The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-07-20 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 July 20, 2005 6:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PROCLAMATION/INTRODUCTION a. Proclamation: Legends of the Redwoods Native American Marathon Day b. Introduction of New Electrical Distribution Engineer Elizabeth (Liz) Kirkley 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Special Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2005 1 1 RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City's Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Approval of Disbursements for Month of June 2005 b. Resolution Of The Council Of The City Of Ukiah Approving The Execution Of Supplement No. 4 To The Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) Wherein Such Supplement No. 4 Provides For The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District To Become A Signatory Party To The NCPA JPA c. Notification of Emergency Purchase From Weir Floway for Two 25 HP Sump Pumps In An Amount Not To Exceed $26,030 Plus Applicable Tax d. Report To The City Council Regarding Acquisition Of Services From City of Light Sound And Recording For Sound Management Of The 2005 Sundays In The Park Concert Series In The Amount Of $6,000 e. Award Of Bid to FASCO Company In The Amount Of $20,138.00 And To Eagle One Company In The Amount Of $5,618.96 For The Purchase Of Department Evidence Facility Storage Equipment f. Adoption of Resolution Approving Agreement With California State Board of Equalization To Administer COU Transaction And Use Tax g. Award of Bid To Borges Transfer For The Purchase Of 286 Yards Of Infield Mix In The Amount Of $9,698.26 For The Construction Of A Third Field At The Ukiah Sports Complex h. Report To City Council Regarding The Purchase Of Services From HLR Roofing For The Repair Of Roof Tile At The Ukiah Civic Center In The Amount Of $5,400 i. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Rules Governing Council Meetings With Regard To The Starting Time For Council Meetings 1 AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) a. Continued Hearing on Introduction of Ordinance Regulating Cultivation of Medical Marijuana - City Attorney's Report On Effect Of Attorney General Opinion No. 04-709, Dated June 23, 2005 1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion Of Interim Urgency Ordinance Imposing A Moratorium On Formula Businesses Within The Downtown Business District And On Perkins And Gobbi Streets 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Lake Mendocino Hydro Electric Plant Restart Commission Project b. Consideration and Direction to Staff With Regard to Recruitment of Applicants to City Commissions c. Consideration And Adoption Of Resolution Approving Memorandum Of Understanding For Employee Bargaining Unit - Management 11. COUNCIL REPORTS 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 13. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator G.C. §54957.6 City Designated Representative: Candace Horsley, City Manager Employee Organization: Management Unit 14. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Meeting: Date: (Please Print) v OCrAmr o WHEREAS, in celebration of the opening o[ the Redwood Highway, the Redwood Empire Association organized two 480 tnile~long ultra-tnarathons frotn San Francisco to Grants Pass in 1927 and 1928 run by Native Atnerican athletes sponsored by towns along the highway: UPdafl's sponsored runner was Joe Myers, Sr., a Potno athlete frotn Pinoleville who placed thlrd in the 1928 eventl and WHE~S, Uka'al~'s Grace Hudson Museutn, the Mendocino County Alliance, North Coast Striders, Uka'ah Main Street Progratn, Native Atnerican Youth Council of Uka'ah High School and Consolidated Tribal Health Clinic, along ~4th local Native American, youth, education, and arts groups are joining together on July 30, 2005 to produce a celebration of these historic runs and Native Atnerican sports; and WHEREAS, these festivities wilI include acti~'ties for MI ages including a cotntnetnoran've walk~run, detnonstran'ons of tradin'onal Native Atnerican sports and games, Iocal Indian dance groups and singers, historical exhibits on the original Redwoods Ultra-Marathons and the Redwood Highway, and showings of filtns on Native Ainerican runnerss and WHEREAS, there have been tnany great Iocal Nan've Ame~can athIetes frotn Joe Myers, Sr. in the 1920s Redwoods Marathons to Gabe Jennings who competed in the 2000 Olympic Gaines. NO W, THEREFORE, I, Mark Ashiku, Mayor of the City of Ukiah, on behalf of tn y fellow City Counciltnetnbers, Phll Baldwin, Doug Crane, John McCowen and Mari Rodin do hereby proclaitn July 30, 2005 as LEGENDS OF THE RED WOODS NATIVE AMERICAN MARATHON DA Y and urge ail citizens to participate in the cotntnetnoratYve fesn'vities at the Grace Hudson Museutn, Sun House Park and the Alex R. Thotnas Plaza Date: July 20, 2005 Mark Ashiku, Mayor 3a AGENDA ITEM NO: 3t~ MEETING DATE: July 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF NEW ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION ENGINEER ELIZABETH (LIZ) KIRKLEY The City is pleased to welcome Elizabeth "Liz" Kirkley to the position of Electrical Distribution Engineer. Ms. Kirkley has experience in utility power engineering and originally hailed from Illinois, where she earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL. She obtained an Associate of Science degree in pre-engineering from Lincoln Land Community College. She is certified as an Engineer-in Training (EIT) and in the future will be taking the California Professional Engineer's examination. During her professional career, Ms. Kirkley worked with Arizona Public Service Company (APS) where she held the position of Power Engineer and gained experience in transmission planning, marketing, substations, design, system protection and power contracts. Later in her career she accepted a position with Exelon West (ComEd) in the Chicago area with work focus in the new business and distribution planning areas. Her arrival in California offered her an opportunity to teach math the past year at the Hanford Joint Union High School District in Hanford, CA. until finding a successful engineering opportunity. Ms. Kirkley is a very energetic and well focused individual whose background and experience in distribution engineering will be an asset to the City of Ukiah. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Wecome Ms. Kirkley to the City Staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Candace Horsley, City Manager None Approved: gerCandace Horsley, City MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005 The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Meeting on April 19, 2005, the notice for which had been legally noticed, at 3:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Staff present: City Manager Horsley, Finance Director McC; Attorney Rapport, Planning Director Stump, Public Utilities Director Ziemianek Clerk Ulvila. 2. WATER WORKSHOP 2a. Presentation Regarding City of Ukiah W Public Utilities Director Ziemianek explained discussed the consultant services contract Impact Report for the Ukiah and Millview amendment project. At the conclusion matter, and decided to make a decision on Workshop on April 19, 2005. He >rovided a with Council: · The Ranney Collector, its ca test recorded, design capabi affects on the production with c · Citywells, their ·The Water Tr and capac · The avail rces an~ dependably d~ g ;rfecting the · S of · ~d to con~ drill ~round March 16. the City Council preparation Environmental Water District Ihts permits discussi ~the Council the the forthcoming Water presentation and discussed k recorded, maximum design consider replacing its zones regard to location, material, :ribution reservoirs to supply adequately, of all users under maximum increase and the need to serve more users program hts hydrology study in order to determine if the City needs to ~r wells Director Ziemi d with a summarization of the issues concerning the Water Treatment P and estimated the cost of maintenance to open up the laterals on the Ranney collector. 2b. Discussion Regarding Pendin_~ Petition for Amendments to City's Water Ri_~hts Permit City Attorney Rapport discussed his Staff Report to Council with regard to the pending petitions to amend the City's water rights permit. He also discussed the related issues and basis for staff's recommendation to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impact of these amendments. Special Ukiah City Council Meeting April 19, 2005 Page 1 of 3 Considerable discussion followed with regard to issues contained in the City Attorney's report as well as the City Manager's memorandum regarding the Flood District contract and annexation policy. City Attorney Rapport and Gary Weatherford, the City of Ukiah's water rights attorney, discussed issues related to the City's application to the State Water Board and answered questions. Recessed at 5:05 p.m. Reconvened at 5:12 p.m. Mr. Weatherford provided a map of the Russian with regard to return flow and any ground water th~ above Ukiah's groundwater sources of right availability and the City's historic use District. and explained areas to those sources provided of water reported bi Flood Control Public Comment Period Opened: 5:35 p.m. Members of the audience speakin and Barbara Spacek. issue Ackerstrom, Lee Howard, Public Comment Period Closed: 6:1 Motion by Coum Flood Control Di= reported to the n River to alloti Contn the request to the Russian River ~t to 800 acre feet based on historical use died for lack of a second. It was th( regardi ~ide the City Council to discuss the City's policy B, not to Spacek az been addre: with matter concerning meeting with the City on water River Flood Control Board and they opted matter. The majorit parties should with Councilmember Baldwin dissenting, agreed that the differences and reconcile the City's use of District water. 2c. Approval of sultant Services Contract For The Preparation Of An Environmental Impact Report For The Ukiah and Millview County Water District Water Rights Permits/Licenses Amendment Proiect Planning Director Stump advised that on March 16, 2005, the City Council discussed the consultant services contract for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Ukiah and Millview County Water District water rights permits amendment project. Mr. Stump recommended Council hire Leonard Charles and Associates to prepare the EIR based on the lowest bid, and Mr. Charles' familiarity with the City of Ukiah. Special Ukiah City Council Meeting April 19, 2005 Page 2 of 3 Councilmember Baldwin inquired regarding a possible conflict of interest with Mr. Charles' credentials now that the Orr Creek Bridge is being challenged in court and whether the EIR would address annexation issues, LAFCO, a reduced Sphere of Influence, and the generation of development in the area. City Attorney Rapport explained there are two separate issues related to the Council's decision on this matter. One issue is whether the City should go forward with a petition to amend its Change of Use with the Calpella and Millview County Water Districts in which case the City will need to complete either a Neg De or EIR because the City is requesting a time extension. He recommend~ City prepare an EIR whether or not it does a petition for Place of Use becau~ requirements. Another point concerns the issue of whether Coun~ He noted that the City's permit is up for renewal change in Place of Use application. The City issue eventually. is open need to add e the Place of Use. Ihout preparing a Place of Use Discussion followed with regard to providin~ Calpella and Millview Water Districts and wheth the Place of Use change. There discussil wells. emergency 3n to the the Willow Water District in ncerning the status of the City's M/S Rodin/Crane ap for the preparation of County Water Distri~ the scope to in~ include Willow Ag illow W with Leonard Charles the Ukiah and Millview Am, ant Project, and to expand amend the water permit application to It was the water ~less the area reaffirm the City's policy to not serve annexed into the City. Me McC~ None. carried by Rodin, NT: None. roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, NOES: Councilmember Baldwin. ABSTAIN: 3. ADJO There being no the City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Special Ukiah City Council Meeting April 19, 2005 Page 3 of 3 ITEM NO 5a DATE: JULY 20, 2005 UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MENDOCINO COLLEGE REQUEST FOR USE OF A PORTION OF DISTRICT 20% HOUSING SETASlDE FUNDS (COLLEGE COURT APARTMENT REPAIRS) SUMMARY: Section 6 of the Redevelopment agreement with the Mendocino-Lake Community College District stipulates that 10% of the mandatory housing setaside (20% of gross redevelopment tax increment revenue) be designated for College use within the City limits. Use of the funds must meet State statutes relative to Iow and moderate income housing and each project or program must be approved by the Redevelopment Agency. The College is requesting distribution of $6,857 for repair of one of the units at the College Court apartment complex on north Bush Street. This project was completed in 1998 with Redevelopment, Community Development Commission, and College funds and provides seven units for Iow income qualified students. This is only the third request for funds from the College since the inception of setaside. The current balance of the College's account is in excess of $80,000. The proposed use of the funds meets State requirements for use of the 20% housing setaside fund and will maintain affordable housing for the targeted population within our community. Staff believes the expenditures are appropriate and recommends adoption of the resolution approving the request for College setaside funds. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Approving Mendocino-Lake Community College District Use of $6,857 of College 20% Housing Setaside Funds (College Court). ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine request requires modifications, identify changes, and adopt revised resolution. 2. Determine use of funds does not meet State or local requirements and do not adopt resolution. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Mendocino-Lake Community College District Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Candace Horsley, Executive Director 1. Resolution for adoption, 2. June 29, 2005 letter from the Mendocino College. APPROVE D :(~~'~,,'~~~ Candace Horsley, Exec~ve Director Attachment # / ~/ ...... URA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE USE OF $6,857 OF MENDOCINO-LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUNDS (COLLEGE COURT APARTMENT REPAIRS) WHEREAS, the agreement between the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency and the Mendocino-Lake Community College District regarding redevelopment specifies that the Agency shall designate 10% of the mandatory 20% Iow and moderate income housing setaside fund for use by the College; and WHEREAS, the agreement further specifies the use of monies requested by the College shall be reviewed and approved by the Agency prior to disbursement; and WHEREAS, the College proposes to repair one of the units in the College Court apartment complex, a seven unit Iow and moderate income qualified project within the Redevelopment Area through contract with the Community Development Commission of Mendocino County using $6,857 of Redevelopment/College monies, and has requested the Agency to disburse these funds for this use; and WHEREAS, the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency has reviewed the proposed use of the funds, finds that the project meets State statutes for use of Iow and moderate income housing monies, is to be located within the City of Ukiah, and will be subject to an agreement between the College, The Community Development Commission of Mendocino County, and the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency to assure financial compliance with State statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency approves the use of $6,857 of Mendocino-Lake Community College District Iow and moderate income housing setaside funds (Account 962.5602.250.010), authorizes the Executive Director to execute an agreement for the use of these funds, and approves disbursement. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Chairman Marie Ulvila, City Clerk UPA Resolution No. Page 1 of 1 Mendocino College Mendocino-Lake Community College District Attachment # ~ ~' I .... Excellence in Education and Service June 29, 2005 Candace Horsley Ukiah Redevelopment Agency 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: Request to allocate URDA Low & Moderate Income Housing funds from Mendocino-Lake Community College District's account Dear Ms. Horsley: This is to authorize on behalf of the Mendocino-Lake Community College District, and to request from the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Low & Moderate Income Homing funds in the Mendocino-Lake Commtmity College District account an amount not to exceed $6,857. These funds are authorized for floor covering replacement and other repair work in one of the units at College Court, in accordance with the attached December 30, 2004 letter from Todd Crabtree, Community Development Manager, for the Community Development Commission of Mendocino County. As you will recall, College Court was constructed as Low & Moderate Community College student housing utilizing approximately $90,000 from Mendocino-Lake Community College District's Low & Moderate Income Housing funds in the URDA account. Please give me a call at 468-3068 if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Vice President of Administrative Services Enclosure cc: Todd Crabtree Ukiah Campus 1000 Hensley Creek Road Box 3000, Ukiah, CA 95482 Lake Center 1005 Parallel Drive Lakeport, CA 95453 Willits Center 11 Marin Street Willits, CA 95490 wvwv. mendocino.cc, ca.us Attachment # ~.- COM. UNITY DEVELOPMENT CO MISSION O~ ~[endoclno Coun/-7 1076 N. State St., Okiah, CA 95482 707/463-5462 FAX: 707/463-4188 TDD: 707/463-5697 December 30, 2004 Mr. Tom Kesey Vice President of Administrative Services Mendocino-Lake Community College District 1000 Hensley Creek Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mr. Kesey: I am writing to you to request assistance in the form of the amount of up to $8,000 from the Mendocino Cornmunity College District's allocation of the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency's Low and Moderate Income Setaside toward the College Court Student Apartments. Repair work is required in one of the units, primarily the flooring, which needs to be replaced. In the past, the Community Development Commission of Mendocino County has been able to pay for such repairs from other funds. But, the United States Department of Housing and Urban-Development (HUD) has been cutting fun.ding and is projecting further cuts in the fiscal year. Therefore, we are not currently able to pay for these needed repairs from our other funds. College Court Student Apartments have been an excellent source for Mendocino Community College students seeking affordable housing. Of the seven units} four have students and two have recent graduates. We appreciate the opportunity to work with Mendocino Community College to address th-e' ~'~ordabie~'h'ousing .?needs~of· o ur,.eo mm ~ ty~.:andtook~fm:wa~d.~to,,o ther.,~o ppommifi es . ~ .............. to do so. If you have any questions, please contact me at 463-5462 X112. · Sincerely, Todd Crabtree Community Development.Manager Dcc30rl.04 TTEM NO. 5b DATE: .luly 20, 2005 UKZAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: ADOPTI'ON OF RESOLUTI'ON APPROVI'NG COUNTY OF MENDOCI'NO USE OF A PORTI'ON OF COUNTY 20O/o HOUSI'NG SETASI'DE FUNDS (RURAL COMMUNI'TY HOUSI'NG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATTON PRO.1ECT AND MENDOCI'NO COUNTY SOCI'AL SERVI'CES) SUMMARY: Section 6 of the Redevelopment agreement with the County of Mendocino stipulates that 25% of the mandatory housing setaside (20% of gross redevelopment tax increment revenue) be designated for County use within the City limits. Use of the funds must meet State statutes relative to Iow and moderate income housing and each project or program must be approved by the Redevelopment Agency. The County is requesting distribution of $149,000 for use by The Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) and $22,500 for use by the Mendocino County Social Services Department. As of June 30, 2005 the balance in the County's account was approximately $202,500. The RCHDC Project funding is to be used for the off-site improvements associated with an affordable rental housing project at the corner of Orchard and Clara Avenues. This project has previously received Ukiah Redevelopment financial assistance and is considered an appropriate expenditure of housing setaside funds. The County Social Services Department is proposing to use the $22,500 to assist the homeless population. A portion of these funds will be distributed to the homeless shelter for various purposes, while other funds will be used to pay for motel accommodations when the shelter is full in the winter. The proposals meet State requirements for use of the 20% housing setaside fund and will address targeted populations within our community needing affordable housing. Staff believes the expenditure is appropriate and recommends adoption of the resolution approving the request for County setaside funds. RECOHI4ENDED ACTZON: 1) Adopt Resolution Approving County of Mendocino Use of $171,500 of County 20% Housing Setaside Funds (RCHDC project and Mendocino County Social Services Proiect). ALTERNATZVE AGENCY POLI'CY OPTZONS: 1. Determine request requires modifications, identify changes, and adopt revised resolution. 2. Determine use of funds does not meet State or local requirements and do not adopt resolution. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: County of Mendocino Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, Executive Director Attachments: 1. Resolution for adoption 2. February 4, 2005 letter from .lay Hull, Tnterim County CAO 3. .luly 5, 2005 letter from Tony Shaw, County Economic Development Coordinator. Candace Horsley, Executi~e'l~irector URA RESOLUTION NO. 2005-02 RESOLUTION OF THE UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE USE OF $$171,500 OF COUNTY OF MENDOCINO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUNDS ($149,000 - RURAL COMMUNITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND $22,500 - MENDOCINO COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT) WHEREAS, the agreement between the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency and the County of Mendocino regarding redevelopment specifies that the Agency shall designate 25% of the mandatory 20% Iow and moderate income housing setaside fund for use by the County; and WHEREAS, the agreement further specifies the use of monies requested by the County shall be reviewed and approved by the Agency prior to disbursement; and WHEREAS, the County proposes to fund off-site improvements associated with the RCHDC affordable rental housing project at the corner of Orchard and Clara Avenues and the County Social Services Department homeless assistance program. WHEREAS, the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency has reviewed the proposed use of the funds, finds that the projects meet State statutes for use of Iow and moderate income housing monies, is to be located within the City of Ukiah, and will be subject to an agreements between the County, The Rural Communities Development Corporation, and the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency to assure financial compliance with State statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency approves the use of $171,500 of County of Mendocino Iow and moderate income housing setaside funds (Account 962.5602.250.020), authorizes the Executive Director to execute the agreements for the use of these funds, and approves disbursement. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mark Ashiku, Chairman ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk UPA Resolution No. Page 1 of I 8":',/" Z/2005 07:28 78746356,4':5 Jul 08 2005 4:0BPM ~OC,.$£VR.RDMIN m-rmu~ co~ LOW GAI~ EOAD · ROOIvi ~I010 PAGE 82 · ADMIN3STRA~ O~ Attachment # "~-'/, Febmar7 4, 2005 2004r200§. A~ ymar conmmie~ce, please axmnge the ~~ ~'$22~0 m ~ RDA H~ ~-a-~ ~mt a~t (~7~) ~a t~ M~d~o ~~ A~~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ Aa~t~-~~ JOHN BALL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER July 5, 2005 Candace Horsley City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Candace: MENDOCINO COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE 501 LOW GAP ROAD · ROOM 1010 UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 (707) 463 ~{1 Fax: (707) 463-5649 coadmin@co .mendocino .ca .us Attachment # ~ '''~--- I am pleased to report that on June 28, 2005,-the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors approved the attached request from Rural Community Housing Development Corporation for $149,000 of the County of Mendocino's share of the City of Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-a-Side fund. Let me know as soon as the City of Ukiah Redevelopment Agency takes action on this item. This office is willing to help prepare the necessary loan documents and work with your staff to complete this request. Sinc~ Toff S~haw Economic Development Coordinator CC: Duane Hill, Rural Community Housing Development Corporation Attachment [ [ ] ttural [ommunltleS Housing Devel °rv°rati°n 501 Low Gap Koad ~ CA, 95482 ~: Cica S~eet Redevelopment F~ds De~ Bo~d Members: ~48 Last year RCHDC purchased a parcel (.84 acre) Of land located on the comer of Clara and Orchard Streets in Ukiah in order to construct affordable rental housing. This purchase was made possible due to loans and grants provided by the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency and from Mendocino County's set-aside portion of the Redevelopment Agency's fund, which was authorized by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. In addition to the purchase of said parcel which was consummated, RCHDC has cleared the property of the old abandoned buildings and out houses. RCHDC has also cleared a long standing environmental hazard with the North Coast Water Quality Board, prepared and submitted to the city of Uki~ preliminary drawings for a thirty two unit affordable housing development and submitted a tentative design to the city of Ukiah along with a Development Application and fees. RCHDc hereby requests additional grant funding from Mendocino County's housing~etI aside portion of the Redevelopment Agency Fund. Our request is in the amount of ~ $149,000. These funds, if granted, will be used for "off site improvements" as required.[ bv the City. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Duane Hill Executive Director CHARTERED MIMBIR EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ITEM NO.: 6a DATE: July 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2005 Payments made during the month of June 2005, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the five (5) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 62382-62440, 62526-62650, 62651-62739, 62845-62938, 62939-63036 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: 60147-60148 Payroll check numbers: 62441-62525, 62740-62844 Payroll Manual check numbers: none Void check numbers: none This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of June 2005. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Mike McCann, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Mana~ KRS:WORD/AGENDAFJUN05 City Manager Director of Finance CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2005 Demand Payments approved: Check No. 62382-62440, 62526-62650, 62651-62739, 62845-62938, 62939-63036, 60147-60148 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $284,659.53 600 Airport 131 Equipment Reserve Fund $2,687.79 611 Sewer Construction Fund 140 Park Development $34,006.71 612 City/District Sewer 141 Museum Grants $2,818.34 615 City/District Sewer Replace 143 N.E.H.1. Museum Grant 620 Special Sewer Fund (Cap Imp) 150 Civic Center Fund 640 San Dist Revolving Fund 200 Asset Seizure Fund $1,221.55 650 Spec San Dist Fund (Cap Imp) 201 Asset Seizure (Drug/Alcohol) 652 REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund 203 H&S Education 11489 (B)(2)(A1) 660 Sanitary Disposal Site Fund 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants 661 Landfill Corrective Fund 205 Sup Law Enforce. Srv. Fund (SLESF) $409.56 664 Disposal Closure Reserve 206 Community Oriented Policing 670 U.S.W. Bill & Collect 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant $1,666.66 678 Public Safety Dispatch 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $471.42 679 MESA (Mendocino Emergency Srv Auth) 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund 695 Golf 250 Special Revenue Fund 696 Warehouse/Stores 260 Downtown Business Improvement 697 Billing Enterprise Fund 290 Bridge Fund 698 Fixed Asset Fund 301 2107 Gas Tax Fund 699 Special Projects Reserve 310 Special Aviation Fund 800 Electric 315 Airport Capital Improvement $6,725.00 805 Street Lighting Fund 330 Revenue Sharing Fund 806 Public Benefits Charges 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant 820 Water 333 Comm. Development Block Grant 840 Special Water Fund (Cap Imp) 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan 900 Special Deposit Trust 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 910 Worker's Comp. Fund 340 SB325 Reimbursement Fund 920 Liability Fund 341 S.T.P. 940 Payroll Posting Fund 342 Trans-Traffic Congest Relief 950 General Service (Accts Recv) 345 Off-System Roads Fund 960 Community Redev. Agency 410 Conference Center Fund $8,104.09 962 Redevelopment Housing Fund 550 Lake Mendocino Bond 965 Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund 575 Garage $2,618.33 966 Redevelopment Debt Svc. 975 Russian River Watershed Assoc 976 Mixing Zone Policy JPA PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 62441-62525 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 24374-24514 PAYROLL PERIOD 5/22105-6/04105 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS: 62740-62844 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 24515-24650 PAYROLL PERIOD 6105105-6118105 TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL VENDOR CHECKS TOTALPAYROLLCHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS VOID CHECK NUMBERS: NONE $25,792.77 $71 ,O29.98 $129,512.17 $2,080.05 $47,452.46 $2,481.99 $147,550.93 $8,740.11 $320.24 $7,339.15 $5,447.48 $648,807.82 $12,240.29 $8,668.36 $58,861.12 $942,396.93 $16,530.91 $373.66 $402,001.78 $1,073.31 $251.54 $1,001,488.52 $3,045.00 $21,684.48 $3,910,560.03 $54,914.98 $126,707.15 $334,214.77 $4,426,396.93 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance rj . o > OO 0 ~ ~ 0 ~J . o > {:3 o o oo o ooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o o , 0 · 0 ooo · 0 c~q ~q ~q · 0 o o o o ~ o Oo 0 O0 0~ 0 ~0 H ~ 0 ~0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 · 0 o o o o o o · o o · 0 o o ~0 ~0 · o o o . . °~ · 0 · 0 c~ ~ 0~ 0 o ~ o ~o ~ · . · ~oo OO ~o 0 O~ ~RRR ~O00 rj . o > 0 O0 0 0 120 0 0 ooo O0 0 o 0 0 0 0 · 0 · 0 0 0 0 · r..q ~° O0 0 0 O0 ~1 ~ ~ 00 H u~ ~ O0 00 00 00 O0 000000000 o~oo~§oo~ 0 O0 O0 0 O0 00 0 00 00 0 00 0 O0 O0 0 00000000000 00000000000 ~ooo~oo~§oo 000 O0 O0 00000000000 00000000000 ~~~~oo oo~ 00000000000 00000000000 O~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ oo oo oo ~ oooo oo oo ~ ~ oooo~§ § ~ ~ ~ ~ oo oo oo oo~oo~J~ooJ 000000000000000000000000000 o~~~~~~~~oo o oo oo oooo~o~o~ 000000000000000000000000000 00 000 0 0 ~oo~oo~oo~oo§§oo~ooo~oo~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000 O0 000000000000000000000000000 ........0.................. 000000000000000000000000000 00~~00 0~ ~0 0~0~0~~~0~0~~~0 .. ..... .................... 0000000000000~0~0~~00000 00 00 00 · . 0 ,-~ 0 ~ . . ~-~ 0 ~0 ~ . · · -~ 0 ,c~ 0 o ooo · . . °~ · , 0 · , o~oo o oo · . . . ~o~ ~° o o o o ~ ~H ~ 00~ H ~ H~ 00000 O0 00~00 0 oo~ o o o o O0 O0 0 000000 O0 O0 000000 000000 0 0 o ~o~oo~ o ~oo~ o ~o~ o o oo .oooooooooooo ooo~oo~oo~oo 000 O0 O0 O0 ~000000000000 0 O~ 0 0 o o o c~ o o o ~ o · l~ o 0~ o 0 0 rj · o > c~ c> Oo r~ ~:o ~J · ~o o o o o co o o o o o o§ o o oo o ooooo ~oo~ 0 0 o o o · °~ · 0 · o~ Itl-tO o c~ ~ o~o o o · LD Cq o o o o o o · · 0 · c> [13 H H Oo ~:o O~ ~0~ ~ 0 0~ H E~ 0 0 0 c~ c~ o o o o o o o o o o o~ 0~ o o o o o o °~ o o o o o o ~° o o ~ 0~ o o o~ooo§oo~§oo 0 000 O0 O0 00000 0000000 000000000000 000000000000 0 0 00 00 00 · 00 O~ ~ · 0 · 0 00 00 00 00 ~ O~ O0 000 O0 0 000000000000 000000000000 ~0 ~ O~ 0 O~ ~0 O0 0 0 E~ 0 ~000000000000 00 O00 00 O0 O0 000 O0 O~ 0 · 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °g 0000 0000 0000 ~°°~ ?~ 0000 0000 0 ~N C> {2> 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 00 00 0 0'~ 0'~ 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 r~ · 0 · 0 0 oo~ O0 0000 °°~ 0000 0000 0000 ~ 0 00 00 · · ~,o · · 0 00 · 00 00 ~0 HHO Oo ~-~ ~o HO000 O~ O3 O~ - or,.) :~ ,--1 U 0 oo~oo~ O0 O0 o~oo~ 0 000000 0000 ~°°~ ~°°~ o ~ 0000 000000 000000 000000 ~oo~o 00~00 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 0 O0 000000 ~-~ 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 · . u'~ ce} ~ o o o o o o · . °g r-i [13 L~ 0 ~0~ 0~0 ~0 ~ O~ H ,--1 H o o ooo ~ c~ ooc~ o I i i o o o oooo ~oo 0000 oo~ 0000 0 0 o (~ o · . o o o o o°~oo o ooo . . 0 0 cq ~~0 HHHHO Oo ~,J~0 ~:o O~ ~ 0 ~ ~0 ~J . ~0 0 > 0 L~ 000000 000000 o~oo~ O0 000 0000000 ~oo~ooo 00 00 0 O0 00000 °~°° O0 O0 000000 ...... oo~oo~ O0 O0 00000~ ~0 O0 0000000 ....... 0000000 ....... ~~00~ ~o~o ....... ~oo~oo~ O0 00~ 00 · . 0 0 0 · 0 o · · o o~ o o ~ H r..) · o > o o °~ O0 O0 ~°°~°°~ ~ oo oooo EE 0000000000000 0~0 000 0000000000000 0 0 o o . . o o · . o o o o ooEEooEooE O0 O0 O0 0000000000 oo~oo~o~ ~~~~000 .......... 000 ... ....... ... ~oo~oo~ooo ~ O0 O0 ~ 0 0 H 0 H 0 ~000 0 0 0000 0000 ~°° o~o~ 0000 O00 °~ o~~ o ~ O0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~00~ 0~ 0 .... o o~ 0 HHH oo~ H~HO ~00~ ~00~ ..... ~0~ oo§ 00 000 · . . · 0 · · , · o~ ~o o o~o ~ o o ~~ 0~ 0 O0 O0 O0 ~ 0000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 ~° o o o o ~° O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000 ............. ~~o~oo~~ O0 O~ ~ ~0 .... .... ..... o~o~~oo~ O~ O~ ~ O~ OoOO o o ooo · . . · o o · 12o o ooo · . . ~° · o cxl r-q ,r--t · o c> Oo ~j-.~ ~o O~ ~§§~o ~000 o o~ o oo o °~ [13 ~o~ oo ~0 t~ 00 o o co ix) o o o o ~° o o ,-~ 0q ,,~ o o o o o o oo~ o o o o o · 0 c~l cq ~q · , c~ c> c~ · , ~oo~ o ooo , 0 , 0 ,-t ~-t o o o · · , c> o 0 ~J o o ~o~ o~ ~0 0000 0000 0 ('~ ~ o o o o o LN I,.N 00 00 00 00 0000 ~oo 000000 ~oo oo o ooooo oo~ oo oooo oo mmmmo HHHHO o~ o oo oooo °~° 0 H~ ~0 O~ 0 I-I HHHH O H CO CO 00 00 00 00 000 O0 000 O0 oo~ooo~oo~oo~ 00000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 00 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 · 0 0 · 0 0 H ~30 · 0 ~o o o ooo · 0 0 ~oo~§oo~ooo~o~ O0 O0 000 00000~000~0000 ~00~00~~0 ~0~000~0~ ~0~000~~~ ~ ~ 0 0 HHH~H HH~H~H~ o o ~ 0~ · , o o o o o o o o ~00000000000000 00000000000000 O~ ~ ~ ~H H~ H ~ ~ 0 0 o o o oo o ~o 0 0 ~o o o o o . . 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 ~J OH 0 0 ~ ~ o Oo ~] I~ o oo o ~-,.I ,~ ~--~ gg° o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o · 0 o o o · . o i.~ ~--I · . . ~oo~ oo oooo oooo i.--.] O 0 ~ ~ H 0 ,.-] ~ o o o o o o ~o 0000 ~°° oo ~°° 0000 mn::: o o ,-t °oOo~ o o o o · . . · . . ~o . . . ~o o · ~oo o o~o~ ~° ©0 ~~0 Or.,a 0000 ~000 0000 o~~ 0~~ ~0000 0 0 rj ~o H ~0 o o o o o o oooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o o o 00 c0 i.~ ~ 0000 o o 0060 [.... ~ o o tel O O O O O O O O . . O O . O O O O t. Fi ~ . O O O O kc, oo~ O OO OO OO OO OO OO O~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~ O~O~O~OOOOOOOOOOO~OO~OOO ~~OOOOOOO~OO~O~OOO~~O O ~ O O~ ............ .0 .... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OO~OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOO~O~O~O~~ o ~ o o o · o o ~ · o , r--t oh ,< . 0 o I:z: r...) O~ ~HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHH HHHHHHHH 00000000000000000000000000 ~oooooooooooooooooooooooooo OE-, 0 0 r~ ~ ,-.] H I.--I r..) . o > 0 00 ooo cO CO 00 00 00 CO CO 000000 000000 000000 000000 00 00 00 o 0 00 00 oo[~ O0 O0 ooo 0 00 · 0 °~ · 0,3 o <2> 1210 CO o 0 0 0 cq o~ o o ~J ~ H o~ H {J H H ~ o o~ (j · > O0 0000 0000 0000 0 CD 000 rococo o 0 00 L.n LD 0 O0 O0 000000000 000000000 0 O0 O0 o 0 o O0 00~~000 000000000 000000000 ...... ~ ~ 0 o o H~ ~ O~ ~o ,< r,j OH o I-4 kO · (2) Ln O~ O ,.-I O4 ~-I ~ O O O O 00 00 O O O~ C~ '42 ~0 ¢4 6'4 O'1 ~N1 cq OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OO OOOOO o o O O O . O ¢q . O O . 6"4 ~ ~ C~ . ~ O ~ O q;;:) Ot i i H OOOOOOOO O ~OO~O~ ~O~~OO O~OOOO~ ~OOOO~ O OO ~ O ~ ~ O H ~ ~ O ~Hk~H~ © ossoosoo~Soo~o O OO OO OO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOO o~oo~oo~oo~ O ~ ~O ~ O O~~OO~O~O ....... . ..... o~oo~oo~~o O OO OO ~ O HHHHHHHHHHH O cq o~ ¥ o ~OOOOOOOO H HHHHH i I-,I r,j > {2> 00000000 CD 0 kO kid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O0 o 0 o cz:: o © © ~o oo~oo O0 O0 0~0000~ O0 O0 CXl ~ 00 00 · r',q ,--I ~ · 0 00 00 O0 O0 oo oo o~ 0 O0 O00 Or./'} © ~00000000 ~00000000 o © (J · > o o o o o o t~ ~ 0'3 ~ 0000 0000 r,j r.j r"q o o o ,-I LC} ~ O o o o o o ,..-4 L~ U~ O o O O oo88 HHHH0 H ~ ~~o o o o o o o ~ o o ~ . o o °~ cq · o o o o o o · . o o · . ~D ~D ~D ~D · 00 00 OD O0 o n~ O~ O ooo F,H ~ ~ * > ?? o o ~0 o o ~ ~n ~ Ln o o o o o cD% 0 0 ~ Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 oo O0 oo~ ~E~ O0 o o rJ · o > 0 . > [13 o o o o o~ c~ c~ o o o o o o o o o o o oo~ oo ooooo o o °88 ooo ooo 0~ HO~ 0 ~ m~ 0~ mmm O~ o o o o o o o oooo oooo oo o 0000000 ooooooo o o o o 0 0 · 0 , oo oo ooooooo ~oo~oo O0 OC~ ~o H ~ 0 ~:~ ~0 O~ o~ © 0 . 0 > 0 0000000000 O0 O0 0000000000 00 0 0 oo~ 000 0 00 0 Ln u~ LD o o 0000000000 oo8 00 ~1 0 0 0o4 ,<o O~ o o O~ i o,< ~ ::z:: o :>, o ~ ~0 o~ 0000 000~ 000 oo~ o oo o 0 0 o o o o o o · 0 o o · o o , 0 ~ 0~ o o~ i 0 0 O0 ~ ~~0~~00~~~~ 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 0000000000 0000000000 ~00000000000 00000000000000 00000000000000 o oo ~o o ~~00000000~~~0~ o~oo o oo~2~~ o o ~--] H O~ 0 i 0 ~H ,--]0 ~ rJ i O~ U ' > 0000 0000 0000 oEE~EE~EE~oo o o 00000000000 O0 000 O0 00000000000 ........... §~o ~o .. ...... ... 8oo~o~oo O~ ~ O0 HHHHH~HHHHHO o ~ ~-~ 00 o o o c~ o o o Or~ 0 © ~ ~ mo D H rJ . > ~~~~~~~~o o o oo o o oo~o~oo oo oooo o 0 00 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000000000000000000000000 ~o~ooo~~o~o~~~ ~ 0~0 O~ ~ ~ O0 ~~0~~0~0~0~~0 oo~oo~oo~o~~~~oo 0 0 0 · 0 0 · O~ H 00 00 ~o ~HO oo~ HHHHHHHHHHNHHHHHHHHHNNNN 0 E~ 0,< 0 © ~o o o o o ooo o o o o o i i <2> ~ o o 0 0 ~0 HHHO ooo · 0 · 0 ~oo~ o ~ , g° <2> 0 0 0 o · o o O~ ~o O0 :z:: :z:: rj O0 ~00 rJ · o > o oo oo oooooooooo oooooooooo oo oo o oooooooooo 00000 ooooo o o o o o o 0 0 o oo oo o oo~oo~o O0 O0 oo~oo~oo 00000~0~ oo~oo~oo ~o · 0 · , , i i r,D i I~ 0 o o H ~0000000000 HHHHH kO kid 0 0 i..n o o o o o oo o c~ ~ o~ o 0 0 r..J H ~ 0 ,-.] ~ n::: o o ~:o :Z:H n:::: O~ d rJE-, 0 OH ~ ~ o o rj · > 0 0 ~ ~ o ~ O0 0000 ~00 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 0 0000000000 O0 kO, 0 0 00 o 0 ooo~ 000 0000 °°~ 0000 ~~0 HHHHO So°S§°°~oo o ~o~oo~o o~~ ~oo~oo~oo O0 O0 O 0 0 H f/J 0 OC~ ,,<o 0 i ~ · o o L,n 0 0 D"' E'~ 0 0 ~0 0000 0000 o o o o o o 0 u,4 ~ 0 u-~ i.n o · 0 , H H 0 oo o oo co o oo . . O~ 0 0 i.-i i 000 ~00 O~ i O0 0 i O'< H MD r,..) . O O O O O O O kD D'"" O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO O O O O O 60 O0 O O . . <22> w--t o o o o 0 0 r~ ~ ~ , 0 6'4 ¢q O O O O · 0 ~ .,--.I ~ ,--4 · O O O O o 0. O~ O ~ ~ 0 OH H 0 0 0~ ~OOO OOO H r~ ¢:~ O 0 000000000000 000000000000 ~000~~~ ~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 CO 0 0 0 0 oo 00 00 o ~oo~o 0 O0 0 0 000000 000000 00 00 00 O~ 0'~ 0 0 O0 00 <:2> C> o 0 o~~:~~o oo o 0~000~00000 oo~oo~oo~oo 000000000000 o~°~°~°°o o oo O O O O ~ ,,-4 i i O ~ H H 0o4 r~% ,<o o ~ o ~0 ~ H o o ~ H I..-4 > kn LN LN 0 0 ~ ,,~ Ln LN 0 0 o o o o o0~c~ o o o o o o o o ~ g o~ oo o o ~ oo ~ ~ ~ o S ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 O0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ O0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ oo8 E~ o~ oo~ °88 o o 0 0 ~0 0 ~ Eq 0 0 0 © i O0 00 H ~ r.,~ O~ 0 O~ ~00 0 H U ~ U > ooo o o o o cD o o ol c~ o o O0 O0 0 000000000 000000000 0 0 OoOoO o oo o · , , °~ t'xl u"'} LD LD · o o , , , o o o , , . o o · o'1 o~ · · . 120 ~ HHO [-fl i 0 H i o~ ro . o ["'- CO 00 oO CO Oq 0 000000000000000 0 O00 oo~ 000 O0 O0 000000 O0 0 000000 00 o 0 -;¢ 0 · o40 0000~00~00 oo ooSSoo 000000000000000 0000000000000~0 oo~o~~ 0~~00~00~00 oossoo oo o oo oo ~~o~ i H 0 O0 . · O0 , , ,--q CO ~D ~ i 0~0~0 000000 ~° ~H~ 0 0 ~ . g° oo o ~ 02~ u~O 0 o ~ o o ~O00000 O0 i O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 0 O0 O0 O0 0 000000000000000000 0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000 ~oo~o~oo~ o ~ ~ ~oo~ o ~ ~ ......... ,,,o .... o~ ~o~~~oo o~ o~ o oo oo oo oo oo oo oooooooooooooooooo oo~oo~oo~o~oo~ oo ~ 000000000000000000 oooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo O~ rJ · > 00000000000000000000 ~3~3 ~:~ 0000000000 0000000000 00 0 00 o o 00000000000000000000 ~°~°~°~°~~~°~ o~ ~ ~ o o~ 00000~0~0~~000000 000~0~~~0~0~ o o · o o oh 0~ , o ko ~ oh · o o o o 0 ,<oo i > oo o u ooSSoSS~SSo o o o o LD [FI o o oo c) <2> >g~ <2> 0 0 O0 O0 O0 , o oo~oo~o ooooo~o~ooo ~ ~o~oo~o~~ ~ i ~ DDDD~ 0 ~0 ~ o 000~ ¢'4 o 00 ~ ~00000000000 [-, 0 O~ 0 ~0 H ~D E) · > o oo oooooo oooooo oooooo 000000 o o o o o o oo o c) o o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o · {:22> · (2> , ~° cq ~-t 120 H o~o ooo ~0 ~0 oo~ oo ooo · . ooo . . · 0 ~ 0 ~0 0 ~ O~ O~ H 0 ~ 0 H 0 0 O~ o o o ~X © o~o H ~ ~J . 0 > U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ cxl o ~ O~ mD-lO o o o o o o o o c~ c~ o o 0 ~0~ Ln ~D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0~ o ~° ~ ~.q © © o o o o og ~-~ ~-~ o o 0~ c~o~o · . o ~ AGENDA ITEM NO: 6t~ MEETING DATE: July 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 TO THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA) JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) WHEREIN SUCH SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 PROVIDES FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART) DISTRICT TO BECOME A SIGNATORY PARTY TO THE NCPA JPA. SUMMARY: The City of Ukiah is a full signatory party to the NCPA JPA and thereby participates with other NCPA members in multiple joint action endeavors related to wholesale electric power supply operations and interface arrangement with the California Independent System Operator. By letter dated March 16, 2005 from BART General Manager Thomas E. Margo to NCPA General Manager Jim Pope, the BART, with headquarters in Oakland, California, requested full membership in NCPA. BART has been an NCPA Associate Member since July 31, 1997. California Senate Bill No. 1201, approved by the Governor on September 21, 2004, provides BART the ability to receive electric power from municipal utilities. BART is contemplating utilizing municipal power sourcing to help establish a resource supply portfolio following the cessation of its Bonneville Power Administration (cont. on p. 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council's approval of the attached resolution approving the execution of Supplement No. 4 to the NCPA JPA for the purpose of including BART as a full signatory party to the NCPA JPA and authorizing the City Manager to execute Supplement No. 4 to the NCPA JPA. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Provide appropriate re-direction to staff. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Liz Kirkley, Electrical Distribution Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Supplement No. 4 to NCPA JPA 2. Draft Resolution No. Candace Horsley, lity Manager Page 1 of 2 (BPA) contract, as well to more fully explore additional services available through its expanded membership in NCPA. BART is interested in considering a variety of supply options for its future power supply including renewable, conventional and contract supply resources. NCPA would work closely with BART in developing its future power supply alternatives and assessing BART's potential inclusion in the NCPA power pool. Therefore, staff recommends the Ukiah City Council approve and execute Supplement No. 4 to the NCPA JPA. Page 2 of 2 Attachment # 1 SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 TO NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This Agreement dated ("Parties"), , by and among the parties signatory to it WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, all of the Parties, except the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ("BART") are also parties to that Agreement first made the 19th day of July, 1968, and revised as of the first day of April 1973, as amended ("the Joint Powers Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement created the Northern California Power Agency ("NCPA") pursuant to Section 6500 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, of which all Parties except BART are members or associate members; and WHEREAS, BART and each of the other Parties desire that BART shall become a party to the Joint Powers Agreement and a member of NCPA on the same basis as each of the other members; and 752743-1 Attachment # 1 WHEREAS, BART is a rapid transit district formed pursuant to the provisions of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Act, Califomia Public Utilities Code section 28500 et seq. and a public agency of the State of California, is entitled to be a preference purchaser of electric service from the Central Valley Project of the United States, and has powers equivalent to those of the other members of NCPA so far as is relevant to the powers of NCPA. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties, including BART, agree as follows: Section 1. On and after the effective date of this Agreement, BART shall be a member of NCPA and a party to the Joint Powers Agreement, and shall have the same rights, powers, and privileges and immunities, duties, and obligations as any other member of NCPA. Section 2. BART shall not be liable for any share of the organization, planning, or other costs of NCPA incurred prior to the effective date of this Agreement, and shall not by force of this Agreement become a party to any other agreement or instrumentality of NCPA entered into or created prior to the effective date of this Agreement, except with its consent and the consent of all other NCPA members and associate members who are parties to such agreement or instrumentality evidenced separately from this Agreement. Section 3. This Agreement shall take effect on the first day of the calendar month following the complete execution of this Agreement by BART and all members and associate members of NCPA. 752743-1 Attachment # 1 Section 4. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts by the Parties to it. CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY OF BIGGS By By Date Date CITY OF HEALDSBURG CITY OF ROSEVILLE By By Date Date CITY OF LODI CITY OF SANTA CLARA By By Date Date CITY OF LOMPOC TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT By By Date Date CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF UKIAH By By Date Date CITY OF REDDING By Date PLUMAS-SIERRA RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE By Date CITY OF GRIDLEY TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT 752743-1 Attachment # 1 By Date By Date PORT OF OAKLAND By Date SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT By Date 752743-1 Attachment #2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 TO THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WHEREIN SUCH SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 PROVIDES FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT TO BECOME A SIGNATORY PARTY TO THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 TO THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) was formed in 1968 for the purpose of utilizing the joint action of participating public power entities to pursue common interests for the benefit of all such members; WHEREAS, the NCPA Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) was initially developed on July 19, 1968 and subsequently revised on April 1, 1973; WHEREAS, in addition to the City of Ukiah, the Cities of Alameda, Biggs, Gridley, Healdsburg, Lodi, Lompoc, Palo Alto, Redding, Roseville, Santa Clara, Ukiah, and the Plumas- Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative, the Port of Oakland, the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, and the Turlock Irrigation District are signatory participants to the NCPA JPA; WHEREAS, the NCPA JPA provides for the addition of new members and signatories to the JPA; WHEREAS, additional NCPA members provide the potential for furthering joint action, diluting member cost and risk, enhancing the exchange of information, and otherwise expanding the likelihood of success of all NCPA members; WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has been an Associate NCPA Member since July 31, 1997; WHEREAS, NCPA has been performing scheduling and related energy services for BART to assist BART with the matching of loads and resources pursuant to BART's a supply contract with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and transmission arrangements with PG&E; WHEREAS, California Senate Bill No. 1201, approved by the Governor on September 21, 2004, provides BART, in part, the ability to receive electric power from municipal entities; WHEREAS, BART's BPA supply contract terminates on June 30, 2006 and BART is seeking alternatives to such supply including renewable and conventional generating resources and other supply arrangements with municipal entities, and BART may utilize NCPA services to assist in attaining such objectives; WHEREAS, BART, in assessing and implementing post BPA contract opportunities, desires to explore the utilization of, and participation in, the NCPA Power Pool; Attachment//2 WHEREAS, by letter dated March 16, 2005, BART General Manager Thomas E. Margo requested that BART become a full member of the NCPA JPA; WHEREAS, the NCPA Commission unanimously approved BART's request to become a Party to the NCPA and directed the NCPA General Manager to implement BART's full membership status by submitting the necessary Joint Powers Agreement revisions contained in Supplement No. 4 to the Members for their approval; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah's is necessary, along with the other NCPA JPA signatories, in order for BART's full NCPA JPA participation to become effective; NOW, THEREFORE the Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the execution of NCPA JPA Supplement No. 4 which includes the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit a signatory participant to the NCPA JPA and authorizes the City Manager to execute the NCPA JPA Supplement No. 4 on behalf of the City of Ukiah. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Mark Ashiku, Mayor APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Candace Horsley, City Manager David Rapport, City Attorney Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director ITEMNO. 6c DATE: July 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY PURCHASE FROM WEIR FLOWAY FOR TWO 25 HP SUMP PUMPS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,030 PLUS APPLICABLE TAX SUMMARY: Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent is reclaimed and piped throughout the plant for several critical plant operations including carrier water for the disinfection system, scum sprays on the primary and secondary clarifiers, the belt filter press, advanced wastewater treatment, and irrigation. The reclaimed water system consists of two sump pumps located on the chlorine contact structure. Both pumps have been in service since 1983. One pump has failed and the other is close to failing any day. The original pump manufacturer has been out of business for several years. The pumps have been kept in operation by mixing and matching pads from different pump companies after the manufacturer's spare pads were no longer available and in anticipation of the WWTP construction project. The reclaimed water system is essential to maintaining plant operations. The pumps were to be replaced in the WWTP Improvement Project. The delay in starting construction on the project and the 12 to 14 week lead-time on receiving new pumps necessitated the emergency purchase of two new sump pumps from Weir Floway. The Public Utilities Director and the City Manager authorized this emergency purchase. Funds are available in the maintenance account 612.3580.302.000 to cover this expense. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Receive and file notification of emergency purchase from Weir Floway for two 25 HP sump pumps in an amount not to exceed $26,030 plus applicable tax. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Director of Public Utilities Ann Burck, Project Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager None APP ROVE D':J~: ¢~t~,.~,,~.. Candace Horsley, Cit~ana§er ITEM NO: 6d DATE: July 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACQUISITION OF SERVICES FROM CITY OF LIGHT SOUND AND RECORDING FOR SOUND MANAGEMENT OF THE 2005 SUNDAYS IN THE PARK CONCERT SERIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000 SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is filing with the City Council this report regarding the acquisition of services from City of Light Sound and Recording for the sound management of the 2005 Sundays in the Park Concert Series in the amount of $6,000. City of Light has provided professional and consistent sound management services for the past twelve years. The contracted amount has not increased from last year. The event is funded by private sponsorship, and the funds are held in a trust account that the City administers. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Receive report regarding the acquisition of services from City of Light Sound and Recording for sound management of the 2005 Sundays in the Park Concert Series in the amount of $6,000. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Council Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. 2005 Contract from City of Light Sound and Recording APPROVED~~,~~'/' ~ Ca'fi-dace Horsley, Cit~anager Attachment 1 March 1, 2005 This contract is for the services of Keith Gaudette at City of Lighl Sound and Recording and The Ciw of Ukiah for the 2005 Ukiah Sundays in the Park Concert Series. City, of Light ag~ ees to provide sound reinforcement, monitoring desk. load in and out for the concerts at Todd Grove Park in Ukiah and the appropriate staffto ensure a quality' event COL w/Il also abide by the guidelines set out in each tech rider prov/ded by each band. The City of Ukiah contracts COL for the tbllowSng concerts: June 12 Pride & Joy June 26 Stompy Jones July 10Tom Rigney July 24 Lydia Pense August 7 Katia Moraes August 2t Ford Blues Band $1000. Sl000. Si000_ SIO00, 5t000. TOTAL $6000. Load in .for gear is for 12:00pm each day, or earlier depending on the sound requirements of the act with the band load in at 3:00pm and the sound check is from 4-5:30pm ALL SOUND CI-~CKS ARE TO BE COMPLETED BY 5:30 AT EACH CONCERT. Conce~s will begin at 6:00pm sharp. COL will possibly act as the second on mixing in case the band comes with their own sound man. Details will be forthcoming Cib,' of [Jkiah will also provide ample electrical requirements for each concert. Payments will be made on the day of each concert. Candace Horsley (City of' Ukiah) date Keith Gaudette (Ci~' of Light) date Please submit document back to Sage Sangiacomo at the City of Ukiah. 300 Seminary. l)r. Ukiah, CA. 95482. Thank you. AGENDA ITEM NO: 6e MEETING DATE: July 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO FASCO COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,138.00 AND TO EAGLE ONE COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,618.96 FOR THE PURCHASE OF DEPARTMENT EVIDENCE FACILITY STORAGE EQUIPMENT. SUMMARY: At the April 21, 2004 City Council Meeting, the City Council authorized the Ukiah Police Department spending plan for the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) grant. In this spending plan, the department requested funds for the remodeling of the department's old evidence areas, and the purchase of standard evidence storage lockers. These evidence lockers are designed to hold evidence, including refrigerated evidence in a court approved manner. These lockers will update our facility to comply with current court chain-of-custody requirements to secure and preserve evidence collected by department officers. Bids for this purchase were solicited from four evidence locker manufacturers. Bids were returned from three vendors, and it was determined based on the bids to award bids to two manufactures who offered the lowest overall pricing of the units. Staff recommends that FASCO Company be awarded the bid for Police Evidence Lockers in the amount of $20,138, plus applicable sales taxes. Staff also recommends that EAGLE ONE Company be awarded the bid for Police Evidence Lockers in the amount of $5,618.96, plus applicable sales taxes. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Award bid to FASCO Company in the amount of $20,138.00, plus applicable sales taxes, and award bid to Eagle One Company in the amount of $5,618.96, plus applicable sales taxes, from account 205.2001.800.000. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Chris Dewey, Captain Ukiah Police Department Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Bid Spread Sheet, Police Evidence Lockers Approved:" ... ..j,~.~ ~4~,,~~ %~.~ M%Horsley, City agerCandace 0 ._1 0 .-- 0 .-- -- 0 AGENDA ITEM NO: 6f MEETING DATE: July 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATON TO ADMINISTER COU TRANSACTION AND USE TAX The State Board of Equalization has submitted a contract to the City of Ukiah to administer the half-cent sales tax approved at the .]une 7, 2005 Special Election for the City of Ukiah. The provisions of the agreement have been reviewed by the City Attorney and are attached for Council's information. A resolution authorizing this agreement must be approved by the City Council before it is signed by both parties for enactment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adoption of the Resolution for administration for the half- cent sales tax ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Candace Horsley, City Manager David Rapport, City Attorney Attachment #1 - Resolution Attachment #2 - Agreement - Candace Horsley*~~y Manager ITEM NO. 6§ DATE: July 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO BORGES TRANSFER FOR THE PURCHASE OF 286 YARDS OF INFIELD MIX IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,698.26 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD FIELD AT THE UKIAH SPORTS COMPLEX. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is filing with the City Council this report regarding the purchase of infield mix from Borges Transfer Service for the construction of a third field at the Ukiah Sports Complex in the amount of $9,698.26. In 2002, the City of Ukiah was awarded a competitive grant from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for improvements at the Ukiah Softball Complex including the construction of a third softball field. As part of the construction of the field, a special soil mix (60% Clay / 40% sand) was needed for the infield of the ball diamond. In accordance with City of Ukiah purchasing policies, the City's purchasing supervisor issued a request for bid to all suppliers on the City's qualified bidders list. Requests were sent to 10 vendors. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Receive report regarding the purchase of 286 yards of infield mix from Borges Transfer Service for the amount of $9,698.26 for the construction of a third field at the Ukiah Sports Complex. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager and Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor N/A APPROVED~~. Candace Horsley, City~anager Three companies responded to the request for bid by the April 26 deadline with Borges Transfer Service being the Iow bid in the amount of $33.91 per yard. Refer to the following table for a complete summary of bids. Bid Summary Table Company Borges Transfer Service DenBeste Yard and Garden (Cloverdale) Wheeler Zamoroni Landscape Amount $33.91 per yard $37.54 per yard $35.50 per yard The total purchase amount for 286 yards of infield from Borges Transfer Service was $9,698.26. The cost of the mix was charged to the 140.6050.800.004 account (Park Development Fund - Softball Complex Renovation Project) and will be reimbursed by the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Nonurbanized Area Need Basis grant. ITEM NO. 6t~ DATE: July 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF SERVICES FROM HLR ROOFING FOR THE REPAIR OF ROOF TILE AT THE UKIAH CIVIC CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,400 SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is filing with the City Council this report regarding the purchase of services to repair an area of tile roofing at the Ukiah Civic Center. Emergency replacement of an area of roof tile and underlayment over the Police Department was needed to fix a number of severe leaks that presented a hazard to electrical equipment and personnel. Quotes were requested from 8 local contractors. Bids were returned by HLR Roofing and Dunlap Roofing with HLR Roofing being the overall lower bidder in the amount of $5,400. Funds for this work are budgeted in the 100.1915.301.000 account (Building Maintenance and Repair). RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Receive report regarding the purchase of services from HLR Roofing for the replacement of roof tile at the Ukiah Civic Center in the amount of $5,400. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A Candace Horsley, City M~,~ager SECTZON 4. COUNCZL CONDUCT WTrH THE PUBLZC I. Zn unpfficial settinqs: Make no promises on behalf of the Council Councilmembers will frequently be asked to explain a Council action or to express the City's intentions as they meet and talk with constituents in the community. It is appropriate to give a brief overview of City policy and to refer to City staff for further information. It is inappropriate to overtly or implicitly promise City action, or to promise City staff will take specific action (fix a pothole, provide labor for a project, plant new flowers in the median, etc.). II, In public meetings: See Rules of Order, Section 5.ll.D, of "City Council Meeting Procedures" Revised July 2005 - 16 - ITEM NO. 8a DATE: July 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING ON INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE REGULATING CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARI.1UANA - CITY ATI'ORNEY'S REPORT ON EFFECT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 04-709~, DATED JUNE 23~, 2005 BACKGROUND At its regular meeting on July 6, 2005, the City Council commenced a noticed public hearing on the introduction of an ordinance regulating the cultivation of marijuana in the City which has been recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission. Members of the public participating in the hearing submitted a decision of the California Attorney General, dated June 23, 2005, which they contend prevents the City Council from approving the ordinance or certain provisions of the ordinance. The City Council had closed the hearing to testimony by members of the public. Prior to conducting its deliberations on the ordinance, the Council requested the City Attorney to review the Attorney General Opinion and report to the City Council at its next meeting any impact the opinion could have on the decision to introduce the ordinance. The Attorney General Opinion answers three questions asked by State Senator Christine Kehoe, concerning whether S.B. 420 prevents or limits a city that had been issuing identity cards to medical marijuana users prior to the enactment of S.B. 420 from continuing to issue such cards. Specifically, Senator Kehoe asked (1) whether S.B. 420 preempts a city from issuing identification cards to medical marijuana users, (2) whether a city may continue to operate its own registry and identification card program until the statewide Continued on Paqe 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: City Council Prepared by: David J. Rapport, City Attorney Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Attorney General Opinion No. 04-709 APPROVED: C~andace Horsley, Ci~'~anager July 20, 2005 Page 2 of 5 continue to operate its own registry and identification card program until the statewide registry and identification card program mandated by S.B. 420 is implemented in the county where the city is located, and (3) whether a county can designate the city to perform the functions of a county health department under S.B. 420. ! have reviewed the Attorney General Opinion. ! also called and discussed the opinion with the Deputy Attorney General who is listed as the author of the opinion. CONCLUSI'ON The Attorney General opinion does not change my prior advice to the City Council. The Opinion addresses a very different type of city ordinance than the one pending before the City Council. Nevertheless, the AG Opinion agrees with my basic advice that S.B. 420 does not occupy the field of regulating medical marijuana use and specifically allows cities and counties to adopt ordinances that do not directly conflict with the specific requirements in S.B. 420. The primary focus of S.B. 420 is a statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. The purpose of the program is to provide a means for identifying medical marijuana patients who are exempt from criminal prosecution under state laws that make it a crime to possess or cultivate marijuana. ]:n the context of establishing this statewide program, S.B. 420 establishes minimum quantities of marijuana and marijuana plants that a patient or caregiver may possess or maintain without being subject to criminal prosecution for possession or cultivation. The proposed Ukiah zoning ordinance prohibits marijuana cultivation on certain parcels, such as those within 300 feet of schools. The City Council has considered imposing a limit of six plants per parcel, which would not allow twelve immature plants or plants for more than one patient. ]:t is not possible to predict with certainty whether a court would consider such limits in the context of a city zoning ordinance as a direct conflict with S.B. 420's marijuana cultivation limits. The Attorney General Opinion does not address this issue. ANALYSTS The Attorney General Opinion does not change the advice T have already given the City Council, concerning the proposed ordinance regulating marijuana cultivation. ! have advised the City Council that S.B. 420 was not intended to fully occupy the general subject of marijuana possession and cultivation and to preempt all city and county laws that touch on that subject matter. Rather, S.B. 420 establishes a statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. Local city or county ordinances that directly conflict with a specific provision of S.B. 420 would be preempted, but local laws regulating marijuana cultivation that do not directly conflict with a specific requirement of S.B. 420 are not preempted. July 20, 2005 Page 3 of 5 The Attorney General Opinion agrees with this analysis· The opinion concludes that $.B. 420 creates a statewide registry and identification card program that does preempt any local registry and identification card program, but it #oes not preempt local laws which are consistent with the statewide program· The Opinion also concludes that a city may continue to operate its own independent program, until the statewide program is implemented in that county. Finally, a county cannot designate the city to act instead of a county health department in issuing ]:.D. cards to medical marijuana users in that county. These conclusions result from the Attorney General's interpretation that S.B. ~,20 does not expressly or impliedly preempt this entire field of regulation. Rather, the Legislature intended "... to fully occupy a narrower, more specific field of regulation with respect to the use of medical marijuana: the establishment of a registry and identification card program designed to 'facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers .... ' (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(1).)" (AG Opinion, p. 10.) ]:n addressing a city :I.D. card program which continues to operate, pending implementing the statewide program for that county, the Attorney General identified features of that program that could continue and features which would directly conflict with features of the statewide :I.D. program established by S.B. ,~20. :In this context, the Attorney General Opinion notes that: A local ordinance, regulation, or program is contradictory to state law if it is "... inimical to state law; i.e., it penalizes conduct that state law expressly authorizes or permits conduct which state law forbids." (Surer v. City of Lafayette, supra, 57 CaI. App. 4th atp. 1124; ['13] see Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Ange/es, supra, 4 Cal.,Ith at p. 898; 77 Ops. Cai. Atty. Gen. ~7, ~8 (~9~).) Consequently, the Attorney General states: · . . a city would be preempted from allowing possession of marijuana at levels /ess than what the state law permits and making identification cards a mandatory prerequisite for prohibiting detention and seizure, because such provisions would directly contradict state law. (See §11362.77 [qualified patient or caregiver may have at least eight ounces of marijuana per patient; cities and counties may permit quantities that exceed state amounts]; §11362.71, subd. (0 [identification card not required to claim Act's protections].) Similarly, a city program that defined "attending physician" and "primary caregiver" more narrowly than state law would be preempted to the extent that it prohibited what state law expressly permitted. (Cf. § § 11362.7, subd. (a) [defining "attending physician"], 11362.7, subd. (e) [permitting "primary caregiver" to be under 18 years of age under specified circumstances].) July 20, 2005 Page 4 of 5 ]:n my opinion, the statement in the A.G. Opinion that "a city would be preempted from allowing possession of marijuana at levels less than what state law permits" was made with specific reference to a city ordinance establishing a medical marijuana 1:.D. program. The ]:.D. Program is intended to identify for city police when a person who is in possession of marijuana is exempt from criminal prosecution under state laws which otherwise prohibit such possession. (A.G. Opinion, pp. 3-4.) A city ordinance which established a lesser amount for this exemption from criminal prosecution would directly conflict with S.B. 420 which establishes the limits for purposes of determining when someone can be prosecuted for marijuana possession. Unlike the ordinances analyzed in the A.G. Opinion, the general subject matter of the Ukiah ordinance is zoning; not identification of medical marijuana users for purposes of criminal prosecution. The proposed zoning ordinance will establish where in the City marijuana may be cultivated and what procedural and substantive requirements will apply to that cultivation activity. The general subject of zoning is outside the scope of S.B. 420. Few of the specific provisions of the proposed Ukiah ordinance address the same subjects as specific provisions of S.B. 420. For example, no provision of S.B. 420 addresses whether marijuana cultivation must be conducted within a secure structure or whether it can be grown outdoors. S.B. 420 does not address whether marijuana can be grown next to a school. However, S.B. 420 does provide that a qualified patient may maintain six mature and twelve immature marijuana plants. The Planning Commission has recommended using these same limits for the number of plants that can be cultivated on a parcel in the City. The City Council has considered imposing a six plant per parcel limit which would result in a lesser number of plants than is specified by S.B. 420, because no allowance is made for immature plants or for a parcel which is used to grow marijuana for more than one patient. ]:n my opinion, whether this limit directly conflicts with S.B. 420 is not addressed in the A.G. Opinion. That is also the opinion of the Deputy Attorney General who is credited with authoring the opinion. We both believe this is an issue which has not been addressed by the Attorney General or the courts. Whether such a conflict is found to exist will depend on how the courts interpret the Legislature's intent in enacting S.B. 420. Did the Legislature intend to give a medical marijuana patient or his or her caregiver an absolute right to grow marijuana in any location and in any manner that he or she chooses? Did the Legislature intend to prevent cities or counties from exercising their traditional zoning authority to regulate where and under what circumstances marijuana may be grown? There are numerous instances where the Legislature has adopted statewide policies that override or limit local zoning authority. For example, Welfare and Tnstitutions Code Section 5120, entitled, "Zoning" provides that: "]:n order to achieve uniform statewide implementation of the policies of this act, it is necessary to establish the statewide policy that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no city or county shall discriminate in the enactment, enforcement, or administration of any zoning laws, July 20, 2005 Page 5 of 5 ordinances, or rules and regulations between the use of property for the treatment of general hospital or nursing home patients and the use of property for the psychiatric care and treatment of patients, both inpatient and outpatient. Health facilities for inpatient and outpatient psychiatric care and treatment shall be permitted in any area zoned for hospitals or nursing homes, or in which hospitals and nursing homes are permitted by conditional use permit. Similarly, Health and Safety Code Section 1566.3 requires cities and counties to treat a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons, such as a group home for children or developmentally disabled or mentally ill adults, as a residential use of property which is permitted on the same basis as any other residential use in a residential zoning district and prohibits requiring a discretionary permit, such as a use or site development permit for those uses. S.B. 420 does not contain comparable provisions addressing a city's authority to adopt zoning regulations for marijuana cultivation. The intent sections of S.B. 420 make clear that its focus is on providing uniform statewide implementation of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which prohibits the criminal prosecution of persons using marijuana to treat a serious illness on the advice of a physician. Nevertheless, Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77 (a) states that: "... a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient." (Emphasis added." ! would argue that the express wording of Section z1362.77(a), in the context of an act providing a statewide program for identifying medical marijuana patients, does not provide an absolute right to maintain those plants anywhere the patient wants and does not prevent cities from enacting zoning regulations to designate where in the city marijuana may be cultivated and regulating how that cultivation is to occur. The contrary argument would rely on the statement in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 that it is the intent of that ACt: "To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate . . ." would also rely on the express wording of Section 11362.77. ]:t is not possible to predict with certainty how this issue would be resolved by the courts. The Attorney General Opinion does not change my opinion concerning this uncertainty. Attachment /-/ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADDING SECTION 9254, ENTITLED: "MARIJUANA CULTIVATION," TO DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 19 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows: 1. In November 1996, the voters of California approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which enacted Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. Under the Compassionate Use Act, Health and Safety Code Section 11357, making it a crime to possess marijuana, and Section 11358 making it a crime to cultivate marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. 2. Since the enactment of the Compassionate Use Act, 264 persons with residence addresses in the City of Ukiah have been issued medical marijuana identification cards by the Mendocino County Sheriff's Department. 3. The number of parcels in the City used to grow marijuana has increased substantially. The City Police Department estimates that up to 250 parcels are currently being used to grow marijuana throughout the City's residential neighborhoods. 4. Marijuana plants as they begin to flower and for a period of 2 months or more during the growing season (August - October) produce an extremely strong odor, offensive to many people, and detectable far beyond property boundaries. One popular strain of marijuana is called "Skunk" or "Super Skunk" and has a strong odor that resembles the smell of a skunk. 5. The strong smell of marijuana as well as its visibility from adjacent parcels or from areas accessible to the general public advertises its presence in the neighborhood and creates both an attractive nuisance and the risk of robbery and armed robbery. 6. Recently, the City planning and police departments have received numerous odor complaints related to the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods. The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District ("MCAQMD") reports an accelerating MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 1 Attachment increase in formal air quality complaints associated with the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods in the City of Ukiah. In 2002, the MCAQMD received two such complaints; in 2003, five complaints; and by October 31, 2004, it had received over 20 formal complaints for 2004. In addition, in 2004 MCAQMD received an additional two dozen informal calls complaining about marijuana odor in residential neighborhoods in the City. 7. Several highly publicized recent events have called attention to the impact on public safety caused by the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods of the City. In one recent incident a property owner was shot in the hand by an intruder caught stealing marijuana from the property owner's backyard. The intruder gained entrance through a neighboring property and passed the neighbor's bedroom window, carrying a loaded handgun. In 2004 the City police department reports numerous calls to the department to respond to incidents related to the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods. 8. At a City Council meeting on November 3, 2004, several members of the public testified to problems in their neighborhoods related to marijuana cultivation, including impacts associated with intense cultivation of mature plants, growing as tall as 14 feet, within a 100 square foot area. These impacts ranged from increased traffic to acts of violence and intimidation. 9. The Mendocino County District Attorney refuses to prosecute persons who grow marijuana as long as the person claims to be growing it pursuant to Proposition 215 and within a 100 square foot area on his or her property. As a result, City Police have been unable to take enforcement action, even where cultivation of marijuana for sale is suspected. 10. The City of Ukiah is a relatively small city with a population of approximately 15,000 people. It has three full-time planners in its Planning Department, one part-time code enforcement officer and one building inspector. It has limited resources available to engage in extensive regulation of marijuana cultivation. 11. Limiting the number of plants per ~ qualified patient or primary caregiver that medical marijuana patients may grow in residential neighborhoods and requiring that the majority of plants t-~ be grown indoors within a secure structure should alleviate a number of the above-described problems. These requirements should substantially reduce the public nuisance caused by the odor of mature plants. It should make marijuana cultivation less visible and less attractive to young people or potential thieves. It should prevent cultivation for sale and the associated public safety problems. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 2 Attachment 12. Prior to the enactment of Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77 in 2003, the US government established for research purposes a medical marijuana dose range of between one half and three quarters of a pound per patient per month.~ After reviewing the dose range established by the federal government, the Oakland City Council adopted a limit of three pounds per year per patient, with a related plant-count limit for cultivation. In Sonoma County medical marijuana patients were allowed to possess enough cannabis to support their personal use of up to three pounds per year. Other communities had set limits per patient of between one-half to two pounds. 13. According to Cannabis Yields by the DEA, various types of cannabis plants under various planting conditions may yield averages of 236 grams, or about one half pound, to 846 grams, or nearly two pounds. A weighted average results in an average domestic plant yield of 448 grams, or approximately 1 pound per plant.2 14. While a particular patient under Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77 may be exempt from criminal prosecution under state law, if he or she possesses eight ounces of dried marijuana, six mature plants or twelve immature plants, six mature plants can yield six to twelve pounds of marijuana which should provide access to sufficient marijuana for the medical use of most patients under the Compassionate Use Act. Any additional marijuana required by a patient can be obtained from other sources, including marijuana dispensaries in the Ukiah area, or from cultivation permitted under this ordinance in non-residential zoning districts. 15. Given the above-described public nuisance and public safety problems associated with growing marijuana in residential neighborhoods within the City, a six plant per qualified patient or primary caregiver ~ limit strikes a reasonable balance between a medical marijuana patient's requirements and the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. 16. It is the City Council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance shall conflict with federal law as contained in the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq., nor to otherwise permit any activity that is prohibited under that Act. It is further the City Council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to (1) allow persons to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance, (2) allow the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes, or (3) allow any activity relating to the cultivation, distribution, or consumption of marijuana that is otherwise illegal. 1 See: Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis. 2. See study at: Cannabis Yields, June 1992, DEA. Information from Marijuana Patient Use And Cultivation Limits, Martin Martinez, Lifeline Foundation at www.cannabismd.orq/foundation. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 3 Attachment SECTION TWO Section 9254 is hereby added to Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 19 of the Ukiah City Code to read as follows. §9254: MARIJUANA CULTIVATION: Marijuana may be grown in the zoning districts of the City of Ukiah, if at all, only in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Cultivation of marijuana on parcels within the City that does not comply with this Section constitutes a violation of the zoning ordinance and is subject to the penalties and enforcement as provided in Article 22, commencing with § 9350. A. Definitions: For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1. "Evidence" means with respect to a qualified patient, the information described in Health and Safety Code §11362.715(a)(2) or a medical marijuana identification card issued by the Mendocino County Health Department or Sheriff's Department, and with respect to a primary caregiver, evidence that the caregiver's patient is a qualified patient and a written designation from the caregiver's qualified patient designating him or her as that patient's primary caregiver, and additional information demonstrating that the primary caregiver satisfies the definition of primary caregiver in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(d). 2. "Owner" means the owner or owners of record of a parcel as shown on the last equalized assessment roll maintained by Mendocino County. 3. "Parcel" means property assigned a separate parcel number by the Mendocino County Assessor; 4. "Person in lawful possession" means the person who has the legal right to occupy and use a parcel on which medical marijuana is cultivated. 5. "Primary caregiver" means a "primary caregiver" as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(d). 6. "Qualified patient" means a "qualified patient" as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(0. 7. "Secure location" means a space within a building or structure which can only be entered through a locked door that requires a key or combination to open and which is secure against unauthorized entry. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 4 Atlachment # I - ~' B. Marijuana Cultivation in Residential Zoning Districts. Marijuana cultivation may be permitted in the R-l, R-2, R-3, and C-N zoning districts in the City, subject to first securing a use permit pursuant to the provisions in Section 9262 and compliance with the following additional requirements. 1. No more than six mature or twelve immature marijuana plants may be grown per qualified patient or primary caregiver on a parcel. 2. The person with legal possession of the parcel must be a qualified ~....natient r~,,~,, ,h.-. ,,, ,~m.-.,~ ,,~,;,-.~, ~,o,, ,-,r,-,,A, .~o.ll on .~ ,,.,,,...-.~ r'_r,-,,,i,~,, ~.,-~r~i, ,3,,-, ..... )' .... "1 ........ I" ........... ] ~ .......... Ju ~'n' ~ ........ ~ ...... j ..... 3. The property owner or owners have signed and filed with the Planning Department a form adopted by the Planning Department in consultation with the City Attorney that contains all of the following' a. Acknowledgment that growing marijuana on the property may constitute a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act with potential civil and criminal penalties, including (1) imprisonment for up to five (5) years and a fine of up to $250,000 or both, and (2) the possible forfeiture of the property pursuant to 21 USC § 853; b. Consent to the use of the property for growing marijuana in accordance with this Section; and c. An agreement releasing the City and its officers, employees and agents from any liability to the applicant and the owner for issuing a use permit and for the acts or omissions of the City and its officers, employees and agents in the administration of this Section. 4. The parcel must be located not less than 300 feet from the grounds of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly, or facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm, unless it is determined through the discretionary review process that a closer distance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. 5. The plants must be located in an indoor secure location. However, based on lot size and shape, the presence of structures and mature landscaping, and the adjacent land uses and densities, the Use Permit applicant may request that not more than two plants per qualified patient or primary caregiver to a maximum of four plants per parcel be grown outdoors, All outdoor plants must be kept a minimum of fifteen feet from all property lines, kept less than six feet in height, and secured behind a locked fence/gate. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 5 Attachment The decision-makers must find that the growing of up to four outdoor plants per parcel would not have a detrimental impact on the public's health, safety, and general welfare." The decision-makers must also find: a. That the size and shape of the parcel, as well as the .presence of structures and mature landscaping would allow the planting of an indiscrete small outdoor marijuana garden that could comply with the yard setback and height standards above; and b. That the land uses and densities of adjacent parcels are not incompatible and would not conflict with the growing of a small indiscrete outdoor marijuana garden. 6. The facilities or equipment used in the indoor cultivation must comply with the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Building Code, and not be deemed to create an undue fire hazard by the City's Fire Marshall, or a health or safety hazard to persons present in the building or structure where the marijuana is being grown. 7. As a condition of receiving a use permit, the applicant must sign an agreement that, for the entire time that the permit application is pending and the permit is in effect, consents to inspection of the parcel and any building or structure on the parcel by any City employee with responsibility for verifying compliance with this Section. C. Marijuana Cultivation in Non-residential Zoninq Districts. Marijuana cultivation may be permitted in the C-1, C-2, M, A, and A-E zoning districts in the City, subject to first securing a use permit pursuant to the provisions in Section 9262 and compliance with the following additional requirements. 1. No more than twelve immature and six mature plants per qualified patient may be grown on a parcel. 2. The person with legal possession of the property must be a qualified patient or a primary caregiver. If the person is a primary caregiver: a. the limits in subsection C.1 above apply to each qualified patient he or she is a primary caregiver for; and b. a use permit shall not be approved, unless the City makes a finding based on a report from the Police Chief or his designee that the applicant does not. have a criminal history that would pose a threat of marijuana sales, the diversion of marijuana to non-medical uses or of conduct that endangers others. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 6 Attachment 3. The property owner or owners have signed and filed with the Planning Department a form adopted by the Planning Department in consultation with the City Attorney that contains all of the following: a. Acknowledgment that growing marijuana on the property may constitute a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act with potential civil and criminal penalties, including (1) imprisonment for up to five (5) years and a fine of up to $250,000 or both, and (2) the possible forfeiture of the property pursuant to 21 USC § 853; b. Consent to the use of the property for growing marijuana in accordance with this Section; and c. An agreement releasing the City and its officers, employees and agents from any liability to the applicant and the owner for issuing a use permit and for the acts or omissions of the City and its officers, employees and agents in the administration of this Section. 4. The parcel must be located not less than 300 feet from the grounds of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly, or building or facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. 5. The plants must be grown indoors in a secure location. 6. The facilities or equipment used in the indoor cultivation must comply with the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Building Code, and not be deemed to create an undue fire hazard by the City's Fire Marshall or Building Inspector, or a health or safety hazard to persons present in the building or structure where the marijuana is being grown. 7. As a condition of receiving a use permit, the applicant must sign an agreement that, for the entire time that the permit application is pending and the permit is in effect, consents to inspection of the parcel and any building or structure on the parcel by any City employee with responsibility for verifying compliance with this Section. 8. Marijuana may not be smoked or consumed on the parcel. 9. Growing medical marijuana on legal non-conforming residential parcels in the C-1, C-2, M, A, and A-E zoning districts shall be subject to the requirements for growing medical marijuana in residential zoning districts listed in Section 9254(B) above. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 7 Attachment D. Applications for Use Permits under Subsections B and C. In addition to complying with the provisions of Section 9262, applications for a use permit under Subsections B and C, above, shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The use permit shall be considered a major use permit and the Planning Commission shall conduct the initial public hearing. 2. The application shall be accompanied by an additional fee established by resolution of the City Council that covers all costs of processing the application, including, but not limited to, the full cost of the criminal history report required by Subsection C.2.b. The City Council may establish by resolution a separate fee for a renewal application under Subsection E below. 3. A primary caregiver applicant must (1) submit to the City Police Department his or her fingerprints and his or her criminal history for use in investigating the applicant's criminal history through the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) and information maintained by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and (2) to the extent required by law, a written consent to the use of the CJIS and FBI data base and to the use of the information obtained in acting on the application for a use permit. A public hearing shall not be scheduled until the Police Chief, or his designee, submits to the Planning Department his or her written recommendation concerning the findings required by Subsection C.2.b, above. 4. The application must include all of the following information: plants; a. Name, address, Assessor's Parcel Number and number of b. Evidence that the applicant is in lawful possession of the parcel; c. Evidence of status as a qualified patient or evidence of status as a primary caregiver as to each patient the applicant claims to be a primary caregiver for. d. Site plan showing location of plants and plans demonstrating satisfaction of the requirements of Subsections B.4 and B.5 or C.4 and C.5. e. Sufficient information to determine that a primary caregiver will only receive payments from a qualified patient that constitute bona fide reimbursement for his or her actual expense of cultivating and furnishing marijuana for the patient's approved medical treatment. 5. The use permit granted pursuant to this Section is personal to the applicant, cannot be assigned or transferred, does not run with the land, and expires twelve months after it is issued, unless renewed pursuant to Subsection E. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 8 Attachment E. Permit Renewal. The use permit must be renewed annually in connection with which the City shall conduct an inspection of the premises to verify compliance with the requirements of this Section. The permit shall expire and thereafter marijuana cultivation on the parcel shall be subject to a new use permit application, unless a renewal application accompanied by the required fee is received by the Planning Department no later than forty-five days prior to the anniversary date of the issuance of the use permit. A hearing on the renewal of the use permit shall be conducted before the Zoning Administrator, as for a minor use permit, according to the procedures in Section 9262. In addition to any other determinations permitted or required by Section 9262, the Zoning Administrator shall refuse to renew the permit, if he or she determines that the applicant has willfully violated any material conditions of the permit or the requirements of this Ordinance. SECTION THREE 1. ENFORCEMENT. Violations of this Ordinance shall be enforced and abated according to the requirements of the Ukiah City Code. 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah, and shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Introduced by title only on ,2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 9 Aftachment# i-}0 Adopted on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ,2005 by the following roll call vote: Mark Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk 2005 Cal. AG LEXIS 17, * Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA No. 04-709 2005 Cal. AG LEXIS 17 June 23, 2005 QUESTION: ['1] THE HONORABLE CHRISTINE KEHOE, MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following questions: 1. Does the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users preempt the operation of a city's own registry and identification program? 2. May a city continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide registry and identification card program is implemented in the county in which the city is located? 3. May a county designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users? CONCLUSIONS 1. The statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users preempts the operation of a city's own registry and identification card program, but a city may adopt and enforce other ordinances consistent with the statewide program. 2. A city may continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide registry and identification card program is implemented in the county in which the city is located, except to the [*2] extent that the operation of the city's program would be inconsistent with state law. 3. A county may not designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. OPINIONBY: BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General; DANIEL G. STONE, Deputy Attorney General OPINION: ANALYSIS On November 5, 1996, the voters of California adopted Proposition 215, an initiative statute authorizing the medical use of marijuana. (See People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 457,463; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4th 748, 751; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 409, 412.) The measure added section 11362.5 to the Health and Safety Code nl and entitled the statute the "Compassionate Use Act of 1996." (§ § 11362.5, subd. (a).) Section 11362.5 "creates an exception to California laws prohibiting the possession and cultivation of marijuana." (United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 486.) "These prohibitions no longer apply to a patient [*3] or his primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the patient's medical purposes upon the recommendation or approval of a physician." (Ibid.; see People v. Mower, supra, 28 Cal. 4th at pp. 471-474; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 1147, 1160 -- 1162; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cai. App. 4th 229, 235.) n2 2005 Cal. AG LEXIS 17, * ATTACHMENT__ Page 2 nl All references hereafter to the Health and Safety Code are by section number only. n2 Possession and distribution of marijuana remain unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 3~ 801 et seq.). (People ex tel. Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 1387, fn. 2.) Federal law contains no "compassionate use" exemption for medical necessity. (Gonzales v. Raich (2005) U.S. , ; United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 486; People v. Mower, supra, 28 Cal. 4th atp. 465, fn. 2; People v. Bianco, supra, 93 Cal. App. 4th atp. 753.) [*4] The chief purposes of Proposition 215 are: (1) to give Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana in the medical treatment of illnesses for which it provides appropriate relief, as recommended by a physician, (2) to protect patients and primary caregivers, as defined, from criminal prosecution or other sanctions based on their possession, use, or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes, and (3) to encourage implementation of a cooperative governmental plan to make marijuana available and affordable to all patients in medical need thereof. (§ 11362.5, subd. (b)(1); see also § 11362.5, subd. (c) [barring punishment of physicians for recommending marijuana to patients]; 86 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 180, 181 (2003).) The three questions presented for analysis concern a recently established state program to facilitate implementation of Proposition 215. In 2003, the Legislature enacted sections 11362.7 through 11362.83 to provide a uniform system of "identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution .... "(Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1.) Under this legislation, the state Department [*5] of Health Services ("Department") is directed to "establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards" to qualified patients and primary caregivers, and to provide a process through which state and local law enforcement officers may immediately verify a card's validity. (§ 11362.71, subd. (a); see also § 11362.71, subd. (d)(3).) Each county health department, or other "health-related governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization" designated by the county (§ 11362.71, subd. (c)), is to provide applications, receive and process completed applications, and issue identification cards. (§ § 11362.71, subd. (b); 11362.72-11362.74.) n3 Section 11362.77, subdivision (a), sets forth the maximum amount of marijuana and number of marijuana plants that a qualified patient or caregiver may possess without prosecution; however, local governments are expressly authorized to allow greater amounts. Subdivision (c) of section 11362.77 provides: "Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a)." n4 Section 11362.83 additionally provides: [*6] "Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article." n3 The Department is responsible for designing the applications and identification cards, developing protocols to process the applications, confirming the accuracy of the information submitted, and protecting the confidentiality of program records. (§ 11362.71, subd. (d).) n4 Even in the absence of more lenient local rules, patients and caregivers are not limited to the quantities of marijuana set forth in section 11362.77, subdivision (a); rather, they are entitled to possess and to use medical marijuana in any amounts consistent with the patients' needs, as reflected in doctors' recommendations. (§ 11362.77, subd. (b).) The amounts set forth in section 11362.77, subdivision (a), thus represent "threshold" quantities of marijuana -- that is, the amounts up to which the protections of sections 11362.5, 11362.71, subdivision (e), and 11362.765 will automatically apply for every qualified user and possessor throughout the state. Whether greater amounts may be possessed and used depends on local rules and physicians' assessments of particular patients' needs. [*7] 1. Preemption of Local Programs The first question to be resolved is whether the statewide registry and identification card program preempts the operation of a city's own registry and identification card program. We conclude that the statewide program preempts the operation of any local programs, but that cities may adopt and enforce other related ordinances if they are consistent with state law. 2005 Cal. AG LEXIS 17, * ATTACHMENT Page 3 Under the California Constitution, each city and county is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) In Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 878, 885, the Supreme Court examined the scope of this constitutional grant of authority: "Under the police power granted by the Constitution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise their power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § § 7.) Apart from this limitation, the police power [of a county or city] under this provision.. [*8] . is as broad as the police power exercisable by the Legislature itself.' [Citation.]" In addition, charter cities may adopt and enforce ordinances that conflict with general state laws, if the subject matter is a "municipal affair" and not a "statewide concern." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5; see American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal. 4th 1239, 1251; Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 389, 399.) Here, as we shall demonstrate, the statewide registry and identification card program is a subject of statewide concem; accordingly, if the operation of the city's program conflicts with state law, the local program is preempted and void. (See American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland, supra, 34 Cal. 4th atp. 1251; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 725, 747; Cohen v. BoardofSupervisors (1985) 40 Cal. 3d277, 290; CandidEnterprises v. Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 885; City of Lodi v. Randtron (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 337, 351.) [*9] A conflict between a state law and a local ordinance exits where "the ordinance duplicates or is coextensive therewith, is contradictory or inimical thereto, or enters an area either expressly or impliedly fully occupied by general law." (American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland, supra, 34 Cal. 4th atp. 1251; see Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal. 4th 893, 897-898.) Initially, we note that the Legislature expressly did not intend to "fully occupy" all areas of law concerning the use of medical marijuana when it enacted the statewide registry and identification card program. To the contrary, the 2003 legislation affirmatively authorizes local governments to retain or establish guidelines permitting possession of greater amounts of marijuana (§ 11362.77, subd. (c)) and to adopt and enforce other "laws consistent with this article" (§ 11362.83). Hence, the state statutes at issue here do not expressly or impliedly preempt this entire field of regulation. (See Malish v. City of San Diego (2000) 84 Cai. App. 4th 725, 728-729 [state law expressly permits local regulation [*10] of pawnbrokers and other secondhand dealers].) On the other hand, the Legislature has demonstrated its intention to fully occupy a narrower, more specific field of regulation with respect to the use of medical marijuana: the establishment of a registry and identification card program designed to "facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers .... "(Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(1).) This statewide program includes a mechanism by which law enforcement officers throughout the state "have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of an identification card." (§ 11362.71, subd. (b).) The statutory provisions are elaborate, detailed, and comprehensive. (See, e.g., § § 11362.7 [definitions]; 11362.77 [implementation duties of Department and each county health department]; 11362.715 [information required for applications]; 11362.72 [required steps for processing and issuing applications]; 11362.735 [required contents of identification cards]; 11362.74 [limited reasons for denial of application; appeal; waiting period to reapply]; 11362.745 [annual renewal of card]; 11362.755 [application and renewal fees].) [*11] While patients' and caregivers' participation in the program is voluntary (§ 11362.71, subds. (a)(1), (f)), the statutes mandate that all necessary steps be taken by the Department and each county to make the program available to all applicants statewide (§ 11362.71, subds. (a)-(d)). The statewide program is intended to "promote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state." (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(2).) n5 It follows that a local identification card program will be preempted, and rendered void, once the state program is implemented in the locality. At that point, any local program will "exceed the scope of local regulation permitted by" sections 11362.7 through 11362.83. (Malish v. City of San Diego, supra, 84 Cal. App. 4th atp. 729.) n6 n5 As previously mentioned, charter cities may supersede state statutes "with respect to municipal affairs" involving "areas which are of intramural concern only." (California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal. 3 d 1,17; accord, Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 Cal. 4 th atp. 399; see 85 Ops. Cal. A tty. Gen. 210, 213-214 (2002).) This constitutional grant of authority for charter cities has no application here, however, ATTACHMENT 2005 Cal. AG LEXIS 17, * Page 4 because the establishment and protection of a right to possess and use medical marijuana notwithstanding state criminal statutes is plainly a matter of statewide concern. Further, it is self evident that the procedures and protections afforded by the 2003 legislation are reasonably related to the resolution of this statewide concern. Hence, these state laws would prevail over any conflicting regulatory acts of a charter city. (See, e.g., Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 Cal. 4th atp. 404; Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court (1988) 45 Cal. 3d, 491,507; 83 Ops. Cai. Atty. Gen. 24,26-29 (2000); 82 Ops. Cai. Atty. Gen. 165, 167-170 (1999).) [* 12] n6 A local identification program would also be in conflict with the statewide program by being "duplicative." (See Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 4 Cal. 4th atp. 897.) We conclude that the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users preempts the operation of a city's own registry and identification card program, but a city may adopt and enforce other ordinances consistent with the statewide program. 2. Preemption Prior to Implementation of Statewide Program The second question we are asked to address is whether a city may continue to operate its own program until the statewide program is implemented. We conclude that a local program may continue to be operated temporarily except for any element that is "contradictory to" state law. A local ordinance, regulation, or program is contradictory to state law if it is "... inimical to state law; i.e., it penalizes conduct that state law expressly authorizes or permits conduct which state law forbids." (Suter v. City of Lafayette, supra, 57 Cal. App. 4th atp. 1124; ['13] see Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 4 Cal. 4th at p. 898; 77 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 147, 148 (1994).) Here, we are asked to consider a city ordinance that (1) provides identification cards for patients and primary caregivers, (2) requires attending physicians to practice within the county where the city is located, (3) prohibits anyone under 18 years of age from receiving a card as a primary caregiver, (4) prohibits cardholders from being detained by city police officers longer than necessary to verify their status, (5) prohibits the seizure of medical marijuana by city police officers, (6) allows possession of marijuana in amounts different from the quantity specified in the statewide program, and (7) prohibits smoking marijuana in any public place. Do any of these elements of the local ordinance permit conduct that is prohibited by state law or forbid conduct that is permitted under state law? We believe that a city may (1) continue to operate a local registry and identification program, (2) prohibit cardholders from being arrested by city police officers, (3) prohibit the seizure of medical marijuana by city [* 14] police officers, and (4) allow possession of marijuana in amounts greater than specified in the 2003 legislation. These elements of a local program would be consistent with state law. (See § § 11362.71, subd. (e); 11362.77, subds. (a), (b), (c), (f); Dublin v. City of Alameda (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 264, 275-277.) On the other hand, a city would be preempted from allowing possession of marijuana at levels less than what the state law permits and making identification cards a mandatory prerequisite for prohibiting detention and seizure, because such provisions would directly contradict state law. (See § 11362.77 [qualified patient or caregiver may have at least eight ounces of marijuana per patient; cities and counties may permit quantities that exceed state amounts]; § 11362.71, subd. (f) [identification card not required to claim Act's protections].) Similarly, a city program that defined "attending physician" and "primary caregiver" more narrowly than state law would be preempted to the extent that it prohibited what state law expressly permitted. (Cf. § § 11362.7, subd. (a) [defining "attending physician"], 11362.7, subd. (e) [permitting "primary [*15] caregiver" to be under 18 years of age under specified circumstances].) Finally, with respect to regulating where persons may use medical marijuana, the Legislature has provided in section 11362.79: "Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: "(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law. ATTAGHMF--NT ~'~ Page 5 2005 Cal. AG LEXIS 17, * A city thus would not be preempted from continuing to prohibit marijuana use in any public place; such local limitation may in fact remain after the statewide program has been implemented. (See also 8 11362.765, subd. (a); cf. City of San Jose v. Department of Health Services (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 35,42 [Legislature has left to local authorities the matter of regulating tobacco smoking in their respective jurisdictions absent a conflict with state law].) We conclude in answer to the second question that a city may continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide program is implemented in the county in which the city is located, except to [*16] the extent that the operation of the city's program would be inconsistent with state law. 3. Designated Health-Related Entity or Organization The final question to be addressed concems whether a city may be designated to perform the duties of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. We conclude that a city would not be eligible for such designation. Section 11362.71, subdivision (b), sets forth a number of duties to be performed by a county health department or by the county's "designee" in implementing the statewide registry and identification card program: "Every county health department, or the county's designee, shall do all of the following: "(1) Provide applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program. "(2) Receive and process completed applications in accordance with Section 11362.72. "(3) Maintain records of identification card programs. "(4) Utilize protocols developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). "(5) Issue identification cards developed by the department to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers."n7 n7 Sections 11362.72 and 11362.74 describe steps to be followed by "a county health department or the county's designee" in processing applications and issuing cards. ['17] Section 11362.71, subdivision (c), specifies the entities from which a "county designee," as used in subdivision (b), may be selected: "The county board of supervisors may designate another health-related governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization to perform the functions described in subdivision (b), except for an entity or organization that cultivates or distributes marijuana." The term "health-related... entity or organization" is not defined in the 2003 legislation (cf. 8 11362.7), nor was the term used in Proposition 215 itself. (See § 11362.5.) A county health department would, of course, be such an entity, as reflected by the Legislature's use of the term "another" in section 11362.71, subdivision (c). Such department operates under the direction of the county health officer, who must be a graduate of a medical school. (8 8 101000, 101105; see Gov. Code, 6~ 6~ 24000, subd. (s), 33201.) A county health department is responsible for preserving and protecting public health and sanitation, and for responding to public health emergencies. (8 8 101030-101085.) County mental health departments and welfare departments may also be [* 18] considered health-related governmental entities. (See Gov. Code, 6~ 33201.) In this case, we think the phrase "health-related... entity or organization" is ordinarily understood to mean an organization whose principal focus is on matters involving physical and mental health, including directly providing medical and health services or administering public health programs, disease detection and prevention programs, and therapeutic and educational programs. (See Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict. (2002) at pp. 1043 ["health," "health department"], 1916 ["related"].) n8 2005 Cal. AG LEXIS 17, * Page 6 n8 In attempting to resolve uncertainty or ambiguity in a statute, we may look to the ordinary, commonly understood meanings of the words and phrases used by the Legislature. (See Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 984, 1000; DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 593, 601.) We reject the suggestion that a city may be characterized as a "health-related [* 19] governmental.., entity" because it has the authority to enact ordinances and take other measures for the protection and preservation of public health. To be sure, section 101450 does give cities certain health related responsibilities: "The governing body of a city shall take measures necessary to preserve and protect the public health, including the regulation of sanitary matters in the city, and including if indicated, the adoption of ordinances, regulations and orders not in conflict with general laws." A city council may appoint a city health officer to discharge these responsibilities. (See § § 101460-101470.) However, unlike a county health department or another organization that specializes in matters of public health, a city is accountable for a broad spectrum of local activities, responsibilities, and programs that are not primarily "of, relating to, or engaged in welfare work directed to the cure and prevention of disease." (Webster's 3d New Intemat. Dict., supra, at p. 1043.) Consequently, we do not believe that a city would meet the usual definition of the term "health- related.., entity or organization." Moreover, such a designation would result in [*20] a city's undertaking countywide responsibilities for implementing the statewide program. In 63 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 8(1980), we concluded that a city could perform health related responsibilities for a county outside the city's boundaries if authorized by the Legislature. (Id. at p. 10.) Here, we find that the 2003 legislation has not authorized a city to perform these services outside its boundaries. (Cf. People v. Pina (1977) 72 Cal. App. 3dSupp. 35, 39-40 [county sheriff has statutory authority to empower city police officers to act as peace officers in any place within the county, including other cities].) n9 In the absence of such a legislative grant of extra-territorial authority, a city's power to act is confined to its own boundaries absent "the urgency of extreme expediency or necessity." (Harden v. Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal. 2d 630, 638; see 63 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 539, 547-548 (1980).) n9 Significantly, no mention of cities is made in section 11362.71. If the Legislature had intended for cities to have a role in performing these particular duties under the statewide program, it knew how to authorize expressly that outcome (see, e.g., § § 11362.7, 11362.77, 11362.83); however, it chose not to do so. ['21] We conclude in answer to the third question that a county may not designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California BILL LOCKYER Attorney General OPINION · No. 04-709 : of · June 23, 2005 : BILL LOCKYER · Attorney General · : DANIEL G. STONE · Deputy Attorney General · : THE HONORABLE CHRISTINE KEHOE, MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following questions: 1. Does the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users preempt the operation of a city' s own registry and identification program? 2. May a city continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide registry and identification card program is implemented in the county in which the city is located? 3. May a county designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users? CONCLUSIONS 1. The statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users preempts the operation of a city's own registry and identification card program, but a city may adopt and enforce other ordinances consistent with the statewide program. 2. A city may continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide registry and identification card program is implemented in the county in which the city is located, except to the extent that the operation of the city' s program would be inconsistent with state law. 3. A county may not designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. ANALYSIS On November 5, 1996, the voters of California adopted Proposition 215, an initiative statute authorizing the medical use of marijuana. (See People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 463; People v. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal. App.4th 748, 751; People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal. App.4th 409, 412.) The measure added section 11362.5 to the Health and Safety Code~ and entitled the statute the "Compassionate Use Act of 1996." (§§ 11362.5, subd. (a).) Section 11362.5 "creates an eXception to California laws prohibiting the possession and cultivation of marijuana." (United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483,486.) "These prohibitions no longer apply to a patient or his primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the patient's medical purposes upon the recommendation or approval of a physician." (Ibid.; see People v. Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 471- 474; People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal. App.4th 1147, 1160 - 1162; People v. Young (2001) 92 Cal.App. 4th 229, 235.)2 i All references hereafter to the Health and Safety Code are by section number only. 2 Possession and distribution of marijuana remain unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances 2 04-709 The chief purposes of Proposition 215 are: (1) to give Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana in the medical treatment of illnesses for which it provides appropriate relief, as recommended by a physician, (2) to protect patients and primary caregivers, as defined, from criminal prosecution or other sanctions based on their possession, use, or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes, and (3) to encourage implementation of a cooperative governmental plan to make marijuana available and affordable to all patients in medical need thereof. (§ 11362.5, subd. (b)(1); see also § 11362.5, subd. (c) [barfing punishment of physicians for recommending marijuana to patients]; 86 Ops.Cal.Atty. Gen. 180, 181 (2003).) Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.). (People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1387, fn. 2.) Federal law contains no "compassionate use" exemption for medical necessity. (Gonzales v. Raich (2005)__ U.S ..... ; United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 486; People v. Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 465, fn. 2; People v. Bianco, supra, 93 Cal. App.4th at p. 753.) 3 04-709 The three questions presented for analysis concern a recently established state program to facilitate implementation of Proposition 215. In 2003, the Legislature enacted sections 11362.7 through 11362.83 to provide a uniform system of "identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution .... " (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1.) Under this legislation, the state Department of Health Services ("Department") is directed to "establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards" to qualified patients and primary caregivers, and to provide a process through which state and local law enforcement officers may immediately verify a card's validity. (§ 11362.71, subd. (a); see also § 11362.71, subd. (d)(3).) Each county health department, or other "health-related governmental or nongovemmental entity or organization" designated by the county (§ 11362.71, subd. (c)), is to provide applications, receive and process completed applications, and issue identification cards. (§§ 11362.71, subd. (b); 11362.72-11362.74.)3 Section 11362.77, subdivision (a), sets forth the maximum amount of marijuana and number of marijuana plants that a qualified patient or caregiver may possess without prosecution; however, local governments are expressly authorized to allow greater amounts. Subdivision (c) of section 11362.77 provides: "Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a).''4 Section 11362.83 additionally provides: "Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local goveming body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article." 1. Preemption of Local Programs The first question to be resolved is whether the statewide registry and identification card program preempts the operation of a city' s own registry and identification card program. We conclude that the statewide program preempts the operation of any local programs, but that cities may adopt and enforce other related ordinances if they are consistent with state law. 3 The Department is responsible for designing the applications and identification cards, developing protocols to process the applications, confirming the accuracy of the information submitted, and protecting the confidentiality of program records. (§ 11362.71, subd. (d).) 4 Even in the absence of more lenient local rules, patients and caregivers are not limited to the quantities of marijuana set forth in section 11362.77, subdivision (a); rather, they are entitled to possess and to use medical marijuana in any amounts consistent with the patients' needs, as reflected in doctors' recommendations. (§ 11362.77, subd. (b).) The amounts set forth in section 11362.77, subdivision (a), thus represent "threshold" quantities of marijuana - that is, the amounts up to which the protections of sections 11362.5, 11362.71, subdivision (e), and 11362.765 will automatically apply for every qualified user and possessor throughout the state. Whether greater amounts may be possessed and used depends on local rules and physicians' assessments of particular patients' needs. 4 04-709 Under the California Constitution, each city and county is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) In Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 878, 885, the Supreme Court examined the scope of this constitutional grant of authority: "Under the police power granted by the Constitution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise their power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. (Cal. Const., art. XI, §§ 7.) Apart from this limitation, the 'police power [of a county or city] under this provision . . . is as broad as the police power exercisable by the Legislature itself.' [Citation.]" In addition, charter cities may adopt and enforce ordinances that conflict with general state laws, if the subject matter is a "municipal affair" and not a "statewide concern." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5; see American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239, 1251; Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, 399.) Here, as we shall demonstrate, the statewide registry and identification card program is a subject of statewide concern; accordingly, if the operation of the city' s program conflicts with state law, the local program is preempted and void. (See American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1251; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 747; Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 290; Candid Enterprises v. Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 885; City of Lodi v. Randtron (2004) 118 Cal. App.4th 337, 351.) A conflict between a state law and a local ordinance exits where "the ordinance duplicates or is coextensive therewith, is contradictory or inimical thereto, or enters an area either expressly or impliedly fully occupied by general law." (American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1251; see Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897-898.) Initially, we note that the Legislature expressly did not intend to "fully occupy" all areas of law concerning the use of medical marijuana when it enacted the statewide registry and identification card program. To the contrary, the 2003 legislation affirmatively authorizes local governments to retain or establish guidelines permitting possession of greater amounts of marijuana (§ 11362.77, subd. (c)) and to adopt and enforce other "laws consistent with this article" (§ 11362.83). Hence, the state statutes at issue here do not expressly or impliedly preempt this entire field of regulation. (See Malish v. City of San Diego (2000) 84 5 04-709 Cal. App.4th 725,728-729 [state law expressly permits local regulation of pawnbrokers and other secondhand dealers].) On the other hand, the Legislature has demonstrated its intention to fully occupy a narrower, more specific field of regulation with respect to the use of medical marijuana: the establishment of a registry and identification card program designed to "facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers .... "(Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(1).) This statewide program includes a mechanism by which law enforcement officers throughout the state "have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of an identification card." (§ 11362.71, subd. (b).) The statutory provisions are elaborate, detailed, and comprehensive. (See, e.g., §§ 11362.7 [definitions]; 11362.77 [implementation duties of Department and each county health department]; 11362.715 [information required for applications]; 11362.72 [required steps for processing and issuing applications]; 11362.735 [required contents of identification cards]; 11362.74 [limited reasons for denial of application; appeal; waiting period to reapply]; 11362.745 [annual renewal of card]; 11362.755 [application and renewal fees].) While patients' and caregivers' participation in the program is voluntary (§ 11362.71, subds. (a)(1), (f)), the statutes mandate that all necessary steps be taken bythe Department and each county to make the program available to all applicants statewide (§ 11362.71, subds. (a)-(d)). The statewide program is intended to "[p]romote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state." (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(2).)s It follows that a local identification card program will be preempted, and rendered void, once the state program is implemented in the locality. At that point, any local program will "exceed the scope of local regulation permitted by" sections 11362.7 through 11362.83. (Malish v. City of San Diego, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 729.)6 5 As previously mentioned, charter cities may supersede state statutes "with respect to municipal affairs" involving "areas which are of intramural concern only." (California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1, 17; accord, Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 399; see 85 Ops. Cal.Atty. Gen. 210, 213-214 (2002).) This constitutional grant of authority for charter cities has no application here, however, because the establishment and protection of a fight to possess and use medical marijuana notwithstanding state criminal statutes is plainly a matter of statewide concern. Further, it is self evident that the procedures and protections afforded by the 2003 legislation are reasonably related to the resolution of this statewide concern. Hence, these state laws would prevail over any conflicting regulatory acts of a charter city. (See, e.g., Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 404; Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court (1988)45 Cal.3d, 491,507; 83 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 24, 26-29 (2000); 82 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 165, 167-170 (1999).) 6 A local identification program would also be in conflict with the statewide program by being "duplicative." (See Sherwin-Williams Co. v. CiO' of Los Angeles, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 897.) 6 04-709 We conclude that the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users preempts the operation of a city' s own registry and identification card program, but a city may adopt and enforce other ordinances consistent with the statewide program. 2. Preemption Prior to Implementation of Statewide Program The second question we are asked to address is whether a city may continue to operate its own program until the statewide program is implemented. We conclude that a local program may continue to be operated temporarily except for any element that is "contradictory to" state law. A local ordinance, regulation, or program is contradictory to state law if it is ".. · inimical to state law; i.e., it penalizes conduct that state law expressly authorizes or permits conduct which state law forbids." (Suter v. City of Lafayette, supra, 57 Cal. App.4th at p. 1124; see Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 898; 77 Ops.Cal. Atty. Gen. 147, 148 (1994).) Here, we are asked to consider a city ordinance that (1) provides identification cards for patients and primary caregivers, (2) requires attending physicians to practice within the county where the city is located, (3) prohibits anyone under 18 years of age from receiving a card as a primary caregiver, (4) prohibits cardholders from being detained by city police officers longer than necessary to verify their status, (5) prohibits the seizure of medical marijuana by city police officers, (6) allows possession of marijuana in amounts different from the quantity specified in the statewide program, and (7) prohibits smoking marijuana in any public place. Do any of these elements of the local ordinance permit conduct that is prohibited by state law or forbid conduct that is permitted under state law? We believe that a city may (1) continue to operate a local registry and identification program, (2) prohibit cardholders from being arrested by city police officers, (3) prohibit the seizure of medical marijuana by city police officers, and (4) allow possession of marijuana in amounts greater than specified in the 2003 legislation. These elements of a local program would be consistent with state law. (See §§ 11362.71, subd. (e); 11362.77, subds. (a), (b), (c), (f); Dublin v. City of Alarneda (1993) 14 Cal. App.4th 264, 275-277.) On the other hand, a city would be preempted from allowing possession of marijuana at levels less than what the state law permits and making identification cards a mandatory prerequisite for prohibiting detention and seizure, because such provisions would directly contradict state law. (See § 11362.77 [qualified patient or caregiver may have at least eight ounces of marijuana per patient; cities and counties may permit quantities that 7 04-709 exceed state amounts]; § 11362.71, subd. (f) [identification card not required to claim Act's protections].) Similarly, a city program that defined "attending physician" and "primary caregiver" more narrowly than state law would be preempted to the extent that it prohibited what state law expressly permitted. (Cf. §§ 11362.7, subd. (a) [defining "attending physician"], 11362.7, subd. (e) [permitting "primary caregiver" to be under 18 years of age under specified circumstances].) Finally, with respect to regulating where persons may use medical marijuana, the Legislature has provided in section 11362.79: "Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: "(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law. A city thus would not be preempted from continuing to prohibit marijuana use in any public place; such local limitation may in fact remain after the statewide program has been implemented. (See also § 11362.765, subd. (a); cf. City of San Jose v. Department of Health Services (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 35, 42 [Legislature has left to local authorities the matter of regulating tobacco smoking in their respective jurisdictions absent a conflict with state law].) We conclude in answer to the second question that a city may continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide program is implemented in the county in which the city is located, except to the extent that the operation of the city's program would be inconsistent with state law. 3. Designated Health-Related Entity or Organization The final question to be addressed concerns whether a city may be designated to perform the duties of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. We conclude that a city would not be eligible for such designation. Section 11362.71, subdivision (b), sets forth a number of duties to be performed by a county health department or by the county's "designee" in implementing the statewide registry and identification card program: 8 04-709 "Every county health department, or the county's designee, shall do all of the following: "(1) Provide applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program. "(2) Receive and process completed applications in accordance with Section 11362.72. "(3) Maintain records of identification card programs. "(4) Utilize protocols developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). "(5) Issue identification cards developed by the department to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers.''7 Section 11362.71, subdivision (c), specifies the entities from which a "county designee," as used in subdivision (b), may be selected: "The county board of supervisors may designate another health-related governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization to perform the functions described in subdivision (b), except for an entity or organization that cultivates or distributes marijuana." The term "health-related... entity or organization" is not defined in the 2003 legislation (cf. § 11362.7), nor was the term used in Proposition 215 itself. (See § 11362.5.) A county health department would, of course, be such an entity, as reflected by the Legislature's use of the term "another" in section 11362.71, subdivision (c). Such department operates under the direction of the county health officer, who must be a graduate of a medical school. (§§ 101000, 101105; see Gov. Code, §§ 24000, subd. (s), 33201.) A county health department is responsible for preserving and protecting public health and sanitation, and for responding to public health emergencies. (§§ 101030-101085.) County 7 Sections 11362.72 and 11362.74 describe steps to be followed by "a county health department or the county's designee" in processing applications and issuing cards. mental health departments and welfare departments may also be considered health-related governmental entities. (See Gov. Code, § 33201.) In this case, we think the phrase "health-related... entity or organization" is ordinarily understood to mean an organization whose principal focus is on matters involving physical and mental health, including directly providing medical and health services or administering public health programs, disease detection and prevention programs, and therapeutic and educational programs. (See Webster' s 3d New Intemat. Dict. (2002) at pp. 1043 ["health," "health department"], 1916 ["related"].)s We reject the suggestion that a city may be characterized as a "health-related governmental.., entity" because it has the authority to enact ordinances and take other measures for the protection and preservation of public health. To be sure, section 101450 does give cities certain health related responsibilities: "The governing body of a city shall take measures necessary to preserve and protect the public health, including the regulation of sanitary matters in the city, and including if indicated, the adoption of ordinances, regulations and orders not in conflict with general laws." A city council may appoint a city health officer to discharge these responsibilities. (See §§ 101460-101470.) However, unlike a county health department or another organization that specializes in matters of public health, a city is accountable for a broad spectrum of local activities, responsibilities, and programs that are not primarily "of, relating to, or engaged in welfare work directed to the cure and prevention of disease." (Webster' s 3d New Internat. Dict., supra, at p. 1043.) Consequently, we do not believe that a city would meet the usual definition of the term "health-related ... entity or organization." 8 In attempting to resolve uncertainty or ambiguity in a statute, we may look to the ordinary, commonly understood meanings of the words and phrases used by the Legislature. (See Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 1000; DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601.) 10 04-709 Moreover, such a designation would result in a city' s undertaking countywide responsibilities for implementing the statewide program. In 63 Ops.Cal. Atty. Gen. 8 (1980), we concluded that a city could perform health related responsibilities for a county outside the city's boundaries if authorized by the Legislature. (Id. at p. 10.) Here, we find that the 2003 legislation has not authorized a city to perform these services outside its boundaries. (Cf. People v. Pina (1977) 72 Cal. App.3d Supp. 35, 39-40 [county sheriff has statutory authority to empower city police officers to act as peace officers in any place within the county, including other cities].)9 In the absence of such a legislative grant of extra-territorial authority, a city's power to act is confined to its own boundaries absent "the urgency of extreme expediency or necessity." (Harden v. Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 630, 638; see 63 Ops.Cal.Atty. Gen. 539, 547-548 (1980).) We conclude in answer to the third question that a county may not designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users. 9 Significantly, no mention of cities is made in section 11362.71. If the Legislature had intended for cities to have a role in performing these particular duties under the statewide program, it knew how to authorize expressly that outcome (see, e.g., §§ 11362.7, 11362.77, 11362.83); however, it chose not to do so. 11 04-709 .2 connected by dh-t, Eashflood ravaged roads. The remain- ing, most affluent third of the population lived in town. Most of them were engaged in selling goods and services to the American tourists and bargain hunters. Visiting Tijuana was a wondrous adventure for a little American kid like me. Lining downtown's Boulevard De Liberdad were side-by-side hole in the wall plaster shops and the wide open mouths of covered markets that were laid out like roofed, circus mazes. And whether the shops specialized in selling jewelry, tooled silver, blown glass, leather goods, pottery, onyx, wood carvings, Indian bas- kets, Indian blankets, hats and sombreros, western attire, European fashions, consumer electronics, French per- fumes, pearls, diamonds or gold, in all of their front win- dows they displayed intricately woven and beautifully decorated round open Indian baskets f'flled with Mexican Jumping Beans. sTorfing giant tooled silver l:elt buckles. 'V~' file gl)ercial:? - ing in selling fake gems and low grade sil~¢er, imitation gold, culled industrial diamonds and fla,'ed cultured pearls, they bragged in "perfect" English to any passersby who would listen that they could get at prices no true bargain hunter could resist anything they'd seen in any of the windows of any of the shops -- anything. If you just followed them into the side streets or gave them the money to cover your purchase and then ~ don't move ~ waited for their prompt return, they would acquire for You the deal of a lifetime. Or, if what. you were after was a bit of border town fun, for a small fee one of them would hire on to be your personal guide and bodyguard and take you anywhere ~ anywhere ~ you wanted to ~,o. continued on page 12 Ukiah Medical Mariiuana Rec ulation Violat9 State Law Piecemeal- Pot Prohibition by Pebbles Trippet The problem with Ukiah's piecemeal prohibition of cannabis patients' right to grow is: 1. It's not decent, 2. It won't work, and 3. It's not legal. A misnamed "urgency" ordinance passed in Ukiah on May 4th with the City Council banning all outdoor medi- cal marijuana cultivation within the city limits and all indoor gardens within 300 feet of schools -- the most restrictive ordnance in the state. Eliminating the average patient's main avenue to consistent medicine -- growing outdoors under sun -- undermines a state law which grants patients a "right" to grow. With most of Ukiah off-limits to .cannab~ patients and caregivers under the zoning law, ~t was a strongly opposed by patients, caregivers and doctors as a blatant violation of established Proposition 215 (People v. Mower, Senate Bill 420, etc.) But the city council again renewed the prohibition ordinance with the avowed intent of wiping out patients 2005 growing season, claiming a public safety urgency to start before the smell "problem" began. On June 23, the patients rights point of view got a boost with the release of Attorney General Lockyer's official Opinion regarding the Pre-emption Principle, i.e., the limited authority of cities to pass local ordinances in relation to state law. City ordinances must be "consistent" with state law, according to Lockyer. His opinion was requested by California Senator Christine Kehoe representing San Diego (39th District) on the related issue of the state ID card program vis-a-vis city programs. His opinion concludes that any kind of regulatory process can conflict with or duplicate state law or create penalties not in state law. For instance, a caregiver should not have to go through the application process twice, fh'st in the state where the process respects pri- vacy, then in the city where the process is intrusive, requiting use permits, penalties for noncompliance and criminal background checks on caregivers which state law doesn't require. Lockyer's conclusion: 1. "The statewide registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users pre-empts the oper- ation of a city's own regislxy and ID card program, but a city may adopt and enforce other ordinances consistent with the statewide program. 2. "A city may continue to operate its own registry and identification card program for medical marijuana users until the statewide registry program is implemented in the county in whWh the c~ty ~s located, except to the extent that the operation of the city's program would be inconsistent with state law. 3. "A county may not designate a city to perform the functions of the county health department under the statewide registry and identification card program..." The following quotes from the opinion give a sense of the direction the state is taking into limiting cities' legal options: "The statewide registry and ID card program is a sub- ject of statewide concern; accordingly, if the operation, of the city's program conflicts with state law, the local pro- gram is pre-empted and void." "A local ordinance, regulation or program is contra- dictory to state law if it is inimical to state law, i.e., it penalizes conduct that the state law expressly authorizes or permits conduct which state law forbids.". The Attorney General's Opinion points out that Sen- ate Bill 420 sets a minimum threshold (6 mature/12 immature plants), allowing counties to raise limits but not lower them. Discriminatory provisions or reductions of people's rights have no place in Lockyer's assessment. If anything, California and the counties are moving away from penalties and prohibitions. The model is the original voter-passed law, Proposition 215 ~ which removed penalties for using marijuana for medical pur- poses and made medical use a right, no longer a crime. Senate Bill 420 encourages patients and caregivers toward "collective, cooperative cultivation projects" as the legal model to follow. This is an expansive, rather than restrictive, interpretation of Proposition 215 parameters. Mendocino County has chosen to focus on flexible implementation of Proposition 215 as a goal from the moment Sheriff Tony Craver and District Attorney Norm Vroman set it up as the first county-wide ID card program in the state. They later replaced plantmumbers. with a uniform plant canopy limit of 100 square feet per patient. On June 22nd, Supervisor Jim Wattenber~er held a small group meeting of the affected parties to discuss making more progress by placing dispensaries (as well as the county ID program) under the County Health Department instead of city police department authority. Fort Bragg and Ukiah police are resistant because they want oversight over dispensaries and background checks of dispensary employees. continued on page 12 Page 12 July 20, 2005 Tijuana continued from page 1 In adcfi~tion to the Tijuana cops standing in intersec- tions directing traffic with dramatic hand signals and shrill chrome whistles, other cops were parked on the shady sides of street corners, standing or leaning against a wall with their long-barreled pistols holstered for the quick draw. For the Tijuana cops my dad always gave me one crisp American ten dollar bill to keep in my front pants pocket in case of emergency. If ever I got separated from the rest of my family, I was to immediately find a cop and hand him my ten dollar bill. The cop, my dad assured me, would keep me safe until they returned and found me. Standing tall, bright, clean and shiny along the Boulevard were various Farmacias with big bay windows plastered with painted paper flyers announcing ridicu- lously low prices on penicillin, aspirin, Rolaids and the like. I remember my dad explaining to me that the phar- macies were among the biggest money makers in town because, under Mexican law, they could sell anything to anybody, whether prescription or non-prescription, real medicine, fake medicine, bottled vitamins, hair growers, skin restorers, muscle builders, fat reducers, rare, pre- cious, youth-restoring organic minerals, "aphrodisiacs" and old fashioned snake oils in all flavors. In fact, my dad pointed out to me (he was a student of human nature) the pharmacies made most of their profits selling miracle drugs, the latest scientific discoveries, wonder cures and magic potions that could be found only in places like Tijuana. Sprinkled along the edges of the Boulevard, making sure to keep out of the way, were refugee Indian women sitting beside their skinny, sad-eyed daughters who held out their stick-arms and begged for money. Also, dwarfed by and dodging the crowds like me, walked boys my age holding flimsy little cardboard boxes filled with tiny colorful boxes of Chiclets gum, two gum drops each, one box for one penny American. When ever we were in Tijuana, my dad always kept my pants pocket stocked with nickels for the Chiclets boys. My dad explained to me that because few Chiclets boys'had the money to buy their own inventory, most of them were working on commission for adult Padrones. And so that extra four cents I was giving the boy was a significant profit for him. I was to have pity on the poor, our ances- tors, but at the same time I was never to give any one Chiclets boy more than one nickel in one day. That was because I -- we -- didn't want to be taken for suckers and draw a hungry crowd. Besides, my dad informed me, the boy was working for a living and if I gave him more than a nickel I might insult his pride. If I was really feeling full of pity for the poor, my dad told me, the Chicago slum Irishman showing through, then I could forgo buying myself gumdrops and put all of my nickels into the hand of a little beggar girl. Yet, to save me from having to make a moral choice, mY dad always made sure I got enough nickels to buy gumdrops plus enough left over so, just before we left town (again so we didn't draw a crowd), I could place a pile into the palm of a beggar girl. After sunset on the beach on Rosarito, we'd often drive over the mountain and into Tijuana for a night's entertainment. After dark downtown Tijuana was a jun- gle of snaking neon lights except for the Spanish Cathe- dral like, white stone Jai Alai Palace which was lit up with. powerful white floodlights. My parents liked to gamble and we'd go in the Palace so they could place beta and ~ip, liciuor and we all could watch the matches (great fun). Other times we might go to Caliente Race- track to watch the horses run (more great fun). Or we'd go and watch the dog races (not so much fun). Once, just once, out next to the beach in the La Plaza Del Toro, we watched a bullfight (my dad wanted to show me what gory was). Given who I was and the times I lived in, for me the real adventure in Tijuana was to be found on the bustling side streets branching off like alleys from the Boulevard. Beyond downtown's knickknacks and smiling billboards were bustling auto paint shops, tuck and roll galleries, specialty chrome and mag wheel emporiums, tire shops, auto repair shops, body shops, chop shops and -- for the sake of the family crowd -- out of the way sex shops, 'sex shows, nightclubs, backroom casinos and clip joints. It was for these haunts that the Marines, Sailors and Hot Rodders were all in Tijuana for, those places and the drop of night, and I wanted to follow along with them. Prohibition continued from page 1 Stat~ and federal case law have established basic principles of .medical freedom. In People v. Mower (August 2002), the California Supreme Court unan- imously declared that people who use marijuana for medical purposes are "no more criminal than" (exactly equal to) people who use prescription medicines and must be treated the same. In Conant v. Walters (October 2002), the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that doctors may discuss marijuana and recommend its use to their patients as a First Amendment right. The US Supremes let Conant stand as a new physicians' rights precedent. Only the US Supreme Court remains resistant to let- ting go of marijuana prohibition. The recent Raich deci- sion reflects the Supreme Court devide (6-3). The liberal Stevens majority of six appears lame, reduced to parrot- ing the law, impervious to change, in authority out of inertia. The conservative minority of three, led by Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas along with cancer patient Rehnquist, appears principled, rational and radical by comparison. They denounced as unconstitutional under the interstate commerce clause the concept of giv- ing the federal government more police power over the lives of people such as cannabis patients whose medical marijuana use is personal, intra-state and non-commer- cial. The Raich court showed that "their vested interest in maintaining the drug war trumps constitutional protec- tions of personal liberty, much as the Dred Scott decision once held that maintaining slavery trumped civil rights of African Americans," according to Chris Conrad of the Oaksterdam News (Spring 2005). The new attorney general's opinion is a breath of fresh air because it reflects leadership at the state level commensurate with the California Supreme Court that has been ~nissing for nine years (since the Compassionate Use Act passed in 1996). Based on this opinion, cannabis patients, advocates and lawyers are now laying plans to file for a civil injunction to stop the Ukiah prohibition ordinance (or any replacement that reduces patients' rights) from being in effect. Kris Hermes, legal director for Americans For Safe Access says, "With Lockyer's Opinion, we have the legal means to challenge the Ukiah ordinance and prevent its implementation." This is like putting up "keep out!" warning signs in all neighborhoods, whittling away at the rights of a new population to grow their own medicine under a doctor's approval. The voters gave us this right. Ukitth has no right to take it away. A new coalition, Community Advisory on Medical Marijuana Policy (CAMMP), was formed to challenge these illegal prohibition moves in Ukiah. The group includes Americans for Safe Access, Medical Marijuana Patients Union, Northern California NORML and United Medical Caregivers clinic. The coalition favors forming a citizens advisory board to air complaints, find solutions, seek balance between neighbors and patients' concerns. The CAB is what all parties agree on, excluding any other restrictions. Why not start there? We urge that Ukiah's urgency ordinance prohibiting outdoor cultivation be dropped, in light of new informa- tion in the Attorney General's Opinion (6/23/05) that shows a prohibition ordinance can reasonably be inter- preted as a violation of state law. This raises the issue of potential jeopardy to the city of Ukiah. Is it worth an uphill court fight against a patient's statutory "right" to grow, with no support from either the county or the state? Ukiah would be seen as the new cannabis unfriendly capital with a backyard ban, no dispensaries in town and criminal background checks on caregivers. The next Ukiah City Council meeting is July 20 (tonight) (at 6:30pm). It will face these issues as it gives its considered opinion of the Attorney General's opin- ion, which is that punitive ordinances violate SB 420 (the state's Prop 215 compassionate Use Act implementation law). A prohibition is as punitive as you can get and criminal background checks ~nove us backward to when it was still a crime. Come to the ~neeting on Wednesday, July 20, 6:30pm, 300 Se~ninary, Ukiah Civic Center. At last we're in a position of strength in light of Lockyer's Pre- emption opinion. Above all, we are seeking bona fide patient and careglver plaintiffs, residents of Ukiah, will- ;~ ,.-. ;~; .... ;th c, thor nlalntiffn tn seek an iniunction ITEM NO. (~. DATE: ]june 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: DISCUSSION OF INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON FORMULA BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT AND ON PERKINS AND GOBBI STREETS SUMMARY: At its ]june 6, 2005, City Council meeting the City Council began a discussion of formula businesses. During the discussion, it became clear that the prospect of regulating formula businesses raises numerous policy and legal issues which will require some time to evaluate. The City Council requested the City Attorney to report back at the ]june 20 Council meeting on the legality of imposing an interim moratorium on formula businesses locating in the downtown business district and on the "gateway" streets leading into the downtown: Perkins and Gobbi Streets. As previously discussed in connection with marijuana cultivation and marijuana dispensaries, Government Code Section 65858 authorizes a City Council to adopt as an urgency ordinance, an interim zoning ordinance that imposes a moratorium on certain uses without going through the publicly noticed hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council that are normally required for the adoption of zoning ordinances. Any such ordinance must be adopted by a 4/5 vote of the City Council. (Gov. Code §65858(a).) Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff regarding urgency interim ordinance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/a Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: City Council David ]j. Rapport, City Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager, Charley Stump, Planning Director :[. UCC §§2605 and 2605.5 APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City'!lanager Formula Business Moratorium Page 2 of 4 The urgency ordinance adopted without any public hearing is effective for 45 days, but may be extended by the City Council for an additional 10 months and :[5 days, after conducting a noticed public hearing. (`r o'.) In order to adopt the ordinance, the City Council must make the following findings: · . . there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. (,rd, subd. (c).) As ! also explained at the June 6 City Council meeting how the term "formula business" is defined could determine whether a moratorium on formula businesses discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the United States Constitution. !n determining whether a challenged law "discriminates" against interstate commerce, "'discrimination'... means differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter." (Oregon Waste Systems, `mc. v. Department of Environmenta/ Qua//ty of Oregon (1994) 511 U.S. 93, 99.) Improper discrimination "may take any of three forms: first, the state statute may facially discriminate against interstate or foreign commerce; second, it may be facially neutral but have a discriminatory purpose; third, it may be facially neutral but have a discriminatory effect." (Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn. v. Voss (1995) 12 Ca/. 4th 503; Waste Management of A/ameda County v. B/ag/n/ Waste Reduction Systems, Inc. (1998) 63 Ca/.App. dth 1488, 1d9~' $m/thfie/d Foods, Inc. v. M#/er (S.D. Iowa 2003) 2~t~ F. Supp. 2d 978, 986-987.) A neutral definition would focus on the attributes of the business that the City Council determines require special regulation to prevent adverse local effects. The definition should apply to local and in-state businesses as well as out-of-state businesses. The definition used by the City of Coronado which was upheld against a commerce clause challenge is as follows: "Formula Retail" means a type of retail sales activity or retail sales establishment (other than a 'formula fast food restaurant') which is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain any of the following: standardized ('formula') array of services and/or merchandise, trademark, logo, service mark, symbol, decor, architecture, layout, uniform, or similar standardized feature. In my opinion, the definition of "retail" should be refined. The dictionary definition of retail includes" . . . the sale of commodities or goods in small quantities to ultimate consumers; a/so: the industry of such selling." While many businesses, such as banks, Formula Business Moratorium Page 3 of 4 hair stylists, and real estate and professional offices primarily provide services, some of these same businesses may also sell some goods. The City of Coronado ordinance excluded "formula fast food restaurants," because it had adopted a separate ordinance regulating those businesses. By excluding only fast food restaurants the "formula retail" definition probably included formula restaurants which are not "fast food" restaurants. ! would recommend a definition of retail along the lines of "a business predominantly engaged in the sale of goods and in which the provision of services is incidental to the sale of such goods." ]:f the City Council wants to include restaurants, ! recommend adding, "... including restaurants." ! would also include the statement: "'Retail business' does not include a business which predominantly provides a service and in which the sale of goods is only incidental to the provision of that service." l:n my opinion, under this definition, an auto-parts or tire stores, for example, which also installs their products, would be classified as a retail business, because the installation service is incidental to the sale of goods. In addition to being neutral on its face, the ordinance must also not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. To demonstrate that the purpose of the moratorium is not to discriminate against out-of-state businesses, the City Council should make findings that identify the adverse effects of formula businesses, as defined, that require regulation. Similar findings are required, in any event, under Government Code Section 65858 that formula businesses are located on the gateway streets or in the downtown pose an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. The City Council should express how allowing formula businesses in these locations will threaten public welfare. Clearly, the City Council has long pursued a policy of supporting the redevelopment and revitalization of the downtown and downtown businesses. There are many examples of programs the City has established to further that policy. The City has formally established boundaries for the downtown Parking and Business District and Benefit Zone. (See UCC §§2605 and 2605.5, copies attached as Attachment 1.) The City Council findings should explain how allowing formula businesses in the downtown or on the gateway streets would undermine that policy. There is no immediate threat of any formula business seeking to locate in the downtown. Since any moratorium would have to exclude the Walgreen Store, because that has already received City Council approval, there is no immediate threat of a formula business seeking to locate on a gateway street. As stated in $#vera v South Lake Tahoe (1970) 3 CA3d 554, 557, Government Code Section 65858 was adopted in recognition that the adoption of zoning regulations is a time-consuming process and that it is sometimes necessary to preserve the status quo, pending the adoption of zoning regulations: Formula Business Moratorium Page 4 of 4 the formulation of a comprehensive zoning plan is a time consuming process and that while details are being studied and determined maintenance of the "status quo" should be permitted to the end that the public interests may be properly served. Accordingly, the City Council does not need to know that applicants are waiting in the wings to open formula businesses in the downtown, but it does need to explain in its adopted findings how the establishment of one or more formula businesses in the downtown or on the gateway streets will undermine the achievement of the goals sought to be achieved by the permanent regulation of formula businesses. The City Council should also adopt findings to demonstrate that the adoption of the ordinance will not have a discriminatory effect on out-of-state businesses. One suggestion at the June 6 meeting was to include a number of separate business premises in the definition of "formula business." For example: "Formula Retail" means a type of retail sales activity or retail sales establishment, maintainin9~ at least~ 12 separate business premises, which is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain any of the following in each separate business premis~. standardized ('formula') array of services and/or merchandise, trademark, logo, service mark, symbol, decor, architecture, layout, uniform, or similar standardized feature. (Additional text highlighted.) Defining a formula business by reference to the number of separate business establishments raises, at least the possibility, of a discriminatory effect. For example, if it could be shown that the overwhelming majority of businesses or franchises consisting of twelve or more stores are out-of- state businesses, an argument might be made that the ordinance has a disparate impact on out-of-state businesses. Tf a number of stores is included in the definition, the City Council should seek some statistics to show that many such businesses are in-state as well as out-of-state. 2605: AREA OF DISTRICT: Page 1 of 3 2605: AREA OF DISTRICT: The district shall comprise the area described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Oak Street with the centerline of Henry Street; thence easterly along the centerline of Henry Street to its intersection with the southerly extension of the west property line of parcel 002-184-18; thence northerly along the west property line of said property to its northwest corner; thence easterly along its north property line to the intersection with the west property line of parcel 002-184-26; thence northerly along the west property line of said property to its northwest corner; thence northerly and westerly along the west property line of parcel 002-184-11 to the northwest corner of said parcel; thence northerly along the west property line of parcel 002-184-31 to its northwest corner; thence easterly along the north property line of said parcel to its intersection with the west property line of parcel 002-184-02; thence northerly and westerly along the west property line of said pamel to its intersection with the centerline of Scott Street; thence easterly along the centerline of Scott Street to its intersection with the centerline of State Street; thence northerly along the centerline of State Street to its intersection with the centerline of Norton Street; thence easterly along the centerline of Norton Street to its intersection with the northerly extension of the east property line of parcel 002-153-28; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to the southeast corner of said parcel; thence easterly along the north property line of parcel 002- 153-30 to the northeast corner of said property; thence southerly along the east property line of said pamel to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002- 153-34 to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002-150- 33 to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002-153-29 to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002-153-27 to its intersection with the north property line of parcel 002-191-14; thence easterly along said north property line of said property to its northeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of said property to its southeast corner; thence westerly along the south property line of said parcel to its intersection with the east property line of parcel 002-191-08; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence a straight line southerly across Smith Street to the northeast corner of parcel 002-192-01; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002-192-02 to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002-192-03 to its southeast corner; thence a straight line southerly across Standley Street to the northeast corner of parcel 002-192-18; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence a straight line southeasterly across Perkins Street to the northeast corner of parcel 002-231-01; thence southerly along the east property line of said property to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of pamel 002-231-02 to its southeast corner intersecting the north property line of parcel 002-231-09; thence easterly along the north property line of said parcel to its northwest corner; thence southerly along the east property line of subject pamel to its southeasterly corner; thence westerly along the south property line of said parcel to its intersection with the east property line of parcel 002-231-27; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence westerly along the south property line of said parcel to its intersection with the east property line of parcel 002-231-25; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its intersection with the north property line of parcel 002-231-16; thence easterly along the north property line of said parcel to its northeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence a straight line southwesterly across Clay Street to the northeast corner of parcel 002-281-27; thence southerly and easterly along the north and east property lines of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence westerly and southerly to the southwest corner of said property intersecting the http://66.113.195.234/CA/Ukiah/04008000000002000.htm 7/13/2005 2605: AREA OF DISTRICT: Page 2 of 3 northwest corner of parcel 002-281-24; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002-281- 21; thence a straight line southwesterly across Cleveland Lane to the northeast corner of parcel 002-311-01; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002-311-12 to its southeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of parcel 002-311-05 to its southeast corner; thence easterly along the north property line of parcel 002-311-06 to its northeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence easterly along the north property line of parcel 002-311-07 to its northeast corner; thence southerly along the east property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence westerly along the south property line of said parcel to its southwest corner; thence westerly along the south property line of parcel 002-302-36 to its intersection with the southeast corner of parcel 002-302-29; thence northerly along the east property line of said parcel to its northeast corner; thence westerly along the north property line of said parcel to its northwest corner; thence a straight line westerly across Main Street to the southeast corner of parcel 002-302-27; thence westerly along the south property line of said parcel to its southwest corner; thence westerly and northerly along the south property line of parcel 002-302-26 to its southwest corner; thence westerly along the south property line of parcel 002-302-17 to its southwest corner; thence a straight line southwesterly across South State Street to the southeast corner of parcel 002-301-03; thence westerly along the south property line of said parcel to its southwest corner; thence northerly along the west property line of said parcel to its intersection with the south property line of parcel 002-301-37; thence westerly along the south property line of said parcel to its southwest corner; thence in a straight line northwesterly across Oak Street to the southeasterly corner of parcel 001-304-03; thence westerly along the south property line of said parcel to its southwest corner; thence westerly along the south property line of parcel 001-304-02 to its southwest corner; thence northerly along a west property line of said parcel to its northwest corner; thence a straight line northerly across Mill Street to the southwest corner of property 001-294-26; thence northerly along the west property line of said parcel to its northwest corner; thence northerly along the west property line of parcel 001-294-27 to its northwest corner; thence easterly along the north property line of said parcel to its intersection with the west property line of parcel 001-294-11; thence a straight line northeasterly across Jones Street to the southwest corner of parcel 001-293-12; thence northerly along the west property line of said parcel to its northwest corner; thence northerly along the west property line of parcel 001-293-11 to its northwest corner; thence westerly along the north property line of parcel 001 westerly along the north property line of parcel 001 westerly along the north property line of parcel 001 westerly along the north property line of parcel 001 westerly along the north property line of parcel 001 westerly along the north property line of pamel 001 westerly along the north property line of parcel 001 -293-10 to its northwest corner; thence -293-09 to its northwest corner; thence -293-08 to its northwest corner; thence -293-13 to its northwest corner; thence -293-06 to its northwest corner; thence -293-05 to its northwest corner; thence -293-04 to its northwest corner; thence westerly along the north property line of parcel 001-293-03 to its northwest corner; thence westerly along the north property line and property line extension of parcel 001-293-01 to its intersection with the centerline of Dora Street; thence northerly along said centerline of Dora Street to its intersection with the centerline of Clay Street; thence easterly along said centerline of Clay Street to its intersection with the centerline of Oak Street; thence northerly along the centerline of Oak Street to its intersection with the centerline of Henry Street and the point of the beginning. http://66.113.195.234/CA/Ukiah/04008000000002000.htm 7/13/2005 2605: AREA OF DISTRICT: Page 3 of 3 (Ord. 777, §1, adopted 1982; Ord. 883, §1, adopted 1989) http://66.113.195.234/CA/Ukiah/04008000000002000.htm 7/13/2005 2605.5: ADDITION OF AREA TO DISTRICT: Page I of 1 2605.5: ADDITION OF AREA TO DISTRICT: In addition to the area described in Section ~6_~0_5_ of this Chapter, the downtown parking and business improvement area shall include an area described as follows: Beginning at the south boundary line of the existing Downtown Parking and Improvement District at the intersection of the centerline of Oak Street and the westerly extension of the south property line of parcel 002-301-37; thence heading southerly along the centerline of Oak Street to its intersection with Gobbi Street; thence easterly along the centerline of Gobbi Street to its intersection with the southerly extension of the east property line of parcel 002-302-49; thence heading northerly along the east property line of said parcel to its intersection with the south property line of parcel 002-302-32; thence easterly along the south property line of said parcel to its southeast corner; thence northerly along the eastern property line of said parcel to its northeast corner; thence northerly along the eastern property line of parcel 002-302-25 to its northeast corner; thence westerly along the north property line of said parcel to the southeast corner of parcel 002-302-52; thence northerly along the east property line of said parcel to its northeast corner; thence a straight line northwesterly to the southeast corner or parcel 002- 302-37; thence northerly along the east property line of said parcel to its northeast corner; thence easterly along the north property line of parcel 002-302-38 to a point approximately 121 feet east of the southeast corner of parcel 002-302-55, referred to as the southeast corner of parcel 002-302-29 in Municipal Code section 2605, the south boundary line of the existing Downtown Parking and Improvement District. The area added by this Section shall be assessed and shall benefit in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as the area described in Section 2605 of this Chapter. (Ord. 1021, §2, adopted 1999) http://66.113.195.234/CA/Ukiah/04008000000003000.htm 7/13/2005 Big-Box Economic Impact Studies This document and many other resources are available online at www. HometownAdvantage.org Below are summaries and links to key studies that examine the impact of Wal-Mart and other large retail chains and, in some cases, the benefits of locally owned businesses. For ease of use, we've organized these studies into the following categories (though they do not all fit neatly into one category): City Costs These studies compare the municipal tax benefits of big-box development with the cost of providing these stores with city services, such as road maintenance, police and fire--finding that cities do not always come out ahead. State Costs Because many of their employees do not earn enough to make ends meet, states are reporting high costs associated with providing healthcare (Medicaid) and other public assistance to big-box employees. Economic Impact of Local Businesses vs. Chains Studies have found that locally owned stores generate much greater benefits for the local economy than national chains. Existing Businesses & .~obs These studies look at how the arrival of a big-box retailer displaces sales at existing businesses, which must then downsize or close. This results in job losses and declining tax revenue, which some of these studies quantify. Wages & Benefits Studies have found that big-box retailers, particularly Wal-Mart, are depressing wages and benefits for retail employees. Poverty Rates Counties that have gained Wal-Mart stores have fared worse in terms of family poverty rates, according to this study. Subsidies This study documents more than $1 billion in local and state development subsidies that have flowed to Wal-Mart. Consumers Are chains better for consumers? 1. CITY COSTS These studies compare the municipal tax benefits of big-box development with the cost of providing these stores with city services, such as road maintenance, police and fire--finding that cities do not always come out ahead. © Institute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page 1 Understanding the Fiscal :Impacts of Land Use in Ohio http://www, regionalcon nections.org/docu ments/pdf/fiscalimpacts.pdf by Randall Gross, Development Economics, August 2004 This report reviews and summarizes the findings of fiscal impact studies conducted in eight central Ohio communities between 1997 and 2003. In seven of the eight communities, retail development created a drain on municipal budgets (i.e., it required more in public services, such as road maintenance and police, than it generated in tax revenue). On average, retail buildings produced a net annual loss of $0.44 per square foot. "The concept that growth is always good for a community does not seem to correlate with the findings from various fiscal analyses conducted throughout central Ohio," the report concludes. It cautions cities not to be taken in by the promise of high tax revenue from a new development without also considering the additional costs of providing services. Unlike retail, office and industrial development, as well as some types of residential, produced a net tax benefit. Fiscal [mpact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes http://a miba.net/pdf/ba rnstable_fiscal_i mpact_report, pdf by Tischler & Associates, 3uly 2002. Big box retail, shopping centers, and fast-food restaurants cost taxpayers in Barnstable, Massachusetts, more than they produce in revenue, according to this analysis. The study compares the tax revenue generated by different kinds of residential and commercial development with the actual cost of providing public services for each land use. The study found that big box retail generates a net annual deficit of $468 per 1,000 square feet. Shopping centers likewise produce an annual drain of $314 per 1,000 square feet. By far the most costly are fast-food restaurants, which have a net annual cost of $5,168 per 1,000 square feet. In contrast, the study found that specialty retail, a category that includes small-scale Main Street businesses, has a positive impact on pubic revenue (i.e., it generates more tax revenue than it costs to service). Specialty retail produces a net annual return of $326 per 1,000 square feet. Other commercial land uses that are revenue winners include business parks, offices, and hotels. The two main factors behind the higher costs for big box stores, shopping centers, and fast-food outlets, compared to specialty retail shops, are higher road maintenance costs (due to a much greater number of car trips per 1,000 square feet) and greater demand for public safety services. Understanding the Tax Base Consequences of Local Economic Development Programs http ://www. rkg 1 .com/pd fs/taxba se mg mt. pdf by RKG Associates, 2001 The city of Concord, New Hampshire provides an example of what can happen when a community allows massive commercial growth while failing to protect its existing economic assets. Over the last 12 years, Concord added 2.8 million square feet of new commercial and industrial development. Yet tax revenue has actually declined by 19 percent. To make up for lost revenue, the town now has one of the highest property tax rates in the state. This study by RKG Associates, an independent economic consulting firm, found that there were several reasons for the declining tax base. One was that new retail development, primarily big box stores, had harmed local businesses. Property values, and subsequently tax revenue, in the older shopping areas had declined sharply. Another factor was that the new development had eroded the value of residential property, probably due in part to © Tnstitute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page 2 increased traffic and noise. The end result was that the city actually experienced a declining tax base despite all of the new growth. :Impacts of Development on DuPage County Property Taxes Prepared by DuPage County Development Department for the County Regional Planning Commission, illinois, October 1991. This study demonstrated that the costs of encouraging new commercial development--- extending highways and utilities, expanding municipal services like police and fire protection, and providing development financing and incentives---exceeded the new property and sales tax revenues the new development generated. The study concluded "... there is a significant statistical relationship between new development (both residential and nonresidential) and increases in personal property taxes." 2. STATE COSTS Because many of their employees do not earn enough to make ends meet, states are reporting high costs associated with providing healthcare (Medicaid) and other public assistance to big-box employees. in addition to the following studies, see Good lobs First's web page (www.goodjobsfirst.org) detailing states that have disclosed how much they are spending on providing health insurance for employees of Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, and other big-box retailers. Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart 5obs http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/Iowwage by UC Berkeley's institute for Industrial Relations, August 2004 California taxpayers are spending $86 million a year providing healthcare and other public assistance to the state's 44,000 Wal-Mart employees, according to this study. The average Wal-Mart worker requires $730 in taxpayer-funded healthcare and $1,222 in other forms of assistance, such as food stamps and subsidized housing. Even compared to other retailers, Wal-Mart imposes an especially large burden on taxpayers. Wal'-Mart workers earn 31 percent less than the average for workers at large retail companies and require 39 percent more in public assistance. The study estimates that if competing supermarkets and other large retailers adopt Wal-Mart's wage and benefit levels, it will cost California's taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance. Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart http://edworkfo rce. house, gov/d em ocrats/relea ses/rel2 ! 604. html by the Democratic Staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Feb.2004 Although this study uses different methodology than the one above, it arrives at the same conclusion: Wal-Mart's Iow wages and meager benefits are costing taxpayers. The average Wal-Mart employee requires $2,100 per year in public assistance, including Section 8 housing vouchers, reduced-cost lunches for dependent children, health care programs, and tax credits for the working poor. © ]:nstitute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page 3 3. ECONOMZC ZMPACT OF LOCAL BUSI'NESSES VS. CHA1'NS The following studies have found that locally owned stores generate much greater benefits for the local economy than national chains. The Andersonville Study of Retail Economics http ://www.civiceconomics.com/Andersonville By Civic Economics, October 2004 This compelling study, commissioned by the Andersonville Development Corporation, finds that locally owned businesses generate 70 percent more local economic impact per square foot than chain stores. The study's authors, Dan Houston and Matt Cunningham of Civic Economics, analyzed ten locally owned restaurants, retail stores, and service providers in the Andersonville neighborhood on Chicago's north side and compared them with ten national chains competing in the same categories. They found that spending $100 at one of the neighborhood's independent businesses creates $68 in additional local economic activity, while spending $100 at a chain produces only $43 worth of local impact. They also found that the local businesses generated slightly more sales per square foot compared to the chains ($263 versus $243). Because chains funnel more of this revenue out of the local economy, the study concluded that, for every square foot of space occupied by a chain, the local economic impact is $105, compared to $179 for every square foot occupied by an independent business. The Economic Zmpact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in Midcoast Maine [PDF] http://www, n ewru les. o rg/reta i I/m id coaststu dy. pdf by the institute for Local Self-Reliance and Friends of Midcoast Maine, September 2003. Three times as much money stays in the local economy when you buy goods and services from locally owned businesses instead of large chain stores, according to this analysis, which tracked the revenue and expenditures of eight locally owned businesses in Midcoast Maine. The survey found that the businesses, with had combined sales of $5.7 million in 2002, spent 44.6 percent of their revenue within the surrounding two counties. Another 8.7 percent was spent elsewhere in the state of Maine. The four largest components of this local spending were: wages and benefits paid to local employees; goods and services purchased from other local businesses; profits that accrued to local owners; and taxes paid to local and state government. Using a variety of sources, the analysis estimates that a national big box retailer operating in Midcoast Maine returns just 14.1 percent of its revenue to the local economy, mostly in the form of payroll. The rest leaves the state, flowing to out-of-state suppliers or back to corporate headquarters. The survey also found that the local businesses contributed more to charity than national chains. Economic ]:mpact Analysis: A Case Study [PDF] http://www, l ivea bi ecity, o rg/Icfu II report, pdf by Civic Economics, December 2002. This study examines the local economic impact of two locally owned businesses in Austin, Texas---Waterloo Records and Book People---and compares this with the economic return the community would receive from a Borders Books store. The study finds that spending $100 at Borders creates $13 worth of local economic activity, while spending $100 at the © ]:nstitute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page 4 local stores generates $45 in local economic activity. The difference is attributed to three factors: a higher local payroll at the independent stores (because, unlike Borders, none of their operations are carried out a an out-of-town headquarters office); the local stores purchased more goods and services locally; and the local stores retained a much larger share of their profits within the local economy. 4. EXISTING BUSINESSES AND ~OBS These studies look at how the arrival of a big-box retailer displaces sales at existing businesses, which must then downsize or close. This results in job losses and declining tax revenue, which some of these studies quantify. lob Creation or Destruction? Labor-Market Effects of Wal-f4art Expansion http://www.missouri .edu/~ baskere/papers/ By Emek Basket, University of Missouri, Review of Economics &. Statistics, February 2005 Often cited and typically misrepresented by Wal-Mart supporters, this study examines the impact of the arrival of a Wal-Mart store on retail and wholesale employment. ]:t looks at 1,749 counties that added a Wal-Mart between 1977 and 1998. it finds that Wal-Mart's arrival boosts retail employment by 100 jobs in the first year--far less than the 200-400 jobs the company says its stores create, because its arrival causes existing retailers to downsize and lay-off employees. Over the next four years, there is a loss of 40-60 additional retail jobs as more competing retailers downsize and close. The study also finds that Wal-Mart's arrival leads to a decline of approximately 20 local wholesale jobs in the first five years, and an additional 10 wholesale jobs over the long run (six or more years after WaI-Mart's arrival). (Wal-Mart handles its own distribution and does not rely on wholesalers). This works out to a net gain of just 10-30 retail and wholesale jobs, and the study does not examine whether these jobs are part-time or whether they pay more or less than the jobs eliminated by Wal-Mart. The study also found that, within five years of Wal- Mart's arrival, the counties had lost an average of four small retail businesses, one mid- sized store, and one large store. ]:t does not estimate declines in revenue to retailers that survive. Basker looked at the effect of Wal-Mart on retail employment in neighboring communities, but found that the confidence intervals were too large (meaning the results showed wide variation) to draw any conclusion about WaI-Mart's impact. (Her initial working paper, published in 2002, reported an average decline of 30 retail jobs in surrounding communities, but, after correcting an error, she determined the confidence intervals were too large to produce a precise result.) Final Report on Research for Big Box Retail/Superstore Ordinance http ://www. lacity.org/cou ncil/cd 13/h o uscom mecdev/cd ! 3houscom mecdev239629107_0426 2005.pdf prepared for the Los Angeles City Council by Rodino Associates, October 2003. This study concludes that big box stores would harm Iow-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles by reducing competition, creating blight, lowering wages, and forcing new costs onto taxpayers. By pricing groceries as "loss leaders" and using higher margin non-grocery items to make up the difference, supercenters often force existing supermarkets out of business. Because grocery stores anchor many neighborhood business districts and shopping centers, their closure would harm other retailers and lead to vacancies in areas © Institute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page that are only now beginning to recover from years of economic decline. The report also finds that supercenters would negatively impact job opportunities by replacing union-wage supermarket jobs with a smaller number of lower-paying jobs. Fewer workers would have health care benefits, further burdening public hospitals and health care programs. The Fiscal and Economic Impact of a Proposed Shopping Center Project on the City of Leominster by Dr. Thomas Muller, August 2003. This study examines the likely impact of a proposed 510,000-square-foot shopping center, which would include a Wal-Mart supercenter, a Lowe's, a department store such as Kohl's, and four chain restaurants. The study finds that the city already has more retail than residents can support. The proposed shopping center would dramatically worsen the situation. Its projected annual revenue of $185 million is equivalent to 77 percent of the local market's current sales in building materials, groceries, and general merchandise. Since neither population nor incomes are growing, sales at the new shopping center would come entirely at the expense of existing businesses. Competing stores within a 5-6 mile radius would lose $104 million in revenue. Those 5-6 miles further out would lose $72 million. Because of the impact on existing businesses, the 869 jobs created by the center will be offset by about the same number of job losses. After accounting for the cost of providing city services to the new development and declining property tax revenue from existing businesses, the study concludes that the project would produce only $51,000 in additional revenue, about $3 annually for each of Leominster's 17,000 households. The Tmpact of 'Big-Box' Building Materials Stores on Host Towns and Surrounding Counties in a Midwestern State [PDF] http ://amiba. net/pdf/stone_home_improvement_center_study, pdf by Economics Professor Kenneth E. Stone and Extension Program Specialist Georgeanne M. Artz, Iowa State University, 2001. This study examines several [owa communities where big box building supply stores, such as Menards and Home Depot, have opened in the last decade. Sales of hardware and building supplies in the host community and surrounding counties are tracked over several years to test what the authors call the "zero-sum-game theory," namely that the retail sales gains generated by big box stores are offset by sales losses at existing, often locally owned, retail stores. The results confirm the theory, finding that sales of hardware and building supplies grow in the host communities, but at the expense of sales in smaller towns nearby. Moreover, after a few years, many of the host communities experienced a reversal of fortune: sales of hardware and building supplies declined sharply, often dropping below their initial levels, as more big box stores opened in the surrounding region and saturated the market. What Happened When Wal-Mart Came to Town? A Report on Three Towa Communities with a Statistical Analysis of Seven Towa Counties by Thomas Muller and Elizabeth Humstone, National Trust For Historic Preservation, 1996. This study examined the impact of Wal-Mart on several Iowa communities. Tt found that 84 percent of all sales at the new Wal-Mart stores came at the expense of existing businesses within the same county. Only 16 percent of sales came from outside the county---a finding which refutes the notion that Wal-Mart can act as a magnet drawing customers from a wide © Tnstitute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page 6 area and benefiting other businesses in town. "Although some suggest that the presence of Wal-Mart outside of, but near to, the downtown area results in additional activity downtown, both sales data and traffic data do not show this gain," the study concludes. "None of the nine case studies was experiencing a high enough level of population and income growth to absorb the Wal-Mart store without losses to other businesses." The study documents losses in downtown stores after Wal-Mart opened. "General merchandise stores were most affected," the study notes. "Other types of stores that closed include: automotive stores, hardware stores, drug stores, apparel stores, and sporting goods stores." The supposed tax benefits of Wal-Mart did not materialize either: "Although the local tax base added about $2 million with each Wal-Mart, the decline in retail stores following the opening had a depressing effect on property values in downtowns and on shopping strips, offsetting gains from the Wal-Mart property." Competing with the Discount Mass Merchandisers h ttp://www, econ. ia state, ed u/fa cu Ity/sto n e/1995_]:A_W M_Stu dy. pdf By Dr. Kenneth Stone, :Iowa State University, 1995 The basic premise of this study and others by Ken Stone is that the retail "pie" is relatively fixed in size (it grows only incrementally as population and incomes grow). Consequently, when a company like Wal-Mart opens a giant store, it invariably captures a substantial slice of the retail pie, leaving smaller portions for existing businesses, which are then forced to downsize or close. This study of Wal-Mart's impact on ]:owa towns found that the average superstore cost other merchants in the host town about $12 million a year in sales (as of 1995), while stores in smaller towns nearby also suffered substantial revenue losses. These sales losses resulted in the closure of 7,326 ]:owa businesses between 1983 and 1993, including 555 grocery stores, 291 apparel stores, and 298 hardware stores. While towns that gained a Wal-Mart store initially experienced a rise in overall retail sales, after the first two or three years, retail sales began to decline. About one in four towns ending up with a lower level of retail activity than they had prior to Wal-Mart's arrival. Stone attributes this to Wal-Mart's strategy of saturating regions with multiple stores. St. Albans~ Vermont State Environmental Board Act 250 Decision, 1994 A cost/benefit analysis of a proposed Wal-Mart store in St. Albans, Vermont, found that the store would cause dozens of existing businesses to close, leading to a net loss of 110,000 square feet of retail space. The 214 jobs created by the new superstore would be offset by the loss of 381 jobs at other businesses. The analysis also found that the overall tax losses expected from the small business failures would be greater than the tax revenue generated by the new Wal-Mart. Moreover, the city would incur a variety of new costs to provide roads, sewers, police, and fire protection to service the sprawling new development. The analysis concluded that for every dollar in tax benefit created by the superstore, there would be 2.5 dollars in tax losses and public costs. 5. WAGES & BENEFZTS These studies examine the effect of big-box chains, particularly Wal-Mart, on wages and benefits for retail employees. © :Institute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page 7 Wal-Mart: An Example of Why Workers Remain Uninsured and Underinsured [PDF] http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/healthpolicy/upload/WaI-Mart-final.pdf By the AFL-CIO, October 2003 Unaffordable premiums, overly strict eligibility requirements, and major gaps in coverage characterize Wal-Mart's health insurance plan, according to this report. The annual premium a full-time Wal-Mart employee must pay for coverage for her and her spouse is $2,672 (with a $350 deductible), which amounts to about 19 percent of her pre-tax earnings. Part-time employees (under 34 hours per week) are only eligible to enroll after two years on the job and even then, coverage is available only for themselves, not their families. Full-time workers are eligible for family coverage after six months. Costly premiums and strict eligibility requirements result in only two in five Wal-Mart employees being covered by the company's health care plan, compared to a national average of 66 percent at large firms. Moreover, unlike nearly all other corporate health insurance plans, WaI-Mart's plan does not cover most basic services, including regular check-ups for adults and children, childhood immunizations, and routine screenings such as prostate exams. The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: 3obs, Wages, and Municipal Finances [PDF] http://www, coalitiontl c. o rg/big_box_stu dy. pdf Prepared for the Orange County Business Council by Dr. Marion Boarnet of the University of California at ]:rvine and Dr. Randall Crane of the University of California at Los Angeles, 1999. The most useful parts of this study deal with Wal-Mart's impact on wages. The study concluded that, as Wal-Mart builds supercenters in southern California, the company will absorb up to 20 percent of the region's grocery market and cut grocery workers' income by up to $1.4 billion annually. Unionized supermarket workers in southern California make the equivalent of $18.25 an hour in wages and benefits, according to the study, while Wal-Mart employees earn just $9.63 per hour. As Wal-Mart expands in the region, it will replace high- wage jobs with Iow-wage jobs. It will probably also force unionized supermarket workers to accept substantial wage and benefit cuts to keep their employers competitive. The combined losses are estimated in the range of $500 million to $1.4 billion. The study also compares health insurance benefits at unionized supermarkets and Wal-Mart, and examines the tax and revenue implications of supercenter development. 6. POVERTY RATES Counties that have gained Wal-Mart stores have fared worse in terms of family poverty rates, according to this study. Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty http://cecd, a ers. psu. ed u/poi icy_rese arch. htm by Stephan Goetz and Hema Swaminathan, Penn State University, October 2004 The presence of a Wal-Mart store hinders a community's ability to move families out of poverty, according to this study. After controlling for other factors that influence poverty rates, the researchers found that those U.S. counties in which new Wal-Mart stores were built between 1987 and 1998 experienced a significantly smaller reduction in their poverty © Tnstitute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page rates than those counties that did not add new Wal-Mart stores. Overall, the portion of families living in poverty nationwide fell from 13.1 to 10.7 percent between 1989 and 1999. Counties that gained one Wal-Mart store showed an 8 percent smaller reduction in the poverty rate compared to the national average, while those that gained two Wal-Mart stores experienced a 16 percent smaller reduction in poverty. The researchers offer several explanations for their findings. 7. SUBSIDIES Shopping for Subsidies: How Wal-f4art Uses Taxpayer Ploney to Finance Its Never- Ending Growth [PDF] h ttp://www, g oodj o bsfi rst. o rg/pd f/w mtstu dy. pdf by Good .lobs First, August 2004 This study identifies 244 Wal-Mart stores and distribution centers in 35 states that have received state and local development subsidies totaling just over $1 billion. The subsidies took many forms, including property tax rebates, free or reduced-priced land, and funding of site preparation and on-site infrastructure. Tax increment financing (TIF) ranked as one of the most common mechanisms used by local governments to underwrite Wal-Mart's growth. The total value of public giveaways to Wal-Mart is undoubtedly much higher than the $1 billion documented by the report. Obtaining complete data on subsidies is virtually impossible. ]~n most states, local governments and state agencies are not required to report subsidies, and there is no centralized record or database. Good .lobs First relied primarily on the online archives of local newspapers to assemble the list of subsidy deals, the details of which were confirmed by interviews with local officials. 8. CONSUMERS Time to Switch Drugstores? Consumer Reports, October 2003. "If you're among the 47 percent of Americans who get medicine from drugstore giants such as CVS, Eckerd, and Rite Aid, here's a prescription: Try shopping somewhere else. The best place to start looking is one of the 25,000 independent pharmacies that are making a comeback throughout the U.S." opens this article, which presents the results of a year-long survey of more than 32,000 readers about their drugstore experiences. The survey found that, by "an eye-popping margin," independent drugstores outranked all other pharmacies-- --including drugstore chains, supermarkets, mass merchandisers (e.g., Wal-Mart), and internet companies---in terms of providing personal attention, offering health services such as in-store screenings, filling prescriptions quickly, supplying hard-to-find drugs, and obtaining out-of-stock medications within 24 hours. Prices at independent pharmacies were lower than at chain pharmacies, but higher than at mass merchandisers and internet companies. © Institute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th St SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 379-3815 www.hometownadvantage.org page 9 AGENDA ITEM NO: tOa MEETING DATE: July 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: LAKE MENDOCINO HYDRO COMMISSIONING PROJECT ELECTRIC PLANT RESTART BACKGROUND: Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino are located on the East Fork of the Russian River, about 3.2 miles northeast of Ukiah, CA. The dam was constructed between 1956 and 1958 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Coyote Dam is an earth fill dam with a maximum height of approximately 150 feet and a crest length of 3,500 feet. The Lake Mendocino Hydroelectric Project was constructed in the early 1980's at the end of the dam's principal outlet conduit. A tainter gate bypass valve (referred to as the tainter valve) was added to the end of the conduit to create pressure for hydropower generation. The outlet tunnel was lined with a steel pipe and a plenum chamber constructed between the steel pipe and tainter valve to divert flow to the powerhouse and two primary bypass discharge valves. The Lake Mendocino Hydroelectric Project has not been operated since 1998. At the time that repairs were being made to the hydro plant in 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAAF) determined there were three species of fish requiring protection in the Russian River below the Lake Mendocino Hydroelectric Project and Coyote Dam. In the interest of protecting the fish NOAAF mandated minimum flows in the river are to be maintained at all times and that maintenance shut- downs be limited to two hours. In addition to those limitations, stopping river flows for the two-hour maintenance period could not be done without a biological opinion and approval from NOAAF - a 130 day process. Cont'd pa.qe 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Commissioning Project Approve The Lake Mendocino Hydro Restart ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do Not Approve The restart Commissioning Project And Give Alternate Direction To Staff Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Candace Horsley, City Manager Powerpoint Presentation Approved: ~anda~e Horsley~ Manager Flow from the Coyote Dam to the Russian River below passes through the USACE intake structure into a tunnel and discharges through the powerhouse, the bypass valve, or the tainter valve. The tainter valve must be closed in order to pressurize the tunnel for operation of the powerhouse or to pass significant flows through the bypass valves. The original operational requirements for the project states that the tainter valve cannot be operated under pressurized conditions - the tainter valve must either be in the closed position or completely open and changes to the status of the tainter valve must be made while there is no pressure on the tainter valve from the tunnel. This was apparently the design criteria for design of the tainter valve. This presents a significant operational problem for the project when coupled with the NOAAF imposed flow constraints. The problem occurs when transferring from generation mode to flood control mode and back. In the generation mode, all of the river flows (up to 4,000 cfs) can be passed through the powerhouse and bypass valves, whereas during flood control mode (flows greater than 4,000 cfs) the tainter valve must be fully opened and all flows need to be passed through the tainter valve, giving the USACE control of discharge from the dam using the tainter valve. TAINTER VALVE MODIFICATIONS The City of Ukiah would like to resume operation of the powerhouse. The first issue to resolve with respect to the City's goal of operating the powerhouse again was to determine if the tainter valve could be modified to operate under pressure. A three- dimensional structural analysis was performed for the tainter valve to evaluate the ability of the tainter valve to operate while the tunnel is pressurized. Due to the complexity of the tainter valve designs, a three-dimensional model was determined to be appropriate to properly model loading on the structural members of the tainter valve. Results of the analysis were used to check the strength of the members, critical weld connections, and bolted connections between the tainter valve arms and the vertical plate girders. Based on the structural analysis as performed by Mead and Hunt it was concluded that there are two cross-bracing members that are overstressed and should be modified. Once the modifications are completed, the tainter valve should be able to operate as proposed under the new operating guidelines and procedures. In addition several additional tainter valve modifications must be made as outlined by both Mead and Hunt and the USACE. The following modifications are: Modified Tie-down Assembly (i.e. Dog-Off Devices) - The new device will consist of two cylinders (rams) similar to the existing hydraulic cylinder with stroking, Iockable shafts. These rams will not operate under hydraulic pressure; rather they freely move up and down with the tainter valve and are mechanically locked into either open or closed position. Top Seal- A modification to the top seal will include a second seal to rub against the skin plate as the tainter valve opens and closes to alleviate water spray up out of the top of the tainter valve. Emergency Lifting Lugs -Install additional lugs for emergency lifting operations Tainter Valve Operations Control- In the event that the City of Ukiah is unable to operate the tainter valve, the USACE wants the ability to operate the tainter valve as a secondary control. Mechanisms for such control will be included in the design. Modifications to the Trunnion Grease System - A modified grease system must be designed and built to properly maintain grease to the existing trunnion bearings. POWERHOUSE MODIFICATIONS With the restart commissioning effort all systems must undergo an inspection and calibration procedure. Many of the electrical and mechanical systems are expected to be reused; however a number of systems will require replacement and/or modifications. An example of this is the control system which is obsolete and would be very difficult, if not impossible, to be used to support plant operation today. It is based on late 1970's technology and is not manufactured today. The computer workstation at the plant is an early generation PC running DOS operating system and would not have the capability of working as an operator interface for current generation software packages. The system changes will coincide with existing NCPA System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) controls to provide for communications to the Roseville Dispatch Center and the Geothermal Control Room. BUSINESS PROPOSITION The cost of repair to bring the Hydro units back to full operation is estimated at $1.35M. In order to offset the repair money a thorough review was made of the Russian River flow characteristics for the past 10 years along with the projected flow changes suggested by NOAAF and Sonoma County Water Agency. All of the known flow regimes indicate an expectation the Hydro project will generate power most of the time except when it must be shut down under flood conditions or restricted summer months. Taking into account all monthly flow releases derives an expected net revenue of $750,000/year on average. This equates to a payback of less than 2 years for monies borrowed for restart commissioning expenses. In parallel, the payback continues to offset the bond principal and interest of $2.1M into the future. A rough estimate puts the full break even point some 50 years out into the future. While this appears to be a long time, it is important to note that hydro unit longevity is typically well beyond 75 to 100 years if properly maintained. The key to maximizing the Return on Investment (ROI) of the hydro project is economic dispatch. Automatic and economical dispatch through the NCPA dispatch office in Roseville will provide the best recovery means for the City. Economic dispatch through a SCADA system will allow for the unit's energy and capacity to be managed on a daily basis, thus maximizing the most economical and financially beneficial recovery model for electricity generation. From a financial standpoint, recovery of bond debt is one of the primary drivers in restarting the units. Another driver is providing electricity to support the City's grid. As noted above, the ROI period stretches out some 50 years based on the current economic model. Other credits, such as "green energy" and ancillary services can add additional financial value to the generators into the future. Surely, any escalation or spike increase in electricity prices will favor the City in recouping the debt at a faster rate. RECOMMENDATION Based on a financial review taking into consideration all possible operating contingencies, Staff recommends to the City Council approving and moving forward with the restart commissioning of the Lake Mendocino Hydro Project. Money for this project was included in the 2005-06 Fiscal Year Budget Account No. 800-5536. Staff will give a supporting Powerpoint presentation to discuss the overall project plan. ...--ao lime O. 0 u"') 0 r'n ITl Z ITl Z --i ITl O Z Z -.I ITl IT! ITl Z m Z ..-.I 0 · Z Z Z 0 0 O0 0 0 Z mr- mm >-~ / m I m 0 0 0 (n ,"~ (.0 t'l:) 0 ~ ::3 0 ~ ~< o = o=~~ o o ma ~ X~ Z · · · · · · · · 3 ~' ~' o ~' (n t3'- o (n ~D (l:) ('D -~ 0 ::3 0 ~- IT1 z~ ~>~ 0 ~ ~ rtl 0 0 O0 0000 --~ O~ O~ O~ -~ O~ ~ 00~0 0661, 1,661, ;~66 I, ~661, · 1z66 I, ~661, 9661, Z661, ACF I MWh r,.,tl 0661, 1,661, ~661, ~;661, 1,661, ~661, 966 I, Z661, MWh I Mo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8'g6 I, 0961, ¢961, · ff96 I, 9961, 8961, 0/..61, ~:Z6 I, 'fi/6 I, 9Z61, 82.61, 0961, ~:96 I, 'ff96 I, 9961, 9861, 0661, ;~66 I, 'ff66 I, 9661, 8661., 000~: ~:00~ lzO0~: Daily Gen - MWh rrl ITl i.o i.o o --~ 00 0 O0o 0 0 ITEM NO. lOb DATE: July' 2-~,~ AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF WITH REGARD TO RECRUITMENT OF APPLICANTS TO CITY COUNCIL COMMISSIONS The extended deadline for filing applications for appointment to various City commissions and boards ended at noon on July 12, 2005. The number of applications received for the four commissions was very slim and, in fact, some commissions did not receive enough applications to fill the total number of vacancies. Attached for your consideration is a copy of the "extended deadline" News Release in which each commission is listed. I have indicated the number of applications received for each commission along the left margin. With regard to the Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commission, the one application received is a member of the Women's Golf Club. The Club will be providing the City with a letter of recommendation for that applicant. Aisc, at a recent Council meeting, Mr. Joe Chiles informed the City Council of his resignation as the Men's Golf Club representative. I have discussed this matter with Community Services Director Sangiacomo and he has been unable to contact the Men's Golf Club with regard to making a recommendation for Mr. Chiles' replacement. Staff is seeking direction from Council with regard to the recruitment and appointment process for these commissions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to Staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Ukiah City Council Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Extended Deadline News Release cit NEWS RELEASE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOUR COMMUN~~ DATE: FOR RELEASE: SUBJECT: CONTACT: June 29, 2005 Immediately Vacancies on City of Ukiah Commissions Marie Ulvila, City Clerk, 463-6217 UKIAH, CA. - The City of Ukiah announces there will be vacancies occurring on the Airport Commission, Design Review Board, Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commission, and the Paths, Open ~, Space and Creeks Commission effective June 30, 2005. Any qualified individual, who would like to ~) ~;nake a difference in their community and is interested in serving as a volunteer for the terms as · ~/outlined below, may apply for these upcoming vacancies. Current Commissioners may be eligible to · · COMMISSION NUMBER OF LENGTH OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT VACANCIES TERM Airport Commission 2 3 Years 1-*Resident within the Sphere of Influence 1-City of Ukiah resident Design Review Board 5 4 Years 4-Reside or own real property or business within the City Limits of Ukiah 1-Represent the community at large with no ownership or residence requirement Parks, Recreation, and Golf ..~/ 3 Years 2 -*Reside within the Sphere of Influence ]~-,,f')~.~/_.,,~ ~ Commission ~ 1- Women's Golf Club ' representative Paths, Open Space, & 2 2 Years 1- Reside within the City Limits Creeks Commission " of Ukiah 1-*Resident within the Sphere of Influence *(Sphere of Influence boundaries are ridge top to ridge top, Highway 20 to Burke Hill Road) Applications are located at the reception counter in the administration wing of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, or call 463-6217 for an application to be mailed, faxed, or emailed to you. The submittal deadline has been extended to Tuesday, July 12, 2005, at noon. Interviews for selected commissions will be held and appointments considered at a regular City Council meeting in ..., Marie Ulvila, City Clerk - If you have any questions regarding the election process, please contact City Clerk Ms.r~ Ulvila at 463-6217. 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 Phone# 7071463-6200 Fax, CC 707/463-6204 Web Address: www. cityofukiah.com ITEM NO. t0c DATE: July 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMPLOYEE BARGAINING UNIT- MANAGEMENT The City's labor consultants have met with representatives of the Management Unit to discuss negotiation items for the period from October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2007. The negotiations have resulted in a tentative agreement, which has been ratified by the Unit. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding is being submitted for Council's review and discussion in closed session with the City Manager. If the City Council approves the agreement in closed session, then adoption of the attached resolution in open public session would be necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consideration of MOU and adoption of MOU resolution approving Memorandum of Understanding for the Management Unit for the term of October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2007. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: . Do not adopt resolution. Refer to Staff for amendments. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Melody Harris, Personnel Director Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution AP P ROVED".'. ~~~...~ '~ Ca-'n'~ace Horsley, City I~nager 3:MOU~ASRMgmt2005