The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-09-01 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue September 1, 1993 6:30 P.M. 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Special Order of Business a. Commendation to Ted Goforth 5. Approvak/Correction of Minutes of Regular Meeting, August kS, 1993 6. 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 challen~'ed. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and willl be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request by a Counc~i~lmember 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 an~/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Claims for Damages, Deny and Refer to Insurance Carrier i. Bobby Kennedy Construction ii. Howard Carter b. Award of Bid to Lanier Worldwide, Inc. for Materials and Installation of Two Communication Recorders and Two Dispatch Recorders in the Lump Sum Amount of $19,607.35, and Award the Portion of the Bid for Recording Tapes to AM Communications Systems, Inc., in the Amount of $2,325.00. c. Adopt~i~on of Resolution Appointing Betty Bassler as Wonen's Golf Club Representative on Golf Committee 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments. 9. PUBLIC i~EARING - 7:00 p.m. a. (Continued from August 18, 1993) Consider and Approve Negative Declaration and Amended Project Repolrt for the City of Ukiah/Ukiah Valley Sanitation Disti~ict Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWT) and Upgrade Project b. Consideration of Resolution Adopting Revised Schedule of Fees and Rates for Garbage Collection Service c. Cons~i~der Introduction of Ordinance Adding Section 9185 to the Ukiah City Code "Area Provided for Recycling Facilities,, in New Development and Remodels 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Execute Documents for the Lease/Purchase of Ambulance 11. NEW BUSINESS a. Consideration of Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Fund~.ng Request b. Intrcduction of Ordinance Authorizing Citation Authority for Code Enforcement Officer c. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program Administered by the Community Development Corporation of Mendocino County d. Adoption of Resolution Designating Labor Day, September 6, 1993 as "Try America Day" f. Set Date for Joint Public Hearing with Ukiah Valley Sanit.~tion District Board of Directors for Adjustment of Sewer Rates and Hookup Fees 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 13. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS 14. CLOSED SESSION (None) 15. ADJOURNMENT Cot, m. etz a. iotz This City of Ukiah Commendation is presented on this Ist day of September, 1993, to: TED GOFORTH In appreciation for 37 years of dedicated service to the City of Ukiah. Since joining the City in October of 1956, as an Engineering Aide, you continued in your course as a loyal and deqicated public servant. Your hard work, innova~tive spirits, and professionalism took you up through the ranks as you became Junior Civil Engineer in July of 1958; Assistant Civil Engineer in August of 1965; Public Works ~upervisor in May of 1966; Deputy Director of Public Works in 1974; and Director of Public Works in July of 1990. You have been involved in innumeruble projects; however, some of the more noteworthy projects in which you had a viral role include: Bringing to fruition the ,~,greements between the City of Ukiah, Willow, and Millview Water Districts Completion of the City's new Water Filtration Plant Initiating the City's new Advanced Wastewater ~reatment Plant project Completion of the Carousel Sewer Project, a joint venture with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District · Reconstruction of the Ukiah Civic Center. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Fred Schneiter, Mayor of the City of Ukiah, on beha{f of my fellow City CoUncilmembers, Richard Shoemaker, James Wattenburger, Sheridan Malone, Jim Mastin, and the people of the City of Ukiah, do hereby commend you, Ted Goforth, for your exemplary commitment to the citizens of Ukiah while performing your duties as a well-respected employee of the City of Ukiah these past 37 years. Fred Schneiter,~ Mayor ~INUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ~ITY OF UKIAH ~'""August 18, 1993 DRAFT The City Council convened in a regular meeting, of which the agenda was legally noticed and posted, at 6:32 p.m., in the Council Chambe~:s of the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Mastin, Malone, and Mayor Schneiter. Absent: Councilmembers Wattenburger and Shoemaker. Staff present: City Clerk McKay, City Manager Rough, City Attorney Rapport, Director of Public Safety Keplinger, Director of Public Utilities Bar~3es, Finance Director Burt, Community Development [i.irector Harris, Fire Captain Evans, Redevelopment/Economic Development Coordinator DeKnoblough, Associate Pla]~ner Ibalio, Principal Planner Sawyer, Assistant City Manager Horsley, and Executive Assistant Yoast. INVOCATION/PLEDgeE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember ~alone delivered the Invocation and Mayor Schneiter led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Proclamation D_eclarinq 1993 as Senior Center Yea~ Mayor Schneiter read and presented the proclamation to Ukiah Senior Center ~epresentatives Art Stafford, Bill Brower, Lynn Wood, and Carol Hester, who distributed information regarding services available to senior citizen's including lunches, meals on wheels and activities located in the new expansion to the center. ~PECIAL ORDER O~.BUSINESS ~a. Presentation b Mendocino Private Industr Council Summer Youth Pro~ram Debbie Morgan, Marketing Coordinator, presented the City with a certificate of appreciation for employing 5 summer youths and explained the objectives and funding of the program. 5b. Mayor's Cgrtificates of Appreciation to Mendocino Private Industry. Council Summer Youth Employees; i. Larry Duke, City Clerii< Computer Assistant; ii. Esther Odekirk, Planninq Clerk; ~ii. Gloria Lecia, Assistant Finance Clerk; · v. Ryan Davis~ Janitorial Assistant; v. James Ramsey, ~treet Attendan~ ~ssistant Mayor Schneiter read and presented the certificates of appreciations tc Esther Odekirk and Gloria Lecia, who were in attendance. Councilmember Shoemaker joined the meeting at this time 6:41 p.m. - APPROVAL/CORRECTION OF MINUTES 6a. Reqular Adjouj?~ned Meetinq of Auqust 4, 1993 M/S Mastin/Malon~ to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meetin~ of August 4, 1993, as submitted. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers ~Iastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Absent: CoUncilmember Wattenburger. 6b. Reqular Meetirq of Auqust 4, 199~ M/S Malone/Mastin to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4, 1993, as submitted. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOflS: None. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger. ?. Riqht to Appea]. Decision Mayor Schneiter reviewed Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures regarding the appeal process. CONSENT CALENDAf'~ Councilmember Shoemaker pulled item 8c. Approve Bad Debt Write Off for Fiscal Years 1991-1993 This item became New Business Item lie. M/S Shoemaker/Malone to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: Sa. Received and accepted the report of July 1993 disbursements, ~.s follows; Payroll Checks #48850 and #49087, dated June 20 to July 3, 1993, in the amount of $182,302.91; Payroll Checks #49088 to 49387, dated July 4 to July 17, 1993, in the ~mount of $153,346.52; and Demand Payments checks #61102 tc #61583 in the amount of $1,663,141.64 Bb. Denied the claims for damages received from William Muzio, The Hsir Express, Pacific Bell, and Kathryn Schapmire; and referred them to the City's insurance carrier. Sd. Awarded the bid for one new 1993 type 1 ambulance to Ackerman Emergency Equipment in the amount of $76,362 less accepted options and deductions of $2,145 for a total purchase price of $74,217 (sales tax included.) Purchase price does no'~ include departmental in-house delivery expense which is not to exceed total budgeted purchase amount of $75,000. Se. Awarded contract in the amount of $52,741.10 to Ferranti Construction for Sidewalk Reconstruction, Specification No. 93-12, at various locations in the City of Ukiah. Bf. Awarded contract in the amount of $79,549 to Harborth Excavating for constructing water mains on South Barnes Street, Oak Park Avenue, North Main Street, Clara Avenue, Pine Street and North Oak Street, Specification 93-07. 8g. Continued the Public Hearing to consider and approve negative declaration and amended project report for City of Ukiah/Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant, Advanced Wastewater Treatment and upgrade project, to meeting of September 1, 1993, in order to receive recommendations from Board of Directors of Ukiah Valley Sanitation District. The motion was carried by the following roil call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger. 9. Audience Comments on Non-Aqenda Items No one came forward. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Approve Purchase of County Property for Back Eiqht Holes of Golf Course The City Manager reported on the history of negotiations with the County regarding the purchase of the 'back eight holes of the golf course which is comprised of approximately 41.63 acres. He reported a January 12, 1993 market value appraisal by Harding Appraisal Company in Sebastopol was established at ~)1,275,000, but the final negotiated amount is $1,000,000. ~e explained financing will be based on a 25 year lease with the documents to be provided at the next Council meeting. He noted the acquisition will be financed through the Golf Enterprise Fund. Councilmember M~lone stated he is uncomfortable with the County wording in the agreement pertaining to no differentiation of rates for City and County users in perpetuity. He expressed support for the purchase. Reg. Mtg. August 18, 1993 Page 2 Councilmember Shoemaker suggested the County should implement this philosophy throughout, including Jail Booking fees. The City Attorney noted some clerical errors on page one, in paragraph 2 and 5. M/S Shoemaker/Malone to approve the purchase of the back eight holes are~ of the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course from the County of Mendo~ino, with the clerical corrections on Page one, paragraphs 2 and 5, referencing other paragraph numbering. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Sch~leiter. NOES: None. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger. The City Attorney noted there is a 60 day period for completion of the sale. NEW BUSINESS lla. Consideration of Fundinq Request from Mendocino County Library The City Manage]~ reported past contributions to the Library has been conditioned with the understanding that future funding is not guaranteed, due to fiscal impacts imposed upon local governments by the State. He explained last year's City contribution to the Friends of the Library of $47,000, was only expended by a total of $27,069. He noted this year's request from the library is for $45,000, which will be used for the continuation of efforts in developing a public accessed electronic reference system at the Library. Henry Bates, Mendocino County Librarian, expressed appreciation for City assistance in computerizing the Library, and in owning the land and building while only leasing it for $1 a year. Pat Hunt, volunteer reference librarian, reported there were 951 reference questions received in July 1993. He explained the Library book circulation is increasing to the highest level in 5 years. Donna Kerr, Librarian, expressed her appreciation to the Friends of the Library, and provided Council with a short video regarding computers in Libraries. Frank Broadhead, Friends of the Library, expressed his appreciation for past City support, and explained the need for publicly available new technology. Stephanie Hoppe, 612 W. Standley Street, commented the Library is an important part of the downtown infrastructure which she uses extensively in her field as a writer, editor and publisher. She feels City assistance is obligatory. Mack McKibbon. Friends of the Library, stated telecommunications will be arriving soon, and the information it k~.rings can be considered a clean new industry to Ukiah, which should be encouraged and supported. Councilmember Mastin stated the City has always supported the Library, in various ways, and indicated he would like to see the relationship formalized. ~ Councilmember ~ialone explained his observation of the Internet system online at the Library. He noted it is an excellent information source which has unlimited potential. M/S Shoemaker/Malone to approve the funding request of $45,000 to cor.tinue the development of the electronic reference system at the County Library. The motion was carried by ~ihe following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger. Reg. Mtg. August 18, 1993 Page 3 llb. Approval of Economic Incentive Packaqe for Mrs. Denson's Cookie Company Councilmember Shoemaker removed himself from the meeting at 7:27 p.m. due to a possible conflict of interest as he resides near th,~ subject property. The Economic Development Coordinator reported on negotiations with Mrs. Denson's Cookie Co. owner Mike Bielenberg, regarding relocating his current business with 40 employees from Redwood Valley to the location of the northeast corner of Mazzoni and Brush Streets. He explained the City portion of the incentive package is comprised of electric utility .discounts for two years not to exceed $7,000 with additional Redevelopment incentives of $12,500 comprised of building permit, plan check fees and utility capital improvei~lent fees. Mayor Schneiter commented he hopes the permit process by the Planning Commission is less contentious than the previous process for the same site, as filed by Daniels Steel. Mike Bielenberg, explained how he decided to move to Ukiah instead of out of State, and commended City staff for their positive and helpful attitude. He stated he expects his bus[ness to grow with this move and upgrade. He indicated he is pleased to be locating to a financially sound City with excellent public safety and quality of life. M/S Malone/Mastin to approve agreement for the incentive package in the aaximum amount of $7,000, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger and Shoemaker. llc. Authorize the City Manaqer to Execute Contract with the Company of Eric Jay Toll, AICP to Prepare the Environmental Inpact Report (EIR) for the City of Ukiah'.c Municipal Landfill Solid Waste Facilities Permit Chanqe Councilmember Shoemaker rejoined the meeting at this time of 7:43 p.m. Principal Planner Sawyer reported the proposed change in the landfill operation to increase the allowable daily tonnage requires preparation of an environmental impact report outlined by th~ California Environmental Quality Act. He explained the C~ilty Attorney had advised a personal service contract for technical services does not require a request for proposal process. He explained the complex preparation process and the qualifications of Eric Jay Toll Company for this project. Eric Jay Toll explained his proposal and schedule, which should be finalized by May 1994 with the Council Public Hearings in February 1994. M/S Malone/Mastin to authorize the City Manager to execute contract, not to exceed $64,680 with the Company of Eric Jay Toll, AICP to prepare the EIR for the City of Ukiah's Municipal Landfi[ill Solid Waste Facilities Permit Change. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger. lld. Considera%ion of Request to Adopt Resolution Requestinq Relief from Leqislative and Fiscal Impacts Upon Units of Local Government Created by the California State ~eqislation Councilmember Shoemaker reported this proposed resolution was provided to him from Willits Mayor Stransky, for adoption by all four Mendocino County Cities, which will be considered at. the League of California Cities Division Reg. Mtg. August 18, 1993 Page 4 meeting in Crescent City, August 21, 1993, and then forwarded to tha General meeting in October. Discussion ensued regarding wording contained in the proposed resolu'~ion. M/S Shoemaker/Mastin to amend the proposed resolution wording on Pag~ 2, line 20, change the word "demands', to "requests; correct the typo on Page 1, line 25, and adopt Resolution No. 94-7, requesting relief from legislative and fiscal impacts lpon units of local government created by the California State Legislature. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger. ~le. Bad Debt W~ite-Report, 1991/92 and 1992/93 Councilmember Shoemaker explained he pulled this item from the Consent Calendar for discussion regarding the City collection process timeframes. Finance Directo? Burt and Customer Service Representative Sechrest expla~.ned the department collection timeframe policy, and no'=ed 99.72% of the total amount of $27.3 million in billings for this period, were collected. Gary Green, PG&E District Manager, explained the City collection rate is comparable to PG&E's, for 1992/93. Customer Service Representative Sechrest explained the City uses the same co~mmunity assistance programs as PG&E. M/S Shoemaker/Malone to approve bad debt write-offs for fiscal years 19!)1/92 and 1992/93, for a total amount of $76,120.86. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Shoemaker, and Mayor Schn~iter. NOES: None. Absent: Councilmember Wattenburger. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmember Masti__Rn None. Councilmember Malone Reported on the Sun House/Grace Hudson Museum opening of the new show "A Show of Hands" which was well attended and reported the Smithsonian exhibit will come to Ukiah the week of September 20th for ticketed seminars. C~ouncilmember Sho~maker Reported there was no Mendocino Solid Waste Authority meeting. ~a¥or Schneiter Asked Council if they would be interested in reviewing a resolution at the next meeting pertaining to try America Day. It was the consensus of Council to agendize this for the September 1, 1993 regular meeting. C_ITY MANAGER/DEPA~TMENT HEAD REPORTS Reported the Business Services and Career Opportunity Guide is ready for distribution. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ' CCMIN.140 Cathy McKay, CMC/AAE City Cler~ Reg. Mtg. August 18, 1993 Page 5 ITEM NO: 7a. MEETING DATE: September 1, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Claims for Damages, Deny and Refer to Insurance Carrier The claim from Haward Carter was received by the City Clerk on August 10, 1993 is for alleged damages to household appliances occurring July 10 1993, due to electric power surge. ' The claim from Bobby Kennedy Construction was received August 13, 1993 for alleged losses occuring June 28 1993 due to an electrical power surge. ' ' RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the claims for damages received from Howard Carter and Bobby Kennedy Construction, and refer them to the City's insurance carrier. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not take action therefore extending ~he amount of time in which the claimant may file suit, 2. Approve the claim and authorize payment of damages. Acct. No. (if NOT bu~eted): N/A Acct. No: Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Claimants Prepared by: Cathy McKay, City Clerk Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments: 1. Copies~ of claims. NOTICE O~ C~AZ~.! '"'-"~"' - ~,,~,,o~ .HE CiTY 07 Ukiah (Goverr_~en: Code ss 910, 910.2) , CALZPOR::iA RETURN TO: City Clerk's Office City of Ukiah 300 Se.qinary Avenue Uki~h, California 95482 · . $ t. ree: C!~ ~ - _- Sta:e Zip Cede N~ AND ~D~SS OF P~ON TO WHOM NOTICES REG~ING TEIS C~I/.I c- - · BE SENT (if differen: than above): NA~[ES, IF KI~OI~;., OF ANY PUBLIC E2.!PLOYE~S CAUSING TEE IZIJU~Y OR' LOSS: NA/.~S A~ND ADDP. ESS OF T~-T~.HiSSES: NAME ADDRESS T ..... ONE le NA~4E AND ADDRESS OF DOCT0~,S, HOSPITALS T;HERE TREATED: NA~4E ADD 1LES S" · TELEPHONE -8- TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED: THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL ~240UNT 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: $-~O,00 - _ I/We, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that I/we have read the foregoing cla~ for damages and know the contents thereof; that the same is true of my/our own knowledge and belief, save and except as to those matters wherein stated on information and belief, and as to them, I/we believe it to be true. DATED: .-~-- ~ - ~ ,~ V~S~L~NT ( S) Received in City Clerk's * , , , * * , * , , , * .~ . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , . FOR CLAIMS RELATING TO I~IJURY TO PERSON OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, THIS FC.~.! MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF UKIAH WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE ACCRUAL OF THE f~USE O~ ACTION. A CLAIM RE~ATING TO ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION SHALL BE PRESENTED NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER ACCRUAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION. RETURN TO: NOTICE OF C-A/,I AGAiI:ST -'-'-- C~._ CF Ukiah , C~.~,MCP.::iA (Gover:-_~ent: Code ss 910, z0 . CEiVED Cit'; Clerk's Office City of Ukiah .,, 300 $%qinary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 1993 CITY CLERK DEPARI'MEN[ ~--AI~'4ANT'S ADDRESS: /.~ ~ CD __ Phone No. Res. ~t3 6; S .~-- Work -- Sta~e Zip Cc~e NA~ME AND ADDRESS OF P~-.RSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIs OLAf:.! SEOULD' BE S~--NT (if different than above): P~C~ OF ~ ~ GEN~ DES~I~TION 0F T~E AC~IDZI~ OR OCCL~~~ (at=eoN ' paqes if more space is needed): NA~tES, IF EO;~N, OF ANY PUBL~2 F~tPLOY~_ES CAUSING THE INJURY OR' LOSS: * . · NA/-IES A~'~D ADDRESS OF ;'~-?..~:SSES: NAME ADDRESS 1. See Stan Bartolomie -Electrical Dept. City of Ukiah NA/4E AND ADDRESS OF DOCTOF'.S, ~OSPITALS ~';~F--RE TREAT_~D: NA/4E ADDRESS" T__---. HONE · GENEP~tL DES~-RIPTION OF T'2E LOSS, iNJURY OR D~MAGE SUFFE?~D: -8- TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED: . $896.25 THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL ~240UNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLO~JS: 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: $ Actual Damages: $ 896.25 I/We, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that I/we have read the foregoing cla:un for damages and know the contents thereof; that the same is true of my/our own knowledge and belief, save and except as to those matters wherein s~ted on information and belief, and as to them, I/we be~tieve it to be/true. Received in City Clerk'~ Office this day 9; . . , 19~. _. / SiG~T6~E- ' / FOR CLAI}IS RELATING TO INJURY TO PERSON OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, THIS FC.~.! MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF UKIAH WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE ACCRUAL OF THE CAUSE O~ ACTION. A CLAIM RELATING TO ANY CAUSE OF ACTION SHALL BE PRESENTED NO LATER THAN ONE Y~-AR AFTER ACCRUAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION. -9- ~ AT&T Time and Material Invoice Customer Nam · IL Service Ad~ Customer's Pre-Authorization For Billable Work FSAC ID 'e of Tel/Ckt No. ~L~ (o'L-' t(~ ~.~- P'O' NO. Serial No. Work Complete called o: Print Name Custo.'ner's Signature Date ~ FSAC Mktg. Billing Information -- Time [ Incr. Min.* Vst. Billing Hours Prem. Chg. Job No. of On Site Comp. Total Bill Chg. eT Sun. eT Sun. Prod. Mdl. No. Date OPS/BMIS/VVK COMP # Tach. Time Time Time Y/N Y/N Reg. Sat. Hol. Sat. Hol. Code C_ode Qty. 1111111111 i IIIIIIIIII IIII111111 IIIIIIIIII *IN OUARTER HOUR IN(~RFMFNT.Cl .c;I IR_II:PT TCt PRODUCTS.) HOUR MINIMUM. (TWO HOUR MINIMUM APPLIES TO MAINTENANCE OF DATA AND COMPUTER Description of Work Performed For Above Jobs "1 ! :. Material Usage J Swap ,(;A No. ;odeI Qty. Comcode No. Apparatus Description J Y/N I ¥/N J Y/N I,~ Remarks Technician's Name/BMIS Code ~ ~ . ] ~pi~n~Signature [ /-/ Date __ __ ,~ o ~ ~ /..,~.~: ~ _ ~~_q~ I HEREBY CE~TIFY THAT ~T~T P~OW~E~ THE SE~V CES ~~VE~ A COPY .._ ~,omer's Name (print) ~ - ' I Cus'~, ~--- ...... :-: Dat, __ ~ __ ~~~ ~/~'~, ~ 1.~_ .' ~ -~-~?-?'~ CUSTOMER COPY - REAIN T~IS DOCUMENT SYSTEMS, INC. North Bay to the .Oregon Bo'rder' ' ' OE587R0! I N V 0 I C E Page 1 .Sold To Invoice NLm;bet Invoice Date 131~5 07/0'2/9'3 ....... C~~der ~'210b8 Ship To BOBBY KEbRqEDY c" c, ~, - · --ON._,TRU L.T I UN .,; .- 1260 .At. RPORT .ROAD "!/K!AH ": ': ': C.A 95&82 Rep L~ Terms NET DUE Qty Paz¢. l%~mbez- Description !~~ice Total 1.0000 ON 100 f' "1 '3 ' !00.00 Ti eke t Shipped Via FOB Memo SERVICE JLS ?/1 ,o-, / Date Shipped 0 7 / 0.::.'"' / q.. 3 , ub t.c, t.a 1 Sales Tax h_].l:,ping Invoice Total 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 NAPA 1209 First St. Napa, CA 94559 (707) 257-3737 (707) 996-6694 SANTA ROSA 525 5th St. Near Santa Rosa Plaza Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 579-0200 Toll Free in California 1-800.IBM-CUDA PLEASE REMIT TO NAPA STORE Thank you for your business CUSTOMER COPY 'd STAT~t~i,C£1~ED"CONTRACT0'~' NO1'261977 1375 Berkeley Way- Uk,ah, California 95482 K~ CONSTRUCTION 1260 AIRPORT i~OAD 9 82 Phone {707) 4624156' FAX 462-7129 TERMS ALL BILLS ARE DUE AND PAYABLE ON THE 10TH OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING DATE OF THIS INVOICE. A SERVICE CHARGE OF 1 I/~ % 'PER MONTH (18% ANNUAL RATE) WILL BE CHARGED ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. DATE DESCRIPTION CHARGES CREDITS BALANCE Pay Lasf A Amoun, BILLING ADDflES8 I]15 Berkeley Way ~ Ukbh, California 95482 JOB LOCATION , ADDRESS -~-. PHONE # Description of Work Performed _ /--~.._~. ~.~.'.." './~..,-'7 ,--' .,--':"/ ~"--~"~:::"-,'-. ':: . .------. · ", !-.' :.:. , .r' :~'.,',...-' , _,.. ,,~ ::: .. ,. ,.. :.,. . QUAN. CONTRACTED SUPPUES AMOUNT QUAN. CONTRACTED SUPPLIES / AMOUNT MISC. CHARGES .. MILEAGE, PERMITS,, ETC. TOTAL LABOR HOURS @ HOURS HOURS HOURS @ TERMS ALL BILLS ARE DUE AND PAYABLE TOTAL LABOR ON THE IOTH OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING DATE OF THIS INVOICE. A TOTAL MATERIAL SERVICE CHARGE OF 1 I/2% PER MONTH (18% ANNUAL RATE) WILL TOTAL MISC. BE CHARGED ON ALI. PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractor's State License Board. Andy q TOTAL AMOUNT DUE referred to the board whose address is.' Contractor's State License Board,P.O. Box 26000' Sacramento, Calif~~~66.ncerning a contractor may be _ DATF ~¢ - ,,¢- 7- ? ? BILLING ADDRESS Job Invoice JOB LOCATION Description of Work Performed ~.~,.~'x(' ,X//,C .::m_~-</~,~,t. ~ ...."' ;~'~'.~ ~ ,~ /~ ~;~, ,¢./ ~/~z.~.~ , x ..... - -L./ - QUAN. CONiNACTED SUPPUES , , AMOUNT QUAN! CONTRACTED SUPPLIES AMOUNT V / / ~ .... ,~.' - ..~.. ,..u.~,,p..~..,~ ,,,~,.~.. ~.... '~ , , ~. , MISC. CHARGES .. MILEAGE, PERMITS, ETC. TOTAL .., LABOR HOURS @ ,_ HOURS @ HOURS @ TER~S TOTAL LABOR · , ALL roLLS ARE DUE ANO PA~A~L£ ~ $ ~O ON ~ ~OTH O~ T~ ~O~TU FO~OWING DATE OFTHIS I~O~E. A TOTAL MATERIAL / ?~ SERVICE CHARGE OF 1 !/2% PER - MONTH (18% ANNUAL ~TE) WILL TOTAL MISC. _~ BE CHARGED ON A~ PA~ DUE ~COU~S. ~ ................. : ............................. TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ~ 9~ f? lots are required by law to be licensed and regJlated by the Contractor's State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the board whose address is: Contractors Sta:e License Board · P.O. Box 26000 · Sacramento, California 95826. r-/ /' ,'-~ BILLING ADDRESS ~iTATE' LICENSED CONTRACTOR NO. 261977 1375 Berkeley Way- Ukiah, California 95482 Job Iff,voice 013443 JOB LOCATION TO /~' EI~I iV E h Y C ° /tl £ r'gi (J C z- / Y 4/ / ./2 DO ,4 / R ./° O_,~ T ,,~ b cl. ? ~' ,, ~j ADDRESS /~_ Z 0 '""::A'/.~/oU.,q 7' .~. ,9 ! , - L//v!A /,/ cA ?; q',.7 PHONE # ' , ../,~'f ,,~/:--';,/.-,,~A.~: /"7.~;,;-.- ....:-'::~ .-.~,..~'~:~ "'~" : ' -" '* ;' ' ;' '' '- ' '" " Description of Work Performed '.~: ."2 '?/".;. ,,'/'~""- ?, ._,: -._.: : . ' ,' ?/ ~.'-3-' .f . ,,~./,: .~ .., ..;- ':.?. :. ;~..,:_.-.-_.- ~ QUAN. CONTRAL;I ED SUPplIES QUAN. CONTRACTED SUPPLIES AMOUNT I. ' MIS.C.'CHARGES ,o MILEAGE, PERMITS,. ETC.. AMOUNT! TOTAL LABOR HOURS @ HOURS@ HOURS @ HOURS @ TERMS ALL BILLS ARE DUE AND PAYABLE ON THE lOTH OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING DATE OF THIS INVOICE. A SERVICE CHARGE OF 1 1/2% PER MONTH (18% ANNUAL RATE) WILL BE CHARGED ON ALL PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. TOTAL LABOR TOTAL MATERIAL TOTAL MISC. TOTAL AMOUNT DUE Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regLlated by the Contractor's State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referrod to the board whose address is: Contractor's Stato License Board · P.O. Box 26000 · Sacramento, California 95826. ITEM NO. 7b. MEETING DATE September 1. 1993 ..AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PROPOSED PURCHASE OF COMMUNICATIONS RECORDERS, DIGITAL DISPATCH RECORDERS AND RECORDING TAPES City policy requires that all purchases in excess of $5,000 be reviewed and authorized by the City Council. This is "!o advise you of the proposed purchase of communications recorders and digital dispatch recorders. The communications recorCers being purchased will allow the public safety dispatch center to record all radio and telephone traffic, for a 24 hour period, on a single VHS type tape. Each tape will also be date and time coded to allow for easy recovery of any activity. The set of two recorders allows for an automatic backup unit and the ability to listen to one tape while another is recording. The digital dispatch recorders will allow the dispatcher to I:.,lay back any or all of the last four minutes of traffic. The playback recorder is invaluable when a caller becomes disconnected before the dispatcher can confirm the r3ature of the call or an officer needs assistance and can only use his radio once. Ths system also has the ability to slow down a recording so that callers that are excited ~,~.nd talking quickly can be better understood. (Continued on next page.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award contract to Lanier Worldwide, Inc., for material and installation of two communications recorders and two digital dispatch recorders for a lump sum amount of $19,60;'.35 and award the portion of the bid for recording tapes to AM Communications, Inc., in the amount of $2,325.00. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Purchase from higher bidder. 2. Do not purchase the recording systems or tapes. Acct. No.: N/A Acct. No.: (if NOT budgeted) $10,966.17 (1/2) from 678-2040-800 Appropriation Requested- N,rA $10,966.17 (1/2)from 675-2050-800 Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Fred W. Keplinger, Director of Public Safe.t~ Prepared by: Kenneth Budrow, Administrative Comman~j~ Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, City Manager Attachments: Minimum equipment requirements. APPROVED BY September 1, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSED PURCHASE OF COMMUNICATIONS RECORDERS, DISPATCH RECORDERS AND RECORDING TAPES (continued) DIGITAL The recording tapes are VCR cassettes designed to record for approximately 24.5 hours. The need to retain thE~ recordings for a minimum of 100 days and possibly save a recording for court evidence dictates that the quantity of 150 requested be purchased. Quotes for the communications recorders and the digital playback recorders have been obtained from only two bidders. A local vendor did not bid on both items as per the specifications. There is a difference of $348.65 in the two bids with Lanier Worldwide, Inc., being the a3parent Iow bidder. The cost to purchase the recording systems from Lanier will be $19,607.35. The cost of these systems will be divided equally between the City of Fort Bragg and the City f Ukiah. The net cost to the City will be $9,803.68. Quotes for the recording tapes were also obtained from Lanier and AM Communications. AM Communications was the Iow bidder by $675.00. The cost of the tapes is also being divided equally between the City of Fort Bragg and the City of Ukiah. KB:fm Recorders 9/1/93 REQUEST FOR BID POLICE CO~4UNICATIONS RECORDING SYSTEM The City of Ukiah invites .bids to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, transportation and services necessary to install a new recording system for the telephones and radios used at the City of Ukiah Police Dispatch Center as per attached DETAIT.~.D SPECIFICATIONS. Sealed bids will be received until 2'00 p.m. on Au.qust 24, 1993 at the office of the City Clerk, al: the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482. ALL QUOTATIONS/BIDS MUST BE SIGNED and OPENING DATE and TI~E MUST BE SHOWN ON SUBMITTING ENVELOPE. The recording system will be awarded to the lowest overall bid. The recording tapes will be considered a separate item. The City of Ukiah reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids and waive any irregularities. NOTICE TO BIDDERS - Pursuant to provisions of Section 1770, including amendments thereof, of the Labor Code of the State of California, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations, State of California, has ascertained the general prevailing rate of wages for straight time, overtime Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays including employer payment for health and welfare, vacation, pension and similar purposes, copies of the General Prevailing Wage Determinate. on (applicable to the work), for the locality in which the work is to be done are on file in the office of the City Engineer. The contractor shall provide certified payroll reports for all employees on State of California Department of Industrial Relations Public Works Payroll Report Form A-l-13I. LICENSE AND INSURANCE RE!~UIREMENTS - Bidder must possess a State of California License C-7 and a City of Ukiah business license (can be purchased upon award of bid - cost approximate $50.00). Upon award of bid, contractor shall furnish to the City certificates of insurance on City forms (attached) covering full liability under Worker's Compensation laws of the State of California, and Comprehensive General Liability Insurance of $1,000, 000 naming the City as additional insured, and shall be maintained in force until the work is completed. Ail work covered by this agreement done at jobsite or for preparation to said jobsite shall be at the risk of the Contractor alone. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; against any claims, actions or demands against them, or any of them, against any damages, liabilities or expenses, including attorney fees, the personal injury or death or for loss or damage to property, or any or all of them, arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this agreement by Contractor. RECORDING SYST~ SPECIFICATIONS · C~ICATIONS RECORD~ERS - MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS: Record/Reproduce System: AC bias recording. Tape: S-VHS standard video cassette tape $T-180. Recording Time: 24 hours (minimum) on a single tape. Number of Channels: ~).0 data channels, 1 time/date code channel. Time Injection: Time (24 hr. format) and date recorded on dedicated channel. Remaining Tape Indica~:or: To show recording time remaining. Search Mode' Ability to search by time and date. Tape End Alarm' To activate when less than 30 minutes of tape remains. Recording Transfer: $~bility to direct transfer recording to audio cassette tape. Power Requirements: ~?o operate on 120V AC. Recording Heads: FixE~d. Warranty: 1 year par~:s and labor, 3 years on fixed recording heads. Both units installed and operating as a primary and backup/secondary. . DIGITAL DISPATCH RECO$~ERS - MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS: Size: 5.25 "H X 19 "W ~ 10 "D (maximum). Mount· Console. Recording Time. 4 minutes (minimum). Playback: 5 seconds or last call~transmission, instant w/single step access. Power Requirements. To operate on 120V AC. Audio Output. Self contained speaker w/adjustable volume control. Other: Each unit/system to be capable of recording both radio and telephone tra£fic (all radio traffic coming from a single speaker/headset and all telephone traffic coming through a single handset/headset). Warranty. 1 year parts and labor. Bid to include both units installed and operating. Installation and completion to be done within 90 days after award of bid. Please refer all questions regarding this bid to' Ken Budrow, Police Captain 707-463-6243 ITEM NO. DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPOINTING BETTY BASSLER AS WOMEN'S GOLF CLUB REPRESENTATIVE ON GOLF COMMITTEE The City of Ukiah Golf Course Committee is composed of two members from the Parks and Recreation Commission, one member from the Men's Golf Club, one member from the Women's Golf Club, and one member as a public member from the City or County area which may be a youth member. There is currently a vacancy for the Women's Golf Club Representative on this Committee. The Women's Club has recommended Betty Bassler to be their representative, which has been approved by the Golf Committee. Attached for your review is the resolution for the Golf Course Committee with the addition of Betty Bassler to serve a two-year term which will expire June 30, 1995. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution appointing Betty Bassler. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Resubmit request for Women's Golf Club representative. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: Yes Requested by: Golf Course Committee Prepared by: Candace Horsley, Director of Community Services Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments: Resolution. ~PPROVED: 3:PARK\ASRGOLF 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING RESOLUTION 93-68 ESTABLISHING GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah operates and maintains an 18 hole Municipal Golf Course, including a club house, pro shop and related facilities; and WHEREAS, these facilities constitute an important and treasured municipal resource; and WHEREAS, an advisory committee will assist the City in its mission to preserve and enhance this vital community resource; NOW, THERE:FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. There is hereby created a Golf Course Committee. This advisory body shall report to the City Council. 2. The Committee shall consist of five (5) members who shall be appointed by the City Council as follows: a. Two members shall be appointed from the Parks and Recreation Commission; b. One member shall be appointed from candidates recommended by the Men's Golf Club from the residents of the City of Ukiah; c. One member shall be appointed from candidates recommended by the Women's Golf Club from the residents of the City of Ukiah; d. One member shall be appointed as an at-large member of one of the Golf Clubs from the City or County area and may be a youth member. 3. Ail appointments to this Committee shall be for a term of two years. Reappointments to the Committee shall be made in accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 1200. 4. a. Allen Carter is hereby appointed as a Parks and Recreation Commission representative to a term of two years which will expire June 30, 1995. b. Betty Bassler is hereby appointed as a Women's 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1:2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 2:2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Golf Club representative to a term of two years which will expire June 30, 1995~. c. Alan Johnson is hereby appointed as a Parks and Recreation Commission representative to a term of two years which will expire June 30, 1994. d. Perry Ramsey is hereby appointed as a Men's Golf Club represen~sative to a term of two years which will expire June 30, 1994. e. Donald Rones, Sr., is hereby appointed as the Member-at-Large representative to a term of two years which will expire June 3£~, 1994. 5. The Golf Course Committee shall have the authority and duty to recommend and advise on: a. Rates, fees and other policies to be adopted and enforced for the operation, use and management of the golf course and related facilities. b. Means and methods to preserve, enhance or improve the golf course and related facilities. c. Other matters relating to the property operation, maintenance and improvement of the golf course and related facilities. 6. The members of the Committee shall receive no compensation, except such actual expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as shall be approved in advance by the City Council. 7. The Committee shall elect a Chairperson from among its members, may elect such other officers as it may deem appropriate, and shall establish a regular meeting time and place, and such rules of procedure as may be necessary for the conduct of its meetings and business. 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 ~D ADOPTED this by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Cathy McKay, City Clerk 3:PER\RESGOLF day of Fred Schneiter, Mayor , 1993, AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9a DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 REPORT SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDED PROJECT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH/UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AWT AND UPGRADE PROJECT This Public Hearing is being conducted for the purpose of allowing public participation in the environmental and planning prc.cess for construction of the Wastewater Treatment Plant AWT and Upgrade Facilities as required by the State Water Resource Control Board's policy for implementing the State Revolving Fund Loan Program. The Treatment Plant Facility Upgrade is required to meet new and stricter requirements of the City's NPDES Permit from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City Council as designated Lead Agency for the project is to consider approval of 1) The Draft Negative Declaration; and 2) The Final Project Report including Addendum No. 1. A Kennedy/Jenks representative is available to answer any questions. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. It is recommended that the City Council make a finding that based on the Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration and the absence of significant public comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant AWT and Upgrade project will have a significant effect on the environment if the mitigation measures listed in the Negative Declaration are implemented. , It is recommended that tb, e City Council approve the amended Final Project Report and authorize Kennedy/Jenks Consultants to proceed with Final Project Design. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Continue the Public Hearing at this time pending submittal of additional information and/or public input. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted):N/A Acct. No.- N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised- N/A Requested by- Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Prepared by: Ted L. Goforth, Project Coordinator 463-6200.~_~'~,/~J' Coordinated with' Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments: 1. Addendum No. 1 to the Report 2. Inital Study/Negative Declaration APPROVED: R: I \PW: kk AAWT Public Hearing to Consider and Approve Negative Declaration and Amended Project Report for the City of Ulfiah/Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant and Upgrade Project September 1, 1993 Page 2 (1) INITIAL STUDY/DRAFI' NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act the City has caused the preparation and distribution of an Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration and provided the required 30 day pt.~blic review period. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 11, 1993, alerting the public of the project. Copies of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration were sent directly to the State Water Resource Control Board, the State Clearinghouse and to the appropriate Federal agencies via the State Division of Clean Water Programs, EnvironmentaJ Services Unit. Distribution was also made to local responsible agencies and other interested parties. The cutoff date for Federal Agency review was August 18, 1993. Only two (2) State agencies responded with written comments. The State Department of Transportation asked only that tile Draft Negative Declaration be more specific in describing the proposed project as being required to meet more stringent waste discharge requirements in the City's NPDES Permit, and that ,:hese improvements would not result in Plant capacity increases for new connections. Also, they suggested that the document state that the proposal for long- range expansion facilities will be submitted at a later date under a separate Initial Study and environmental document. Cit3 Staff has no objection to including these comments as an Amendment to the Draft Negative Declaration. The second letter was received from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, in which was intended as a reminder that development of an end use for reclaimed water would fall under the jurisdiction of the Division of Water Rights. They stated that the State Water Code requires that approval be obtained from the State Water Board prior to making any change in the point of discharge, place of use, or purpose of use of treated wastewater. Staff believes this is a valid comment and will, prior to implementation of this disposal alternative, obtain the necessary approvals from the State Division of Water Rights. Following the close of the Public Hearing the City Council will be asked to approve the Negative Declaration if it finds en the basis of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and public comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment if th,.- mitigation measures listed in the Negative Declaration are implemented. Following approval of the Negative Declaration, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse. A copy of the Notice will also be made a part of the State Revolving Fund Loan application package. (2) FINAL PROJECT REPORT The Ukiah City Council and Sanitation District Board conceptually approved the Draft Project Report with comments on June 10, 1993. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants prepared the attached Addendum No. 1 to the Report in response to these comments and a review by the State Water Resources Control Board. Staff recommends City Council's approval of the Project Report as amended and, further, authorizalion be given to Kennedy/Jenks to proceed with final design. The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors took similar formal action at its meeting on August 25, 1993. ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO FINAL REPORT DATED MAY 1993 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE FACILITIES PLAN CITY OF UKIAH K/J 920524.00 JULY 1993 PURPOSE The purpose of this addendum to the final project report is to address the following- A. Comments on the Report from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) staff as transmitted in its letter of 22 June 1993; B. Comments raised by the Ukiah City Council and the Ukiah Sanitation District Board in a workshop to discuss the findings and recommendations of the project report held o~ 10 June 1993. A. SWRCB Review Comments The SWRCB review of the Draft Report had a number of comments listed in their letter of 22 June 1993, which need to be resolved. This addendum provides information on the items that are listed in the same numerical order as in the SWRCB letter: 1. Comment: Agreed .~vith the need for an Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) System. Response- None. 2. Comment: Agreed with the need for additional capacity in the future. Response: None. 3. Comment: Consider equalizing basins for primary effluent to reduce flow fluctuations to secondary and AWT processes. Response: This was not initially evaluated due to a number of related factors at the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which include: .a) The difference in flow between peak and maximum daily flow is relatively Iow, i.e., 20 MGD. and 16 MGD, respectively as shown in Table 3-11. b) The percolation ponds will be utilized to provide flow equalization to the AWT process. c) The existing trickling filters and secondary sedimentation tanks are insufficient to produce a 30/30 mg/i effluent at the maximum daily flow A1.1 L 4, of 16 MGD that is required by the City's new NPDES permit for discharge to the percolation ponds. d) There is only a relatively small area at the treatment plant site that is available for an equalizing pond which should be reserved for future plant expansion. /~n equalizing pond of 4 million gallon capacity is shown in the attached :Figure A1-1. It would be a 12-foot deep, earthen pond with gunite liner, aeration mixers, and a debris washing facilities. The estimated construction cost of this facility is $697,300. Comparing th.~t cost to the estimated cost for secondary treatment improvement,,; shown on Table 7-3 indicates over $150,000 in additional costs. Considering this, as well as the irrespective need for secondary treatment iml:rovements, there is no apparent benefit in constructing a primary flow equalizing pond. Comment: Explain reason for constructing contact clarifiers following secondary sedimentation. Instead, consider upgrading the performance of the secondary sedimentation tanks. Response: First, there is a misunderstanding that the contact clarifiers are immediately downstr'eam of the secondary clarifiers. There is indeed both a chlorine feed and contact structure and the percolation ponds and a pump station in between. The flow rates through these secondary clarifiers, chlorine contactor and into the percolation pond:; can peak at 20 MGD with a maximum day of 16 MGD. Contrastingly, the maximum flow that the AWT contact clarifiers can treat is 8 MGD, so the percolation ponds will function for both diurnal as well as seasonal flow rates. However, to completgly address this inquiry, costs were developed on providing a flocculation stage ahead of the secondary clarifiers in lieu of the contact clarifiers. Also, the anticipated maximum flows that could be experienced at the Ukiah WWTP were calculated based upon probable reoccurrence interval:; to determine the possibility of reducing the capacity of any of the AWT processes. These are described as follows: a) Fiocculation Tank Alternatives. Four, three-stage declining tapered energy, vertical paddle-wheel flocculators can be constructed ahead of each of the secondary sedimentation tanks as shown on the attached sketch. These flocculators will provide an overall detention time of 27 minutes at the maximum daily flow. of 16 MGD and 23 minutes at the' peak flow of 20 MGD. The cost for constructing this alternative in comparison to the cost of deleting the contact clarifiers is shown in Table A1-1. A1.2 TABLE A1-1 COMPARATIVE COSTS Of SECONDARY FLOCCULATION TC AWT CONTACT CLARIFIERS SECONDARY FLOCCULATORS AWT CONTACT CLARIFIERS ITEM Equipment $466,700 $450,000 Installation $ 640,200 $80,100 Electrical and $60,800 $53,000 Instrumentation CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $1,1 67,700 $583,100 Operation and maintenance costs and present worth costs are as shown on Table A4-2. TABLE A 1-2 COMPARABLE O&M AND PRESENT WORTH COSTS OF FLOCCULA-ORS TO AWT CONTACT CLARIFIERS ITEM SECONDARY AWT CONTACT 0 &M/YEAR FLO CCULATO RS CLARI Fi ERS Labor $1 2,000 $6,000 Energy $7,600 $1,500 Chemicals $116,700 $62,500 Sludge $2,500 $1,200 Maintenance $11,700 $6,200 TOTAL $150,500 $77,400 O&M PRESENT WORTH $1,938,000 $1,1 51,500 TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $3,105,700 $1,734,600 RELATIVE RANK 2 1 There is a large differential in both initial and O&M costs of using secondary flocculators as compared to contact clarifiers. Significant differences include the added construction cost cf concrete tanks to contain the 1 2 paddle-wheel A1 ..3 secondary flocculators of 2 horsepower each to fit hydraulically between the existing trickling filters and the existing secondary sedimentation tanks. There are significantly greater energy requirements for mechanical flocculators in retrofitting the existing secondary s,:,dimentation process as compared to flocculation which occurs within the contact clarifier bed. The most significant difference is the need to nearly double the coa~]ulant dosage to produce a settleable flocculation for the existing sedimentation tanks as compared to a fine filterable floc of the recommended contact ciarifiers which essentially perform as a roughing filters ahead of the final tri-media polishing filter. This further effects sludge disposal costs as well. AWl. Capacity Re-evaluation in Consideration of Comments 3 and 4 An AW1' facility at 8 MGD capacity is proposed. This was based on sufficient capacity to treat the maximum monthly wastewater flow with diurnal and wet period excesses to be stored in the percolation ponds. This stored flow can then be pumped to the AWl' when inflow conditions are below 8 MGD. The actual throughput of the AWl', Contact Clarifier-Fiiter (CCF) process is 90% or a total of 7.2. MGD. The remaining 10% is recycled in backwash water. A further consideration is redundancy so with one of tl-e four modular units out of service for repair, the capacity could further be reduced to 5.4 MGD. Considering that in January 1993, the average monthly flow was 7.4 MGD and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 8.8 MGD is allowed in the SWRCB letter, just what flows exceed that amount and what storage ,and percolation capacity might there be in the percolation ponds that could possibly reduce the capacity of the AWT process? In order to address that condition, a statistical evaluation of the 85 years record of wet season (October to April) and monthly precipitation were plotted on Figure A1-2. The recurrence interval of the 1992-1993 season was once in 5 years, while the recurrence interval on the basis of monthl~ rainfall in a particular year was once in 3 years for January 1993 and once in 4 years for December 1992. It is proposed that the combination of the AWl' process capacity plus storage and percolation loss in the percolation ponds should be sufficient so that there would be no discharge of only secondary treated effluent to the Russian River at a 25-year recurrence interval of seasonal rainfall. The 5-year recurrence condition as experienced in 1992-1993 seasonal rainfall is about 120% of average while the 25-year recurrence condition is 160% of average. Thus, maximum monthly flow at a 25-year recurrence interval can be 133% of the 8.8 MGD allowed or 11.7 MGi] for a month. Considering that 7.2 MGD coul.~l be processed by the AWl' facility, the balance of I 1.7 - 7.2 - 4.5 MGD would be the accumulation less percolation in the ponds. If all 3 ponds are in operation, the percolation capacity is 3.6 MGD leaving an accumulation of 0.9 MGD for the month or 27 ~/1G of the 110 MG full capacity. A1.4 However, this leaves no room for redundancy and if only 5.4 MGD of AWT capacity is available, then the accumulation becomes 2.7 MGD or a total of 81 MG. Frequently as is the case, a pond is out of servicE; to prepare the bottom for percolation restoration by scarifying, then the percolation capacity is reduced to 2.45 MGD. If Pond 3 is out of service, which is the deepest of :he 3 existing ponds of equal surface area, then the storage capacity is reduced to 55 MG as well. Under this worst case condition of 1 AWT modular unit of 2-MGD capacity and Pond 3 being out of service, there would be a need for 115 MG of storage for the maximum monthly flow with only 55 MG of storage available in the percolation ponds. This indicates that one 2-MGD AWT modular unit or one percolation pond could be out of service, but not both, during the maximum monthly wet weather flow. Considerinq these factors and the modular incremental capacity of the AWT processes, it is not desirable to decrease capscity by as much as 2 MGD. There would be considerable probability that the AWT capacity would frequently be insufficient. 5. Comment: Evaluate a discount rate of 8.5% to assess present worth and cost effectiveness rather ~:han 3% as used in the Draft Facilities Plan. Response: The use of the 3% rate was chosen because it is not only close to current inflation trends, but is the current rate that the City of Ukiah will pay for the State Revolvi~'3g Fund Loan (SRF). An 8.5% discounted rate was appropriate a few years ago when higher inflation and borrowing rates occurred. However, each of th,9 cost tables was reviewed to disclose the effect of utilizing the 8.5% as opposed to the 3% rate. The effect is to increase the proportionate total p~'esent worth cost of operation and maintenance while lowering the effect cf capital costs. However, even doing this rate adjustment does not change the ranking of the apparent best project alternative proposed for implementation. 6. Comment: Deficie~.t and deteriorated items may not be eligible for State Revolving Fund. Response: First, it must be assumed that items now needed because of building code changes or to improve reliability would be eligible for State Revolving Funds. Secondly, the facilities that were not upgraded in 1983, and are from original plant construction would be eligible for State Revolving Funds in consideration of the need to replace after nearly 40 years of service. The majority of these ite'.~s should be eligible for a State Revolving Fund loan. 7.. Comment: What is the City's plan and schedule for consideration and implementation of the recommended (I/I) corrections listed in the report? Resoonse: Specific recommendations for I/I containment and reduction are listed on Page 7.2 of the report with initial funding of this program included in the Revenue Plan. ?he City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District also are considering measures to require inspection, tests, and correction of inflow A1.5 . 9, drains, or infiltration from laterals when property is being transferred, and to learn how to equitabiy implement that program. Comment: The Cit~/needs to submit a plan and implementation schedule for adopting a water cor~servation program. Response: The City of Ukiah has in the past adopted voluntary water conservation programs during drought periods in accordance with state regulations. Also, water conservation fixtures are now mandated for new construction by state law. The City of Ukiah's Water System Master Plan further provides for water conservation measures. The City of Ukiah will transmit to the SWR,2. B its plan and schedule for adopting and implementing a water conservation F, rogram in accordance with the SRF requirements. Comment: Replace~nent or repair of previous grant-funded items may not be eligible. Response: A list of grant-funded items has been transmitted to the SWRCB and is included in this addendum as Table A1-3. Items that were previous grant-funded in 1983 and are questionable for funding under the SRF funding requirements are noted in Table A1-3 and consist of the following: a) Replace one ir~fluent pump to provide extended Iow flow rangeability. b) Replace varia~,le speed drives on four influent pumps and two trickling filter pumps with new solid state equipment. c) Replace the secondary sedimentation air lift sludge pumps with new centrifugal pumps to improve efficiency and to allow pumping of a thicker sludge. d) Replace the existing sulfur dioxide feed equipment for dechlorination with a sodium bisulfite liquid storage and feed system to comply with the requirements of the Health and Safety Code and the Uniform Fire Code. B. City and Sanitation District Project Review Workshop Comments Project Report. · Comment: In Chapter 5 on page 5.10, reference is made to sludge lagoon sampling analytical results in Appendix A and the results summarized in Table 5-3, which arE; both missing from the final report. Response' The sludge lagoon sampling analytical results (individual laboratory report sheets) are not appended to this report. Appendix A contains a cross reference between chapter and SRF loan requirements. The analytical results can be provided upon request or can be found in the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Services Feasibility Study under Appendix F. Table 5-3, which A1.6 summarizes the sludge lagoon sampling results and is missing from the final report, is attached to this addendum. Revenue Plan 1. Comment: Modify the draft revenue plan to address the following: a) Improvements related to increased flows to the plant and increased septage within the existing sphere of influence or the City and District boundaries should be allocated to connection fees and septage fees. The current connection fee is per equivalent sewer service unit (ESSU) and not per actual connection. b) Improvements related to increased septage from outside the sphere of influence but ~vithin the County should be allocated as a surcharge to the septage fee. Current septage fee for loads outside the District are double the fee for Ioa:Js within the District. c) Septage handling fee of $15.00 per load was not increased in the proposed reve3ue plan. d) The Comparison of Sewer Service Charges and Connection Fees form presented at t.3e workshop should be included with the revenue plan and footnoted to indicate that the proposed fees represent the minimum necessary to r,qeet project funding repayments, operation and maintenance costs, and reserves for equipment replacement in accordance wth the SWRCB requirements. Final charges will be based upon actual project costs and operating reserves. Response: Attache¢l in its entirety is a revised draft revenue plan for the project which addresses all of the above comments. Page F.4 and F.5 of the draft revenue program narrative reflects the requested changes and explains the revenue needed and rate determination. Refer to the Comparison of Sewer Service Charges and Connection Fees form attached at the end of the revised draft revenue plan for a comparison of current and proposed fees. joba/920624.00/misc/adderx=lum .no 1 A1..7 TABLE A1-3 CITY OF UKIAH Page 1 of 2 AWT FACILITIES AND PLANT UPGRADE SRF PROJECT PREVIOUS EPA GRANT FUNDED EQUIPMENT (ADAPTED FROM TABLE 7-2 OF THE PROJECT REPORT) JUNE 1993 · : : .... YEAR: :.ii NUMBERii.: iii:USEFUL:: % GRANT: %::: ' EST,.TO'REPLACE · :: ~:PRoCESS~ii i ':':~.~: :.!i:.:: INSTALLED':: :~':OFUNITS~; ~: LIFE i FUNDS REPLACE :'::~ :' {$1,000): 1. INCOMING SEWERS · North Trunk 1959 1 50 0 0 0 · South Trunk 1959 1 50 0 0 0 2. PRELIMINARY TREATMENT (Structuresl 1959 1 40 0 0 0 · Channel Screen Barminutors 1959 2 15 0 100 201 · Bypass Screen 1959 1 15 0 0 0 · tnfluentMeterincj ' 1959t1983 ::~: : 2' 15- ' 87.5 O · O: · Influent Pumps1 1983 3 15 87.5 30 105 New 1 15 87.5 1 O0 47 3. PRIMARY TREATMENT (Structures) 1959 4 40 0 0 0 · Preaeration Tanks (Equipment) 1959 2 15 0 0 0 Aeration Blower 1959/New 2 15 0 50 23 · Primary Sedimentation Tanks (Equipment) 1959 2 25 0 0 0 Sludge Pumps 1985/New 4. SECONDARY TREATMENT · Rock Trickling Filter (Structure) 1959/New 1 40 0 30 147 Distributor 1983 1 20 87.5 O - :: PUmps!:::i: :: FiXed-Spe~di! :1983:::-i ..... ~i;ii " 20: 87.5 O 0 . ; . :.: :::' ::::'-':::'::';::!:' :: Variable Spee~t:: i;:: :"1983!:::::: :::' : · ':: 20 87L5 30: 35" · Synthetic Media Tricklincj Filter (Structure) 1983 1 40 87.5 0 0 Pumps~ Fixed Speed 1983 1 20 87.5 0 0 Variable Speed 1983 1 20 87.5 30 35 · Secondary Sedimentation Tanks (Structur~.) 3 - 1983/ 4 40 87.5 0 0 1 - New · ..r SludgepUmpsgl : ::;::!::::': :': .i ;::: ;.:1983h · 3. :i': 20 87;5:: 100:;¥ · 32 . . : . ;:. ;i::::':: i:: :- ::;: . :.; :::' ':: New::: 1: ' :.: ': 20 ' 0 O 0 ' : 5. DISINFECTION · Chlorination3 Chamber (Structure) 1983 1 30 87.5 0 0 New 1 20 0 0 0 Chlorinators 1983/New 2/1 1:2 87.5 0 0 Scales 1983 2 12 87.5 0 0 Chlorine Mixer 1983 1 1 2 87.5 0 0 · Dechlorination3 Chamber (Structure) 1983 1 30 87.5 0 0 New 1 30 0 0 0 Sulfonators/Bisulfite Feed Pumps 1983/New.. 212: : 12 87.5 100 50 - SCales/Storage Tank ' 19831New 4/1 12 87.5 100 100 Diffuser 1983 1 12 87.5 0 0 6. DISPOSAL · Percolation Ponds (Embankments) Ponds 1 & 2 · 1959 2 50 0 0 0 Pond 3 1983 1 50 87.5 0 0 · Outfall Sewer 1983 1 75 87.5 0 0 · Effluent Pump Station (Structure) 1990 1 40 0 0 0 Pumps 1 & 2 1990 2 20 0 0 0 Pump 3 New 1 20 0 0 0 11 ' ReclaimedWaterPumps4 - Pumps 1 & 2 1983 2 20 87.5 0 0 job$19 206 2 41env~r on.sublta~le 920524 CITY OF UKIAH (cont'd) Page 2 of 2 : :::":: : ': !'::::PROCESS::! :: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ;::! ::i:;:.INSTAI,!jEOi: i!:'i::OF.:UNiTS!i : :!!i~. LIFE::: ;:': FUNDS: :iREPLACE: .... ~i$1.r000l Pump 3 1983 1 20 87.5 0 0 7. SOLIDS TREATMENT · Sludge Digestion Tanks (Structure) 1959 2 30 0 0 0 Heaters/Boilers 1959/New 2 20 0 1 O0 64 ~ !: :~ Gas: H°lder::i: '!:::':i: !:: : :~" ::i ':::'.: - :"::: :':~ ;: : · 1983/Rehab,!- i: ..... 12::i 87~5. i:" 25' 48: .. Gas Mixincj 1983 2 12 87.5 0 0 - Sludge Pumps/Heat Exchangers 1959/New 3/2 12 0 100 107 · Sludge Lagoons 1959/Clean 2 50 0 O 0 Lagoon Dredge New 1 15 0 0 0 · Sludge Thickening/Dewaterincj -- Gravity Belt Press New 1 15 0 0 0 8. STANDBY ENGINE GENERATOR 1983 1 15 87.5 0 0 9. ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT (Structure) New 1 40 0 0 0 · Contact Clarifier-Filters (Ecluioment) New 4 20 0 0 0 Backwash Pump New 1 20 0 0 0 ...... · Chlorine Contact (Structure) New 2 30 0 O 0 - Chlorine Mixer New 1 12 0 0 0 · Washwater Ponds New 2 50 0 0 0 · Coagulant Feed Ferric Chloride New Feed Pumps 2 12 0 0 0 Storage Tank New 1 12. 0 0 0 Caustic Soda New Feed Pumps 2 12 0 0 0 ~ Storage Tank 1 12 0 0 0 k, Cationic Polymer New . Feed Pumps 2 12 0 0 0 Stora,qe Tank 2 12 0 0 0 - Anionic Polymer New ' Feed Pump 2 12 0 0 0 Stora.qe Tank 4 12 0 0 0 Mixer New 2 12 0 0 0 Notes The existing VFDs were nearly outdated at the time they were installed and are not energy efficient compared to the current microprocessor based adjustable frequency drives. For improved reliability and efficiency, and to reduce operator attention and maintenance, it is recommended that the unit.,; be replaced on four influent pumps and two trickling filter pumps. In addition, a new 7.5 MGD influent pump is recommended to replace one existing 5' MGD influent pump to provide extended Iow flow rangeability. The existing air blowers for the secondary seCimentation tank air lift sludge pumps and for septage aeration need to be relocated to clear the area for the new, fourth secondar,/ sedimentation tank. In order to thicken the secondary sludge, it was initially recommended to replace the air lift pumps witl3 centrifugal motor driven sludge pumps. The current air lift pumps are not energy efficient and do not allow thickening of the slL. dge. The new sedimentation tank will be provided with a centrifugal sludge pump and replacement of the existing air lifts with centrifugal pumps will be considered by the City as an additive bid item. The existing air blowers.will be relocated and used for the septage aeration and the air lifts for secondary sludge pumping if retained. To comply with the'current Uniform Fire Code regarding handling of toxic gases, the existing chlorine and sulfur dioxide gas facilities were evaluated considering replacem~nt with diluted liquid chemicals or upgrading with scrubbers and dedicated emergency power, and preparing a Risk Mana~jement and Prevention Plan. The best apparent alternative is to retain the existing chlorine facilities and upgrade with a gas scrul)ber while converting the sulfur dioxide system to sodium bisulfite. The existing sulfur dioxide feeders will be replaced with bisulfite chemical metering pumps. The existing sulfur dioxide ton container room will be converted to bisulfite liquid storage. Adjustable frequency drives and/or other surge protection improvements are to be added to the existing reclaim water pumps to protect the reclaim and injector water systems from surges and water hammer. 920524 'G I T Z TABLE 5-3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF LAGOON SLUDGE AT THE UKIAH WWTF PERCENT SOLIDS As-received Wet' Weight:': Basis Lagoon 1- 12 9 100 !': Lagoon-Z:i .'.' BaSis(il lO0 posal:. Requirements: Limits': land: !. :,.'i.i: ::: Application .... Compost?.. Dry. Weight- DryWeight: Basisl2} Basis HEAVY METALS ling/kg) Arsenic 0.8 0.6 7 7 500 75 41 Barium 190 110 1,583 1,222 1 O,000 Cadmium 1.5 0.6 13 7 85 39 Chromium 13 4.3 108 48 2,500 3,000 1,200 Copper 180 130 1,500 1,444 2,500 4,300 1,500 Lead 47 19 392 211 1,000 840 300 Mercury 1.5 1.2 13 13 20 57 17 Molybdenum 9 ND 75 ND 3,500 75 18 Nickel 6 4 50 44 2,000 420 420 Selenium . - 100 100 36 Silver 11 8 92 89 500 Vanadium 4 3 33 33 2,400 . Zinc 340 180 2,833 2,000 5,000 7,800 2,800 PLANT NUTRIENTS (percent) Nitrogen 3.12 3.07 Phosphorus 1.592 1 .t234 Potassium 0.28 0.27 OTHER (rog/L) Sulfide 130 :' 00 1,083 2,222 Oil & Grease 4,800 6,C00 40,0OO 66,667 "Waste Disposal to Land," Title 22, Subchapter 15, California Administrative Code, Total Threshold Limit Concentrations, Octo3er 13, 1984. "Standards for the Use of Disposal of Sew,ge Sludge, Final Rules," Part II, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 257, February 19, 1993. "Draft Compositing Facilities - Permitting Procedures and Enforcement," Chapter 3.1 California Integrated SolidWaste Management Act, 1989, January 27, 1993. ' WPC31 3 5.11 920524 APPENDIX F [)RAFT REVENUE PROGRAM (Revi~;ed July 1993 - Addendum No. 1 ) APPENDIX F DRAFT REVENUE PROGRAM (Revised July 1993 - Addendum No. 1) INTRODUCTION The existing sewer use ordi3ances are presented along with the proposed revenue program. The revenue program has been developed in accordance with the Revenue Program guidelines of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program to assist in financing of the pl~nning, design and construction of this project. The revenue program retains several components of the existing sewer use ordinances which are provided in Appendix C. EXISTING SEWER USE ORDINANCE The City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District currently have parallel Sewer Use Ordinances that state the responsibilities of the users and terms of payment for use of the exist:lng collection system and treatment facilities. User Groups In the past, it has not been ~3ecessary to differentiate users on the basis of waste strength contributions to allocate the costs of the sewer funds. For this reason three basic categories are u:sed: residential, commercial and septage. The existing ordinance also establishes an industrial user category that is not used. Sewer Service Units The current ordinance defines an equivalent sewer service unit (ESSU) as being a single unit of sewer discharge having characteristics of flow, BOD, and SS equiva- lent to that generated by a typical single-family residence. The basic residential connection is assigned one ESSU. Depending on the Uniform Plumbing Code fixture unit counts per sewer connE~ction, each user is assigned multiple ESSUs per sewer connection. In addition, several commercial user categories are assigned equivalent ESSUs based on fixture counts, number of metered connections, or metered water consumption. An equivalenl: ESSU formula for industrial users is included in the ordinance, but is not currently used. Cost Allocation All connected users are curr.gntly assumed to have the same characteristic waste concentrations and the cost allocations are spread on a flow equivalency basis. Variations in water consuml:,tion and typical waste strength for various user categories are accounted by assigning lower flows per ESSU to higher strength users and higher flows per ESSU to Iow strength users. g ~oba/920624.00/rpt~/al~pend-f F-1 920524 7/19/93 Service Charges The current charge per ESSLI is $5.82 per month for all users. Septage is charged at $15 per load for handling and $0.01 per gallon unloaded. For a 1,000-gallon average load size this is $25 per I°ad. PROPOSED REVENUE PROGRAM The State Water Regional Control Board (SWRCB) Revolving Fund Policy Manual describes the method used :o determine average monthly revenue required by different types of users to r,~,pay the SRF loan and other financing. The basic approach is to allocate costs on a plant loading basis equally to all users. The manual includes example revenue forms which have been reproduced by a compu- ter spreadsheet to develop a revenue program for the Ukiah Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) Improverrents. The completed forms are included as part of this Appendix. A description of each form and the assumptions used is provided below. To allow the City and District to account for the costs and revenues separately, the user classes were separated for each service area (City and District) and carried through the computations. Forms lA and lB Summary of Users and Wastewater Characteristics Because the existing program is spread on a flow basis with equal charges for all users, the actual flow per E:.~SU is computed based on the total number of ESSUs and the flow the plant received during 1992-1993. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)impacts are not allocated to the users. The flow per ESSU was adjusted to match the average dry weather flow d~Jring the period. To account for the septage users, the total volume of waste recor;led from the plant log for 1992-1993 dumpings was divided by the number of loads. The BOD and SS of septage was selected based upon typical values in the S:{F Policy Manual. The BOD and SS of the residential and commercial users were adjusted to match the actual concentrations observed at the plant. Form 2 O&M Costs, Debt Service and Capital Outlay Current Year. Data for this form was taken from the fiscal 1992-1993 budget for Fund No. 612. O&M costs for treatment facilities include fixed costs operations & maintenance (O&M) for wastewater treatment plant and grounds and variable costs of wastewater treatment plant equipment replacement. Collection system O&M costs include fixed costs for system maintenance and pump stations, and no variable costs. Miscellaneous costs from Fund No. 612 include fixed costs for administration, accounting, and transfers to the general fund and equipment reserve. Variable costs incl,Jde transfers to the operating reserve Fund No. 620 (City) and Fund No. 650 (District). The debt service shown for 1992-1993 will be retired after the current fiscal year. First Full Year of Operation. As an estimate, all O&M costs were increased by 2% for growth within the servic9 area and 2% for inflation. To allow the City to g:~obs/920624 F-2 920524 7/19/93 maintain the sewer charge for 5 years this interest compounded for 2 years past the first full year of operation, is This sum of 4%, compounded for a total of 5 years from the current year (1992-1993) totals 20% increase above the current year operating costs. This factc, r was applied to the base year fixed O&M costs only. Incremental O&M costs for the AWT modifications were added to the fixed cost category of the treatment facilities. Replacement costs were estimated using 3.5% interest rate for the useful life of the mechanical components of the recommended project. The operating reserve transfers were assumed to be zero, although the state recommends a Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund in an amount equal to 10% of the estimated cost to replace the equipment at the end of its useful life. The state also recommends an operating reserve fund to ensure the proper operation of the treatment facilities in an amount equal to 20% to 40% of annual revenue which is typical for most agencies. 'The General Fund transfer is approximately 3% of the annual wastewater revenue. The equipment reserve corresponds to the replacement costs from a 1 983 EPA grant funded project. Debt service corresponds to the annualiz,~d capital cost recovery of the AWT modifications. This number was computed based upon a 3.5% interest rate over a 20-year repayment. Form 3 Capital Cost Allocation A cost estimate of the Aw'r modifications was used to distribute the cost of the improvements to flow, BOD and SS. This was based upon the useful lives of the facilities and percent allocations for flow and strength taken from the SRF Policy Manual. A one time charge for cleaning the sludge lagoons is also included in the treatment plant total. Approximately $50,000 is also set aside for interceptor rehabilitation (I/I investigations). The Steps 1, 2, and 3 costs (engineering and administration) were calcula..ted as 15% of Kennedy/Jenks' preliminary construction cost estimate. Form 4 Unit Cost Determination The costs and allocations us.md in this form follow from the previous estimates on Forms 2 and 3. The O&M costs for the collection system is based on 100% flow allocation. The allocations for debt service and capital outlay are carried forward from Form 3. The O&M cosl:s for treatment cannot be calculated rationally without knowing the construction da::e and costs and completion dates of all of the existing facilities. For this reason, an equal distribution (1/3 flow, 1/3 BOD, and 1/3 SS) is allowed by the SRF Policy Manual. The other miscellaneous costs from Form 2 are distributed based upon the ratio of fixed costs between the treatment and collection categories. Forms 5A-5H Summary of Fund Costs Form 5 calculates the costs and assigns them to O&M for collection, treatment, capital outlay, and debt service on a unit cost basis between City and District users. No assumptions are necessar~ to interpret these forms. g:/~obe~920624.00/rl~ta/al31)end-f F-3 920524 7/19/93 Forms 6A and 6B Total Revenue Needed Form 6 computes the annual totals, annual revenue per service unit and monthly charge per ESSU to fund the City/District Sewer Fund with the added burden of the AWT Modifications. Basecf upon the previous assumptions and project costs, the monthly charge per ESSU will increase to $5.82 per month to $12.78 per month. If the City adopts the basis of computing the septage charge, this will increase the cost of treatment from approximately $10 per load ($0.01/gal) to $49.01 per load ($0.05/gai) for a 1,000-gal,on load. Including the $15 per load handling fee will increase the per load charg9 from $25 to $65. The septage handling fee for administrative costs unrelated to funding of improvements has not been changed under this revenue plan. The City may wish to consider an increase to cover current and/or anticipated f:Jture costs. The fee has not changed since 1984 and inflating by the CPI would r,~sult in a 1993 fee of $21. Form 7 Rate Determination and Revenue Program Summary Form 7 summarizes income sources and expenses from Forms 1-6. Income sources related to penalties (late pa~/ment) and permit fees but, connection charges were not considered in developing the proposed sewer service charges. It is assumed that the City will use these ;~s the basis for future capital and operating reserves. Additional Forms Improvements related to inc;'eased flows to the plant are allocated to new users by increased connection fees (s. ee Connection Fee Determination). Using a 12-year repayment schedule and 3.5% interest rate, the annual revenue required would be $256,163. Assuming a 1.5% growth rate within the service area, there will be approximately 166 new connections a year as ESSU. This results in a $1,540 connection fee per ESSU for a 12-year repayment. Improvements related to increased septage loadings from outside the District are allocated as a surcharge to cover the annualized capital and O&M costs (see Out of District Septage Fee Determination). Using a 12-year repayment schedule and 3.5% interest rate, the annual revenue required would be $236,838. Assuming an un-sewered population of 30.500 to 39,600 between 1993 and 2005, 3 people per dwelling unit and a 3-year cleanout schedule results in a surcharge of $61 for out- of-district loads. DISCUSSION . The revenue program 'presented above provides a structure to recover the costs related to growth, inflation, modifications for AWT, and some miscellaneous improvements required to ma ntain the existing plant performance up to a point midway between the first and fifth year of operation. It is assumed that the City will re-establish the cost basi.,~ and revise the sewer use ordinance on 5-year intervals after the improvemer~ts are completed. g :/~obe/920624.00/rpr~,~3¢~*~d.f F-4 920524 7/19/93 As the service area grows further, the City may wish to consider restructuring the ESSU determination on an equal basis and assigning strengths by user category. For many users, this would allow use of direct water meter billings for flow allocation and along with assigned waste strengths the corresponding number of ESSUs can be calculated. .' g~obeJg20624.00/rl~t~a13Pend-f F-5 920524 7/19/93 !:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i~:i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . -:-:.'" '.~.~:~1~-:-:-:-:.:-:.:: ~'~i:[:!?-.::::' '!:i:!:::i:i:: ================================== .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !:i:i:~:~:i:i:i:i:i:!:i:!:!:!:!:!:~:!:!:!:i:i:i ================================= .:-:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:-:-:.:-:-:.:.:-:.:.:-:.:-:. .::.:.:::....,.,...... ...... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: · ~:.:.::~.,~:,:.: :.:.:-:-:-:-:.: .:.:...:.:.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:, .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:o:.:.:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.;.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:. .:-:-:.:.:.:-;-:.:.:-:.:-:.z.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-; :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.?'~'.'-'-'.:-:.'-'.:.'.'.'-'- ~J~- .:.'- .:.:.:-:-...-.:v:-:. :.:.:~,.~:-:.:.:,:.:-x.~.:.:-:.:.: : :::::: :: .~.'.: ::::;:::::;:::: :[ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:-:.:.:.:.:.;.;-:-:.:.:-:-:.;.:.z-:-:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:, .:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .:.:-:-:-:.:.:-:.x.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;-:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~..~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.: (.~l:!:i:i:!:!:i:i:i:!:!~i:!:i:i:!:!:i:!:! ~l:i:~:~:i:!:i:i:i:~:i:!:!:i:i:!:i:i:!:!: ~::~:i:~:~:~:~:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i:!:!:i :.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:..:..:..: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ========================== ================================ (.I Z Z Z 0 : :.:.:.:.;;;:...;::~ ::;::::: ;:~ ;;: :;; · :;:::;:~;:::;: ~;: :::::::::::::::::::::::: j :::::;.~:::::::: ~:.:.:.: ..... :.; ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:+:.:. ............................ ...... ======================================== .................. ~-~; ::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '~:: ~ ..... :~::::~ :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ,..::.:'.:...-::. ,, ~ ~ X X X X ~×× ~×× X · ~ ~ X ~ ~ X ~ .... 0 ~ 0 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ~ ~ 0 X 0 FORM 2 UKIAH WWTP - RECOMMENDED PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, DEBT SERVICE AND CAPITAL OUTLAY Date: 6/3/93 1. TREATMENT FACILITIES FIXED COSTS (TOTAL PLANT) REPLACEMENT COSTS VARIABLE COSTS SUBTOTAL 2. COLLECTION SYSTEM FIXED COSTS REPLACEMENT COSTS VARIABLE COSTS SUBTOTAL 3. MISCELLANEOUS ADMIN.OVERHEAD OPER. RESERVE (CITY FUND 620) OPER. RESERVE (DISTRICT FUND 650) GEN'L FUND TRANSFER (3%) EQUIP. RESERVE (1983 EPA GRANT) SUBTOTAL 4. TOTAL- FIXED COSTS 5. TOTAL- VARIABLE COSTS 6. TOTAL O&M COSTS 7. DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL & INTEREST $394,046 $7,500 N/A $401,546 $125,843 N/A N/A 25,843 $174,594 $168,300 $131,700 $30,000 $49,525 $554,119 $774,008 8307,500 $1,081,508 1103.{100 $631,717 $155,265 N/A $786,982 $153,107 N/Al N/A $153,107 $212,420 $0 $0 $52,400 $49,525 $314,345 $1,099,170 $155,265 $1,254,435 ~494.005 DRAFT U U U 0 0 U U FORM 4 UKIAH WWTP- RECOMMENDED PROJECT UNIT COST DETERMINATION Date: 6/3/93 1. O&M COLLECTION SYSTEM I/! (MG) FLOW (MG} BOD (LBxl000) SS (LBxl000) TOTAL 100 0 0 100 $214,431.21 $0.00 $0.00 $214,431.21 XXXX 810.68 1326.43 1582.05 DEBT SERVICE I/I (MG) FLOW (MG) BOD (LBxl000) SS (LBxl000) TOTAL 47 16 37 100 $234,046.97 $78,477.93 $181,480.21 $494,005.12 ). CAPITAL OUTLAY I/I (MG) FLOW (MG) BOD (LBxl000) SS (LBxl000) TOTAL 47 16 37 100 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 O&M TREATMENT I/I (MG) FLOW (MG) BOD (Laxl SS (LBx 1000) · . TOTAL 33 .. 33 $346,667.50 3346,667.50 $348.667.50 $1,040,002:51 XXXX 810.68 1326.43 1582.05 810.68 1326.43 1582.05 810.68 .. , :,,1326.43 1582.05 · .. Note: Miscellaneous Co81~ I~m Form 2 Are Divided in Proportion of the Fixed Portions of The O&M Collection System and O&M Treatment Categories. DRAFT 5264.51 50.00 $0.00 XXXX 5288.70 559.16 $114.71 $0.00 50.00 50.00 $427.63 $261.35 5219.13 0 r~ Z 0 0 Z Z ::3 Z Z 0 0 0 :::::::~::: I.~ :::::;~: :::::::::;::::: :.:.:.:.:.::.:.: o6 :i:i:i:!:i:!:i:i: ;:::::;:::::::::: ::: :i:i:i:::::~:: :i:i:i::;~t:: .:.:.:.:::;:;::;: ::::;:::;::::::. i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:: ::::::::::::::::: :i:!:i:i:i:i:!:~i: :~:i:~:i:::i:~:. :!:!;~:i:!&~/3': I--- :.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.'.:-:.:.:-:.:' tu 0 i:i:i:~:~:~:i:i:~:~:i: 13::: U :::::::::::::::::::::: """ 0 ,, ,! 0 Z 0 Z 0 ~ I- Z :i:i:i.'~:i:!:i:!.'.:: :!~: ~:~:~:i:.:......m... !! :~:~:~:~:i ~:~:~:~: ::::'~ .-.-.-...... :.:.:.:.:.>: .. ........ ~:~$~::::::~- ::::::::::::::::::::: 0 0 0 r~ Z 0 ,, :i:i:i:!:~:!:i:i:i:!:i:i:!:i:i:i ~ ,'- .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::: I,~ :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ................................ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. · ~:~:~:i:~:~:i:~:l:!:~:~:i:~:~:~:: 0 ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:... :::::::: ~ ~ J~ ......... :.:.:.:. .,, 0 0 k,- Z 0 "' ..-.. Z (J o · i- 0 Z 0 ::::::::::::::::::::: ,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-: :::::::::::::::::::::: ':':':':':':':':':':' ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :.;.:.:-:-:-:.:-;.:-: ::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 U.I Z ~ 0 ~ n,- z ~ o Z o I,,U 0 13., 0 ~*~ ~'.- ~ I-- - 6 0 L~ Z 0 :i:i:i:i:[:i:i:i:i:!:! ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:, :::::: :,.~:: :::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. :!:i:i:i:i:i:!:!:i:!:i :.:.:.:,:,;.:,:.:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::: :.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .:.;.:.:,:.;.:,:.:.:.: i:!:!:!:i:i:!:!:!:!:i: :!:!:!:i:i:i:i:i:!:!:i ::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::;~,~::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.......... +:.:,;,:,:,:.:,:,:. i:?:!:!:!:i:i:!:!:~:~ .......... .-......,........... ::::::::::::,,J~::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:-:.:,:,:,:.;.: .:-:.:.:,:.:,:.:.:.: :::::::::::::::::::::: ~;.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:,:.: :::::::::::::::::::::: .;.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :-:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.' ,................... ,:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:,: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: .......... :i:i:~:!:!:i:i:i:!:~. :.;.:.:.;.;.:.;,;.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ~!:!i!ii:~:~..~: :::::::::::~.~:: ':':':':':':':':':':' '"':':':':':';':':': l~:i::l~-: .... 0 0 0 Z ~:-:.x.:-;-x.x- . ...-.....-...-..... . .................. :!:!:i:i:E~: ........... ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :-:-x.x.x,x-: ::::::::::::::::::::: :-:.x-x-:.:-x~ :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ~.:-:-:-:-:.:-:.:.x :.:.:-:.:.:-:-:,x. ::::::::::::::::::::: x.:.x-:.:.:-:. ====================== ........... ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ........... .:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .................... ..................... -.................... ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .................... ====================== -:.x-:-:-:-r.:-x.: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ........... .:-:<.:-;-;.:-:.x ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::,~,~.:. :::::?:::::~.~:: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: -:.:<-:-:-;.:-:.x ::::::::::::::::::::: ~:-:.:-x.:.:.:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::: ":':':':':':':':'>:' .x.:.:.:-:.:.x-: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: x-:.:-:.:.:.x.:. ::::::::::::::::::::: .:-:-:-:-:.x-:-x- ::::::::::::::::::::: .................... ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.;.;.:.x.:.:-: ===================== ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::iN:o: .::::.:::::u~ '.::::::::::::-::: . ........... : i:::!:::::!:::!. ::--'-:-x.:.:.:. : :::::::;::::::;':: :::::;::::::':::.: 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 < I-- Z 0 ~ Z .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .......... ~::::::: :::~:: ~::;::::;:;: ::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.v.....-. .:+:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:, ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :!:::::::!::~:: .:.:.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::;:::::::::~,~::: .:-:.:.:.;.;-:.:-:.:. .:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.1.:-:o:.:.:.:.: :::::::::::::::::::::: ':':':':':';':':':':':' ::::::::::::::::::::::: ......-.............. :':'":':':':':':':': .......... ::::::::::::::::::::: ...:.:.:.:.:.:+:.: :.:-:+:.:-:-:-;.;-: ::::::::::::::::::::: -:4+:-:-x-:-:-:. ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: -.-.....-............. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ;.:.:.:.;.:.>;.:.:., ::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ;':':":':':':':4':': ':':':':4':':':':':' ::::::::::::::::::::: :.;.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .:,:.:.:.:.;.:.:.;.:.: ..:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.;. -:.:.:.:.:.;.;.;.:.:.: ~ :.:.:,:,:.-.-...-...- ===================== ::::::::::::i:~::i ::i:E:::::i::::::: ::::::i:::E::::::: ::;:;;:;:::;:::1:::: ........ :::::i:::::::::::i:: ' ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: C Z 0 0 Z L,I Z C) 0 .-~ Z 0 ua ~ Z · '-' Z Z 0 Z u. 0 Z 0 Z Z 0 0 Z 0 ':':':':':':':':':':' ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ;.:.;.;.:.;.;.:.:,;.: ::::::::::::::::::::: .:.;.:-:.;,;.;.;.:.;. .:.x-:.:.:-x.:<. ........... ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: .x.;.:.:.x-:.:.:- .-:,:-:+:-:.:-:-:-:. ::::::::::::::::::::: ,:-:.:.:.:.:-x-:-:. ...................... -:-:.:-:-:-:.:.x-:.: ::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.x.x.:. :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::;..~?.::: .x.x-:.x.x.:, :::::::::::::::::::::: -x.:-:-:.:.x.:.:. .x.x.:-:-:.:.:.: :::;:::::::;::;:::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.: ::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:-:.:-:-:-:.:.:. .......... ::::::::::::::::::::: :.'.:.:.:-x-:-:.:-' ;;:::::;:::;;:;;::;: .:.:.:.:.;.:.:.;.:.:.: ~ ::::::::::::::::::::: ===================== :.:.x.x.x.;.:.: :::;:;;::::;:;:::::: .:.;.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:. :::!:}::::::0:: :::::::::::CC;: -:::::::::::::::::: ....:.:.:.::.:...: ':';':':':';'"::: :::: :::::: :i~.'::!Zi:!:!~:i:!:~,,~:: :.:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.' :-:.:..,i,i~.:-:-.:,~,,,;.- ............ ~.:... :.:.:........: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:...:.:.:. ~:.:.:-:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::~::~::~ ::::::~:: ~]:]:~' .::~:~:~:]:~:~:: :: :]::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :]:: :: :~:: ~]:: :~:~:~:~:~:]:]:]:~:~:~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~[~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :: :: :~: :... : :]: :]: :~:~::: :::::::: :::::: ~ ::~::::: :~::~:~::~:~: :::::;. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: :~:: · .. :::::: :-:-'.:: :~:~:~:~i~i~i~ :::::: ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~[: ~::::: :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:, ....... :..:.:.: .:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:::: :. :. ............ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:~::~::~:.::~:~::~::~::~::~::~::~ ~:~:.:: ~::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: C ~i~.:.:. ~-:.:1~:::-: -::-:.:.:-:-:.: ~ el !:~.':i: ~:?:~ ?:!:t~:::i: ::!:!8:?:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ ~:~:?: ~ ~. .;.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:-:. ?:K:i:K:~:i:?:K:~?:i:?:?:~:?:?:?:}:K:?:?:? ':':':':':': ............ :?????:K??K:?:?:i~:K:K:iS?:?:K:K:?:............:':':':':':' :'"":':'"":':':':":':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':': .......-.... .:.:.:.:.:.: ............ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ............ ..........~ ..... ,,,,,, :::::::::::::::::::::::~:?:?:?:?:~:?:?:~:?:~:~:?:~:i~: ~ ~ 0 :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:,:~:~--,: . . . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::-.~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,......................-.-................................, ,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~ [:~:E:J:~:[:~:~:~:K:K:~:~:~:E:~:~:~:~:E:~:~:~8~ :?:?:K:i:?:~::~' '!.?:K:?:?:K:?:?:?:?:?:?:?: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ............................. ~:~:~:K:~:~:~:~:K~:~:~:K:~::~ ....................... ............... :~:~:!:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~?~E~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..............-.......-...-...-...-...-.-...........-.... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ======================================== ~ C) C) · - 0 Z n .Z Z Z 0 ~ ,,, ~- ,,, rr' 0 'r 0 u.l:i:i:i:: :!: :i:i:.......~!{ii{!~: 0 ~'~ 0 ~-. 0 0 ,,- 03 CD ~0 ,- o Z ~ --- --- '" ~ Z ~ "J 0 ~ ....... > ,.:, .,.., CITY OF UKIAH WASTEWATER REVENUE PLAN CAPITAL COST ALLOCATIONS ,,, ITEM DESCRIPTION EST, COST ANNUAL FLOW BOD SS NO. LIFE ESTIMATE COST (2) ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION {yr=)(1) (dollars) % I, (dollars) % I (dollars) % ! (dollars) 'RECOMMENDED PROJECT (AVVT AND UP(~RADES) 1 Headworks Channel Rehab 40 $18,900 $885 100% $885 SO SO 2 Comminutor Replacement 15 $201,000 $17,452 100% $17,452 SO SO 3 Influent Pump & VS Rehab 15 $222,400 $19,310 100% $19,310 SO SO 4 Second Prearation Blower 20 $22,700 $1,597 $0 100% $1,597 SO 5 Trickling Filter Upgrade 40 $146,800 $6,874 75% $5,156 25% $1,719 SO 6 Secondary Sed. Tank 40 $394,400 $18,469 SO 100% $18,469 SO 7 Chlor./Dechlor Conversion 15 $365,300 $31,717 100% $31,717 $0 $0 8 Contact Clar./Filters-AWT 25 $1,914,900 $116,185 50% $58,092 $0 50% $58,092 9 !Backwash & VVW Handling~ 40 $288,900 $13,528 50% $6,764 SO 50% $6,764 10 'AWT Dike 50 $106,600 $4,545 100% $4,545 SO $0 11 AWT Chlorine Contactor 40 $336,600 $15,762 100%i $15,762 $0 12 Paint Digester Cover 20 $48,000 $3,377 $0 50% $1,689 50% $1,689 13 Replace Sludge Heaters 20 $63,700 $4,482 SO 50% $2,241 50% $2,241 14 Digester Pumps 15 $107,200 $9,308 $0 50% $4,654 50%i $4,654 15 Lagoon Dredge 15 $125,500 $10,897 $0 25% $2,724 75% $8,172 16 Gravity Belt Thickener 20 $829,800 $58,386 $0 25%= $14,596 75% $43,789 17 Effluent Pump & Surge Pro 15 $70,800 $6,147 100% $6,147 SO SO 18 Yard Piping 40 $427,000 $19,995 33% $6,665 33% $6,665 33% $6,665 19 New Access Road 40 $20,100 $941 33% $314 33% $314 33% $314 20 Yard Electrical & Instrum. 25 $351,300 $21,315 33% $7,105 33% $7,105 33% $7,105 SUBTOTAL $6,061,900 $381,172 47% $179,914 16% $61,772 37% $139,485 IFUTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR INCREASED SEPTAGE HANDLING 1 Septage Receiving Facility 40 $77,000 $3,606 100% $3,606 2 Digester Cover Replaceme 20 $250,000 $17,590 $0 50% $8,795 50% $8,795 3 Sludge Digestion Tank 40 $622,1OO $29,131 SO 25% $7,283 75%, $21,848 4 Yard Electrical & Instrum. 20 $40,300 $2,836 33% $945 33% $945 33%i $945 SUBTOTAL $989,400 $53,163 9% $4,551 32% $17,023 59% $31,589 PERCOLATION POND REPAIR/IMPROVEMENTS 1 Perc. Pond El. Rise 50 $329,700 $14,056 100% $14,056 0% S0 $0 2 Percolation Pond Prot. 50 $1,006,000 $42,890 100% $42,890 0% SO $0 3 SUBTOTAL $1,335,700 $56,946 100% $56,946 0% $0 0% $0 _ NOTES: 1) Estimated Life Adapted From SWRCB "Policy for Implementing The State Revolving Fund For Construction of Wastewater Treatment Facilities", August 18,1988. Attachments E,I 2) Assumes Amortization Over Estimated Life at 3.5% Annual Interest. 3) One Time Lagoon Dredging Cost Is In Lieu of Permanent Facilities Improvements (Items 23-26). Cost Allocation Of This Operation is Not Spread to the Totals for and (Items 1-28). G:\wwg\920524.00\ALLOC.XLS DRAFT 920524.00 CITY OF UKIAH WASTEWATER REVENUE PLAN REPLACEMENT COS']' ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PROJECT ITEM DESCRIPTION EST. COST ANNUAL NO. LIFE ESTIMATE COST (2) (,/rs) (1) (dollars) RECOMMENDED PROJECT (AWT AND UPGRADES) 1 IComminutor Replacement 15 $201,000 $17,452 2 Influent Pump & VS Rehab 15 $222,400 $19,310 3 Second Prearation Blower 20 $22,700 $1,597 4 Chlor./Dechlor Conversion 15 $365,300 $31,717 5 Replace Sludge Heaters 20 $63,700 $4,482 6 Digester Pumps 15 $107,200 $9,308 7 Lagoon Dredge 15 $125,500 $10,897 8 Gravity Belt Thickener 20 $829,800 $58,386 9 Effluent Pump & Surge Pro 15 $70,800 $6,147 SUBTOTAL $2,008,400 $159,295 NOTES: 1) Estimated Life Adapted From SWRCB "Policy for Implementing The State Revoivi Fund For Constructi3n of Wastewater Treatment Facilities", August 18,1988. Attachments E,I 2) Assumes Amortization Over Estimated Life at 3.5% Annual Interest. DRAFT G :\w wg\920524.00~,~,LLO C.X LS 920524.00 CITY OF UKIAH WASTEWATER REVENUE PLAN CONNECTION FiEE DETERMINATION ESTIMATE OF NEW SERVICE CONNECTIONS Current Connections as ESSU (Est.) Anticipated Growth Rate New Connections [)er Year as ESSU COST OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS Percolation Pond Improvements Miscellaneous Capacity Improvements Subtotal: Engineering & Admin. @ 15% Subtotal: Contingency ~ 20% TOTAL: CONNECTION FEE REQUIRED Interest Rate No. of Years Annualized Capital Cost to be Recovered (Tot) Annualized Capital O&M Costs (1% of Capital) Total Annual Costs Connection Fee per ESSU 11092 1.50% 166 $1,335,700 ~300,000 $1,635,700 $245,355 $1,881,055 $376,211 $2,257,266 3.50% 12 $2,257,266 $233,591 ~22,573 $256,163 $1,540 L DRAFT G:\wwg\920524.00\connect.xls 920524.00 CITY OF UKIAH WASTEWATER REVENUE PLAN OUT OF DISTRI,CT SEPTAGE FEE DETERMINATION ESTIMATE NUMBER OF LOADS PER YEAR 1993 Population Served By Septic Hauls 30500 2005 Population Served By Septic Hauls 39650 Number of Loads (~.i) 3 Persons Per Dwelling Unit & 3 Year Cleanout 1993 3389 2005 4406 Avg No. of Loads Per Year (1993-2005) 3897 COST OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS Septage/Digestion/Cogen Improvements Engineering & Admin. @ 15% Subtotal Contingency ~ 20% TOTAL: $1,539,400 $230,910 $1,770,310 $354,062 $2,124,372 SEPTAGE FEE REQUIRED ABOVE FORM 7 VALUE Interest Rate No. of Years Annualized Capital Cost to be tRecovered (Tot) 3.50% 12 $2,124,372 Annualized Capital O&M Costs Per Year Total Annual Costs $219,838 $17,000 $236,838 Extra Septage Fee ,[Out of District) $61 DRAFT G:\wwg\920524.00\septage.xls 920524.00 CITY OF UKIAH WASTEWATER REVENUE PLAN COMPARISON OF SEWER SERVICE CHARGES & CONNECTION FEES DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEES '92-'93 PROPOSED FEES '95-'96 1. Sewer Service Charge (1) 2. Connection Fees (1) UPC Fixture Units per ESSU Charge per Fixture Unit Connection Fee per ESSU 3. Septage Fees Hauled From Within District (1) Handling Fee (2) Treatment Charges Charges for a Typical 1,000 Gal Load Handling Fee (2) Treatment Charges TOTAL 4. Septage Fees Hauled From Outside of District (1) Handling Fee (2) Out of District Surcharge (3) Treatment Charges Charges for a Typical 1,000 Gal Load Handling Fee (2) Out of District Surcharge (3) Treatment Charges TOTAL $5.82 per Month $69.84 per Year 26 $21.15 $550 $1 5.00 per Load $0.01 per Gal $15.00 per Load $10.00 per Load $25.00 $15.00 per Load $15.00 per Load $0.02 per Gal $15.00 per Load $15.00 per Load $20.00 per Load $50.00 $12.78 per Month $153.36 per Year 26 $59.23 $1,540 15.00 per Load $0.05 per Gal $1 5.00 per Load $50.00 per Load $65.00 $15.00 per Load $61.00 per Load $0.05 per Gal $15.00 per Load $61.00 per Load $50.00 per Load $126.00 ~Jotes: 1. The sewer service charges, connection fees and septage fees presented above represents the minimum amount necessary to meet project debt repayment obligations, provide adequate revenue for annual O&M of the VVWTP and the City/District collection systems, and provide State required reserves for equipment replacement. Final charges will be adjusted based upon actual project costs and accumulation of operating reserves. 2. Septage handling fee for WVVTP operator time, logging and other administrative costs unrelated to funding of improvements. Fee has not been changed since 1984. Inflating by 40% for CPI would result in a $21 Fee (1993). 3. Out of District surcharge is currently double the in-District charges. Proposed surcharge ammortizes capital and O&M costs for septage handling, digestion, and cogeneration improvements. DRAFT G :\w wg\920524.00\compar.xl= 920524.00 City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements AVVT Facilities and Plant Upgrade Initial Study/Negative Declaration DRAFT June 1993 K/J 920524.00 N¢)TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tha~L the City Council of the City of Ukiah, California, will hold a Public Hearing regarding consideration and approval of a Negative Declaration in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Draft Project Report for the addition of Advanced Waste Treatment Facilities and related plant upgrades at the existing City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although the project is a joint project of the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, the City of Ukiah by previous agreement with the District is designated Lead Agency for the purpose of conducting environmental evaluations. The Initial Statement/Negative Declaration and Draft Project Report is available for review at the City Clerk's office, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, during regular City of Ukiah business hours. Said hearing is to be held on August 18, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the same may be heard, and continued from time to time as the same may require, in the Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, at which time and place all persons interested may appear and be heard. Anyone wishing to file written comments and opinions with the City regarding these matters may do so either during or prior to the Public ltearing. Anyone wishing the City Council to consider a document exceeding 250 words must submit the original documents in seven (7) legible copies to the City Clerk, not less than six (6) calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting date. If you challenge the above matters, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing or described in written corresporidence delivered to the City during or prior to the hearing. Please pass this Notice on to your neighbors, friends, or other interested parties. You are encouraged to discuss the project with or exprexgs any view that you might have or request additional information from the Public Works Department at the Civic Center, 3~0 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, or at 463-6286.//~/ ' ? City Clerk I / PUBLISHED: JULY 11, 1993 R:I\PW TREATMENT.PR Ae Be Ce De El CiTY OF UKIAH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT (AWT) FACILITIES AND PLANT UPGRADE INITIAl. STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ,TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Excerpt from Project Report Dated May 1993) LOCATION MAP AND FIGURES OF THE FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY (Excerpt from EIR for the 1979 WWTP Improvements) G:~obe~20624~w.sub TC- I 920524 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY {Excerpt from Pro~ect Report Dated May 1993) · . ..~. · .. .:.;.: · :.~ o .', . ~-.... .. · . :.: · .: . . . ,.... ....... · .... L CHAPTER I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The recommended project 4'~nder this facilities plan is for the required Advanced Waste Treatment (A WTJ and Plant Upgrade Project only. The A WT facilities and associated upgrades are required to meet more stringent waste discharge require- ments for discharge of treated effluent to the percolation ponds and to the Russ/an River. These requirements are presented in the City's NPDES Perm/t, Order No. $9-24 issued by the North Coast Regional Water Oual/ty Control Board [NCRWQCBJ with a comp//z~nce date of I March 1994. The facilities necessary to handle the modest expansion of dry weather capacity discussed in Chapter 3 - Planning Considerations wi# be addressed in more detail in a companion Facilities P/an Amendment and Environmental Study consistent w/th on-going revisions to the City's General P/an. BACKGROUND The Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant was originally constructed in 1957 on the west bank of the Russian River and south of the Airport to serve the City of Ukiah and contiguous urbanized areas of the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District. This facility was originally constructed to provide secondary wastewater treatment by trickling filter and polishing aeration ponds for a dry weather flow of 2.5 MGD and a peak wet weather flow of 20 MGD. Discharge regulations were modified in 1974 to allow only seasonal (October 1 to May 15) discharge to the Russian River at a minimum 100:1 dilution. The aeration ponds then functioned to provide evaporation and percolation loss during the nondischarge period. The treatment plant was up~lraded in 1983 by installation of an additional trickling filter, secondary sedimentation tanks, a new direct outfall, and improved chlorination-dechlorination and emergency generator facilities. The average dry weather capacity was increased to 2.8 MGD and the secondary treatment flow discharge to the River to 7.0 MGD. A third percolating pond was constructed in 1985 to provide additional dry weather land disposal and an effluent pump station was constructed in 1989. The Regional Board revised its Basin Plan again in 1988 to require advanced treatment of wastewater effluent discharged to the River and secondary treatment for all wastewater discharged to the percolation ponds. These requirements were imposed on the City and District under Order No. 89-24, which modified the City and District's NPDES Permit to include lower effluent concentrations of BOD, suspended solids or nonfilterable residue (NFR) and total coliform prior to discharge. In addition, the population being served by the City and District's wastewater WPC313 1.1 920524 facilities is growing, resulting in increased flows in the collection system and at the treatment plant. In May 1992, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (K/J) was retained to prepare a Facilities Plan for upgrading the wast~water treatment facility to comply with the Regional Board's Order No. 89-24 that requires compliance by March 31, 1994 to Order No. 89-24. In addition to the Facilities Plan, K/J was also retained to prepare a feasibility study for evaluating short- and long-term wastewater collection system and sludge management needs. The feasibility study is considered an update to the Kennedy Engineer's 1977 report and includes a current evaluation of the existing collection system capacity and development of a conceptual plan for a "backbone" collection system to serve the anticipated wastewater flows of the future service area. The objective of this Facilities Plan Proiect Report is to determine the most cost- effective and yet environmentally sound method of modifying the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant to meet the stricter discharge limits. Modifications to the existing wastewater facilities presented in this Facilities Plan are to provide for a capacity projected for the year 2005 to provide for secondary treatment capacity for a wet weather maximum daily seasonal flow of 16 MGD and for effluent filtration (Advanced Waste Treatment - AWT) for River discharge for a flow of at least 7.5 MGD. 'rhe facilities necessary to accommodate the projected increase in dry weather flows are not included in the recommended project under this plan and will address in more detail in a separate accompanying document. This report addresses the State Revolving Fund Loan requirements. A cross reference between chapters in this Project Report and the loan requirements is shown in Appendix A. Specific topics covered in this report include: 1. Description of conditions necessitating the project. . Discussion of population served and project wastewater flows and anticipated eligible capacity. 3. Evaluation of excessiw9 infiltration/inflow in the existing sewer system and prioritized corrective rneasures. . Identification and evaluation of facilities required to expand secondary and to provide advanced wastewater treatment. 5. Analysis of facilities rehabilitation requirements and methods. . Analysis of the need for additional land disposal by construction of a fourth percolation pond and/or water reclamation. . Analysis of conversion from utilization of the toxic gases chlorine and sulfur dioxide to less hazardous liquid chemical solutions. WPC313 1.2 920524 Evaluation of the needs for additional sludge digestion and disposal. e Cost-effectiveness analysis of the alternative solutions. 10. Description of the best practicable wastewater treatment technology. 11. Estimates of the consl:ruction and annual operation and maintenance costs. 12. Description of operation and maintenance requirements. 13. Summary of the cost impacts on wastewater system users. 14. Evaluation of revenue producing facilities. 15. Summary of significant environmental impacts. During the course of the study, several additional issues were raised and included in the facilities plan evaluation. These included: . Determining the facilities needed and the associated costs for handling expanded septage disposal from the present contiguous Ukiah Valley area to include most of the unsewered areas of Mendocino County. . Determining the appropriate facilities and costs for processing wastewater sludge so that it may be made into a compost with unlimited use restrictions for fruit and vegetable food crop soil enhancement and conditioning. Following is a summary of this report's chapters. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS It is expected that the wastewater collection service area will be expanded by 2005 from the present 9.81 square miles to 11.2 square miles to include urbanizing areas west of Lake Mendocino into, the East Valley areas of Deerwood, Rogina Heights and Talmage; and to the area south of the plant.up Boonviile Road and to Burke Hill. The growth rate is projected at 2% annual increase. This will result in a sewered population growth from the present 19,600 to 25,550 by 2005. In addition, the approximately 4,500 people :served by septage disposal at the plant is expected to increase to 5,850 in the contiguous Ukiah Valley environs, while if all of the septage unsewered area in the County is disposed at the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant, the population served by septage would be 45,000 by the year 2005. Projected wastewater flows are expected to increase to 3.4 MGD by the year 2005, with a maximum dry period monthly flow of 3.8 MGD. The average wet weather flow will be 4.8 MGD with the maximum monthly flow of 8.6 MGD, a maximum daily flow of 16 MGD and a peak flow of 20 MGD. WPC313 1.3 920524 L The design objectives for the treatment plant will require that the wastewater treatment process be improved from the present 30 mg/L to 10 mg/L effluent concentration of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids or nonfilter- able residue (NFR) for discharge to the Russian River. This is a increase from 85% to 93% removal for BOD and from 85% to 96% for NFR. The treatment required will include coagulation and filtration to meet an average effluent turbidity of less than 2 NTU and a maximum of 5 NTU. In addition, an expanded chlorination facility is required to provide a minimum contact time of 90 minutes at a residual concentration of 5 mg/L to provide destruction of patho- genic viruses. The effluent will then require dechlorination to provide a residual concentration that will not exceed 0.1 mg/L as discharged to the Russian River. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Analysis of the existing treatment plant indicated that the pretreatment, influent pumping and primary treatm,~nt elements have sufficient capacity for the additional treatment flows and loads, although rehabilitation and replacement of some deteriorated equipment items are desirable at this time as a part of this project. The secondary treatment process requires improvement to both BOD and NFR removal capability to reliably meet the new 30/30 mg/L BOD-NFR discharge requirements to the ponds d~ring wet weather months. A new effluent pump is requ~ired to be installed in the existing pump station. The greatest need is for the installation of equipment to provide a minimum capacity of 8 MGD of Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT). Some elements of the sludge handling system are deteriorated and need rehabilita- tion. These include the primary digester cover, the boilers, the recirculation pumps and the gas mixers. The two existing sludge lagoons are filled with 35 years of accumulated sludge deposits, which need to be cleaned to restore capacity. The capacity of the two existing digesters are marginal for the increased loads, particularly if the sludge is not thickened to increase detention and stabilization. If additional service areas of septage disposal are elected for this facility, then without question a third digester should be installed at this time as part of this project. The installation willl also provide a much better margin of reliability for system malfunction for necessary periodic cleaning of the two existing digesters. The existing septage receiving station has had difficulties with odor emission and floating solids, and needs to. be modified to correct these deficiencies. This, again, is particularly true if the septage receiving service area is expanded. The existing chlorine and sulfur dioxide facilities do not meet current building and fire codes and need to be upgraded. The use of these toxic gases presents safety WPC313 1.4 920524 hazards in handling and storage at the plant and the potential of toxic gas discharge. The percolation ponds also need improvement. One item is to raise the elevation of the dikes surrounding Ponds. I and 2 above the predicted 100-year flood stage of the Russian River. The other improvement is to provide permanent levee and bank stabilization along the east side fronting the Russian River and along the South creek bank as well. This latter need became apparent following the extensive bank sloughing that occurred in January 1993, when there was a high water flood condition. The degradation of the River channel by as much as 8 feet in the past 35 years is due to a combination of downstream gravel extraction and an upstream dam restricting alluvial deposition. There is now danger of severe bank sloughing and destruction of the percolation pond levees. This could seriously affect necessary compliance with wastewater discharge requirements. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND ALTERNATIVE SCREENING Alternatives and facilities evaluated included: 1. Repair of headworks deteriorated concrete. 2. Replacement of barminutors by channel screen comminutors or mechanical screens with screenings removal. . . . Se Secondary BOD and NFR removal capacity by: a. A replacement of a portion of the existing rock media with random pack synthetic media. b. Construction of a third trickling filter. c. Construction of a solids contact aeration system. Secondary sedimentation capacity improvements were evaluated by comparing installation of a fourth secondary sedimentation tank with the installation of tube settlers in the present three units. AWT alternatives included evaluation of three types of modular prefabricated treatment units, as follows: a. The solids contact clarifier-fiiter process, CCF. b. The high rate slurry flocculation-clarifier-filter process, SCF. c. The upflow automatic backwash filter process, CBF. All of these processes a~,e particularly appropriate for providing effective and economical AWT of trickling filter secondary effluent. Disinfection improvemer~ts to minimize toxic gas hazards had three alternative approaches evaluated, which included: a. Upgrading current g~s feed by providing emergency gas scrubbers for both chlorine and sulfur dioxide. b. Conversion to liquid iqypochlorite and bisulfite solutions. WPC313 1.5 920524 c. Upgrading only the chlorine gas system by a scrubber installation while converting to liquid bisulfite to replace sulfur dioxide. . Sludge lagoon cleaning - two alternatives were compared: a. Cleaning by a rental dredge and dewatering equipment. b. Installation of a permanent dredge and dewatering equipment. Sludge dewatering alternatives that were evaluated included: a. Sand drying beds. b. Belt filter press. c. Centrifuge. . Long-Range Sludge Disposal Options were studied and included: a. Landfilling. b, Dedicated land disposal. c. Land application. d. Composting both for a limited and unlimited use as soil conditioner. The water reclamation potential afforded by dry period operation of some of the AWT facilities was evaluated. Also, non-reclamation and long-range disposal options to other than the Russian River were compared. PRINCIPAL TREATMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Each element of the treatment plant was studied for rehabilitation needs and/or treatment or capacity improvements. In all instances where alternative approaches are available, costs were developed for feasible alternatives. Comparisons were then made considering the capital and O&M costs in equal proportions. Then, an equal proportion of non-cost items was also evaluated for each alternative, which included reliability, flexibility, expandability, environmental, and aesthetic factors. The result of these comparisons was to develop an apparent best project or facility to recommend in a conceptual design stage for project implementation. Cost estimates were developed for each identified improvement or feasible alterna- tive and presented in tabular comparison form. A tabulation of the apparent best project facilities was developed and the results are summarized in Table 1-1, together with the estimated construction costs. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The minimum recommended improvements that could be funded for the most part on the present State Revolving Fund Grant Application budget of $5.5 million includes items I through 3 in Table 1-1 for a total construction cost of 85,235,100. The total estimated costs of these facilities, plus the engineering and administration costs at 15% of construction, is 86,020,400. The total construction cost of the apparent best project which includes the minimum recommended project plus all of the required upgrades, items 1 through 4 in Table 1-1, is 86,061,900. WPC313 1.6 920524 The total estimated cost of the apparent best project including engineering and administration if $6,971,200. A draft revenue plan analysiis has been prepared considering funding of construction of the apparent best project, items I through 4 in Table 1-1 at an interest rate of 3-1/2% for loan repayment. Overall, this will require an approximate doubling of current sewer service fees from $5.85/month per equivalent sanitary service unit (ESSU) to between $12.00 and $14.00/month by 1995. Facilities listed under items 5 and 6 in Table 1-1 and required for increased dry weather capacity and for additional solids handling and septage disposal. These facilities are estimated at a construction of $2,875,100. With engineering and administration, the total estimated costs of these facilities are $3,306,400. For planning purposes, these expansion related facilities are presented for construction in the near future and costs have been allocated to projected new users by increased connection fee as discussed in the Draft Revenue Plan. Current planning is based upon an anticipated growth rate of 2%. For this purpose, a more conser- vative estimate of 1-1/2% was used which equates to approximately 63 new connections per year. At a 12-year repayment schedule, the required connection fee would be approximately $2,500. WPC313 1.7 920524 TABLE 1-1 APPARENT BEST PROJECT FACILITIES *Contact Clarifier Filter Units 4 @ 2 MGD = 8 MGD Capacity *Backwash Pond 2 @ 375,000 Gallons *Chlorine Contactor 2 Baffled Ponds - 90 Minute Contact *Effluent Pump Installation 1 - 3150 GPM - 50 HP w/Variable Speed (V.S.) V.S. *AWT Dike Flood Protection Dike *Yard Piping *Yard Electrical & Instrumentation *New Access Roads & SitE; Improvements Construction Cost $ 3,462,500 ::SECONDARY:TREATMENT UPGRADE '(FOR iiiil *Rock Trickling Filter Upgr~de Top 2-1/2' w/Synthetic Media *Fourth Secondary Sedimentation Tank 19'x154' - 10' SWD Construction Cost $541,200 CRITICAL pLANT:. REHAB!L TATION !~i~ii i *New Influent Pump & Variable 1 @ 7.5 MGD & 6 New Speed (V.S.) Drive Replacement V.S. Drives *Lagoon Dredge 120 GPM @ 80' *Gravity Belt Press 1 ½ Meter Belt *Yard Electrical & Instrume~tation 90 GPM Construction Cost $1,231,400 MINIMUM PROJECT FOR REQUIRED AWT FACILITIES - ITEMS 1, 2 & 3 Construction Cost $5,235,100 L WPC313 1.8 920524 14~i??:i :~REOUIRED?.P~N~ REHABI~ATION:&' ~ *Headworks Rehabilitation Epoxy Overlay *Channel Screen Comminutor Installation 2 - 3' Units *New Pr,aeration Blowers 2 @ 10 HP *Rehabilitate Digester Cover 35' e Gas Holder *Replace Sludge Boilers 2 @ 1,500,000 BTU/H *Replace Sludge ~mps & Heat ~changers 2 ~ 200 GPM - 5 HP eChlorine Gas - Bisulfite Handling I Ton Scrubber- 6,000 Gallon Tank Construction Cost $828,800 TOTAL RECOMMENDED PROJECT FOR A~ FACIL~IES AND P~NT UPG~DES - ~S 1,2,3&4 Cons~ucfion Cost (Includes 20% Contingency) $ 6,061,900 Engrs & Admin (15%) $909,300 Total Recommended Project Co~ $6,971,200 , 5;::~:.;:: :SLUDGE HANDLINGIMPROV~TS~ ~ ~ :REQUIRED F0:RADD~IONI~E~SoLIDS~~ ~:~? 'HANDLING~AND~SEPTAGE DISPOSALS. *Third Sludge Digestion Tank 35' e x 27 ~' High *Digester Cover Replaceme~t *Septage FaciliW Improvement Cover & Odor Scrubber *Cogen Facilities *Yard Electric & Instrumentation . Total Cost ~ 1,539,400 :'6~ PERCO~TiON~POND STORAGE INCR~SE;~f , .... :.. :.:.. *Pond I & 2 Dike Elevation To El. 580' *Levee Bank Protection Rip Rap & Trees Total Cost $1,335,700 :.~:~ ~~ ~ ~:LoNG ~NGE IMpRoV~ENTS';~ The following additional upgrades are to be considered as additive bid items in the recommended project: 1) primary and secondary sludge pump replacement ($68,100), 2) above ground fuel tank ($16,000) and 3) all or part of sludge lagoon cleaning {$575,700). L WPC313 1.9 920524 L Items 5 and 6 will need to Pe accomplished in the near future. Based on both plant interruption and cost, it would be considerably more advantageous to accomplish construction of these items concurrent with the required plant upgrade. However, if that is not possible financially, then construction of all of these elements should be accomplished within the next 12 years, so that all are completed by the year 2005. Effluent Disposal River Discharge There are two possible changes to the current disposal practice of effluent dis- charge to the River during the wet season and dry season discharge to the percola- tion ponds for land disposal.. There is a current proposal by the NCRWQCB to revise the Basin Plan to allow discharge of AWT effluent to the River when flows are less than 100:1. Ukiah is urged to pursue a revised discharge permit to allow AWT discharge to the River with dilutions over 10:1 as is the current practice for the Napa River and Sacramento River and its tributaries. This lower dilution requirement for the better quality effluent would permit much more flexibility to discharge during Iow rainfall winter seasons when a major portion of the upstream flow can be retained for sto~age in Coyote Dam. The dam restricts river flow in the Ukiah area and has in the past presented difficulties with regulating effluent discharge. Reclamation The second disposal alternative is the potential for developing the use of reclaimed water in the summer. The AWT process is fully capable of producing a reclaimed water quality suitable for un,restricted landscape, golf course, vineyard and pear orchard irrigation. Developrnent of reclaimed water uses will provide additional capacity for land disposal in a more productive manner than percolation. There is also a long-term need for additional percolation, and the most suitable site is in the pear orchard land immediately north of the treatment plant. If this land becomes available for sale it should be purchased for future expansion of treatment plant and disposal facilities. Sludge Disposal The recommended plan for sludge disposal is to initially clean the lagoon, and dewater the sludge by a belt filter press. The dewatered sludge is of a quality that can be used for landfill, a soil conditioner, or for composting with use restricted to lawns, flower gardens, pastu~re, grain, orchards, tree farms or vineyards. Initially, disposal can be either to the City landfill where it may be used for cover or to a commercial compost producer, such as the operation on Morrison Creek south of Ukiah. In the long term, est~blishment of a windrow compost facility at or near the wastewater treatment plant ils an option contingent upon available lands, as an alternative to delivery to a commercial composter. WPC313 1.10 920524 Sterilization of dewatered sludge so that it may be used for an unrestricted soil conditioner or compost has been estimated to have a capital cost of $900,000, and an operational cost of $23.00/ton for supplemental natural gas. Cogeneration The projected 2005 sludge gas production is approximately 1,570,000 BTU/H with a theoretical horsepower of 616 HP. The sludge digester heating requirements will vary during the summer and winter periods which will impact the amount of available sludge gas for cogeneration. With county-wide septage disposal, the gas production will approximately double, and heating requirements increase by only ten percent. There is sufficient heat energy to provide a 175 hp engine generator at planned conditions at a construction cost of $550,000. The annual cost benefit would be $60,000 or a payback period of 9-10 years. Normally, a payback period of less than 5 years is considered optional for cogeneration implementation. On this basis, there is not an economic justification for cogeneration for the recommended project. However, if increased septa,~ie disposal if elected, the cogeneration is economically justified. Operation and Maintenance Operation and maintenance requirements and costs will increase at the wastewater treatment plant due to the AWT facility and for additional septage and sludge handling if the septage service area is increased. Although the AWT facility will most likely have an average period of operation of 4 to 5 months a year, it will increase the operation's cost by nearly $150,000 annually. This facility requires that the superintendent's position be upgraded from a Grade 3 to a Grade 4 operator, and that there be at least one more shift operator on staff. The energy, chemical, coagulant and additional chlorine requirements all add significantly to the cost of operations. The projected use of the dewatering facility is for 6 months every 3 years for lagoon sludge dewatering, or alternatively, 6 hours twice a week for digested sludge dewatering or secondary sludge thickening. Another operator will be required for these increased sludge handling conditions. WPC313 1.11 920524 B. LOCATION MAP AND FIGURES OF THE FACILITIES .......... · . ---~-~%~-~-~-~-~-~%~-:~°:~:~%~-:~:~°~-¥~ ..... o .~.~ ..~ ...... ~ ..... .................... ......., ...............................~...,:.:,:.:~.:,:~....-,;,: St Marys · 5 EO01 - RIVER DISCHARGE E002 - POND DISCHARGE N 0 2000 4000 SCALE IN FEET . ~: ~ =- =----=====-- =' o c · __ ;-5'- · ,= -. = = --: --' ~ ~ =' = -- = = = ...... ,, UKIAH WASTEWATER TREATMENT ', <. PLANT~ _ · .. ,. _~==;~. ~=:-- ~='"' $73 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan Location Map K/J 92O524.O0 May 1993 Figure 3.1 I-- __1 W ~ w r~ z ~ w z ~- W O~ >- z r~ w z '--' o, ,_,.., ~. F~ = '-'--:='--I -- '-'t o :z ~-- n~ ~_~ II ' 0 o IIII 811111 IIII -~11111 ~o~ I'1' 81'1'1 z or-.~ UZ r'~O -j I I t. Cm [:NVIRONIVIENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . ~NVIR~rr~ C~IST FORM (To Be Completed By L~ad Agency) 1. Name of Proponent City of Ukiah 2. Address and Phone ~h~mber of Proponent 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 463-6280 3. D~te of Checklist Submitted 12 May 1993 4. Agency Requiring C~:ecklist Department of Public Works 5. Name of Proposal, i.f applicable Wastewater Treatment Plant UDQrade II. ~nvironmentzl I.m~cts (F~xplanations of all "y(~" and "m~ybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes !.Nybe No 1. F~h. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable e~rth conditions or in changes in geologic s-ubst~mctures? , b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topc~;raphy or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or n~Ddification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or wrxter erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. C~anges in de~)sition or erosion of t~ach sands, or c~han~es in siltation, deposition or erosion which n~y modify the channel of a river or strea~ or the b~ of the ocean or any t~y, inlet or lxke? X g. 5xposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or sh,nilar hazards? 2. Air. mill the proposal result in: a. Substantial aJ.r emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, c.r any change in climate, either locally or regionally?. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh watem~? b. C~m_nges in absorption rates, drainage, pt- terns, or the :rote and amoun~ of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or low of flood ~aters? d. Change in the amount of surface w~ter in any ~%ter body?. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cludin§ but not limited ~o t~mperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Change in the ~ntity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drav~als, or thr~ough interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? £-2 Ye___~s .%_~ybe ,.~o -----..--. m ___ X X 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 replenish- ment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. An~,~l Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or nun- hers of any species of animals (birds, land animnls includi~ng reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic o?gani~ns or insects)? b. Reduction of the n~bers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new s.~=cies of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movemen'~ of animals? d. DeTerioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. ,~ill the proposal result in' Increases in ex:~sting noise levels? b. ~xposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result ~in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area'.,' 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve- a. A risk of an exr~losion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or r~diation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Yes ;~.faybe No X X X I b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an.emergency evacuation Dian? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an arem? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a d~_-nand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Cir~:ulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular moven:ent? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or damand for new ps_rk~ng? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or ,movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to ~aterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic b~zards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or ~destrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal .have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered §ov- ernmental services in any of the following areas- a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. l~intenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other gover~mentxl services? 15. Energ~y. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energoy? Yes ~_ybe No ___ X X X X X X b. Substantial increase in d~nd upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities- 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in- Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Oaltural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeoloEical site? b. Will the proposal result in ~dverse physicml or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic buildinE, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses ~thin the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. 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 elLminate a plant or animal ccramunity, re- duce the nt~mber cr restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or mn£mal or eliminate Yes ,',~¥be No Lmportant examples of the .major periods of / C&!iforuia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-te-~n,, to the disadvantage of. long-term, envimonmental g~als? (A short-term impact on the environment is 'one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) c. Does the project have hupacts which are individuzlly l~uited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on t%o or more separate r,_=sources where the impact on e~ch resource i:s rel:~tively ST~ll, but where the effect of tl.~e total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the projec'~ ,have enviror~mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on h,~--~nn beings, either directly or indirectl}~. III. Discussion of Environmen'~al Evaluation (Narrative description of enviror.?.ental im~cts.) Yes ,V~ ybe X IV. Determination (To be ccmpleted by the Lead Agency.) On the basis o£ this ini':izl evaluation- I find that the proposed project CCULD NOT have a significant effect on the enviromment, and a h~EGATIVE DECL~TION ~<11 be prepared. I find. that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen':, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mi':ig-ation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A h~EGATIVE DECL~TITION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project :,t~Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an ~VII~,%~,.~NTAL II[OACT-REPORT is requir~d. - Date Signature ' o~ fo~t for initial studies.,) For C,t~ O~ O~-t~ (.Note: This is only a suggestc~ form. Public agencies are free to devise their D. EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES '-":-~-~-~.~?.~.~.~..?.~,~.~...'-:-.¥.-'.~.-:-:~.:.:.:~.:.:.:~.;.:~.:o:.~:~ ~.:~.:.:~.:...:....:.:.:~.:..~?..:.:~.....:.:...........~............ ,...~...................., .....-.. · .-..-...... o~........ ........................ ................................................... ........ ~.-~-~.-..¥~-.~-~-~----.~:--~:~:~:-~-~:~:-:~:-:~-:~-%-~:- ..~...~.......~........~........ ..... · ...... ~: ·.. ................. ~...~ ~¥,....-...~ .............~.,...:..-.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~.:.:.:.:..~ INTRODUCTION The reader should note that a full EIR was prepared for improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Facility on the site in 1979. This EIR is incorporated herein by reference (Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Improvements Project Final ..EIR, 1979, Pacific Environmental Laboratory, State Clearinghouse No. SCH 76030883). The reader should refer to this document for complete descriptions of the existing setting for the project site. The currently proposed project will be constructed on the site assessed in that 1979 EIR. The descriptions below follow the same numbering sequence as the Checklist. I. Earth ao No unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures will be generated by the project (see pp. 22-23 of the 1979 EIR). b. The project will include construction of a dike to protect treatment facilities from flooding during the 100-year flood. C. The construction of the Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) facilities will be east of the present treatment facilities toward the percolation ponds. The existing plant facilities will visibly shield the facility from the freeway or other public access areas. A new dike to protect these facilities from the potential of flooding by the Russian River will be extended from the chlorine contact chamber to the sludge lagoons. It will be at the 580-foot elevation of the existing dikes and will not impose any restriction in the flood channel. do No unique geologic or physical features exist at the site (see pp. 22-23 of the 1979 EIR). e. During high runoff periods there is water flow from the lands north of the plant site in a channel adjacent to the west dike of the percolation ponds. No restriction of this channel is proposed. However, it is possible that there is potential for slight erosion along the east bank of the AWT dike. To mitigate this potential condition, a Iow gradient dike slope that is planted and maintained in grass cover to prevent erosion will be provided as part of this project. This project will not affect the deposition or erosion of beach sand or silt or otherwise modify the channel of any stream, river, lake, bay, inlet or ocean bed. go The site is located about one mile west of the Maacama Fault Zone. The maximum credible earthquake on this fault is 7.5 on the Richter scale (LCA, 1991, p. 35). _l- · a. bo co · a. b. c. d. e. g. · ao Air The proposed emergency scrubbing for chlorine gas and conversion from sulfur dioxide ~:o bisulfite will substantially reduce possible toxic and hazardous gas emissions from the treatment plant. Covering and providing an odor scrubber at the existing septage receiving facility will be provided as part of this project to mitigate possible odors from this facility. Lagoon dredging could create short- term odor emissions. The recommended sludge dewatering facility will substantially reducE; the solids loading and solids build-up in the existing sludge lagoons and will significantly reduce the potential for odors. The project will not alter the local climate. Water The proposed dike will insure 100-year floods do not enter the treatment facility. The project will not increase site runoff nor alter the flows of normal surface runoff. The new dike will al::er the flow of the 100-year flood so that it does not enter the site of treatment facility. Surface water volume will be unaffected by this project. The AVVT effluent discharge to the Russian River will be substantially better quality in terms of BOD, suspended solids, coliform and pathogenic viruses :~han the present secondary effluent. This will benefit downstream potable water supply uses of the Russian River. The project will not affect ground water flow (see the 1979 EIR, p. 26). The project will not affect ground water volume (see the 1979 EIR, p. 26). The into of U project will not use ground water. The improved discharge quality the Russian River will improve the potable water supply downstream kiah. The project will not ,expose people or property to water-related hazards. Plant Life The site is already developed. It is devoid of native plant life. Grass will be planted on the banks of the new dike. ! l L bo C. do No endangered plant species are known to exist at the site (see the 1979 EIR, p. 26). The introduction of new plant species (i.e., grasses) as part of the slope protection recommendations will not create a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species at the site. Not applicable. The project will not affect agricultural acreage. 5. Animal Life a° bo c. do The proposed project consists of improvements to existing facilities and will not affect the diversity or number of animal species at the site. No unique, rare or endangered species of animals are known to exist at the site (see the 1979 EIR, p. 26). The introduction of any animal species or development of any barrier to the migration or movement of animals is not part of this proposal. Existing fish and wildlife habitat may be improved due to the improved water quality of the ,affluent discharged into the Russian River. 6. Noise a. b. Construction of the project will temporarily increase noise levels in the area immediately surrounding the site. Noise generated during construction will be temporary and intermittent and unlikely to be considered "severe." 7. Light and Glare Although the project may include incidental additional permanent lighting, the existing plant facilities will visibly shield the facility from public areas and will not create additional light or glare. ~ 8. Land Use The proposed facilities are within the existing WWTP site; no alteration or present or planned land use is required. 9. Natural Resources The AWT facility will increase energy, chlorine and ferric chloride coagulant use. The project will increase the demand for natural gas, salt, and iron. 10. Risk of Upset ao b. The existing risk of release of toxic chlorine or sulfur dioxide gas will be reduced by this project as discussed in Number 2a above. This project is not expected to interfere with any emergency response plans. I 1. Population This project is for implementation of Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) and plant upgrades to improve the quality of the effluent for river discharge for the current population and capacity of the plant as mandated by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project does not increase plant capa. cit that would allow for more new c~n_nectiOns than allowed by the ct. Jrrent p~an~. ' 12. Housing This project is not expected to affect existing or create a demand for additional housing. 13. Traffic/Circulation am The project will generate additional traffic during construction to transport workers and materials to and from the project site. The effect on local roads is expected to be mainly restricted to the area immediately adjacent to the site~ which is a sparsely populated industrial and/or agricultural area sc, utheast of the airport. Upon completion of the project, no increase in traffic is expected. bo The project is not e, xpected to impact existing parking facilities or create a demand for new parking. C. de No impact on existing transportation systems is expected. The project is not expected to alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. e. This project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic. Project construction traffic will increase the chance of accident during the short period while tile project is being constructed. Once the project is completed, no increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians is expected due to this project. i L 14. Public Services a-d. The project is not expected to increase demands on municipal services. e. The proposed project will not significantly increase public maintenance requirements beyond those required for the existing facility. The upgraded Wastewater Treatment Plant will require an increase in operating budget, sewer service fees, connection charges, and septage disposal fees. The City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District will need to increase the rates consistent with the revenue plan prepared to finance this project. The NCRWQCB and the California Department of Health Services will review proposed treatment facility improvements, consider revised discharge standards, acceptable disposal of sludge, and any reclaimed water use proposals. 15. Energy a. The project will not use significant amounts of fuel or energy beyond the present level of consumption. b. The project is not expected to significantly increase demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy. 16. Utilities The project is not expected to affect any local utilities. 17. Human Health ao No health hazard o.r potential health hazard will be created by this project. In fact, the, project will decrease potential health hazards for downstream users of the Russian River. b. Improvements made to the existing facilities as a result of this project will increase the level of safety at the site. The proposed facilities will be designed to minimize the potential for and immediately detect and obtain on site any spill or leak of toxic chemicals, eliminating any potential risk to public health or safety. 18. Aesthetics The proposed plant improvements will be visually shielded from public access areas by the existing facilities. f . 1 9. Recreation The project will not directly impact any existing recreational opportunities. Improved water quality in the Russian River as a result of improved wastewater treatment may enhance the existing recreational opportunities in and around the river. 20. Cultural Resources a. An archaeological survey was performed on the entire site of the present and proposed WWTP facility in September 1977 as appended to the Environmental Impact Report done for the 1979 WWTP Improvements Project. Per this report, the site has no historic or prehistoric archaeological significance. b. No prehistoric or historic building, structure or object is known to exist at the site. c. The site presents no known unique ethnic cultural values. d. No known sacred or religious uses exist within the site. 21. Mandatory Find~ings ao The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment in the project area. The open areas have limited habitat value, and there are no known cultural resources on site. b. The project will result in minor, short-term construction related effects but will provide long-term benefits to the City of Ukiah as well as all downstream communities by enhanced water quality in the Russian River. Co The project will enhance water quality in the Russian River which will have extended effects on downstream users. do The project does not have significant adverse effects on human beings. BIBLIOGRAPHY I o Final EIR - Ukiah W/astewater Treatment Improvements Project, 1979, Pacific Environmental Laboratory. o Dharma Realm Buddhist Training Academy Draft EIR, 1991, Leonard Charles and Associates (LCA). PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT · Description of proj,gct (include commonly used name, if any). ! Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) Facilities and Plant Upgrade for the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant· · Project location (street address, city, county) (include map showing location)' The project is located on Plant Road east of State Street (also known as Redwood Highway) and is situated between the Northwestern Pacific Railroad tracl(s and the Russian River. I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Included is a copy of the Environmental Checklist form and Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses. The following mitigation measures are included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects on the environment. See Mitigation Monitoring Program, following. Printed Name Title Date MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURES le. lg. 2b. Plant and maintain the Io'w gradient slope of the new dike with grass. All new facilities shall be constructed to meet applicable State and County standards regarding seismic safety. Lagoon dredging will be done to minimize odors per the guidelines of the County department of Environmental Health. 6a. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled. stationary equipment such as generators shall be placed so as to be shielded from residential areas. All E. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY (Excerpt From EIR for the 1979 WWTP Improvements) CONSULTING AND RESEARCH SERVICES, INC. OF THE ARCHkEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE PROPOSED UKIAH WASTEWATER FACILITIES UKIAH, CALIFORNIA IMP ROVEMENTS 20 EVERI-"~REEN AVENUE 1838 PINE FLAT ROAD September 1, 1977 MILL VALLEY, CA SANTA CRUZ, CA 415'388-3175 408'425'8245 Summary Methodology Overview Findings Recommendations Bibliography End Note Resume Map TABLE OF CONTENTS S U~tMARY: An archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed Ukiah Wastewater Facilities improvements was completed by ACRS. Improvements to the existing Ukiah wastewater treatment facilities will be confined to the exisiting plant area and will not involve actual modification of land surfaces outside existing plant facilities. However, the improvement of plant capabilities could act as one factor in the facilitation of population growth in ':he Ukiah Valley. The area of the exist2ing plant facility was found to be considerably disturbed due to the construction of the existing facilities. Although all portions of the plant area were examined by means of a systematic search (intensive archaeological reconnaissance), no evidence to suggest the presence of any prehistoric archaeological resources was found. It is considered unlikely that any such archaeological resources exist with- in the bounds of the facilities but it has been recommended that in the event archaeological resources are discovered in the course of construction or other excavation activities work be halted in the area of the find and a professional archaeologist be retained to evaluate the significance of the discovery and determine mitigative action as may be necessary before work is resumed. METHODOLOGY:, Ail areas within the existing Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Facility which were not covered by roadways or structures were systematically examined in an effort to locate any evidence of prehistoric aboriginal occupation. It was immediately obvic~us, however, that the land within the facility is higher in elevation that surrounding areas, apparently due to the displacement of soils as a result of the excavation for existing ponds and basins for the plant. It seems apparent that the original ground * both field studies and report preparation were completed by Thomas L. Jackson, principal of ACRS. Resume attached. le ..[ 'I - 5~S · · ~'J .~. :':' " i _.~ Spri~.q _.~'7~ · . .....· ....... '* 57.$ .e · I : ~Projec..t. Location i" "'... ', .. ~ \ .~ [Creek . ..-- .. .. ~ , , · -- ~ .~. , .~ BM '707_. o- . lies below the present ground surface at an unknown depth. It also seems likely that the original ground surface would have been highly · disturbed in the coua~se of constructing the present facilities. No opportunity was afforded to inspect the original ground surface within the plant grounds, hcwever, a brief inspection was made of the soil in the agricultural field immediately north of the plant site. No evidence of any archaeological resources' was found in the course of this brief inspection. The accompanying map indicates the location of the existing plant. While the project proposed %~ill facilitate the servicing of an area which conforms roughly to the area of the physuographic Ukiah Valley, no attempt · was made to conduct an archaeological reconnaissance of any part of the study area beyond the plant limits. OVERVIEW~ The area of the Ukiah Valley was claimed by the Northern Pomo (Barrett 1908; Kroeber 1925). 2indian presence in the valley is still in much evidence today and several rancherias remain occupied within or near the Ukiah Valley. The name of the modern city of Ukiah is apparently of Indian origin, subject to the inevitable distortion by translation into non-aboriginal languages. The topic is afforded some considerable discussion by Barrett (1908:168-170). The ultimate origin of the name appears to lie in the Central Pomo y~'ka~ (from y~, south; ~a,~, valley) Barrett 1908:!6~). Ethnographic villages, other than rancherias, reported by Barrett which appear to have been within the area of the subject study area would include ka'tili, sm~wa~apda, tcidote'ya, k~'mZ~, kab~ai'lnal, c~'kataal, and possibly cima'ka~, although the location of the last of the villages is somewhat uncertain (Barrett 1908:138-40)· . Archaeological research in the Ukiah Valley has been only of the most minimal nature. Within the approximate bounds of the subject study area are listed 11 recorded archaeological sites in the files of the Anthropology Laboratory of California State College, Sonoma. Those in the immediate vicinity of the wastewater treatment plant are in- diacted on the accompanying map. Most recently, California State College, Sonoma, under the direction of Dr. David A. Fred[rickson, has undertaken a study of the archaeological resources of the Lake Mendocino reservoir area. These studies are, at this time, still in progress. While the actual inventory of resources is beyond the subject study area, the problems of archaeological consequence which ma~ be posited and/or resolved by this study will have an impact upon archaeological research in the Ukiah Valley. To date, archaeological problems in the subject area remain only generally defined. For the most part, these problems are those set forth in Dr. Fredrickson's doctoral dissertation Early Cultures o~ the North Coast Ranges, California. Some questions regardin~ the - nature of economics and trade relationships have been discussed by Jackson in his master of arts thesis The Economics of Obsidian in Central California Prehistory. However, specific research problems dealing with the prehistory of the Ukiah Valley per se have not yet been formulated. No properties currently listed on the Nationa5 Register of Historic Places are known to be within the study area. FINDINGS: No evidence of any archaeological resources was found in the course of the intensive archaeological reconnaissance of the wastewater treatment facility in Ukiah. The area of the plant has been severely disturbed in the past and all areas appear to be covered with fill material which prevented the investigation of the original ground surface. Improvements to the plant facility will allow the plant to process more wastewater. Presumably this will be a potential factor in allowing continued growth of population in the Ukiah Valley. Predictions as to the nature, rate and location of growth in the valley are beyond the · expertise of this consultant. Nevertheless, should growth occur, it will doubtless result in impacts upon cultural resources in the valley area. Only diligence on the part of agencies and persons responsible for monitoring impacts upon environmental elements, in- cluding archaeological resources, will work to prevent unnecessary destructive impacts upon those resources. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that in the event that archaeological resources are discovered in the course of construction or other activities related to the improvement of the wastewater treatment plant facilities that work in the area (within 30 meters radius) of the find be halted until a professional archaeologist has been retained to determine the sig- nificance of the discovery and that work remain halted until appropriate mitigation measures have been carried out. Should archaeological features be discovered, we further recommend that representatives of the Indian community be contacted for their advise and council. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Barrett, S. A. 1908 The Ethno-geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, No. 6. Berkeley. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin, No. 78. END NOTE: As part of studies fcr the preparation of this report, all available data from environmental impact reports previously completed within the study area was solicited and examined. All EIR's on file with the Anthropology Laboratory, California State College, Sonoma, and all previously completed EIR's known to Pacific Environmental Laboratory were examined for archaeological content and evaluated in the context of this study. · e .L L CONSULTING AND RESEARCH SERVICES, INC. ~SU~' THOMAS L. JACKSON Principal, ACRS Bachelor of Arts San Francisco State University 1971 Master of Arts San Francisco State University 1974 Ph.D. Stanford University In Progress Professional career: 1966 to present Publications and contributions: 13 published professional papers M.A. Thesis Title: The Economics of Obsidian in Central California Prehistory: Applications of X-ray Fluorescence Spectrography in Archaeology. Memberships: American Anthropological Association; American Society for Conservation Archaeology; California Historical Society; Society for American Archaeology Special Skills: cartog~raphy; X-ray fluorescence spectrography Areas of special internist: prehistoric economies and exchange systems; cultural ecology; prehistory of California; cultural resources management 213 EVERGREEN AVENUE-- 1838 PINE FLAT ROAD . MILL VALLEY, CA SANTA CRUZ, CA 415'388'3175 408'~325' 82~5 300 UKIP, H, CA, 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFELY 463-6242/6274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 · July 27, 1993 Mr. Patrick Lam Project Manager STATE WATER RESOURCE: CONTROL BOARD Division of Clean Water Programs Post Office Box 944212 Sacramento, California 94244-2120 RE: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS SRF NO. C-06-4102-110 Dear Mr. Lam: Enclosed please find two (2) copies of Addendum No. 1 to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants and approved by City Staff. The Addendum addresses the June 22, 1993, comments from your office, and comments of the City Council and District Board of Directors on June 10, 1993. It modifies and supplements the Executive Summary Final Report and Draft Revenue Plan. In response to your request fi~r clarification that the recommended project and request for funding does not include facilities for increased capacity, Kennedy/Jenks submitted the following statement: "The recommended project presented in the Final Report of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan for the City of Ukiah dated May 19, 1993, and submitted for funding through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program is for mandated Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) Facilities for wet season discharge to the Russian River and for miscellaneous plant upgrades. The recommended project facilities are sizeA for the existing average dry weather design capacity of 2.8 MGD and the existing average wet weather design capacity of 7.0 MGD. As part of the Facilities Plan and in accordance with the SRF requirements, the Facilities Plan identifies a need for an increase in dry weather capacity by the year 2005. However, the Facilities Plan recommended project is for a dry 'We Are Here To Serve" Mr. Patrick Lam July 27, 1993 Page 2 weather design capacity of 2.8 MGD equivalent to the present plant's design capacity. All facilities that are needed for an increase in dry weather capacity have been deferred and will be addressed in a separate environmental document and supplemental facilities plan in conjunction with ongoing revisions to the City's General Plan. The recommended AWT project facilities are sized to process the 7.0 MGD average wet weather design capacity through a combination of treating secondary effluent directly up to an 8 MGD flow rate and storing excess flows up to the ,existing peak wet weather hydraulic capacity of 20 MGD in the percolation ponds. The relationship between AWT facilities wet weather flow sizing and wet weather flow temporary storage in the percolation ponds is addressed in Addendum No. 1 date July, 1993 to the Final Report". Regarding Section VII (I) of the Policy for Implementing the State Revolving Fund for Construction of Wastewater Treatment Facilities requiring applicants to adopt a water conservation program, please be advised that City Staff plans to propose a program to the City Council for initial consideration on or before September l, 1993. Although there are some details that still need to be worked out, we believe that a slightly modified version of the State MOLl which includes all or most of the 16 Best Management Practices (BMPS) would more appropriately and effectively address local needs and conditions. We will forward the plan to you immediately following its adoption. Please let us know if you need any further clarification on any of these matters. Thank you for your continuing cooperation in this project. Sincerely, Director of Public Works CC: TLO:Id~ R:I~m,V LLAM.2 Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager · ITEM NO. 9b DATE: September 1, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONADOPTINGREVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICE This Agenda item provides background information for the public hearing on the proposed 30% garbage rate increase. The individual components of the rate adjustment are as follows- 2% contracted automatic annual rate increase equal to 75% of the CPI increase for the period March 1992 to March 1993 5% landfill gate fee surcharge to support Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority 8% landfill tipping fee increase enacted January 20, 1993 15% AB 939 State Mandated Recycling Surcharge The attached City Manager's Report provides detail on each of these components. The proposed 30% rate increase will be applied directly on residential accounts. Any residential customer can multiply their current rate by 130% and be within pennies of their new rate. Rates are rounded to the nearest nickel. (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION- Hold public hearing and adopt the Resolution Adopting Revised Schedule of Fees and Rates for Garbage Service. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS- 1. Amend and approve resolution 2. Continue item APPROVED: R'4/CM ASRFEE Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted)- N/A Acct. No.- N/A Appropriation Requested. N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised- N/A Requested by: Prepared by' Sue Goodrick, Public Works Administrator, Louise Burr, Director of Finance Coordinated with- Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments · 1. Resolution 2. City~[ana~er's Report and Attachments For commercial accounts, the rates are being restructured. As a group, commercial accounts will experience a 30% rate increase; however, an individual account may experience more or less than a 30% increase. By restructuring the commercial rates, the "volume discount" inherent in the current commercial rate system will be removed. The volume discount is contrary to the goals of AB 939 which mandate source reduction. The proposed rate will be a flat $40 per yard of garbage service subscribed to on a weekly basis. Commercial customers can estimate their new bills using the following formula: Volume in yards x number of pickups per week = total yards Total yards x $40 = total monthly bill For conversion to yards, one 30-gallon can equals 1/6 yard, and a toter equals 1/2 yard. Using this formula, a commercial customer with one can per week service would pay- 1/6 yard x 1 per week = 1/6 yards x $40 = $7 monthly bill COMPARISON OF OTHER RATE STRUCTURES A garbage rate comparison was conducted for surrounding areas within Mendocino County. All rates reviewed were considerably higher than Ukiah's recommended rates. Refer to Exhibit C of the City Manager's Report. EFFECTIVE DATE AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the rates be adjusted to reflect the State mandated AB 939 Recycling Program Surcharge, MSWMA landfill surcharge, landfill tipping fee increase, and CPI adjustment as indicated on Exhibit B of the City Manager's Report. Since the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget does not reflect subsidizing the State mandated Recycling/Diversion and Source Reduction Programs, staff further recommends that the adjustment be retroactive and effective as of August 1, 1993. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 :26 27 :28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE WHEREAS, The City Council, under terms of its franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., must adjust garbage and recycling collection fees and charges using an automatic annual rate adjustment based on a 75% change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Consumer Price Index, and WHEREAS, the increase in teh Consumer Price Index from March 1992 to March 1993 was 2.7%~. resulting in a 2.03% increase in garbage rates, and WHEREAS, the Refuse and Recycling Collection contract further stipulates that the City shall add to the garbage rate any amounts necessary to fully compensate Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. for any increase in the gate fee charged to them for disposing of refuse at the City owned landfill, and ~EREAS, on August 5, 1992, the City Council authorized an increase of the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site gate fees to include a $.75 per cubic yard surcharge for funding the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, equating to a 5% increase in rates, and WHEREAS, on January 20, 1993, the City Council authorized an increase of the Solid Waste Disposal Site gate fees to sustain sufficient revenue to make the operation self-supporting, build reserves for closure and post-closure maintenance, meet new monitoring and testing requirements, comply with new and changing state and local regulations and fees, and provide adequate funding for future capital ~mprovements, equating to an 8% increase in rates, and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the AB 939 state mandated requirements for cor~.tinued and improved recycling and waste diversion programs and the expense related to these programs, equating to a 15% increase in rates, and 1 WHEREAS, additional expenses generated by state and federal mandated regulations and programs has forced the City Council to determine that the City's recycling and waste diversion programs can no longer be subsidized by 4 the City's Solid Waste Disposal Site, and 5 6 7 8 WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed the proposed rates and made his recommendation, and WHEREAS, the City Council did duly notice and make available the City Manager's report and recommendation for public inspection, all in accordance with the requiremen~:s of the Ukiah City Code, and did consider in a public hearing the proposed rates, and the recommendation of its City Manager at is regular meeting of ~;eptember 1, 1993. 12 NOW, THEREFORE:~ BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds: 1. An increase of rates is necessary to (a) offset rising costs of 14 operation, (b) offset new landfill tipping fees, and (c) offset the expense.of ]5 the AB 939 state mar~dated recycling and waste diversion programs. 16 2. That the rate structure is adopted and is set forth below and made a 17 part of this resolution. ~8 III 19 /// 20 /// 2! /// 22 Iii 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 23 24 SERVICE CITY OF UKIAH RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY RATES CURB SERVICE Minimum (10 gal can) 1-20 gal can 2-20 gal cans 3-20 gal cans 4-20 gal can 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal can 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans PACK-OUT 1-10 gal can 1-20 gal can 2-20 gal cans 3-20 gal cans 4-20 gal eans 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans MONTHLY RATE $ 2.35 4.95 12.05 18.45 24.85 8.95 18.60 28.10 41.35 REMOTE AREA SERVICE* 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans *BGR - small truck (Billy Goat) run, for remote areas. 3.65 6.25 15.15 23.90 33.15 10.90 22.65 35.10 48.35 16.75 34.35 52.05 69.75 MISCELLANEOUS 1-105 gal toter MONTHLY RATE $35.35 Upon proof of physical handicap, the curb rate may apply to certain residential customer even if they receive the pack-out service. CITY OF UKIAH COMMERCIAL MONTHLY RATES RATE/YARD/WEEK $40.00 25 EXAMPLES OF NEW COMMERCIAL RATE: 1 yard bin - picked up 1 time per week = 1 yard = $40 per month 26 2 yard bin - picked ap 4 times per week = 8 yards --- $320 per month 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OTttER SERVICE RATES DROP BOXES Special 3-Day Rental 3 yard box per dump* TOTAL RATE $ 71.50 Weekly - 7-Day Rental 10 yard box per dump* 15 yard box per dump* 20 yard box per dump 30 yard box per dump 40 yard box per dump 143.00 169.00 190.00 239.00 287.50 Additional $10.00 fee for retaining drop box more than 7 days. * Rates being used pending formal adoption by City Council. .Compactors MONTHLY RATE 6 yard compactor $179.00 12 yard compactor 269.00 25 yard compactor* 438.00 Special Services - Call-in pickup and disposal Appliances $15.00 plus current disposal charge Tires (up to 4 automobile or motorcycle sized tires on regular garbage collection route) $3.10 each Tires (5 or more automobile or motorcycle sized tires, special trip) $15.00 plus current disposal charge Large truck sized tires (special trip) $15.00 plus current disposal charge Furniture and Other Items (special trip) Locking bin $15.00 plus current disposal charge $20.00 (one-time setup charge) *Rates being used! pending formal adoption by City Council. Special service rates may be established based on the current disposal charge plus equipment and labor cost. Such rates shall be approved by the City Manager with ratification by City Council. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate schedules adopted by this Resolution shall be retroactiw~ and effective as of August 1, 1993. Allprior rate schedules in conflict herewith are repealed upon the effective date of the new schedule. Ail other contract conditions for service remain unaltered and in full effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of September, 1993, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Cathy McKay, City Clerk Fred Schneiter, Mayor August 20, 1993 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON ADJUSTMENT OF RATES FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE BACKGROUND The City Manager has determined that a rate adjustment to the garbage and recycling collection service is necessary to meet obligations as stated in the City's Refuse and Recycling Collection contract with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. dated March, 1992. The City Manager also recommends that the proposed rate adjustment include an AB 939 Recycling Surcharge to cover state mandated recycling and diversion program costs. These adjustments will necessitate a 30% increase in rates. It has been approximately three (3) years since the garbage collection rates have last been adjusted. 'the current rates were adopted in the Fall of 1990. Consumer Price Index Rate Adjustment - 2.03% Increase Solid Wastes Systems, t~c. is the City of Ukiah's franchised refuse and recycling collector. In March, 1992 the City Council, through the public hearing process, agreed to revise the Refuse and Recycling Collection contract between the City and Soli.d Wastes Systems to include a method for determining and adjusting garbage and recycling collection fees and charges using an automatic annual rate adjustment based on a 75% change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Stati~tics, Consumer Price Index (CPI). As stipulated by the contract, beginning July 1, 1993 collection rates were to have been adjusted to reflect 75% of the percentage change from March 1992 to March 1993 in the CPI. The CPI increased 2.7% during this period, resulting in the need to increase City collection rates by 2.03%. Landfill Gate Fee Increase - 13% Increase The Refuse and Recycling Collection contract also states that the City shall add to the garbage rate any amounts necessary to fully compensate Solid Wastes Systems for any increase in the gate fee charged to them for disposing of refuse at the City owned ilandfill. On August 5, 1992, the Ukiah City Council held a public hearing to consider the imposition of a $0.75 per cubic yard surcharge at the City's Solid Waste Disposal Site for funding the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA). The MSWMA is ~. joint powers authority (JPA) created between the cities of Ukiah, Willits, Fort Bragg and Mendocino County to cooperatively address solid waste issue~ facing the County. The main focuses of the JPA is providing adequate and e~lvironmentally sound disposal opportunities for the future, including household hazardous waste collection events, public awareness/education programs, and meeting the State mandated AB 939 regional goals for source reductional, recycling and composting. The Ukiah City Council approved the surcharge which became effective August 11, 1992. This same surcharge was also approved and applied to all other landfill and transfer station gate fees throughout Mendocino County at approximately the same time. The MSWMA surcharge equates to an 5% increase in garbage rates. Approximately five (5) months later, on January 20, 1993, the Ukiah City Council held a public hearing to consider an increase in the gate fee to sustain sufficient revenue from the Solid Waste Disposal Site to: - make the operation self-supporting - build reserves for closure and post-closure maintenance - establish a newly required reserve fund for potential environmental emergencies - provide adequate funding for future capital improvements - comply with new an~ changing state and local regulations and fees - conduct environmental investigations and assessments in connection with the Facility Permit Revision - meet new monitoring and testing requirements - relocate the existing PG&E power lines These and other related future capital landfill projects, and their projected costs, are identified in 2~xhibit A. The Council approved this gate fee increase which became effective February 1, 1993. This increase represents an 8% increase in rates. Consequently, these landfill gate fee increases have increased operational expenses for our garbage hauler, Solid Wastes Systems, and as their contract stipulates, the City is obligated to adjust the garbage collection rates to fully compensate Solid Wastes Systems for the increases incurred in the gate fee charged to them. The City has subsidized both gate fee increases since their inception, by drawing down the reserves of the Solid Waste Disposal Site (landfill) fund reserves, pending this scheduled rate increase. AB 939 State Mandated Recycling Surcharge - 15% Increase In 1989, Assembly Bill 939 (SHER) was passed by the State in response to the growing solid waste crisi~ in California, particularly in terms of the lack of adequate, long-term landfill space. One objective of AB 939 is to reduce the waste stream 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000, and to seek out viable alternatives for dealing with solid wa~;te. The City of Ukiah has !ong been a front runner in meeting these goals. Through aggressive recycling and diversion programs, the City has attained a diversion rate of approximately 28%, with no added expense to its citizens. In a meeting held on Jaauary 31, 1992, City Staff and Ukiah Solid Waste management team agreed that Solid Wastes Systems would be reimbursed 100% of the cost of the residential curbside program, 50% of the cost of the yardwaste collection program, and 50% of the cost of the commercial/ multi-family program. The programs implemented thus far have been subsidized by landfill revenues in the amount of $127,136. City staff and Solid Wastes Systems management team further agreed that the recycling/waste diversion programs and their associated costs would be reviewed again in June, 1993 upon receipt of Solid Wastes Systems' annual audit; to determine the appropriateness of increasing the recycling payment to include the remaining 50~ of the cost for the commercial/multi-family and yardwaste collection programs in the amount of $47,936. On July 13, 1993, City staff received the 1990, 1991, and 1992 audits of Solid Wastes Systems performed by Davis Hammon and Company. After a thorough assessment by City Staff of program costs based on the audits received, and acknowledging the major increases in program participation since the date of the audit, it was detE~rmined by City Staff that the full cost of the residential, multi-family, commercial recycling and yardwaste collection programs in the amount of $175,071 was appropriately included in the rate adjustment. The reduction of revenue generated at the landfill and the additional expense generated by state and federal mandated regulations and programs has forced the City Council to determine that the City's recycling and source reduction programs can no longer be subsidized by the landfill. As expressed in the budget hearings, due to AB 939 state mandated costs of expanding recycling and source reduction and diw~rsion programs and the lack of additional landfill revenue, Staff recommend~ an AB 939 State Mandates Surcharge be added to the garbage collection rates to fund these programs. RATE RECOMMENDATION Staff has explored many options of raising the required revenue without adversely impacting any single customer classification. The proposed rate adjustment has been determined to be an essential and equitable way of asking all customers to share in meeting City contract obligations with our hauler and dealing with the issues of escalated solid waste costs directed by the State. Residential Rates Staff has determined that the recommended method for obtaining the revenue necessary to cover the State mandated AB 939 recycling/diversion and source reduction program costs, the two increases to the landfill tipping fees and the CPI adjustment, woul~l be to place a 30% adjustment onto all residential customer classifications in the garbage and recycling collection service. Commercial Rate Restructuring Commercial rates will also increase by 30% in total, however, because of rate restructuring, the effect on any one customer could be more or less than 30%. Among the goals of the Stated Mandated AB 939, is the goal of enacting garbage rates which provide an incentive to produce less garbage. This can be done by implementing an increasing block rate, that increases the "per unit" cost of garbage service as volume increases. This rate structure has been previously implemented in the residential rate structure. To illustrate, under the current rate a resident subscribing to one-ten gallon can service would pay $1.80 or $.18 per gallon of garbage service. On the high en~i, a resident subscribing to four-thirty gallon can service would pay $31.80 cr $.265 per gallon of garbage service. Because landfill capacit)~ is limited locally and nationally, this type of increasing block rate str~cture is preferred. It provides the customer with a cause-and-effect choice of how much refuse service to subscribe to, with a preferential rate for lower volumes. Conversely, the historic approach to garbage service pricing has been the declining block method. This uses the economies of scale philosophy, and decreases the price per unit as volume increases. This method is still being used for commercial accounts in Ukiah. The current price per yard of garbage service is $51.00 for m 1-yard bin, and decreases to $24.25 per yard for 36-yard service, as illustrated below. Current Residentail Rates Per Gallon $0.25 $0.20 $0.15 $0.1o $0.05 1 Gallon 120 Gallons The ultimate goal is to reverse the commercial rate curve so that it resembles the residential curve, providing the incentive to "reduce, re-use, and recycle." However, in a~alyzing the impact of reversing the rate curve, we see that the high-volume customer will experience an increase from the current $873.00 per month to $3,093 per month. This seems unreasonably harsh, especially happening in one giant step. Staff is recommending a middle step between the current disincentive rate and the ultimate goal of an incentive rate. The middle ground between an increasing curve and a decreasing curve ~s a straight line. The recommendation here is a flat $40 per yard, per week of garbage service. COMMERCIAL GARBAGE RATES $1o. oo $0.00 I I 1 YARD 15 YARDS 36 YARDS , LOAD SIZE CURRENT RATE PER YARD -- -- -- PROPOSED RATE PER YARD The current commercial rates average $30.95 per yard of garbage service per week. By applying the 30% rate increase to this average, the $40 per yard is Conversely, the historic approach to garbage service pricing has been the declining block method. This uses the economies of scale philosophy, and decreases the price per unit as volume increases. This method is still being used for commercial accounts in Ukiah. The current price per yard of garbage service is $51.00 for a 1-yard bin, and decreases to $24.25 per yard for 36-yard service, as illustrated below. $0.~0 Current Residentail Rates Per Gallon $0.25 $0.20 $o. 15 $0.1o 1 120 Gallons The ultimate goal is to reverse the commercial rate curve so that it resembles the residential curve, providing the incentive to "reduce, re-use, and recycle." However, in analyzing the impact of reversing the rate curve, we see that the high-volume customer will experience an increase from the current $873.00 per month to $3,093 per month. This seems unreasonably harsh, especially happening in ore giant step. Staff is recommending a middle step between the current disincentive rate and the ultimate goal of an incentive rate. The middle ground between an increasing curve and ~. decreasing curve is a straight line. The recommendation here is a flat $40 per yard, per week of garbage service. COMMERCIAL GARBAGE RATES $20.00 $10.00 $0.00 1 YARD 15 YARDS 36 YARDS LOAD SIZE CURRENT RATE PER YARD -- -- -- PROPOSED RATE PER YARD The current commercial rates average $30.95 per yard of garbage service per week. By applying the 30% rate increase to this average, the $40 per yard is obtained. This provides a shift towards the incentive rates by providing an actual decrease in rates for customers using one yard or less of service per week. Currently this represents 337 accounts, or 41% of the commercial customers. In changing the rate structure, the high volume customer will see the highest rate increase. This flat rate takes the top bill from $873 per month to $1,440 per month for 36 yard/week service, for an increase of 64.95%. While this is a significant increase, it is less than half of the impact of changing to an increasing block rate. Customers subscribing for more than one yard per week service and less than 36 yards per week, will experience increases between 3% and 64%, with the highest volume customers experiencing the largest increase. Commercial customers can estimate their new bills ~sing the following formula: Volume in yards x number of pickups per week = Total yards Total Yards x $40 = Total Monthly Bill For conversion to yards, ~ne 30-gallon can equals 1/6 yard, and a toter equals 1/2 yard. Using this fo~rmula, a commercial customer with one can per week service would pay: 1/6 yard x 1 per week = 1/6 yards x $40 = $7 monthly bill COMPARISON OF OTHER RATE ~iTRUCTURES A garbage rate comparison was conducted for surrounding areas within Mendocino County. Ail rates reviewed were considerably higher than Ukiah's recommended rates. Refer to Exhibit C. EFFECTIVE DATE AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the rates be adjusted to reflect the state mandated AB 939 recycling program su~charge, MSWMA landfill surcharge, landfill tipping fee increase, and CPI adjustment as indicated on Exhibit B. Since the 93/94 Budget does not reflect subsidizing the state mandated recycling/diversion and source reduction programs, staff further recommends that the adjustment be retroactive and effective as of August 1, 1993. Exhibit D identifies City Council Resolution 91-24 which sets forth current garbage collection rates. Attached supporting documents are: Exhibit A is the Summary of Required and Future Capital Projects at Landfill dated Jan-~ary, 1993. Exhibit B is a comparison of current and proposed fees for the City. Exhibit C is a comparison of rates for surrounding areas within the County. Exhibit D is a copy of City Council Resolution 91-24 which sets forth current garbage col!ection service rates. Increase SUE2 January, 1993 SUIIMARY OF REQUIRED AND FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS AT THE UKIAH LANDFILl. The following are in addition to tile current operations and maintenance programs at the landfill: Ie Increased Operating Expenses, Annual a) Additional Water Monitoring b) Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Annual Setaside Increase c) Financial Assurance - NeW Annual Transfer to Reserve d) LEA Fees - New Expense e) Inflationary ~[ncrease (3%) II. S~in§le Event Costs - 1993-94 Fiscal Year a) Phase Two - Geotechnical Investigations b) CEQA Processing - Permit Revisions ($75,000- $100,000) c) LEA Permit Review d) PG&E Powerline Relocation, Engineering e) Phase I - Remediation Project Leachate Pond Lining Sedimentation Pond Improvements III. pingle Event Costs - Beyond 1993-94 Fiscal Year a) b) c) Phase Two - Remediation Project Contaminated Groundwater Cleanup ( $1 oo, ooo - $ 200, ooo) PG&E Powerline Relocation, Construction ($50,000- $125,000) Access Road Relocation Engineering Land Acquisition Construction ($600,000 - $800,000) $10,000 20,000 25,000 10,000 40,000 $105,000 $50,000 , 75,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 50,000 $240,000 $I00,000 125,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 $1,225,000 TOTAL: $1,570,000 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Ukiah, California, will hold a Public Hearing on September 1, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the same may be heard, and continued from time to time as the same may require, in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, to consider an adjustment of fees a~d charges for refuse collection in the City of Ukiah. The proposed adjustment is requested to fulfill the City's obligation in its Garbage Collection and Recycling Agreement with Ukiah Solid Waste, Inc., and to meet State mandated AB 939 recycling and source separation mandates. A copy of the proposed rates is published herein. Effective date is proposed to be retroactive to August l, 1993. A copy of the City Manager's Report and Recommendation is on file with the City Clerk and i:; available for review by interested persons. CITY OF UKIAH R ~ESIDENTIAL MONTIILY RATES SERVICE CURRENT RATES AB 939 STATE MANDATES SURCHARGE CURB SERVICE Minimum (10 gal can) $ 1.80 1-20 gal can 3.80 2-20 gal cans 9.25 3-20 gal cans 14.20 4-20 gal can 19. l I 1-30 gal can 6.87 2-30 gal can 14.31 3-30 gal cans 21.60 4-30 gal cans 31.80 PACK-OUT l- l 0 gal can 2.80 1-20 gal can 4.80 2-20 gal cans I 1.65 3-20 gal cans 18.40 4-20 gal cans 25.5 l 1-30 gal can 8.40 2-30 gal cans 17.40 3-30 gal cans 27.00 4-30 gal cans 37.20 REMOTE AREA SERVICE* 1-30 gal can 12.90 2-30 gal cans 26.40 3-30 gal cans 40.05 4-30 gal cans 53.64 !'ROI'OSED ADJUSTMENT COLLECTION TOTAL RATE INCREASE PROPOSED RATE $ .27 $ .28 $ 2.35 .57 .58 4.95 1.40 1.40 12.05 2.13 2.12 18.45 2.87 2.87 24.85 1.04 1.04 8.95 2.14 2.15 18.60 3.25 3.25 28.10 4.78 4.77 41.35 .42 .43 3.65 .73 .72 6.25 1.75 1.75 15.15 2.75 2.75 23.90 3.82 3.82 33.15 1.25 1.25 10.90 2.63 2.62 22.65 4.05 4.05 35.10 5.57 5.58 48.35 1.93 ! .92 16.75 3.98 3.97 34.35 6.00 6.00 52.05 8.05 8.06 69.75 *BGR - small truck (Billy Goat) run, for remote areas. SERVICE. All 939 ~" STATE CURRENT MANDATES COLLECTION TOTAL RATES SURCllARGE RATE INCREASE PROPOSED RATE MISCELLANEOUS 1-10S gal toter 1-60 gal compost/ yd waste toter 1-90 gal compost/ yd waste toter $27.20 $4.07 $4.08 $35.35 1.20 Discontinued 1.25 Discontinued Upon proof of physical handicap, the curb rate may apply to certain residential customer even if they receive the pack- out service. ~-' CITY OF UKIAtI COMMERCIAL MONTItLY RATES CURRENT AVERAGE RATE/YARD/WEEK AB 939 STATE MANDATES SURCItARGE COLLECTION RATE INCREASE TOTAL PROPOSED RATE/YARD/WEEK $30.96 $4.52 $4.52 $40.00 Current commercial rates are based on a variable declining block method. charge of $40 per yard per week. The proposed method is a flat per unit EXAMPLES OF NEW COMMERCIAL RATE: 1 yard bin - picked up 1 time per we. ek - I yard = $40 per month 2 yard bin - picked up 4 times per week = 8 yards = $320 per month OTHER SERVICE RATES DROP BOXES Special 3-Day Rental 3 yard box per dump* AB 939 :STATE CURRENT MANDATES RATE SURCIIARGE $55.00 $ 8.25 COLLECTION RATE TOTAL INCREASE PROPOSED RATE $ 8.25 $ 71.50 Weekly- 7-Day Rental 10 yard box per dump* 15 yard box per dump* 20 yard box per dump 30 yard box per dump 40 yard box per dump 110.00 16.50 130.00 19.50 146.00 22.00 184.00 27.50 221.00 33.25 16.50 143.00 19.50 169.00 22.00 190.00 27.50 239.00 33.25 287.50 Additional $10.00 fee for retaining drop box more than 7 days. * Rates being used pending formal adoplion by City Council. CURRENT RATE AB 939 STATE MANDATES SURCttARGE Compactors 6 yard compactor 12 yard compactor 25 yard compactor* $138.00 207.00 337.00 $20.50 31.00 50.50' Special Services - Call-in pickup and disposal Appliances $10.00 plus c~arrent disposal charge Tires (up to 4 automobile or motorcycle sized tires on regular garbage collection route) $3.00 each Tires (5 or more automobile or motorcycle sized tires, special trip) $10.00 plus current disposal charge Large truck sized tires (special trip) $10.00 plus current disposal charge Furniture and Other Items (special trip) .' $10.00 plus current disposal charge COLLECTION RATE INCREASE $20.50 31.00 50.50 TOTAL PROPOSED RATE $179.00 269.00 438.00 $15.00 plus current disposal charge $3.10 each $15.00 plus current disposal charge $15.00 plus current disposal chaxge $15.00 plus current disposal charge Locking bin New Service *Rates being used pending formall adoption by City Council. $20.00 (one-time setup charge) Special service rates may be established based on the current disposal charge plus equipment and labor cost. rates shall be approved by the City Manager with ratification by City Council. PUBLISHED: R:I~PW RATES2.PI! SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, iL993 Such EX~r~IT C COMMERCIAL 1 Yard 1 time week 2 times week 1-1/2 Yards 1 time week 2 times week CITY OF UKIAH GARBAGE RATE COMPARISON JULY, 1993 CURRENT RECOMMENDED WILLITS RATES RATES RATES* $ 51.00 $ 40.00 $ 85.00 74.00 80.00 150.00 $ 58.00 $ 60.00 $ 95.00 91.00 120.00 170.00 2 Yards 1 time week $ 71.00 $ 80.00 $107.00 2 times week 108.00 160.00 194.00 3 times week 146.00 240.00 291.00 (1) COUNTY RATES N/A N/A $129.20 N/A $162.05 221.85 306.10 (2) FT. BRAGG RATES $ 86.15 122.80 115.65 181.85 $149.16 243.25 315.80 (3) COUNTY RATES $ 89.10 154.45 119.90 203.05 $133.55 282.40 428.75 RESIDENTIAL (ONCE A WEEK) 10 Gallon $ 1.80 $ 2.35 $ 7.50 3.80 4.95 14.50 6.87 $ 8.95 16.50 14.31 18.60 32.00 21.60 28.10 47.50 8.40 $ 10.90 18.50 17.40 22.65 37.00 27.00 35.10 55.50 20 Gallon can-curb 1 30 Gallon can-curb 2 Cans 3 Cans 1 30 Gal. can-pack out 2 Cans 3 Cans $ 10.10 16.10 32.20 48.30 $1.00 Per 50' Per Can 9.95 12.40 14.90 29.80 44.70 N/A N/A N/A 14.30 17.05 19.10 38.20 57.30 23.15 42.25 61.35 INDUSTRIAL 20 Yard Drop Boxes 30-38 Yard Drop Boxes 40 Yard Drop Boxes 12 Yard Compactor $146.00 $190.00 $270.00 $268.50 184.00 239.00 450.00 369.50 221.00 287.50 470.60 207.00 269.00 350.00 $245.00 plus $70 per ton $269.50 plus $70 per ton NOTES: (1) (2) (3) EMPIRE WASTE MANAGEMENT - AREA SURROUNDING UKIAH FORT BRAGG DISPOSAL FORT BRAGG DISPOSAL - AREA SURROUNDING FORT BRAGG R:I~W GARBAGE 1 2 3 4 EXHrBIT D 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-24 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES .AND RATES FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICE WHEREAS, the City Council, under terms of its franchise with Ukiah Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., must periodically revise and establish rates for garbage collection services within the City of Ukiah, and WHEREAS, rates for such service must provide for costs of service of said franchisee, and WHEREAS, as Ukiah Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., has presented to the City its requested rate schedule, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has considered said request and made his recommendation, and WHEREAS, the City Council did duly notice and make available the City Manager's report and recommendation for public inspection, all in accordance with the requirements of the Ukiah City Code, and did consider in a public hearing the proposed rates of Ukiah Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., and the recommendation of its City Manager at its regular meeting of October 3, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds: 1. An increase of rates is necessary to (a) offset rising costs of operation, (b) offset new landfill tipping fees, and .(c) provide a reasonable return to the Ukiah Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. 2. That the rate structure is adopted and is set forth below and made a part of this resolution. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -, RESIDENTIAL SERVICE Minimum (10 gal can) 20 Gallon 1 can 2 cans 3 cans 4 cans 30 Gallon Curb Pack Out 1.8o $ 2.80 3.80 4.80 9.25 11.65 14.20 18.40 19.11 25.51 1 can 2 cans 6.87 8.40 3 cans 14.31 17.40 4 cans 21.60 27.00 31.80 37.20 30 Gallon - BGR* Pack Out 1 can 2 cans None 12.90 3 cans None 26.40 4 cans None 40.05 None 53.64 *Note: BGR - Small Truck Run 1 - 105 gal garbage toter 27.20 None 1 - 60 gal compost/yard waste toter bi-weekly pickup 1.20 per month 1 - 90 gal compost/yard waste toter bi-weekly pickup 1.25 per month Upon proof of physical handicap, the curb service rate may apply to certain residential customers even if they receive the pack out service . SPECIAL SERVICES ~all-in Pickup and Dispo~sa_~] ~ppliances - $10 per stop, plus current disposal charge. Tires - Up to 4 automobile or motorcycle sized tires on regular garbage collection route, $3.00 each. 5 or more automobile or motorcycle sized tires, special trip, $10 00 plus current disposal charge. · Larger Truck Sized Tires - Special trip. disposal charge. $10.00 plus current Furniture and Other Items - Special trip. disposal charge. $10.00 plus current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 COMMERCIAL SERVICE Container Size 1/Week 2/Week 3/Week 4/Week I Yard* $----~- -$ 74-- N/A N/A 1½ Yard* 58 91 $118 $157 2 Yard* 71 108 146 207' *Add $1.00 per pickup for locked container service. Cans Rate 1 - 30 gal can ~ 9 5/Week N/A $199 250 6/Week N/A $241 291 Toter 1 - 105 gal garbage toter $ 29 prop Boxes 20 Yard BOx Per Dump 30 Yard Box Per Dump 40 Yard Box Per Dump 146 184 221 ~ompactor 6 Yard Compactor $138 12 Yard Compactor 207 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate schedules adopted by this Resolution shall be effective on November 1, 1990. Ali prior rate schedules in conflict herewith are repealed upon the effective date of the new schedule. Ail other contract conditions for service remain unaltered and in full effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October following roll call vote: , 1990, by the AYES: Councilmembers McMichael, Wattenbur§er, Shoemaekr, Schneiter and Mayor Henderson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: lleen B..Henderson, Mayor-- Soli Wastes Systems, Inc. 940 Waugh Lane Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-8621 Mr. Chuck Rough City Manager, City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Calif. 95482 8/30/93 Dear Chuck: I have read your "City Manager's Report and Recommendation" for the rate adjustment item that will be on the City Council's Agenda September 1, 1993. I am a bit concerned about the method ~eing used to provide recycling incentive in the commercial rates. Solid Waste Systems, Ir c. understands the need to have a rate structure that benefits those commercial waste generators that recycle. We support aggressively pursuing the goals set forth in AB939, as our diversion le~,els demonstrate. My concern with the method of restructuring the commercial rates is that neither our accountant nor I could determine precisely how the new "flat $40 per yard, per week" will affect the revenue from the service levels now being provided. I am confidant that Louise Burt has factored this concern into her figures for determining that this methodology will not only mai ntain our current level of revenue for the services being provided, but will also generate the 30% increase that is reflected in this rate adjustment. Having done business with you and the City of Ukiah for some time now I am certain that if there is a shortfall we will adjust for it next time we are considering a rate adjustment. I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday. If there is anything you would like to discuss please give me a call. Very Truly Yours, Ukiah Solid ~aste s, Inc. Cable Firms Push to Short-Circuit '92 Law By MAaK ROmCHAUX Staff Reporter of THE WA/.& STILEET Jotml'~., NEW YORK - The cable law that tak,~s effect next week ~ants b~ad new ~we~ over rate re~lation to l~al gove~ment ~. But dozens of cable systems are t~ing ;o sidestep the law by ~ng l~al officials ;o forgo exercising their n~ autho~ty. The systems, mostly small o~to~ in small marke~, have mounted a cara- pai~ to convince loc~ officials that tie 1992 ~ble Act is t~ complicated W ~de stand, t~ costly to enforce, and, ulti- mately, more ex~nsive for consumer:;. Instead of ~ng to the re-~ation of the new law, which se~ up a framework ,;~f r~es to determine cable rates, the cable executives hope to pe~uade autho~ties in smaller markets to si~ ~n~acts th~.t basically wo~d continue the practice (,f setting ~tes through ne~tiations be~ee the company and a m~icipality. Thi~.t would be more diffic~t for federal re~.- tors to monitor. Re~aW~ and cfiti~ say many of th offe~ made by cable operato~ are lace with t~ea5 that se~ce co~d be di:~.- ~pted if the rules are adopted and over- reaching claims a~ut other ~ssible effect. Moreover, it isn't clear whether the l~al contrac~ that cable officials ar pushing are enforceable, or even legal. "The cable ind~t~ lost this fight ove]- whelmingly in the Ho~e and the Senate," says James Quello, acting cha~an of th.~ Federal Comm~ications Commissiou. Now, he complains, many cable operaWr { "have an economic stake in discredi~n;~[ that law." The FCC may issue a wa~ing t,,) cable operators as early as tMay, in~cat- lng it takes a dim ~ew of the 1~1 pacts. The cable campai~ "is beyond chutz- .pah, it's evasion," sa~ Ba~ Orton, University of Wisconsin professor of tele- communications who ad~ses l~al gove~- ments. Noting that cable systems essen- tially are pushing to~s to ~ve up the new re~lato~ authority the cable act other- wise ~ants them, he adds: "Small l~a[ governmen~ don't have the wherewithal to fibre out when they're being duped." Cable executives counter that they arc simply offering an attractive option small towns that can't cope with the thicke~; of new rules. They add that some towm. eagerly accepted the cable offe~ and, some cases, initiated the tal~. In addition. cable officials ~int out that to~s thai don't like how the a~angements work ou;{ can adopt the new authority later. The Cable Act of 1992 im~ses new local re~lato~ powers over an industry tha~ was largely freed of most rate restrictiom back in 1987. The FCC, in setting out hundreds of detailed rules to enforce the new law, established ~idelines that call{ for an average 10% rate reduction and{ estimated savings of $1 billion. But to exercise the new powers, local governments musl formally certify with the FCC that they will be responsible for enforcing the law. ff they don't certify, as cable systems hope, the FCC itself would have to monitor such systems. That would result in a far lower level of scrutiny and enforcement by an agency based in Washington, and busy with hundreds of other regulatory duties. In trying to persuade local authorities to forgo FCC certification, cable systems have offered incentives such as improved service, advance payments to municipali- ties, and temporary rate freezes. Some operators have gone so far as to prepare draft ordinances ready for adoption. "These offers are a hollow argument," asserts William Squadron, vice president of the National Association of Telecommu- nication Officers and Advisers, a group of local regulatory authorities. "And it's be- ing orchestrated in many parts of the country, usually in areas that have never really spent a lot of time studying cable regulation." At times, the cable claims contain dire predictions about the consequences of the new law. For example, in a bid to woo officials in Alachua County, Fla., local operator James Cable Parters, besides holding out the carrot of a rate freeze until Oct. 1, 1994, also brandished a stick, insist- ing that the new law would "require" increases in cable rates to offset reduc- tions in charges for converter boxes. That is blatantly false, the FCC says. "To even imply that the government is requiring companies to raise rates is as wrong as hell," Mr. Quello, the FCC chair- man, fumes. "It certainly seems to contra- dict the intent of the law and Congress." The James Cable pitch didn't work in Alachua County, which declined the com- pany's offer last week. But about 50 towns served by James Cable already have signed the company's agreement so far. The nation's biggest cable operators, which run systems in many of the largest markets, aren't pushing the "don't cer- tify'' option as hard. Big city governments have more resources and aren't as eager to give up the new law's authority. But the antiregulatory pitch, as plied by smaller operators, has appeal in smaller markets, where local governments are ill-equipped to handle a regulatory fight. The town of Decatur, Texas, accepted James Cable's offer. "We're a small community, and we don't have the staff and technical expertise to regulate rates under this law," says Brett Shannon, city secretary. He notes the city receives only $12,000 a year in cable franchise fees. That could quickly be eaten up if the city clashed with the cable company over a rate increase and had to hire consultants to buttress its stance, he says. In the small city of Atoka, Okla., how- ever, City Manager Martha Yates turned down the James Cable offer. She didn't appreciate James Cable's proposed ordi- nance saying an act of Congress "does not serve the public interest." She says, "They tried to make it look attractive and push us into doing it quickly, but we want to do what's best for our citizens." Another cable operator, Marcus Cable Partners L.P., wanted to impress upon local authorities just how onerous the new FCC rules are. So it mailed copies of the FCC's 500-page rate-regulation manual to many of the 200 communities it serves; In an accompanying letter, Marcus says the law is "a hodgepodge of rules, require- merits, edicts and dictates and is, in a word, ludicrous." . . Marcus also warned its locales that if they embrace the ~new FCC rules, the company may stop making capital im- provements, cease a "high level of serv: ice," and lay off workers and close small offices. The cable firm further warned of "some significant disruptions in our cable service to the community." But Marcus has a bag of goodies for towns that don't certify: over the nex.t two years the cable firm would eliminate charges for additional outlets, reduce equipment rental charges, and freeze in- stallation fees. Some experts say such promises, for the most part, simply fall in line with the cable law. Mayor Bard Kittleson of Barron, Wis., which has 3,200 people, wasn't swayed by the Marcus offer. "They're making wind- fall profits on many people who can't afford it," he says. "They need to be controlled. They're trying to circumvent the legislation." ITEM NO. DATE: AUGUST 27, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR RECYCLING AREAS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REMODELS The State of California has mandated that by the year 2000 the amount of waste being placed in landfills will be reduced by 50%. The City of Ukiah has accepted this challenge and has taken a leadership role in the matter of solid waste and landfills. In conjunction with the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, Ukiah has completed a significant number of tasks over and above the minimum standards identified in the Mendocino County Source Reduction and Recycling Element and HousehOld Hazardous Waste Element. Earlier this year the California Integrated Waste Management Board prescribed that local jurisdictions were to develop an ordinance which would require equal space for recycling materials in refuse collection areas of new development or remodels increasing the floor area by 30%. Originally, this was to be adopted by September 1, or the Board's model ordinance would be imposed. This requirement was withdrawn in June, but the regulation remains appropriate. It is also called for in Countywide plans noted above. The ordinance has been reviewed by local architects, engineers, and contractors, the City's Recycling Task, and approved by the Planning Commission after their public hearing. Staff believes the ordinance addresses the goals and objectives of the City's recycling efforts, while providing flexibility to developers to meet the applicable standards. Staff recommends the City Council introduce the ordinance by title only after the public headng is completed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct public hearing and then introduce, by title only, ordinance specifing area for recycling facilities. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: . Determine ordinance is not necessary, and do not take action to implement ordinance. Determine amendments to ordinance are necessary, make desired changes, and introduce, by title only, modified ordinance. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: Yes Requested by: ~~,.~~ Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, Director of Community Development Coordinated with: Sue Goodrick, Administrative Analyst; David Rapport, City Attomey; Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments: APPROVED: 1. Draft ordinance for introduction, pages 1-4. 2. Excerpt of the July 28 and August 11, 1993 Planning Commission meetings minutes, page~; 5-9. 3. July 23 and Augu~ 6, 1993 Planning Commission staff reports, pages 10-25. Cl'ia~-Ies L. Rough, Jr.~3i~ Manager mb:planning asr 8/27/93 Recy oral ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, OF THE UKIAH CITY ZONING CODE - ADDING SECTION 9185 - AREA FOR RECYCLING FACILITIES PURPOSE: The State of California has mandated that cities and counties must divert 50 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. The City of Ukiah is committed to this goal and is actively pursuing a comprehensive program to reduce the waste stream and institute greater landfill efficiences in conjunction with the County of Mendocino and other local jurisdictions. Diverting 50 percent of all solid waste requires the participation of the residential, commercial, industrial, and public sectors. A significant factor in this program is the provision of suitable areas within developrnent projects for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.. These areas are to be compatible with the land use and convenient for both the citizen and refuse hauler to maximize the efficiency of the recycling effort. This ordinance has been developed to meet this objective. The City Council of the, City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE - Ukiah City Code Section 9185 to read as follows is added: Section 9185: A, B. AREA FOR COLLECTING AND LOADING OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS: All new development and certain remodels in commercial, industrial, residential (other than single family and duplexes) projects shall provide adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials, in addition to trash collection facilities, in compliance with the following requirements. New construction, or expansion of a commercial, industrial, or multiple family residential project which adds 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of the structure within the same calendar year, shall provide space for recyclable materiials equal to that provided for trash collection as presented in subsection B, or as approved by the Director of Planning through site specific analysis as presented in subsection C. Minimum space requirements in square feet for trash and recyclable areas for residential projects (number of units) and commercial/industrial structures (square footages) are: .t -- C,, Do E. F. PROJECT(Res units/com, sq.ft.) TRASH RECYCLABLES TOTALAREA 3-6 units/0-5,000 square feet 7-15/5,001-10,C,00 16-25/10,001-25,000 26-50/25,001-50,000 51-75/50,001-75,000 76-100/75,001-100,000 12 12 24 24 24 48 48 48 96 96 96 192 144 144 288 192 192 384 Every additional~ 25 dwelling units or 25,000 square feet of structure shall require an additional 48 square feet of area for trash and recyclables respectively (total area of 96 square feet). Each multiple family residential project shall also provide 24 square feet of area for yard waste collection and loading. As an alternative to complying with the minimum space guidelines contained in subsection B, exterior recycling and trash space requirements for non- residential developments may be determined using a wastestream analysis for the proposect use, calculating the volume of trash and each recyclable material that will be generated, and indicating the location and design of collection contai~3ers to accommodate trash and recyclables in a system that is compatible with the collection methods of the franchised hauler. Approval of site-specific systems shall be obtained from the Planning Director with the recommendation of the hauler. Dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of collection. The exterior trash and recycling storage area may be located on the outside or the exterior of a structure, or in a designated interior area with access, excluding dwelling units or in rear yards and interior side yards. Exterior storage area shall not be located in any required front yard, street side yard, any required parking or landscaped area, or any other area required by Code to be constructed or maintained unencumbered. The trash and recycling storage area shall each be accessible to occupants and haulers. If the exterior storage area is located outside or on the exterior of any structure/building, the storage area shall be screened with a minimum six-fc~ot high solid enclosure. In all cases where a parcel or premises is served by an alley, all exterior storage areas shall be directly accessible to such alley. Each trash storage area shall be contiguous and jointly accessible with a recycling storage area, except upon written consent of the Planning Director in situations where unavoidable circumstances make it impractical to do so, in which case the recycling storage area shall be located as close as G. possible to the trash storage area. Recycling areas shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with nearby structure.,; and with the existing topography and vegetation, and comply with the following minimum requirements: i. the design and construction of recycling areas shall not prevent security of any recyclable materials placed therein; ii. the design, construction, and location of recycling areas shall not be in conflict with any applicable federal, state, or local laws relating to fire, building, access, transportation, circulation, safety, or related matter; iii. recycling areas or the bins or containers placed therein must provide protection against adverse environmental conditions, such as rain, which might render the collected materials unmarketable; iv. driveways and/or travel aisles shall, at a minimum, conform to local building-code requirements for garbage collection access and clearance, including unobstructed access for collection vehicles and personnel:; v. a sign clearly identifying all recycling and solid waste collection and loading areas and the materials accepted therein shall be posted adjacent to all points of direct access to the recycling areas; vi. developments, transportation corridors, and public facilities adjacent to recycling areas shall be adequately protected from any adverse impacts such as aesthetics, noise, odor, vectors, or glare through measures including, but not limited to, maintaining adequate separation, fencing, and landscaping. All designs for exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director, following review by the franchise hauler. In the event the minimum standards delineated in subsection B can not be met, nor can a site specific design be approved by the Planning Director, the project proponent may apply for a Variance from this section, or another Code section irr~pacted by the proposed facility location, in the manner prescribed in sections 9231 et seq. of this Code, to be considered by the Planning Comm~ission. SECTION TWO He will vote "No" on the motion because he believes the sign has some value and does something for the community. MOTION PASSED by the following roll call vote to deny Variance Application No. 93-9: AYES: Commissioners Farr, Menton, Randolph, and Vice Chairman Reid. NOES: Commissioners I-Ioppe and Long. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B= Recycling Area Ordinance specifyinq adequate areas for collectinq and Ioadinq recvclable materials in development projects Director of Community Development Director Michael Harris explained the State of California requires local governments, to adopt ordinances requiring equal space for recycling facilities in addition tc trash collection. The County's Solid Waste Management Plan indicates the local comrnunities will identify areas for recycling, with the goal of reducing the amount of material going into the landfill by 50% by the year 2000 Thus there is a need to provide equal space for both trash and recyclable materials. The City's recycling task force has reviewed the model ordinance and feels the City should move ahead with the ordinance. The City Council, in their participation with the Countywide solid waste program, has placed recycling as a high priority. A copy of the draft City ordinance was presented to the Commission for their review and staff noted it would probably b6, the model ordinance for the County. Many of the details have been provided by the Recycling Task Force's recommendations. He advised the model ordinance provided by the State discussed a 30% increase in floor area, which was a recommendation made by the local task force to the State prior to the March 1 deadline. It originally was a 10% increase in floor area or 10% in valuation. Staff has included actual dimensions for space which would be required for both trash and recyclables on the site. Several cities have successfully initiated this program. He advised they have also received assistance from Keep Mendocino Beautiful in addressing these issues. Staff is recommending the Corr~mission take no action on the Ordinance at this meeting, but discuss the matter, and defer for two weeks with specific recommendations for action to be made by staff at that timE;. The Ordinance provides two alternatives: 1)'minimum standards to apply to multi-family residential, commercial, or industrial new development, or increases of 30% in floor area; and 2) a process where an architect, engineer, or land developer can work with the City and the franchise hauler to develop a specific program for that particular business identifying specifically how the waste will be handled. The Ordinance also provides for a Variance procedure if neither the minimum standards can be met nor a site specific analysis approved by the Director of Planning. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 6 JULY 28, 1993 This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREF This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND INTRODUCED this day of ,1993, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED AND ADOPTED this following roll call vote: AYES: day of ,1993, by the NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Cathy McKay, City Clerk rnfh:planning RECYCLING AREA ORDINANCE August 12, 1993 -4- reviewing and discussion with Mr. Ibalio, he came to the conclusion that, without special findings by the Planning Corr~mission, the application of the sign program concept to the Evangelical Free Church sign issue is not proper or possible. He believed this was. Mr. Ibalio's feeling also. He noted a particular section does not establish a size limit or limit on the number of signs. He felt Section 3227(d) appears to offer the most hope for the Church's sign situation but would still require the finding of uniqueness. He argued the permanent sign provision of the existing ordinance does not address church uses in residential zoning districts. Tihe standards developed for regulation of signs is silent and inadequate for providing infcrmation to the public. At the same time, he felt the sign proposed is not a detriment to the investments relative to the adjacent properties or the community and is not a hazard. He requested the Planning Commission find in favor of Variance application number 93-9 based on the contents of his letter. Commissioner Hoppe inquired if other institutions besides churches are allowed in residential zones. Mr. Ibalio explained the allowed uses within an R-2 zone include churches. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED- 7:28 p.m. A MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Farr, seconded my Commissioner Randolph, to deny Variance Application No. 93-9, based on staff's recommendation that there are no valid findings to make the Variance. Commissioner Reid inquired if the applicant would need to submit a Variance on the size of their existing sign which faces Yosemite Drive. Mr. Harris advised, from a strict code enforcement standpoint, the existing sign is in violation of the code. He felt the issue is the temporary nature of the other sign and its removal. Commissioner Farr explained the existing sign before the Commission is the only one with staff analysis. He felt churches may not have signage programs but every zoning classification in the Zoning Ordinance has signage defined. He felt the church was aware of the regulations when they established their site in the R-2 zone. Commissioner Randolph dscussed the City reviewing institutional signs and their limitations in the residential zones and preparing appropriate standards. Commissioner Long felt that, while he agrees it may be difficult to make findings, exceptions are an integral part of the interpretations of the law. He felt a finding could be the unique character of the site in that it faces the freeway and gives some direction to those on the freeway, which does not usually exist in a commercial or residential area. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 5 JULY 28, 1993 The Commission discussed the proposed Ordinance and made the following recom m endation s: Commissioner Menton: It should encourage containers which are user friendly. Cubic feet should be equal to trash capacity. Commissioner Farr: Include purpose and ..definition sections in the ordinance. Commissioner Randolph: Circulate ordinance to trash haulers for their review. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 8:00 P.M. Bob Axt, 4925 Eastside Calpella Road, explained it is crucial to include feedback from the trash hauler company a~d recommended an applicant contact haulers prior to obtaining building permits. Mr. Harris noted the staff wili submit the draft ordinance to architects, engineers, and contractors to solicit their input. Vice Chairman Reed declared the Public Hearing continued to the August 11 1993 meeting. , PROJECT REVIEW A. Site Development Permit A_p_p_~cation No. 93-17,_as filed b J_y___~h C. Kruq.~. dba Burqer Kin~oration., to construct a I__.~round on~ at 711 East Perkins Str~sessor's Pa___r.rcel Nos. 179-061-04 and 179-061- 34_~_in the C-1 L_,_..~g~t Commercial zoning.~.istrict. - Associate Planner Noel Ibalio advised in December 1978, the Planning Commission approved Architectural Review Application No. 79-50 to construct a 3,300 square foot family restaurant, with a seating capacity of approximately 100. The use required 33 parking spaces and the site provided for 48 spaces, therefore exceeding required parking for the site. Several improvements were made to enhance the use of the property. The applicant is requesting to construct a playground area with apparatus along the Perkins Street frontage. The play area is 20' x 30' in size, 15' in height, and will eliminate two parking spaces. Upon review of the proposed plans, it is staff's opinion the playground area is not compatible with current architectural building style or colors of the existing building, and may c~eate a substantial visual impact to the surrounding environment. Staff discussed with the applicant changing the colors to more natural tones, but the response was these were corporate colors and could not be changed. The location was also scrutinized to minimize its prominence from the street, but safety and MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 7 JULY 28, 1993 convenience to the customers dictate its proposed siting. One possible alternative for the relocation of the playground area would be a north/south orientation from the patio toward the front doors, but this has not been discussed with the applicant. Due to the color and location of the playground apl:,aratus, the playground will be visually obtrusive to the surrounding uses and for the p[,blic traveling on Perkins Street. Elements of the building style can be incorporated into th e design of the playground apparatus to lessen the visual impacts, however, the design is a corporate standard and the colors blend with the "Burger King" logo. In order to mitigate the visual impacts, staff is recommending, that the playground apparatus be screened with 15 gallon Liquid Amber trees, and the red canopy of the playground apparatus be omittad. Screening the play area and removal of the canopy will somewhat dilute the visual impact of the playground apparatus. The applicant is incorporating two safety elements into the design of the play area, lighting and fencing. The play ;area is proposed to be lighted for evening use and will be surrounded by wrought iron fer,cing. The access to the playground area will be from the patio, and not the west end of 'the play area. Staff believes the play area should not be available after dark as the lighting will further accentuate the garish nature of the facility. Staff recommends approval of Site Development Permit Application No. 93-17, with the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Staff distributed photos of the site as well as similar playgrounds at other Burger King locations. Commissioner Randolph thanked Associate Planner for his presentation and analysis in the staff report of the project. Discussion followed concerning the number of parking spaces which would be eliminated by the project. Community Development Director Michael Harris advised the Site Plan indicates three spaces will be taken, with twc remaining between the playground area and the planter finger extending north/south or~ the east side of the driveway. With additional landscaping there will be a reduction of fol~r spaces. Mr. Ibalio advised the applicant will still meet the parking requirement for the site even with the elimination of four parking spaces. Commission Menton expres,'~;ed concern with the lighting issue for this project compared to other restaurants in the a~ea. He inquired if staff's recommendation to not allow lighting in the evening was b~.~sed on aesthetics or safety of children. Mr. Harris advised staff's rec¢,mmendation is based both on aesthetics and for the safety MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 8 JULY 28, 1993 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None. Commissioners Long and Menton. Commissioner Mayfield. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEM~ No comments were received, APPEAL PROCESS Vice Chairman Reid read th~. Appeal Process. PUBLIC HEARINGS Al ~Area Ordir:~ance ~uate areas for collectin acL~Q~ Ioadincl recyclable materials in development projects. Planning Director Michael Harris explained that the Planning Commission, at their last meeting, considered the draft ordinance requiring a recycling area in new development and continued the item for additional input. Comments made by the Commission at the hearing were included in the revised ordinance. Staff solicited comments from the City's Recycling Task Force members and no changes were recommended. Staff believes the ordinance, as presented, will provide appropriate facilities to enhance the City's recycling efforts. He briefly discussed the information from the Public Works Department concerning the Cit~/'s efforts toward recycling and identified the aggressive approach the City has taken in ':his regard, noting the recycling pamphlet has had a wide distribution and is available to all residents. He recommended approval of the ordinance by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED- 7:05 P.M. No comments received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED- 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Farr felt there should be points in the draft ordinance which deal with actual siting and design of the ~ecyclable trash area. He expressed concern that multi- family dwellings will have recycling centers adjacent to the street. He called attention to Section 9185(e) and (h) and fett this would leave the recycling design to the discretion of the Planning Department. Mr. Harris explained this sectior~ would be for clarification for those projects which do not MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 2 AUGUST 11, 1993 MINUTES CITY OF" UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1993 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Leif Farr Stephanie Hoppe Richard Long Cindee Mayfield Estok Menton Bill Randolph Robert Reid, Vice Chairman Robert Britton Joe Kruger Mark Oswell STAFF PRESENT Michael Harris, AICP Planning Director Noel Ibalio Associate Planner Marie UIvila Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Reid at 7:00 p.m. Roll was taken with the results listed above. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER Planning Director Michael Harris introduced new Planning Commissioner Cindee Mayfield who was appointed by the City Council on August 4, 1993 to fill the vacancy of Robert Burke. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 9, 1993 Commissioner Hoppe recommended a correction on Page 2, No. 2 of the findings, to read: "The subdivision and modifications to the access will alter the configuration of the existing lots." ON A MOTION by Commissioqer Farr, seconded by Commissioner Randolph, it was carried by the following roll cai vote, to approve the minutes of June 9, 1993 with the correction as noted. AYES: Commissioners Farr, Hoppe, Randolph, and Vice Chairman Reid. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE I AUGUST 11, 1993 go through a Site Development Permit. All commercial construction, major remodeling, as well as any construction in the R-2 or R-3 zone over a duplex would be required to meet these standards. The:se projects would come before the Planning Commission for review. He discussed cases of expanding more than 30% which would initiate the new code provision and would not be significant enough to come before the Commission as a Site Development Permit If the construction is less than 30%, this code provision would not apply and could be approved by Staff, depending upon the size of the project. Commissioner Randolph ,axpressed concern with the aesthetics of projects and felt some guidance to applicants prior to' submitting their designs, is necessary to ensure proper planning of their projects. He recommended staff and the applicant review plans prior to submittal so the Pla~'lning Commission would not have to recommend changes to the project design to accc:,mmodate a recycling area on the site. Vice Chairman Reid explair~ed the projects would all come before the Commission and this code provision would be incorporated into Standard Conditions for projects. This would enable the applicant~; to allow for this provision in their plans. He discussed previous cases whereby rec!/cling areas were included with the design of the project. Commissioner Hoppe inquired if the Commission would be confronted with a situation which is different from what the Commission is doing now. She recalled most of the multi-unit projects which ha,ze come before the Commission have had some sort of garbage and recycling areas and have proper screening. Mr. Harris advised the provision would add 100% area to the collection facilities already established. The provision st;ztes a recycling area must be provided in addition to a trash area. He discussed code enforcement and discussed rewording Section One, G, to indicate trash and recycling areas shall be located so as not to be a visual blight on the project. Commissioner Randolph die,cussed how dumpsters are located in the street in front of multi-family residences in some areas. He recommended there be wording in the ordinance to indicate dumpsters for trash or recycling be screened from the public right of way. Mr. Harris noted the matter of a dumpster in the street was addressed through code enforcement, not within the o~'dinance itself. Commissioner Farr brought to the Commission's attention item "G.VI." He discussed problems with siting dumpster,,;, accessibility or limitations for trash haulers, and problems with narrow driveways with regard to trash design sites. Commissioner Randolph recommended the word aesthetics be inserted in item "G.VI." MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 3 AUGUST.11, 1993 Commissioner Hoppe recommended amending "G.VI." to include "public facilities". Mr. Harris noted on Page 2, paragraph "C.", the word following should be deleted. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Randolph, seconded by Commissioner Hoppe, it was carried by the following roll cail vote, to approve the Ordinance and recommend adoption to the City Council, with amEmdment to Section One, G, VI and Section One, C. as follows: ' "vi. developments, transponation corridors, and public facilities adjacent to recycling areas shall be adequately prol:ected from any adverse impacts such as aesthetics, odor, vectors, or glare through me~tsures including, but not limited to, maintaining adequate separation, fencing, and land~caping." AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Farr, Hoppe, Mayfield, Randolph, and Vice Chairman Reid. None. Commissioners i_ong and Menton. None. PROJECT REVIEW Extension of Site Development Permit A_p_plication No. 92-58~_as filed b~ ~ for construction of a two-stor~e family_dwellinq at 525 Doolan ~ Drive,_Assessor's Parcel No. 003-490-87, in the R-1 Si~ ~'~-'mi-~-~'sidential _zonin_~ district. Associate Planner Noel Ibalio advised the applicant is applying for an extension of one year for Site Development Permit No. 92-58. The request originally was to construct a new 1,650 square foot single family residential home with detached garage/studio. It was noted in the applicant's letter of intent, construction of the house or obtaining a building permit has not occurred due t(:~> economic conditions. The applicant is also requesting Standard Condition No. 23 of tt'~e original permit be omitted from this approval so minor construction can be conducte,~ during the weekends, specifically on Sunday. Staff concurs with the applicant's request, and since it is a single family residence, the owner will be working on it and felt it is unreasonable to prohibit Sunday activity. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission extend the Site Development Permit for one year, subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Planning Director Michael Harris advised, with regard to Standard Condition 6 which relate to the time frame for working on a project, Staff will return to the Commission at a later date with a proposal that the original approval be for two years, due to the economic conditions. With r~gard to Condition 23, staff's concern is that heavy MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 4 AUGUST 11, 1993 go through a Site Development Permit. All commercial construction, major remodeling, as well as any construction in ":he R-2 or R-3 zone over a duplex would be required to meet these standards. These projects would come before the Planning Commission for review. He discussed cases ol:: expanding more than 30% which would initiate the new code provision and would not be significant enough to come before the Commission as a Site Development Permit. If the construction is less than 30%, this code provision would not apply and could be approved by Staff, depending upon the size of the project. Commissioner Randolph expressed concern with the aesthetics of projects and felt some guidance to applicants prior to submitting their designs, is necessary to ensure proper planning of their projects. He recommended staff and the applicant review plans prior to submittal so the Planning Commission would not have to recommend changes to the project design to accommodate a recycling area on the site. Vice Chairman Reid explained the projects would all come before the Commission and this code provision would be incorporated into Standard Conditions for projects. This would enable the applicants Jo allow for this provision in their plans. He discussed previous cases whereby recycling areas were included with the design of the project. Commissioner Hoppe inquired if the Commission would be confronted with a situation which is different from what tl~e Commission is doing now. She recalled most of the multi-unit projects which have come before the Commission have had some sort of garbage and recycling areas and have proper screening. Mr. Harris advised the provision would add 100% area to the collection facilities already established. The provision states a recycling area must be provided in addition to a trash area. He discussed code er~forcement and discussed rewording Section One, G, to indicate trash and recycling areas shall be located so as not to be a visual blight on the project. Commissioner Randolph die,cussed how dumpsters are located in the street in front of multi-family residences in scme areas. He recommended there be wording in the ordinance to indicate dumpsters for trash or recycling be screened from the public right of way. Mr. Harris noted the matter of a dumpster in the street was addressed through code enforcement, not within the ordinance itself. Commissioner Farr brought to the Commission's attention item "G.VI." He discussed problems with siting dumpsters, accessibility or limitations for trash haulers, and problems with narrow driveways with regard to trash design sites. Commissioner Randolph recommended the word aesthetics be inserted in item "G.VI." MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 3 AUGUST'11, 1993 DATE: JULY 23, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION · MICHAEL F. HAFIRIS, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT~ RECYCLING AREA ORDINANCE The State of California has dictated that local jurisdictions must adopt an ordinance requiring areas for i'ecycling materials in addition to trash collection facilities· The initial deadline of September 1, 1993 has been delayed to September 1, 1994 which is allowing Staff some needed time to fine tune the ordinance's details. We will have a draft available at the meeting for Commission consideration and review. We do not recommend adoption of the measure at this meeting· It will be an opportunity for Commission discussion, dialogL'e, and understanding of the design implications for the increased area devoted to solid waste within new developments. The City of Ukiah Recycling Task Force has reviewed the model State ordinance and made recommendations for the City's regulations. These are incorporated in the proposed terminology and will be discussed Wednesday night· A copy of the State model ordinance is attached for your information. MODEL OI~DINANCE OF THE CALIFO~ · I~FEG~TED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 1LELATING TO AREAS FOIl COLL. ECTI/NG AND LOADING RECYCL~LE MATE~~ IN DEVEL.OPME~ PROJECTS Resolution No. 93-57' WltEREAS, Public Resoarces Code SeCtion 42910 (a) establishes that the California Integrated Waste Management Bc~ard shall adopt a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating to adequate areas tbr collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 42911 (b) states that if by September I, 1993, a local agency has not adoptcxl an ordinance for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects, the model ordinance adopted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board shall take effect on that date; and WlIEREAS, Public Resot~rces Code Section. 42911 (b) further states that the model ordinance shall be enforced by the local agency and have the same force and effect as if adopted by the local agency as an ordinance; and WHEREAS, there may be cities and/or counties in the' State of California that do not adopt an ordinance in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 42911 (a); NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the California Integrated Waste Management Board hereby adopts this ordinance, to be in effect for' and enforced by the City Councils and Boards of Supervisors of those local agencies that do not adopt an ordinance in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 42911 (a): The City Council/County Board of " ' ' Supervisors of the subject 'cities and/or counties do ordain as follows: .' · ., , 1 SECTION I PURPOSE Cities and counties must divert 50 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, anti composting activities. Diverting 50 percent of all solid waste requires the participation of the residential, commercial, industrial, and public sectors. The lack of adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials that are compatible with surrounding lm,d uses is a significant impediment to diverting solid waste and constitutes an urgent need for st~te and local agencies to address access to solid waste for source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. This ordinance has been developed to meet that need. SECTION II DEFINITIONS The following definition:; shall apply to the language contained in this ordinance: Aa, 1) 2) 3) DEVELOPMENT PROJECT- Means anyof the following: A project for which a building permit is required for a commercial, industrial, or institutional building, marina, or residential building having five or more living units, where solid waste is collected and loaded and any residential project where solid waste is collected and loaded in a location serving five or more living units. Any new public facility where solid waste is collected and loaded and any improvements fo~~ areas of a public facility used for collecting and loading solid waste. · The definition ot: development project only includes subdivisions or tracts of single-family det~,ched homes if, within such subdivisions or tracts there is an area where solid waste is collected and loaded in a location which serves five or more living units. In such instances, recycling areas as specified in this ordinance are only required to serve the needs of the living units which utilize the solid waste collection and loading area. B. Ce De' Ee IMPROVEMENT - An ii'aprovement adds to the value of a facility, prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to new ases. Improvements should be distinguished from repairs. Repairs keep facilities in g,aod operating condition, do not materially add Io the value of the facility, and do not sul~stantially extend the life of the facility. FLOOR AREA OF A M&RINA - The floor area of a marina shall be defined as the space dedicated to the d. oCfing or mooring, of marine vessels. ., PUBLIC FACILITY - The definition of public facility includes, but is not limited to buildings, structures, marinas, and' outdoor recreation areas owned by a local agency. RECYCLING AREA (AIiHi;AS FOR= RECYCLING) - Space allocated for collecting and loading of recyclable 'materials. Such areas shall have the ability to accommodate receptacles for recyclable materials.. Recycling areas shall be accessible and convenient for those who deposit as well as those who collect and load any recyclable materials placed therein. SECTION III Ae Be Co D~ GENERAl, REQUIREMENTS . Any new development proj,<t for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after September I 1..793, shall include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading ;ecyclable. materials. o Any improvements for areas of a public facility used for collecting and loading solid waste shall include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Any existing development project for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after Septzmber 1, 1993 for a Single alteration which is subsequently performed that adds 30 percent or more to the .existing floor area of the development project shall provide adequ~te, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. .~.... Any existing development project for.which, an application for a building permit is .submitted on or after S. eptember 1, 1993 for multiple alierations"which are conducted within a twelve month period which collectively add 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of the development project shall provide adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and lo~ding recyclable materials. Ee Fe G, He Ie Any existing development project for which multiple applications for building permits are submitted within a twelve month period beginning on or after September 1, 1993 for multiple alterations which are subsequently performed that collectively add 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of the development project shall provide adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Any existing development project occupied by multiple tenants, one of which submits on or after September 1, 1;)93, an application for a building permit for a single alteration which is subsequently performed that adds 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of that portion of the development project which said tenant leases shall provide adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Such recycling areas shall, at a minimum be sufficient in capacity, number, and distribution to serve tha: portion of the development project which said tenant leases. Any existing developme~-~t project occupied by multiple tenants, one of which submits on or after September 1, 1!193 an application for a building permit for multiple alterations which are conducted within a twelve month period which collectively add 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of that portion of the development project which said tenant leases shall provide adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Such recycling areas shall, at a minimum be sufficient in capacity, number, and distribution to serve that portion of the development project which said tenant leases. Any existing development project occupied by multiple tenants, one of which submits within a twelve month period beginning on or after September 1, 1993 multiple applications for buildir~g permits for multiple alterations which are subsequently performed that collectiv,ely add 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of that portion of the developn~ent project, which said tenant leases shall provide adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Such recycling areas shall, at a minimum be sufficient in capacity, number, and distribution to serve that portion of the development project which said tenant leases. Any costs associated wiO adding recycling space to existing development projects shall be the responsibility of the party or parties who are responsible for financing the alterations. ~ SECTION IV GUIDELINF FOR.ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS he Where local standards e:,cist, recycling areas shOuld be designed to be architecturally compatible with nearby :;tructures and with the existing topography and vegetation, in accordance with such sta~'~dards. Be Ce De me Fe Ge The design and construction of reCyCli'ng areas shall not prevent security of any recyclable materials plac,~ therein. · . ! · Tile design, construction, and location of recycling ,areas shall not be in conflict with any applicable federal, state, or local laws relating to fire, building, access, transportation circulation,' or safety. .. ' Recycling areas or the bins or containers placed therein must provide protection against adverse environmental conditions, such 'as rain, 'which" might render the collected materials unmarketable. Driveways and/or travel aisles shall,' a~t a minimum, conform to local building-code requirements for garbage collection access 'and'clearance. "In the absence of such building-code requirements, driveways and/or traxiel 'aisles should provide Unobstructed access for collection vehi~:les and personneli' A sign clearly identifying all recycling ~md' solid .Wasie collection' and loading areas and the materials accepted the;ein shall be posted a, djaCent to all points of direct access to the recycling areas. ' .~ · Developments and transportation corridors adjacent to recycling areas shall be adequately protected for any adverse impacts such as noise, odor, vectors, or glare through measures including, but not limited to maintaining adequate separation, fencing, and landscaping. he Ce SECTION V ADDITIONAI, GUIDELIN FOR SINGLE TENANT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Areas for recycling shall t:,e adequate in capacity, number, and distribution to serve the development project. '"" ~'.' '~ ,' " I,.',' J, ,. .. !., ,' . Dimensions of the recycling area shall accommodate receptacles sufficient to meet the recycling needs of the development ProjeCt. '"" An adequate number of bins or containers to allow for tile collection and loading of recyclable materials generated by the develop~nent project should be located within the recycling area. SECTION VI .ADDITIONAl. (;;UIDELIN~ FOR MULT~LE TENANT ,,. DI~;VELOPMENT PROJECTS Ce Recycling areas shall, at a minimum be sufficient in capacity, number, and distribution to serve that portion of the development project leased by the tenant(s) who submitted an application or applications resulting in the need to provide recycling area(s) pursuant to Section III of this ordinance. Dimensions of recycling areas shall accommodate receptacles sufficient to meet the recycling needs of that por.tion of the development project leased by the tenant who submitted an application or applications resulting in the need to provide recycling area(s) pursuant to Section III cf this ordinance. An adequate number of' bins or containers to allow for the collection and loading of recyclable materials generated by that portion of the development project leased by the tenant(s) who submitted an application or applications resulting in the need to provide recycling area pursuant to Section III of this ordinance should be located within the recycling area. SECTION VII LOCATION he Be Recycling areas shall not be located in any area required to be constructed or ~naintained as unencumbered, acco~'ding to any applicable federal, state, or local laws relating to fire, access, building, tr:msportation, circulation, or safety. Any and all recycling ar~a(s) shall be located so they are at least as convenient for those persons who deposit, collect, and load the recyclable materials placed therein as the location(s) where solid waste is collected and loaded. Whenever feasible, areas for collecting and'loading recyclable materials shall be adjace, nt to the solid waste collection areas. SECTION VIII DECLARATION OF SEVERAB~YI'Y All provisions of this Ot'dinance are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of' the Ordinance. .'CERTIFICATION The undersigned Executi~,e Director of the California Integrated Waste Management Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeti~g of the California Integrated Waste Management Board on March 31, 1993. Dated: I~lh[t 3 I 1993 Ralph E. Chandler Executive Director ITEM NO. 7A DATE _August 11, 1993 M I-- R.AN D U M DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AUGUST 6, 19(,;)3 PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL F. HARRIS, AICP, 'DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ~~,..~~ RECYCLING AREA ORDINANCE At your last meeting the Comr:'~ission considered the draft ordinance requiring a recycling area in new development an¢ continued the item for additional input. Comments made by the Commission at the hem lng are included in the revised ordinance which is attached. We solicited comments from the City's Recycling Task Force members and no changes were recommended. As noted originally, they had generated the basic tenants of the ordinance. The dimensions pl'esented in the ordinance are those used by San Diego and have proven to be effective in the field. Staff believes the ordinance, as presented, will provide appropriate facilities to enhance the City's recycling efforts. Attached and included in the packet is information from the Public Works Department regarding the City's efforts toward recycling. These identify the aggressive approach we have taken in this regard. The chronology of programs and implementation dates from March 1990 and addresses actions occurring at the City landfill, Civic Center, and residential/commercial areas throughout the community. The pamphlet has had a wide distribution and is available to all residents. In summary, the proposed ordinance is appropriate for Planning Commission acceptance and recommendation for adoption to the City Council. Staff recommends approval by the Planning Commission. Attachments: Chronology Report Draft Ordinance MU:PLANNING~IR ECYCLING 7/93 CITY OF UKIAH RIiCYCLING AND WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAMS DATE IMPLEMENTED PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Landfill March, 1990 Recycling - cardboard, glass, tin, aluminum, plastic (PET), newspaper. February, 1990 Yardwaste/compost diversion. June, 1990 Scrap metal and appliance diversion. July, 1990 May, 1991 October, 1991 Tire diversion. Wood waste diversion ("give away"). Concrete diversion. August, 1992 "Give Away" pile. Reuseable materials. November, 1992 Telephone Book diversion. December, 1992 Office paper diversion. January, 1993 Magazine diversion. February, 1993 Carpet padding diversion. April, 1993 July, 1993 Residential/Commercial Mixed Load Policy. Recycling additional plastic tubs & bottles (~/1-#6). Excluding StyrOfoam. March, 1983 Commercial cardboard recycling. First Phase. March, 1990 November, 1990 Residential curbside recycling. Newspaper, glass, plastic (PET), aluminum and tin. Office paper collection at schools. A~ril, 1991 Commercial glass recycling. Pilot Program. Phase Two. May, 1991 June, 1991 Multi-dwelling recycling. Pilot Program. 3-Bin Curbside recycling - small commercial generators DATE IMPLEMENTED PROGRAM DESCRIPTION July, 1991 August, 1991 September, 199t April, 1992 Curbside yardwaste collection. Collected twice a month. Multi-dwelling recycling. Pilot Program ended, entire 72 units served. Curbside yardwaste collection. Collected everyweek. Commercial yardwaste collection. April, 1992 August, 1992 November, 1992 Addition of HDPE plastics to residential, multi-family and landfill recycling programs. Commercial glass collection. Pilot program completed. Program expansion begun. Addition of telephone books to curb- side collection program. Civic Center March, 1990 June, 1991 April, 1993 Cardboard and aluminum recycling. Office paper recycling. Magazine, newspaper and Junk mail recycling. Recycle/Sue 7/93 CITY OF UKIAH SOLID WASTE FACILITY ITEMS CURRENTLY RECYCLED AT THE UKIAtl LANDFILl, Glass Bottles and Jars (not micrors/light bulbs) Newspapers Aluminum Tin Corrugated Cardboard Plastic Soft Drink Bottles Plastic Milk & Water Jugs Mixed Plastic Bottles (detergent, shampoo & vegetable oil, etc.) Office Paper Magazines Telephone Books Carpet Padding OTHER MATERIALS DIVERTED FROM TtIE UKIAH LANDFILl. Yardwaste Lumber Concrete Rubble Appliances/Scrap Metals Reusable Materials ("give away" pile) Tires Stuff/SUE3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE:_ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING DIV!',SION 9, CHAPTER 2, OF THE UKIAH CITY ZONING CODE - ADDING SECTION 9185- AREA FOR RECYCLING FACILITIES PURPOSE: The State of California has mandated that cities and counties must divert 50 !3ercent of all solid waste by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. The City of Ukiah is committed to this goal and is actively pursuing a comprehensive program to reduce the waste stream and institute greater landfill efficiences in conjunction with the County of Mendocino and other local jurisdictions. Diverting 50 percent of all solid waste requires the participation of the residential, commercial, industrial, and public sectors. A significant factor in ";his program is the provision of suitable areas within development projects for the collection and loading of recyclable materials. These areas are to be compatible with the land use and convenient for both the citizen and refuse hauler to maximize the efficiency of the recycling effort. This ordinance has been developed to meet this objective. The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE - Ukiah City Code Section 9185 to read as follows is added: Section 9185: AREA FOR COLLECTING AND LOADING OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS: All new development and certain remodels in cor~lmercial, industrial, residential (other than single family and duplexes) projects shall provide adequate, accessible, and corvenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable malerials, in addition to trash collection facilities, in corlpliance with the following requirements. A. New constructions, or expansion of a commercial, industrial, or multiple family residential project which adds 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of the structure within the same calendar year, shall provide space for recyclable mater als equal to that provided for trash collection as presented in subsection B, or as approved by the Director of Planning through site specific analysis as presented in subsection C. B. Minimum space ~equirements in square feet for trash and recyclable areas for residential projects (number of units) and commercial/industrial structures (squa~'e footages) are: Ce Do E. F. PROJECT(Res. units/com, sq.ft.) TRASH RECYCLABLES TOTALAREA 3-6 units/O-5,00C square feet 7-15/5,001-10,000 16-25/10,001-25 ~000 ' 26-50/25,001-50,000 51-75/50,001-75,000 76-100/75, O01 - 130,000 12 12 24 24 24 48 48 48 96 96 96 192 144 144 288 192 192 384 Every additional 25 dwelling units or 25,000 square feet of structure shall require an addilional 48 square feet of area for trash and recyclables respectively (total area of 96 square feet). Each multiple family residential project shall also provide 24 square feet of area for yard w~ste collection and loading. As an alternative to following the minimum space guidelines contained in subsection B, exterior recycling and trash space requirements, for non- residential developments may be determined using a wastestream analysis for the proposed use, calculating the volume of trash and each recyclable material that will be generated, and indicating the location and design of collection conta hers to accommodate trash and recyclables in a system that is compatible with the collection methods of the franchised hauler. Approval of site-specific systems shall be obtained from the Planning Director with the recommendation of the hauler. Dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of collection. The exterior trash and recycling storage area may be located on the outside or the exterior of a structure, or in a designated interior area with access, excluding dwelling units or in rear yards and interiar side yards. Exterior storage area shall not be located in any required front yard, street side yard, any required parking or landscaped area, or any other area required by Code to be constructed or maintained unencumbered. The trash and recycling storage area shall each be accessible to occupants and haulers. If the exterior storage area is located outside or on the exterior of any structure/building, the storage area shall be screened with a minimum six...foot high solid enclosure. In all cases where a parcel or premises is se[ved by an alley, all exterior storage areas shall be directly accessible to such alley. . Each trash sto~'age area shall be contiguous and jointly accessible with a recycling storage area, except upon written consent of the Planning Director in situations wh ere unavoidable circumstances make it impractical to do so, in which case the recycling storage area shall be located as close as G, H, possible to the trash storage area. Recycling areas shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with nearby structures and with the existing topography and vegetation, and comply with the following minimum requirements: i. the design and construction of recycling areas shall not prevent security ¢,f any recyclable materials placed therein; ii. the de~,ign, construction, and location of recycling areas shall not be in conl'lict with any applicable federal, state, or local laws relating to fire, building, access, transportation, circulation, safety, or related matter; iii. recycling areas or the bins or containers placed therein must provide pf'otection against adverse environmental conditions, such as rain, which might render the collected materials unmarketable; iv. driveways and/or travel aisles shall, at a minimum, conform to local building-code requirements for garbage collection access and clearance, including unobstructed access for collection vehicles and personnel; v. a sign clearly identifying all recycling and solid waste collection and Ioadir, g areas and the materials accepted therein shall be posted adjacent to all points of direct access to the recycling areas; vi. develoaments and transportation corridors adjacent to recycling areas shall be adequately protected from any adverse impacts such as noise, odor, vectors, or glare through measures including, but not limited to, maintaining adequate separation, fencing, and landscaping. All designs for e::derior trash and recycling storage areas shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director, following review by the franchise hauler. In the event the minimum standards delineated in subsection B can not be met, nor can a site specific design be approved by the Planning Director, the project propo~'~ent may apply for a Variance from this section, or another Code section impacted by the proposed facility location, in the manner prescribed in se¢:tions 9231 et seq. of this Code, to be considered by the Planning Commission. SECTION TWO This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND INTRODUCED this day of ,1993, by the following roll call vote:: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED AND ADOP'I'ED this following roll call vote: day of ,1993, by the AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Cathy McKay, City Clerk mth:planning rec-'yclo area ord ITEM NO. 1Qa DATE: September 1, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF ~SOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS FOR ~HE LEASE/PURCHASE OF AMBULANCE At the August 18, 1993 meeting, Council approved the purchase of an ambulance for $74,217. This transaction was authorized in the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget, to be financed with a five year lease/purchase. This item brings the lease to Council for approval. The proposed lease is with Municipal Leasing Associates, Inc., in conjunction with the local branch of West America Bank. The terms are 5.5% for five years, for an annual payment of $16,47~i. The payments were budgeted at $17,000 in the ambulance fund, so the lease provides a savings of $2,630 over the life of the obligation. The attached resolution has three purposes: 1) to approve the lease; 2) to authorize the City Mana~?er to execute the lease; and 3) to provide a "Notice of Intent to be Reimbursed." The first two items are self- explanatory and the third is an IRS requirement. This provides for the lease to maintain its tax-exempt status even in the unlikely event that the ambulance arrives and is paid for before the lease is complete. In that event, the City would pay for the ambulance and be reimbursed by the proceeds. To maintain the tax-exempt status, the City must declare its "Notice of Intent to be Reimbursed" before payment is made for the ambulance. With the approval of the attached resolution, staff will proceed with lease documents in anticipation of receiving the ambulance in mid-September. RECOMMENDED ACTION- City Council approve resolution authorizing City Manager to execute documents for the lease/purchase of ambulance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not approve resolution. 2. Suggest alternative financing. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: 680-5201-800 Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: Requested by: City Manager Prepared by: Louise Burr, Director of Finance~-~ Coordinated With- Charles L. Rough, Jr., City ~anager Attachments: 1. Resolution. R:4/Fin:ASRLease 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. 94- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING AMBULANCE LEASE AGREEMENT, SIGNATORIES AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO BE REIMBURSED WHEREAS, City of Ukich, County of Mendocino, State of California ("City") is duly authorized and existing under the laws of said State; and WHEREAS, the City has entered into an agreement for the acquisition of one ambulance ("Property") all in accordance with applicable public contract codes; and WHEREAS, the governing body has determined it is in the best interests of the City and the citizens it serves to ,';ecure lease-purchase financing to provide moneys in the approximate amount of $75..000 necessary to pay for the Property; and WHEREAS, Municipal Leasing Associates, Inc. ("Corporation") has offered the City a cost-effective lease finar~cing arrangement requiring periodic rental payments including principal plus interest computed at a 5.5% annual percentage rate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'r RESOLVED that the City Manager acting alone be hereby authorized in the name and on behalf of City to enter into binding agreements with the Corporation for leasing the .~roperty upon such terms as may seem advisable to said officer, and to execute, as ac, lent for the City, all necessary agreements including, but not limited to, a lease/option agreement, purchase (agency) agreement acknowledgement of assignment and acceptar~ce certificate. The officer is also authorized to accept or direct delivery of the Property. The authority given hereunder shall be deemed retroactive and any and all 3cts authorized hereunder performed prior to the passage of this resolution are hereby 'atified and affirmed. BE IT FURTHER RESOL~/ED that the City of Ukiah declares its official intent to be reimbursed from the proceeds of the lease/option agreement approved hereby for up to a maximum of $75,000 of prior expenditures in the event the City elects to disburse moneys from its own reserve:; for acquiring the Property and such declaration of official intent to reimburse is issued pursuant to Section 1.103-18 of the Federal Income Tax 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 Regulations. This declarat, on of official intent shall be made available for public 2 inspection at City Hall withir thirty days after this resolution has been ratified. 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLV-~D that the contemplated lease transaction be designated 4 by this body as a qualified tax exempt obligation for calendar year 1993 pursuant to Section 265(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the authorized officers be directed to execute the "Designation of Qualification" document. PASSED AND ADOPTEi) this 1st day of September, 1993, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor ~athy McKay, City Clerk R:4/Res Lease 23 24 25 26 27 28 ITEM NO. lla DATE- September 1, 993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPOR'~ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FOR GREATER UKIAH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The City Council will recall that the City's funding contribution to the Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 1992-93 was based on three factors, and they were: 1. Budgetary constraints in the General Fund due to actual, as well as anticipated State setbacks, prevented us from funding the Chamber at the same levels as previous years; 2. The City was not clear on the Chamber's direction or confident in its organizational resou~3ces; 3. The City's funding ccntribution was specifically appropriated towards those community eventl, s, activities, and areas of economic development that complimented the City's overall goals and objectives. Sin'ce the City made its funding contribution of $16,250 in Fiscal Year 1992-93, the Greater Ukiai~5 Chamber of Commerce has literally transformed itself into a dynamic, well-organized, and visionary organization. Credit for this transformation c.Learly goes to Chamber President Roy Smith, his Board of Directors, Execuuive Vice President Elizabeth Christian and her staff. As evidence of our City's growing confidence in the Chamber and the significant amount of work they are trying to accomplish, the City appropriated another $2,500 last Spring to assist them in the development of the Community Calendar project. Therefore, our total contribution for Fiscal Year 1992-93 was $18,750. (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider and approve staff's recommendation of $22,000 for Fiscal Year 1993-94 funding for Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS- 1. Increase funding for 'She Chamber to match their request. 2. Reduce funding for the Chamber below staff's recommended amount. Acct. No. (if NOT budgetedl: Acct. No.: 100-1945-690 ($7,000) Appropriation Requested- $25,000 960-5601-250 ($15,000) Citizen Advised- Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Requested by. Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Prepared by . · Charles L Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments- ~! of Commerce Application for Funding R:4/CM ASRChamber The Chamber of Commerce ~las requested a $25,000 funding contribution for Fiscal Year 1993-94, but indicated in their application that they anticipated a minimum of ~20,000 would be approved. Due to our increased confidence and support of the Chamber and its overall goals, staff recommended, in the adopted Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget, increasing the Chamber's funding from last year's $18,750 to $22,000 for the current year. The $2'2,000 appropriation was comprised of $7,000 from the General Fund to help underwrite the cost of certain community events (Band Review- $1,000; Fourth of July Fireworks - $2,000; Christmas Tree Lighting - $500; and August 1994 Arts Festival [in-lieu of Hometown Festival] - $3,500), and $15,000 from Redevelopment funds to be used for business education and informational exchange programs, development, and tourism The difference between the Chamber's request and staff's recommendation is not a reflection on the Chamber, but is merely due to the continuing budgetary constraints under which the City is operating, and the resulting reductions in spending ref.iLected throughout the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget. · ADMIN. 707/4634200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 453-6242/6274 · · FAX # 707/463-6204 · COMMUNITY SERVICES APPLICATION 'FOR FUNDING Applicant/Organization Greater Ukiah Chamber of Date May 27~. ~993_ Commerce Address 495E East Per~ins St.~, Uk_i?~ CA g~482 Executive Vice Presi.~ent - --~ M~~xtm~x~x~Eli za~!peth Chri~ tian Phone _ ~ 6 P-~ 705 Name of Contact PersonElizabeth Christian Title of Contact PersonExecutive Vic~e__P~resident Phone Profit xx Noa-Profit Date incorporated 1946 (please attach evidence)( city has on file) How long has your organization been in existence? 79 1/2 ..years (founded 1914) Project Title Economic development coordination and tourism oromotion Project Location Chamber: office--495E East Perkins St., Ukiah~ CA ~95482 Location(s) of additional facilities operated by your organization: None m~o~~n of total aget~cy activities or services provided: The mission of the Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce is to provide the lead coordinati~g role for business development and education, community events and tourism with an effective professional program that benefits the m~mbers and the greater Ukiah community. Amount requested$ _$25~000 Total project cost $ ~39~ ~5~O *Does not include proposed Conference Center promotion or Community! Does your agency have a ci"z~.l rights affirmative action policy or plan? newsletter YES Does your agency have a sexual harassment policy? YES ' Does your agency have an al,proved Americans with Disabilities Act Plan? No--not applicable due to staff size GREATEI~~, UKIAH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE APPLICATION NARRATIVE Fiscal Year 1993-1994 1. Describe proposed proj~ct and its potential benefits to the City of Ukiah: The Chamber is ew:~lving into the key catalyst for strong and positive economic growth and development in the Ukiah Valley. Our membership has grown by 80 to a total of 630 of the most viable local businesses. We feel that investr.~ent by the City in the Chamber of Commerce will be prove to be both a short- and a long-term benefit: A strong Chamber is critical to the economic health of any community. Public money invested to help strengthen the Chamber and increase its scope of work should return to the City tenfold through increased property taxes from new and expanding businesses, sales tax increases from ttr~:iving retail and an expanded jobs base. Many of our major il~rojects are of ongoing benefit to the City of Ukiah: · Tourism promotion: No other local entity is promoting tourism or handling requests from tourists to the extent that the Chamber is. On average, we handle 30 visitors to our offices each day, requesting information about the Ukiah area. In addition, we handle about 100 pieces of mail per month that are strictly tourism related. During summer months, our totals are substantially higher th~t.n this. We estimate that each fulfillment by mail for tourism promotion costs us about $2.50, bringing the total of our costs for tourism promotion alo~e to $3,000 a year. · Relocation promotion: Especially since Ukiah was named the best small town in California, our relocation requests have skyrocketed. In April, we received 138 requests for information about personal relocation to the Ukiah area. With each of these also costir.g about $2.50, our costs to fulfill these requests run $4,140 per year. In April, 1993, alone, we handled 1,398 phone calls on both tourism and relocation matters. We are currently maintaining the most complete Community Calendar in the area. Our goal is to hell? event organizers prevent conflicts. Eventually, we will utilize this Calendar to create a full-blown committee to help schedule/facilitate ever~ts. We are sponsoring and/or co-sponsoring a variety of education forums and seminars to help our members and the community at large improve their skills in business. We intend to do even more in 1993-94 than we have to date, including a two-day Chamber convention that would give our members the opportunity to particip~ te at very low cost in a series of professional training and motivational progr;~ms. We coordinate several key community events, including the 1993 Fourth of July fireworks (which tie City traditionally underwrites for $1,000); the 1994 Hometown Festival (tra:iitionally underwritten by the City for $1,000--and, though this event may change its format to a performing arts festival next year, we will certainly do a major community-wide event in some form); and the Christmas tree lighting (traditionally underwritten by the City for $250). · We are actively involved in many phases of local economic development, including "pitching" tc try to bring companies to Ukiah. We work closely with Larry deKnoblough wil~en we get business relocation requests, and we will increasingly initiate business pitches during the upcoming year. · The City has traditionally given the Chamber $1,000 to help fund the annual Band Review. We pass this amount through immediately to the Ukiah High School Band. Describe the specific needs your project addresses: As mentioned above, the (;reater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce is addressing needs in the community fi.at no other entity is addressing. We coordinate events and tourism promotion that would not otherwise have a "home." We provide key services to our 600+ members that are also critical, including representation at the local, state and federal levels and invaluable business contacts. 3. Describe the geographic~zl area of impact affected by this proposed project: We encompass the greater Ukiah area for the most part, although we do have members from all parts of ":he county. Tourism promotion, in particular, benefits the entire county as well as the City of Ukiah. 4. Describe to what extent your project will specifically affect, serve and benefit the City of Ukiah residents and/or businesses: A strong economic base is key to the successful future of the Ukiah Valley, and the Chamber's role in economic development cannot be undervalued. Tourism promotion is a key compor.ent of economic development in our area, and the Chamber has taken the lead in this area. When our economic foundation is in place, everything else can t::e successful, including social services and the arts. Therefore we see our responsibilities and duties affecting virtually every segment of the community in an ext~:emely positive way. 5. Describe how your program will coordinate with others in providing silnilar services to this area and complement, rather than duplicate, their efforts: Very few other entities evel~ attempt most of our activities and services. For economic education, we coordinate on almost a weekly basis with West Co. and Advancement Enterprises to ensure that we don't duplicate services. In addition, we have formed a strong coalition with the two other: staffed Chambers in the county--Fort Bragg and Wil[its--and with the Mendocino County Vintners Assn. to make sure that our tourism promotion efforts are coordinated countywide. 6. Where in Mendocino County are silnilar services provided and by wholn: ~ ~oooo~o~ ~ ~oooo~o~ c: oomoo~ c: ~ oo ~oo ~oooo~ o§o ~ ~oooo · ~ 88~8~8~888 ~ ~ 88~88~8~888 ~ ~ 88D88888888 ~ ~ 88~88888888 ~ i 88~88888:~88 ~ 888~o88~ 888~888~ 888~888~ ~ o o~ ~ 888~888~ 888~888~ oo o 888~888~ 888~:~F"~°8888~ ~8~8888888~ 88~888888888~ 88888888888 8888~888888~ 88~8888888~ 88~8888888~ 88888888888 88~8~888~888~ 88888888888 I ,--I ~8~8~888~i88 88888888888 88888888888 8 888888888~ 8 888~888D 888888888 888888888 ~o ~ 888~888~ ~o ~ 888o.888~ '64'46666 888~88~ o ~o ~ 8°8°.888. 888888888- 8888888888888 8888888888888 ~8.788~8888'" ,.n 8 o, 8 .. ,,, .,, 8 c~ 6 ..~ ~, ,,, ~ o o ~ ""' ~ 88888888888 88888888888 6660666~666 ?..~.~.?=. o8~ .... 88888.~ ~'sg88~8888F_ ~8~g~8°88888~ 88888888888 ~d~6S6666~ ....... ~8~~g88~8~ 2~g~888888~ 88~8~8888~8~ 8888888888~ 88888888888~ 88888888888 88888~88~8~ 888888888388 88888888888 ~8~8888~g:~88 '' 88888888888 ~8888898~I X8g ~8888~88~8~ ~888888g~:~8~ 8 88888888888 8888888888888 8888888888888 888888888 8 8888888888 ~ ~ ~ oo~ ~o ~oo~o~ ~88~888 ~ ~ooo~o. ~ pp~oo~oo~ ~888~888 ~ oogoooooo g ggggggggggg 888888888 8 88888888888 ~888~888 ~ ' ..... ~' ~ ~ 888888~o~8o ooooooooooo 88888888888 88888888888 ~8888888~88 ooooooooooo 88888888888 ~8888~8~ ~888~888~8~:88 ~oooo~ooo~c~o ~8888888~:88 ~oooooo~coo ~888888~8~i88 ~888~888 ~ 88888888~88 ~888~888 ~ 88888888~88 ~ ..... o ~ ~ o oo~og~gg~'~ ~ ......... . ....... o~ ~888~888 ~ 88888888~88 ~ ~~~ ? oo~ooooggB~ ~ ~PP~p~pp ~ g~gg · 888~888 ~ 888~8~88~8~ ~ ~ ..... ? ? ~ ~~ o~ 9~~oo~ ~ ~o~o~o~ ~ ........ ~ g88~g~888 g 888~8~8~88 88~8~8~888 ~ ~ 88~88~8~888 ~ ~88~8888~88~ ~ 88~8888~888 ~ ~ 88~8888~888 ° ........ ~ 88~88888888 ~ ~6~6;W6~6 6 888T~z~888~ 00°~~0 88~888888888~ 8888~=888888~ 88~=~8888888~ 88~8~888~888~ o ~8~8888888~ · 88888888888 ~ooo0oO00o0 88~8888888S ~ 88888888888 88888888888 ~8~8~888~88 ~ 88888888:~88 8 88888888~ 88 8 ~ 88~88~88~88 ~ 88~88888888 ~ o ~ 888888888~ 8 888U~888~ 888888888 006066006 888888888 ~06600660 888~888~ 888~888~ · .~ o 888~88~ 888~888~ 888888888 88~~88888~ 8888888888888 ~8~88~8888* o 88888888888 8 8888888888888 88888888888 8 gSgg~G88888D ~8~88~8888~ ~ o o ~8~e~8~88888~ 88888888888 ~666000 '' ~8 .... ~88~8~ ~=~T888888~ 88~8~8888~8~ ~8888888888 888888888888 :~8~88888888 88888880~ '990 Oel:m~me~ of ffm Treasury Inferr~l F:levemje Service Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (except black lung benefit trust or private foundation) or section 4947(a)(1) charitable trust Note: You may have to use a copy of this return to satisfy state reporting recluicement$. OMB No. 1545.0047 Thi. Form ~ to P-bllc I _r~-_;-~,-~on A For the calendar year 1991, or fiscal year becjinning '~u ~ 1991 and -- - ~ ~v,,,1 ~ ............. u,,,y ,,Jr ~ ~o , 19~ ~ B Name of organization C Employer identification number ~x,at ~ Number and street (or P.O. box no. if m~il is not delivered t0 street address) I Room/suite D State registration number ~-' City, town, or post office, state, ancl ZIP code tkx.. ~[ ~--'~r-~, ~ E If application for exemption is pending, . ..L'~. ..... check here..~._~ . ...... · F Check type of organization~Exempt under section 1~]~501(c)( (insert number), G Accounting method: ~ Cash F1 Accrual OR · r-Jsection 4947(a)(1) charitable trust F'I Other (specify) · H Is this a Group retum filed for affiliates? ........ E] Yes I If either answer in H is 'Yes," enter four-digit group If 'Yes.' enter the number of affiliates for which ','his return is filed: · exemption number (GEN) · Is this a separate return filed by a group affiliale? . · · E] Yes r-] No J If address changed, check box .... · K Check here · E:]if your gross receipts are norr~ally not more than $25,000. You do not have to file a completed retum with IRS; but if you received a Form 990 Package in the mail, you should file a return without financial data. Some states require · c_.m~pleted ~,Jrn. Note: Form 990EZ may be used by organizations with gross receipts le_':s than $100.000 and total essets less than $250,000 at end of year. ~.ection 501(c)(3) organizations and 41MT(a)(1) trusts must also complete and attach Schedule A (Fo,~ ~'g'~O). Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets or Fund Balances I Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received: · Direct public support ............ b Indirect public support ............ lb c Government grants ............. lc ~. ~ o d Total (add lines la through lc) (attach schedule--.see instructions) ....... ld ~ I o o c.~ 2 Program service revenue (from Part Vii, line 93) . 2 3 Membership dues and assessments (see instructions) ...... 3 4 Interest on savings and temporary cash investments .......... 4 1 5 Dividends and interest from securities ....... 5 6a Gross rents ................ [6~ I ....... ~x"'~ " b Less: rental expenses ............ Leb I c Net rental income or (loss) ............ 6c ~ 7 Other investment income (describe · ....... i 7 8a Gross amount from sale of assets other (N Secudt~s la) ot~ · than inventory ........ 8a =: b Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses .. ab c Gain or (loss) (attach schedule) . . . 8c d Net gain or (loss) (combine line 8c, cc,lumns (A) and (B)) .......... _8d 9 Special fundraising events and activities (attach schedulc :ee instructions): a Gross revenue (not including $ of contribu- tions reported on line la) ......... Lga I Z~o b Less: direct expenses ............ [ 9b I ~ '~ ~ ........... c Net income ........ ill'al ' ' ' 10a Gross sales less returns and allowar~ces . . . . b Less: cost of goods sold ........ i i · l lObl c Gross profit or (loss) (attach schedule) ............... 10c 11 Other revenue (from Part VII, line 103) ...... _11 12 Total revenue (add lines ld, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6c, ~, 8~:1, ~)c,'10~, ~nd'l li ' 12 13 Program services (from line 44, column (B)) (see instructions) ........ 13 _ 14 Management and general (from line 44, column (C)) (see instructions) 14 e. . ~. 15 Fundraising (from line 44, column (D~) (see instructions) .......... 15 u~ 16 Payments to affiliates (attach schedule--see instructions) ....... 16 17 Total expenses (add lines 16 and 4,:, column (A)) ....... 17 ~ <D~' ~..~'(-~ ,~ 18 Excess or (deficit) for the year (subtract line 17 from line 12) ........ 18 · ~ 19 Net assets or fund balances at beginning of year (from line 74, column (A)) . 19 Z,~ 20 Other changes in net assets or fund ~alances (attach explanation) . . . 20 · _ 21 Net assets or fund balances at end of },i, ear (combine lines 18, 19, and 201 . 21 ( For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see page I o! the separate instructions. Cat. No. 11262Y Form 990 (1991) g Form 990 (1991) ~ Statement of Functional Expenses Do not include amounts reported ~n line 6b, 8b, 9b, lOb, or 16 of Part L All organ~zattons must complete column (A). Columns (B). (C). and (D) are requir~:l for section 501(c)(3) and (eX4) organizations and 4947(aX1) chantable trusts but optional for others. (See instn 22 Grants and allocations (attach schedule) 23 Specific assistance to individuals . . . 24 Benefits paid to or for members . . 25 Compensation of officers, directon,, etc. 26 Other salaries and wages . 27 Pension plan contributions . 28 Other employee benefits . . 29 Payroll taxes ..... · 30 Professional fundraising fees. 31 Accounting fees ..... 32 Legal fees. 33 Supplies ...... 34 Telephone ........... 35 Postage and shipping ....... 36 Occupancy .......... 37 Equipment rental and maintenance . . 38 Pdnting and publications ...... 39 Travel . 40 Conferences, conventions, and meetings 41 Interest.. 42 Depreciation, depletion, etc.(attach l;chedule). 43 Other expenses (itemize). a .-'~.V.~.~ j 5',..~..,~ b . .T..r---. )~.~'.~ ............. ,, ====================================== · . f ..... .... --........................................... 44 ?~lal fun~ti0nal Rpe~u (add lines 22 lhr0ugh 43)3rganizati0ns ~ Statement of P~r~; 'A~'orr~I (~ Total (B) Program (C) Management services ar~ get,raj (1)) Fum:lraising · · . __ .... =J '~ ~,~.. _ · · · . · -- .... ~£o% - ....... $ ~'z-~ -- · . . . ...... ~,~ _ · . ~.-~ .~ '~ _ __ · . t~ - '~6~ - (See instructions.) Describe what was achieved in carrying out your ~9xempt purposes. Fully describe the services provided; the number of persons benefited; or other relevant information for each program title. Section 501(c)(3) and (4) organizations and section 4947(a)(1) charitable trusts must als,:) enter the amount of grants and allocations to others. (Requ,recI for $01(c)(3) an0 (4) organ,za~ns and 4947(a)(I ) trusts: OD~Or~ll for o~er$ ~ __ · ~ram services (attach schedule) . . (Grants and allocat,ons $ f Total (add lines a through e) (should equal I,n~? 44. column (B)) . Form geO ('~ee'~) ~ 3 ~ Balance Sheets I Note: Where required, attached schedu/es a/~d amounts within the description (J~ (B) ; column should be for end-of-year amounts only. Beginning of year End of year 48 Cash--noninterest-bearing ................ '"~ ~,q 45 [4% 48 Savings and temporary cash investments . . r/ . ........ 47a Accounts receivable ......... 47a b Less: allowance for doubtful accounts . . . 47b 47c 48a Pledges receivable .......... 48a , b Less: allowance for doubtful accounts . . . 48b 48c _ 49 Grants receivable ................... 49 50 Receivables due from officers, directors, trustees, and key employees (attach schedule) .......... 50 51a Other notes and loans receivable (attach schedule) i 5~al ....... b Less: allowance for doubtful accounts . . . 151bl 51c 52 Inventories for sale or use ................ 52 53 Prepaid expenses and deferred chargm~ ............ 53 54 Investments--securities (attach sched[~e) ........... 54 55a Investments--land, buildings, and eqL~ipment: basis .............. 55a b Less: accumulated depreciation (attach ~chedule) ............. 55b 55c ~6 Investments---other (attach schedule) .... 56 b 1__,~__,: accumulated depreciation (attach schedule)1 57bl c~ ~ t {;~ ~ c~ t "] 57c ~-~ I~-.~ 58 Other assets (describe · ) 56 i 59 Total aa~eta ladd lines 45 through 58! irnust equal line 75) ..... ' Uabilitle=s 60 Accounts payabl~ and accrued expense~ ........... 61 Grants payable .................... 61 62 Support and revenue designated for future pedods (attach schedule) . . 62 63 Loans from officers, directors, trustees, ard key employees (attach schedule). 63 64 Mortgages and other notes payable (attach schedule) ...... 64 ~5 Other liabilities (describe · i 65 66 Total liabilities (add lines 60 throuc,,Ih 65~ ........ (,, Fund Balances or Net Assets Organizations that use'fund accounting, check here · ['-} and complete lines 67 through 70 and lines 74 and 75 (see instructions). 67a Current unrestricted fund ................. 67a b Current restricted fund ................. 67b ~8 Land, buildings, and equipment fund ............. 56 69 Endowment fund ................... 69 70 Other funds (describe · ) 70 Organizations that do not use fund accounting, check here · r'-] and complete lines 71 through 75 (see instructions). 71 Capital stock or trust principal ............... 71 72 Paid-in or capital surplus ................. 72 73 Retained earnings or accumulated income .......... 74 Total fund balances or net assets (add I nes 67a through 70 OR lines 71 linethrough21) 73: column (A) must equal line,, 19. and. column (B) must equal 75 Total lia~ili[t.~ a~d ~u~d ~al;In~=e~/n~t assets (a~d'lin;s ~6 ~lnc~ 7;i) ' ' Form 990 is available for public inspection and, for some people, serves as the pdmary or Sole source of information about a particular organization. How the public perceives an organization in such cases may be determined by the information presented ~ on its return. Therefore, please make sure yoL~r return is complete and accurate and fully descnbes your organization's programs land accomplishments. ,/ r-off~ 99o (1991) ------ P~ 4 ~~r"'J~'~cers, Directors, a~e even if not compen~t~ {A) Name and address (B) T~tle and average hours pe~{C) Comoensat~on (O) Contributions t~' (E') Expense week devoted to pos~ {if not paid. e~te~ e~nployee benefitaccount and othe~ ze,-o) p~nsallowances .............. ........................ .......................... ........................ ................ 3n 76 Did you engage in any activity not previ(~usly reported to the Internal Revenue Service? ...... If 'Yes," attach a detailed description of ,each activity. 77 Were any changes made in the organizin!] or governing documents, but not reported to IRS? ..... If 'Yes," attach a conformed copy of the changes. 78a Did your organization have unrelated business gross income of $1,000 or more during the year covered by this return? b If "Yes," have you filed a tax return on Form ggl:l-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, for this year? c At any time during the yea', did you own a 50% or greater interest in a taxable corporation or partnership? If 'Yes," complete Part IX. ' ' 79 Was there a liquidation, dissolution, termination, or substantial contraction during the year? (See instructions.) If "Yes," attach a statement as described in the instructions. Are you related (other than by association with a statewide or nationwide organization) through common rnembe~hip, ,,go, v~,_e~_,? .b~li .es... trustees, offi. cers. etc.. ,o ;ny other exempt or nonexempt organization? (See instructions.).. bfT 'res, enter me name of me organizatic:n · .. .................................................... and check whether it is [~] exempt OR ['-] nonexempt. Enter amount of political expenditures, direct 0' indirect, as described in the instructions . . [81a I Did you file Form 1120-POL, U.S. Income Tax Return for Certain Political Organizations, for this year?.. Did you receive donated services or the use of materials, equipment, or facilities at no charge or at substantially less than fair rental value? ........ ; ............. b If 'Yes." you may indicate the value of these items here. Do not include this amount as revenue in Part I or as an expense in Part It. See instructions for reporting in Part III . 182b I~w~d-v,,jwv4~, Did anyone request to see either your ann~Jal return or exemption application (or both)? ...... If 'Yes." did you comply as described in the instructions? (See General Instruction L) ....... Did you solicit any contributions or gifts that were not tax deductible? ............ If 'Yes," did you include with every solicitation an express statement that such contributions or gifts were not tax deductible? (See General Instruction M.) ................... Section 501(c)(5) or (6) organizations.--Did you spend any amounts in attempts to influence public opinion about legislative matters or referendums? {:See instructions and Regulations section 1.162-20(c).) . . If 'Yes," enter the total amount spent for this purpose ....... 185b I Section 501(c)(7) organizations.--Enter: Initiation fees and capital contributions incl~Jded on line 12 ......... Gross receipts, included on line 12. for pul:.lic use of club facilities (See instructions.) Does the club's governing instrument or any written policy statement provide for discrimination against any person because of race, color, or religion? .I See instructions.) .............. Section 501(c)(12) organizations.---Enter amount of: Gross income received from members or shareholders .......... Gross income received from other soumes =,1:)o not net amounts due or paid to other sources against amobnts due or received from them.) ........ b 82a b 87 No 88 Public interest law firms.--Attach information described in the/,~structi~s. 89 List the states with which a copy of this ret~Jm is filed · ~.._~- t ,.~cv. ,.,, ~ 190 During this tax year did you main.rain any p..a.rt of your accquntj.ng / tax records on a computerized system?. . 191 The books are in..care of · .(~k.~,V,-- ~l/,.,~.~,<. ~..~. ~.'p.~..w~-,-,__ Tele hon o"7 2 ' ' ,.. _ . ' ':,~ ............... : ............................. p eno. I,,(~.~ ..... Located at · ..'~'4~...~...~..~.:..l~,.r~.t~,..:...v~.i,..~..A. ..... .~. .~,., ,.. ;.v,. .. ~ (~ ZIP code · ~' ~'~,~'~'~.' "' /. of U.S. /,co and enter the amount of tax-exempt interest received or accrued during the tax year. · · ! 92 ! F~m ~0 ~9;1) Anslysis of Income-Producing Activities Enter gross amounts unless otherwise indicated. ~,3 Program service revenue: (a) (b) (c) {~) (g) Fees from government agencies ..... ~4Membership dues and assessments ..... 05Interest on savings and temporary cash investments. 06Dividends and interest from securities . . . 97 Net rental income or (loss) from real estate: (a) debt-financed property ....... (b) not debt-financed property ...... 05 Net rental income or (loss) from personal property . 05 Other investment income ........ 100 Gain or (loss) from sales of assets other that inventory 101 Net income from special fundraising events. . 102 Gross profit or (Ioss)~,from S~ILles of,,j~vel~tory . 103 Other revenue: (a) ~o~-~,- ~ ~-~' '~ ~) Subtotal (add columns (b), (d), and (e).) . 104 105 TOTAL (add line 104, columns (b), (c0, ~and (;).)i Not.: p/us/ir.,/, 'iZ /.) Unrelated business income Excluded by section 512. 513. or 514 (e) Related or exempt (a) (t)) (c) (03 function income Business code Amount Exclusion codeI Amount (See instructions.) I :,~'Ta &Ti I11 Une No. · Relationship of Activities 1::o the Accomplishment of Exempt Purposes Explain how each activity fo~' which income is reported in column (e) of Part VII contributed importantly to the accomplishment of your exempt purposes (other than by providing funds for such purposes). (See instructions.) Information Regarding Taxable Subsidiaries (Complete this Part if you answered "Yes" to question 78c.) Name. address, and employer identification number of corporation or partnership Percentage of ownership interest Nature of business activities Total income End -of-year assets Under penalt~s of I:)~iurY, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying scheclules and statements, and to the best of-my knowledge and bepef, it is true. correct. ~nd complete. DeclaratK)n of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer ' Please ..y ~now~g,. ~'~ ! r' I~ IT~ O , Sign 'l~ Here I ...... .-. - Preparer's t Firm's .name (or. · ~ ~ C'~-~::¢ ( ~~ ,.~'~'~, ~"~..,"* ~ ~- ~ ~ J ZIP code yours, self-employed) ~ ..... ~ * · ' Check ~ self-employed J I . . ? . · ~!1 f~]l Co · 2-Eoi · !!S"/' t;I ~)' _.J i · I ; i · o i I !- ' 'C. lifor, i. Exempt Or_ anization 1991 Annual Information S atement o r Return F~ ~l~~r or fl~l y~r ~inning ~ ~~ num~ ~ F~I ~loy~ i~U~ num~ 0-0205380 UCSOC L UKIAH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, O6 ~ ~95 EAST PERKZNS ST UK[AH CA 95482 final tatum? . I-1~o~v,~ [] Withdraw, []~eraed/Reomm~ If a Ixm is chewed, enter date Check foems filed mis yem': State: r"l log C] 100 I")100~ Fedend: :~ggo [::] OgOEZ [] ggOT [] ggoPF 0 1041 01120H 01120 ~f oq]mizatim is mmmgt undm I~,11~ ,Section 237md md chec~box.(SeeGmendlnstmctimF. No filing fee i~ requlmd.) · 1:3 '-- ! ~o~ du.' a~l as.s~m~ts from .~[~,~s and affiliates .............. 1 '-Gn~ contribution, gifts, g~nts, a,'xl s,nila~ amounts received. ,See instructi~ 4 'To~ gross m~ipts for filing mquirem~t tests. Add lines 1 through 3. Th~ I~e mu~t be complM~. ~ ins:ructiom ........ m Cost of goods ~old ..... , ......... ,, ............................ I 'C4~ m' othe~-I~si~ a~l-S~eS ~'(,f asr, eLs sold- :,": .':'..: ...... " All organlzatlona complete Pad I unlm not required to file thim form. See General In.ruction C. I Gross sales and receipts from other sources. From Side 2, Part II, line 8. ........................ ~ ~ t5 ........................ z ; ....................... 1 eel®ce ®ee eeeee eeeee®ee.® 7 - '-- " · :: ...... l®®ee® e®i I eeee eee®l®e®e, ~ '" ~__ ....................... 'iT' ....................... tm I Total costs. Add line 5 and lira 6. ' .............. InCome. Subt~L-t line 7 from lihe-4.. ' ....... : ...... I ~ and disbursements. From Side 2 Par~ II, line 18 .............. II Excess d recei~ and disbursements. Subtract line 9 from line 8. II Rling Fee-S10. See Geneal Instruction F. eee e e e ® e · · ee · ®ee®e · · ® e e e e e. eee e e e e e i e e e ® e e ele ® e e ® e I! Penalty fm failure to file o, IA'ne. ,See' &~"al Instruction L ........................ Balan~Due. A~ line 11 and line 12. - .................... ' .14_. I! exzmp! ..m~r.. ~&~ Section 23701d, has the org~mization during the ywar:. (1) participated in any political campaign, - ,r~' .... m (2) attracted .to influence legislation or any balld)t 'me~sure,--°r (3) made an election unda' R&TC Section 23704.5 (rdating to lobbying by public charities)? If "yes," complete and attach fo~m FrS 3509 Ii' Old If, mgani~tioe have any c~ in its activities, governing instrument, articles of incorporation or bylaws . tfmt trove not been repoeted to the Fran~ise Tax B(~d? ...' .............. ' ' - ...-.. r"l Ye~ ' ~ No i I~ If, oq~tion exempt under R&TC ~ction 2371:)1g?"..': :': .......... ":': '"'" .............................. I""1Ye~ i7 Did the. cvgmnizatJo~ file Form 100 or Fora1 109 to n,tx)rt' Fax, able income? ". ............................ I"'! If "y~,' enter anx)unt of total income reported $_ ' ......... I1' Is this. Oroup retum filed on behaJf of affiliated orgmjzatJofls? See GeneraJ Instruction M ................................ r-I Uader peemllee of pedury, I deelm~ I~ i h~ve e)~dr_~Bd ihl~ mlum, indudl~ leeo~nylng Behedulee lad Mltinel~l, ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ N .4, Form 199 1991 81de 1 · rt I~ Org. nlzaffon wflh gro~ receipb; of more than $25,000 and private foundation regardle.~ of amount gros. receipts -- complete Part II or furnish ~ub~ut® infomlatlon. See Specific In--ructions. I Gross uJe, ~ rec~pts frmt all Ix~ne~ activities. See I~tmctims ........ ~ .~A,..~. t .... l I~m~l ............................. leeeeeeeeee ~ f~l~Soeo®eeeeeooeeo®®ee®eeo j, eeoeeeeo®ee Oeec o e®e cee e e e o e eee cee e e e e e eeo ® eee e oeoeeo , eros. mu,f. ~ ~,,, safe o~ asse~3 .... :'.L' ....... ~ ................................... 8TOtlf gruss saJes m' ~ fram oltmr s~xJfl:es. Add lines 1 through 7. Enter here and on Side line 1 ........................... ! ~. gifts, grin,3, and s~mifar a, mxmt ~d. Atrdch sc~fe ............................... lO Obhfurmts to or for membem ...................... ,, Com=.~ o~ o,~,. ~ ~ ~.. ,.~c~ ;JJui;.' ........................... ,~ ~=n,.~w,., ................................................................ ,, ~ ............................................................................. "r~e ee eeeee°eoeeeeeeeeeeeeee-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeooeeeeeeeoeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeoe · · IS P, mts ................................ oe eeeeeee®oeoeoeeoeeee ,, o.~.~ ~ d,~e~ ...................................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,0,~. A~~ ................................................................... Total. Add line~ g throu~ 17. Enter hem ;nd on Side 1 Part I line g .............. ~hedule__.~_L IhfMce Sheets ~U~e ®e® · eeeee oeeoe e e o eeeeeee · cee · eeeoeee Ik~tm ~ m. Attach sc~k~s) ......... ~ ooeeooeooeeeo oe®eooeeeeeoe o e oeo e Fednl .rd m ~ obl~tiem ......... kn~e~rmnla b 0~w bal~s. Atta~ sc~duJe ...... ~ lores (~ of Ioarm ,,, ) .......... Omar invmmm~. AttM, schedule(s) ........... ~ eeeo®e®®eeleeeeeeeo e ®e®eeeoeee e cee eee Other usm. Att~h schedule(s) ............... Cma'i but i am, gifts, gnmts payable .............. Benin and norm pay~t~e. Attach sc~.___,~s) ...... Omer I~b~Ue,. Attnch schemb(s) ............. C,~ ,toc~ or pmc~le ~nd ................. PekJ.-tfl or caOltal ~us. Attac~ recor~liadon ..... ~TotlJ liabilities Md net worlfl .................. End olm~ ( q'-~6 ) Iodul® 11-1 Recom::flbtfofl of Income per bo3ks w;b% Income Pm' rotum This schedule does not have to be co~l:)leted if the amount on .Schedule L. line 13. column (d), is I__,,~m_ ~ Net~perboo~s .................... --.___ _ 7 Incmne~on~this~ ~ear. Attach schedule .................... N3e,'ses recorded on books this year not leducted in this return. Attach t,c~dule ...... lines 1 tlarou~ 5 .................... ] Form 199 1991 not included in this retum. Attach schedule ........................ Deductions in this tatum not ~ against book income this year. Attach schedule ........................ Total. Add line 7 and line 8 ............... Net income per return. Subtract line g from line 6 ................ 61716 ITEM NO. DATE: AUGUST 27, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CITATION AUTHORITY FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER As the City Council is aware, we now have a part time Code Enforcement Officer to address complaint situations and follow Ul::~ on new development to secure compliance with conditions of approval. In an effort to insure th,at all of the tools necessary to complete his tasks are at hand, citation authority for this position is recommended. Though this process will not be necessary for the vast majority of the cas~,s encountered through the program, it is best to have this capacity from the start. This capa~.,ility is encompassed in the proposed ordinance which amends the existing code provisions relating to the Building Official and creates the position of Code Enforcement Officer. It does not modify any of the current authority or responsibility of the Building Official, but eliminates .any inconsistencies in City procedures. As is the current practice, the Council would be fully apprised of any citation issuance. Staff recommends introduction of the ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Introduce ordinance by title only. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: . Determine citation authority is not necessary and do not introduce the ordinance. Determine amendments to the ordinance are necessary, make desired changes, and introduce, by title only, modified ordinance. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted)' N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, Director of Community Development ~~.~~ Coordinated with- David Rapport, City Attorney; Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments: 1. Ordinance for introduction, pages 1-2. APPROVED: Charles L. Rough, Jr,.r Cit~/Manager mh:planning asr 8/27/g3 CEO Cite ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 9 OF THE I~IAH CITY CODE, PROVIDING FOR A BUILDING INSPECTOR The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE. Article 9 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended as follows: Section 450 is h,~reby amended to read as follows: §450: DUTIES OF BUILDING INSPECTOR: There shall be employed by the City a Building Inspector and/or a Code Enforcement Officer who shall perform the d~ties now, or hereafter imposed upon the Building Inspector, Sanitary Inspector, Sewer Inspector or Plumbing inspector by the laws of the State of California, or by the ordinances, rules or regulations of the City, and who is hereby designated as the person charged with the enforcement of the "State Housing Act" within said City, and/or the enforcement of any other local ordinances as m,~y be assigned from time to time by order of the City Manager or resolution of the City Council. Section 452 is h,~reby amended to read as follows: §452: AUTHORITY T~D ARREST AND ISSUE CITATIONS: The Building Official and/or the Code Enforcement Officer is hereby authorized pursuant to Penal Code Section 836.5 to issue citations for violation of the codes and ordinances the Building Official and/or Code Enforcement Official is authorized to enforce, when such violations are declared infractions or misdemeanors, as authorized in Chapter 5, Title 3, Part 2 of the California Penal Code, commencing with Section 853.5, and to exercise the powers of arrest for such violations as specifically authorized by Penal Code Section 836.5. SECTION TWO: Publication and Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from its adoption and shall be published as required by law. Introduced by title on , 1993, by S:\U\ORDS93\CODEEN August 25, 1993 the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Adopted on following roll call w~te: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: , 1993, by the ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk S:\U\ORDS93\CODEEN August 25, 1993 SUBJECT: ITEM NO. llc DATE: AUGUST 27, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ADOPTION OF RE~;OLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF MENDOCINO COUNTY The Tax Reform Act of 1984 authorized the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program as a alternate to Mortgage Revenue Bonds for financial assistance to first time home buyers. The MCC allows 20% of the interest ~3aid for a mortgage to be a direct tax credit (tax liability is reduced) while the remaining 80°/;, continues to be eligible as a tax deduction. The reduction of federal income taxes can be calculated as increased income, assisting perspective purchasers in qualifying for home ownership. The program is actually completed by the lending institutions and the real estate agents involved in the purchase transaction. The Community Development Commission of Mendocino County (CDC) is proposing a $10,000,000 allocation request as a countywide application, encompassing the county and at least two of the major cities. The application fee is anticipated to be $2,500 shared by three entities, making Ukiah's share $83:3.33. Also required is a performance deposit for the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC), to whom the allocation request is submitted, equalling 1% of the requested allocation. C:,f the $100,000 security for the countywide application, (continued on next page) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution authorizing participation in the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program and execution of agreement with the Community Development Commission of Mendocino County. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLIC~/OPTIONS: 1. Determine participation in the program is not appropriate and do not adopt resolution. 2. Determine amendments to the agreement are necessary, make desired changes, and adopt resolution with modifications. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepa!ed by: Michael F. Harris, Director of Community Development~a~,~,_ ~i~,c.,._~.~_., Coord,nated with: Noel Ibalio, Associate Planner; Charles L. Rough, J~.~'~'t~~ Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption, pages 1-5. 2. August 12, 1993 letter from Judy Hickey (Savings Bank of Mendocino County), page 6. 3. August 24, 1993 let:tar from Janet Drake (Mendocino County Board of Realtors), page 7. APPROVED: Yvlanager ASR MCC PROGRAM August 27, 1993 page 2 $33,333.33 is the City's share. This amount is available within the City's Community Development Commission fund 335-0700-503. The requirement for this deposit is removed upon the closing of the first program escrow anywhere within the county. During an informational meeting, a real estate agent indicated a qualified buyer who would be interested in the program is already entering escrow. CDC staff verified that the risk is minimal since four months is allowed for securing the initial escrow. The program will be a very valuable addition to our efforts in assisting the local housing market, particularly resales. Eligible sales prices are $120,000 for existing houses and $169,000 for new construction. Qualifying incomes are higher than the standard levels required by HUD and are $44,600 for one and two member households, and $53,000 for families of three or more. The program is available only to first time homebuyers, those persons who have not owned a home within the last three years. Other than the application fee, there are no program costs for the City. The minimal reporting will be completed by the CDC. Tqe agreement specifies the City's responsibilities for entering into the program. The private sector implements the credit through the property transfer. Staff believes this is a very viable program which will enhance first time homebuyers' ability to purchase single family housing in Ukiah, at negligible costs to the City. Both the lending and real estate communities support the program as evidenced by the attached letters. Staff strongly recommends the City Council approve participation in the program and adopt the resolution committing the necessary funding for the program and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. mh:planning asr 8/27/93 MCC PROGRAM RESOLUTION 94- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE USE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES IN THE CITY OF UKIAH AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CDC) OF MENDOCINO COUNTY WHEREAS, the Tax Refc,rm Act of 1984, established the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (hereinafter referred to as the "MCC Program") as a means of assisting qualified individuals with the acquisition of new and existing single family housing; and WHEREAS, Division 31, Part 1, Chapter 3.5, Article 4 of the California Health and Safety Code Sections 50197 et seq (the "Act") attthorizes "... a redevelopment agency, housing authority, or other local entity, authorized by state law to issue qualified mortgage bonds..." to create and participate in MCC Programs; and WHEREAS, the Commur~ ty Development Commission of Mendocino County ("CDC") has heretofore determined to engage in ;m MCC Program pursuant to the ACT in order to assist individual home purchasers in the County to afford both new and existing homes within the statutory limits as provided for the said Act; and WHEREAS, an application by the CDC for an MCC Program allocation will be submitted September 16, 1993, to the Califomia Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) and heard at its October, 1993, meeting; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah ("City") requests that the MCC allocation be available to eligible first time home buyers within the corporate limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the CDC and City wish to cooperate with one another pursuant to the Act in the exercise of their powers under the ACT for the purposes of the MCC Program; and WHEREAS, the CDC has the capacity to file an MCC application to CDLAC which includes the City and to administer an MCC Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council as reviewed City Manager a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Ukiah and the Community Development Commission of Mendocino County, for administration of the MCC Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby, 1. Support the MCC Progra~ and encourages qualified residents of the City to participate in the program. 2. The Cooperative Agreement, dated September 1, 1993, between the CDC and the City, attached as Exhibit A,, is hereby approved and the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Agreement, for and in the name and on behalf of the City. The Mayor, the advice and consent of the City attomey, is authorized to approve any additions to or changes in the form of the agreement deemed necessary or advisable, approval of such additions or changes to the conclusively evidenced by the execution by the City Manager as ~o added to or changed. The City Manager, with the advice and consent of the City Attomey, is further autL.orized to enter into such additional agreements with CDC, execute such other documents, or take such other actions as they may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of the Agreement or to cooperate in the implementation of the Program. 3. Thirty three thousand tl~ree hundred and thirty three dollars ($33,333) of the Community Development Commission fund (335-0700-503) is designated as the City's share of security deposit required for the application and up to eight hundred and thirty three dollars ($833) is authorized from this fund to be expended for the City's share of the application fee. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS vote: day of ,1993, by the following roll AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Fred Schnieter, Mayor ATTEST: Cathy McKay, City Clerk AUL~ 09 '93 02:58PH FRED COH~ULTIr,~L~ COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF MENDOCINO COUNTY AND THE CITY ,OF UKIAH THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (the "Cooperative Agreement") is made and entered into as of ~, 1993 by and between the Community Develol~ment Commission of Mendocino Coun'~ (the "CDC"), and the City of Ukiah ( the "CITY"). wrrNE~ETH: WHEREAS, Section 25 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") established the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program ( the "MCC Program") as a means of assisting qualified individuals with the acquisition of new and existing single family housing; and WHEREAS, the CDC and the CITY have heretofore determined to engage in an MCC Program pursuant to Chapters 1:399, Statutes of 1985 Section 50197, et seo of the Health and Safety Code of the State of Calif¢,mia (the "Act") in order to assist individual home purchasers in the City of Ukiah and Mendocir, o County to afford both new and existing homes within the statutory limits as provided for in .'~aJd Act; and WHEREAS, in furtherancE, of the MOO Program, the CDC may, from time to time, apply to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) for mortgage revenue bond allocations, the amount of which can be traded for authority to issue Mortgage Credit Certificates ("MCCs") in a face ~tmount equal to one quarter the value of the CDC's bond allocation; and WHEREAS, the next application deadline for reservation of MCC authority from CDLAC is September 16, 1993; and WHEREAS, the CITY anti the CDC wish to cooperate with one another pursuant to the Act in the exercise of their powers under the Act for the purposes of the MCC Program; and WHEREAS, the CDC has the capacity both to issue bonds and to establish and administer an MCC Program; and WHEREAS, the CDC inteqds to administer an MCC Program in the County, and the CITY desires that the MCC Progr;~m be applicable to eligible real property in the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants provided in this Cooperative Agreement, the CDC and the CITY agree as follows: ,SECTION 1, The words and phrases of this Cooperative Agreement shall, unless otherwise defined in this Cooperative Agreement, have the meanings assigned to such words and phrases in the Act. 9/1/93 Page 1 of 3 -'5 - AUL7 -'g ' · U_ 93 02:59PH FRED MCC Cooperative Agreement - Community Development Commission of Mendocino Courtly & City of Ukiah P.4 ~P,,~T_.LQ~2: The CDC agrees to issue mortgage credit certificates to eligible first time homebuyers in the City pursuanl: to Sections 8869.85(a) and 8869.89 of the Government Code of the State of California. ' SECTION 3. The CDC shall provide for the effective administration of an MCC program within the geographical boundaries of the County. The CDC shall cooperate with local real estate and lending institutions in order to maintain their participation in secudng applications from eligible applicants for review and approval by CDC representatives on behalf of the CDC and the CITY. SECTION 4. Nothing in this Cooperative Agreement shall prevent the CDC from entering into one or more similar agreements with other municipal corporations within the County, if deemed necessary and advisable to do so by the CDC, so long as such other agreements are not inconsistent with this Cooperative Agreement. SECTION ,5. This Cc)operative Agreement may be amended by one or more supplemental agreements exec~Jted by the CDC and the CITY at any time as long as those amendments comply with State and Federal MCC Program regulations. SECTION 6. This Cooperative Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 90 days written notice delivered to the other party. The term of this Cooperative Agreement shall extend until the earlier of: (1) termination by written notice, (2) the mortgage credit certificates issued from the allocation referred to in Section 2 or pursuant to any amended Or supplemental agreements are fully retired, or (3) December 31, 1993 if an allocation o! MCCs is not received from CDLAC by that date. SECTION 7. The CITY agrees to reimburse the CDC for its pro rata share of the CDLAC application fees and MCC reserve authorily. The initial application fee is $300 with the MCC reserve calculated at .000~,~5 of the bond allocation. For example, should a $10,000,000 allocation be received by the CDC, the total application fee to CDLAC would be $2,500 (including the initial $300 application fee). The CITY would pay its pro rata share ($625, $833 or $1,250) depending on the number of jurisdictions participating in the MCC program. SECTION 8. The CITY agrees to provide its pro rata share of the security deposit required by CDLAC. For exar~ple, if the total deposit amounts to $100,000 (1% of the requested issuing amount of $10,000,000), the CITY will provide its pro rata share ($25,000, $33,333 or $50,000) to be set as~ide in a local interest bearing account and only to be released to CDLAC if the CDC is unable to issue at least one (1) MCC. · ~,~,.~..[D.J~J~. Nothing cor~,tained herein shall be interpreted to impose a relationship of partners or joint ventures betweer'~ the CITY and the CDC. 9/1/93 Page 2 of 3' -4 - ' · I i mm ~.~~ AI_I(_~ EI'9 "93 [i]3:00F'H FRED ,COH'.BULFIH(3 MCC Cooperative Agreement - Community Development Commission of Mendocino County & City of Ukiah IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties he.reto have caused this Cooperative Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunder duly authorized, and their officials seals to be hereunto affixed, all as of the day first above written. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF MENDOClNO COUNTY BY: Chairperson Date (SEAL) ATTEST: CITY Of UKIAH BY: City Manager Date (SEAL) ATTEST: BY' CITY CLERK 9/1/93 Page 3 of 3 . ,~ - ... ', auing$ Bank OF MENDOCINO COUNTY " P.O. BOX 3600 · UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 TELEPHONE (707) 462-6613 August 12, 1993 Roy Tindle Community Development Manager ~"~ Community Development Commission of Mendocino County 1076 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mr. Tindle: MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES Thank you for meeting with us yesterday regarding Mortgage Credit Certificates. (MCC's) Savings Bank of Mendocino County would like to take this opportunity to offer our support for this very valuable program and also request to be a participating lender. I think it is imperative we support and assist people who work hard to make the "American Dream" come true for themselves by purck.asing a home. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in getting this program implemented in our community. Sincerely, SAVINGS BANK OF MENDOCINO COUNTY ~ Hickey Assistant Vice President JMH: sd JANET DRAKE Executive Officer Men,tiocino County Board of Realtors, n c. 406 North School Street Ukiah, California 95482 Telephone: (707) 462-3878 FAX: '(7o7) 462-8352 August 24, 1993 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Ave. Uldah, CA 95482 t;~ i ¥ L;LLt-t~, uk__r,~i~ ~ MENI' Dear Council Members: The Mendocino County Board of Realtors would like to express our support of the MORTGAGE CREDIT C]~RTIFICATE PROGRAM wtfich was introduced this month by the Community Development Commission of Mendocino County. This proposed tax crcdit program would bca strong incentive to many wary tn'st time home- buyers who arc now out there looking at homes but too cautious to actually commit themselves to buy in the present economy. Low interest and a hotly tax credit is a combination that would be hard to ignore. The solid and most sensibl,: foundation of this proposal is the structure of thc purchase price limitations. A new home limit of $169,100 and an existing home limit of $120,200: these arc definitely workable number:; in this market! As an association of professionals, we ask that thc Uldah City Council support thc MORTGAGE CREDrr CI?RTIFICATE PROGRAM in order to benefit indixddual Mendocino County families, to stimulate the local economy in general, and to boost the local real estate market. Sincerely, ITEM NO. lid DATE' September 1, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING LABOR DAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1993 AS "TRY AMERICAN DAY" USA Owned/USA Made is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting American quality, services, and p'oducts. Faith Pincus of that organization has invited the City to join other national, state, county, and city legislative bodies in passing a resolution indicating support of American products and services. It would seem fitting, on a day in which we will be recognizing and acknowledging the working men and women of America, to give special consideration to purchasing and utilizing the merchandise and services which they produce. Therefore, it is requested that Council consider the attached resolution supporting "Try American Day." RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council adopt resolution designating Labor Day, 1993, as ."T~<..,~ American Day" ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS- 1. Determine resolution is not required. 2. Adopt revised resolution. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted)- N/A Acct. No.: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Faith Pincus Prepared by' Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager Attachments: 1. Letter, dated 8/13/93, from Faith Pincus 2. Proposed Resolution for adoption. R:4/CM Asrusa USA OWNED USA MADE AN ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE AMERICAN QUALITY, SERVICES AND PRODUCTS USA OWNED USA MADE P.O. BOX E 8042 KATELLA AVE. STANTON, CA 90680 714. 898. 2953 800. USA. OWN7 CO-CHAIRMAN: RICK MUTH PRESIDENT, ORCO BLOCK CO.. INC. 714. 527. 2239 FAX: 714. 895. 4021 · CO-CHAIRMAN: WA/LY SMITH PRESIDENT. BLOCK-LITE 602, 526. ]118 FAX: 602. 527. 8963 August 13, 1993 Hon. Fred Sohneiter Mayor City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mayor S~hneiter: I would appreciate your assistance in presenting the attached resolution to your peers. I am a member of USA Owned/USA Made which is a national nort-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting American products and services. We are spo~.soring "Try American Day" on Labor Day, September 6, 1993. To date the governors of California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah are committed to signing a resolution. Many other National, State, County and City legislative members have sponsored a resolution designating Labor Day as "Try American Day." A list of those committed is attached, although it is not complete - - new resolutions are being faxed to us every ,:lay from across the nation! In this time of economic recession, trying American Products and creating jobs for Americans is an issue.on many resident's minds. We believe Try American Day can give your commdnity and our Country needed lift. We think your local media would be willing to cover your actions sporLsoring the resolution as well- - we've had great success with media coverage so far. We ask for your support by officially declaring Labor Day, September 6 1993 as "Tr3.~ American Day" in your community. Thank you in advance for your consideration. For further information please call USA Owned/USA Made founder Rick Muth, Susan Morgan, or myself at 1-800-USA-OWN7 (1-800-898-6967). Member, USA Owned/USA Made P.S. If you sponsor a resolution, could you please fax a copy to me at 714.895.4021t - - we're planning on sending out copies of all reslolutions to the local and national media. USA OWNED- USA MADE · AN ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE AMERICAN QUALITY, SERVICES AND PRODUCTS · USA OWNED USA MADE RO. BOX E 8042 KATELLA AVE. 5TANTON, CA 90680 714. 898. 2953 800. USA. OWN7 CO-CHAIRMAN: RICK MUTH PRESIDENT, ORCO BLOCK CO., INC. 714. 527. 2239 FAX: 714. 895. 4021 · CO-CHAIRMAN: WALLY SMITH PRESIDENT. BLOCK-LITE 602. 526. 1118 FAX: 602.52Z 8963 GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN "TRY AMERICAN DAY" National: Sen. Dole: Joint Resolution 124 passed in Senate and House of Representatives 8/6/93. States: Alabama: Resolution passed Alaska: Will coi,sic',er rssolution Arizona: Resolutio~3 passed Arkansas: Will consider resolution California: Gov. Wilson is writing a resolution Illinois: Resolution in process Kansas: Will cons~;ler resolution Louisiana: Resoluti~on in process Maryland: Will consider resolution Michigan: Will consider resolution Missouri: Resolution in process Nevada: Resolution passed New Mexico: Will consider resolution Oklahoma: Resolu~'ion in process South Carolina: Will consider resolution Tennessee: Will consider resolution Utah: Resolution passed Wyoming: Will consider resolution Counties: County County C, ounty County County County County County County County County County County County County of Alameda, CA: Resolution passed of Contra C3sta, CA: Will consider resolution of El Derado, CA: Resolution passed of Fresno, CA: Will consider resolution of Inyo, CA: Resolution passed of Kern, CA: Resolution passed of Los Angeles, CA: Resolution passed of Marin, C,~,: Resolution passed of Mono, CA: Will consider resolution of Montrose. CO: Will consider resolution of Napa, CA: Will consider resolution of Placer, CA: Resolution passed of Riverside, CA: Resolution passed of Sacramento, CA: Will consider resolution of San Bernardino, CA: Resolution passed GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION liN 'TRY AMERICAN DAY" Page two Counties: (continued) County County County County County County County County of San Joaquin, CA: Will consider resolution of San Mateo, CA: Resolution passed of Shasta, CA: Resolution I~assed of Solano, CA: Will consider resolution of Stanislaus, CA: Resolution passed of Tulare, CA: Will consider resolution of Ventura, CA: Will consiCer resolution of Yolo, CA: Will consider 'esolution Cities: Auburn, CA: Resolution passed Barstow, CA: Resolution passed Bishop, CA: Resolution passed Brea, CA: Will consider resolution Burlingame, CA Resolution passed Flagstaff, AZ: Resolution passed Garden Grove, CA: Will consider rE.'solution Glendale, CA: Resolution passed Hemet, CA: Resolution passed Irvine, CA: Mayor Ward will consider resolution Laguna Hills, CA: Will pass resolution La Palma, CA: Will consider resol=:ion Long Beach, CA: Will consider resolution Mammoth Lakes, CA: Will consider resolution Miles City, MT: Will consider resolution Montclair, CA: Resolution passed Montrose, CO: Resolution passed Newport Beach, CA: Will consider ~'esolution Ontario, CA: Resolution passed Orange, CA: Will pass resolution Orange County League of Cities: Resolution passed Palm Desert, CA: Reso![.cdon passE~ Palm Springs, CA: Resolution pass,~ Portland, OR: Resolution passed San Bernardino, CA: Resolution pa. ssed Simi Valley, CA: Resolution passed Spokane, WA: Mayor Barnard pas.,~ed resolution Stanton, CA: Will pass resolution Updated as of: August 13, 1993 USA OWNED USA MADE · ~',, ORCi-~,x, IZXI'ION TO PI~O?4OTE .~MEI~IO, x, ',,~. LID. ,<ERVICF$ ,-~ND PROOL'CT$ USA 90680 '-:a. 898. 2953 300. USA. OWN7 ~,iCK ~ILTH -'~,E-~ DE",T ORCO BLOCK CO ".C -' 527 ~-~. 2239 ,--~\: -t4. 895. 4021 ,; ~ L',.Y 5?,IlTH '~ F.F.OE','r BLOCK-LITE 526. !118 bO~. -'~" a~,. 8963 USA O~%rEDAJSA MADE MISSION STATEMI~.NT ~X2'e believe the~'e is a profound desire among many American citizens to buy services and products manufactured in the United States by companies owr2ed by Americans. ~X2'e encourage the positive aspects of "Buy American" by promoting quality goods and services that originate on United States soil. The United States tax structure should be world class, so American firms can compete with foreign-owned companies on an even playing field. Foreign corporations should be required to abide by the same anti-trust laws as American businesses. ~Ve encourage ,~rnerican owned businesses to spend their profits to promote growth within their communities. Family owned businesses and the passing of family owned business'to sons and daughters is encouraged. 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. 94- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH DECLARIING LABOR DAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1993, AS "TRY AMERICAN DAY" WHEREAS, the creativity and ingenuity of American working men and women in the United States has provided a host of new products and services which improve the quality of life in the United S~ates and the world; and WHEREAS, American '~orkers should be recognized as one of our Nation's most valuable resources; and WHEREAS, the American spirit of entrepreneurship, pride of craftsmanship, and commitment to quality are hallmarks recognized throughout the world; and WHEREAS, the United 3tates and its citizens have reason to celebrate the strength and quality of American prcducts and services; and WHEREAS, the quality and abundance of American goods are a tribute to the productivity and ability of American workers; and WHEREAS, the ability cf American companies to export, even in the face of strong trade barriers in many countries, is a sign of the true competitiveness of American products; and WHEREAS, American farmers and ranchers provide this country and the world with a wide array of high quality food and fiber products and consistently create annual agricultural trade surpluses cf more than $20,000,000,000; and WHEREAS, the energy and perseverance of American business serves as a beacon for other nations that strive to ensure prosperity for their people; and WHEREAS, American small business provides a basis for economic progress; and for the creation of jobs and ,3pportunities for people from every corner of American. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ukiah hereby supports the designation of Labor Day, .September 6, 1993, as "Try American Day," and encourages observance of this day with ¢~ppropriate ceremonies and activities and to honor the day 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 1 through the purchase of American-made goods and services. 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of September, 1993 by the following roll call 8 vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AT~EST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Cathy McKay, City Clerk R:4/Res USA ITEM NO. llf DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF SEWER RATES AND HOOKUP FEES The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors, at their scheduled meeting, August 25, 1993, recommended the date of October 20, 1993 for a joint Public Hearing with the City Council, to consider adjustments to the City and District sewer rates and hookup fees. The purpose of the Pub° ic Hearing will be to consider rate and fee increases related to the Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) and upgrade modifications at the W.~stewater Treatment Plant. A comprehensive Staff Report and recommendation will be prepared for the Hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Set October 20, 1993 as date for Joint Public Hearing with Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors for adjustment of sewer rates and hookup fees. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Select alternative date and secure concurrence by Sanitation District Board. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Prepared by: Bill R Beard City Engineer 463 628 ~ Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough Jr. City Manager Attachments: ' ' R: i\ENG: kk ASWRCB