... ,., u: U.,',iAH C!TY, CLL'2RN'S DEF:-",ETMENT RE: Sign Variance regarding corporate flags at 294 W. Smith St. We wish this letter to serve as our official request to appeal the denial of our request for a variance to allow our corporate flags to remain on our corporate headquarters building located at 294 W. Smith St.. Specifically we feel that the necessary findings were in fact met and regard the Planning-Commission's denial as inexplicable. In light of the overwhelming community support in favor of our flags remaining, we request the Ukiah City Council hear our appeal. Thank you for your help in this matter and Happy Holidays! Sincerely, Peter Richardson President Post Office Box 2769 Ukiah, California 95482 Phone 7O7/468 5504 Fax 707/462 8111 Contractor Lic. No. 715671 December 6, 2002 Rainbow Construction City o f Ukiah Planning Commission 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Corporate flags ~ 294 W. Smith St. Dear Commissioners: RECE VE At the instruction of Mr. Charley Stump we are writing to address the requirements for the granting of a variance for our corporate flags at our above referenced headquarters. It is our understanding that there are three requirements under section 9231 et seq. of the Ukiah Municipal Code that are required to be met in order for our variance to be granted. We believe we can meet these requirements and have set forth our argument below. When we erected our corporate flags, we did so after carefully consulting with our neighbors and also after researching the sign ordinance. We also noted that there are many examples of national and corporate flags on buildings throughout our community (for example the American flag erected on a tall flagpole on the roof of Walmart. As we understood the ordinance, our corporate flags would be categorically exempt (see 3226 E.) This statutory exemption has, however, been essentially negated by the somewhat obtuse interpretation that the national and corporate flags exempted by 3226 E are still somehow considered signs, and therefore subject to the various restrictions pertaining to signs in general. We feel it is a stretch to logically derive that conclusion fi.om an admittedly poorly written statute. Nevertheless, we were informed that despite the many instances throughout our community of national and corporate flags on buildings our corporate flags were determined to be in violation and we were ordered to remove them. That brings us before the planning commission to request a variance. There are three requirements set forth in code section 9232 that must be met in order for a variance to be granted (see attached.) We address each one below. First, we do not believe that the granting of our variance request constitutes a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity of our own. Flagpoles have existed on buildings in our community since its earliest days, certainly well over one hundred years. One need only look at old historical photos of commercial and public buildings to verify this fact. Alloxving us to continue to display our corporate flags upon our building only continues in that accepted community tradition, just as occurs on any number of buildings such as Walmart, the Mendocino County Department of Social Services, The Social Security building, and many other smaller businesses. It cannot be reasonably be considered to be a special prb'ilege granted to us if one takes into account these historical traditions. With regard to 9232 B, it must be noted that our structure occupies virtually our entire property with the exception of seven tightly packed off-street parking spaces. It is fairly obvious to any reasonable passer-by that the only location for our corporate flags is on the building. If we had a large lawn in front for a flagpole then we could fly six corporate flags on six flagpoles. The only place we could do that now would remove our precious off-street parking and force our t.wenty-some-odd employees to put even more pressure on the neighborhood's limited on-street parking than they already do. None of our adjacent neighbors is faced with a similar situation. Their properties encompass adequate space for a free- standing flagpole or two or three. Finally, regarding 9232 C, we believe that it is obvious that our corporate flags pose no threat to the health and safety of anyone residing or working in the neighborhood. They are engineered to stay attached to the building in gale force winds and have already done so. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a flag thusly: "a piece of cloth of distinctive color and design, used as a symbol, signal, or emblem." Ours are the emblem of our corporation, a symbol of our company's great diversity, and a sculptural signal of the wind direction. In conclusion, we would appreciate the granting of this request for a variance. Sincerely, Peter Richardson General Manager AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a MEETING DATE: January 15, 2003 SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: PRESENTATZON BY ROSS MAYFI'ELD AND POSSIBLE ACTI'ON REGARDING EEL RI'VER DI'VERSI'ON PRO3ECT REQUEST As a follow up to their presentation to the Council in November, Ross IVlayfield, consultant to the Redwood Valley County Water District, will give a brief presentation, followed by a request for a letter of support from the City of Ukiah for their Eel River Diversion Project. Attached for your information is an article from the January 8 Press Democrat, which provides some background information on their request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation and determine whether a letter of support from the City of Ukiah is appropriate at this time. ALTERNATTVE COUNC]:L POLTCY OPTIONS: None. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Ross Mayfield, Redwood Valley Water District Shannon Riley, Executive Assistant N/A 1. January 8 article from Press Democrat Ap proved".._~_~/I. Candace Horsley, City'~ Manager 4: CAN/ASR.Mayfield. 11503 SUPERVISORS BALK AT EEL RIVER STUDY Published on January 8, 2003 © 2003- The Press Democrat BYLINE: Ucilia Wang PAGE: B3 COLUMN: Around the Empire The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday decided not to support a controversial plan to study whether diverting Eel River water for consumption within the county is feasible. The majority of the board said the $1.5 million plan to do the feasibility study is ill-conceived and is strongly opposed by residents and environmental groups in the northern half of the county. Redwood Valley County Water District, which faces water shortages, proposed the idea. Ultimately, if the diversion plan gets state approval, it would allow the drawing of 56,000 acre-feet of water each winter. Redwood Valley could still proceed with the study and diversion plan on its own, but it had hoped the county would take them over. The small district is looking for money for the plans. Water districts in Ukiah Valley support the proposal. Those water providers are facing their own water shortage problems and are looking at raising Coyote Dam to increase water storage in Lake Mendocino. - Ucilia Wang Keywords: STUDY RIVER WATER FINANCE :Fl'EM NO: DATE: .lanuary 15, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: ASS]:GNMENT OF UKZAH CTTY COUNC]:LMEMBERS TO VAR]:OUS COMMI'rrEES With the recent election, the Ukiah City Councilmember committee assignments are in need of review. Attached for your information are a listing of the committees, their descriptions, and their meeting dates/times, and the 2002 list of assignments. The Mayor makes recommendations for committee appointments to the Council. Council may consider the new assignments and make appointments as necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review Ukiah City Councilmember Committee Assignment Listings and by Consensus or Motion, Make Appropriate Appointments. ALTERNAT]:VE COUNC]:L POL]:CY OPTTONS: Determine that Ukiah City Councilmember Committee appointments to various committees are not appropriate at this time and schedule this matter for a future meeting. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Mayor Eric Larson Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A 1. Description of Committee Assignments 2. 2002 List of Committee Assignments 3. Blank List of Committee Assignments APPROVED' (i, ~~~'~ Candace Horsley, ~anager 4: CAN/Com mitteeAppt. 11503 INFORMATION ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS COMMITTEE MTG LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/ COMMITTEE FUNCTION DATE/TIME CONTACT Greater Ukiah 3ra Wed. of 200 S. School 200 S. School St. To represent and set policy Chamber of month, 9:00 St. Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 for Chamber and area busi- Commerce a.m. 462-4705 nesses Liaison City/County Varies Rotates be- City Manager's Office City Managers, Mayor, Leadership tween cities 300 Seminary Ave. Board Chair, meet to dis- Group Ukiah, CA 95482 cuss common issues 463-6213 City Selec- Called as BOS Conf. Rm, C/O: BOS Makes appointments to tion Commit- required by 501 Low Gap 501 Low Gap, Rm 1090 LAFCO and Airport Land use tee Clerk of the Rd, Rm. 1090, Ukiah, CA 95482 Commission Board Ukiah 463-4221 City of Ukiah Once a Year, Civic Center, C/O: Review EOC and Emer- Disaster varies 300 Seminary 300 Seminary Ave. gency Plans Council Ave., Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 Council/ Varies Varies City Manager's Office Two Supervisors and two County 300 Seminary Ave. Councilmembers meet to Supervisor Ukiah, CA 95482 discuss common issues Committee 463-6213 Courthouse On Hiatus Typically County C/O: BOS Address facility needs of Facilities Courthouse 501 Low Gap, Rm 1090 County Criminal Justice Fa- Planning Ukiah, CA 95482 cilities Committee 463-4221 Investment Varies Civic Center, Finance Director Reviews City investments, Oversight 300 Seminary 300 Seminary Ave. policies, and strategies Committee Ave., Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 Mendo. Cnty 1st Monday of Civic Center, Frank McMichaels Required by legislation - Local Area month, 10:00 300 Seminary 200 So. School Street, planning spheres of Infiu- Formation a.m. Ave., Ukiah Suite 2 ence, annexation, service Commission Ukiah, Ca 95482 areas, and special districts (LAFCO) 463-4470 Main Street 1st Thursday of 200 So. School Joy Beeler Develops activities for Program month, 8:00 St., Ukiah 200 So. School St. downtown economic Board of a.m. Ukiah, CA 95482 development program Directors 463-6729 Mendocino 1s~ Monday of Civic Center, Phillip Dow Plan and allocate State fund- Council of month, 1:30 300 Seminary 367 N. State St., Ste 206 lng, transportation, Governments p.m. Ave., Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 infrastructure and project (MCOG) 463-1859 County wide. Mendo. Cnty First meeting County Gov't Chris Brown Determines methods for re- Air Quality 9/20/01, 4:00 Center Air Quality Planner ducing particulate air pollu- Mgt Dist. PM- p.m. 501 Low Gap 463-4354 tion. 10 Incentive Conf. Room C Committee Ukiah Mendocino On hiatus CIO BOS Develop and recommend County Film 501 Low Gap, Rm 1090 policy for the production of Advisory Ukiah, CA 95482 films made in Mendocino Boa rd 463-4221 County. (Non-Voting) Mendocino 2na Thursday of 501 Low Gap, Barbara Spazek Develops water resources County month, 7:00 Conference P.O. Box 751 and protects current water Inland Water p.m. Room A, Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 rights, Potter Valley project- and Power 462-1961 (afternoons) Eel River Diversion Commission Mendocino On hiatus C/O: BOS County Eco- 501 Low Gap, Rm 1090 nomic Devel- Ukiah, CA 95482 opment 463-4221 Strategy Mendocino 3ra Wed. of Rotates Mike Sweeney County-wide Solid Waste Solid Waste month, 9:00 between P.O. Box 123 JPA Mgmt. a.m. Willits and Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 Authority 468-9710 (MSWMA) Mendocino 4~" Thur. of Alternating Bruce Richard County-wide bus transporta- Transit Au- month, locations 241 Plant Road tion issues and funding thority (MTA) afternoon Ukiah, CA 95482 Board of Di- 462-1422 rectors Northern 4~" Thur. of Roseville, CA Desiree Rioux Pool of public utilities for California month, 9:30 P.O. Box 15129 electric generation and dis- Power a.m. Roseville, CA 95851- patch Agency 0129 (N C PA) 916/781-4202 Transmission 4TMThur. of Roseville, CA P.O. Box 15129 Pool of public utilities to Agency of month, 9:00 Roseville, CA 95851- manage CA-OR project elec- Northern a.m.) 0129 tric transmission lines California 916/852-1673 (TANC) Recreation Varies Location varies Albert Fierro To develop cultural and Center Group 300 Seminary Avenue recreational center in the Ukiah, CA 95482 valley 463-6269 Russian Location Varies: City Manager's Office Consider issues related to River Mendocino and 300 Seminary Ave. Russian River- plans pro- Watershed Lake Counties Ukiah, CA 95482 jects and funding requests Association 463-6213 Skateboard Second Friday 300 Seminary Larry DeKnoblough Development of a Park Commit- of each month Ave. 300 Seminary Ave. skateboard park within the tee Ukiah 463-6221 City of Ukiah Solid Waste As needed Ukiah City Manager's Office Review solid waste Sub- 300 Seminary Ave. recommendations committee Ukiah, CA 95482 463-6213 Sun House 3r~ Wed. of Sun House, 431 431 S. Main St. Support and expand Grace Guild ex offi- month, 10:00 S. Main St., Ukiah, CA 95482 Hudson Museum cio liaison am-noon Ukiah 467-2836 Ukiah Valley 3ra Wed. of BOS Conf. Rm, Darryl Barnes Reviews and determines Sanitation month, 1:30 501 Low Gap, City of Ukiah policy for sewer system and district p.m. (called by Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave plant in City and District area (UVSD) Utility Director if Ukiah, CA 95482 there is 463-6295 business to conduct) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Economic 1s~ Wed. of Location Madeline Holtkamp Federal funds - economic Development month, 2:00- varies 655 Kings Ct. Ste 200 development, revolving & Financing 4:00 p.m. Ukiah, CA 95482 loans Corp. (EDFC) 467-5953 Finance Varies Civic Center, City Manager's Office Review URA Economic De- Review 300 Semi- 300 Seminary Ave. velopment Fund Expendi- Committee nary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482 tures Ukiah 463-6213 Updated on 01-02-2003 COUNCIL COMMrlWEE ASSIGNMENTS Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Liaison City/County Leadership Group City Selection Committee City of U 'kiah Disaster Council Council/County Supervisor Committee Courthouse Facilities Planning Committee Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Main Street Board of Directors Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) ?endgcin~o Couo. ty Air Quality Management District PM-10 ncenuve tzormmttee Mendocino County Film Advisory Board {Non-Voting) Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Mendocino County Overall Economic Development Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MS~) Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) Board of Directors Recreation Center Group Russian River Watershed Community Council Skateboard Park Committee Solid Waste Committee Sun House Guild ex officio liaison Ukiah Investment Oversight Committee Uldah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) Councilmember Smith Mayor Astuku Alternate: Public Utilities Director Barnes s~gnate: Uouncalmember Labbv emate: Councilmember Sm/th js~gnate: _Uny Manager l-lorsley emate Mayor Asliiku Designate: Mayor"Astnku (reqmred) Mayor Aslu/~u - Chmmaan Councilmember Libby - First Vice-Chair City Manager Horsley - Second Vice-Chair Mayor Astnku Councilmember Smith/Vice-Mayor Baldwin Uounalmember Labby Mayor Ashaku Uounalmember 5troth Uounaimember Larson Alternate Councilmember Libby tJouncflmember Baldwm ~ouncflmember l..,mby Mayor Astuku Alternate: Vice-Mayor Baldwin U~ty Manager Horsley Counctlmember Larson Uounalmember 5troth Uounaimember Labby Alternate: Cound]member Larson Vine-Mayor Baldwin Akemate: Councilmember Libby UounaLmember Larson Alternate: Mayor Ashiku Mayor Asb.~u Alternate: Councilmember Libby Uounalmember L~bby mate: Councilmember smith V~ce-Mayor Baldwin Alternate: Councilmember Smith Economic Development &'Financing Corporation qEDFC) Finance Review Committee CounCil:Committee Assignments-January 2002 $1oner · Alternate: Commissioner Smith Alternate: Vice-Chairman Baldwin COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Liaisou City/County Leadership Group City Selection Committee City of Ukial~ Disaster Council Council/County Supervisor Committee Courthouse Facilities Planlfing Comxnittee Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Main Street Board of Directors Mcndocino Council of Govcrmnents (MCOG) Mcndocino Couuty Air Quality Management District PM- 10 Incentive Co~nlnittee Mcndocino County Fihn Advisory Board (Non-Voting) Mcndocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Mcndocino County Overall Econo~nic Dcvclop~ncnt Mendocino Solid Waste Managexnent Authority (MSWMA) Mcndocino Transit Authority (MTA) Board of Directors Recreation Center Group Russian River Watershed Community Council Skateboard Park Committee Solid Waste Committee Sun House Guild ex officio liaison Ukiah Invcsuncnt Oversight Comxnittec Ukial~ Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) Econmnic Development & Financing Corporation (EDFC) Fiuancc Review Cmnmittec Council:Committee Assignincnts-January 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 10b DATE: January 15, 2003 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING "CITY OF UKIAH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT AND STRATEGY" AND DIRECTING CITY MANAGER TO TRANSMIT REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND: In early 2001 the City applied for and received a Jobs Housing BaLance Program Grant from the Department of Housing and Community DeveLopment (HCD) in the amount of $100,000. AdditionaLLy, the City contributed $10,000 of general funds as a cash match. The grant was executed on August 24, 2001. The grant is intended to fund two different activities, the preparation of an economic development strategic plan and business targeting and outreach. Under the terms of the grant, up to $48,000 of grant funds can be spent on the strategic plan and the balance of $52,000 is to be used for the targeting and outreach, based on the recommendation of the strategic plan. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Accept Staff report and presentation by Wes Ervin of AppLied DeveLopment Economic (ADE). 2. Accept PubLic comment. 3. Adopt ResoLution Accepting "City Of Ukiah Economic DeveLopment Report And Strategy" And Directing City Manager To Transmit Report To The CaLifornia Department Of Housing And Community DeveLopment. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct Staff and ADE to make revisions in the report before submittal to HCD. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachment: N/A Albert T. Fierro, Assistant City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution for adoption. 2. Report: "City of Ukiah Economic DeveLopment Report and Strategy". APPROVED: Candace Horstey, City~anager AppLied Development Economics (ADE) was retained by the City, and was able to prepare the stratesic plan for a sum of $25,000 - considerably Less that the $48,000 allowed. ADE has completed the stratesic plan, staff has reviewed the draft, and the plan is now beinB presented to the City Council for formal acceptance. Under the terms of the Brant, the City must complete a strateBic plan and submit it to HCD for review and acceptance, before the funds desiBnated for business tarBetinB and outreach can be drawn upon. The plan does not impose bindin8 policies or prosrams on the City; it is intended only as a 8uide in its efforts to increase the number of jobs in the City. The City Council is not required to "adopt" the plan, but instead to accept it. An amount of $85,000 (countin8 the cash match) remains in the Brant for use in business tarsetin8 and outreach. The types of activities the City can undertake in this area are quite broad. A number of ideas have been discussed at staff level. Amon8 these are preparation of additional marketin8 materials and information about the City, its commercial and industrial areas, and its attractiveness as a business Location. Recruitin8 businesses potentially interested in reLocatin8 or startin8 up in Ukiah is another area that can be pursued. Some form of support for downtown business development could also be considered, as well as support for tourism promotion. The next step, followin8 submission of the attached report to HCD, will be to develop a prosram for the use of the balance of the 8rant. ALL funds must be expended by the end of September 2003, creatin8 some ursency in movin8 ahead at this time. ANALYSIS: Applied Development Economic has worked with the City of Ukiah for a number of years'and has developed a considerable understandin8 of local economic issues and potential. This report is a compilation of information developed by ADE in several other assisnments for the City in recent years, incLudin8 review of both the downtown and industrial park areas, tarset industry studies for those areas, heLpin8 establish the City's revoLvin8 Loan prosram, and 8enera[ economic development analysis. In addition, ADE is currently servin8 as the economic development sub- consultant for the Mendocino County General PLan update. The conclusions of this report point to both chaLLenses and opportunities. As pointed out in the report introduction, the City currently has more housin8 than jobs, but the jobs to housin8 ratio is improvins. This trend must be accelerated. For example, with new housin8 bein8 built at the rate of about 20-30 new dwe[[inss per year, approximately 285 new jobs per year must created to reach a more balanced jobs-housin8 ratio of 1.5 by the year 2010. In Part II of the report, ADE recommends an economic stratesy for the City. Key points include: · Attractin8 new industrial users to the City's 20-acre industrial park; · Attractin8 new industrial users elsewhere in and around the city; · Attractin8 new retailers in catesories showin8 retail Leakase; · Directin8 RDA do[Jars to downtown and industrial park infrastructure; · Revita[izin8 the downtown; · Further assistin8 sma[[ business with loans and financins; · Promotin8 tourism; · Providin8 other financial incentives for new businesses; · Considerin8 hirin8 or contractin8 out for economic development staff/services; · Optimizin8 use of 8rant resources. The report carries these 8enera[ recommendations into a more specific action plan, set forth startin8 on Pase 64. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Acceptance of the report enables the City to utilize approximateJy $75,000 in funds for business tarsetin8 and outreach. The financial impact to the City is therefore, positive. RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ACCEPTING THE "CITY OF UKIAH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT AND STRATEGY" AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TRANSMIT THE REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah applied for and received a 8rant in the amount of $100,000 as part of the Jobs Housin8 Balance Improvement Pro~ram of the Department of Housin~ and Community Development (Grant #00-JHBP-034); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the ~rant, the City of Ukiah has caused to be prepared an economic strategic plan entiUed the "City of Ukiah Economic Development Report and Stratesy"; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a presentation by its staff and consultants, reviewed the report durin~ a public meeting, and after independent consideration has determined that the report fulfills the requirements of Grant # 00-JHBP-034, and presents a reasonable assessment of, and strategy for, economic and business development opportunities for the City of Ukiah, and its implementation will lead to the development of needed jobs within the community. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby accepts the "City of Ukiah Economic Development Report and Stratesy" and directs the City Manaser to transmit the Report to the Department of Housin8 and Community Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 15th day of January 2003, by the followin8 roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: A'I-I-EST: Eric Larsen, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2003- Page 1 of I AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. DATE: January 15, 2003 REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING NATIONAL POLLUTANT ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PHASE II DISCHARGE SUMMARY: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in 1990 under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The City of Ukiah falls under the jurisdiction of Phase II rules of NPDES. These rules were published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999 (64 FR 68722). The general goal of NPDES is to preserve, protect, and improve the nation's water resources from polluted storm water runoff. Common pollutants in storm water runoff include pesticides, fertilizers, oils, salt, litter, other debris (leaves, etc.), and sediment. Phase II rules cover operators (City of Ukiah) of small MS4s (municipal separate storm sewer systems) and operators of small construction activities that disturb equal to or greater than one and less than five acres of land. Under Phase II rules, the City will be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a storm water management plan (SWMP), including best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals to comply with the General Permit for NPDES Phase I1. The General Permit will outline the specific requirements for compliance and is currently in the process of being adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Under NPDES Phase II, the SWRCB was required to issue a General Permit by December 9, 2002. The City of Ukiah is required to submit an NOI and obtain permit (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works~l/~ Candace Horsley, City Manager EPA Fact Sheets, Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Ca~"ace Horsley, C'~ Manager Page 2 Repo~ on National Pollutant Discha~e Elimination Sys~m (NPDES)Phasell Janua~ 15,2003 approval within 180 days of receipt of notification from the SWRCB that the General Permit has been adopted. However, as of the date of this report, the SWRCB has not adopted a General Permit for NPDES Phase II. The General Permit is on the agenda for adoption at the January 22, 2003 meeting of the SWRCB. In submitting the NOI, the City of Ukiah is required to submit an SVVMP with BMPs targeted to achieve the following six minimum control measures: 1. Public education and outreach regarding storm water impacts (brochures, radio broadcast Public Service Announcements, school educational programs) 2. Public participation /involvement (public meetings, storm drain stenciling, creek cleanup projects) 3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination (leaks & spills, dumping into storm drains, etc.) 4. Construction site storm water runoff control (erosion and sediment control, paint and chemical spill avoidance) 5. Post-construction storm water management in new development / redevelopment (reduce sources of pollutants, reduce impervious surfaces) 6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations (street sweeping, develop spill prevention plans) The City's SWMP shall also contain measurable goals for each minimum control measure. In addition, the plan shall contain a timeframe for implementation. Annual reports are required to determine the City's level of compliance with its SWMP. The City of Ukiah is already implementing programs under the minimum control measures. The City street sweeping program applies to minimum control measure 6. By regularly cleaning leaves and debris, a cleaner storm sewer system is maintained. Debris that is swept and collected from the streets is therefore prevented from entering into the creeks and river through the City's storm sewer system. City street maintenance crews also inspect creeks annually prior to the rain season and remove large debris that may disrupt creek flows. In addition, various groups have previously volunteered to complete storm drain stenciling projects. The inlets to storm drains were stenciled "No Dumping (No Tire Basura) Drains to Creek." A fish is stenciled on the storm drain inlets to educate people that any material which enters the storm drain will affect fish. This effort applies to minimum control measures 1 and 2. Volunteer groups also conduct creek and river cleaning projects in Ukiah and the surrounding area. Creeks and rivers are cleared of litter, junk, tires, etc. This effort applies to minimum control measure 2. AG-NPDES.SUM Page 3 Report on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II January 15, 2003 With implementation of this plan there will be various associated costs. The City of Ukiah is required to pay a fee of $3,000 for filing the NOI and SWMP with the SWRCB. Ifthe City elects to implement year round street sweeping, there will be an expense of approximately $55,000, including benefits, for a full time street sweeper. In addition, one of the City's street sweeper trucks is planned for replacement in FY 2003-2004. The other sweeper, purchased in 1993 will be due for replacement in 2008. The current replacement cost for a street sweeper is estimated to be $130,000. In addition, there will be associated costs for full implementation of the SWMP. These costs will depend on the complexity of the SWMP. For example, the City of Watsonville (population 38,000) estimates that its annual storm water program costs will be $33,750 (not including street sweeping costs). The City of Monterey, on the other hand, has a very extensive storm water program with annual costs of $585,000 (including street sweeping). Some potential funding sources are: General Fund, assessments, fees, special taxes, grants and loans. The City of Monterey established a storm water utility fee which is based on the contribution of each site to storm water volume. The SWRCB will allow the City of Ukiah to "phase-in" the SWMP over a five year period. At the end of this time period, all measures of the SWMP will be fully implemented. Part of the implementation process will be the establishment of new storm drain ordinances to allow the City to enforce storm water violations. Developers with projects which disturb soil will likely be faced with more stringent erosion and sediment control requirements. Attached for reference are several EPA Fact Sheets which provide more detailed information regarding Storm Water Phase II Final Rule. Staff will be preparing the SWMP over the next few months. A draft version of the plan will be presented to the City Council for approval prior to filing the plan with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. AG-NPDES.SUM United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-001 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 1.0 EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview '1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview ?.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeepin9 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.01 Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity An Overview Why Is the Phase II Storm Water Program Necessary? Since the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the quality of our Nation's waters has improved dramatically. Despite this progress, however, degraded waterbodies still exist. According to the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory (Inventory), a biennial summary of State surveys of water quality, approximately 40 percent of surveyed U.S. waterbodies are still impaired by pollution and do not meet water quality standards. A leading source of this impairment is polluted runoff. In fact, according to the Inventory, 13 percent of impaired rivers, 21 percent of impaired lake acres and 45 percent of impaired estuaries are affected by urban/suburban storm water runoff and 6 percent of impaired rivers, 11 percent of impaired lake acres and 11 percent of impaired estuaries are affected by construction site discharges. Phase I of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) storm water program was promulgated in 1990 under the CWA. Phase I relies on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage to address storm water runoff from: (1) "medium" and "large" municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally serving populations of 100,000 or greater, (2) construction activity disturbing 5 acres of land or greater, and (3) ten categories of industrial activity. The Storm Water Phase II Final Rule is the next step in EPA's effort to preserve, protect, and improve the Nation's water resources from polluted storm water runoff. The Phase II program expands the Phase I program by requiring additional operators of MS4s in urbanized areas and operators of small construction sites, through the use of NPDES permits, to implement programs and practices to control polluted storm water runoff. See Fact Sheets 2.0 and 3.0 for overviews of the Phase II programs for MS4s and construction activity. Phase II is intended to further reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat by instituting the use of controls on the unregulated sources of storm water discharges that have the greatest likelihood of causing continued environmental degradation. The environmental problems associated with discharges from MS4s in urbanized areas and discharges resulting from construction activity are outlined below. MS4s in Urbaniged Areas Storm water discharges from MS4s in urbanized areas are a concern because of the high concentration of pollutants found in these discharges. Concentrated development in urbanized areas substantially increases impervious surfaces, such as city streets, driveways, parking lots, and sidewalks, on which pollutants from concentrated human activities settle and remain until a storm event washes them into nearby storm drains. Common pollutants include pesticides, fertilizers, oils, salt, litter and other debris, and sediment. Another concern is the possible illicit connections of sanitary sewers, which can result in fecal coliform bacteria entering the storm sewer system. Storm water runoff picks up and transports these and other harmful pollutants then discharges them - untreated - to waterways via storm sewer systems. When left uncontrolled, these discharges can result in fish kills, the destruction of spawning and wildlife habitats, a loss in aesthetic value, and contamination of drinking water supplies and recreational waterways that can threaten public health. -I- Fact Sheet 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Page 2 Construction Activin_ Uncontrolled runoff from construction sites is a water quality concern because of the devastating effects that sedimentation can have on local waterbodies, particularly small streams. Numerous studies have shown that the amount of sediment transported by storm water runoff from construction sites with no controls is significantly greater than from sites with controls. In addition to sediment, construction activities yield pollutants such as pesticides, petroleum products, construction chemicals, solvents, asphalts, and acids that can contaminate storm water runoff. During storms, construction sites may be the source of sediment-laden runoff, which can overwhelm a small stream channel's capacity, resulting in streambed scour, streambank erosion, and destruction of near- stream vegetative cover. Where left uncontrolled, sediment- laden runoff has been shown to result in the loss of in-stream habitats for fish and other aquatic species, an increased difficulty in filtering drinking water, the loss of drinking water reservoir storage capacity, and negative impacts on the navigational capacity of waterways. Are Municipally Operated Sources Exempted by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 Affected by the Final Rule? provisions within ISTEA temporarily delayed the deadline for Phase I industrial activities (with the exception of power plants, airports, and uncontrolled sanitary landfills) operated by municipalities with populations of less than 100,000 people to obtain an NPDES storm water discharge permit. Congress delayed the permitting deadline for these facilities to allow small municipalities additional time to comply with NPDES requirements. The Phase II Final Rule ended this temporary exemption from permitting and set a deadline of no later than March 10, 2003 for all ISTEA- exempted municipally operated industrial activities to obtain permit coverage. How Was the Phase I1 Final Rule Developed? EPA developed the Phase II Final Rule during extensive consultations with a cross-section of interested stakeholders brought together on a subcommittee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and with representatives of small entities participating in an advisory process mandated under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act. In addition, EPA considered comments submitted by over 500 individuals and organizations during a 90-day public comment period on the proposed rule. Why Does Part of the Phase II Final Rule Use a Question and Answer Format? The provisions pertaining to operators of small MS4s are written in a "readable regulation" form that uses the "plain language" method. Questions and answers are used to create more reader-friendly and understandable regulations. The plain language method uses "must" instead of "shall" to indicate a requirement and words like "should," "could," or "encourage" to indicate a recommendation or guidance. Who Is Covered by the Phase II Final Rule? T he final rule "automatically" covers two classes of storm water dischargers on a nationwide basis: Operators of small MS4s located in "urbanized areas" as delineated by the Bureau of the Census. A "small" MS4 is any MS4 not already covered by Phase I of the NPDES storm water program. See Fact Sheets 2.1 and 2.2 for more information on small MS4 coverage. (2) Operators of small construction activities that disturb equal to or greater than 1 (one) and less than 5 (five) acres of land. See Fact Sheet 3.0 for more information on small construction activity coverage. Waivers Permitting authorities may waive "automatically designated" Phase II dischargers if the dischargers meet the necessary criteria. See Fact Sheets 2.1 (small MS4 waivers overview), 3.0 (construction waivers overview) and 3.1 (construction rainfall erosivity waiver) for details. Phased-in Permit Coverage Permitting authorities may phase-in permit coverage for small MS4s serving jurisdictions with a population under 10,000 on a schedule consistent with a State watershed permitting approach. Additional Designations b~: the Permitting AuthoriW_ Small MS4s located outside of urbanized areas, construction activity disturbing less than 1 acre, and any other storm water discharges can be designated for coverage if the NPDES permitting authority or EPA determines that storm water controls are necessary. See Fact Sheet 2.1 for more information on the designation of small MS4s located outside of urbanized areas. Fact Sheet 1.0 - Storm Water Phase I1 Final Rule: An Overview Page 3 What Does the Phase II Final Rule Require? OPerators of Phase II-designated small MS4s and small construction activity are required to apply for NPDES permit coverage, most likely under a general rather than individual permit, and to implement storm water discharge management controls (known as "best management practices" (BMPs)). Specific requirements for each type of discharge are listed below. Small MS4s A regulated small MS4 operator must develop, implement, and enforce a storm water management program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from their MS4 to the "maximum extent practicable," to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the CWA. The rule assumes the use of narrative, rather than numeric, effluent limitations requiring implementation of BMPs. The small MS4 storm water management program must include the following six minimum control measures: public education and outreach; public participation/involvement; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site runoff control; post-construction runoff control; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping. See Fact Sheets 2.3 through 2.8 for more information on each measure, including BMPs and measurable goals. A regulated small MS4 operator must identify its selection of BMPs and measurable goals for each minimum measure in the permit application. The evaluation and assessment of those chosen BMPs and measurable goals must be included in periodic reports to the NPDES permitting authority. See Fact Sheet 2.9 for more information on permitting and reporting. Small Construction Activity The specific requirements for storm water controls on small construction activity will be defined by the NPDES permitting authority on a State-by-State basis. EPA expects that the NPDES permitting authorities will use their existing Phase 1 general permits for large construction activity as a guide for their Phase 1I permits for small construction activity. If this occurs, a storm water pollution prevention plan will likely be required for small construction activity. See Fact Sheet 3.0 for more information on potential program requirements and appropriate BMPs for small construction activity. What Is the Phase II Program Approach? T he Phase II program, based on the use of federally enforceable NPDES permits: 121 Encourages the use of general permits; Provides flexibility for regulated operators to determine the most appropriate storm water controls; Allows for the recognition and inclusion of existing NPDES and non-NPDES storm water programs in Phase II permits; [21 Includes public education and participation efforts as primary elements of the small MS4 program; Attempts to facilitate and promote watershed planning and to implement the storm water program on a watershed basis; and Works toward a unified and comprehensive NPDES storm water program with Phase I of the program. How Does the Phase II Final Rule Address the Phase I Industrial "No Exposure" Provision? In addition to establishing a deadline for ISTEA facilities and designating two new classes of dischargers, the Phase II Final Rule revises the "no exposure" provision originally included in the 1990 regulations for Phase I of the NPDES storm water program. The provision was remanded to EPA for further rulemaking and, subsequently, included in its revised form in the Phase II rule. Under the Phase II Final Rule, a conditional no exposure exclusion is available to operators of all categories of Phase I regulated industrial activity (except category (x) construction activity) who can certify that all industrial materials and activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt, and/or runoff. To obtain the no exposure exclusion, written certification must be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority. The final rule includes a No Exposure Certification form for use only by operators of industrial activity in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. See Fact Sheet 4.0 for more information on the conditional no exposure exclusion for industrial activity. -3- Fact Sheet 1.0 - Storm Water Phase 11 Final Rule: An Overview Page 4 What Is the Phase II Program Implementation "Tool Box?" EPA is committed to providing tools to facilitate implementation of the final Phase I1 storm water program in an effective and cost-efficient manner. The "tool box" will include the following components: Fact Sheets; Guidance Documents; Menu of BMPs; Information Clearinghouse/Web Site; Training and Outreach Efforts; Technical Research; Support for Demonstration Projects; and Compliance Monitoring/Assistance Tools. A preliminary working toolbox is available on EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater. Three years after publication of the final rule, when the general permits are issued, a fully operational tool box is scheduled to be available. What Is the Schedule for the Phase II Rule? The Phase II Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999 (64 FR 68722). The Conditional No Exposure Exclusion option is available February 7, 2000, in States where EPA is the permitting authority. The NPDES permitting authority will issue general permits for Phase II-designated small MS4s and small construction activity by December 9, 2002. Operators of Phase II "automatically" designated regulated small MS4s and small construction activity must obtain permit coverage within 90 days of permit issuance. The NPDES permitting authority may phase-in coverage for small MS4s serving jurisdictions with a population under 10,000 on a schedule consistent with a State watershed permitting approach. Operators of regulated small MS4s must fully implement their storm water management programs by the end of the first permit term, typically a 5-year period. For Additional Information Contacts ~ U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · lnternet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater · Phone: 202-564-9545 Your NPDES Permitting Authority. A list of names and telephone numbers for each EPA Region and State is located at: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater, then click on "Contacts." Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · Internet: c fpub.cpa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase II .Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf -4- United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-00-002 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.0 &EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 -Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Small MS4Storm Water Program Overview polluted storm water runoff is often transported to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and ultimately discharged into local rivers and streams without treatment. EPA's Storm Water Phase II Rule establishes an MS4 storm water management program that is intended to improve the Nation's waterways by reducing the quantity of pollutants that storm water picks up and carries into storm sewer systems during storm events. Common pollutants include oil and grease from roadways, pesticides from lawns, sediment from construction sites, and carelessly discarded trash, such as cigarette butts, paper wrappers, and plastic bottles. When deposited into nearby waterways through MS4 discharges, these pollutants can impair the waterways, thereby discouraging recreational use of the resource, contaminating drinking water supplies, and interfering with the habitat for fish, other aquatic organisms, and wildlife. In 1990, EPA promulgated rules establishing Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. The Phase I program for MS4s requires operators of"medium" and "large" MS4s, that is, those that generally serve populations of 100,000 or greater, to implement a storm water management program as a means to control polluted discharges from these MS4s. The Storm Water Phase II Rule extends coverage of the NPDES storm water program to certain "small" MS4s but takes a slightly different approach to how the storm water management program is developed and implemented. What Is a Phase II Small MS4? Asmall MS4 is any MS4 not already covered by the Phase I program as a medium or large MS4. The Phase II Rule automatically covers on a nationwide basis all small MS4s located in "urbanized areas" (UAs) as defined by the Bureau of the Census (unless waived by the NPDES permitting authority), and on a case-by-case basis those small MS4s located outside of UAs that the NPDES permitting authority designates. For more information on Phase II small MS4 coverage, see Fact Sheets 2.1 and 2.2. What Are the Phase II Small MS4 Program Requirements? OPerators of regulated small MS4s are required to design their programs to: Reduce the discharge of pollutants to the "maximum extent practicable" (MEP); Protect water quality; and Satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the MEP standard will typically require the development and implementation of BMPs and the achievement of measurable goals to satisfy each of the six minimum control measures. The Phase II Rule defines a small MS4 storm water management program as a program comprising six elements that, when implemented in concert, are expected to result in significant reductions of pollutants discharged into receiving waterbodies. -6- Fact Sheet 2.0 - An Overview of the Small MS4 Storm Water Program Page 2 The six MS4 program elements, termed "minimum control measures," are outlined below. For more information on each of these required control measures, see Fact Sheets 2.3 - 2.8. Public Education and Outreach Distributing educational materials and performing outreach to inform citizens about the impacts polluted storm water runoff discharges can have on water quality. Public Participation/Involvement Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in program development and implementation, including effectively publicizing public hearings and/or encouraging citizen representatives on a storm water management panel. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Developing and implementing a plan to detect and eliminate illicit discharges to the storm sewer system (includes developing a system map and informing the community about hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste). Construction Site Runoff Control Developing, implementing, and enforcing an erosion and sediment control program for construction activities that disturb 1 or more acres of land (controls could include silt fences and temporary storm water detention ponds). Post-Construction Runoff Control Developing, implementing, and enforcing a program to address discharges of post-construction storm water runoff from new development and redevelopment areas. Applicable controls could include preventative actions such as protecting sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands) or the use of structural BMPs such as grassed swales or porous pavement. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Developing and implementing a program with the goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. The program must include municipal staff training on pollution prevention measures and techniques (e.g., regular street sweeping, reduction in the use of pesticides or street salt, or frequent catch-basin cleaning). What Information Must the NPDES Permit Application Include? The Phase II program for MS4s is designed to accommodate a general permit approach using a Notice of Intent (NOI) as the permit application. The operator ora regulated small MS4 must include in its permit application, or NOI, its chosen BMPs and measurable goals for each minimum control measure. To help permittees identify the most appropriate BMPs for their programs, EPA will issue a "menu," of BMPs to serve as guidance. NPDES permitting authorities can modify the EPA menu or develop their own list. For more information on application requirements, see Fact Sheet 2.9. What Are the Implementation Options? The rule identifies a number of implementation options for regulated small MS4 operators. These include sharing responsibility for program development with a nearby regulated small MS4, taking advantage of existing local or State programs, or participating in the implementation of an existing Phase I MS4's storm water program as a co-permittee. These options are intended to promote a regional approach to storm water management coordinated on a watershed basis. What Kind of Program Evaluation/Assessment Is Required? permittees need to evaluate the effectiveness of their chosen BMPs to determine whether the BMPs are reducing the discharge of pollutants from their systems to the "maximum extent practicable" and to determine if the BMP mix is satisfying the water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act. Permittees also are required to assess their progress in achieving their program's measurable goals. While monitoring is not required under the rule, the NPDES permitting authority has the discretion to require monitoring if deemed necessary. If there is an indication of a need for improved controls, permittees can revise their mix of BMPs to create a more effective program. For more information on program evaluation/assessment, see Fact Sheet 2.9. For Additional Information Contact t~ u.s. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · lntemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater · Phone: 202-564-9545 Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · lntemet: c fpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfi nal.cfm ~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-00-003 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.1 EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s Who Is Affected by the Phase I1 Small MS4 Program? The Storm Water Phase II Final Rule applies to operators of regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), which are designated based on the criteria discussed in this fact sheet. In this fact sheet, the definition of an MS4 and the distinction between small, medium, and large MS4s is reviewed. Conditions under which a small MS4 may be designated as a regulated small MS4, as well as the conditions for a waiver from the Phase II program requirements, are outlined. This fact sheet also attempts to clarify possible implementation issues related to determining one's status as an operator of a regulated small MS4. What Is a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)? what constitutes an MS4 is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. The term MS4 does not solely refer to municipally-owned storm sewer systems, but rather is a term of art with a much broader application that can include, in addition to local jurisdictions, State departments of transportation, universities, local sewer districts, hospitals, military bases, and prisons. An MS4 also is not always just a system of underground pipes - it can include roads with drainage systems, gutters, and ditches. The regulatory definition of an MS4 is provided below. According to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(8), "municipal separate storm sewer means a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): (i) Owned or operated by a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law)...including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the Clean Water Act that discharges into waters of the United States. (ii) Designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water; (iii) Which is not a combined sewer; and (iv) Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2." Fact Sheet 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s Page2 What Is a Small, Medium, or Large MS4? 0 UrbanizedAreas EPA's NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) storm water permitting program labels MS4s as either "small,"" medium," or "large" for the purposes of regulation. A small MS4 is any MS4 that is not already covered by the Phase I storm water program. Small MS4s include Federally-owned systems, such as military bases. The Phase I storm water program covers medium and large MS4s. Phase I MS4s were automatically designated nationwide as medium MS4s if they were located in an incorporated place or county with a population between 100,000 - 249,999 or as large MS4s if located in an incorporated place or county with a population of 250,000 or greater. Many MS4s in areas below 100,000 in population, however, have been individually brought into the Phase I program by NPDES permitting authorities. Such already regulated MS4s do not have to develop a Phase II program. Are All Small MS4s Covered by the Phase II Final Rule? No. The universe of small MS4s is quite large since it includes every MS4 except for the approximately 900 medium and large MS4s already regulated under the Phase I storm water program. Only a select sub-set of small MS4s, referred to as regulated small MS4s, is covered by the Phase II Final Rule, either through automatic nationwide designation or designation on a case-by-case basis by the NPDES permitting authority. How Is A Small MS4 Designated as a Regulated Small MS4? A small MS4 can be designated by the permitting authority as a regulated small MS4 in one of three ways: An urbanized area (UA) is a land area comprising one or more places - central place(s) - and the adjacent densely settled surrounding area - urban fringe - that together have a residential population of at least 50,000 and an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. It is a calculation used by the Bureau of the Census to determine the geographic boundaries of the most heavily developed and dense urban areas. Before the time of permit issuance (which must be by December 9, 2002), UA calculations based on the 2000 Census should be published. The regulated universe then will be based on these new calculations. For more information on UAs, see Fact Sheet 2.2. Preamble of the Phase H Final Rule: Appendix 6 A listing of governmental entities that are located either fully or partially within a UA according to the 1990 Census can be found in Appendix 6 to the Preamble. The list is a general geographic reference intended to help operators of small MS4s determine whether or not they are located in a UA and, consequently, required to comply with the regulation; it is not a list of all Phase I1 regulated MS4s. For example, the list does not include small MS4 operators such as colleges and universities, Federal prison complexes, and State highway departments located within a UA. See Fact Sheet 2.2 for more information on how to determine potential coverage under the Phase II program. Appendix 6 can be obtained from the EPA Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) or downloaded from the OWM web site. Automatic Nationwide Designation The Phase II Final Rule requires nationwide coverage of all operators of small MS4s that are located within the boundaries of a Bureau of the Census-defined "urbanized area" (UA) based on the latest decennial Census. Once a small MS4 is designated into the program based on the UA boundaries, it cannot be waived from the program if in a subsequent UA calculation the small MS4 is no longer within the UA boundaries. An automatically designated small MS4 remains regulated unless, or until, it meets the criteria for a waiver. Potential Designation by the NPDES Permitting Authority- Required Evaluation An operator of small MS4 located outside of a UA may be designated as a regulated small MS4 if the NPDES permitting authority determines that its discharges cause, or have the potential to cause, an adverse impact on water quality. The Phase II Final Rule requires the NPDES permitting authority to develop a set of designation criteria and apply them, at a minimum, to all small MS4s located outside of a UA serving a jurisdiction with a population of at least 10,000 and a population density of at least 1,000 people/square mile. Fact Sheet 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s Page3 Designation Criteria EPA recommends that the NPDES permitting authority use a balanced consideration of the following designation criteria on a watershed or other local basis: Physically interconnected means that one MS4 is connected to a second MS4 in such a way that it allows for direct discharges into the second system. Discharge to sensitive waters; High population density; High growth or growth potential; Contiguity to a UA; Significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States; and Ineffective protection of water quality concerns by other programs. Preamble of the Phase H Final Rule: Appendix 7 A listing of governmental entities located outside of a UA, that have a population of at least 10,000 and a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile can be found in Appendix 7 to the Preamble of the Phase II Final Rule. Similar to Appendix 6, the list is a geographic reference only - it is not a list of regulated entities. Operators of small MS4s located within a listed area could be examined by their NPDES permitting authority for potential designation into the Phase II program. Furthermore, the NPDES permitting authority reserves the right to designate for regulation any small MS4 that is contributing pollutants to waters of the United States, whether or not its jurisdiction is found in Appendix 7. Appendix 7 can be obtained from the EPA Office of Wastewater Management or downloaded from the OWM web site. Deadline for Designation The NPDES permitting authority is required to designate small MS4s meeting the designation criteria by December 9, 2002 or by December 8, 2004 if a watershed plan is in place. Are Waivers from the Phase II Permit/Program Requirements Possible? yes, two waiver options are available to operators of automatically designated small MS4s if discharges do not cause, or have the potential to cause, water quality impairment. The first applies where: (1) the jurisdiction served by the system is less than 1,000 people; (2) the system is not contributing substantially to the pollutant loadings of a physically interconnected regulated MS4; and (3) if the small MS4 discharges any pollutants identified as a cause of impairment of any water body to which it discharges, storm water controls are not needed based on wasteload allocations that are part of an EPA approved or established "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) that addresses the pollutant(s) of concern. TMDLs are water quality assessments that determine the source or sources of pollutants of concern for a particular waterbody, consider the maximum amount of pollutants the waterbody can assimilate, and then allocate to each source a set level of pollutants that it is allowed to discharge (i.e., a "wasteload allocation"). Small MS4s that are not given a wasteload allocation would meet the third criterion above. Potential Designation by the NPDES Permitting Authority- Physically Interconnected Under the final rule, the NPDES permitting authority is required to designate any small MS4 located outside of a UA that contributes substantially to the pollutant loadings of a physically interconnected MS4 regulated by the NPDES storm water program. The final rule does not set a deadline for designation of small MS4s meeting this criterion. Pollutants of Concern include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), sediment or a parameter that addresses sediment (such as total suspended solids, turbidity or siltation), pathogens, oil and grease, and any pollutant that has been identified as a cause of impairment in any water body to which the MS4 discharges. Fact Sheet 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s Page 4 The second applies where: (1) the jurisdiction served by the system is less than 10,000 people; (2) an evaluation of all waters of the U.S. that receive a discharge from the system shows that storm water controls are not needed based on wasteload allocations that are part of an EPA approved or established TMDL that addresses the pollutant(s) of concern or an equivalent analysis; and (3) it is determined that future discharges from the small MS4 do not have the potential to result in exceedances of water quality standards. The NPDES permitting authority is required to periodically review any waivers granted to MS4 operators to determine whether any information required for granting the waiver has changed. Minimally, such a review needs to be conducted once every five years. Are There Allowances for Phasing-in Permit Coverage? yes. Small MS4s serving a jurisdiction with a population under 10,000 can be phased-in for permit coverage, following establishment of a State watershed permitting approach. NPDES permitting authorities that choose this option must establish a schedule to phase-in permit coverage annually for approximately 20 percent of all small MS4s that qualify for such phased-in coverage. Where this option is followed, all regulated small MS4s are required to have permit coverage no later than March 8, 2007. Can More than One MS4 in the Same Political Jurisdiction Be Automatically Designated? yes. Since the final rule provides automatic coverage of all small MS4s within a UA, the result would likely be coverage of several governments and agencies with multiple, perhaps overlapping, jurisdictions. For example, a city that is located within a UA and operates its own small MS4 could be designated alongside the State's department of transportation (DOT) and the county's DOT if the State and county operate roads that are within the borders of the city. All three entities would be responsible for developing a storm water management program for the portion of their respective MS4s within the city limits. In such a case, the permittees are strongly encouraged to work together to form a unified storm water management program. Who Is Responsible if the Small MS4 Operator Lacks the Necessary Legal Authority? Some regulated small MS4s may lack the necessary legal authority to implement one or more of the required minimum control measures that comprise the Phase II storm water management program. For example, a local government that is a small MS4 operator may be in a State that does not have an enabling statute that allows local regulatory control of construction site runoff into the sewer system. Another example is a State DOT that may not have the legal authority to require and enforce controls on illicit discharges into its system. In these situations the small MS4 is encouraged to work with the neighboring regulated small MS4s. As co-permittees, they could form a shared storm water management program in which each permittee is responsible for activities that are within their individual legal authorities and abilities. For Additional Information Contact ~ U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Phone: (202) 564-9545 · Internet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · Internet: cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf &EPA United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F00-005 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.3 Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Public Education and Outreach Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity This fact sheet profiles the Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure, one of six measures an operator of a Phase II-regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the regulated small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. Why Is Public Education and Outreach Necessary? A n informed and knowledgeable community is crucial to the success of a storm water management program since it helps to ensure the following: Greater support for the program as the public gains a greater understanding of the reasons why it is necessary and important. Public support is particularly beneficial when operators of small MS4s attempt to institute new funding initiatives for the program or seek volunteers to help implement the program; and Greater compliance with the program as the public becomes aware of the personal responsibilities expected of them and others in the community, including the individual actions they can take to protect or improve the quality of area waters. What Is Required? To satisfy this minimum control measure, the operator of a regulated small MS4 needs to: Implement a public education program to distribute educational materials to the community, or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of storm water discharges on local waterbodies and the steps that can be taken to reduce storm water pollution; and Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program actions/activities), and measurable goals are suggested below. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? T hree main action areas are important for successful implementation of a public education and outreach program: -II -- Fact Sheet 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach Minimum Control Measure Page 2 O Forming Partnerships Operators of regulated small MS4s are encouraged to enter into partnerships with other governmental entities to fulfill this minimum control measure's requirements. It is generally more cost-effective to use an existing program, or to develop a new regional or state-wide education program, than to have numerous operators developing their own local programs. Operators also are encouraged to seek assistance from non- governmental organizations (e.g., environmental, civic, and industrial organizations), since many already have educational materials and perform outreach activities. ~} Using Educational Materials and Strategies Operators of regulated small MS4s may use storm water educational information provided by their State, Tribe, EPA Region, or environmental, public interest, or trade organizations instead of developing their own materials. Operators should strive to make their materials and activities relevant to local situations and issues, and incorporate a variety of strategies to ensure maximum coverage. Some examples include: Brochures or fact sheets for general public and specific audiences; Recreational guides to educate groups such as golfers, hikers, paddlers, climbers, fishermen, and campers; Alternative information sources, such as web sites, bumper stickers, refrigerator magnets, posters for bus and subway stops, and restaurant placemats; A library of educational materials for community and school groups; Volunteer citizen educators to staff a public education task force; Event participation with educational displays at home shows and community festivals; Educational programs for school-age children; Storm drain stenciling of storm drains with messages such as "Do Not Dump - Drains Directly to Lake;" Storm water hotlines for information and for citizen reporting of polluters; Economic incentives to citizens and businesses (e.g., rebates to homeowners purchasing mulching lawnmowers or biodegradable lawn products);and Tributary signage to increase public awareness of local water resources. (1~ Reaching Diverse Audiences The public education program should use a mix of appropriate local strategies to address the viewpoints and concerns of a variety of audiences and communities, including minority and disadvantaged communities, as well as children. Printing posters and brochures in more than one language or posting large waming signs (e.g., cautioning against fishing or swimming) near storm sewer outfalls are methods that can be used to reach audiences less likely to read standard materials. Directing materials or outreach programs toward specific groups of commercial, industrial, and institutional entities likely to have significant storm water impacts is also recommended. For example, information could be provided to restaurants on the effects of grease clogging storm drains and to auto garages on the effects of dumping used oil into storm drains. What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? Measurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the BMPs, should reflect the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore, they should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals: Target Date 1 year .......... Activity Brochures developed (bilingual, if appropriate) and distributed in water utility bills; a storm water hotline in place; volunteer educators trained. 2 years ......... A web site created; school curricula developed; storm drains stenciled. 3 years ......... A certain percentage of restaurants no longer dumping grease and other pollutants down storm sewer drains. 4 years ......... A certain percentage reduction in litter or animal waste detected in discharges. For Additional Information Contact ~' U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater · Phone: 202-564-9545 Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · Internet: c fpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · lntemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-00-006 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.4 EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Public Participation/Involvement Minimum Control Measure This fact sheet profiles the Public Participation/Involvement minimum control measure, one of six measures the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in determining how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. Why Is Public Participation and Involvement Necessary? EPA believes that the public can provide valuable input and assistance to a regulated small MS4's municipal storm water management program and, therefore, suggests that the public be given opportunities to play an active role in both the development and implementation of the program. An active and involved community is crucial to the success of a storm water management program because it allows for: Broader public support since citizens who participate in the development and decision making process are partially responsible for the program and, therefore, may be less likely to raise legal challenges to the program and more likely to take an active role in its implementation; · Shorter implementation schedules due to fewer obstacles in the form of public and legal challenges and increased sources in the form of citizen volunteers; · A broader base of expertise and economic benefits since the community can be a valuable, and free, intellectual resource; and A conduit to other programs as citizens involved in the storm water program development process provide important cross-connections and relationships with other community and government programs. This benefit is particularly valuable when trying to implement a storm water program on a watershed basis, as encouraged by EPA. What Is Required? To satisfy this minimum control measure, the operator of a regulated small MS4 must: ~ Comply with applicable State, Tribal, and local public notice requirements; and Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. Possible implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program actions and activities), and measurable goals are described below. Fact Sheet 2.4 - Public Participation/Involvement Minimum Control Measure Page 2 What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? OPerators of regulated small MS4s should include the public in developing, implementing, and reviewing their storm water management programs. The public participation process should make every effort to reach out and engage all economic and ethnic groups. EPA recognizes that there are challenges associated with public involvement. Nevertheless, EPA strongly believes that these challenges can be addressed through an aggressive and inclusive program. Challenges and example practices that can help ensure successful participation are discussed below. Implementation Challenges The best way to handle common notification and recruitment challenges is to know the audience and think creatively about how to gain its attention and interest. Traditional methods of soliciting public input are not always successful in generating interest, and subsequent involvement, in all sectors of the community. For example, municipalities often rely solely on advertising in local newspapers to announce public meetings and other opportunities for public involvement. Since there may be large sectors of the population who do not read the local press, the audience reached may be limited. Therefore, alternative advertising methods should be used whenever possible, including radio or television spots, postings at bus or subway stops, announcements in neighborhood newsletters, announcements at civic organization meetings, distribution of flyers, mass mailings, door-to-door visits, telephone notifications, and multilingual announcements. These efforts, of course, are tied closely to the efforts for the public education and outreach minimum control measure (see Fact Sheet 2.3). In addition, advertising and soliciting for help should be targeted at specific population sectors, including ethnic, minority, and low-income communities; academia and educational institutions; neighborhood and community groups; outdoor recreation groups; and business and industry. The goal is to involve a diverse cross-section of people who can offer a multitude of concerns, ideas, and connections during the program development process. Possible Practices (BMPs) There are a variety of practices that could be incorporated into a public participation and involvement program, such as: · Public meetings/citizen panels allow citizens to discuss various viewpoints and provide input concerning appropriate storm water management policies and BMPs; · Volunteer water quality monitoring gives citizens first- hand knowledge of the quality of local water bodies and provides a cost-effective means of collecting water quality data; · Volunteer educators/speakers who can conduct workshops, encourage public participation, and staff special events; · Storm drain stenciling is an important and simple activity that concemed citizens, especially students, can do; · Community clean-ups along local waterways, beaches, and around storm drains; · Citizen watch groups can aid local enforcement authorities in the identification of polluters; and · "Adopt A Storm Drain"programs encourage individuals or groups to keep storm drains free of debris and to monitor what is entering local waterways through storm drains. What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? Measurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the BMPs, greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by the small MS4. Furthermore, they should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals: Target Date 1 year ............ 2 years .......... 3 years .......... 4 years .......... Activity Notice of a public meeting in several different print media and bilingual flyers; citizen panel established; volunteers organized to locate outfalls/illicit discharges and stencil drains. Final recommendations of the citizen panel; radio spots promoting program and participation. A certain percentage of the community participating in community clean-ups. Citizen watch groups established in a certain percentage of neighborhoods; outreach to every different population sector completed. For Additional Information Contact ~' U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Phone: (202) 564-9545 · Intemet: w~'.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase Il Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · lntemet: cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase Il Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phasc2.pdf United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-00-007 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.5 EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.o - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.:2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity This fact sheet profiles the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination minimum control measure, one of six measures the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. What Is An "Illicit Discharge"? Federal regulations define an illicit discharge as "...any discharge to an MS4 that is not composed entirely of storm water..." with some exceptions. These exceptions include discharges from NPDES-permitted industrial sources and discharges from fire-fighting activities. Illicit discharges (see Table 1) are considered "illicit" because MS4s are not designed to accept, process, or discharge such non-storm water wastes. Why Are Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Efforts Necessary? Discharges from MS4s often include wastes and wastewater from non-storm water sources. A study conducted in 1987 in Sacramento, California, found that almost one-half of the water discharged from a local MS4 was not directly attributable to precipitation runoff. A significant portion of these dry weather flows were from illicit and/or inappropriate discharges and connections to the MS4. Table 1 Sources of Illicit Discharges Sanitary wastewater Effluent from septic tanks Car wash wastewaters Improper oil disposal Radiator flushing disposal Laundry wastewaters Spills from roadway accidents Improper disposal of auto and household toxics Illicit discharges enter the system through either direct connections (e.g., wastewater piping either mistakenly or deliberately connected to the storm drains) or indirect connections (e.g., infiltration into the MS4 from cracked sanitary systems, spills collected by drain outlets, or paint or used oil dumped directly into a drain). The result is untreated discharges that contribute high levels of pollutants, including heavy metals, toxics, oil and grease, solvents, nutrients, viruses, and bacteria to receiving waterbodies. Pollutant levels from these illicit discharges have been shown in EPA studies to be high enough to significantly degrade receiving water quality and threaten aquatic, wildlife, and human health. Fact Sheet 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 2 What Is Required? Recognizing the adverse effects illicit discharges can have on receiving waters, the final rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement and enforce an illicit discharge detection and elimination program. This program must include the following: A storm sewer system map, showing the location of all outfalls and the names and location of all waters of the United States that receive discharges from those outfalls; Through an ordinance, or other regulatory mechanism, a prohibition (to the extent allowable under State, Tribal, or local law) on non-storm water discharges into the MS4, and appropriate enforcement procedures and actions; A plan to detect and address non-storm water discharges, including illegal dumping, into the MS4; The education of public employees, businesses, and the general public about the hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste; and The determination of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program actions/activities), and measurable goals are suggested below. Does This Measure Need to Address All Illicit Discharges? No. The illicit discharge detection and elimination program does not need to address the following categories of non-storm water discharges or flows unless the operator of the regulated small MS4 identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to its MS4: · Water line flushing; · Landscape irrigation; · Diverted stream flows; · Rising ground waters; · Uncontaminated ground water infiltration; · Uncontaminated pumped ground water; · Discharges from potable water sources; · Foundation drains; · Air conditioning condensation; · Irrigation water; · Springs; · Water from crawl space pumps; · Footing drains; · Lawn watering; · Individual residential car washing; · Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands; · Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges; and · Street wash water. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? The objective of the illicit discharge detection and elimination minimum control measure is to have regulated small MS4 operators gain a thorough awareness of their systems. This awareness allows them to determine the types and sources of illicit discharges entering their system; and establish the legal, technical, and educational means needed to eliminate these discharges. Permittees could meet these objectives in a variety of ways depending on their individual needs and abilities, but some general guidance for each requirement is provided below. The Map The storm sewer system map is meant to demonstrate a basic awareness of the intake and discharge areas of the system. It is needed to help determine the extent of discharged dry weather flows, the possible sources of the dry weather flows, and the particular waterbodies these flows may be affecting. An existing map, such as a topographical map, on which the location of major pipes and outfalls can be clearly presented demonstrates such awareness. EPA recommends collecting all existing information on outfall locations (e.g., review city records, drainage maps, storm drain maps), and then conducting field surveys to verify locations. It probably will be necessary to walk (i.e., wade through small receiving waters or use a boat for larger waters) the streambanks and shorelines for visual observation. More than one trip may be needed to locate all outfalls. Legal Prohibition and Enforcement EPA recognizes that some permittees may have limited authority under State, Tribal or local law to establish and enforce an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism prohibiting illicit discharges. In such a case, the permittee is encouraged to obtain the necessary authority, if possible. The Plan The plan to detect and address illicit discharges is the central component of this minimum control measure. The plan is dependant upon several factors, including the permittee's available resources, size of staff, and degree and character of its illicit discharges. EPA envisions a plan similar to the one Michigan recommends for use in meeting their NPDES storm Fact Sheet 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 3 water general permit for small MS4s. As guidance only, the four steps of a recommended plan are outlined below: O Locate Problem Areas EPA recommends that priority areas be identified for detailed screening of the system based on the likelihood of illicit connections (e.g., areas with older sanitary sewer lines). Methods that can locate problem areas include: public complaints; visual screening; water sampling from manholes and outfalls during dry weather; and use of infrared and thermal photography. Find the Source Once a problem area or discharge is found, additional efforts usually are necessary to determine the source of the problem. Methods that can find the source of the illicit discharge include: dye-testing buildings in problem areas; dye- or smoke-testing buildings at the time of sale; tracing the discharge upstream in the storm sewer; employing a certification program that shows that buildings have been checked for illicit connections; implementing an inspection program of existing septic systems; and using video to inspect the storm sewers. Remove/Correct Illicit Connections Once the source is identified, the offending discharger should be notified and directed to correct the problem. Education efforts and working with the discharger can be effective in resolving the problem before taking legal action. Document Actions Taken As a final step, all actions taken under the plan should be documented. This illustrates that progress is being made to eliminate illicit connections and discharges. Documented actions should be included in annual reports and include information such as: the number of outfalls screened; any complaints received and corrected; the number of discharges and quantities of flow eliminated; and the number of dye or smoke tests conducted. Educational Outreach Outreach to public employees, businesses, property owners, the general community, and elected officials regarding ways to detect and eliminate illicit discharges is an integral part of this minimum measure that will help gain support for the permittee's storm water program. Suggested educational outreach efforts include: ° Developing informative brochures, andguidances for specific audiences (e.g., carpet cleaning businesses) and school curricula; · Designing a program to publicize and facilitate public reporting of illicit discharges; · Coordinating volunteers for locating, and visually inspecting, outfalls or to stencil storm drains; and · Initiating recyclingprog~rams for commonly dumped wastes, such as motor od, antifreeze, and pesticides. What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? Measurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the BMPs, should reflect the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore, they should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals: Tarl~et Date 1 year ............ 2 years .......... 3 years .......... 4 years .......... Activity Sewer system map completed; recycling program for household hazardous waste in place. Ordinance in place; training for public employees completed; a certain percentage of sources of illicit discharges determined. A certain percentage of illicit discharges detected; illicit discharges eliminated; and households participating in quarterly household hazardous waste special collection days. Most illicit discharge sources detected and eliminated. The educational outreach measurable goals for this minimum control measure could be combined with the measurable goals for the Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure (see Fact Sheet 2.3). Fact Sheet 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 4 For Additional Information Contact t~e U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Phone: (202) 564-9545 · Internet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · Internet: cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf Sources Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Management Administration. 1997. Dry Weather Flow and Illicit Discharges in Maryland Storm Drain Systems. Baltimore, Maryland. U.S. EPA Office of Water. 1993. Investigation of Inappropriate Pollutant Entries into Storm Drainage Systems: A User's Guide. EPA/600/R-92/238. Washington, D.C. Wayne County Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. 1997. Guidance for Preparing a Program for the Elimination of Illicit Discharges. Wayne County, Michigan. &EPA United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-00-008 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.6 Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2,3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10- Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Cond~onal No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure This fact sheet profiles the Construction Site Runoff Control minimum control measure, one of six measures that the operator of a Phase Ii regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. Why Is The Control of Construction Site Runoff Necessary? polluted storm water runoff from construction sites often flows to MS4s and ultimately is discharged into local rivers and streams. Of the pollutants listed in Table 1, sediment is usually the main pollutant of concern. Sediment runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than those of agricultural lands, and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forest lands. During a short period of time, construction sites can contribute more sediment to streams than can be deposited naturally during several decades. The resulting siltation, and the contribution of other pollutants from construction sites, can cause physical, chemical, and biological harm to our nation's waters. For example, excess sediment can quickly fill rivers and lakes, requiting dredging and destroying aquatic habitats. What Is Required? Table 1 Pollutants Commonly Discharged From Construction Sites Sediment Solid and sanitary wastes Phosphorous (fertilizer) Nitrogen (fertilizer) Pesticides Oil and grease Concrete truck washout Construction chemicals Construction debris The Phase II Final Rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to their MS4 from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. The small MS4 operator is required to: Have an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism requiring the implementation of proper erosion and sediment controls, and controls for other wastes, on applicable construction sites; [21 Have procedures for site plan review of construction plans that consider potential water quality impacts; Have procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures; [21 Have sanctions to ensure compliance (established in the ordinance or other regulatory mechanism); ~Fact Sheet 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure Page 2 Establish procedures for the receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public; and Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. Suggested BMPs (i.e., the program actions/activities) and measurable goals are presented below. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? Further explanation and guidance for each component of a regulated small MS4's constructiOn program is provided below. Regulator_ Mechanism Through the development of an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, the small MS4 operator must establish a construction program that controls polluted runoff from construction sites with a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. Because there may be limitations on regulatory legal authority, the small MS4 operator is required to satisfy this minimum control measure only to the maximum extent practicable and allowable under State, Tribal, or local law. Site Plan Review The small MS4 operator must include in its construction program requirements for the implementation of appropriate BMPs on construction sites to control erosion and sediment and other waste at the site. To determine if a construction site is in compliance with such provisions, the small MS4 operator should review the site plans submitted by the construction site operator before ground is broken. Site plan review aids in compliance and enforcement efforts since it alerts the small MS4 operator early in the process to the planned use or non-use of proper BMPs and provides a way to track new construction activities. The tracking of sites is useful not only for the small MS4 operator's recordkeeping and reporting purposes, which are required under their NPDES storm water permit (see Fact Sheet 2.9), but also for members of the public interested in ensuring that the sites are in compliance. Inspections and Penalties Once construction commences, BMPs should be in place and the small MS4 operator's enforcement activities should begin. To ensure that the BMPs are properly installed, the small MS4 operator is required to develop procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures to deter infractions. Procedures could include steps to identify priority sites for inspection and enforcement based on the nature and extent of the construction activity, topography, and the characteristics of soils and receiving water quality. Inspections give the MS4 operator an opportunity to provide additional guidance and education, issue warnings, or assess penalties. To conserve staff resources, one possible option for small MS4 operators is to have these inspections performed by the same inspector that visits the sites to check compliance with health and safety building codes. Information Submitted bi; the Public A final requirement of the small MS4 program for construction activity is the development of procedures for the receipt and consideration of public inquiries, concerns, and information submitted regarding local construction activities. This provision is intended to further reinforce the public participation component of the regulated small MS4 storm water program (see Fact Sheet 2.4) and to recognize the crucial role that the public can play in identifying instances of noncompliance. The small MS4 operator is required only to consider the information submitted, and may not need to follow-up and respond to every complaint or concern. Although some form of enforcement action or reply is not required, the small MS4 operator is required to demonstrate acknowledgment and consideration of the information submitted. A simple tracking process in which submitted public information, both written and verbal, is recorded and then given to the construction site inspector for possible follow-up will suffice. What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? Measurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the BMPs, should reflect the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore, they should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals: Target Date 1 year ............ 2 years .......... 3 years .......... 4 years .......... Activity Ordinance or other regulatory mechanism in place; procedures for information submitted by the public in place. Procedures for site inspections implemented; a certain percentage rate of compliance achieved by construction operators. Maximum compliance with ordinance; improved clarity and reduced sedimentation of local waterbodies. Increased numbers of sensitive .aquatic organisms in local waterbodies. Fact Sheet 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure Page 3 Are Construction Sites Already Covered Under the NPDES Storm Water Program? yes. EPA's Phase I NPDES storm water program requires operators of construction activities that disturb five or more acres to obtain a NPDES construction storm 9~ater permit. General permit requirements include the submission of a Notice of Intent and the development of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a site description and measures and controls to prevent or minimize pollutants in storm water discharges. The Phase II Final Rule similarly regulates discharges from smaller construction sites disturbing equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres (see Fact Sheet 3.0 for information on the Phase II construction program). Even though all construction sites that disturb more than one acre are covered nationally by an NPDES storm water permit, the construction site runoff control minimum measure for the small MS4 program is needed to induce more localized site regulation and enforcement efforts, and to enable operators of regulated small MS4s to more effectively control construction site discharges into their MS4s. To aid operators of regulated construction sites in their efforts to comply with both local requirements and their NPDES permit, the Phase II Final Rule includes a provision that allows the NPDES permitting authority to reference a "qualifying State, Tribal or local program" in the NPDES general permit for construction. This means that if a construction site is located in an area covered by a qualifying local program, then the construction site operator's compliance with the local program constitutes compliance with their NPDES permit. A regulated small MS4's storm water program for construction could be a "qualifying program" if the MS4 operator requires a SWPPP, in addition to the requirements summarized in this fact sheet. The ability to reference other programs in the NPDES permit is intended to reduce confusion between overlapping and similar requirements, while still providing for both local and national regulatory coverage of the construction site. The provision allowing NPDES permitting authorities to reference other programs has no impact on, or direct relation to, the small MS4 operator's responsibilities under the construction site runoff control minimum measure profiled here. Is a Small MS4 Required to Regulate Construction Sites that the Permitting Authority has Waived from the NPDES Construction Program? No. If the NPDES permitting authority waives requirements for storm water discharges associated with small construction activity (see 122.26(b)(15)(i)), the small MS4 operator is not required to develop, implement, and/or enforce a program to reduce pollutant discharges from such construction sites. For Additional Information Contact ~ U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Phone: (202) 564-9545 · Internet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase Ii Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · Internet: cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-00-009 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.7 EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement ?.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control ?.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control ?.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Post-Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure This fact sheet profiles the Post-Construction Runoff Control minimum control measure, one of six measures that the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in its storm water management program in order to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase Il Final Rule requirements for post-construction runoff control and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy those requirements. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. Why Is The Control of Post-Construction Runoff Necessary? post-construction storm water management in areas undergoing new development or redevelopment is necessary because runoff from these areas has been shown to significantly effect receiving waterbodies. Many studies indicate that prior planning and design for the minimization of pollutants in post-construction storm water discharges is the most cost-effective approach to storm water quality management. There are generally two forms of substantial impacts of post-construction runoff. The first is caused by an increase in the type and quantity of pollutants in storm water runoff. As runoff flows over areas altered by development, it picks up harmful sediment and chemicals such as oil and grease, pesticides, heavy metals, and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus). These pollutants often become suspended in runoff and are carried to receiving waters, such as lakes, ponds, and streams. Once deposited, these pollutants can enter the food chain through small aquatic life, eventually entering the tissues of fish and humans. The second kind of post- construction runoff impact occurs by increasing the quantity of water delivered to the waterbody during storms. Increased impervious surfaces interrupt the natural cycle of gradual percolation of water through vegetation and soil. Instead, water is collected from surfaces such as asphalt and concrete and routed to drainage systems where large volumes of runoff quickly flow to the nearest receiving water. The effects of this process include streambank scouring and downstream flooding, which often lead to a loss of aquatic life and damage to property. What Is Required? The Phase II Final Rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in post-construction runoff to their MS4 from new development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance of greater than or equal to 1 acre. The small MS4 operator is required to: Develop and implement strategies which include a combination of structural and/or non- structural best management practices (BMPs); Have an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism requiring the implementation of post- construction runoff controls to the extent allowable under State, Tribal or local law, Fact Sheet 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure Page 2 Ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of controls; Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. What Is Considered a "Redevelopment" Project? The term "redevelopment" refers to alterations of a property that change the"f footprint" of a site or building in such a way that there is a disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 acre of land. The term does not include such activities as exterior remodeling. Because redevelopment projects may have site constraints not found on new development sites, the rule provides flexibility for implementing post-construction controls on redevelopment sites that consider these constraints. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? This section includes some sample non-structural and structural BMPs that could be used to satisfy the requirements of the post-construction runoff control minimum measure. It is important to recognize that many BMPs are climate-specific, and not all BMPs are appropriate in every geographic area. Because the requirements of this measure are closely tied to the requirements of the construction site runoff control minimum measure (see Fact Sheet 2.6), EPA recommends that small MS4 operators develop and implement these two measures in tandem. Sample BMPs follow. Non-Structural BMPs Planning and Procedures. Runoff problems can be addressed efficiently with sound planning procedures. Master Plans, Comprehensive Plans, and zoning ordinances can promote improved water quality by guiding the growth of a community away from sensitive areas and by restricting certain types of growth (industrial, for example) to areas that can support it without compromising water quality. Site-Based Local Controls. These controls can include buffer strip and riparian zone preservation, minimization of disturbance and imperviousness, and maximization of open space. Structural BMPs Storage Practices. Storage or detention BMPs control storm water by gathering runoff in wet ponds, dry basins, or multichamber catch basins and slowly releasing it to receiving waters or drainage systems. These practices both control storm water volume and settle out particulates for pollutant removal. Infiltration Practices. Infiltration BMPs are designed to facilitate the percolation of runoff through the soil to ground water, and, thereby, result in reduced storm water quantity and reduced mobilization of pollutants. Examples include infiltration basins/trenches, dry wells, and porous pavement. Vegetative Practices. Vegetative BMPs are landscaping features that, with optimal design and good soil conditions, enhance pollutant removal, maintain/improve natural site hydrology, promote healthier habitats, and increase aesthetic appeal. Examples include grassy swales, filter strips, artificial wetlands, and rain gardens. What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? Measurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the BMPs, should reflect needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore, the measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following goals: Target Date 1 year ............. 2 years ........... 3 years ........... 4 years ........... Activity Strategies developed that include structural and/or non-structural BMPs. Strategies codified by use of ordinance or other regulatory mechanism. Reduced percent of new impervious surfaces associated with new development projects. Improved clarity and reduced sedimentation of local waterbodies. For Additional Information Contact ~ U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Phone: (202) 564-9545 · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · Internet: cfpub.epa, gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · lntemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-00-010 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.8 EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 - W~o's Covered? Desiqnation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Descdption Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2,4 - Public Pa~cipation/ Involvement 2.5 -Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Minimum Control Measure This fact sheet profiles the Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations minimum control measure, one of six measures the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. Why Is Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Necessary? The Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for municipal operations minimum control measure is a key element of the small MS4 storm water management program. This measure requires the small MS4 operator to examine and subsequently alter their own actions to help ensure a reduction in the amount and type of pollution that: (1) collects on streets, parking lots, open spaces, and storage and vehicle maintenance areas and is discharged into local waterways; and (2) results from actions such as environmentally damaging land development and flood management practices or poor maintenance of storm sewer systems. While this measure is meant primarily to improve or protect receiving water quality by altering municipal or facility operations, it also can result in a cost savings for the small MS4 operator, since proper and timely maintenance of storm sewer systems can help avoid repair costs from damage caused by age and neglect. What Is Required? R ecognizing the benefits of pollution prevention practices, the rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to: Develop and implement an operation and maintenance program with the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations into the storm sewer system; Include employee training on how to incorporate pollution prevention/good housekeeping techniques into municipal operations such as park and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new construction and land disturbances, and storm water system maintenance. To minimize duplication of effort and conserve resources, the MS4 operator can use training materials that are available from EPA, their State or Tribe, or relevant organizations; Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program actions/activities), and measurable goals are suggested below. Fact Sheet 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Minimum Control Measure Page 2 What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? The intent of this control measure is to ensure that existing municipal, State or Federal operations are performed in ways that will minimize contamination of storm water discharges. EPA encourages the small MS4 operator to consider the following components when developing their program for this measure: Maintenance activities, maintenance schedules, and long-term inspection procedures for structural and non-structural controls to reduce floatables and other pollutants discharged from the separate storm sewers; Controls for reducing or eliminating the discharge of pollutants from areas such as roads and parking lots, maintenance and storage yards (including salt/sand storage and snow disposal areas), and waste transfer stations. These controls could include programs that promote recycling (to reduce litter), minimize pesticide use, and ensure the proper disposal of animal waste; Procedures for the proper disposal of waste removed from separate storm sewer systems and areas listed in the bullet above, including dredge spoil, accumulated sediments, floatables, and other debris; and Ways to ensure that new flood management projects assess the impacts on water quality and examine existing projects for incorporation of additional water quality protection devices or practices. EPA encourages coordination with flood control managers for the purpose of identifying and addressing environmental impacts from such projects. The effective performance of this control measure hinges on the proper maintenance of the BMPs used, particularly for the first two bullets above. For example, structural controls, such as grates on outfalls to capture floatables, typically need regular cleaning, while non-structural controls, such as training materials and recycling programs, need periodic updating. What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? Measurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are meant to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the BMPs, should consider the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. The measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals: Target Date 1 year ........... 2 years ......... 3 years ......... 4 years ......... Activity Pollution prevention plan (the new BMPs and revised procedures) completed; employee training materials gathered or developed; procedures in place for catch basin cleaning after each storm and regular street sweeping. Training for appropriate employees completed; recycling program fully implemented. Some pollution prevention BMPs incorporated into master plan; a certain percentage reduction in pesticide and sand/salt use; maintenance schedule for BMPs established. A certain percentage reduction in floatables discharged; a certain compliance rate with maintenance schedules for BMPs; controls in place for all areas of concern. For Additional Information Contact ~ U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Phone: (202) 564-9545 · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater Reference Documents ~:~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · Internet: cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · lnternet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulation~phase2.pdf United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-011 January 2000 Fact Sheet 2.9 EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview '1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Pro§ram 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.'1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Preventioo/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements The Storm Water Phase II Final Rule requires operators of certain small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage because their storm water discharges are considered "point sources" of pollution. All point source discharges, unlike nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff, are required under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to be covered by federally enforceable NPDES permits. Those systems already permitted under the NPDES Phase I storm water program, even systems serving less than 100,000 people, are not required to be permitted under the Phase II storm water program. NPDES storm water permits are issued by an NPDES permitting authority, which may be a NPDES- authorized State or a U.S. EPA Region in non-authorized States (see the For Additional Information section for a list of U.S. EPA regional contacts). Once a permit application is submitted by the operator of a regulated small MS4 and a permit is obtained, the conditions of the permit must be satisfied (i.e., development and implementation of a storm water management program) and periodic reports must be submitted on the status and effectiveness of the program. This fact sheet explains the various permit options that are available for operators of regulated small MS4s and details the permit application and reporting requirements. Important compliance deadlines also are highlighted. Program coverage and requirements for regulated small MS4s are explained in Fact Sheets 2.0 through 2.8. What Permitting Options Are Available to Operators of Regulated Small MS4s? unlike the Phase I program that primarily utilizes individual permits for medium and large MS4s, the Phase II approach allows operators of regulated small MS4s to choose from as many as three permitting options as listed below. The NPDES permitting authority reserves the authority to determine, however, which options are available to the regulated small MS4s. [21 General Permits · General permits are strongly encouraged by EPA. The Phase II program has been designed specifically to accommodate a general permit approach. General permits prescribe one set of requirements for all applicable permittees. General permits are drafted by the NPDES permitting authority, then published for public comment before being finalized and issued. A Notice of Intent (NOI) serves as the application for the general permit. The permittee complies with the permit requirements by submitting an NOI to the NPDES permitting authority that describes the storm water management plan, including best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals. A Phase II permittee has the flexibility to develop an individualized storm water program that addresses the particular characteristics and needs of its system, provided the basic requirements of the general permit are satisfied. Fact Sheet 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements Page 2 Permittees also can choose to share responsibilities for meeting the Phase II program requirements. Those entities choosing to do so may submit jointly with the other municipalities or governmental entities an NOI that identifies who will implement which minimum measures within the area served by the MS4. The permittee then follows the Phase II permit application requirements (see discussion in next question below). Minimize Duplication of El_fort Two permitting options tailored to minimize duplication of effort can be incorporated into the general permit by the NPDES permitting authority. First, the permitting authority can recognize in the permit that another governmental entity is responsible under an NPDES permit for implementing any or all minimum measures. Responsibility for implementation of the measure(s) would rest with the other governmental entity, thereby relieving the permittee of its responsibility to implement that particular measure(s). For example, the NPDES permitting authority could recognize a county erosion and sediment control program for construction sites that was developed to comply with a Phase I permit. As long as the Phase II MS4s in the county comply with the county's construction program, they would not need to develop and implement their own construction programs because such activity would already be addressed by the county. Second, the NPDES permitting authority can include conditions in a general permit that direct a permittee to follow the requirements of an existing qualifying local program rather than the requirements of a minimum measure. A qualifying local program is defined as a local, State or Tribal municipal storm water program that imposes requirements that are equivalent to those of the Phase II MS4 minimum measures. The permittee remains responsible for the implementation of the minimum measure through compliance with the qualifying local program. [2i Individual Permits Individual permits are required for Phase I "medium" and "large" MS4s, but not recommended by EPA for Phase II program implementation. The permittee can either submit an individual application for coverage by the Phase II MS4 program (see § 122.34) or the Phase I MS4 program (see § 122.26(d)). For individual coverage under Phase II, the permittee must follow Phase II permit application requirements and provide an estimate of square mileage served by the system and any additional information requested by the NPDES permitting authority. A permittee electing to apply for coverage under the Phase I program must follow the permit application requirements detailed at § 122.26(d). The NPDES permitting authority may allow more than one regulated entity to jointly apply for an individual permit. The NPDES permitting authority could incorporate in the individual permit either of the two permitting options explained above in the Minimize Duplication of Effort section. Modification of a Phase I Individual Permit - A Co-Permittee Option The operator of a regulated small MS4 could participate as a limited co-permittee in a neighboring Phase I MS4's storm water management program by seeking a modification of the existing Phase I individual permit. A list of Phase I medium and large MS4s can be obtained from the EPA Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) or downloaded from the OWM web site. · The permittee must follow Phase I permit application requirements (with some exclusions). The permittee must comply with the applicable terms of the Phase I individual permit rather than the minimum control measures in the Phase II Final Rule. What Does the Permit Application Require? Operators of regulated small MS4s are required to submit in their NOI or individual permit application the following information: Best management practices (BMPs) are required for each of the six minimum control measures: Public education and outreach on storm water impacts Public participation/involvement Illicit discharge detection and elimination Construction site storm water runoff control Post-construction storm water management in new development/redevelopment · Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations (See Fact Sheets 2.3 through 2.8 for full descriptions of each measure, including examples of BMPs and measurable goals) Measurable goals for each minimum control measure (i.e, narrative or numeric standards used to gauge program effectiveness); Fact Sheet 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements Page 3 Estimated months and years in which actions to implement each measure will be undertaken, including interim milestones and frequency; and The person or persons responsible for implementing or coordinating the storm water program. Re!ring on Another EntiW_ The Phase II permittee has the option of relying on other entities already performing one or more of the minimum control measures, provided that the existing control measure, or component thereof, is at least as stringent as the Phase Il rule requirements. For example, a county already may have an illicit discharge detection and elimination program in place and may allow an operator of a regulated small MS4 within the county's jurisdiction to rely on the county program instead of formulating and implementing a new program. In such a case, the permittee would not need to implement the particular measure, but would still be ultimately responsible for its effective implementation. For this reason, EPA recommends that the permittee enter into a legally binding agreement with the other entity. If the permittee chooses to rely on another entity, they must note this in their permit application and subsequent reports. A Phase II permittee may even rely on another governmental entity regulated under the NPDES storm water program to satisfy all of the permittee's permit obligations. Should this option be chosen, the permittee must note this in its NOI, but does not need to file periodic reports. What Does the Permit Require? implementation of their storm water management programs. The NPDES permitting authority is required to provide this menu as an aid for those operators that are unsure of the most appropriate and effective BMPs to use. Since the menu is intended to serve as guidance only, the operators can either select from the menu or identify other BMPs to meet the permit requirements. EPA is scheduled to develop a menu of BMPs by October 27, 2000. What Standards Apply? A Phase II small MS4 operator is required to design its program so that it: Reduces the discharge of pollutants to the "maximum extent practicable" (MEP); [21 Protects water quality; and Satisfies the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act. Compliance with the technical standard of MEP requires the successful implementation of approved BMPs. The Phase II Final Rule considers narrative effluent limitations that require the implementation of BMPs and the achievement of measurable goals as the most appropriate form of effluent limitations to achieve the protection of water quality, rather than requiring that storm water discharges meet numeric effluent limitations. The operator of a regulated small MS4 has the flexibility to determine the BMPs and measurable goals, for each minimum control measure, that are most appropriate for the system. The chosen BMPs and measurable goals, submitted in the permit application, become the required storm water management program; however, the NPDES permitting authority can require changes in the mix of chosen BMPs and measurable goals if all or some of them are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Phase II Final Rule. Likewise, the permittee can change its mix of BMPs if it determines that the program is not as effective as it could be Fact Sheets 2.3 through 2.8 further describe each of the minimum control measures, while the permit requirements for evaluation/assessment and recordkeeping activities are described in separate sections below. EPA intends to issue Phase II NPDES permits consistent with its August 1, 1996, Interim Permitting Approach policy, which calls for BMPs in first-round storm water permits and expanded or better tailored BMPs in subsequent permits, where necessary, to provide for the attainment of water quality standards. In cases where information exists to develop more specific conditions or limitations to meet water quality standards, these conditions or limitations should be incorporated into the storm water permit. Monitoring is not required under the Phase Il Rule, but the NPDES permitting authority has the discretion to require monitoring if deemed necessary. What Evaluation/Reporting Efforts Are Required? Menu of BMPs The BMPs for minimum measures 3 through 6 (as listed in the permit application requirements section, above) are not enforceable until the NPDES permitting authority provides a list, or "menu," of BMPs to assist permittees in the design and Frequenc_F of Reports Reports must be submitted annually during the first permit term. For subsequent permit terms, reports must be submitted in years 2 and 4 only, unless the NPDES permitting authority requests more frequent reports. Fact Sheet 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements Page 4 Required Report Content The repons must include the following: The status of compliance with permit conditions, including an assessment of the appropriateness of the selected BMPs and progress toward achieving the selected measurable goals for each minimum measure; [] Results of any information collected and analyzed, including monitoring data, if any; [] A summary of the storm water activities planned for the next reporting cycle; [21 A change in any identified best management practices or measurable goals for any minimum measure; and [21 Notice of relying on another governmental entity to satisfy some of the permit obligations (if applicable). A Change in Selected BMPs If, upon evaluation of the program, improved controls are identified as necessary, permittees should revise their mix of BMPs to provide for a more effective program. Such a change, and an explanation of the change, must be noted in a report to the NPDES permitting authority. What are the Recordkeeping Requirements? Records required by the NPDES permitting authority must be kept for at least 3 years and made accessible to the public at reasonable times during regular business hours. Records need not be submitted to the NPDES permitting authority unless the permittee is requested to do so. What Are the Deadlines for Compliance? The NPDES permitting authority issues general permits for regulated small MS4s by December 9, 2002. Operators of "automatically designated" regulated small MS4s in urbanized areas submit their permit applications within 90 days of permit issuance, no later than March 10, 2003. Operators of regulated small MS4s designated by the permitting authority submit their permit applications within 180 days of notice. Regulated small MS4 storm water management programs fully developed and implemented by the end of the first permit term, typically a 5-year period What are the Penalties for Noncompliance? The NPDES permit that the operator of a regulated small MS4 is required to obtain is federally enforceable, thus subjecting the permittee to potential enforcement actions and penalties by the NPDES permitting authority if the permittee does not fully comply with application or permit requirements. This federal enforceability also includes the right for interested parties to sue under the citizen suit provision (section 405) of the CWA. For Additional Information Contacts U.S. EPA Regional Storm Water Coordinators~ Region I { ME2, NH2, VT, MA2, RI, CT }: Thelma Murphy 617 918-1615 Region 2 {NY, NJ, PR2, VI}: Karen O'Brien 212 637-3717 Region 3 {PA, DE, DC2, MD, VA, WV}: Mary Letzkus 215 814-2087 Region 4 {KY, TN, NC, SC, MS, AL, GA, FL}: Michael Mitchell 404 562-9303 Region 5 {MN, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH}: Peter Swenson 312 886-0236 Region 6 {NM2, TX, OK, AR, LA}: Brent Larsen 214 665-7523 Region 7 {NE, KS, IA, MO}: Ralph Summers 913 551-7416 Region 8 {MT, ND, WY, SD, UT, CO}: Vernon Berry 303 312-6234 Region 9 {CA, NV, AZ2, HI}: Eugene Bromley 415 744-1906 Region 10 {WA, OR, ID2, AK2}: Bob Robichaud 206 553-1448 I The U.S. EPA is the NPDES permitting authority for all federally recognized Indian Country Lands, and for Federal facilities in AK, American Samoa, AZ, CO, DE, DC, FL, Guam, ID, Johnston Atoll, ME, MA, Midway & Wake Islands, NH, NM, PR, VT, VI, and WA. 2 Denotes a non-authorized State for the NPDES storm water program. For these States only, the U.S. EPA Region is the NPDES permitting authority. All other States serve as NPDES permitting authorities for the storm water program. U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Phone: (202) 564-9545 · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater United States Office of Water Environmental Protection (4203) Agency EPA 833-F-00-013 January 2000 Fact Sheet 3.0 &EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 - Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 - Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 - Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 - Urbanized Areas: Definition and Descdption Minimum Control Measures 2.3 - Public Education and Outreach 2.4 - Public Participation/ Involvement 2.5 - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 - Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 - Post-Construction Runoff Control 2.8 - Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 - Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 - Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 - Construction Program Overview 3.1 - Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 - Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity Small Construction Program Overview The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, later referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), prohibit the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters of the United States from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Efforts to improve water quality under the NPDES program traditionally have focused on reducing pollutants in industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage treatment plant discharges. Over time, it has become evident that more diffuse sources of water pollution, such as storm water runoff from construction sites, are also significant contributors to water quality problems. Sediment runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than those from agricultural lands, and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forest lands. During a short period of time, construction activity can contribute more sediment to streams than can be deposited over several decades, causing physical and biological harm to our Nation's waters. In 1990, EPA promulgated rules establishing Phase I of the NPDES storm water program. Phase I addresses, among other discharges, discharges from large construction activities disturbing 5 acres or more of land. Phase II of the NPDES storm water program covers small construction activities disturbing between 1 and 5 acres. Phase II became final on December 8, 1999 with small construction permit applications due by March 10, 2003 (specific compliance dates will be set by the NPDES permitting authority in each State). This fact sheet outlines the construction activities covered by Phase ! and Phase II, including possible waiver options from Phase II coverage, and the Phase II construction program requirements. Who Is Covered Under the Phase I Rule? Sites Five Acres and Greater The Phase I NPDES storm water rule identifies eleven categories of industrial activity in the definition of "storm water discharges associated with industrial activity" that must obtain an NPDES permit. Category (x) of this definition is construction activity, commonly referred to as "large" construction activity. Under category (x), the Phase I rule requires all operators of construction activity disturbing 5 acres or greater of land to apply for an NPDES storm water permit. Operators of sites disturbing less than 5 acres are also required to obtain a permit if their activity is part of a "larger common plan of development or sale" with a planned disturbance of 5 acres or greater. "Disturbance" refers to exposed soil resulting from activities such as cleating, grading, and excavating. Construction activities can include road building, construction of residential hou'ses, office buildings, industrial sites, or demolition. What Is Meant by a "Larger Common Plan of Development or Sale"? As defined in EPA's NPDES storm water general permit for large construction activity, a "larger common plan of development or sale" means a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct construction activities are occurring under one plan (e.g., the operator is building on three half-acre lots in a 6-acre development). The "plan" in a common plan of development or sale is broadly defined as any announcement or piece of documentation Fact Sheet 3.0 - Construction Program Overview Page 2 (including a sign, public notice or hearing, sales pitch, advertisement, drawing, permit application, zoning request, computer design, etc.) or physical demarcation (including boundary signs, lot stakes, surveyor markings, etc.) indicating that construction activities may occur on a specific plot. What Is the Definition of an "Operator" of a Construction Site? As defined in EPA's storm water general permit for large construction activity, an "operator" is the party or parties that has: Operational control of construction project plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications; or Day-to-day operational control of those activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the site or other permit conditions (e.g., they are authorized to direct workers at a site to carry out activities required by the SWPPP or comply with other permit conditions). There may be more than one party at a site performing the tasks related to "operational control" as defined above. Depending on the site and the relationship between the parties (e.g., owner, developer, contractor), there can either be a single party acting as site operator and consequently be responsible for obtaining permit coverage, or there can be two or more operators, all obligated to seek permit coverage. It is important to note that NPDES~authorized States may use a different definition of "operator" than the one above. How Is the Phase II Construction Rule Related to the Phase I Construction Rule? In 1992, the Ninth Circuit court remanded for further proceedings portions of EPA's existing Phase I storm water regulation related to the category (x) discharges from large construction activity (NRDC v. EPA, 966 F.2d at 1292). EPA responded to the court's decision by designating under Phase II storm water discharges from construction activity disturbing less than 5 acres as sources that should be regulated to protect water quality. The Phase II Rule designates these sources as "storm water discharges associated with small construction activity," rather than as another category under "storm water associated with industrial activity." Who Is Covered Under the Phase II Construction Rule? Sites Between One and Five Acres The Storm Water Phase II Rule automatically designates, as small construction activity under the NPDES storm water permitting program, all operators of construction site activities that result in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 and less than 5 acres. Sites Less Than One Acre Site activities disturbing less than 1 acre are also regulated as small construction activity if they are part of a larger common plan of development or sale with a planned disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 acre and less than 5 acres, or if they are designated by the NPDES permitting authority. The NPDES permitting authority or EPA Region may designate construction activities disturbing less than 1 acre based on the potential for contribution to a violation of a water quality standard or for significant contribution of pollutants to waters of the United States. Are Waivers Available for Operators of Regulated Construction Activity? yes, but only for small, not large, construction activity. Under the Phase II Rule, NPDES permitting authorities have the option of providing a waiver from the requirements to operators of small construction activity who certify to either one of two conditions: Low predicted rainfall potential (i.e., activity occurs during a negligible rainfall period), where the rainfall erosivity factor ("R" in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation [RUSLE]) is less than 5 during the period of construction activity; or A determination that storm water controls are not necessary based on either: (A) A "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) that address the pollutant(s) of concern for construction activities; OR (B) An equivalent analysis that determines allocations are not needed to protect water quality based on consideration of instream concentrations, expected growth in pollutant concentrations from all sources, and a margin of safety. Fact Sheet 3.0 - Construction Program Overview Page 3 Pollutants of concern include sediment or a parameter that addresses sediment (such as total suspended solids, turbidity, or siltation) and any other pollutant that has been identified as a cause of The intent of the waiver provision is to waive only those sites. that are highly unlikely to have a negative effect on water quality. Therefore, before applying for a waiver, operators of small construction activity are encouraged to consider the potential water quality impacts that may result from their project and to carefully examine such factors as proximity to water resources and sensitivity of receiving waters. ae What is the Rainfall Erosivity Factor in Waiver O? Waiver O uses the Rainfall Erosivity Factor to determine whether the potential for polluted discharge is low enough to justify a waiver from the requirements. It is one of six variables used by the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)--a predictive tool originally used to measure soil loss from agricultural lands at various times of the year on a regional basis--to predict soil loss from construction sites. The Rainfall Erosivity Factor waiver is time-sensitive and is dependent on when during the year a construction activity takes place, how long it lasts, and the expected rainfall and intensity during that time. For information about the rainfall erosivity waiver, see Fact Sheet 3.1. Charts detailing the value of the Rainfall Erosivity Factor by particular regions can be found in Chapter 2 of the RUSLE user's guide, which can be downloaded at: http://www.epa.gov/owngsw/phase2. b. What is a "TMDL" in Waiver For impaired waters where technology-based controls required by NPDES permits are not achieving State water quality standards, the CWA requires implementation of the TMDL process. The TMDL process establishes the maximum amount of pollutants a waterbody can assimilate before water quality is impaired, then requires that this maximum level not be exceeded. A TMDL is done for each pollutant that is found to be contributing to the impairment of a waterbody or a segment of a waterbody. To allow a waiver for construction activities, a TMDL would need to address sediment, or a parameter that addresses sediment such as total suspended solids, turbidity, or siltation. Additional TMDLs addressing common pollutants from construction sites such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and oil and grease also may be necessary to ensure water quality protection and allow a waiver from the NPDES storm water program. A TMDL assessment determines the source or sources of a pollutant of concern, considers the maximum allowable level of that pollutant for the waterbody, then allocates to each source or category of sources a set level of the pollutant that it is allowed to discharge into the waterbody. Allocations to point sources are called wasteload allocations. How Would an Operator Qualify for, and Certify to, Waiver ~? EParAe expects that when TMDLs, or equivalent analyses completed, there may be a d~termination that certain classes of sources, such as small construction activity, would not have to control their contribution of pollutants of concern to the waterbody in order for the waterbody to be in attainment with water quality standards (i.e., these sources were not assigned wasteload allocations). In such a case, to qualify for waiver ~, the operator of the construction site would need to certify that its construction activity will take place, and the storm water discharges will occur, within the area covered either by the TMDLs or equivalent analysis. A certification form would likely be provided by the NPDES permitting authority for this purpose.. What Does the Phase II Construction Program Require? The Phase H Final Rule requires operators of Phase II small construction sites, nationally, to obtain an NPDES permit and implement practices to minimize pollutant runoff. It is important to note that, locally, these same sites also may be covered by State, Tribal, or local construction runoff control programs (see Fact Sheets 2.6 and 2.7 for information on the Phase II small MS4's construction program). For the Phase H small construction program, EPA has taken an approach similar to Phase ! where the program requirements are not fully defined in the rule but rather in the NPDES permit issued by the NPDES permitting authority. EPA recommends that the NPDES permitting authorities use their existing Phase I large construction general permits as a guide to developing their Phase II small construction permits. In doing so, the Phase II requirements would be similar to the three general Phase I requirements summarized below. Submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) that includes general information and a certification that the activity will not impact endangered or threatened species. This certification is unique to EPA's NOI and is not a requirement of most NPDES-delegated State's NOIs; The development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with appropriate BMPs to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site; and Fact Sheet 3.0 - Construction Program Overview Page 4 Submission of a Notice of Termination (NOT) when final stabilization of the site has been achieved as defined in the permit or when another operator has assumed control of the site. Can the Permitting Authority Reference a Qualifying Erosion and Sediment Control Program in NPDES Construction Permits? yes. The Phase II Rule allows the NPDES permitting authority to include in its NPDES permits for large and for small construction activity conditions that incorporate by reference qualifying State, Tribal, or local erosion and sediment control program requirements. A qualifying program must include the following requirements: Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices; Requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste that may cause adverse impacts to water quality; Requirements for construction site operators to develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan; and Requirements to submit a site plan for review that incorporates consideration of potential water quality impacts. In addition to the four elements above, a qualifying program for large construction activities must also include any additional requirements necessary to achieve the applicable technology-based standards of "Best Available Technology" (BAT) and "Best Conventional Technology" (BCT) based on the best professional judgment of the permit writer. Should a State, Tribal, or local program include one or more, but not all, of the elements listed above, the permitting authority can reference the program in the permit, provided it also lists the missing element(s) as a condition in the permit. What are Some Recommended BMPs for Small Construction Sites? The approach and BMPs used for controlling pollutants in storm water discharges from small construction sites may vary from those used for large sites since their characteristics can differ in many ways. For example, operators of small sites may have more limited access to qualified design personnel and technical information. Also, small sites may have less space for installing and maintaining certain BMPs. As is the case with all construction sites, erosion and sediment control at small construction sites is best accomplished with proper planning, installation, and maintenance of controls. The following practices have shown to be efficient, cost effective, and versatile for small construction site operators to implement. The practices are divided into two categories: non-structural and structural. [3 Non-Structural BMPs · Minimizing Disturbance · Preserving Natural Vegetation · Good Housekeeping Structural BMPs Erosion Controls · Mulch · Grass · Stockpile Covers Sediment Controls · Silt Fence · Inlet Protection · Check Dams · Stabilized Construction Entrances · Sediment Traps Most erosion and sediment controls require regular maintenance to operate correctly. Accumulated sediments should be removed frequently and materials should be checked periodically for wear. Regular inspections by qualified personnel, which can allow problem areas to be addressed, should be performed after major rain events. Fact Sheet 3.0 - Construction Program Overview Page 5 For Additional Information Contact tr~ U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater · Phone: (202)-564-9545 Your local soil conservation district office. They can provide assistance with RUSLE and other conservation related issues. · A list of conservation district contacts is available at: www.nacdnet.org/resources/cdsonweb.html Reference Documents ~ Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series · Intemet: cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/phase2.pdf Agricultural Handbook Number 703, Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Chapter 2, pp. 21-64, January 1997. · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ruslech2.pdf Guidance for Water Quality Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. April 1991. U.S. EPA Office of Water. EPA 440/4-91-001. · Intemet: www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities (63 FR 7857). · Intemet: www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cgp-nat.pdf www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cgp-nat2.pdf www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cgp-nat3.pdf www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cgp-nat4.pdf ITEM NO: DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND ACTION CONCERNING SIGN VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT POLICY SUMMARY: In the event the City Council decides to table the Rainbow Construction Inc. Sign Variance appeal until the new Sign Ordinance is adopted, Staff needs direction from the Council concerning the enforcement of the regulation prohibiting rooftop signs in the interim. The Council should adopt a consistent policy so that Rainbow Construction does not receive more favorable treatment than other similarly situated businesses. For example, one possible policy could be to suspend enforcement of the sign ordinance against corporate flags placed on business rooftops. Another policy could suspend enforcement of all rooftop signs or only rooftop corporate flags which are subject to a pending variance application. Any of these policies could be applied to Rainbow and other similarly situated businesses. The narrowest policy would suspend enforcement only as to rooftop corporate flags which are subject to a pending variance application. As indicated previously to the Council, it is anticipated that the new Ordinance will be presented to the Council for introduction and adoption this spring. This Agenda Item is intended to initiate a discussion regarding this matter and for the Council to provide direction to Staff concerning enforcement of the regulation. If the Council chooses to take a formal action on the Rainbow Variance appeal, this Item becomes moot, and no discussion or direction is necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss this matter and provide direction to Staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: None APPROVED: ~.~ Ca~dac(~ I--[o-rs~e~ Ci"ty lanager AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: lOe January 15, 2003 SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING STATE BUDGET DEFICIT AND PROPOSED CLOSURE OF UKIAH AIR ATTACK BASE The Governor announced on December 18th that the State budget deficit had reached a high of $34.8 billion, significantly higher than the $21.4 billion estimated a few weeks ago by the legislative analyst. On December 6, 2002, the Governor's mid-year spending reduction proposal was posted on the State Department of Finance website, a 35 page document that delineates in detail $10.2 billion in reductions and adjustments in the State budget over a two-year time period of 2002-2004. These proposals contain $1.8 billion in suggested transportation cuts, including elimination of $90 million in payments due to cities and counties in this budget year for rehabilitation and maintenance of streets. The Governor is also recommending immediate transfer to the State General Fund of any balances in Redevelopment Agencies' Low and IVloderate Income Housing funds that were unencumbered as of December 1, 2002. The estimate of this transference is $500 million. Although local agencies understand that this large deficit will be felt by all agencies and individuals within the State of California, there has been a stance by the League of California Cities to the Governor regarding local government participation. Since 1992, the last time the State incurred a major budget deficit, billions of local tax dollars have been diverted from local governments to the state, now totaling approximately $5 billion annually. As a result, local services are stretched thin at a time when population and demands for services are soaring and local revenues are also down from a slowing economy. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTTON: Discuss report and approve letter on CDF to Governor. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct staff to take different approach to CDF closure. Citizens Advised: N/A Prepared by.' Candace Horsley, City IVlanager Coordinated with: N/A Attachments: Letters Regarding CDF Air Attack Base Highljg~of Governor's Proposed 2002-2003 State Budget Approved:r-~:~ i_~.~., [~...-.~ Candace Horsley, CiL-y~lVlanager 4 :CAN/ASR. State Budget. 11503 In reviewing the Governor's proposal, there are items that will affect cities in general, but detailed analysis of the potential cost are not possible at this point. Other reductions can be identified as definite financial impacts to the City of Ukiah. Additional analysis will be performed as the State legislature more clearly defines the long-term reductions to cities and counties. Specific ProPOsal Cuts That Would Affect Cities · Department of Housing and Community Development: o Homeless Shelter Operations Funding: The historic level of State funding for homeless shelter operations has been $4.0 million. This proposal would reduce the funding by $1.3 million in 2002-03. o Transfers to the General Fund: The Administration proposes that $5.5 million in funds previously appropriated for Self-Help housing projects be returned to the General Fund. Also, $1.9 million will be returned to the General Fund from the Predevelopment Loan Fund. · Department of Transportation: o Reduce funding in the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF): The Administration proposes to reduce the TCRF by returning $100 million to the General Fund. o Suspending 2003-04 General Fund transfer to the Transportation Investment Fund ('I'~F): The Administration proposes that the 2003-04 General Fund transfer to the 'I'IF for the Traffic Congestion Relief Program of $1 billion be suspended pursuant to Article XIXB, Section 1 (d) of the Constitution. Suspension of future transfers will be considered in the Governor's 2003-04 Budget. o Forgiveness of Planned 2003-04 General Fund Loan Repayment to TCRF: Considering the current and projected status of the General Fund, the Administration proposes to forgive the planned 2003-04 loan repayment of $500 million from the General Fund to the TCRF. Forgiveness of the remaining outstanding loan to the General Fund will be considered in the Governor's 2003- 04 Budget. o Deferral of Planned 2003-04 TCRF Loan Repayment to the State Highway Account (SHA): Due to the 2002-03 transfer from the TCRF to the General Fund based on the current and projected status of the General Fund, the Administration proposes to defer the planned 2003-04 loan repayment of $50 million from TCRF to the SHA. o Elimination of Remaining 2002-03 SHA Local Street and Road Funding: Due to the aforementioned deferral of the planned 2003-04 loan repayment of $50 million from TCRF to the SHA, the Administration proposes to eliminate the second, third, and fourth quarter 2002-03 apportionments to local agencies for street and road maintenance. The savings to the SHA as a result of this proposal is estimated to be $90 million; however, this amount will vary based on actual revenues. · Water Resources Control Board: o Various Water Quality and Water Rights Programs: The Administration proposes to reduce funding for water quality monitoring activities, water rights complaint investigations, review of water rights applications, and technical assistance. However, the Budget still includes $73.9 million General Fund for other high priority water quality and water rights programs, and the $10.4 million Cleanup and Abatement Account is available for investigations and cleanup efforts. · Office of Criminal 3ustice Planning o Public Safety Local Assistance Programs: The 2002 Budget Act included $57 million General Fund for local assistance grants for various Public Safety programs. The Administration proposes to revert $3.4 million from the funds appropriated for these programs. · California Arts Council (CAC): o CAC Grant Funds: The Administration proposes to revert $1 million from the California Arts Council for local grants to assist art programs, artists, and local arts councils, and $112,000 for related State operations. · Local Government Financing' o Transfer of Unencumbered Low and IVloderate ]:ncome Housing Funds to the State: Community Redevelopment Agencies are required to transfer at least 20 percent of their annual property tax increment into the Low and Moderate ]:ncome Housing Fund for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving Iow- and moderate-income housing. An estimated $500 million of property tax revenue that would otherwise be available for schools and other governmental functions, if not for the establishment of the Community Redevelopment Agencies, remains unutilized. The Administration proposes that Community Redevelopment Agencies be required to immediately transfer any balances in their Low and IVloderate :Income Housing Funds that were unencumbered on December 1, 2002, to the State Controller for the current year. The Administration intends to address the overall policy of redevelopment agency funding as part of the Governor's 2003-04 Budget. How Will the Governor's Budget Cut Proposal Affect the City of Ukiah? Transportation Funds: The mid-year transportation proposed cuts would eliminate $90 million for local street and road maintenance. There are several local transportation funding sources that will be reduced if the Governor's proposal is adopted: 1) AB 2928 Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds: Tn recognition of the large unmet road maintenance needs, several years ago the legislature approved allocating a portion of the state's budget surplus to Caltrans and local government for transportation projects. This funding came from the sales tax on gasoline sales, which was going into the State's General Fund. The City of Ukiah receives about $45,000 a year under this bill. The Governor has proposed to suspend payments for the second, third, and fourth quarters of the current fiscal year and suspend all funding for the 2003-04 fiscal year. 2) Prop 42 Funds: Prop 42, the Transportation Congestion ]:mprovement Act, required that existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes on the sale of motor vehicle fuel be used for local transportation purposes effective July 1, 2008. This was part of the same funding that AB2928 used, except it assured local government the use of 3) 4) the funds after 2008. Revenues would be used for public transit and mass transportation, city and county streets and road repair improvements, and state highway improvements. Funds from the gas sales tax were being placed in the State's Transportation Tmprovement Projects (ST[P) funds until 2008. The Governor is proposing to eliminate the transfer of the entire Prop 42 funding to the ST]:P fund. This is estimated at $1 billion in fiscal year 2003-04, for State General Fund purposes. For transportation, this means a further delay in the shift of sales tax on gasoline for transportation, which was slated to come to Caltrans and local road projects. Loan Payment: The Governor also proposes the deferral of $550 million in loan payments the State General Fund owes transportation funds in 2002-03 as a result of last year's loan from the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund and the State Highway Fund. He borrowed these funds to construct his own list of chosen road projects and now that there is a large deficit, he is asking that the state forgive the loan. This again will re- adjust state transportation funding money, which could include the loss of funding for both the Willits and Hopland bypasses. State Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP): The Governor is proposing to suspend payments for ST[P funding and/or defer projects to future years. Last year, all cities and counties were asked to defer their 2002 ST[P funding and the City of Ukiah projects are now deferred over the years until 2007-08. This new proposal could reduce all future funding for projects. The City of Ukiah was to receive over $1.7 million for road and rail projects within the City, based on this ST[P cycle. We have been told that the 2004 ST~P will most likely be cancelled. Action on ST[P allocations for fiscal year 2002-03 has been tabled until February. Phil Dow of MCOG is attending state sessions on transportation issues up to three times a week and will inform us as developments occur. Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Tncome Housing: The Governor has proposed to shift to the State General Fund $500 million from Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Tncome Housing Funds, encumbered as of December 1, 2002. At a time when the housing crisis continues to grow, this could mean a loss of housing units and funding for homeless programs within our region. This item will be discussed in more detail under the Redevelopment Agency's agenda item. Other Concerns: Though the first proposal by the Governor will have impacts on local agencies, staff is very concerned about other potential areas that have been mentioned by the Governor, which could impact us in even more severe ways: Vehicle License Fee (VLF): The Vehicle License Fees were reduced several years ago, however, the State General Fund backfilled any of the reductions in revenue to local governments. The backfill for the City of Ukiah is $581,500. Many legislators have commented that raising the VLF to previous levels would eliminate the annual State General Fund obligation, currently $4 billion, by relieving the state of its obligation to backfill the VLF fees to local government. Our concern is that if the Governor does not go this route, he may reduce the VLF funding that is currently being received by local government and retain it for the State. This would be a major hit to cities, similar to the ERAF shifts in the early 90's. The City of Ukiah currently receives approximately $865,000 per year in VLF funds, which is approximately 10% of our entire General Fund revenues. Local law enforcement grants: 1) Booking fee reimbursement: The state has required cities to pay counties a booking fee since 1991. The City has been reimbursed by the state for the booking fee for the last several years, but this could be the last year. For the City of Ukiah, this is $65,000 per year. 2) State COPS Allocations: We have received over $100,000 in annual funding under the COPS grant program. Tn 2002, the Council approved using $100,000 from the COPS allocation for purposes of adding a new position to the Police Department of Traffic Enforcement Officer. The Personnel Department is in the process of recruitment for that position, but has not yet filled the vacancy. Last year, there was a proposal by the Governor to eliminate this funding, but due to pressure from the legislators, it was reinstated for one more year. We are not anticipating continuance of this funding for the next few years. 3) Local Law Enforcement Block Grants: The City has received various amounts of funding through these grants. This year, the City has received $195,000 in local law enforcement funding from the state, which has been used for a variety of projects. We do not expect further funding will be available after this fiscal year. Prop. 40---State Park Bond: The City of Ukiah would have received $226,000 in automatic allocations under the second round of funding. The Governor has discussed 'borrowing' these funds, supposedly to return to cities at a later unknown date. ]:ncreased Fees: The City has already experienced letters from the various state departments, either increasing the fee amount for permits and services, sometimes 50- 100% higher than last year's, or creating entirely new fees. Tn the letters, the departments indicate that due to the lack of funding at the state level, they are going to be charging the local agencies these fees. For the upcoming budget hearings, staff will have a full reckoning of the additional costs for these permits. Other Solutions The Governor has stated several other solutions to the budget crisis besides spending reductions. The legislature may be in favor of allowing local governments to generate their own funding by lowering the threshold for transportation sales tax approval from its current 2/3 to a more reasonable 50% or 55% majority. Several Assembly members have indicated their willingness to re-introduce this legislation. The Governor is also discussing a one-cent sales tax increase that would be a revenue source for the state budget deficit. Obviously, if this one-cent sales tax increase were approved, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for local agencies to pass local transportation sales tax increases. Conclusion Overall, the proposed state budget cuts could affect the City of Ukiah between $~00,000 and $800,000 on an annual basis. ]:n the next several years, depending on what becomes of the 2002 ST[P funding, we could also lose $1.8 million of transportation funding that had previously been approved. We are currently looking at the loss of COPS funding, local law enforcement funding, other transportation funds, vehicle license fees and other general fund sources of revenue. Staff will continue to update the Council as we receive more information over the next five months. The Governor's proposals cover only 30% of the total deficit, and unless other options are pursued we can expect to experience even more reductions in our revenue. We will be preparing a fiscal year 2003-04 budget that eliminates the items being proposed for cuts or that are being discussed as possible cuts, so that we will be as realistic as possible on what our expense limitations. The Governor's speech on January 8 raised another potential concern for local government. "Our budgets have become painfully dependent upon extremely volatile sources of revenue, constraining our ability to make long-term vital public investments. ]it's high time to free ourselves from this boom-and-bust syndrome." Davis is soliciting ideas on how to shield state government from the wild swings in economic cycles. Unfortunately, this sounds very much like what happened in :[990 when the cities ERAF funding was transferred by the state to the schools, as it was much more stable then other revenue sources. Cities then became much more dependant on sales tax that is dependent upon volatile swings of the economy. Long-term planning became very difficult after this time period. Hopefully his desire is to stabilize not only state revenues but those of local government as well. The City has been fiscally conservative in spending and planning for the community's future needs. We did not spend until we had the money and we budgeted for capital projects for years to pay the costs of needed City services. ]it is so frustrating to have worked so hard on obtaining this position, after coming out of a large deficit situation in the mid-90's, and to have our financially stability once again at stake. The City will need to make some very difficult decisions for this coming budget session. Council workshops will be scheduled to discuss the implications of the revenue reductions and to direct staff in the appropriate direction for the City's own budget cuts. CDF AZR ATTACK BASE As part of the proposed reductions for the State's Budget deficit, CDF has recommended to the Governor that the Ukiah CDF Air Attack Base be closed. CDF is proposing to close both the Porterville, in the southern portion of the state, and the Ukiah Air Attack Base, with the tankers being relocated to Fresno, Santa Rosa, and Chico. ]:nitial attack areas previously covered by the Ukiah Air Base would be covered by aircraft from the Rhonerville Air Base in Humboldt County, the Santa Rosa Air Base in Sonoma County, and the Chico Air Base in Butte County. CDF claims that improved technology allows CDF to make this change without compromising attack effectiveness. The savings are estimated at "$:[50,000 in the current year and $795,000 in the budget year". Staff contacted the Ukiah Daily .lournal and asked them to run a story asking for public support to oppose this closure by contacting the Governor and Senator Chesbro. Since that time, there has been a tremendous response from members of the public, who are literally horrified by the implications to the region's safety if CDF closes this base. Of special significance was the involvement of Mike Sweeney, who spent many hours retrieving information on the various costs of the CDF operation to compare their claim of potential savings against actual costs. He has also emailed over 100 neighbors living in the mountains surrounding Ukiah. Senator Chesbro is in our court and asked that all correspondence and information from the public on this issue be copied to his office. His local representative, ~lennifer Puser, is providing us with continual updates from the Capital. ! also contacted the Fire Chiefs Association and they met last week to discuss this item. They have agreed to send a letter to the Governor. The Board of Supervisors is also considering this item at it's ~lanuary 14 meeting. We have also received support from several local tanker pilots including a letter from .lohn Butts that is attached. Mr. Butts lists three major concerns regarding the proposed closure: 1. Longer response times create larger fires which in turn cost more money, 2. !t actually will take 30 to 35 minutes to make a trip from Chico, not the 10 to 16 minutes CDF has claimed, and 3. Santa Rosa and Rohnerville Bases can often be fogged in leaving a long response time to our area. Doug Baker, also a local tanker pilot states that what CDF proposes to save is going to be burned up in the extra fuel from the remote bases. Attached, you will find several draft letters to the state opposing the closure that delineates that the savings claimed by CDF are inaccurate. Rather then save money, there would be increased costs due to fuel consumption, maintenance, labor and other expenses incurred by the state when the airplanes fly. Using these rates, Sweeny estimates that the additional cost for CDF response to Mendocino and Lake County fires are projected at $405,000 per year. .lennifer Puser has informed us that the Air Attack Base issue will not be taken up next week at the Capitol. The Legislature has not scheduled the discussion until after the Governor's Budget comes out on .lanuary 10. The Governor had wanted to move forward quickly with his first $:[0 billion in cuts, but Senator Burton doesn't want to do so because there are so many controversial items in the proposal. The Air Attack Base will more than likely be pulled and dealt with later. Senator Chesbro has requested that the budget staff pull the item off if they see it coming up in the Senate, and Assemblymember Wiggins' office has been requested to ask the same thing of the Assembly. Staff is requesting Council approval to send a letter to the Governor, with a copy to Wes Chesbro, opposing the closure of the Ukiah CDF Air Attack Base. Pilot slams CDF Govemor Gray Davis State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Proposed closure of Ukiah Air Attack Base Dear Govemor Davis: We believe the proposed closure of the CDF air attack base in Ukiah won't help close the state budget deficit. In fact, it will increase state costs. Without the Ukiah Air Attack Base, planes will have to respond to fires in Mendocino and Lake counties from Chico and Santa Rosa. According to CDF, this will increase round-trip flight times by 48 minutes from Chico and 36 minutes from Santa Rosa compared to a flight originating in Ukiah. With approximately 324 air tanker flights and 145 air attack spotter plane flights per year serving Mendocino and Lake counties, this means 227 additional tanker hours and 111 additional spotter plane hours of flying time if half the flights originate in Chico and half in Santa Rosa. We have been informed by local CDF officials that the costs of operation for these aircraft (the rates used for cost recovery purposes) are $1400 per hour for the S2 tanker and $790 per hour for the OV 10 spotter. Presumably, these rates represent the true cost for fuel, parts, maintenance, labor and other expenses incurred by the state when these airplanes fly. Using these rates, the additional cost for CDF response to Mendocino & Lake County fires can be projected at $405,000 per year. But $405,000 is only the beginning. Since the air attack response times will be so much slower, the fires will get bigger. More air attack operations will be needed to extinguish them, together with more CDF effort on the ground. If even a single wildland fire gets out of control because of the delayed response, the state's costs will escalate into the millions. As CDF veterans attest, the key to cost-effective fire fighting is quick response to extinguish fires when they are still small. "Typically minutes count in having an effective initial attack fire protection program," CDF-Mendocino deputy chief Lloyd Johnson told a local newspaper. It cost the state $1.6 million to extinguish the Bums fire near Laytonville on September 19-21, 2002. Unfortunately, both Ukiah-based air tankers had been responding to fires elsewhere and had landed at Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa. They immediately took off for the Bums fire, but because they weren't leaving from Ukiah, their response was delayed. According to CDF and pilot sources, this delay meant that the fire grew too large to be controlled by the initial air attack. The lack of response from Ukiah Air Attack (unavoidable in this case) was the direct cause of this $1.6 million expense. The Bums fire is not an isolated case. CDF personnel and the contract pilots attest that rapid response from Ukiah Air Attack stops fires on a daily basis with one air drop that would otherwise grow so that more costs were incurred to stop them. We are particularly concemed about the slowness of response to Mendocino-Lake fires from the Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa. Unlike Ukiah, the Sonoma County Airport is tower controlled and all CDF operations must wait for tower clearance. Since Sonoma County Airport has 134,000 operations per year, compared to only 32,000 in Ukiah, there will additional delays in take-off and landing. Under some summer weather conditions, fog prevents any CDF operations at Sonoma County Airport. Compared to these additional costs, what are CDF's potential savings from closing the Ukiah air attack base? As best we can determine, these savings are limited to approximately $100,000 for 6-7 seasonal ground crew and $5,184 in facility rent. All other personnel and equipment will be retained in the CDF system. For these reasons, we believe that closure of the Ukiah Air Attack will actually harm your efforts to close the state's budget deficit. And it will surely cause greater fire losses to the public. Three million acres of North Coast forest, rangeland, and rural communities are endangered. Closure of Ukiah Air Attack is particularly frightening for thousands of Mendocino County residents who live in remote high fire risk areas that are separated from the nearest fire station by many miles of bad roads. For 40 years, they have relied totally on the proximity of the Ukiah Air Attack for their physical security in case of a wildland fire. For them, closure of Ukiah Air Attack is just as threatening as it would be for you if the City of Sacramento shut down all its fire houses and announced that your fire protection would now be sent from Vallejo. We recognize the tremendous challenge to the State of Califomia from the budget deficit. The residents of Mendocino County expect to share with all Californians the impact of this crisis and the hardship from the cuts that must be made. But all budget cuts must be cost-effective, meaning they yield more savings than new costs. Closure of the Ukiah Air Attack Base is not cost-effective. We respectfully request a reconsideration of this issue. If our information about costs is incorrect or incomplete, we would appreciate the opportunity to review any altemative data. Sincerely, cc: Senator Wesley Chesbro State Capitol, Room 5100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Assemblymember Patty Berg State Capitol, Room 2137 Sacramento, CA 95814 Andrea Tuttle, Director California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 94224-2460 John Butts P.O. Box 1032, Ukiah, CA 95482 Home Phone: 707-462.-8901 Cell Phone: 707-972-3228 January 9th, 2003 Candace Horsely, City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Dr. Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ms. Horsely, I am writing to voice my concern regarding the potential closure of the Ukiah and Poerterville Air Attack Bases. As a concerned citizen as well as one of the local tanker pilots stationed at the Ukiah Air Attack Base, I believe it is not in the best interest of the people of Mendocino and Lake County as well as the surrounding counties of Humboldt and Glenn to close this base for a number of reasons. Cost: Longer response times create larger fires, which in turn cost more money and manpower to control. Any savings at the onset of closing these air attack bases would be immediately lost with one medium size fire. Safety: CDF has stated it would take "10 to 16 minutes from Chico to service the Ukiah area. As a pilot, I can tell you this is totally untrue. As a general rule we are not airborne when we are dispatched to afire. The airplane has to be started, receive clearance, get out of traffic patterns, then climb at a slow air speed before we can get to our designed maximum air speed of 210 to 225 mph., therefore, in actuality it takes 30 to 35 minutes to make this trip. Fog: Santa Rosa and Rohnerville Air Attack Bases can often befogged in, thereby creating a massive hole in the 'initial attack system. ' The 13 Air Attack Bases have been strategically placed in order to provide the minimum response time and maximum coverage for our protection. In closing, the Aerial Firefighting program of the California Department of Forestry has drawn national as well as international acclaim as a model program for it's ability to deploy and utilize aircraft to keep fires small and contained, thus keeping the costs for controlling these fires at a minimum. Cutting this essential service will not save us any money. On the contrary, it will cost us a great deal. If I can be of service in any way on this particular issue, please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone numbers listed above. Thank you for your time and consideration in this most important matter. Sincerely Yours, January 10, 2003 Honorable Governor Gray Davis State Capital Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Proposed closure of Ukiah Air Attack Base Dear Honorable Governor Davis: On behalf of the citizens of Ukiah and Mendocino County, we ask for you to not close the Ukiah Air Attack Base in our rural city, based upon the inherent risk to life, property and the lack of cost effectiveness. We believe the proposed closure of the base will not help close the state budget deficit, but in fact will increase the deficit. Lets look at the facts: Without the Ukiah Air Attack Base, aircraft will have to respond to fires in Mendocino and Lake counties from Chico and Santa Rosa. According to the Califomia Department of Forestry (CDF), closing our base will increase round-trip flight times by nearly an hour, from Chico and more than half an hour from Santa Rosa, compared to a flight originating in Ukiah. With approximately 324 air tanker flights and 145 air attack spotter plane flights per year serving Mendocino and Lake counties, this means an additional 227 tanker hours and 111 more hours of spotter plane time, if half of the flights originate in Chico and half in Santa Rosa. This would be shocking! In short, this means an extra $124,000 in state firefighting costs for fuel and aircraft charges for each fire call out. But, $124,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. Since the air attack response time will be much slower, fires will get larger, quicker. In an ironic twist of fate, more air attack operations will be needed to extinguish wildland fires. If even a single wildland fire grows out of control because of a delayed response, the State of California fire suppression costs will soar by the millions! According to CDF Deputy Chief Lloyd Johnson: "Typically minutes count in having an effective initial attack fire protection program," (as reported in the Ukiah Daily Journal December 5, 2002) Governor Davis, this is not some crazy estimate. It cost the state $1.6 million to extinguish the Burns fire near Laytonville on September 19-21, 2002. Unfortunately, both Ukiah-based air tankers had been responding to fires elsewhere and had landed at Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa. They immediately took off for the Bums fire, but because they were not leaving from Ukiah, their response time was delayed. Based upon CDF Command Headquarters, the lack of response from the Ukiah Air Attack base was a direct cause of this $1.6 million additional expense to the taxpayers. 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 Phone# 707/463-6200 Fax# 707/463-6204 Web Address: www. cityofukiah.com We live in a remote area of Califomia, the Bums fire is not an isolated case. CDF personnel and the contract pilots attest that rapid response from the Ukiah Air Attack Base help stop fires in our rural area with one air drop of strategically placed water/retardant. Your constituents in Mendocino County are particularly concemed about the slowness of response time from Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa. Unlike Ukiah, the Sonoma County Airport is tower controlled and all CDF operations must wait for tower clearance. Since Sonoma County Airport has 134,000 take-offs per year, compared to 32,000 for Ukiah, we are sure there will be delays in take-offs and landings. In addition, as a result of the topography of Sonoma County, under some summer weather conditions, fog prevents any CDF operations at the Sonoma County Airport. Compared to these additional costs, what are CDF's potential savings from closing the Ukiah Air Attack Base? We estimate only a mere $100,000 savings. We basically would be cutting a ground crew and saving rental costs. All other personnel and equipment will be retained in the CDF system. On half of the citizens of Ukiah, we believe that closure of the Ukiah Air Attack Base will harm your efforts to close the state's budget deficit. And it will surely cause greater fire losses to the public. By closing our base, three million acres of North Coast forest, rangeland, and rural communities are endangered. Closure of the Ukiah Air Attack Base is indeed frightening for thousands of Mendocino County residents who live in remote high fire risk areas. For forty years, they have relied totally on the proximity of the base for their physical security in case of a remote wildland fire. For these folks, closure of the Ukiah Air Attack Base is just as threatening as it would be for you, if the City of Sacramento would shut down all its fire houses, and announced that your fire protection would now be sent from Vallejo! The citizens of Mendocino County expect to share with all Californians the impact of this budget crisis, and the hardships from the cuts that must be made. But all budget cuts must be cost-effective, meaning they should yield more savings than new costs. Closure of the Ukiah Air Attack Base is not cost-effective and places the lives of our citizens in peril. Our community respectfully requests a reconsideration of this import policy issue. Cordially, Eric Larson, Mayor City of Ukiah Copies to: Senator Wesley Chesbro State Capital, Room #5100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Assemblywoman Patty Berg State Capital, Room #2137 Sacramento, CA 95814 Andrea Tuttle, Director California Depamnent of Forestry & Fire Protection 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 94224-2460 Members of the Ukiah City of Ukiah Council Ukiah, CA Highlights of Governor's Proposed 2002-2003 State Budget January 10, 2003 Jenny Oropeza Chair, Assembly Budget Committee The Govemor's proposed budget identifies the General Fund gap over the Current Year and Budget Year to be $34.6 billion. The following chart identifies how the General Fund gap is closed with both the proposed December Mid-Year Spending Reduction and the proposed January 10 Budget. Governor's Proposed $34.6 Billion General Fund Gap Solution (in millions) Solution Type December January 10 Amount Proposal Total % Cuts / Savings $8,966.4 $11,761.9 $20,728.3 59.9% Realignment 191.6 7,962.4 8,154.0 23.6 Fund Shifts 815.6 1,087.1 1,902.7 5.5 Transfers / Other Revenues 199.7 1,914.6 2,114.3 6.1 Loans / Borrowing 25.4 1,657.9 1,683.3 4.9 Total $10,198.7 $24,383.9 $34,582.6 100.0% Assembly Budget Committee I January 10, 2003 The proposed budget includes total General Fund revenues available for expenditure of $64.7 billion, and expenditures of $62.7 billion. The proposed budget includes a reserve for economic uncertainties of $531 million. The following chart provides a look at the proposed General Fund Budget Summary. 2003-04 Governor's Budget General Fund Budget Summary (in millions) Prior Year Balance Revenues and Transfers Total Resources Available Expenditures Fund Balance Budget Reserves: Reserve for Liquidation of Encumbrances Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties 2002-03 -$2,133 $73,144 $71,oll $75,462 -$4,451 $1,402 -$5,853 2003-04 -$4,451 $69,153 $64,702 $62,769 $1,933 $1,402 $531 A central component of the Governor's proposed budget shifts fiscal responsibility to the counties for some health and social services programs and some court funding. Counties would receive additional, dedicated revenue to pay for these services. The 2003 Realignment proposal would include a cost shift to counties of $8.2 billion and an increase in revenue of $8.3 billion. The Governor proposes to convene work groups to address the statutory changes needed to implement this proposal. The Governor's proposal is similar to a previous realignment effort adopted in 1991. In that proposal, the State transferred mental health, social services, and health programs from the state to county control, altered program cost-sharing ratios, and provided counties with dedicated tax revenues from the sales tax and vehicle license fee to pay for these changes. Assembly Budget Committee 2 January 10, 2003 Realignment Revenues --$8.3 billion Sales Tax Increase -- $4.6 billion. A one-cent additional state-imposed sales tax. Total state and local sales taxes currently vary from 7.25 cents to 8.75 cents per dollar of sales. Personal Income Tax Upper Brackets--S2.6 billion. An increase in the state tax rates for high-income taxpayers from the current 9.3 percent top rate to 10 percent (starting at $136,115 single and $272,230 joint) and to 11 percent for income above $272,232 single and $544,464 joint. Cigarette Tax Increase--S1.2 billion. The state cigarette tax (currently 87 cents, including surtaxes imposed by Propositions 99 and 10) would increase by $1.10 per pack. All of these taxes are proposed to be permanent. From the total of $8.3 billion generated, $8.2 billion will be deposited in a new special fund for realignment and allocated to counties. The remaining money ($96 million) will be used to backfill revenue losses to programs supported by Propositions 99 (health and tobacco education) and 10 (Children and Families) due to the reduced sales of cigarettes that will result from the proposed cigarette tax increase. Realignment Program Shifts --$8.2 billion The 2003 Realignment proposal would shift fiscal responsibility for $8.2 billion worth of program costs to counties. This shift includes: $306 million for Mental Health and Alcohol and Drug Programs including: Integrated Services to Homeless Adults Children's System of Care Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Substance Abuse Programs Proposition 36 drug treatment services Drug Courts $2.3 billion for Children and Youth Programs including: > Child Care programs administered by the Department of Education (excluding pre-school programs) > Child Welfare Services (100% of the non-federal share) > Foster Care (100% of the non-federal share) > Adoptions Assistance Program $2.7 billion for Healthy Community Programs including: ~ 15 percent county share on all Medi-Cal Services (except long term care) > Primary Health ~ Rural Health ~ Indian Health Assembly Budget Committee January 10, 2003 Early Access to Primary Care California Healthcare for Indigents Program Other non-Proposition 99 Health Programs California Food Assistance Program Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants Adult Protective Services 50 percent county share on all CalWORKs employment services and administration $2.6 billion for Long Term Care including: :> In Home Supportive Services (100% of the non-federal share) ~ Medi-Cal Long Term Care $300 million for Court Security. The Governor's Budget calls for structural reforms to the state's revenue and spending policies that will be result of collaboration between the Administration and the Legislature. The budget urges that reforms must be an integral part of the 2003-04 Budget. Specifically, the budget identifies the following areas for reform: Mid-Year spending reduction authority for the Governor (including suspension of entitlement statutes). Place unanticipated revenues in a reserve for one-time purposes. Require sunset reviews of all automatic spending laws and tax breaks. Provide more focus and attention to future costs and financing in the legislative appropriation process. ;> Rebalance the state's revenue structure to make it more stable and fairer. Rebalance local revenue sources to encourage "rational growth" decisions by rather than land use decisions based on the competition for sales taxes (for example, by reassessing business property more frequently to increase property tax revenues from land use decisions that encourage business location). Restore local community control of programs and revenues by allowing local governments more flexibility to generate revenues and administer programs (included the new realignment proposal in this budget), and by eliminating unnecessary state mandates. Assembly Budget Committee 4 January 10, 2003 January Proposals: $543.7 million in savings from the realignment of CalWORKs administration and employment services. $108.9 million in reductions to the Local Child Support Administrative funding. $51.8 million in savings by requiring counties to provide a 25 percent county share in the cost of the Federal Child Support Automation Penalty $18.9 million in additional funds to pay the cost of the Alternative Federal Child Support Automation Penalty. $2.9 million in reductions to the Home Delivered Nutrition Program for seniors. $339.7 million in savings through the reduction of CalWORKs aid payments by 6.16 percent. The aid payment for a family of three would decline from $679 to $637. These reductions assume that the December Revise proposal to suspend Cost of Living Increases in both the current and budget year are enacted. $65.7 in savings from the transfer of federal TANF funds to the federal Title XX block grant to offset General Fund costs in the Department of Developmental Services $307.8 reduction to CalWORKs County Performance Incentives. $460.1 million in savings from the realignment of Foster Care aid payments. :> $217 million in savings from the realignment of the Adoptions Assistance Program $14.5 million in savings from the realignment of the California Food Assistance Program. $662.4 million in savings from reduction of the SSI/SSP rate to the federally required maintenance of effort level effective July 1, 2003. This reduction would reduce the monthly grant level for an aged individual from $757 to $708 These reductions assume that the December Revise proposal to suspend Cost of Living Increases in both the current and budget year are enacted. $95.3 million in savings from the realignment of the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants. $34.1 million in savings from the realignment of the Foster Care Program's administrative costs. Assembly Budget Committee 5 January 10, 2003 $268.1 million in savings from the realignment of the Food Stamps Program administration costs. $14.5 million in savings from the realignment of the California Food Assistance Program. $596.2 million in savings from the realignment of the In Home Supportive Services Program. $60.8 million in savings from the realignment of the Adult Protective Services Program. December Proposals: $94.4 million in 2002-2003 General Fund savings from 10 percent across the board Medi-Cal provider rate reduction, including Mental Health managed care providers, effective April 1, 2003. $63.3 million in 2002-2003 General Fund savings from eliminating various optional Medi-Cal benefits including adult dental services, podiatry, and medical supplies. The elimination would be effective April 1, 2003. $5 million in 2002-2003 General Fund savings from reinstating Quarterly Status Reporting for Medi-Cal eligibility. This reduction would save $85 million General Fund in 2003-2004 $6.2 million in 2002-2003 General Fund savings from reducing eligibility for the 1931B program by conforming eligibility standards to the CalWORKs program, effective April 1, 2003. This reduction would save $118 million General Fund in 2003-2004. $5 million in 2002-2003 General Fund savings from levying an assessment for Developmental Disability intermediate care facilities. $142.7 million in General Fund savings from maximizing the use of federal waivers to claim for Development Disabilities activities. $100 million in 2003-2004 General Fund savings from institutes statewide purchase of service standards for the Department of Developmental Services. $2.2 million in 2003-2004 General Fund savings from consolidating the provision of some Department of Rehabilitation services into the Regional Centers. $34.5 million in 2003-2004 General Fund savings from suspending the Cost of Living Increases for the SSI/SSP and CalWORKS programs for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. This reduction would save at least $328 million General Fund in 2003-2004. $99 million in General Fund savings from eliminating the CalWORKs Stage 3 child care set aside, effective April 1, 2003. Assembly Budget Committee 6 January 10, 2003 Eliminates the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA). All functions of EMSA will be transferred to the Department of Health Services, effective July 1, 2003. Eliminates the Foster Parent Training Fund in the Department of Child Support Services. Eliminates the Child Development Policy Advisory Committee, effective July 1, 2003. $1.5 million in General Fund savings from eliminating the Department of Community Services and Development. All current DCSD programs will be transferred to the Department of Social Services, with the exception of the Naturalization Services Program and the Mentoring Program, which will be eliminated. $2.5 million in General Fund savings from eliminating discretionary General Fund funding for various Department of Aging programs including Senior Nutrition and the Foster Grandparent Program. January Proposals Rescind the Medi-Cal expansion of the aged and disabled, $63.8 million General Fund. Repeal the second year of Transitional Medi-Cal for persons leaving CalWORKS, $2 million General Fund. Repeal 10 additional Medi-Cal Optional Benefits, $87.8 million General Fund. They include: non-emergency medical transportation; optician/optical lab services; hospice; durable medical equipment; optometry; hearing aids; prosthetics; speech/audiology services; orthotics; and physical therapy. Reduce provider rates by an additional 5 percent, $242 million General Fund. Augment Medi-Cal County Administration by $24.6 million General Fund to update eligibility rolls. Repeal the Medi-Cal Long-term Care wage adjustment provided in the 2001-2002 budget as the regulations were never implemented. As part of Realignment II, shift 15 percent of the fiscal responsibility for non-Long- term Care Medi-Cal to the counties. As part of Realignment II, shift 100 percent of the fiscal responsibility for Medi-Cal Long-term Care to the counties. January Proposals Assembly Budget Committee 7 January 10, 2003 Delete all state funding for cancer research, $6.2 million General Fund. Reduce General Fund support for Prostrate Cancer Research by $5 million. As part of Realignment II, shift responsibility for Primary health to the counties. As part of Realignment II, shift responsibility for Rural Health, Indian Health and Expanded Access to Primary Care to the counties. As part of Realignment II, shift responsibility for the California Health Care for Indigents Program, $46.2 million increase in revenue. As part of Realignment II, shift responsibility for other Proposition 99 programs to counties, $58 million. January Proposals Fully fund Healthy Families caseload from $220 million expected from Tobacco Securitization. January Proposals Utilize federal definition of "substantially disabled" rather than current state definition, $2 million General Fund. Establish a parental co-payment for Regional Center Services for families with incomes over 200 Federal Poverty Level, $31.6 million General Fund. Utilize Title XX Federal Funds in lieu of state funds for Regional Centers, $66 million General Fund. January Proposals > $74.9 million in General Fund savings from realigning Integrated Services for Homeless Adults and Children's System of Care programs to the counties. > $23 million in General Fund reduction by a 10 percent rate reduction to mental health managed care. > $15 million in General Fund elimination of Early Mental Health Services Program. > $2.5 million in General Fund reduction in administrative expenses and reduction of 21 positions. Assembly Budget Committee 8 January 10, 2003 $230 million in reimbursements for the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment services through a county share of cost. $62.3 million in General Fund increase to State Hospitals for employee compensation, retirement, and miscellaneous adjustments. $17 million in General Fund increase for local mental health plans for caseload growth to ensure compliance with new federal regulations for Medicaid managed care program. $9.4 million in General Fund increase for State Hospital operating expenses and equipment related to patient-related costs, based on the revised patient and staffing estimate methodology implemented for the 2002-03 Governor's Budget. $8.5 million in General Fund increase for State Hospital population up 88 commitments. $4 million in reimbursements for the Healthy Families Program for estimated increases in caseload. January Proposals Realign multiple alcohol and drug programs, including Drug Medi-Cal services, drug court programs, Proposition 36 funding, and non-Medi-Cal alcohol and other drug services, $3.8 million in General Fund reduction for Drug Medi-Cal as a result changes to caseload, and lower costs for specified services, and a change in the types of services used. $242,000 in federal increase of Performance Partnership Grants to implement a required outcome data collection for quality improvement. $147,000 increase for Proposition 36 Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 licensing and certification of caseload growth of facilities. January Proposals The Governor's proposed 2003-04 State Budget includes a total of $44.1 billion ($28.2. billion General Fund) in Proposition 98 funds, an increase of $182 million over the Assembly Budget Committee 9 January 10, 2003 proposed revised current budget year. This funding level meets the minimum K-12 funding level required by Proposition 98. Per-pupil funding increase by $172, to a total funding level of $6,708 per pupil. The proposed budget fully funds revenue limit growth. It does not provide a COLA. Also, there is not any growth provided for categorical programs. The Governor's major proposals for K-12 education: Total K-12 current year reductions of $2.7 billion. This includes an additional 7.4% reduction, or $482 million, in current year reductions to most categorical programs (with the exception of supplemental instruction, special education, preschool, and nutrition), the continuation of the 3.66% across-the-board cut to categorical programs and revenue limits already proposed, and the targeted cuts and reversions proposed in December. $122.2 million in additional reductions to categorical programs. This is achieved by reducing selected categorical programs by 1.28%. The categorical programs that are not affected by this reduction are supplemental instruction, special education, preschool, nutrition, and K-3 class size reduction. The restoration of the $98.3 million current year reduction in special education. This will be achieved through $78.3 million one-time federal funds and additional funding. The January Budget includes savings of $785 million from the realignment of all child care administered by the Department of Education. Realignment would not effect pre-school programs. The budget also sets aside $863 million in federal Child Care and Development Funds (CCDF) pending the realignment legislation. $381.7 million in PERS school employer contribution rate. $250 million for school district revenue limit equalization. This represents a $47 million partial funding of the $203 million funded as part of the 2002-03 budget deal. The Governor proposes $17.8 million in savings achieved by eliminating funding received by Basic Aid Districts. Reduction of $16.8 million in the High Priority Schools Grants. $6.6 million reduction in the Charter School Facilities Grants. Increase of $5.3 million for health benefits for the California State Special Schools, including those for the deaf and blind. Eliminates $35 million in PERS reduction funding, which was part of last year's budget agreement. The consolidation of 64 categorical programs into a $5.1 billion block grant. This proposed block grant excludes special education, class size reduction, accountability programs, preschool programs, and those providing statewide services (i.e., CSIS, FCMAT). It also excludes the Math and Reading Professional Assembly Budget Committee January 10, 2003 Development and Principal Training Programs. December Proposals Total K-12 reductions of $1.51 billion, or 3.6% of total revenues. Across-the-board reduction for General Fund K-12 programs of 3.66%. (This includes the General Fund portion of all categorical programs and revenue limits.) Use prior-year savings of $356.8 million (Proposition 98 reversion account funds) to fund regional occupational centers and programs, thereby creating current year savings of the same amount. Eliminates the $143 million education "reserve" created last year when the Governor signed the budget. (The Governor then vetoed this amount from the budget and set it aside for unexpected education expenses.) Eliminates the CalWORKS Stage 3 childcare set-aside for former CalWORKs participants, effective April, 2003. Defers $870 million in payment of claims on state mandates to a future date. Makes reductions to various programs, including: $5 million from the Principal Training Program, $1.6 million from the CSIS program, $7 million from Workforce Investment Act Youth Services grants, $2 million from Healthy Start grants. Captures anticipated savings in various programs. California Community Colleges January Proposals: The Governor proposes $115.7 million for a 3 percent enrollment growth increase or 31,000 full-time equivalent students. The Governor proposes an increase in student fees by increasing the $11 per unit charge to $24 per unit in the budget year. This is will generate approximately $149 million in revenue, replacing a like amount of general fund support to the Community Colleges. In addition, attrition expected from the increase in student fees is expected to provide a general fund savings of approximately $215 million. The Governor proposes the continuation of the $80 million reduction in the current year for the budget year related to non-compliant credit instruction claimed by community college districts for concurrently enrolled K-12 students. Assembly Budget Committee 11 January 10, 2003 The Governor proposes to continue to $97.5 million across the board reduction proposed in the current year into the budget year, but also proposes an additional current year and budget year reduction of $60.3 million to all categorical programs (which is equivalent to an 7.4 percent across the board reduction). The Governor proposes targeted reductions totaling $211.5 million for the budget year as follows: · :. $102.4 million for the Partnership for Excellence program. · :. $32.8 for the Extended Opportunity Programs and Services and the Community Assistance Resources for Education Program. · :. $28.4 million for the Disabled Students Programs and Services. · :. $1.7 million for the Teacher and Reading Development Program. · ~. $5.1 million for Matriculation programs · :. $169,000 for the Academic Senate. · :. $341,000 for Part-time Faculty Health Insurance, · :. $2.4 million for Part-time Faculty Office Hours. · :. $989,000 for the California Virtual University. · :. $556,000 for the Fund for Instructional Improvement. · :. $12.2. million for the Economic Development Program. · ~. $10.8 million for Scheduled Maintenance and Special Repairs. · :. $10.8 million for Instructional Equipment and Library Materials Replacement. · '.. $2.7 million for Hazardous Substance Removal. The Governor proposes a $3.2 million reduction for the Fund for Student Success. The Governor proposes to redirect $10 million in excess property taxes from Basic Aid districts to other districts within the County. The Governor proposes to swap $50.9 million in funding for the Extended Opportunities Programs and Services from the Proposition 98 Reversion account. The Governor proposes additional reductions to the Chancellor's Office totaling $1.8 million. December Proposals: $135 million reduction in the current year to Community College programs, which is a 2.8 percent reduction of total revenues (which includes $97.5 million from an across the board reduction of 3.66 percent). $80 million reduction reflecting the Governor's estimate of non-compliant credit instruction claimed in 2001-02 by community college districts for concurrently enrolled K-12 students. The administration intends to conduct an audit to identify the scope and breadth of these practices in colleges and K-12 districts. Assembly Budget Committee 12 January 10, 2003 The administration does not propose to backfill the $37.5 million loss in property taxes estimated for the current year in appropriations. $7.6 million reversion of prior year savings related to the shift of funding for ROC/Ps in the current year, including $4.6 million in 2000-01 savings and $3 million in 2001- 02 appropriations savings from an increase in reported property taxes compared to the 2002 Budget Act estimate. $366,000 reduction in non-prop 98 current year funding for the Chancellor's Office California State University January Proposals: The Governor proposes $326 million in general fund reductions in targeted areas for the budget year as follows: $143 million in unallocated base reductions. $59 million in reductions to academic and institutional support and public services. $53 million reduction by increasing the student-faculty ratio from 18.9:1 to 19.9:1. $53 million reduction to student services. $13 million reduction to outreach programs designed to increase access to CSU to all students. $2 million reduction through the elimination of the Cai Teach program. $2 million reduction through the elimination of the Bilingual Teacher Recruitment Program. $1.4 million reduction to the Student Fellows program (includes Assembly, Senate, Judicial and Executive Programs). The Governor proposes $151 million in general fund support to support projected enrollment growth increase of 16,056 full-time equivalent students, bringing enrollment system-wide to 337,188. This funding would also be used to support approximately 8,000 full-time equivalent students for who enrollment growth funding was not provided in the current year. The Governor additionally proposes the following adjustments/increases in funding for the budget year: · .'. $68 million augmentation for increased Public Employees Retirement System costs. · :. $1 million augmentation for increased health benefits costs. · .*. $1 million authorization in additional funding for lease-revenue bond debt service. December Proposals Assembly Budget Committee 13 January 10, 2003 The Governor proposed a $59.6 million unallocated reduction current-year reduction under the state operations reduction authority delegated by the Legislature. This reduction has already been approved and implemented by the CSU Board of Trustees. University of California January Proposals The Governor proposes $373 million in general fund reductions in targeted areas for the budget year as follows: · :. $214 million in unallocated base reductions. · :. $76 million in reductions to academic and institutional support, student services, and public service. · :. $37.4 million for K-12 outreach programs (including the College Preparatory Initiative or AP-Online Program) designed to increase access to all students. · :. $29 million for research programs. · :. $15 million for the Subject Matter Projects Professional Development program. · .'. $1.1 million for the K-12 Internet Initiative. The Governor proposes $117 million in general fund support to support projected enrollment growth increase of 8,000 full-time equivalent students, bringing enrollment system-wide to 197,628. This funding would also be used to support approximately 5,000 full-time equivalent students for who enrollment growth funding was not provided in the current year. The Governor additionally proposes the following adjustments/increases in funding for the budget year: · :. $24 million authorization in additional funding for lease-revenue bond debt service. · .'. $16 million augmentation for increased health benefits costs. · :. $11 million augmentation for UC Merced start-up costs. December Proposals The Governor's proposed a $74.3 million reduction in targeted areas under the state operations reduction authority delegated by the Legislature as follows: · .'. $20 million reduction in Academic And Institutional Support · :. $6.3 million reduction to Student Services · :. $3.3 million reduction in K-12 Outreach Programs · :. $2.5 million reduction to Public Services · :. $1.1 million reduction to K-12 Internet Initiative Program · :. $19 million in unallocated reductions Assembly Budget Committee 14 January 10, 2003 · :. $18 million reversion in estimated savings for Substance Abuse research, the Multi-Campus Unit for Labor Studies Research, and the Institute for Mexico and US Research Activities and $4 million in estimated savings for the AP Online project These reductions have already been approved and implemented by the UC Board of Regents. California Student Aid Commission January Proposals The Governor proposes an increase in the Cai Grant Entitlement and Competitive program of $5.4 million in the current year and $13.8 million in the budget to reflect fee increases for resident students at the state's colleges and universities in the current year. The budget also reflects an additional increased in Cai Grant award amounts due to anticipated fee increases (unspecified amount) in the budget year. The Governor proposes the following general fund reduction in financial aid programs in the budget year: $10 million reduction to reflect a 9 percent reduction in the value of new Cai Grant A and B awards provided to students who attend private colleges and universities. $5 million through the elimination of the State Work Study Program. $4 million by reducing from 10,730 to 7,690 the number of Cai Grant C awards annually issued. $3 million by reducing from 1,390 to 850 the number of Cai Grant T awards annually issued. California Postsecondary Education Commission January Proposals The Governor proposes to reduce state administration costs by $1.4 million, from the current $2.1 million to $700,000. This would result in the elimination of 23.5 of the Commission's 28.5 positions. December Proposals The Governor proposed a reduction in the current-year of $108,000 as determined by the Commission through the authority granted by the Legislature in reductions for state operations. Assembly Budget Committee 15 January 10, 2003 California State Library January Proposals A continuation of the $15.8 million non-Proposition 98 general fund reduction for the Public Library Foundation for local library operations and materials in the budget year. Reduction of $1 million in the California Civil Liberties Public Education program, completely eliminating the program in the budget year. $1.5 million reduction that is offset by a $1.7 million increase in federal funds in the budget year to support the federal government's share of the State Library's administrative costs. $5.3 million augmentation in general fund support in the budget year for the consolidation of literacy programs in hopes of streamlining administration and providing local flexibility for literacy services. $12.1 reduction in general fund support offset by establishment of user fees to cover administrative costs associated with providing direct or inter-library loans and materials. The related fees would be $1 for direct loans and $5 for inter-library loans and would require legislation authorizing local libraries to charge these fees. The Governor proposes the elimination of the Library of California. $1.3 million reduction in state administrative costs associated with the elimination of local assistance programs. $398,000 augmentation from bond funds for audits to ensure that authorized bond funds are used properly. December Proposals $15.8 million non-Proposition 98 general fund reduction for the Public Library Foundation for local library operations and materials in the current year. $500,000 reduction (50% reduction) in the California Civil Liberties Public Education program for the current year. $1 million reduction that is offset by a $1.2 million increase in federal funds in the current year to support the federal government's share of the State Library's administrative costs. Assembly Budget Committee 16 January 10, 2003 January Proposals Reduction of $78 million in 2003-04, primarily by delaying funding Governor's Scholars awards and Governor's Math and Science Scholars awards until students complete the 11th grade. January Proposal In addition to the new realignment proposal, the budget includes the following proposals affecting local government finance: $4.2 Billion Reduction in VLF "Backfill." The budget proposes urgency legislation to eliminate, as of February 2003, state General Fund payments to cities and counties that replace local general revenues reductions due to the existing reduction in the vehicle license fee (VLF). The backfill payments will continue for the portion of the VLF dedicated to funding health and social services programs shifted to counties in the program realignment of the early 1990s and to maintain Orange County's payments on its bankruptcy restructuring bonds. Savings from this proposal are $1.3 billion in 2002-03 and $2.9 billion in 2003- 04, for a total of $4.2 billion over the two years. $250 million savings in 2003-04 to state K-14 education costs from shifting property tax increment revenues from redevelopment agencies to schools. The budget proposes that this shift increase over time to the full amount of property tax increment that is diverted from schools to redevelopment agencies (on the order of $1 billion). December Proposal $700 million savings in 2003-04 from continued deferral of payments to local governments for their cost of carrying out state mandated local programs. $500 million transfer of funds to the state from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds of local redevelopment agencies. $90 million reduction in State Highway Account funding for local street and road maintenance in 2002-03. $58 million savings from reverting the 2002-03 appropriation for local flood control subventions. Assembly Budget Committee 17 January 10, 2003 January Proposal $1.5 billion of savings from the use of pension obligation bonds to fund the state's regular 2003-04 retirement contributions for teachers and state employees. Issuance of pension obligation bonds to fund the State's obligation for state employee retirement obligations in 2003-04. December Proposals $500 million savings from eliminating the July 2003 state contribution to the Supplemental Benefit Maintenance Account in the State Teachers' Retirement Fund (which provides purchasing-power protection to retired teachers). $470 million in state employee compensation savings, primarily in 2003-04 (potentially including elimination of scheduled pay increases, salary reductions, benefit reductions, and layoffs) with specific proposals to be developed in the context of negotiations with employee bargaining units. January Proposal $3.4 million reduction of public safety local assistance grants December Proposal Savings of $9.4 million associated with the cost of the planning and working drawings for the Los Angeles Regional Forensic Laboratory. December Proposal: Savings of $12.3 million associated with departmental capital outlay projects. Assembly Budget Committee 18 January 10, 2003 Judiciary December Proposal > Unallocated General Fund savings of $10 million in the current year. > Unallocated General Fund savings of $29 million in the budget year. Trial Courts January Proposal Additional revenues to mitigate the impact of the $200 million reduction in the Budget Year. This would result in the net reductions to the Trial Courts of $36 million in 2002-03 and $116 million in 2003-04. Imposition of a $20 security fee for each filing :> $1.2 million from an increase of trial motion fees from $20 to $23 $31 million from a transfer of undesignated court fees to the courts. These fees were previously shared between the courts and counties. $300 million in court security costs to be funded from new realignment revenues (sales tax, income taxes and cigarette taxes) with a commensurate savings to the General Fund December Proposal > Unallocated General Fund savings of $50 million in the current year. > Unallocated savings of $200 million in the budget year.. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY January Proposals $10.0 million shift from General Fund to fees for the Air Resources Board's Stationary Source Programs. $2.5 million (Air Pollution Control Fund) increase for particulate matter monitoring infrastructure. Assembly Budget Committee 19 January 10, 2003 $2.1 million General Fund reduction in monitoring and compliance activities at the Air Resources Board. $3.0 million (Integrated Waste Management Account) for waste stream monitoring activities and household hazardous waste grants. $7.5 million General Fund savings at the Department of Pesticide Regulation through and increase in the 'mill assessment' on pesticides. $14.7 million General Fund reduction to the State Water Resources Control Board's regulatory programs, offset by a $13.6 million increase in support from fees. December Proposals $8,500 General Fund reduction to two permit assistance centers under the Office of the Secretary. $2 million General Fund reversion of Zero Emission Vehicle Grants at the Air Resources Board. $325,000 General Fund reversion from Pest Management Grants through the Department of Pesticide Regulation. $2.422 million General Fund reductions to various Water Quality and Water Rights Programs of the State Water Resources Control Board. $4.067 million Toxics Cleanup and Oversight Programs at the Department of Toxic Substances Control. RESOURCES AGENCY January Budget Proposals: $32.9 million (bond funds) for the further development of the Secretary of Resources' River Parkways Program. $20 million (General Fund) savings at the Department of Parks and Recreation through the reinstatement of various Park user fees reduced in a previous year. $582.2 million ($18.4 million General Fund, $531.2 million in bond funds, $32.5 million other funds) for support of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. $376.2 million (Proposition 50) through the Wildlife Conservation Board for various wetland restoration and acquisition projects. Assembly Budget Committee 20 January 10, 2003 $51.7 million (Proposition 50) through the Department of Water Resources for local water projects. $19 million (Proposition 50) for the lining of various drinking water canals. December Proposals: > $1.655 million reduction from the reduction of Conservation Corps Member Benefits. $176,000 General Fund reduction through the elimination of the Urban Fishing Program at the Department of Fish and Game. $1.641 million in General Fund savings through the elimination of 31 vacant enforcement positions at the Department of Fish and Game. $425,000 in General Fund savings through the reduction of the Department of Fish and Game's participation in Timber Harvest Plan Review. $24.965 million shift from General Fund to Bond funds for the Cargill Salt Ponds Restoration at the Wildlife Conservation Board. $19.164 million shift from General Fund to Bond funds for Wetlands Acquisition and Restoration at the Wildlife Conservation Board. $500,000 General Fund reduction to Local Coastal Programs at the California Coastal Commission. 5.165 million General Fund savings through the reinstatement of various State Park fees. $7.75 million shift from General Fund to Bond Funds for the Drought Panel Recommendations Program. $58.1 million reversion of General Fund payments for Local Flood Control Subventions at the Department of Water Resources. $16.465 million shift from General Fund to Bond funds for support of the CalFed Bay-Delta Program. The Governor's Budget proposes the receipt of $1.5 billion from the proceeds of Indian gaming revenues. These funds would result from the renegotiation of existing tribal gaming compacts this spring and the negotiation of additional compacts with other tribes. Assembly Budget Committee 21 January 10, 2003 January Proposal: Issuance of pension obligation bonds to fund the State's obligation for teacher retirement obligations in 2003-04. December Proposal: :> One year suspension of the payment to the Supplemental Benefit Maintenance Account for a savings of $500 million. January Proposal Issuance of pension obligation bonds to fund the State's obligation for state employee retirement obligations in 2003-04 December Proposal Reduction of $1.3 million in matching state General Funds to pay for anticipated claims for disaster assistance. January Proposal: ;> $10.7 million in 2002-03 for correctional law services. This would be reduced to $4.3 million in 2003-04. $2.2 million ( $1.6 million federal funds, $.6 million G/F) to enhance Medi-Cal fraud activities. $9.9 million for two years to pursue litigation in the California energy markets. $8.7 million reduction for the Division of Law Enforcement. January Proposal Assembly Budget Committee 22 January 10, 2003 $1.5 million savings in 2002-03 increasing to $10.2 million in 2003-04 related to the closure of the NCWF facility, $99 million for increased workers' compensation expenditures in 2003-04 ($28.8 million increase in 2002-03). $97.9 million for increased population at the institutions ( $81.3 million in program 21 and $16.6 million in program 22) January Proposal $7.1 million savings to the General Fund and a commensurate increase in reimbursements associated with the inflation adjusted increase of the sliding scale charged to counties for juvenile commitments to the department $3.4 million of increased reimbursements to the Department of Mental Health for the operations of the inpatient mental health facility the Southern Youth Correctional CentedClinic. January Proposal $7.3 million in program reductions in the budget year December Proposal $500 million savings from eliminating the July 2003 state contribution to the Supplemental Benefit Maintenance Account in the State Teachers' Retirement Fund. $470 million in state employee compensation savings, primarily in 2003-04 (potentially including elimination of scheduled pay increases, salary reductions, benefit reductions, and layoffs) with specific proposals to be developed in the context of negotiations with employee bargaining units. January Proposal ;> No additional Caltrans General Fund Savings proposals. Assembly Budget Committee 23 January 10, 2003 :> Consolidates the High Speed Rail Authority into Caltrans. > Consolidates the Office of Traffic Safety into the Office of the Secretary for Business, Transportation and Housing. :> Increases Motor Vehicle Account (MVA) fees by a total of $194 million, including: ;> Increasing the base annual vehicle registration cost by $3 ($41 million). > Increasing the two $1 CHP vehicle registration surcharges to a total of $6 ($54 million). :> Increasing the costs of a noncommercial driver's license, up to $24 for a five- year license ($30 million). :> Establishing additional penalties for failure to file transfer of title documents ($11 million). :> Issuing identification (ID) cards to seniors free of charge and increasing the ID card fees for all others to $20 ($9 million). :> Activating the Business Partner Automation fee, setting the fee at $3 ($2 million). :> Standardizing a variety of DMV fees at $15 ($16 million). :> Establishing a new Public Safety Surcharge on telephone usage ($30 million). This new revenue source will be used to fund CHP costs that are not eligible from either the SHA or the MVA. > Increasing funding from the SHA by $16 million to fully fund SHA eligible costs. ~ > Increasing funding from the State Emergency Telephone Number Account by $51 million to fully fund 9-1-1 activities performed by the CHP. December Proposal ;> $100 million current year General Fund savings by transferring funds from the Transportation Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) to the General Fund. ;> $1 billion budget year General Fund savings by suspending scheduled transfer from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund, as provided by Proposition 42. ;> $500 million budget year General Fund savings by forgiving planed repayment of TCRF loan. Assembly Budget Committee 24 January 10, 2003 $50 million budget year TCRF saving by deferring planned repayment of State Highway Account (SHA) loan. Transfer of the Transportation Congestion Relief Plan to the California Transportation Commission for project programming and reevaluation. $90 million current year SHA savings by cutting allocation to cities and counties for local streets and road maintenance. Assembly Budget Committee 25 January 10, 2003 CaFzfornia State Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review Room 5019, State Capitol Sacramento, California 958144900 SENATOR WESLEY CHESBRO Chair The Governor's Budget Proposal January 10, 2003 At noon today, the Governor proposed his 2003-04 budget. Spending from all funds (General Fund, special fund and bond funds) total $96.4 billion. General Fund spending is $62.8 billion, an amount which is $13 billion less (17 percent) than current-year spending. Staff of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee prepared the attached briefing, which includes a summary of the Governor's budget proposal. The summary provides: Overview of the Governor's Budget Proposal ................................ 2 How Does the Governor Close the Deficit? .......................................... 6 Highlights ............................................................................................... 8 How Bad Is the Deficit? .......................................................................... 10 Legislature Must Act on the December Revision by 1/30/03 ................ 12 Staff are preparing a more detailed review of the budget, to be released in early February. At the end of this brief is a full timeline for the committee's review of the budget. If you have questions, a list of the committee staff and assignments is provided on the last page. The committee's phone number is (916) 445-5202. Overview of the Governor's Budget Proposal General Fund Spending Concentrated in Four Areas. Four policy areas account for 90 percent of General Fund spending contained in the Governor' s Budget. Graph 1 identifies the relative spending in these areas. Specifically, in the 2003-04 budget: K-12 Education receives $27 billion, accounting for 43 percent of the General Fund spending, · Health and Human Services receives $15.1 billion, accounting for 24 percent of the total, · Higher Education receives $8.5 billion, account for 14 percent of the total, and · Youth and Adult Corrections receives $5.6 billion, accounting for 9 percent of the total. Graph 1 Allocation of General Fund Spending Govemor's Budget Youth & 2003-04 Adult Corrections 9% Higher Education 14% All Other 10% Health & Human Services 24% K-12 Educat ion 43% - page 2 - State Spending Significantly Reduced from Current Year. The Governor proposes to reduce General Fund expenditures in the budget year, reducing expenditures from $75 billion to $63 billion, which represents a 17 percent reduction. The Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that revenues and transfers will fall from $71 billion to about $65 billion (a five percent drop). See Table 1 for a comparison of the current- and budget-year spending. Table 1 Comparison of General Fund Spending 2002-03 and 2003-04 Dollars in Millions 2002-03 2003-04 Change K-12 Education $ 29,067 $ 27,390 -6% Higher Education 9,447 8,509 -10% Health & Human Services 23,029 15,149 -34% Youth & Adult Corrections 5,674 5,639 -1% All Other 8,244 6,082 -26% Totals $ 75,461 $ 62,769 -17% Health and Human Services receives the largest reduction, falling from $23.0 billion to $15.1, dropping by over one-third. The entire reduction for this policy area--S8 billion--is nearly equal to the amount of program spending the Governor shifts from a state responsibility to a local responsibility. This shift, referred to as "realignment," is accomplished by eliminating state administrative control and earmarking new revenue streams for use by local governments to finance the responsibilities. The Governor realigns nearly $8 billion of health and human services responsibilities, reducing state responsibilities and adding local responsibilities. The proposed realigmnent consists of several components: "Healthy Communities", Long-Term Care, Mental Health and Substance Abuse, and Children and Youth. These are discussed further below. K-12 Education spending falls from $29.1 billion to $27.4 billion, a six percent reduction. This reduction reflects the reduced minimum guarantee level for both the current and budget years. Approximately $1 billion of this amount is - page 3 - attributed to the Governor's proposal to realign responsibility for child care services from the state to the local level. Under this proposal, the Department of Education would retain administration of the State Preschool and Before/After School Programs. The Higher Education segments receive $850 million less, nearly a ten percent reduction. The reductions are associated base budget reductions of $373 million at the University of California and $326 million at the California State University which will reduce funding for student outreach, research, academic and instructional support, student services, and public service. The Governor proposes to eliminate the California Subject Matter Projects, the CalTeach program and the Bilingual Teacher Recruitment Program; increase the student- to-faculty ratio and assumes that the UC Regents and the CSU Board of Trustees will further increase student fees above the increases adopted in December 2002. The Governor proposes to fully-fund enrollment growth at the UC and CSU by providing an additional $268 million to support over 24,000 new students (including students for whom the universities did not receive funding in the current year). The Govemor proposes to further reduce funding for the Califomia Community Colleges above the $177 million reduction proposed as part of the Governor's December Revision. Additional reductions include $60.3 million for an across- the-board 7.46 percent reduction to all community college categorical programs and $211.5 million for reductions targeted at: the Partnership for Excellence; Student Outreach; EOP services; Matriculations; Part-Time Faculty Office Hours; Economic Development; Building Maintenance and Repairs; Instructional Equipment and Library Materials. The Governor proposes to fund three percent enrollment growth and increase student fees from $11 per unit to $24 per unit. The Cai Grant A and B programs remain funded, with a proposed decrease of nine percent to the amount paid to students attending private colleges and universities. Youth and Adult Corrections receives roughly the same amount of funding as it did in the current year. - page 4 - State Ends 2003-04 with a Surplus. Although the state starts the budget year with a carry-over deficit of nearly $5 billion, the entire deficit would be eliminated by the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2004) under the Governor's proposal. Indeed, DOF expects to end the budget year with a surplus over $500 million. That is, after making the reductions summarized in Table 1, the state balances its budget. See Table 2 for a comparison of the current- and budget-year General Fund condition. Table 2 General Fund Condition Comparison of General Fund Resources and Expenditures Dollars in Millions Prior-Year Balance Revenues and Transfers Total Resources Available Expenditures R eso urces-Expen ditures Encumbrances Reserve 2002-03 2003-04 Chan~e -$2,133 -$4,451 109% 73,144 69,153 -5% $71,011 $64,702 -9% $75,462 $62,749 -17% -4,451 1,953 1,402 1,402 -$5,853 $551 - page 5 - How Does the Governor Close the Deficit? The Govemor estimates that the state has a $35 billion difference between revenues and expenditures for the 18-month period ending on June 30, 2004. In eliminating the deficit, the Governor relied on three primary strategies: Realign administrative responsibilities from the state to local governments. This strategy requires the Legislature to raise revenues to finance the new local responsibilities. This contributes nearly 25 percent of the entire budget solution. · Reduce K-12 Education by over $6 billion. · Reduce Local Government assistance by over $6 billion. Taken together, these three strategies account for over half the solution. In addition, the Governor: · Reduces higher education and transportation by nearly $2 billion each. · Refinances pensions for an 18-month savings of about $1.5 billion. · Assumes revenue sharing with the Indian tribes, for an increase in General Fund resources of about $1.5 billion. · Assumes that the Administration will negotiate and the Legislature ratify a contract change to reduce labor costs for a savings of $500 million. · Reduces SSI/SSP costs by reducing benefits to the federal minimum for a savings of $662 million, · Reduces Medi-Cal by eliminating 18 optional benefits for a savings of $361.8 million. For the balance, the Governor shifts General Fund costs to special funds for about $1.9 billion, transfers and loans special fund money to the General Fund for $260 million and takes other actions for about $1.3 billion. See Graph 2. - page 6 - Graph 2 Financing the General Fund Deficit Govemor's Budget Shift Responsibility to Locals ("Realignment ") Reduce K- 12 Schools Reduce LoealGovernment Resources Reduce Higher Ed Reduce Transport at ion Refinance Pensions Revenue S baring on Indian Gaming Reduce Employee Compensation Reduce SS USSP to Fed Minimum Reduce Medi-Cal Provider Rates Eliminate Medi-Cal Opt ional Benefits Shift CoststoSpecialFunds Transfer and Loan to GF Other $- $2 $4 $6 $8 Dollars in Billions - page 7 - Highlights of the Governor's Budget Social Service Programs Reduction of CalWORKs grants. The Govemor proposes to reduce CalWORKs grant levels by 6 percent to generate $65.7 million in TANF fund savings that he proposes to transfer to offset general fund costs to the Department of Developmental Services. Under the Govemor's proposal the monthly cash grant for a family of three would be $637 in Region I and $607 in Region II. Reductions of SSI/SSP grants. The federal Supplemental Security Income, which is supplemented by the State Supplementary Payment, provides a monthly cash benefit to eligible aged, blind and disabled persons who meet specified income and resource requirements. The Governor proposes to reduce these SSI/SSP grants to the federally required level. This would result in a reduction from $757 to $708 for individuals and $1344 to $1225 for couples. The Governor does propose to continue the pass through of the federal SSI COLA in January 2004. Increase in CalWORKs Employment Services. The Governor proposes to increase by $241.5 million funding available to counties for the delivery of employment services to CalWORKs recipients. County Share of the Penalty for Delayed Implementation of the Child Support Automated System. The federal government has levied approximately $200 million in penalties due to California's delay in implementing a single statewide automated system for the collection of child support. The Governor proposes to require a 25 percent county share of this federal penalty. Medi-Cal Program Proposals · Shifts responsibility for 100 percent of the non-federal share of In-Home Supportive Services to the counties, as well as 100 percent of the non-federal share of Medi-Cal long-term care costs. This will result in prposed savings of $2.571 billion (General Fund). · Shifts responsibility for 15 percent and 50 percent share-of-cost for Medi-Cal and CalWORKS-realted rpograms for proposed savings of $2.671 billion - page 8 - (General Fund). Of this amount, $1.4 billion pertains to long-term care funding. · Eliminates 18 Optional Benefits, including adult dental, medical supplies, outpatient drugs, durable medical equipment, non-emergency transportation, optometry, hospice care, speech and physical therapies and several others. · Reduces the Aged, Blind and Disabled eligibility income limit to the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) benefit level for savings of $63.8 million (General Fund). This would shift former eligibles to the Medi-Cal share-of-cost program. · Reduces Medi-Cal rates by another 5 percent, for a total proposed reduction of 15 percent overall. Proposed savings on this 15 percent is $721 million (General Fund) for 2003-04. Public Health Proposals · Transfers a series of programs to the counties under the title of"Healthy Communities" realignment. These programs include the Expanded Access to Primary Care Clinics and all other clinic programs, Adolescent Family Life Program, Indian Health Program, Black Infant Health Program, the California Healthcare for the Indigent Program, Public Health Subvention and the local Maternal and Child Health Program. In addition, several social services programs are transferred under this initiative as well. · Provides an increase of $8.3 million (General Fund) for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and imposes a drug co-payment on ADAP participants with incomes between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. · Transfers the existing Office of Criminal Justice Planning domestic violence shelter program funding to the Department of Health Services to consolidate the two programs. Total expenditures of $32.5 million ($22.5 million General Fund) would be available for domestic violence shelters. · Proposes to eliminate state-funded cancer research as existing research contracts expire. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Realignment Proposes to transfer ressopnsiblity for the Integrated Services for Homeless Adults and the Children's System of Care programs from the state to the - page 9 - counties for savings of $74.8 million (General Fund). Additionally, a shift of alcohol and drug programs to the counties is anticipated to save $306 million (General Fund). VLF Backfill Eliminated The state constitution dedicates revenue derived from the tax on vehicles, the vehicle license fee (VLF), to cities and counties. When the Legislature reduced the VLF tax rate, it enacted statutory law requiring the state General Fund to "backfill" revenue loss sustained by cities and counties. The Governor proposes eliminating the back, beginning on February 1, 2003. Over the period ending June 30, 2004, the proposal saves the General Fund in excess of $4 billion. How Bad Is the Deficit? The Problem. When the Legislature considered the budget last August, the Legislative Analyst estimated that the state would sustain a surplus of about $1 billion in 2002-03. Starting in 2003-04, however, the state would run a General Fund operating deficit for each year of the forecast. As displayed in Chart 2, the LAO estimated that the state would run a deficit of about $10 billion in 2003-04. The LAO estimated that the deficit would rise to nearly $13 billion in the following year unless corrective actions were taken. Chart 2 Chronic Deficits Forecast When Budget Passed LAO Forecast (August 2002) -$1 -$5 -$9 -$13 0 0 0 0 0 0 - page 10 - Changes Since August. Since August, estimates of the state's fiscal condition have worsened for the current and budget years. In November, the Analyst estimated that the state's current-year deficit would be about $6.1 billion. Of this amount, $4.1 billion is attributable to a loss in revenues and about $2 billion is attributable to higher-than-anticipated expenditures in the period ending June 30, 2003. Absent action by the Legislature in the current year, this deficit must be financed entirely in the budget year. At the same time, the LAO raised its estimate of the budget-year deficit from $9.8 billion to $15 billion. Taken together, the LAO's estimates of the deficits have risen from a total of $10 billion to a total of $21 billion. The deficits persist throughout the forecast period. As displayed in Graph 3, in each year through 2007-08, the state will run annual deficits of between $12 billion and $16 billion. Graph 3 Deficits Persist for the Estimate Period LAO Estimate $110 $100 $90 $80 $70 ...... 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Revenues and Transfers ~ Expenditures Problem Statement. As the Legislature considers the Govemor's December Revision, it must place the proposed reductions into the context of the $21 billion deficit. It must: Determine How Quickly To Re-Balance the Budget. The structural deficit is deep and profound. The Legislature's incremental decisions about spending and tax policy decisions made over several years and administrations - page 11 - contribute to the state's unprecedented fiscal problems in 2003-04. The Legislature must consider whether it is most prudent to eliminate the accumulated deficit during 2003-04 or reduce the deficit over several years. Retire the Current-Year Deficit. The state starts the new fiscal year with a carryover deficit of about $6 billion. The carryover deficit can be addressed with either one-time budget cuts (such as reductions to capital outlay projects) or with on-going reductions. Address the Chronic Deficit. To address the chronic deficit averaging around $15 billion, the Legislature must take action to reduce annual spending by $15 billion, raise annual tax revenue by $15 billion or use a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to close the gap between expenditures and revenues. The chronic deficit cannot be addressed with one-time solutions. Legislature Must Take Action on the December Revision by January 30 Summary of the December Revision. The December Revision addresses both the one-time and chronic budget deficits. According to the Department of Finance, Graph 4 Composition of One-Time Solutions $1,000,000 $750,000 $500,000 $250,000 $0 about $3.5 billion of the reductions in the December Revision are one-time cuts. - page 12 - The most significant one-time reductions are detailed in Graph 4. Transportation reductions account for $1.7 billion of the one-time cuts. A reduction in redevelopment funds and a deferred payment to the teacher's retirement system account for $500 million each in one-time cuts. As to the on-going reductions, according to the Department of Finance, the December Revision permanently reduces the state's General Fund spending base by $4.7 billion. Of this amount, the biggest share--nearly $1.6 billion is associated with "deferring" reimbursements for mandates at the schools and other local governments. The state is constitutionally required to make the payments, so it is not clear how these deferrals can be scored as an on-going reduction. Reductions in the Medi-Cal provider rates and reductions in employee compensation provide an additional $500 million in annual savings. Suspension of the SSI/SSP COLA further reduces the annual spending base by over $300 million. The state saves $200 million each for eliminating adult dental services as an optional Medi-Cal benefit, reducing trial court funding and eliminating Stage 3 child care. Graph 5 summarizes these permanent reductions. Graph 5 Elements of Out-Year Reductions i[$1,000,000- $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 Process and Timing Issues. The December Revision assumes legislative action by February 1. A few reductions contained in the December Revision can be delayed. Specifically: - page 13 - Reduce General Fund support for transportation, · Reduce trial court funding in the budget year, · Reduce the Judiciary's budget in the budget year, · Reduce regional centers by approving statewide standards, and · Defer mandate reimbursements. In addition, deferring the STRS payment can be delayed until June. The Legislature cannot take action on the reduction in employee compensation until the Administration completes collective bargaining with the state's bargaining units. - page 14 - TENTATIVE TIMELINE FOR THE 2003-04 BUDGET BILL Wednesday Friday Wednesday through Friday Tuesday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Monday Thursday Monday Thursday Wednesday Friday Tuesday Thursday Monday Sunday Friday Sunday January 8 January 10 January 15 through 17 January 21 February 12 February 19 February 27 March 1 April 10 April 21 May 1 May 14 May 23 May 28 May 30 June 4 June 8 June 13 June 15 Senator Burton releases Review of the December Revision · Governor submits State Budget to the Legislature. · Committee releases Quick Summary of Governor's Proposed Budget. Committee conducts hearing on December Revision Committee conducts overview hearing of the budget. Department of Finance presents budget and the Legislative Analyst provides initial review. Committee releases Overview of the 2003-04 Budget Bill. Legislative Analyst submits Analysis of the 2003-04 Budget to the Legislature. Committee conducts hearing on revenues. Subcommittees begin hearings. Spring Recess begins. Legislature reconvenes. Department of Finance submits final capital outlay revisions. Govemor delivers May Revision to the Legislature. Subcommittees complete hearings. Committee meets to adopt subcommittee reports. Committee releases Major Action Report. Senate votes on Senate budget bill. Conference Committee may begin. Conference Agenda available from committee. Conference Committee completes work. Senate and Assembly vote on budget bill and budget trailer bills. Legislature must pass budget to meet constitutional deadline for passage of the budget. - page 15 - California State Senate (916) 445-52O2 FAX: (916) 323-8386 COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW Room 5019, State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814-4900 SENATOR WESLEY CHESBRO STAFF ASSIGNMENTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS Alex MacBain EDUCATION K-12 Higher Education Kim Connor Amy Supinger ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Jonathon Barnato LOCAL GOVERNMENT Judi Smith HEALTH Diane Van Maren RESOURCES Frank Vega REVENUES Judi Smith SOCIAL SERVICES Ana Matosantos STATE ADMINISTRATION Judi Smith TRANSPORTATION Frank Vega COMMITTEE ASSISTANTS Kim Collins Rose Morris RECEPTIONIST Mary Teabo - page 16 - ITEM NO: DATE: January 15, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COMMITTEE SUMMARY: The City Council recently directed Staff to form a General Plan Housing Element Update Committee that would be comprised of a Councilmember, Planning Commissioner, Staff, Low and Moderate Income Housing Advisory Committee member, a representative of the business community, and a citizen with an interest in housing. The Council appointed Councilmember Anderson to participate on the Committee, and the Planning Commission selected Commissioner Edwards. Staff contacted a number of people involved in housing issues in the community and the list below reflects those who expressed interest. Staff also contacted Ms. Ana Araiza, who expressed in interest in housing issues during her recent quest for a City Council seat, and who would provide an important Hispanic perspective. In addition, Staff was contacted by Ms. Mary Lindley, who expressed an interest in participating on the Committee. 1. Low and Moderate Income Housing Advisory Committee members: Romona Ansolabehere, Mendocino County Housing Coordinator 2. Housing Developer: Duane Hill, Rural Community Housing Development Commission 3. Business Community Member: John Lazaro, Coldwell Banker Mendocino Realty 4. Public at Large: Mary Lindley 5. Public at Large: Ana Araiza RECOMMENDED .ACTION: Approve the proposed membership of the General Plan Housing Element Update Committee. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not approve the membership of the Committee and provide direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: Interested members of the public Requested by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED' ~ ~'~ _ Ca-~-dac~ H--~r~ley, Cit~,Manager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. DATE: JANUARY 15, 2003 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF 2002/03 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT This Mid Year Budget Amendment is the opportunity to address any issues with financial implications which have occurred since the budget was adopted or are anticipated to arise throughout the remainder of the fiscal year. Modifications to the budget at this time allow for a greater degree of accuracy when actual revenues and expenditures are compared to budgeted figures at the end of the year. The specific accounts and dollar amounts are presented in the City of Ukiah 2002-2003 Mid Year Budget Amendment Summary of Transactions (attachment 1 to this report). Each proposal is discussed in this report. Fund 100, General: REVENUE: 0600 From Other Aqencies: Due to the uncertainty surrounding the State budget, the adopted budget did not include revenue for the State Allocation of Booking Fee reimbursement. The City did receive the funds in November and thus the $65,000 in revenue should be recognized. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Mid Year Amendment to the 2002/2003 Budget as specified in the 2002/03 Mid Year Budget Amendment- Summary of Transactions. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine modifications to budget amendment are necessary, identify changes, and approve revised amendment. 2. Determine budqet amendment is not necessary and take no action. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: NA NA r~ Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager/Budget Office ~ Department Directors, Gordon Elton, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. 2002/03 Midyear Budget Amendment-Summary of Transactions. APPROVED.~./~'~~ candace Horsley, lity Manager APPROVAL OF 2002/03 MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 15, 2003 Page 2 EXPENDITURES: Department 1201, City Manager: At its August 7, 2002 meeting the City Council declared the North Fire Station property surplus and directed Staff to pursue disposing of the facility. An element in the disposition process is completing an appraisal, the expense of which was not included in the adopted budget. An appraisal has been conducted at a cost of $4,500 and an amendment is necessary to approve this expenditure. Department 1301, Finance: Due to a medical absence, temporary personnel are required to fulfill the Payroll Officer function. This was obviously not considered at the time of budget adoption and thus an amendment of $6,311 is required to fund this essential function. Department 1601, Personnel: The Personnel Department is requiring more consultant assistance than estimated during budget preparation. The Water Department Classification Study will cost $2,000 more than anticipated and additional labor negotiation assistance and legal counsel are required. It is recommended that account 100.1601.250.000, Contractual Services, be increased by $5,000 to accommodate these costs. Department 3110, Street Maintenance: Contracted tree trimming was a regular expense of the Refuse and Debris Control Fund shared between Street Maintenance and the Landfill. Last year the Landfill operation was terminated and the relevant functions were absorbed into the Street Maintenance Department of the General Fund. Funding for tree trimming was inadvertently left out of the Street Maintenance budget. $5,000 is necessary to fund this work for the remainder of this year. Qualified contractors are utilized for this effort since specific training and specialized equipment are required to satisfactorily complete the tasks. In December, the City, in cooperation with Ukiah Solid Waste, held a special leaf pickup through the normal curbside recycling program. In an effort to maximize the benefit to the customers a special mailing of notices was made. The postage for this mailing was not included in the adopted budget and thus an increase of $1,816 is necessary to account for this cost. Department 3150, Traffic Signals: The traffic signal at Hastings and South State Street was damaged in November. Repairs required the expertise of outside contractors at a cost of $5,546. Staff is seeking reimbursement for this expense through the insurance procedure, but a responsible party has not yet been identified. Additional funding is necessary to address this expense. Fund 301, Gas Tax 2107 Projects: In the adopted budget, $42,000 is authorized for rehabilitation of the railroad crossings at Perkins, Gobbi, Clara, and Talmage. Due to the State budget constraints, this project now has a Federal funding source, which requires additional studies. The APPROVAL OF 2002/03 MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 15, 2003 Page 3 Historical Properties Survey Report and Initial Site Assessment are estimated to cost $4,000. Thus an increase authorization for this project is necessary to allow implementation. Fund 333, Community Development Block Grant: The Jobs/Housing Balance Grant (#00-JHBP-034) was only budgeted for $30,000 in revenue and expense. In actuality this is a two-year $100,000 grant, with a $10,000 local cash match requirement. The amendment then is to increase authorized expenditures to $100,000 ($10,175 was expended last year for consultant services) and anticipated revenue to $110,000 to reflect the entire grant. A $70,000 increase in State grant funding will be identified, while the $10,000 local match is already authorized in the Special Projects Reserve. Fund 342, Trans-Traffic Congestion Relief: New street projects are being considered to utilize existing available funding in this fund. At the time of budget adoption it was uncertain whether such projects could be undertaken and thus no expenditure authorization was made. Staff is recommending that $45,000 of the monies already in the fund and previously received from the State be authorized to proceed with various street projects. Contracts for the work and specific details of the tasks to be performed would be approved by the Council prior to project implementation. Fund 600, Airport: Payments of liability claims are not budgeted since an estimate of such activity on an annual basis cannot be accurately made. Thus, the expense must be addressed on an individual basis. A leased office and its contents were damaged in the recent storms because of a defective roof. The tenants requested replacement of the damaged equipment. The City as the landowner is responsible for the loss. It is recommended that $1,398 be added to cover these expenses. Fund 660, Solid Waste Disposal Site: Alpha Labs, the contractor for water testing services at the landfill, has indicated additional costs will be incurred this fiscal year due to increased State mandated testing requirements. The total anticipated expense is $73,000, requiring a $28,000 amendment to this fund. Fund 698, Equipment Replacement: Since the original approval to proceed with the Civic Center Addition, costs have increased based upon changes presented to and approved by the Council. When the construction contract was considered and awarded by the Council, Staff indicated revised budget figures would be considered when all of the details were available. No additional General Fund money is required as monies are available in this Fund and the Special Projects Fund to meet these costs. The $9,810 savings realized with the purchase of a new vehicle can be utilized for this project. Further, staff is recommending that from Fund 699, Special Projects Reserve, $156,958 of unallocated interest, Civic Center Security System $40,000, and Civic Center Office Walls $50,000 be transferred to the Addition APPROVAL OF 2002/03 MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT JANUARY 15, 2003 Page 4 project. These latter two projects have proven infeasible at this time. The security system is prohibitively expensive based upon recent bids. Fund 699, Special Projects Reserve: The $5,000 reserved as match for the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) bicycle lane grant was not identified for expenditure this year. The Public Works and Planning Departments believe the subject grant may be pursued prior to the year-end and the match will be necessary for the application process. Approval of this Midyear Budget Amendment will authorize the expense, no new funding is necessary. Expenses in this fund will also be reduced in light of the transfers to Fund 698 as noted in the paragraph immediately above. Fund 920, Liability Insurance: Due to a 19% rate increase and a five percent increase in property valuations, the City's annual Flood/Earthquake insurance premium is $9,469 more than last year's expense. The adopted budget included a modest escalation to reflect rising costs, but an additional $7,584 is necessary to adequately fund the expenditure. INSURANCE FOR PART TIME EMPLOYEES: At its December 18, 2002 meeting the City Council approved payments toward health insurance premiums for qualified part-time employees. This benefit was not included in the adopted budget and thus costs of $1,170, $475, $1,170, and $1,170 are to be added to the Administrative Support and Personnel Departments and Golf and Airport Funds respectively. MISCELLANEOUS UNIT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) EXPENSE: The approved Memorandum of Understanding with the Miscellaneous Unit resulted in salary costs higher than the estimated figures which were calculated for the adopted budget. This increase for the entire City is $50,642, with the totals by fund being: General Fund- $20,906, Parking District-S763, Conference Center-S696, Garage-$1,570, Airport- $778, Sewer-S9,872, Landfill-S731, Golf-S2,119, Billing & Collection-S3,204, Electric- $2,188, Public Benefits-S366, and Water-S7,627. Staff recommends approval of the 2002/03 Mid Year Budget Amendment as presented. mfh:asrcc03 0115BA CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2002/03 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT- SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS JANUARY 15, 2003 Account Number Amount Type Comments 100.0600.495.001 100.1201.250.000 100.1301.110.000 100.1301.115.000 100.1301.120.000 100.1301.151.000 100.1301.152.000 100.1301.154.000 100.1301.1 55.000 100.1501.151.000 100.1601.151.000 100.1601.250.000 100.1905.110.000 100.1905.151.000 100.1905.152.000 100.1905.154.000 100.1905.155.000 100.1915.110.000 100.1915.151.000 100.1915.152.000 100.1915.154.000 100.1915.155.000 100.2001.110.000 100.2001.151.000 100.2001.152.000 100.2001.154.000 100.2001.1 55.000 100.2101.110.000 100.2101.151.000 100.2101.152.000 100.2101.154.000 100.2101.155.000 100.2201.151.000 100.3001.110.000 100.3001.115.000 100.3001.151.000 100.3001.152.000 100.3001.1 54.000 100.3001.155.000 100.3110.110.000 100.3110.151.000 100.3110.152.000 100.3110.154.000 100.3110.155.000 100.3110.250.000 100.3110.411.000 100.3150.250.000 100.6001.110.000 100.6001.115.000 100.6001.151.000 $ 65,000 $ 4,5OO $ 286 $ 3 $ 6,084 $ 444 $ 127 $ 93 $ 19 $ 111 $ 475 $ 5,000 $ 857 $ 2,946 $ 18 $ 13 $ 3 $ 230 $ 388 $ 5 $ 3 $ 1 $ 965 $ 1,556 $ 21 $ 13 $ 3 $ 4OO $ 65O $ 8 $ 2 $ 1 $ 111 $ 9O5 $ 29 $ 1,110 $ 2O $ 14 $ 2 $ 2,013 $ 3,108 $ 42 $ 26 $ 2 $ 5,000 $ 1,816 $ 5,546 $ 1,452 $ 21 $ 2,664 R State Booking Fee Allocation E Appraisal of North Fire Station E Increased salary cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU. E Increased overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Salary cost of temporary Payroll Officer. E Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Wrkrs Comp Ins cost of tempPayroll Officer & Misc Unit MOU. E Medicare cost of temporary Payroll Officer & Misc Unit MOU. E Unemployment Ins cost, temp Payroll Officer & Mis Unit MOU. E Group insurance cost for Miscellaneous Unit M©U E Increased Group Insurance cost, Parttime Insurance E Additional negotiation and legal expense E Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased Grp Ins cost, Misc Unit MOU & Parttime Insur E Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU' E Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU E Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU E Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU E Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU E Group insurance cost for Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU E Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU E Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU E Tree trimming contractual services for Street Maintenance. E Postage for special leaf pick up flyer mailing. E Repair damaged traffic signal at Hastings and South State E Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU E Increased overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU E Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Page 1 of 4 CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2002/03 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT - SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS JANUARY 15, 2003 Account Number 100.6001.152.000 100.6001.154.000 100.6001.155.000 100.6110.110.000 100.6110.151.000 100.6110.152.000 100.6110.154.000 100.6111.110.000 · 100.6111.151.000 100.6111.152.000 100.6112.110.000 100.6112.151.000 100.6113.110.000 100.6113.151.000 100.6114.110.000 100.6114.151.000 100.6114.152.000 100.6114.154.000 100.6116.110.000 100.6116.151.000 100.6150.110.000 100.6150.151.000 100.6150.152.000 100.6150.154.000 220.4601.110.000 220.4601.151.000 220.4601.152.000 220.4601.154.000 220.4601.155.000 301.9805.250.000 333.0600.488.005 333.0900.905.001 333.4714.250.001 342.9502.800.000 410.6190.110.000 410.6190.115.000 410.6190.151.000 410.6190.152.000 410.6190.154.000 575.5801.110.000 575.5801.115.000 575.5801.1 51.000 575.5801.152.000 575.5801.154.000 575.5801.155.000 600.5001.110.000 600.5001.115.000 600.5001.151.000 600.5001.152.000 600.5001.155.000 600.5001.340.002 Amount Type $ 33 E $ 22 E $ 4 E $ 81 E $ 155 E $ 2 E $ 1 E $ 39 E $ 75 E $ 1 E $ 14 E $ 27 E $ 17 E $ 31 E $ 76 E $ 147 E $ 2 E $ 1 E $ 5 E $ 9 E $ 305 E $ 500 E $ 6 E $ 4 E $ 296 E $ 457 E $ 5 E $ 4 E $ 1 E $ 4,O00 E $ 70,000 R $ lO,OOO R $ 69,825 E $ 45,000 E $ 238 E $ 6 E $ 444 E $ 4 E $ 4 E $ 635 E $ 24 E $ 888 E $ 12 E $ 9 E $ 2 E $ 320 E $ 6 E $ 1,614 E $ 7 E $ 1 E $ 1,398 E Comments Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU Additional expense for railroad crossing rehabilitation project. Grant revenue for Jobs Housing Balance #00-JHBP-034 Jbs Hsng Bal grant #00-JHBP-034, local match rev (Fund 699) Expenses for Jobs Housing Balance grant #00-JHBP-034 Additional street projects Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOLl Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Group Ins cost, Misc Unit MOU & Parttime Ins Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU Liability claim payment Page 2 of 4 CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2002/03 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT - SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS JANUARY 15, 2003 Account Number 612.3505.110.000 612.3505.151.000 612.3505.152.000 612.3505.154.000 612.3510.110.000 612.3510.115.000 612.3510.151.000 612.3510.152.000 612.3510.154.000 612.3510.155.000 612.3580.110.000 612.3580.115.000 612.3580.151.000 612.3580.152.000 612.3580.154.000 612.3580.155.000 660.3401.110.000 660.3401.1 51.000 660.3401.152.000 660.3401.154.000 660.3401.250.005 695.6120.110.000 695.6120.151.000 695.6120.152.000 695.6120.154.000 695.6120.155.000 697.1305.110.000 697.1305.115.000 697.1305.151.000 697.1305.152.000 697.1305.154.000 697.1305.155.000 698.1915.800.000 698.283.699 699.281.698 699.1501.011.000 699.1915.800.007 699.1915.800.008 800.3733.110.000 800.3733.151.000 800.3733.152.000 800.3733.154.000 800.3733.155.000 800.3765.110.000 800.3765.151.000 800.3765.152.000 800.3765.155.000 806.3765.110.000 806.3765.115.000 806.3765.151.000 806.3765.152.000 Amount Type $ 210 E $ 244 E $ 4 E $ 3 E $ 1,410 E $ 47 E $ 2,042 E $ 29 E $ 13 E $ 4 E $ 2,479 E $ 180 E $ 3,108 E $ 54 E $ 39 E $ 6 E $ 277 E $ 444 E $ 6 E $ 4 E $ 28,000 E $ 758 E $ 2,502 E $ 17 E $ 10 E $ 2 E $ 1,150 E $ 24 E $ 1,984 E $ 25 E $ 17 E $ 4 E $ 246,958 E $ 246,958 T $ 246,958 T $ 5,000 E $ (40,000) E $ (50,000) E $ 247 E $ 400 E $ 5 E $ 4 E $ 1 E $ 629 E $ 88 E $ 12 E $ 2 E $ 145 E $ 2 E $ 235 E $ 4 E Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Comments salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU salary cost, Misc Unit MOU overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU salary cost, Misc Unit MOU overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU water testing services at Landfill. salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU salary cost, Misc Unit MOU overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU Civic Center addition costs less vehicle savings Transfer to 698 from 699 of unallocated, sec sys, & off walls Transfer from 699 to 698 of unallocated, sec sys, & off walls Authorize expenditure of local match for bicycle lane grant Elimination of Civic Center Security System project Elimination of Civic Center Office Walls project Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU salary cost, Misc Unit MOU overtime cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Page 3 of 4 CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2002/03 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT - SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS Account Number 806.3765.154.000 820.3901.110.000 820.3901.151.000 820.3901.152.000 820.3901.154.000 820.3908.110.000 820.3908.115.000 820.3908.151.000 820.3908.152.000 820.3908.154.000 820.3908.155.000 820.3948.110.000 820.3948.115.000 820.3948.151.000 820.3948.152.000 820.3948.154.000 820.3948.155.000 820.3960.110.000 820.3960.115.000 820.3960.151.000 820.3960.152.000 820.3960.154.000 820.3960.155.000 920.1990.345.000 Amount Type $ 2 E $ 209 E $ 244 E $ 4 E $ 3 E $ 1 ,O29 E $ 70 E $ 1,687 E $ 24 E $ 5 E $ 3 E $ 1,426 E $ 73 E $ 2,042 E $ 31 E $ 15 E $ 5 E $ 296 E $ 6 E $ 444 E $ 6 E $ 4 E $ 1 E $ 7,584 E JANUARY 15, 2003 Comments Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased overtime cost Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost. Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased overtime cost. Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased salary cost, Misc Unit MOU Increased overtime cost Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Group Insurance cost, Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Wkrs Comp Insurance cost, MiscUnit MOU Increased Medicare cost Miscellaneous Unit MOU Increased Unemployment Insurance cost, Misc Unit MOU Additional cost for Earthquake and Flood Insurance premium Type: "E" is Expenditure "R" is Revenue "T" is Transfer TOTALS BY FUND Fund # and Name 100 General 220 Parking District 301 Gas Tax #2107 333 Com Dev Block Grant 342 Traffic Congestion Relief 410 Conference Center 575 Garage 600 Airport 612 Sewer 660 Landfill 695 Golf 697 Billing & Collection 698 Equipment Reserve 699 Special Projects Reserve 800 Electric 806 Public Benefits 820 Water 920 Liability Insurance Expense $ 50,663 $ 763 $ 4,000 $ 69,825 $ 45,000 $ 696 $ 1,570 $ 3,346 $ 9,872 $ 28,731 $ 3,289 $ 3,204 $246,958 $ (85,000) $ 1,388 $ 388 $ 7,627 $ 7,584 Revenue $ 65,000 $ 80,000 Net $14,337 -$763 -$4,000 $10,175 -$45,OOO -$696 -$1 57o -$3 346 -$9 872 -$28 731 -$3 289 -$3,204 -$246 958 $85 000 -$1 388 -$388 -$7,627 -$7,584 Totals $399,904 $145,000 $(254,904) Page 4 of 4 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 10h DATE: January_ 15, 2003 SUBJECT: AWARD OF THREE YEAR BID FOR PRINTING OF CITY NEWS LETTER TO SDN.INC. Staff is returning this item to you following issues raised by former City Councilwoman Kathy Libby, regarding the need and cost of publishing the city newsletter, Ukiah City View. Curremly, we have $6,000 budgeted for this publication for FY02/03 (100-1945- 651-001) and have only expended $2,387 this fiscal year. On August 21, 2002, staff presemed the three bids below which idemify the per issue cost for our newsletter. For the past two and half years, staff has generated the newsletter, which is distributed to 8,000 of our utility customers. If the City is going to cominue to distribute the newsletter at least twice a year, it is appropriate to award a long term comract to a primer. Since we are a small community it is becoming cumbersome to seek prim bidders each and every time we complete the newsletter. Therefore, it is appropriate at this time to award the priming of the newsletter to a qualified vendor for a three-year period. Primer Per Issue Cost Creative Workshop Econographics SDN Inc. Mountain Valley $2,440 (plus tax) 3,225 (plus tax) 2,387 (tax included) Declined to bid Staff has had SDN Inc. prim all of the newsletters over the past two and half years. SDN has submitted quality work and timely responses to meet our deadlines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award three-year comract totaling $4,774 per year to SDN Inc for priming of City newsletter. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject bids and give other directions to staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: APPROVED: N/A City Council Albert T. Fierro, Assistant City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A I% Cax~d~ce Hoisley, Cit~ M'hoager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. ]_o i DATE: January 15, 2003 REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS TO THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION FOR AN ACTIVE LIVING BY DESIGN GRANT Active Living Committee member Suzanne PLetcher along with Council members Mad Rodin and Phil BaLdwin, recently met with the City Manager to request participation by the City of Ukiah in a pre- application to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for an Active Living by Design grant. The Active Living by Design program is intended to establish and evaluate innovative approaches to support active Living in a community by integrating physical activity into daily routines. The purpose of the program is to promote changes in Local community design, transportation, and architecture that make it easy for people to be physically active. The program was introduced to a group of potential community partners at a public workshop held on January 8 in the Civic Center CounciJ Chambers. The meeting was intended to determine interest in forming key partnerships to pursue funding and implement the program, should a grant be successfuL. Groups attending the meeting included the WaLk and RoLL Coalition, Ukiah Main Street Program, MTA, Mendocino Land Trust, County Public HeaLth, County PLanning, Ukiah Unified School District, North Coast Striders, NCRA, Friends of Gibson Creek, and the Redwood HeaLth Club. City staff, including the City Manager, and representatives of Planning, Public Works, and Community Services were also present. Future groups who will be invited to participate include Ukiah VaLLey Medical Center, Boys and GirLs CLub, Skatepark Committee, and representatives from the Native American, Hispanic, and youth communities. (Continued on Pa.ge 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve participation by the City of Ukiah in the pre-apptication process to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for an Active Living by Design grant. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine City participation requires further consideration and remand to staff with direction. 2. Determine City participation is inappropriate and do not move to approve. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. Yes Active Living by Design Committee Candace Horsley, City Manager Council Members Rodin and Vice Mayor BaLdwin Active Living by Design Request for ProposaLs APPROVED: Candace Hors[ey, Cl~y Manager LdZip2 ActiveLivin~j. Asr The sponsor of Active Livin8 by Desisn, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, provides 8rants of up to $200,000 disbursed over a period of five years which wiLL be awarded to 25 community oriented partnerships, which for Ukiah wiLL include the City of Ukiah and potentiaLLy several of the 8roups identified as participatin8 in the workshop. ShouLd Ukiah be successful at the preliminary stase a fuLL application wiLL be required for the actual 8rant. The fuLL application wiLL be sisnificantLy more involved and wiLL LikeLy require preparation by a consultant and additional staff time. The Committee's request is for the City of Ukiah to sponsor the pre-appLication by aLLowin~ staff time to assist with the provision of necessary data, maps, and other pertinent information, which may be requested. Staff estimates this obligation to be approximately eight to ten hours of staff time. Council Member Rodin has volunteered to write the brief pre-appLication and no cash obligation by the City is required at this time. Groups in WiLLits and the South Coast are also submittin~ pre-appLications. As indicated above, the commitment of staff time to assist in the development and completion of the pre-appLication process is minimaL, an estimated maximum of 8 hours, and does not commit the City to participate in future applications. ShouLd the pre-appLication be successfuL, staff wiLL return to the Council with any requests for additional commitments. Staff is therefore recommendin~ approval of participation by the City of Ukiah in the pre-appLication process for an Active Livin~ by Design ~rant. CALL FOR PROPOSALS Active Living /1111111~ THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION About RWJF The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation® is the nation's largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to health and health care. It concentrates its grantmaking in four goal areas: To assure that all Americans have access to basic health care at reasonable cost. To improve care and support for people with chronic health conditions. To promote healthy communities and lifestyles. To reduce the personal, social and economic harm caused by substance abuse--tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs. This document, as well as many other Foundation publications and resources, is available on the Foundation's Web site: www. rwjf. org THE ROBEKTW@D JOHNSON FOUNDATION~ Route 1 and College Road East P.O. Box 2316 Princeton, NJ 08543-2316 ~This paper is recycled and can be recycled again. 11/2002 Purpose Active Living by Design is a $16.5-million national program of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation® (RWJF) designed to establish and evaluate innovative approaches that support active living. "Active living" is a way of life that integrates physical activity into daily routines. The goal is to accumulate at least 30 minutes of activity each day. Individuals may do this in a variety of ways, such as walking or bicycling for t~ortation, exercise or pleasure; playing in the park; working in the yard; taking the stairs; and using recreation facilities. The purpose of Active Living by Design is to promote changes in local community design, transportation and architecture that make it easy for people to be physically active. Grants of up to $200,000 total over five years will be awarded to 25 interdisciplinary, community-oriented partnerships. These partnerships will develop and implement strategies in their communities that will increase opportunities for and remove barriers to routine physical activity. Background The health benefits of regular physical activity are well established. They include reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, arthritis and certain forms of cancer, as well as maintaining healthy weight and promoting psychological well-being. Physical inactivity is a primary factor in approximately 200,000 deaths each year in the United States, making it second only to smoking in the number of deaths attributable to a lifestyle factor. Despite this evidence, 29 percent of American adults are sedentary, and 70 percent do not achieve the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendation of 30 minutes of moderately intense activity at least five days per week. One explanation for inactivity is that opportunities to be active have been engineered out of daily routines. For example, the automobile has replaced walking and bicycling for most trips, even those that are reasonably short. According to the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey, 25 percent of all trips are one mile or less, yet 75 percent of them are made by car. These data may reflect the absence of sidewalks, bikeways and trails in most communities. Moreover, when such facilities are provided, they frequently lack connections to important destinations, such as schools, worksites or shops. These barriers make walking and bicycling difficult, if not impossible. They limit people's choices and affect their ability to pursue regular physical activity as an integral part of their daily lives. Public health programs aimed at combating sedentary lifestyles have had a limited impact, and levels of physical activity have not changed significantly in the past two decades. This stems in part from an emphasis on traditional exercise and fitness programs (e.g., going to the gym) that require participants to fit physical activity into their already busy schedules. Emerging research now suggests it may be more effective to develop approaches that allow people to integrate physical activity seamlessly into their daily routines, such as walking or bicycling to local destinations of interest. The Program Active Living by Design will fund projects to develop, implement and evaluate approaches that support physical~ activity and promote active living. Proposed projects should address each of four strategies: 1. Create and maintain an interdisciplinary partnership that addresses active living. 2. Increase access to and availability of diverse opportunities for active living. 3. Eliminate design and policy barriers that reduce choices for active living. 4. Develop communications programs that create awareness and understanding of the benefits of active living. Selected partnerships each will receive a total of up to $200,000 over five years. In year one, up to $75,000 will be awarded to support a planning and development process that will further identify resources, barriers, needs and interventions required to implement active living strategies. Subsequent payments will depend on continued satisfactory progress toward goals. In addition, the selected partnerships will be eligible to apply for a Special Opportunities Fund award that can be used to provide support for related projects identified by the community. Throughout this initiative, the Active Living by Design National Program Office (NPO) will provide technical assistance and help to develop a learning network of Active Living communities. Applicants are expected to address each of the four strategies with unique tactics that are tailored to their chosen community's needs. Examples of various tactics to address each strategy are listed below. Strategy i: Create and 'maintain an interciiscipli'nau; partnership. Possible Tactics a. Develop a partnership that includes at least one representative from the health field, such as public health, health care or the medical community, and any number from the following disciplines: planning, transportation, architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, development, park~s and recreation, public safety, education and other related fields. b. Work with that partnership to incorporate active living strategies into ongoing planning, development and transportation efforts that complement the social and cultural norms of the community. Strategy 2: increase access to and availabiliU of diverse opportunities for active livi~g. Possible Tactics a. Increase the number of neighborhood parks, trails and greenways to provide more opportunities for physical activity. b. Increase the number of worksite facilities that encourage active living, such as dressing rooms and showers. c. Increase access to public school facilities for use by the entire community before and after school. d. Develop walking or bicycling clubs in faith-based or other community-oriented organizations. e. Establish community gardening programs. f. Increase the number of safe, attractive and accessible stairways as an alternative to elevators or escalators. Strategy 3: Eliminate desiom, and polioO, ba~?ie,,"s that red:~ce choices for active living. Possible Tactics a. Incorporate pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly features, as well as a mix of nearby destinations, into community- planning initiatives (e.g., land-use and transportation plans, ordinances and guidelines). b. Develop programs for safe routes to schools. c. Increase the number of commuting options and provide incentives for walking and biking. d. Develop accessibility and mobility initiatives for people with disabilities. e. Increase access to transit, parks and recreation areas. Strate~, 4: Develop communications program, s that create awareness and understanding of the benefits of active living. Possible Tactics a. Promote the use of systems and facilities that increase physical activity, such as bikeways, trails, parks or transit. b. Promote awareness and understanding of the benefits of environments that support active living. c. Provide school-, work- or faith-based education about resources available to support a physically active lifestyle. d. Engage local media and organize periodic events about issues related to physical activity e. Educate elected officials and other key decision-makers about issues related to physical activity. Eligibility and Selection Criteria Ac~ve Living by Design will accept proposals from local, state or regional entities that demonstrate their readiness and ability to incorporate the goals of active living into ongoing local efforts. Such entities might include health care coalitions, city planning offices, local advocacy groups, parks and recreation departments, churches and community centers, as well as other nonprofit or government agencies. We will give preference to applicants who demonstrate interdisciplinary partnerships, engage government agencies, and propose innovative programs, policies and communications strategies that have the potential to increase access to physical activity. We strongly encourage proposals from partnerships that address the needs of low-income communities, which are most likely to be inactive and vulnerable to poor health outcomes. Active Living by Design seeks proposals from urban, suburban and rural areas, and from partnerships serving a wide array of racial and ethnic groups. Applicants may be either public or nonprofit organizations that are tax-exempt under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and are not classified as a private foundation under Section 509(a). For-profit organizations are invited to collaborate with eligible nonprofit organizations or government entities. Successful applicants should demonstrate the following attributes: Partnership and Planning · An effective, interdisciplinary partnership with strong project leadership and commitment from local leaders, including representatives from health care, public health and/or the medical community · A successful history of community members' involvement in planning, program development and implementation. ° Demonstrated capacity to engage diverse stakeholders within the community ~ Commitment to maintaining and effectively managing a partnership in which all participants have a clear under- standing of their roles, responsibilities and contributions. ~ Commitment to working collaboratively with an evaluation team. Grantees must conduct an internal self- assessment and must be willing to partner with other grantee sites, the NPO and external evaluators as part of a flexible and innovative learning network. Use of Grant Funfl$ Implementation A successful history of implementing programs and services to improve community health or quality of life. Commitment to achieving the project~ goals and objectives by developing and tracking specific benchmarks for ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Innovative, practical tactics to strengthen partnerships, improve policies and promote programs that support active living. A focus on areas in which planning, developing and implementing the proposed tactics will be manageable. The geographic area identified in the proposal must include at least 300 occupied housing units. Capacity to market selected programs effectively Capacity to implement communications programs, particularly those that promote the use of sidewalks, bikeways, parks and trails. Ability to generate the resources required to sustain initiatives after the grant period ends. Grant funds may be used for project staff salaries, consultant fees, data collection and analysis, meetings, supplies, project- related travel and other direct project expenses, including a limited amount of essential equipment. In keeping with RWJF policy, grant funds may not be used to subsidize individuals for the costs of their health care, to support clinical trials of unapproved drugs or devices, to construct or renovate facilities, for lobbying, or as a substitute for funds currently being used to support similar activities. Continuation of funding will be dependent upon continued progress and accomplishment of annual benchmarks. Program Direction Direction for this program is provided by the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which serves as the NPO. Richard E. Killingsworth, M.EH., is the program director; and Sarah L. Strunk, M.H.A., is the deputy director. This program addresses a grantmaking priority of the Health and Behavior team at The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Responsible staff members are M. Katherine Kraft, Ph.D., senior program officer; J. Michael McGinnis, M.D., senior vice president and director, Health Group; Kathryn Thomas, M.J., senior communications officer; Ben Warner, financial analyst; and Cynthia Kiely Isaacson, program assistant. Evaluation and Monitoring How to Apply An independent research group selected and funded by RWJF will conduct an evaluation of the program. As a condition of accepting funds, all grantees will be required to participate in the evaluation. In addition, each grantee will be required to meet yearly benchmarks established in collaboration with the NPO and RWJF staff. Grantees are expected to meet RWJF requirements 'for the submission of progress and financial reports. Grantees also are required to submit periodic information needed for overall project performance monitoring and management. In addition, project directors will be asked to attend periodic meetings and provide updates on their grants. At the close of the grant period, the lead agency will be expected to provide a comprehensive written report, suitable for wide dissemination, on the' project and its findings. The competitive application process has three stages: (1) submission of a brief proposal that describes the project; (2) if invited, submission of a full proposal and line-item budget for a grant; and (3) if invited, participation in a review and selection meeting. Prospective applicants should first review the Call for Proposals, proposal guidelines, instructions and frequently asked questions (FAQs) posted at www. activelivingbydesign.org. Those wishing to apply for funds should submit a brief proposal online. The RWJF Grantmaking Online system will be available from January 6-31, 2003. Applicants are strongly encouraged to prepare in advance using the guidelines posted at www. activelivingbydesign.org under "Grant Application." Organizations requiring assistance with online submission should contact the NPO. Incomplete proposals, those received after the deadline, and/or those that do not adhere to format instructions will not be reviewed. nquiri s Brief proposals should include: · A description of the partnership, its scope and mission, and any active living initiatives that have been undertaken to date. · Key physical, demographic and social characteristics of the community and the population to be served, including any specific challenges or barriers that need to be addressed. · Preliminary tactics for addressing each of the four strategies in the proposed community. ~ A description of the strengths of the initiative, including any unique community assets, and why it will succeed. ~ A brief description of the overall project budget, and current or potential funding sources. · The long-term impact envisioned as a result of this project. Brief proposals will be reviewed and scored by a National Advisory Committee composed of experts in relevant fields. A limited number of applicants will be invited to submit full proposals, for which instructions will be provided. Neither RWJF nor the NPO will provide individual critiques of proposals submitted. Active ~ving by Design will host applicant conference calls (listed in the Timetable) to answer questions about the program, as well as the proposal and selection processes. Participation in one of these calls is encouraged, but not required. Please direct inquiries to: Sarah L. Strunk, M.H.A. Deputy Director Active Living by Design School of Public Health University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 400 Market Street, Suite 205 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Phone: (919) 843-2523 E-mail: info@activelivingbydesign.org 10 Timetable November 2002 Guidelines for preparing brief proposals available at www. ac~velivingbydesign.org. December 11 and 18, 2002 January 7, 14 and 21, 2003 Optional teleconferences for potential applicants. Details and registration information posted at www. activelivingbydesign.org. January 6-31, 2003 Applicants submit brief proposals via the RWJF Grantmaking Online system. During this period, you may access the system through the Active Living by Design Web site at www. activ elivin gby design, o rg. January 31, 2003 (3 p.m. EST) Deadline for receipt of brief proposals. March 21, 2003 Applicants will be notified if they have been selected to submit a full proposal. May 23, 20O3 (3 p.m. EST) Deadline for receipt of full proposals. July-August 2003 Meetings with potential grantees. Fall 2003 Notification of awards. 11 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 10j DATE: January 15, 2003 SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO DATA TRENDS FOR DESIGN OF COMMUNTIY SURVEY City Council budgeted funds and directed staff to explore the cost to design a community survey.* The survey would be used to determine what issues Ukiahians feel are important to them in order to improve the quality of life in Ukiah, and provide the City Council with a valid measurement of potential policy issues in our city. Staff is seeking City Council direction on whether you would like to have initial meetings with the survey design consultant, or would you prefer to delegate this project to staff. Staff conducted a request for proposals (RFP) for the survey design on November 13, 2002. We mailed out the RFP to the following firms: MAXIMUS Inc. 4320 Auburn Blvd., Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 Wellhouse & Associates 9175 Keifer Blvd., Suite 121 Sacramento, CA 95826 DATA Trends 308 Santa Rosa Ave Santa Rosa, CA 95404 DATA Trends was the only firm that responded to the RFP. DATA Trends placed a bid of $600 to craft a survey questionnaire. They propose: 1) a questionnaire or possibly several versions of the questionnaire; 2) a Spanish version if needed; 3) any other forms or record keeping tools; 4) a description of the research methodology; and 5) a formal bid price to conduct the survey as designed. *Note: Staff estimates that the survey itself may cost between $5,000 and $30,000 depending upon the type, length of data collected and report format. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award DATA Trends a contract for $600 to draft survey questionnaire. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Vote not to award contract to DATA Trends for survey questionnaire and provide staff with new direction on this matter. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: APPROVED. City Council Albert T. Fierro, Assistant City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager Bid from DA'T'A'xTrends Candace Horsley, Ci~Manager DATA SURVEY RESEARCH November 19, 2002 Mr. Albert T. Fierro Assistant City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, C_A 95482 Dear Mr. Fierro: Thank you for inviting us to submit a bid to design a community survey for the City of Ukiah. We did a similar project for the City of Santa Rosa last year. This enabled the City Council to prioritize several action projects. We hope to do the same or better for the City of Ukiah. We propose to design this study in an iterative process with you and your staff assigned to this project· The first step is to define as clearly as possible issues of concern to residents and potential optional responses that could enable you to use the information from this study when it is completed. In other words, we start with the goals. The second step is to gather available resources that you may have so that the scope of the issues can be reviewed. This may include newsletters, brochures, minutes of meetings, media publications, or even referrals to specific individuals within the community. When we feel that we have a fairly good idea of all the issues, we prepare a first draft of a questionnaire for your staff to review and modify as they see fit. At this stage, the content is basically a brain-storming · exorcise. We take all the comments, additions, deletions and modifications suggested by your staff and synthesize them into a more focused instrument. We will then be able to define the methodology better and have a general estimate of the cost to conduct the study. These types of projects often cost anywhere between $5,000 and $30,000, and at this stage of the project we will be able to get much closer to the actual projected cost than this wide range. Feedback and revisions repeat as often as needed until everyone is satisfied with the final instruments, the methodology and the cost to conduct the study. Often, it takes 3, 4 or 5 versions until it is ready to go. If field testing is necessary, we will do that, too. Page I of 2 308 Santa Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa, California 95404 (707) 578-3235, Fax: (707) 578-1423 http://home.pacbell.net/gighitao DATA SURVEY RESEARCH The final product deliverables will be 1) a questionnaire or possibly several versions of a questionnaire, including, if needed, 2) a Spanish version, 3) any other forms or record keeping tools, 4) a description of the research methodology and 5) a formal bid price to conduct the survey as designed. Although this design process may take anywhere from several weeks to several months, we charge one flat rate: $600. That is our bid in response to your request to design a community survey. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Gig Hitao Director Page 2 of 2 308 Santa Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa, California 95404 (707) 578-3235, Fax: (707) 578-1423 http://home.pacbell.net/gighitao UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 SEMINARY AVENUE January 15, 2003 8:00 P.M.* 1. ROLL CALL w AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments. w APPEAL PROCESS Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the Redevelopment Agency may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The Agency has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety (90) daysthe time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting of December 18, 2002 w NEW BUSINESS a. Approval of Mid-Year Budget Adjustment b. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding State Budget 6. COMMISSIONERS REPORTS 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORTS 8. CLOSED SESSION 9. ADJOURNMENT *Or as soon as the meeting may be held in conjunction with the City Council meeting. UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Regular Meeting of December 18, 2002 The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency met in regular session on December 18, notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 8:09 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Andersen, Chairman Larson. Staff present: City Attorney Rapport, and Ulvila. and thi ..... 'in, and 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA No one came forward to address the Agency. 3. APPEAL PROCESS Chairman Larson reviewed the appeal process. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Regular Meeting of November 20, 2002 M/S Smith/Baldwin approving the minutes of the 2002, carried by unanimous consent of the City Council. of November 20, 5. COMMISSIONERS REP None. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RI None. 8:12 p.m.- Adj~ 9:00 p.m.- 1 rence with Real Property Negotiator Own iency Horsley ,n: Price, Terms, and Conditions. IRNM furth6 the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~cording Secretary Regular City Council Meeting December 18, 2002 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. ' Sa DATE: JANUARY 15, 2003 UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF 2002/03 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT This Mid Year Budget Amendment is the opportunity to address the few issues with financial implications which have occurred since the budget was adopted or are anticipated to arise throughout the rest of the fiscal year. Modifications to the budget at this time allow for a greater degree of accuracy when actual revenues and expenditures are compared to budgeted figures at the end of the year. The specific accounts and dollar amounts are presented in the attached Ukiah Redevelopment Agency 2002-03 Mid Year Budget Amendment Summary of Transactions. Each proposal is discussed below. At its July 17, 2002 the Agency approved a $10,000 increase to the amount of funding available for the Main Street Program. Action by the Agency at that meeting did not include a specific budget amendment and thus this matter is addressed here. Staff recommends an increase of $10,000 to expense account 960.5601.250.000, to reflect this modification to the Main Street agreement. In light of the Governor's recent actions regarding the State budget, it is appropriate to address the debt between the Redevelopment Agency and the City. The adopted Agency budget identified a total of $1,468,798 in debt owed to the City ($1,126,147 to the Electric Reserve and $342,651 to the General Fund) [attachment #2]. Staff is recommending transfers of this total debt amount to the Debt Service Fund be authorized. The transfer of $1,118,181 from the Administration Fund and $32,543 from the Capital Projects Fund to the Debt Service Fund will result in a zero fund balance in the Administration Fund and a deficit in the Capital Projects Fund that is less than the obligation to the Ukiah Unified School District. This action will identify the necessary funds to meet the current debt obligation. All other revenue and expenditure items appear to be consistent with the adopted budget. Staff recommends Agency approval of the 2002/03 Mid Year Budget Amendment as presented. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Mid Year Amendment to the 2002/03 Agency Budget as Presented in the 2002/03 Mid Year Budget Amendment Summary of Transactions. ALTERNATIVE AGENCY POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine modifications to the budget amendment are necessary, identify changes, and approve revised amendment. 2. Determine budget amendment is not necessary and take no action. Requested by: NA Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, Deputy Redevelopment Director Coordinated with' Gordon Elton, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, ExecutiVe Director Attachments: 1. 2002/03 Midyear Budget Amendment Summary of Transactions, page 1; 2. Debt Su___mmary from adopted budget, page 2. Candace Horsley, Executive Director mf~:asrura03 0115BA Attachment #1 UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2002~03 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS JANUARY 15, 2003 Account Number Amount Type Comments 960.281.966 $1,118,181 T 966.283.960 $1,118,181 T 965.281.966 $ 32,543 T 966.283.965 $ 32,543 T 960.5601.220.000 $ 10,000 E Transfer to Debt Service Fund from Administration Fund for debt payment. Transfer from Administration Fund to Debt Service Fund for debt payment. Transfer to Debt Service Fund from Capital Projects Fund for debt payment. Transfer from Capital Projects Fund to Debt Service Fund for debt payment. Addition to Main Street Program agreement Type: "T" is transfer (transfers are presented twice to indicate both "from" and "to" accounts, the figures are not double counted) "E" is expense mfh:0203Budget MIDYEAR Page 1 of 1 1/10/03 9:05 AM >.. 0 z z m~~. 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ITEM NO: s/'~ MEETING DATE: January 15, 2003 UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING STATE BUDGIe1' DEFICIT The State Budget deficit has reached an all-time high of $34.8 billion. As one of the proposals to supplant the Budget deficit, the Governor has recommended immediate transfer to the State General Fund of any balances in Redevelopment Agencies' Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds that were unencumbered as of December 1St, 2002. Attached for the Agency's information is a chart of Ukiah Redevelopment Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund balances. Though the Redevelopment Agency's balance shows $622,493, the major portion of these funds have already been expended or encumbered as of November 30, 2002. The remaining balance is $112,193. The Mendocino College reserve in the housing fund is $251,000 and Mendocino County's reserve is $313,000. These funds may have been encumbered by the agencies, however, and we are unaware of the encumbrances at this time. The unfortunate effect of the transfer of these funds to the State will be that the Agency's efforts in assisting other agencies, such as Rural Community Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) and the Community Development Commission (CDC) in providing Iow and moderate housing developments for Iow income and the disabled, will be essentially stopped. In addition, the annual funding of Ford Street and Ukiah Community Center's efforts to provide assistance to the homeless will be suspended. Therefore, the very people who have the least amount of money available to them for their basic needs will no longer be served by this program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review housing fund balance chart. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Provide direction to staff regarding housing fund balance. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Candace Horsley, Executive Director Gordon Elton, Finance Director and Mike Harris, Deputy Director 1. Housing Fund Balance Chart Approved. -.~--.~_~ t,~~). -. Candace Horsley, E~ecutive Director 4: URA/ASR.StateBudget. 11503 0000 0000 0000 00~ 0~ 0 0 0 APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS CITY OF UKIAH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT & STRATEGY BUSINESS RETENTION, BUSINESS ATTRACTION BUSINESS CLIMATE IMPROVEMENTS & TOURISM DEVELOPMENT December 2002 Prepared for City of Ukiah This Study was Funded by Jobs Housing Balance Incentive Grant #00-JHBP.034 Prepared by Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue. Berkeley, California 94704. (510) 548-5912 1029 J Street, Suite 310. Sacramento, California 95814. (916) 441-0323 www. adeusa.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction Jobs Housing Balance Issues ..................................................................... 1 PART I-- ANALYSIS 2 City of Ukiah Community Assessment ............................................................. 4 3 City of Ukiah Economic Base Analysis and Target Industries ................................................................................................................ 11 4 Retail Market Analysis .......................................................................................... 36 5 SWOT Analysis ..................................................................................................... 46 PART II-- ECONOMIC STRATEGY 6 Economic Development Strategy ...................................................................... 53 7 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................ 58 ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................... 63 APPENDICES Appendix A-- Industrial Attraction Strategy from Feasibility for a Re~dngL oan FundandA irport Business Plan Find Report LIST OF TABLES 1. County Employment Projections by Industry 1997-2004 2. Mendocino CountyWage Growth 1991-1999 3 Earnings per Employee vs. Neighboring Counties 1999 4 County Lumber Industry Cluster Employment Change 1991-1999 5 County Lumber Industry Cluster Earnings Change 1991-1999 6 County Agricultural Industry Cluster Employment Change 1991-1999 7 County Agricultural Industry Cluster Earnings Change 1991-1999 8 Ag and Natural Products Wage Distribution 2001 9 County Tourism Industry Cluster Employment Change 1991-1999 10 County Tourism Industry Cluster Earnings Change 1991-1999 11 Leakage Analysis for Primary Market Area 12 Downtown Ukiah Retail Market Analysis 13 Regional Retail Market Analysis 14 Assets and Liabilities of Ukiah for Industrial Development 15 Assets and Liabilities of Ukiah for Commercial, Retail and Tourism Development 16 Suggested Target Industries for Ukiah 17 Jobs-Housing Grant Implementation Budget 15 17 18 22 23 26 27 30 31 32 40 42 44 50 51 54 58 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Current Rate of Growth of Jobs to Housing Until 2010 2 Employment in Mendocino County 1990-2000 3 Current Employment in Mendocino County and Ukiah 2000 4 Housing in Mendocino County and Ukiah 1990-2000 5 Change in Housing 6 Jobs to Housing Balance 7 Qualifying Hshld Income for Home Purchase 1990-2000 8 Median Home Selling Price 1990-2000 9 Population Change in Ukiah 1990-2000 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Working Age (18-54) Population in Ukiah 1990-2000 Working Age Population Change in Ukiah 1990-2000 Ukiah and Mendocino County Household Type 2000 Race and Ethnicity in Ukiah 1990-2000 Hispanic or Latino Population in Ukiah 2000 Percent Change in Hispanic or Latino Pop. 1990-2000 Ukiah Income 1990-2000 Income Ukiah and Mendocino County 2000 General Business Statistics 2001 Manufacturing Employment 1990-2000 Services Employment 1990-2000 Wholesale Employment 1990-2000 Retail Employment 1990-2000 County Civilian Labor Force Trends 1990-2000 Percentage Change of Labor Force County Unemployment Rate Trends 1990-2000 Regional Unemployment Rate 1990-2000 County Employment by Major Production Sector Regional Total Employment Percent Change 1995-2000 County Employment Trends by Major Sector 1990-2000 County Employment by Industry 2000 Annual Average Projected Civilian Employment Growth Rate 2000-2020 County Civilian Population Trends 1990-2000 Schematic Four-Quadrant Analysis Four-Quadrant Analysis for Mendocino California Industry Output Percent of Wood Products Ind. Jobs in County 1970-1999 Timber Production and Sales in County 1987-1996 Agricultural Production Employment 1999 Production of Grapes, Fruits, other Ag Prods 1980-1999 Single Winery Dominance 1996 Beverages, Food Processing & Mfr Employment 1999 Ag Industry Cluster Occupational Distribution 1999 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 16 19 21 24 24 24 25 28 28 29 29 43 Tourism Spending byBusiness Type 1999 44 County Tourism Employment By Industry 1999 45 Tourism Spending by Type of Traveler Destination 46 Real Growth of Viskor Spending 1999-2000 47 Percentage Growth of Viskor Spending 1992-2000 48 Retail Market Area Map 33 34 34 35 35 37 INTRODUCTION The City of Ukiah is located in Mendocino County along State Highway 101. Ukiah is the county seat and a major hub of activity for Northern California. Public sector agencies-including local, state and federal-are the major local employers, supplemented by a growing wine industry and other agriculture. Housing has increased at a slow pace in Ukiah, but has outpaced population growth. From 1990 until 2000, Ukiah added only 329 residents and completed 312 housing units. This translates to an increase of just over two percent for population growth and five percent for housing. Over the last decade, Ukiah has been able to maintain a low vacancy rate of just over two percent for all housing types. Housing prices have increased less than Mendocino County as a whole in Ukiah (29 percent), while household incomes in Uldah have grown 28 percent. JOBS-TO-HOUSING BALANCE ISSUES The City of Ukiah was awarded a grant from the Califomia Department of Housing and Development to prepare a strategy for reducing the imbalance between available jobs and housing units within the jurisdiction. Eligibility for the grant was determined by submission of evidence of a jobs/housing ratio of less than 1.5, i.e. less than 1.5 jobs for every housing unit. The jobs/housing ratio for Ukiah in 2000 was 1.1, i.e. approximately 1.1 jobs for every housing unit. The City of Ukiah lacks jobs relative to available housing even though housing development has been consistent with a residential market driven by the city's population growth. The established ratio of 1.5 jobs to each housing unk in the City can only be met through a reduction in housing production, an increase in the number of available jobs, or some combination of the two variables. A reduction in housing production would cause a shortage of housing for families currently living in the City as well as those families outside the City who would like to live in Ukiah. Additionally, a reduction in housing would cause an increase in housing costs in a place that has seen sustained market increases and is having to deal with affordable housing issues. Therefore, the City has established as its goal a ratio of 1.5 jobs for every housing unk by 2010, to be achieved through the active recruitment, Page Figure :t Current Rate of Growth of 3obs to Housing until 2010 expansion, or development of firms serving the larger Northern California industries and retail development, especially downtown. The housing stock in Ukiah for 1990 was 5,841 units. Ukiah increased its housing stock by 312 units between 1990 and 2000, a 5.4 percent increase. Currently, industry employment in Ukiah amounts to 22 percent of all industry employment in Monterey County. Assuming this percent has remained constant throughout the last decade, industry employment in Ukiah would have been 5,782 in 1990. This means that in 1990 the job-housing ratio was 1.0. It also means that job growth in Ukiah increased 14.7 percent. Assuming the same rate of growth for both jobs and housing, Ukiah would reach a job to housing ratio of 1.2 in 2010. 5, oo Moo I 1,8oo 1 ,,,, Source: AIDE, Inc. California Department of Finance The following chapters provide a Community Assessment and Economic Assessment as background. This is followed by a discussion of industry, commercial and retail development potential in Ukiah and an implementation plan for addressing the Ukiah jobs-to-housing ratio imbalance. Page 2 PART I ANALYSIS Including 2 Ukiah Community Assessment, 3 Economic Base Analysis And Target Industries, 4 Retail Market Analysis, 5 SWOT Analysis These chapters include all the components of the Community Assessment and Economic Assessment required by the grant. The Implementation steps and strategy can be found in Chapters 6 & 7. Page 3 2. CITY OF UKIAH COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Economic Development is a process of creating wealth through the mobilization of human, financhl, and physical resources to generate marketable goods and services. Through comprehensive planning, k is possible to maximize utilization of local resources while minimizing local constraints in order to achieve a heakhier local economy. A snapshot of the local community, showcasing change through time, is a tool that can be used to help develop an economic development strategy and measure progress. A comparison between a community and the surrounding region also is useful to determine potential oppommities or deficiencies. The following indicators are change through time for Ukiah, and comparisons with Mendocino County. Total employment (Figure 2) is provided to show what the employment level is in the county based on place of work This is important because it shows how many people are employed in the County and the potential workforce for Ukiah. FIGURE 2 Employment Mendocino County 1990 - 2000 30,250 26,320 1990 2000 Current employment (Figure 3) shows the number of current jobs within Mendocino County and Ukiah industries. This level of detail is not available historically, though employment figures by phce of residence are. Based on place of residence, the current unemployment rate for Ukiah is 7.2 percent compared to Mendocino County at 7.6 percent. FIGURE 3 Current Employment rvlendocino County and Ukiah 2000 14,536 Page4 Total housing units often follows the pace of population growth. The growth of one often tends to change in proportion to the growth in the other. Total housing units are the total number of housing units in Ukiah and Mendocino County (Figure 4). A housing unit can be a house, apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room. The housing units, compared to jobs within Ukiah were used to measure the jobs-housing balance ratio that Ukiah currently has. FIGURE 4 Housing Mendocino County and Ukiah 1990 ~ 2000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 ,~1990 12000 Ukiah Mendocino County 5,841 33,649 6,114 37,398 The overall change in housing for Ukiah has been less than the County, increasing just over 4 percent for the ten-year period. This compares to Mendocino County as a whole with an increase of over 11 percent (Figure 5). FIGURE 5 Change in Housing 1990 - 2000 273 Ukiah ~ 1990 - 2000 Difference ~% Change 11.1% 12.0% 10.0% 3,749 8.0% 1}~i~~I:~;ii~i~i~4~.: ~ ,~i:~ 6.0 % M~ndo¢lno County The job to housing balance initiative is designed to attracted job centers into housing-rich communities. For the purpose of this strategy, the proper ratio for a job to housing mix would be 1:1.5 (1.5 jobs for each housing unit). Currently, Ukiah has a ratio of 1.2 jobs per housing unit, meaning that jobs are being exported to neighboring jurisdictions (Figure 6). Page 5 FIGURE 6 Jobs to Housing Balance 2000 FIGURE 7 Qualifying Household Income for Home Purchase 1990 - 2000 ~i Ratio (Jobs to Housing) 1.5 = Desired 3obs-to-housing Mix I~a ...... B O.7 Men docin o Ukia h The qualifying household income needed for a home purchase is based on household income needed to qualifyto purchase a home at the median sales price for homes within Ukiah and Mendocino County (Figure 7).~ The qualifying income helps to determine the type of jobs (and prevailing wage) that should be created within Ukiah so that they can support a home purchase, or the continuation of current living standard. $29,333 $38,032 Uklah $44,064 32,077 Mendocino County The median home selling price shows the change in the selling price of homes for Ukiah and Mendocino County from 1990 to 2000 (Figure 8). Ukiah saw an increase in the selling price of homes by 29 percent, from $113,300 to $146,900. The $146,900 figure was used to calculate the FIGURE 8 Median Home Selling Price 1990 - 2000 $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Ukiah Mendoclno Page 6 qualifying household income for a home purchase in Ukiah. This figure is also important because it can determine the desirability of Ukiah as a place to live, with increasing housing values created by supply and demand. Population change in Ukiah has been over 6 percent (Figure 9). This is more than the 4 percent increase in housing stock over the same period. FIGURE 9 Population Change in Ukiah 1990 - 2000 15,600 15,400 15,200 15,000 14,800 14,600 14,400 t4,200 14,000 898 I-I1990 12000 ~, Absolute Change ] 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Left FIGURE 10 Working Age (18-54) Population in Ukiah 1990 - 2000 Right FIGURE 11 Working Age Population Change in Ukiah 1 ~)gfl - ?(]0fl The working age population in Uldah is an important indicator of the current employment base that can be drawn from for new jobs (Figure 10). The working age population in Ukiah increased 663, or 9 percent from 1990 to 2000 (Figure 11). This shows that the population increase in Ukiah has 7,230 1990 2000 7,893 7,230 ~ ~[~]~ ~ ~ 7,893 2000 i% chlnge Absolule Change been tied to working age families, but employment opportunities have not followed, meaning that those that live in Ukiah need to commute to work outside of the City. The household type in Uldah (Figure 12) is important since it shows the type of households that are currently living in Ukiah and whether or not housing matches the need for certain household types. For instance, 1-person households are more likely to need apartments as opposed to married farnih'es that require single unit dwellings. Page 7 FIGURE :1.2 Ukiah and Mendocino County Household Type 2000 30% Non-fan~ 31% 44% FIGURE 13 Race and Ethnicity in Ukiah 1990 - 2000 Left FI:GURE 14 Hispanic or Latino Population in Ukiah 2000 Right FIGURE 15 Percent Change in Hispanic or Latino Population 1990 - 20000 Changing demographics, including race and ethnicity (Figure 13), will be important to note for recruiting new business and catering to specific tastes. Part of any overall economic development strategy should include focusing r"i2000 r~ 199o attention on specific markets and niches. Of importance to Uldah is the increasing I-rtspanic and Latino component of the local population (Figure 14). Since Hispanics and Latinos make up a large potion of the population, any economic developmem strategy should include their specific needs, including educational oppommkies and jobs. Comparing the overall change in the Hispanic and Latino population in 2,993 ~Not Hispanic r-J Hispanic Origin Mendoclno County Ukiah Page FIGURE 16 Ukiah Income 1990 - 2000 FIGURE 17 Income Ukiah and Mendocino County 2000 FIGURE 18 General Business Statistics 2001 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 , , ~ [] 1989I $11,533 $24,402 $32,707 ~2000I $17,601 comparison to Mendocino County (Figure 15) shows whether this is an internal upward trend or an overall regional trend. In the case of Ukiah, the overall change in the Hispanic and Latino component of the population has been faster than Mendocino County. Personal income (Figure 16) is an important indicator of overall economic condkion. Income influences consumer spending on a wide variety of goods and services. For example, if income increases substantially it increases consumer spending on goods and services like housing, and retail purchases of non-durable and durable goods and services. In Figure 17, Ukiah is compared to Mendocino County. This is an important indicator since it shows Uldah's potential competitiveness related to other parts of the County. [F'lMend°cin°C°unty'Ukiah].~ / i' Per Capita Median Family The general business statistics in Figure 18 compare Uldah to Mendocino County and shows the percentage that Uldah businesses contribute. 2001 Ukiah %of Ukiah Mendocino Mendocino (95482) County County # of Firms 1854 5,408 34.3% Total Employees 15,077 35,037 43.0% Total Sales ($mill) $,942.1 $2,128.2 44.3% A vg Size (Emply) 9 7 Page 9 Job growth by industry sector is extremely important because it is an indicator of a healthy economy and it is a measure of economic diversity. This data illustrated in Figures 19 through 22 is shown at the county level, along with change over time, as an indicator of where potentially Ukiah could either fill a gap or follow the local industry trends. Left FIGURE 19 Manufacturing Employment 1990 - 2000 Right FIGURE 20 Services Employment 1990 - 2000 Left FIGURE 21 Wholesale Employment 1990 - 2000 Right FIGURE 22 Retail Employment 1990 - 2000 Mendocino County I Mendocino County I I Mendocino County Mendoclno County Page 10 3. ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS AND TARGET INDUSTRIES2 Figure 23 Mendocino County Civilian Labor Force Trends 1990 - 2000 LABOR FORCE TRENDS Mendocino County is located along the Northern California coast. Sonoma, Trinity, Tehama, Glenn, Humboldt and Lake counties border on the inland side. For comparison purposes, an employment and wages trends discussion is presented by comparing the Mendocino County employment and wage trends to Sonoma and Humboldt counties as well as to state employment and wages patterns. 2000 Census data records Mendocino County's population at 86,200, an increase over 1990 Census data of 5,900 residents, for a growth of over seven percent. In addkion to population growth, 2000 annual average employment statistics show the civilian labor force for Mendocino Countyto be 42,340- an increase of 480 over 1999 figures (Figure 23). Mendocino County's economy is affected by seasonality, which can result in cyclical instability and slow growth. The fluctuating growth and decline in the county's civilian labor force reflect this key factor. 44,000 43,000 42,000 41,000 40,000 39,000 38,000 37,000 36,000 42,720 42,340 ~ 41,860 41,330 38,890 38,460~,.~~ 40,080 , , . 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Figure 24 Percentage Change of Labor Force 4.2 °,4,, ~ 3.5'~ !iii!i!ii: 3.1% :.:.:,:.:. .... ':':':':';. ::::::::5 :':':':':': ~ :!:i:!:i:!: :::::::::: .,....... ....v,.. 1.8 % 2.1% i:i:i:i:i:i !:i:!:!:!: ::::: .... 1,2 % ~ i!iii!i!i :':':*:':': ii!i!iii!i 1.1 ~ 1' 0 % t~! :~, ! .:.:.:... ..... :.:.:.:.: :::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.: :::::::::': :iiiiii!:i 0.2" 1.0.,% .,% 0.,% .0.,% II~' III1'111 I III ' 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0 %- 1.0 % 0.0 % - 1.0 % -2.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Ir-IHumboldt ~Mendocino ~Sonoma I Page 11 Figure 25 Mendocino County Unemployment Rate Trends 1990 ~ 2000 Figure 26 Regional Unemployment Rate 1990 - 2000 14.0~ 12.0oA 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 12.0% 10.~~.5 % 7 6~,/' 9.6% ~ 8.5% 8.0% 7.9% 6.7% 6.6°/ 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 While Mendocino's cumulative growth during the period 1996 to 2000 was only 0.6 percent, the county's 2000 statistics reported a 1.1 percent annual increase (Figure 24). The labor force in the County grew by 8.9 percent between 1990 and 1999. However, labor force showed steady growth at 2.4 percent during the period of 1995' to 2000. The unemployment rate started at 7.6 percent in 1990 and rose nearly 5 percentage points from 1990 to 1992, but then declined steadily to end at 6.6 percent in 2000 (Figure 25). This is above the national average of about 4 percent, but that is typical for regions like Mendocino where there is substantial seasonal employment. Mendocino County's 2000 annual average unemployment rate was higher than the state's rate of 4.9 percent. However, the county's rate has been decreasing over the last five years from a high of 9.6 percent in 1995 to a low of 6.6 percent in 2000. Lower unemployment rates are indicative of increasing employment oppommities in the area. Sonoma County's annual average unemployment rate of 2.6 percent was lower than the state's rate. Humboldt County's rate was similar to Mendocino County at 6.3 percent (Figure 26). However, Sonoma County and the state civilian labor force posted more consistent growth. California and Sonoma County experienced a similar pattern of declining unemployment. 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 9.6% 8.4 8.5% 7.5 . · 1995 1996 8.0% 1997 7.9% 7.2~ 6.7% 6 6% ~l~ ~~~ill;: 3.3 % 2.7 % 2.6 % 1998 1999 2000 l[]Humboldt FlMendocino []Sonoma ] Page 12 Figure 27 Mendocino County Employment by Major production Sector (2000 Annual Average: 32,700) Government 19% Farm S e rv ice Producing 52% 6% Farm Services 2% Goods Producing 21% Employment Trends Mendocino County's total employment reached 32,700 wage and salary jobs in 2000. Of the 32,700 jobs, 52 percent or 17,080 jobs were service- producing jobs3, 21 percent or 6,730 jobs were goods producing jobs, and 19 percent or 6,360 were government jobs (Figure 27). In 2000, total employment grew by two percent or 650 jobs added from the previous year (Figure 28). This is much lower than the growth in Sonoma County, which saw 4.3 percent growth or 7,900 jobs; but it was higher than the growth in Humboldt County, which added 500 jobs during the same period. However, during the last five years total employment in Mendocino County grew by 12 percent, adding 4,000 jobs. Employment by Ma/or Sectors Mendocino County's economic base is becoming increasingly more diversified. Figure 29 shows the employment trends by major economic sectors during the period of 1990 to 2000. Service, retail trade, and government are the three largest industry employers in the County. Annual averages on Figure 30 shows that trade and services accounted for the largest share-- 24 percent or 7,670 and 23 percent or 7,400 jobs, respectively. Figure 28 Regional Total Employment Percent Change 1995 - 2000 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0'Y,, 1.0% 1995 1996 5.1o~ 1997 4.7% 1998 1999 4.3% [] Humboldt [] Mendocino [~1Sonoma r Page 1,,t Figure 29 Hendocino County Employment Trends by Major Economic Sectors 1990 - 2000 A gric ulture Construction & Mining Manufacturing Transportation & Public U tilitie s Trade Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government Figure 30 Mendocino County Employment by Industry 2000 Annual Average (Total: 32,700) Agriculture Construction & Government 8% 19% Mining 4% Services 23% M a nufa cturing 16% F ina nce, Tra ns pot ration Insurance & Trade & Public Real Estate 24% Utilities 3% 3% Government made up 19 percent, with the majority of jobs in the local government sector. Industry employment figures for the State in 2000 show an overall growth of 3.7 percent from 1999. Almost ail of this growth was in nonfarm industries and includes significant increases in services, retail trade, and construction. Projections Short term Projection. According to 1997 to 2004 nonfarm industry employment projections, the services, trade (wholesale and retail), and manufacturing industries will have the largest growth during the forecast period (Table 1). These three industries combined are expected to account for 71.9 percent 0,204) of the total projected growth in employment (3,860). Bythe year 2004, the service and trade sectors are projected to add 1,560 and 1,090 jobs, respectively. The manufacturing industry is also estimated to increase by 554 jobs over the seven-year period, despite projected losses in lumber and wood products manufacturing (3.2 percent). Growth is primarily Page 14 expected in the manufacture of nondurable goods, specifically in the food and kindred products sector (490 jobs). Table 1 Mendocino County Employment Projections by Industry 1997 to 2004 Absolute Change Percent Title 1997 2004 1997 to 2004 Change Construction & Mining 1,160 1,290 130 11.2% Manufacturing 5,340 5,894 554 10.4% Transportation & Public Utilities 1,220 1,380 160 13.1% Trade 7,710 8,800 1,090 14.1% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 920 950 30 3.3% Services 7,460 9,020 1,560 20.9% Government 5,310 5,660 350 6.6% Total NonFarm 29,120 32,980 3,860 13.3O/o Note: Employment is reported by place of work and excludes self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, domestics, volunteers, and those involved in labor-management trade disputes. Source: EDD; Applied Development Economics, Inc. Long-term Projection. According to Woods and Poole's long term projections,4 Mendocino County total employment is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of about 1.2 percent, or 9,140 new wage and salary jobs, over the next two decades (Figure 31). The state as a whole is expected to grow at the same rate, adding 5,304,000 new jobs between 2000 and 2020. Figure 31 Mendocino County Projected Civilian Employment Growth Rate 2000 - 2020 Agriculture - 1.5% Mining 0.0 ~ Construction ll~ ~~~~. 1.4% Manufacturing -0.2% ~ ~ TCPU ~ 0.9% Wholesale Trade ~ ~-. 1. I% FIRE- ~ ........... 1.3% Government ' ~~,, 1.2% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% TCPU denotes transportation, communication and public utilities. FIRE denotes finance, insurance, and real estate. 2000 to 2020 projected based on 1998 data Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Washington D.C. Page 15 Figure 32 Mendocino County Civilian Population Trends 1990 - 2000 ~4°'°°°T ' . ~'~'~ ~ n~ .~,,,, :/.09,700 80 000~ ' g5,500 103,200 ' ~ 86,800 87,400 20,00~~ ~999 2000 2005 20ZO 20Z5 2020 The highest growth is forecasted in the services sector, representing a 1.8 percent annual growth rate, followed by agriculture sector with 1.5 percent annual growth over the next two decades. Mining and manufacturing are expected to decline over the forecasted period as indicated in Figure 31. Total population is expected to grow only one percent over the next two decades (Figure 32). Employment and Wages As Table 2 displays, Mendocino County businesses had a total payroll of more than $585 million in 1999. Manufacturing employment payrolls constituted 27 percent of the total, much higher than its 16 percent share of total jobs. Twenty-six percent of the total was generated by services employment. Construction employment payroll had seven percent of the total share, nearly double its share of jobs, and it showed very high earnings increases (33.7 percent) during the study period. Also, agriculture employment eamings grew by 101.6 percent during the same period; however, it constituted only eight percent of the total payroll. The prosperity index (last column of Table 2) measures the payroll growth rate of the region relative to the employment growth rate. A factor above 1.00 indicates that the county payroll growth outpaced the employment growth, while a factor below 1.00 indicates that employment growth outpaced the payroll growth. The payroll growth rate of the County grew faster than employment growth as a whole. Construction and agriculture led this trend, the latter driven by increasing vineyard development in the Page 16 Table 2 Mendocino County Wage Growth 199! to 1999 Employment Employment Earnings Earnings % Total Prosperity Description 1991 1999 1991 1999 19 99 Index Total 22,67? 2?,223 $480,940,111 $585,498,006 100% 1.08 AGRICULTURE 1,671 2,820 $22,567,301 $45,496,798 8% 1.48 MINING 23 11 $545,846 $323,169 0% 0.78 CONSTRUCTION 1,210 1,329 $29,000,379 $38,766,273 70/0 3.42 MANUFACTURING 4,655 5,182 $136,976,218 $156,684,603 270/o 1.27 TPU 1,009 1,036 $34,454,833 $34,492,290 6O/o 0.04 WHOLESALE TRADE 1,068 871 $27,911,937 $21,942,069 40/0 1.16 RETAIL TRADE 6,184 6,881 $100,539,830 $111,515,679 19O/o 0.97 FIRE 979 918 $23,337,428 $24,454,782 4o/0 -0.77 SERVICES 5,878 8,175 $105,606,316 $151,822,343 260/0 1.12 Note: Prosperity index measures the payroll growth rate of the region relative to the employment growth rate --a factor above 1.00 indicates that the region has payroll growth that outpaces the employment growth, while a factor below 1.00 indicates that employment growth outpaced the payroll growth. 1991 wage is adjusted to inflation. The annual average earnings per employee reached $21,507 in Mendocino County, and $22,371 in Humboldt Countyin 1999 (Table 3). In Mendocino County, the transportation and public utilities industries had the highest pay at $33,000 per year. Mining, construction, and manufacturing, wholesale trade and finance, insurance and real estate employment payroll ranged from $25,000 to $30,000 per year. The lowest paywas in the agriculture and service industries at $16,000 and $18,000, respectively. Mendocino County average wage relative to Humboldt County wage was higher in construction and transportation and public utilities industries, but lower than Sonoma County's industry wages as a whole. Page 17 Table 3 EarninGs Per Employee Relatiue to Neighboring Counties and the State 1999 Description Avg/emp Avg/emp- Avg/emp Average earnings Average earnings Average Humboldt Mendocino Sonoma relative to relativeto Relative to the Humboldt 1999 Sonoma 1999 State 1999 Total 22,371 21,507 31,643 0.96 0.68 0.58 AGRICULTURE 22,546 16,134 19,459 0.72 0.83 0.89 MINING 0 29,379 61,038 0.00 0.48 0.44 CONS/RUCTION 28,487 29,170 38,335 1.02 0.76 0.78 MANUFACTURING 31,196 30,236 44,719 0.97 0.68 0.61 TPU 33,024 33,294 39,539 1.01 0.84 0.72 WHOLESALE TRADE 27,885 25,192 38,889 0.90 0.65 0.55 RE/AIL TRADE 15,176 16,206 19,555 1.07 1.21 0.8 FIRE 29,895 26,639 42,063 0.89 0.63 0.49 SERVICES 19,747 18,572 28,518 0.94 0.65 0.5 Note: Index compares Mendocino County/neighboring counties share of payroll to its share of jobs. Value less than 1 means that the region's jobs account for a disproportionately low share of regional earnings. On the other hand, values greater than 1 mean that the region's jobs are paid better as a whole. Specialized and Competitive Iad us tn'e s The strength of a local economy lies in its ability to support and grow specialized and competitive industries. The analysis used ha this section identifies the l~/~at/on 5 of industry sectors and the m/at/ze errpl~ ~ 6 of those industry sectors compared to growth in the state for communications. The local concentration helps to define the ~/~se of the area that creates most of the income that is recirculated in local-serving retail and service businesses. The relative employment growth is an indicator of the competitiveness of the industry locally compared to the State. If an industry is growing at a faster rate in the County than it is statewide, it signifies that the County is a good location for this industry. ADE calculated the local concentration and employment growth of industry sectors in Mendocino County by 3-digit SIC (standard industrial classification) codes for 1991 and 1999. The following discussion identifies four categories of industry sectors within the local econom)~ the grou/rg transfomi~ among, and srrnll dedining industries. Figure 33 provides a schematic explanation of the following conceptual discussion. Page 18 Figure 33 Schematic Four-quadrant Analysis The growing economic base includes those industry sectors that have positive growth rates and a high local concentration (location quotient greater than one). These industries will be the major source of employment growth, at least in the near future. Assuming they are creating quality jobs, businesses in this category merit the attention of policy makers and planners in helping to maintain and improve the economic conditions that enable these industries to show their comparative economic advantage. Comparative economic advantages come from local conditions such as specialized marketing organizations, credit and transport facilities, a trained labor force, and the existence of complementary industries. The transforming economic base includes industry sectors that have a high Employment Decrease R elativezn creaseEmplo yment Transforming Base Small Declining Growing Base Emerging High Local ConcentratiOn Low Local Concentration local concentration but a negative or lower growth rate in relation to statewide industry growth. Very often these businesses represent the past economic base of the region but are now declining, either because of industry-wide technological and market changes or because of the loss of some local competitive advantage. They are important industries because of the number of jobs they provide locally, and the reasons for the transformation could be investigated. If the decline is due to issues under local control, then business retention efforts may be fruitful. If the decline is due to structural changes industry-wide, it is less likelythat local efforts will have substantial impact. The emerging industry sectors are those that are growing in employment, but whose local concentration is small compared to the share of the same industry sector in the state economy. Firms in this category deserve some attention and help. The trend indicators suggest they will be larger employment generators in the future because of emerging local comparative advantages. If the relative growth is positive, these industry sectors are realizing local comparative advantages. Page 19 The fourth category is made up from businesses that have a small share in the local economy (location quotient less than one) and are either declining in employment or are growing more slowly in Mendocino County than they are statewide. This category is not the subject of an in-depth analysis because the types of businesses that fall in this category lack some fundamentals for long-term viability and growth. Industry sectors in this category would normally be considered targets only 1) as part of a strategyto increase the local creation of products or services now being imported to strengthen a local industry cluster, or 2) if they produce exceptionally-high-wage jobs. Figure 34 displays industries in Mendocino County based on the quadrant categories just described. The upper right hand column, which portrays the economic drivers of the region, includes elements of the traditional economic base of Mendocino County in tourism. Tourism industries such as lodging places, hotels and motels, camps and recreational vehicle parks, miscellaneous amusement, recreation services, and botanical and zoological gardens had high employment concentrations and were competitive industries. It also showed up as a major employment source in the County. Severai lumber and wood product industries such as sawmills and planing mills, wood containers, and miscellaneous wood products industries are included in the upper left hand quadrant that includes large but declining industries. Miscellaneous food and kindred products and beer, wine, and distilled beverages were heavily concentrated but also not rapidly growing during this period. The "emerging industries" quadrant in the lower right hand portion of the table contains a number of various manufacturing and service industries. Manufacturing industries include commercial printing; concrete, gypsum and plaster products; miscellaneous fabricated textile products; and industrial machinery. Service industry includes farm labor and management services, commercial banks, accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping. [This space intentionally left blank] Pege 20 Figure 34 Four-Quadrant Analysis for Hendocino County (Benchmark California, 3-digit level 1991-1997) Employment Decrease 074 Veterinary services 075 ' ' ' 091 ~Animal~~s~ce pt vete=~ 142 Crushed and broken stone 144 Sand and gravel 152 General building contractors 162 Heavy construction, except highway 172 Painting and paper hanging 209 Misc. food and kindred products 243 Millwork, plywood & structural members 244 Wood containers 261 Pulp mills 382 Measuring and controlling devices 493 Combination utility services 097 Hunting and trapping, and game propagation 131 Crude petroleum and natural gas 154 General building contractors-- nonresidential 175 Carpentry and floor work 252 Office furniture 352 Farm and garden machinery 353 Construction and related machinery 358 Refrigeration and service machinery 375 Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts 421 Trucking & courier services, except air 653 Real estate agents and managers 655 Subdividers and developers 081 085 092 178 202 205 208 241 242 249 287 317 325 326 366 384 385 391 395 702 703 138 153 173 179 201 203 236 275 306 319 342 344 359 386 472 478 489 807 871 872 Employment Increase Tunber tracts Forestry services Fish hatcheries and preserves Water well drilling Dairy products Bakery products Beverages Sawmills and planing mills Miscellaneous woodproducts Agricultural chemicals Handbags and personal leather goods Structural clay products Pottery and related products Con'ununications equipment Medical insmunents and supplies C~hthalmic goods Jewelry, silverware, and phted ware Pens, pencils, office, & art supplies Rooming and boarding houses Camps and recreational vehicle parks Oil and gas field services Operative builders Electrical work Misc. special trade contractors Meat products Preserved fruits and vegetables Girls' and ckildren's outerwear Commercial printing Fabricated rubber products, nec Leather goods, nec Cutlery, handtools, and hardware Fabricated structural metal products Industrial machinery, nec Photographic equipment and supplies Passenger transportation arrangement Miscellaneous transportation services Communication services, nec Medical and dental hboratories Engineering & architectural services Accouming~ auditing? & bookkeeping High Employmentt Concentration Low Employment Concentration Industries are ranked within the region on the basis of two key economic indicators: industry competitive status relative to Central Coast Economic Region that is measured by Industry Shift-Share analysis, and employment concentration (the level of specialization) relative to the economic region, which is measured by Location Quotient. Once these indicators are calculated, the industries will fall into one of the four (quadrants). These quadrants indicate the role of particular industry within the regional economy. I. Competitive Industries & High Employment concentration: Industries within this quadrant are considered highly specialized and the industry location in the region gives the industry a competitive advantage over the same industry located in most other regions of the state. II. Less Competitive Industries & High Employment Concentration: These industries have high employment concentration, but they do not have competitive advantage III. Less Competitive Industries Low Employment Concentration: Industries w/thin this quadrant have low employment concentration, or less specialized. Also, they do not have competitive advantage. Page 21 RegiOnal Cluster Analysis Industry clusters are networks of firms that benefit from business-to-business relationships and share common markets, labor pools, technologies, supplier industries, and institutional supports such as educational institutions or specialized government programs. Industry clusters are typically the source of much of the dynamic growth in the regional and national economy, fostering technological innovation and generating global marketing strength. Most often, clusters represent a competitive advantage for a region when they reach sufficient concentration such that most of their products or services are exported outside the county or economic region to other markets. At other times, clusters form to serve local businesses or the resident population. Clusters can also decline, however, as Mendocino County has experienced with the timber industry. Whether growing or declining, industry clusters provide a convenient unit of analysis for examining issues pertaining to labor supply and economic diversification. By looking at a cluster rather than an individual sector, such as manufacturing, a picture of employment and job development opportunities can be seen in a variety of sectors with ongoing business relationships. Mendocino County has three established industry clusters-- lumber and wood products, agriculture, and tourism. The decline of the timber cluster and the transformation of agriculture toward a predominance of vineyards and wine production have shifted the economic development focus in Mendocino County toward the tourism cluster. Lumber and wood products industry cluster accounts for 2,520 or 9.2% of all the wage and salaryjobs in the county (Table 4). This reflects a loss of 354 jobs since 1991. During this period, the only segment of the cluster to show any employment growth was logging, which gained 149 jobs. The lumber and wood products industry cluster average annual wage was $33,245 - higher than the county's average at $21,507 (Table 5). TABLE 4 MENDOCZNO COUNTY LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCT INDUSTRY CLUSTER EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1991 TO 1999 Employment Employment Change Percent 1991to Change SIC Description 1991 1999 1999 1991 to 1999 08 Forestry 57 52 (5) -8.8% 241 Logging 538 687 149 27.7% 242 Sawmills and planning mills 1,213 973 (240) -19.8% 243 IVlillwork, plywood and structural members 99 292 193 194.9% 244 Wood containers 150 93 (57) -38.0% 249 Miscellaneous wood products 535 294 (241) -45.0% 3553 Woodworking machinery 226 82 (144) -63.7% 5031 Wholesale Lumber 56 47 (9) -16.1% Cluster Total 2f874 2r520 (354) -12.3 Total 3obs In County 22r677 27~223 4~546 20.0% % of County Total 13% 9.2% Page 22 TABLE 5 MENDOCINO COUNTY LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCT I'NDUSTRY CLUSTER EARNZNGS CHANGE 1991 TO 1999 SIC Description 08 Forestry 241 Logging 242 Sawmills and planning mills 243 Millwork, plywood & structural members 244 Wood containers 249 Miscellaneous wood products 3553 Woodworking machinery 5031 Wholesale Lumber Cluster Total Earnings Earning Percent per Employee per Employee Change 1991 1999 1991 to 1999 18,449 39,379 113.4% 31,711 31,166 -1.7% 34,484 36,561 6.0% 25,191 22,205 -11.9 29,659 25,454 -14.2% 35,047 38,098 8.7% 38,823 37,569 -3.2% 27,765 28,474 2.6% 33,672 33,245 -1.3O/o Total 3obs In County 21,208 21,507 1.4% Mendocino County's economy has historically depended on the harvesting of timber and the production of value added wood products. For many years, logging and wood products manufacturing provided an excellent opportunity for high paying blue-collar jobs. In the past, these jobs were relatively well paid and did not require extensive education or formal training. The county's economyis in a difficult state of transition caused bythe decline of timber production and timber related jobs. The downturn of timber production has spread to a broad range of wood products occupations including foresters, timber failers, choker setters, mechanics, truck drivers, millwrights, sawyers, planer operators, board handlers, log and lumber graders, and electricians, all of whom are forced to relocate, retire, or retrain in new career occupations. An analysis of Mendocino County's economy showed that there was $3.6 billion of economic activity in 1992. The timber and wood products industry produced $419 million of output as shown in Figure 35.7 Sawmills and reconstituted wood products were the most significant sources of industry output generated.8 The industry continues to decline, as described below. Wood products have declined as a component of Mendocino County's economy since the 1970s. In the early 1970s wood products comprised between 35 and 40 percent of all jobs. By 1999, wood products comprised less than 10 percent of all jobs (Figure 36). Page 23 Figure 35 Industry Output ($1998 Millions) Timber sales retained their financial value between 1987 and 1996 despite the decline of board feet sold from nearly 430 million in 1987 to 275 million by 1996. Price increases have accompanied the decline of timber production (Figure 37). Tourism Timber and Wood Products Wine Production Agriculture / Food Processing I Sources: Ag/Txmber data from IMPLAN Input/Output Model (1998), Tourism from Dean Runyan Associates, "California Travel Impacts By County, 1999" Figure 36 Percent of Woods Products Industry ]obs in Mendocino County 1970- 1999) Figure 37 Timber Production and Sales Mendocino County 1987- 1996 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1970 1980 1990 1999 600 - 462.6 million board-feet sold ~11 - ~ 400 - -~" - . 275.6 million board-feet sold .... ....... I-..11-' .. .i- . .... ~ I-' "m---m- ..m.--m $156.6 million value of Umber sold ~. ' ' $160.1 million value of timber sold Source: Applied Development Economics, data from MIG ES202 county employment database The agriculture industry cluster consists of agricultural production--crops and livestock-- specialized agriculture services, food processing industries, farm product storage and warehousing, and wholesale food distributors. The total employment accounted for 16 percent of the total employment of all industries. The cluster employment accounted for 4,463 jobs in 1999 (Table 6). Among the largest of the agriculture cluster's sub-sectors are agriculture production, agricultural specialized services, and food processing, accounting for 90 percent or 4,023 of the total cluster employment. In 1999, the Page 24 agriculture cluster average annual wage was $24,266, a little higher than the county's average at $21,507 (Table 7). Mendocino County's agriculture and food processing industry produces $519 million of output, which now exceeds the timber industry's output. Wine production is the largest component of the agriculture sector with an estimated output of $232 million. The data in Figure 38 demonstrates the dominance of wine grape production as the key component of Mendocino County's agriculture sector, as described below. · Fifty-three percent of agricultural jobs are in ekher wine grape production or farm labor establishments working in the grape fields. · Only eighteen percent of Mendocino County's agriculture jobs are cre.ate,dbyt, re.e fruit p.roduction, mostly pears and apples. The remaining a. gnctnture mdustryjobs are in miscellaneous sectors such as livestock (4_%), forestry (2%), commercial fishing (3%), landscaping (10%), and others. The traditional resource based industries of commercial fishing, forestry, and livestock account for less than 10 percent of agricultural production employment. Figure 38 Agriculture Production Employment 1999 Landscaping Total Agriculture 289 (11%) Production Commercial Employment 76 (3%) 2,744 Livestock 101 (4%) Other Ag Services 265 (10%) Grapes 1,222 Other Crops (44%) 93 (3%) Far 261 (10%) Tree Fruits 437 (15%) Source: Applied Development Economics, data from IV[IG ES202 county employw~nt database Page 25 TABLE 6 I~IENDOCZNO COUNTY AGRZCULTURE TNDUSTRY CLUSTER EPlPLOYPlENT CHANGE 1991 TO 1999 Employment Employment Change Percent Change STC DESCRIPTION 1991 1999 1991 to 1999 1991 to 1999 0172 0175 0179 018 019 02 072 074 075 076 078 091 092 201 203 204 205 2082 2084 2086 2091 2092 2096 2097 4212 4226 5141 5142 5143 5148 5149 5181 5182 5191 Agricultural Production--Crops 1,231 1,853 602 4.5% Grapes n/a 1,222 1,222 n/a Deciduous tree fruits n/a 364 n/a n/a Fruits and tree nuts, nec n/a 73 n/a n/a Horticultural specialties n/a 18 n/a n/a General farms, primarily crop n/a 75 n/a n/a Livestock, Animal specialties n/a 101 n/a n/a Agricultural Specialized Services 312 815 503 11.3% Crop services 47 168 121 15.2% Veterinary services 66 83 17 2.6% Animal services, except veterinary 26 14 -12 -6.6% Farm labor and management services 87 261 174 13.0% Landscape and horticultural services unallocated 86 289 203 14.4% Fishing 72 76 4 0.6% Commercial fishing 67 74 7 1.1% Fish hatcheries and preserves 5 2 -3 -9.7% Food Processing 991 1,299 308 3.1% Meat products 4 5 1 2.5% Preserved fruits and vegetables 12 10 -2 -2.0% Grain mill products 0 2 2 n/a Bakery products 61 105 44 6.2% Malt beverages 79 90 11 1.5% Wines, brandy, and brandy spirits 572 890 318 5.0% Bottled and canned soft drinks 22 2 -20 -23.4% Canned and cured fish and seafoods 12 4 -8 -11.5% Fresh or frozen prepared fish 211 187 -24 -1.3% Potato chips and similar snacks 12 0 -12 -100.0% Manufactured ice 6 4 -2 -4.4% Farm Product and Wholesale Food 579 440 -139 -3.0% Local trucking without storage 306 219 -87 -3.6% Special warehousing and storage, nec 3 10 7 14.3% Groceries, general line 14 6 -8 -9.0% Packaged frozen foods 2 0 -2 -100.0% Dairy products, except dried or canned 13 19 6 4.3% Fresh fruits and vegetables 2 16 14 26.0% Groceries and related products, nec 89 91 2 0.2% Beer and ale 47 35 -12 -3.2% Wine and distilled beverages 72 25 -47 -11.1% Farm supplies 31 19 -12 -5.3% Cluster Total 3,185 4,463 1,278 3.8°/0 Total 3obs in County 22,677 27,223 4,546 2.1% Percent County Total 14% 16% Page 26 TABLE 7 I~4ENDOCINO COUNTY AGRZCULTURE TNDUSTRY CLUSTER EARNTNGS CHANGE 1991 TO 1999 Earnings per Earnings per Percent Change SIC Description Employee 1991 Employee 1999 1991 to 1999 017 0172 0175 0179 018 019 021 027 072 074 075 076 078 091 092 201 203 204 205 2082 2084 2086 2091 2092 2096 2097 4212 4226 5141 5142 5143 5148 5149 5181 5182 5191 Agricultural production--crops Fruits and tree nuts Grapes Deciduous tree fruits Fruits and tree nuts, nec Horticultural specialties General farms, primarily crop Livestock, except dairy and poultry Animal specialties Agricultural Specialized Services Crop services Veterinary services Animal services, except veterinary Farm labor and management services Landscape and horticultural services unallocated Fishing Commercial fishing Fish hatcheries and preserves Food Processing Meat products Preserved fruits and vegetables Grain mill products Bakery products Malt beverages Wines, brandy, and brandy spirits Bottled and canned soft drinks Canned and cured fish and seafoods Fresh or frozen prf~pared fish Potato chips and similar snacks Manufactured ice Farm Product and Wholesale Food Local trucking without storage Special warehousing and storage, nec Groceries, general line Packaged frozen foods Dairy products, except dried or canned Fresh fruits and vegetables Groceries and related products, nec Beer and ale Wine and distilled beverages Farm supplies n/a $25,756 n/a n/a 13,581 n/a n/a 12,733 n/a, n/a 16,410 n/a n/a 11,952 n/a n/a 10,014 n/a n/a 16,790 n/a n/a 14,446 n/a n/a 15,710 n/a $13,060 17,835 -36.6°/o 20,692 16,428 20.6% 13,540 13,425 0.8% 21,204 8,404 60.4% 4,509 13,827 -206.6% 14,710 23,996 -63.1% 30,268 37,709 -24.6% 31,677 38,249 -20.7% 11,392 17,741 -55.7% 21,305 24,182 -13.5O/o 11,565 11,210 3.1% 14,532 9,262 36.3% n/a 19,282 n/a 22,564 22,608 -0.2% 16,928 24,597 -45.3% 26,250 27,039 -3.0% 12,091 24,627 -103.7% 12,947 12,566 2.9% 11,835 12,935 -9.3% 14,390 n/a n/a 11,982 13,750 -14.8% 25,187 27,901 -10.8°/o 27,167 31,347 -15.4% 15,323 15,621 -1.9% 16,479 27,855 -69.0% 21,296 n/a n/a 19,580 21,676 -10.7% 18,200 20,569 -13.0% 20,651 19,573 5.2% 38,623 28,670 25.8% 16,586 35,907 -116.5% 26,202 34,995 -33.6% Annual Average $13,171 $24,266 -84.2% Total 3obs In County $21,208 $21,507 -1.4% Page 27 Figure 39 Production of Wine Grapes, Other Fruits, and All Other Agricultural Products 1980 to 1999 Figure 39 provides additional indicators about the wine industry's dominance of Mendocino County's agriculture sector. The inflation-adjusted value of Mendocino's wine grapes expanded from $31 million in 1980 to $83.1 million in 1999. In comparison, the value of pears and apples (the next largest crop categories) declined from $24 million in 1980 to $13.7 million in 1999, and the value of all other agricultural products (including tree fruits) declined from $62.9 million in 1980 to $44.5 million by 1999. Consequently, wine grapes have expanded their importance within the county's economy so that the single crop is now more valuable than all other agricultural products combined (excluding timber). 90,000,000 80,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000 -- 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 I0,000,000 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999 Source: Applied Development Economics, data from County Ag. Commissioner ~ Wlnegrapes ! +Other Fruits ~.AI! non-grape Ag NOTES: 1999 Vegetable Production: $1.7 million 1999 Nursery Product Production: $2.7 million Note: Figures are inflation adjusted to 1999 dollars, and do not include timber production. Figure 40 Single Winery Dominance 1996 Figure 40 demonstrates that a single establishment dominates the wine industry. Mendocino wineries sold 4.5 million cases in 1996, and one establishment sold 3.5 million cases. The second and third largest establishments sold another half million cases. The remaining 30 small wineries sold less than a half million cases. Moreover, a general "rule of thumb" within the wine industry indicates that economically health wineries sell more than 100,000 cases of wine per year. Since there are onlythree such wineries in Mendocino County, the data indicates that the small wineries Total Volume of 30 Small Wineries Mendocino County .44 Million Cases Sold Wine Sold 4.5 Million Cases Second and Third Largest Wineries .57 Million Cases Sold Source: Applied Development Economics, data provided by Mendocino County Winegrower's Alliance Page 28 need to expand their market share by expanding their marketing and production capacities. Finally, value added agriculture is a sizeable presence within Mendocino County's manufacturing sector as shown in Figure 41. Nearly one-fourth of all manufacturing jobs in Mendocino County consist of food processing and wine making. Mendocino County's wineries create approximately 890 jobs, beer production facilities create 90 jobs, and specialty food processing creates 320 jobs. Figure 41 Beverages, Food Processing, and Manufacturing Employment 1999 Figure 42 Agriculture Industry Cluster Occupational Distribution 1999 (Total Cluster Employment - 2,565*) Total Manufacturing Employment Halt Beverages 5,182 90 (2%) Other Manufacturing 3,882 (75%) Wine 890 (17%) Specialty Food Processing 320 (6%) Source: Applied Development Economics, data from MIG ES202 county employment database Transportation Chief Executives and Material 2% M an agement Moving Occupations Occuaptions 8% 25% Production Occupations-~. 13% Business Operations , HR and Financial Specialist 1% Professional and Related Occupations 3% Construction, Extraction, and Office and Maintenance Farming, Fishing, Administrative Occupation and Forestry Support 2% Occupations Occupations 11% 12% Service ~ation 23% * Total employment does not include direct employment in the commodity production. Occupations based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code. Source: http://www, calmis.ca.gov A g ff c u ltu re Industry Ouster Oc c upa tJ o n M D/s m'b u t: i o n The occupational matrix for direct employment in the commodity production industries is not available for the agricultural cluster, but relevant data exists for about two-thirds of jobs in the cluster. Figure 42 indicates that 51 percent of the jobs are in agricultural occupations. It includes Page 29 transportation and material moving occupations (25 percent), production occupations (13 percent), construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations (2 percent), and farming fishing and forestry occupations (11 percent). Service occupations accounted for 23 percent of the total cluster jobs. Table 8 shows the cluster wage distribution by occupation. There is some variation in wage levels by each occupation type. For example, chief executives salaries in the cluster are much higher than those in management occupations, at $92,734 and $54,370, respectively. Business operations, human resources, and financial speciakies earned on avenge $41,136. Office administrative support occupations, production occupations, and transportation and material moving occupations earned an annual avenge wage of between $26,000 and $27,000. Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupation wages, at $39,165, tended to be a little higher than those in professional and related occupations, at $35,839. TABLE 8 AGRZCULTURE AND NATURAL PRODUCTS WAGE DZSTRZBUT~ON Occupational Title* Employment Absolute Employment 2006 Change Entry Level 1999 (projected) 1999 to 2006 Hourly Wage Mean Hourly Mean Annual Wage Wage Chief Executives 60 71 11 Management Occupations 199 233 34 Business Operations, HR and Financial Specialist 37 42 5 Professional and related occupations 65 79 14 Service occupations 313 699 99 Office and administrative support occupations 600 341 28 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry occupations 313 323 53 Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance occupations 270 61 4 Production occupations 323 368 45 Transportation and Material Moving occupations 641 710 69 TOTAL** 2~565 2~927 362 $28.90 $1s.oo $13.30 $12.36 $832 $8.79 $10.03 $12.88 $8.23 $8.23 $12.64 * The occupational title is based on the new classification, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code ** Total employment does not include direct employment in the commodity production Wage information is based on 2001 data Source: http://www.calmis.ca.gov $44.58 $92,734 $26.14 $54,370 $19.78 $41,136 $17.23 $35,839 $14.74 $30,675 $12.68 $26,377 $14.91 $31,011 $18.83 $39,165 $12.92 $26,862 $13.01 $27,060 $19.48 $40r523 Page 30 The tourism industry cluster includes eating and drinking places; hotels and other lodging places; and a variety of recreation, cultural and amusement attractions (Table 9). The tourism industry cluster accounted for 6,660 jobs, or 24 percent of all the wage and salary jobs in the County. Considering the indirect jobs supported by tourism activity, the full economic impact of this cluster is likely much higher than the job figures in Table 9 would indicate. The top growth was marked in lodging and recreation phces, adding 765 jobs; this represents about 78 percent employment growth between 1991 and 1999, or 6 percent per year. Eating and Drinking Places, supported in part by local residents as well as visitors, had 2,387 jobs in 1999, followed by hotels and other lodging places with 1,238 jobs. In 1999, the tourism cluster average annual wages was $14,780, lower than the county's average at $21,507. The highest average pay within the cluster was for the transportation industry, at $32,000 to $34,000 (Table 10). TABLE 9 MENDOCINO COUNTY TOURZSM INDUSTRY CLUSTER EMPLOYMENT CHANGE 1991 TO 1999 SIC Change Percent Employment Employment 1991 to Change Description 1991 1999 1999 1991 to 1999 451 472 533 539 541 581 59 701 703 7999 842 Transportation 40 120 Air transportation, scheduled 15 105 Passenger transportation arrangement 25 15 Eating and Drinking Places 4,161 4,649 Variety Stores 56 13 Misc. general merchandise stores 134 126 Grocery stores 1,107 1,180 Eating and drinking places 2,072 2,387 Miscellaneous retail 792 943 Lodging and Recreation Places 1,016 1,781 Hotels and motels 944 1,238 Camps and recreational vehicle parks 20 54 Amusement and recreation, nec 43 457 Botanical and zoological gardens 9 32 80 200.0% 90 600.0% -10 -40.0% 488 11.7O/o -43 -76.8% -8 -6.0% 73 6.6% 315 15.2% 151 19.1% 765 75.3% 294 31.1% 34 170.0% 414 962.8% 23 255.6% Cluster Total 5,217 6,550 1,333 25.6% Total 3obs in County 22,677 27,223 4,546 20.0% % of County Total 23% 24% It is estimated that Mendocino County has a $303 million tourism industry that is dominated bythe area's coastal beauty and ambiance. The inland communities along the Highway 101 corridor also serve an important niche in the county's tourism economy. A substantial amount of Highway 101 traffic utilizes commercial services in Hopland, Ukiah, and Wfllits. These communities are generally not viskor destinations, and are challenged to attract the pass-through traffic to stop and spend more time and money in Mendocino County. A 1995 consultant report estimated that there were 650,000 viskors staying overnight along the Mendocino Coast.8 Viskors have a variety of coastal lodging options including upscale bed and breakfast establishments, moderate priced motels, vacation rentals, and campgrounds. Resort and lodging owners are trying to attract viskors during the weekdays and off- season periods in order to soften the boom and bust cycle of visitor spending. During the peak summer periods, it can be difficult to find available lodging along the coast. There is a limited supply of rooms and lodging owners find it difficult to obtain permits to expand or build new facilities. SIC 451 472 533 539 541 581 59 701 703 7999 842 Table 10 Mendocino Industry Cluster AveraGe Earnings Change 1991 to 1999 DESCRZPT/ON Earnings per Earnings per Percent Employee Employee Change 1991 1999 1991 to 1999 Transportation Air Transportation, Scheduled Passenger Transportation Arrangement Eating And Drinking Places Variety Stores Misc. General Merchandise Stores Grocery Stores Eating And Drinking Places Miscellaneous Retail Lodging And Recreation Places Hotels And Motels Camps And Recreational Vehicle Parks Amusement And Recreation, Nec Botanical And Zoological Gardens $20,763 $31,526 51.8% 34,451 345,827 1.1% 12,550 8,414 -33.0% 14,851 14,759 '0.6% 16,467 12,238 -25.7% 18,860 11,796 -37.50/o 20,656 20,900 1.2O/o 10,357 10,783 4.1O/o 17,700 17,572 -0.7O/o 11,865 13,7'04 15.5O/o 11,847 11,828 -0.2% 10,773 11,768 9.2% 10,6S2 18,945 77.9% 21,936 14,683 -33.1% Cluster Average $14,315 $14,780 3.2% Total 3obs Zn County 21,208 21,507 1.4% Page 32 Figure 43 Tourism Spending by Business Type 1999 ($ Million) Visitor spending by sector is displayed in Figure 43 and can be summarized as follows. · Viskors spend $86.1 million at eating and drinking places. This type of spending ranges from fast food establishments to upscale restaurants along the coast. · $57.3 Million is spent on recreational equipment rentals, services, golf, etc. $60.3 Million was spent on general retail sales; this includes all kinds of establishments, ranging from the Wal-Mart in Ukiah to upscale art galleries in the village of Mendocino. An additional $15.9 million of spending by Mendocino County viskors is made at food stores. Campers and vacadon rental viskors purchase and prepare their own food locally, rather than eat out in restaurants. Viskors spend $17.4 million on transportation services, primarily gas stations; the inland communities with their Highway 101 location capture a major share of this spending. $66 Million is spent on accommodations, which include campground fees, overnight lodging stays, and vacation rentals. Transportation / $303.4 Million Travel Total $17.8 ~4 Eating and Other Drinking Places Retail Sales 86.1 H $60.3 M $57.3 M Accommodations $66 M Food Stores .$15.9 M Som'ce. Applied Development Economics, data from "California Travel Impacts by County' Some key economic sectors dependence on tourism spending is displayed in Figure 44 and described below. · Lodging establishments are highly dependent on visitor spending, as the area serves a minimal amount of business travel. Accommodations establishments employ 1,292 people, of which 92 percent depend on visitor spending. · It is estimated that 80 percent of Mendocino County's 2,387 eating and drinking establishment jobs are created byvisitor spending. Page 33 Figure 44 Mendocino County Tourism Employment By Industry 1999 Other visitor serving retail such as art and gift shops account for 24 percent of other retail employment. Gasoline stations and auto repair services have a smaller number of tourism dependent jobs. However, it is estimated that 90 percent of the gasoline station and repair service jobs are created byvisitor spending. Accom m odations Other Retail Eating and Drinking Places Auto Services Food Stores 100 189 110 110 [Non-Tourism~Tourism I Source: Applied Devdopment Economics, data from MIG ES202 county data files, toUriSm data from Dean Runyan Associates There is also available data on spending bythe types of visitors to Mendocino County. Figure 45 indicates that there are significant tourist segments other than overnight visitors to the Mendocino Coast. More than half (58%) of the $303 million visitor spending came from overnight guests at B&Bs, motels, and vacation rentals. While the coastal area attracts the majority of overnight guests, there is also a supply of lodging establishments along the Highway 101 corridor. Day travelers comprise 21 percent of visitor spending. This includes all Mendocino County spending byvisitors traveling the Highway 101 corridor as well as any dayvisitors traveling along the coastal highways. Eleven percent of Mendocino County's visitor spending comes from campers. This visitor segment is more outdoor recreational oriented, spends less on lodging,' and many prepare their own food. They spend more in local grocery stores, and less eating out. Ten percent of visitor spending in Mendocino County is from persons visiting friends and family who are permanent residents. Figure 45 Tourism Spending by Type of Traveler Destination ($ Million) Source: Applied Development EconOm~s, data from California Travel Impacts by C~unty Page 34 Figure 46 Real Growth of Visitor Spending 1999 - 200O ($ Million) The data in Figure 46 also indicates that between 1992 and 2000 there was a $94.8 million expansion of tourism spending in Mendocino County. While this is a large increase in dollar terms, Figure 47 indicates that the percentage growth of tourism in Mendocino Countywas below that for the State of California as a whole. Between 1992 and 2000, tourism spending in Mendocino County expanded by 40 percent. In comparison, tourism spending in California expanded by 60 percent. Monterey, Napa, and Sonoma counties ali matched or exceed the state growth rate, while neighboring Humboldt County was lower at 33 percent. Monterey Napa 5an Luis Obispo Source: Applied Development Economics, data from California Travel Impacts by County Figure 47 Percentage Growth of Visitor Spending 1992 - 2000 80%- 70%- 60%- 50%- 40%- 30%- 20%- 10%- 60% 0%- Mend°cin~umboldt Monterey Napa San Luis Obispo Sonoma California Source: Applied Development Economics, data from California Travel Impacts by County Pege 35 4. CITY OF UKIAH RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS9 INTRODUCTION The City of Ukiah serees as the retail hub for Mendocino County and westem Lake County. Retail outlets in Ukiah include major shopping centers that are home to large grocery stores and various "big box" stores, as well as smaller, specialty retail stores located in the immediate downtown area]° The purpose of this analysis is to assess the potential for additional retail business in Ukiah. As a first step, ADE defined the geographic area within which Ukiah merchants can successfully compete. After identifying primary and secondary market areas, data on population and income were gathered and a retail market analysis was conducted to determine the sales leakage of Ukiah merchants. This information was used to determine potential expansion and/or attraction oppommities for Ukiah merchants, and to estimate the potential number of additional retail outlets that could successfully locate in Ukiah. Market Area Definition Uln'ah retail businesses draw from a vdde geograpl~'c a~a, as Uln'ah is not only ~be retail hub of the Uln'ah Valley, but also a shopping destination for households dzroughout Mendocino Coun(y. Using Census uacts, ADE has defineda primary market area as u,ellas a secondary market area for purposes of analyzing the retail marketpotendal £or the ~'(y of UMah, as shown in Figure 47. n The primary market area includes the City of Ukiah and surrounding areas within a radius of approximately 15-25 mile. Residents from within the primary market area are assumed to do most of their routine shopping in Ukiah, while those in the secondary market (which includes the remainder of Mendocino County and small portions of western Lake County) will make the trip to Ukiah less frequently, generally to stock up on groceries and other supplies or to make special purchases at one of the large retail stores. Page 36 The retail analysis that follows is separated into three sections. The first section provides a summary of population and income trends, which are key variables in the retail analysis. The second section focuses on the primary market area, which represents the core of the market demand for retail goods and services in Ukiah and is therefore given the most emphasis. The third section is focused on opportunities for retail growth that are more regional in nature. The regional retail analysis includes hxh the primary and secondary market areas on the demand side. That is, total household spending for the expanded market area is measured against existing retail sales by Ukiah businesses. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW Total consumer demand is a function of total income available for consumer expenditures. The two demographic variables that determine demand for retail goods in a market area are population/households and income. Consumer demand increases or decreases based on trends in these two variables. Population and Household Trends Total consumer demand increases with population growth. Therefore, it is important to note the demographics of population growth in estimating trends in consumer spending. As shown in Chapter 2, the 2000 Census figures show Uldah with a population of 15,497 persons, which represents a 6.2% increase over the 1990 population of 14,599. There are currently 5,985 households in Ukiah, which corresponds to an average household size of 2.44. Mendocino County as a whole has grown at a slightly faster rate than Ukiah over the past ten years, from 80,345 in 1990 to 86,245 today, an increase of 7.4%. There are currently 33,266 households in Mendocino County, or an average of 2.59 persons per household. Income Trends Income is the second variable that establishes the total amount of demand available for purchasing retail goods from Uldah merchants. There are several ways that income in the market area can increase. The first is through growth in employment. A second source of income growth is an increase in the average wage paid to those residing in the market area. Finally, an increase in the number of higher paying jobs creates income growth. Household income levels in Mendocino County and Ukiah have risen approximately 30% over the past ten years, a rate of growth roughly proportionate to the inflation rate. Countywide, average household income is estimated at $43,737, compared to $33,306 in 1989. In Ukiah, aVerage household income is about ten percent lower than the county as a whole, with a current estimate of $37,401. Page 38 PRIMARY MARKET AREA Table 11 shows the retail leakage analysis for the Ukiah primary market area. Total household spending (column 1) is an estimate of the amount of income in the market area that is spent on retail goods. The sales data is an annual total, and is shown by retail category. Since some items- such as food and prescription drugs- are not taxable, the analysis includes a calculation that converts taxab/e sa/e5 (column 2) into aaua/sa/~ (column 3), which includes both taxable and nontaxable sales. Sa~/eaka~e and its opposite, ec~s capture (column 4) is the gap between household spending in the market area and retail sales captured by businesses currently located within the City. Ukiah's Retail Base The primary market area comprises an estimated 21,128 households. Collectively, these households generate approximately $385 million a year in retail spending. Overall, retail sales from Ukiah businesses, however, are only about $297 million, including both taxable and non-taxable goods. The difference of nearly $89 million is the amount of/eaka~ or household income in the market area that is currently leaving the community to be spent on retail goods at businesses outside the City)2 Page 39 TABLE :!.1 LEAKAGE ANALYSIS FOR PR/MARY MARKET AREA Total Retail Group Total Household Taxable Actual Sales Spending Sales Sales Leakages Avg. sales per establish- ment Attraction/ Expansion Potential Apparel Store Group Women's Apparel Men's Apparel Family Clothing Shoe Stores General Merchandise Group Department & Dry Goods Discount Stores Department Stores Other General Merchandise Warehouse Clubs and Superstores Misc. General Merchandise Drug & Proprietary Stores Specialty Retail Group Gifts & Novelties Sporting Goods Florists Photographic Equipment Records & Music Books & Stationery Office Supplies/Computer Equipment Office Supplies Computer Equipment 3ewelry Misc. Specialty Retail Cosmetics/Beauty Supply Optical Goods Other Health/Personal Care Stores Toys & Hobbies Pet Stores Other Misc. Specialty Stores Food, Eating and Drinking Group Grocery Stores Supermarkets Convenience Stores Specialty Food Stores Meat & Fish Markets Fruit & Vegetable Markets Misc. Specialty Food Liquor Stores Eating Places Full-Service Restaurants Other Eating Places Drinking Places Building Materials and Home furnishings Group Furniture & Home Furnishings Furniture Stores Other Home Furnishings Stores Household Appliances & Electronics Used Merchandise Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores Lumber E Other Building Materials Home Centers and Hardware Stores Paint & Wallpaper Automotive Group New Cars & RVs Used Car Dealers Gasoline Service Stations Mobile Homes & Trailers Auto Parts & Accessories Boats & Motorcycles $385,403,711 $234,402,500 $296,596,984 $88,806,727 $22,625,049 $2,885,100 $2,885,100 $19,739,949 $5,099,940 $55,900 $55,900 $5,044,040 $1,763,771 $396,800 $396,800 $1,366,971 $11,203,304 $1,208,300 $1,208,300 $9,995,004 $4,558,035 $1,224,100 $1,224,100 $3,333,935 $68,07%066 $76,607,000 $90,654,290 -$22,578,224 $36,994,613 $70,371,200 $74,942,705 -$37,948,092 $22,103,993 $0 $0 $0 $14,890,403 $0 $0 $0 $19,102,038 $725,500 $978,162 $18,123,876 $14,546,300 $0 $0 $0 $4,555,738 $0 $0 $0 $11,979,414 $5,510,300 $14,733,422 -$2,754,008 $26,094,002 $21,248,400 $21,272,965 $4,821,037 $2,069,746 $1,411,900 $1,430,496 $639,249 $2,694,830 $4,148,500 $4,152,653 -$1,457,823 $651,342 $212,600 $213,668 $437,674 $324,504 $701,000 $701,000 -$376,496 $1,469,274 $1,486,100 $1,486,100 -$16,826 $1,914,175 $1,739,200 $1,739,200 $174,975 $4,381,560 $10,801,800 .$10,801,800 -$6,420,240 $1,981,711 $0 $0 $0 $2,399,849 $0 $0 $0 $2,526,844 $747,300 $748,048 $1,778,796 $10,061,727 $0 $0 $10,061,727 $518,554 $o $o So $1,433,589 $0 $0 $0 $997,304 $0 $0 $0 $2,958,712 $0 $0 $0 $1,443,817 $0 $0 $0 $2,709,751 $0 $0 $0 $109,137,270 $41,439,700 $87,939,067 $21,198,203 $72,525,717 $14,999,100 $56,814,773 $15,710,944 $69,383,548 $0 $0 $3,142,114 $0 $0 $2,243,459 $705,700 $2,667,760 -$424,301 $1,122,623 $0 $0 $0 $434,486 $0 $0 $0 $686,349 $0 $0 $0 $3,085,755 $1,468,800 $1,494,201 $1,591,554 $31,282,339 $24,266,100 $26,962,333 $4,320,006 $14,907,862 $0 $0 $0 $15,193,732 $0 $0 $0 $1,180,745 $0 $0 $0 $ 308,654 $ 2,650,692 $ 273,800 $ 943,000 $ 284,636 $ 404,571 $ 345,147 $ 389,429 $ 1,604,840 $ 435,333 $ 3,207,073 $ 3,471,500 $ 278,333 $ 385,936 $ 393,892 $36,463,652 $35,485,600 $35,520,297 $943,355 $15,967,464 $4,137,200 $4,145,491 $11,821,973 $ 486,150 $9,436,292 $0 $0 $0 $ 901,000 $6,531,173 $0 $0 $0 $6,735,317 $2,339,700 $2,339,700 $4,395,617 $ 472,316 $1,028,058 $0 $0 $1,028,058 $ 234,182 $3,107,908 $3,989,500 $3,997,495 -$889,587 $ 675,222 $5,451,806 $4,809,000 $4,809,000 $642,806 $3,878,411 $18,392,800 $18,411,211 $14,532,800 $ 5,744,250 $294,688 $1,817,400 $1,817,400 -$1,522,712 $123,007,672 $56,736,700 $58,325,265 $64,682,407 $78,114,938 $21,939,100 $21,939,100 $56,175,838 $ 4,791,800 $5,665,250 $3,151,500 $3,151,500 $2,513,750 $33,965,438 $19,313,600 $20,902,165 $13,063,274 $ 1,597,649 $21,508 $0 $0 $21,508 $ 1,050,750 $2,966,812 $6,807,100 $6,807,100 -$3,840,288 $ 2,514,313 $2,273,725 $5,525,400 $5,525,400 -$3,251,675 64 2 -2 2 0 -19 5 0 0 5 0 -2 11 0 24 0 9 4 -1 -3 12 8 0 -2 Page 40 Retail Leakage and Excess Capture In The Primary Market Area Four of the six major retail categories show the presence of significant leakage: Automotive ($64.7 million); Food, Eating, and Drinking ($21 million); Apparel ($19.7 million); and Specialty Retail ($4.8 million). Building Materials and Home Furnishings shows a very modest amount of leakage of less than $1 million total. The other major category, General Merchandise, shows an exass capture of $22.5 million: Ukiah retail stores in this category (e.g. Wal-Mart, Big K-Mart, Freidman Bros.) had sales of approximately $91 million last year, compared to household spending for this category of $68 million. This is attributable primarily to additional spending by householders in the secondary market area, who travel to Ukiah periodically in order to purchase goods that are either unavailable or more expensive in their local area. Stores that are able to capture significant sales from outside of the Ukiah Valley are generally larger scale stores that draw customers from a larger, regional market area, as discussed in the next section. Expansion And Attraction Potential- Primary Market Area With a total retail leakage of $89 mill/on, Ukiah has potential to recapture some local household spending that currently goes outside of the city. Ukiah's attraction potential comprises the following retail store categories, listed in order from highest to lowest amount of leakage: Automotive Group · New car dealers · Gas stations Food Eating and Drinking Group · Grocery Stores · Eating places Apparel Store Group · All clothing store types (women's; men's; family; and shoe stores) Specialty Retail · Gifts and novelties · Jewehy · Florists Building Materials and Home furnishings Group · Furniture and home furnishings · Household appliances and electronics Downtown Retail Opportunities The list of potential retail attraction targets shown above represent the store types that can be feasibly supported by local households in and around Page 41 Uldah. From this list, it is useful to identify those categories that would be a good fit for Ukiah's downtown. Independent retailers that offer an attractive mix of specialized products (e.g. products not available at the large. "big box" retail outlets) are most suitable for downtown Ukiah. Developing these types of niche retail businesses in the downtown would serve to strengthen the identity of downtown Ukiah as a vibrant shopping and dining district for the community. Table 12 below shows the store categories that should be considered the primary attraction targets for downtown Ukiah: TABLE 12 DOWNTOWN UKIAH RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS Local Retail Group Household Existing Sales Avg. Sales Spending in Ukiah Leakage Per Store Apparel Stores Women's Apparel Men's Apparel Family Clothing Shoe Stores Specialty Retail Group Gifts and Novelties Florists Jewelry Food, Eating and Drinking Eating Places Building Materials & Home furnishings Furniture & Home furnishings Household Appliances & Electronics $308,654 $5,099,940 $55,900 $5,044,040 NA $1,763,771 $396,800 $1,366,971 NA $11,203,304 $1,208,300 $9,995,004 NA $4,558,035 $1,224,100 $3,333,935 NA $2,069,746 $1,430,496 $639,249 $273,800 $651,342 $213,668 $437,674 $284,636 $2,526,844 $748,048 $1,778,796 $389,429 $31,282,339 $26,962,333 $4,320,006 $385,936 $15,967,464 $4,145,491 $11,821,973 $486,150 $6,735,317 $2,339,700 $4,395,617 $472,316 It should also be noted that each of the categories shown above also have the potential to serve the burgeoning Mendocino County tourist market, which would further strengthen the retail viability of downtown Ukiah. Each year, tourists and other visitors from outside the county spend upwards of $85 million at eating and drinking establishments and $60 mi~on on retail goods throughout the county. ~3 Most of the retail spending byvisitors is concentrated in the specialty retail category, which should be the main focus of retail attraction and expansion efforts in the downtown area. Clearly, this list of viable retail attraction candidates can expand into other retail categories if the stores can succeed in attracting spending from households in surrounding communities, as described in the section below. REGIONAL MARKET ANALYSIS As mentioned earlier, a number of retail store types require regional markets to support their operations. To assess whether Ukiah can potentially capture Page 42 sales from these types of establishments, a regional market area was defined which adds the remainder of Mendocino County (see 'Market Area Definition' above). The expanded market definition adds about 21,138 households to the market area, and brings the total number of households in the market area 42,186. To identify potential oppommities with regional retail store categories, the analysis first identified the detailed retail store categories that require regional market support. The retail stores that most typically draw from regional retail markets are listed as follows: · Discount stores · Department stores · Warehouse clubs · Furniture/home furnishings stores · Appliance and electronics stores · Home improvement stores · Automobile dealerships Even with the expanded market definition, the population base in the region surrounding Ukiah will only support a limited number of these regional retail stores. For example, a warehouse club will typically generate from $50 million to $80 million in annual sales, on average, while a typical "big box" home center can generate sales of $18 - $40 million in annual sales. 14 Some of this spending will come from business-to-business transactions, but it still represents a formidable threshold to overcome. Regional Retail Market Potential for Ukiah Using the expanded regional retail market definkion, the total household spending in the market area ranges from $8 rnilh'on to $163 million for each of the regional retail categories (See Table 4). The largest regional spending categoryis new cars, which account for about $163 million of household demand in the region. The regional general merchandise category, which includes discount and department stores and warehouse clubs, combine for about $106 million of retail demand, while the regional store types in the building materials and home furnishings group generate about $65 million of retail spending combined. While some leakage does exist in the discount and departrrent store category, it is far too little to support a new business of this type in Ukiah. Existing stores already meet the spending demand for these regional store types. Similarly, it appears that the regional household demand for the mrehouse dub or s~tore Page 43 category is insufficient to attract a facility of this type to Ukiah, given the average sales figures for stores of this type.. Another store category already exceeding regional demand by a large margin is horr~ cer~ and hard~a~re stores, which shows an excess capture of over $10 million, indicating substantial business-to-business sales within this category. The other three categories of regional store types that are shown in table 13 - fuv'r//ture and hor~fit/~h/ngs, hc~s~ appl/~nc~ and ~, and neua car~ & R l/s- show a sufficient amount of household demand and leakage to support new businesses. TABLE '~3 REGIONAL RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS Regional Retail Group Regional Existing Potential Avg. Sales Household Sales in Leakage Attraction Spending Ukiah Per Store Target? General Merchandise Group Discount and Department Stores Warehouse Clubs and Superstores Building Materials and Home furnishings Group Furniture and Home furnishings Stores Household Appliances & Electronics Home Centers and Hardware Stores Automotive Group New Cars & RVs $76,899322 $74,942,705 $1,956,617 $25,325,789 No $29,264,340 $0 $29,843,961 $53,541,671 NO $33,704,503 $4,145,491 $29,559,012 $1,361,921 Yes $13,973,083 $2,339,700 $11,633,383 $1,594,382 Yes $8,192,812 $18,411,211 ($10,218,399) $19,296,872 No $163,227,910 $21,93%100 $141,288,810 $15,822,353 Yes Source: ADE, retail model developed from 1997 US Reta//Census, and the 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys. Notes: Spending and sales do not include non-store retail establishments, which include mail order, home shopping, and direct selling. All retail categories shown are aggregated categories due to confidentiality requirements. CONCLUSIONS The leakage analysis reveals clear opportunities for retail growth in Ukiah, both in local-serving retail opportunities and regional market opportunities. Although there is overlap between these two markets, each requires a different approach. To large extent, the Ukiah retail market is already segmented in this way, with the downtown area mainly serving the local population -- and the larger retailers along the freeway serving locals, regional shoppers as far away as W'fllits and beyond, and tourists. The Primary Market Area The existing retail base in Ukiah is currently not capturing all of the household spending generated within the primary market area. The best opportunities within this market segment include apparel stores (of all types); Page44 various specialty retail stores, such as gifts & novekies, florists, and jewelry stores; furniture & home furnishings stores; and restaurants. The City should encourage these types of businesses to locate in the downtown area in order to strengthen the overall mix of downtown retail, thereby attracting both residents and visitors to the downtown. Expansion of existing downtown businesses is another means of achieving this goal of capturing the full potential of Uldah's local-serving retail market. The Regional Market Area As Uldah serves as the retail hub for Mendocino County, its market area extends beyond the primary market area to include the rest of the county as well as portions of western Lake County. However, Ukiah must also compete with retail businesses in other communities throughout the county, as well as in Santa Rosa, and even San Francisco. Therefore, it is important to identify the retail categories that generally require a regional draw, and to focus attraction efforts on stores or store types within these categories. This effort to bring regional-serving retail businesses in Ukiah should be done parallel to - rather than in lieu of- the effort to recruit local-serving businesses to the downtown. The main retail categories that often have a regional focus are General Merchandise; Building Materials and Home furnishings; and Automotive. Within these categories, the store types that show significant leakage in the Ukiah regional market (and therefore should be the primary targets for Ukiah attraction and expansion efforts) are fumitttre and home furnishings, household appliances and electronics, and new car dealers. Page 45 5. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS (SWOT) To attract its target industries, help its existing industries expand, and capture its retail and tourism opportunities, Ukiah must successfully implement its economic development strategy. It is increasingly necessary to recognize the competition, both locally and in other areas, even globally. Uldah must turn its strengths and other opportunities into a true marketing advantage, improve those weaknesses it can, and devise strategies to counteract the weaknesses it cannot change. Tables 14 & 15 and the following discussion are based largely on the assessments provided in the two previous Ukiah CDBG Economic Development Planning/Technical Assistance grants, ~5plus the work completed recently by ADE for the Mendocino County General Plan background report. Strengths Ukiah is a regional hub-- the employment, commercial and govemment center of Mendocino County. All travelers on US 101 must pass through the G~[ Its size in proportion to other communities in the County makes it the retail and industrial center of the County. Indeed, Ukiah's retail appears to be expanding to meet the opportunities identified in the retail leakage analysis. Because of its size, Ukiah is a central location for distribution of local products and a key staging area for tourists. Weaknesses The key industrial and commercial weakness of Ukiah is its location. Situated an hour north of Santa Rosa, Ukiah is too far north to be considered a true extension of the Bay Area for industry. Santa Rosa is that limit. Ukiah, therefore, needs to concentrate on attracting existing manufacturers seeking to leave the congestion and high costs of the Bay Area in favor of the lower stress and high quality of life in the Ukiah Valley. The best targets include manufacturers of products that can be shipped easily by FedEx, and products whose transportation costs are a small part of the total manufacturing cost. In addition, Ukiah should seek owners of small or mid-sized companies who want to relocate and can bring key employees. For tourism, Ukiah is at the northem extent of California's wine growing region. Anyone visiting the area must expect an ovemight stay. While Napa Page 46 and even Sonoma counties see tremendous tourist traffic, Mendocino sees less. Nevertheless, tourism is an important component of the local economy, and Ukiah should institute tourism promotion strategies that take advantage of wines, the coast, the redwoods, and Ukiah's central location amid it all. Available Iudusttial Laud A report completed in 2001 for the City of Uldah concluded that industrial land would develop at a rate of about seven acres per year in Mendocino Gount3?6. At this rate, the Uldah Valley has plenty of industrial land for their foreseeable future. When added to 60 acres now available for redevelopment at the Masonke mill, k appears that there is ample industrial land for decades to come. Greater Ukiah's 285 acres~7 represent 40 years of inventory. However, only about 60 of these acres are within the Uldah city limits. The city acreage faces strong local competition from North State Street in particular, and some land in Talmage. The City should consider annexing additional land at the end of Brush Street, in Talmage, in South Ukiah, and/or the North State Street area in the next decade. All these areas are contiguous to the existing city limits, are natural extensions of the City, and would benefit from more consistent se~ices and zoning enforcement. Annexation would create land that could be used for industrial, commercial and housing development. The North State Street and South State Street areas, however, have significant redevelopment needs that should be carefully considered. Ukiah has only about 60 of the over 200 acres of available industrial land in the area. In part to maintain a ready supply of such land, Ukiah should consider future annexation of the Brush Street area, Talmage, South State Street to the South State Street Interchange, and North State Street. Labor a vailabiRt, r Because of Ukiah's relative remoteness, prospects will need to be convinced of adequate labor to satisfy their needs. For instance, a shortage of highly trained work_ers such as machinists or computer technicians will limit the city's attractiveness. Industries expanding from other more urban areas are often not convinced that rural areas have a large enough labor pool to meet their requirements when dozens of employees may be needed during the start up period. They are also concerned about the work ethic of the rural labor force and its ability to work productively in the high performance workplace in which most businesses operate in today's competitive environment. This problem will need to be addressed through training, the school system, and effective marketing. Page 47 Housing Housing is limited and tends to be expensive in Ukiah. Few new housing units have been built over the last decade in Ukiah, either startup units for employees or executive homes. This is partly because land is limited within the city limits, partly because of water availability, and partly became all recent housing development proposals have been actively opposed by current residents. Interest from developers and the building of a new housing development in the Forks area may have an impact on available housing, but housing is expected to continue to be scarce. Opportunities Oaali{y o£L ik The quality of life is generally considered excellent in Uldah. However, there are a number of kems Uldah should address if at all possible. First, the airport should again seek scheduled air service to and from the Bay Area. Such sereice has been provided intermittendy over the years, and is currently not available. The City is upgrading the terminal facilities, so there may again be a chance. Community spirit is also evident in Ukiah. The City and others are working together to raise up to $6 million via donations, grants, and other funds for a new community recreation center in an old shopping center in South Uldah. That shopping center closed a decade ago, and is now becoming a school and other services for youth and the community. Train serffce to [Jla'ab The current rail line through Utdah is owned bythe North Coast Railroad Authority, but there has not been service on the line for manyyears. Certain portions of the line are in serious need of repair, mostly north of Uldah. Uldah and the entire 101 corridor would benefit from reviving the line from Healdsburg through Cloverdale and into Uldah. This would enhance both industrial and tourism potential. Hopefully, funds can eventually be found to at least provide limited service. Self-promotion Over time, the City and County have jointly and separately promoted themselves to new industry and tourism, and are now promoting the wine industry. The City has recently printed over 8,000 brochures oriented to hospitality. Some of the remaining Jobs Housing Balance grant funds should be spent distributing the brochures and following up on the leads that will be generated. City support for the initiation and implementation of well- constructed economic development plans will place the City in a competitive Page 48 poskion for continuing its business attraction, expansion, and new enterprise development initiatives. Threats AcEve Economic Development Implementado~ Because of Ukiah's relatively remote location, the City needs to be diligent in its attraction, retention/expansion, and tourism promotion strategies. If a conscious effort is not maintained, Uldah will waste scarce economic development resources and will not help its jobs housing balance. Became of economic shifts away from wood products, if a concerted business retention effort is not maintained (including downtown revitalization), Ukiah will lose many key businesses. Ukiah needs also to pay particular attention to economic development outside the city limits, including redevelopment/ growth south of town, on North State Street, in Talmage, as well as changes in other communities in the Ukiah Valley. Re~il Retail has been expanding, bringing with it new shopping oppommities. The auto dealership expansions, for instance, are filling a category of documented retail leakage. However, much of the expansion has been big box and other large retailers with products across categories. They may have brought with them temporary market saturation in some of these categories. For instance, the Wal-Mart that also sells drugs and sundries may have influenced the closing of Walgreen's, and perhaps the Longs Drugs in the future. The Freidman Brothers Home Center opening predated the closure of two other lumber stores. Whether or not this trend to big box is desirable, stores that close take with them a consumer choice. The downtown, in particular, should do all it can to ensure a vibrant mix of unique shopping opportunities for residents and tourists alike. Page 49 PART II ECONOMIC STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Page 52 6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY The economic strategy recognizes that improving the jobs/housing balance will depend on the creation of sufficient new jobs available to city residents to eliminate the current imbalance and maintain equilibrium in the furore. It also recognizes that the jobs/housing imbalance is not confined to the city limits and that final solutions must be found at the level of the labor market area that includes the entire Ukiah Valley. Even so, the City could substantially reduce the statistical imbalance by creating more and better paying jobs for current and future residents. The community and economic assessments and the SWOT analysis have served as baseline data and information for development of the economic strateg3~ Industrial Attraction and Expansion Ukiah owns a marketable 20-acre industrial park that needs infrastructure. It is an extension of the Airport Business Park which is developing along the freeway frontage with big box commercial, lodging, and auto dealers. The park has additional space for office and light manufacturers. A strong industrial attraction program is indicated, in tandem with the creation of new infrastructure and development of the city's property. The City is in a position to attract smaller users in light manufacturing, retail, food processing, and office. Industrial and business attraction targets include appropriate users of downtown and of Airport Business Park sites.~8 Table 16 lists some of these. The implementation plan includes a prioritized outreach plan for these targets. Page 53 TABLE 16 SUGGESTED TARGET INDUSTRIES FOR UKIAH 35 356 359 352 20 208 36 Various 80 801 79 58 701 83 833 07 078 55 SIC Industry Average Acreage per establishment Manufacturing Industrial machinery and equipment, including 3.91 General industrial machinery Miscellaneous industrial machinery Farm and garden machinery Food and Kindred Products, including 2.14 Beverages Electronic & other Electrical Equipment 1.02 Goods producers and light industry of all types, including contractors, manufacturers, warehousing, auto and truck repair, storage yards, etc. Office Users Health Services, including 0.32 Offices and clinics of medical doctors Amusement and Recreation Services 0.80 Eating and Drinking Places 0.19 Hotels and motels 0.32 Social Services, including 0.2 Job training and related services Agricultural Services 0.67 Landscape and horticultural Services Automotive Dealers and Service Stations 0.46 Government Average acreage per establishment was calculated for 2-digit SIC's by dividing total employment by the number of establishments, then applying a jobs-per-acre factor adjusted for land coverage. The jobs-per-acre factor applied was 15 for manufacturing, 20 for retail, 36 for most services, and 65 for restaurants. Retail attraction Retail categories showing leakage should be recruited. Downtown revitalization should be the main thrust of that recruitment, and a partnership with Ukiah Main Street program is indicated. Retail targets outlined in this report include: Page 54 Automotive Group · New car dealers · Gas stations Food Eating and Drinking Group · Grocery Stores · Eating places Apparel Store Group · All clothing store types (women's; men's; family; and shoe stores) Specialty Retail · Gifts and novekies · Jewelry · Florists Building Materials and Home furnishings Group · Furniture and home fumishings · Household appliances and electronics Downtown Revitalization As retail in the Talmage area grows, and perhaps also the end of Brush Street, downtown merchants need to continuously adapt to the new competition. Ukiah has been implementing its downtown development plan for several years, and is an active member of the California Main Street Program and the California Downtown Association. A relatively new conference center and community plaza have been constructed. The Redevelopment Agency needs to continue its support. It should consider a State Street streetscape improvement project to improve parking and slow traffic along State Street, along with startup funds and small business assistance funds. Small Busiaess Assistance The City's ongoing Fagade Improvement Program and its newly formed Revolving Loan Program~9 need to be expanded and their terms marketed to all of Ukiah's businesses. These two important job creation programs will play a critical role in the future. Toudsm Promotion Tourism is a major industryin Uldah and in Mendocino County. Employ- ment in viskor-serving industries has grown 25% in the past decade. With over $500,000 now being spent per year on tourism and wine industry promotion in the county,2° additional wine sales and additional visitation are being generated. However, there is much tour/sm potential that is not yet tapped. Page 55 Viskation to area attractions can be significantly expanded through collaborative marketing. Cooperative promotion is the first step, coupled with the expansion of the county's attractions. Ukiah should wait for the controversy to wane over how effectively the Mendocino Alliance has spent County funds and, when resolved, should add its funds to the mix. Cooperative marketing has the most impact, so Ukiah should not consider its own tourism program. Consider Hiring or Contracting out for Economic Development Staff Economic development in Ukiah is but one of the responsibilities of an Assistant Gty Manager position. This position, therefore, has an important role to play in all aspects of job creation in Ukiah. Due to other responsibilities, however, staff time and resources are often limited and economic development is more of a reactive rather than a proactive function2( Consideration should therefore be given to a new economic development position22 reporting to that Assistant City Manage r. That person's primary responsibilities could include marketing Ukiah, active recruitment of retail and industrial prospects, and helping existing businesses expand. Since the projects often are within the redevelopment project area and often involve incentives, the Redevelopment Agency's budget often cost- effectively supports the position in other cities. Contracting out can include commissioning the Ukiah Chamber of Commerce and/or the Main Street Program and/or outside consultants to do the initial marketing and recruitment, with follow-up and closing bythe City and its local partners. Incentive Policy Various communities throughout California have enacted industrial incentive policies over time. The soundest incentive policies avoid committing General Fund monies, and using either redevelopment assets or grant funds as investments to generate a greater future return. A return on the city's investment of a few years and a guarantee of job creation is a good guide to the amount invested in any given project. Cities most commonly participate in construction projects requiring public infrastructure development, and can often take advantage of the fact that they pay lower-than-commercial interest rates on borrowed funds. Ukiah can create a fiscal impact model to determine expected returns on investment for almost any future project, and establish policies to steer its investments to the type of projects that will bring the most benefit to the Page 56 City23. Redevelopment in particular should be used for projects that bring a remm on investment greater than the outlay. Irrespective of the public need, redevelopment funds should not be used for public projects such as community centers or other projects that will not be generating property tax or sales tax returns-unless directly associated with a private development that will generate returns. Optimize Grant Resources Federal and state grants should be used to the maximum extent practicable for all available purposes. These should include infrastructure and small business and microenterprise assistance capital, as well as otherwise sewing local business and job development. Page 57 7. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The attached Jobs/housing implementation Plan describes the initiatives required to put the economic strategy in motion. The plan includes a comprehensive economic development strategy for the City of Ukiah. Full implementation over time will require resources beyond the scope of this jobs housing grant. However, this plan also specifically recommends how the remainder of the $110,000 jobs/housing funds ($85,00024) can be used by the City of Ukiah between now and September 30, 2003 to implement these initiatives. The following initiatives are recommended for implementation of the economic strategy. 1. Attracting Industrial Users through a variety of promotion activities; 2. Enhancing the retail sector through downtown retail recmitment; and 3. Enhancing the retail sector through tourism promotion; SPECIFIC USE OF JOBS HOUSING GRANT FUNDS Funds made available from the HCD grant will be used to cover some of the costs of these activities, including one-time costs such as equipment and printing costs for publications, and travel expenses for targeted recruitment visits. Table 17 itemizes those expenses. TABLE 17 JOBS -HOUSING GRANT IMPLENENTATION BUDGET ITEM BUDGET Industrial attraction Direct mail program for existing Ukiah marketing piece. Lead follow-up, outreach and travel for recruitment for one year - not including salaries Coordination with Superior California and others for collaborative marketing Advertising in Bay Area Business Journals (San Jose, San Francisco) Subtotal Industrial Attraction Retail and tourism attraction Retail marketing brochure add-on to existing Ukiah marketing piece Direct mail program for retail attraction, using existing Ukiah marketing piece augmented byretail hot buttons Lead follow-up, outreach and travel for recruitment for one year - not including salaries. 10,000 20,000 10,000 15,000 8,000 15,000 10,000 $55,000 Subtotal retail attraction 33,000 TOTAL $85,000 Page 58 : ~ II il II II ENDNOTES Formula based on methodology from the California Association Of Reakors®, assuming a 20 percent down payment at a 7 percent interest rate over a thirtyyear repayment period. Extensive economic analyses have been completed over the past several years in Monterey County. For example, in 1999/2000 ADE studied Ukiah and Mendocino Countyin a similar manner in the Feasibility for a Rewlzing Loan Fund and A irport Business Plan funded by CDBG Planning/Technical Assistance Grant # 99-EDBG-658. This chapter is the verbatim analysis just completed in June 2002 for the Mendocino County General Plan by ADE. It updates job counts for the newest available data, including tourism. It is reproduced here for convenience and ease of reading. No significant changes in existing trends have been noted. Services producing jobs include transportation and public utilities, trade, and finance, insurance, & real estate. 2000 State Profile, State and County Projections to 2025; Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, DC. Local concentration is measured with a statistic called the location quotient (LQ). This statistic shows whether an industry makes up the same proportion of total employment in the county as it does in the state as a whole. (This could also be measured relative to the nation.) An LQ of 1.0 means that the industry is in exactly the same proportion to total employment in the county as it is statewide. Industries with LQs greater than 1.0 (higher local concentration) typically export their goods and services outside the county. Relative employment growth measures the rate of industry growth in the county compared to the growth rate for the same industry statewide. If the statistic is positive (greater than 0) it means the industry is growing faster locally than it is statewide (or it may be declining less rapidly). Industry output estimates were made by ADE using Implan's Mendocino County's input/output estimates. The tourism industry estimates utili?ed data presented by Dean Runyan Associates, 1995 for the State Office of Tourism. See "A Market and Financial Analysis of a Proposed 18-hole Regulation Length Public Golf Facility in Mendocino County, California." Prepared by ERA, San Francisco. This chapter is an expanded and updated version of the retail leakage analysis found in the November 2001 Ukiah Palace Had Reuse Study report funded by CDBG Planning/Technical Assistance Gram # 00-EDBG-727. Unlike the Palace Hotel version, this version includes downtown and a citywide analysis. ~0 Ukiah is home to several of the typical "big box" stores, such as Big K-Mart, Office Depot, and Wal-Mart; "specialty" retail refers to smaller, product-specific shops such as book stores, music stores, florists, jewelers, etc., which are typically found in malls and in downtown, pedestrian friendly locations. ~ The primary market area includes the following Mendocino County Census tracts (per Census 1990 definitions): 106,107,108,109,112,113,114,115,116,117,118. The secondary Page 63 market area includes the remainder of Mendocino Countytracts, plus the following Lake County tracts : 001,002,003,004, 005, 010. ~2 For example, some Ukiah area residents may regularly purchase certain items, such as clothing, in Santa Rosa or San Francisco where there is a much greater selection to choose from. ~ California Tra~l lrreacts By ~ 1992-1999, California Trade and Commerce Agency, Division of Tourism. 14 1997 U.S. Census ~f Retail Trade,, C. csteo A nnual Report, 1998; and Home Depot A r~d Report, 1998. ~SGrant # 99-EDBG-658 and # 00-EDBG-727. 16 Ukiah Airport Industrial FeasibilityArM3sis, by ADE in 2001 for the city of Uldah. Funded by a CDBG Planning and Technical Assistance Grant. 17 225 acres calculated in the Airport Feasibility Analysis report plus the 60 now available at the Masonite plant. Only about 30 acres is within the city limits. ~8 Copied from Feasibility for a Rezdzing Loan Fund and A irport Business Plan, funded by CDBG technical Assistance Grant # 99-EDBG-658. ~9 Funded us'ing CDBG grants, via CDBG EEF grant # 00-EDBG-738 20 Currently contracted out to the Mendocino County Alliance. 21 Reactive programs are more common than proactive programs. City staff typically spends more time responding to incoming projects rather than planning and recruiting desired projects for desired sites. 22 Perhaps half-time to start 2~ Fiscal impact models are useful in detern4ning the costs of providing public services over time against the fiscal returns to the city. 24 Ukiah originally expected to have $50,000 of grant funds available for implementation. Completion of this economic strategy only required $25,000 of the $48,000 originally budgeted for the consultant for strategy development, thus releasing an additional $23,000 for implementation. Page 64 APPENDIX A INDUSTRIAL ATTRACTION STRATEGY FROM "FEASIBILITY FOR A REVOLVING LOAN FUND AND AIRPORT BUSINESSS PLAN FINAL REPORT" w INDUSTRIAL ATTRACTION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan and Growth Management Program includes a number of economic development goals, policies and implementation steps. In addition, d~e city should take the following specific acdons to fill the Airport Business Park Find Users for Existing Industrial Land 1. Actively market the city's land directly and through local brokers. Take any appropriate measure to support marketing efforts by Realtors®. . Help the privately owned Airport Business Park find users for its vacant parcels, which will also create jobs. . Work with the California Trade and Commerce Agency and its Sacramento Regional Office, and work with NorCal IDEA to identify potential prospects. Actively follow-up on those prospects. , While this is occurring, rezone to allow as many commercial uses as possible on the four lots. Uld~ has no full-time economic development staff, and virtually no budget for marketing. In lieu of creating a marketing position or a un/que advertising budget, ADE recommends Ukiah become more active in the industrial development and marketing activities of county and regional partners. At minimum, Ukiah should: Make sure Trade and Commerce marketing staff has information on the particulars of each available parcel, and has copies of marketing materials of Ukiah's available properties. Invite staff to visit the city and provide a site tour. Entertain them as if theywere an industrial prospect. Talk to Trade and Commerce staff on a weekly or monthly basis. Support NorCal IDEA's marketing activities with funding and staff assistance whenever the oppommity arises. This includes attending cooperative trade shows in the food processing and industrial machinery industries. Remind Trade and Commerce staff that Uldah is seeking its smaller prospects; Approach local industries that may be out of space in their current locations and may need to expand; Approach local real estate brokers with suitable marketing materials, and/or supporting the marketing efforts of local industrial landowners. It is up to the city whether to agree to pay commissions, or to engage an exciusive broker. If so, a commission fee should be announced in advance. If so, the property will likely move faster, Stress Ukiah's location near Highway 101, the labor pool within 30 m/les, its amazing quality of life, and any cost advantages; APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 26 Support erection of a speculative building. Failing that, the city should pre-permit a standard manufacturing facility, making sure permit and building inspection processes are fully expedited and the user knows he/she is welcome. A new building should be erectable in 90 days. This will also benefit marketing efforts for the rest of Airport Business Park. BASIC COMPONENTS OF A MARKETING PLAN Although a broad strategy is not defined in this report, it is assumed that the marketing of this property will be incorporated into Ukiah's existing overall business attraction program. Volumes of information are available about the basic theory and practice of industrial recruitment. To save space, the basics are not included in this report. However, if additional training is desired, it can be arranged. A list of instructionaI manuals, handbooks, books, and organizations is also available on request. A good industrial marketing plan is practical, doable, and is tailored to the specific target industries. A plan includes: , Clear goals. Tkis suggested goal is simple and elegant: -- to attract one or more ne w indus maI and/or commercial users to the AkportBusiNess Park. Depending on how much interest is generated by the marketing approach, a number of additional steps may be needed to achieve this goal. For instance, the city may require new user to get a . , discretionary Conditional Use Permit. City staff and elected officials should therefore be fully supportive of these marketing efforts, and should ensure the permitprocess is planned in advance and streamlined for~ location. Citypermit and building staffs should also be involved in recruitment from the outset. Second, also depending on interest, the city may want to consider leasing the land long term to a master developer who would build one or more speculative buildings (See Chapter for The Need for Existing Buildings to Occupy). The potential users on the target list are primarily small owner-operators. These users more typically cannot afford to buy land and build their own facility, but usually lease an existing building they find suitable. The developer may need financial assistance to make spec buildings pay. Alternatively, the city maywish to build a spec building of its own. Define the product being marketed. The specific 8.8-acre site is a finite product, which has been well characterized in this report. Improve the product's weaknesses. The City should first concentrate on making the site easyto occupy. These items include: Designating the area for all industrial and commercial users Completing the remaining infrastructure to make the site useable Subdividing the land into smaller parcels; APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 27 . . , . c~ Marketing Improvements that take longer should be planned and budgeted. What can't be improved must be work_ed around. Define the target market to fit the product. Potential users are identified earlier in Chapter 3. Potential targets include light industries, aviation related users, office users, retail and visitor serving businesses. In addition, a full restaurant/bar might be attracted to this site, or be developed at the brewery. An understanding of how siting decisions are made by the target market. The strengths and weaknesses of the property as seen by a company's ske selector are included in the product desirability section below. Knowledge of your competition. This site will compete with offerings by all urban areas along 101 between W'fllits and Santa Rosa. These areas all offer different locations, different employee pools, local services. The communities south offer better access to the Bay Area. Uldah is offering a niche product, seeking users that do not need or want to be in the Bay Area. Either they desire remoteness, are not as concerned with access to transportation, or want to take advantage of the high quality of life. They must simply be found and courted. A clear marketing approach. The successful marketing approach will include: An organizational plan and management support. The City's Assistant City Manager is the designated economic development coordinator. He should include this or another marketing plan in his overall program, designate staff and budget to implement the plan, and act. The City Manager and other staff should fully support these efforts, fully expecting to personally participate as needed. The recruitment team defined. The recruitment team includes economic development staff to generate leads, make initial contact, generate user interest, and bring the deal home. It also includes a larger team to be tapped as needed for each project. That is, any city department or endty that can affect the final project. This includes at least Planning, Bttilding, the CityManager, Public Works, Police and Fire. It also includes PG&E (for electricity and gas), local builders, local trucking.firms, business service finm, employment departments, training agencies and others. A set of tactics designed to locate prospects and create positive responses; See below for more detail. A set of marketing materials tailored to the tactics. See below for more detail; A work plan and budget See below for more detail. TARGET INDUSTRIES The target industries can be further refined to a set of industries that can be specifically targeted through direct mail, direct calling, trade show attendance, trade magazine advertising, and other approaches. Good users to seek include: APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 28 o Electric and electronic equipment Miscellaneous light industry Repair o Printing and publishing [] Metal fabrication Plastics fabrication o Wood products Leather goods, textiles, apparel Photo, optical, medical equipment Agricultural technology finns needing low cost space. Other users not needing urban settings, such as: [] Construction companies (upkeep on yard space should be strict) Business services firms [] Data processing, computer programming Schools and universities [] Laboratories Other office users Aviation dependent and related users Suppliers to the aviation industry. [] A full-service restaurant may make another good target. DESIRABILITY Of THE PRODUCT BEING MARKETED Site Selection Factors Being Sought by Companies There are a number of major ske selection factors corporate facility managers consider when analyzing expansion and location opportunities. Different authors, associations, economic developers and companies categorize them differendy. Companies prioritize them differendy depending on a number of internal and market realities. No matter how the factors are categorized, each site location decision is a unique process -- a process that includes consideration of a mix of quantkative and qualitative variables. The community will win a higher percentage of competitions that can: 1) show it meets the basic quantitative criteria; and 2) effectively sells itself as a great place to live and do business. Stafford7 classifies the site variables from the standpoint of the corporation into four categories, with the factors of labor productivity, market accessibility, labor rates and transportation most important in nationwide searches. As the Search narrows to a locality, personal contacts and local amenities rise in importanceS: Distanoe Variables [] Transportation of things (costs) [] Markets (their location) [] Materials (raw materials and intermediate goods) [] Communications (including the movement of managers) Labor (including cost, availability, productivity, stabilit~ Agglomeration and infrastructure (are there other like finTm to prove operations there are feasible?). Companies like to cluster where they know other like firms succeed. 7 Principles of Industrial Facili .W Location, byHoward A. Stafford, PhD © 1980 by Conway Publications. Chapters 3-6 s Ibid, Pages 160-164 APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS Power (including fuel flexibility, receiving and shipping flexibilky, increased storage, proximity to supply, commitment of providers) Water (incl. quantity, quality) Quality of life (intangible) Taxes (state, local, property-- rates and effectiveness of local use) ca Incentives (tax relief, infrastructure funding, subsidies) ca Political climate (business friendly? Right- to-work state?) Environmental issues (incl. Impacts, pre- approval requirements) Lind S/te Se/m/onFaztors General patterns (location, transportation, etc.) Parcel location, size, cost n Land use regulations Industrial parks n Helpfulness of local economic developers and govemment agencies Site selection factors are more commonly classified into categories similar to the six in Table 17. TABLE 17 AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL SITE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Siting Factor Sought by Potential Prospect Site Assessment Comment ReM Estate Related Costs Low lease rates or land costs Low Construction costs Up-front rent/cost concessions Market/Corporate Accessibility Primary Consumer markets Access to Raw Materials and Suppliers Business services/ Technical support Corporate/ Division Headquarters Uldah is priced higher than the Bay Area. Higher away from Bay Area. Could be offered if city is willing Remote from the B ay Area Remote from the Bay Area Close to a variety of ag products. Most business needs can be met locally, Specialized services and products must be shipped in. Good HQ for small firms only. The high prices are a function of lack of industrial space in the region. Probably no significant advantage or disadvantage. Useful in competing with other local properties. Find users not needing to be close to markets. Find users not needing to be close to markets. Find users needing grapes and local ag products for processing. Find users whose needs can be mostly met locally. Taxes/Regulatory £ N viro rzm e ~ t Property Tax Rates Just over 1% statewide. Corporate and Business Taxes Statewide Personal Income Taxes Statewide City must be prepared to fast track a Necessary to compete effectively with other Favorable local Government user or buyer, communities. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 3O Siting Factor Sought by Potential Prospect Community Attitude Toward Business Site Assessment City must be willing to work with users and buyers and be flexible to meet everyone's needs. Comment Necessary to compete effectively with other communities. Tax Relocation / Startup Incentives Redevelopment agency can offer. If needed to compete with other cormnunities. Ouah' ty o£L i& Housing Affordability Average home value is $139,060, higher than the national average and Sacramento, lower than the Bay Area) Cost of Living RecreationaL/C~tural Amenities mountain, coastal opportunities. G/mate Mild Lower than the Bay Area. Median household income is $47,471, just higher than the national median. Center of rural wine country with river, Promote if prices low. Promote whichever costs are lower. Promote this quality of life. Excellent for year round manufacturing Ease of Commute No time to work for local residents Promote Low C_Mme Rate Promote if rates low School System Educational attainment is close to the national average Promote if scores are high in a particular school or district. Labor Qtaality/A vailabih'ty Educated Labor Force Availability of low- cost labor Availability of continuing education Job Training programs Labor force suited to ag and timber processing and related services. Mendocino College willing to train workers for desired skills Mendocino College and WiB Promote training program availability. Promote labor pool Promote training programs Labor Relations Industry specific skills Mosdy non union (Masonite?) Skills suited to the existing industry mix. Not an issue for small employers. Promote skills to prospects in existing industries. Promote training programs for industries not present. Inl~astruc~re Major Highways Transportation US 101 Via highway only. Good north-south transportation route. Promote central location in Mendocino County. Port None No scheduled commercial service Rai/ Electricity Gty of Ukiah Available, but line is not used. Keep trying to establish regularly scheduled flights. Promote if rates low. Natural gas Pacific Gas and Electric Telecommunications Sewer/Water New high-speed infrastructure along rail line. City services Promote if rates ]ow. 9 According to Community Close-ups, by homefair.com APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 31 MARKETING ACTION PLAN APPROACH First Create a Package of Marketing Materials Create a packet of appropriate marketing materials for distribution to prospects and marketing pamaers. The packet should include: A cover statement of who is being targeted. A map showing the site's location reladve to Santa Rosa, the Bay Area, major highways and other important features. A map of the site that shows the location of all features on the property. Indicate the buildable area outside the floodplain. A site profile, showing property address, transportation, utilities, contact name, etc. See the sample in Appendix B. A northern California Regional Economic Profile -- Obtain the Trade and Commerce Agency's profile. A Mendocino County profile. Any specific information requested by the individual client. This might include the number of employees of a particular occupation within commute distance, college curricula, labor union activity, etc. This information is typically developed as needed for specific prospects, then kept for future reference. Second, Spread the Word Personally about the Site Directly and personally distribute the site information, including maps, to a selected group of organizations. Meet their key marketing individuals and discuss the specific site. Only through personal contact will you generate significant awareness of the ske as an alternative location. Through personal awareness you will build the momentum needed to get the site included in proposal packages, and you may get serious leads. The following need contacting at a minimum. Follow up with these key individuals periodically. [] Mendocino College; [] Mendocino CountyEDC; County offices; ca City and county offices wherever there is a public access desk kiosk or pamphlets. Discuss at staff meetings and informally to all staff. Trade and Commerce Agency Local commercial Real Estate Brokers. Local developers. Find a developer willing to participate in a build-to-suit; The Airport offices [] Local motels and hotels and restaurants; [] Local employers, such as Safeway, Masonite, Carousel, etc. These firms APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 32 often have suppliers or customers that would be interested in a new facility. Third, Advertise More Broadly The city can consider the following addkional specific tactics. Include the information on the Ukiah web site. Place an ad in the San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento Business Journals. Rates for a 1/4 page BW ad in these weekly publications are about $1,800 to $5,000 per issue depending on frequency. The same publisher owns ail. Generate an article about the ske, its uniqueness; Attend 2000 and 2001 trade shows with the Trade and Commerce Agency. Consider NEPC~N West in Anaheim February 27-March 1. It is a manufacturing show and is co-locating with WESC~N, an electronics show. Arrange meetings with target companies to meet during the show, attend the show and cruise the exhibition area seeking prospects. Cost = $1,300 for booth space, plus travel and meals with clients. Email Chris B acklund at Trade and Commerce at CBacklund('O. commerce.ca.gov to reserve your space. Fourth, Recruit, Recruit, Recruit Schedule the necessary time and budget to support these activities. Add 1/3 extra time for follow-up with prospects by phone, email and mail. Thorough follow-through is rarer than not, and often makes the difference between a tire kicker and a sale. This is especially true for the smaller owner-operator type firms that predominate the target list. Fifth, Track Your Progress Create a prospect database that is easily kept, updated, and tracks all contacts with a prospect. The Act! Contact management software, originally developed by Lotus and sold to Se mantec®, is available for a nominal price. Act! is used by many economic development organizations, and does everything needed, including generating merge letters, tracking responses, keeping a rolo&x, tickling for follow-up, etc. Act! Also generates a series of useful pre-designed reports and allows complete customization. Newer versions are Palm Pilot® compatible. APPLIED D .... OPM,..N, ,.-CONOMI,.,S 33