Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-17 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 July 17, 1996 6:30 p.m. 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of Minutes i. Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 25, 1996 ii. Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 26, 1996 - Joint City Council/Uldah Valley Sanitation District Meeting iii. Regular Meeting of July 3, 1996 0 . 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 (90) days the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 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. Deny Claims for Damages Received from Cindi Schiessl; and Charles Knipping; "and Refer to City Insurance Carrier, REMIF b. Receive Report of Disbursements for the Month of June 1996 c. Award of Bid for Sodium Hydroxide Products, in the Amount of $25,926, to Pressure Vessel Service d. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Signatories on Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Accounts 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. , PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m. a. Consideration of Adjusting Rates for City of Ukiah Electric, Water, and Street Lighting Services i. Adoption of Resolution Increasing Rates for Electric Service ii. Adoption of Resolution Increasing Rates for Water Service iii. Adoption of Resolution Increasing Rates for Street Lighting Charge b. Adoption of Resolution Updating Planning Permit Fees The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request C, Introduction of Ordinance Rezoning Various Properties in and Around the Wagenseller Neighborhood, Pursuant to Implementation of the Adopted General Plan 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Adoption of Report of Altemative Leachate Containment System for Ukiah Landfill, Prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation, and Authorize Public Works Director to Submit Report to Regional Water Quality Control Board for Consideration b. Annual Nomination and Appointment of Commissioners and Board Members i. Planning Commission (1 vacancy) ii. Golf Course Committee (3 vacancies, I Required from Parks and Recreation Commission) iii. Parks and Recreation Commission (4 vacancies) iv. Discussion Regarding Readvertising for Two Airport Commission Vacancies c. Matters Conceming City Treasurer Position i. Introduction of Ordinance Amending City Treasurer Compensation ii. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Duties for City Treasurer d. Matters Concerning City Investments i. Amendment of Investment Policy Reflecting City Treasurer Duties ii. Approval of Application Deadline and Recruitment for Investment Oversight Committee Public Member e. Discussion and Approval of Expansion of City Telephone System, Approval of Lease Agreement with Siemens Credit Corporation, in the Amount of $62,990, and Authorization for City Manager to Execute Documents f. Approval of Agreements Between the City of Ukiah and Redwood Business Park Owners, et al, for Extension of Airport Park Boulevard e NEW BUSINESS a. Award of Contract for the Amendment to the Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan and Approval of Budget Amendment b. Consideration of Parking Regulations in Municipal Parking Lots i. Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of Division 8 of the City of Uklah City Code Regulating Parking in Municipal Parking Lots ii. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Parking Permit Regulations for Municipal Parking Lots 10. 11. 12. CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS .CLOSED SESSION Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Anticipated Litigation - Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 (1 case) 13. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - July 3, 1996 The City Council convened m a regular meeting, of which the agenda was legally noticed and posted, at 6:32 p.m. m the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and thc following Councilmembers were present: Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. Absent: Councilmernbcr Wattenburger. Staffpresent: Community Services Director DcKnobiough, City Manager Horslcy, City Attorney Rapport, Planning Director Sawyer, Senior Planner Stump, City Clerk Giuntoli. 2. InvocationfPiedee of AllegianCe City Manager Horsley gave the revocation, and Councilnvzmber Mastin led thc Pledge of AHegiance. 3. Aooroval of Minutes i. Regular Meetin£ of,June 19~ t996 - Revised Copy bl/S Malone/Ma~n to approve the revised Minutes of the June 19, 1996 regular meeting as submitted, canied by thc following roll call vote: AYES: Councihncmbcrs Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmcmbcr Wattenburger. 4. ~RIGHT TO APPEAL DE(~'I$1ON Mayor Schneiter explained the appeal process. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR bl/S Mastin/Malone to approve the ~t calendar as follows: a Denied Claims for Damages Received fi.om Norrna Didier; Steve and Leah Mcndoza; and Ted E. Myer, and Referred to City Insurance Carrier, REMIF b. Adopted Ordinance No. 965 Amending Section 3704.6 of the Ukiah City Code Regulating Sewer Laterals c. Awarded Bid for Electronic Meter Reading Devices and Appurtenances to Orcom Systems, Inc., in the Amount of $18,654. d. Received Notification Regarding Purchase of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel for the Corporation Yard e. Adopted Resolution No. 97-1 Increasing Fees for Legal Services f. Adopted Resolution No. 97-2 Approving Expansion of Sonoma/Mendocmo Recycling Market Development Zone. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None: ABSENT: Councilmembcr Wattenburger. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward Mayor Schneiter moved Agenda Item 8a to this time, since it was not yet the 7:00 p.m. scheduled hour for the public hearing. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8a. Adootlon of Qrdin~nc~ Amending the City Zonimt MaD to ~ong ~-~rtain PPbliclv Qwned and Develooed Pror~G¥ t0 "PF' (Public Facilities.) Senior Planner Stump advised that this item was introduced successfully to thc Council at thc regular meeting of June 19, 1996. He, therefore, was dispensing with thc background sununary and offering staffs recommendation that thc ordinance be adopted. M/S Malone/Mastin to adopt Ordinance No. 966 Amending thc City Zoning Map to Rezone Certain Publicly Owned and Developed Property to 'PF" (Public Facilities), carried by thc following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mast/n, Malone, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmcmbcr Wattenburger. 9. ~EW BUSINESS Regular Meeting - July 3,1996 Page I 9a. ADDroval of Demolition Permit ADDlication for a Struct~r~ Over 50 Years 0Id Located nt 315 West Church $~r~t Senior Planner Stump advised the structure proposed for demolition due to substantial fire damage is located at 315 West Church Street. At their meeting of June 26, 1996, the City's Demolition Permit Review Committee determined that the s'Uuctu~ is not historically or architectm-ally significant; therefore, staff Mayor Schneiter questioned the necessity for the demolition permit since the structure was deemed unsound as a result of thc fire. Planning Diretnor Sawyer replied that although the building was a total loss, it was helpful to proceed with the review process and analysis for benefit of the historical record. Discussiou followed regarding the necessity for the demolition permit. MIS Mastin/M~ione to f:md that the structure located at 315 West Church Street is not historically or architecturally significant, and allow issuance of the Demolition Permit, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Coum:ilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: CotmciltnemberWa_tt_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_en_burger. 9b. Adontion of Resolution Establishint LandscaDint and Streetsca~e Desinn Guidglines M/S Shoemaker/Schneiter to continue this item to the August 2 I, 1996 regular meeting, carried by an all AYE voice vote. 9c. Discussion Re~ardint Joint Meeting with Golf (;gur~e Committee City M~mager Horsley and Community Services Director DeKnoblough advised that thc Golf Course has projected an operational deficit of $134,583. This deficit will be reduced to $104,620 through a rese~,c Wansfcr of $28,743 and a beginning fund balance of $3,200; there are no remaining reserves in this fund, after this year's transfer, with which to assist any potential future operational deficits. Thc Golf Course Committee reviewed the budget at their June 26, 1996 meeting, at which time staff informed them of the severity ofthc financial issues facing the City as a whole. Staffalso reviewed thc function of entc~risc funds within thc city budget and thc need for thc Golf Course to sustain itself. Several proposals for addressing thc deficit through fee increases were discussed by thc Committ~; however, before taking action to recommend a specific course of action, the Committee unanimously expressed its desire to discuss these issues directly with the Council. It was thc consensus of the Council to meet jointly with thc Golf Course Committee on Wednesday, August 21, 5:30 p.m., prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. 9d. AnDroval 9f Request for Prpposal for Inv~menq A0vi$0r3, ~rvices City Manager Horsley advised that currently these services arc provided on an interim basis by Public Financial Management. Staff has prepared a Request For Proposal (RFP) for long term services, which will be distributed to local and out of thc area qualified firms. M/S M~ioneffM~stin to approve the Request For Proposal (RFP) for Financial Investment Services, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schnciter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Counc~ber Wattenburger. Discussion Renardinn Proposed Job Descriotions for City Treasurer llnd ~i~ Clerk Positions City Manager Horsley advised that duc to the fact the City will contract for the services of an investment advisory firm to manage the City's portfolio funds, the City Treasurer will no louger be performing this function. The City Treasurer will, how~er, serve as the Chair of the Investment Oversight Committee, which will meet a minimum of at least once per quarter, and work with city staff on policy issues and developing inmmal controls. The position will change from an operational investment role to that of a policy and audit advisor, with the proposed duties requiring approximately 15 hours per month or less. Due to the proposed changes of the City Treasurer in job function a,, well as time required to perform the duties, it is recommended that thc salary be modified fi.om $800 to $300 per month. Regular Meeting - July 3,1996 Page 2 She further advised ~hat the Council had requested that a list of duties, responsibilities, and requirements performed by the City Clerk during an average 32 hour work week be adopted in written form. The current City Clerk, appointed by Council, has posted office hours whereby she is available to thc public during the morning and afternoon, which when added to the hours required for City Council meetings one week and agenda preparation the next, approximates the required 32 hours per week. The current salary in the Code is recommended to remain in effect as it is felt it is appropriate for the hours and job duties as specified. Staff is requesting Council's discussion ofthc proposed duties, responsibilities, and salaries recommended for the two positions. Final duties and salary detail will be brought back to the Council for ordinance introduction. Discussion followed relative to the job desmptions and salaries, where it is was noted both the City Treasurer and City Clerk have certain duties that are prescribed by state statute, but there is no need in the City Code to specify the duties of either position. The Council does have the option to prescribe the location where these City officials will carry out their duties, designate specific work hours, and daemm~ what support the positions should be given. Further discussion followed relative to the City Treasurer position and the Council's concerns and clarification of specifics regarding salary, actual monthly hours necessary for adequate performance of duties, review and certification of warrants, current policies regarding cxpmditures, and liability issues. It was noted the basic function of thc Treasurer as defined under state statute is to mnintain amd account for City funds that come within his/her possession; however, other duties may be delegated to the position. M/S Malone/Shoemaker to approve the proposed job descriptions of thc City Clerk and City Treasurer, with thc addition that thc City Treasurer reviews warrants and reports to the City Council on expenditures that cannot be certified as authorized, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembcrs Mastin, Malone, and Shoemaker. NOES: Mayor Sehnciter. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmcmbcr Wattcnburgcr. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - 7;0O p.m. 7a. (~onsideration of Prpposed Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Pllan Senior Planner Stump advised that on January 17, 1996, thc CiD' Council conducted a public hearing to consider the conceptual adoption of the Uk/ah Municipal Airport Master Plan and associated environmental document. Subsequent to the public bearin8, and after considerable discussion, the Council voted 3 to 2 to adopt Resolution 96-37, conceptually approving the Master Plan and associated Negative Declaration. The conceptual approval was a necessary step m the process, because by law, the document was required to be forwarded to the Mendocmo County Airport Land Use Commission for two (2) actions; l) formal adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP - Chapter 7); and 2) a finding that the Master Plan was consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He further advised that on June 6, 1996, the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission adopted thc Comprehensive Land Usc Plan (CLUP - Chapter 7). Subsequent to that action, as required by State Law, they found that the Master Plan document was consistent with the CLUP. Regarding the City Council's six modifications to the Plan, the ALUC agreed with most, but chose not to amend the Land Use Compatibility Map or establish a "B3" classification as thc Council had suggested. Instead, they determined, with the assistance of City and County Planning Staff, as well as the City Airport Planning Con,~tant, that the "infill" concept/policy used in the Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), was an appropriate tool to address the Compatibility Map and "B3" Zone issues. This ~mfill" concept/policy language is included on Page 3 of the Addendum to the Master Plan, prepared by Shutt/Moen Associates, dated June 7, 1996. The action by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission to adopt thc Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and associated Map for the Ukiah Airport is final. Staff is able to conclude that thc approach to thc Compatibility Map and "B3" issues adequately addresses the concerns expressed by the City Council. Ken Brody, Shutt/Moen Associates, offered a brief summary of thc changes contained in the Addendum to the Ukish Municipal Airport Master Plan Report. Public Hearing Opened: 7:40 p.m. No one came forward. Public Hearing Closed: 7:41 p.m. The Council queried Mr. Brody relative to zoning. Regular Meeting - July 3,1996 Page 3 M/S Mastin/Malone to adopt Resolution 97.3, Adopting the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and Associated Negative Declaration, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: Councilmem~ Shoemaker. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. Mr. Brody advised the changes will be incorporated into the document, and the airport layout plan will be officially refen'ed to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval. !0. CITY CQ~CIL REPORTS Counciimember Mastin reported on the proposals for the intermodal facility design, and advised the $600,000 that Congressman Riggs had attached to a bill for MTA to purchase three new buses had passed in the House. Councilmember Malone reported on the new Grace Hudson Museum exhibit and opening reception; a seven band teenage concert; and advised the Chamber of Commerce had hired a new director, with a rec~tion to be held on Wednesday, July 17. Mayor Schneiter reported on his conversation with Mike McDonald~ General Manager of Northern California Power Association. 11. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT I-rEAD REPORTS Ms. Horsley reported on the letter written to Congressman Riggs regarding the train station. 12. (~:LOSED SESSION (None) 13. ADJOURNMENT M/S Malone/Schneiter to adjourn the regular meeting of July 3, 1996 carried by an all AYE voice vote. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. a:~/O70396.wpd Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk Regular Meeting - July 3,1996 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - July 3, 1996 The City Council convened in a regular meeting, of which the agenda was legally noticed and posted, at 6:32 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger. Staff present: Community Services Director DeKnoblough, City Manager Horsley, City Attomey Rapport, Planning Director Sawyer, Senior Planner Stump, City Clerk Giuntoli. 2. Invocation/Piedlle of Allegiance City Manager Horsley gave the invocation, and Councilmember Mastin led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3e Aooroval of Minutes Rel~ular Meeting of June 19, 1996 - Revised Copy M/S Malone/Mastin to approve the revised Minutes of the June 19, 1996 regular meeting as submitted, carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Schneiter explained the appeal process. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Mastin/Malone to approve the consent calendar as follows: b. C. d. Denied Claims for Damages Received from Norma Didier; Steve and Leah Mendoza; and Ted E. Myer, and Referred to City Insurance Carder, REMIF Adopted Ordinance No. 965 Amending Section 3704.6 of the Ukiah City Code Regulating Sewer Laterals Awarded Bid for Electronic Meter Reading Devices and Appurtenances to Orcom Systems, Inc., in the Amount of $18,654. Received Notification Regarding Purchase of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel for the Corporation Yard Adopted Resolution No. 97-1 Increasing Fees for Legal Services Adopted Resolution No. 97-2 Approving Expansion of SonomafMendocino Recycling Market Development Zone. The motion carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None: ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward. Mayor Schneiter moved Agenda Item 8a to this time, since it was not yet the 7:00 p.m. scheduled hour for the public hearing. Se UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Map to Rezone Certain Publicly Owned and Developed Property to "PF" (Public Facilities.) Senior Planner Stump advised that this item was introduced successfully to the Council at the regular meeting of June 19, 1996. He, therefore, was dispensing with the background summary and offering staffs recommendation that the ordinance be adopted. M/S Malone/Mastin to adopt Ordinance No. 966 Amending the City Zoning Map to Rezone Certain Publicly Owned and Developed Property to "PF" (Public Facilities), carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. 9. NEW BUSINESS Regular Meeting - July 3, 1996 Page 1 9a. Aooroval of Demolition Permit Application for a Structure Over 50 Years Old Located at 315 West Church Street Senior Planner Stump advised the structure proposed for demolition due to substantial fire damage is located at 315 West Church Street. At their meeting of June 26, 1996, the City's Demolition Permit Review Committee determined that the structure is not historically or architecturally significant; therefore, staff recommends the demolition permit be issued. Mayor Schneiter questioned the necessity for the demolition permit since the structure was deemed unsound as a result of the fire. Planning Director Sawyer replied that although the building was a total loss, it was helpful to proceed with the review process and analysis for benefit of the historical record. Discussion followed regarding the necessity for the demolition permit. M/S Mastin/Malone to find that the structure located at 315 West Church Street is not historically or architecturally significant, and allow issuance of the Demolition Permit, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. 9b. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Landscaping and Streetscape Desil~n Guidelines M/S Shoemaker/Schneiter to continue this item to the August 21, 1996 regular meeting, carried by an all AYE voice vote. 9c. Discussion Regarding Joint Meeting with Golf Course Committee City Manager Horsley and Community Services Director DeKnoblough advised that the Golf Course has projected an operational deficit of $134,583. This deficit will be reduced to $104,620 through a reserve transfer of $28,743 and a beginning fund balance of $3,200; there are no remaining reserves in this fund, after this year's transfer, with which to assist any potential future operational deficits. The Golf Course Committee reviewed the budget at their June 26, 1996 meeting, at which time staff informed them of the severity of the financial issues facing the City as a whole. Staff also reviewed the function of enterprise funds within the city budget and the need for the Golf Course to sustain itself. Several proposals for addressing the deficit through fee increases were discussed by the Committee; however, before taking action to recommend a specific course of action, the Committee unanimously expressed its desire to discuss these issues directly with the Council. It was the consensus of the Council to meet jointly with the Golf Course Committee on Wednesday, August 21, 5:30 p.m., prior to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. 9d. Aooroval of Request for Proposal for Investment Advisory Services City Manager Horsley advised that currently these services are provided on an interim basis by Public Financial Management. Staff has prepared a Request For Proposal (RFP) for long term services, which will be distributed to local and out of the area qualified firms. M/S Malone/Mastin to approve the Request For Proposal (RFP) for Financial Investment Services, carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. 9e. Discussion Regarding Proposed Job Descriptions for City Treasurer and City Clerk Positions City Manager Horsley advised that due to the fact the City will contract for the services of an investment advisory firm to manage the City's portfolio funds, the City Treasurer will no longer be performing this function. The City Treasurer will, however, serve as the Chair of the Investment Oversight Committee, which will meet a minimum of at least once per quarter, and work with city staff on policy issues and developing internal controls. The position will change from an operational investment role to that of a policy and audit advisor, with the proposed duties requiring approximately 15 hours per month or less. Due to the proposed changes of the City Treasurer in job function as well as time required to perform the duties, it is recommended that the salary be modified from $800 to $300 per month. Regular Meeting - July 3, 1996 Page 2 She further advised that the Council had requested that a list of duties, responsibilities, and requirements performed by the City Clerk during an average 32 hour work week be adopted in written form. The current City Clerk, appointed by Council, has posted office hours whereby she is available to the public during the morning and afternoon, which when added to the hours required for City Council meetings one week and agenda preparation the next, approximates the required 32 hours per week. The current salary in the Code is recommended to remain in effect as it is felt it is appropriate for the hours and job duties as specified. Staff is requesting Council's discussion of the proposed duties, responsibilities, and salaries recommended for the two positions. Final duties and salary detail will be brought back to the Council for ordinance introduction. Discussion followed relative to the job descriptions and salaries, where it is was noted both the City Treasurer and City Clerk have certain duties that are prescribed by state statute, but there is no need in the City Code to specify the duties of either position. The Council does have the option to prescribe the location where these City officials will carry out their duties, designate specific work hours, and determine what support the positions should be given. Further discussion followed relative to the City Treasurer position and the Council's concerns and clarification of specifics regarding salary, actual monthly hours necessary for adequate performance of duties, review and certification of warrants, current policies regarding expenditures, and liability issues. It was noted the basic function of the Treasurer as defined under state statute is to maintain and account for City funds that come within his/her possession; however, other duties may be delegated to the position. M/S Malone/Shoemaker to approve the proposed job descriptions of the City Clerk and City Treasurer, with the addition that the City Treasurer reviews warrants and reports to the City Council on expenditures that cannot be certified as authorized, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, and Shoemaker. NOES: Mayor Schneiter. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. e PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m. Consideration of Proposed Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Senior Planner Stump advised that on January 17, 1996, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the conceptual adoption of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and associated environmental document. Subsequent to the public hearing, and after considerable discussion, the Council voted 3 to 2 to adopt Resolution 96-37, conceptually approving the Master Plan and associated Negative Declaration. The conceptual approval was a necessary step in the process, because by law, the document was required to be forwarded to the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission for two (2) actions; 1) formal adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP - Chapter 7); and 2) a finding that the Master Plan was consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He further advised that on June 6, 1996, the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP - Chapter 7). Subsequent to that action, as required by State Law, they found that the Master Plan document was consistent with the CLUP. Regarding the City Council's six modifications to the Plan, the ALUC agreed with most, but chose not to amend the Land Use Compatibility Map or establish a "B3" classification as the Council had suggested. Instead, they determined, with the assistance of City and County Planning Staff, as well as the City Airport Planning Consultant, that the "infill" concept/policy used in the Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), was an appropriate tool to address the Compatibility Map and "B3" Zone issues. This "infill" concept/policy language is included on Page 3 of the Addendum to the Master Plan, prepared by Shutt/Moen Associates, dated June 7, 1996. The action by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission to adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and associated Map for the Ukiah Airport is final. Staff is able to conclude that the approach to the Compatibility Map and "B3" issues adequately addresses the concerns expressed by the City Council. Ken Brody, Shutt/Moen Associates, offered a brief summary of the changes contained in the Addendum to the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report. Public Hearing Opened: 7:40 p.m. No one came forward. Public Hearing Closed: 7:41 p.m. The Council queried Mr. Brody relative to zoning. Regular Meeting - July 3, 1996 Page 3 M/S Mastin/Malone to adopt Resolution 97-3, Adopting the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and Associated Negative Declaration, carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: Councilmember Shoemaker. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Wattenburger. Mr. Brody advised the changes will be incorporated into the document, and the airport layout plan will be officially referred to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval. 10. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mastin reported on the proposals for the intermodal facility design, and advised the $600,000 that Congressman Riggs had attached to a bill for MTA to purchase three new buses had passed in the House. Councilmember Malone reported on the new Grace Hudson Museum exhibit and opening reception; a seven band teenage concert; and advised the Chamber of Commerce had hired a new director, with a reception to be held on Wednesday, July 17. Mayor Schneiter reported on his conversation with Mike McDonald, General Manager of Northern California Power Association. 11. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS Ms. Horsley reported on the letter written to Congressman Riggs regarding the train station. 12. CLOSED SESSION (None) 13. ADJOURNMENT M/S Malone/Schneiter to adjourn the regular meeting of July 3, 1996 carded by an all AYE voice vote. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. a:cc/070396.wpd Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk Regular Meeting - July 3, 1996 Page 4 ITEM NO. 3 i, ii DATE: December 20, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 25, 1996 and Regular Adjourned Meeting of June 26, 1996 - Joint City Council/Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Meeting The Minutes for the above meetings are currently undergoing review and revision. A copy of the final drat't will be delivered to the City Council prior to the regular July 17 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Minutes as submitted or as amended. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No. (if budgeted) N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk Coordinated with: Karen Yoast, Executive Assistant Attachments: None. /. Candace o sley, City Mana[ger ITEM NO. 5a DATE: JULY 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DENY CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM ClNDI SCHIESSL AND CHARLES KNIPPING, AND REFER TO CITY INSURANCE CARRIER, REMIF The claim from Cindi Schiessl was received by the City of Ukiah on June 28, 1996 and alleges damages related to a traffic accident at Talmage Road and Airport Park Blvd. on February 3, 1996. The claim from Charles Knipping was received by the City of Ukiah on June 26, 1996 and alleges damages related to a power surge on June 21, 1996. Pursuant to City policy it is recommended the City Council deny the claims as stated and refer them to REMIF, the City of Ukiah's insurance carrier. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Claims for Damages received from Cindi Schiessl and Charles Knipping, and Refer them to REMIF, the City's Insurance Carrier. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: N/A Yes Claimants Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of Cindi Schiessl, pages 1-9. 2. Claim of Charles Knipping, pages 10-12. / APPROVE~,_~-.-*~~o ,..~ Candace Horsleyi"~3it~ Manager mfh:asrcc 71796CLAIM State Farm June 26, 1996 City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Insurance Companies RECEIVED CITY OF U~I4H 1996 Ukiah Service Center 169 Mason, Suite 100 Ukiah, California 95482 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT ********************* Please write our claim number on your reply or payment ******THANK YOU****** RE: Claim Number: 05-0669-666 Our Insured: Cindi Schiessl Date of Loss: 2-3-96 Dear Sirs: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on behalf of subrogee, hereby makes claim for $5,592.98 and makes the following statements in support of its claim: i · Notices concerning this claim should be sent to State Farm Insurance Companies, 169 Mason Street, Suite 100, Ukiah, CA 95482. · The date and place of the accident giving rise to this claim are: On February 3, 1996 at the intersection of Talmage Road and Airport Park Blvd., in Ukiah, CA. · The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows: The traffic signal at this intersection malfunctioned. 4. There were no reported injuries. 5. ' Our total claim is as follows: Companies net payment Insured's deductible interest Total property damage $5,092.98. $500.o0. $5,592.98. Notice: This form is to provide notice of our claim for damages in accordance with the (180) day statute. If this form is not acceptable for compliance with the statute, please rush the necessary form to my attention for proper filing. HOME OFFICES: BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS 61710-0001 City of Ukiah Page 2 June 26, 1996 State Farm Mutual Automo~le Ins.~r~:Dce~ Dated June 26, 1996 by ,,':~.~/-~ ~A~-~- ~ Bryan Johnson Senior Claim Representative (707) 463-3129 Enc: Supporting documents Return envelope cc: Stampfli, 2310 BJ: pb/44/0625014 CLAIM NO PAYEE TIN REMARKS CREATED BY 05-0669-666 POLICY NO G024-401-05A LOSS DATE 02/03/96 KIAH VALLEY COLLISION CENTER 350 N. STATE ST. UKIAH CA 95482 05-680336695 VEHICLE REPAIRS Sheri Santee DRAFT NO ] 02 551567 J DATE 03/01/96 AMOUNT $****5, 092.9E COVERAGE COLLISION (LOMV) &O0-1 $5,092.98 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY NORTH COAST OFFICE BANK OF AMERICA tiT & SA 11'35/1210 ROHNERT PARK, CA~ CUSTOMER SERVICE AMERICAS 1233 Ukiah 02-212 . ~ CONCORD, CA CLAIH UNZ~L 218 CLAIM NO 05-0669-~66 POLICY NO GO24-401-O5A LOSS DATE 02 / 03 / 96 INSURED SCHIESSL, JOHN *****************************--**--**************** FI~ TH~ND N~NETY-T~ AMD 98/100 OOLLAeS TIN 05-680336695 Pay to the Order of: dOLL/SION *C ~..NTER 2350 N. STATE ST["*~ ~I~ CA 95482 I 02 551567 DATE 03/01/96 COVERAGE -COLLISIC~I (LOMV) 400-1 S5,092.98 APPROVED BY From: U~[RH U~LLE¥ COLL[S[OH CENTER at DRHR~E REPORT 02/07/96 at 10:55 BaR# AJ180192 ~ 8~-87-% 18:56 am ~ oe~. of oos SCHIESSL D.R. 29105-0000139 Est: J. EUERS UNIaH UALLE¥ COLLISIOI1 CEl1TER "(IUALIT¥ IS OUR BOTTOl1 LIllE" 2350-H-110RTH STATE STREET UR IAH, CA 95482- (707) 462-6169 Ouner: CIHD¥ SCHIESSL Address: 26750-H. HI4¥. 101 ~IILLITS CA 95490 Dam Phone: ( ) 459-2711- Other Ph: C ) - - Deductible: $ M/A Insurance Co. :STATE FARM II1SURAMCE CO111PA11IES C la tat No.: 05-0669666 Adj.: Phone: 94 DODG CARAUAl1 4X2 SE 2D UAM 2-TOHE 6-3.OL-FI Ufa: 2B4GH4531RR714320 License: 3JYS984 CA Prod Date: 4/94 Odometer: Poller start tag Tinted glass Tilt llhee! Dr iuer a irbag Tllo tone paint Poller brakes Bodg side moldings Cruise control Bucket seats Dud I mirrors Rear II indoll II iper Clear coat paint 3177S HO. OP. DESCRIPTIOI1 OF DAl1AGE (]T¥ PaRT COST LABOR Pa II*IT 111SC 2 3 4 5 ? B 9 10# 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23# 24 TOla I MG FROI1T BUl1PER O/H Front Bumper Rpl Bumper couer ./o fog lamp Add for Clear Coat Add £or Edging Rpl Impact strip bright Rpl Rein£orcement GRILLE Rpr Grille Carauan in 'bodu color FROMT Lal1PS Rp I A tm head lamps Rpl RT Head lamp lens ~ housing Rpl RT Bulb Rpl RT adjust gea~ horizontal Rpl RT adjust gear ue~tical Rpl RT ~ount panel Z p iuot tgpe Rpl RT ~ount panel bracket Rpl LT Mount panel b~acket Rpl RT Piuot Rpl R T Lns 8 hsng u/o Mdgrn pnl COOL I MG Rp I Support Rp I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DAl1AGE REPORT 350. O0 45.25 t23. O0 lac I [ncl Incl ·. 3# 0.4 85. OO lac 1 11.50 O .3 11 .Z5 11.25 81 .SO lncl 3.00 Z .35 6.45 118. O0 lac 1 121.32 7. S 6.15 Inc I 2.3 0.9 0.5 2.0 FEB 0 7-19 55.00# ~ 82-87-96 18:57 ~ NO. 25# 26# 27 28# 29# 38# 31~ 32 33# 34 35# 36 37# 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 61 62# 63 64# OP. DESCRIPTION OF DAN~GE I~T¥ Rpl Radiator AFTERNARRET 1 COOLAHT/ANTIFREEZE 1 AIR COND & HEATER Rpl Cndnsr 3.8 & 3.3 Itt w/o rr bt 1 Rpl AC Service evacuate & recharge I FREON -R134 ELECTRICAL '. Rpl Batteru tray EHGINE / TRANSAXLE Rpl Front mount ENISSION S¥STEN Bpi Uapor canister 3.8 liter HOOD 1 1 Rpl Hood 1 Overlap I'laJor Adjacent Panel 1 Add £or 2-Tone Re£inish 1 Add £or Clear Coat .. .- 1 Add £or Underside 1 Bp I Lock 1 Rpl RT Hinge 1 Rpl LT Hinge 1 IHFORH~T IOH L~BELS Rpl Info.marion Labels 1 Rpl Lbl E~ssns adJst a ~tng 1 FENDER Bpi RT Fende~ 1 Overlap HaJo~ ~d~acent Panel 1 ~dd ~o~ Z-Tone Refinish 1 ~dd fo~ C lea~ Coat 1 ~dd fo~ Edging 1 Rpl LT Fende~ 1 Ouc~lap ~Jo~ ~dJacent Pane~ 1 ~dd ~o~ Z-Tone Refinish 1 ~dd fo~ C lea~ Coat 1 ~dd ~o~ Edging 1 Deduct ~o~ Bodu Overlap 1 Rpr R T ~pron panel 1 Oueclap Hino~ Panel 1 Rp~ LT ~p~on panel I PART LABOR 275.88 1.1 1.4 8.4 PAINT HISC T 18.88M T 6.78 8.5 45.88# 48.88 8.5 43.58 8.5 268.88 1.2 7.38 Inc 1 .75 8.6 .75 8.6 2.5 -8 .~1 8.8 8.4 1.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 1.48 Inc I 158.88 2.8 158.88 2.8 -8.8 2 .e# 2.4 -8.4 8.6 8.4 8.5 2.4 -8.4 8.6 8.4 8.5 8.5 -8.2 8.5 RECEIVED FEB 0 7 1996 DAMAGE REPORT 82/87/86 at 18:55 BAR# AJ188192 SCHiESSL D.R. 29185-0888139 ,~ Est: J. EUERS I From: LIXIN4 Ui~LLEY COLLISIOII CEflTEfl et lB 23SO-H-NORTH STfTE STRE UN IIMt, Cfi 9548Z- (707) 462-6169 I'~ ced or NO. OP. .** DESCRIPTION OF DfNRGE PfRT COST LABOR PAINT NISC 65 66 6?** 68 71 73 74 75** 76** 77** 78** Over lap Ninor Panel FRONT SUSPENS ION Bpi Mhl algnmnt alga £r uhIs DOOR Re£ BT Door shell BLEND Add £or Z-Tone Re£inish Add for Clear Coat Re£ LT Door shell BLEND Add for Z-Tone Refinish Add for Clear Coat COLOR NATCH Z- COLORS" COUER CAR SETUP a NEASURE PULL TO SQUfRE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . o -6 .Z 0.3 8.2 1.1# 8.3 8.2 8 .Z# T 1.5.* F S .8.* F 3.88~ Subtota Is Z107.4Z 35.2 22.1 113.89 · DfNfGE REPORT 02/07/96 at 18: 55 BRR# fJ188192 Page: FEB 0 7 996 UJ~IfH UfLLE¥ COLLISION CENTER "QUfLIT¥ IS OUR BOTTON LINE" UKIAH SCH IESSL~ D.R. zg f .-eeoel3s - From: UI{IRH URLLE¥ COLL[SIOH C£NTER at. · 7e7-462-6298 To: STRT£ FRRI~ [ItSURRItC£ CORPRI'I[£S at, ~ 463-3:1.37 ~ 6Z-67-% 16:58 an i'~ 665 o1' 605 Parts Labor '. Pa Pa iht/Mater ia Is Frame Sub le%/M Z2.1 units I~ $48.00 1060. 35e. 6.5 units · ~48.ee 312. 113 .me SUBTOTAL Tax on $ Z650.4Z at 7.2500x GRAMD TOTAL INSURANCE PAYS ASR US ABOUT OUR LIFETIME GUARAMTEE $ 5400.82 19Z. If Estimate based on MOTOR CRASH EST IMATIMG GUIDE. Non-asterisk(#) items are der iued from the Guide DR3TE91. Database Date 10/95. Double asterisk(me) items indicate part supplied bg a supplie~ othe~ than the o~tgtnal equipment eanu~actu~e~. CRPR items haue been certified ~or ~it and ~tntsh b9 the Certified Auto Parts Association. EZEst - n product o~ ccc Information Seruices Inc. Page: 4 RECEIVED F E B 0 7 1996 BOTTOM LEFT PICTURE BOTTOM RIGHT PICTURE ~ -' :~.-: "C, RM 200-4, REV~R~{E P.G.S. INDUSTRIES, P.O. BOX 1348, ASBURY PARK, NJ 07712/1-908-919-0707 FAX 1-90~:- g' '-"" _ J {. ,L .................. J II I I Il ~ ,TOP LEFT PICTURE '~' ~~1 TOP RIGHT PICTURE ~ ' BOTTOM LEFT PICTURE BOTTOM RIGHT PICTURE III II !I i i · i iii ii i I I i FORM 200-4, REVERSE P.G.S. INDUSTRIES, P.O. BOX 1348, ASBURY PARK, NJ 0T'/12/1-908-919-0707 FAX 1-908-919-7319 NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF UKIAH, C^LWORNIA This claim must be presented, as prescribed by Parts 3 and ¢ of Division 3.6, of Title 1, off the Government Code of the State off California, by the claimant or b~ a person act£ng on his/her behalf. · RETURN TO: lo . C~t~y of Uki&h $oo seninary Avenue Ukiah, Cal~forni& 0S482 Number/Street and Post Office Bo× state zip Code Home Phone Number Work Phone Number · NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE .SENT (if different than above): . . . DATE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: ~ - it PLACE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: , /J~L C GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ~E ACCID~T OR OCC~~CE (Attach additional pages if more space is needed): · NAMES, IF KNOWN, OF ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CAUSING THE INJURY OR LOSS: . NAMES AND ADDRESSES' OF WITNESSES (optional): A. ..NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE . NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF DOCTORS/HOSPITALS WHERE TREATED: NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE A. Be 10. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOSS, INJURY, OR DAMAGE SUFFERED: 11. 12. THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS: Damages incurred to date: Expenses for medical/hospital care: Loss of earnings: Special damages for: General damages Estimated prospective damages as far as known: Future expenses for medical and hospital care: Future loss of earnings: Other prospective special damages: Prospective general damages: The claim shall be signed by the claimant or by some person on his/her behalf. A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to the person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented not later than six (6) calendar months or 182 days after the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is longer. Claims relating to any other causes of action shall be presented not later than one (1) year after accrual of the cause of action. SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT (S) '~ Received in City Clerk's Office this ~ day of , 19~6. NOTE: This form of claim is for your convenience only, and any other type of form may be used if desired, so long as it satisfies the requirements of the Government Code. The use of this form is not intended in any way to advise you of your legal rights or to interpret any law. If you are in doubt regarding your legal rights or the interpretation of any law, we suggest that you seek legal counseling of your choice. 3:FORM~CLAIM Rev: 3/I0/95 .. Telephone (707) 468-1371 / / '~flT. DEI"C)SITEOI~K)f~ERTY 10 THE .AIICXJN! ~I~uREO Off 4~K)I'ECIED AGAINS! LOSS C~ TI4~ ACIUAL- ~ VALUE OCCI~sIONEO ~ IHEF1 FIRE 04q VANOALISId AFTER NOTIFICATION ANY ITEM LEFT DAYS WILL BE SOLD FOR SERVICES -~10 EXCEPTIONS SERVK:E '~CLO~ER SHOP A~I~..LY,~? RF CONTACTED FOR NEEDED. y~u ~,,,-,- --- · qITTEN IY. X ~30 DAY umm- GUARANTEED ON ALI. ITEM NO. 5b DATE July 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1996 Payments made during the month of June 1996, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedules of Bills, representing the five (5) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 77336 to 77411 and 88691 to 89237 Payroll check numbers: 88501 to 88686, 88690, 88787 to 88973 Direct Deposit numbers: 1 to 74 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 June 1996. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Gordon Elton, Director of Finance Coordinated with: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Attachments: Report of Disbursements Candace Horsley, City Manager AGENDA.WPD/krs CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1996 Demand Payments approved: Check No. 77336 to 77411 and 88691 to 89237 inclusive. FUNDS: 100 General Fund $171,735.89 652 120 Capital Improvement 663 150 Civic Center Construction 665 141 Museum Grants 670 142 National Science Foundation $1,440.00 675 200 Asset Seizure Fund 678 220 Parking Dist. Rev. Fund $626.08 680 230 Parking Dist. #1 Rev. Fund $50.00 693 260 Downtown Business Improv. 695 300 Gas Tax $21,560.45 696 301 Gas Tax Fund (2107) $5,000.00 697 320 Airport Clear Zone Fund 698 332 Federal Emergency Grant $13,542.00 800 335 Comm. Dev. Comm. Fund 805 405 Youth Services Ukiah $218.79 820 410 Conference Center Fund $9,874.74 920 550 Lake Mendocino Bond $690,000.00 910 575 Garage $23,153.51 900 600 Airport $34,639.78 940 618 Flood Damages $28,906.28 950 611 Sewer Construction Fund $5,603.07 960 612 City/District Sewer $37,085.77 962 610 Sewer Service Fund ($281.51) 965 640 San Dist Revolving Fund $2,620.00 966 660 Sanit. Disp. Site $70,190.38 555 ReDip Sewer Enterprise Fund Countywide JPA Refuse/Debris Control U.S.W. Billing & Collections Contracted Dispatch Services Public Safety Dispatch Ambulance Service Clubhouse Renovations Golf Warehouse/Stores Billing Enterprise Fund Fixed Asset Fund Electric Street Lights Water Liability Fund Worker's Comp. Fund Special Deposit Trust Payroll Posting Fund General Service Community Redev. Agency Redev. Housing Fund Redev. Capitol Imprv. Fund Redevelopment Debt Svc. Lake Mendocino Bond Reserve PAYROLL CHECKS NO. 88501 to 88686 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 1 to 35 PAYROLL PERIOD 5/19/96 to 6/1/96 PAYROLL CHECKS NO. 88690 and 88787 to 88973 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 36 TO 74 PAYROLL PERIOD 6/2/96 to 6/15/96 TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL DED. CHECKS TOTAL PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS $21,160.51 $507.00 $133,151.19 $1,081.16 $2,158.47 $11,237.66 $22,566.90 $2,552.82 $551,564.20 $10,920.92 $29,763.88 $3,860.28 $21,566.93 $86,519.42 $3,793.56 $8,453.38 $2,000.00 $6,937.88 $2,035,761.39 $162,653.71 $290,450.69 $86,222.16 $2,575,087.95 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duty 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~ 0 0 0 O~ c~ ~0 < ~o~ m~ o u OOC ~0 0 < ~Z ~0 O~ © 00~0~00~ ~ ~0 0 0000~0 0,0,.0,, oooooooo oooo0ooo oooooooo oooooooo ooo 0~ · · , o o O~ O © © 0 00, · 0 ooo ooo ~0000 ~0000 0 0000 0000 0000 ~0~ O~H 0~ 0 · o, 0 · 0 0 0 © 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0~~~ 00 ,.4 --4 U~ O~ 0 o o o o o 0 000 0000 0 000 0000 0 000 0000 0 000 0000 ~ ~ 000~ ~ ~ ~0 0~ Ch U1 U'i 00 0'~ 0'~ o --4--4 0"1 o o o o oo oo ooo ooo ooo ooo o0o © o~] 0 0 0 C · U ZO ©C 0 U 00000~ 00000~ © ~0 O0 [dM 0 0 ~ ~j ~0 < coO © oo o~ ~0 0~~00 0~~00 00000000 0~~00 00000000 00000000 00000000 0~00~ 00~00~ o O~~H o~oo o~oo , 0 0 , 0 ~o~ ~ooo ~o~ oooo~ ,,,0, ooooo ooooo ooooo o~o~ o~o~ o~o~ ~o~o · ~ · o , o , ooooo ooooo o~m ~ CC< C 0000 0000 0~ 0000 · 0 , 0000 0000 0000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 ~o© oo~ oooo oooo oooo oooo CCCC 0000 oooo oooo oo0o oooo ~o~ © o~ ~ca o ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~0 000000000000000000000000~ 000000000000000000000000 HHHHHHHHH~ < © oo · 0 H ~ · · 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H ~0000~00~0~00~0~000~ 00~0000000~000~00'0000~ ~ oooo ~ooo~ooooo o ooo~ ,.,,00 .... .00. ....... ooooooooooooooooo oooooo ooooo0ooooooooooo oooooo ooooooooooooooooo oooooo ~oooo~oo ~ooooooo ~~oo~ 000000000 o oo -.,4.,,4..,4 ooo o oo ooo c0 c0 c0 o o -,,4 -,.4 u~ u~ o o o o o o c~ c~ ,r,,. L~ 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000© 000©00000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0~~0~ © o~ o~x~ 000~ 000 OUU~ <~<<H H~ D~ I © CCCO < ~Z © o© ~0 ~q < ~<m OPe O00M ~00 0 XXX~ ~XX 000 0 0000 000000000000 ~0~ · 00 . ........ 0 ......... 0, 0 0 0 0~0000~000 000 · 0 qOkO0 , . 000 · . 000 000 000 ~0~0~0~ CCCCCC 000000 000000 000000 000000 CO CO 00 · . 4-.. ,r-.. ~ t-~ · , 0 CD 00 00 ~HH~ 0 coco(z) · , c000o · , . · . . ooo ooo ooo o©oo0ooooooo oooooooooooo oooooooooooo 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 ooo .,4-.4.,4 ooo oo o ooo oooooo 000000 000000 000000 ~0000 ~0~~ o o -.4 -.4 ~ 0~ o o o o o o o o ,r,.. un ooo -,4-4-.4 ooo ooo oo0 ooo C 0 00©0~ O~O~P o ~ 0 o © ooooooooooooooooonoz ez ~n uz ©0000©0000000000©~0~ ~ 0 ~ 0000 0 0 0000 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 0 ~CCCCCC oooooo 000000 ~ ~0 ~ ~~ ~ C 0 ~ oooo~oooooooooooooo o ....... .......... ooooooo©ooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo ooooo~ooooooooooooo 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 000000 000000 0000000000000000000 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 © <<<<<<< <<<<<<m ~m ~ 000000000~ ee cc ~o c ~c 0 0 O © < ~U ~0 O~ © o© o~ ~0 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 0~~0~00000000 0~~0~0000000000 ~~00~0~00~0~ ~000~0~0~000~0~ 000000000000 0 0 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0 . © ~~~HH 000000000 ~0~~0 ~o~o~o~ 000000000 o~ooooo o~ooooo 000~00000 ooo · , 0 ooo ooo ooo · . , ooo H oo o o · o c~ · .r~ o 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000~~ ~~0~ ooo -4.4-4 ,4-,4-4 ooo ooo ooo ooo o o oo 0 N~ IN) H I I O0 00 0 ~ oo -.4 .-4 .-4-4 o o oO o o o o OL~ 0 © © HH << 0 42S22~2222~~ ~u o~ ~ ~OOOOOO OOO ~ .. ~ · 0 0 (DOC} o ~ o 0'~ 0MHH 0 O , , · 0 0 O · · · 0 © o o~~ooo~o o~~oooo~ ,00,000000 ooooo~oooo oooooooooo oooooooooo o~o~oooooo oo o o oo o o c~c0 ...4 ~ -..4--...! -..3 --4 o o 00 co coco cD ~0 oo o o oo o o o o o o oo CD O O O O O OO O O O O ~ ~-~ t-~o O O Ooo -4-4-4 c) oo ooo ooo ooo o o -.4-..4 co c~ oo oo o o o o oooooooooo oooooooooo OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO © O I---] 0 ~ CC © CCC0 HHH HHH 000000000~ > , o , O~ 0 ~0~H 0~C H OOO ©OO · . . O~ OOO . . . OOO OOO ~OO CCC 0~ · , · , o o ~00000000 000000000 ~0~0~~ 0~0~00 ~,~0~0~ 0 0000000 0 0000000 0 0000000 0 00000~0 oooooo ~ o ~ oooooo o o Z 0 O0 O00 ~ 0 ~ 00..0, ~ 000000 0 0 ~ 000000 o o ~ 000000 0 0 000000 0 ~ I I I I I I (Doc) 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 ~0~~ 000000 0 0 000000 0 0 000000 0 0 000000 0 0 ~0~ ~ ~ O~ 0 0 © © 0 c 0 000000000000000000 ~ ~~H ~ .. 000000000000000000~ ~ O ~~ ~ UO OC 0 I · 0 . 0 0000 0~~ 0000 ooo. 0 ~OOC · o o , , 0 . HH~HHHHH~ HHHH H 0~0~0~0~000~00~ 000000000000000000 0000000000000000~0 0 0000 0 0000 0 00 -4 -4 00 00 00 -.4 ~ 0000 000 -,4-,4,,4 O00 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 © o~ X L"a0 O~ ~0 © 0~1 0  < © 0 o© ~] o~ '~0 ~3 ~30 0 O0 0 © ~ o o o · 0 · · (_no , , oo O0 oo ZOO 0 ~ D"J O~C 00 0 o 0HH~H0~HH~ o~oo o oo~ooooo~o o~oo~ooo~ ~o~o~o~ o0~o~ooo~o .,0,...00, oooooooooo oooooooooo oooo~oooo o o L~ c.n o o o o LOLO 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o --4 --4 LD ,.4 -.4 ~ 00~ CD 0 -.4 ,.4 00 00 00 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 © O~ < ~0 © o© ~0 U ~ < o o U , 0 0 ~o~o~ ~ oooooo~o~o~o~o~o U H ~ ~O~O~~H~O~O~ ~ . ¢~ O~ ~0 0 0 ~ H ~ ~ nnnnnnnnnnnnn~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0000000000000~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HHHHHH~HHHHHH~ ~H ~H NNNNNNNNNNNNN ~ H~ ON H ~ ~ ~ U N H H O 2: . Z ' o < N N ~ > n nS 00N H mN NN ~ 0000000000000 ~ ~ m $ n M X I ~ ~ H~0 m ~ ~ ~~ H ~ ~ H ~ q ~~ ~ H H ~ ~ H ~ X X~ m $ OOO~ONOONOOO O O O OO0 O O O 0 ,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,,, , OOONNOOOOOMON ~ ~ O OO~ O O M W ,,.,,,,,,,,,, ~ ,,, OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O OOO N ~ O O i,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O OOO O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O OOO O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O OOO O M ~ O ooo oo0 o ~ o o o o o o o o ZC Z Z Z Z UHH U N O ~ 0~ 0 ~ >mm ~00 ~ ~ m ~ v XX qq No o o o o ~ oo o o o o . . , , , oo oN ~ ~ a .... N ~ O0 0 0 ,. O0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~0 o I~ ~ ~ U ~ N M h~ H < H W H ~ 0 m O U1 O M Co F~ b~ 0 ~0 0 k~ 0 . 0 0 0 o o o o o o o ~ o OOOOOOOOOOOOO Q M MMM O00 OOOOOOOOOO ~ ~ ............. ~ ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ NNN 0000000000000 ~ 0 0 000 0000000000000 0 0 0 000 0000000000000 0 0 0 000 0000000000000 0 0 0 000 o o o ~ ~ ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o fo F~F~ O O O ~ O O Ix) oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo MO o~) o < o , N oH ~0 XXX~ HH 0 HHH¢ o 0~ ~u ~0 O >H xx~> o u OOO o~z u u u u u O O < ON ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oooooooooooono~ ~n~ u~ ~0 ¢~ ~d ~ ~ HHHHHHHHHHHH~H- dOH O~ %0 u . . , ooo ~OH H>t~ ~ o (~oo ooo , , o (DO , , 0 , , , ©©© O ~ o O 0 OOOO OOOO OMO~ OOOO ooo~ oooo O00O 0~0 UNN 0HH mm oo , . oo , 0 lDO ©© ©© ;~oo HO O0 , , MO O, . 0 0 0 0 ~ H U~~~ U~N 0 q q HHHHHHHHHHHH~ H~ H ~ H ~ O O O ~ M OOOOOOOOOOOO~ OO C O O O O ~ OOOOOOOOOOOO~ OO ~ O O O ~ O ~OOOOO~OOOOO~H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~H~OP~., O, ~ . ~ ............ oo .~ n o o ~ ~ oooooooooooo o c 00,0,,0.00,. ~ o o o o oooooooooooo o ~ o o o o oooooooooooo o ~ M o o oooooooooooo o ~ I--~ M~ M I~ OOO O O O OOO O O O OOO O O O OOO O O O OOO O O O 0ooo Pooo OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO ~OO OM~ oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo 0 o o ~ o o M ~0 N ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOO O0 ~~~ ~ U OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO H OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO ~ o < o . ~ ,~,H O~ >0 H q ~0 0 n n ~ H H ~ ~ ~ 0 H ~ - O~ O~ HHH OK ~ ~ ~H ~% ~ H ~0 ~ IH ~ OOU t HH ~ H~ NN H ~ ¢,, o ~ o k~ ,1::,, o2 0 0~0~ 0~ 0 H~ 0~000 p 0 ~ 0 O~H H 0 000 ~ ~ 000000 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 000 0 ~ 0 ~H H ~ n HH ~oooo MOOOO ~wo~o ooooo 00~ ~000 00000 00000 O00WO 2~NN 0~ o© 0 , 0 , ©© oo NO MH oo oo , 0 oo ,~o ol~ . , oo , , oo oH ooo -q 0~ 0h 00000 00000 00000 00000 00~ NN ~U~ I I oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo OO H 00000000W ~ ~ HHHHHHHH ~ OOO~ NNNNNNNO ~ QQ Q ~ WW 0 HH H~ < ON r,,aO ,~- 0 ~M~ ~ 0000 OU U ~N~ 0¢0 ~0~ H ~ H~H ~O~OM~OO ~ ~ OO~O~MOO O OOO ~O~~ H OOO 00~00~ ~ 0~0 ~oo~ .,, ........ H ~ oooooooo .,,.,.,0 oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo 000000000000000000000000000000 ~ X X X H  B ~HH~H~H~ ~ ~NQHQHQ~ HM H H OO~OO~O~OOOO~MOOOOMOOOOOOO ~ ~ O ~OOO~OO~OO~OOOOO~OOOO~OOOOOOO O O O ~~H~O~O~O~OOH~O ~ ~ ~OOO~OOO~OOOOO~OOOO~OHOOOOO O O O O~M~OO~MO~MMMOMM~O~OMM~MM ~ ~ 00,,,,..,,,000,000,00.,,,0000, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO M O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ~ O ~OOOOOOO OOOOOOOO ~00~000~ OOO~O000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ~HO~OHO 00000000 0 000 OOOOOOOO O OOO OOOOOOOO O OOO OOOOOOOO O OOO OOOOOOOO © ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 00000000 00000000 MOOOOMM~ o~] ~0 H m OH HH C H HHHH~H~HH0 0~ ~ 0000~HH~0~00~ ~0 ~0 ~HHH~ m ~ U HHHHH~ n~ ~ ~0 ~ < on ~ ~ ~H 000000000000000000000000000000~!~ ~ 0 ~ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Sl QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ ~QQQQIIQQQQH ~ ~ HHHHH HHHH~ ~ O~OOOOOOO~O~ O ~ ~O~OO~O~ ~ ~ ~OOOOOOO~O~ O H ~O~M~~O~O O OOOOOOOOOOO~ ~ ,00,0,0,0,0, OOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOO~OOOOO H U~ 0 UU O00UU 'H OOOOO ~OOO MM~OO OO~MM OOOOO OO~ OO OO , , OM OO , , OO 0 , OO OO OO 000000000000000000000000000000 q MOO~O~MOOOO~OOO~OPOO~OOOOOOMO C ~O0~OO~O000dO00OO~OO~O00OO000 ~ ~OO~HOOOOO~OOOOO~OHO~OOOOO~H °''°°",,,.,,00.,0,,,00,,,,.,,. ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ °''°°°'''°''00.,0,,,.0,,,,.,,. ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO O O OOO000000000 0 0 O00OO0000000 0 0 O000OO000000 0 0 OOOOO OOOOO oo 1'3I'0 00000 0 0 O0 00000 0 0 O0 00000 0 0 O0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 M~~~~~~~OO H OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~ ~ MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O < o , Q ~,H O~ >0 H HO P ~ ~0 ~ ~H ~ ~ ~ 0 H } H ~ Z H Oe ~ 0 © 0 0 ~q o x ~ oom uu n H O ~H X~ H HH{ 00¢ · ~ ~HHHH 000 ~ ~ ~HHH ~HHH¢ HH ~~ -4 d~ .,x ['0 O Ooo O ~ ~['0 60 Ooo 0~ ..4 ~6¢0~ O Ooo O 0:) 0~OOq 0/ Ooo O~ 0~ ~ 0H~ ~ 0Z~ H H{ H ~ ~ m ~ 0 O~ 0 ~ ~ H , , oo oo o ~ o o oo ~ HH O OO O O OO O ~ O ~ ~ ~ o H~ ~ ~ H ~ oo ~ ~ ~ o o~ o ~H o oo ~ ,, , ~ .... o oo o o~ ~ oo ,, ,, o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o o~ o oo o oo HHHHHH 0000~0 OOOOOO 000000 000000 000000 000000 H H OHO ~o~ ~ 0 o~o o~ , . . . oo HO ~o oo , . oo . . oo . . oo oo oo o o~ ° HHHH ~OO~ OOOO ~OO~ OOO~ 0000 0000 0000 0000 > 0 C Z 0 o c0c0 I I oo oo c~co oo ~,,~ I~O 0 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O O O O OO O OO O O OO O OO O O O O O OO O OO O O OO O OO O O O O O OO O OO O O OO O OO O ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 00000~ 000000 000000 000000 000000 O0 O0 oo oo oo ..40~ oo oo oo oo OO .4oo CCCC ~oo~ 0~0~ OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO n0 ~ o~ H~H~ ~ OC 0 H ~ ~ ~H~H~ HHH~HH~¢X C HHHHHHHHHHH C C < oo UZ ~ HHHHHH ~ ~ X0 oooooo~ ,o ~ ~ HHHHHH~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ U H ~ ..~ HHHHHH 0 ©©© o , o oho o , , o o , ~o~o~oo ~ooo~o~ UHHHHH~q~ HHHHHUm~ Hfl ~OOOOOOO ~ooooooo o~o~ .,,.,,., o~o~ ~~oo ,.,,0,,. oo0ooooo oooooooo oooooooo 0HHH~HHH I-] ~ 0 I H HHHHHHH H ~ ~ ZH H H t'U 0 ~ ~ Z Z C ~ ~ H > X OOOOOOO ~ O ~ OO OOOOOOO ~ O O OO , , . , , , , , . OOOOOOO H 0 l'3 ~H OOOO000 19 O O OO HHHHHHH O H H HH , . , . 0 . , , . , OOOOOO0 0 H O O O , , , , . . , , . , OOOOOOO O O O OO OOOOOOO O O O OO 0000000 0 0 0 HO n 0 CCC C COO MddHMHMUU~M HHH~H~HUUHH HH ~ ~ ZZ > ~ Iz H H 000000~00~0 000000000~0 O0~H~H~O0~ 00~0~0~000~ OOOMO~O~O .,.,,,.,,,, OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO ZmZ0ZUu HH~H~ oo~o oo~oo OH~oo ~.o~ ~MO0 O0 ., ,0, O0 000 O0 000 O0 00~ ~o O~ Ou 0 C Z 0 0 0 I,J~p ooo ooo ooo ooo 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000~0 0oooooo IIIIIII 0000000 ~M~HO0 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 oo oo oo oo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooo0o©0o© ooooooooooo ooooo~ 000000 000000 000000 000000 0~] >0 ~ X K ~ ~ .. ~ ~ H O~ , "'1 'J 0 0 0~H~ ~ 0 ~ H ,~,~, o.1 H -~0~ 00 0 ~1~ O~ H N~H H oo o ~(~ (~ oo o ~ oo o H oo o 2~ ~0 0 < © < © FO00000 O~ ©. m< ~ o~o~ooo~oooo~o~~~o~ oo ~0 ~0 0 O~ ooo O~ ~0 00 t.o o oooo oooo 0000 0000 o~ ~oo · 0 , oo0 .,0 ooo ooo ooo 0 o o o o o ~00~ ~00~ 0000 ~00~ ~00~ uoo~ O~H , 0 0 © , · 0 o 0~ o o o o o o 0~ 00 0 © o o (DO o o 1-~ ~ o o o o o o o ~ h0 I'~ h0 ooo ooo ooo -.4..4--4 ooo ~-~ I..~ i_~ ooo ooo ooo ooo 00000 00000 00000 ~0~ ~~0 ooo o0o ooo ooo OO ~0 ~0 © ©< © ('3 00~ 0 0 - © © 0 HO mc-q oO < < u~o O~ © oo ~0 ooo · , ooo o oo · · · 0 -...! o o o o o o · 0 0 o ~ · o o. o m o c0 0~~ 0~~ .... ~0~ 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 o o (.,nUn 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 CD O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 b-~ O0 0 C~ ~ L,O C,J L,,J ~ ~ 0 oooo oooo oooo ~o~ ooo ooo ooo h0N.)lN) 0 t--t · O H Z © ~X ~0 ~< mC) ~0 © 0 ©© o~ ~0 © m< oo <~ 0 0 0 .~ ,~. ~ mmz ©©© © o 0 0 H 0 0 C~ o~ O~ ~ H O~ o c~o < ~Z ~0 © o · 0 0000 0000 0000 0111 0~ 000 mmm · , 0 o o · Oo ~_~ ~_~ o o o o · . o o · . o o · o o o o o o ~ ~-~ o o o o o o ~-~ o o~0 ooo ooo ooo oo o 000 CCC ooo ooo ooo ,~ .~. o o o o o o ~_~ ~-~ k~ oo oo oo ~ o © o~ ~o 0 ~0 © o o © 0 UO ~0 < eO © oo ~0 ~,, .~ o · , ooo ooo <~ © , o© · (ED 0 oo o o (DO O0 O0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FO Ix,) I'~ 0 0 0 I-~ ~ 0 ~ 0 000 000 000 ~-~ ~--~ h..~ 00 00 O0 0~1 © © H ~ I O~ <co ~ H < o H 0 OO ~0 H~ ~L~ MH O0 ~ 0 }C 0 0 0 0 ~0 © 0 ~C HO © L~H 0 O~ < U~ © o© 0 0~~ 0 ~0~0 o ~o~ o ~ ~ o~ o ~ ~ooo ~ ~ o~o~ o o ~o~o o o oooo o o oooo 0 0 0000 ooo oo~ 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 ~ ~~ © o~ :~0 HO ~0 < 0 ~0 0 H 000 ~00~ ~©~o~ ~©0 ~H~ 0 © © O0 0 < ~0 0 o© ~0 o o · 0 o o o o o o o LO ~-~ ~_~ 0 0 0 0 · 0 LO 0 0 · 0 0 0 o ~oo oo oo ooooooooooo ~~~oooo 00000000000 ~~00~0~ 000~00~0 00000000000 00000000000 ~0000000000 ~o~oo~ ~o~oo~ ~oooo~o ~o~oo~o ~o~ooo ooo~ooo ~ooooo ooooooo 0000000 ooooooo 0~ cid 0 0 · o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o (.,0 IN,) ~ i-a ooo0ooooooo 00000000000 00000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 ~000~ 0~ 0~ o o o 0 o o ,,4 o o~ ~0 000000 0000000000000 ~0 ©©©©©©©©©©©©©~ Hw ~0 0 ~0 ~© H 000~© ~O~Z O~ mZ HO ~uO ~Z © < ~Z ~aO © Z o© ~0 ,0 000~000000~00000000 0000000000000000000 o oo~~ 0~0000000000000000 0~~0~0~0~~~ 00~0~0000~0000000 ~000~0~~~~ 0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 0oc0 o O~ ~OX ~-~ I.~ o o o o · o o , o o · o o o o o o o o oo~~ oo~o 0000~ 0000~ ~00 ~0~0 ~000~ 00000 00000 00000 0000000000000000000 ©000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 k-~ i.~ LO dh 00 00 00 ..40 0000~ 0000~ ~0 00000 00000 00000 0 ~ ~0 ~0 O0 O00Z ~ 000 ~ O00000~OZ ~ O~ ~ 000000000000 < ~aO O~ © ~o~o 0~ 000 ~oo ooo ~o oo~ o~, ~o oo , o~ o~ ~~H~H ~ O~ O O O O OOOOOO~O O O O OOO ~~OO~ ~ O ~ OOO ~0~0~~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 000000~0 0 0 0 000 00000000 0 0 0 000 00000000 0 0 0 000 00000000 0 ~ 0 000 OOOOOOOOOOOO ~0~0~~~ 00000~0~0~ ~000~0~0~00 O~~OO~O~ OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO -.,4',,4-,,4 O OO OOO OOO 00000000 00000000 OOOOOOOO ~000~ I.-~ k~ I.-~ O OO O O OO O O OOO .....,1-,4',4 CO 000000000000 000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOO O~] © 00~ 00~ O0 o © 0 Z × HO 0 O0 o ~0 ~C OO 0 O~ < ~Z ~0 © o© ooo 0 . o o · cD CD o o 0 0 ~0~0~~ ~0~000~ ~000~0 000000000 000000000 000000000 ZZZe~Z 0 O0 00000 ~00~ ~0~0~ 0~0~0 00000 00000 00~0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 Ix3 (,~ ~,3 H-~ 0 ~-~ 0 000000000 000000000 000000000 00000 00000 00000 00000 >,o ~ ~ 0 ~ > q 0 0 O~ 0 © © 0 ~31-3 H~ H < r~o © oo ~0 · 0 ~.t 0 ~~00000 0~0~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~00 0 ~ ~00 o o ~ ~ X ~ o~ooooo ~ o o o o o~ooooo ooo o o 0 000.0,0, ..0 ~ 0~oo~o~ ~oo ~ o o ~o~o~0 .~ o ~ o ..0.,0,0 o0. 0 00000000 ~0 0 0 0 0 00000000 O0 0 0 0 0 00000000 O0 0 0 0 0 000~0000 O0 0 0 0 0 00000000 OC) O 0 0 0 CO O00000C) O 0©0 0 CO 0 0 00000000 000 0 0 0 (.4 ~I..~00000 000 0 (.4 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © O~ :~0 C ~ O~ C ~0 ~0 O~ ~JO O~ r~ , 0 < UZ U~O © oO ~0 0 L-rJ ~ CD 0 00 · o · 0 INa · o 0 0 0 b~bb 0000 0 0 0 mmm 0~00 0000 ~000 · , 0 000© 0000 0 Un ,.1~ 0-,.4(4 · . 000 000 0 0 0 0~ mm · 0 , · o ~0 O~J~J · · o o o o o o o o o Fo ~ CD ooo o oo ooo c0 .,.4 ~4D oooo oooo o o o o i.~ o o o o Fo i-~ F0 ~, I I o o ~-~ 0000 O0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0000 O0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0000 O0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 0 O~ < HO ~u o < 0 0 c c oo ~o o~ < © oo ~0 ~o~ o o · © ~000000 o.~o~oo 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 0000000 × O0 000000 ~0~0 0000~0 000000 00~00~ oo~o~ oo o o · o o o o · , F0 o · oo o o o o ooooooo o o o o o ooooooo o o o o o oooo0oo o o o o o oooooo ooooo0 oooooo i-~ i-~ ~_~ co 00 o o oo oO o,-] >o ~aO © o(3 ooo 0~[~ O~ oo · (DO , · . 0 0 0~ ~ I I O© o rD · · o o oo OO IN.) oo oo o o I 1 o o (41,0 o o o o O0 oH ~U ~0 © u-1 kD LO CD ~o0o~0 oo~oo~o o~ ~0 k..0~ k.~ h4 ~0 }~ OH O' ~ HU 0 O0000000U ~< HHHHHHHH~ H OM ~0 c~ mo 0 ~0 < ~U ~0 © oO UOHH0~H~H o~o~o~ o~oo~o~ oooo~o~o o~0~~ ~~o~o~ 00000000 00000000 00000000 ooo ooo ~00 0 © · , 0 · O m 0~ O, 1'0 h3 i~ 0'~ co I.~ 0% k-~ 0 I bJ ~ 0 ~ CO 0 0'~ ~) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ IN.) 1~ ~ bO I~ 0 ~) 00000000 00000000 00000000 O0 O0 O0 00 O0 o o o o o o o~ 0 (nO r~ . H~ 0 0 0 ~0 %0 0 0 0 i Z 0~ ~0 ~©~ <~ ~.q © ~0 o ~0 o~ H ~ ~ O0 < ~0 © oo ~0 0 o o ~ o · · · o o o ~ . . o 0'1 L4 o ~0 o o bo o · o o o o o o o o o o U'l ,r'-- I...~ o o ~ o o H-~ o u~ c,n · · , 0 0 0 0 · , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo~ ~o~ ~oo~ o ~oo~ ~0~ 0 0 CO ~ o o o0~ 0 o o '~o ~ o o ,~"- ',,D ~] 0 0 o o o ~ o ~ o 2~ · o 60 o i~ L,n N) 0 · oh ~ ~ 0 o o ~ o o ~ o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 (4 (.4 ¢,. 0 ~ LOb) bJ L~ L~L~ IN,) 000 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 CD 000 0 0 0 FOP, OhO I'~ I"0 ~ ¢:,,, -.,.1 0 kD ~ ~ 0 © > >o~ ~ ~ o o u ~o u ooo < ~U (nO © o© 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 00000 0 0 0 0 ~0~ 0 00000 o o > o ~ ~ H Q ~ O QQQQ ~H H © O 0~0~0 0 0 ~ ~ O0 ~ ~000 0000~ 0 0 0 0 O0 0 ~000 .,,o. , .. . 00~0~ 0 0 0 ~ O~ ~ 00000 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ..... ~ 0 0 ..... 0000~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 0 0 0 0000 00000 0 0 0 0 0000 00000 0 ~ 0 0 0000 00000 0 ~ 0 0 0000 000 000 U~ OOO · · 0 · o o · oooo oooo oooo oo oo o ooooo o o o o oo o oooo o o ooooo o o o o oo o oooo o o ooooo o o o o oo o oooo o o ~oo~o o o o o oo o ~~ ~ QQ o o o o oo cz) co oH O~ 0 O~ © 0~ 0 oO 0 O~ ~0 < ~0 0 00000~~00 00~0~000~ ~~00~00 0~0000~0~00 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 ~1 ~ ~ 0 i I.-I i O~-~ N) I",,) 0 ~'- OFO 00 CD 0 ~Cn ~O~ 0 0 O'~c0 00 0 0 00 C000 ~0o o o h0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 0 ooo~ 000~ 0~ 0 I 0000 0000 000~ ~0 000~ 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 i.~ ~-~ O0 CO CO (.~0 (4OO 0 0 O0 00 0 0 0 O0 00 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 FO bO INa I',0 h3 [',3 IN3 kD ..4 0'~ (.n ~ ~ 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0~ O~ ~0 XX~ H 00~: O0 o~ o~ . o © ~o o~ o~ ~0 O~ H 0 - O~ <0 < 0~0 © oo %0 ~o~ ~00000000 0000000000 O0 0000 ~~ooo~ oooo~~ oooooooooo oooooooooo ~ooooo~oo 0'10'1o c,n o o'~ 0h ho o 000 ~ hO o o ~ o .,4 ~ ~ 0 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H m ZZ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 H ~ 0 0 O0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 O0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 O0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ,, 00 0 · 0 ~ oo oo o ~ ~ o o o ~ o oo oo o o o o o o o o oo oo o o o o o o o o oo oo ~ o o o o o 0000000000 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~0000 0 O0 O0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ © o~ >o HHHHHHHHHHHH~ 0 ~D0 H 00~ C ~0 ~0 0 0 r.~ H 0 0~ ~~H 0000~ 0000~ ~0 ~0 0 0 ~H < © oo ~~000000~ 00~000000~ ~~0~00~ 0~~00~00~ 0 O0 0000~ 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 0~(~ mm oo · (.,no · oo , oo oo o o (..n 0 Cn O00 M ~00 ~~ 0 ~ 0 0~~ ~ H ~ HHHH ~ 0 0 O0 0000 0 0 O0 0000 ~ oo ~~ o ~ oo ~~ ~ o ~ oooo ,0 ,000 o o oo oooo o .0 o o oo oooo o o o oo oooo o o o oo oooo o ~ 0 I o ~ o o o 0 XXXXXXXXXXXX 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 O0 00 00 0 0 O0 0000 0 0 0 O0 0000 0 0 0 O0 0000 0 H o~ ~0 00000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000~ ~ ~ ~ 0 oo 00000000000000000000000000000000 ~ ~ ~0~00 O~ O0 ~0~00~ O0 ~~0 ~ ~ 0000~00~0~00~00~0000~00000~00~000000000000000 00~0~00~00~00000~00000~0~0~00000~~0~0~ ~0~000~0~00~~~~~0~00~~0000~00~0 00000000000000000000000000000000000©000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 oH ~0 oO ~ · H H H 0000000000000~ XXX~ ~H 0000000~ < cato ~Z 0 o© ~0 ,0 o o oo o o ,~ ~,_~ i._~ ooo · 0 · . (Doc) · 0 0 ooo ooo ooo ~o~o~o~o~~ ZoOZo~oZ~oo~zz ~ ~ o o ~0~0~ · . , ~ · 0~0000000~000 0000 00~00~ 0~0000000~000 ~00~0~00~0000 ~00~0~00~0000 ~00~0~00~0000 U~~ O~ 0~0 0~0 ~00 ~0~ O0 0, oo oo oo 0000000 00~0000 0~0000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00~) -....J ~ C.n O0 0 000 O0 0 000 O0 0 000 0000000000000 0000000000000 0000000000000 0000 0000 0000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 ~0 0 ~ uuu mo ~ 000~ O~ O0 0 ~0 © 0 0 < 0 o('3 ~0 0~ o ~ ~ o ~ o oo ~ o oo ~ ~ o ~ oo ooo o oo ~ ~ ~ 0 O0 0 0 O0 000 .0 .. 0 O0 0 0 O0 000 0 O0 0 0 O0 000 o oo ~ o o~ ooo © (DCm · · o 0 0 000~ · 00000 ~000 ~00 00~ 00000 00~ c0 o :,t- © H o'~ on o o o o o o o ~ k,DO 0 0 O0 000 O0 0 0 0 O0 000 O0 0 0 0 O0 000 O0 0 o o oo ooo ~ o i.~ ~ ,r~ ,r~ 00 00 00 0'~ ~ 00000 00000 00000 ~~0 ~0 O~ ~0 o~ H o~ O~ I H 00~ ~0 © O0 ~0 HHHHHH~H~HHH ~H~ H ~ ~ ~0 ~0~ m X~m OOOOOOOO OOO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~O~O~~O~~O~ ~oo~oo~0ooo~o~o0oo OOOOOOOOOOOO~OOO~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOOO Ooo O O O~o~ O0 O0 0 0 ©0 ~ o o OO OO ,, OO OO O OO OO O OO OO O ©~ ©~ O~H · · · OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O OO OO (.4(.4 O O O O O O O O O O O ~,. ~-~ i~ ~,. OOO OOO OOO k..~ i..~ [.-~ .,...! 0'~ (..,n O O OO O O I-~ ~ © 0 ~0 <<<<<<<<<<<~ ~0 < H © oo ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ o~-~ o oooo O OO O OOOO O OOO (D Ln 0 0 UHHHHHHH~~(HH HHHH~HHHHHH HHHH HHHHHH OOOO~OOOOOO oooo~oooooo OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO~OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO 0 ~ > · , , · 0 o i..~ ~-~ ~4D O'~ 0 ~) 0 Oh · 0 0 (4 · 00 ~ 0 (~ 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 i.-~ ~_.~ H-~ ~...~ 0 O00 (DO00 0000 t.-~ i._~ ~--~ l_~ OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO OO~OOOO~~ OOO O OO OOO O OO O O O CD O CD gO O O~ O0 Z ~0 O0 O~U Z ~ 0 < OZ © oo ~0 000 ooo oo o o o o 0000000~ ~00~0 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 · , 0 ZOO 0~1 o o o o ['o ~00 O~ 0~ 0'~ 0'~ ooo ooo · · oo0 ooo k.-~ ~ F...~ · 0 0 · 0 000 000 000 O--4--4 I I oo o ooo ooo ~:::,, ~:,, 4::~ o o o o L,n cn --4 -,4 (..ncn -,4 -.,4 (~j ~ (.4 o o o o 00 OLD 00000000 00000000 00000000 00 O0 00 O~ 0'~ 0'~ 000 000 000 © O~ ~0 0 O0 0 O~ < ~0 © oo ~0 t.0~d · , · , 0'1 0'1 0~ o o o o o o o o o L~ O'~ U'~ 000 000 000 U'~ U'~ O'~ oO 00 o2 0~0'1 o o OO O0 o~ ~0 ITEM NO. 5c MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 1 996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR SODIUM HYDROXIDE PRODUCTS REPORT: Each year it is necessary to purchase approximately 87 tons of sodium hydroxide for use at the water treatment plant. Sodium hydroxide is used to raise the pH of the water and for corrosion control. Total quantities are an annual estimate of usage. Orders are placed on an as needed basis by water treatment personnel. Requests for Quotations through the formal bid process were sent to five chemical suppliers. The Iow bidder is Pressure Vessel Service, Inc. with a bid of $298.00 per dry ton totaling $25,926.00 for the estimated 87 tons. $55,000 was budgeted in the Water Production and Storage account 820-3908-51 0 for the purchase of chemicals. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for Sodium Hydroxide to Pressure Vessel Service, Inc. for the amount of $298.00 per dry ton. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Take no action. 2. Postpone award of bid. Acct. No. (if not budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 820-3908-510 Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by' George Borecky, Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Tabulation of bids APPROVEI~.--~"~_ ? ~-\ %.~,,~.'~ C~-~dace H0rsley, City~lanager Z o ~o ~ o 0 O0 0 0 o o 0 o Z ITEM NO. 5d DATE: July 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATORIES ON CITY OF UKIAH ACCOUNT WITH CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. AND DESIGNATING OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN ON SAID ACCOUNT The previous City Treasurer established an account with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. City officials who have responsibility to implement investment decisions must be identified as authorized individuals in order for Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. to accept investment instructions from them. Therefore a resolution must be adopted identifying those individuals authorized to provide investment instructions to Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. The attached resolution authorizes the City Manager, the City Finance Director and the Assistant City Manager to provide investment instructions to Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. on behalf of the City of Ukiah. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Adopt Resolution authorizing signatories on the City of Ukiah accounts with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. ALTERNATE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Designate alternate officials as signers on City accounts with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Prepared by: Gordon Elton, Finance Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Resolution for adoption. APPROVED: k_~k._~. ', ~+~'Y~<\ I.%_..k ~ahda6e-Ho~Sie~, City Manager GE:SCH%VBSIG.AGN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING SIGNATORIES ON CITY OF UKIAH ACCOUNTS WITH CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. WHEREAS, the previous City Treasurer established an account with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc; and WHEREAS, the persons responsible for effecting investment decisions have changed; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that only designated officials have authority to implement investment actions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City Manager Candace Horsley, Finance Director Gordon Elton, and Assistant City Manager Michael Harris are hereby authorized to sell, assign, and endorse for transfer, certificates representing stocks, bonds, or other securities not registered or hereafter registered in the name of the City of Ukiah. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1996, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ASTAIN: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Morge Giuntoli, City Clerk 4:Res:Schwab 300 SEMI~I~AVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · Al)MIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 · July 10, 1996 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. The Schwab Building 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Subject: Organization Account Authorization - Non-Corporate Accounts To Whom It May Concern: The Organization named herein' City of Uklah authorizes and requests you to open an account in the name of said Organization for the purpose of purchasing, investing in or otherwise acquiring, selling and generally dealing in and with all forms of securities; and the said authority shall include dealing in options, the opening of a margin account and the making of short sales. By resolution duly and regularly adopted and still in effect, the fullest authority at all times has been invested in City Manager Candace Horsley; Assistant City Manager Michael Harris; or Finance Director Gordon Elton, or any of them, with respect to any transactions deemed by any of them to be proper in connection with said account, including (but without limitation thereof) authority to give written or oral instruction .to you as broker with respect to such transactions, and generally to do and take all action necessary in connection with the account or considered desirable by said officer or agent with respect thereto. You, as broker, are authorized thereunder and hereby to deal with any and all persons by the said resolution empowered or through dealing with the Organization itself. You may upon request to the Organization obtain a true copy of said resolution and specimen signatures to each person empowered under said resolution and evidence satisfactory to you of the existence of the Organization and of its power to enter into this agreement; and it is certified herewith that said Organization does possess such power and authority and that the same is not limited by the charter or by-laws or by other conflicting resolutions. The Organization is required to certify to you promptly, when and as made, any changes in the officers or powers of persons authorized and such modification when receiving by you shall be adequate both to terminate the powers of the persons theretofore authorized and to empower the persons thereby substituted. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolutions and hereunder, the powers and authority granted shall continue fully effective until receipt by you of written notice of change or recision thereof. Very truly yours, Signatures of Authorized Officers or Agents: Fred Schneiter Mayor Attest: Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk 4:Fin:Schwab. Fm '~Ve Are Here To Serve" Item No. 7a Date: July 17. 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Consideration of Adjusting Rates for the Electric, Water and Street Lighting. REPORT: ELECTRIC SERVICE Additional revenues within the Electric Utility are needed to offset an increase in power production and operating costs. Also, additional revenues are required to meet legal Lake Mendocino bond requirements for security of the debt payment. This increase for the Electric Utility would apply to all rate classes and charges. Electric rates have been increased only once during the last five years, 3.5%. The cost to the Electric Utility of obtaining electric energy from the power market has increased 45.1% over the past five years. (Continued page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: i) Adopt Resolution Authorizing a 12.1% Rate Increase for Electric Service. ii) Adopt Resolution Authorizing a 15.0% Rate Increase for Water Service. iii) Adopt Resolution Authorizing an Increase in the Street Lighting Charge from $1.50 to $2.00 per month. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject Staff Recommendations and Direct Staff to Implement Alternative Rate Adjustments. Appropriation Request: Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment: 1) Summary of Current and Proposed Rates. 2) Resolution for Adoption APPROVED Cand~Ce Horsldy, City' IriS, nager Due to these requirements it is estimated that the Electric Utility will experience a revenue shortfall of approximately $1,300,000 in fiscal year 1996-1997. It is expected that this shortfall would continue into the future years unless revenues are increased to eliminate this shortfall. This increase is projected at 12.1%. The average for our customers is 495 kwh per month. The current cost of 495 kwh is $57.11. The proposed rate will change the cost of 495 kwh to $64.02. This is an increase of $6.91 per month, or 22.7 cents per day. WATER SERVICE Water rates have not been increased since the fall of 1992. Additional revenues are required in this fund to cover the loan payment for the Water Treatment Plant construction which was completed during 1992. An increase in revenues of approximately $210,000 will be required to satisfy expected costs for fiscal year 1996-1997. This will result in an increase of 15.0%. This increase would apply to all rate classes and charges as defined in the attached rate comparison summary. STREET LIGHT SERVICE An increase in the monthly Street Light charge from $1.50 to $2.00 per month is proposed. This increase is required to cover increased maintenance and operating expenses relative to providing street lighting within the city. It is anticipated that this fund will experience a shortfall of approximately $40,000 in fiscal year 1996-1997. This fund has seen a revenue shortfall every year since fiscal year 1994-1995. The shortfall is now at a magnitude to warrant a revenue increase to cover expenses. This rate has not been increased since 1986. RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING ELECTRIC RATE SCHEDULES WHEREAS, the City Manager has made a report relative to Residential and Commercial Electric Rate Schedules within the City of Ukiah; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing regarding the proposed Residential and Commercial Electric Rate Schedules; and WHEREAS, revised Residential and Commercial Electric Rate Schedules have been proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Residential and Commercial Electric Rate Schedules attached hereto and made a part hereof is hereby adopted to be effective for all energy billed on or after August 1, 1996. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ~ONSIDER AMENDMENT OF UTILITY RATES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Uklah, California, will hold a Public hearing to consider amendment of utility rates for Electric, Street Lights and Water. Said hearing to be held on July t998 et 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the same may require, In the Council Chambers, 300 Semlnaw Ave., Uklah, CA., at which time and place all persons interested may appear and be heard. The proposed rates are as follows. The proposed effective date for the rate changes is all billings Issued on or after August 1, 1996. The City Manager's report is on file with the City Clerk end is available for review by interested persons. Electric Utility Rates Existing New Rate Rate Rate Schedule Code CodA, ,Current propose~ ChanGe RESIDENTIAL Basell~t Basic Winter (El) E1 360 360 0 Basic Summer (El) E1 360 360 0 All Electric Winter (E2) E2 660 660 0 All Elect.,ic Summer (E2) E2 360 360 0 Life Support · 103 Varioul 500 Varioue Minimum Charae El,E2 5.00 5.00 0 · Additional baseline for qualifying customers. Enemy Rate Code Tier 1 Tier 2 'rJpt' 1 Tier 2 Change Basic Service 1600-BS El,E8 El .10740 .13567 .12040 .15321 12.1%I Life Support 101,102,103,107 111,112,115,117 118,120,402,804 1600-LS 806,816,819,820 t03 .10740.13567 .12040 .15321 12.1%I 821,822,824,826 907,913,916,917 918,919,921 All Electdc 1600-AE E2,3,4,9,10,11,15 E2 .10740.13687 .12040 .15321 12.1%I GENERAL SERVlCE Monthly Chame 8Ingle phase - CS,E5 Poly phase - C6,E8 X.ray machine - E51 Demand ser/~ce. E7 Minimum charge Second meter - E55 Energy Rate C5,E5 7.50 8.40 12.0~ C8,E6 8.75 9.80 12.0% E51 18.75 21.00 12.0% ' E7 63.00 70.60 12.1% E55 0 8.40 Current Proposed Winter Summer Winter Summer Change 1602 C5,E5 CS,E5 .10967 .14780 .12294 .16588 12.1% 1802 C6,E6 C6, E8 .10987 .14780 .12294 .16568 12,1% 1602 E51 E51 .10967 .14780 .12294 .16588 12.1% 1602 E55 E55 40967 .14780 .12294 .16588 12.1% 1802 E61 Delete .10967 .14780 .12294 .16568 12.1% 1602-DM C7,E7 C7,E7 .07876 .09782 .08829 .10986 12.1% 1602 C70 C70 .07876 .08152 .06829 .09138 12.1% Demand Charge ~er Kwh E7~C7fC70 3.60 5.75 4.05 6.45 12.3% Additional baseline for qualifying customers. .... OUTDOOR LIGHTING Current rates Proposed rates Mercury Vapor Lamps ,· Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. I 2 3 1 2 3 1608 68 Kwh/Mo. N/A 9.50 7.10 N/A 10.65 7.96 1608 102K,wh/Mo. 12.25 10.50 8.25 13.73 11.77 9.25 1608 154 Kwh/Mo. 15.15 12.70 12.21 16.98 14.24 13.69 1808 375 Kwh/Mo. 20.35 17.70 15.40 22.81 19.84 17.26 High Pressure Sodium Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. Lamps ** 1 2 3 I 2 3 1008 68 Kwh/Mo. N/A 9.50 7.10 N/A 10.65 7.00 1608 103Kwh/Mo. 12.25 10.50 8.25 13.73 11'.7~ g.25 , , , ** Other fixtures not specifically listed will be charged proportionately. STREET LIGHT RATE Cuffenf/ Pmrx)sed Change Monthly Street Light charge $1.50/meter $2.00/metsr $ .50/meter WATER UTILITYRATES Currant~ Pro~x)std % Increase Unite Rate Units Rate Rate Rate In Over in Over Over Min. Min. MIn. Min. MIn. Min. Min. Min. C16,W16 0 15.00 .50 0 17.30 .58 15.3% 16.0% C17,W17 0 1800 .50 0 20.70 .58 15.0~ 16.0~ C18,W18 0 27.00 .50 0 31.10 .58 15.2~ 16.0% Cl,C10,Cll 3 12.00 .50 3 13.80 .58 15.0~ 16.0~ W1,101 3 12.00 .50 3 13.80 .58 15.0~ 16.0~ 120 5 12.00 .50 5 13.80 .58 15.0~ 16.0~ C2,W2,102 5 12.50 .50 5 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0~ C3,W3,103 6 13.00 .50 6 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0~ C44 7 10.50 .50 7 12.10 .58 15.2~ 18.0% 121 7 12.00 .50 7 1380 .58 15.0% 16.0~ 202 7 12.50 .50 7 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% C4,W4,104 7 13.50 .50 7 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0~ 122 9 12.00 .50 9 13.50 .58 15.0% 16.0% 210 g 12.50 .50 9 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 304 10 13.00 .50 10 15.00 .58 15.4% 18.0% C5,W5,105 10 14.50 .50 10 16.70 .58 15.2% 16.0~ 126 11 12.00 .50 11 13.80 .58 15.0~ 16.0% 205 11 12.50 .50 11 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 306 12 13.00 .50 12 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0~ 127 13 12.00 .50 13 13.80 .58 15.0~ 16.0% 211 13 12.50 .50 13 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% C6,W6,106 13 15.50 .50 13 17.80 .58 14.8% 16.O% 113 13 31.00 .50 13 35.70 .58 15.2% 16,0% 130 15 12.00 .50 15 13.80 .58 15.0~ 16.0~ 201 15 12.50 .50 15 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 125 17 1200 .50 17 13.80 .58 15.0~ 16.0% 206 17 12.50 .50 17 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% C7,W7,107 17 16.50 .50 17 19.00 .58 15.2% 16.0% 208 19 12.50 .50 19 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0~ 310 20 1300 .50 20 15.00 .58 15.4% 160% 129 21 12.00 .50 21 13.50 .58 15.0% 16.0~ 207 21 12.50 .50 21 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0~ 305 24 13.00 .50 24 15.00 .58 15.4% 160% 124 25 12.00 .50 25 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% 212 25 12.50 .50 25 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 128 27 12.00 .50 27 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0~ 308 28 13.00 .50 28 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 301 32 13.00 .50 32 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0~ 408 35 13.50 .50 35 15.50 .58 14.8% 18.0~ 307 38 13.00 .50 38 15.00 .58 15.4% 10.0% 123 41 12.00 .50 41 13.80 .58 15.0~ 18.0% 203 41 12.50 .50 41 14,40 ,58 15,2% 18.0% 407,417 41 13.50 .50 = 41 15,50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 303 42 13.00 .50 42 1500 .58 15.4% 10.0% 311 44 13.00 .50 44 1500 .58 15.4% 10.0% 402 47 13.50 .50 47 15.50 .58 14.8% 18.0% 401 51 13.50 .50 51 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 309 52 13.00 .50 52 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0~ 413 55 13.50 .50 55 15.50 .58 14.8% 18.0% 414 57 13.50 .50 57 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0~ 409 65 13.50 .50 65 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0~ 601 71 15.50 .50 71 17.80 .58 14.8% 18.0% 412 73 13.50 .50 73 15.50 .58 14.8% 18.0~ 418 77 13.50 .50 77 15.50 .58 14.8% 18.0~ 408 79 13.50 .50 79 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0~ 214 81 12.50 .50 81 14.40 .58 15.2% 180% 302 86 13.00 .50 88 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 403 103 13.50 .50 103 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0~ 502 104 14.50 .50 104 16.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 415 109 13.50 .50 109 15.50 .58 14.8% 18.0% 404 111 13.50 .50 111 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 405 113 13.50 .50 113 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 411 115 13.50 .50 115 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 410 125 13.50 .50 125 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 204 133 12.50 .50 133 14.40 .58 15.2% 18.0% 213 191 12.50 .50 191 t4.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 501 194 14.50 .50 194 16.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 504 194 14.50 .50 194 16.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 503 286 14.50 .50 258 16.70 .58 15.2% 18.0% 100 All - All - W19 N/A 8.00 N/A N/A 9.20 N/A 15.0% N/A W8 3 24.00 1.00 3 27.60 1.15 15.0% 15.0% W9 5 25.00 1.00 5 28.75 1.15 15.0% 15.0% W10 6 26.00 1.00 8 29.90 1.15 15.0% 15.0% Wll 7 27.00 1.00 7 31.05 1.15 15.0% t5.0% W12 10 29.00 1.00 10 33.35 1.15 15.0% 15.0% W13 13 31.00 1.00 13 35.65 1.15 15.0% 15.0% W14 17 33.00 1.00 17 37.95 1.15 15.0% 15.0% Is/Merge Gulntoll, City Clerk. Publish: July 7, 1996 ' Elect~ Utility R~et Existing Hew Rate Rate Rate ~;chedule Code Code Current Proposed Charms RESIDENTIAl. Baseline Batl~ VVInler ~1) El 36O 300 0 BlOc Summer (El) E1 3~C) 3~O 0 All Eiecbi¢ VV'mter {F_.2) E2 650 8~0 0 All Eiec~c Summer (E2) E2 H H60 0 Ll~e ~ ' 103 Various 5(X) Variou~ MMtmum Chares El,E2 5.00 5.00 0 * Adclttlonal baseline for qualifying customem. Enemy Rat9 Coda Tier 1 Tier2 Tier 1 Basic SeMce Tier 2 Chanae 16C30-8S El,E8 Et .10740.13667 .12040 .15321 t2.1%I Life Support ilm.102.103.107 111,112,1t5,117 t 18,120,402,804 1sOOtS Iscm,s16,810.~O 1821,822,B24,826 007,013,910,917 918,919,921 t03 .10740.1H667 .12040 .15321 All Electrlo OEHERAL SERVICE Monthly Cheme Single phele - C5,E5 Poly phase - C6,E6 · X-my mlchlne. E51 Demand service. E7 Minimum cbs .fTl~l Second mater- E55 Cu,ent Pro,oted C,h.~e C5.E5 7.50 8.40 12.0~ CB, E6 8.76 0.60 12.0~ E61 18.75 '21 .(30 12.0~ E7 63.00 70.63 1Z1% E55 0 -8.40 Cunent Pmpo~d Energy Rate Winter Summer Winter Summer Ctmnge 1802 C5,E5 C5,E5 .10967 .14780 .12294 .16568 12.1% 1802 C0,EO CB, E0 .10067 .14780 .12294 .16568 12.1% 1602 E51 E51 .10967 .14760 .12294 .16568 12.1% 1602 E55 E55 .10067 .14780 .12294 .16568 12.1% 1602 E61 Delete .10967 .14760 .12294 .16568 12.1% 1602-DM C7,E7 C7,E7 .07676 .09762 .08829 .10966 12.1% 1602 C70 C70 .07876 ,08162 .06829 .09138 12.1% Demand Charge per Kwh ET, C7fC70 3.00 5.75 4.05 6.45 1Z3~ * Add]tkNlll baaeline for qualifying c'tmtomem. I OUTDOOR LIGHTING ! C....t rotes !, Proposed, rite, 'Mercury VaP°1' Lam. °' 'S ch ed. S~l. Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1608 66 Kwh/Mo. H/^ 9.50 7.10 N/^ 10.65 7.MI ieo~ 102Kwh/~o. ~'12.25 10.50 e.25 "'~3.73 11.77 g.26 1~3~ 154Kwh/~o. 15.15 12.70 lZ21 18.g~ 14.24 1608 375 Kwh/Mo. 20.35 17.~0 15.40 22.81 19.84 17.26 'High F~eaaure Sodium Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. Sched. L,mpl '* I 2 3 1 2 ~ 65 Kwh/Mo. ./^ g.50 7.10 ./^ 10.e5 1.0~ ld3~wh/~o. 12.25 10.50 j.25 13.~3 '11.77 g.2~ *' Other fixtures not specifically listed will be chaqled pfopodionatelv. o . : . RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING WATER RATE SCHEDULES WHEREAS, the City Manager has made a report relative to Residential and Commercial Water Rate Schedules within the City of Ukiah; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing regarding the proposed Residential and Commercial Water Rate Schedules; and WHEREAS, revised Residential and Commercial Water Rate Schedules have been proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Residential and Commercial Water Rate Schedules attached hereto and made a part hereof is hereby adopted to be effective for all water billed on or after August 1, 1996. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor City Clerk WATER UTILITY RATES Current Prorx)sed % Increase Units Rate Units Rate Rate Rate In Over In Over Ove~ Min, Min. Min. Min, MIn. Min. Min, Min. cie,w16 0 15.00 .50 0 17.30 .58 15.3% 16.0% C17,W17 0 16.00 .50 0 20.70 .58 15.0~ 16.0% C18,W16 0 27.00 .50 0 31.10 .58 15.2% 16.0% Cl,C10,Cll 3 12.00 .50 3 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% W1,101 3 12.00 .50 3 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% 120 5 12.00 .50 5 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% C2,W2,102 5 12.50 ,50 5 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% C3,W3,103 6 13.00 .50 8 16.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% C44 7 10.50 .50 7 12.10 .58 15.2% 16.0% 121 7 12.00 .50 7 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% 202 7 12.50 .50 7 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% C4,W4,104 .7' 13.50 ,50 7 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 122 9 12.(30 ,50 9 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% 210 g 12.50 .50 0 14.40 .58 15.:2~ 16.0% 304 t0 13.00 .50 10 15.00 .58 15.4% t6.0% C5,W5,100 10 14.50 .50 10 18.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 126 11 12.00 .50 11 13.60 .58 15.0% 16.0% 205 11 12.50 .50 11 14.40 .56 15.2% 16.0% 300 12 13.00 .50 12 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% t27 13 12,00 .50 13 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% 211 13 12.50 .50 13 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% C8,W6,105 13 15.50 .50 13 17.80 .58 14.8% 16.0% 113 13 31.00 .50 13 35.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 130 15 12.00 .50 15 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% 201 15 12.50 .50 15 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 125 17 12.00 .50 17 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% 206 17 12.50 .50 17 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% C7,W7,107 t7 16.50 .50 17 19.00 .58 15.2% 16.0% 206 19 t2.50 .50 19 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 3t0 20 13.00 .50 20 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 120 21 12.00 .50 21 13.80 .58 15.0% 16.0% 207 21 12,50 .50 21 14.40 .56 15.2% 16.0% 305 24 13.00 .50 24 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 124 25 12.00 .50 25 13.~0 .58 15.0% 16.0% 212 25 12.50 .50 25 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 128 27 12.00 ,50 27 13.60 .58 15.0% 16.0% 308 28 13.00 .50 28 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 301 32 13.00 .50 32 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 408 35 13.50 .50 35 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 307 36 13.00 .50 36 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 123 41 12.00 .50 41 13.60 .58 15.0% 16.0% 203 41 12.50 .50 41 14.40 .58 15.2% 15.0% 407,417 41 13.50 .50 ' 41 15,50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 303 42 t3.00 .50 42 15.00 ,58 15.4% 10.0% 31t 44 13.00 ,50 44 15.00 .58 15.4% 10.0% 402 47 13.50 .50 47 15.50 .58 14.8% 10.0% 401 51 13.50 .50 51 15.50 .58 14.6% 16.0% 309 52 13.00 .50 52 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 413 55 13.50 .50 55 15.50 .56 14.6% 16.0% 414 57 13.50 .50 57 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 400 65 13.50 .50 65 15.50 .58 14.6% 16.0% 60t 71 15.50 .50 71 17.80 .58 14.8% 16.0% 412 73 13.50 .50 73 15.50 .58 14.0% 16.0% 416 77 13.50 .50 77 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 406 79 13.50 .50 70 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 214 81 12.50 .50 61 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 302 86 13.00 .50 86 15.00 .58 15.4% 16.0% 403 103 13.50 .50 103 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 502 104 14.50 .50 104 16.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 415 109 13.50 .50 100 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 404 111 13.50 .50 111 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 405 113 13.50 .50 113 15.50 .58 14.8% 16.0% 411 115 13.50 .50 115 15.50 .58 14.6% 16.0% 410 , 125 13.50 .50 125 15.50 .58 14.6% 16.0% 204 133 12.50 .50 133 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% 213 191 12.50 .50 191 14.40 .58 15.2% 16.0% I 501 104 14.50 .50 104 10.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 504 104 14.50 .50 104 16.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 503 28~ 14.50 .50 260 16.70 .58 15.2% 16.0% 100 All - - All W19 H/A 8.00 H/A H/A 0.20 H/A 15.0% N/A W8 3 24.00 1.00 3 27.60 1.15 15.0% 15.0% WO 5 25.00 1.00 5 28.75 1.15 15.0% 15.0% WIO 6 25.00 1.00 6 20.90 1.15 15.0% 15.0% Wtl 7 27.00 1.00 7 31.05 1.15 15.0% t5.0% W12 10 20.00 1.00 10 33.35 t,15 15.0% 15.0% W13 13 31.00 1.00 13 35.85 t.15 t5.0% 15.0% W14 17 33.00 1.00 17 37.95 1.15 15.0% 15.0% RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING STREET LIGHTING RATE WHEREAS, the City Manager has made a report relative to the Street Lighting Rate within the City of Ukiah; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing regarding the proposed Street Lighting Rate; and WHEREAS, a revised Street Lighting Rate Schedule has been proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the monthly charge of $2.00 per meter is hereby adopted to be effective for all bills on or after August 1, 1996. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor City Clerk :d :~ !iii!i!i!i!i!i~]! ~ ............. ~l~ ::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::~ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. · ' ~1 ' '~' ';';' ' .:-:.:,,i-:.:.:-:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::;:::::;::::: · ",,I ~ .:.:~..~..:.-:.-: ...... : · "-,I ~ ~ i:!:~:i:i:i:!:!~i:i:: :.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.: . :i:.:!:i:::::t:¢!~ 2 ;.:.:-:.:-:-:-:-x-:.:.;.:-;-:-:.:.:- :::::::;::::::::::: ................... ::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: ....-.........v...-.-...-.-.-.v... :.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. !iiiiiii~!ii!!~i~!! ':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':': -.......-.v...-...-.-.-...-...-.-... · .::..~.'::: .... I~ :i:i~.:.:.::E:i: . .~..:..:.:..:.:~.:.:.:-:.:.:. :::2::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:. · ::::~::::::::i:::: o .:4.:.:.;-;.:.:.:-:.:.:-:.:-:-:.:-:.: '""'"'"""'"""'"'l'l'l'l'l'l ~iii!ii!iiiiiii!iii :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...................iiiiiii¢iiiii!ii :::::::::::::::: :;::::;:::::;::: ::: 0 ....:.:...:.:.:.:.: ~ !:i:!'" i:i:!:i:i:i..l~..i:i:i: :':'l'i'l'l'l'I'l': "'""l'I':':'":'!'l'":':':':':':'~ i!!i[!!!ii[iii~i~[! -:':'.':-:-:':':-:':':':':':-:':':':-: ,:.:-:,:.:.:.:.:-:. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ..........................-........... i:i:~.:-:-!3i:i :i:i .......... ::::::::::::;:::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: ................... ii~!iii!~i~iiiiiii~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........ .:.:,........:.:.:.:.:...~..,:.:.:  ::::,1.'-'.:.:::::: · ?;'??i'???? !'?!'F'i ....................... '"' ':':':':':':':':':' ::::i:::i:i::::.:.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: CZ rTl ITl 0 .-,I m~ m m A FROM PHONE EXT.  NUMBER [] TELEPHONED [] CAME TO SEE YOU [] RETURNED YOUR CALL : sO"~~ ---- DATE TIM 7b ITEM NO. DATE: July 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING UPDATED PLANNING SUMMARY: PERMIT FEES Planning Department staff has conducted a Planning Permit Fee Study to determine if the fees are adequate in terms of recovering the actual costs of processing development permit applications. The Study indicates that Ukiah's Planning fees are approximately 40.8 percent lower than Cloverdale fee's, 22 percent lower than the fee's charged by the City of Willits, and 74% lower than those charged by Mendocino County. Background: In 1964, the City adopted Resolution 64-48, establishing fees for planning and zoning applications. In 1976, subdivision filing fees were established by the adoption of Resolution 76-50. Resolution 83-40, adopted in early 1983, combined the planning and subdivision fees into one fee schedule, and increased them to generally (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached Resolution raising the fees for processing subdivision maps, and planning and zoning permit applications. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION' Do not adopt the resolution and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Board of Realtors, Mendocino County Employers Council Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Resolution Updating Planning Permit Fees 2. Planning Permit Fee Study 3. Planning Permit Fee History 1993-1996 APPROVED: · ce Horsley,- cit~/IV~nager recover actual costs for processing applications at that time. The fees were subsequently revised again in 1989 to partially recover the costs for processing. This fee increase was minor, and was intended to move closer to recovering the costs associated with processing permit applications, while at the same time keeping the fees Iow and reasonable to the citizenry. Since 1989, the processing of applications has become more complex and time consuming. This is due to changes in State mandated procedures, increased citizen involvement, an increase in infill development, the demand for a higher quality planning analysis, and the emergence of typical growth pains such as, traffic congestion and the change in community character. As indicated above, the Planning Permit Fee Study revealed that the City Planning Department fees are significantly less than what similar nearby jurisdictions charge for the same service. Additionally, our fees are substantially less than what the County Department of Planning and Building Services charges for identical permits generally processed in the same manner. The City fee collected to process a typical development permit application, such as a Site Development Permit is $150.00, where it costs approximately $600.00 to process. Processing planning permit applications requires time from the department Secretary, Associate Planner, Senior Planner, and Planning Director. On the average, it is estimated that the Planning Department currently recoups approximately 25 percent of the costs of processing a typical development permit application. Staff is recommending that the fees be raised to capture 75 percent of the cost of processing. This would mean that the $150.00 charged to process a Site Development Permit application would increase to $450.00. A 100 percent recovery would increase the fee to $600.00. Table 3 of the attached Planning Permit Fee Study provides various increase scenarios, from 10% up to 50%, for the Council's consideration. Additionally, staff is recommending the establishment of "minor" Use Permits, Site Development Permits, and Variances. Examples of "minor" permits would be small amendments to previously approved Permits, projects involving a change in use, but no significant construction, and small development projects. Additionally, these types of projects would not involve major issues or raise significant policy questions. The fee for this type of permit would be $225 (50% of standard permit fee). Processing General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Major Subdivision applications are typically more complex and take approximately twice as much time to process than typical development permit applications. Accordingly, it is recommended that the fees for these permits be increased to $900.00, an amount twice that for processing the typical planning permit. Finally, staff has calculated the approximate cost of processing an appeal to the Planning Commission or City Council. The out-of-pocket costs, which include public noticing and the copying of reports, totals approximately $40 to $50. When staff time is added, this total could easily reach $150.00-$200.00. However, in an effort to not discourage appeals, staff is suggesting a $75.00 fee that would capture the out-of-pocket costs, and a small amount of staff time. Mendocino County currently charges $300 to $600 for an appeal, and the City of Willits charges $100. In terms of public outreach, staff sent a copy of the Planning Permit Fee Study to both the Mendocino County Board of Realtors and Mendocino County Employers Council. We also advised these organizations about the planning permit fee increase proposal, and invited questions, comments and an open dialogue on the matter. To date, neither organization has expressed opposition or serious interest. We have also distributed a written announcement concerning the proposal from the Planning Department Information Counter since February, 1996. No adverse comment or concern has resulted from this detailed announcement. The following table provides a direct comparison of the current and proposed Planning Permit Fee schedule: APPLICATION Minor Subdiv Major Subdiv Use Permit Variance Site Dev Permit GP Amendment Rezone Appeal CURRENT $225 $700 $125-$450 $125-$225 $150 $600 $325 $0 PROPOSED $450 $900 $450 $45O $45O $9OO $9OO $ 75 DIFFERENCE + $225 + $200 + $325-$0 + $325-$225 + $300 + $300 + $575 + $75 SUMMARY: The increase in Planning Permit fees would help increase the General Fund, and assist the Planning Department to become more self-sufficient. Based upon an analysis of the number of permit applications received, and the amount of fees collected during the first six months of 1996, it is estimated that the proposed increase in fees could basically result in a doubling of total annual Planning Department revenue. 1996 FEES COLLECTED (1st 6 months) $5,250.00 IF PROPOSED FEES USED $10,800.00 DIFFERENCE +$5,550 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING UPDATED PLANNING PERMIT FEES PURSUANT TO CITY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 880 WHEREAS, 1. Planning permit fees in the City of Ukiah have not been updated since 1989; and 2. In 1989, when the City last updated its planning permit fees, it was understood that even with the increase, the fees would not cover the costs of processing the permits; and 3. Processing planning permit applications has become more complex and time consuming in recent years due to changes in State mandated procedures, increased citizen involvement, an increase in infill development, the demand for higher quality planning analysis, and the emergence of typical growth pains, such as, traffic congestion and the change in community character; and 4. A recently completed Planning Permit Fee Study reveals that the Planning Department is recovering only 25 percent of the costs for processing the typical planning permit; and 5. The City desires to recover approximately 75 percent of the costs for processing planning permit applications; and 6. It has been determined that the processing of General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Major Subdivision applications are typically more complex and take approximately twice as much time to process than typical development permit applications; and 7. It has been determined that the establishment of "minor" Use Permit, Variance, and Site Development Permit applications are appropriate for projects involving minor amendments to previously approved projects, projects involving a change in use, but no 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 significant construction, small construction projects, and projects that do not raise major environmental or community issues, or that raise significant policy questions; and 8. It has been determined that a reasonable and appropriate fee for processing appeals is $75.00, to cover out-of-pocket costs, such as public noticing, and the copying of staff reports, as well as a small amount of staff time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following updated fee schedule for the processing of planning permit applications: General Plan Amendment Rezoning Subdivision (more than 4 lots) Subdivision (less than 4 lots) Boundary Line Adjustment Site Development Permit Use Permit Variance Minor Site Development Permit Minor Use Permit Minor Variance Appeal Agenda/Minutes Copy per page CEQA Document Filing $900.00 $9OO.O0 $900.00 $450 00 $450 00 $450 00 $450 00 $450 00 $225 00 $225 00 $225 00 $ 75.00 $150.00/Year $ .20 $ 25.00 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1996, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Fred Schneiter, Mayor ATTEST: Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk Planning Permit Fee Study CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA Prepared by the City of Ukiah Planning Department January, 1996 INTRODUCTION The City of Ukiah last revised its fees for planning and zoning activities on September 7, 1989. Prior to that time, the fees had been modified in 1964, 1973, and 1976. The purpose of raising the fees in 1989 was to move closer to recovering the costs associated with processing the planning and zoning permit applications. Since, 1989, the processing of applications has become more complex and time consuming. This is due to changes in State mandated procedures, increased citizen involvement, an increase in infill development, the demand for a higher quality planning analysis, and the emergence of typical growth pains such as, traffic congestion and the erosion of community character. Accordingly, the City is revisiting the fee schedule to determine if they are adequate in terms of recovering the actual costs of processing development permit applications. METHODOLOGY To determine the adequacy of the current fee schedule, two primary factors were explored. First, the fees were compared to the fees charged for the same permit by other jurisdictions. A number of jurisdictions, both large and small, as well as local and distant, were used for comparison purposes. Second, an average timeframe for processing a typical development permit application was established, and the staff salary implications were calculated. It was generally assumed that the processing time for the permits was basically the same as the surveyed jurisdictions, because the review process is basically the same statewide. SURVEYED JURISDICTIONS The planning permit fee schedules of nine (9) other cities were examined. Three (3) of the cities were located in the immediate area, two (2) from north of Ukiah, two (2) from the southern bay area, and two (2) from southern California. Populations of the cities ranged from 5,000 (Willits) to 84,000 (Carson), and in municipal square miles from 2.5 (Cloverdale) to 52.0 (Redding). In an effort to provide a contrast between various jurisdictions, both urban and rural cities were chosen for the survey. In all nine (9) cases, the fee schedules had been revised within the past six (6) years. To provide additional contrast, the City of Ukiah fees were compared to planning fees for the Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services. Most important were the fee schedules of Willits, Cloverdale, and Mendocino County, because of their close proximity and similarity to the City of Ukiah. ANALYSIS 1. Comparison of Fees The City of Ukiah's fees for planning permit applications are less than all surveyed jurisdictions. In some cases, particularly with respect to more urban jurisdictions, the differences were dramatic. For example, to process a General Plan Amendment application, Ukiah charges $600, WIIIIll Uklah / Mendocino County ck)verc~ie Healdsburg California Cities Surveyed: Planning Permit Fees while the City of Redding charges up to $5,490. It should be noted that the general procedures for processing a General Plan Amendment application are the same. In other instances, particularly with respect to more rural jurisdictions, the differences were minor. For example, the City of Ukiah charges between $125-$225 for a Variance application, while the City of Willits charges a flat fee of $160. The important comparison was between Ukiah and the Cities of Willits and Cloverdale, and Mendocino County. Overall, the research indicated that Ukiah's Planning fees are approximately 40.8 percent lower than Cloverdale fee's, and 22 percent lower than the fee's charged by the City of Willits. The Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services fees are substantially higher than those of the City of Ukiah. For example, Mendocino County charges $2,035 for a General Plan Amendment application, which is $1,435 more than the City of Ukiah's fee of $600. Again, the procedures for processing this type of application are generally the same. 2. Processinq Time and Salary Implication-~ To determine the actual cost of processing a typical development permit application, a breakdown of the hours of staff time was performed. Typically, all members of the Planning Department staff have some involvement in the review and processing of development permit applications. The most time is spent by the Associate Planner, followed by the Senior Planner/Environmental Coordinator, Department Administrative Secretary, and Planning Director. To compute the cost of processing, each staff member estimated how much time they generally spend with a typical development permit application, and hourly wages were totaled accordingly. The results, as illustrated in the Table below reveal that in order to process a typical development permit application, the Planning Department spends 25 hours at a cost of approximately $600.00. Position Associate Planner ,Time Spent Salary/Benefits Total Cost 15 Hours $22.91 $343.65 Senior Planner 5 Hours $30.10 $150.50 Secretary 3.5 Hours $14.30 $50.50 Planning Director 1.5 Hours $36.86 $55.29 TOTALS: 25 Hours $599.94 This dollar amount reflects the approximate "median" cost. In our judgement, there are an equal number of permits that cost the Planning Department more and less than this amount to process. 1 w CONCLUSIONS The City Planning Department fees are significantly less than what similar nearby jurisdictions charge for the same service. Additionally, our fees are substantially less than what the County Department of Planning and Building Services changes for identical permits generally processed in the same manner. The City fee collected to process a typical development permit application, such as a Site Development Permit is $150.00, where it costs $600.00 to process. Accordingly, on the average, the Planning Department recoups approximately 25 percent of the costs of permit processing. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Planning Department propose an increase in the fees collected for processing Use Permits, Variances, and Site Development Permits to recoup a minimum of 75 percent of the cost of processing. This would result in the following fee schedule: Use Permit $450.00 Variance $450.00 Site Development Permit $450.00 Boundary Line Adjustment $450.00 Establish "minor" Use Permits, Site Development Permits, and Variances. Examples of "minor" permits would be small amendments to previously approved Permits, projects involving a change in use, but no significant construction, and small development projects. In the opinion of the Planning Director, these types of projects would not involve major issues or raise significant policy questions. The fee for this type of permit would be $225 (50% of standard permit fee). Minor Use Permit $225.00 Minor Variance $225.00 Minor Site Development Permit $225.00 Processing General Plan Amendments, Rezonings, and Major Subdivision applications are typically more complex and take approximately twice as much time as typical development permit applications. Accordingly, it is recommended that the fees for these permits be increased to an amount twice that for processing the typical permit: General Plan Amendment $900.00 Rezone $900.00 Major Subdivision (more than 4 lots) $900.00 . Establish a fee for appeals of decisions made on permits. The intent would not be to discourage an appeal, but rather to recoup the costs for processing it. We suggest a fee of $75.00 to cover the cost of legal noticing, reproduction of staff reports and associated documents, and a minor amount of staff time. TABLE 1 Comparison of Planning Department Fee Schedules APPLICATION UKIAH REDDING PARADISE Parcel Map $225 $545 $985 Major Subdiv $700 $2220 $1400 Use Permit $125-$450 $240-$1620 $375-$1070 Variance $125- $225 $310-$465 $590-$ 750 Site Plan Rev $150 $440-$1470 $330-$750 GP Amendment $600 $1280-$5490 $1340 Rezone $325 $890-$3550 $1280 Appeal $0 $85-$145 $36-365 APPLICATION UKIAH CLAREMONT CARSON Parcel Map $225 $2500 + Dep $2000 Major Subdiv $700 $4000 + Dep $2000 Use Permit $125-$450 $2500 + Dep $1500 Variance $125-$225 $1000 + Dep $1000 Site Plan Rev $150 $500-$4000 - GP Amendment $600 $4000 + Dep $2500 Rezone $325 $3500 + Dep $2500 Appeal $0 50% of App Fee $300-$1000 APPLICATION UKIAH CUPERTINO NEWARK Parcel Map $225 $1847 DPW Major Subdiv $700 $1847 DPW Use Permit $125-$450 $1509 $1500-$2400 Variance $125-$225 $706 $250-$900 Site Plan Rev $150 $327 $950-$1500 GP Amendment $600 $1847 $4000 Rezone $325 $1847 $4000 Appeal $0 $373 $80 APPLICATION UKIAH CLOVERDALE WILLITS Parcel Map Major Sub Use Permit Variance Site Plan Rev GP Amendment Rezone Appeal $225 $515 $350 + $50/Iot $700 $750 + $20/Iot $750 + $50/Iot $125-$400 $400 $160-$500 $125-$225 $180 $160 $150 $800 $125-$250 $600 $845 $500 $325 $340 $400 $0 $75 $100 APPLICATION Parcel Map Major Sub Use Permit Variance Site Plan Rev GP Amendment Rezone Appeal UKIAH $225 HEALDSBURG $1,500 MENDOCINO COUNTY $1,685 $700 Consult Fee $3,610 $125-$450 $800 + $635-$1,475 $125-$225 $300 $610 $150 $600 $620 $6OO Consult Fee Consult Fee $150 $325 $0 $2,035 $80O $3O0-$60O Consultant Fee: The City hires, at the expense of the applicant, a consultant to process large project applications. The applicant is required to deposit 120% of the consultant's fee (actual cost plus administrative fee). This fee is for a minor use permit. Major Use Permits are jobbed out to a consultant at the applicant's expense. TABLE 2 Planning Permit Fees Cost Differences: Ukiah, Cloverdale & Willits APPLICATION UKIAH CLOVERDALE $ Difference Parcel Map $225 $515 $290 Major Sub $700 $750 + $20/Iot +$50 Use Permit $125-$400 $400 $275 to 0 Variance $125-$225 $180 $55 to $-45 Site Plan Rev $150 $800 $650 GP Amendment $600 $845 $245 Rezone $325 $340 $15 Appeal $0 $75 $75 APPLICATION UKIAH WILLITS $ Difference Parcel Map $225 $350 + $50/Iot +$125 Major Sub $700 $750 + $50/Iot $50 Use Permit $125-$400 $160-$500 $35 to $100 Variance $125-$225 $160 $35 to-$65 Site Plan Rev $150 $125-$250 -$25 to $100 GP Amendment $600 $500 -$100 Rezone $325 $400 $75 Appeal $0 $100 $100 APPLICATION UKIAH MENDOCINO $ DIFFERENCE COUNTY Parcel Map $225 $1,685 $1,460 Major Sub $700 $3,610 $2,910 Use Permit $125-$450 $635-$1,475 $510- $1,025 Variance $125-$225 $610 $485- $385 Site Plan Rev $150 $620 $470 GP Amendment $600 $2,035 $1,435 Rezone $325 $800 $475 Appeal $0 $300-$600 $300-$600 TABLE 3 Planning Fee Increase Scenarios APPLICATION UKIAH 10% Increase 15% Increase Parcel Map $225 $248 $259 Major Sub $700 $770 $805 Use Permit $125-$450 $138-$495 $144-$520 Variance $125-$225 $138-$248 $144-$260 Site Plan Rev $150 $165 $173 GP Amendment $600 $660 $700 Rezone $325 $360 $375 Appeal $0 $10 $15 APPLICATION UKIAH 25% Increase 30% Increase Parcel Map $225 $281 $293 Major Sub $700 $875 $910 Use Permit $125-$450 $155-$565 $165-$585 Variance $125-$225 $155-280 $165-$290 Site Plan Rev $150 $190 $195 GP Amendment $600 $750 $780 Rezone $325 $405 $420 Appeal $0 $25 $30 APPLICATION UKIAH 40% Increase 50% Increase Parcel Map $225 $315 $338 Major Sub $700 $980 $1050 Use Permit $125-$450 $175-630 $188-$675 Variance $125-$225 $175-315 $188-340 Site Plan Rev $150 $210 $225 GP Amendment $600 $840 $900 Rezone $325 $455 $490 Appeal $0 $40 $50 10 ITEM NO. 7c DATE: July 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING MAP TO REZONE 51 LOTS IN THE WAGENSELLER NEIGHBORHOOD SUMMARY: Phase two of the city-wide General Plan rezoning program involves 51 lots situated in what is generally referred to as the Wagenseller Neighborhood. Most of the area is currently assigned a commercial zoning classification, and the new General Plan has designated these parcels as residential to reflect existing development. The project involves rezoning 22 parcels from "C-2" (Highway Commercial/Restricted Industrial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); 3 parcels from "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); 15 parcels from "C-2" (Highway Commercial/Restricted Industrial) to "R-I" (Single Family Residential); and I from "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-I" (Single Family Residential). Along north Main and North Mason Streets, 10 parcels are proposed to be rezoned from "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential) to "C-1" (Light Commercial). (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed Negative Declaration and proposed rezonings; 2) adopt the Negative Declaration and introduce by title only the ordinance amending the City Zoning Map rezoning 51 lots in the Wagenseller Neighborhood. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not approve the Negative Declaration and do not introduce the proposed ordinance. Citizen Advised: None Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner~,,~' Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ordinance amending the City Zoning Map Negative Declaration Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 26, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 26, 1996 Letters received from property owners APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Man~.ger A table listing the parcels by Assessor's Parcel number, their current zoning, General Plan Land Use Designation, and proposed zoning, is included as Exhibit "A" to the proposed ordinance rezoning the properties. A map showing the locations of the subject properties and the proposed rezoning actions is included as Exhibit "B" to the ordinance. Planning Commission Hearing On June 26, 1996, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and discussed the proposed rezoning project. After a brief discussion and a number of minor comments, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Negative Declaration and proposed Wagenseller Neighborhood rezonings. It should be noted that two Planning Commissioners own property that is subject to the rezoning action. After consultation with the City Attorney concerning conflict of interest laws, and considerable discussion at the meeting (see attached minutes), the project was divided into two separate actions to allow the affected Commissioners to participate in one action and recuse themselves from the second, which involved their properties. Letters Received From Property Owners Young & Gessner: The property located at 143 Clara Avenue is developed with a single family residence that was constructed in 1885. Mr. and Mrs. Young and Mr. and Mrs. Gessner, owners of the parcel, are opposed to the proposed rezoning of this property from "C-2" to "R-1 ," because they believe that it would drastically reduce the value of the parcel. They have requested that it be rezoned to "R-3" so that additional residential units could be developed on the property. Staff Response: This 7,000 square foot lot is only fifty (50) feet wide, and most of the front portion of the property is developed with a single family residence that is listed in the City of Ukiah Historic Resources Inventory. If the lot was rezoned to "R-3," additional units could potentially be developed, provided parking requirements could be satisfied. However, to divide the property and develop it with additional units, the residence would probably have to be removed to provide the required twenty (20) foot access width. Additionally, the lot is only fifty (50) feet wide, where sixty (60) feet are required for dividing lots within the "R-3" zoning district. In staff's opinion, which was shared and supported by the Planning Commission, the proposed "R-I" zoning classification is the most logical and appropriate, because it reflects the existing use of the property, and it contributes to the General Plan's intent of preserving the historic Wagenseller single family residential neighborhood. Letter Received From Property Owner Smith: Mr. and Mrs. Smith own the property located on the corner of Mason and Norton Streets. It is currently developed with an autobody shop, and similar commercial/light industrial land uses are adjacent to both the north and south. The property owners want the commercial zoning retained on the property to reflect and acknowledge the existing use. Staff Response: Staff and the Planning Commission are supportive of this request because of the existing and surrounding land uses, as well as the close proximity of the railroad tracks. Additionally, it is logical to retain the commercial zoning on this property, because it is situated along the Mason Street commercial corridor. (continued on page 3) By not rezoning this parcel, it will remain inconsistent with the Land Use Designation assigned in the new General Plan. Staff anticipates we will encounter a number of other parcels Citywide that have received an inappropriate Land Use Designation. We will maintain a listing of these parcels throughout the rezoning project, and return to the Council at the end of the program with a General Plan Amendment proposal to redesignate the properties. CONCLUSIONS: The newly adopted City General Plan provides new Land Use Designations for a number of properties in the Wagenseller Neighborhood. The purpose of redesignating some properties is to acknowledge and protect important existing land uses, such as the historic homes along Clara Avenue. Additionally, some new Land Use Designations are intended to help facilitate the evolution of land uses that have either become out of context with their surroundings, or because of nearby changes in land use patterns, fulfill criteria for a different and much needed land use. For example, the single family homes along Evans Street are now surrounded by commercial and industrial land uses, and because of their close proximity to a major transportation corridor, appear now to be better suited for potential future conversion to a high density residential land use. Based upon the direction established by the General Plan, as well as detailed field work and an analysis of the proposed rezonings, staff is able to conclude that all but one of the proposed zone changes are reasonable and appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9009 of the Ukiah City Code, the Official Zoning Map for the City of Ukiah is amended to change the zoning on a number of parcels in the Wagenseller Neighborhood from "C-2" (Highway Commercial / Restricted Industrial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); "C-2" (Highway Commercial / Restricted Industrial) to "R-I" (Single Family Residential); "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-I" (Single Family Residential); "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); and "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential) to "C-1" (Light Commercial). The listing of the specific parcels involved in this rezoning action, along with detailed rezoning information is attached as Exhibit "A." SECTION TWO This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This rezoning action and amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Ukiah is necessary to bring the zoning for the subject properties listed in Exhibit "A" into conformance with the new General Plan adopted on December 6, 1995. SECTION FOUR This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Passed and adopted on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk , by the following role call vote: Fred Schneiter, Mayor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "A" The Wagenseller Neighborhood Rezoning Project (96-24) Assessor's Current General Plan New Parcel No. Zoning Designation Zoning 002-091-07 c2 HDR R3 002-091-08 C2 HDR R3 002-091-09 C2 HDR R3 002-091-10 C2 HDR R3 002-091-11 C2 HDR R3 002-092-15 C2 HDR R3 002-092-18 C2 HDR R3 002-092-25 C2 HDR R3 002-092-26 C2 HDR R3 002-092-27 C2 HDR R3 002-092-28 C2 HDR R3 002-092-29 C2 HDR R3 002-092-30 C2 HDR R3 002-121-02 C2 HDR R3 002-121-04 C1 HDR R3 002-121-05 C1 HDR R3 002-121-08 C2 HDR R3 002-121-10 C2 HDR R3 002-121-11 C2 HDR R3 002-122-06 C2 LDR R1 002-122-07 C2 LDR R1 002-122-08 C2 LDR R1 002-122-09 C2 LDR R1 002-122-10 C2 LDR R1 002-122-11 C2 LDR R1 002-122-12 C2 LDR R1 002-122-13 C2 LDR R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 002-122-14 C1 LDR R1 002-122-15 C2 LDR R1 002-123-04 C2 LDR R1 002-123-05 C2 LDR R1 002-123-06 C2 LDR R1 002-123-07 C2 LDR R1 002-123-08 C2 LDR R1 002-123-09 C2 LDR R1 002-151-04 C2 HDR R3 002-151-05 C2 HDR R3 002-151-06 C2 HDR R3 002-151-07 C2 HDR R3 002-151-08 C2 HDR R3 002-151-12 C1 HDR R3 002-153-07 R3 C C1 002-153-14 R3 C C1 002-153-15 R3 C C1 002-153-16 R3 C C1 002-153-22 R3 C C1 002-153-24 R3 C C1 002-153-29 R3 C C1 002-153-30 R3 C C1 002-153-33 R3 C C1 002-153-34 R3 C C1 _IL / L C1 to R1 C~ to R3 C2 C2 to to R3 R1 to R3 -R3 to C1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DATE: APPLICANT: PROJECT: LOCATION: May 31, 1996 City of Ukiah Wagenseller Neighborhood Rezoning No. 96-24 The properties are located in the northwest portion of Ukiah, north of Perkins Street, east of North State Street, west of the Northern California Railroad Association railroad tracks, and south of Brush Street. The 59 parcels are situated along the following streets: Brush Street, Evans Street, Ford Street, Clara Avenue, Norton Street, North Main Street, and Mason Street. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: To rezone the subject properties from the current C-1 (Light Commercial), C-2 (Highway Commercial/light Industrial), and 1:{-3 (General Multiple Family Residential) zoning districts to zoning classifications consistent with the land use designations assigned in the newly adopted General Plan. Most of the existing commercial zoning (C-1 and C-2) is being changed to residential zoning (R-1 and R-3). However, some of the existing R-3 along North Main and Mason Streets is being changed to C-1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The Wagenseller Neighborhood can be characterized as a densely urbanized diverse neighborhood, with a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial land uses. The setting of the neighborhood is developed with a density typical of a mixed use urbanized neighborhood. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Initial Study of potential environmental impacts prepared by City staff does not identify any potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed rezoning project. Topics include earth, air, water, plant & animal life, noise, land use, natural resources, risk of upset, population, housing, transportation, public services, energy, and recreation. FINDINGS SUPPORTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional environment. . . Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. . Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the City of Ukiah has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and further, that this Negative Declaration constitutes compliance with the requirements for environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This document may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Planning Department, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. (707) 463-6200. Charles Stump, Senior Planner/Environmental Coordinator POTENTIAL.ENVIRONMENTAL: IMPA'CTS '.':,:::::: BACKGROUND INFORMATION e 31 m 1 Si g Name of Project Proponent _Citv of Ukiah Planning Department Address of Project Proponent 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah Name of Project Waqenseller Neiehborhood Rezoning No. 96-24 Assessors Parcel Number(s) Various (see attached list) Date of Initial Study Preparation _May 31, 1996 Name of Lead Agency Ukiah Planning Department Address and Phone Number of Lead Agency 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah (707) 463-6200 8. Brief Project Description (see attached) Si Person Responsible for Preparing Initial Stud~. [dr Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Wagenseller Neighborhood Rezoning Project (96-24) Assessor's Current General Plan New Parcel No. Zoning Designation Zoning 002-091-07 C2 HDR R3 002-091-08 C2 HDR R3 002-091-09 C2 HDR R3 002-091-10 C2 HDR R3 002-091-11 C2 HDR R3 002-092-15 C2 HDR R3 002-092-18 C2 HDR R3 002-092-25 C2 HDR R3 002-092-26 C2 HDR R3 002-092-27 C2 HDR R3 002-092-28 C2 HDR R3 002-092-29 C2 HDR R3 , , 002-092-30 C2 HDR R3 002-121-02 C2 HDR R3 002-121-04 C1 HDR -, R3 002-121-05 C1 HDR R3 002-121-08 C2 HDR R3 002-121-10 C2 HDR R3 002-121-11 C2 HDR R3 002-122-06 C2 LDR R1 002-122-07 C2 LDR R1 002-122-08 C2 LDR R1 002-122-09 C2 LDR R1 002-122-10 C2 LDR R1 002-122-11 C2 LDR R1 002-122-12 C2 LDR R1 002-122-13 C2 LDR R1 002-122-14 Cl LDR R1 002-122-15 C2 LDR R1 002-123-04 C2 LDR R 1 , 002-123-05 C2 LDR R1 002-123-06 C2 LDR R1 , 002-123-07 C2 LDR R 1 .... 002-123-08 C2 LDR R1 , , 002-123-09 C2 LDR R1 002-151-04 C2 HDR R3 002-151-05 C2 HDR R3 002-151-06 C2 HDR R3 002-151-07 C2 HDR R3 002-151-08 C2 HDR R3 002-151-09 C2 HDR R3 002-151-12 Cl HDR R3 002-153-07 R3 C Cl 002-153-14 R3 C Cl 002-153-15 R3 C Cl 002-153-16 R3 C Cl 002-153-22 R3 C Cl 002-153-24 R3 C Cl , 002-153-29 R3 C Cl , 002-153-30 R3 C ' Cl , 002-153-33 R3 C Cl , 002-153-34 R3 C Cl , The WagenSeller Neighborh°°d' ReZ°ning pr°jeCt~i:~ :'1 CITY OF UKIAH Planning Permit History ~993-~996 YEAR VAR SDP UP BLA MIN MAJ GP NO. OF SUB SUB AMD/ PER- REZ MITS 1993 8 11 10 7 4 0 3 43 1994 7 8 19 2 7 1 0 52 1995 4 18 21 9 4 0 0 56 1996 3 8 9 1 3 0 0 24 (6 MO.) 1996 FEES COLLECTED IF PROPOSED FEES USED (1st 6 months) $5,250.00 $10,800.00 DIFFERENCE +$5,550 VAR = Variance SDP = Site Development Permit UP = Use Permit BLA = Boundary Line Adjustment MIN SUB = Minor Subdivision MAJ SUB = Major Subdivision GP AMD/REZ = General Plan Amendment/Rezoning WILL THE PROJECT RESULT No Not Significant Significant Cumulative IN THE FOLLOWING Significant Unless No Impacts Mitigated Apparent ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Mitigation 1. EARTH: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes [~i in geologic structures. b. Disruptions, Displacements, Compaction, or overcovering of soil. c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features. d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or--,m. physical features. e. Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site. f. Changes tn deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion that may modify the channel of a river, stream, inlet, or bay? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes. 2. AIR: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality. b. The creation of objectional odors. c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER: a. Changes in the currents, or the course of water movements, in either fresh or marine waters. b. Changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body. e. Discharge into surface water, or any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water. g. Change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. h. Change in the quality of ground water' i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tsunamis. 6 I I,4. PLANT LIFE: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants Including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants. c. Introduction of new species of plants Into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop. 5. ANIMAL LIFE: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals including birds, land animals, reptiles, fish, insects, and bethnic organisms. b. Reduction in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals. c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals. d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat. 6. NOISE: ,. Increase in existing noise levels. b. Exposurelevels. of people to severe noise 7 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: a. Production of new light and glare. b. Reduction of solar exposure or adverse impacts ,o existing solar collection facilities. 8. LAND USE: .. Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of a given area. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources. 10. RISK OF UPSET: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances, (including oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. 11. POPULATION: a. Alterations in the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of human populations. 12. HOUSING: a. Will the proposal effect existing housing or create a demand for new housing? 8 13. TRANSPORTATION' a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effecls on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking facilities? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? ,. Increase in traffic hazards ,o motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? '14. PUBLIC SERVICES: a. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? sc oo, 4. Parks & recreation facilities? 5. Maintenance of public facilities? 6. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? B. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new energy sources? 16. UTILITIES: a. Will the project result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following: 1. Potable water? 2. Sewerage? 3. Transmission lines? '17. HUMAN HEALTH: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to any existing health hazards? '18. AESTHETICS: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? '19. RECREATION: a. Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES: a. Alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? to a prehistoric or historic building or structure? c. Cause a physical change that would effect the unique ethnic cultural values? 10 . ,. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS: It is not anticipated that the proposed rezoning of the Wagenseller Neighborhood properties from "C-2" (Highway Commercial ! Restricted Industrial) to "R- 3" (General Multiple Family Residential); "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); "C-2" (Highway Commercial / Restricted Industrial) to "R-l" (Single Family Residential); "C- 1" (Light Commercial) to "R-I" (Single Family Residential); "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); and "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential) to "C-1" (Light Commercial). would have an adverse effect on the environment for the following reasons: ao The project does not involve site preparation, grading, or any development. Any future development project would be reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. b. The project is considered "housekeeping" in nature, because the subject properties are already developed with public facilities. The potential environmental consequences of changing the land use patterns in this neighborhood were generally evaluated in the certified General Plan EIR. The resulting rezoning actions will not necessarily intensify potential impacts resulting from future development, because of very little vacant in the area; the change in zoning classifications does not provide oppodunity for types and intensities of land uses incompatible with existing land uses; and the proposed rezoning essentially shifts commercial and residential lands uses around in the neighborhood to generally reflect the pattern of existing development. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: It is not anticipated that the project will have adverse cumulative impacts on the environmental, because no actual construction is proposed, no new zoning classification is being introduced to the neighborhood, and the future intensity and density of development would not increased, Additionally, because no actual development project is proposed, no cumulative effect with other known of foreseen projects could occur. 1 CONCLUSIONS: After careful review and analysis, staff is able to conclude that the proposed rezoning of the Wagenseller Neighborhood properties, as proposed, will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. 11 4~ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: ae Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [~ NO b~ Short Term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environments one which occurs in a relatively, brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future). YES [~ el Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). YES [~ NO d~ Substantially Adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES [~ NO 12 e DETERMINATION' On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described within the initial study have will be incorporated into the design of the project or required by the City of Ukiah. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be required. ._...f Senior Planner/Environmental Coordinator ~ '".~/'-"~'~ Date Title Charles Stump Print Name 13 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 6A DATE: June 26, 1996 DATE: June 26, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: City of Ukiah Planning Commission City of Ukiah Planning Department Wagenseller Neighborhood Rezoning Project City of Ukiah PROJECT SUMMARY: In December of 1995, the City Council formally adopted a new General Plan for the City. One of the first tasks of implementing the new General Plan is to revise ordinances and other regulatory "tools" to be consistent with the Plan. Accordingly, staff is initiating a series of property rezonings based upon the direction provided in the new General Plan. On May 22, 1996, the Planning Commission entertained the first rezoning project, which proposed to rezone publicly owned "P" designated property to the "P-F" (Public Facilities) zoning district. On June 19, 1996, the City Council introduced an ordinance amending the City Zoning Map to reflect this rezoning project. Phase two of the city-wide rezoning program involves 51 lots situated in what is generally referred to as the Wagenseller Neighborhood. Most of the area is currently assigned a commercial zoning classification, and the new General Plan has designated these parcels as residential to reflect existing development. Not all of the parcels fronting the above streets are proposed for rezoning, because many have existing zoning consistent with the Land Use Designation assigned in the new General Plan. This project is quasi-legislative in nature and does not require City Planning Commissioner's to visit the site prior to formulating a recommendation to the City Council. PROJECT LOCATION: The properties are located in the northwest portion of Ukiah, north of Perkins Street, east of North State Street, west of the Northern California Railroad Association railroad tracks, and south of Brush Street. The 51 parcels are situated along the following streets: Brush Street, Evans Street, Ford Street, Clara Avenue, Norton Street, North Main Street, and Mason Street. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission 1) recommend APPROVAL of the proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts to the City Council; and 2) recommend APPROVAL of the rezonings and ADOPTION of the ordinance amending the City Zoning Map. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City of Ukiah as lead agency has determined that no significant environmental effects are associated with the project, and has prepared a Negative Declaration. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: HDR (High Density Residential), LDR (Low Density Residential), and C (Commercial). ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-3 (General Multiple Family Residential); C-1 (Light Commercial), and "C-2" (Highway Commercial/Restricted Industrial). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In the Wagenseller Neighborhood, 22 parcels are proposed to be rezoned from "C-2" (Highway Commercial / Restricted Industrial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); 3 parcels from "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential); 15 parcels from "C-2" (Highway Commercial/Restricted Industrial) to "R-I" (Single Family Residential); and 1 from "C-1" (Light Commercial) to "R-l" (Single Family Residential). Along north Main and North Mason Streets, 10 parcels are proposed to be rezoned from "R-3" (General Multiple Family Residential) to "C-1" (Light Commercial). A table listing the parcels by Assessor's Parcel number, their current zoning, General Plan Land Use Designation, proposed zoning, and existing use, is included as Exhibit "A" to the proposed ordinance rezoning the properties. A map(s) showing the locations of the subject properties is included as Exhibit "B" to the ordinance. STAFF ANALYSIS: The parcels proposed to be rezoned have been grouped according to what the existing and proposed zoning classifications are, as described in the project description above. A map illustrating the groupings is provided on the next page. 1. "C-2" to "R-3" While a few of these parcels are developed with multiple family residential structures, the majority are developed with single family residences. The General Plan designated these properties as High Density Residential because the existing single family residential uses were viewed as "transitional." The parcels in this category located along Evans and Ford Streets are developed with older single family, structures, and are situated between commercial and industrial land uses. It was concluded in the General Plan process that because of the composition of surrounding land uses, it was more logical to transition these properties to high density residential rather than commercial. Moreover, it was concluded that the past single family residential nature of the area had already begun to decay, and the General Plan process was an opportune time to chart a transition into a more appropriate land use for the area. The one exception in this group is the parcel situated at the corner of Mason Street and - Norton Street. This parcel is developed with an autobody repair business, and would have commercially zoned property directly to both the south and north. Staff recommends that this parcel not be rezoned to "R-3," but rather retain its "C-2" zoning. 2. "C-1" to "R-3" These properties are currently developed with multiple family residential structures, and therefore, rezoning the parcels from a commercial to multiple family residential zoning classification is appropriate. 3. "C-2" to "R-I" These parcels are located along Clara Avenue and are developed with older single family homes, many of which are listed in the Archaeological & Historical Resources Inventory. Rezoning these parcels from commercial zoning to single family residential zoning classification is logical and appropriate, as was discussed in detail in the General Plan adoption process. 4. "C-1" to "R-I" This single parcel is located along western Clara Avenue, and developed with a single family residence. It is also situated adjacent to the "C-2" parcels being rezoned to "R-1 ," and is a logical addition to the single family residential zoning district in this area. 5. "R-3" to "C-l" The two groupings of parcels proposed to be rezoned from "R-3" to "C-1" are situated along the northern end of both Main and Mason Streets. The Main Street group includes a trailer park and three single family residences, and the parcels along Mason Street are developed with an auto repair facility and single family residences. The General Plan Steering Committee identified these two areas as logical future extensions of the commercial downtown. It is an area that could potentially provide an array of commercial services to the Wagenseller neighborhood. While it represents a conversion of residentially zoned properties to a commercial zoning district, it would diversify the neighborhood, and provide commercial services within walking distance from both single and multiple family residences. Given the overall conversion of 41 commercially zoned properties to residential zoning in this rezoning phase, this action seems reasonable and appropriate. Letters Received From Property Owners On June 19, 1996, staff received two letters from property owners affected by the Wagenseller Neighborhood rezoning project (attached). The substance of each letter is discussed and analyzed below: Gale & Irene Young (AP 002-123-09): This property is located at 143 Clara Avenue, and is developed with a single family residence that was constructed in 1885. Mr. and Mrs. Young are opposed to the proposed rezoning of this property from "C-2" to "R-l," because they believe that it would drastically reduce the value of the parcel. They have requested that it be rezoned to "R-3" so that additional residential units could be developed on the property. Staff Response: This 7,000 square foot lot is only fifty (50) feet wide, and most of the front portion of the property is developed a single family residence that is listed in the City of Ukiah Historic Resources Inventory. If the lot was rezoned to "R-3," additional units could potentially be developed, provided parking requirements could be satisfied. However, to divide the property and develop it with additional units, the residence would probably have to be removed to provide the required twenty (20) foot access width. Additionally, the lot is only fifty (50) feet wide, where sixty (60) feet are required for dividing lots within the "R-3" zoning district. In staffs opinion, the proposed "R-I" zoning classification is the most logical and appropriate, because it reflects the existing use of the property, and it contributes to the General Plan's intent of preserving the historic Wagenseller single family residential neighborhood. Donald & Donna Smith (AP 002-151-09): This property is located on the corner of Mason and Norton Streets. It is currently developed with an autobody shop, and similar commercial/light industrial land uses are adjacent to both the north and south. The property owners want the commercial zoning retained on the property to reflect and acknowledge the existing use. Staff Response: Staff is supportive of this request because of the existing and surrounding land uses, as well as the close proximity of the railroad tracks. Additionally, It is logical to retain the commercial zoning on this property, because it is situated along the Mason Street commercial corridor. CONCLUSIONS: The newly adopted City General Plan provides new Land Use Designations for a number of properties in the Wagenseller Neighborhood. The purpose of redesignating some properties is to acknowledge and protect important existing land uses, such as the historic homes along Clara Avenue. Additionally, some new Land Use Designations are intended to help facilitate the evolution of land uses that have either become out of context with their surroundings, or because of nearby changes in land use patterns, fulfill criteria for a different and much needed land use. For example, the single 4 family homes along Evans Street are now surrounded by commercial and industrial land uses, and because of their close proximity to a major transportation corridor, appear now to be better suited for potential future conversion to a high density residential land use. Based upon the direction established by the General Plan, as well as detailed field work and an analysis of the proposed rezonings, staff is able to conclude that all but one of the proposed zone changes are reasonable and appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Amending the City Zoning Map 2. Negative Declaration/Initial Study 3. Letter Received From Gale and Irene Young, Dated June 19, 1996. 4. Letter Received From Donald and Donna Smith, Dated June 19, 1996. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The following personnel prepared and reviewed this Planning Report, respectively: Bob Sawyer, MINUTES CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT John McCowen Cheryl Baker Eric Larson Judy Pruden Phillip Ashiku, Chairman OTHERS PRESENT None MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Robert Sawyer, Director of Planning Charles Stump, Senior Planner Melody Harris, Recording Secretary The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman, Phillip Ashiku, at 7:07 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- June 12, 1996 ON A MOTION BY Commissioner Pruden, seconded by Commissioner McCowen, it was carried by the following roll call vote to approve the Minutes of June 12, 1996 as amended: Commissioner McCowen requested the following language, as stated by him at the June 12 meeting but not included verbatim in the minutes, be added to provide specificity to Page 18 for the record: Paragraph 2 add sentence: "... Staff felt that it would be reconstruction under either criteria, while Commissioner McCowen felt it would be new construction under the proposed new definitions." Delete Paragraph 7. Between Paragraphs 5 and 6 add a new paragraph: "Commissioner Mc Cowen stated that he doesn't see any need to draw the process out; that he likes the new definitions but is concerned about the differing interpretations regarding new construction." MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 June 26, 1996 After Paragraph 8 add the following three paragraphs: "Commissioner McCowen asked if the Mc Donald's project would be considered reconstruction or new construction under the new definition." "Mr. Sawyer replied that it would be considered new construction." "Mr. DeKnoblough concurred in that assessment." Commissioner Baker requested the last sentence on Page 20 be corrected to read: "The Planning Commission encouraged Commissioner Larson to attend as a liaison for the Planning Commission..." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Baker, Larson, McCowen and Pruden; Chairman Ashiku. None None None COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None APPEAL PROCESS Chairman Ashiku read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date for appeal is July 8, 1996. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6A. Rezoning Application No. 96-24, as filed by the City Planning Department, to rezone 51 properties in the Wagenseller Neighborhood from the current C-1 (Light Commercial), C-2 (Highway Commercial/Light Industrial), and R-3 (General Multiple Family Residential) zoning districts to zoning classifications consistent with the Land Use Designations assigned in the newly adopted General Plan. Robert Sawyer, Director of Planning, introduced Senior Planner Charles Stump to provide the staff presentation. Charles Stump, Senior Planner, advised he would give the Staff presentation in two parts; the first part would be a project description of the Wagenseller Neighborhood Rezonings, the second part, which is crucial to the discussion regarding this rezoning, is the discussion held by Mr. Stump with MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 June 26, 1996 the City Attomey, David Rapport regarding potential conflicts of interest related to Planning Commissioners' ownership of property and taking actions on current and future rezoning projects. Mr. Stump introduced the proposed rezoning project as Phase II of the citywide rezonings resulting from the adoption of the General Plan. This project encompasses the Wagenseller Neighborhood, in which the General Plan designates the majority of the property as "residential" where it is currently zoned "commercial". Staff is suggesting that the properties be rezoned to reflect the new General Plan designation to residential zoning. There are some parcels that are currently residential, but the General Plan designates them as commercial. Staff is suggesting to rezone them in accordance with the General Plan. There are approximately 51 lots involved in this rezoning program and the General Plan designates these lots as either High Density Residential, Low Density Residential or Commercial. The suggested zoning districts are R-l, R-3 and C-1. Mr. Stump referenced the table in Exhibit A of his staff report that delineates existing and proposed zoning for each parcel that is affected. He summarized the project does include 22 parcels from C-2 to R-3, 3 parcels from C-1 to R-3, 15 parcels from C-2 to R-1, 1 parcel from C-1 to R-1, and 2 parcels from R-3 to C-1. Mr. Stump added there is one parcel included in the project, specifically 002-151-09 at the northwest comer of Mason and Norton Streets (where the auto body shop is located). The General Plan suggests rezoning this parcel to R-3, but staff is recommending not rezoning that particular parcel because of its existing use and anticipated future use. Staff recommends that Council direct them to amend the General Plan to designate that parcel as commercial so that it can remain commercially zoned. Mr. Stump advised that the Commission has two letters that were submitted with the staff report from property owners affected by these actions. A third letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. Ted Gessner on June 25 and was distributed to the Planning Commissioners prior to roll call. Mr. Stump noted he has also received numerous phone calls from property owners interested in what was happening, a few in opposition, but most from surrounding property owners who received notice but whose properties are not a part of the action. Staff is recommending, after the public hearing is conducted, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the negative declaration to City Council and ask for Council approval of the suggested rezonings, with the exception of parcel 002-151-09 on Mason and Norton Streets as previously discussed. Commissioner Pruden noted a correction to the Staff Report on Page 1, under Project Location. She stated the subject properties are located in the northeast portion of Ukiah, not the northwest portion. Mr. Stump requested to discuss his conversation with the City Attorney, prior to entering discussion regarding the rezoning project, about potential conflict of interest associated with the Commission's action at this meeting. He advised a lengthy discussion took place that revolved around the fact that two Commissioners own property in the target area and there has been concern as to whether or not MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 June 26, 1996 this would constitute a conflict of interest and what the options of the Planning Commissioners would be in this case. Mr. Rapport indicated to Mr. Stump after referring the applicable statutes that Planning Commissioners should recuse themselves if their property is affected, and should recuse themselves on any actions taken on properties that lie within 300 feet of their own. Mr. Rapport further indicated it would not be inappropriate to divide the action into two separate parts during this hearing, and Staff supports this suggestion. Mr. Stump distributed a map of the subject Wagenseller Neighborhood, Exhibit "B", which separates and delineates Areas #1 and #2, which will allow the Planning Commissioner's with potential conflict of interest to take an action on Area #1 and not participate in the discussion or action on Area #2. Those parcels included in Area #2 include the parcels owned by the Commissioner's and parcels that are within approximately 300 feet of their parcels. Mr. Rapport also indicated to Mr. Stump any properties within 2,500 feet is where the $10,000 rule comes in. That rules comes into play if an action taken could cause the value of the Planning Commissioner's property to increase or decrease by $10,000. Commissioner Larson noted that a 2,500 foot radius does not leave very much out. Mr. Stump stated it is difficult to ascertain. Mr. Rapport suggested an appraisal would provide the information needed to determine a $10,000 increase or decrease, but advised that it would be hard to obtain an accurate valuation because it could change depending upon the Appraiser used. It is not an easy thing to determine. The decision to act on properties within 2,500 feet is an individual one, it should be decided on some sort of factual basis. If you are challenged, the court will decide it on a factual basis. Commissioner Larson asked if an appraisal would provide the factual basis for the court to make a decision. Mr. Stump replied it would. He continued there was an additional question posed to staff by one Commissioner about soliciting the advice from other Planning Commissioners, as to whether it would be appropriate or helpful. The City Attorney indicated while it wouldn't hurt, it wouldn't help. Other Planning Commissioner's advice would be considered opinion and would not constitute factual evidence. Staff's suggestion, based on discussions with the City Attorney, is if a Planning Commissioner owns property within the target area, they should not participate on the action on their own property, or property within 300 feet. An individual decision will have to be made regarding property within 2,500 feet. Commissioner Pruden asked for a copy of the Resolution and Procedures and Conduct for the Planning Commission in order to clarify the voting procedure. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 June 26, 1996 Commissioner McCowen referred to Mr. Sawyer's Planning Director Report, indicating it was the opinion of the City Attorney that the determination as to the increase or decrease in value by $10,000 or more could only be determined by an appraisal. He asked for clarification, based on the information presented by Mr. Stump, if he was saying some other factual basis other than an appraisal could also be utilized, and that it is up to the individual Commissioner as to how he or she wants chooses to proceed. Mr. McCowen stated he does own property within 2,500 feet of this rezoning. Mr. Stump responded an appraisal would be the way to determine and provide the factual basis that he needs. He is not precluded from participating in the action, but would be participating at his own risk. Mr. McCowen stated to his own knowledge none of the Commissioners have obtained an appraisal, and at least four of them own land within 2,500 feet of some of these properties. He stated it could be a very short meeting. Mr. Stump stated if that is the case the best option might be to just advance the rezoning on to Council. Commissioner Larson stated the Council could potentially have the same problem. Mr. Stump concluded if that were the case they would have to consult further with the City Attorney. Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Stump if he discussed with the City Attorney whether the court gives any consideration to the outcome of the decision and its relationship to the intent of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law. Mr. Stump stated he did not have that conversation with the City Attorney. Commissioner Larson advised this discussion is important and necessary because they will be going deeper into the issue as the rezonings proceed. He further stated if a Planning Commissioner decided to down-zone a property and potentially take a loss of $10,000 or more, this would put him/her technically in violation of the law. But, the reason the law reads a devaluation or an increase in property value of $10,000 is intended to prevent a public official from voting against an action that would devalue their property. The intent of the law is to prevent a Commission from preventing the rezoning of property which would devalue their own property. But, the way the law reads, you are in just as much danger of devaluing your own property as you are for increasing its value. In regards to the 2,500 foot radius he stated the distance from North State Street to Orchard Avenue along Clara is 1,350 feet, so that rules out a quarter of the City for him, as well as the other Commissioners who are affected. If the Commission is to interpret that law in the most MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 June 26, 1996 conservative manner, which is probably the City Attomey's preference, we're in trouble and so is the Council. Chairman Ashiku advised weight needs to be given to the fact that if you are within 300 feet, you might be able to affect your own property value significantly. Whereas, if you are 2,500 feet from a rezone, there is equal number of people surrounding you that will benefit as well. He stated he is sure some consideration has been given to that in the spirit or intent of this law. You are not advancing your cause any more than any other citizen in that 2,500 foot radius. It is unlikely that your benefit is that significant. Within 300 feet, yes. Within a quarter of a mile or half mile, no. He expressed his personal opinion that you are relatively safe within the 2,500 feet. Mr. Sawyer agreed with Chairman Ashiku and stated another weighting factor is that this is a rezoning "program", city-wide, which is to create consistency with the General Plan adopted in December 1995. He stated he is not a lawyer and is not sure how much case law may or may not speak to that issue, versus site specific rezone, but in his opinion it makes a big difference from a practical standpoint. The Commission is just following through with an adopted policy document, as part of a broader city-wide rezoning program. Mr. Stump added the City Attomey indicated that challenges to this law are very rare. Those that the District Attorney or the Fair Labor Practices Commission decide to challenge are those cases where typically the city officials take action to increase their property values. Those are the ones that are typically prosecuted. Additionally, the City Attorney indicated that it is very rare, in the case of the 2,500 foot rule that anybody has challenged who is within the 2,500 feet because so many other citizens in the general public are affected in that general fashion, to echo what Chairman Ashiku said earlier. Mr. Stump stated he feels it would be extremely rare, or the odds are against, a challenge if you are within 2,500 feet, and certainly if you are beyond 300 feet. Commissioner Pruden stated the Commission does have specific instructions, as given on line 24, Section 18 of the Resolution setting forth Procedures for the Planning Commission. Under the heading of "Voting Procedure Disqualifications" it outlines the reasons for disqualification from voting and Commissioner Pruden advised the Commission should adhere to them. "...Any Commissioner who is disqualified from voting on a particular matter by reason of conflict of interest shall publicly state, or have the presiding officer state, the nature such disqualifications in an open meeting." The second reason is, "...when no clearly disqualifying conflict of interest appears, the matter of disqualification may at the request of the Commission affected, be decided by other Commissioners." Commissioner Pruden stated since they have two levels here they may have to have the other three Commissioners decide whether Commissioners Larson and Pruden should be disqualified from the entire process, or whether they can proceed on with the second process. She further quoted the Resolution stating, "A Commissioner stating such disqualification shall not be counted as part of the quorum and shall be considered absent for the purpose of determining the outcome of any vote on such matter. She asked to hear from the other Commissioners to make a determination on their course of action. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 June 26, 1996 Commissioner MeCowen inquired if Commissioner Pruden's second point stated "shall" or "may". Commissioner Larson replied "may". Commissioner Pruden reread the resolution, "may, at the request of the other Commissioners affected, be decided..." She continued stating the other Commissioners could ask Commissioners Larson and Pruden to step down. Commissioner Larson stated the reason the resolution is written the way it is that were a Commissioner to refuse to step down and the other Commissioners felt there was a clear conflict of interest, they could recuse that Commissioner, in spite of his unwillingness to do so himself. Commissioner McCowen stated he thinks the course of action proposed by staff makes sense and that it is prudent for the affected Commissioners to recuse themselves with regard to properties that are within 300 feet of their own. Beyond that, the potential conflict of interest gets somewhat nebulous. This is an issue that is going to come up for him in the furore. He is affected by the 2,500 feet with regard to the subject properties and that will be true in future rezonings as well. He stated it is difficult to see how this is going to materially affect the value of his property, which is on the other side of State Street. He also agreed with CommissionerLarson' s statements that ~t' would only be appropriate for the Commission to make the decision for a particular Commissioner if they have some strong feeling there was a strong conflict. Commissioner Pruden interjected they could still make a decision on what they perceive is the ethical or moral route, if it is not real clear that the conflict is apparent. Commissioner McCowen continued it provides for a lot of gray area, and while it is a worthy goal to try and define conflict of interest and what constitutes it, they haven't quite come up with the perfect system yet. Mr. Sawyer stated especially for a City of four square miles. Commissioner Baker stated, considering the nature of the property she owns and its proximity, the nature of these recommendations, and based on her knowledge of appraisals and values in the City and the surrounding area, she is not at all uncomfortable with continuing to participate and going forward with these recommendations. Commissioner Pruden requested that the Planning Commission hear the 100 block of Clara Avenue last, to allow Commissioners Larson and Pruden to participate as private citizens, since there is no one in the audience waiting to be heard. Mr. Sawyer added that is staff's suggestion as well. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 June 26, 1996 Chairman Ashiku asked for clarification of procedure, stating he has noted in the past when conflict of interest presented itself for a Commissioner, that the Commissioner was actually asked to leave the room. He asked if that procedure was still required. Mr. Sawyer stated the Commissioners do not have to leave the room and can still participate as private citizens. Commissioner Pruden stated City Attorney, David Rapport, had indicated to her they could still participate as private citizens on this action. Mr. Sawyer advised it is very important that the affected Commissioners leave the platform as a Commissioner and become a citizen seated in the audience during the proceeding. Commissioner Larson asked for clarification regarding the conflict of interest criteria as to whether it applies to an increase or decrease in individual property owners property, or if it also includes a city-wide action that might affect property values, such as the rezoning program. He indicated his understanding of the conflict of interest rule was if an action affected his property value alone, and not adjacent properties. But if it affected other properties equally, it did not constitute a conflict of interest. Mr. Stump clarified that the City Attorney indicated once you are dealing with a lot of properties it is rare that anything is ever challenged, because of this type of gray area. There is a certain percentage of properties, that if they are benefitted equally, it likely could not be proven in court that there was a conflict of interest. Commissioner Larson stated that is essentially what is taking place here, by rezoning these neighborhoods in blocks. Mr. Stump stated that is true to a certain degree, but there is still no hard and fast rule. Commissioner Larson stated he is not trying to push his own interests on this subject, as much as he is trying to clarify the issue, due to the fact that the problem will arise continuously throughout the rezoning program. Mr. Stump stated staff will continue try to clarify the issue as it comes up. Commissioner Larson commented it may help to contact an Appraiser to understand some of the dynamics of what they are talking about and to understand how to evaluate their individual positions more clearly. He also suggested finding out how other communities deal with this issue. Commissioner Larson inquired if the blocks outlined in Exhibit "B" of the Staff Report indicated the 300 foot radius. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 June 26, 1996 Mr. Stump stated the two areas indicated by boxes labeled "#1", identify the properties Staff suggests be considered as Action Item 1, and do represent a 300 foot radius. Commissioner Larson stated he has an interest in commenting on some of the properties outlined as Area 1 and did not become a Planning Commissioner to participate as a citizen. He stated he is not comfortable with this entire process, though he wants to adhere to the applicable laws. Commissioner MeCowen asked to what extent the 300 feet radius considered to be a hard and fast rule and if it is something that people are clear on, that prudence would dictate that a Commissioner recuse themselves. Mr. Stump stated the City Attorney strongly advised that the affected Commissioners recuse themselves. Commissioner Pruden added that is the legal noticing radius. Commissioner McCowen asked Commissioners Pruden and Larson if they were comfortable in abiding by the proposed map delineating Areas 1 and 2 as prepared by Staff. Chairman Ashiku said the Commission needs to decide at this point who this rezoning affects and how the Commission wants to proceed. Commissioner Pruden stated she would prefer to vote on the Clara Street project, of which her rental property is located right in the middle. However, she will abide by any decision, if the other three Commissioners ask Commissioners Pruden and Larson to step down, and is willing to function from the floor as a citizen. She stated she is also in the 2,500 foot category, but she concurs with the other Commissioners that it is very indirect. Commissioner Larson agreed that there is a potential liability involved in this and he is tempted to challenge it, even though he can't afford the legal fees to support it. He stated if someone wanted to take him to court over this he would be interested in seeing a judge tell him the State law was intended to come down on him for trying to be a good Planning Commissioner and down some of his property for the benefit of the community. Commissioner Larson requested a vote of the Commission to recuse him, stating he would not hold it against the Commission to do so. Chairman Ashiku stated for both the integrity and public perception of the Planning Commission he feels it is only appropriate that Commissioners Pruden and Larson recuse themselves from the vote on Area 2. He stated he would not feel comfortable allowing them, in good conscience, to subject themselves to the liability. Chairman Ashiku stated he knows that each Commissioner has only the noblest of intentions, but there are citizens who are opposed to this rezoning and they could easily become sour grapes and file a complaint with an agency to pursue the Commissioners. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 June 26, 1996 Commissioner Baker stated it is more critical than that. This is the second in many phases of rezoning. If a citizen becomes annoyed with Commissioners Larson or Pruden on one of their decisions at a later date and were to go back to look at the records, they could potentially use this issue to try to get to them. Discussion followed regarding the use of, and payment for, appraisals for the purpose of determining whether a rezoning affects a Commissioner's property. Commissioner MeCowen concurred with Chairman Ashiku and Commissioner Baker stating the liability to Commissioners Pruden and Larson is only part of the equation. The other part is the public perception and how this could cause the Commission to look. It opens them up to have their credibility completely undermined. Commissioner McCowen stated he will have to recuse himself in future rezoning actions and asked Commissioners Pruden and Larson to do the same. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7:50 P.M. - Area 1 (as designated on Exhibit "B") PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:50 P.M.- Area 1 Commissioner Larson stated it was his recollection from the Steering Committee meetings he attended that as a general rule properties along State Street one lot in were all considered part of the commercial corridor. He referenced Parcel 25 on Evans Street, consisting of a small residence, that was not included in the outline for rezoning to R-3. He asked staff what the current zoning for that property is and why it was not included in this rezoning program. Mr. Stump advised the General Plan designates that particular parcel as Commercial. Commissioner Larson asked if that was an exception to the rule for properties one lot in from State Street. Mr. Stump stated that appears to be the case. Commissioner McCowen added there is a possibility that it is the same ownership as the commercial parcel in front and was purchased specifically to provide parking. Commissioner Larson stated there was a lot split. He recalled previous discussion about this particular lot and asked Commissioner Pruden for her recollection since she participated in the discussion, asking if it ended up as Commercial. Commissioner Pruden stated they kept the lot together with the same property owner. It does have a C-1 zoning designation, but it doesn't make the house legally non-conforming. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 June 26, 1996 Commissioner McCowen added it also squares up that lot with the lot to the north of it, so that the commercial properties have the same zoning. Commissioner Larson asked for clarification of the zoning for properties surrounding the designated lots to the east and the west on Evans Street. Mr. Stump noted the lots to the west are zoned C-1 and the two long thin parcels to the east, consisting of parcels 23 and 24, are currently zoned C-2 and designated as Industrial in the General Plan, which is consistent. C-2 Zoning is highway commercial/light industrial. Commissioner Larson inquired about the current zoning on the parcels surrounding the lots designated for rezoning to C-1 which are bounded by Norton, Main and Mason Streets. He asked what the adjacent land use designations are in this area and if there was any mixed use involved. Robert Sawyer, Director of Planning stated we are trying to implement the General Plan. This program does not include adjacent parcels that are properly zoned and are currently consistent with the General Plan, though that is not to say that a future action might not look at those parcels for a rezoning effort. It is not germane to this discussion what the adjacent parcels are outside those that are currently inconsistent with the General Plan that need to be rezoned to become consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Larson stated he is just trying to put this into context. Mr. Stump advised that discussion probably occurred at the General Plan stage. Commissioner Pruden stated the commercial land use is a very broad category. Commissioner Baker very effectively argued for it, and yet we haven't fully written the definitions. Commercial essentially allows, as we perceived it, all use. Particularly in attempting to get the mixed use. That is why so much of the town has this commercial designation, not to in fact change it to "commercial", but to allow for a mixed use. That is Commissioner Baker's vision. There were numerous hours of discussion on that. As we begin to close those definitions for commercial land use, mixed use will be strongly emphasized. That was the intent behind it. The nice thing about C-1 is that it allows for so many kinds of uses. It is very flexible. Commissioner Larson added it includes higher density residential uses. Commissioner Pruden replied that is only by Use Permit. She further stated it is a good category for this particular area, which has the potential of increasing the value of that property. That is dead center to some major slum areas, not to mention some serious crime and safety problems that her neighborhood association is aware of, particularly on the west parcel along Main Street. Hopefully the C-1 zoning will make that property more valuable and a higher degree of housing stock will replace the current substandard housing. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 June 26, 1996 Commissioner Larson asked in regards to zoning a property C-1 that is designated in the General Plan Land Use Designation as high-density residential, if it satisfies the demand of the Plan to zone it C-I, which allows those uses, or if it's zoning has to more closely reflect the use. Mr. Sawyer stated they would not be rezoning a parcel C-1 if it was shown for high density residential in the General Plan. Commissioner Larson noted there was no C-2 zoning indicated in the lower block labeled #1 in Exhibit "B", but clarified for purposes of example if there were a C-2 designation there, and it was designated as a high density residential area, if you were to rezone that parcel from C-2 to C-I, thereby allowing high density residential use, that doesn't qualify, you would go straight to an R-2 or R-3. Mr. Sawyer concurred. Commissioner Baker inquired if R-3 was the highest residential rating. Mr. Sawyer replied it was. Commissioner Baker advised it would be helpful, while considering these rezoning programs, to have the zoning definitions made available to them. She also commented it was her understanding the zoning ordinances were going to be revised prior to changing the zoning designations. Mr. Stump stated that will be another phase of the General Plan implementation process. Commissioner Baker inquired why we would go back and change the zoning definitions after they apply the General Plan designations. Mr. Sawyer stated it would be a nightmare to try and change the tone and tenure and purpose of zones, in addition to or in concert with this rezoning program, to create consistency with the General Plan. Mr. Stump added in the meantime we have current zoning that is inconsistent with the General Plan and we have to deal with that on a daily basis. We are required by state law to expeditiously and immediately rezone these properties to be consistent with the General Plan. It is not out of the realm at all when we come back through with revising the text that there may be a couple of parcels that will need to be rezoned again. It won't happen on a broad scale though. Commissioner Baker asked when it is anticipated the zoning ordinances will be changed. Mr. Stump said it depends on how long it takes to rezone the parcels. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 June 26, 1996 Mr. Sawyer added the Planning Staff has been keeping notes along the way, having nothing to do with the General Plan, but with their observation of deficiencies of existing zoning ordinances. Some of them are antiquated, some don't work, some of them are misplaced. Staff has a lot of ideas of how the zoning ordinances should be changed and some ideas for new ones in certain areas. However, that is an altogether different and much larger program than the rezoning program we are currently involved in. To do both at the same time would be a nightmare. Mr. Stump added before the General Plan was adopted, he was doing some text revision work on the zoning ordinances, which included things he thought would probably result from the General Plan, once adopted. He stated he has a lot of information compiled, so when it becomes time to work on the revisions, it shouldn't be a tremendous amount of new work. A lot of the revision work has been in preliminary draft form for some time. Commissioner Baker again asked why they don't make the revisions first instead of going back and rezoning twice, asking the Planning Commission to apply zoning to a parcel for which we don't know what it will be zoned tomorrow. Mr. Sawyer replied it will be similar in nature because State law requires that the zoning be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Stump qualified his earlier statement that revising the ordinances wouldn't be that much work, stating he probably made it sound easier than he should have. Revising text, definitions in zoning, purpose of zoning districts, and inventing new districts could be a very difficult task. Commissioner Larson asked if it is staff's desire to get the rezoning done and in conformance with the General Plan, then start to look at the zoning ordinances more philosophically. Mr. Sawyer asked for clarification of Commissioner Larson's use of the word "philosophically". Commissioner Larson stated he is asking questions about the context of this zoning and what it means in terms of a particular area or neighborhood, in a philosophical sense, of what the vision is for that neighborhood. What we're doing here is getting the properties that are in direct conflict with the intent of the General Plan into a zoning which will bring us into conformance. He asked if that is the main mission, as opposed to bogging down the process. Mr. Sawyer stated as a part of this process we do not want to re-write the General Plan and, in affect, we might be doing that if we embarked on the zoning code amendments first. Commissioner Pruden clarified that they are referring to the Land Development code that was identified through the General Plan so consistently as part of this documentation process. Mr. Sawyer concurred. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 June 26, 1996 Commissioner MeCowen inquired if the General Plan just broadly designates properties as either commercial or residential, rather than specifying R-1, R-2, R-3. Commissioner Baker stated it designates land use. Mr. Sawyer added it specifies density ranges within the residential classification, but within commercial it does not distinguish between different types of commercial properties. Commissioner MeCowen continued with regard to the properties on Evans Street and asked if those properties were specifically identified in the General Plan as R-3. Mr. Sawyer stated that was correct. Mr. Stump clarified it as high-density residential. Mr. Sawyer referred to the large zoning map and indicated to the Commissioners where the various zones appeared as specified by the General Plan. Commissioner MeCowen stated his point, with regard to Evans Street, was that he sees it as a dead- end street with a somewhat hazardous egress and it seems more appropriate that it be designated R-2. He had an earlier conversation with Mr. Sawyer in which he cautioned against picking these designations apart at this level and felt it would be more appropriate, as projects come forward, to have them mitigated or conditioned at that time. Commissioner Mc Cowen stated the more he thought about it he considered every other left mm from every other public street or driveway along North State Street and realized they are all hazardous. Commissioner Larson stated those hazards can be mitigated more readily depending upon the type of use the land is designated. Heavy industrial use on a property that would exit a street like Evans is a pretty insane notion. He stated he understands Commissioner McCowen's concern with the option being to push it all onto Ford Street. But, we do have to conform to the General Plan and go back later to look at it. In the meantime, whoever owns that industrial property is going to have a rude awakening when they have to provide an access that isn't going to impact. We' re falling down in our responsibility, in that respect, but he understands the need to move forward. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pruden, Seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carried by an ALL AYE vote to recommend approval to the City Council of the Negative Declaration for General Plan Rezoning Phase II, as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Baker, Larson, McCowen, Pruden and Chairman Ashiku. None None None MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 June 26, 1996 ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pruden, Seconded by Commissioner Baker, it was carried by an ALL AYE vote to recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Rezoning Phase II, Area 1 (as delineated in Exhibit "B"), as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Baker, Larson, McCowen, Pruden and Chairman Ashiku. None None None Commissioner Pruden advised she feels she has a potential conflict of interest for the Clara Street rezoning phase. She is a property owner at 125 Clara. She owns an apartment house and a small second house on a parcel within that district. She is currently legally non-conforming at C-2 and will remain legally non-conforming if R-1 is approved. Commissioner Pruden stated she does not feel it is appropriate that she sit on the Commission at this point and will step down at the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Larson stated his belief that the perception exists that there is a conflict of interest in his hearing the following rezoning issue, due to the fact that he is married to someone who owns property at 123 Clara Avenue, which could represent a possible conflict of interest. He therefore recused himself from this hearing. Chairman Ashiku stated for the record he does not believe that either of these Commissioners would benefit financially from this decision and that they have only the noblest of intentions. He further stated he appreciated their efforts. RECESS: RECONVENE: 8:10 P.M. 8:20 P.M. Commissioners Pruden and Larson recused themselves as Planning Commissioners and took their seats as citizens in the audience. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ON REZONING, PHASE II, AREA 2:8:22 pm Judy Pruden, 304 S. Hortense stated she is here as private citizen. In terms of the rezoning of the 100 block of Clara, in particular, she is strongly in favor of it going to R-1. Not only is this block the most intact Victorian block in town, it does have some exceptional examples. There is very little breach of the structural and architectural integrity of the neighborhood, it really is wonderful. Eric Larson is going to talk about some of the turnarounds within the neighborhood. In regards to the letter from the property owners at 143 Clara, the one advantage of being a private citizen is she can be a little more candid than she would as a Commissioner. She stated she has looked at this particular property several times to buy it. She has been prohibited for the last few MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 15 June 26, 1996 years from buying it because of her public function, adding she is not allowed to buy property in the Redevelopment Area according to City Attorney, David Rapport. The owners have attempted to sell the property several times. It is run down to a certain degree, depending on what tenants are occupying it. It has absentee ownership. The second unit that they allude to, in fact, is a converted shed of such sub-standard conditions that had she been able to buy this property she would have had tom down, and she is not one to give up a second meter box. It is currently zoned C-2 and the unit has been off-lined for more than a year-and-a-half. It is no longer eligible, under this current zoning, to be set up as a second residential unit. In fact, it's prohibited under C-2 zoning. In the owner's discussing the loss of a second unit, the fact is they can not do anything with that unit as a residential unit. The structure is atrocious; it is a converted shed in horrible condition. Under R-1, if someone was living in it, it could not go back to being a duplex under either category. It can't function as it currently stands, as two units. It is essential that this property be included, it is on the inventory. It is identified as a potential district, including 143 Clara, and can not be excluded or given this R-3 zoning. This is a 7,500 square foot lot with a historical house on it. The owners, to be frank, are slumlords and, had they been more sensitive to the neighborhood, their property probably would have sold at the high price of $139,000 they were asking. Ms. Pruden asked the Commission to support, as recommended, the R-1 designation, which is appropriate for this wonderful neighborhood. The second item addressed by Ms. Pruden was the Smith letter, which was filed for the comer of Mason and Norton. She asked for clarification from Staff, with the Chairman's permission, if the property was currently zoned C-2 and if it could potentially be zoned as C-1. Mr. Stump confirmed the lot is currently zoned C-2 and stated it could potentially be zoned C-1. Ms. Pruden stated it seems that it would be more than desirous to take a C-1, which is a better commercial classification that doesn't affect their business. They may have to go to a Use Permit if they were to change that. That parcel should be C-1 where the auto body shop is on the comer, which is an excellent classification. Most people are desirous to have that when they have commercial property due to the flexibility of what's considered the top of the line for commercial zoning. She recommended the Commission zone the comer where the auto body shop is C-1. Eric Larson, 123 Clara, stated he lives at one of the properties in question here. He moved to this property approximately 12 years ago and has participated in it's ownership for over 10 years. As a resident of this neighborhood and as a participant in the restoration of his own home and witness to the restoration of a number of other buildings along this block, he has a real sense of a significant change in this neighborhood. He stated he was surprised when he decided to pursue purchasing the property to learn it was zoned a heavy commercial/highway commercial type zoning. It made no sense whatsoever. To his knowledge, as long as the property has been zoned C-2 it has never had any use or any application for use that would directly reflect the zoning that exists. He believes it was zoned as C-2 back in the 1970's. There has been ample opportunity to develop it as such for the property and/or it's value to reflect that zoning. It is a completely inappropriate zoning for the area, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 16 June 26, 1996 and in particular this block, which has its architecture essentially intact from when it was first developed 100 years ago. There are only a couple of structures that were not built prior to the turn of the century. Once of them is in the middle of the block, but it's a craftsman built back in the 40's, so it fits in nicely. It doesn't seriously compromise the architectural or historical integrity. The two lots to the far west end wouldn't be considered historical or historically accurate looking properties, but could be very easily facaded to conform to that architectural theme that exists. It is the only segment of land left in the entire City of Ukiah that has this kind of architectural integrity intact. In virtually every other area of the City where you find historical homes the architecture has been compromised by higher density development or modem architecture. There is an opportunity to save this block as intact. Most of the owners and occupants of the residences along there are interested in doing that, all the way to the point of street stripes, etc. There is an identity as the Wagenseller Neighborhood that exists, and it is tree it is a residential neighborhood. There are uses that extend beyond pure residential and the strictest sense of R-1 zoning, but those uses could be accommodated to even the kind of flexible zoning, or overlay zoning, that staff would like to pursue in the future. Mr. Larson stated he doesn't think this is the final stop in zoning for this property, but it is a good start to preserve what's there and keep it intact to allow us to continue to restore it in good faith, knowing that we will not only preserve our individual houses but the neighborhood and the context in which they have existed for 100 years. Mr. Larson noted his house was a mess when he bought it and the house next door, which is now owned by Ms. Pmden, was full of drag dealers. Another house down and across the street had a very high level of drug activity, as well as the house across the street. There were three major drag dealing operations in that block less than 10 years ago. Today there are none; they now have a Neighborhood Watch Program. The closest to C-2 zoning activity you got in that neighborhood was drag dealing. The neighborhood has changed for the better, it's on its way up in terms of being a nice place to live. We have an active neighborhood organization, an active Neighborhood Watch program, as well as traffic management - which is our single biggest impact in the area. The Commission was sent a newsletter from this committee. The first step in preserving what we feel is a valid historical neighborhood is to zone it R-1, which he feels is highly appropriate. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - Area 2: 8:31 P.M. Commissioner Baker stated the Staff report does not include the description of the property on the comer of Norton and Mason. It is indicated in Exhibit "B", but it is excluded in the documentation provided in the Staff report. Mr. Stump clarified the Staff Report discusses the property in the text. Commissioner Baker added that it is neither listed or highlighted in the map, and it is not listed in the Exhibit listing the parcels. Mr. Stump stated they are only suggesting that no action be taken on that parcel. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 17 June 26, 1996 Commissioner Baker replied that is a good recommendation since it is not included in the public record. She recommended to the Planning Commission that they take no action on the auto body shop located on the comer of Mason and Norton, which we have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Smith on. Commissioner MeCowen stated that is what is being recommended. Apparently, according to the General Plan consistency, it would have been rezoned presumably R-3, and the owners said they are happy with the commercial designation, and staff felt that was appropriate for the reasons discussed. Therefore, they deleted it from the proposed zoning changes. So, if we approve the recommended action we are, in fact, leaving that property alone and it would remain as it is. Commissioner Baker stated she understands that, but her issue is that the Planning Commission not consider it one way or the other since it is not listed in the key items as a property we would take an action on. Mr. Stump expressed his disagreement stating it is listed in the Staff Report and there is complete discussion on it. It is listed in the public notice as a parcel that the Commission would be considering, it was legally noticed in the paper, so we can decide to rezone it as C-2 if you wish, but our recommendation is not to make a change in the zoning of that property. Commissioner Baker stated for the record that Staff Report, Exhibits A & B, do not include this parcel as part of this rezoning Phase II program, even though the Staff Report mentions the property and there are letters referencing it. Commissioner MeCowen stated the Commission is apparently in agreement that the parcel should remain commercial. Commissioner Baker responded she is not saying that, she is saying the Commission should not discuss it. Commissioner McCowen said they could discuss it if they chose, and as Staff has indicated they could choose to zone it R-3, if we felt that were appropriate. He stated he tends to agree with the property owners and Staff that it seems to be more consistent with the uses in the area to leave it Commercial. What we don't need to get into is whether we think it should be C-2 or C-1. Chairman Ashiku concurred with Commissioner McCowen and requested that the record reflect that this parcel is identified in the Staff Report and in Exhibits "A" and "B". Commissioner Baker stated it is not. Mr. Stump clarified it is identified in Exhibit "A" and "B" to the ordinance that staff suggests the Planning Commission recommend to the Council, because Staff is suggesting if the Commission MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 18 June 26, 1996 follows their recommendation this ordinance would reflect that it is not a part of the action that the Council would move on. However, it is identified and discussed in the Staff Report and, again, it was noticed to the public for discussion tonight. ON A MOTION by Commissioner McCowen, Seconded by Commissioner Baker, it was carried by the following roll call vote to recommend adoption of the ordinance for the General Plan Rezoning Program, Phase II, Area 2, as delineated in Exhibits "A" and "B": AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Baker, McCowen, and Chairman Ashiku None Commissioners Larson and Pruden None Commissioners Larson and Pruden rejoined the Planning Commission on the platform after the vote was taken. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORTS Mr. Sawyer referenced his written reports and added Staff has bolstered the Conditions of Approval implementation program. Associate Planner Dave Lohse spearheaded that effort and did a good job. He stated they have a fairly iron clad system set up now, whereas before they didn't. They will be taking forward at the next City Council meeting the Landscape/Streetscape Design Guidelines, which are called for in the General Plan. These were approved by the past Planning Commission but were put on hold pending the adoption of the General Plan. Mr. Stump went through page by page to be sure it was still consistent with the General Plan, which it was, therefore it is ready to move forward to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Pruden received information from the California Preservation Foundation. She attended their workshop in Sacramento on the Mills and CEQA Act. They are offering a seminar in Berkeley called "The Preservation of the Planning Commissioner, A Short Course" for $55.00/person. Commissioner Pruden said these workshops are above average and they give a lot of useful information. Those interested should contact Judy Pruden. Commissioner Pruden further stated her term of office is up at the end of June. She indicated she has requested reappointment. It is her understanding that the City Council will not be appointing at the July 3 meeting, they are waiting to see if any other applicants come forward. Mr. Sawyer stated the matter will be heard at the July 17 City Council meeting. Commissioner McCowen asked if Commissioner Pruden would be able to serve in the interim. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 19 June 26, 1996 Mr. Sawyer confirmed that she would be able to serve in the interim, according to the City Attorney. Commissioner McCowen stated he would find it helpful in these rezoning proceedings to know what the zoning is for properties adjacent to those being considered in the rezoning program, as they could have some bearing on whether the proposed zoning is appropriate. Mr. Sawyer stated Staff would be happy to provide that information in the future. Commissioner Baker added she would like to be supplied the text for the zoning ordinances, as she was not able to locate her copy. Mr. Sawyer noted he will provide a synopsis in their Staff Report so the Commissioners do not have to go back and read the ordinances each time. Commissioner Pruden inquired about upcoming agenda items. Mr. Sawyer stated the current planning projects have been rather slow lately, which is fortuitous because it has given Staff more time to work on the rezoning program and revising the zoning ordinance. Chairman Ashiku stated he submitted to the Planning Commission a letter for their future consideration regarding the height ordinance. He asked them to take it home and read it. Commissioner McCowen asked if the appeal period had passed without challenge on the height variance granted by the Commission two weeks ago. Mr. Sawyer responded it had and noted the Applicant has chosen not to appeal the denial of the garage variance and has instead opted to redesign the garage to be consistent with the zone. He has been working with Dave Lohse on the redesign. He only needs to lose two feet one way or another, which Mr. Sawyer feels he'll be successful on. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman Ashiku at 8:45 p.m. Phillip Ashiku, Chairman Melody Harris, Recording Secretary 2:\m62696.pc MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 20 June 26, 1996 City of Ukiah Planning Commission 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, Ca. 95482 420 Zinfandel Drive  kiah,.Ca. A95482 une i/, RECEIVED JUN 1 9 1996 Attn: Senior Planner Charley Stump (ITYOFUKIAH PLANNING DEPT. In re: Proposed Rezoning of Northern Wagonseller Neighborhood Dear Mr. Stump: We own the property located at 143 Clara Avenue, Ukiah, designated at Parcel 9 on the enclosed General Plan Rezoning Phase #2 Map. We are concerned about the proposed rezoning of this property from C2 to Ri. We feel this will drastica~yreduce the potential selling value of the property which has rear alley access~ and could be used as commercial. The property next to ours on the east is a business, a Woodworking Shop, and the property across the alley to the south is zoned R-3. We request that our property be rezoned to R-3 rather than R-1 so that it can be used for multiple units, rather than restricted to single family residence, and act as a buffer zone between the C2 alongside and residences to the west. We trust you will give serious consideration'to our request. Unfortunately we will be out of town on June 26, the date of the hearing. Thank you, _ ~ 'CALE E2 YOUNG IRENE B. YOUNG~'' ~' MR. DONALD A. SMITH MRS. DONNA L. SMITH P.O. BOX 1405 UKIAH, CA. 95482 JUNE 19, 1996 MR. CHARLES STUMP SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF UKIAH 300 SEMINARY AVE. UKIHA, CA. 95482 RE: GENERAL PLAN REZONING PHASE ~2 PARCEL ~ 002-151-09 STREET ADDRES~ 310,336 & 338 MASON ST. RECEIVED JUN 1 9 1996 CIIY OF UKIAH PLANNING DEPT. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN COMMERCIAL EVER SINCE THERE HAS BEEN A STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. THE BODY SHOP WAS BUILT IN ]975 AND HAS CONTINUOUSLY OPERATED COMMERCIALLY AS A BODY SHOP TO THIS DATE. THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS TO CONSIDER IN THE REZONING. FIRST MASON STREET FACES THE RAILROAD WITH THE NOISE AND DIRT THAT GO WITH IT. SECOND THE PROPERTIES NORTH AND SOUTH OF OUR PROPERTY ON MASON ST, ARE ZONED OR PLAN TO BE REZONED COMMERCIAL. IT WOULD BE LOGICAL FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LIKE PROPERTY. IT IS OUR WISH, AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT THIS PARCEL REMAIN ZONED COMMERCIAL. YOURS TRULY, MRS. DONNA L. SMITH ../ RECE~VE-D J UN-2-~ 1996 Q'n'-OFUKI~H PLANNING_DE~__ ITEM NO. 8a DATE: JULY 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPT REPORT OF ALTERNATIVE LEACHATE CONTAINMENT SYSTEM FOR THE UKIAH LANDFILL, PREPARED BY BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO SUBMIT REPORT TO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION Pursuant to Waste Discharge Requirements for the Ukiah Landfill, Order No. 94-123, issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on October 27, 1994, the City is required to discharge leachate into lined ponds equipped with primary and secondary containment features or into above-ground storage tanks. Currently, the primary and secondary leachate ponds are unlined and it is suspected that leachate is leaking through the underlying soil and maybe contributing to the VOC impact to on-site groundwaters at the north toe of the landfill. Construction of the required containment system must be completed in 1996. On September 21, 1995, the City entered into a Consultant Service Agreement with Dames and Moore for the production of a Feasibility Report for the lining of the leachate ponds, pumping collected leachate directly to the public sewer in Vichy Springs Road, the extraction of leachate from portions of the landfill mass and other work items related to groundwater monitoring and VOC remediation. The Report was completed in January and presented to the City Council on January 17, 1996, for adoption. The Report recommended a single synthetic liner without leak detection under the "Small Pond Option," given the short remaining life of the landfill under current wastestream loading (October 1999). The report was adopted and delivered to the RWQCB under a proposed "Corrective Action Plan for VOC Remediation to On-Site Groundwaters" on January 19, 1996. RWQCB staff submitted their written response to the City's proposed plan on April 9, 1996. Board staff denied the City's proposal that a single liner be utilized for the leachate pond. Subsequent to the rejection of the City's proposed liner system, the City hired Boyle Engineering Corporation to perform an "Alternative Leachate Containment System Study." This Report has been completed and will be presented to the City Council at their meeting of July 17, 1996 for adoption. As of this writing, the copies of the Final Report are not available. The Director will strive to complete a summary report of the findings for Council's review prior to its meeting on July 17, 1996. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Adopt Report and authorize the Director of Public Works to submit Report to RWQCB, North Coast Region, for consideration. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Not adopt Plan and refer matter back to Staff. Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Requested by: Prepared by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None Candace Horsley, City Manager R: I \LANDFILL:lek ABOYLE MEMORANDUM DATE: July 13, 1996 TO: FROM: Ukiah City Council Rick Kennedy, PWD/CE SUBJECT: Summary Report to Agenda Report for Item 8c, "Adopt Report of Alternative Leachate Containment System for Ukiah Landfill." Submitted with this memorandum is the subject report prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation. This report is being submitted to your Council for adoption and subsequent submittal to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for their approval. The report evaluates an alternative to a double liner system with leak detection for the primary leachate pond at the City's Landfill. The alternative system consists of a steel bolted tank placed on a steel grade ring and compacted fill, sedimentation manhole, pump station with well, return leachate line from an emergency overflow pond, and a pump system to pump leachate directly to the public sewer in Vichy Springs Road. These system components are shown in plan view on figure 2 of the report. This alternative containment system will be connected to a force main and gravity main as was presented previously in the Dames and Moore Feasibility Study. The existing primary and secondary ponds will be reconstructed as depicted in figure 3 of the report. The enlarged and reconfigured primary leachate pond will function as an emergency overflow containment pond, should the storage system be overloaded during and after intense rainfall events. Overload conditions would occur at the collection/sedimentation sump at flows exceeding approximately 50 gallons per minute of leachate. As indicated on page 26 under paragraph 17, the containment system excluding the overflow pond is sized to contain a 4.24 in/day rainfall event. The containment system including the overflow pond can easily handle a 24 hr/100 year storm event. It is proposed that the reconfigured emergency overflow pond remain unlined. In discussions with Regional Board Staff, this concept is acceptable if long periods of contact between leachate and the unlined pond are avoided. As shown in the profile on figure 1 of the report, the system includes a 6" pond drain return line to the pump station wet well. This feature will allow draining the overflow pond of leachate and direct rainfall once the containment system catches up after an intense rainfall event. The City is currently allowed to discharge up to 20,000 gallons per day into the sewer collection system (reference Kennedy/Jenks Report). This daily flow represents 1% of the current dry weather flow capacity of the Sewer Treatment Facility, which is 2.2 million gallons per day. As relayed to your Council during the presentation of the Dames and Moore Report, it will be necessary to obtain permits from the Sanitation District and Regional Water Quality Control Board to make a direct connection to the Sanitary Sewer in Vichy Springs Road. Staff proposes to discharge the daily limit of 20,000 gallons during the off-peak hours and will seek approval to discharge quantities of leachate exceeding 20,000 gallons during extreme rainfall events to ensure the limited contact of rainfall diluted leachate with the unlined pond. The proposed location of the tank and pad and the reconfiguration of the existing primary and secondary leachate ponds into one overflow pond will permit the enlargement of the existing sedimentation pond located west of the secondary leachate pond. Approximately one-half of the existing secondary pond will be utilized for this expansion. Boyle Engineering is recommending that the proposed 2" leachate force main and gravity main, as proposed by Dames and Moore, be enlarged to 4" in diameter. The rational for the recommended pipe enlargement is provided on pages 22 and 23 of the report. The additional cost for this enlargement is estimated at less than $1.00, per foot or approximately $5,300. As indicated in table 8 on page 27 of the report, the estimated cost of the alternative Leachate Containment System excluding survey ($7,000), geotechnical services ($5,000), the extension of electrical power by PG&E from the Gate House location to the containment site ($50,000), Engineering Design ($36,000), Permitting ($5,000), Construction Administration ($7,000), and contingency (15%), is $191,900 as compared to the estimated cost of $225,000 for the small pond option with force/gravity main as presented in the Dames and Moore Feasibility Report. The cost estimate for the small pond option is presented in the Appendix to the Boyle Report. The total estimated cost for the Alternative Containment System, including the previously excluded items, is $331,000. It is to be noted that the estimated cost of $329,000 for the small pond option does not include the extension of power by PG&E. The estimate of $50,000 for the extension of power is believed to be a worse case scenario. The Public Works Director consulted with a PG&E representative in the field and was quoted $13.40 per foot of power line extended. Based on a route along the northerly toe access road from the existing power supply adjacent to the Gate House to the proposed containment site, approximately 3,700 feet (excluding the first 100 feet of power line extension, which is free), the estimated power extension cost is $49,580. Alternatives for power extension to the leachate containment site were reviewed and can be obtained from the west end of the landfill. However, such an alternative will require a utility easement on private property located west of the landfill and the removal of trees. Costs for these alternatives could not be determined at the time of the field visit because power demands and easement acquisition costs were not known. It is unknown at this time if the abutting property owner would be amenable in granting an easement to PG&E for purposes of serving the landfill, however, this alternative route will be pursued during the design stage. Two time schedules are included in the report on pages 28 and 29, "Traditional" and "Accelerated." Under the Traditional time frame, the construction of the pipeline, could not begin until June 2, 1997. Because of the lengthy review time taken by the Regional Water Quality Board staff on the initial Proposed Corrective Action Plan to Mitigate VOC Impact, the lengthy process needed for the traditional proposal process and the hiring of consultants, and staff work load, it has taken us 3 months and 1 week to produce the Alternative Containment Report. We have lost valuable construction time. In order to achieve a completion date for the leachate containment system prior to the end of the construction season for 1996 as currently required by the Waste Discharge Requirements, the Director and Boyle Engineering are proposing an "Accelerated" time schedule. Under the Accelerated schedule, it will be necessary for the City to negotiate quickly a Design Contract with Boyle Engineering for the Alternative Containment System contingent on the RWQCB approving the Proposed Alternate System. Approval must be received from RWQCB the week of July 29, and Notice to Proceed with the Design given no later than August 5. The Director has spoken with Mr. Dave Evans and he has indicated that he can provide a quick review turnaround. It will be necessary that Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate a design contract under the emergency provisions of the Municipal Code, approve the Design and authorize the advertising of bids on behalf of the City Council. Under this schedule scenario, the pipeline and earthwork can be completed within the month of October. Since a design contract must be negotiated prior to Council's regular meeting of August 7, and authorization to the City Manager to negotiate a design contract, approve the design project, and authorize the advertising for bids has not been agendized for the last meeting of July, City Council may want to consider this matter as an urgency item at the July 17 meeting. The Director strongly recommends that the Council adopt the Final Report, Authorize submittal of the Report to RWQCB for approval, and place on the Agenda as an Urgency Item, the authorization to the City Manager to negotiate a Design Contract with Boyle Engineering Corp., contingent upon the RWQCB's approval of the Alternate Leachate Containment System Plan and to approve the design plans and advertising for bids. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 17, 1996 Candace Horsley, City Manager Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~-- Request to Place Urgency Item on City Council's Agenda for July 17, 1996 As indicated in my Summary Report to the Agenda Report for Item 8a, "Adopt Report of Alternative Leachate Containment System for the Ukiah Landfill," I have suggested that the City Council consider authorizing the City Manager to: 1) Award a design contract; 2) approve design plans; and 3) authorize advertising for bids should the Council desire to implement the "Accelerated Schedule" that is presented in the Boyle Report. These actions were not agendized for the July 17, 1996 meeting. Our Waste Discharge requirements require us to complete the construction of an alternative leachate containment system prior to the end of 1996. We can accomplish this if we implement the Accelerated Schedule. I believe it is paramount that we continue to demonstrate our ability to fulfill our commitments and permit conditions. Therefore, I request that the three actions enumerated above be placed on the Council's agenda for July 17, 1996, as an urgency item. RK:ky 4:PW:MCCl AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8b DATE: July 17, 1996 REPORT SUBJECT: ANNUAL NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS AND BOARD MEMBERS; i. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION (1 VACANCY); ii. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENT TO GOLF COURSE COMMI'I-I'EE (3 VACANCIES); iii. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (4 VACANCIES); iv. DISCUSSION REGARDING READVERTISING FOR TWO AIRPORT COMMISSION VACANCIES This year's annual nomination and appointment of Commissioners and Board members includes two vacancies on the Airport Commission, with one Commissioner ineligible for another term; one vacancy on the Planning Commission; four vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission, with one Commissioner ineligible for another term; and three vacancies on the Golf Course Committee. (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Conduct nomination process, with Council approval of each by majority vote. 2. Adoption of Resolution making one appointment to the Planning Commission, four appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and two appointments to the Golf Course Commission. 3. Authorize the City Clerk to readvertise for two Airport Commission vacancies, with applications received forwarded to the City Council on August 21, 1996. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine it would be appropriate for Airport Commission to be a five-member Board and do not advertise to fill two vacancies. 2. Determine ineligibility of one or more of the applicants and readvertise for that vacancy. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: ~ Prepared by' Karen Yoast, Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk',~ Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk Attachments: 1. Current List of Terms for City of Ukiah Boards and Commissions 2. Resolution No. 95-48 3. Proposed Resolution Making Appointments 4. Applications APPROVED: 4/Can:ASRTorrns Ca~da~:(J Horsley, C~ity Manager No applications were received for the Airport Commission, therefore, it is requested that Council authorize the City Clerk to readvertise for the two existing vacant positions, or as an alternative, Council consider reducing the size of the Airport Commission from seven to five members. It should be noted that after the deadline had passed, incumbent Mark Davis notified the City Clerk of his intention to reapply, and another individual who also lives out of the City limits expressed his desire to apply. If the Council determines the Board should remain a seven-member Board and readvertising takes place, the applications can be accepted through 5:00 p.m. on August 14, 1996, and brought back to the City Council for appointment on August 21, 1996. Additionally, the Golf Course Committee's vacancies which need to be filled are: 1) a Parks and Recreation Commission representative, since Allen Johnson is no longer eligible because his term on the Parks and Recreation Commission expired on June 30, 1996; 2) a Public Member; and 3) the Women's Golf Club representative. The Parks and Recreation Commission prefers to wait until the new Parks and Recreation members are on Board before it selects and forwards its recommendation for. the Golf Course Committee member to Council. The other two vacancies can be filled at this meeting, with the Parks and Recreation Commission representative coming back to the Council on August 21. The subject positions were advertised and applications have been received by the deadline in the City Clerk's office, as follows: Planning Commission Paul Eveleth Judy Pruden (Incumbent) Golf Course Committee Eugene B. Hefte (Public Member) Faye Hefte (Public Member) Elsie M. Nielson (Women's Golf Club) Parks and Recreation Commission Jeffrey L. Anderson Susan Johnson Donald Rones Michael Woskow (City's sphere of influence) Also attached for Council's reference, is Resolution No. 95-48 regarding the procedure for filling vacancies on the City's Boards and Commissions. Since Councilmember Malone was the last Councilmember to place a name before the City Council for consideration, Jim Mastin will initiate nominations of the candidates. TERMS OF CITY OF UKIAH BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS - June 5, 1996 Airport - 3 year term * - Mastin Howard Henley Ken Fowler * Matthew Froneberger Allan Hunter Bob Webb Dorleen McBride Mark Davis* Present Term Last Date Expires to serve 6/30/97 6/30/00 6/30/98 6/30/01 6/30/98 6/30/01 6/30/98 6/30/98 6/30/98 6/30/01 6/30/96 6/30/96 6/30/96 6/30/99 Planning - 3 year term - Mastin Eric Larson Philip Ashiku Cheryl Baker Judy Pruden John McCowen 6/30/98 6/30/01 6/30/98 6/30/01 6/30/98 6/30/01 6/30/96 6/30/02 6/30/97 6/30/03 Parks and Recreation - 3 year term * Malone Angela Hooper Allen Carter John W. Meier Susan Johnson Allan Johnson Jeffrey Anderson Carlos Jacinto * 6/30/98 6/30/98 6/30/98 6/30/98 6/30/98 6/30/98 6/30/96 6/30/99 6/30/96 6/30/96 6/30/96 6/30/99 6/30/96 6/30/99 *Two Commissioners May Reside Within City's Sphere of Influence Civil Service Board Albert Beltrami (reappointed by Council 9/6/95) Gary Bruchler (appointed by employees 1991/reapplied 8/31/95) Dan Saylor (appointed by two other members) City Representative on the Library Advisory Co~missioD Ann Fatch 6/30/92 Cultural Arts Advisory Board - Waffenburqer Currently Inactive Golf course Committee - 2 year term Allan Johnson - Parks and Recreation Perry Ramsey - Public Member Don Rones, Sr. - Public Member Betty Bassler - Women's Golf Club Don Crawford - Men's Golf Club 6/30/97 6/30/97 6/30/96 6/30/96 6/30/97 6/30/97 6/30/97 6/30/98 6/30/98 6/30/99 Demolition Permit Review Committee - 2 year ter~, Thom Parducci - Design Review Comm Chr. 6/30/97 Clif Shepard - Building Official 6/30/97 M. Guintoli resigned 9/94 - Hist. Soc. 6/30/95 Judy Pruden - Resident 6/30/97 Director of Public Works/City Engineer 6/30/97 6/30/97 6/30/97 6/30/97 7:termslO RESOLUTION NO. 95- 48 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE FOR FILLING VACANCIES ON CITY COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. WHEREAS, 1. Ukiah City Code §1151 provides that members of the Planning Commission shall be appointed in accordance with a procedure established by resolution of the City Council; and 2. The City Council has not adopted a procedure for filling vacancies on the City's boards and commissions, including the Planning Commission; and 3. The City Council has determined that using a uniform procedure will insure fair and consistent treatment of candidates and councilmembers; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following procedure for filling vacancies on the City's commissions and boards, including the Planning Commission. · PROCEDURE FOR FILLING VACANCIES ON COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS The City Council shall fill vacancies on City boards and commissions, using the following procedure. 1. Applicant pool. The City Council shall develop an available pool of candidates for a vacancy by advertising the vacancy at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in Ukiah not less than thirty (30) days prior to the council meeting at which the vacancy is to be filled. The advertisement shall specify a deadline for submitting applications. Ail completed applications received prior to the deadline shall be included in the pool of available applicants, provided the applicant: a. meets the minimum qualifications for the position as established in the applicable Ukiah City Code section or resolution, establishing the commission or board; and b. participates in a personal interview, if the City Council conducts personal interviews for the position. Applications included in an available pool may be used as a source of nominations for a period of one (1) year from the application deadline. s:\u\resos95\vacancy.pro May 30, 1995 i 2. Nominations. Each councilmember, including the Mayor, shall have the right to nominate a candidate from the available pool of candidates. a. The right to place a name before the City Council for consideration shall rotate among the councilmembers based on seniority with the most senior councilmember going first. b. The Council shall vote on each nomination as it is made. c. A councilmember's right to make a nomination shall terminate and the right to nominate candidates shall rotate to the next most senior councilmember, when a councilmember's nomination is approved by a majority vote of the councilmembers present or the councilmember agrees to pass the nomination to the next most senior councilmember, whichever occurs first. d. This process for rotating the right to nominate candidates among councilmembers to fill vacancies shall be followed for each separate commission or board. (1) The City Clerk shall maintain a record of the last councilmember to make a nomination for each commission or board. (2) When another vacancy must be filled on that commission or board, the next councilmember in line to make nominations for that commission or board shall make the first nomination to fill the vacancy. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7 th day of ~]ne , 1995, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter NOES: Councilmember Malone ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Councilmember Mastin a'y~ ~i.t/ Clerk s:\u\resos95\vacancy.pro May 30, 1995 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, the annual expiration of terms for City Boards and Commissions occurred on June 30, 1996; and WHEREAS, the vacancies were duly advertised until the close of applications on July 10, 1996, with submitted applications timely received and submitted to Council for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council approved the nominations submitted as per procedures outlined in Resolution No. 95-48, and do hereby appoint the following persons to terms on the following Commissions and Boards for the designated terms: PLANNING COMMISSION (3 year term) to fill a term to June 30, 1999. GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE (2 year terms) to fill a term to June 30, 1998. to fill a term to June 30, 1998. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (3 year terms) to fill a term to June 30, 1999. to fill a term to June 30, 1999. to fill a term to June 30, 1999. to fill a term to June 30, 1999. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1996, by the following roll call vote- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST- Fred Schneiter, Mayor Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk 4: Res: Terms CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 7-8-96 ' , r I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah,s Planning C~~on. 1. Name Paul Eveleth 2. Residence Address 880 A. S. Orchard Ave. 3. Business Address 880 A. $. Orchard Ave. 4. Employer GTE Job Title Manager Res. Phone 468-9697 Bus. Phone 972-8000 Employed Since 1980 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 1 .years; Mendocino County. 1 .years 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and indicate any offices held Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. · Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission? · What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Planning Commission? · What is, or should be the relationship between the City's Planning Commission and the City Council, and between the Commission and Staff? 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work of the Planning Commission? 11. What do you believe is the most important land use related issue presently facing our community? 12. As a member of the Planning Commission, how would you attempt to address this priority issue? 13. In your opinion what type or types of growth, if any, should the City encourage? 14. In your opinion, what type or types of growth should the City discourage? 15. Are there any changes to the City's current planning review process that you would like to see implemented? 16. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Thursday,~X~~, 1996. commpc, wpd Iw~¥ I d,/ 7-8-96 Paul Eveleth Application for Planning Commission: Questions 7-16. . . . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. As City Councilman for the City ofLomita I found the experience very rewarding. I am excited at the possibility of serving this community on the Planning Commission and look forward to the opportunity of once more becoming an involved citizen. The role of Planning Commission is to assist the City Council in areas of city planning. The Planning Commission acts upon community requests, performs delegated tasks of the City Council and apply community diligence. Community interest and service is paramount. I have served as Commissioner and City Councilman and therefore have direct experience with City Government. As a community businessman I have a vested interest in the well-being of this community. Most importantly I feel an obligation to be more than a receiver of societies efforts. We must plan for the future without destroying the past. The City Council defines direction, the Planning Commission follows that direction. Small business and tourism dominate our business climate. Logic dictates that we should utilize a mutual fund approach and vary our business mix. Growth by demand is inevitable and cannot be legislated. Unknown. A community where 100% of the population votes. CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION Date ;A ~ !~ I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission. 1. Name ~L/D~ p/~ (//~)ff/~ C17'¥' ~,~5, RK DEp.,.~'¥~EN7 2. Residence Address Res. Phone 3. Business Address Bus. Phone 4. Employer ~ Job Title /Q.~o-{/DKoL Employed Since /~c/" 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 20 .years; Mendocino County Z O years 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and indicate any offices held /~C/ I / Please answer the following ~estions on separate sheets of paper and attach. · Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission? · What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Planning Commission? · What is, or should be the relationship between the City's Planning Commission and the City Council, and between the Commission and Staff? 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work of the Planning Commission? 11. What do you believe is the most important land use related issue presently facing our community? 12. As a member of the Planning Commission, how would you attempt to address this priority issue? 13. In your opinion what type or types of growth, if any, should the City encourage? 14. In your opinion, what type or types of growth should the City discourage? 15. Are there any changes to the City's current planning review process that you would like to see implemented? 16. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Thursday, June 27, 1996. commpc.wpd MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: July 15, 1996 Honorable Mayor Schneiter and Members of City Council FROM: SUBJECT: Candace Horsley, City Manager Miscellaneous Agenda Items Attached to be included with your July 17, 1996 City Council meeting agenda are the following items: Agenda Item 8b(i) The pool of applicants for the Planning Commission vacancy, which were considered in April of this year. Since these applications are less than one year old, these applicants may also be considered at this time and included in the nomination process on July 17, 1996. Staff attempted to contact each of the applicants to determine their continued interest in the vacancy and will provide that information at the earliest opportunity. Agenda Items 8c Rick Kennedy's completed report on this item, along with the associated appendages, for your review. Agenda Item 9a Rick Kennedy's detailed report on this item. 4:Can:MCC42 CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COM~4ISSION Date April 8, 1996 I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's P~anningCommission. 1. Name Michael W. Rrow~ 2. Residence Address ~.91 N~r~.h P~m.~ 3. Business Address 9QQ Talmage Road, Ukiah 4. Employer Parnum Pavinq & Redi-Mix Job Title Manaqer Res. Phone 463-697g Bus. Phone 462-4474 Employed Since 1974 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 2 years; Mendocino County 44 .years 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and indicate any offices held Vice President, Ukiah Rod & Gun Club Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the .City of Ukiah's Planning Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Planning Commission? 9. What is, or should be the relationship between the City's Planning Commission and the City Council, and between the Commission and Staff? 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work of the Planning Commission? 11. What do you believe is the most important land use related issue presently facing our community? 12. As a member of the Planning Commission, how would you attempt to address this priority issue? 13. In your opinion what type or types of growth, if any, should the City encourage? 14. In your opinion, what type or types of growth should the City discourage? . 15. Are there any changes to the City's current planning review process that you would like to see implemented? 16. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on April 10, 1996. . . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. To help keep Ukiah in the top ten cities nationwide, as well as an environmentally clean and productive city. To keep the city in balance both economically and environmentally. All parties must maintain an open and close relationship to help keep an environmentally and clean and productive city. I have lived in the Ukiah area for 46 years and have worked in the construction industry for 22 years. As manager of Parnum Redi-Mix, I am very aware of both environmental and growth issues our city is faced with. Redwood Business Park Pursue types of businesses that would benefit our sales tax revenue and create jobs in our community. Small business/industry and housing. Environmentally unsafe types of businesses. Not at this time A community where my children and their children can live a clean, healthy and productive life. CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION Date 4~- - ' C: ,.~,. -: 7~'z:'~i' 4/44 · - 4C._:.,;,. :. I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Planning"Uomm. ission. 1. Name /'~//d/~ ~m ~// 2. Residence Address ~~/ d/~,~" ~s' /.?A~'t/~/~ Res. Phone yr?C ~.~ 3. Business Address /_~ ~/~9~/~'~ ~. ~/~//f/~ Bus. Phone~ 4. Employer~~.<, _~/// Job Title...~'~w.z/2. ~-,~. Employed Since 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? ]'~ years; Mendocino County /~ years 6. Please list. community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and indicate any offices held ,~.~..;~.~c ~,'Z~l,~ ~.~' Please answer' the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Planning Commission? 9. What is, or should be the relationship between the City's Planning Commission and the City Council, and between the Commission and Staff? 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work of the Planning Commission? 11. What do you believe is the most important land use related issue presently facing our community? 12. As a member of the Planning Commission, how would you attempt to address this priority issue? 13. In your opinion what type or types of growth, if any, should the City encourage? 14. In your opinion, what type or types of growth should the City discourage? 15. Are there any changes to the City's current planning review process that you would like to see implemented? 16. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on April 10, 1996. C.o r~lO~-f; bio w if h f he. ~ud-ur~ V,'6i~ n o,E oor- C, or-n~.ission ~cr~bcr- ~ u~oobL (xre ¢cplo~je~ 4-o re.~orged cturin..~. o~ble. % c. nv,z,~on look ~l u-l-,'l;~ri es CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION Date I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission. 1. Name /'~%~-/./ 2. Residence Address ~C' / _/C3~/~ / ~/~_ Res. Phone .~/"_/A~'2-~ ?3' 3. Business Address ~k~c~ ,~.~v./-w,-.,,~-~.-~,~ ~: ~-/~'~-- '%us. Phone :~--~-. 4. Employer ~-~ ~/~ Job Title/?,~/~e,j~-~ Employed Since 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? F years; Mendocino County ~ years 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and indicate any offices held /u/,/~ Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Planning Commission? 9. What is, or should be the relationship between the City's Planning Commission and the City Council, and between the Commission and Staff? 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work of the Planning Commission? 11. What do you believe is the most important land use related issue presently facing our community? 12. As a member of the Planning Commission, how would you attempt to address this priority issue? 13. In your opinion what type or types of growth, if any, should the City encourage? 14. In your opinion, what type or types of growth should the City discourage? 15. Are there any changes to the City's current planning review process that you would like to see implemented? 16. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on April 10, 1996. Derek Fridley 807 Walnut Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Application For Planning Commission Addendum 7) I am applying to serve as planning commission member because I care about the future of the City of Ukiah, and feel that I have a proper combination of education and experience to become a useful and effective member of the planning commission. 8) The planning commission is responsible for city planning decisions; it works with staff members who provide recommendations and data for the basis of informed planning decisions. 9) The City Council appoints the planning commission members and oversees planning staff members, who work as a liaison for the City Council and Planning commission. 10) I have a BA degree from Sonoma State University in Management Studies with a minor in Environmental Studies and Planning. I have a JD law degree from Empire Law School and am a member of the California State Bar (inactive). I am a Certified General California Real Estate Appraiser (AG0019270). I am a graduate of Ukiah High School and have had a long standing interest in the community. 11) The most important land use issue in our community is that of maintaining the quality of environment with the limited resources available to the municipality. These include air quality measures that recognize the Ukiah Valleys susceptibility to inversion layers, water quality measures that recognize the riparian environments and flood plain issues, and balancing competing interests of environmental and business groups. 12) As a member of the Planning Commission, I would be sensitive to staff recommendations regarding environmental concerns, and support the commissions efforts to balance the interests of landowners with the quality of the local environment. 13)The city should encourage growth which meets the societal needs of its diverse inhabitants; but only with attention to the provision of proper infrastructure components. the infrastructure needs cannot be satisfied, the growth should be postponed. In addition, alternatives to traditional infrastructure items like bike pathways should be planned for. If 14) The city needs to discourage growth that will significantly impact the quality of environment. This is particularly important for Ukiah as opposed to a city like Santa Rosa due to the size and shape of the Ukiah Valley. Air quality issues are more important here because inversion layers tend to trap contaminants in the valley and not disburse them as readily as the Santa Rosa plains do. Runoff concerns can be crucial to hillside projects in this area. Many other land use issues are affected by the physical and environmental characteristics unique to the Ukiah area. CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Planning.Commission. 1. Name ~,~i ~ ~ C- C~~,~ 2. Residence Address //~ ~~ ~V~_, (.~,'~ 3. Business Address /~ ~~~., ~cO ; 4. Employer ~Ul~,~i~le,~c~c,~- Job Title ~oc~e~ 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? ~ years; Mendocino County ~ years Res. Phone ~ .3 ~-~ Bus. Phone ~ ~ - Employed Since 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and indicate any offices held ~4e,~% G.~ce ~4~ ~se~ ~F~,~ Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Planning Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Planning Commission? 9. What is, or should be the relationship between the city's Planning Commission and the City Council, and between the Commission and Staff? 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspective will be beneficial to the work of the Planning Commission? 11. What do you believe is the most important land use related issue presently facing our community? 12. As a member of the Planning Commission, how would you attempt to address this priority issue? 13. In your opinion what type or types of growth, if any, should the City encourage? 14. In your opinion, what type or types of growth should the City discourage? 15. Are there any changes to the City's current planning review process that you would like to see implemented? 16. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on April 10, 1996. Attachment to Application For Planning Commission 7. I would like to serve on the Planning Commission because it will allow me to give something back to my community, and because it will be a valuable experience for me. I am an attorney here in town, and my practice often involves real estate. While I do not have much experience as a "planner", I hope my training and experience will enable me to contribute in some small way to the quality of the commission's deliberations and decision making. I think serving on the Commission will also be a valuable experience for me personally. It will give me extensive, first hand experience with land-use planning in Ukiah, which will make me a better, more knowledgeable lawyer. It will also allow me to meet and work with many members of the local government and business community, which will help me in my practice as well as in my efforts to get to know more people in town (having been away from Ukiah from 1978 to 1994). 8. My understanding is that the Planning Commission is the first agency to hold a hearing on and render a decision on a variety of proposed changes in the use of real property in the Ukiah city limits. I understand that the Commission's responsibility is to conduct fair and thorough hearings, to ensure the compatibility of proposed uses with existing land use laws/regulations/criteria, and to exercise sound discretion in deciding whether to approve proposals. 9. I understand that the City Council can overrule any Commission decision that is appealed to the Council. However, I understand that good decisions by the Commission tend to reduce the workload on the Council by reducing the number of appeals to the Council and by reducing the issues that the Council must address. The Commission should therefore assist the Council by essentially "screening" the proposal that the Council must review. I am not familiar with the relationship between the Commission and Staff. However, I would assume that the City and/or Commission employs full-time, permanent planners that have expertise in city and land use planning and who render advice and guidance on applications. I therefore assume that the Commission members review and carefully consider the opinions of Staff in connection with any application, and utilize those opinions in determining whether to approve a given proposal/application. 10. I have worked as an attorney in Ukiah for the last year, having clerked for a judge for one year (1988-89) and having practiced law in the private sector for almost seven years (1989-94 in Los Angeles and Orange County). My practice has consistently included real estate litigation or transactions, so I am familiar with certain, but far from all, areas of the law of California real estate. I believe my knowledge and experience will help me identify and understand certain issues and problems presented by many applications. I also believe that I am fair and reasonable, have reasonably good analytical skills, and am able to calmly and objectively discuss/analyze disputed matters. I hope that these skills will help me be a productive member of the Commission by promoting full discussion and fostering applicants' impression of having received a fair hearing and a good decision. My perspective is essentially "centrist": I have spent several years out of Ukiah and I appreciate the high quality of life available in Ukiah. At the same time, I also appreciate an individual's right to do with his or her own property whatever he or she wants to, as long as the proposed use does not cause unreasonable damage or harm to others. I believe that my centrist perspective will be beneficial to the Commission in that I believe it reflects the views of many Ukiah residents. 11. I would suspect that a shortage of good housing is the number one land-use issue in Ukiah today, though I cannot say this with much certainty. 12. If I am appointed to the Planning Commission, I will not have a specific agenda other than to fairly apply existing law and/or criteria, and to exercise my best judgment, in passing on all issues submitted to the Commission. I am confident that private landowners and businessmen and women will respond to shortages and/or disequilibriums in the Ukiah economy by presenting applications designed to alleviate or address them. I would tend to believe that applications which would alleviate high priority land use problems in the community should be approved as long as they are well reasoned and consistent with existing zoning and other criteria. 13. I do not feel I have an adequate basis for an opinion on this subject at this time. It seems to me, however, that the growth of the community should generally be balanced between residential, commercial, industrial and public (parks, etc.) uses, unless there is a significant shortage of one or more. In addition, I generally oppose excessive governmental intervention in the marketplace (i.e., "encouragement" of certain uses), because I doubt that government decision-makers make good decisions more often than do private sector, profit-oriented decision makers. I therefore believe that the Commission should "encourage", i.e., want to approve, those proposals that are consistent with good planning and seek to alleviate shortages or imbalances in local land use patterns. However, I do not think the Commission should waive normal standards or requirements for the approval of such applications just because they are currently in favor, as this might lead to an excess of certain uses that turn out in the long run to be undesirable or counterproductive. 14. My answer to this question is similar to the answer to number 13, as I do not feel qualified to render an opinion at this time and I oppose excessive governmental interference with the private sector. However, I doubt that "low-income" housing is ever a wise object of planners' "encouragement", so this is one type of land use which I would not tend to favor. 15. I am not sufficiently familiar with the City's planning review process to suggest any reforms. 16. I believe Ukiah has already come about as close to being an ideal community as any city I have ever lived in. Ideally, Ukiah will stay relatively small, so we do not have traffic jams, huge housing tracts or bad air pollution. Ideally, Ukiah will be pro-business, so Ukiahns will have plenty of well- paying jobs and enjoy a good standard of living. Ideally, Ukiah will remain relatively crime-free, so we can continue to walk the streets without fear. The ideal Ukiah is not much different from the present Ukiah. The one area in which I would hope to see improvement is in the quality of education available here - I think it would be very beneficial to have a good, four-year university in our area. Date CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE I am applying for an appointment to the City of ~,.,!Tj~i;a.~bcJ~ol'l~', ~urse Committee. 1. Name L~-~'/[~-f? 2. Residence Address ~ ~:-/ ~'~~j'~ C~;C-. ~~/Res. Phone ~.ik :* q 3. Business Address //~~~5~"3 Bus. Phone 4. Employer Job title Employed since 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? ~_,~ years; Mendocino County? California? ~ ~ 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held ~$c~i~ Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Golf Course Committee? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Golf Course Committee? 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Golf Course Committee? 10.What do you believe is the single most important Golf related issue facing our community? and why? ii.As a member of the Golf Course Committee, what types of Golf programs should the City encourage? 12.In your opinion, what type of Golf programs should the City discourage? 13.What kind of ideal Golf facility do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application an4 attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Thursday, June Z?, 199~, commgolf.app Attachment to Application for Golf Course Committee Appointment (Eugene B. Hefte) 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Golf Course Committee? I am an avid golfer and a member of the USGA and Ukiah Men's Club. I have a genuine interest in the condition and future of Ukiah Golf Course. 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Golf Course Committee? To attend meetings, to offer my input and the input of other Ukiah Golfers on conditions, improvements that could be made to the golf course. To offer my opinion on problems, improvements that are presented by the Superintendent and Committee. 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Golf Course Committee? I have a general understanding cf golf course conditions. I play many golf courses in Northern California and other areas when traveling. £ spend many hours a week at the Ukiah golf course both playing and socializing. 10. What do you believe is the single most important golf related issue facing our community? and why? To maintain the best possible golf facility in Ukiah for our members, non-members and out of town golfers, which in turn would be beneficial to the business community. 11. As a member of the Golf Course Committee, what types of Golf programs should the City encourage? Youth Golf, quality tournaments that would attract out of town golfers. Maintain a golf course that will be a credit and a show place for our great City of Ukiah. 12. In your opinion, what type of Golf programs should the City discourage? Poorly run tournaments and lack of marshall's on the golf course. 13. What kind of ideal Golf facility do you envision for Ukiah? A golf course that will be an at~raction for quality golfers and week-end golfers. We have the layout, a beautiful club house and meeting facility. I envision a golf course in Ukiah that adds to the quality of living in Ukiah. With proper management and maintenance this golf course can be one of many excellent golf courses in Northern California and a golf course that golfers enjoy playing. CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah:?D~,Go~ Course committee. 2. Residence Address 3. Business Address Bus. Phone 4. Employer ,/t~ ~.~.'~.~_j,_~-.~ Job title Employed since 5. How long have y~u resided in Ukiah? '¥ ~ years; Mendocino County? '~--~, California? ~- ~,,~ ~' ~' 6. Please list community,~groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held ~.-.,3'~--~ ~,~,~:,~-...~ ~_~.~!~.~_ _~ -~_ ~/'~-/: ~ Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Golf Course Committee? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Golf Course Committee? 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Golf Course Committee? 10.What do you believe is the single most important Golf related issue facing our community? and why? ii.As a member of the Golf Course Committee, what types of Golf programs should the City encourage? 12.In your opinion, what type of Golf programs should the City discourage? 13.What kind of ideal Golf facility do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Thursday, June ZT, 199~, commgolf.app Attachment to Application for Golf Course Committee Appointment: 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Golf Course Committee? I love golf and feel that we have a great facility in the Ukiah area. I would like to represent the women of Ukiah in the decisions that are made at this level. 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Golf Course Committee? The committee is to work with the City and the Superintendent to help hi-lite the needs of the golf course and to help make it a desirable place to play golf. 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Golf Course Committee? I play golf at least two days a week and am very active in both the 18 hole ladies group and the 9 hole ladies group. I feel that I could represent both groups so that the ladies would be informed as to what is happening on the golf course and the City would know of the concerns of the ladies. 10. What do you believe is the single most important Golf related issue facing our community? and why? I believe that to make the Ukiah Golf course the best it can be in order to attract people to the Ukiah area to play our course. With golf on the up swing across the Country, people all over Ukiah are expressing a desire to play golf. 11. As a member of the Golf Course Committee, what types of Golf programs should the City encourage? Youth golf. 12. In your opinion, what type of Golf programs should the City discourage? None. 13. What kind of ideal Golf facility do you envision for Ukiah? I would like to see a facility in the Ukiah area that people would want to come to this area and play the course. We have a beautiful golf course and what better way to bring business to the Ukiah area to benefit business and the City of Ukiah. Betty Bassler 2455 S. State St. Ukiah, CA 95482 July 12, 1996 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: The Board of the Ukiah Women's Golf Club recommend Faye Hefte for representation on the City of Ukiah Golf Committee. Liz Turner is the Captain, and I am the Acting Secretary of the Club and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us at 485-7263 and 462-9347, respectively. Sincerely, Betty Bassler Acting Secretary Women's Golf Club BS:ky I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Golf Course Committee. ~ . 2. Residence Address ~~. Re s. Phon~7~/) /~ - ~/~O 3. Business Address -~' Bus. Phone 4. Employer..~/~:-- ~~/~ '~'~ '~?~-.Job title Employea since 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah?._~years; Mendocino County? California? ~ 3 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Golf Course Committee? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Golf Course Committee? 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Golf Course Committee? 10.What do you believe is the single most important Golf related issue facing our community? and why? ii.As a member of the Golf Course Committee, what types of Golf programs should the City encourage? 12.In your opinion, what type of Golf programs should the City discourage? 13.What kind of ideal Golf facility do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Thursday, ~ 1996. commgolf.app Groups or organizations affiliations: President of Women's Golf Association for 2 terms. Tournament Chairman for ~ terms. Treasurer for 27th District PTA 3 terms President for Local PTA and Frank Zeek School PTA Director of Sweet Adeline Musicial Organization for 12 years. Treasurer for Soroptimists 2 terms. ( Ukiah Chapter) Treasurer for Northern California Band Directors Association 5 years. Treasurer for 28 years for Ukiah High School Band Boosters. Chairperson for Ukiah Invitational Band Review 29 years. Secretary for Northern California Band Directors Association 2 years. Etc. Etc. Etc. 7. Reason for Application: asked and elected by the Ukiah Womens' Golf Club. 8. Purpose'To help City of Ukiah provide more and better service to all residents of Ukiah interesting in playing golf. To help with better communication between members and City. 9. Have had many years of experience dealing with people and believe to have good people skills. Have belonged to many organizations and know the comm~niation problems that can occur when apposing people do not understand the long range plans of the Golf Committee. 10. Misunderstanding of golf members to what the city is trying to accompli 11. Programs to encourage: Junior Golf. 12. Not aware of any as yet. 13. We have a very good facility in the New club House but need better maintainence of the course. Only golf course that has 18 holes be- tween Santa Rosa and Eureka (237 milesT. Please accept this application on and for in b Alf of the Ukiah Women's Golf Club. Sincerely, · ~ / Elsie M. Ni~lson (707) 462-8130 980 St. Francis Way Ukiah, Ca. 95482 P.S. Resident for 35 years . CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION A~I~TMENT Date June 17, 1996 I am applying for an appointment to the City ~,c Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Co~ission 1. Name Jeffrey L. Anderson 2. Residence Address 569 Empire Dr., Ukiah Res. Phone 462-3574 3. Business Address 169 Mason Street, Ukiah Bus. Phone 462-6694 4. Employer Rawles~ Hinkle Carter Job title AttorneyEmployed since 1991 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 5 California? 29 years; Mendocino County? 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate offices held Board of Directors, Mendocino County Youth Project; Board of Directors, Millview County Water District; Mendocino County Bar Association, City of Ukiah Parks & Recreation Commission~ current member (term ends on 6/30/96) Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. · Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission? · What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission? · How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise an perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission? 10. What so you believe is the single most important parks and recreation related issue facing our c~,,~,~,,~.~3. and why? 11. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, what types of recreational programs, or parks development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programs, or parks development should the City encourage? 13. In your opinion, what type of recreational programming or parks development should the City discourage? 14. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application an4 attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Thursday, June 27, 1996. commprc.wpd ATTACHMENT Jeffrey L. Anderson Page 2 of 4 APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENT 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission? Because I desire to become involved in my community and in the process of planning for its future. 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission? The Commission is an advisory body empowered to present recommendations to the Ukiah City Council. Individual commissioners' terms are for a period of three (3) years. The Commission's area of jurisdiction encompasses all recreation and cultural arts activities, facilities and parks. A primary function of the Commission should be the planning of recreational an~ cultural programs for city residents and engaging'the support and participation of educational and private business entities in Ukiah. I believe that one of the most important aspects of the Commission's function is to formulate and recommend to the City Council policies for the acquisition, development and improvement of parks, playgrounds and all other.facilities for cultural'arts and recreation. 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission? I am a team player who has a commitment to excellence. I also am accustomed to taking an active leadership role among my peers in activities which are important to me. In my profession, I have gained a working knowledge of some of the technical and legal facets of community planning. I am an avid bicyclist and runner and I often use Ukiah's parks and trails. Having a young step-son provides me insights into how important outdoor space and recreational activities are to our community's children and youth. 10. What do you believe is the single most important parks and recreation related issue facing our conmunity? and why? Continued protection and enhancement of %C<iah's well- known quality of life is the most important parks and recreation related issue. Unless thoughtful planning is given to where this community is going and how it will get there, Ukiah faces the same erosion of quality of life that has occurred in many other similarly situated communities. .Page 3 of 4 11. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, what types of recreational programs, or parks development should the City encourage? Promoting community designs that deliver low traffic and quiet areas within the City (and not limiting such areas to purely residential neighborhoods) is vitally important to Ukiah's well-being. Encouraging open spaces and attractive street designs which incorporate plenty of walking and biking paths through parks or wooded areas is a direct way to further the attainment of a comfortable and attractive city. Most important however, is the formulation of programs (i.e., classes, concerts, clubs or athletics) which serve to bring our multi-cultural community for shared interaction. The City's Recreation Program shoUld receive continued support and new ways to expand its appeal ought to be explored. -. 12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programs, or parks development should the City encourage? First and foremost, I believe that the City should encourage the development new parks by formulating a workable plan for developers, both public and private, to assist in the creation of open spaces for the community. The Commission can aid the City Council and Planning Commission in addressing the parks and recreation concerns presented before those bodies. While financial constraints are a real burden, thought must be given as to how to reach a balance that accommodates investment in the creation of new communitY recreation areas and the enhancement of those currently existing. I al~o think that member of the Commission, working in tandem with members of the Ukiah Chamber of Commerce and the private sector in organizing "main street" merchant fairs, wine or arts festivals and supporting the Summer park concert series enhances our community. I am also optimistic that the planned new town square will, when completed, greatly promote Ukiah's sense of community. 13. In your opinion, what type of recreational programming or parks development should the City discourage? I am not aware of any recreational programming or parks development, which is popular, that I think ought to be discouraged (except maybe skateboarding, for liability reasons). The problem facing the City will always be the issue of prioritizing limited financial resources. However, on a related matter, I do think that the City should do everything in its power to discourage the invidious encroachment of graffiti. Particularly in its public parks, the City should ensure that defacement by graffiti or other vandalism is quickly restored. Page 4 of 4 14. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? I envision a community much like the Ukiah today. Since making Ukiah my home, I have come to appreciate the uniqueness of this community. Change is inevitable, but with insightful planning, informed by a vision for the future, I see no reason why Ukiah cannot continue evolve in a way that preserves and enhances our community's best qualities so that they may be enjoyed by Ukiahans ten or twenty years from now. Date CITY OF UKIAH i.~ -:Y OF [JKIAH APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENT ~ 26,, 1996 C!TY ,...,"l.~. ,:: RK ,gEPA RTM ENT I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission SUSAN J. JOHNSON 1. Name 2. Residence Address 599 REDWOOD AVER~JE Res. Phone 468-8040 3. Business Address 790 SO. DORA Sm / ¥OKAYO SCHOOL Bus. Phone 463-5236 4. EmployerUK/AH UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. Job title TEACHER Employed since 1971 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 43 years; Mendocino County? 43 California? 48 ' 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate offices held e~ensive resume on file . . Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. · Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission? · What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission? · How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise an perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission? 10. What so you believe is the single most important parks and recreation related issue facing our community? and why? 11. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, what types of recreational programs, or parks development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programs, or parks development should the City encourage? 13. In your opinion, what type of recreational programming or parks development should the City discourage? 14. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Thursday, June 27, 1996. commprc, wpd Date CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENT I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission lo Name 2. Residence Address Res. Phone Bus. Phone 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? California? or organizations you 6. Please list community gr.oups are affiliated with· Indicate offices held /~./?~'..-.-/~ ////~'l~.'z '~/~-'~.// J(~'--~'~ Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. · Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation Commission? · What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission? · How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise an perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission? 10. What so you believe is the single most important parks and recreation related issue facing our community? and why? 11. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, what types of recreational programs, or parks development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programs, or parks development should the City encourage? 13. In your opinion, what type of recreational programming or parks development should the city discourage? 14. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Please return this application and attachments to the city Clerk by Noon on Thursday, J~~Z~, 19 9 6. commprc, wpd ~7 /P) CITY OF UKIAH O APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION aPP 0 I am applying for an appointment to the City of Uki~n~p4Parks Recreation Commission 1. Name 2. Residence Address Q~5~.~ ~~..~- and Res. Phone 3. Business Address ~(kf~ Bus. Phone 4. Employer ~3~.~ Job title Employed since 5. How long have .y~u resided in Ukiah? 5~- years; Mendocino County? 40 California? 4 ~ ' 6. Please list community grou~s or organizations you are,}~iliated with. Indicate offices hel.d Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to s~rve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and Rec~eatio~Co~mission? ~ ~'C~¢C ~J~i~& ~ ~b~ ~ 8. Wh~t is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Commission? 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise an perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and Recreation Cpmmi~sioq? ~~C5_ ~!~_~ C\~,~,~c50~ a~lO~'~ 10. What so you believe is th~ single most important parks and re~9~i~n,re~atgd~ issu~ fa~ing our com~uni~y? and why?~ 11. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, what types of recreational programs, or parks develogment ~hould the City encourage? 6~cse 0V~,%~d c~ ~cs, '~0~ 4¢v,~ ~x~/ 12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programs, or oarks development should the City ~9e~?~~.?.~:~ ,~ ~~ ~5:,,~k~a%t, ~~[D 13. In your opinion, what type o~ recreational ProgrammiHg or parks development should the city discourage? eYwk %x, % 14. ~hat..k~nd ~f ~deal co~mynity do .yo, envision for Please return this appllca't'ion and attachments t6 t~e City Clerk by Noon on Thursday, June 27, 1996. commprc.wpd ITEM NO. ~c DATE: July 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: MATTERS CONCERNING CITY TREASURER POSITION i. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING COMPENSATION ii. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TREASURER CITY TREASURER DUTIES FOR CITY At the July 3, 1996 City Council meeting, the Council approved the duties and responsibilities for the City Clerk and the establishment of an average 32-hour work week. Revisions to the City Treasurer's duties and responsibilities, as well as compensation, were also approved and are now being returned to the Council in the form of an Ordinance for compensation amendment and a Resolution for establishment of the duties and responsibilities. These revised duties and compensation reflect the change from an investor role to that of an oversight and policy role for the City Treasurer. The Ordinance reflects a reduction in the City Treasurer salary from $800 a month to $300 a month, for a total of $3,600 per year, payable monthly. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Introduce by title only Ordinance amending City Treasurer compensation and adopt Resolution establishing duties for City Treasurer. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Introduce revised Ordinance and/or adopt revised Resolution Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.- (if budgeted) Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Ordinance for introduction 2. Resolution for adoption APPROVED; ._.~-~ / Candace Horsley, City Manager 4/Can:ASRCT ORDINANCE NO. ORDINA/~CE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING SECTION 251, TREASURER The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows- SECTION ONE Section 251, of Chapter 3, Article 3, is hereby modified to read as follows- ~251: COMPENSATION; BOND: The Treasurer of the City shall receive as total compensation the sum of Three Thousand Six Hundred dollars ($3,600.00) per year payable monthly. The City Treasurer shall be bonded in the sum of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). The bond fee shall be a proper charge against such funds of the City as the City Council shall designate. This increase in compensation shall be effective on the date of adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION TWO This Ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall become effective thirty (30) days after it is adopted. Introduced by title only on July 3, 1996, by the following roll call vote- AYES' NOES: ABSENT' Adopted on roll call vote- , 1996, by the following AYES · NOES · ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor City Clerk 4:Res:Treas.Ord §250 CHAPTER 3 OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ARTICLE 3. TREASURER §251 SECTION: §250: §251' Location of Office Compensation; Bond §250: LOCATION OF OFFICE: The Treasurer of the City shall have his office at any place selected and provided by him which shall be approved by the City Council by resolution, (Ord. 187, §1, adopted 1910) §251: COMPENSATION; BOND: The Treasurer of the City shall receive as total compensation the sum of nine thousand six hundred dollars ($9,600.00) per year payable monthly. The City Treasurer shall be bonded in the sum of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). The bond fee shall be a proper charge against such funds of the City as the City Council shall designate. This increase in compensation shall be retroactive to July 1, 1990. (Ord. 288, §6; amd. by Ord. 451, §1, adopted 1952; Ord. 857, §1, adopted 1986; Ord. 910, §1, adopted 1990) 1019 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH CITY TREASURER WHEREAS, Ukiah City Code Sections 250 and 251 stipulate the "Location of Office", "Compensation", and "Bond" for the City of Ukiah's elected City Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to define the duties and responsibilities of the City Treasurer to insure the community is best served by those elected to this position; and WHEREAS, these tasks and obligations have not been previously delineated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council delegates the following duties and responsibilities for the City Treasurer: - Serve as Chairperson of the Investment Oversight Committee, preparing the agenda and minutes of each meeting. - Prepare and submit reports as required by State law. - Serve as an authorized signatory on City checks. - Maintain and account for funds as delegated by the City Council and as required by State law. - Prepare and submit annually to the City Council a statement of investment policy. - Assist the Finance Director in establishing and preparing, in written form, a system of internal controls. - Prepare and submit reports as required by the City Council. - Review warrants and report questions on expenditures to the City Manager and City Council. - Perform other duties as required. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Fred Schneiter, Mayor ATTEST: Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk mfh: resord TRESRES AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8~ c~ DATE: July 17, 1996 REPORT SUBJECT: MATTERS CONCERNING CITY INVESTMENTS i. AMENDMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY REFLECTING CITY TREASURER DUTIES ii. APPROVAL OF APPLICATION DEADLINE AND RECRUITMENT FOR INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE PUBLIC MEMBER The attached Investment Policy is amended to reflect the changes in the City Treasurer duties from that of an investment manager to oversight and policy advisor. Areas that have been revised are highlighted, with the original policy attached for comparison. Staff is also requesting Council approval to advertise for the Investment Oversight Committee public member. The application is attached, with the established deadline of August 9, 1996. Once all applications are received, a panel of two Councilmembers and staff will be established to interview the candidates. The RFP for the investment advisory firm was approved by the Council and has been sent to over 85 investment firms, with a deadline for proposals of 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 9, 1996. Once the Investment Oversight Committee public member has been appointed by Council and the investment firm selected, the Oversight Committee will meet to review investment policy, strategies, and advice from the investment firm. All recommendations will be given to Council, along with the City's Investment Reports, as provided by the investment firm. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve amended Investment Policy, Oversight Committee public member recruitment and application. and approve Investment ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Further amend Investment Policy and approve revised Policy. 2. Revise public member application and approve modified form. 3. Determine policy revisions are inappropriate and do not approve amended Policy and do not advertise for public member. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. 2. Acct. No.: (if budgeted) Candace Horsley, City Manager Investment Policies, Proposed and Current Application for Investment Oversight Committee Public Member APPROVE~n~or~~~'/ .... y~, City M ,a/hager 4/Can:ASRInves.1 CITY OF UKIAH INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT December 1995 I. PURPOSE The City Treasurer renders annually to the Ukiah City Council a statement of investment policy. This investment policy provides for necessary objectives to assure the City Council that the investment authority is judiciously exercised. II. OBJECTIVE The City of Ukiah's cash management system is designed to monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, enabling the City to invest and manage funds to the fullest extent possible. The City attempts to obtain the highest yield possible AFTER the basic requirements of safety and liquidity have been met. The primary objective of the investment policy of the City of Ukiah is SAFETY. Investments shall be placed only in securities authorized by law and described in this policy and are managed in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of principal. Maximizing interest earned is a secondary objective once safety and liquidity have been assured. An adequate percentage of the portfolio shall be maintained in liquid, short-term securities which can be converted to cash if necessary to meet forecasted disbursement requirements. The portfolio shall also be appropriately diversified to avoid incurring unreasonable and avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institutions. The City adheres to the "prudent investor" rule, which states, "Investments shall be made with judgment and care under circumstances then prevailing which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived". III. POLICIES · · Public Funds: It is the policy of the City of Ukiah to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the maximum safety and liquidity with the highest investment return while meeting it's cash flow demands. Prudent Investor Rule: Ukiah operates its investments program under the Prudent Investor Rule. This affords a broad spectrum of investment opportunities so long as the investment is deemed prudent and is permissible under currently effective legislation of the State of California and any other imposed legal restrictions, such as applicable under current bond issues. , , , , , Legal Compliance: The City's investments are authorized under and intended to comply with State of California statutes governing the investment of public funds, specifically with regards to Sections 53601 and 53601.1 of the Government Code. The investment policy applies to all financial assets directly controlled by the City of Ukiah. documented in writing by the Finance Director. The controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation of third parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets, or imprudent actions by employees and officers of the City of Ukiah. Controls deemed most important include: minimization of opportunities for collusion, separation of duties, separating transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping, avoidance of bearer-form securities, specific limitations regarding securities losses and remedial actions, written confirmation of all transactions, minimizing the number of authorized investment officials, documentation of transactions and strategies, and proper review and approval of brokerage accounts and investment transaction. Investment Oversight Committee members and City Council monthly reports for accounting and management purposes. Required elements of the report will include type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, rating, cost of the security, current market value and yield. These reports shall provide an appendix that discloses all transactions during the past month. By the third week of each month, the Ukiah Investment Oversight Committee will receive a monthly report for the preceding month which will provide data on investment instruments being held, including maturities and market value, as well as any narrative necessary for clarification. Deviations from expectations shall be reported in a timely manner and shall include recommendations for appropriate action to control adverse developments. T:.:.:.:...:. · .: ..................~..........., .....:.:.:...:...:.:...:....~: ............;:::::: :q : ..................... ..............,......... ........... ..... .......... + ................... Conflict Of Interest: In accordance with California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. and 87100 et seq., officers and employees of the City will refrain from any activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. All investment personnel shall comply with the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act, to include the annual filing of Statements of Economic Interest. . Return On Investment: The City's investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return through economic cycles. The market-average rate of return is defined as the average return on three- month U.S. Treasury bills. Whenever possible, and consistent with risk limitations, as defined herein, and prudent investment principles, the Treasurer shall seek to augment returns above the market average rate of return. IV. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS Generally, investments shall be made in the context of the "prudent investor'' rule. The City is further governed by the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the context of these limitations, the following investments are authorized, and further limited herein: A. United States Treasuries: United States Treasury Bills, Bonds, and Notes, or those for which the fill faith and credit of the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest. There are no limitation as to the percentage of the portfolio which can be invested in this category, although maturity limitations are restricted to a dollar weighted average portfolio of 3 years or less with no single investment exceeding a 5 year maturity. a. US Agency Obligation: Obligations issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) "Ginnie Mae", the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLB), the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) "Fannie Mae", the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association (FHLMAC) "Freddie Mac", and the Student Loan Marketing Association (SLMA). Although there is no percentage limitation on the dollar amount that can be invested in these issues, the "prudent investor" rule shall apply for a single agency name. Maturity limitations are restricted to a dollar average weighted portfolio of 3 years or less with no single investment exceeding a 5 year maturity. Investments detailed in C through L below are additionally restricted as to percentage of the cost value of the portfolio in any one issuer name up to a maximum of 5%. The total cost value invested in any one issuer name will not exceed 5% of an issuer's net worth. An additional 5%, or a total of 10% of the cost value of the portfolio in any one issuer name, can be authorized upon written approval of the Treasurer, Finance Director and City Manager. C. D. E. F. e. Banker Acceptances: Bills of exchange or time drafts drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank, otherwise known as banker's acceptances. Banker's acceptances purchased may not exceed 270 days to maturity or 40% of the cost value of the portfolio and the City may only purchase Bills of Exchange accepted by banks which meet the requirements for investment in short term certificates of deposit (less than 24 months) in Section V. Commercial Paper: Commercial paper ranked "PI" by Moody's Investor Services or "Al+" by Standard and Poor's, and issued by domestic corporations having assets in excess of $500,000,000 and having and "A" or better rating on its long term debentures as provided by Moody's or Standard and Poor's. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 180 days to maturity or represent more than 10% of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Purchases of commercial paper may not exceed 15% of the cost value of the portfolio. An additional 15% or a total of 30% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in commercial paper if the dollar weighted average maturity of the dollars in commercial paper invested does not exceed 31 days. Negotiable Certificates: Negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state-charted bank or a state or federal savings institution, or a State-licensed branch of a foreign bank ("Yankee"). Purchases of negotiable certificates of deposit may not exceed 30% of the cost value of the portfolio. To be eligible for purchase by the City, the NCD must meet the credit and maturity criteria as stated in Section V. Repurchase Agreements: The City may invest in repurchase agreements with banks and dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase agreement. The maturity of repurchase agreements shall not exceed 365 days. The market value of securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements shall be initially priced with margin ratios of 110%. Collateral pricing will be monitored daily by the investment staff and not be allowed to fall below 100% of the value of the repurchase agreement. In order to conform with provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, which provide for the liquidation of securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements, the only securities acceptable as collateral shall be certificates of deposit, commercial paper, eligible banker's acceptances, or securities that are direct obligations of the Untied States or any agency of the United States. Reverse Repurchase Agreements: The City may invest in reverse repurchase agreements only with those banks and dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase contract. The City may invest in reverse repurchase agreements with the following conditions: , When the earnings from the matching investment(s) are greater than or equal to the cost of the reverse(s) and the terms and conditions are otherwise favorable to the City. Reverse repurchase agreements entered into, in accordance with this paragraph, may not exceed 95 days to maturity without written approval of the City Treasurer, Finance Director and City Manager, and must be matched as to maturity with all proceeds of the reverse repurchase reinvested in the matched security. Floating rate notes may be utilized for the reinvestment of reverse repurchase proceeds where the coupon reset date is matched to the maturity of the reverse. Fixed rate securities with maturities greater than 95 days with 'puts' may also be utilized for reinvestment of reverse proceeds where the put on the security is exercisable within 95 days and the put date is matched to the maturity of the reverse. Both floating rate and putable securities should only be used for reinvestment purposes when there is an appropriate yield advantage to other short dated securities. , Term reverse repurchase transactions in excess of 95 days are authorized, if the securities underlying the reverse are matched with the maturity of the reverse and will mature within six months from the date of settlement. The proceeds of the reverse transaction must be reinvested in securities that match the maturity of the term reverse repurchase agreement. . Term reverse repurchase transactions in excess of 6 months are authorized, if the securities underlying the reverse are matched with the maturity of the reverse, mature more than 6 months, but within one year, from the date of settlement and have written approval of the Treasure, Finance Director and City Manager for each transaction. The proceeds of the reverse transaction must be reinvested in securities that match the maturity of the term reverse repurchase agreement. H. Local Agency Investment Fund: The City may invest in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies up to the maximum permitted under Section 16429.1 of the Government Code. Time Deposits: The City may invest in non-negotiable time deposits collateralized in accordance with the California Government Code, in those banks and saving and loan association which meet the requirements for investment in negotiable certificates of deposit. Since time deposits are not J. K. L. M, N. liquid, no more than 25% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in this category. Financial Futures: The City may sell financial futures contracts with respect to securities owned by it, including securities which are subject to reverse repurchase agreements. The City may buy financial futures contracts in order to offset already existing futures positions. European or American Call Options: The City may use European or American Call or Put Options with respect to U.S. Treasury or U.S. Agency obligations. The maximum outstanding exposure allowed is $5 million face value for Calls bought or sold by the City and $2.5 million face value for Puts bought or sold by the City. The expiration date on any contract will not exceed 90 days. Medium-Term Notes: The City may invest in medium-term notes issued by corporations operating within the United States. Securities eligible for investment shall be rated in accordance with the maturity and rating criteria described in Section V. In addition, the issuing corporation itself must have a minimum rating of "A" by both Standard and Poor's and Moody's, and have in excess of $500,000,000 in Shareholders Equity. Purchase of medium-term notes may not exceed 15% of the cost value of the portfolio. No more than 5% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in notes issued by any one corporation. Commercial paper holdings should be considered when calculating the maximum percentage in any issuer name. Mutual Funds & Beneficial Interest Shares: Share of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies or mutual funds shall be rated in the highest rating category of least two of the three nationally recognized rating services (e.g Moody's P-1 or S&P AAA,) and must have in excess of $5000,000,000 in assets under management. The purchase price shall not include commissions and shall not exceed 5% of the cost value of the portfolio. Notes, Bonds, or Other Obligations: Notes, bonds, or other obligations which are at all times secured by a valid first priority security interest in securities of the types listed by Section 53651 as eligible securities for the purpose of securing local agency deposits having a market value at least equal to that required by Section 53652 for the purpose of securing local agency deposits. The securities serving as collateral shall be placed by delivery or book entry into the custody of a trust company or the trust department of a bank which is not affiliated with the issuer of the secured obligation, and the security interest shall be perfected in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code or federal regulations applicable to the types of securities which the security interest is granted. Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be issued by an issuer rated in a rating category of "AA" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service and having an "A" or higher rating for the issuer's unsecured debt, as provided by a nationally recognized rating service. O. Pass Through and/or Certificate Investments: Any mortgage pass- through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bond of a maximum of five years maturity. Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be issued by an issuer rated in a rating category of "AA" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service and having an "A" or higher rating for the issuer's unsecured debt, as provided by a nationally recognized rating service. Purchase of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20 percent of the agency's surplus money that may be invested pursuant to this section. Pe Ineligible Investments: Investments not described herein, including, but not limited to, common stocks and long-term corporate notes/bonds are prohibited from use in the City of Ukiah's portfolio. Q, Maximum Investment Maturity: Investments which exceed 5 years in maturity require authority granted by City Council before purchase. Written authority of the 'city Council must be granted specifically or as part of an investment program no less than three months prior to the date of purchase. 4:Can:lnvest.Stm Investment PoliCY Statement Office of Treasurer CITY OF UKIAH INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT December 1995 I. PURPOSE The City Treasurer renders annually to the Ukiah City Council a statement of investment policy. This investment policy provides for necessary objectives to assure the City Council that the investment authority is judiciously exercised. II. OBJECTIVE The City of Ukiah's cash management system is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, enabling the City to invest and manage funds to the fullest extent possible. The City attempts to obtain the highest yield possible after the basic requirements of safety and liquidity have been met. The primary objective of the investment policy of the City of Ukiah is SAFETY. Investments shall be placed only in securities authorized by law and described in this policy and are managed in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of principal. Maximizing interest earned is a secondary objective once safety and liquidity have been assured. An adequate percentage of the portfolio shall be maintained in liquid, short-term securities which can be converted to cash if . necessary to meet forecasted disbursement requirements. The portfolio shall also be appropriately diversified to avoid incurring unreasonable and avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institutions. ' The City adheres to the "prudent investor" rule, which states, "Investments shall be made with judgment and care under circumstances then prevailing which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived." III. POLICIES rev. 1-5-96 Page 1 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer . . . Public Funds: It is the policy of the City of Ukiah to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the maximum safety and liquidity with the highest investment return while meeting it cash flow demands. Prudent Investor Rule: Ukiah operates its investments program under the Prudent Investor Rule. This affords a broad spectrum of investment opportunities so long as the investment is deemed prudent and is permissible under currently effective legislation of the State of California and any other imposed legal restrictions, such as applicable under current bond issues. Legal Compliance: The City's investments are authorized under and intended to comply with State of California statutes governing the investment of public funds, specifically with regards to Sections 53601 and 53601.1 of the Government Code. The investment policy applies to all financial assets directly controlled by the City of Ukiah. Internal Controls: A system of internal controls shall be established and documented in writing by the City Treasurer and Finance Director. The controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation of third parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets, or imprudent actions by employees and officers of the City of Ukiah. Controls deemed most important include: minimization of opportunities for collusion, separation of duties, separating transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping, avoidance of bearer-form securities, specific limitations regarding securities losses and remedial actions, written confirmation of all transactions, minimizing the number of authorized investment officials, documentation of transactions and strategies, and proper review and approval of brokerage accounts and investment transactions. Reporting: The City Treasurer shall generate and present to the Finance DireCtor, City Manager and City Council monthly reports for accounting and management purposes. Required elements of the report will include type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, rating, cost of the security, current market value and yield. These reports shall provide an appendix that discloses all transactions during the past month. By the third week of each month, the Ukiah Oversight Committee will receive a monthly report for the preceding month which will provide data on investment instruments being held, including maturities and market value, as well as any narrative necessary for clarification. Deviations from expectations shall be reported in a timely manner and shall include recommendations for appropriate action to control adverse developments. As detailed in the internal control procedure document, the Oversight Committee will meet at least every six months in order to conduct a comprehensive review of the investment activities of the Treasurer and Finance Director so as to insure that regulations are being adhered to and that strategies are being followed. rev. 1-5-96 Page 2 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer o Management Responsibility: Management responsibility for the investment program resides directly with the City Treasurer and the Director of Finance. The City Manager will be kept fully apprised of all investment activities and will have, through his or her direct authority over the Finance Director, the opportunity to effect investment decisions and strategy development. Conflict Of Interest: In accordance with California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. and 87100 et seq., officers and employees of the City will refrain from any activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. All investment personnel shall comply with the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act, to include the annual filing of Statements of Economic Interest. . Return On Investment: The City's investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return through economic cycles. The market-average rate of return is defined as the average return on three-month U.S. Treasury bills. Whenever possible, and consistent with risk limitations, as defined herein, and prudent investment principles, the Treasurer shall seek to augment returns above the market average rate of return. IV. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS Generally, investments shall be made in the context of the "prudent investor" rule. The City is further governed by the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the context of these limitations, the following investments are authorized, and further limited herein: A. United States Treasuries: United States Treasury Bills, Bonds, and Notes, o; those for which the full faith and credit of' the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest. There is no limitation as to the percentage of the portfolio which can be invested in this category, although maturity limitations are restricted to a dollar weighted average portfolio of 3 years or less with no single investment exceeding a 5 year maturity. g. US Agency Obligations: Obligations issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) "Ginnie Mae", the Federal Farm Credit Bank System (FFCB), the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLB), the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)"Fannie Mae", the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association (FHLMAC)"Freddie Mac" and the Student Loan Marketing Association (SLMA). Although there is no percentage limitation on the dollar amount that can be invested in rev. 1-5-96 Page 3 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer these issues, the "prudent investor" rule shall apply for a single agency name. Maturity limitations are restricted to an dollar average weighted portfolio of 3 years or less with no single investment exceeding a 5 year maturity. Investments detailed in C through L below are additionally restricted as to percentage of the cost value of the portfolio in any one issuer name up to a maximum of 5%. The total cost value invested in any one issuer name will not exceed 5% of an issuer's net worth. An additional 5%, or a total of 10%, of the cost value of the portfolio in any one issuer name can be authorized upon written approval of the Treasurer, Finance Director and City Manager. C. Banker Acceptances: Bills of exchange or time drafts drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank, otherwise known as banker's acceptances. Banker's acceptances purchased may not exceed 270 days to maturity or 40% of the cost value of the portfolio and the City may only purchase Bills of Exchange accepted by banks which meet the requirements for investment in short term certificates of deposit (less than 24 months) in Section V. D. Commercial Paper: Commercial paper ranked "P 1" by Moody's Investor Services or "Al+" by Standard and Poor's, and issued by domestic corporations having assets in excess of $500,000,000 and having an "A" or better rating on its long term debentures as provided by Moody's or Standard and Poor's. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 180 days to maturity or represent more than 10% of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Purchases of commercial paper may not exceed 15% of the cost value of the portfolio. An additional 15% or a total of 30% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in commercial paper if the dollar weighted average maturity of the dollars in commercial paper invested does not exceed 31 days. Eo Negotiable Certificates: Negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nation, ally or state-chartered bank or a state or federal savings institution, or a State-licensed branch of a foreign bank ("Yankee"). Purchases of negotiable certificates of deposit may not exceed 30% of the cost value of the portfolio. To be eligible for purchase by the City the NCD must meet the credit and maturity criteria as stated in Section V. Fo Repurchase Agreements: The City may invest in repurchase agreements with banks and dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase agreement. The maturity of repurchase agreements shall not exceed 365 days. The market value of securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements shall be initially priced with margin ratios of 110%. Collateral pricing will be monitored daily by the investment staff and not be allowed to fall below 100% of the value of the repurchase agreement. In order to conform with provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Code which provide for the liquidation of securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements, the only rev. 1-5-96 Page 4 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer securities acceptable as collateral shall be certificates of deposit, commercial paper, eligible bankers' acceptances, or securities that are direct obligations of the United States or any agency of the United States. G. Reverse Repurchase Agreements: The City may invest in reverse repurchase agreements only with those banks and dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase contract. The City may invest in reverse repurchase agreements with the following conditions: When the earnings from the matching investment(s) are greater than or equal to the cost of the reverse(s) and the terms and conditions are otherwise favorable to the City. Reverse repurchase agreements entered into in accordance with this paragraph may not exceed 95 days to maturity without written approval of the City Treasurer, Finance Director and City Manager, and must be matched as to maturity with all proceeds of the reverse repurchase reinvested in the matched security. Floating rate notes may be utilized for the reinvestment of reverse repurchase proceeds where the coupon reset date is matched to the maturity of the reverse. Fixed rate securities with maturities greater than 95 days with 'puts' may also be utilized for reinvestment of reverse proceeds where the put on the security is exercisable within 95 days and the put date is matched to the maturity of the reverse. Both floating rate and putable securities should only be used for reinvestment purposes when there is an appropriate yield advantage to other short dated securities. . . Term reverse repurchase transactions in excess of 95 days are authorized if the securities underlying the reverse are matched with the maturity of the reverse and will mature within six months from the date of settlement. The proceeds of the reverse transaction must be reinvested in securities that match the maturity of the term reverse repurchase agreement. Term reverse repurchase transactions in excess of 6 months are authorized if the securities underlying the reverse are matched with the maturity of the reverse, mature more than 6 months but within one year from date of settlement and have written approval of the Treasure, Finance Director and City Manager for each transaction. The proceeds of the reverse transaction must be reinvested in securities that match the maturity of the term reverse repurchase agreement. H. Local Agency Investment Fund: The City may invest in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies up to the maximum permitted under Section 16429.1 of the Government Code. rev. 1-5-96 Page 5 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer Time Deposits: The City may invest in non-negotiable time deposits collateralized in accordance with the California Government Code, in those banks and savings and loan associations which meet the requirements for investment in negotiable certificates of deposit. Since time deposits are not liquid, no more than 25% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in this category. Financial Futures: The City may sell financial futures contracts with respect to securities owned by it, including securities which are subject to reverse repurchase agreements. The City may buy financial futures contracts in order to offset already existing futures positions. K. European or American Call Options: The City may use European or American Call or Put Options with respect to U.S. Treasury or U.S. Agency obligations. The maximum outstanding exposure allowed is $5 million face value for Calls bought or sold by the City and $2.5 million face value for Puts bought or sold by the City. The expiration date on any contract will not exceed 90 days. Lo Medium-Term Notes: The City may invest in medium-term notes issued by corporations operating within the United States. Securities eligible for investment shall be rated in accordance with the maturity and rating criteria described in Section V. In addition, the issuing corporation itself must have a minimum rating of"A" by both Standard and Poor's and Moody's and have in excess of $500,000,000 in Shareholders Equity. Purchase of medium-term notes may not exceed 15% of the cost value of the portfolio. No more than 5% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in notes issued by any one corporation. Commercial paper holdings should be considered when calculating the maximum percentage in any issuer name. M. Mutual Funds & Beneficial Interest Shares: Share of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies or mutual funds shall be rated in the highest rating category ora least two of the three nationally recognized rating services (e.g. Moody's P-1 or S&P AAAm) and must have in excess of $500,000,000 in assets under management. The purchase price shall not include commissions and shall not exceed 5°A of the cost value of the portfolio. No Notes, Bonds or Other Obligations: Notes, bonds, or other obligations which are at all times secured by a valid first priority security interest in securities of the types listed by Section 53651 as eligible securities for the purpose of securing local agency deposits having a market value at least equal to that required by Section 53652 for the purpose of securing local agency deposits. The securities serving as collateral shall be placed by delivery or book entry into the custody of a trust company or the trust department of a bank which is not affiliated with the issuer of the secured obligation, and the security interest shall be perfected in accordance with the requirements of the rev. 1-5-96 Page 6 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer Uniform Commercial Code or federal regulations applicable to the types of securities which the security interest is granted. Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be issued by an issuer rated in a rating category of"AA" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service and having an "A" or higher rating for the issuer's unsecured debt, as provided by a nationally recognized rating service. Oo Pass Through and/or Certificate Investments: Any mortgage pass-through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bond of a maximum of five years maturity. Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be issued by an issuer rated in a rating category of"AA" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service and having an "A" or higher rating for the issuer's unsecured debt, as provided by a nationally recognized rating service. Purchase of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20 percent of the agency's surplus money that may be invested pursuant to this section. Po Ineligible Investments: Investments not described herein, including, but not limited to, common stocks and long-term corporate notes/bonds are prohibited from use in the City of Ukiah's portfolio. Q. Maximum Investment Maturity: Investment which exceed 5 years in maturity require authority granted by City Council before purchase. Written authority of the City Council must be granted specifically or as part of an investment program no less than three months prior to the date of purchase. rev. 1-5-96 Page 7 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC MEMBER INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE JULY 1996 I am applying for appointment as the Public Member of the Investment Oversight Committee for the City of Ukiah. NAMF' RESIDENCE ADDRESS: RESIDENCE PHONE: BUSINESS PHONE: BUSINESS ADDRESS: EMPLOYER: POSITION/JOB TITLE:. EMPLOYED SINCE: RESIDED IN THE CITY OF UKIAH SINCE: RESIDED IN MENDOCINO COUNTY SINCE: Please list any elected or appointed positions you have held: Please answer the questions on the next page using extra sheets of paper as needed. When submitting this application, please attach a complete resume covering your education, career, and community experience. Signature Date SUBMIT APPLICATION TO: City Clerk, 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482 APPLICATION DEADLINE' AUGUST 9, 1996 CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION QUESTIONAIRE PUBLIC MEMBER- INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE . . o . . o . Why did you apply to serve the City of Ukiah in this capacity? What experience do you have that qualifies you to carry out the duties and responsibilities as a member of the Investment Oversight Committee? Do you currently conduct any business with the City as a vendor, supplier, or independent contractor? Please be specific in describing your experience in the management of a multifaceted investment portfolio. How extensive is your experience relating to municipal investing? Are you familiar with the State requirements associated with local government investments? Describe any previous experience you have had with municipal government finances. What types of internal controls would you recommend for the City's investment committee? Why should the City Council appoint you to this position? mfh:office PUBLICMEMBERAPPLICATION ITEM NO. 8e DATE: July 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF EXPANDING CITY'S TELEPHONE SYSTEM, APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SIEMENS CREDIT CORPORATION, MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH SIEMENS ROLM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS During Budget deliberations funding was approved for expanding the Rolm telephone system, which is currently housed at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, to serve the remainder of the City's facilities. As Council is aware, upgrading the telephone system is becoming more and more necessary as our 10 year old system cannot keep up with our increasing telecommunication needs. The Rolm system has proven very effective at the Conference Center, and they have available extra telephones, as well as a bank of 50 telephone lines through Pacific Bell that can be used by the Civic Center. This will reduce the overall cost of expansion and offer the remaining City facilities with voice mail capabilities. Further, the City can expand the number of phone lines so that staff will not experience busy tones when too many people are using the telephones at once, as well as allow for the increasing number of modems that are in use. With our current SL-1 system we have reached maximum capacity and cannot add more lines without going through Pacific Bell, bypassing the SL-1 totally, at an extra expense. (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION' Council authorize the expansion of the Rolm telephone system, approve lease agreement with Siemens Credit Corporation, approve maintenance agreement with Siemens Rolm Communications, Inc., and authorize City Manager to execute documents. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' 1. Determine modifications are needed before City Manager executes documents. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. Acct. No.' XXX. XXXX.220 $62,990 (if budgeted) N/A Yoast, Executive Assistant ~__/L/ Karen Candace Horsley, City Manager Rolm Proposal, including Lease and Maintenance Documents APPROVED:--.~~ . ?~" Candace Horsley, ci~y I~anager 4/Can:ASRPhono.1 Annette McCormick from Rolm will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions you might have relative to the details of the attached Rolm proposal, lease and maintenance agreements. It would be an enhanced telephone system, versus a new system, and will cost approximately $1,250 per month, for five years, plus maintenance costs. Staff recommends the maintenance agreement be secured for five years. It will begin 30 days after the phone system is installed, and does not entail an annual increase. The annual maintenance contract will include all City facilities, including the Conference Center, and be approximately $10,500. For maintenance expenses, the City will be paying a comparable annual amount to what the Conference Center is currently paying and what the City was paying under its old contract with Nortel. Also for Council's information, staff is currently working with various networks to obtain the lowest fares possible for our long distance calling. Switching to a new company would coincide with the installation and start-up of the enhanced telephone system so that the many different phone modifications can be absorbed by staff at one time. Staff is requesting City Council consideration and approval of the Rolm proposal at this time, so that the new telephone system can be installed in September or October of 1996. SIEMENS ROLM Communications June 25. 1996 Candace Horsley City Manager The City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Candace; As requested by Karen Yoast, included is the Siemens Rolm Schedule A for the expansion of the Siemens Rolm 9200 CBX Phone System and Siemens Rolm PhoneMafl. In addition to the Schedule A is the Siemens Credit Corporation Master Leaae. This lease will provide a low monthly lease payment for thc expansion of the systems, software upgrades, installation,, design and training. Along with the Schedule A and the Lease is a long term maintenance agreement called an Annul Prepayment Option Maintenance Agreement (APO). The APO will provide the lowest possible annual maintenance price for the support of the hardware and softxvare. An APO also provides the City of Ukiah with a guaranteed and discounted price for the full term of the APO. You can select 3,4 or 5 year APO's. As to the request for a letter stating that Siemens Rolm qualifies as a sole source vendor for the City of Ukiah, one of our Siemens Rolm Corporate Attorneys Christopher Kerby is in touch with your City Attorney David Rapport. When they have come up with verbiage that is mutually agreeable, I will fax that to your attention as soon as possible. Karen did tell me that the budget meetings begin today. We are making every effort possible to get the information you need to you in a timely manner. When I have heard back from David and Chris I will contact you. Sincerely; Annette McCormick Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. 4000 Executive Parkway Suite 210 San Ramon, CA 94583 Tel: 510-8301155 Fax: 510-277 5330 Scope of Work: Siemens Rolm Communications, Inc. 'Communications Scope of Work Prepared For The City of Ukiah June 24, 1996 - Disconnect Northern Telecom SL-1 PBX. - Disconnect move and reinstall Siemens Rolm 9200 CBX and PhoneMml - Install new backboards, CBX nmin distribution frame and_ switch tails at the Civic Center - Reterminate stations located at the Conference Center - Reterminate station and modem locations at the Civic Center - Terminate customer provided feeder cable connecting the Conference Center to the Civic Center - Install protection on both sides of the feeder cable that connects the locations - Redesign the Siemens Rolm 9200 CBX and PhoneMail data base - Reterminate Pacific Bell off premise extensions and assign each a new direct inward dial (DID) # - Provide 9200 CBX station end user training Siemens Rolm customer support representatives will be on-site to assist users the first full day in in service. - Add (1) eight port 9200 Direct Inward Dial (DID) Trunk card and help customer order an additional block of 100's from Pacific Bell and assign the new phone numbers to users - Add (3) eight port 9200 Central Office (CO) Trunk Cards to support existing trunks and modems - Add (5) sixteen port 9200 Analog Station Cards to support customer provided single line phones and modems - Add (2) sixteen port 9200 Digital Station Cards to support ROLMset multi-line phones - Add (1) Attendant Console with (3) Key Expansion Options and (2) Power Supplies - P~dd (11) ROLMset 9225 Digital Phones - Add (1) ROLM_set 9224 Digital Phone - Redesign and install (10) customer provided ROLMsets that will be moved from the Conference Center to the Civic Center. - Provide 9200 CBX system manager software and on-site system manager training - One year system manager software support - Upgrade and expand the Siemens Rolm PhoneMail from 4 ports to 8 ports. - Assist with redesign of the PhoneMail call processing menu. - Provide PhoneMail system manager training - Provide and Install (1) UPS to provide battery back-up to the 9200 CBX and PhoneMail in the event of a power outage. Page 2 of 3 City of Ukiah Siemens Rolm Communications, Inc. Price Smmnary Prepared For The City of Ukiah June 24, 1996 Price Summary: Siemens Rolm Purchase Price for Hardware Software, System Design. Training and Installation $ 62.189 Plus All Applicable Taxes Siemens Credit Corporation Lease Option: Terms Purchase Option Interest Rate Contract Price Monthly Lease Payment 60 Months $1.00 BuyOut 7.875% $ 62,189 $ 1,249.37 Plus All Applicable Taxes Rates are Valid for 30 Days and are Subject to Credit Approval To activate the Lease: * Customer Signs the Siemens Rolm Schedule A and the Scope of Work * Customer Signs a Siemens Credit Corporation Lease Agreement * Customer Provides Siemens Rolm a Check Equal to 2 Monthly Lease Payments. This is all that is required to begin the implementation of the Siemens Rolm Phone System and PhoneMail for the City of Ukiah. Customers can add and delete hardware, software, and labor to the Siemens Rolm Schedule A during the design process and up until the signed Statement of Work and the Final Installation Change Order. Once this is done, Siemens Credit Corporation will provide the City of Ukiah with an adjustment to the Lease Agxeement and the Monthly Lease Payment. Pacific Bell Charges: Estimated price for Pacific Bell to convert existing minks to ground start assured and add 8 New Dir~zt Inward Dial Trunks. Pac Bell prices are subject to change. This price does not include a new bank of 100 numbers from Pac Bell. The information provided to Siemens Rolm by the City of U'kiah is that there are 50 numbers still available from the existing bank of 100 numbers that can be used for new extension numbers, Fax's and modems. $ 2,040 Page 3 of 3 City of Ukiah Siemens Rolm Annual Maintenance Agreement: The Annual Maintenance Agreemem Purchase Price includes the following: * The New Expanded Hardware and Software for the Siemens Rolm 9200 Telephone System * The New Expanded Hardware for the Siemens Rolm PhoneMail System * The New 9200 Manager II System Management Software * The New UPS System that Support the Phone System and PhoneMail If you are currently paying for an annual maintenance agreement for the Siemens Rolm 9200 and PhoneMail, the annual mount will be adjusted to reflect the difference between what you pay today and the revised mount included below. The hardware and software additions included m the proposal, detailed in page one, include a 30 day warranty. The guaranteed discounted annual purchase price for the Phone and PhoneMail System to support the City of Ukiah is $10,349.00. If the Annual Prepayment Option (APO) Maintenance Agreement is signed at the same time as the Siemens Rolm Schedule A, the City of Ukiah will receive price protection for the full term ff the agreement and there will be no price increases to the maintenance agreement, unless the systems are expanded even further. You have the option of a 3,4 or 5 year APO. Assuming the Installation of the expanded systems is scheduled for September 1st 1996. The existing maintenance contract price that is aproximately $4~500 will increase September 1st 1996 by $ 5,859.00. Starting July 1st 1997 the annual maintenance price is, as stated m the previous paragraph, $10,349.00. Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. Santa Clara, California 95054 ROLM 9200 CBX Schedule A- MAC Order Customer Name and Invoice Address: Agreement Type: I-lAPS r-IMSSMA r-lOther The City of Ukiah Reference Agreement No.: 300 Semianry Avenue~ Ukiah~ CA 95482 Reference Exhibit Nos.: System Location Address (Premises): (if different from above) Branch Office Address: 4000 Executive Parkway~ San Ramon, CA 94583 Purchase Price: $ 62,990. O0 Quotation No.: Branch Office No.: S05 Intended Installation Date.: September 1, 1996 Customer No.: Pricing Validity Exp. Date: Page No.: 1 of By signing this Schedule A, Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. (Siemens Rolm) and the Customer (you) agree that the terms of the referenced Agreement for Products and Services (APS), Master System Sales and Maintenance Agreement (MSSMA) or other agreement, whichever is applicable (Agree- ment), and the referenced Exhibit(s) apply to the Products, Software, Programs and services listed in this Schedule A. The.prices in this Schedule A are valid if it and the refer- enced Agreement, signed by you, are received by Siemens Rolm on or before the Pricing Validity Expiration Date specified above, provided they are accepted by Siemens Rolm. The pricing in this Schedule A is contingent upon your ac- ceptance of Siemens Rolm's standard contract terms. Changes to such terms may result in an adjustment to the Purchase Price. If the Purchase Price in this Schedule A is less than $25,000, le payment terms are as follows: 100% of the Purchase Price plus the Purchase Price of any Installation Change Order (ICO), and all taxes and governmental fees applicable to the total Purchase Price, is due within 30 days of the invoice date. If the Purchase Price in this Schedule A is $25,000 or greater, the payment terms are as follows: 25% of the Purchase Price is due upon the execution of this Schedule A; and the remaining 75% of the Purchase Price plus the Purchase Price of any ICO, and all taxes and governmental fees applicable to the total Purchase Price, is due upon the Installation Date. The sales tax amount referenced in this Schedule A and any subsequent Installation Change Order is provided as an esti- mate only. Exact taxes will be verified against local sales tax regulations and reflected in Siemens Rolm's invoices to you. In the event you fail to make any payments when due under this Schedule A or subsequent orders relating to the System and/or Product(s), Siemens Rolm may immediately suspend performance until payment is received. If any amount due is not paid in accordance with the specified terms, you agree to pay Siemens Rolm on demand, as a late charge, 1.5% per month, limited by the maximum rate permitted by law, on such overdue amount. The late charge will accrue from such due date until such amount is paid. Pricing and credit approval is subject to Siemens Rolm ver- ification and acceptance. The warranty period for each MAC Product is 30 days from its Installation Date unless otherwise specified by Siemens Rolm in this Schedule A. This Schedule A, which contains proprietary Product and pricing information, has been preparedfor the express purpose of allowing you to evaluate the Product and service offerings of Siemens Rolm. Except as otherwise required by law, it may not be reproduced, used by or disclosed to persons not em- ployed or retained by you for the evaluation and implementa- tion of this Schedule A without the prior written consent of Siemens Rolm. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the 'Software License" section in the referenced Agreement, Siemens Rolm ~rants ~ou a non-exclusive license in the United States and uerto ico to use the Software listed on a Schedule A and/or Installation Change Order only in the System in which such Software is initially installed, and only for those features for which and only to the extent to which Siemens Rolm has au- thorized the use of such Software, and only for so long as you are using such System within your Enterprise. The Software License Agreement (SLA) referenced in the 'Software License' section in the APS or the Software transfer obligations refer- enced in the 'Software License' section in the MSSMA or the substantially similar transfer obligation(s) in the Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety with Software License Agreement, form no. Z130-0529-08, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Program License Agreement (PLA) referenced in the 'Program License' section in the APS or any separate program license provision referred to in the 'Software License" section in the MSSMA or the substantially similar program license provision(s) in the Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety with PLA, Exhibit No. ROLMPLA-9, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. If you are a U.S. Government user, the Software and/or Program(s) and documentation are provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Use, duplication and disclosure by the U.S. Govern- ment is subject to restrictions as set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.227-19(c)(2) or successor regulation thereto. Contractor/manufacturer is Siemens Rolm Communi- cations Inc., 4900 Old Ironsides Drive, Santa Clara, California. The Products, Software, Programs and services are set forth in this Schedule A beginning on the next page. Siemens is a registered trademark of Siemens AG ROLM is a registered trademark of Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. CBX is a trademark of Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. \ccepted by: ,~iemens Rolm Communications Inc. By By Authorized Signature Customer Authorized Signature Name (Type or Print) Z 130-0655-08 (5/96) Date Name (Type or Print) Date Schedule A S3mtm,.=~ PaEe 1 of 3 --.~: 04-04-96 Af:l,:h.-ess: :300 ~ AVE ~:~CL~H, CA 95482-5400 USA · ~S~: ROLM 9230 DIGITAL ~T-~HONES-I;EZ E~3?ANSZON UNITS ~]m-e= 9225 ~ ~]mqe= 9229K ~O · ~lmee= 922AL ~~e= 9208/2 i ~~eU 9232~ Co~ole 3 Ro]~e= 924~ ~O Console ~~hone 120 ~~ne 240 ~~hone 400 ~~hone 312 Gray ~~hone 312 ~a~ ~~hone 612 Gra~ ~~hone 612 Bla~ ~~hone 624 Gra~ RO~hone 624 ~a~ RO~hone 600 ~O, Gray ~~hone 600 ~O, ~a~ CO T.--unk DID T---unk Tie Line Card{s) - 4 CKT T1 Card(s) - 24 ~ Card(s) -23 CKT ~SZEM PORTS 16 W~ 384 Ca~a=_~ t~ Single Line Phone (s) S~tTIONS I Analog Ca=~(s) - 16 CKT Digital Ca=~($) - 16 CKT Station Cable SinEle Line Analo~ Phones Schedule A - ROLM 9230 C~onen~s Page 2 ' Schedule A - ROLM 9230 Components Page 3 .................... Schedule A - ROLM 9230 S~s~_m Lis= Price .................... 58.,..699 4,291 62,990 Pu=~hase P=ice for ~ and P~ri~herals ......... 62,990 · o~! System Put=hue P~£oe ..... F · v~rsion: 96.21.01.06 62,990 M0~EL 923O Schedule Pa~e 2 of ~ ~ ~: 04-04-96 J~_-4,.4r.ess: 300 ~ AVE U~.IAH, CA 95482-5400 USA NOMBE~ ROLM ROLM P~N49723E 355/~N024 355MN102L 355MN152 355MN102 355MN021 35~~1 35~41 RO~ 263050 250631 77217 ' ~356 .CT249 .183B1 6~ ~7~ NO~~ 189EC71100 3B1~ NO~T~ 40300086 40300158 60940008 40300164 GB184B2 LABOR LABOR LABOR · LABOR LABOR LABOR LABOR LABOR LABOR LABOR LABOR LABOR OR ~ tHOR DESC1R.IPTION ROLM LABOR ZNS~tLL DESIGN ~J~INZNG IN SERVICE COVER EX~AND PHML BT FOUR POP. TS EIGHT PO~tT DID ~ CARD A/~LOG CRD I~HONES I~DDEMS ROIm4PHONE 9225 DIGITAL S~TION CARDS EIGHT PORT TRUNK CARD RO~ONE 9224 9200 S~E~ ONE 1rEAR SO~ SITPPORT 66M150 630B4H ~?-?.PHOI~TE PLA~T~ GROUND CLAMP POWER FAZL~ BI'PASS KIT 25 PAIR CABLE FULL BLUE BACKEK1ARD GROUND W'SRE GROUND BAR 100 PR PROTECTOR W COVER STTR~ACE MOUNT BOX SERIZS II FACE~ 1RJ45 CAT 4 JACK I~DDULE PHONE R]tLL MOUNT KIT FLO/~T EXISTING BACI~BOARDS INSTALL 66MI50 BLOCKS ~DUNT 66M150 INST~?.T. SR'ZTCH ~M PHONE DEINST.~?.~. FOUR CELL 9230 DE INST~.T. PH~ MOVE 9230 ~ CUST PRVD FOUR HOURS SU~ IN SEI~FIC INSTALL GROUNDING INSTALL R~LL MOUNT KIT DISCONNECT NOR/mr~R~: SL1 TRAVEL PER DIEM F2CPENSES PROJECT ~ 1 1 1 1 7 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 1 25 2 2OO 1 2 4 4OO 1 3 3 3 6 3 2 1 4 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 UNIT LIST 7,875.00 3,250.00 7,824.60 997.92 1,549.80 300.51 1,470.42 982.80 217.35 701.19 1,500.00 283.50 13.25 4.28 6.28 438.60 8.51 44.96 1.06 7.01 7.33 1,001.79 7.07 162.05 7.64 3.46 10.34 0.79 51.03 22.32 87.72 7.46 0.88 21.93 175.44 21.93 43.86 175.44 175.44 87.72 6.58 87.72 5,459.29 1,986.60 Cam~onen~ 7', 875.00 3,250.00 7 , 824 . 60 997.92 10 , 848 . 60 3 , 305.61 2,940.84 1,965.60 217.35 701.19 1,500 . 00 283.50 344.46 4.28 6.28 438.60 212.85 89.93 211.68 7.01 14.67 4 , 007 . 18 2,827.44 162.05 22.91 10.38 31.01 4.76 153.09 44.64. 87.72 29.82 22.81 21.93 175.44 21.93 43.86 175.44 175.44 87.72 19.74 87.72 5,459.28 1,986.60 $58,699 ?a~e B of ~ 04--04--96 300 ~ AV~ UKZAH, CA 95482-5400 * USA ROLM ROLM DESCRII~TION CONSOLg ZX~ANSION mO CONSOLZ ~Z0 mOWZa SUTS AT'2ENDANT CONSOLE UNIT LIST ~X~ENSION 224.00 672.00 42.00 84.00 2,380.00 2,380.00 1,155.00 1,155.00 Co~onen= ~o=,a.1 $4,291 SIEMENS MASTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT This MASTER LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT dated June 6, 1996 (the "Lease") is by and between Siemens Credit Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Lessor") and City of Ukiah, CA, a branch, agency, or political subdivision of thc State of California ("Lessee"). WITNESSETH: Lessor hereby agrees to lease to Lessee and Lessee hereby agrees to lease from Lessor the equipment and other personal property (the "Equipment") described in any lease schedule incorporating the terms and conditions of this Lease by reference (an "Equipment Schedule") and which may now or bereafter be executed by the parties hereto, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein and in the Equipment Schedule. Each Equipment Schedule to this Lease shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and shall contain such additional terms and conditions as Lessor and Lessee shall agree upon. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Lease and the terms and conditions of an Equipment Schedule, the terms and conditions of the Equipment Schedule shall govern and control that Equipment Schedule. Each Equipment Schedule shall be deemed an independently assignable and separate lease agreement existing upon the terms and conditions stated herein and therein and shall, along with a certified copy of this Lease, constitute chattel paper for purposes of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "Uniform Commercial Code"). I:'-Term. This Lease shall become effective upon the execution by Lessee and Lessor. The term of this Lease for each item of Equipment under an Equipment Schedule ("Lease Term") shall commence on the date the Equipment is accepted by Lessee pursuant to Section 3 hereunder and the Lease Term shall continue until all payments are made in accordance with the schedule of payments (the "Payment Schedule") attached to the Equipment Schedule and until Lessee shall have performed ali of its obligations hereunder, subject to the provisions of Sections 5 and 13 hereunder. Each Payment Schedule shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. This Lease will be automatically renewed at the end of each fiscal year unless the Lessee gives written notice to Lessor not less than ninety (90) days prior to the end of the Lessee's fiscal year of Lessee's intention to terminate this Lease pursuant to Section 5 hereunder. 2. Lease Payments. Lessee agrees to pay to Lessor or its assignee the lease payments, including the interest portion, equal to the amounts specified in the Payment Schedule (the "Lease Payments"). The Lease Payments will be payable without notice or demand at the office of the Lessor (or such other place as Lessor or its assignee may from time to time designate in writing), and will commence on the Commencement Date as set forth in the Delivery and Acceptance Certificate executed by Lessee and will thereafter continue in accordance with the Payment Schedule. Lessee shall pay to Lessor, on demand, interest at the rate of 18% (eighteen percent) per annum or the highest lawful rate, whichever is less, from the due date on the amount of any Lease Payment (the "Payment Date") or other payment not made when due under this Lease, from the date due until the date on which such payment is received by Lessor. Except as specifically provided in Section 5 hereof, Lessee's obligation to make Lease Payments is absolute and unconditional in ali events and is not subject to any setoff, defense, counterclaim, or recoupment for any reason whatsoever including, without limitation, any failure of the Equipment to be delivered or installed, any defects, malfunctions, breakdowns or infirmities in the Equipment or any accident, condemnation or unforeseen circumstances. Lessee reasonably believes that funds can be obtained sufficient to make all Lease Payments during the Lease Term and hereby covenants that it will do all things lawfully within its power to obtain, maintain and properly request and pursue funds from which the Lease Payments may be made, including making provisions for such payments to the extent necessary in each budget submitted for the purpose of obtaining funding, using its bona fide best efforts to have such portion of the budget approved and exhausting all available adminislxative reviews and appeals in the event such portion of the budget is not approved. It is Lessee's intent to make Lease Payments for the full Lease Term if funds are legally available therefor and in that regard Lessee represents that the use of the Equipment is essential to its proper, efficient and economic operation. Lessor and Lessee understand and intend that the obligation of Lessee to pay Lease Payments hereunder shall constitute a current expense of Lessee and shall not in any way be construed to be a debt of Lessee in contravention of any applicable constitutional or statutory limitation or requirement concerning the creation of indebtedness by Lessee, nor shall anything contained herein constitute a pledge of the general tax revenues, funds or monies of Lessee. 3. Delivery and Acceptance. Lessee will cause the Equipment to be delivered to Lessee at the location specified in the Equipment Schedule ("Equipment Location"). Lessee will pay all transportation and other costs, if any, incurred in connection with the delivery and installation of the Equipment. Lessee will accept the Equipment and the Equipment shall be deemed accepted, on the date the Equipment is cutover as certified by the Supplier. If requested, Lessee will execute and deliver to Lessor a Delivery and Acceptance Certificate in the form ~;a_¢hed hereto as Exhibit C. Lessee acknowledges that if all or part of the funds provided by Lessor under this Lease are not needed immediately by the Lessee for payment of equipment invoices, Lessor may escrow funds in U.S. government agency insured investments or commercial paper rated Al by Standard & Poor's or P1 by Moody's Investors Service for a term not to exceed 6 months. Lessee further acknowledges and agrees that all earnings on such escrowed funds constitute interest due Lessor pursuant to this Lease. 4. Disclaimer of Warranties. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the Equipment is of a size, design and capacity selected by Lessee. that Lessor is neither a manufacturer nor a vendor of such equipment and that LESSOR HAS NOT MADE, AND DOES NOT HEREBY MAKE, ANY REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY, OR COVENANT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE MERCHANTABILITY, CONDITION, QUALITY, DURABILITY, DESIGN, OPERATION, FITNESS FOR USE, OR SUITABILITY OF THE EQUIPMENT IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER OR IN CONNECTION WITH OR FOR TI-IE PURPOSES AND USES OF LESSEE, OR ANY OTHER REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY, OR COVENANT OF ANY KIND OR CHARACTER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND LESSOR SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATED OR LIABLE FOR ACTUAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR OTHER DAMAGES OF OR TO LESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT AND THE MAIN'IENANCE THEREOF. Lessor hereby assigns to Lessee during the Lease Term, so long as no Event of Default has occurred hereunder and is continuing, all manufacturer's warranties, if any, expressed or implied with respect to the Equipment and Lessor authorizes Lessee to obtain the customary services furnished in connection with such warranties at Lessee's expense. Lessee's sole remedy for the breach of any such manufacturer's warranty shall be against the manufacturer of the Equipment and not against Lessor, nor shall such matter have any effect whatsoever on the fights and obligations of Lessor with respect to Wis Lease, including the fight to receive full and timely payments hereunder. Lessee expressly acknowledges that Lessor makes, and has made, no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the existence or the availability of such warranties of the manufacturer of the Equipment. 5. Non-Ao0ro0riation of Funds: Non-Substitution. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Lease to the contrary, in the event no funds or insufficient funds are appropriated or budgeted or that funds are otherwise unavailable by any means whatsoever in any fiscal period for the intended use of the MLPAI011.501 SIEMENS Equipment and for the Lease Payments due under this Lease, Lessee will immediately notify the Lessor or its assignee of such occurrence and this Lease shall terminate on the last day of the fiscal period for which appropriations were received without penalty or expense to Lessee of any kind whatsoever, except as to the portions of Lease Payments herein agreed upon for which funds shall have been so appropriated or budgeted or are otherwise available. In the event of such termination, Lessee agrees to peaceably surrender possession of the Equipment to Lessor or its assignee on the date of such termination, packed for shipment in accordance with manufacturer specifications and freight prepaid and insured to any location in the continental United States designated by Lessor. Lessor will have all legal and equitable rights and remedies to take possession of the Equipment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and to the extent permitted by law, Lessee agrees (i) that it will not cancel this Lease under the provisions of this Section if any funds are appropriated to it, or by it, for the intended use of the Equipment for the period in which such appropriation occurs or the next succeeding fiscal period thereafter, and (ii) that it will not during the Lease Term give priority in the application of funds for the acquisition, retention or operation of any other functionally similar equipmenL To the extent permitted by law, this Section will not be construed so as to permit Lessee to terminate this Lease in order to acquire or lease any other equipment or to allocate funds directly or indirectly to perform essentially the same application for which the Equipment is intended. 6. Certification and Authorization. Lessee represents, covenants and warrants that it is a state, or a political subdivision thereof, or that Lessee's obligation under this Lease constitutes an obligation issued on behalf of a state or political subdivision thereof, such that any interest derived under this Lease will qualify for exemption from Federal income taxes under Section 103 of thc Internal Revenue Code. Lessee further warrants that this Lease represents a valid deferred payment obligation for thc amount herein set forth and that Lessee, having thc legal capacity to enter into thc same, is not in contravention of any Town/City, District, County, or State statute, rule, regulation, or other governmental provision. Lessee agrees that (i) it will do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve and keep thc Lease in full force and effect; (ii) it has complied with ali bidding requirements where necessary and by due notification presented this Lease for approval an~ adoption as a valid obligation on its pan; and (iii) it has sufficient appropriations or other funds available to pay all amounts duc hereunder for the current fiscal period; (iv) no lease, rental agreement or contract for purchase to which Lessee has been a party at any time during the last five years has been terminated by Lessee as a result of insufficient funds being appropriated in any fiscal period; (v) during thc term of this Lease, thc Equipment will be used by Lessee only for thc purpose of performing one or more governmental or proprietary fimctions of Lessee consistent with thc permissible scope of Lessee's authority and will not be used in a trade or business of any person or entity other than the Lessee; (vi) Lessee will take no action that will cause the Interest portion of any Lease Payment to become includable in gross income of thc recipient for purposes of federal income taxation under thc Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Lessee will take, and will cause its officers, employees and agents to take, ali affirmative action legally within its power to prevent such Interest from being includable in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation under the Code. 7. Title to Ea_uipmcnt: Security Interest. During thc term of this Lease, and so long as no Event of Default (as defined in Section 18) has occurred, title to the Equipment and any and all additions, repairs, replacements or modifications thereof, will rest in thc Lessee, subject to thc rights of Lessor under this Lease. In thc Event of Default as set forth in Paragraph 18 or a termination as set forth in Paragraph 5, Lessee will peaceably surrender possession of thc Equipment to Lessor. At the expiration of the Lease Term, when all Lease Payments have been made, Lessor will release any security interest it has in the Equipment. Lessor shall have and retain a security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in the Equipment, the proceeds thereof and any and all repairs, replacements, substitutions and modifications thereto, in order to secure Lessee's payment of all Lease Payments and the performance of all other obligations of Lessee under this Lease. If requested by Lessor, Lessee agrees to execute such additional documents including financing sta~ments, affidavits, notices and similar iusuuments, in form satisfactory to Lessor which Lessor deems necessary or appropriate to protect its interest in the Equipment and in this Lease. 8. Ellis. Lessee authorizes Lessor to make the Lessor's security interest a matter of public record by filings of Uniform Commercial Code financing statements and any other documents Lessor deems necessary for that purpose, and agrees to be responsible for any costs associated therewith. Lessee agrees to sign or execute such documents at its expense to evidence its consent to filings and to promptly deliver such documents to Lessor. Lessor is hereby authorized, if permitted by applicable law, to file such documents either without the signature of Lessee or signed by Lessor as attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution for Lessee (the foregoing grant of authority is to be deemed coupled with an interest). Lessee agrees to timely file the appropriate IRS form 8038-G. 9. Alterations. Lessee will not make any alterations, additions or improvements to the Equipment without Lessor's prior written consent unless such alterations, additions or improvements may be readily removed without damage to the Equipment. 10. Location: Ins_oection. The Equipment will not be removed fi'om, or if the Equipment consists of rolling stock, its permanent base will not be changed from the Equipment Location without Lessor's prior written consent which will not be unreasonably withheld. Lessor will be entitled to enter upon the Equipment Location or elsewhere during reasonable business hours to inspect the Equipment or observe its use and operation. 11. l,i.rdiLaad_Ta~. Lessee shall keep the Equipment free and clear of all levies, liens and encumbrances except those created under this Lease. Lessee shall pay, when due, all charges and taxes (local, state and federal) which may now or hereafter be imposed upon the ownership, leasing, rental, sale, purchase, possession or use of the Equipment, excluding however, all taxes on or measured by Lessor% income. If Lessee fails to pay said charges and taxes when due, Lessor shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to pay said charges or taxes and Lessee shall reimburse Lessor therefor. 12. Personal Pro_oertv. The Equipment is and will remain personal property and will not be deemed to be affixed or attached to real estate or any building thereon. If requested by Lessor, Lessee will, at Lessee's expense, furnish a waiver of any interest in the Equipment fi'om any party having an interest in any such real estate or building. 13. Risk of Loss: Damage: Destruction. Lessee assumes all risk of loss of or damage to the Equipment from any cause whatsoever, and no such loss of or damage to the Equipment nor unfitness or obsolescence thereof shall relieve Lessee of the obligation to make Lease Payments or to perform any other obligation under this Lease. In the event of damage to any item of Equipment, Lessee will immediately place the same in good repair with the proceeds of any insurance recovery applied to the cost of such repair. If Lessor determines that any item of Equipment is lost, stolen, condemned, confiscated, destroyed or damaged beyond repair, Lessee, at the option of Lessor, will either (a) replace the same with like equipment in good repair, or (b) on the next Lease Payment date, pay Lessor: (i) all amounts then owed by Lessee to Lessor under this Lease, including the Lease Payment due on such date, and (ii) an amount equal to the applicable Purchase Option Amount set forth in the Payment Schedule. In the event that Lessee is obligated to make payment with respect to less than all of the Equipment, Lessor will provide Lessee with the pro rata amount of the Lease Payment and the Purchase Option Amount to be made by Lessee with respect to the Equipment which has suffered the event of loss and the Lease shall remain in full force and effect for all remaining EquipmenL MLPAIO11.$0I SIEMENS 14. Insurance. Lessee, will, at its expense, maintain at ail times during the Lease Term, fire and extended coverage, public liability and property damage insurance with respect to the Equipment in such amounts, covering such risks and obligations set forth in Section 13, and with such insurers as shall be satisfactory to Lessor. or, with Lessor's prior writlen consent, may self-insure against any or all such risks. In no event will the insurance limits be less than the amount of the then applicable Purchase Option with respect to such Equipment. Each insurance policy will name Lessee as an insured and Lessor or its assigns as an additional insured, and will contain a clause requiring the insurer to give Lessor at least thimy (30) days prior written notice of any alteration in the terms of such policy or the cancellation thereof. The proceeds of any such policies will be payable to Lessee and Lessor or its assigns as their interests may appear. Upon acceptance of the Equipment and upon each insurance renewal date, Lessee will deliver to Lessor a certificate evidencing such insurance. If at any time during the Lease Term, Lessee shall not have provided Lessor with such certificate, Lessor may obtain the above described insurance, and Lessee will reimburse Lessor upon demand for the costs thereof including interest at the overdue rate from the date that Lessor incurred such cost to the date of reimbursement by Lessee. In the event that Lessee has been permitted to self-insure against the risks and obligations set forth in Section 13, Lessee will fia'nish Lessor with a letter or certificate to such effect. In the event of any loss, damage, injury or accident involving the Equipment, Lessee will promptly provide Lessor with written notice thereof and make available to Lessor ali information and documentation relating thereto. 15. indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, Lessee shall indemnify Lessor against, and hold Lessor harmless flora, any and all claims, actions, proceedings, expenses, damages or liabilities, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising in connection with the Equipment, including, but not limited to, its selection, purchase, delivery, possession, use, operation, rejection, or return and the recovery of claims under insurance policies thereon. The indemnification arising under this Section shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the full payment of all obligations under this Lease or the termination of the Lease Term for any reason. 16. ~. Without Lessor's prior written consent, Lessee will not either (i) assign, transfer, pledge, hypothecate, grant any security interest in or otherwise dispose of this Lease or the Equipment or any interest in this Lease or the Equipment or (ii) sublet or lend the Equipment or permit it to be used by anyone other than Lessee or Lessee's employees for the governmental purposes of Lessee. Lessor may, without Lessee's prior notification or consent, assign its rights, title and interest in and to this Lease, the Equipment and any documents executed with respect to this Lease and/or grant or assign a security interest in this Lease and the Equipment. Any such assignees shall have ali of the rights of Lessor under this Lease. Subject to the foregoing, this Lease inures to the benefit of and is binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. Lessee covenants and agrees not to assert against the assignees any claims or defenses by way of abatement, setoff, counterclaim, recoupment or the like which Lessee may have against Lessor. Upon written notice from Lessor of the assignment of Lessor's interest herein, Lessee agrees to pay all Lease Payments and other sums thereafter coming due under this Lease to Lessor's assignee in the manner specified in such notice. In compliance with Section 149 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code, Lessee hereby designates the Lessor to be its agent for the purposes of maintaining a book entry system identifying the ownership or interests in and to this Lease and the Lessor hereby accepts its duties as agent hereunder. Lessee acknowledges that Lessor may enter into a Trust Agreement with a national banking association or a state banking association to be selected by Lessor for the purpose of establishing funds and accounts for the payment of the acquisition price of the Equipment to the vendor, for prepayment of the Lease prior to maturity, for damage or condemnation of the Equipment and for receipt of rental payments and other amounts due from Lessee pursuant to the Lease and for distribution of such amounts to holders of Certificates of Participation, as provided for in the Trust Agreement. Lessee authorizes Lessor to act on its behalf for the limited purpose of preparing and deeming final a disclosure document. 17. Advances. If Lessee shall fail to pay any Lease Payment or any other amounts due hereunder or perform any of its obligations under this Lease, Lessor or its assignee may, at its option pay such amounts or perform such obligation, and Lessee shall reimburse Lessor the amount of such payment or cost of performance upon demand, together with interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever is less, on the amount of any Lease Payment or other payment not made when due under this Lease, fi'om the date due until the date on which such payment is received by Lessor. 18. Event of Default" The term "Event of Default," as used herein, means the occurrence ofauy one or more of the following events: (i) Lessee fails to make any Lease Payment (or any other payment) as it becomes due in accordance with the terms of the Lease, and any such failure continues for ten (10) days after the due date thereof; (ii) Lessee fails to perform or observe any other covenant, condition, or agreement to be performed or observed by it hereunder and such failure is not cured within twenW (20) days after written notice thereof by Lessor; (iii) the discovery by Lessor that any statement, representation, or warranW made by Lessee in this Lease or in writing ever delivered by Lessee pursuant hereto or in connection herewith is false, misleading, or erroneous in any material respect; (iv) proceedings under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or similar legislation shall be instituted against or by Lessee, or a receiver or similar officer shall be appointed for Lessee or any of its property, and such proceedings or appointments shall not be vacated, or fully stayed, within twenty (20) days aP, er the institution or occurrence thereof; or (v) an n__tt~¢hrnent, levy or execution is threatened or levied upon or against the Equipment. 19. Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, and as long as such Event of Default is continuing, Lessor may, at its option, exercise any one or more of the following remedies: (i) by written notice to Lessee, declare an amount equal to ali amounts then due under the Lease, and ali remaining Lease Payments due during thc Lease Term to be immediately due and payable, whereupon thc same shall become immediately duc and payable; (ii) by written notice to the Lessee, request Lessee to (and Lessee agrees that it will), at Lessee's expense, promptly remm the Equipment to Lessor in the manner set forth in Section 5 hereof, or Lessor, at its option, may enter upon the premises where the Equipment is located and take immediate possession of and remove the same; (iii) sell or lease the Equipment or sublease it for the account of Lessee, holding Lessee liable for all Lease Payments and other payments due to the effective date of such selling, leasing or subleasing and for the difference between the purchase price, rental and other amounts paid by the purchaser, lessee or sublessee pursuant to such sale, lease or sublease and the amounts payable by Lessee hereunder; and (iv) exercise any other right, remedy or privilege which may be available to it under applicable law of the state of the Equipment Location or any other applicable law or proceed by appropriate cour~ action to enforce the terms of the Lease or to recover damages for the breach of this Lease or to rescind this Lease as to any or all of the Equipment. In addition, Lessee will remain liable for all covenants and indemnities under this Lease and for all legal fees and other costs and expenses, including c, ouR costs, incurred by Lessor with respect to the enforcement of any of the remedies listed above or any other remedy available to Lessor. 20. l~ydligiL.Q~. Lessee shall have the option to purchase Lessor's interest in this Lease and the Equipment on any applicable Payment Date providing: (i) Lessee is not in default under the Lease; (ii) Lessee gives notice to Lessor of its intention to exercise this option at least sixty (60) days prior to the Payment Date on which the option is to be exercised; (iii) Lessee has complied with all applicable laws concerning acquisition of property; (iv) there is a specific purchase option shown in the Payment Schedule on that Payment Date and (v) on the applicable Payment Date, the Lessee shall deposit with the Lessor an amount equal to all Lease Payments and any other amounts then due or past due (including but not limited to the Lease Payment due on the applicable Payment Date) together with the applicable Purchase Option Price set forth in the Payment Schedule. The closing shall be on the Payment Date or the first business day preceding the Payment Date at the office of the Lessor or such other place as the Lessor may direct. MLPA1011.50I SIEMENS 21. Section Headings. All section headings contained herein are for the convenience of reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Lease. 22. Govemine Law. This Lease shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by the laws of, the state of the Equipment Location. 23. Delivery of Related Documeilts. Lessee will execute or provide, as requested by Lessor, such other documents and information as are reasonably necessary with respect to the transaction contemplated by this Lease. 24. Entire Ag~ement: Waiver. This Lease, together with the Eh:livery and Acceptance Certificate and other attachments hereto, and other documents or instruments executed by Lessee and Lessor in connection herewith, shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the lease of the Equipment, and this Lease shall not be modified, amended, altered, or changed except with the written consent of Lessee and Lessor. Any provision of this Lease found to be prohibited by law shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition without invalidating the remainder of the Lease. The waiver by Lessor of any breach by Lessee of any term, covenant or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach thereof. 25. Use of Equipment. The Lessee will use the Equipment in a manner contemplated by this Lease and in the Essential Use/Source of Funds Letter and shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, claims, damages, fees and charges arising out of its possession, use or maintenance. The Lessee, at its expense, shall be responsible for and shall pay all charges for the maintenance of the Equipment. No more than 10% of the use of any unit of the Equipment in any month will be by persons or entities other than the Lessee or its employees on matters relating to such employment, and no more than 5% of use of any unit of the Equipment in any month will be unrelated to use by or for the Lessee. No management contract shall be entered into with respect to any unit of the Equipment unless (a) at least half the compensation is on a periodic, fixed-fee basis; (b) no compensation is based on a share of net profits; and (c) the Lessee is able to terminate the contract without penalties at the end of any three years. 26. Taxes and Other Governmental Charges. In the event the Equipment is found to be subject to taxation in any form, the Lessee will pay as the same respectively become due, all taxes and governmental charges of any kind whatsoever together with any interest and penalties that may at any time be lawfully assessed or levied against or with respect to the Equipment including but not limited to the ownership, leasing, rental, sale, purchase, or possession thereof (excluding however, all taxes on or measured by the Lessor's or its assigns' income) and any equipment or other property acquired by the Lessee in substitution for, as a renewal or replacement of, or as a modification, improvement, or addition to the Equipment, as well as all other charges incurred in the operation, maintenance, use and upkeep of the Equipment; provided that with respect to any governmental charges that may lawfully be paid in installments over a period of years, the Lessee shall be obligated to pay only such installments as are required to be paid during the Lease Term. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, the Lessee shall pay to the Lessor or its assigns any ad valorem, personal property or excise taxes assessed but not yet due and payable. 27. Notices. All notices to be given under this Lease shall be made in writing and sent by overnight delivery service, or by facsimile with original to follow by mail, to the other party at its address set forth herein or at such address as the party may provide in writing from time to time. Any such notice shall be deemed to have been received when sent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the panics have executed this Lease as of the/~/ LESSEE: City of Ukiah, CA By: ~ day of ~/ ,19~" LESSOR: SIEMENS CREDIT CORPORATION By: Title: ~/ Title: ADDRESS FOR NOTICES TO LESSEE UNDER THIS LEASE ADDRESS FOR NOTICES TO LESSOR UNDER THIS LEASE: 300 Semirmry Dr~ve Ukiah, CA 95482 425 Market Street 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Lessee Contact: Karen Yoast Lessor Contact: Mike Paynter Telephone Number: (707) 463-6200 TelephoneNumber: (415) 357-2621 LESSEE BILLING AND INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS (LESSEE MUST COMPLETE THIS SECTION OR FURNISH UNDER SEPARATE COVER): Billing Contac~ Title: X' Billing Address: ~ Billing Phone Number :~" Fed Tax ID Number: ~x' Fax Number~/' Contract/Purchase Order/Requisition Number to be included on invoice: Special invoicing insmactions: ,~ MLPA 1011.50I SIEMENS LESSEE, PLEASE INITIAL AND COMPLETE THE APPROPRIATE SECTION RELATING TO INSURANCE COVERAGE: In accordance with Section 14 of the Lease, Lessee has instructed the insurance agent named below to issue a Certificate of Insurance naming ~ "ChiCorp Financial Services, Inc. and/or its assigns" as loss payee and additio_n~insured for all risk, physical damage and public liability insurance: i~surance Agency Agent's Name Address ( ~. ~(~)~ Telephone Number Fax Number K' / / Policy Number Expiration Date 2. Pursuant to Section 14 of this Lease, Lessee is self-insured for all risk physical damage and public liability insurance coverage. Lessee will provide proof of such self-insurance in letter form together with a copy of the statute authorizing this form of insurance. (The Self-InsUrance Letter/Certificate of Insurance is required PRIOR to funding the Vendor.) MLPAI 011.50I SIEMENS EXHIBIT A EOUIPMENT SCHEDULE NO.01 To Master Lease Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 1996 (the "Lease") by and between Siemens Credit Corporation ("Lessor") and City of Ukiah, CA ("Lessee"). This Equipment Schedule dated as of June 6, 1996 is executed by Lessor and Lessee pursuant to the Lease and all of the terms and conditions of the Lease are hereby incorporated into this Equipment Schedule as if fully set forth herein. Lessor hereby agrees to lease to Lessee under and pursuant to the Lease, and Lessee hereby agrees to lease from Lessor under and pursuant to the Lease, the following items of Equipment: Quantity_ Eo:fiioment Descrimion (Manufacturer, Model, Serial Numbers~ SEE SCHEDULE A ATTACHED HERETO. Eauivment Location: Vendor: Same as above. Siemens Rolm Communications 5201 Great America Parkway, Ste 522 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Total Number of Payments: 60 Payment Amount: $1,265.14 Payment Period: Monthly in advance Commencement Date · LESSEE: City of Ukiah, CA By: X Title: LESSOR: Siemens Credit Corporation By: Title: MLPAI011.501 SCHEDULE A- EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1 1 1 1 7 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 1 25 2 200 1 2 4 400 1 3 3 3 6 3 2 1 4 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION (MANUFACTURER. MODEL. SERIAL NO.) ROLM LABOR INSTALL DESIGN TRAINING IN SERVICE COVER EXPAND PHML BY FOUR PORTS EIGHT PORT DID TRUNK CARD ANALOG CRD PHONES MODEMS ROLMPHONES 9225 DIGITAL STATION CARDS EIGHT PORT TRUNK CARD ROLMPHONE 9224 9200 SYSTEM MNGR SOFTWARE SYSTEM MANAGER TRAINING ONE YEAR SOFTWARE SUPPORT 66M150 630B4H WALLPHONE PLATE GROUND CLAMP POWER FAILURE BYPASS KIT 25 PAIR CABLE FULL BLUE BACKBOARD GROUND WIRE GROUND BAR GROUND CLAMP PR PROTECTOR W COVER PROTECTOR MOULE 4 PR 24 GA CAT 3 PLENUM SURFACE MOUNT BOX SERIES II FACEPLATE 1R J45 CAT 4 JACK MODULE BLANK PHONE WALL MOUNT KIT BACKBOARD HALF GREEN FLOAT EXISTING BACKBOARDS INSTALL 66M150 BLOCKS MOUNT 66M150 INSTALL SWITCH RM PHONE DEINSTALL FOUR CELL 9230 DEINSTALL PHONEMAIL MOVE 9230 AND PHONEMAIL TERMINATE CUST PRVD FEED FOUR HOURS SUB IN SERVIC INSTALL GROUNDING INSTALL WALL MOUNT KIT DISCONNECT NORTHERN SL 1 TRAVEL PER DIEM EXPENSES PROJECT MANAGEMENT QUANTITY EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION (MANUFACTURER. MODEL. SERIAL NO.) CONSOLE EXPANSION KEO CONSOLE KEO POWER SUPS UPS TO SUPPORT CBX PHNML ATTENDANT CONSOLE Exhibit B City of Ukiah, CA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 4.7 50 51 52 53 Payment 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1, 265 1, 265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1, 265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1, 265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Interesn O0 405, 06 399 42 393 74 3S~ 02 2S~ ~6 _ / 3-- 47 370 64 364 77 35~ 86 35~ 91 34:~ 93 3'" 90 334 84 3~ 73 3~2_ 59 316 40 310 17 ~,~ 91 297 60 291 25 284 86 278 43 2~! 95 265 43 258 87 =~45 62 238 93 ?.-:~ 4~ 218 60 ~ 73 197 86 i~0 85 1S~ 80 176 71 169 56 162 37 1Z5 14 14- 85 1=2 52 123 14 12~ 71 113 23 !'~ 0 71 l- 83 '~" i0 -i 33 .'' 50 Principal 1,265.14 860.08 865.72 871.40 877.12 882.88 888.67 894.50 900.37 906.28 912.23 918.21 924.24 930.30 936.41 942.55 948.74 954.97 961.23 967.54 973.89 980.28 986.71 993.19 999.71 1,006.27 1,012.87 1,019.52 1,026.21 1,032.94 1,039.72 1,046.54 1,053.41 1,060.33 1,067.28 1,074.29 1,081.34 1,088.43 1,095.58 1,102.77 1,110.00 1,117.29 1,124.62 1,132.00 1,139.43 1,146.91 1,154.43 1,162.01 1,169.63 1,177.31 1,185.04 1,192.81 1,200.64 Stipulated Loss Value 66,451.12 65,449.01 64,442.94 63,432.89 62,418.84 61,400.77 60,378.67 59,352.53 58,322.33 57,288.05 56,249.68 55,207.19 54,160.58 53,109.82 52,054.91 50,995.82 49,932.54 48,865.05 47,793.33 46,717.38 45,637.16 44,552.67 43,463.88 42,370.78 41,273.36 40,171.60 39,065.47 37,954.96 36,840.06 35,720.75 34,597.00 33,468.81 32,336.15 31,199.01 30,057.36 28,911.20 27,760.50 26,605.24 25,445.42 24,281.00 23,111.97 21,938.31 20,760.01 19,577.05 18,389.40 17,197.05 15,999.98 14,798.18 13,591.61 12,380.27 11,164.14 9,943.19 8,717.41 Exhibit B City of Ukiah, CA 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Pa},men5 1,265 14 1,265 14 1,265 14 1,265 14 1,265 14 1,265 14 1,265 14 -:5 69 _ 61 · 25 Principal 1,208.52 1,216.45 1,224.43 1,232.47 1,240.56 1,248.70 1,256.89 75,908.40 12,9~'~.40 62,990.00 Agreed to by:~ Title: ~ Stipulated Loss Value 7,486.78 6,251.27 5,010.88 3,765.57 2,515.34 1,260.15 .00 Date:~ SIEMENS EXHIBIT C - DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE To Equipment Schedule No.01, dated as of June 6, 1996 by and between Siemens Credit Corporation ("Lessor") and City of Ukiah, CA ("Lessee"), incorporating the terms and conditions of that certain Master Lease Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 1996 between Lessor and Lessee. , Lessee hereby acknowledges receipt of the Equipment described in the Equipment Schedule set forth above (the "Equipment") as fully installed and in good working condition; and Lessee hereby accepts the Equipment after full inspection thereof as satisfactory for all purposes of the Lease executed by Lessee and Lessor. With respect to the Equipment Schedule set forth above, Lessee hereby certifies as to the matters set forth in clauses 4, 5 and 6 of Lessee's Municipal Certificate dated June 6, 1996. Lessee agrees to make payments, as set forth on the Payment Schedule to such Equipment Schedule, beginning on the Commencement Date shown below. LESSEE: City of Ukiah, CA Accepted By: ~ Title: ~/ Date: MLPAI011.501 SIEMENS Gentlemen: ESSENTIAL USE/SOURCE OF FUNDS LETTER This confirms and affirms that the Equipment described in Equipment Schedule No. 01 to the Master Lease Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 1996 (the "Lease") is essential to the function of the undersigned or to the service we provide to our citizens. Further, we have an immediate need for, and expect to make immediate use of, substantially all such Equipment which is not temporary or expected to diminish in the foreseeable furore. Such Equipment will be used by us only for the purpose of performing one or more of our governmental or proprietary functions consistent with the permissible scope of our authority. Specifically, such Equipment is intended to be used by us for the following purposes or functions: The estimvated useful life of such Equipment based upon manufacturer's representations and our projected needs is P years. Our source of funds for payments of the rent due under the Lease for the current fiscal year is ~ We expect and anticipate adequate funds to be available for all future Lease Payments due after the current fiscal year. Specifically, we anticipate that the Lease Payments will be paid for out of the following fund(s): and/or will be available from revenue from the following sources: Very truly yours, City of Ukiah, CA, as Lessee By: X Title:~ Dateff / /199 MLPA1011.501 SIEMENS MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATE Re: Master Lease Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 1996 (the "Lease") between Siemens Credit Corporation, as Lessor, and City of Ukiah, CA, as Lessee. l, the undersigned, the duly appointed, qualified and acting fi' (Clerk or Secretary) of the above- captioned Lessee do hereby certify this X day of ~' ,199 , as follows: 1. Lessee did at a/( (regular or special) meeting of the governing body of the Lessee held g' ,199X , by motion duly made seconded and carried, in accordance with all requirements of law, approve and authorize the execution and delivery of the above-referenced Lease and Equipment Schedule No. 1 thereto on its behalf by the following named representative of the Lessee, to wit. Typed Name of Pers~'n Title Signature Signing Documentation 2. The approvals and authorizations referenced above include the execution and delivery from time to time by the above named representative of Lessee of additional Equipment Schedules to the Lease which provide for the leasing of Equipment from Lessor upon such terms and conditions as such representative of Lessee shall determine. 3. The above-named representative of the Lessee held at the time of such authorization and holds at the present time the office set forth above. 4. No event or condition that constitutes, or with the giving of notice or the lapse of time or both would constitute, an Event of Default (as such term is defined in the Lease) exists as of the date hereof. 5. All insurance required in accordance with the Lease is currently maintained by the Lessee. 6. Lessee has, in accordance with the requirements of law, fully budgeted and appropriated sufficient funds for the current budget year to make the Lease Payments scheduled to come due during the current budget year and to meet its other obligations under the Lease and such funds have not been expended for other purposes. 7. Lessor and its assignees may rely upon the foregoing certifications with respect to the authorizations, approvals and indemnity of Lessee's representative until such time as Lessor or its assigns (if Lessee has received notice of such assignment) have received a written notice to the contrary from the undersigned or the undersign's successor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and the seal of the governing body of the Lessee the day and year fn'st above written. ~(SEAL) By: Signature of Clerk or Secretary (Needs be other than person above) (Typewritten name of Clerk or Secretary) (Please have this document notarized below): Subscribed to and sworn before me this K Signature of Notary Public day of K My commission expires ,199 ~ MLPA1011.501 SIEMENS CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS (Bank-Qualified Certificate) I, the ~( (Title) of City of Ukiah, CA (the "Lessee"), am duly charged with the authority for executing that certain Equipment Schedule No.01, dated as of June 6, 1996 (,the "Lease") to Master Lease Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 1996 by and between Lessee and Siemens Credit Corporation (the "Lessor") and do hereby certify to Lessor and its assigns as follows: 1. The Lease has been designated by Lessee as a qualified tax-exempt obligation of Lessee for purposes of Section 265 (b) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 2. Lessee is a political subdivision of the State of California. 3. The Lease is being issued by Lessee in calendar year 1996. 4. No portion of the gross proceeds of the Lease will be used to make or finance loans to persons other than governmental units or be used in any trade or business carded on by any person other than a governmental unit. 5. Including the Lease herein so designated, Lessee has not designated more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued during calendar year 1996 as qualified tax-exempt obligations. 6. Lessee reasonably anticipates that the total amount of qualified tax-exempt obligations to be issued by Lessee during calendar year 1996 will not exceed $10,000,000. 7. This certificate is based on facts and circumstances in existence on this date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this day of I( ,1996. LESSEE: City of Ukiah, CA Signature: Name Title: MLPAI011.501 SIEMENS (Please furnish on Attorney's Letterhead and address to Lessor) OPINION OF COUNSEL Gentlemen' As counsel for Lessee, I have examined duly executed originals of the Master Lease Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 1996 and Equipment Schedule No. 01 thereto, dated as of June 6, 1996 (collectively the "Lease") between City of Ukiah, CA, as Lessee, and Siemens Credit Corporation, as Lessor, and the proceedings taken by the Lessee to authorize and execute the Lease. Based upon such examination and upon such other examination as I have deemed necessary or appropriate, I am of the opinion that: (a) The Lessee..is a duly created and validly existing state or subdivision or agency of the state of Califorrda and is authorized by the Constitution and laws of that state to enter into the transactions contemplated by the Lease and carry out its obligations thereunder; (b) The Lease has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by Lessee pursuant to Constitutional, statutory, and/or home rule provision which authorizes this transaction in accordance with its terms and conditions, and the Lease is a legal, valid and binding obligation on behalf of the Lessee, enforceable in accordance with its terms and conditions; (c) The signature of the official(s) which appears on the Lease and attached documents is true and genuine and that individual holds the office set forth below his/her name. (d) No approval, consent or withholding of objection is required from any governmental authority with respect to the entering into or performance by Lessee of the Lease or the transactions contemplated thereby, or if any such approval is required it has been obtained; (e) The entering into and performance of the Lease will not violate any judgement, order, law, or regulation applicable to Lessee or result in any breach of, or constitute a default under, or result in the creation of any lien, charge, security interest or other encumbrance upon any assets of Lessee or on the Equipment subject to the Lease pursuant to any instrument to which the Lessee is a party or by which it or its assets may be bound; (f) There are no actions, suits or proceedings pending or, to our knowledge, threatened against or affecting Lessee in any court or before any governmental commission, board or authority which, if adversely determined, will have a material adverse effect on the ability of Lessee to perform its obligations under the Lease; (g) The Equipment subject to the Lease is personal property and when subjected to use by the Lessee, will not be or become fixtures under the laws of the state where the Equipment is located; (h) The Lessee has complied with all public bidding requirements applicable to this transaction; and (i) To the best of my knowledge, all representations made by the Lessee in the Lease are true and accurate as of this date. j) This opinion may be relied upon by Siemens Credit Corporation and its assigns. (Signature of Counsel for Lessee) MLPAI011.501 This FINANCING STATEMENT is presented for filing and will remain effective with certain exceptions for a period of five years from the date of filing pursuant to section 9403 of the California Uniform Commercial Code. lC ,DEBTOR ~ (LAST NAME FIRST-- IF AN INDIVIDUAL) I la. SOCIAL SECURITY OR FEDERAL TAX NO. lty oI Ukiah MAII~IG ADDRESS I1C. CITY, STATE I1D. ZIP CODE ? ,0 Seminary Drive -, ADDmONAL DEBTOR (~F ANY) (LAST NAME FIRST--IF AN INDIVIDUAL) 12A. SOCIAL SECURITY OR FEDERAL TAX NO. I 2C. CITY, STATE 211. MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE 3. DEBTOR'S TRADE NAMES OR STYLES (IF ANY) 4. SECURED PARTY NAME S i ese n s Cr e d i t sCtOrr~eOtr at i on MALING ADDRESS425 Market _ _ 23rd Floor c~Y5a~ yranclscQ, STATE CA 5. ASSK~NEE OF SECURED PARTY (IF ANY) NAME ChiCorD Financial Services, Inc. 208 South LaSalle Street MALINO ADDRESSLeaslng Department cnyChicago, STA~ IL ZIP CODE94105 ZiP CODE6 0 6 0 4 :3A. FEDERAL TAX NUMBER 4~. SOCIAL SECURITY NO., FEDERAL TAX NO. OR BANK TRANSIT AND A.B.A. NO. SA. SOCIAL SECURITY NO., FEDERAL TAX NO. OR BANK TRANSIT AND A.B.A. NO. This FINANCING STATEMENT covers the following types or items of property (include description of real property on which located and owner of record when required by instruction 4). See attached Schedule A for Equipment Description 7. CHECK ~] IF APPUCABLE 8. CHECK IF APPUCABLE 7A. I"---I PRODUCTS OF COLLATERAL ARE ALSO COVERED 7B. DEBTOR(S) SIGNATURE NOT REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTION 5~TEM: I-I,,, r-I,,, DEBTOR IS A "TRANSMITTING UTILITY" IN ACCORDANCE WITH UCC! 9105 (1) (n) 9, $1GNATUREIS) OF DEBTOR[S) City of Ukiah TYPE OR PRINT NAMERS! OF DEBTOR;St SIGNATURE(S) OF SECURED PARTY(lES) Siemens Credit Corporation TYPE OR PRINT NAME(S) OF SECURED PARTY(lES) 11. P~tum copy to: NAME ')RESS STATE ZIP CODE ChiCorp Financial Services, 208 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60604 Inc. FORM UCC.I- Approved by the Secretary of State 10. THIS SPACE FOR USE OF FLUNG OFFICER (DATE , TIME, FILE NUMBER AND FlUNG OFFICER) (1) FILING OFFICER COPY 1C ~BTOR. ~LAST NAME F,,ST-- ,F AN INDIVIDU^U lty OZ Ukiah This FINANCING STATEMENT is presented for filing and will remain effective with certain exceptions for a period of five years from the date of filing pursuant to section 9403 of the California Uniform Commercial Code. IIA. SOCIAL SECURITY OR FEDERAL TAX NO. MAIUNG ADDRESS Seminary Drive ADDmONAL DEBTOR (IF ANY) (LAST NAME FIRST --IF AN INDIVIDUAL) I1C* CITY,~TATE 11D. ZIPCODE ~T~i ah CA I 9c, 4R2 I ZA. SOCIAL SECURITY OR FEDERAL TAX NO. 2C. CITY, STATE ]2D. ZiP CODE 2B. MAIUNG ADDRESS 3. DEBTOR'S TRADE NAMES OR STYLES (IF ANY) 4. SECURED PARTY NAM~ Siemens Credit Corporation MA,INS ADDRESS425 Market str6et 23rd Floor c~San Francisco. STA~ CA 5. ASSIGNEE OF SECURED PARTY {IF ANY) NAME ChiCorp Financial Services, Inc. 208 South LaSalle Street ua-iNs A~R£S;Leasing Department cl~Chicago. STA~ IL Zm CODE9 410 5 z,P COD~50604 3A. FEDERAL TAX NUMBER SOCIAL SECURITY NO., FEDERAL TAX NO. OR BANK TRANSIT AND A.B.A. NO. 5A. SOCIAL SECURITY NO., FEDERAL TAX NO. OR BANK TRANSIT AND A.B.A. NO. This FINANCING STATEMENT covers the following types or items of property (include description of real property on which located and owner of record when required by instruction 4). See attached Schedule A for Equipment Description 7. CHECK [~ IF APPLICABLE 8. CHECK IF APPUCABLE 7A. I---'q PRODUCTS OF COLLATERAL ARE ALSO COVERED 7B. DEBTOR(S) SIGNATURE NOT REQUIRED BI ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTION 51.~TEM: I-I,,, FI,,, DEBTOR IS A "TRANSMITTING UTILITY" BI ACCORDANCE WITH UCC! 9105 (1) In) 9. SIGNATURE{S) OF DEBTOR(S) City of Ukiah TYI~ OR PRINT NAMI~[SI OF DEBTORISI SIGNATURE(S) OF SECURED PARTY(II=S) Siemens Credit Corporation TYPE OR PRINT NAME(S) OF SECURED PARTY(ES) .11. Return copy to: NAME ')RESS STATE ZIP CODE ChiCorp Financial Services. 208 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60604 I nc. --1 iling O.f.f.i.cer is re. quested to note file number, date and FORM UCC.I- our o~ T.Inq on this copy and return to the above party. Approved by t~e Secretary of State 10. THIS SPACE FOR USE OF FILING OFFICER (DATE , TIME, FILE NUMBER AND FILING OFFICER) (2) Filing Officer Copy-Acknowledgement ;o~8038-GC i Information Return for Small Tax-Exempt Governmental Bond Issues, Leases, and Installment Sales OMS · - . (Rev May l::'?m i )' Under Internal Revenue C°cle sectxm :4g<e! k' For calenclar year endlnT 19 I · ~nm~ o . --~ · ~ssue lance of the issue Is S100.000 or mom ) : m., ~.,..u. ~ (Use Form 8038-G If th ' m I~ I"'] ..... Check Dox tf Amended Retu _-- · . Re ' Autho ' k~,~, I Is,~uer '$ nan~ C±1:¥ of Ut<±ah -'~ Nurr~e~ ancl street ~' P.O. box ii mad is not cletnmma to street 300 Sem±na]:y 4 City. tow,~ or Ixm office, mate, ami ZIP ~ Uk,±ah, · CA 94[0.5 Description of Obli ations $62,990. 5 Issue pdce of small tax-exempt governmental obligations reported on this form. ~ga~i 6 Check the box ttmt most hearty approximates the weighted average rnatu~ of the ~)bl a [:::] Less than 5 years b ~ From 5 to 10 yearn c i"1 More titan 10 yearn 7 Check the box that most nearly approximates the weighted average Interest rate on the obligation(s): a i-'l Less than 5% b ~ From 5% to 10% c i"l Morettmn 10% 8 Total issue pdce of the obligation(s) reported on line 5 that Ware: ~$62,990. a Obligation(s) issued in the form of a lease or installment sade ............ b Obligation(s) desigrmted ~ the issuer under section 2654b}(~(B)(l)(111) ......... Obligation(s) issued to refund prior issues .................. Loans made from the proceeds of another tax-exem~ obigation .......... ._ _. ._ _. .... ........ ~W ~ of peftu~, I cleclam ?~at I _._h~._ ~ trds matins aflcl af~ ~ afla ~ afla t° the best °f mY kfl°wJedge · , We ask for the tflforrfmdon on thM form to ~ We need it to enaum that YOU am Loamh~g mtmut t~e law or the form .... 1 hr;, 46 mm. Preparing the form . . . 2hr. 50 min. Copying, assemidiflg, and -qflcliflg tho form to tho lRS . . 16miff. write to the lntemml Revenue ~MVtMh Attention: Tax Forms Commattee. PC:FP. Washington. DC 20224. DO NOT Mncl the form to tl~ ~ instead, see Whom To Secbon references Revenue Code Purpose of ~ ~~~~~of ~ ~ 14~e) ~o M~ ~ I~ of~~~ $1~,~ ~ ~ ~ m~ file F~ ~toam a ~~8~ f~ Awtamuer of a tax-exempt ~ ueecl to tlnanoe cormnx~on expendltta~m must file a amperate Form 8038-GC for each teaue to glw notice to the IRS trmt an Mm:aa:m was reedto (eeo afle g Nlnge ~ rmtum.~ m" tax-ex.m~t g~mmmem~ ot~ w~ ~ on a separate mn IsauM must ~le a ~~ Thum, an ,smu~ tony file · s~ Fo/m ~03~-~ for ~ac~ of a nun~3er of mmall ~ Fom~ 8038-GG; Hawewr, Sm~lm Fom~ 80~-GG mu~t be alee to give the IRS notre of the election to pay a l~atty r-mn 8038-GC ~.ev. Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. Customer Name: The City of Ukiah Santa Clara, California 95054 Supplement to Agreement for Products and Services for SmartServe Service Plans Branch Office Address: Reference Agreement No.: Reference Exhibit Nos.: System Location Address (Premises): The City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Branch Office No.: Customer No.: Term Commencement Date: 30 Days ~ter Cut Extended Term: 3__, 4__ or 5yr__ Supplement Effective Date: This Supplement, when signed by Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. (Siemens Rolm), is Siemens Rolm's acceptance of the Customer's (your) order for the SmartServe Service Plan and Options set forth below, for the eligible System and Product(s) installed at your Premises specified above, and set forth in this Supplement beginning on the page after next. The parties agree that the terms of the referenced Agreement for Pro- ducts and Services or other agreement, whichever is applicable (Agreement), and the referenced Exhibit(s) apply to such order. Advantage Care Plus Varsity Basic Plan SERVICE PLAN: Basic Plan* Value Plan Plan* Plan Plan OfllcePoint OPTIONS: Coverage Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., M-F, excluding Siemens Rolm holidays 85E 125E 247 Response (Major): 4 hours 2 hours within a Siemens Rolm- designated metropolitan area 1 hour within a Siemens Rolm- designated metropolitan area Major Definition Remote Routine Software MAC Service Activity Reports Application Software Support (except ROLM 9200 CBX, ROLM Redwood, ROLM OfficePoint, Siemens HCM 200 and Siemens SATURN): ROLM CallStat ROLM CallDisplay Monthly Billing Dedicated On-Site CE Dedicated Presence CE End User Training Coupons Security Audit or Traffic Study Coupon Rapid Response Coupon NRUG Membership Semi-Annual Service Review Coupons for redemption against various Services and/or Options set forth in Plan Price Protection Customer Participation: Carrier Services Management Station Product Management Included Included Included Included** Included Included*** Included Included ,., Included Included Included Included Included Included Included*** Included ., Included Included*-* Inciuded IncI ude~d - * Options for the Basic Plan (ROLM 9200 CBX) or Advantage Plan (ROLM 9751 CBX) are available during the warranty period. ** Outside a Siemens Rolm-designated metropolitan area, response time is 4 hours. Check here if 4 hours: **~ Outside a Siemens Rolm-designated metropolitan area, response time is 3 hours. Check here if 3 hours: ~ Outside a Siemens Rolm-designated metropolitan area, response time is dependent upon the Major response time availability in that area. Insert the agreed-upon Major response time in the space providecl: *** See your account representative for availability. ~ These Options are not available when you select the Dedicated On-Site CE Option or Dedicated Presence CE Option. Siemens and SATURN are registered trademarks of Siemens AG ROLM and ROLMphone are registered trademarks of Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. CallStat, CBX and OfficePoint are trademarks of Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. SmartServe is a service mark of Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. Z130-o82o-05 ($2/95) Page 1 of 2 Included Included you ordered the Customer Participation Option for Station Product Management, the following Section must be completed: ROLM 9751 CBX Models 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, 80, CBX 7000, CBX 8000, CBX 9000 or Redwood telephone Systems: Plan Ordered (Check one): ROLMphone Plan Number Telephones Analog Phones Desktop Products 01 Mail-In Mail-In N/A 02 Mail-In Mail-In Mail-In 03 Mail-In Customer Responsibility N/A 04 Mail-In Customer Responsibility Mail-In 05 N/A N/A Mail-In 06 Customer Responsibility Customer Responsibility Customer Responsibility This Option is limited to ROLMphones, Analog Phones and Desktop Products only. Customer CP ID No.: ROLM 9200 CBX, Siemens HCM 200 or Siemens SATURN telephone Systems: Plan Ordered (Check one): ROLMphone Plan Number Telephones Analog Phones 01 Mail-In Mail-In 02 Mail-In Customer Responsibility 03 Customer Responsibility Customer Responsibility Option is limited to ROLMphones and Analog Phones only. Customer Participation Coordinator: Customer CP ID No.: Telephone No.: Mailing Address for Exchange Components from Siemens Rolm: By signing below, you and Siemens Rolm 1) agree that the terms of the referenced Agreement and Extdbit(s) apply to this Supplement and 2) accept this Supplement and the referenced Exhibit(s). Accepted Dy: Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. customer By By Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Name (Type or Pnnt) Date Name (Type or Print) Date Z130-0820-05 (12/95) Page 2 of 2 SERVICE PRICING TOOL ESTIMATE 9200 STANDARD CUSTOMER: CITY OF UKIAH Date: 05/14/96 V2.4.1 SS MONTHLY ANNUAL BASE PRICE CUSTOMER PARTICIPATION STATION CARRIER COVERAGE: BASIC WITH 8 TO 5 COV RESPONSE: 4 Hours OPTIONS MAJOR REDEFINITION CALLSTAT/CALLDISPLAY SOFTWARE OPTIONS ROUTINE SOFTWARE MAC SERVICE ACTIVITY REPORTS MONTHLY BILLING TOTAL OPTIONS ADDITIONAL CHARGES ACD SOFTWARE TMMS SOFTWARE CALL CENTER PRODUCTS ROLM COMPLEMENTARY PRODUCTS OTHER RCP CHARGES TOTAL ADDITIONAL CHARGES $ 868 $ 10,420 $ o $ o $ o $ o $ o $ o $ o $ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ o $ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 360 $ 30 $ 360 TOTAL MONTHLY CHARGES $ 898 ANNUAL SUBTOTAL $ 10,780 ANNUAL PREPAYMENT OPTION: DISCOUNT 4% TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGE $ (431) $ 10,349 *********************************************************************** ** THIS PRICING IS AN ESTIMATE "ONLY" AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ** ** FINAL PRICING WILL BE PROVIDED VIA THE "ATTACHMENT TO SUPPLEMENT" ** *********************************************************************** Page 1 Siemens Rolm Confidential. CUSTOMER: CITY OF UKIAH Date: 05/14/96 V2.4.1 SS BASE SYSTEM MODEL 230/HCM230 Quantity Charges Monthly Extended 1 20.00 20.00 SOFTWARE MANAGER 2 1 25.50 25.50 EQUIPPED LINES DIGITAL STATION(SLMR16,SLMB16,SLMB8) ANALOG STATION PORTS (SLMA16) CREDIT FOR 1ST SLMA INCL'D WITH SYSTEM 64 2.60 166.40 128 2.60 332.80 -16 2.60 -41.60 EQUIPPED TRUNKS CENTRAL OFFICE TRUNKS (TMBGL) DID (TMDID) 24 2.60 62.40 16 2.60 41.60 PHONEMAIL SP MACHINE TYPE 7654(6.1) BASE 4 CHANNEL PHONEMAIL (NO DISK) PLUS 4 CHANNEL INCREMENTS MEDIUM DISK, 10 HOUR 1 143.00 143.00 1 97.50 97.50 1 20.75 20.75 ROLM OTHER RCP CHARGES APC UPS 30 1.00 30.00 Page 2 SERVICE PRICING TOOL ESTIMATE 9200 STANDARD Customer: CITY OF UKIAH Date: 05/14/96 V2.4.1 SS A) COVERAGE: B85 -- BASIC WITH 8 TO 5 COVERAGE B) RESPONSE TO MAJORS: 4 Hour C) SERVICE OPTIONS STATION EQUIPMENT MGMNT ROLMPHONE & ANALOG MAIL-IN ROLMPHONE MAIL-IN & ANALOG CUST RESP ANALOG CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITY ONLY ROLMPHONE & ANALOG CUST RESPONSIBILITY 2) CARRIER SERVICES PARTICIPATION 3) MAJOR REDEFINITION 4) ROUTINE SOFTWARE MAC 5) SERVICE ACTIVITY REPORTS 6) CALLSTAT/CALLDISPLAY SOFTWARE OPTION CALLSTAT CALL DISPLAY N N N N N N N N N 0 D) BILLING & PAYMENT OPTIONS 1) MONTHLY BILLING OPTION 2) ANNUAL PREPAYMENT OPTION SELECTED PERCENT DISCOUNT N Y 4 Page 3 Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. EXHIBIT · Post Cutover Annual Prepayment Option The City of Ukiah Santa Clara, California 95054 Exhibit No.: PCAPO-12 This Exhibit describes the Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. (Siemens Rolm) Post Cutover Annual Prepayment Option (APO) which the Customer (you) ordered, after the System's Cutover Date, for an Extended Term of three, four or five years for the ROLM 9751 CBX System, ROLM 9200 CBX System, ROLM Stand Alone PhoneMail voice processing System or Siemens HCM 200 System (System) set forth in the Supplement, which references this Exhibit, to the Agreement for Products and Services or other agree- ment, whichever is applicable (Agreement), referenced in such Supplement. If you have selected three, four or five consecutive one-year Terms (Extended Term) in any SmartServe service plan, the APO Extended Term is not to be construed as an addition to, or extension of, such SmartServe service plan Extended Term. Siemens Rolm has specified in the Supplement the 1) Extended Term and the Term Commencement Date you selected and 2) APO Maintenance Charges for the Extended Term. 1. EX'rENDED TERM The Extended Term will begin on the Term Commencement Date, which in no event will be earlier than the first day follow- ing the expiration of the System's warranty period. Unless the System is within its warranty period, the Term Commencement Date will be within the two-month period following the date Siemens Rolm receives the Supplement, signed by you, for this APO (Receipt Date). If the System is within its warranty period on the Receipt Date, the Term Commencement Date will be the day following the expiration of the System's warranty period. At the end of the Extended Term, Siemens Rolm will continue to provide maintenance service for the System under your ex- isting service plan and options for maintenance service, without the APO, unless either party elects to withdraw the System from the Agreement in accordance with its withdrawal provisions. ,. CHARGES AND PAYMENTS For your agreement to the Extended Term and to pay Main- tenance Charges to Siemens Rolm annually in advance, Siemens Rolm will grant you a four percent discount to be ap- plied against such Charges. In addition, Siemens Rolm will not increase the maintenance rates used to calculate such Charges during the Extended Term. Siemens Rolm will calculate the applicable APO Maintenance Charges by using the maintenance rates in effect for the System on the Receipt Date. Using such maintenance rates, the annual APO Maintenance Charges are calculated by multiplying the applicable monthly Maintenance Charges by twelve and reducing such result by four percent. You agree to pay Siemens Rolm the applicable APO Mainte- nance Charges annually, in advance, for each year of the Ex- tended Term. APO Maintenance Charges are nonrefundable. If the Extended Term commences before the end of 1) the twelve-month period immediately following the System's war- ranty period or 2) the System's current Term of Service, whichever is applicable, and such period is subject to price protection (Price Protected Period), APO Maintenance Charges for the remainder of the Price Protected Period will be calcu- lated based on the maintenance rates that were used to calcu- late the then-current Maintenance Charges for the System. If you purchase Moves, Adds or Changes (MAC) during any year of the Extended Term and such MAC causes an increase in the Maintenance Charges during the Extended Term, Siemens Rolm will invoice you, and you agree to pay Siemens Rolm, APO Maintenance Charges for such MAC. For a MAC that receives a warranty, its APO Maintenance Charge, for the remainder of the year of the Extended Term in which its warranty expired, will be calculated by multiplying the monthly Maintenance Charge for such MAC by the number of months remaining to the next anniversary date of the Extended Term and reducing such result by four percent. Charges for partial months will be based on a thirty-day month. For a MAC that does not receive a warranty, its APO Main- tenance Charge will be effective commencing on the next an- nual anniversary date of the Extended Term following the date maintenance service for such MAC commences. If you elect to terminate this APO before the end of the Ex- tended Term, for reasons other than Siemens Rolm's material breach, or Siemens Rolm terminates the APO due to your breach, Siemens Rolm will invoice you, and you agree to pay Siemens Rolm, an adjustment charge consisting of 1) an amount equal to four percent of the total APO Maintenance Charges you paid to Siemens Rolm for the System during the Extended Term, up through and including your termination date, and 2) an amount based on any maintenance rate increases for the System in effect during the Extended Term, up through and including your termination date, which were previously waived by Siemens Rolm. You agree to provide Siemens Rolm with 30 days' prior written notice of such termination. 3. TRADE-IN OF THE SYSTEM TO SIEMENS ROLM If during the Extended Term, Siemens Rolm extends an offer to you to trade-in the System against another ROLM System purchased directly from Siemens Rolm, Siemens Rolm will ap- ply towards its final progress payment invoice for the Purchase Price of the revised System, an amount equal to the residual of the APO Maintenance Charges, if any, paid to Siemens Rolm for the then-current one-year period of the Extended Term. Siemens Rolm will calculate such residual amount by prorating the APO Maintenance Charges paid for such one-year period. In addition, Siemens Rolm will waive the adjustment charge as described in Section 2. Additional terms will apply to the trade-in of the System, and will be provided to you at that time. 4. GENERAL If this APO applies to a PhoneMail voice processing System, it must be Release 4.0 or higher. As a condition of eligibility for this APO, you agree to pay Siemens Rolm before the Term Commencement Date, any pre- viously incurred Maintenance Charges. In the event of a conflict, the terms of this Exhibit will prevail over the other Exhibit(s) referenced in the Supplement. Siemens is a registered trademark of Siemens AG ROLM and PhoneMail are registered trademarks of Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. CBX is a trademark of Siemens Rolm Communications Inc. Z130-0624-11 (12/95) JUL 16 '96 09:5? FR ROLM SAN RANON 5102775330 TO 917074636204 P.02/03 Siemens Rolm Communications, Inc. Communications SCOpe of Work Prepazed For The City of Ukiah Revised July 16, 1996 The scope of work included on page 2 of this sunmmry outlines the specific hardware, software, labor and training to provided by Siemens Rolm for the City of Ukiah. The new upgraded telecommunications systems are provided by Siemens Rolm Com_mm~ications. The existing ~ystcms located at the Conference Center are expandable and will deliver the improved functionality that. is required to improve voice communications within the City of Ukiah, Thc overall project costs are detailed on the Siemens Rolm Schedule A Quote Number BI-L3WDJA. The total price to complete the proj~-'t is $ 62,990. The lease documents that accompany the Schedule A provide a monttfly lease payment from Siemens Credit Corporation. in lieu of an outright purchase of the equipment and labor. The monthly l~tse payment is $1,265,14 for sixty months. The Siemens Rolm 9200 Phone System and PhoncMail that is installed at the Conference Center will be movcd to the Civic Center and expanded to support all cd'the telephonc~ stations and telephone lines currently supported by the Northern Telecom SL 1 Phone System. The PhoneMail will bc expanded to support the same phones and lines and will provide the capability and expanded growth to support many voice mail boxes for people that would like access to a voice mail box but don't necessarily have an extension on thc Siemens Rolm 0200 Telephone System. There will be additional lines added to the 9200 System that will provide dedicated lines for pcople who do not have them now. Siemens Rolm will assist in designing a new dialing plan will provide easier access to different departments within the City and provide the people at these locations use o£ PhoneMail and overall provide easier and more cost effective communications between locations. There are specific stations that will receive new Siemens Rolm Digital Multi-line Digital Telephones and the balance of the ~ations will remain as basic single line phones, Regardless of the t3~e of phone utilized at each location, all users will have access to thc new features and functions of the 9200 Phone System and PhoncMail. A battery back up system is included to provide power failure transfer in the event the power goes out at file Civic Center whereby the Phone System and the PhoneMail will continue to work for aproximately an hoar while thc power is out, Siemens Rolm will train all users of thc new systems and provide user guides for the new Siemens Rolm Phones and the PhoneMail, In addition to the training and training material, the, re will be a Siemens Rolm trainer on site the first day in service to provide special training for those people that missed the organized classes. Thc designated system managers from The City of Ukiah will receiv~ special training and software to be able to make future moves adds mid changes to the Siemens Rolm Rolm CBX and Siemens ROlm will also be special training to managers and allow them to add, delete and change PhoneMail boxes. ITEM NO. 8f DATE: July 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF UKIAH AND REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK OWNERS, ET AL, FOR EXTENSION OF AIRPORT PARK BOULEVARD The City Attorney has been negotiating with Redwood Business Park regarding the Airport Park Boulevard project, as directed by Council. This item will be discussed in Closed Session prior to consideration by the Council and possible action in Open Session. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. After Closed Session discussion, take action in open session as recommended relative to agreements between the City of Ukiah and Redwood Business Park Owners, et al, for extension of Airport Park Boulevard ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Coordinated with: David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: None. Acct. No.: (if budgeted) APPROVED: 4/Can:ASRAPB.Ext Candace Horsley, City~ Manager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9a DATE: JULY 17, 1996 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE GAS MIGRATION CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT In response to the City's "Request for Cost Proposal to Perform Field Evaluation Work and to Amend the Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan for the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility" (RFP) five (5) proposals were received by the deadline of July 11, 1996 from a field of 18 consultants who received the RFP. Based on the recommendation contained in the Corrective Action Plan dated November 1994 prepared by EBA Wastechnologies, the Scope-of-Work called for the performance of field exploratory and evaluation work. The exploratory work would involve the drilling of at least two (2) temporary gas wells or bores for the purpose of facilitating the quantification of methane production in the area of our current gas violation (Gas Monitoring Wells GW4 and GW3). Consultants were encouraged to include in their proposal recommendations to either add or delete tasks that consultant believed were or were not necessary to accomplish project objectives. Four (4) of the five (5) proposals received contained alternative tasks and concepts that need to be evaluated further. Also, two (2) of the proposals are from consultants who the Director of Public Works is not familiar with and it is prudent that references be checked. The Director proposes to complete background checks and the evaluation of the alternatives by Monday evening, July 15, and will strive to deliver a written report and recommendation to Council on Tuesday prior to the Council meeting. It is imperative that an award of contract be made on July 17, 1996. Funds for this project were not allocated in the approved 1996/97 budget and, therefore, a budget amendment is required. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Formal recommendation for contract award and budget amendment to be presented at the meeting. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Appropriation Requested: Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Account Number: To be determined N/A Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager None APPROVED: ~_~' ~:~ga.~~/..4. q Candace Horsley, City Oanager R:l\PW:kk ~ AGMCAP MEMORANDUM DATE: July 15, 1996 TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor Schneiter and Members of City Council Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Summary Report to Agenda Report for Item No. 9a, Award of Contract for Amendment to Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan, Dated November 1994, for Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility, and Approval of Budget Amendment The following is a summary of the five (5) proposals received in response to the City's "Request for Cost Proposal to Perform Field Evaluation Work and to Amend the Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan, Dated November 1994, for Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility." This memorandum is to accompany Agenda Summary Report for Item No. 9a previously submitted to the City Council, and it contains a recommendation to award a Consultant Service Agreement to Lawrence and Associates and to approve a budget amendment. It is believed that all five (5) consultants have adequate resources and expertise required and necessary to perform the work identified in the Request for Proposal, however, there is one consultant, Lawrence and Associates, who has proposed a gas extraction system that has the potential of rapidly reducing the level of methane at the landfill property boundary and at the same time having the potential of reducing the initial capital cost and ongoing operational cost for a gas extraction system. Lawrence and Associates is proposing to pursue a gas extraction system that will extract landfill gas between the footprint of the refuse mass and the property boundary in lieu of relying on the traditional infill extraction method, which extracts gas directly from the refuse mass. The perimeter gas extraction system has been successfully used at the Anderson Solid Waste Landfill, which has similar geological conditions as the Ukiah Landfill. The perimeter gas extraction system, in conjunction with traditional infill extraction wells, have been successfully used at the Benton Landfill for the City of Redding. Besides having the ability to rapidly reduce methane levels, the perimeter extraction system has the potential of extracting less non-methane gases, such as VOC's which are a concern to Air Quality Management Districts and Health Officials. Air Quality Districts are more amenable in allowing the direct discharge of landfill gas (LFG) into the atmosphere without combusting the gas or, if combustion is requested, a Iow heat and least expensive flare system (candle stick flare) can be considered if VOC levels are below maximum contaminant levels (MCL). Infill gas extraction will inevitably require the use of expensive blowers and flare system. Besides having a high initial capital cost, the blower/flare system has a high operational cost. Mr. Clayton Coles, the proposed Project Manager for Lawrence and Associates who has promoted the perimeter gas extraction system, has relayed to the Director that this concept of extraction is not widely accepted by his peers who generally support the traditional infill extraction system. The Director spoke directly with Scott Walker and Bob Anderson of the Waste Board regarding the perimeter extraction concept. Both Mr. Walker and Mr. Anderson were in support of the system and both of them confirmed that this concept has the potential of rapidly reducing methane levels below compliance levels. Although Waste Board staff cannot recommend consultants, both Mr. Walker and Anderson spoke very highly of Mr. Coles and of previous work performed by Lawrence and Associates. Waste Board staff confirmed that the infill extraction system is the more expensive system and is generally slower in reducing methane levels at the property boundary. Three of the five consultants, EMCON, SHN, and EBA Wastechnologies, have strongly recommended the deletion of Task II, which involves the drilling of two gas wells to facilitate the quantification of methane production. The consultants believe, as well as Lawrence and Associates, that the quantification of methane can be achieved through the use of estimates and computer analysis. This approach is reflected as Alternate No. 1 on the attached "Summary of Consultants; Proposed Budget Cost." However, the three consultants identified above support the infill gas extraction concept. The remaining consultants, the Mark Group, has proposed the implementation of a pilot test involving the injection of air at Iow pressures into the soil between the refuse footprint and the property boundary. This is an experimental concept and it was discussed with Scott Walker and Bob Anderson. Both individuals did not recommend pursuing this concept because the injection of air could increase the potential for an underground refuse fire. The Public Works Director strongly recommends that an award be made to Lawrence and Associates for the Amendment to the Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan, Dated November 1994. The proposed compensation for the performance of the contract would be on a time-and-expense basis, not exceeding a total of $13,020. The work of the contract would include the consultants proposed additions for the analysis of trace gases and professional time for responding to comments. The proposed work would not include Task II. Funds for this project have not been designated in the FY 1996/97 Budget. The Director recommends that the additional staff position of Site Maintenance Attendant, which was included in the Budget, be deleted, and the funds for this position be utilized to fund this project. A budget amendment will be presented to City Council for consideration. Attachments to this summary memo: . Summary of Consultant Proposed Budget Costs Portions of RFP Portions of Consultants Proposals a. Lawrence and Associates b. EBA Wastechnologies c. EMCON d. SHN e. The Mark Group 4:PW:MCC.Gas SUMMARY OF CONSULTANTS' PROPOSED BUDGET COSTS EMCON $31,300 $15,700 $25,600 (1) $37,300 (2) SHN 36,285 22,070 EBA 36,880 5,428 LAWRENCE 20,959.44 11,830 12,305 (3) 13,020 (4) MARK GROUP 11,900 51,700 (5) Alternate #1 is the elimination of Task #2, which is the drilling of two gas wells or bores to facilitate the quantification of methane production In the area of violation. Other alternates are not comparable; refer to corresponding notes below. (1) Installation of two gas extraction wells and allow to vent to the atmosphere for eight hours. Measure and record monitoring parameters. (2) Continuously extract landfill gas (LFG) from gas wells for a two-week period in lieu of one week per the base proposal. (3) Add to Alternate #1 the analysis of trace gases (non-methane gases) from existing gas monitoring well. Amount of add to Alternate #1 - $475. (4) Add professional time for one round of agency comments. Amount of add to Alternate described tn note (3) above - $715 (5) Install two Iow pressure air Injection wells along landfill perimeter where migration is indicated for purposes of evaluating if air Injection is workable for this site. June 3, 1996 REQUEST FOR COST PROPOSAL TO PERFORM FIELD EVALUATION WORK AND TO AMEND GAS MIGRATION CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN DATED NOVEMBER 1994 FOR UKIAH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY Dear Consultant: Your cost proposal to perform investigative and evaluation worg for the purpose of determining quantities of methane gas available to support available gas control systems and to amend or to rewrite the Gas Mitigation Corrective Action Plan dated November, 1994 which was prepared for the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility is requested. INTRODUCTION Subsequent to the installation of five (5) gas migration monitoring wells along the southern boundary of the landfill and the compilation of the initial monitoring results, a Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan was prepared and submitted to the LEA and CIWMB. The initial results indicated methane gas migration exceeding allowable limits at the site boundary within the deepest probe of one well (Gas Well No. 4 at depth of 113 to 143 feet below ground surface). Subsequent to the preparation of the Report, methane gas levels diminished below allowable levels during the period between June 1995 to December 1995 and, therefore, further investigative work, design and implementation of a corrective action measure were delayed until further monitoring was accomplished. The monitoring effort in January 1996 indicated that methane gas levels had returned to levels exceeding compliance levels (Gas Well No. 4 and No. 3). In accordance with Title 14 Regulations, the City s required to implement corrective action. It is appropriate that further work be performed to determine the quantity of methane that is available in the vicinity of the southern boundary and which control options are applicable given methane production, site conditions and existing landfill operations. Given the proximity of the refuse footprint to the southern site boundary and in consideration of site conditions and current operations, it is currently believed that the appropriate corrective measure would be a LFG extraction system designed to control gas migration along or in the vicinity of the violation areas and which can be incorporated into an expanded extraction system for the entire landfill footprint should such an expanded system be required in the future. The extracted gas could be flared or actively vented with small capacity blowers. Given the City's financial commitment to the implementation of corrective action measures for groundwater VOC impact, it is the City's desire that the gas extraction be limited to the current areas of violation, i.e., Gas Well No. 4 and No. 3. The contemplated work to be performed by the selected consultant is indicated in Attachment WA", Scope-of-Work. It is believed that this Scope-of-Work will accomplish the objective at hand, i.e., determine with reasonable certainty the amount of methane gas currently being generated in the vicinity of the violation areas, the number of gas extraction wells needed to safely reduce gas migration below maximum, allowable limits, and to amend or rewrite the current Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan to incorporate additional findings. It is also contemplated that the amended Corrective Action Plan will be of such detail that it will function as a preliminary engineering document for future system design and construction. Consultant's proposal must address at a minimum the Scope-of-Work indicated in Attachment WA", however, consultant may include in their proposal recommendations to either add or delete tasks that consultant believes are necessary to accomplish project objectives. Recommended additions or deletions to the Scope-of-work shall be incorporated into the cost proposals as additive or deductive costs to the proposed fee for the base Scope-of-Work, Attachment WA". The City has committed to a schedule for the completion of the Amended Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan, and for the design and construction of the Corrective Measure. The selected consultant will be required to submit a completed Corrective Action Plan to the City on or before September 12, 1996, for subsequent submittal by the City to the LEA on September 13, 1996. Consultants attention is directed to the following attachments: Attachment "A" - Attachment "B" - Attachment "C" - Attachment "D" - Attachment "E" - Attachment "F" - Attachment "G" - Scope-of-Work Project Schedule Gas Monitoring Well locations Relationship of Refuse Footprint with Landfill Property Summary of Gas Monitoring Results General Landfill Information Excerpts from Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan dated November 1994 ..PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS A. Due Date and Number of Copies One original of the proposal shall be submitted to the City no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 11, 1996. ~roposals, received after this deadline will not be considered. Proposal d~uments received by the City will become the property of the City and the documents will not be returned to the Proposer. Proposals are to be sealed, labeled and addressed or delivered to: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City of Uldah 300 Seminary Avenue Uldah, California 95482 PROPOSAL: FIELD EVALUATION WORK AND AMENDMENT TO GAS MIGRATION CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN Be pro_~sal Contents The Proposal shall contain the following elements: 1. Firm Qualifications and Resources. A summary of the Consulting Firm's qualifications pertaining to expertise and practice in the Assessment Study, and the design of landfill gas control systems. How long in business and size of firm. Consultant may submit the Firm's "Statement of Qualifications" with the proposal to satisfy this requirement. Consultant is advised that it will be necessary to dedicate considerable Staff resources to complete the project within the required time frame. 2. Name, Background, and Experience of proposed Project Manager. The proposed Project Manager must have an extensive background in and knowledge of corrective measures pertaining to the control of landfill gas; the selected Consultant for the project will offer a Project Manager who has the appropriate experience, a track record of completing projects on time and within budget, has a sense of urgency, strong work ethic and dedication to an assigned project. Provide list of projects completed by the PM which are similar to the proposed work and provide corresponding client references with current telephone numbers who worked closely with the Project Manager. The Consultant will not be allowed to change the assigned Project Manager unless prior approval from the City has been obtained. City will reserve the right to have Consultant assign another Project Manager should execution of the work not proceed in a satisfactory manner. 3. Demonstrate Understanding of Scope-of-Work. Consultants shall demonstrate that they have a full understanding of the Scope-of- Work and the effort needed to complete the project on time and within budget. Prospective and interested Consultants are invited to visit the site and inspect the Landfill records. It will be necessary for the Consultant to check in with the Gate Attendant and show identification prior to site inspection. No one except inspectors from the LEA, California Integrated Waste Management Board, e e Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Fish and Game are permitted to tour the Landfill without checking in with the Gate Attendant. The City will make every effort to provide a Staff member to accompany Consultant's staff, however, depending upon Landfill Staff's workload, it maybe necessary for Consultant to review site independently. A list of prospective Consultants will be provided to the Gate Attendant; bring business card as means of identification. A sketch depicting locations of gas monitoring wells, is attached to this RFP for Consultants reference. The Landfill records will be made available to prospective and interested Consultants for inspection at City Hall. Considering the number of Consultants who have shown an interest in this project, it is advisable that Consultant make an appointment by calling Sue Goodrick, Public Works Administrator at (707) 463-6286, or Kathy Kinch, Public Works Secretary at (707) 463-6214. Four (4) hour time periods will be allocated to each Consultant, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. We regret that copies of documents will n_.qt be provided due to cost and time. detailed Scope-of-Work by task has been included in this RFP as Attachment AA" Considerable effort has been made to provide sufficient detail in the Scope- of-Work to permit prospective Consultants to prepare a proposal without the need to consult with the Landfill Operator. Consultants are advised that Landfill Operator may not be available at convenient times to field questions by telephone. Should questions arise during the RFP period, it is advisable that you fax your questions well in advance of the proposal due date. Work Schedule. Consultants shall include in their Proposal a proposed work schedule which shall indicate duration and completion dates for work tasks and any appropriate sub- tasks or phases. All tasks shall be completed to facilitate the completion of the Amended Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan by September 12, 1996, assuming contract award on July 17, 1996. The selected Consultant will have 46 calendar days to complete the work of the contract. Proposed Compensation Compensation for performing the work of the contract shall be on a time and expense basis not to exceed a guaranteed maximum amount. Consultants shall include in their cost proposal a guaranteed maximum amount for compensation and a listing of their standard hourly rates for each profession, position, function or trade involved in the work and standard fees for typical expenses. Consultants shall also provide budget totals for each Task for progress payment purposes. Progress payments will be made on a monthly basis and the total of progress payments for each Task will not exceed 110 percent of the budget amount for the respective Task. Final payment for the work will not exceed a guaranteed maximum amount of the contract. Consultants may submit in their proposal Ce e budget amounts for other sub-tasks or sub-phases. The total of all progress payments prior to submittal of the Amended Corrective Action Plan shall not exceed 95 percent of the maximum total compensation. Final payment will be made within 30 calendar days from the completion of the Amended Plan. Pursuant to the Government Code, the award of the consulting contract will not be made solely on the basis of cost, however, cost will be an important factor in the consultant selection process. Refer to Consultant Selection Criteria. Consultants are advised that financial resources available for this project are limited; no specific amount of funds have been budgeted for this project. Proposed Sub-consultants and Contractors Consultants shall list in their proposals proposed sub-consultants and/or contractors which will assist consultant in the performance of the work. Provide brief description of work to be performed by each sub-consultant and/or contractor. 7. Other Information At the Consultant's discretion, other information may be included in the proposal that Consultant deems appropriate to highlight the Firm's experience and its ability to perform the work of the contract within the short time period allowed. Consultant Selection Criteria Proposals received on or prior to July 11, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. will be reviewed and ranked based on the following criteria: 1. Adequate resources to perform the work within the time required. . Knowledge of and experience in corrective measures for landfill gas either by Firm, Project Manager or Project team. Number of projects completed satisfactorily and degree of customer satisfaction. Track record for completing projects on time and within budget. . Proposed Compensation. Are rates and fees reasonable. Is Proposed Guaranteed Maximum Compensation in line with available financial resources. The rating will be performed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and discussed with the City Manager. Because of time constraints, there will be no formal consultant interviews. A report to City Council recommending consultant selection and contract award will be prepared on July 12, 1996, for action by Council on July 17, 1996. INSTANCE REOUIREMENT~_ Pursuant to City policy, it will be necessary that the successful Consultant obtain the following insurance coverages and limits for this project: l. General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. . rker' om n ti n Em I r ibili : Worker's compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. . Professional Liability: Not less than $500,00 and shall remain in force for two (2) years after completion of Consultant's work product and acceptance by City. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims, demands, liability, costs and expenses, including court costs and counsel fees, arising out of the injury to or death of any person or loss of or physical damage to any property resulting from any negligent or wrongful act or omission committed by Consultant or its officers, agents or employees while performing the services under the contract. Insurers must have a Best's Rating of no less than B+, Class 10 or better and admitted insurers in the State of California. Any questions concerning the City's insurance requirements should be directed to Mike Harris, Assistant City Manager/Risk Manager at (707) 463-6287. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT The successful Consultant will be required to enter into a written contract with the City prior to performing the proposed work. The contract will be prepared by the City and the contract must be executed by the Consultant on or prior to July 26, 1996 in order to facilitate a start date of July 29, 1996. A sample Professional Consulting Services Agreement is on file at the Department of Public Works and is available for inspection. In recognition of the efforts and resources required to prepare an adequate proposal and the short duration in which the proposal is to be prepared, consultants are encouraged to keep the proposal "basic" and to the point; high quality graphics, etc., and voluminous proposals are not necessary. We look forward in receiving your proposal. DR~ector of Public Works/City Engi~r Landfill Operator R:lh6,GRi~MENT$ GMCAP ATTACHMENT nA~ SCOPE-OF-WORK PROJECT OB/IE. C~VE The creation of a planning document meeting the requirements of Sections 17258.23 and 17705 of Title 14, CCR and which shall contain information pertaining to the extraction of landfill gas for the purpose of reducing levels of methane below the maximum allowed (5 % by volume) at two identified locations along the southern site boundary of the landfill. The planning document shall describe the nature and extent of the gas migration along the southern site boundary and the proposed remedy. The planning document shall contain sufficient information as to demonstrate that the recommended remedy contained therein, which shall be an active control system, will safely reduce methane levels at the site boundary to below compliance levels. The planning document shall contain preliminary costs for the final design and construction of the recommended gas control system. The planning document shall be entitled "Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan." This Plan will be submitted to the LEA and the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District for approval and it will be utilized in the design of the recommended control system. The recommended gas control system shall be adaptable in that the system can be connected to a larger control system should such a system be required in the future. The gas control system will consist of extraction wells and the method of gas disposal, whether it be by combustion or venting to the atmosphere with the aid of small capacity blowers, shall be acceptable to the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. The areas along the southern site boundary in violation of methane compliance levels are adjacent to Gas Monitoring Well No.'s 3 and 4. The current tipping area is adjacent to Well No. 3 and it will proceed eastward during the summer and fall months towards Gas Well No. 4. It will be necessary for consultant to accomplish the collection of field data in high activity areas. WORK REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH PROJECT OBJECTIVE To accomplish the project objective, it will be necessary for consultant to review gas monitoring data, topographic maps of the landfill and adjacent areas, gas well logs, preliminary closure plans, and other landfill records prior to conducting field evaluation work. After the review of existing records and data, it will be necessary that temporary wells or bores be constructed within the landfill mass to determine quantities of methane being produced. Estimates of methane production by reason of additional refuse which will be placed over the surface adjacent to the violation areas, will be required. Height of the additional waste will vary from 5 feet to 20 feet over the current ground surface. Depth of refuse to natural ground surface will not exceed 85 feet in depth. Subsequent to the collection and analysis of new field data, the required number of gas collection wells needed to safely extract landfill gas for the purpose of achieving compliance levels for PROJECT SCHEDULE ATTACHMENT "B" The following schedule by work Task has been assumed by the City. Request for Proposal Proposal Due Date ~ Recommendation for Award Award Consultant Contract Consultant Executes Contract and submits Insurance Documents Consultant Begins Work Task I Task II Task IH Task IV Task V Submit Draft City Reviews Draft City Returns Draft Draft Revisions Consultant Submits Final to City City Submits Final to LEA June 10, 1996 July 11, 1996 July 12, 1996 July 17, 1996 July 26, 1996 July 29, 1996 Week of July 29, 1996 Week of August 5, 1996 Week of August 12, 1996 Week of August 19, 1996 Week of August 26 to September 12, 1996 September 3, 1996 September 4 to 6, 1996 September 6, 1996 September 9, 10, 11, 1996 September 12, 1996 September 13, 1996 I Mr. Rick H. Kennedy City of UMah, Department of Public Works July 10, 1996 Page 4 of 10 PROPOSAL FOR SER VICES Table 1 Summary of Gas-Well Probe Information in Affected Area GAS-3S ] 9.15 ] 0 i 4 to 15 5 to 15 ML, SM ..................................... ~ ............................... t. .................................. [ ........................................ ., ................................... t. ............................................. GAS-3I 4.2 0 ] 20 to 66 35 to 64 ML. CL, SM GAS-3D 11.0 0 ] 84 to 135 85 to 135 SM, CL, SP, GM I GAS-4S 5.7 0.1 ~ 5 to 11 5 to 10 ] SM ................................ ........................... ............................ .................... ........................ ............... GAS-4D 30.4 1 85 to 145 113 to 143 CL, SC, ML, GM Listed in order of predominance (most common to least common). MECHANISMS OF GAS MIGRATION o Landfill gas-migration is caused by two mechanisms, (1) convection (flowing from high pressure to low pressure) and (2) dispersion (migrating from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration). Convection is by far the greatest contributor to migration, although eVen with a zero pressure gradient, migration will still occur. 2, Gas-migration will follow the path of least resistance, e.g. gravel and sand beds or lenses. Gas preferentially will migrate laterally because stratification of soils typically causes horizontal permeability to be two orders of magnitude greater than vertical permeability. 3. Gas will migrate through clay, although more slowly than through sand or gravel. The highest concentrations we have observed (80% by volume) have been found in clay. . Rate of migration is determined by the permeability of the formation and the pressure gradient. Permeability can be determined by gas-drawdown testing, sample testing, or can be assumed by using values for similar soils. Pressure gradient is determined by installing wells in the refuse and measuring the pressure in the landfill versus the pressure in perimeter wells. The pressure difference divided by the distance between the bottom or side of the landfill is the pressure gradient. The higher the gradient, the higher the flow. The pressure gradient will vary depending upon the permeability of the cap and rate of gas generation. Additionally, moisture content will affect the pressure gradient: Higher moisture will Lawrence & Associates Mr. Rick H. Kennedy City of UMah, Department of Public Works July lo, ~ 996 Page $ oflO PROPOSAL FOR SER VICES decrease the permeability of the cap and increase gas generation, thereby increasing the pressure gradient. Typically, higher pressures are seen in the late winter and spring. o A considerable amount of gas escapes through the cover. When the closure cap is installed, the pressure gradient is expected to dramatically increase. This will result in increased lateral migration unless an infill system is installed. o Infiltration of air into the soil surrounding the landfill, due to changes in atmospheric pressure, will cause dilution of landfill gas in the soil. The farther the gas moves away from the landfill, the more dilute it will become. Air infiltration diminishes with depth, however, and greater distances will be required for dilution to below 5% for deeper migration. During the winter when the surface soil is saturated, less exchange of surface air will occurr and migration will reach farther than during the summer. . To eliminate migration, either (1) the pressure gradient must be reduced enough so that migration can be eliminated by natural diffusion within the property limits, or (2) gas must be extracted before reaching the property line. . The first method utilizes wells installed within the waste. This method has the added benefit of helping control releases from the surface of the landfill. The disadvantage is that gas- extraction must be great enough so that the pressure gradient is reduced, but not so great as to cause air infiltration. Excessive air infiltration may lead to landfill fires through spontaneous combustion. These fires are extremely expensive to extinguish. This method also requires a considerable expenditure for safety and emissions controls. . The second method utilizes wells installed between (and/or under) the landfill and the property boundary. Gas is collected after it leaves the waste and before it reaches the property boundary. The advantages of this system are that it can be operated with a minimum of management and with minimal hazard of landfill fires. It is a tested methodology and is sure to eliminate migration. This method typically allows direct discharge to the atmosphere, eliminating the need for a flare and much of the expensive control equipment. The disadvantage of this system is that it will draw some gas out of the waste. Also, after an infill system is installed, the perimeter system may not be needed. 10. Both of the above extraction methods will require active extraction to perform reliably. Lawrence & Associates Mr. Rick H. Kennedy City of UMah, Department of Public Works July 10, 1996 Page 6 of 10 PROPOSAL FOR SER VICES EMISSIONS - REGULATIONS & SAFETY Landfill emissions into the atmosphere are regulated by each County's Air Quality Management District. Discharged gas contains a wide variety of cancer-causing trace gases. Typically, when landfill gas is discharged to the atmosphere directly from the fill, the gas must first be combusted using best achievable control technology (BACT); for landfills BACT is defined as 98% destruction of nonmethane organic compounds, no more than 0.6 lbs of NOx per million BTU, and no more than 0.02 pounds of CO per million BTU. For control of this type of system, a landfill flare typically is required. Under new Federal regulations, this type of system requires continuous monitoring for oxygen, flow, stack temperature, and methane content. The flare also requires numerous safety shutdowns and controls. In a phone conversation with Mr. Dan Faulker of Mendocino County AQMD, he indicated that combustion probably would be required, but at a temperature which reduces dioxin creation. Gas collected from a perimeter system is diluted by clean air from the nonlandfill side of the system and by some air infiltration from the surface. Typically, the gas from a perimeter system contains much lower concentrations of trace gases and can be discharged directly to the atmosphere without combustion. For direct discharge, a screening-level health-risk assessment will be required to demonstrate that the excess cancer risk for long-term exposure is less than 1 in a 1 million. The controls of this type of system essentially consist of a flame arrestor and an explosion-proof blower. SCOPE OF WORK From the above discussion, it is apparent that the goal of the work will be to determine how to either (1) collect enough gas from the waste to reduce migration to a point where dilution to less than 5% occurs at the property boundary, or (2) to develop a method of extracting gas from the perimeter of the landfill to prevent migration. The choice of the method will be that which best suits the needs of the City of Ukiah. Our understanding is that those needs include keeping the construction budget under $140,000, and balancing budgetary constraints against the need to use technologies which can be incorporated into an overall landfill gas-extraction system in the future. Additionally, the selected methodology must meet the Mendocino Air Quality Management District Requirements. For your use, we have attached summaries of costs for various system components derived from previous gas-extraction systems (Appendix C). Lawrence & Associates Mr. Rick H. Kennedy City of UMah, Department of Public Works PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES July 10, 1996 Page 7 of 10 To meet the requirements described above, Lawrence & Associates proposes the following scope of work: Phase I. Review Site Information A. Visit the City of Ukiah Public Works office and review the following reports: B, Preliminary Closure Plan Report of Disposal Site Information Waste Discharge Report Waste Discharge requirements Permit to operate Article 5 Report Ground-water monitoring reports Gas-Monitoring Reports Correspondence pertaining to gas-related issues Obtain historical air photos of the landfill (if possible) to determine the location of the bum dump and prelandfill topography. C. Review pertinent geological reports for the area. D. Meet with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District regarding gas-treatment requirements and obtain a copy of any pertinent County regulations. E. Visit the site. F, Meet wit.h Public Works personnel and Operator after reviewing the files to clarify any questions. G. Obtain any available CAD drawings to be used for site maps. Lawrence & Associates Mr. Rick H. Kennedy City of UMah, Department of Public Works July 1 O, 1996 Page 8 of 10 PROPOSAL FOR SER VICES Task I!. Field evaluation and drilling of at least two temporary gas wells A. Present proposed well locations and reasoning to City Staff, for approval. B, Install two soil borings to no greater than 80 feet and install 2, 1-inch Schedule 80 PVC nested probes, and valve assembly. Co Obtain gas samples from the wells for atmospheric-gas analysis (methane, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and total nonmethane hydrocarbons). It is recommended that trace-gas analyses (EPA Method TO-14) be added to be used in determining the treatment requirements. D. Measure gas pressures in infill wells and in adjacent perimeter monitoring wells. Task III. Estimation of methane production by reason of additional refuse placed over the surface adjacent to violation areas. A. It is understood that the the intent of this task is to determine the gas-generation rate of the added waste and the increased migration caused by addition of the additional waste. g. The increase in methane generation will be calculated based on the mass of the putrescible fraction of the waste multiplied by standard rates of generation, using both the EPA method and more reasonable values from experience. C, The increase in migration will be determined by the anticipated increase in gas pressure in the shallow waste due to the addition of more waste on top. Task IV. Determination of the number of extraction wells needed to safely extract methane and achieve compliance A. The amoUnt of gas leaving the landfill into the sUrrOunding soil will be calculated using representative values for soil permeability and measured pressure gradient. g. The extraction rate and well spacing for a perimeter system that is capable of collecting the quantity of gas leaving the landfill will be determined. For the stratigraphy encountered at the site, it is anticipated that a two-probe per well configuration would be installed. Six to 10 wells would be required for the length of affected perimeter. The wells will be connected to an above-ground piping system operated by a simple blower with a flame Lawrence & Associates Mr. Rick H. Kennedy City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works ~uly ~o, ~ Pa~e 9 of l O PROPOSAL FOR SER VICES C, D, arrestor and minimal controls (although continuous monitoring devices and alarm systems can be added if necessary). A conceptual design and cost for the system will be developed. Costs also will be developed for addition of optional controls. The extraction rate and well spacing for an infill systems also will be determined. The sloping, canyonside configuration of the landfill poses complications for efficient collection of gas. From a cursory review of the site, it is anticipated that lines of 2 to 3 wells, with each line separated by approximately 200 feet would be required to effectively control lateral migration. Figure 1 shows a geologic cross section through the landfill and the relative placement of both perimeter and infill wells that would be necessary to control offsite migration. It is anticipated that a flare and controls would be required for the infill method. The most economical approach will be developed for both methods, but will depend on the results of the field investigation and the requirements of the Mendocino County AQMD. A conceptual design will be developed along with a cost estimate for construction. All conceptual designs developed for the project will consist of one plan sheet showing the system in plan view, a plan-view detail of the blower pad, elevation of the blower pad, and well-construction details. The findings, including regulatory requirements, cost, pros and cons of each system, and recommendations for deciding on the best system will be presented to the City in a meeting. It is also recommended that Mendocino County and Integrated Waste Management Board staff be asked for their input. Task V. Preparation of Amended Gas-Migration Corrective Action Plan The gas-migration corrective-action plan will be amended based on the alternative chosen to best fit the City's needs. A draft plan will be submitted for review prior to submittal of the final plan. It is understood that this action plan does not include construction documents, and that the plans will be considered conceptual, although we will make every effort to make the plans as complete as possible for conversion into construction drawings. WORK SCHEDULE Attached is a schedule (Figure 2) showing the anticipated deadlines for each type of work. The schedule is dependent on the date of the Notice to Proceed. Lawrence & Associates Mr. Rick H. Kennedy City of Ukiah, Department of Public Works July 10, 1996 Pa~e 10 of l O PROPOSAL FOR SER VICES COMPENSATION Attached is a written cost estimate (Appendix A). This is a not-to-exceed cost estimate. SUBCONTRACTORS Lawrence & Associates owns and operates a hollow-stem auger drill rig, and will drill and install all wells. This will allow us to perform the work in a timely manner and for less cost than subcontracting a driller. The only subcontractor for the project will be Air Toxics, Ltd. of Rancho Cordova, a California Certified Laboratory, who will perform the gas analyses. Lawrence & Associates Section I Executivo Sunur~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EBA Wastechnologies (EBA) appreciates this opportunity to respond to the City of Uldah's (City's) "Request for Proposal (RFP)" to provide landfill gas (LFG) engineering services at the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Facility, in Uldah, California. Although EBA is prepared to implement the proposed work scope outlined in the RFP, we would like to emphasize that an alternative work scope has been included (in addition to the base work scope) for the City's consideration. It has been EBA's experience that pilot studies generally provide a poor cost to benefit ratio with regard to data acquisition. The time required to conduct a comprehensive pilot test can range from two to six weeks, thereby resulting in significant capital expenditures. For the purpose of accommodating the project schedule outlined in the RFP, the duration of the pilot test presented herein was Hmited to four days. However, as presented in the following proposal, the cost to implement a four-day pilot is still substantial. Based on these circumstances, the alternative work scope was developed as a mechanism to reduce preliminary design costs, thereby allowing the City to utilize the corresponding cost savings to subsidize the installation of dedicated equipment components. Regardless of the work scope selected by the City, EBA feels that we are ideally suited and qualified to implement either of the proposed scope of services. The basis for this conclusion is as follows: EllA's broad and extensive knowledge base with regard to LFG-related issues has included implementing services similar to that described in the RFP, as well as the recommended services outlined in the alternative work scope; F~BA's Project Manager designated for this project, Mr. Dale Solheim, P.E., is a highly qualified civil engineer that has extensive experience in all facets of LFG engineering. Prior experience includes implementation of pilot studies, LFG system design, development/oversight of contract bidding and negotiations, construction management, monitoring, and regulatory liaison; EBA's technical support staff includes geologists and engineers that are proficient in LFG engineering and design. Based on the aggressive nature of the project completion schedule, EBA is committed to dedicating the necessary staff and resources to meet the specified project goals; As a result of previous environmental engineering services performed at the site (including LFG monitoring and LFG generation analysis), EBA is very familiar with the landfill characteristics. This existing knowledge base, in conjunction with our overall experience in LFG characterization and design, gives EBA an additional advantage with regard to meeting the time lines specified in the RFP; and EBA meets all the necessary insurance coverages and limits specified in the RFP. In addition, EBA recently changed insurance carriers in order to meet the City's insurance rating requirements. Stx:tion 4 Scope of Wo~ SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work outlined herein is based on the specific tasks outlined in Attachment 'A' of the RFP. Based on EBA's review of Attachment "A", it is our understanding that the proposed work scope is comprised of five individual tasks. These tasks can be described as follows: Task I: Task H: Task HI: Task IV: Task V: Historical Data Review Field Evaluation and Drilling LFG Generation Analysis LFG Collection System Design Amended LFG Migration Corrective Action Plan Further details regarding the scope of the aforementioned tasks are summarized in the following subsections. As outlined in Section 1 (Executive Summary), EBA has included for the City's consideration a proposed alternative work scope. An alternative work scope was developed as a potential cost savings mechanism that will allow the City to allocate a greater percentage of their LFG migration budget towards actual treatment costs as opposed to preliminary data acquisition. Due to the extreme heterogeneity that is inherent with most landfills, it has been EBA's experience (and experience of the LFG industry in general) that data collected from pilot testing is only representative of localized conditions, and that extrapolation of pilot test data over a large area is typically unreliable. Further details regarding the alternative work scope and corresponding rationale are summarized at the end of this section. TASK I: HISTORICAL DATA REVIEW The purpose of Task I as described in the RFP is to gain a full understanding and knowledge of landfill conditions as it pertains to LFG migration along the southern site boundary. In light of EBA's extensive experience with regard to previous on-site environmental work, EBA will not invoice the City for any services associated with this task. Furthermore, EBA has available in- house all pertinent landfill and geologic data (including cross sections) that are needed to evaluate potential LFG migration characteristics. Since EBA's proposed project team will include two individuals (Damon Brown, C.E.G., C.HG and Christopher Brummer, E.I.T.) that were extensively involved in previous site characterization activities, the extent of historical data review will be limited to reviewing recent LFG monitoring data. 4-1 L:XPROPOSALX1996Xl 30-96XUFdAH Section 4 Scope of Work TASK H: FIELD EVALUATION AND DRILLING Task II will entail installation of two (2) LFG extraction wells and subsequent performance of a pilot test to evaluate LFG flow rates and quality. Prior to LFG extraction well installation, EBA will prepare a work plan for regulatory approval in order to obtain all necessary permits. The work plan will include a site-specific Health and Safety Plan for personnel assigned to the project. For the purpose of this proposal, it is assumed that all permit application fees will be paid directly by the City. Two (2) LFG extraction wells will be installed within the landfill mass in an area north of existing LFG migration well GAS-4. This area was selected for testing based on the elevated methane concentrations historically detected in GAS-4. In addition, this area is somewhat removed from the current tipping area, thereby reducing the potential of impacting daily landfill operations. The proposed LFG extraction wells will be spaced approximately 200 feet apart and completed at a depth of approximately 75 feet below ground surface. This depth was selected based on the maximum refuse depth of 85 feet as specified in the RFP. Although the RFP stx~cifie~ the installation of temporary wells or bores, it is EBA's position that dedicated LFG extraction wells should be installed with the intent of incorporating the wells into the final LFG collection system design. Since a temporary well or bore would have to be cased in order to conduct a representative pilot test, completing the wells consistent with dedicated LFG extraction well specifications would represent a cost effective allocation of funds. With this in mind, the wells will be installed using a bucket-auger drilling rig equipped with a 24-inch diameter bucket. A bucket-auger drilling fig is preferred over hollow-stem auger drilling in order to attain a larger diameter borehole (i.e., 24 inches versus 12 in6hes). The wells will be cased with 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and perforated between the depths of 10 and 65 feet. A minimum 7-foot bentonite seal will be placed at the surface. Please note that the aforementioned perforated zone assumes that an additional 15 to 20 feet of refuse will be placed atop existing surface grade. If the thickness of additional refuse is less than 15 feet, the top of the perforated zone will be lowered accordingly in order to reduce the risk of surface air intrusion. Each of the wells will be equipped with wellhead assemblies that will include a sample port and gate valve. The wellhead assemblies will be connected to an aboveground manifold (piping) system constructed of 8-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing. The manifold system, in turn, will be connected to a regenerative blower. Prior to discharging exhaust (LFG) from the blower, the exhaust will be diverted to a scrubber vessel and treated with chemicals as an odor abatement provision. Power to the blower will be provided by a diesel-powered generator. Based on information provided by the Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District, a permit or special provisions for destruction of the LFG component will not be required by their office, provided the duration of the test is less than two weeks. Performance of the pilot test will entail operating the LFG collection system for an approximate 4-day period. LFG flow rates will be increased incrernentally during the course of the test to evaluate changes in LFG quality and evidence of atmospheric air intrusion. Parameters measured during the test will include: flow rate; vacuum pressure; temperature; and primary gas L:~PROPOSAL~.1996Xl 4-2 ,~d on Recycled Paler S~tion 4 concentrations (i.e., methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and balance [nitrogen]). These measurements will be collected at 2- to 4-hour intervals. In addition, four (4) LFG samples (i.e., one per day) will be collected for chemical analysis in the laboratory. These samples will be analyzed for the four primary gases and non-methane organic compounds. Upon termination of the test, the primary gas concentrations will continue to be monitored for an approximate 24-hour period. The purpose of this phase of the test is to monitor the rate of recovery with regard to original static LFG quality characteristics. It should be noted that the duration of the pilot test presented herein accommodate the nroiect h,~a,.~ ...... , ....... (four da s) was scl ,- ~, sc,,,.,,,.,,,~-cqu,rements oumnea in Attachmen, "n-~Ye ,~.~ ~,~.,., ec~t,ed to ...... ' ~*'~, ~r. I~ICSse be advised, however, that the time required for a well field to reach a state of equilibrium can take as long as two to six weeks. Data collected prior to reaching equilibrium may represent a surplus of LFG that has accumulated over time, thereby resulting in an overestimation of LFG flow rates and production. Based on these circumstances, previous LFG generation estimates will be used as a baseline to evaluate the validity of the pilot test data. Upon completion of the pilot test, the blower and associated equipment components will be removed. In contrast, the wellhead assemblies and aboveground manifold system will remain intact for subsequent use in the dedicated LFG collection system. The aboveground manifold system will be properly sealed to abate potential LFG emissions. TASK III: LFG GENERATION ANALYSIS Previous estimates regarding LFG generation were conducted by EBA using a two-stage generation approach. This approach assumes an instantaneous "Stage I" generation rate in the first half-life and an exponentially decaying generation rate in "Stage II". Results of this analysis revealed a maximum LFG generation rate of 276 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). This maximum LFG generation rate is estimated to occur in the year 2000. As outlined in the RFP, approximately 15 to 20 feet of additional refuse will be placed in the areas of violation. Based on these circumstances, the RFP stipulates that Task III focus on the estimation of LFG generation resulting from the placement of additional refuse. Please be advised, however, that the previous estimates conducted by EBA projected the placement of additional refuse through final closure of the landfill. In light of this provision, evaluation of LFG generation will simply involve updating the existing model by replacing previously estimated annual waste volumes with actual waste volumes based on gate receipts. The corresponding results will then be used to back-calculate the estimated LFG generation rate for the violation areas. TASK IV: LFG COLLECTION SYSTEM DESIGN Task IV will entail the development of design parameters for the LFG collection system. Findings from Tasks II and I/I, in conjunction with our analysis of site characteristics and their influence on LFG migration, will be used as the basis for development of design criteria. Based on the City's desire to focus strictly on the violation areas and to minimize costs, EBA will evaluate a L:~PROPOSAL~1996Xl ~0.96XUKiAH 4-3 Section 4 Scope of Work_ number of different approaches, including implementing corrective action measures in a phased manner. The intent of a phased approach would be to initially implement a limited corrective action plan in conjunction with an interim monitoring program. If findings from the interim monitoring program reveal no significant abatement of off-site LFG migration, supplemental phases of increased sophistication will be implemented as necessary. Each additional phase would be followed by an interim monitoring period to monitor the effectiveness of each respective improvement. The nature, scope and duration of each phase, as well as the estimated design and construction costs, will be summarized in the Amended LFG Migration Corrective Action Plan (Task V). As outlined above, a number of different approaches will be evaluated as part of the design phase. Parameters that will be evaluated and developed as part this task will include the following: Location, number, depth, construction, and spacing of LFG extraction wells; Routing of aboveground manifold system; Anticipated pipe head losses and condensate generation; Locations of condensate knock-out(s), blower(s), and pertinent equipment components; Storage/disposal of LFG condensate; and Provisions to allow for future expansion of the system. In addition to the aforementioned issues, an integral part of this task will correspond to evaluating the final disposition of the LFG generated by the collection system operations. EBA will consult with the Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District to determine whether the LFG can be vented directly to the atmosphere or require provisions for thermal destruction. If special provisions are required, EBA will evaluate available options to determine the most cost effective means of treatment (i.e., candlestick flare, dedicated vertical ground flare, etc.). TASK V: AMF3~ED LFG MIGRATION CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN Findings from each of the aforementioned tasks will be summarized in an Amended LFG Migration Corrective Action Plan (Plan). The nature and scope of the Plan will be of sufficient detail to allow for its subsequent submittal to the LEA for approval. At a minimum, the Plan will include the following information: Nature and extent of LFG migration along the southern boundary; Summary of findings from the Task II field activities and LFG generation estimates as determined from Task HI modeling; Description of the proposed LFG collection system, including a site plan illustrating the locations of pertinent system components (i.e., extraction wells, aboveground manifold system, blower, etc.); and Description of the proposed monitoring program designed to monitor the safety and performance of LFG collection system.operations. L:~PRO POSAL\199~130-96~UKIAH 4-4 Printed on Recycled Paper . Section 4 Under a separate cover, EBA will prepare a preliminary engineering cost estimate for the design (i.e., construction specifications and drawings) and subsequent construction of the LFG collection system. EBA will also provide costs for preparation of contract and bidding documents. EBA will initially submit the Plan to the City in draft form for review and comment. Following the City's review of the draft report, EBA will finalize the report and resubmit four (4) finalized copies to the City within three (3) working days. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE WORK SCOPE EBA is prepared to implement the proposed work scope presented in the previous subsections. However, as outlined in the beginning of this section, the benefits of performing a pilot study may be limited in comparison to the capital invested in implementing the program Concerns regarding the pilot study include the following- · Due to the extreme heterogeneity of buried refuse, system parameters monitored at a specific location may not be representative of conditions and characteristics elsewhere in the landfill. Thus, data generated from a pilot study are typically unreliable for large-scale design purposes; As presented in detail in Section 6 of this proposal, performance of the pilot study (i.e., Task II) represents approximately 85 percent of the total budget. Based on the questionable use of the corresponding data as described in the previous bullet item, the return on the aforementioned capital expenditure has the potential to be minimal. This money would be better served for the installation of additional wells or the purchase of dedicated equipment components; The cost for well installation assumes that the Wells can be installed on the first attempt and without any problems. However, due to the variable and uncertain nature of buried refuse, it is possible that impenetrable materials (i.e., concrete) could be encountered during drilling operations. Such conditions would require additional attempts until the desired depth is attained. Based on these circumstances, the potentia/exists for drilling costs to increase, thereby impinging further on the pilot study budget. In addition, problems with drilling would also impact the project schedule, thereby jeOpardizing the attainment of project goal deadlines. In light of the aforementioned concerns, EBA strongly urges that the City consider foregoing the pilot study and proceed directly to the design phase. By foregoing the pilot study, the City can utilize the corresponding cost savings to subsidize the financing of dedicated system components. In addition, the alternative work scope will expedite the design process and reduce the time required to finalize the Amended LFG Migration Corrective Action Plan. Based on our current knowledge of the site and the extent of existing data, it appears that sufficient data is available to design an effective LFG collection system. In general, the technical L:~ROPO$^L~i 99~1 ~R}-96~UKIAH 4-5 Section 4 Scope of Wo~ approach and tasks associated with the alternative work scope would be similar to the work scope described for Tasks III through V in the previous subsections. However, instead of incorporating data generated from the pilot study, typical design criteria and general standards commonly used in the LFG industry will be utilized for design purposes. As discussed earlier, EBA will pursue installation of the LFG collection system in a phased manner to control costs and to allow for initial evaluation of the performance and effectiveness of the well field. L:XPROI:'OSALX1996Xi:}0-9~XUKIAlt 4-6 Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 4 Proposal P96-070.02 3 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 3.1 Project Description The USWDF is a permitted Class III municipal solid waste landfill constructed in an unlined canyon, and is owned and operated by the City of Ukiah (City). Recent results of periodic LFG monitoring indicate that methane gas at two locations on the southern property boundary exceeds the regulatory limit of 5 percent by volume in air. The methane concentrations appear to be intermittent and may vary seasonally. In accordance with a Stipulated Order of Compliance and Agreement, the City is required to submit a revised GMCAP to mitigate the off-site migration of methane gas by September 13, 1996. In an effort to select a cost effective method for mitigating LFG migration, the City has requested that the LFG in the areas of non-compliance be quantified. Additionally, the City has requested that options for extracting and treating the migrating LFG be evaluated and the GMCAP be amended to reflect the LFG quantity estimates and the proposed control options. EMCON's primary objective is to meet the real needs of the City, which include: protecting health, safety, and the environment · minimizing unnecessary costs · establishing an effective and reasonable GMCAP · allaying the concerns of regulators and neighbors As a basis for addressing these objectives, we have summarized the following understanding of the site issues and technical approaches. 3.2 Site Issues Based on a preliminary review of the available site information, we have made the following observations: · The buffer zone to the south of the site should be effective in isolating adjoining properties from near-term LFG impacts. ESJXI:\UKIAHXTEXT~PROPOSAL.DOC-95\apw: 1 Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 5 Proposal P96-070.02 The seasonal variability of the methane concentrations in the gas probes indicates that migration may be confined to highly transmissive soil zones and has not extended far beyond the compliance locations. · EMCON concurs with the City that LFG may be readily controlled through a limited program of active gas extraction from the adjacent refuse. We also recommend considering LFG extraction for source control of volatile organic compounds which may be migrating to the groundwater through the vadose zone. · The primary LFG compound of concern to the LEA and the CIWMB is methane. · The primary compounds of concern regulated by the local air district are the non- methane organic compounds (NMOCs). To provide a basis for corrective action design, the City has requested that the quantity of LFG that may potentially migrate from the refuse be evaluated. To achieve this, the City has requested a field test that includes the installation and sampling of LFG extraction wells in the vicinity of the off-site migration. We believe that for this project, field testing may not be the most cost effective or time efficient means for achieving the project objectives. Based on over 20 years experience conducting LFG extraction field tests, we have observed that quantitative testing to estimate LFG availability requires a minimum of two weeks and can take up to two months. Only after collecting sufficient data under equilibrium conditions can accurate conclusions be drawn about LFG extraction rates and the effects of extraction wells on off-site migration. Considering the City's project objectives, completion schedule, and budget constraints, we believe the effort required for the field testing would be better utilized for refining the modeling of LFG generation rates and designing a permanent LFG migration control system. For these reasons, we recommend deleting field testing from the contracted scope of work. However, since the City or regulatory agencies may still desire that a field test be performed, we have included the requested task, as well as more practical field testing alternatives. In general, if the site geology, landfill construction, and refuse composition are sufficiently defined, an active LFG migration control system can be successfully designed and implemented without an initial field test. Typically, modeling combined with experienced conservative design assumptions will provide a successful design solution. A small ESJ\i :\U KIAH~TEX'I~PROPOSAL. DOC-95~pw: 1 // Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 6 Proposal P96-070.02 perimeter control system, as under consideration for the USWDF, can typically be provided with sufficient flexibility and capacity to maintain migration control under most anticipated conditions. The optimum LFG treatment method is somewhat dependent on the long term methane composition and quantities, but can usually be selected without field test results. An insufficient field test is often worse than no field test, as it can lead to gross oversizing or undersizing of both the extraction system and the treatment method. 3.3 Field Testing Approaches The field test portion of any LFG project is a balancing act between schedule, cost, and efficacy. The three categories of gas extraction well field testing are: · Single point-in-time (one day, or less, of gas extraction and monitoring) · Short term (one week, or less, of gas extraction and monitoring) · Long term (two weeks, or more, of gas extraction and monitoring) Single point-in-time test A single point-in-time test is basically a one day LFG sampling event, at static non- equilibrium conditions. In this test, methane and pressure data from the test wells can be obtained for very low cost, but will provide very limited information on which to base an active extraction system design. Flow rates during single point-in-time testing typically do not correlate to long term equilibrium flow rates, and are typically not measured. Short term test In a short term field extraction test, LFG is gathered from extraction wells for one week or less, and gas composition and flow parameters are monitored. Typically, not enough gas can be gathered during a short term test to differentiate excess LFG stored in the refuse and soil pore volumes from ongoing LFG generation rate, which is the parameter of concern. ESJ\I:\UKIAH~TEXTkPROPOSAL.DOC-95hpw: 1 Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 7 Proposal P96-070.02 Long term test Given adequate resources and time, the ideal long term field test scenario would include: · Installation of two or more extraction wells · Installation of an array of pressure monitoring probes around the extraction wells · Monitoring of baseline data at wells and probes for two days LFG flow extraction, monitoring, and adjustment until acceptable and stable methane concentrations are established at both the extraction wells and the compliance monitoring points. This scenario would probably require a minimum of two weeks to execute properly. If positive influence on the compliance gas probes can be demonstrated, the design process reduces to establishing the required frequency of operation and the appropriate type of LFG treatment. If the methane concentrations at the gas probes attain compliance, passive flare wellheads can be provided at the wells to allow venting of LFG, and reduce the pressure gradient which drives LFG migration. In this case, an interim operating routine could be initiated which would include: · Periodic monitoring of gas probes · Notifying EMCON when concentrations approaching maximum compliance levels are detected · Connection and short term operation of mobile LFG extraction equipment to reduce gas probe methane concentrations · Return to passive flared venting of LFG We are able to provide this unique service through our LFG operations and maintenance arm, OTI. The passive solar-power ignited flare wellheads are designed and manufactured by EMCON's flare manufacturing arm, LFG Specialties. Following is our scope of services addressing these issues. ESJ\I :\U KIAH\TEXTxPROPOSAL.DOC-95~apw: 1 // Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 8 Proposal P96-070.02 3.4 Proposed Scope of Work Task I - Review of Background Information Under this task, EMCON will perform a review of pertinent site background information. The review will include: · LFG monitoring data · Topographic maps of the USWDF and adjacent areas · LFG monitoring probe boring logs and other site geologic data · Preliminary Closure Plan · LFG generation rate estimates Prior to start of the project, we will submit to the City a list of background information required to perform a complete and comprehensive review of the site. We have assumed that copies of all requested information will be provided by the City. We will carefully review the information provided by the City to determine the most likely pathways for off-site migration of LFG, effective short-term remediation of LFG migration, and possible long-term LFG migration control methods that complement the existing and postclosure conditions of the USWDF. Task 2 - One Week LFG Field Extraction Test Under this task, EMCON will perform an LFG field extraction test to determine the quantity of LFG available to migrate into the surrounding soils along the southern perimeter of the USWDF. We will procure a contractor to drill and install two vertical extraction wells. We will supply a temporary blower and flare facility, and perform the field testing. To perform the test, a differential pressure will be applied to the wells and the methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, rate, temperature, and pressure of the induced LFG flow will be recorded. The differential pressure applied to the wells will be increased at regular intervals until significant oxygen concentrations are recorded in the LFG. Once the oxygen concentration is significant, the well will be considered to be extracting gas at a higher rate than the generation of LFG by the source refuse. This "breakthrough" point will be used ESJ\I :\U KIAH\TEXT~PROPOSAL.DOC-95~apw: l Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 9 Proposal P96-070.02 as the basis for estimating the extractable quantity of LFG. Our base proposed cost reflects the one week testing period. Alternate field testing scenarios are described below. Alternate Task 2A - LFG Extraction Well Sampling Because very little useful information is typically obtained from extraction testing of short duration (3 to 5 days), this abbreviated sampling scope is provided to trim field work costs to a minimum. EMCON will install two gas extraction wells and monitor gas temperature, flow rate, pressure, and methane composition under natural venting conditions. The installed wells will be uncapped and allowed to vent to the atmosphere for 8 hours. Monitoring parameters will be measured and recorded initially and hourly thereafter. The primary result of this exercise would be a qualitative indication of the LFG production environment in the immediate vicinity of the wells. Alternate Task 2B - Two Week LFG Field Extraction Test Although the testing procedure can be executed in the one week duration allotted by the City, we believe to obtain more meaningful results LFG should be continuously extracted for at least two weeks. This alternative scope of work includes seven days of additional monitoring and field adjustment, to attempt to achieve maximum equilibrium extraction from each well and to determine if methane concentrations at the compliance points can be lowered significantly. If the results of this test indicate that positive control of methane concentrations at the compliance points is readily attainable, we will determine the feasibility of initiating a program of periodic LFG extraction for interim long term control. Task 3 - Estimation of Methane Generation Rate Although field tests can provide a point in time measurement of LFG available for extraction, design of extraction systems must still consider the potential evolution of LFG generation rates over time. To achieve the project objective of establishing a design basis for LFG migration control, we will review the existing LFG generation estimates, perform independent confirmation modeling, and incorporate the available field data. Our preliminary reviews indicate that the existing LFG generation estimates may be significantly higher than ranges cited in the literature or warranted by actual field conditions. For these reasons, we propose to revise the current LFG generation rate estimates for the USWDF using our proprietary LFG generation model (LFGM). We will use the LFGM to ESJ~I:\U KIAH\TEXT~PROPOSAL.DOC-95~apw: 1 // Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 10 Proposal P96-070.02 estimate the amount of LFG that may be produced in the vicinity of the violation areas and in the landfill as a whole, as a result of both past and future refuse placement. The LFGM estimates LFG generation rates based on site specific factors including the annual refuse acceptance rate, waste composition, and refuse moisture conditions. In addition, the model has the capability to include the results of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act (CAA) model. In performing this task, we will provide the City with our standard LFG modeling questionnaire for completion. After receiving the completed questionnaire, we will review the data, and if necessary contact the City for clarifications. Upon final review of the questionnaire data, we will prepare LFG generation rate estimates for the USWDF. Task 4- Preliminary LFG Migration Control System Design Based on the results of Task 3, we will prepare a summary of preliminary LFG migration control system design criteria. We anticipate that these design criteria will include: · Number of extraction wells required to mitigate off-site migration of LFG at the two current non-compliance locations · Typical spacing, depth, and perforated zone of vertical extraction wells · Conveyance system pipe sizing · LFG treatment and disposal methods · Condensate collection and storage capacities We will contact local regulatory agencies to discuss the proposed LFG treatment and condensate collection alternatives, to facilitate future LFG migration control system permitting. Task 5 - Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan Amendments Under this task, we will review and revise the current GMCAP to reflect current site conditions, LFG migration monitoring data, LFG quantity estimates, and proposed LFG migration control system design considerations resulting from this project. We will include a description of the nature and extent of the gas migration along the southern boundary, a ESJ\I:\UKIAH\TEXT~PROPOSAL.DOC-95hpw: 1 Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 11 Proposal P96-070.02 description of the recommended gas control system and extraction wells, and a preliminary engineering cost estimate for the design, contract document preparation, and construction of the recommended gas control system. Upon revising the GMCAP, EMCON will submit one copy to the City for review. After receiving the City's comments to the GMCAP, we will finalize the GMCAP and submit three copies to the City. 3.5 Assumptions and Contingencies To develop the scope of work and cost estimate for engineering services, we have made the following assumptions: General All background information, reports, and maps needed to complete this investigation will be provided by the City. A questionnaire will be provided by EMCON to obtain the input information for the LFG generation modeling. If the information available is insufficient, additional assumptions and calculations may be performed, requiring additional budget. The format of the model output will be reviewed and confirmed with the City before site specific modeling is performed. We will issue one set of model results, representing our best estimate of the site specific gas generation conditions. Additional modeling runs requested by the City will require additional budget. LFG modeling is, by definition, hypothetical, and is based on broad input assumptions. Model results can only be used as a very general tool to aid in the preliminary design of gas collection piping systems. Applying a confidence range of plus or minus 25 percent to any model estimate would be appropriate. We do not warrant the applicability of model estimates to energy recovery purposes nor should any significant decision concerning LFG resource development be based solely on model results. · The City will pay all costs and fees for obtaining reviews and approvals from regulatory agencies. · EMCON will not be responsible for any fines levied on the City for failure to comply with applicable regulations or meet submittal dates. ESJ\I:\U KIAH~TEXTxPROPOSAL.DOC-95Xapw: 1 Mt. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 12 Proposal P96-070.02 Prevailing wages will not be required for construction labor activities performed as part of the professional services provided during this site investigation work. The cost estimate is based on 1996 calendar year billing rates. Field Test To maintain the City requested schedule, the City will have in hand, at the start of the project, all required permits for field installation and testing, including but no limited to, well drilling permit, building permit, environmental review, condensate discharge, and air district authority to construct and operate. EMCON will undertake an expedited design and installation effort for the field test to attempt to abate the existing LFG migration at the south side of the landfill. However, the City should be aware that the installation and initial operation of the temporary system may not be sufficient to provide desired results. Additional extraction/injection wells, collection piping, or different operational procedures may have to be installed or implemented to effect the desired results. The costs for these additional work efforts are not included in this proposal. If they are required, additional work efforts will not be initiated without approval by the City before commencement of work. The duration of on site operations is for five work days only. If extended operations are requested to provide better data or maintain long term LFG migration compliance, additional funding will be requested. Access for drilling equipment to the proposed test well locations on the landfill will be provided by the City. The two test wells are assumed to be a maximum of 85 feet deep and 18-inches in diameter. A total of 2 days (16 hours) of on site time for the drilling contractor is provided in this scope of work. Any additional drilling time will require additional City authorization. The refuse spoils will be inspected and described qualitatively. No detailed analysis of refuse composition will be provided in this scope of work. Installation of additional gas monitoring probes is not included as part of the testing program. ES J\1 :\U KIAH\TEXT~PROPOSAL.DOC-95~apw: 1 Mr. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 13 Proposal P96-070.02 The required test equipment is anticipated to include one LFG blower, an open flame LFG flare, a fuel-tank, and a rental diesel powered generator. Associated electrical controls and piping will be provided by EMCON. The estimated costs do not include the procurement or supply of electrical power, or a supplemental fuel source. · Security guards or fencing to enclose the blower/flare facility can be provided, but are not included in the scope of work. · The design and installation of the temporary blower/flare unit assumes only basic controls for shutdown and no automatic controls will be utilized. The costs included in this proposal are based on installation of equipment that will require technician labor to operate. If LFG methane quality from the test wells is not sufficient to maintain consistent flare combustion, additional modifications or O&M may be required to maintain system up-time. These additional efforts are not included in this scope of work. Methane and pressure data will be obtained using portable instrumentation. Laboratory analysis for various constituents can be provided, but are not included in the scope of work. · The City assumes responsibility for the appropriate transport and disposal of refuse drilling spoils. EMCON has assumed that any condensate generated by the temporary LFG test wells will be handled and disposed by the City. Costs for condensate transportation and disposal are not included in this proposal. · Decommissioning of the test wells is not included in this scope of work. · Any surveying services required to establish the record locations of the test wells can be provided by EMCON, but is not included in the current scope of work. Conceptual Design The design of the LFG collection system will be based on extracting the LFG generated in the landfill by vacuum. The LFG will be drawn from an array of vertical gas wells or horizontal trench collectors and conveyed through a ESJ~I:\U KIAH\TEXTxPROPOSAL.DOC-95~apw: ! /o o~' // Mt. Rick Kennedy July 10, 1996 Page 14 Proposal P96-070.02 collection piping system by centrifugal blowers to a treatment facility where the LFG will be treated and released to the atmosphere. Modeling analysis of gas transport through porous media can be provided by EMCON, but is not included in the current scope of work. The primary LFG compounds of concern regulated by air districts are the NMOCs. A preliminary analysis of alternative LFG treatment methods to reduce NMOCs will be provided, based on the estimated LFG generation rate and composition data. The alternative treatments to be considered for NMOC reduction will be free venting, thermal oxidation, activated carbon filtration, and biotreatment. Treatment system source emissions estimating or air quality impact modeling is not included in this scope of work, but can be provided if required by the City or the local air district. Condensate treatment and disposal options can be investigated, but are not included in the current scope of work. EMCON has assumed that the collected condensate may be pumped to a tank truck and hauled to and disposed of at the local wastewater treatment plant. Testing, pretreatment and a discharge permit may be a prerequisite for disposal. EMCON will contact the local utility to determine the nearest location of sufficient electrical power for the equipment proposed in the conceptual design. Design and coordination for obtaining adequate power service to the LFG treatment facility are not included in this scope of work. The co. nceptual design will not include designing a supplemental fuel supply to the site. All equipment, piping, and instrumentation will be proposed for outdoor installation on concrete foundations, within a fenced enclosure. Designs of visual or sound screening, buildings, architectural treatments, or landscaping are not included in this scope of work. Site geotechnical or foundation investigations are not included in the scope of work. ES J\! :\U KIAH\TEXT~PROPOSAL.DOC-95~apw: 1 4.1 Project Approach SHN has thoroughly reviewed the Request for Proposal provided by the City and has defined a project approach in line with the City's project goals. Based on our years of experience dealing with landfill gas, we have also included a second alternative, in which the City's tasks are arranged differently, so that each task maximizes the information gained and the work performed from previous tasks. In addition, the alternative order allows for some of the tasks to be performed simultaneously. 4.2 Design Approach Preparing a cost effective system design requires an understanding of the site. experience, some of the challenges that are likely present at this site include: Based on our · The bum material on the bottom of the landfill is probably highly permeable. Borings in bum waste typically yield sandy, rocky material with metal (i.e., cans) interspersed. Typically this material is free draining and hence provides an excellent migration path for landfill gas. · Because of the rainfall at the landfill, it is probable that the refuse is interspersed with perched liquids. · Gas generated in refuse in and above the bum material will have opportunities to move laterally in the bum material. This movement is enhanced by perched liquids in refuse higher in the landfill. · Drilled wells in refuse will probably fill with leachate in a very short time. Sealing this liquid out to allow the wells to successfully collect gas at the bottom of the landfill may be difficult. Leachate pumps may be required, although, based on experience, this is a costly installation and requires a higher level of maintenance than wells without pumps. The SHN/GCE Team will use the background data to confirm the above hypothesis to the extent possible. Field work will again be used to further confirm the hypothesis. Finally, the compliance plan will be prepared based on all of the site information gathered. The compliance plan needs to be prepared in a manner that provides a phased compliance effort. Initial wells and collection will be installed to optimize system performance and reduce cost. If areas still require additional control, wells can be added. Experience has shown that this is typically the most cost effective method of reaching a solution to a problem. The SHN/GCE team'is eXPerienced in gas migration control, extraction, & mitigation. 096000.064\PROPOSAL 5 4.3 Plan Approach The compliance plan needs to reflect several realities. These are: 1. The City will work to solve the off-site migration problem. 2. Due to uncertainties at the site, a single installation of all wells, headers, flare, etc. may not fully reach compliance. Future work phases may be needed. 3. Following the installation of any system, it needs to be allowed time to effect the migration problem, data needs to be collected and the system optimized. Following this process, if additions are needed they will be engineered and installed. As designers, the easy answer may be to over install systems so that compliance is virtually ensured. This penalizes the City by making the costs higher than they need to be. As engineers, the goal is to design a system that meets the objectives of both the owner and the agencies while reducing the overall cost. This is the approach we are proposing. The contents of the plan will describe the presumed nature and current extent of LFG off-site migration. Based upon this analysis, the plan will address the potential for future LFG off-site migration. The potential will be modeled and evaluated in order to design a LFG control system for the southern perimeter of the landfill. The recommended design will be based on this evaluation and methods of LFG control that have been known to be effective at other sites, and will be presented in the form of an amended Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan. SHN has recently completed Master Gas Control Plans at numerous sites that are encountering the very issues that are present at this site. As a result, we are thoroughly familiar with the level of detail the City is requiring in this effort. As a separate document SHN will include preliminary cost estimates and schedules for implementation of the proposed design and alternatives selected by the City. Details of the proposed plan are furthered described as Task V, the preparation of the plan. " The SHN/GCE team is experienced in gas migration control, ' extraction, & miti~lation. 096000.064~PROPOSAL 6 The tasks discussed below are consistent with those requested in the Request for Proposal. The alternative tasks are discussed at the end of this section. Task I: Review & Evaluation of Existing Data and Historical Records In preparation for this and past proposals, SHN has visited the landfill site, has reviewed site data provided by the City, and has researched climatic and weather conditions in the nearby City of Ukiah. Based on this analysis, and applying two decades of experience within the landfill industry, we have hypothesized the conditions within the landfill that would account for the recent elevated methane levels measured along the southern boundary of the landfill. A summary of the hypothesis is presented below in addition to the discussion in Section 4 under Design Approach. As discussed above, this task is essentially complete. The only data we would like to review is the well logs for the five southern monitoring wells. This would be to confirm the area geology ,which would explain the LFG migration witnessed at these wells. The only work necessary for the close of this task would be the preparation of a technical memo suitable for inclusion in the final amended Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan. This memo will include the following site hypothesis and any relevant information uncovered during the course of the work. Landfill Gas Migration & Conditions within the UMah Landfill The Team has, upon its initial evaluation, formed the following interpretation of the monitoring and historical data. First, the higher levels of methane gas are measured at the lower depths of the landfill, where the older, and possibly burnt refuse is deposited. This methane is measured at depths lower than the presumed refuse depths. This indicates that the LFG is migrating beneath the landfill. This migration is driven by a concentration gradient (diffusion) and by a pressure gradient (convection). As convection is usually the predominant mode of migration, it is safe to assume The SHN/GCE 'team 'is' eXPerienced in' gas'migration control, extraction, 8, mitigation. 096000.064~PROPOSAL 7 that pressure is being built up within the landfill. This pressure is the result of the gas generation due to a lack of a source of release. It is our interpretation that perched water exists within the landfill. The weather data indicates that the rainy season is sufficient to cause these saturated areas. Secondly, a lack of detectable levels of methane in the upper portions of the landfill may also be due to the intrusion of oxygen into the landfill during periods of barometric rise, when air is driven into the uncovered landfill surface. Aerobic bacteria exist in this oxygenated zone and consume methane migrating into that zone. Second stage decomposition, when the formation of methane occurs, is an anaerobic process, which cannot occur in this oxygenated zone. Because the landfill has no cover, this zone can easily consume the top 5 feet of the landfill (10 feet is common.) Over a 40 acre site, this amount to approximately 200,000 tons, approximately 25% of the deposited refuse. Lastly, the geology of the area may indicate why the gas is migrating down. The landfill is located within a fault-bound basin. It is likely that the area has, during periods of regional uplift, witnessed dipping of the layers. A higher permeability layer angled away from the landfill may actually provide a path for the gas to migrate deeper. Additionally, burned refuse creates an organic-free, cobble-like region, which has a higher permeability and may provide a region suitable for lateral migration at these depths. Given the above information, it is reasonable to conclude that the landfill, with its relatively small size, older refuse, and uncovered condition, will probably produce relatively low LFG generation rates. The landfill gas is blocked by pockets of water and accumulates within the landfill, causing high pressure build up. When the barometric conditions permit, the gas migrates down beneath the landfill and laterally in the higher permeable layers. Task ii: Field Investigation & Evaluation For this task, the Team will install two extraction wells to the depths of approximately 150', where current monitoring shows the highest levels of methane. A temporary blower, control, and monitoring assemblies, and a means of VOC elimination or destruction will be installed. By monitoring line pressure and flow, we can estimate the surrounding soil permeability. The deliverable for this phase includes bore logs, gas quality data, and as-built drawings of the installed system. The sHN/GCE team is experienCed in gas'migration control, extraction, & mitigation. 096000.064kPROPOSAL 8 Task II1: Estimate Methane Production Rates for Existing & Forecasted Refuse A multifraction exponential decay model will be used to estimate LFG generation. This model, while similar to the EPA's model, provides more flexibility in refuse categorization, which can improve methane generation predictions, especially following landfill closure. The LFG production rate model is already in place. A range of parameters from other sites with conditions similar the Ukiah landfill's will be used to develop an envelope of potential production rates for current and future generation. Task IV: Preliminary Design of Corrective Action During this task, the team will conceptualize a design to help control off-site migration at the southem boundary. As mentioned before, we are thoroughly familiar with this type of preliminary design. We have developed and have in place the necessary spreadsheets and programs for line size and pressure drop predictions, flare and blower sizing, and equipment specifications and cost analysis. We have the personnel readily available for the number crunching, and the expertise necessary to interpret the results and direct the design. The proposed design will probably include an extraction blower, perimeter gas collection wells, and header along the southern boundary of the landfill. According to our final proposed well field layout, we propose the installation of flanged tie-in stubs for future wells. This will allow the City to install additional wells as the monitoring dictates, and will permit the City to install just what is necessary, when it is necessary. If sufficient vacuum is applied to the proposed wells, a gradient will be formed which may pull the gas toward the perimeter instead of allowing it to migrate further down toward groundwater. This will not only reduce the VOC concentration in the gas thus reducing diffusion, but it will reduce the pressure that drives the convection of the V OCs into groundwater. Gas disposal may be by activated carbon, a candle stick flare or a groundflare. We are currently in the process of verifying if the installation of the candlestick flare is acceptable in Mendocino County. This is typically the most cost effective method of disposing of LFG. The deliverable for this task will be a technical memo. The memo will include a preliminary well field layout, preliminary equipment and materials list, and construction cost estimate. This will allow the City to review the design early in the project to evaluate if the design and cost are within City's intended range. This will allow for adjustment prior to submittal to the LEA. The SHN/GCE team is experienced in gas migration control, extraction, & mitigation. 096000.064~PROPOSAL 9 Task V: Preparation of Amended Gas Migration Corrective Plan This task includes compiling the information from earlier tasks. Commtmications with the City by means of interim submittals and approvals, should enable us to prepare a plan in accOrdance with the City's wishes and minimize the need and time for review and revisions. Likewise, early communications with the LEA should help us to prepare a document that will be quickly approved. The Team's approach is based on proper communication, which will save the City both time and money. A list of the information to be included in the amended Gas Migration Corrective Action Plan is included below. · A Discussion of the Problem · Landfill Gas Generation Estimate · Phased Gas Well Field Layout Line Sizing/Pressure Drop Calculations · Condensate Generation Calculations & Recommended Disposal Option · Flare Sizing Calculations & Performance Standards · Blower Sizing Calculations & Performance Standards · Preliminary Design Schedule · Proposed Construction Phasing Options & Schedules This document should also be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to permit the system. If necessary, health risk calculations can be prepared and attached to the APCD's package. As an alternative, we propose changing the order of the City's proposed Tasks II and III in an attempt to efficiently meet the City's objectives in a more cost effective, timely manner. Essentially, we propose swapping the order of the City's proposed Task II (Field Investigation) & Task III (LFG Modeling). Under Alternative II, the landfill gas modeling will be performed first, as a basis for further design. Then field investigations will be conducted after the modeling and act as a calibration of the model. The field investigation will be performed during the initial stages of the design phase. In this manner, the City can avoid the costly proposition of installing investigative wells that would later be discarded. Results from the field investigation can be used to test our hypothesis and for calibration of the LFG model and to make any needed modifications to the initial design. The SHN/GCE team is experienced in gas migration control, extraction, & mitigation. 096000.064~PROPOSAL 10 Field Investigation Alternatives As an alternative to the Field Investigation portion of the scope of work, we propose using a surface monitoring sweep to calibrate the methane generation model. The surface sweep would be used instead of the well installation and radius of influence test proposed in the City's Request for Proposals (See Alternative II). The reduction in cost for using the alternative surface sweep is shown in the cost estimate. The following section discusses the problems with installing wells to quantify LFG generation and the advantages of the surface sweep. Gas wells would need to be installed as part of the field investigation as suggested by the City. This includes the installation of two gas extraction wells, a temporary blower, and a means for gas VOC destruction. This installation would be used to conduct a radius of influence test. We believe that the type of test proposed by the City could be helpful in predicting the soil/refuse permeability and radius of influence. This information could be useful for the placement of the proposed perimeter wells. However, the proposed test area may not necessarily be enough to be representative, to provide sufficient data to categorize the methane potential of the area. The wells being currently monitored have measured fluctuating levels of gas. It is likely that this fluctuation is based on the barometric pressure fluctuations, and changes in gas generation caused by the addition of rain water during the winter months. A radius of influence test could possibly indicate the potential for LFG flow for the specific set of conditions that the test was performed under (i.e. saturated state of the landfill, barometric pressure, time of day, state of pressure buildup within the landfill), but this information is not necessarily characteristic of the maximum condition, or even the average condition, only a site specific condition. The City proposed this task to "facilitate the quantification of methane production in the area of violation." While a radius of influence test in this area would be useful, the gas migrating to the southern wells is likely to not to have originated solely within the area of violation. Installing the investigative wells will probably not be an effective way of analyzing the methane potential in the area or of the landfill as a whole. In addition, the installation of two wells will result in a single data point in time for the test. Additional probes would be required to collect the data necessary for a radius of influence test to be meaningful. For these reasons (effects of liquid, effects of gas migrating from outside the test area, and a resulting single data point),the resulting generation data will likely have a high degree of error. In keeping with the City's intent of quantifying the methane production and future potential, we have proposed the following alternative. The SHN/GCE team is experienced in gas migration control, extraction, & mitigation. 096000.064~PROPOSAL 11 Task III B Surface Monitoring As an alternative or addition to Task III, the Team can perform a surface sweep of the landfill surface. We can estimate surface emissions from this data and an emissions/surface concentrations relationship previously developed by the Team. Assuming a percentage of the methane generated migrates toward the surface, we can estimate the total methane generated in the landfill. This procedure is relatively inexpensive, but could provide a crude estimate of total LFG generation that could be used to calibrate the LFG generation model. Once the model is calibrated for present conditions, it can be extrapolated to include future refuse deposits. The SHN/GCE team 'is experienced in ~las mi~lration control, extraction, & miti~lation. 096000.064LPROPOSAL 12 SECTION ONE PROJECT APPROACH 1.1 Summary We propose a field test to demonstrate LFG migration control by injecting air into the soil adjacent to the refuse. If successful, this method has significant benefits compared to collecting LFG from the refuse. This method has been successfully used at other landfills to control LFG migration. Our proposed field test includes two low pressure air injection (LPA) wells installed in native soil along the landfill perimeter where migration is indicated. The wells will be drilled to a depth such that the bottom of the well is at or below the bottom of the refuse. The LPA wells will be located between perimeter monitoring probes GAS-3 and GAS-4 (see Drawing 1). LPA well locations have been selected to make the best use of the field test wells. If, during the field test, we are able to control migration at the location of the probes, then believe that migration along the landfill perimeter between the two probes has also been controlled. We will inject air into the LPA wells, and monitor the pressure and methane content at probes GAS-3 and GAS-4. A significant decrease of combustible gas or a significant increase in pressure at the probes during the test will indicate that air injection can control migration. 1-1 · COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL · TRADE SECREI' AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF THE MARg. GROUP, INC. · Two factors at the Ukiah Landfill indicate that air injection will succeed: Boring logs at perimeter monitoring probes GAS-3 and GAS-4 indicate gravel and other high-permeability lenses in the soil adjacent to the refuse. These are most striking at probe GAS-4. Our review of the boring logs and monitoring data indicates that LFG migration is probably occurring through these lenses. Pressurizing the lenses with air will reverse the pressure gradient, thereby stopping migration of LFG from the landfill through the lenses; and The boring log at probe GAS-4 indicates the presence of groundwater near the elevation of the bottom of refuse. The water table acts as a confining strata, preventing LFG migration through unknown strata below the groundwater. We do not require a field test to size the LFG collection equipment. Our information indicates that the refuse at the Ukiah Landfill is not unusual in composition, therefore, LFG estimation methods based on refuse depth and placement schedule can be applied. These methods will allow us to estimate the LFG produced in the portion of the landfill where migration is occurring with accuracy sufficient to size the flare (i.e., combustion) equipment. Should the City decide to eliminate the field test (Task 2) altogether, or if the LPA well field test is unsuccessful, we will proceed with a Corrective Action Plan based on LFG collection and combustion in a LFG flare. 1.2 Technical Comparison: Air Injection Field Test vs. LFG Extraction Field Test The air injection field test will evaluate the effectiveness of air injection in controlling migration. We expect to see an impact on the pressures and combustible gas concentration at the probes during the field test. In comparison, a LFG extraction field test attempts to quantify the LFG produced in the refuse. Because of the separation between the perimeter probes and the refuse, and because the pressures used during the LFG extraction test are fairly 19w (1 inch water column, at most), we would not expect to see a significant impact on th~ perimeter probes during the LFG extraction field test. 1_3 Control of Migration by Air Injection vs. LFG Extraction Cost savings of an air injection system compared to LFG collection and treatment system are significant. This difference is due primarily to the mechanical simplicity of air injection. A permanent air injection control system will include two or more LPA wells and a blower. The blower will be the only mechanical component, operating continuously, powered through a simple electrical connection. 1-2 · C~OMPANY CON'FIDI~I'IAL · TRADE S~CRET AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF TI[E MARK GROUP, IlqC. · The installed cost of an air injection system may be between $50,000 and $150,000. Operations costs may be between $5,000 and $15,000 per year (these costs will be estimated in greater detail in Task 6). In contrast, a system to control migration by collecting LFG from the refuse fill will include at least 10 LFG wells, and will require more complex controls. The cost of the LFG collection system is greatly affected by the type of combustion required. Preliminary contact with the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District indicates that a controlled temperature flare would be required. The installed cost of such a system is between $300,000 and $450,000. Annual operations costs will be between $10,000 and $25,OOO. Potential savings for air injection compared to a LFG collection and combustion system are therefore: Capital cost: Operations cost: $150,000 to $400,000 up to $20,000 annually Permitting requirements are greatly reduced. Air injection does not create an atmospheric emissions point source, as does the installation of a LFG flare. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District requirements do not apply to air injection, and a permit would not be required. Air injection does not produce LFG condensate, as does a LFG collection system. Operating permits therefore need not be revised to address condensate disposal. Conflict with landfill operations and closure is eliminated. The air injection system will be located completely off the landfill footprint. Piping on the landfill surface will not be needed. In comparison, a LFG collection system requires LFG pipes to be installed across the landfill surface. These pipes will tend to conflict with access to the landfill surface while the landfill is operating, and will need to be addressed when placing cover layers at closure. 1.4 Scena.rios for the Completion of the Work We will aggressively pursue all means to control LFG migration by the air injection field test wells. However, several degrees of success of the field test are possible. The direction of the project following the field test will be determined by the degree of success of the field test. If the field test is fully successful (control of migration is indicated at both LFG probes), the Corrective Action Plan will identify air injection as the LFG migration control system. We will estimate the cost of permanently injecting air into the two test wells. 1-3 If the field test indicates partial success (control of migration indicated at one, but not both, LFG probes, or other mixed results) wc will mcct with the City to discuss and evaluate thc results. Based on our discussions, thc City ma), or may not decide to implement air injection to control LFG migration. Wc will proceed with our work based on that decision, revising thc Corrective Action Plan and estimating cost for the selected control method. The City may decide that the field test data is promising but inconclusive, and that more testing is warranted. We would discuss the particulars of that approach at that time, and propose locations for additional LPA wells as appropriate. If the field test Indicates that air i~ection will not be successful, we will proceed with the remainder of the work based on collection of LFG from the refuse. We will estimate the cost of the LFG collection system based on the age and volume of refuse along the affected area of the landfill perimeter. The Corrective Action Plan will describe a LF(} collection and flaring system. A major objective of our work will be to gain acceptance by the Mendocino County AQMD of LFG combustion with a simple waste flare system, rather than a sophisticated (and expensive) controlled-temperature flare system. 1-4 · COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL · 'I'R. ADE SECRET AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF TH~ MARK GROUP. INC. · SECTION TWO PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2.1 Background Landfill gas (LFG) is produced by the biological decomposition of organic material without oxygen (anaerobic decomposition). Anaerobic decomposition begins within months after refuse placement and proceeds for years afterwards until aerobic conditions are reestablished. LFG is a mixture of methane (natural gas) and carbon dioxide in approximately an equal ratio. Trace organic compounds are also present in LFG, many due to their presence in the disposed refuse. Methane is combustible at concentrations above 5% (the lower explosive limit). Because LFG is combustible and oxygen deficient, hazards associated with LFG migration include the risk of fire, explosion, and asphyxiation. LFG production creates a pressure within the refuse. This pressure can be very slight, or can be as high as 10 psi depending on the depth, age, and compaction of the refuse. Deep landfills with wet refuse can produce significant pressures in the lower depths of the refuse fill. LFG moves from the landfill in response to this pressure gradient. Most LFG leaves the refuse through the landfill cover, as this is the path of least resistance. Lateral 2-1 · COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL · TRADE S"ECR.ET AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF TH~ MARK GROUP, INC. migration of LFG can occur if the pressure within the refuse is sufficient to force LFG into and through adjacent soil lenses. 2.2 Detected Migration at the Uidah Landfill With respect to the Ukiah Landfill, LFG migration (methane concentrations above 5%) was indicated at migration probes Gas-3 and Gas-4 (Drawing 1). Boring logs taken during the installation of the monitoring probes indicate several gravel zones, most noticeably at a depth of 142 feet below ground surface (bgs) at Gas-4. This gravel lens coincides with the lowest of the three monitoring zones of that probe. Based on this information, we conclude that LFG migration is occurring primarily through these gravel lenses. The City of Ukiah must control subsurface migration to below the regulatory compliance level of 5%. Corrective measures in response to detected migration usually include the collection of LFG from the edge of the refuse fill near the affected perimeter by a LFG collection system (wells, blower and flare). Such a system controls migration by reversing the pressure gradient at the landfill's edge. LFG is pulled into the collection system rather than moving through the soil. The collected LFG is usually burned in accordance with local air quality regulations. 2.3 LFG Safety and Regulatory Issues LFG is a safety issue because of the potential for fire, explosion, and asphyxiation. Both state and federal agencies regulate LFG safety issues. Title 14 CCR 17258.23, Title 23 CCR, and Federal RCRA regulations require that owners of landfills ensure human health and safety against hazards associated with LFG production at landfills. Specifically, these regulations require that: Combustible gas (landfill methane) concentrations at the property boundary are monitored and maintained below the lower explosive limit (LEL); Combustible gas (landfill methane) concentrations in structures within property limits must be maintained below 25% of the LEL; and Sanitary landfills have a monitoring plan to demonstrate that the above conditions are met. In the case of the Ukiah Landfill, it is our understanding that the Local Enforcement Agency has preempted the City of Ukiah,s determination of the best means to monitor for LFG migration, and has directed the City to provide monitoring on the north side of the landfill, as well as taking action to control migration apparent along portions of the southern landfill edge. 2-2 · COMPANY CONFIX)I~fi'iAL · TRADE S~.CRE'Y AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF TI'(E MARK GROUP, INC. · Mendocino County Air Quality Management District also has jurisdiction over LFG emissions due to the potential for air pollution by surface LFG emissions. The Mendocino County AQMD does not now have regulations relating specifically to LFG. Combustion or discharge of any collected LFG is subject to permitting requirements and new source review. Preliminary contact with the Mendocino County AQMD indicates their reliance on California State "Suggested Measures" for LFG mitigation. Suggested measures for LFG includes combustion in a temperature-controlled flare. 2-3, · COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL · TRADE SECRET AND PROPRIia"I'ARY INFORMATION OF TH~ MARK GROUP, INC. · ~0 0 ::!ii!:ii :::::::::::::::::::::::: : ;~ .... · ::::::::::::::::::::: : ::: :::::::::::::::::::::: : ::::::::::: :::::.: :::: :. ::.::::::::::.::'.:: .................. ~ :::::::::::::::::::::: :.:1.. :::+:.:: ::.:.. ~ .:.:.:.::.:.:: :: ~ ::::::::::: :: ............... :.:..: ...:::.:.:::.: :.: :::: :. · :~.~:::;:::~:~:~:~:: ::: :: :: ~::::::::::::: i :' ' ;:::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .................. ~: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.- :.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:...L;.; : :::::::: : :~:::~:~: :~ ~:~:: ~ ?:~:; ~:~ ~ :0~:~;'~' ~ ~;~ ~ cio 0 ..........._ 4:::::: :'' ::'~ '~' '~' .::: : :.>:.>:.:.>:.>; ~......... ::::::::::::::::::::: ~: :::::::::::::::::::::: :;:::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ::::::::::::::::::::: : ::'4.:+:: :~:~ .~.::~:~.:;~:~:~ ~ : ;:::::: :~:::::::::::.: ' ?::.: >:.:.:~: :1 .:.l...t.i 1.11,1,1, i ..:4. ~.:4,:.: :::,:.: · : :,:.:4.:.: :, :.:,:,:,:.:,:.:. ::::'::: :;:: '0:::::: ::)l- u-z ::::;;:: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::i:i:i:;': , ,.. ~ :,:,1~ ::::::: :,1.~:::: :: ::~ :'::. :::::::: ,,~,,¢ :::::::::::.: :::::: ::: :: · :::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :.:,:.: :,:, ;.:::..::::; ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::'.:::;: :::::;:.::'.:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::i:!:i'; i:i:::::::::::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0t~ UJ b- Z 0000000 ~000000 ~00000~ c c N c o~ E 0 0 0 0 0 Q) §o (/3 I-- Z I.U Z IJ.I AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9b(i ) (~_~ ~ _ DATE: July 17, 1996 REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PARKING REGULATIONS IN MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS i. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF DIVISION 8 OF THE CITY OF UKIAH CITY CODE REGULATING PARKING IN MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS ii. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING PERMIT REGULATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS In the course of reviewing the procedures for providing and enforcing the City of Ukiah's parking permit program, the City Attorney has determined an amendment to Sections 7351 and 7383 of Chapter 3, Division 8, of the Ukiah City Code is necessary. He has also recommended the adoption of a follow-up resolution establishing parking permit regulations for municipal lots. These actions are requested in order to address two deficiencies in our current practice. First, there is no City Code Section making it a parking violation to park in a space designated for permit parking only. Secondly, there is no clear authority for treating a permit as invalid, in the event a balance is due upon the prior month's billing. The attached City Attorney's July 10, 1996 memo, details his concerns and their origins. Staff concurs with the City Attorney's concerns and recommends introduction of the Ordinance and adoption of the Resolution. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Introduce by title only Ordinance Amending parking regulations and adopt Resolution to clarify City's authority relative to parking permits. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Revise Ordinance and/or Resolution as determined appropriate and adopt. 2. Determine introduction of Ordinance and/or adoption of Resolution are inappropriate and do not take action. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Acct. No.: (if budgeted) David Rapport, City Attorney Larry W. DeKnoblough, Assistant Redevelopment Director Candace Horsley, City Manager and Gordon Elton, Finance Director 1. Ordinance for Introduction 2. Resolution for Adoption 3. July 10, 1996 Memorandum APPROVE~ t,~-~ ~' Candace Horsley, City'Manager 4/LD~,SRPark.ing ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF DIVISION 8 OF THE CITY OF UKIAH REGULATING PARKING IN MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Sections 7351 and 7383 of Chapter 3, Division 8 of the Ukiah City Code are hereby amended to read as follows: §7351: METHOD OF REGULATION: The method of regulation and control of parking or standing of vehicles in municipal off-street parking lots shall be determined by resolution of the City Council, and may be by parking meters, parking permits, attendants or any other appropriate means. On those municipal parking lots which are to be controlled by parking meters, the Chief of Police shall cause parking meters to be installed and maintained. §7383: PENALTY: It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provisions of or fail to comply with any requirements of this Chapter, including any resolutions adopted by the City Council as authorized by this Chapter. Any such violation shall constitute an infraction. Any such violation coming within the terms of Vehicle Code Section 40200, as amended, [violations of regulations governing the parking or standing of vehicles where the prescribed penalty is not a misdemeanor] shall be subject to the civil penalties provided in Article 3 of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Vehicle Code. SECTION THREE This Ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall become effective thirty (30) days after it is adopted. Introduced by title only on following roll call vote: , 1996, by the AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Adopted on roll call vote: , 1996, by the following s:\u\ords96\parking.off July 12, 1996 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk s:\u\ords96\parking.off July 12, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING PARKING PERMIT REGULATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS. WHEREAS, 1. Ukiah City Code (UCC) Section 7351 authorizes the City Council to adopt regulations establishing the method of regulating parking in municipal parking lots; and 2. Parking permits provide an efficient means of controlling parking in municipal lots to supplement the use of parking meters in such lots; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: I. Finance Director Authorized to Issue Permits. The Finance Director is authorized to issue parking permits for the following municipal parking lots: A (adjacent to post office), B (adjacent to phone company building), C (adjacent to Library), D (adjacent to Dorsi's Auto Repair), and E (adjacent to Conference Center). A. Permits issued on a periodic basis. Permits may be issued on a monthly, semi-annual, annual or other periodic basis as determined by the Finance Director. B. Issuance and cancellation of right to permit. The Finance Director shall determine the number of permits available for each municipal parking lot or assigned space. The City shall maintain a list of permit applicants based on the date it received the request or application for a permit. Permits shall be issued on a first come, first served basis. Once an applicant receives a permit, he or she shall continue to receive a permit for that lot or space either until he or she notifies the City that he or she no longer wants the permit, or if the applicant has failed to pay a permit fee within thirty days of the payment date. If an applicant forfeits the right to receive a permit as provided herein, the City shall issue the permit to the next applicant on the list. An applicant removed from the list under this subsection is not prohibited from requesting another permit for the same or a different lot or space, but his or her name shall appear on the list based on the most recent date of request or application. C. Fees established by resolution. Periodic fees for permits shall be established by resolution of the City Council. s:\u\resos96\permitl.prk July 12, 1996 D. Payment of Fees and Validity of Permits. Permits may be issued in advance and become effective upon payment by an established payment date of the required periodic fee, including amounts owing for prior periods, or may be issued only upon payment of the required fee. 1. If issued in advance, the permit shall indicate on its face that it is not valid, unless the total balance owing, including fees owing for prior periods, is paid in full by the payment date shown on the permit. "Paid in full" means that the payment has been received by the City Finance Department. If paid by check, the check must have cleared. The canceled check is the permittee's proof of the fact and date of payment. Such a permit that has not been paid in full is not a valid city parking permit. The City may refuse to provide an advance permit to any permittee with a balance owing for a prior period. 2. If issued only upon payment, the City shall stamp the permit as "Valid - Paid in Full." Such a permit not bearing the required stamp is not a valid city parking permit. Any permit bearing such a stamp shall become void immediately without notice to the permittee, if the permittee pays by check and the check is returned unpaid by the bank. The Finance Department shall endeavor to notify permittees when checks bounce, but its failure to do so shall not affect the invalidity of the permit. A permit may be reinstated upon full payment of all fees and costs owing. E. Contents of Permit. following information: The permit shall contain the 1. Name of parking lot for which permit issued; 2. Space number, if issued for a specific space; 3. Time period for which permit is effective; 4. The total amount which must be paid for the permit to be valid; 5. The date by which payment must be made for permit to be valid; 6. Such other information as determined by the Director of Finance. F. Parking authorized. A valid city parking permit entitles the permittee to park a vehicle in the municipal lot or space for which it is issued for the period covered by the periodic fee. The permit must be properly displayed. "Properly displayed" means displayed face up on the driver's side of the dashboard and clearly visible through the vehicle's windshield. 1. A vehicle with a properly displayed valid city parking permit issued for a municipal parking lot may park within that lot in a metered space in lieu of paying the parking meter fees and without regard to parking time or in a space posted for s:~u~resos96\permitl.prk July 12, 1996 2 "permit parking only." 2. In the discretion of the Director of Finance permits may be issued for assigned spaces; 3. It shall be unlawful for any vehicle not properly displaying a valid parking permit to park in a space posted for "permit parking only." If permits are issued for assigned parking spaces, it shall be unlawful for any vehicle not properly displaying a valid parking permit for that assigned space to park in a space posted for "assigned permit parking only." The operator or owner of any such vehicle shall be subject to the penalty provisions in UCC Section 7383. 4. Any other vehicle parking in a metered space must comply with Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 8 of the Ukiah City Code, commencing with Section 7360, governing the allowed use of metered spaces in municipal parking lots. II. City Engineer to Post Signs. The City Engineer shall post signs in accordance with UCC Sections 7062-7063 designating those parking spaces designated for permit parking only. If permits are issued for assigned parking spaces, the City Engineer shall post signs for "assigned permit parking only" and number the spaces. The restrictions imposed by this resolution shall only apply where signs have been posted as provided herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 1996, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Marge Giuntoli, City Clerk s:\u\resos96\permitl.prk July 12, 1996 ;..-'17-12-1996 ;..-'il: 46PH FRO[,1 F,'.APPOF. IT :L HARRTOhl TO I_IK I AH P. R2 t@w Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTO.N An A$$OCl~liofl Of Sole Practitioners 200 W. Henry ~treet P.O. Box 488 ~ LJK~ah, California 95482 David J. R4ppo~ Lestel J M~arston (707) 462-,6846 Scott Johr~s~or~ FAX 462-4235 ,~! _E..M Q. R._.A N D U M TO: Henorab!e Mayor an{l Cc. unci] members FROM: i ~' -'~ ~' %~.,~. .... D~v~t~ ~. RaOpo~ t S~JECT ~ Parking permit Attache{ are - ',~ -~; ~ - am.nc, ments to sec{~6]'~ %3'~i"~'i{~-7-~' ~}'f'~"the City Code and a ,reposed resolt]x~.on ~-s~ablishlnq' regulations for permi$ paz'k~.ng in municipal p¢:x'ki.ng lots. Please review the eme~dmezlt s and resolut ~en. r t~ndersEalld thaL the City Council has previoesly taken action to s~~ r. he, ~e~s for pe~'mi~ s ~i. nce ~he at~ ' ~ -~ , ~ ...... - · -' ~acnud do not. change ,~,_~pced withOLth pr~ - , -~ ,{.r pub] ]shed notice. U.~ti-...~,', .... : Not~:iCeS Of Violation are pr i n ,._ ed ,- ~he paxking enforcement o~fi,-~rS ~!~ould be insLruct:ed to list ULt._. ~7~83, park:i~g without a hermit,,':as Lhe violation, -;~. · an unpermiVLed v~hi~'~e,., is oarking.., in a space ~posted for permit parkin~ only. tn a!] ether situations, ..... z._e using c~renL p:~}actice. lne a~.L~cnmen~$ are in~ended to address two isst:es which have come ]. : q'hc absence o-~ a City Code Secmicn making it a parking vloia~iO~l:q; ~] { tO park _'~n a ~':~'~,~.-~{;:e designated_ . .... f~ permit_ parking only; . ~ ~e absence of clear a~,~hor~ty for ~rr-.eati. ng a parking permi~ ~s "~valid, if a balance i.s owing for a prier month As to the first issue most ~>,~--~-, .... , , ~,:s i.n ~ mun{cipa! parking lots are mc~e~z.~ When pe~mit~_~ ~.~r~-,._ issued, the permittee is allowed to pa~{-k in,~the mer~ered space wi,,i~eut. ~eeding ~h_~ rasher. !f a vehicle is parke~i ]_n ~he space wiLh an inva lid permit or ne permit, and the reeler is expired, ~ citation is issued under UCC Section 7361 which makes i t met er ha a violation of the code Co remain in the space after the s expired. 07-12-1996 81: 4?F'r,1 FF..lO[,1 F..IFaF'F'OF..'.T :S.: P'IFaF.'.'E;TON TO 1_II4. IAH P. 83 Memoran( Subject July 10 ~um to DeKnoblough, et al Parking permits 1996 Recently, meters have been removed from some spaces and replaced with signs designating the spaces for permit parking only. Section 7351 o~ the City Code allows the City Council to determine the method cf regulating parking in city parking lots. That Section is part of Chap=er 3,1 Division 8 of the Code. Section 7381 makes it a misde~]eanor to violate any provision of Chapter 3. Parking violations are currently enforced as civil penalties under Vehicle Code Section 40200. That section, however, only applies to parking or standing of vehicle violations which are not punished as a misdemeanor. For that reason and because violation o~ some policy of the city council adopted under Section 7351 is not ctear!y.a violation of Chapter 3, the parking enforcement officers cannot ,issue citations 5© vehicles parking in these permit only spaces. The ame~.dments to the Code require the council to adopt regulations ~or par~ing in municipal lots by resolution. Permit parking is specifi+a!ly included as an allowed means of regulation. They also change the punishment under 7383 to an infraction and make the civil ~ena!ty pr©visions of the Vehicle Code applicable. In addit~io~, the section now specifically states that violation of resotut%ons, adopted under Chapter 3 constitute violations of the sectioni This so~.ves the ~" . ~rst problem As to ~he second issue, the resolution requires the parking permits~ if, as is the present practice, they are issued in advance of payment, ~e clearly state on their face that they are invalid, unless ~e total balance owing, including amounts owing for prior months, ms paid in full by nhe payment date stated on the permit. This sh~uld solve the notice pr©biem. The cur:~ent permiEs show the amount due and the payment date, but they don't specifically state that failure to pay the full amount by that date makes the permit invalid. A recent legal challenge to a 5icke highlights this problem. In this case, the defendant had paid fo~ the curren~ month, but he owed $7.50 for a previous month. The pernit stub shows the amount owing for previous months, the current i monthly charge and the balance due. The judge ruled that since t~e defendant°paid the fee ~or the current month, the City could r~t ~reat hi.~ permit, as invalid. Instead, he owed $7.50 which tQe Cir-y could sUe him to collect, but he did not have to pay ~he $11 !ticket. ~The, x~:\~,~o~.~]jud~e ~ didn't think it made sense to treat the permit a~ July 12, %99fiparking'pm ~37' - 1 2-19'~E, 8': : 4F',F'I',I FF..'.OI',I F..'.AF'F'E~Iq'.T ;.:...'.: r,'IAF..ISTON ~e~moran~[u~ to DeKnobl¢ ugh, et al Subj ec ~. Parkin~ Permits July ~ f j TO I_lk:i I AH F', 04 invalid ~'- c~ze defendant had paid the fee for- December, which was t mo: th _<n which he got the ticker., but had not paid for July. {e felt rh~ altez~native was unfair. A permit holder could fail ko pa}, a f~e fez a month long past, but pay the fee for all other m~,nths. L'~t.._r the Cit.., practice, the permit would be invalid for all t?:ose et:herm~onth.._,~ even though the holder had paid the fees, b<:cause he failed to pay a fee for a pa.~t month. There a?e three soJ. ut~.ons 2o this problem: 1) refuse to send a permit ~o a permit holder, if he or she has failed ~o pay for a pasZ me,th and only issue Zhe permit when all prior balances have been pa,~d; 2) issue the }permit and treat it as valid, if the curren5 month's fee is paid by the payment date, even if a balance is owing] for a prior month or mont~s; or 3) clearly notify the [~ermit ~older when issuing the permit that i~ is not valid unless both the' past balance and the cu,-tenS, fee are paid ~.y the pa~ent da ~ e, The proposed resolution adopts both solut.ions nu~ers 1 and 3. The City ha~ the option of refusing to i_ssue a permit, if e permi~ holders iowes money from a p~ior month or months, or i.t can treat an issue,a 9erm~.t as in. va]id u~.*~til the outstanding balance is paid · I h~v,, ~'~ so included in the resolution an option for issuing space .s?ec~:;~ ~ permits. can Enclosu~ ~arking. I TOTFtL F', 84 David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 200 W. Henry Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members/U '.ah Redevelopment Agency ~ FROM: David J. Rapport, City Attorney DATE: July 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Contract negotiations with Redwood Business Park You authorized city staff to negotiate agreements with Gary Akerstrom ("Akerstrom") under which Akerstrom and the RDA would share equally the cost of constructing Airport Park Blvd. ("APB") and utilities within the Redwood Business Park ("ABP"). Attached are an Airport Park Boulevard Project Agreement ("Project Agreement") and an Assessment District Agreement ("Assessment Agreement"). Also attached is an executed copy of the Easement Agreement, which the City and the RDA approved at its last meeting. Staff and RBP agree on the wording of the Project and Assessment Agreements, but, as of this writing, there remain unresolved several issues. If staff and RBP resolve these issues prior to the July 17 meeting, we will recommend approval of the agreements. If not, we will recommend rejecting the agreements and pursuit of an alternate course of action. The unresolved issues are: 1. The Project Agreement contains a blank for the project cost the parties agree to share. We are waiting for Parnum's proposal to perform this work to put a number in that blank. Akerstrom may disagree with paying 50% of that number. Central to that objection are the other issues listed below. 2. Whether the water line should be constructed above or below the cross-road trenches for utilities (underground electric, natural gas, cable TV, telephone). Staff has designed s:~u\memos96~council.rbp July 12, 1996 Memorandum to Council/Redevelopment Agency Subject: Akerstrom/City/RDA agreements July 12, 1996 Page 2 the project with the water line three feet below grade and the cross trenches underneath. Akerstrom wants the water line at 6 feet below grade with the cross road trenches above. Staff maintains that the current design is better. Because a water line conveys fluid under pressure, it requires more on-going maintenance than the other utilities. The vaults and pull boxes for electric will be at normal grade, because the utility trench will arc beneath the water line. Three feet below grade is standard for water lines, although the water line beneath the finished portion of APB is six feet below grade. Staff does not want to extend the water line at that depth, because of the extra maintenance cost of digging down six feet to repair the water line. 3. Akerstrom wants a credit for excavating water saturated material within the easement, backfilling the hole and placing a french drain to prevent additional water from draining beneath the easement. He dug the hole within the last two weeks during his grading of the property on both sides of the easement. He did the work within the easement without prior notice to or approval of the City. The City may allow him to repair the condition, depending on the cost, but it does not want to pay for the excavation work he did without the City's prior approval. 4. Akerstrom wants to do the subgrade work for the road and receive a credit for the value of that work against his contribution to the project cost. Staff wants all the road work under the Parnum contract. In that way the general contractor is responsible for all of the work. It is all covered by the warranty bond. Substantial portions of the existing road are showing evidence of base failure. This could be caused by poor subgrade compaction or the quality of the subgrade material. Parnum's contract includes importing subgrade material that has less clay than the local soil. Akerstrom either wants to do the work, or not share in the difference between what he would charge to do the work and Parnum's bid for this same work. 5. Akerstrom wants to do the construction staking. Parnum included the construction staking in its bid, using a Santa Rosa surveyor. Construction staking will be required at RBP and in other locations. There may be a problem in having Akerstrom do the staking at the RBP and the existing subcontractor doing the other staking. It would affect his bid, if he is doing less work. If these issues are not resolved staff will recommend the following alternative to providing utilities and access to the s:\u\memos96\council.rbp July 12, 1996 Memorandum to Council/Redevelopment Agency Subject: Akerstrom/City/RDA agreements July 12, 1996 Page 3 Brewery: temporary improvement of Airport Road, overhead electric via Airport Road and temporary water service from the airport. Permanent water service will require a line within the APB. If Akerstrom files a lawsuit challenging the City's easement, construction of the waterline may have to wait until that lawsuit is resolved. Staff believes that fire protection can be provided until a water line capable of meeting fire flow requirements is constructed. Using this alternative will also have impacts on the REDIP loan. The RDA will have to get approval for changing the project. Until approved, we won't know for sure whether we can use REDIP funds for this alternative. We won't use as much of the authorized loan. The RDA will pay interest on the full amount authorized until it releases the unused portion. It will pay the difference between 6.5% and the interest REDIP earns on the money until it is disbursed to the RDA. Staff intends to discuss these matters in closed session prior to considering the items in open session. DJR:can Enclosures s:\u\memos96~council.rbp July 12, 1996 AGREEMENT RE: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR AIRPORT PARK BOULEVARD This Agreement is made and entered in Ukiah, California on July , 1996, by and between Redwood Business Park of Ukiah ("Redwood")' a California limited partnership, and the City of Ukiah ("City"), a general law municipal corporation. Collectively, the City and Redwood will be referred to herein as "the Parties." RECITALS: 1. The City's Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") and Redwood have entered an RDA/Redwood: Airport Park Boulevard Project Agreement ("Project Agreement") under which Redwood and Agency ~ave agreed to share the cost of constructing a portion of Airport Park Boulevard ("Boulevard") and associated utilities ("the Project") within public right of way located within the Redwood Business Park ("RBP") which is a commercial and industrial planned development owned by Redwood. The Project is being undertaken by the Agency to meet its contractual obligations to provide access and utilities to property it sold at the Airport Industrial Park ("AIP"), which is located immediately to the south of RBP. True and correct copies of a legal description of the AIP is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and of the Project Agreement as Exhibit 2. Exhibits 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Under the Project Agreement, Redwood pays one half (1/2) the costs of the Project, as specified in the Project Agreement, in three installments due and payable as the next three parcels in the RBP sell. Redwood will secure its obligation to make these installment payments by executing and recording a deed of trust on specified property owned by Redwood within the RBP which names Agency as the beneficiary. 3. In the Project Agreement, the Parties agree that Redwood's payments under the agreement represent its entire obligation to pay any costs associated with the construction of the Project. 4. The Parties recognize that in addition to its share of the costs of the Project, Redwood will be required to pay all of the costs of constructing the remainder of the Boulevard and utilities within the RBP in accordance with approved improvement plans for the RBP. AGREEMENT: In consideration of and reliance upon the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions as further stated herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Future Formation of Assessment District. If Redwood fully complies with the Project Agreement, City shall not form any assessment district that includes lots or parcels within the RBP or otherwise impose on any lot or parcel within the RBP a fee, charge, I:\KSF\22814\OOO1\3ASSESS.AGR 07/05/96 at 3:24pm assessment or obligation to pay all or any portion of the costs of constructing (a) the PrOject or (b) any roadway or utility improvements at AIP, except for any such improvements constructed in connection with providing the southern access to the AIP and RBP discussed in the planned development ordinance for the Airport Industrial Park. Redwood may fully and completely rely upon the City's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 2. Fair allocation of costs. The Parties agree that Redwood's obligations under the Project Agreement together with Redwood's obligation to construct at its own expense all remaining improvements to the Boulevard and facilities for utility service in accordance with approved improvement plans for the RBP fairly apportions to lots or parcel with the RBP the costs of constructing the Boulevard and utilities serving the RBP and the AIP. 3. Application of laws. The interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and the Parties agree to jurisdiction and venue in the courts of Mendocino County. 4. Severability. If any provision of the Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or .unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 5. Integration. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the Parties, except with reference to agreements specifically identified herein and supersedes all prior' and contemporaneous oral and written agreements, understandings, and representations among the parties. No amendments to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all of the parties. 6. Waiver. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 7. Notices. Whenever communication regarding this Agreement occurs it shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail with proper first class.postage affixed thereto and addressed as follows: REDWOOD City Gary Akerstrom Redwood Business Park 425 Talmage Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 Candace Horsley, City Manager Ukiah Civic Center Ukiah, California 95482 Notice shall be deemed received on the date the notice is -2- I:\KSF\22814\OOO1\3ASSESS.AGR 07/05/96 at 3:24pm personally delivered as stated above or faxed to City at 707-463- 6204 and to Redwood at 707-462-5681. 8. Paragraph Headings. The Paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of this agreement. 9. Duplicate Originals. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of all parties and when so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the Agreement between the parties. 10. Attorneys' Fees. In any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party or-parties shall be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees from the other party or parties. 11. Approval of This Agreement by the Parties. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval by Redwood and the City. Each Party shall furnish the other with written evidence that the Agreement has been approved by the Party and that the signatories are authorized to sign on behalf of the Party he or she represents. Said written evidence is attached hereto on Exhibits 3 (for Redwood) and 4 (for City). WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written above. REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK OF UKIAH By: Gary Akerstrom, Secretary/Treasurer of E1 Dorado Estates Corp., general partner of Redwood Business Park of Ukiah CITY OF UKIAH ATTEST: By: City Clerk -3- I:\KSF\22814\OOO1\3ASSESS.AGR 07/05/96 at 3:24pm RDA/REDWOOD: AIRPORT PARK BOULEVARD PROJECT AGREEMENT This Project Agreement is made and entered in Ukiah, California on July__, 1996, by and between Redwood Business Park of Ukiah ("Redwood"), a California limited partnership, and the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Ukiah ("Agency"), a redevelopment agency formed under the laws of the State of California. Collectively, the Agency and Redwood will be referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS: 1. Agency has an agreement with Mendocino Brewing Company ("Brewery") under which it is obligated to provide the Brewery with road access and utilities to the property the Brewery purchased in the Airport Industrial Park ("AIP") from the Agency. 2. Redwood owns property north of and adjacent to the north property line of the AIP, known as the Redwood Business Park ("RBP") which it is developing for commercial and industrial uses as a planned development under an ordinance adopted by the City of Ukiah ("City"). 3. On September 6, 1995, Redwood conveyed an easement for Airport Park Boulevard ("Boulevard") to the City ("Original Easement"). The Boulevard will provide access from Talmage Road through the RBP to the AIP. Additionally, Redwood has conditionally granted a utilities easement and a construction easement on RBP to the City pursuant to the AGREEMENT REGARDING EASEMENT CLAIMS, dated July , 1996 ("Additional Easement"). Collectively, the Original Easement and the Additional Easement will be referred to herein as the "Easements." 4. Agency intends to construct road access and utilities to the Brewery by extending the Boulevard within the Easements to the Brewery property within the AIP. The parties agree that the road and utilities that will be constructed within the Easements, (and which only includes road and utility work within the RBP and not any work within the AIP), shall be referred to herein as the "Project," and shall consist of the items of work listed in Exhibit 1 to this Project Agreement, which items of work shall be constructed or installed in conformance with the approved Improvement Plans for the Boulevard as shown in Exhibit 2 to this Project Agreement. Both Exhibits 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference. 5. In order to further develop the RBP, Redwood must undertake substantial grading work in the portion of the RBP south of Friedman Brothers in accordance with the plans attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by reference ("Grading"). The Parties agree that the Grading should be completed before Agency constructs the Project. I:\KSF\22814\OOO1\3AIRPORT.AGR 07/05/96 at 3:26pm 6. The Parties have agreed to each pay one half (1/2) the costs of the Project as further provided in this Project Agreement. AGREEMENT: In consideration of and reliance upon the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions as further stated herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Completion of Grading. Redwood at its own expense shall make its best effort to complete the Grading by August 5, 1996 ("Completion Date"). Prior to the Completion Date, Agency shall not perform work within the RBP or'the Easements that interferes with or increases the cost of the Grading. If Redwood has not completed the Grading by the Completion Date, Redwood shall cease immediately all work within the Easements that would interfere with the Agency's ability to complete the Project and all work which would interfere with Agency's access to the Easements. In all cases, the party with the right of possession shall determine in its sole discretion whether work interferes with its use of the Easements. Following the Completion Date, Agency shall have the right immediately to commence all or any part of the construction work for the Project within the Easements. Redwood shall not perform any Grading activities over the Easements until the Project is completed. 2. Redwood's contribution. Agency shall contract with and pay all necessary contractors for all construction and related work required to complete the Project. Provided the Agency properly completes the entire Project, Redwood shall pay Agency one half (1/2) the cost of the Project based on the construction contract(s) and approved change orders. In no event shall the sum paid by Redwood to the City pursuant to this Project Agreement exceed $__,__. "Approved change orders," as used in this Project Agreement, means written change orders to the construction contract(s) for work on the Project which change order has been approved by the Public Works Director ("Director") pursuant to authority delegated by the Agency, where the change order was first presented as a written proposal by the City's contractor and reviewed by Redwood. Within thirty (30) days of Project completion, Agency shall provide Redwood with a written statement of the final Project cost and the total amount of Redwood's contribution which shall equal one half (1/2) the final Project cost, subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph. A. When due. Redwood shall pay its contribution in three (3) equal installments, each due and payable, when escrow closes on the sale of any parcel of real property within the RBP, including, but not limited to, any portion of the real property located on the east side of RBP, north of property where Friedman Brothers is located. If no escrow is involved, the installment shall be due and payable, when a deed, land sales contract or -2- I:\KBF\22814\OOO1\3AIRPORT.AGR 07/05/96 at 3:26pm similar docUment is recorded in the Official Records of Mendocino County. These sales shall include the pending sales to Food For Less, Lazy Boy and Staples. A parcel or lot causing an installment payment under this subparagraph 2A to become due and payable shall be referred to herein as an "installment parcel." If Redwood fails to pay an installment when due, the entire unpaid balance of the contribution shall become immediately due and payable. If repayment of the contribution is accelerated as provided herein, Redwood shall become liable to Agency for interest at the maximum rate allowed by law on the unpaid balance until paid in full. .B. Deed of trust. Redwood shall secure its performance of subparagraph 2A with a deed of trust in favor of Agency on real property described as parcel F as shown in Exhibit 4 attached hereto that Redwood owns within the RBP. Agency shall have no obligation to perform the work identified in Exhibit 1 as "joint trench" or "other utilities," if Redwood has failed to execute and record the deed of trust by August 1, 1996. Where necessary, Agency shall sign escrow instructions and fully cooperate in releasing an installment parcel from the deed of trust, when Redwood pays the installment then due on the transfer of the installment parcel. Agency shall fully cooperate in securing a full reconveyance of the deed of trust with respect to 'parcel F (or that portion of parcel F to which a deed of trust continues to apply), when Redwood has fully paid all amounts due and payable under subparagraph 2A. C. Work performed by Redwood. With the prior approval of the Agency and the entering into of any necessary agreement between the Agency and Redwood, any items of work described on Exhibit 1 that are properly and timely performed by Redwood shall offset Redwood's liability to the City under subparagraph 2A, provided the cost of that item has been included in the final project cost. Any such offset of liability shall be equal to the sum identified in Exhibit 1 with respect to the item of work performed by Redwood. Redwood acknowledqes that in performing any such work and the Grading it must-coordinate with the City's contractor and its subcontractors. Redwood and the City's contractor and its subcontractors shall so coordinate their activities. Any disputes between Redwood and the City's contractor with respect to the construction of the Project shall be promptly submitted to the Project Manager. With respect to any work items to be performed by Redwood, Redwood shall comply with the decision of the Project Manager and perform as directed. Redwood's compliance with the decision of the Project Manager shall not affect its right to pursue a claim for damages, if it disagrees with the decision. 3. Force F~ajeure. The time for performing the Grading or other Project work performed by Redwood shall be extended, and the obligations of RedWood suspended, by the number of days during which the performance of that work is prevented due to fire, flood, weather events, strikes, labor disputes, shortages, -3- I:\KBF\22814\OOO1\3AIRPORT.AGR 07/05/96 at 3:26pm utility curtailments, power failures, explosions, civil disturbances, the time required to satisfy government regulatory requirements beyond the minimum periods permitted by law, acts of God, shortages of equipment or supplies, unavailability of transportation, acts or omissions of third parties or any other reason beyond the reasonable control of Redwood. 4. Integration. This Project Agreement contains the entire agreement among the Parties, except with reference to agreements specifically identified herein and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreements, understandings, and representations among the parties. No amendments to this Project Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all of the parties. 5. Waiver. No waiver of any of the'provisions of this Project Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 6. Notices. Whenever notice, payment or other communication is required or permitted under this Project Agreement it shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail with proper first class postage affixed thereto and addressed as follows: REDWOOD AGENCY Gary Akerstrom Redwood Business Park 425 Talmage Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Candace Horsley, Executive Director Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, California 95482 Where this agreement imposes an obligation or grants a right based on receipt of a notice, notice shall be deemed received on the date the notice is personally delivered as stated above or faxed to Agency at 707-463-6204 and to Redwood at 707-462-5681. 7. Paragraph Headings. The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of this agreement. 8. Duplicate Originals. This Project Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of all parties and when so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the Project Agreement between the parties. 9. Attorneys' Fees. ~n any action to enforce the terms of this Project Agreement, the prevailing party or parties shall be -4- I:\KBF\22814\OOO1\3AIRPORT.AGR 07/05/96 at 3:26pm entitled to recover its attorneys' fees from the other party or parties. 10. Validity of This Project Agreement. This Project Agreement shall take effect only if by July 18, 1996 Redwood and the City enter into the Assessment Agreement described in paragraph 7.b. of the AGREEMENT REGARDING EASEMENT CLAIMS dated July __, 1996. ' WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Project Agreement on the date first written above. REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK OF UKIAH, a California limited partnership By: Gary Akerstrom, Secretary/Treasurer of E1 Dorado Estates Corp., general partner of Redwood Business Park of Ukiah UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Its: ATTEST: Redevelopment Agency Secretary -5- I:\KBF\22814\OOO1\3AIRPORT.AGR 07/05/96 at 3:26pm