Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-28 Packet - Special CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF A BUDGET WORKSHOP AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE UKIAH VALLEY CONFERENCE CENTER 200 South School Street Ukiah, CA 95482 FEBRUARY 28, 2005 3:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL m 1 w AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. PRESENTATION BUDGET FORECAST MODEL~ ALTERNATIVE FORECASTS AND RESPONSES TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REQUEST THE COUNTY CLERK TO CONDUCT A SPECIAl MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ON TUESDAY~ JUNE 77 2005, AND TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH ANY OTHER ELECTIN HELD OI~' THE SAME DAY 5. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR MENDOCINO TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA) INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY 6. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM NO: ~ MEETING DATE:_...; [~ebrua~T ~, 2G05 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF BUDGET FORECAST MODEL, ALTERNATIVE FORECASTS AND RESPONSES TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS. Over the course of several Council presentations and committee meetings, Staff has understood the Council's interest in long range financial planning including capital projects and other financial impacts. Staff has begun development of a financial model designed to help in this planning process. This report is designed to present this model, as developed to date and to answer a number of outstanding questions posed by council members. The report on the model consists of narrative outlining the model process and the elements reported within it. Following the report are a series of attachments containing the actual results of the forecasts, using conservative assumptions which reflect Staff's best guess for the future. Closing out the package, the model was recalculated with a (1) worst case scenario showing no sales tax increase or other new funding, the elimination of new public safety positions and virtually all capital expenditures, and (2) a high interest-rate scenario with other variables unchanged. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION' Discuss forecast model and other data presented. Provide additional direction to Staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject report and provide alternate direction to staff Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Council Mike McCann, Finance Director Larry DeKnoblough, Community Services Director; Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor; Diana Steele Director of Public Works; Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works and Kurt Latipow, Fire Chief 1. Capital Expenditure Forecast 2. Series of Graphs 3. Forecast Worksheets 4. Detail Worksheets 5. Worst Case Forecast 6. Total Revenues and Expenditures .7~Z~ Reconciliation of Accounting System Approved Candace Horsley, C~ty Manager General Fund Budget and Forecast: (Attachments 1 through 4) The bulk of the City's basic governmental activities, employees and expenditures fall within the General Fund. The budget is organized into four main categories or groups of departments: 1. Public Safety includes Police and Fire, including their Major Crimes and Volunteer operations. 2. Public Works includes the City Engineer's office and the Streets, Traffic Signals and Corporation Yard departments. 3. Community Services includes Parks, Recreation and Aquatics departments, the Grace Hudson Museum and the Government Buildings department which is reported in General Government. 4. General Government Services includes all the operations required to operate the City in a legal and effective manner. Planning and Building Inspection are also included here. Staff has prepared a budget model based on this organizational structure, designed to be comparable to the City's published budgets and accounting structure. Within each of the four categories multiple departments are recognized. In each of these departments the model records up to five revenue and expense subtotal accounts, which are comparable across all activities: - Revenues: Paid to that specific department, directly by users of service (as opposed to general tax revenues not tied to a specific benefit). - Reimbursable Credits: Amounts "paid" by other funds (primarily enterprise) for services received from the department such as vehicle maintenance or accounting services. - Salaries and Benefits: Regular and overtime pay, employer taxes and employer paid portions of employee benefits. - Operations and Maintenance: All non-personnel costs incurred in the department except capital costs. - Capital Expenditure: Generally larger dollar amount and less frequent in nature. Capital expenditures often require advance savings or financing and generate benefits expected to last more than one year. The model starts with ten years of detail for each of these accounts, for each General Fund department and category. Each of these accounts is then forecast for the next 30 years based on a steady "inflation" rate for that account starting with their 2005 total, and compounded annually. In some cases account totals have been further adjusted for foreseen events. 30 years was chosen as a forecasting period not in the expectation of great accuracy in the out years, rather to allow time for trends to be clearly visible in the results. Sales Tax includes a .50% increase starting in 2006 and continuing for the life of the model. Due to the large size of this agenda item, the complete document has not been included in this packet. You are welcome to view this document in its entirety at the City's website: (www. cityofukiah.com) click on "City Hall" then choose "Council Meeting Agendas and Minutes" from the drop window. In addition, a binder containing hard copies of all agenda items is available at the counter at the Ukiah Civic Center Administration Wing, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah. Also, photocopies of agenda items are available for a fee at the Ukiah Civic Center. Major Capital Expenditures were forecast by project and year of expenditure, working in current dollars, which were then adjusted for inflation in the model. Five year averages are used to present the 30-year forecasts, in order to both simplify the presentation and better reflect the multi-year nature of the large capital project expenditures. In the base model Staff generally used the following Revenue, Salaries and Benefits, Capital Expenditures; Operations and Maintenance; 2%. inflation rate assumptions: 3% Reimbursable Credits, Other than four new police officers, no additions to staff are included in the forecast. Operations forecasts have not been increased beyond inflation. Directors provided detailed Capital Expenditure information, recapped as Attachment 5. Alternative Forecasts: After completing the basic model, Staff recalculated the forecast to provide a range of scenarios: Worst case (Attachment 5); forecast include no increase in sales tax rate or other revenue streams, eliminates growth in the total police force, eliminates all capital projects except police car replacements, and cuts operations and maintenance growth to 1%. Higher Interest rate environment (Attachment 6); forecasts double the inflation rates used in the base model, while leaving other variables unchanged. Council Questions and Research: Status and history of the Electric utility franchise fee and rate stabilization fund: The Utility Director will speak to this issue in more detail, but from a finance perspective the history is relatively straightforward: Historically the electric utility paid a franchise fee to the City, calculated at "6% of the total electric revenue less the Western Area Power Association ("WAPA") contract". Beginning in FY1998-99 this calculation was replaces with a flat dollar amount of $675,000, which has remained unchanged to this date. Staff understands that this change was made to cap revenues to the City in a time of rapidly rising energy costs. Electric revenues not used in immediate operations where then transferred to the electric rate stabilization fund in 1999, 2000 and 2001. That fund has earned interest as part of the City's cash pool and now totals $11,432,659.44. In FY2003-04 the total electric revenue was $13,479,258. Less WAPA costs of $1,263,764 that leaves $12,215,494 which would have earned the 6% fee. This would be $732,929.70 vs. the $675,000 actually paid, a difference of $57,929.70. What is the cost of the ambulance service? Ambulance costs have been evaluated from both a shared allocation and sunk-cost basis. The Fire Chief will discuss this analysis. Discuss long-term effects and costs of various general fund activities: Staff believes that the forecast model provides answers to most of these questions and that additional reporting and input of variables as a result of budget discussions will further refine these results What is the City's overall financial position? Attachment 7 summarizes The City's overall financial position at June, 30, 2004 as a high level summary of the balance sheet information for each functional group of Funds, starting with the General Fund, other governmental funds, enterprises, including utilities and other funds managed by the City. The sheet contains two important validation check points: 1. Near the bottom of the sheet, the "Audited Balances" line is drawn from the recently completed June 30, 2004 CPA Audit and verifies that the internal accounting figures used in this work are in balance. By confirming our cash, fixed asset and liability balances we verify our gross fund balance totals for further analysis. 2. The two right hand columns compare the accounting figures to the budget for the current year. The variances between actual and budget are normal and expected, reflecting the timing of work; with the budget figures extracted in March of 2004 and the Audit adjustments finalized nine months later in December. While most our attention naturally focuses on the General Fund, some comments are in order on the Fund subtotals presented on the report: - Project funds include all governmental fund balances at June 30 which have been designated to specific or categorical projects, including General Fund reserves, grants, gas taxes, CDBG revolving funds, fixed asset and sinking funds (698 & 699). The funds have been distinguished from the general accounting flow by Council action, and remain generally available for further direction and usage. - Internal Service funds are setup to report specific functional activities in a business-like manner, such as Billing and Collection or Purchasing. Their fund balances represent governmental funds effectively recognized as reserves for the long-term needs of that activity. - Redevelopment funds are managed by the City for the RDA and retain a separate legal identity. RDA fund balances are expected to be "upside down" reflecting the use of debt secured by future property tax flows to the RDA. - Other Enterprise funds are smaller non-utility non-governmental type activities which are expected to be supported by their users and managed in a business-like manner, including the Airport, Golf Course, Parking District and Conference Center. These funds are expected to accumulate reserves to primarily manage their own capital needs. - Electric Funds report the City's largest fund balances. However over $11,000,000 is designated for rate stabilization reserves, $2,000,000 was reserved for the bond payment completed in July 2004 and same amount is held, by bond agreement, for the final bond payment. Nearly $2,000,000 is held in the Public Benefit Fund, leaving $4,000,000 in general reserves. With the potential business and legal challenges facing the utility in the near future, Staff believes that this is a prudent reserve. - Water and Wastewater Funds have both accumulated sizable reserves over time. Beyond a prudent working reserve, these balances are now being looked at as a "down payment" on the large projects occurring in both utilities and directly reduce the size of the bond issues that will be needed. - Solid Waste Site Funds are being held to finance the 30+ year closure cycle with provisions for monitoring, remediation and liability insurance protection. - UVSD and deposit Funds represent funds that the City is holds for the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District or as security and other deposits. In future presentations Staff will provide additional information on revenues and expenditures in each of these areas. The use of accumulated reserves for mandated projects and potential legal action further demonstrates the continuing need for the prudent use of debt, set aside of current revenues to provide for future projects and thoughtful control of operating expenses. Conclusion Staff hopes that this information will help move us forward in the financial planning process. The forecast model being presented is not a completed project, and instead should be considered the first step in an on-going process. Input and direction are very welcome. Capital Expenditure Forecast Public Works Projects Brid.qes Oak Manor Footbridge Orchard Avenue Bridge Orr Creek Bridge repairs Waugh Lane replacement Traffic Issues BST background traffic 25% inflll development Intersections RR Crossing rehab Gobbi, Oak & Babcock State & Gobbi Street Projects 2002 STIP street rehab Airport Park Blvd repair Airport Indus Park improv Street Repair for PMS level Waugh Lane acq & wide Waugh & Talmadge circle Sidewalks & Ramps ADA Ramps Sidewalks NWPRR Trail Trail Phase II Oak Manor-Orchard trail Drainaqe Clay St storm drain NPDES Phase 2 Mendo Creek-Cleve Lane Perkins St storm drain Land & Facilities Corp Yard subsurface investigation Gas Plant Mappinq GIS implementation GIS storm drains GIS Maintenance Horizontal control Future Projects TBD Reimbursement from State Funds STIP Reimbursement STP D1 Reimbursement Parks and Aquatics Projects Anton Stadium Playgorund Replacement Equipment Observatory Buildings Parks Operations Yard Riverside Park Miscellanous Parks upgrades Aquatics Center Fire Vehicles & Equipment Engine 6584 - 1994 Pierce Type 1 Pumper Engine 6581 - 1988 Beck Type 1 Pumper Engine 6582- 1971 Van Pelt Type 1 Pumper Truck 6551 - 1983 American La France Truck Company Patrol 6547 - 1999 Ford Type IV Brush Engine Patrol 6560- 1989 GMC Type IV Brush Engine - Replace with Type III Medic 6520 - 2000 Ford Ambulance Medic 6524 - 1996 Ford Ambulance Medic 6521 - 1993 Ford Ambulance Battalion 6503 - 1994 1/2 Ton GMC pickup Chief 6500 - 1999 Chew Blazer 2004 pickup truck Fire and EMS Equipment 30 year-General Fund Totals 2/23/2005 Annual or Total Cost 30,000 40,500 15,000 50,000 177,792 53,583 13,000 70,000 377,000 18,000 890,000 88,366 2,000,000 850,000 150,000 113,134 1,200,000 544,000 1,300,000 231,000 150,000 75,000 1,000,000 200,000 90,000 150,000 25,000 50,000 10,000 50,000 250,000 (1,000,000) (130,000) 500,000 75,000 200,000 500,000 300,000 25,000 3,000,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 600,000 150,000 250,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 5,972,964 Attachment I Year (s) of Expenditures 2OO8 2006 2011 2012 2008-2013 2008-2013 2006 2008 2009 2008 2007 2007 annual 2008 LOWER BY 970,000 2012 2012 annualto 2015 annualto 2015 2008 2015 2008 2009 annual 2015 2010 2006 2006 5 yrs/2006 2010 annual 2009 annual even years annual 2OO7 each 2015-2019 2008 2010 each 2010-2019 each 2006-2015 2009 2010 2025 2006 2020 2OO6 2O20 2O06 2025 2013 2029 2006 2020 2008 2016 2024 2032 2006 2013 2021 2029 2006 2013 2021 2029 2006 2015 2025 2009 2019 2029 2015 2025 Annual-Varies Capital Project Summary Attachment 2: A series of graphs summarizes the history built into the model and results of the forecasts. These graphs will be used in Powerpoint to accompany the oral presentation of this report. This presentation of the model includes a .50% sales tax increase starting in 2006 and continuing for the life of the model. The graphs start with a review of General Fund Revenue and Expenditure history to provide a basic look the types of review received and the categorical uses of funds. Next we move to the high level forecast with the total Revenue and Expenditure line graph, followed by more detail of each side of the equation. Then the graphs progress through each of the four categories of the 30 year forecast. The forecasts are the output of both the inflation percentage used to drive each line item and the individually listed capital projects. Please note that all forecasts (reports and graphs) are stated in FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES. m X 0 X X X 0 I o o o o o o c~ o o o o o [1 E._o 0 (D o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o (3,) X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (CC) 0 0 (CC) (CC) (CC) (CC) (CC) C) (C~ 0 (CC) (CC) (CC) (CC) (C~ (CC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c~ o o o o o o 0 0 = C~I 0 CD CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Attachment #3 The "forecast" worksheets for each of the four categories contain a summary of the 30 year forecast. These sheets roll up into the General Fund Forecast by category and drive the category graphs. This presentation of the model includes a .50% sales tax increase starting in 2006 and continuing for the life of the model. The forecasts are the output of both the inflation percentage used to drive each line item and the individually listed capital projects. Please note that all forecasts (reports and graphs) are stated in FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES. The General Fund Forecast is the highest level summary presented, showing the average General Fund bottom line for each period. *General Fund History page- The numbers in parenthesis under expenditures are total summaries from the detail sheets of each fund behind the summary page. **On the Department History pages the revenues and reimbursable credit numbers should be positive numbers. All others are expenditure items and are negative numbers. To get the net dollar amount for expenses, subtract expenditures from the total amount of revenue and reimbursable credits. LLI C -- -- 0 0 0 ID 0 w~O~O CO ~ 0 0 0 ID 0 (D 0 0~-- ~" ~- cO 0 O0 00~ !'-. o3 0 0 CO 00~ O~ ~- t~ 0~1 ~ 0 o~ 0 b- ~ O~ ~r ~o 0o ~- o o o ~r 0o o ~-- t~ ~- o ~r o c~l ~r o~ ~-- ~- o~ o o~ ~'~ o ~ ~1- ~- . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ C~ cO ~' o~00~ 0 . 0 ~,~ 0 0 ~ O I"- CD 04 'q' ~ O O OD O CC) 04 ~'- qD ~ 03 O ~-- 04 ~ v v .r-- ~-- v v v v v v v v o~ o co o cO ~- I'-- o 00 CD o 0 Attachment 4: The "Detail" worksheets for each of the four categories contains all the detail driving the model. These detail sheets roll up into the General Fund Detail by category, which in turn drives the overall summary and summary graphs. On the right side of the sheets the last two columns are the AVERAGE ANNUAL Actual Growth and that growth as a percent of the total growth over the 10 year history. 0 0 0 0 0 "~ 0 0 00~ 0 00 oO 0 00 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 (%) 00000~ ~o~o~ ~0~ ~0~0~ ~0~ ~0~ 000000 000000 ~0000~ 0~00 e eeee 00~0 ~ 00~ ~ 0~ ~ 0 O0 ~0 0 b.- Oq ~~0~ 0~00 ~0~00 O~ ~ ~ 0 O~ O~ 0 O~ 0 04 0 t~ c r- _~ -- 0 0 <~DE o o ~-.0 -00~ 0 A O O ~.0 o o O 00 ~- ~-0~o O~ o 0 ~-. ~' o o~ ~o 00000-- ~ 0 -e- ~o o cO c~ o A A A A A A A A A ~ RZ~l o o 0 o 0 0 0 o ~'- 0 0 ~ o cD . o. ,~ v- 0 i.o o 0 CO00~O o 0 w-OeO ~o (00~ ~0 ' 0 0 ooo o o 0 ~000 0 00~0 0 0 0 ~0 ~0 ~0 0 0 ~ > 0~~ 0~0~ 0~~ 0 ~00~ 0~0~ 0~0~ ~0~ ~~0~ ~~0~ 0~0~ 0~~ 0~0~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ' 0 0~00 0~00~ 0~~ 000 ~ ~ Xr ~Ow-O Ow-O 00~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~00 ~0 0~ O0 0~' ~0~0 0000 o w '6 w~ 0 COO 0 ~0 w~ 0 COO ~- ~0 v- 0 ' 0~0 oE-~ '~o~ <c~. "~0 0 0000 O0 0 0 00~ 0 0 0 0 ~-- 0 qE w-- 0 000 O0 0,,I ~0 O0 0,1 w- .~. v- 0 0') v- o~ ~o~oo 00~ 0~.. O00 0 000 o=~= ~ o'~ 00000 o o > 0 000 0 ~ o "' '~ 0 0 > Attachment # 0 Ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 [3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 ~1 0 0,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Attachment e e o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 Attachment o o L,~ 0 0 ADVISORY VOTE ONLY [Alt. 1 :] Should any new sales tax revenues in the City of Ukiah be used to fund public safety services in the City, including police, fire and emergency medical services? [] Yes [] No [Alt. 2:] Should public safety services, including police, fire and emergency medical services, be the first priority for the use of new sales tax revenues in the City of Ukiah? [] Yes [] No [Alt. 3:] Should the City Council use new sales tax revenues to (1) adequately fund public safety services, including police, fire, and emergency medical services, and (2) if sufficient new sales tax revenues are available after public safety services have been adequately funded, other municipal services which would otherwise be curtailed or eliminated because of limited general fund revenues? [] Yes [] No [Alt. 4:] Should sufficient new sales tax revenues and other general fund revenues be budgeted for public safety services in the City to provide the staffing and equipment necessary to maintain the existing level of service plus not less than four additional full-time peace officers, sufficient fire department personnel to maintain no less than three figherfighter/EMTs on each shift, and adequate equipment for public safety personnel to safely and effectively provide public safety services? [] Yes [] No [Alt. 5:] Should all new sales tax revenues in the City of Ukiah plus the amount of general fund revenues budgeted for public safety services in fiscal year 2003-2004 be used exclusively to fund public safety services in the City, including police, fire and emergency medical services? [] Yes [] No ITEM NO. 4 DATE: February 28, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REQUEST THE COUNTY CLERK TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2005, AND TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION HELD ON THE SAME DAY The City of Ukiah historically has consolidated its elections with Mendocino County. Attached for Council's adoption is a proposed Resolution calling a special municipal election on June 7, 2005, consolidating the election any other election held on the same day, and contracting with the County of Mendocino for election services. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Resolution. The election is necessary for submittal of a ballot measure to the citizens of the City of Ukiah. The deadline for submitting an agreement for elections services (proposed resolution) with the County is February 22, 2005 in order for the County Elections Department to submit the City's request to the Board of Supervisors at their first meeting in March. The cost for providing these election services is estimated at $15,000 and is included in the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Elections budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Requesting The Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors To Request The County Clerk To Conduct A Special Municipal Election Of The City Of Ukiah On Tuesday, June 7, 2005, And To Consolidate Said Election With Any Other Election Held On That Same Day. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Choose not to consolidate the election with the County of Mendocino and direct the City Clerk to conduct the election. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ,~;;,~-.~.z~- ~//~z.,,i~/~j Coordinated with:Candace Horsley, City Manager, David Rapport, City Attorney, and Anne Holden, Mendocino County Supervising Elections Clerk Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption APP ROVED!~~:::~~~~. Candace Horsley, City Managel~ ASR: County Election Agreement- June 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- ATTACHMENT ,/, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH REQUESTING THE MENDOClNO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REQUEST THE COUNTY CLERK TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2005, AND TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION HELD ON THAT SAME DAY WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah has called a special election to be held in this City on Tuesday, June 7, 2005; and WHEREAS, Section 10002 of the' Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the Clerk of the County of Mendocino to render specified services relating to the conduct of an election to any city or district which has by resolution requested the Board of Supervisors to permit the County Clerk to render the services, subject to requirements set forth in that section; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah special election shall consist of one ballot measure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant tO the above cited provisions, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino is hereby requested to permit the County Clerk to perform and render all services and proceedings incidental to and connected with the conduct of the special municipal election Of the City of Ukiah with the cooperation and assistance of the City Clerk of the City of Ukiah, such services to include, but not limited to the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Establish voting precincts, secure locations for polling places, and secure the services of election officers for. each precinct as required by law. Prepare and furnish to the election officers necessary supplies for the conduct of the election. Cause to be translated, as appropriate, and printed the requisite number of sample ballots, official ballots, rosters and other necessary forms. Make necessary arrangements for the delivery of supplies to the various precincts. Distribute absent voter ballots as required by law. Receive the return of elections material and supplies. Canvass the returns of the election, including the absent voter ballots. Furnish a tabulation of the number of votes cast in each precinct. Make all the necessary arrangements to pay the precinCt board members and other costs of the election incurred as the result of services performed for the City of Ukiah. Publish a list of precincts, election officers; polling places and hours.polls will be open. Verify signatures appearing on petition papers. 1) 2) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Ukiah City Clerk shall be responsible for: Publication of Notice of Election, as required by law. Publication of Notice related to arguments for and against said measure as required' by law. THE FOREGOING REOSLUTION WAS ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Ukiah City Council held on the ~ day ,2005, by the following roll call vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ITEM NO. ~ DATE: February 28, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR MENDOCINO TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA)INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY Staff has been meeting with MTA representatives since May 2004 in an effort to identify a desirable location for an intermodal transportation facility within the City of Ukiah. The purpose of the facility is to enhance public and mass transit by providing a centralized location from which individuals can connect with local and long distance mass transportation. The primary service providers are proposed to be MTA, Greyhound, and Amtrak. Staff's efforts to date have been focused on assisting MTA with defining the scope of the project and identifying potential locations. As the current Council has not discussed this item, Councilmember McCowen asked that this item be brought to Council for additional consideration and direction. This project has a long history dating back to 1991 when MTA initiated a study to identify a site which could facilitate intercity bus services. In 1994, MTA along with the City of Ukiah and Mayor Sheridan Malone began a series of public meetings focused on developing the Ukiah Train Depot site into an intermodal transportation center featuring intercity bus services. The idea at the time was to coordinate rail passenger service with bus service to points around the city and county. The timing of this effort was prompted largely by grant funds awarded to MTA for this purpose. A narrative description of this effort is further explained in Attachment ld of this report. After several years of negotiations and attempts to reconcile impediments to development, the MTA Board of Directors determined to abandon the Depot site and seek an alternative location. MTA has now scoped the project back down to focus on intercity bus service originating and terminating in downtown Ukiah. The proposed facility would contain a waiting room, luggage storage area, ticket counter, and restrooms. It could also require ( Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: After discussion provide direction to staff ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Councilmember John McCowen Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager, Diana Steele, City Engineer, and Patsy Archibald, Risk Manager la through d - MTA correspondence. APPROVED:' ~~--'!' ~-'~,~'~ Candace Horsley, City ~g~er the elimination of up to twelve (12) off-street parking spaces and several on-street spaces depending upon the location. At direction from the previous Council, staff coordinated the project with the consultants completing both the Downtown Parking Study and City-Wide Traffic Circulation Study. MTA has provided funding for the consultant time spent on revising the parking study to include consideration of the transit center. The traffic circulation consultant agreed to review any proposals as part of their work, at no additional cost. The primary focus on potential locations has been concentrated in the area around Parking Lot "C" on the Standley Street side, and the Railroad Depot site. A major consideration for MTA is to identify a location which will minimize any alterations or disruptions to existing bus routes and to accommodate the circulation needs of the buses on busy and narrow downtown streets. The project also needs to be located near services for passengers. While the locations identified around the parking lot do meet MTA's criteria, there are constraints regarding available infrastructure and significant loss of parking. After meeting with the parking and traffic consultants, several issues became apparent. The long term parking needs of the passengers would require a loss of approximately twelve parking spaces in Lot C but would also require the elimination of a significant number of on-street spaces to allow for bus stops involving arrivals, departures, waiting etc. This creates a significant constraint regarding the west end of Standley Street and along Main Street between Standley and Smith Streets as that parking is in high demand for long and short-term parking for the Library, employees and restaurants in the area. Staff expressed concern that if the facility were to be located on Standley, that the east end near Mason Street would be preferable. While this location is not ideal, the parking in this area is less impacted and the loss would be less critical. Several locations along Standley Street have been reviewed however, there are no sewer or water mains on Standley Street between Main and Mason Streets to accommodate construction of a facility. MTA would be required to extend those utility mains to the project site which would result in a significant expense. One location which could accommodate a small facility and has access to utilities is the landscape area of the old police building at the northwest corner of Standley and Mason Streets. The site could accommodate a small building however, passenger and employee parking would have been located in the parking lot, resulting in a reduction of those resources to the public. Additional concerns for MTA in considering any location around Lot C surfaced in discussions with the circulation study consultants. The consultants are reviewing the potential to create one way couplets that involve Main Street. MTA has indicated that should the traffic on Main Street be routed to north bound only, a bus center in this area would be extremely difficult if not impossible due to the extensive revisions to bus routes that would be needed unless a one way "bus-only" southbound lane can be established from Standley to Perkins Sts. Because of the numerous constraints to the Standley and Main Street area, a desire to revisit the Depot site was discussed. Staff and MTA representatives have met with NCRA staff who expressed willingness to work with all parties for a long term lease. The project will require renovation of the Depot building, however, the City is in line to receive grant funds for that purpose. However, the transit center project is grant funded with a specific timeline which has previously been extended. MTA.Executive Director, Bruce Richard has expressed concern that revisiting the Depot site could endanger the grant. In addition, there are many impediments to developing the Depot site involving both time and funding. At their meeting of February 10 the MTA Board determined not to pursue the Depot site out of concern that the grant will expire before the site can be secured. The Depot site could be the best long term location for the transit center as it meets MTA's bus routing needs, is near downtown services, and easily accessible from the freeway to intercity and long distance bus services. Attached are several communications from MTA which will provide Council with background and information regarding the project and MTA's concerns. MTA representatives will be in attendance to discuss this item with the Council. LD/C Transit Center. Asr Attachment ~ i II ii . i I ILl L_ SERVING MENDOCINO COUNTY SINCE 1976 Mendocino Transit Authority April 27, 2004 Ms. Candace Horsley, City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah CA 95482 RE: Proposed Downtown Transit Center Dear Candace, The purpose of this letter is to formally request that the City of Ukiah incorporate MTA's need for a downtown Transit Center into two on-going projects: the Downtown Parking Study and the City-wide Traffic Circulation Study. MTA should work closely with the City to find a location that satisfies both MTA's and the City's needs. In addition to the City's two highly relevant studies, MTA has just begun a Short Range Transit Development Plan. These three efforts present an excellent opportunity to approach the site selection issue in a broad and collaborative manner. Ail three are running concurrently and should be completed this calendar year. I understand that your Parking Study is expected to be completed this summer with a draft due in May. Your Traffic Study is-expected in December with a draft in October. MTA's Plan will be completed in December with a draft in November. MTA does have a federal grant for construction of the formerly proposed North Ukiah Transit Center at FjOrds. I have been working with CalTrans to change the location and the scope of that grant, and my proposal to collaborate with the City and the three planning projects was well received. I discussed a time frame beginning with formal site selection by January 2005, and completion of construction before December 2005. Continued... 241 Plant Road · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-5765 Fax (707) 462-1760 Candace Horsley April 27, 2004 Page 2 You suggested that your consultants may need to increase their fee to incorporate the needs of a Transit Center. I have asked CalTrans if the existing grant could be modified for this purpose. Their response was no. They are still positive about expanding the scope to include design, but not until we have selected a site and have more specifics. If you could send me a copy of the scope of work for both projects, I will study and then call you to arrange a time for a more detailed discussion. Sincerely, Bruce Richard General Manager. c: Paul Andersen, MTA Board of Directors SERVING MENDOCi SINCE 19 76 Mendocino Transit Authority September 20, 2004 Ms. Candace Horsley, City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah CA 95482 RE: Downtown Transit Center Options Dear Candace, The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief analysis of each of the five sites suggested by Zack Matley (email of July 22, 2004) from MTA's point of view, and to comment on his proposed scope of work for an amendment to your contract for the evaluation of potential downtown transit center sites (letter of August 23, 2004) . Potential Sites Please refer to the "Preliminary Proposed Downtown Transit Center, Vision - Design Concept" paper, dated September 20, 2004, for a description of the basic needs. This analysis assumes that Main Street remains two-way and no other changes are made in directions of travel lanes on any downtown streets. MTA has no plans for any re-routing of local buses downtown. A Standley Street. On-street bus parking spaces would be located along the north side of Standley, from the corner of Main Street eastward for up to 300 feet. MTA still favors this site because of the ease of bus access and customer convenience. There were two drawbacks. First, the location of the sewer line was thought to be far away. However, Diana Steele thought another line was available closer, but I do not remember exactly where it was. Second was the amount of space required off-street for long-term parking and for the small building. The latter is an issue that your consultant would have to look into. 241 Plant Road · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-5765 Fax (707) 462-1760 Candace Horsley September 20, 2004 Page 2 B Main between Standley and Perkins. This location works well from a bus routing point of view. Intercity buses, and two local buses would stop on the west side of Main Street. We really need more than 100 feet for three buses though. One local bus could stop in front of the Library, but the fourth local bus should continue to stop on Standley west of Main. The site could be improved, from our perspective, by moving the bus from in front of the Library to Standley Street west of Main. The key is that the small building would need to be in the existing parking lot on the west side of Main. Long-term parking would also need to be there, although other nearby locations might work. C State Street along the Plaza. This does not work at all for bus routing for either direction of Route 9; it's simply too far south. Northbound Route 7 would have to circle several blocks to get to the west side of State. Space for long-term parking and the building would not appear to be available either. D Main between Stephenson and Clay. This location would require severely convoluted routing for both directions of Route 9, and some turns that may not be safe (at Clay and State and at Clay and Main) . Route 7 is OK. Intercity buses can get to and from a west- side stop OK, but northbound buses would incur far more travel time than at other locations. Space for long-term parking and the building is unclear. E Mason north of Smith. Routing is OK for all buses; slightly longer than A & B. Intercity buses and two local buses would stop on the east side of Mason; the other two local buses would stop on the west side. NCRA appears to have space for long-term parking and the small building east of a new sidewalk. However, I strongly object to this location. It is far off the beaten track and there is no activity there ever. Therefore, security for customers and staff is compromised. If I may suggest another location that we discussed last Spring: F Standley (both sides) west of Mason. The viability of this location depends on the future of the former City Police Station/ county probation building. It would work well for a bus routing, but is at the eastern limit for customer safety and convenience. Intercity and two local buses would stop on the north side of Standley, the other two local buses would stop on the south side. If possible, a small portion of the building would be used as the station. Long-term parking could be on the southern edge of the City parking lot near the building. Candace Horsley September 20, 2004 Page 3 In conclusion, three sites appear to be workable from a safety, bus routing, and customer convenience perspective: · Site A Standley Street on the north side of the street just east of Main; · Site B, amended to be wrapping the south-west corner of Standley and Main, if space can be made available for the building at the corner, and if long-term parking needs can be satisfied near by; · Site F Standley (both sides) at Mason, if the use of the building is compatible. Scope of Work Suggestions Task 1. Consider adding work to clarify site selection criteria. Task 2. MTA would welcome additional alternatives. Task 6. Analysis should include the other transit related needs determined in task 1. Task 8. The results of W-Trans' analysis should be included in the final report. In order for MTA to proceed to construction of a Downtown Transit Center, we need to find a site that is completely viable for both the City and for MTA. We need the City to be fully supportive of M?A's development of that site. Cost of the Work MTA has been committed to this project for fourteen years. We still have grant funding available for design and construction, and for property acquisition if necessary. Those funds are being held pending the joint City/MTA selection of a site by December 2004. At our September 9 meeting, the Board of Directors agreed to fund the proposed additional W-Trans work, as long as it will lead to the selection of a viable site. I assume the work is proposed on the basis of actual cost, not to exceed $6,100. Please let me know if you need a more formal response. Sincerely, Bruce Richard General Manager Mendocino Transit Authority Bruce Richard PREL IMINA R Y Proposed Downtown Transit Center Vision- Design Concept September 20, 2004 In an attempt to create a simpler, more achievable project, MTA has decided to design an on-street facility. This would minimize the amount of land to be purchased as well as design and construction cost. The goal of this project remains: Consolidate the primary pickup and drop off point for all ground transportation in Ukiah in a convenient, safe location. Specifically, MTA envisions the following bus services at this location: · Local Ukiah MTA bus sen, ice (Routes 7 Jitney and 9 Local) · Intercity and commute MTA buses (Routes 20, 30, 40, 65 and 75) · Greyhound (San Francisco - Crescent City Route) · AMTRAK Throughway buses (McKinleyville- Martinez Route) · MTA Dial-a-Ride and private taxi services. Northbound MTA Routes 7 and 9 could be scheduled to meet each other, as well as Southbound Routes 7 and 9. Otherwise, buses would be scheduled to not meet, so that the number of bus slots can be minimized. With Route 9 on a 30 minute headway and Route 7 on a 60 minute headway, intercity buses would be scheduled in between. However, since Greyhound and AMTRAK buses have such long trips, their schedules can be very difficult to keep. Sometimes they can be over an hour late; sometimes they may even need to layover. Therefore, MTA proposes a 240 to 300 foot long bus loading zone with four or five bus parking spaces. In order to adequately serve intercity riders, required amenities include a weather protected waiting room, telephone, restroom and a ticket sales/information counter. Greyhound freight, which has not been available in Ukiah since the early 1990s but is a money maker, requires a baggage room. A building of 400 to 500 square feet should suffice. Local passengers need to have access to the ticket/information counter and a change machine. Other amenities required include seats for waiting (built to not work for sleeping), some form of canopies for protection against rain and sun, information signs and lighting. Parking for drop offs and pickups is needed. Some parking should also be made available for long-term use, mainly for Greyhound and AMTRAK riders. The plans for the North Ukiah Transit Center (at Fjords) included nine spaces. Larry DeKnoblough Affachment # [~. Page 1 of 3 December 17, 2004 Patsy Archibald City of Ukiah Dear Patsy, My responses to your questions are: 1) This grant has been extended once already. CalTrans expects some agreement between the City and MTA by December 31, 2004. If I tell them it will be 9 months or a year, we will lose the grant. We would have to take our chances and try again, and these grants are competitive. If I tell them 2 months, we may have a chance of keeping it. 2) If Main Street became one-way: . Three buses, including the Intercity buses, would stop on the east side of Main in front of the Library, using the whole block. · Two buses would continue to stop on Standley on the south side west of Main. · Foot traffic crossing Main at Standley would increase. · Four daily departures of big Intercity buses from the Library would either have to turn east on Standley, south on Mason and then make a left turn to eastbound Perkins, or continue north on Main to Norton, west to State, south to Perkins and then east to the freeway. · One of our larger buses would be running south on Mason, west on Perkins, north on Main and stop at the Library, east on Standley, south on Mason again, and west on Perkins again and on to Dora. · The most logical transit station would be inside the Library. Other locations would increase foot traffic and inconvenience. (See #4 at end) If Main Street becomes one-way north, MTA and Intercity buses would drive an additional 8 miles each weekday around blocks in the area, consuming two to four hours of travel time. That makes bus travel less attractive to customers, and would tend to increase traffic somewhere. It would also be more expensive for MTA to operate. For all three transit Center scenarios, the bus circulation is 12/20/04 Page 2 of 3 negatively impacted by a one-way Main Street. According to W-Trans work, converting Main to one-way would increase consumption of existing parking spaces for the Standley & Main location, and maybe for the others too. From MTA's perspective, maintaining two-way traffic on Main Street is better than conversion to one-way. 3) If MTA waits nine months to a year before finalizing a location, we would loose grant funds. Yet, I'm not sure if we want to commit to the Standley & Main location if a one-way Main Street is still possible. 4) Prioritize preferences of recommendations in Option C. With Main Street two-way: Three buses would stop on the south side of Standley west of Main. One bus would stop on the west side of Main south of Standley and north of a new central driveway. The Intercity buses would stop on the west side of Main south of the new driveway. My preference is Cla with the station inside the southern parking area facing east, if we could negotiate an arrangement with the owner. Inside the northern parking area would be next. In both cases, I would expect to negotiate for the long-term parking space at the same location. If unsuccessful, Lot C would work. C3a, the southwest corner of Lot C is slightly better than inside the Library, C2a, because of the ability to see the Intercity bus arrivals. If the station is in Lot C, it may be best for the Intercity buses to stop there, on the north side of Standley east of Main, instead of on the west side of Main north of Perkins. Parking spaces lost on Standley would be replaced by spaces on Main between a new driveway and Perkins. The long term parking should be located there also. That would be far more convenient for the Intercity passengers. However, the usefulness of that location for MTA customer service would be diminished, and transferring passengers would need to cross two streets. With Main Street one-way: (see #2 above for bus stops) The preferred station location would be C2b, inside the Library, which provides better convenience for intercity passengers. If the station were at C3b, the northeast corner of Standley & Main 12/20/04 Page 3 of 3 (Lot C), intercity passengers would need to cross Standley to get to the bus stop. (Alternatively, the Intercity buses could use Mason to westbound Standley and stop at a station in the southwest corner of Lot C. However, that would force those buses to turn north on Main and drive to Norton, to State to Perkins and back to the freeway. I'm not sure if AMTRAK and Greyhound would accept that much deviation.) If the station were at Clb, in the private parking lot on the west side of Main, Intercity passengers would have to cross Main to reach the bus stop. Requiring passengers to cross Standley would be preferable to forcing them to cross Main, especially if it is one- way. In s~ary, MTA's preference is Cla with Intercity buses stopping south of a new central driveway off Main, and the Station plus long- term parking inside the southern parking lot. MTA, of course would bear the expense of purchasing or perhaps leasing space from the owner. To be successful, MTA would greatly appreciate working with the City as a joint project. Conversion of Main Street to one-way is problematic for bus circulation under any of the options. Bruce Richard Mendocino Transit 12/20/04 Attachment SERVING MENDOCINO COUNTY SINCE 1976 Mendocino Transit Authority February 14, 2005 Ms. Candace Horsley, City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah CA 95482 via US mail and email RE: Downtown Transit Center Evaluation Dear Candace, At their meeting on February 10, the MTA Board voted to support the creation of an intermodal transit center, and directed me to work with the City of Ukiah to that end. Based on the meetings you have hosted recently, Option B, the east end of Standley, using both sides of the street, appears to be the best in terms of minimizing the loss of parking spaces. The Board was not interested in pursuing the train station location at this time. As you know, Jim Mastin and I have been working on this project for what seems the majority of our adult lives. Since we are so close to it, I feel that I have neglected to provide a solid background for why Ukiah needs an intermodal transit center. Attached is an excerpt from the grant application that addresses that issue. Also attached is a paper prepared by our Short-Range Transit Development Plan consultant on the advantages of a downtown location for an intermodal transit center. Our most recent passenger count by bus stop shows that an average of 40 passengers per day get off at the library bus stops and forty passengers board there per day. I can not emphasize enough that elimination of bus stops in favor of parking spaces will reduce travel options for those who choose to use, or are limited to using, public transit, and will increase traffic. In order to maintain the State and Federal funding sources that MTA has brought to this project, we must move forward very quickly. MTA actually has $166,000 from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that has been allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). That money must be spent on design by June 30, 2005. Since we need to hire a design team first, we 241 Plant Road · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-5765 Fax (707) 462-1760 Candace Horsley February 14, 2005 Page 2 would need to extend the funding agreement, and such a request must be submitted to MCOG and the CTC in March. The larger federal grant must be spent by December 31, 2005. CalTrans, which administers that grant, was kind enough to hold the project open for us because we had pledged to work with the City on the Parking and Traffic Studies. As you know, CalTrans had expected a response by December 31, 2004 relative to a final location of the project. Although we have requested clarification, CalTrans has not provided direction. MTA, the City, and possibly County Probation must move rapidly to agreement on the location, including resolution of three issues that I believe are still outstanding and somewhat of a challenge. Main Street. If the City ultimately decides to convert Main to be one-way north, bus routing becomes quite difficult for the intercity buses. Presently, twenty intercity bus trips are operated Monday through Saturday. (4 Greyhound, 4 AMTRAK Thruway, 8 Lake Transit, 2 MTA South Coast and 2 MTA Fort Bragg - Santa Rosa) We envision two possible solutions. The first is a single contra-flow lane of Main from Standley to Perkins. Intercity buses would stop on Standley westbound, continue west to Main, and south to Perkins. No bus would make a passenger stop in that block. About half of the buses would turn left and half to the right. If the width of Main street is 46 feet, it could accommodate (east to west) one 10' parking lane, two 12' northbound lanes and one 12' southbound lane. If a small amount of additional space is needed for safety, we could cut back the sidewalk on one side as part of our project. A second alternative would involve some form of traffic control on Perkins at Mason. Intercity buses would run west on Standley, north on Main east on Smith and south on Mason to Perkins. Because of the amount of traffic on Perkins, we would propose some traffic control to allow a safe left turn for the ten daily buses returning to the freeway, as well as private autos. Long Term Parking. As discussed, our previous planning had identified the need for nine parking spaces for intercity bus riders' long term use. Spaces in the south-east corner of Lot C would be ideal for the east Standley location. MTA needs to minimize monthly lease payments. If the City would be willing to split out and sell the appropriate portion of Lot C, that would be ideal. Alternatively, a one-time funding mechanism to cover a Candace Hors ley February 14, 2005 Page 3 fifty-year period should work for us, if that were acceptable to the City and to CalTrans. Location of the Station Building. The required building would be 400 to 500 square feet and would include a waiting room, restroom, ticket/information counter and freight storage space. A location within the Probation Department occupied building could work. I understand that Larry DeKnoblough was checking with Pete Halstead on possibilities there. I believe space is available adjacent to the building at both the east and west ends that would not require use cf any parking spaces. Again, MTA would prefer to avoid or minimize lease payments. In order to use the federal funds, a purchase or a minimum 50 year lease is required. To move this project forward and maintain some of the State and Federal funds that MTA has brought to this project, I request that City staff and consultants review the three issues described above, as well as any others that you may have, and then meet again with me and perhaps Jim Mastin and Mari Rodin. I propose that the meeting be scheduled before the end of February. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bruce Richard General Manager C ° MTA Board ~--L-~rry DeKnoblough Diana Steel Mitch Stogner, NCRA Paul Miller, Omni Means PART III - PROJECT DESCRIPTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA FTA SECTION 5311 (f) PROJECT APPLICATION The Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) is an FTA Section 5311 operator, serving rural Mendocino County. This application is for funding the construction of a new intermodal facility just north of the Ukiah City limits. It will provide true comaectivity of Greyhom~d, Amtrak Thruway bus, the Mendocino Stage and all MTA routes that serve Ukiah. MTA worked very hard for four years to create a new consolidated intermodal transit center at the Ukiah Train Station. That particular location was finally ch'opped in June 2000. This application serves the same purpose, creation of an intermodal facility, but at a different location. I. HISTORY OF INTERCITY SERVICES IN UKIAH A. Greyhound For many, many years, the Greyhound Depot in Ukiah was located in central Ukiah at the back of the Yokayo Shopping Center near the intersection of South State and Gobbi Streets. Ticketing and freight services were provided by an independent station agent. MTA bus stops were located within 100 yards of that facility. In 1992, the Greyhound depot briefly moved to the former Fjords Restaurant just north of the Ukiah City limits on North State Street. This location is served by virtually all MTA local and intercity buses. An independent agent continued to provide ticketing and freight services in conjunction with another business, but dropped both within one year. The Greyhound bus stop moved to two other locations, without benefit of a station agent, for brief times. In 1996, the Greyhound stop moved to an existing MTA bus stop on South State Street, adjacent to the Ukiah Airport entrance. Not all MTA bus routes serve this stop. In May 1997, MTA staff picked up the function of ticket sales at our administrative offices over one mile south of that location, but freight services have never been provided. This is obviously not an ideal solution. Many people who an'ive at our office, expecting to meet the Greyhound bus, are confused and frustrated. Greyhound continues to operate two round trips daily along the Highway 101 corridor in Northern California between San Francisco and Portland. See Attachment A for their current schedule. B. Amtrak Thruway Bus An-re'ak California operates connecting bus services from McKinleyville/Arcata/Eureka, via Ukiah, to the Martinez Amtrak station. Two daily round trips are now provided. Except for a brief time at the former Fjords Restam'ant, Anm'ak stops at the Burger King Restaurant on Perkins Street, east of Highway 101. No MTA buses serve that location. See Attachment B for the current Amtrak Thruway Bus schedule. C. Airporter Service Santa Rosa Airporter operated four daily round trips from the Ukiah Airport to Santa Rosa, connecting with service to both San Francisco and Oakland Airports. That service was discontinued in 1998. See Attachment C for current airporter schedules from Santa Rosa. D. Mendocino Stage The Mendocino Stage, based in Fort Bragg, is a private courier service which also caries passengers between the North Mendocino Coast and Ukiah. Two weekday round trips are provided. The Stage shares four MTA bus stops including the "CrossRoads (Raley's) Transit Center". See Attachment D for the Stage schedule. E. Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) In April 2001, MTA celebrated 25 years of service to Mendocino County residents. We provide paratransit se~wice in the greater Ukiah, Fort Bragg and Willits areas. We operate local fixed route bus service in Ukiah and Fort Bragg, plus commuter and intercity routes connecting Willits, Redwood Valley and Potter Valley with Ukiah. For the Mendocino Coast and Anderson Valley, MTA operates intercity bus service connecting these areas with Ukiah and Santa Rosa. See Attaclunent E for current Ukiah Valley, Inland and South Mendocino Coast bus schedules. PART III - PROJECT DESCRIPTION continued page 2 Since Mendocino County is so rural and isolated, we are committed to making the use of available intercity services as easy and convenient as possible. The following example demonstrates that commitment. In 1990, Greyhound abandoned its daily Fort Bragg-San Francisco route. From about 1992 until 1994, the route was operated by a very small private operator called Falcon Bus Lines. In August 1994, aided by a Cycle One Intercity Bus grant for acquisition of one van plus operating assistance, MTA took over that service with Route 65 CCRider. After initial modifications, the service has remained very stable and now consistently earns the highest farebox ratio of all MTA services at 33%. The route connects Mendocino, Fort Bragg, Willits, Ukiah and Hopland with Santa Rosa. Bus stops in Santa Rosa are the Sonoma County Airport (connections with AIRPORTride.com and Santa Rosa Airport Express which serve both San Francisco and Oakland Airports), the 2'*d Sn'eet Transit Mall (connections with Santa Rosa City Bus, Sonoma County Transit and Golden Gate Transit), Courtyard by Marriots (connecting with Amtrak Thruway Bus), and the Greyhound bus depot. See Attaclm~ent F for current North Mendocino Coast bus schedule. Attachment G 1 is a map of Ukiah, depicting MTA bus routes, current bus stop locations of the regional carriers and the new North Ukiah Transit Center. Attachment G2 is a similar map of Santa Rosa. II. THE PROPOSED PROJECT This application is only for the construction of the North Ukiah Transit Center project. All other components will be funded fi'om other sources. See section IV FINANCE for details. A. Purpose Because of the rural, isolated character of Mendocino County, MTA is committed to facilitating access to intercity bus services. Our customers and constituents often require goods and services that are not available in Mendocino County. Residents and visitors also travel to and from locations all over California, the nation and even the world, needing access to intercity bus, rail and air transportation. In order to help meet that need, MTA conducted the Ukiah Transfer Point Study which was published in 1991. See Attaclu-nent H. For the North Ukiah site, the CrossRoads Shopping Center was selected as one of two possible sites. Because of efficiency and active private sector participation, MTA moved the transfer point to this location in January 1992. Greyhound and Amtrak followed soon after, but both discontinued service there when the station agent, who also operated a postal service business, left the location. MTA has remained for nearly ten years. Beginning in 1994, MTA embarked on an effort to create the intermodal facility at the Ukiah Train Station. At that time, many people in Ukiah, and other rail enthusiasts, believed that intercity passenger rail service to Ukiah was inmfinent. Unfortunately, it was not, and that work ended on June 8, 2000 when the MTA Board decided "to abandon pursuing the Ukiah Depot site for the (Central Ukiah) Transit Center and directed staff to explore alternatives for the ... CrossRoads location.." B. Location Today, almost all MTA fixed routes that serve Ukiah stop at the CrossRoads Transit Center. Different routes from different areas meet each other and then fan out to serve different parts of Ukiah. This allows passengers easy, convenient access to and from all of the primary destinations in greater Ukiah. MTA leases property in front (west) of the CrossRoads Shopping Center, at the signalized intersection of North State Street and KUKI Lane. This property hosts the abandoned Fjords Restaurant and is otherwise vacant and deteriorating. The lease expires at the end of January 2002. Property acquisition for this project is expected to be complete by the end of December 2001. Staff has now produced two reports, North Ukiah Transit Center Phase I Alternatives Study (October 2000) and Phase II Site Selection (February 2001). These documents are Attachments I and J. Phase I evaluated eight sites and narrowed the field to tlu'ee. Phase II selected the Fjords property as the preferred location for the North Ukiah Transit Center. PART III - PROJECT DESCRIPTION continued page3 II C. Desien As a part of the Phase II report, the design consultant, Thompson Associates, produced a "Concept Master Plan" which is included as Attachment K. Buses can enter and exit the site near the southwest or northeast comer and circulate in a clock-wise direction. Regional buses (Greyhound and Amtrak) will stop on the east side, closest to a terminal building. The landscaped central island will host the terminal building, and three bus shelters. The terminal building will include a waiting area, restrooms and space for a station agent. The station agent will sell MTA and Greyhound tickets and passes, handle Greyhound freight, provide all bus route and schedule information, and sell some concessions. Of course, all portions of the project will meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Current pedestrian and bicycle provisions along State Street on the west side of the property are inadequate. This project will improve non-motorized access between the Transit Center and both North State Street and the Shopping Center in compliance with ADA requirements. Access for cars will be via the Shopping Center driveway on the north side, to drop-off and parking stalls on the east side. Additional parking on the south side is also possible. D. Routing The routing of all MTA buses will remain exactly as it is today with one exception. Route 65 CCRider, which currently makes its only Ukiah stop at the Pear Tree Center on Orchard Street, will be rerouted to serve the North Ukiah Transit Center instead. Greyhound and Amtrak buses will also be rerouted to serve the new Center rather than their current stops. E. Operation MTA will be responsible for operating the North Ukiah Transit Center, providing for water, power and conm~unications. MTA will contract for maintenance of landscaping, shelters and the terminal building. MTA also plans to contract for the station agent activities. III. OBJECTIVES The North Ukiah Transit Center Project directly supports all three objectives of the National Program. A. Obiective # 1: Connectivity The regional or national system of intercity bus (and rail) service is composed of Greyhound and Amtrak Thruway Bus. Presently, these services are not well integrated with MTA's non-urban fixed route system. Although Greyhound shares a sheltered MTA bus stop which includes a pay telephone, most passengers go to the MTA office first to purchase their ticket. This is obviously confusing and inconvenient. Perhaps more importantly, the connections with local and regional MTA buses is not perfect. The worst connection today is fi'om the northbound Greyhound at 3:45 pm to a northbound MTA bus (Route 21) at 5:12 pm. Ifa passenger chooses to wa[lc a quarter mile north, wait time can be reduced, but that is not an acceptable connection. An-re'ak Thi-uway buses now stop at the Burger King Restaurant on Perkins Street, just east of Highway 101. The closest MTA bus stop is at the Pear Tree Center, more than a quarter mile away, across a very busy intersection, over the freeway and across a freeway on and off ramp. Again, this is not acceptable as a connection. The proposed North Ukiah Transit Center project would consolidate Greyhound, Amtrak Thruway Mendocino Stage and all MTA local and regional buses serving Ukiah in one location. This will maximize opportunities for Greyhound and Amtrak riders to access and depart their intercity bus by public transit. Pedestrian and bicycle access will also be improved. B. Objective # 2: Services The proposed project supports existing intercity bus services that meet the intercity travel needs of most of rural Mendocino County. The Transit Center will provide Greyhound ticket sales at the actual pick up point. (What a concept!) A much more convenient and comfortable waiting area will be available, indoors with a restroom, versus the current shelter facing the hot afternoon sun. We anticipate the sale of pre-made and packaged food and beverages by the station agent, and the site is within easy walking distance of McDonalds, Carl's Junior, PART III - PROJECT DESCRIPTION continued page Raley's (which has a deli) and a Subway. The current Greyhound stop is across State Street from the Beacon Restaurant, a local diner. Amtrak passengers currently have a Burger King. Riders ofMT^'s intercity services will also enjoy these new amenities. The Center will be served by Route 65 CCRider (between Fort Bragg and Santa Rosa) and Route 75 (between Gualala and Ukiah), as well as the routes serving Willits, Redwood Valley and Potter Valley. C. Objective # 3: Infrastructure This project supports the infrastructure of the intercity bus network through a significant capital investment in a new facility. The facility has been located and designed primarily to serve intercity buses and to provide excellent cmmectivity with local rural transit services. As new local, regional and mtercity services are initiated, they will definitely include the North Ukiah Transit Center as one of their stops. Two examples are replacement airporter service and a connection between Lake County and Ukiah. (The latter was discussed as an unmet transit need in both Lake and Mendocino Counties.) MEMORANDUM ilnllllll ii iii iii iii iii iiiiiii ii ii ii i .............. IIIIII I I 833 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 284-1544 FAX: (415) 284-1554 To: Bruce Richard General Manager From: Doug Langille Senior Associate Date: February 14, 2005 Subject: Ukiah Downtown Transit Transfer Center Within the scope of the SRTDP, we would certainly advise on the location of MTA transit and multi-modal transfer centers. It seems that MTA is already well into the selection of a potential site for the Ukiah inter-modal transfer center. We strongly urge the consideration of a downtown location. We believe that transit service should support other community goals and initiatives. Transit should be designed to enhance economic and community service vitality and diversity. Transit is most effective when economic activities, populations and community services are concentrated. Economic Vitality of the Downtown By locating the transit transfer center in the downtown, transit can play a stronger role in the development or redevelopment of the downtown as a retail and service center. It would reinforce the downtown as a transit destination and enhance transit access to the downtown - it would eliminate the need to transfer from one route to another to get to the downtown for employment and shopping. The concentration of transit transfer activity in the downtown increases passenger activity in the downtown -increases pedestrian circulation in close proximity to the transfer center. While waiting for connections, passengers could patronize the shops, services and restaurants close to the transfer center. A downtown transit transfer center could encourage other economic development in the immediate area. Possibly even higher density residential development - affordable and senior housing. The concentration of goods and services in the downtown also provides a wider range of options for those with longer transfer waits. Fringe locations do not generally have much in the way of "comfort and activity" amenities. Security With a concentration of activities in the downtown, public security would be enhanced more so than at a more remote, suburban or fringe location. A remote transfer center would be perceived as less secure for passengers waiting for a bus or transferring. Operating Efficiency Generally, downtown transfer centers are centrally located within the service area. A fringe location may result in increased bus operating miles and revenue hours. With respect to the potential downtown Ukiah location, there would be easy on/off access from Highway 101 for MTA's intercity routes, Greyhound and AMTRAC. This will enhance schedule adherence and running time efficiency. Parking: Issues One of the major concerns with downtown transit transfer centers, is the potential loss of "convenience" retail parking. From the description of the proposed location, the current on-street parking is used for all day employee parking, and not for short term, retail parking. The above provides a number of bullets supporting the location of the Ukiah inter-modal center in the downtown. If the location remains an issue further into the SRTDP process we will develop a more detailed discussion of the pros and cons of locating transit transfer centers in the downtown of small centers like Ukiah, verses, transfer center location in fringe locations. Agenda Item # 10 To: From: Date: Sub j: Board of Directors Bruce Richard, General Manager February 3, 2005 Ukiah Transit Center: Downtown Location In November 2004, the City of Ukiah's parking study consultant, W- Trans, completed a draft of their analysis of the impacts of locating a downtown transit center on parking. The result was that fewest parking spaces would be lost if the transit center remained at the existing location on Standley west of Main and on Main south of Standley (Option C on attached drawings). However, changes in traffic circulation that may come out of the City's Traffic Study which is not yet finished, could result in problems for bus routing. At a January 21 meeting with City staff plus MTA Directors Mastin and Rodin plus myself, ci%y staff indicated that the site at the east end of Standley Street, using both sides of the street (Option B) would be preferable to them. This also works for MTA. Again, traffic circulation changes could produce more difficult routing in this case for Greyhound, AMTRAK and a few other bus routes. Also at that meeting, the City continued to encourage MTA to revisit the Train Station as the home for the Transit Center. Official NCRA policy now is to lease, not sell, real estate that is not required for operations. The implication was that MTA would use grant funds to construct significant infrastructure at the site, including the main access and the bus loading area. MTA would then lease the space needed for the bus loading area and a portion of the depot building to be used for information and ticket sales. NCRA would then be in a position to lease the rest of the site. These terms do not seem advantageous to MTA. A follow up meeting has been scheduled for February 7 including the above participants plus the NCRA General Manager, Mitch Stogner. Budget and Funding The Capital Budget includes only $236,300 for this project this year and nothing next year. This was based on the assumption that the project would be relatively simple and would not require much acquisition of property. continued However, previously approved grants for this project include: · $166,000 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) · $758,000 FTA 5311f Intercity Bus. The STIP grant, originally approved for design, expires on June 30, 2005. It can be extended, but that process must begin in March 2005 and is subject to approval by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) . The Federal grant must be spent by December 31, 2005. It was originally awarded for construction of the North Ukiah (Fjords) site. In order to use it for the downtown site, and for any other purpose, CalTrans must approve a change. That process was scheduled to begin last month with construction completed by the end of the calendar year. These grants, combined with the required local match, could fund a project worth $1,155,000. However, only $47,260 of local match is budgeted. That is $183,740 short of the match required to utilize the full amount of the grants. An oral report on the February 7 meeting and any other discussions will be provided at the Board meeting. Options At this point, two options appear to be available. i · Release both grants and work with the City and NCRA on the Train Station location, or o Focus on the east end of Standley Street location, request extensions of both grants, work with the City on traffic and parking issues and work with the City and County Probation Department on locating the small building required for ticket sales and information.