HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 17, 1986 (88)NCM MEET
ER 17,'1986
SANITARY SEWER
FEE SCHEDULES Council was reminded that at the Shirtsleeve Session of
August 26, 1986,.Bave Requa from the fine of Black and
Veatch reviewed with the .Council the final report and study
CC -44 entitled "Facility, Operations and Financial analysis -
CC -51(a) White Slough Nater Pollution Control Facility" The City
staff also reviewed with the City Council the �ed
increases for monthly service charges and connection fees.
A proposed resolution for the adoption of the recommended
E -
fees was presented for Council's consideration. The
proposed resolution has been written so, that sewer fees
related to the danestic sewer system will automatically' be
adjusted upward 15% each year. Once the revised
construction time is calculated and the actual plant
expansion costs (both phases) are known, there may be need.
to modify this resolution.
Council discussion followed. On motion of Council Member
Hi.nchman, Snider second, Council continued the matter to
the regular Council meeting.of October 1, 1986.and directed
staff to provide additional information regarding the
subject.
MEMORM'."UM, Citi• c Lodi, Put i is .Works Department
„ TO: City Manager
City Council
;`..
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE:August 15, 1986 -
-..
i
=
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Operations and Financial Analysis Report for
_ ....
- White Slough_ Treatment Facility and Determination of Rate
,
Increases for Future Plant Expansion
s
Attached is a copy of-the final ,report prepared by: Black & Veatch entitled
;.
"Facility, Operations and Financial Analysis:= White Slouoh,Water
It
PollutionControl Facility" dated July 1986. , The major. contents of this
plan were reviewed with the City Council and public,at a'hearing at
Hutchins Square on May 28, 1966.
At`that hearing, there were two major questions discussed. One, whether
or not to phase the plant expansion and, two, what was the appropriate
method for increasing sewer.rates to finance new plant construction,
PHASING,
i
Based on the following cost breakdown and the fact that there. was some
uncertainty as it related to City growth due to the Growth Initiative, it
was.concluded that the City. of Lodi should have a two-phase' expansion
program to carry it through the year 2006.
CaRacity, Plant Life Cost
Without Phasing 8.4 MGD` 1991-2006 $8,043,000
G
With Phasing"
Phase I 6.8 MGD 1991-1998 56,045,000
Phase II 8.4 MGD 1998-2006 $2,449,000
r
S8,494,000
SEWER RATE'INCREASES
The question that still must be answered is: "How to increase monthly
sewer service charges and new connection fees in order to obtain .the
r.
required revenue to finance revenue bonds for the plant expansion?"
The financial plan and alternatives are covered in Chapter 5 of the
attached report.
i ic+cri hninw is a chort rlicruccinn with a rornmmoni�44nn nn ..n��t1T ecwor
h,onthly Service Charges
_
o The monthly service charge has not been increased since 1975 (11"
years):`. .
o The present three-bedroom rate (S4.24 per month) is 74below the
average of other valley cities.'- (See attached Exhibit A.)
§
o The average rate for other valley cities is $7.38 per month.
i
-
Listed below are some`of the possible ways that this rate can.be
h =
increased. The first three methods are shown on Figures 5-1 through 5-5
in the attached report: _
y
1. A 10% increase per year until construction of Phase 1 (approximately
4
$0.50 per year increase):
YL
_
�
2. Total increase at time of Phase 1 construction (approximately $2.50
per month increase).'
;
3. A'10% increase now with remaining increase at.time of Phase,I
X`
construction (approximately S0.50 per month and 52.00 per month
increase).
y
4. Any combination of the above.
`
Recommended Increase. in Monthly Service Charge
It is recommended that in September 1986 the City Council implement a 20%
increase with a 15% annual increase thereafterstarting July 1987 until
�
the first phase construction. Listed below would be the actual monthly
service charges based or a three-bedroom home.
t
s �a
}
1985-86 (Existing) $4.24'
1986-87' (Starting September)
( 9 P )
Note.- Current average
9
±==
1987.-88 5.85
for valley°cities isnow ..
1988-89 6:73 $7.38/month.A
1989-90 7.74
ti
t
-
For Council's information, a straight 15% annual increase, "would provide
the. following increases based on a three-bedroom home:
1985-86 $4.24
1986-87 4.87 Note: Current average` -`
r
1987-88 5.60 for :valley cities is now
1988-89 6.45
$7..38/month
i
1989-90 7.41
Connection Fee for New Services
o The connection fee has not been increased since 1975 (11 yzars).'
r
o The presentconnectionfee for a three-bedroom home (S360) is 215%
below the average of other valley cities.
4.5
r7 : ...
RESOLUTION NO "
SEWER CHARGES AND-.FEES''
'
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted'Chapter.13.12 of the Lodi City Code,
entitled "Sewer Service, i which provides the-method'.of.establishing charges and
'
'fees for sewer service, sewer connections, holding tank wastes, and use of_the
k
storm drain system; and
A
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide current and equable sewer
i.
charges and fees;._
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lodi:
`1. That the followingsewer charges and fees-be established and implemented
October 1, 1986:
DOMESTIC SYSTEM
A. Residential
a.' Sewer Service Charge
Number of Bedrooms Monthly Rate
1 $3.05
2 4.07
3 5.09
-_
'
4 6.11
5 .7.12
.
6 8.14
7 9.14
b. Connection .Fee $1,200 60 per unit*
st.
B.,_..Commercia7
a. Annual Sewage Service-' $48.84 per unit per.year
�.
'
b. Connection Fee $1,200.00`per unit
Y
C. Industrial
t
a
a. Annual Sewage ":Service
r
_
Y
Unit 'Item .Unit Charge.
3
Flow - MG $235.00 per.MG
BOD --1,000 lbs'. 115.00 per 1,000 .lbs.,.
SS - 1,000 lbs.<. 94.00`. per 1;000 lbs...
b. Connection Fee
Moderate Strength User. $1,200.00,,per unit
-
g
*"Unit" - Se"wage Service. Unit, "defined �as each increment' of "flow equal to :the flow
0f a typicaltwo-bedroom residence.`,'
I temFl
nit ChargeUnit
ow MG
per MG,1,000
lbsSS
72.00 per 1SO00 lbs-INDUSTRIAL
SYSTEMA.
Annual Sewage Service:Unit'Item
Unit ChargeFlow
- MG
To bedetermined annually by,theBOD:-,1,000
lbs.
jublic Wo as%outlinedrks DirectorC.
codB.
Connection Fee
'To be determined.annually by thePublic
Works Director,as outlinedin
Section 13.12.210,of the LodiCity
CodeHOLDING
TANK WASTESA.
Dumping Charge
$36.00 per 1,000 gal.STORM
DRAIN SYSTEMA.
Storm Drain.Disposal,Charge
per MG2.
That the above.fees for the Dom
an Holding Tank Wastes beincreased':15%,annually
on October-,i;,of,each year until the treatment :plantexpansion
is completed,or- this.resolutionjs�superseded.meeof
the: City.,of Lodi Jn6,
ting,jollowing
by theAbsent:
vote:held
Councilmembers
RESOLUTION NQ 78 `- 91
SEWER CHARGES.AND FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted
Chapter 20, entitled, "Sewer",:: -
of the City of Lodi which provides the method of establishing charges and fees
for sewer service, sewer connections, holding
tank wastes and use of the. storm .
drainsystem,- and
WHEREAS, the City -Council desires to provide current and equable sewer
charges and fees;
NOW THERE FORE,l.z BE IT RESOLVED, bythe.City Council of the Gty of Lodi
that the following sewer charges and fees be. adopted:
DOMESTIC SYSTEM
1. Residential
A. Sewer Service Charge
Number of Bedrooms
Monthly Rate
1
$2.54
2
3.39
3
4.24
4-
5.09
5 "
5.93
6
6.78
7
7.62
B. Connection Fee
$290.00per unit
2: Commercial
A. Annual Sewage Service
$ 40.64 per unit per, year
B. Connection Fee
$290.00 per; unit
3. Industrial
A. Annual ' Sewage Service
Univ ItemUnit
Charge
Flow -11 MG
$195.80 per MG
BOD.-;1,000:lbs.
$ 96.22 per 1,000 lbs.
SS -, 1 000 lbs.
$78 27 per 1, 000 1bs.
B.' Connection Fee
Moderate Strength User
$290 per unit
t i
t
fHigh
Strength User.
Univ Item
Unit Charge
'
Flow - MG
$ 93.67 per. MG
BOO - 1,000 lbs.
38.70 per 1,000.Ibs.
SS - 1,000 lbs.
17.28 per 1,000 lbs.
-
3
'INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM
w`
A, Annual Sewage Service
Unit Item
Unit Charge
A,
a `
Flow - MG
247.06 per MG
g
BOD - 1,000 lbs.
20.54 per 1,000 lbs.
a
B. Connection-Fee
To be determined by the
r
1
Public Works Director as
outlined in Sec. 20 of the
A01 11
Lodi City Code .:
HOLDING" TANK WASTES"" `.
Dumping Charge
$ 30 per. 1,000 ga.
g_
e= A.
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
A.: 'St orm Drain Disposal Charge
$ 50 per MG
.:
i
R
Dated:'December 20, 1978
hereby -certify thot"Resolution No.78-191was
passed and adopted by the
City Couna[„of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting
held becember`20, 1978
by the":following "vote:
`.
}
Ayes: Councilmen - Hughes, . Katzakian,
McCarty and Pinkerton
`
Noes: " Councilmen -” ;None .
..
Absent Covnc�lmen - ; Katnich
=.
13 t:
Copy of this document forwarded
4—!� -8 to
,ET .;,;f Member Henchman
r ! Merhe'r, Ofson
r
er.Ptn4eston
�� �kilbar, ReidMEMORANDUM, CitY of Lodi, Public Works Department
r.cil r°amber Snider 1.
z
,2-c
C+ y manager Peter on
.
Other.
To: City Manager
City Council
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: September 8, 1986
SUBJECT: Possible Development Fee Increases
At.the last Shirtsleeve Session, possible increases",inthe sewer
connection and monthly sewer service charge were.discussed.,,The City ..
`
Council requested a list,of other fee increases which it"maybe asked to
consider over'the.next year.. In reviewing this with the City'Manager,_it
F'
"
was determined that other than:some minor increases in over-the-counter'
costs, the major increases `that .would be brought to the;Council in -the
future were all oriented to development.,; Any development,increases
proposed would be under the "user pay concept".(i.e., new development pay
its own way and not be subsidized by the City of Lodi)."
#+
It is felt that one of the best ways to explain the type of possible
a
increases is to.provide`you'with a -copy of a 1981 memo in"which these
r
x
increases are explained in some detail: A copy of this memo is attached`
as Exhibit A.,
Listed below are those areas which are felt to be most critical. Also
x
shown is,the approximate amount- hat would be added to ;the development
costs of a'residential unit:. These amounts are approximate and would,. not.
be brought to the Council withoutupdating and additional evaluation!.
Development Fee Additional 'Cost "Per. Unit
Engineering Fee 25.00
$-
Water_Connection 200.00*}
J
<. Water Well,'& Oversize Mains 200.00
.-
Capital Buy -In 600.00
1411
l
*Attached as_Exhibit B is a recent Water Connection and Service-
=`
Charge Survey of the valley cities which shows that the'.average,
water connection ,fee is $760 and shows that Lodi is the only city
with no connection fee::
Last`week, a development fee survey, recently done by the.City.of:
i
Vacaville, was mailed out to the City Council. This survey:'showed that
;..
Lodi had:the lowest development,fee"of' he'seven`cities surveyed If the.
above fee increases were implemented,.the City of Lodi would'still have
.a
the lowest development -fee 'of those seven cities. At the last Shirtsleeve
y
}
.
Session, the new development fees adopted by the City of Manteca were
discussed Attached as Exhibit C s a recap of these fee increases."
It is hopeful that this is the type of'infonnation;that:the Council wanted
prior to making their decision on the sewer fee increases. It'`should
again be pointed out that it is.critical that the increases in, sewer fees
R
.. R-
be implemented as soon as possible. It is therefore recommended that the
sewer feelincreases;be placed.on the,Council's agenda for the October 1st
.`
Council meeting for implementation.
"=
If you desire any additional information as it relates to this memo or the
proposed sewer fee increases, please contact me.
r)acL. Ronskoc
Works Director
Attachments
s ,:
AR/ma
—L
s+t
R
.. R-
f
g
s+t
Y ..
{�• F��•
R
_
Eghi bi t A:
.
MEMORP31DUM, Cit of todIPubtIc Works Department.
,�.,.;
O: City Manager,
�-
ii
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: July 10, 1931
4
SUBJECT: increasing s Developing ClewRevenues 1n Order to
i
4.
•
Balance the Five-year Capital Improvement Program
i
Based on the estimated` totals of the proposed projects in the Five-year
{{
- Capital Improvement Program, the City's existing financial condition, and;
;4
the need to maintain our utility systems, .it appears that .it Is now critical
t
that Ire review additional revenue ,sources.
The total funds needed'for the Five-year Sewer and 14ater C.I.P.are approxi
mately three million dolirrs. This averages approxin'ately $600;000 per f
-';
year for just the water and sewer systems. This does not. include Parks,
1
Storn :rains, Other Facilities, or the Old Tokay Campus.
'� ••
-I've attached portions of m 11a 5 meno recon—nendinq possible new and
y y - Y
existing revenue increases and have highlighted in yellow those areas
d
which are felt to be most critical and should noir be studied in wore de-
€
Y
ail. I feel very strongly, as does the mijorIty of the City Council,
that neer development should pay its own way. Presently the Clty of Lodi
Is subsidizing deveiopr:ent,by over 5400,000 ler year.
The City is currently receiving numerous requests in the older. areas
^`
with substandard utilities, to convert single ;family usesto multifamily.
One of the fairer solutions to resolving the crater utility problem is to
- r.
establish a water connection fee as outlined:in my I1ay 5 memo.' This
would: spread the _:cost of upgrading, the utilities to:alt of the parcels
`r ,°
increasing their density and overloading the utility: :The decreasing street
j
revenues also increase the inportance"ofesitablishing formal development
l
requirements as they s: relate to street construction and trafflc appurtenances'
related to new development.:.
sh
One item which was not mentioned In my Hay5 chemo which should also be
analyzed, Is the increase of..sewer,service`charges_- The bas lc :domestic
=.€
'.sewer,service.charge has not, ncreased since it was<established'In 1973•
V aBased
on the cost of `.the five-year'lriprovements to ;,the sewer System, it
1s important that the domestic sewer service rate be reanalyzed and that
z f
consideration also be-given to modifying the' sewer .relmbursement ordinance
_
in ander to obtain the needed funds for;theFive-year.Sewer C.I.P.
It ls'.feit'that no matter what the outcome of the no growth Initiative is,
that the areas highlighted on the 'atteched sheets should be analyzed and
reviewed with the City Council.; it is felt.thaj the. Importance of,.this
U
recomrsendatIon welt be amplt,fied once the total five-yearJC.I:F, is re
viewed. Therefore, it :as important that the Eive-year. C.i.P:.be finallcd
'l
-- as 'soon as possible.
a 4
,
iT
f'.
City Manager.
July 10, 1981
M1,
-'Page 2
Listed below is the recommended order that the item_, be reviewed based
u
on the possiblerevenue increase, the time'fnvotved in doing the addltlonai
study and evaluation needed to prepare a'final recomnended,actlon,;:the
ease of Implementation and the effect on upcoming development:
�
y
Approximate,Yearly
item
Revenue Increase
fnctease EngineerIn . Fees
S
$20,000 - $30,000
_..
1
_.. .
'ncrease
corm6iity,Development Fees$15.000
-,$20,000
z
Prepare�Fomal rlJeveEapment Requirements
$ ???
Establish Water Meter Installation Charge$
5,000
1 '
;;:..
{':Wend '.later Sewer .Reimbursement
;
Ordinance
$10,000 - $15.000
:,
2
Establish 14ater Connection Fee'
$60,000 - $30,000
Cstablish,MateI l�creage Fee
$100,000
1
Est'abl ish"OversernaEn
Ac reac;e- Fee.:
:.
Increase Uiter lleterrd hates
$25,000
l
Eiiiinate Declining 5lock Water
i'
1
Pate Structcre
$25,000
.
increase Flat L"Metered Water Rates
.$100,000,-.$-00 000--
�
Establish Standby Fire Prosection Fee
$15,000 - $20,000
�
t
'
Estawblish''a.Capital`3uyrinMFee
$130,000 -.-$240 ,000
Because of the magnitude of the work involved, I am requesting direction,in.,_�`.
order that i know how you wish to proceed In
this natter.
;:-
Sincerely
{
Jack L. Ronsko
Public Works Director
sA,.
cc: Finance Director_-
Attachment
.
JLR1eeh
V
>>,
1.
bcc: All Public Works Supervisors
¢a
SS
F. .
m
$6 OO .flat rate - 12 - 15,000 gallons per month
$6.60 metered rate - 25,006 'gallons per month
The''.difference in' "cost .of water per gallon used becomes even greater as
the water use increases due to the Sity's declining block rate. There-
x.fore,:residential
customers are subsidizing the commercial and industrial
users.
Based ratios., between flat by Valley
;
on rate and metered rate use other
cities, Lodi's metered rate should be incre.3sed_by about
.20%.-
Listed below are Lodi's�existing metered rates together with proposed
#`.
increases:
s
Existing Rate Proposed Rate'
P.
First 50,000:ft3 $0.18/100 ft3 .$0.22/100 ft3
or. 374,000 gal $0:24/1000 gal $Q 29/1000 gal
Next 200,000 ft3$0.15l1OQ ft $0 19%100 ft,
or '1,496,000 ga/. $0.2011000 gal $0:25/1000 gal
.
r.,
..
'Over 250,000 ft3 $0.,121100 ft 3 $0.1/100 'ft
:;
or.'• 1;870,000 aa1 $O.i6/lOQO"gal $O.G1/1000 gal:
-Based on a total year metered flow of 62,000,000 cubic feet,,a $.04/1,00
ft.
'Increase would increase revenues 'by approximately $25,000 per year.
G
The City's two largest users would experience yearly increases of $12,OOU'.
c
and '$2,000:
k
a
t
K�
.M S
: The minimum monthly bill for supply: through a three-
fourths inch meter or smallc h 11 b s x do11a s• through a
- = bne-inch meter, nine dollars; and for each one-half inch;.inerease
in size of meter thereafter, threedollars per month: : '
-:- City Manager -
May: 5 1981
Page 4
{
4..
INCREASE FLAT AND METERED WATER RATES ($100,000 - $200,000)
-Presently the City of Lodi.water rates are based on, Section 26-1 of the
[.odi City Code as shown below:
Sec. 26-1. Rates within city c nerally.
F
.
The schedule of water rates for the city shalt be as follows
penditure which•is•over and above,the`normal:capital system improvements.
per month•
�.
''water wells and distribution system and for the replacement of the exist-
-(a)Flat Rates.
...ing water. tank.''6ased'on past growth experiencep'.there,will.;aiso be a
Y
Single-family residence ....S6.00
. 56.00
...
estimated at'$250,000 each. : �.
- = Two-family occupancy (one ownershp), per unit 4.95
i
The. City's existing water.revenue is approximately $1,200,000 per year.
- t
Multifamily residence, per unit..`.:...'.: .. 4.20
{
a corresp�snding percentage increase forjali other water rates' approximately.'.
'. Adjustments in multifamily` rates may be authorized by the
17%),,'a,:$200,000 per year revenue increase would be experienced `" A'S0G .<
-
-director of finance within a limit of twenty-five percent of the
.$6.00
x on other, water rates would Increase water revenues.;approximatPly $100,000.
rates:cstablished herein, when in his judgment such variations
` year
-
are necessary to preserve equity. Adjustments ine;:cess of
k;
a-�renty-five percent must be authorized by the city council.
j (b) ,Metered Rates.
First 50,000 cubic feet at $0.1 S per 100 cubic feet.
-Next 200,000 2110,000 cubic feet at 50.15 per 100 cubic feet.
All over 250,000 cubic feet at $0.12 per 100 cubic feet.
: The minimum monthly bill for supply: through a three-
fourths inch meter or smallc h 11 b s x do11a s• through a
- = bne-inch meter, nine dollars; and for each one-half inch;.inerease
in size of meter thereafter, threedollars per month: : '
'A separate nietcr shall be required for each dwelling unit, and
the •` etharges established Herein: shall be levied for each such
meter. (Ord. No. 531, 2;Or&NO. 797. 1.Ord. No. 1076,
0.
_
F
In the next five•years the City ofLodi will have $800,000 of capital ex-
penditure which•is•over and above,the`normal:capital system improvements.
;This $150,000 yearly increase is fora new monitoring controls,, r the.
�.
''water wells and distribution system and for the replacement of the exist-
...ing water. tank.''6ased'on past growth experiencep'.there,will.;aiso be a
Y
need for two, wells in the next five-year period, which are
estimated at'$250,000 each. : �.
The. City's existing water.revenue is approximately $1,200,000 per year.
IfIa•!$1.00 increase was considered on the $6:00 residential.tlat rate with
{
a corresp�snding percentage increase forjali other water rates' approximately.'.
17%),,'a,:$200,000 per year revenue increase would be experienced `" A'S0G .<
increase•on'the residential:flat rate with the corresponding increase
.$6.00
x on other, water rates would Increase water revenues.;approximatPly $100,000.
` year
-
,'per
k;
--��
;.., City Manager �-
May
- Page 5
m,
4. ELIMINATE DECLINING BLOCK WATER RATE STRUCTURE ($25,OOO)
.
_
The declining block metered water rateencourages the use of waterby high
water users. -During ,the 1976 drought, many:cities`in California dropped
5.
their declining block rate structure and implemented a.uniform meter rate'
for all water usage. Some cities to encourage water conservation, :.even
adopted an-inverse block rate where the more you used the more you paid
f
per gallon.
The 198) W6ter Rate Survey,%prepared by the Cal'efornia Munic.ipai Utilities
Association,`showed that of'the;`33 agencies serving municipal:water (16)
f
had a..Decl fining Block Rate Structure,',' (lit):had a',.F1at or Uniform Rate
•':,Structure, and;_(3) had'an Inverse Block Rate Structure.'-
if Lodi eliminated its declining block rate structure and established. a
i
:uniform rate equivalent to that now charged for the first IOD cubic feet
F
($0.18/100.ft3) the increased revenue would be approximately $25,000 per year.
This change would affect only about 10 water users. The City's two largest
users would experience yearly Increases of $18,000 and $4,000
I
{x
5' I EASE PARKING'TICKET FINES --($50,000 _ $120,000)
b
Presentl the' arkin ticket fine is $1.00 if paid on the day of the fine,`
;-
and $2.00.'ifpaid.mater. 'These fines were inceased five years ago, how-
'.
ever, based on thefines of other Vattey cities,.the $1 00/$2.Od fine is.
still IQw in comparison. ;Most cities'char�e $5:00 'k- however
}_
f
some have a .$2.00. fine for certain areas or parking zo'es.-.''We could find
no other cities 'that'.gave a discount for 24-hour;-payment. ,Overparking
revenues'; in the City of Lodi now amounts to approximately-535,000 per year.
:.
.'x
.=-$2.50/$5:00 -
-
:.. If fines wera increased from $1.00/$2.Of� to $2.50/$5.00, assuming 20%comes.
"from payment of `higher fine, about $50,000! additional revenues could be: ''' �';
` realized.
V .
'$5:00'Ftat
'lf:.fines'were increased from $1.00/$2.00 to $5.00 flat, assuming 20%
x
now comes from higher fine, about $120,000 additional revenues.could.be:
realized.
$3.00 Flat
if fines.were Increased from $1.00/$2.00 to a"$3.00 flat, assuming 20�'
now 'comes from payment.of higher;-fine,`about•$60,000 additional revenues
::
.. could be realized..
'
-The City of Davis has 'a flat $3.00 fine, fiowever,-if a. reminder must be'
-
sent ,out,`'fine increases to'$5.00, and if ticket must be sent to DMV, fine>
5
increases again to $13 00. gg .
F 5`�
41': -
City'Manager _
t
May 5, 1981'
..
. Page 6
6' REASE CITY PARKING`LOT MONTHLY FEES ($5,000 -_.$10,000)
`
Presently the City sells 135 parking permits at $2.50 per month per permit
for the 108 space City parking lot located at northeast corner of'Church
E_
.Street and Elm Street. This monthly fee calculates out at ll� per day.
'Private parking lots"in' the downtown area are now charging $IO per month
'
I )
per space for the use'..of their facilities.
'
Of the seven Valley cities contacted'. (Stockton, Tracy, Manteca,'Fairfield,
C
_ :Davis, Sac ramento,',and Modesto)-only Madesto':sells monthly spaces. > -
.Modesto's monthly rates are'$10/month for outdoor parking and $20/month
for'garage parking.
The follow' revenues:would :be realized-aAth the :increase of- the monthly
fees 'as :shown below:
Monthly Fee''• Daily"Rate Approx:'Revenue increase in Revenue
..$2;50. 11� $4,000 --
(Existing Fee) -
25 $9,000 $5,000'
$1.50 35t $12 000 $8,000
$10 00 45�' $16,000 $12,000`.
l
-
d on the existing demand, it i•s assumed that the increase would not
BaseIle
z
rv..
affect permits sold
•.
These.increased.parking revenues would�have.to.stay in the parking district
5
r:' fund, however -#-ey could be used to pay, for parking enforcement which is now
;
�paid'for b general fund revenues.'
Y 9
=
}
7 INCREASE" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES '($15,000 - $20,000)
-
Many of the"Community Development 'fees (i.e.,`E.I.R., Annexation,'Ten tative
Map, Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment,-Rezoning, Use Permit,`Variance)_
=$
.are`outdated.and'do not reflect.the,City's actual expenditures in Process-'-
ing these .requests. Baed on.the"'number of Stems processed in the calendar
:. S
:RAyear
1980,.;it is'.:anticipated "that upgrading of these fees would` increase`
-revenues by $15,000 - $20,000 per year.'
.. ..... -.. _
7
8. INCREASE BUSINESS LICENSE FEES ($80,000-- 00, 0)
The•existing business ;license.ordinancewas adopted on November 3:;,l
and-is outdated and-has major, -ine uities bu!lt.�into_ it. It;iS.;understood
Ahaf.an updated business license'ordinance, including the additional ad
{
ministration and manpower required for enforcement.could easily increase
Frt City=revenues S80.000 "_ S100°.000 'ber year.
z.
'
- City Managcr
4:
-May.S, 1931
Pege 9 -
TABLISH WATER METER INSTALLATION CHARGE ($5,000)
_`
'� This would cover the City's actual costs involved in installing water`
meters on high"water user developments. ,The cost of the meter in-
-new
stallation is a standard development charge made by most all cities.
Once installed, the monthly service charge covers the meter.maintenance
and replacement.' This development. cost is currently being paid by the
existing water customers.
f
..The actual cost of meters range from_$50 -- $80 for 3/4" and 1" meters to
.$800 and $If500 fo.r_4"-and 61 meters. Based on the past three years,
about $52000 per year could be.obtained.by requiring the cost of the
meter to be paid. by'the-water user. '
:... .., . .. .. .... .:. .... ... ,. ...
6 . "AMEND'VIATER'AND'SEtJER"REIMBURSEMENT"ORDINANCE ($10,600 - $15,000)
s
:The. existing dater and Sewer, Reimbursement Ordinances could be expanded so
that fees are collected for ties to al existing water mains and sewer
lines not covered by reimbursement agreements.-Pre sently.some developers
pay their share of tFe'water and.sewer facilities fronting and serving
.;their property and some do not depending on whether or not the facilities
-Were installed under a reimbursement agreement. This fee would be in the
:form of a flat front footage charge paid directly to the City. This fee
:would cover the user's sharp of the initial facility installation.
There .are presently about 30',000 L: F. of undeveloped frontage..on watermains:
and 10,000 L.F,of 'undeveloped frontage on sewer lines which are not covered
by existing reimbursement agreements. Based on a flat rate of'$l0 per foot,
a total 6f.$400,OOO could be recovered,upon complete development of the
City's Master Plan Service Area. It is estimated.that this would amount to
-
y '
• ` -about $10,000' $15,000' per year. '.
7. ES7ABLiSH"STREET-LIGHTING"MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS -($266,00,^.)
Presently the cost of the-street'iight installation is paid for by the sub-Y
'the
` divider or -the property owner, however, .the .City pays for maintenance and-
operation after -the installation is`made .._In the 1981-82 Operating Budet,<
theie.1. over $223,000 allocated'for tr►aintenance and operation of the City's
"
.3,320.street lights.
There are many older areas within the City of Lodi which do.not have street
;lights and since .everyone pays the same ,City tax, the people or property,'
owners not having'street lights are:actually subsidizing the,cost of main
talning the `street lights for those property owners who are fortunate enough
to have them. �.
Street lighting maintenance districts could be`created to recover the'actuai
cost for operating street lights within a specific area. -.The property,
owners within the area benefit.Ing from the street Sights, would.pay the
`maintenance
and operation cost_for-thelr-Iighting:
.- t..2' LF'` 3'X 'v .�4p .?'e' a.r C `fi qi! s•�y "'Fl •u; 3 K � »
City Manager
May 5, 1981'',
Page'
12. CHARGE FOR COMPACTION RETESTING
'' ($4,000) '
At least two out of three of the compaction tests which are taken by
-.
the PublicAlorks Department fail. it is felt that if the contractor_
had to pay for retesting, that they _would do a better fob initially,
prior to calling for a compaction test: Since compaction tests are
;
essentiallyfree to them, it is to their advantage to call for a com-
paction test as. -soon as they feel they are even close. Normally .they're
_'
- not close.' Private labs charge upwards of $40 per compaction test.
a`
.1t As.estimated that'wetake approximately 400. retests per year. If
only $10 was charged per retest; the City could recover $4,000,per
:;year for his service we are now providing the contractor.
:, TABLISH SEWER DU;dPtNG'STATION'FEE (S500 - $1,000)
There.are'.presently about ten sewer dumping stations within the City
`t limits Iocated.at service stations and storage facilities. Owners of
these. sewer dumping stations' normally allow their customers to dump
their holding tanks free of charge or at a minimal fee. The existing
...monthly sewer service charge does not.include cost of treatment of this
-
concentrated'sewer discharge. Itis estimated that a $5 =_$10 a month
_.
---<eharge.would raise from $500 - $1,000 of 'additional revenue per year.
y,a
14. ESTABLISH" A CAPITAL] BUY.IN. FEE`E: ($180,000 -- $240,000)
Presently all of:'the existing Capital Improvements within the City
(i.e.', Public -Safety Building, Municipal Service Center, Fire Houses,
..
other. miscellaneous City buildings, City:Hall,remodel;'stadium improve-
ments' softball conplex, etc.), have been`financed'and paid for by the
existingU di`population.
ehis proposed buy -in charge would cover a new resident's proportionate
f
hare "of• those improvements: These new, revenues could then be used.to
help pay for".new--Capital Improvements, such as development of Did Tokay.
- - -
Campus,'.Firehouse No.:, completion'of City Hall parking lot, Police
k
_ Communication System upgradingmiscellaneous Storm Drain improvements;
etc. ,Based on the depreciated Value of $9,000,000 for'the City's exist-;
ang general assets" including buildings arks and a ui ment,'the
g 9 P 4 P
.
proportionate share foranew. living unit would be''about $600 ($9,000,000/
15,000). .Using 300 -,400 new services per year, $180,000 -$240,000
.
could be raised;:in.new,revenues.-
Shown.below'.are the development fees charged by six Valley cities based
= ;on a'3 -bedroom, -$75,000,' 1,600` sq. ft. home and 5' homes'per:acre."
f
-.r... ^.�.. :. a,... -:. w A; .a �.�.aiu,K .�,..�.„� wCpf-�.',��H� tiE, ^' &'���” -
ER'y�'��T•K^yg',y"•'
- City Manager -
May >," 1981
page 13
-
t
_
" 14. Establish a Capital Buy -in Fee - continued
:.
Existing Development
}
` City .: Fee'per Unit
E
:..Vacaville $5,000
-Woodland $3:200
Holl inter.,' $1,500
Fairfield $6,$00,
.Davis - $2,800
:Stockton $1,500== (L.U.S.D.)
...
LODI $1,800
=
' *In addition, there is an "Area Benefit Charge" which
varies based on development location and includes such
items as -utility reimbursement, utilityovers.izing
`
streets bridges, etc., plus a-10% City ;:administrat-ive fee.
If the proposed Capital Buy -in Fee ($600), Water Connection Fee'($200),
Water Well Acreage Fee($850/Ac) and Oversize Watermain Acreage Fee ($100/Ac)
1
were all implemented, Lodi's development fee per unit Mould increase to -
$2,800;:.This would increase annual nueby $350,000
430,000
15. ;CHARGE'FOR-CONSTRUCTION WATER =($3,000 - $4;000) '
As -part of building new residential units, the contractor needs and uses
.'
-water from .the Ci*ty's domestic'system. Since the City does not meter
- :water,. and water. services are aval.lable at the back 'siaewmlk, the con
.. ;tractor- tles::into'the existing service'and uses tt:e City's water at no cost _ 11
_ Itis felt it.woutdbe reasonable to add a moderate $10 fee to each build
- `,ing>permit to cover the cost of construction water. Based on 300 - 400
- new services a year,' this would increase the City's revenue by about
t >'
x
$4,000..
7.TOTAL NEW REVENUES, $659, 500 to $791, 000
, +~
^
Exhibit B
`
WAI,.i CONNECTION AND SERVICE CHARGE ,RVEY
.,-Water.
Month? Water
C
Connection Fee
Service Charge
==
Chico
Private Water Purveyor
No charge if line is available
$12.77
Vacaville
$2330
11.80 #
Manteca
2222
5.63 #
Fairfield
1619
21.24 #
,
Merced
970
6.40
Redding ;
625
11.00 #
F
Yuba City
600
14.85+-
Modesto
600
5.90 +
Sacramento
535
6.90 +
Turlock
490
8.80 +
Woodland
450
6.75 *
.
Roseville
300
8.00
Davis
250
5.90
Stockton
150
11.00,_
Clovis
150
7.00 #'
r�
Tracy.
120,(to increase
14.20:4.
_
10 Mmes±)
' ,...
Lodi
o
6 00 +._
<:
Average
$ 760
$ 9.88
,
`(excluding
Lodi)
i<
`
Median
- $ 535
$ 8.40 ,
V.
s= <
T
6/86
STAFF REPORT: E8h3bat; C
SUBJECT: Local Fees for Transportation Improvements
RECOMMENDATION: Information Only
-"DISCUSSION:
p
At recent meetings of the COG Technical Committee and COG Board,
Caltrans and COG- staff have frequently reported on the changing
funding policies of the California 'Transportation Commission
(CTC). The CTC is 'the State Board which makes thefinal determi_
:_..
nation of which highway projects receive funding.. Due to",.persis-
tent 'and continuing, statewide funding shortfalls, the .,CTChas
recently" determined, not ,to fund:' any new, highway 'interchanges
needed merely- to serve new growth. If local governments want
such interchanges, they must be prepared to payfor: them, accord-
ing .to the CTC.
=5
COG staff isleased to. note that the Cit of Manteca has taken a
P Y
'
big step towards meeting the CTC' s challenger At their . June 2,
F;
1986 meeting, the Manteca City Council voted 5-0 to increase fees
on new residential construction by $3,400 per dwelling unit.
Breakdown follows below:
Description Current Fee Proposed Increase
Sewer Connection $1;222 $2,2221,000
r
Water Connection 1,222 2,2221- 11000
Parks 548 548 -0-
civic Center, Fire Station -0- 350 350:
L
Traffic Signals -0- 2fl0 200
major Equipment -0- 350 350
Hwy. Overpass/Interchange -0- 500 500
------
-----
------
Total
Total$2.992 $6.392 53,400';
$2,992
..
Of particular interest to the COG is the 5500 for "highway over-
pass/interchange" improvements. Specifically earmarked for con-
struction were new ramps and/or overpasses for _ Union/120 and
Louise/919 However, it':is COG staff's understanding :that the new
fund '.is not .limited 'to the :specified -improvements,' but may be
F
used for any 'local highway overpass/interchange improvements.
`Based on an estimated '600 new homes _being" built per year, the
fund isexpected to'generate about $300,000, annually.'
The Council action wrs',preceded by,a public hearing at which sev
`
eral builders and •concerned citizens.,spoke. No' one singled o,ut
the interchange , feefor,- comment. ' Also, it''was appa'rent'ahat 'the
`
city"'had done its homework, because no one really challenged the.
need for ;the new fees.,: The maili topic was the grandfathering
�.
issue builderswith plans 'in various stages of.approval,seeking.
.to -get in :under the ..old,,(;6xistinq) fee structure.
s
�
4
Yx`
In addition to the fees noted on the previous ,page, .the Manteca
f :-
Unified;School District is.asking the city to raise bedroom. taxes
f. ram ,$720 to $2,500 for a new ` single family home. ' The. Council
�
took .no action on _'this 'proposal, but it was the `subject of exten-
sive comment (mainly from parents of school chilaren) at the pub-
lic hearing.
A seeond'reading of the new fees is scheduled for the .June ;16,
�.
1986 Manteca City Council meeting. Implementation will occur 60
4� -
days subsequent to ` that date
l_
E:
Y.
;a
r
x A.
p� S
}
z
dM
i C
t
_
-
2 .t
� \ LETTERS
state projects, however this is a
project i our i igg t as taxp dy liars.
Thus it is our ri ht as tax a ers to
TO THE
state our concerns and opinions. If
this project is to continue let it
�.
EDITOR
proceed.without the city taxpayer
dollars.
It seems a -shame to let down-
own
town
town Lodi slip away. I hope all
O Hotel Lodi
pposes
not employ any Lodi businesses or
concerned will speak up, sign peti-
generate any Lodi revenue, This is
tions in the downtown Lodi. The
Editor:
a :state, county and city dwelling
final decision of the city's funding'
There are logical reasons to op-:
not exclusive to Lodi citizens,
of this project will be made Wed-:
pose the Hotel Lodi project, A
.
There seems to be no benefits to
nesday. night at the city council. .;
housing complex of 110 units in the
Lodi, only to the seller and the
meeting, 7:30 p.m. Express your:
core of downtown Lodi will create
'out-of-town investors. Why would
concerns, "It's nevertoo late to
problems that neither ; the bust •
the City of Lodi want to invst in a 'speak
what's In your heart."
nesses or the City of Lodi can ef•
piece of this cake, it seems that on-
a udyPeterson
festively control, Problems such
ly problems will be bought,
(Also signed by three others).
as parking, transportation, crime'
The downtown business individ
and health needs. Also the:
uals believe in -their downtown
Save it for the polls.
availability of personnel needs:
-.heritage. They want, a healthy
medical, recreational, educational
Lodi, not only for their businesses
Editor:
";the
and groceries,. "are some of the`
but for the citizens of Lodi. The
Concerning all response to:
concerns, The downtown does not,,.
opposition to the proposal of Hotel
the Woolstrum mailer, I fear the:
seem to be an appropriate location`
Lodi. Is logical The frustrations
issue has gotten lost. Personal feel-'
for this project,
have.been overwhelming, It Is im `
Ings are now being leveled at indi
Other concerns are the long term
possible to believe that this project
viduals and blanket statements are
impacts of this 30 -year 'committ
. ws so close to reality,' The Lodi
being made which border on libel. .
ment. Impacts on the; property"
;Downtown Business Association
We have, I am sure, all made:
value, the traditions of "Lodi and
and the City of Lodi have worked
our decisions as. to how we will;
the downtown historical value.
" and financed for the future of the
vote. Let us; therefore, keep any;
This project is not a restoration but
downtown corridor. This proposal `
further :statements we may have;
a high density residential devel
counterdicts the revitalization of
for the time and the place where
opement.
the downtown as a . commerical
they will count - the voting polls.
{ `
Should the City of Lodi invest
shoppinr and business center. A
To those who :have :waded Into:
$110,000 for some control? ;The
residential project in the center of
this verbal cesspool, and have.
state HCD and the out-of-town de-
, this area is In direct conflict with
sank lower than the mailer -- the.
veloper will have total control of
`those efforts.
Lord rebuke you. May he also have;
the redevelopment and the opera-
This objection means not to in-
mercy on you.
tions of this project. Also it may
• tertere with personal business or
Joan Hall
T0: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing the.Lodi.Downtown
Business: Association, concerned merchants:.and citizens,
go on record in. opposi tion of.the use of the Hotel
Lodi as,a housing project:`
We urge.you to tell your ,City Council to vote in
opposition of Community 'Block .Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in 'direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement. District and will r,nly
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
"OF TT
EN
N�' QVE
!"DUE: D1.
l�C.f �%�Y
Iii (� • �� YY� �OC�i(
z
/)
"OF TT
EN
N�' QVE
!"DUE: D1.
! T0: Lodi City Council
'We the undersigned representing -the Lodi Downtown
Business Association,. concerned merchants and citizens,
lgo on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
J Lodi as.a housing project.
We urge you to tell your:City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block Grant Funding and..
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
.
E:.
fk( �-j�,t`f,�-cc:.. � �l :.moi -y -. E -� .`_c��,✓/ 'i�'c`�L
J'
C
,.
13
7 �( j L �1 (rel i --I �'• l� �;�: I'l .
%e�.0 C/
ti .Q
'i
E REP
!O F 141 S
U EN
u
r6 U T V
d' Y A
k,
we the undersigned representing Che Lodi
t Business Association, concerned merchants
l go on record in opposition of the use of
t�
a -s -6 projec. .
Downtown
and citizens,
the Hotel
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community B1ock.Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
i,.
This is in direct conflict to
everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown
Lodi Community.
-� aft -k
[ '
i '
.' la•... �-� ��3c �.�' li!- "� c: r `_ - _
/ ?�% �' art fti .-c-c c- ,�. �%i �'-�c:
To
~ !
',`
;� C �c ��v-w•�.,.G
c�lG�S' ' r�� -ice � �Ot r— �� � ,..ic
On-
j
> x y 'Itj 4 EG/J=
LIZ --
OV
/All 7
t
W'. /Z' "el
_<</�/ QC 1,L_ -'e" �- sow
4
-3 JLC LC EUI IUCU L-IUUZ:,.L 116 UltlL .
This is in direct conflict to,
everything we have been
taxed,for as an Improvement District and will only -
serve to destroy,our`Downtown"Lodi
Community.
j�r/t91titE
����= ss
`� �` 4.` \• : �„.��
i
�..i �,. (\ � :fir.- �1
`r—�^.`
,
.� .a
e
C7
04
v
�.7
'N@
Lodi City Council ,
We the undersigned representing
the Lodi Downtown`
Business Association, concerned
merchants and citizens,
go on record iP opposition of
the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City
Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block
Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the Sta:.e
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a -State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to
everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown
Lodi Community.
Ir
IV,
ewv-
LO
1�2 Z�7�,,
/Cl•CL C -C •L � . i�/lG G'!f� %Ir r:
`' oL ;-I't'YG! i -C tLCC '!L-C•1`�•'1�1.t-; L•,J� : �� j
�� , �' • �t�.c}.-:�
. j X17 i'1 l`� o� � .�C:�v—,�-, :.1�
0
t
TO: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing
the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record iii oppositiori- of
the use of the Hotel
Lodi as -a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City
Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block
Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to
everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement.: District.
andw ill only
serve to destroy our 'Downtown
Lodi Community.
rC
v�\
`\� C`�. � �.t `�
� i , :.Y �`
� � •�
I� �i .� Jam.
Ccc ;Pr'. ILi.
/l •l i E. L •t ! i ��lG �•%!� %/,
' �'C •Y�� z Lc't %C HCl: /�2.c�1'-J� �-�.
l;
.-% : - �
TO: Lodi City, Council.
We the undersigned representing -`the Lodi Downtown
Business Asscciation, concerned merchants and citizens,
1 go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council ,to vote in
opposition of Community Block Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will 'commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.-
TO: Lodi City.Council
4
We the undersigned representing
the Lodi Downtown
Bisiness Association, concerned
merchants and citizens,
go on record ip opposition, of
the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City
Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block
Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State _
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a,State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to
-everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown
Lodi Community.
�/f9�E
�ybA�Es.S
ell
�'�. 1• '.�.
l� �� ti�
.` � •�.'
i .� - Tyr. .�Y-C...
it I���CC-.•. ���_. �r. L�L.�
l V I L -`L� �'.r.�Ct.L _. �.-/ _
/l"Ll L / � •tri /ii�lG G%:�'%/r ,'
'�o'.: . �t 7�! t c a tc-t %"t •l-•f�'/�'lt : {'.t� �� ,�j
r
TO: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing -the Lodi Downtown
Business. Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as,a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block .Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destrov our Downtown Lodi Community_
ReCl�r�s
TO: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing -the Lodi Downtown
Business. Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as,a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block .Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destrov our Downtown Lodi Community_
ReCl�r�s
TO:. Lodi City Council
6r
kr We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block -.Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
-' for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
' taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
i{soris2i� �3Z 11C41,11-1,7710-07 %alt �-O
T0: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
goon record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block.Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
i
s
T0: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
goon record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block.Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
70: Lodi City Council ►G
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
��. Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record it opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to(destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
!'Ll
L (?QnTjet� 01)5-.
6 cam. L 73 `/S . �'J J `
JR
AJ
?L
'1'0: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing' the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in k
opposition of Community Block Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as.a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
N , � !A^- cif
Zc, ALS
4V
TO: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block:Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Comrunity.
TO: Lodi ty Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block Grant Funding and
represent us at ,the State level to reject the State
-
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
=
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
nr -.,Z'n'U1�,]"1
4,
-
er
t
/
kk
i
1Fj
z
Y�J
L� A
T•
T0: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,.
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Bloc; ;k.Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Kousing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
o`
� .� . �i : a � � �/ O.0 �..ii.. i • allo wtwj
im � . �
r
a
i�
TO: Lodi City Council
- We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business '`Association, "concerned merchants and citizens,
go on -record in opposition of the use of the Motel
Lodi as a ,housing project."
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community B1ock.Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level reject the State
f
Housing Funding which will commit ..ur downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
'
:�lf�elt1c
._
4 Z AZ- a,2yl s �+r�
R
A.
-
Z/-.,"
IMAs
7-
��IUL-
! •�
oo!r
t �t
41
t
A
Lodi Ci ty Council
We thee -undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
goon record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as "a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City.Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next .30,years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to.everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to 'reject the State
Housing ,Funding which will commit our downtown landmark =
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an'Improvement District and will only
ser moo) destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
'i
j
I if
x
i.
k
_
t3
,
�€ a
�;.�........r.,,..
-
+ �
_2
�. � -gym; -, .:�-rr c• ,a-.:.•-�..�^s�m-��x '- ''�-x#—-r
7
rl
TO: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
}
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block .Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
?�
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtowa Lodi Community.
f si
rl
l
iy
TO: _Lod i City: Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.`,
We urge, you to tell your City Counciltovote in
opposition of Community B1ock.Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which willcommitour downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
-
taxed for as.-in.Improvement District and will only
serve to.destroy our Downtown Lodi Community_
r
�i
_
t � qo U 1�Q t,
� �
x
VYN5 Leh
5 0� .�-��� ,19:f '�//o ALJ•-�
,?
s
TO:, Lodi City Council
Y;
f'
J�
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
:..
Business Association,, concerned merchants and citizens,
f
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel-
:.odi as a housing project.
E.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in.
e.
opposition oZ Community:Block.Grant Funding and.
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown'landmar';
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
.This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
=_
taxed for as an.Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community..
of
SoS w
-/V,
l
1'
N
j•
,
3
s-
g
r
-7C6 1'pc-iL i4L-4-
LOaP
r= =
-' X-1
aCLd�
E'v
-SC
-
.
Y��.
z
TO: Lodi City Council
_�.
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business -..Association,, concerned merchants and citizens,
go. on record in opposition of; -the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We.urge 'you to tell your City.Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block ';Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark -
for the next 30 years as "a State Funded Housing Unit."
This is in direct conflict to every thing we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and Will only
serve to 'destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
t. nL 1
l
/V�Or OU /
s -
or'R
Z�A%FK C/.z,
07
1Anv�( I� JAAAI e{^ f_ �n
/
is
T0: Lodi City Council
Wethe undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown..
Business Association, concerned merchants ;and citizens;
-`
o on record in o osition of the use of the Hotel
gPP
�-
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your :City Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block.Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject .the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtownlandmark_=-
for.the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict_to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only.
'
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
Q214 00 n1.`, �1 5
.
a
e�r_�
-—
�j
r
ay ���
^
1 g1� S. C'hPrQ 0IWO
,
�:
5:
f"
t•
��
f':
�:
-:
�. .. r.
7. . ti
Is '_' �'
i`
�.:. '::
—� I
I �
�
/
�
/ i / I �• �_ I �
' ! moi/
�
r
_
��% 1 � �� T% �j
_ _
�
1
...r . •
�
�' iia'
'��i�U
_ _
�.
... `��
_ � _
'_
,i - --T...►
�
�
i
/
�h
�`� � �
+ �
� ,
��
+ � .� � �. ' e y�'
- �
6 J �
�/11�
_,
'�a
�
�
�.
�Ii
r
J 4
T0: Lodi City Council
1
We, the undersigned,representing'the Lodi Downtown .
Business:Associitioh -doncerned merchants and citizens,
. .
`-'
goon record in opposition of, the use of the -Hotel
f
-Lodi as a housing 'project..:
L",
We urge you to tell your,City Council.to vote in
3.
X
opposition of Community Block Grant Funding' -and
x
represent us, at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which Will commit our downtown landmark
-
-
..;;
`for the next 30,years as a State Funded `Housing Unit.
a-
- _
This is in direct conflict to everything'.we"have been
3 =
taxed for as an Improvement District.and:will only
ry_ ,
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community.
4
Z 4
..
fir, ���� I /� • , % +,,�� wO�a I e.
r
J 4
4
..
A4
h
s
ice.
d t
1,
77
E
l
3 -
T0: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing, the Lodi. Downtown
x
•, 1
Business'Association, concerned merchants.and citizens,
5;..
_
go on _record :in opposition of the use of the Hotel .
,..
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you -to tell your City .Council to vote in
opposition of-CommunityBlock Grant`Funding and
represent us at the.State level'lo_,reject.the State
A' '
Housing Funding which will commit"our downtown landmark.':
for the next 30 years as a'State Funded Housing Unit.
4-
.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been,
+'
taxed for as.an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi, Community.
#
i t
�
-:. V
A93
r .-
t
-
a
i
1
2
3
t.
.
s
a.
z _
_ s
TO: Lodi City Council
;
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on recordin; opposition of the use:,of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
r
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
F
opposition of Community Block.Grant Funding and
represent us"at the State level to reject the State
73'
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
4y
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
�.-
- taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Community..
l�
fe
all-
=
`Y
�a
i�
Ica—
. w
�•
r
C
►�
Z`
TO: Lodi City Council
We`the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
">
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
Pr
go on record in opposition
of the'use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
'
We urge you to tell.your. City Council to vote.in
opposition_. of Community Block .Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will
comm it our downtown landmark
-:
for the next 30 years as a
State. Funded Housing Unit..
This is in direct conflict
to everything we have been
taxed for as an.Improvement,District
and will only
serve two destroy our Downtown
Lodi Commun"ty,
•� apa_ ..
-
-
1IS
27.
Gzr,
�c
c yDy,.s'f- %d•
N All
n
� 6
J W 01
• g
�
7W
'
woY
xrr"r'^ s'..�' i ;sw +.
-I---------
,Y.. .+., r •kk--mmss �a M.et ra ».,tr,,n"'-et,'
;.r _ ....E _,.:a r< • -
4 3 y,�s.`'
gyp.
TO: Lodi City Council
r: We the undersigned representing:
-the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned
merchants and citizens,
J go on record in opposition of
the; use of the Hotel ViA
1 Lodi -as a housing project.
¢ '
We urge you to tell your City
Council to vote in
opposition of Community; Block
:Grant .Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which.will commit our downtownlandmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
_.
This is in direct conflict to
everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
w_
serve to destroy our Downtown
Lodi Community.
-�iV r/`I
:.�
_
s
t
r
17
VZO c
CP
f k
`, �
71
14
-x�
J..
-
, z,
__
_
�..
_
�. -r.� ._._.. _. .......:__ _
..
..
..�,
� j
'��' °�_
_
i
f'
yy-.
� '-
i ", -
_ .. .
�,.
�
-
.. ..
r=.
.,,.
_�f'_ .
��
�,_
��
��
�'
"f
r"S
!"�._.:
'�
._
„--
��
i. ..
i,
� ( }
.--,.....-,.w.«w,.,R.xsa�"r�s+a�aµxe�Kae�ny�'"�t-,.^2,t>sr^i'a�*��'*�a.�v-��'�
+s �a�uavt � � .;�
.. 4 .� 4
_
TO: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition of the use 'of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
opposition of. CommunityBlock Grant Funding and r.
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded. Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvemen;._District and will only
serve to :destroy our Downtown Lodi Community,
50 1
w. � .! � /R.�i�/_ /.► � :�. � 1.
4�1
T0: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned -merchants and citizens,
go on record in opposition:of
the use of the Hotel -
Lodi as.a housing project:
We urge you to tell your City
Council to vote in
opposition of Community Block
.GrantFunding and
represent us at the State level<;,to' reject -the ' State
Housing' Funding which 'will commit our downtown landmark
for the next 30 years as.a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to
everything we have been.
taxed for as an.Improvement District and will only
serve to.destroy our Downtown
Lodi Community.
CA
v/
D -J off -04
Di G
t G:f C.-
_ i1GVvirt- (,�
1 x-35 .. _ •� �-y =
50 1
w. � .! � /R.�i�/_ /.► � :�. � 1.
T0: Lodi City Council
a
�
�We
the undersigned representing,the;
Lodi .Downtown �-
Business Association concerned
merchants and'citizens
w
go on record in opposition of
the' use of the: Hotel =-
Lodi .as a,housing project.`
We urge you to tell your City
Council to vote.in
opposition of. Community Block
,Grant Funding; -and '
represent us at the State level to reject>,the:State`
Housing, Funding which will commit our downtown J landmark '
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct. conflict to
everything we have been
.
t
taxed .for .sus an .Improvement District and will only:
:to
'4
,s
serve
serve Downtown
.
Lodi Community.
X
04(11
14
�A `.'�f%C Llai/ •�_
J� �(/ `i�.' /�LfY�
elA j--
7�
d
4
y--•�L., L��- :���<<?i
',}`i i SSU. l�► C� r�_i'_00.'
o�
~•
7:. < , y
/7,4/
TO: Lodi City Council
.. )
We the undersigned representing' the Lodi Downtown
€
BusinessAssociation,concerned, merchants and citizens
�--go
on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing project.
We urge you to tell your.City Council `to vote in
opposition of Community Block: GrantFunding and
`
represent us at the State level to reject the State
>'
Housing Funding ` Which will commit our downtown landmark
for the 'next 30 years as a`State 'Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to everything we have been
3
F
E
taxed for `as an Improvement District and will only
`.
serve to destroy our Downtown Lodi Communi y.
S
zle�
�
R
F
aim
.. . _ n.>,.,. r.7..-,..-,...K,............._..,......n
.............0 .._..,._�.. ...., ,_,... ...<-. —.. ,�,.... m.. �..A�..,,....,�-x�..-,.rr.�..,u. ,_,..ns�, Y,.. ...N-...�..r,�.k.-..�,.,...,. _...�. .,�"c. _. _._� .-
SLnr� cd37� '� i
o � • p d
-- �"
h `
TO: Lodi City Council..='
r
We the undersigned representing the .Lodi DownLown
.
=
Business Association,concerned merchants and citizens,
-
go on record in opposition of the use of the Hotel,
+-
Lodi as a housing project.
r
We urge you to tell your City Council to vote in
-
opposition of Community Block 'Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
# .
Housing` Funding'which.will commit our downtown landmark
3
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing .Unit.
}
.,4
This is in direct conflict., to everything we have been
-
¢:
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
_
i
serve to destroy :our Downtown Lodi Community.
#,
s
}
'4sz,
G
� w^I
�6L-• a�a�'7- ' �^ - t�r�'
4174
}
4A ai 0 71 6d
n
r
m��
I. /
TO: Lodi City Council
We the undersigned representing
the Lodi Downtown
Business Association, concerned
merchants and citizens,
go on.record ir`oppositiori'of
the use of the Hotel
Lodi as a housing; project.
We urge you to tell your City
Council to vote in
opposition of Community Black
Grant Funding and
represent us at the State level to reject the State
Housing Funding which will commit our downtown. landmark
for the next 30 years as a State Funded Housing Unit.
This is in direct conflict to
everything we have been
taxed for as an Improvement District and will only
serve to destroy our. Downtown
Lodi Community-,
/ I, w�j ��� �,
�C� S /1 !/ ✓, (. c. /� 7
-VC,A
OL
LC4
AP(��>
00
't7 ,e I', �� t
-�
/GLCC4G'LL♦ /lG�%Q'%/i'
-1 %
Il
r. • v
r
r
r