City Council Agenda April 8, 2024
1 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT/CALIFORNIA BROWN ACT
NOTIFICATION FOR THE CITY OF HUGHSON
This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54954.2).
Disabled or Special needs Accommodation: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting and/or if you need assistance to attend or participate in a City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (209) 883-4054. Notification at least 48-hours prior to the meeting will assist the City Clerk in assuring that reasonable accommodations are made to provide accessibility to the meeting.
City of Hughson
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hughson City Hall – 7018 Pine Street Hughson, California MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2024 – 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pro Tem Randy Crooker
ROLL CALL: Mayor George Carr
Mayor Pro Tem Randy Crooker
Councilmember Samuel Rush
Councilmember Julie Ann Strain
Councilmember Alan McFadon
AGENDA
HUGHSON CITY COUNCIL
How to participate in, or observe the Meeting:
• In person in the City Council Chambers and submit public comment when invited during the meeting. • Observe only via YouTube live, by accessing this link:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-PwkdIrKoMmOJDzBSodu6A?view_as=subscriber If a technical issue arises with any streaming option, the City Council meeting will continue unless the meeting is being held pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2449. • In addition, recorded City Council meetings are posted on the City’s website the second business day following the meeting. Recorded videos can be accessed with the following link:
Upcoming Meetings | Hughson CA
City Council Agenda April 8, 2024
2 FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Randy Crooker
INVOCATION: Hughson Ministerial Association
1. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR (No Action Can Be Taken):
Please limit presentations to five minutes. If you wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda, you may be asked to defer your remarks until the Council addresses the matter. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(3), no action or discussion may be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that the City Council, or its staff, may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public, provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, or direct staff to place the issue on a future agenda.
2. PRESENTATIONS:
2.1: Proclaim April 21-27, 2024, as Administrative Professionals Week.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council unless otherwise requested by an audience member, or individual Councilmember for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by roll call vote.
3.1: Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 25, 2024.
3.2: Approval of the Warrants Register.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: NONE.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1: Adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-01, an Urgency Ordinance of The City of Hughson Imposing a Moratorium on All New Smoking Lounges and Smoke Shops Within the City of Hughson.
6.2: Adoption of Resolution No. 2024-10, Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Financial Services.
7. CORRESPONDENCE:
7.1: Annual Air Toxics Report for 2023.
8. COMMENTS:
A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting, or conference, or other notable topics of City business shall be made. The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council during this time.
City Council Agenda April 8, 2024
3 8.1: Staff Reports and Comments:
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Community Development Director
Police Services
City Attorney
8.2: Council Comments:
9. ADJOURNMENT:
The next City Council meeting is scheduled for April 22, 2024, at 6:00 pm.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk at Hughson City Hall during normal business hours. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on the agenda.
Notice Regarding Non-English Speakers:
Pursuant to California Constitution Article III, Section IV, establishing English as the official language for the State of California, and in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedures Section 185, which requires proceedings before any State Court to be in English, notice is hereby given that all proceedings before the City of Hughson City Council shall be in English and anyone wishing to address the Council is required to have a translator present who will take an oath to make an accurate translation from any language not English into the English language.
UPCOMING EVENTS:
April 9 City/Fire 2+2 Committee Meeting, Hughson Fire District Office, 5:30 PM April 10 Hughson has Heart Planning Meeting, City Council Chambers, 6:00PM April 16 Planning Commission Meeting, City Council Chambers, 6:00PM April 17 Hughson has Heart Planning Meeting, City Council Chambers, 6:00PM April 20-21 City-Wide Yard Sale
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
Date: April 5, 2024 Time: 2:00 PM
Name: Ashton Gose Title: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 8, 2024
Subject: Proclaim April 21-27, 2024, as Administrative Professionals Week Presented By: Ashton Gose, City Clerk
Staff Recommendation:
Proclaim April 21-27, 2024, as Administrative Professionals Week in the City of Hughson.
Background and Overview:
Administrative Professionals Week is celebrated each April to honor and recognize administrative professionals: receptionists, secretaries, administrative assistants, executive assistants, customer support, and office support staff. Administrative Professionals play an essential role in coordinating the office operations of businesses, government, educational institutions, and other organizations.
Administrative Professionals are vital contributors in today's team-oriented work environment and are key front-line public relations ambassadors for their organizations.
The City of Hughson Administrative staff includes employees Danielle Perez, Andraya Plascencia, and Fabian Ramos.
Recognition and appreciation of the City’s administrative staff is scheduled for Administrative Professionals Day on Wednesday, April 24, 2024.
Fiscal Impact:
Costs associated with the recognition of the City of Hughson Administrative staff will be covered with the approved budget for the City Employee Appreciation and Recognition Program.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1
SECTION 2: PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation CITY OF HUGHSON
National Administrative Professionals Week
April 21-27, 2024
WHEREAS, administrative professionals play an essential role in coordinating the office operations of businesses, government, educational institutions, and other organizations; and WHEREAS, administrative professionals are vital contributors in today's team- oriented work environment and are key front-line public relations ambassadors for their organizations; and WHEREAS, the work of administrative professionals today requires advanced knowledge and expertise in communications, computer software, office technology, project management, organization, customer service and other vital office management responsibilities, and most importantly, have the willingness to learn and accept new challenges; and
WHEREAS, Administrative Professionals Week is observed annually in workplaces around the world to recognize the important contributions of administrative support staff and is sponsored by the International Association of Administrative Professionals; and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Mayor and City Council that we recognize and extend appreciation to our dedicated and skilled staff and hereby proclaim April 21-27, 2024, as “National Administrative Professionals Week”.
AND BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Hughson City Council does hereby recognize the outstanding service that the City Administrative staff provides to the citizens of the City of Hughson. ______________________________
RANDY CROOKER
MAYOR PRO TEM OF THE CITY OF HUGHSON
APRIL 8, 2024
Meeting Date: April 8, 2024
Subject: Approval of the City Council Minutes
Presented By: Ashton Gose, Executive Assistant/City Clerk ______________________________________________________________________ Staff Recommendation:
Approve the Minutes of the regular Meeting of March 25, 2024.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.1
SECTION 3: CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes March 25, 2024
1 MINUTES
City of Hughson
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hughson City Hall – 7018 Pine Street
Hughson, California
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2024 – 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pro Tem Randy Crooker
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mayor Pro Tem Randy Crooker
Councilmember Julie Ann Strain
Councilmember Alan McFadon
Absent: Mayor George Carr
Councilmember Samuel Rush
Staff Present: Ashton Gose, City Clerk
Andy Pinasco, City Attorney
Tom Terpstra, Deputy City Attorney
Carla Jauregui, Community Development Director
Kim Weimer, Director of Finance and Admin Services
Jose Vasquez, Public Works Superintendent
Sarah Chavarin, Accounting Manager
________________________________________________________________
1. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR (No Action Taken):
NONE.
2. PRESENTATIONS: NONE.
HUGHSON CITY COUNCIL
City Council Minutes March 25, 2024
2 3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1: Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 26, 2024.
3.2: Approval of the Warrants Register.
3.3: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-07, Making Signatory Changes to the City of Hughson Bank Accounts at BMO.
3.4: Accept the Donation of a Refrigerator, Freezer, Removal of a Sink, and the Purchase and Installation of Metal Cabinets and Shelving, Valued at $5,300.00, by Hughson Youth Baseball and Softball for the Concession Stand at Lebright Fields; and Approve the Donation Agreement.
3.5: Approval of Waiving the Fees Pertaining to the Use of Rolland Starn Park (Keith Crabtree Field) for Hughson Youth Baseball and Softball for the 2024 Regular Season.
3.6: Appointment of One Candidate to the Parks, Recreation, and Entertainment Commission.
3.7: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-08, Accepting the 2023 Annual General Plan Report and the 2023Annual Housing Element Progress Report.
3.8: Approval of the Request by the Hughson Chamber of Commerce to Hold a Public Event and Sell Alcohol at the 2024 Hughson Fruit and Nut Festival Event.
CROOKER/STRAIN 3-0-0-2 motion passes to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, with the following roll call vote:
CROOKER RUSH STRAIN McFADON CARR
AYE ABSENT AYE AYE ABSENT
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
4.1: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-09, Accepting the Well 7 Replacement Project Phase IV Improvements and Authorizing the City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion.
Cort Abney, the contracted City Water Engineer, presented the staff report on this item.
Mayor Pro Tem Crooker opened public comment at 6:14PM. There was no public comment.
Mayor Pro Tem Crooker closed public comment at 6:14PM.
City Council Minutes March 25, 2024
3 McFADON/STRAIN 3-0-0-2 motion passes to adopt Resolution No. 2024-09, accepting the Well 7 Replacement Project Phase IV Improvements, and authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion, with the following roll call vote:
CROOKER RUSH STRAIN McFADON CARR
AYE ABSENT AYE AYE ABSENT
5. PUBLIC HEARING: NONE.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1: Adopt Ordinance No. 2024-01, an Urgency Ordinance of the City of Hughson Imposing a Moratorium on All New Smoking Lounges and Smoke Shops Within the City of Hughson.
Deputy City Attorney Terpstra presented the staff report on this item.
The item was tabled for a subsequent meeting because the item needs a super majority vote to pass.
No action was taken.
7. CORRESPONDENCE: NONE.
8. COMMENTS:
8.1: Staff Reports and/or Comments:
City Clerk Gose congratulated Patty King on her appointment to the Parks, Recreation and Entertainment Commission. She provided a reminder regarding the final two Hughson has Heart Event Planning Meetings.
Director Jauregui announced that the Lebright Paving Project is complete. She acknowledged her appreciation for our Public Works and Utilities staff.
8.2: Council Member Comments:
Councilmember McFadon congratulated Patty King on her appointment to the Parks, Recreation and Entertainment Commission.
Councilmember Strain attended an Every 15 Minutes Demonstration at Hughson High School.
She congratulated Patty King on her appointment to the Parks, Recreation and Entertainment Commission. She thanked staff for their continued hard work.
City Council Minutes March 25, 2024
4 Mayor Pro Tem Crooker attended a League of California Cities Division meeting on March 14, 2024. He also attended the Knights of Columbus Annual Corn Beef and Cabbage Dinner on March 16, 2024. He toured the new Lebright Snack Shack on March 25, 2024.
9. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING: NONE.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion passes to adjourn the March 25, 2024, regular meeting at 6:25PM, with the following roll call vote:
CROOKER RUSH STRAIN McFADON CARR
AYE ABSENT AYE AYE ABSENT
APPROVED:
___________________
RANDY CROOKER, Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
______________________
ASHTON GOSE, City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 8, 2024
Subject: Approval of Warrants Register
Presented By: Kim Weimer, Director of Finance
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the Warrants Register as presented.
Background and Overview:
The warrants register presented to the City Council is a listing of all expenditures paid from March 19, 2024, through April 4, 2024.
Fiscal Impact:
There are reductions in various funds for payment of expenses.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.2
SECTION 3: CONSENT CALENDAR
4/4/2024 10:26:10 AM Page 1 of 1
Refund Check Register
Hughson Refund Check Detail
UBPKT03541 - Refunds 01 UBPKT03537 Regular
Account Name Date Check # Amount Code Receipt Amount Type 11-1450-007 Inc., Coraesta 3/19/2024 57863 145.03 145.03 Deposit 14-2340-001 FOSTER, SINCLAIR 3/19/2024 57864 99.17 99.17 Deposit Total Refunds: 2 Total Refunded Amount: 244.20
Revenue Code Summary
Revenue Code Amount
996 - UNAPPLIED CREDITS 244.20
Revenue Total: 244.20
General Ledger Distribution
Account Number Account Name Posting Amount IFT
Posting Date: 03/05/2024
Fund: 510 - WATER/SEWER DEPOSIT
510-10001 CLAIM ON CASH-WATER/SEWER DEPOSIT -244.20 Yes 510-11040 CUSTOMER CREDITS 244.20
510 Total: 0.00
Fund: 999 - POOLED CASH/CONSOLIDATED CASH
999-10010 CASH IN BANK-MONEY MARKET -244.20
999-20000 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS (POOLED CASH) 244.20 Yes
999 Total: 0.00
Distribution Total: 0.00
4/4/2024 10:25:40 AM Page 1 of 3
Check Report
Hughson By Check Number
Date Range: 03/19/2024 - 04/04/2024
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount Bank Code: Payable Bank-Payable Bank
01144 TROPHY WORKS 03/19/2024 Regular 0.00 50.63 57865
916213 Invoice 03/19/2024 3 Name Plates 0.00 50.63
01257 1ST SECURITY & SOUND INC 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 4,890.00 57866 30162 Invoice 03/08/2024 Carmeras for Lebright 0.00 4,890.00 00016 ABS PRESORT 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 5,000.00 57867 MP-20240311 Invoice 03/11/2024 Postage Advance for Mailing Service 0.00 5,000.00 00049 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 2,275.70 57868 INV0010917 Invoice 04/01/2024 DELTA DENTAL 0.00 2,275.70 01603 Amazon Capital Services, Inc. 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 27.94 57869 1PRW-XJLV-4R6J Invoice 03/25/2024 Office Supplies 0.00 27.94 00104 AYERA TECHNOLOGIES INC. 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 84.00 57870 544761 Invoice 03/01/2024 Service (Blanket) 0.00 84.00
00364 CSJVRMA 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 45,868.00 57871
RMA 2024-0222 Invoice 03/15/2024 2023/2024 4TH QTR DEPOSITS 0.00 45,868.00 00368 CSU STANISLAUS 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 50.00 57872 CMP-013485 Invoice 03/25/2024 January 2024 Live Scan 0.00 50.00 01932 Donald A. Bigelow 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 425.00 57873 00002 Invoice 03/15/2024 Red Cross First Aid CPR/AED Certification -… 0.00 425.00 00522 GEOANALYTICAL LABORATORIE 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 909.80 57874 K4B0124 Invoice 03/26/2024 WW Blanket Geoanalytical 0.00 219.00 K4B2206 Invoice 03/26/2024 WW Blanket Geoanalytical 0.00 190.00 K4B2709 Invoice 03/26/2024 water blanket Geoanalytical 0.00 172.00 K4B2813 Invoice 03/26/2024 water blanket Geoanalytical 0.00 328.80 00594 HINDERLITER, dELLAMAS & 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 768.88 57875 SIN036512 Invoice 03/11/2024 Contract Services- Sales Tax 1ST QTR 0.00 768.88 01398 Jose Vasquez 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 199.80 57876 INV0010912 Invoice 03/25/2024 Food for interview panel 0.00 19.80 INV0010913 Invoice 03/22/2024 Pesticide License 0.00 180.00 01878 LISANDRO LOPEZ 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 150.00 57877 INV0010914 Invoice 03/21/2024 Canceled per renter - Lopez 0.00 150.00 00822 NESTLE WATERS 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 75.95 57878 04C6703905050 Invoice 03/04/2024 Water for City Hall 0.00 75.95 00884 PITNEY BOWES 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 555.20 57879 INV0010915 Invoice 03/25/2024 POSTAGE 0.00 555.20
01885 RecruitGigs 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 990.00 57880
68764 Invoice 03/15/2024 Extra Help - PW 0.00 990.00
01907 Ripon Print Studio 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 191.63 57881 12001 Invoice 03/25/2024 Reusable banner for Hughson Has Heart e… 0.00 191.63 00978 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY Air Pollution Control District03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 577.00 57882 N161523 Invoice 03/26/2024 fox generator permit 0.00 577.00 01000 SEEGER'S 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 268.61 57883
Check Report Date Range: 03/19/2024 - 04/04/2024
4/4/2024 10:25:40 AM Page 2 of 3
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 0143300-IN Invoice 03/25/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 268.61 01009 SHRED-IT USA LLC 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 200.66 57884 8006465860 Invoice 03/03/2024 Shredding 0.00 200.66
01040 STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 165,289.64 57885 2324-36 Invoice 03/11/2024 February 2024 0.00 165,289.64 01090 SUTTER HEALTH PLUS 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 16,369.76 57886 3038309 Invoice 04/01/2024 MEDICAL INSURANCE- APRIL 0.00 16,369.76 01093 SYNAGRO WEST, LLC 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 3,204.43 57887 46568 Invoice 03/21/2024 Sludge removal (Blanket) 0.00 3,204.43 01149 TURLOCK IRRIGATION DIST. 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 25,961.68 57888 INV0010916 Invoice 03/25/2024 ELECTRIC 0.00 25,961.68
01947 Waterford Irrigation Supply, Inc 03/26/2024 Regular 0.00 206.28 57889 209243 Invoice 03/26/2024 pipe fittings 0.00 83.89
209268 Invoice 03/26/2024 pipe fittings 0.00 122.39
00755 MCR ENGINEERING, INC 03/27/2024 Regular 0.00 14,760.00 57890 19457 Invoice 03/27/2024 Well 7 Site Improvements 0.00 14,760.00 01420 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 03/28/2024 Regular 0.00 40.12 57891 INV0010933 Invoice 03/27/2024 INCOME WITHHOLDING FOR CHILD SUPP… 0.00 40.12 00582 HERITAGE FORD 03/28/2024 Regular 0.00 2,457.21 57892 8023081 Invoice 03/28/2024 Repairs and Labor for PW1 0.00 2,457.21 Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Discount
Payment
Payment Type Count
Bank Code Payable Bank Summary
Bank Drafts
EFT's
28 0
0 0
0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
28 0.00
Payment
291,847.92
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
291,847.92
Payable
Count
33 0
0 0
0 33
Check Report Date Range: 03/19/2024 - 04/04/2024
4/4/2024 10:25:40 AM Page 3 of 3
All Bank Codes Check Summary
Payment Type Discount
Payment
Count Payment
Payable
Count
Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Bank Drafts
EFT's
28 0
0 0
0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
28 0.00
291,847.92
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
291,847.92
33 0
0 0
0 33
Fund Name Period Amount
Fund Summary
999 POOLED CASH/CONSOLIDATED CASH 3/2024 291,847.92
291,847.92
Meeting Date: April 8, 2024
Subject: Adopt Ordinance No. 2024-01, an Urgency Ordinance of The City of Hughson Imposing a Moratorium on All New Smoking Lounges and Smoke Shops Within the City of Hughson.
Presented By: Tom Terpstra, Deputy City Attorney
Staff Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 2024-01, an Urgency Ordinance of The City of Hughson Imposing a Moratorium on All New Smoking Lounges and Smoke Shops Within the City of Hughson.
Discussion:
Over the past few months, there has been growing concern in the community regarding smoke shops and other retailers of tobacco products in the City of Hughson. These establishments primarily sell tobacco products, vaping devices, and related paraphernalia.
The presence of such businesses raises concerns regarding public health, safety, and community welfare, particularly regarding minors.
An increased proliferation of smoke shops within the City can contribute to various negative impacts, including:
1. Public Health Degradation: The availability of tobacco and vaping products can exacerbate public health issues such as smoking-related illnesses and substance abuse among youth and adults alike.
2. Youth Exposure: The proximity of these establishments to schools and recreational areas increases the risk of youth exposure to tobacco and vaping products, potentially leading to addiction and harmful health consequences.
3. Negative Economic Effects: Concentration of smoke shops may deter other types of businesses from establishing in the area, impacting the economic diversity and vitality of the community.
Pursuant to the City’s police powers under the California Constitution and Government Code Section 65858, the City has the authority to adopt an urgency ordinance prohibiting a use that may be in conflict with contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City is considering or studying.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO 6.1
SECTION 6: NEW BUSINESS
Unlike the regular ordinance adoption process, which requires a first and a second reading and goes into effect 30 days after approval by the City Council, an urgency ordinance can go into effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. However, urgency ordinances automatically expire after 45 days, unless extended by the City Council in accordance with Government Code Section 65858. Urgency ordinances, and any subsequent extensions thereof, must be adopted by no less than a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Council.
This temporary Urgency Ordinance would give the City staff an opportunity to conduct the research and, if necessary, engage with stakeholders in order to gather data and insights to inform evidence-based policy decisions regarding future regulations and ordinances to governing smoke shops in the future.
To be clear, this temporary moratorium would only impact the processing of permits for new smoke shops and smoking lounges. Existing businesses within the City that meet the definition of a “smoke shop” or “smoking lounge” set forth in this Urgency Ordinance will not be impacted by this Ordinance and would be allowed to continue to operate as they are currently permitted.
Conclusion:
In light of the growing concerns in the community surrounding the proliferation of smoke shops and smoking lounges and their potential negative impacts on public health, youth, and community well-being, the adoption of an Urgency Ordinance imposing a moratorium is warranted. This temporary measure will allow the City of Hughson to assess the situation comprehensively, engage stakeholders, and develop appropriate regulations to safeguard the health and welfare of its residents. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council's approval of this Urgency Ordinance.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
1770419-1
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-01
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUGHSON
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON ALL NEW SMOKING LOUNGES AND SMOKE
SHOPS WITHIN THE CITY OF HUGHSON
WHEREAS, smoking and use of tobacco products, particularly by minors, poses a significant health hazard to the user and persons in proximity to the user, including, without limitation, nicotine addiction, disease, and premature death; and WHEREAS, e-cigarettes are advertised using the same themes and tactics that have been shown to increase youth initiation of other tobacco products, including cigarettes; and WHEREAS, e-cigarettes have been widely advertised over social media, television, and via other forms of media targeted at minors, increasing their awareness of, curiosity about, and willingness to try e-cigarettes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hughson has a significant interest in discouraging tobacco use by minors and discouraging the sale or distribution of tobacco products to minors, including vape pens and devices, e-cigarettes, and flavored tobacco products; and WHEREAS, the City has a significant interest in preserving the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, particularly its minor residents, in considering enactment of additional regulations on the sale and distribution of tobacco products; and WHEREAS, the City finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare with respect to the sale and distribution of tobacco products within the City, including access to such products by minors, and the approval of additional permits, licenses, or any other entitlement for new smoking lounges or smoke shops, would result in a further threat to public health, safety, or welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to adopt this Urgency Ordinance pursuant to California Constitution Article XI, Section 7 and Government Code section 65858 as an urgency measure prohibiting a use that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City is considering or studying; and WHEREAS, the City finds that this Urgency Ordinance is necessary to promote the immediate preservation of the peace, health, and safety of the public, including its minor residents, against the potential detrimental health impacts of tobacco smoking in order to allow the City an opportunity to study this issue and develop and adopt additional appropriate regulations for the sale and distribution of tobacco products.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hughson does ordain as follows;
1770419-1
2 SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
The Hughson City Council hereby finds and determines that this Urgency Ordinance is necessary for the immediate protection of the public safety, health and welfare.
SECTION 2. Except as set forth herein, during the term of this ordinance, any new smoking lounge or smoke shop shall be prohibited in all zoning districts and lands within the City of Hughson, and no application for any permit, license, or land use entitlement shall be granted or approved for any new smoking lounge or smoke shop in any zoning districts or lands within the City.
SECTION 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, any person who lawfully holds or held a permit, license, or land use entitlement for an existing and lawfully operating smoking lounge or smoke shop in the City of Hughson as of March 25, 2024, and is otherwise in compliance with applicable laws, may continue to lawfully operate under that permit, license, and/or entitlement, and may apply for the renewal of any such permit, license, or entitlement, which renewal may be approved or denied by the City under the standards governing such permit, license, and/or entitlement under existing law.
SECTION 4. Nothing herein shall limit the authority of the City to revoke or suspend any existing license, permit, or entitlement as authorized under existing law.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in effect from the date of adoption for a period of fortyfive (45) days, unless it is extended pursuant to Government Code section 65858(a) or other applicable law, as approved by the City Council.
SECTION 6. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the validity of any particular portion thereof.
SECTION 7. The City Council finds that this Urgency Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The City Council further finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15061(b)(3) that this interim Urgency Ordinance is nonetheless exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
SECTION 8. Definitions
As used herein, the following definitions shall apply:
A. "Person" shall mean any individual natural person, firm, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation,
1770419-1
3 estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
B. Smoking lounge” means a business establishment that permits the smoking of tobacco or other combustible substances on site, including, but not limited to, establishments commonly known as cigar lounges, hookah bars/cafes, tobacco clubs, or smoking parlors.
C. “Smoke shop” means a retailer whose main purpose is the sale of smoking and/or tobacco products, including, but not limited to, cigars, pipe tobacco, tobacco paraphernalia, and smoking accessories for off-premises consumption at a retail establishment that devotes more than fifteen (15%) percent of its total floor area to the display and sale of smoking, drug, and/or tobacco paraphernalia. As used within this definition, the term “tobacco paraphernalia” includes electronic cigarettes and electronic vapor devices.
SECTION 9. This ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City or any officer or employee thereof a mandatory duty of care toward persons and property within or without the city so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law.
SECTION 10. This Ordinance is an urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858 and shall take effect immediately pursuant to Government Code section 36937(b).
SECTION 11. Within fifteen (15) days after its passage, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in full in accordance with California Government Code section 36933.
On motion of Councilmember _________________________, seconded by ___________________________, the foregoing Ordinance was passed by a 4/5 vote of the City Council of the City of Hughson at a regular meeting held on March 25th, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
_________________________________
GEORGE CARR, Mayor
City of Hughson
ATTEST:
_______________________________
ASHTON GOSE
City Clerk, City of Hughson
Meeting Date: April 8, 2024
Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-10, Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Financial Services for the Development of a Comprehensive User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan, and Development Impact Fee Study
Enclosure: Draft Professional Services Agreement Including Exhibits Presented By: Kim Weimer, Director of Finance & Admin. Services Staff Recommendations:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2024-10, approving a professional services agreement with Willdan Financial Services for a User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan, and a Development Impact Fee Study.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Willdan Financial Services inclusive of any final edits by the City Attorney.
Background:
On June 27, 2022, the Hughson City Council approved a project list for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds that were received by the City of Hughson. Included in the list of approved projects was $75,000 set aside to hire a consultant to develop a master fee schedule and cost allocation plan. Many of the fees for services with the City of Hughson have been in effect since 2009. Fiscally this translates to a 39% loss of revenue for the City.
Developing a comprehensive cost allocation plan is crucial in updating our master fee schedule. An updated fee schedule will help ensure that we are adequately funding the cost of essential staff to deliver these services effectively.
Discussion:
The purpose of the user fee study is to identify the total cost of providing each City service at the appropriate activity level and in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws, statues, rules, and regulations governing the collection of fees, rates, and charges by public entities. The City needs to compare its service costs with existing recovery levels. This will also include any service areas where the City is currently charging for services, as well as areas where perhaps the City should charge, in light of the City’s historical practices, or the practices of similar or neighboring cities.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.2
SECTION 6: NEW BUSINESS
The purpose of the cost allocation plan is to ensure that the City has a basis of applying comprehensive overhead rates and is accurately accounting for the true cost of providing various services by each department. A full cost allocation plan allocates all indirect costs.
Furthermore, best practices, accounting standards and OMB 2 CFR Part 225 make it necessary for the City to maintain a well-documented cost allocation plan to appropriately allocate general and administrative costs in its budget; properly identify overhead rates that can be used in the calculation of billable hourly rates for federal and state grants, user fees, and reimbursements from other governmental agencies.
Lastly, the development fee study will provide the required nexus between the impact created by new development and the amount of the fees. In addition, the fee study will also quantify the projected burden that a new development will create on the City’s infrastructure. Public infrastructure includes roads, schools, parks, recreational facilities, water & sewer, among other services. Staff recommends the City commission the development impact fee study along with the user fee study and cost allocation plan to provide a comprehensive update.
On January 3, 2024, staff posted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan and Development Impact Fee Study.
The City received two proposals, one from Willdan Financial Services, and one from Matrix Consulting Group. Staff have reviewed both proposals and are recommending using Willdan Financial Services. This recommendation is based not only from a financial perspective but also from the depth of experience of the staff who will be providing the services as well as positive references provided from other cities who hired Willdan to provide similar services for them.
Fiscal Impact:
If this item is approved, a budget increase will be made in Fund 380 (ARPA Fund) for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 in the amount of $58,861, which includes $5,351 for contingencies.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Professional Services Agreement ("Agreemenf') is entered into by and between the City of Hughson, a California municipal corporation ("CiQ') and Willdan Financial Services.
RECIT ALS
Whereas, City has determined that it requires the following professional services from Consultant: Comprehensive User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan and Development Impact Fee Whereas, Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such professional services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees; and Whereas, Consultant further represents that it is willing to accept responsibility for performing such services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, City and Consultant agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1. "Scope of Services": Such professional services as are set forth in Consultant's proposal to City attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.2. "Approved Fee Schedule": The compensation rates set forth in Consultant's fee schedule to City attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.3. "Schedule of Services": The schedule that identifies when certain services, work and other items are to be completed and delivered to City attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement will commence on May 1, 2024 and will expire on October 31, 2024, unless terminated sooner in accordance with Section 15 of this Agreement; provided, however, this Agreement may be renewed at the option of City by written notice to Consultant at least thirty (30) calendar days before expiration of any term, of its intention to renew this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement requires City to renew or extend this Agreement. 1 1698041-1
3. CONSULTANT'SSERVICES
3.I Consultant shall perform the services identified in the Scope of Services ("Services"). City shall have the right to request, in writing, changes in the Services. Any such changes mutually agreed upon by the parties, and any corresponding increase or decrease in compensation, shall be incorporated by a written amendment or change order to this Agreement.
3.2 Consultant shall perform all Services to the professional standards of Consultant's profession.
Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including the conflict of interest provisions of Government Code Section 1090 and the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.).
3.3 During the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall disclose to City any financial, business, or other relationship with City or any third-party that may have an impact upon the outcome of this Agreement or any ensuing City construction project. The Consultant shall also disclose to City Consultant's current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this Agreement or any ensuing City construction project which will follow.
3.4 Consultant warrants that this Agreement was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks, or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any City employee.
3.5 Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the Services. All Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the Services shall be fully qualified and authorized to perform it under federal, state and local laws.
3.6 Nothing contained in this Agreement or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation between City and any consultant or contractor or agent of Consultant (each, a "Subconsultanf'), and no subagreement shall relieve Consultant of its responsibilities and obligations hereunder. Consultant agrees to be as fully responsible to City for the acts and omissions of its Subconsultant(s) and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Consultant. Consultant's obligation to pay its Subconsultants is independent from City's obligation to make payments to the Consultant.
3.7 Consultant shall perform the Services with resources available within its own organization and no portion of the Services shall be subcontracted without the prior written authorization of City, except that which is expressly identified in the Approved Fee Schedule.
3.8 All sub-agreements entered into by Consultant as a result of this Agreement shall contain al) the provisions stipulated in this Agreement to be applicable to Subconsultants unless otherwise noted.
3.9 AnysubstitutionofSubconsultant(s)mustbeapprovedinwritingbyCitypriortothestartofwork by the Subconsultant(s).
2 1698041-1
4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES.
Additional work may be required by City in connection with the Services. Such additional work shall be performed as set forth in a written amendment to this Agreement. Each amendment providing for additional work must list the scope of the additional services to be performed, state the time within which they are to be completed, delineate any special conditions, and state the compensation in accordance with the terms provided in Section 5 of this Agreement.
5. COMPENSATION, ALLOWABLE COSTS, AND
5.1. All payments by City to Consultant as required
fee or hourly rate.
PAYMENTS
under this Agreement will be based on a fixed
5.2. City will pay to Consultant as consideration for all Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement an amount not-to-exceed fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred and sixty one DOLLARS ($58,861 ) which includes a 1 0% contingency fee ($9,945 - Cost Allocation Plan, $26,885 Comprehensive User Fee Study, $16,680 Development Impact Fee Study, and $5,351 Contingency).
5.3 Consultant will submit monthly invoices to City, specifying Services completed. Each jllyj(,B must itemize the services rendered during the billing period and the amount due. " Monthly invoices shall include the following information:
5.4.1 5.4.2
5.4.3 5.4.4
City Agreement number.
Direct Labor charges billed by class of employee, rate per hour and number of hours.
Overhead charges, as applicable.
Indirect Costs related to travel, lodging, meals and incidental charges as described in the Approved Fee Schedule.
Any additional direct or indirect costs not specifically identified in this Agreement must be approved by City before any request for reimbursement can be made by Consultant.
5.5 City shall notify Consultant, in writing, of any disputed amounts included on the invoice. City shall pay all undisputed amounts included on the invoice. City shall not withhold applicable taxes or other authorized deductions from payments made to Consultant.
5.6 City is not obligated to pay any invoice submitted 180 days or more after a Product is shipped or Services are completed.
5.7. City shall not advance Consultant for any costs in the performance of this Agreement. City shall pay Consultant for any reimbursable costs upon 1 ) providing proper supporting documentation for the cost in its monthly billings and 2) completion of the activity in which the cost was incurred by the Consultant.
5.8. City will make best efforts to reimburse Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an acceptable invoice approved by the City. City shall notify Consultant, in writing, of any disputed 3 1698041-1
amounts included on the invoice. City shall pay all undisputed amounts included on the invoice. City shall not withhold applicable taxes or other authorized deductions from payments made to Consultant
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE
Consultant will perform and deliver the Services according to the Schedule of Services. The Schedule of Services may be extended by the written consent of Consultant and City and only in the event that such extension is necessary due to significant revisions to the Services or the Schedule of Services (or both) caused by City or other reviewing agency.
7. FAILURE TO MAKE REASONABLE PROGRESS
City reserves the right to suspend reimbursement in the progress in the performance or the delivery, or both, of the
8. OWNERSHIP OF WRITTEN PRODUCTS
event Consultant fails to make reasonable
Services.
All reports, documents or other written material ("written products") developed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City. However, the written products are not intended or represented to be suitable For reuse by City on extensions of the Services or any other project. Any reuse without written verification or adaptation by Consultant for the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. Consultant may take and retain copies of such written products as desired, but no such written products shall be the subject or a copyright application by Consultant.
9. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES
Consuitant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor and not an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise to act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not represent that it is, or any Subconsultant is, or that any of Consultant's or Subconsultant's agents or employees are, in any manner employees of City.
10. CONFIDENTIALITY
All data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without prior written consent by City. Upon request, all City data shall be returned to City upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement, provided Consultant may retain an archival copy of such data for its project files subject to confidential treatment.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
11.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims and losses, costs or expenses for any damage due to death or injury to any person and injury to any property that 4 1698041-1
arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, orwillful misconduct of the Consultant, or any of its officers, employees, servants, or Subconsultants in the performance (or non-performance) of the Services or this Agreement (or both). Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by counsel of City's choice.
112. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any compensation due Consultant under this Agreement any amount due City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to pay City promptly any indemnification arising under this Section 11 or related to Consultant's failure to: (i) pay taxes on amounts received pursuant to this Agreement, or (ii) comply with applicable workers' compensation laws, or (iii) both (i) and (ii).
11.3. ConsultantagreestoobtainexecutedindemnityagreementsfromeachandeverySubconsultant or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of the Services whereby each Subconsultant or other person or entity involved in the performance of the Services agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City to the same or greater extent as Consultant has agreed to indemnity, defend, and hold harmless City as set forth in this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims and losses, costs or expenses for any damage due to death or injury to any person and injury to any property resulting from any negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant's Subconsultants or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of the Services or this Agreement (or both). Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by counsel or City's choice.
11.4. The obligations of Consultants under this Section 1l will not be limited by the provisions of any workers' compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
11.5. City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may possess against Consultant because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant's obligations to defend, hold harmless, and indemnity City will apply regardless or whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense.
12. INSURANCE
12.1. Consultant will not commence the Work until all insurance required pursuant to this Agreement is obtained at Consultant's own expense. Consultant must furnish certification of insurance within five (5) days afier this Agreement is executed and prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Such insurance must have the approval of City as to limit, form and amount. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant must carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect insurance against claims for death or injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with 5 1698041-1
Consultant's performance of the Work or this Agreement (or both). Such insurance shall be of the types and in the amounts as set forth below:
12.1.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance for bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides limits of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) annual aggregate as respects products/completed operations if applicable.
a. Coverage must include:
1 Premises and Operations;
2 Broad Form Property Damage;
3 Products and Completed Operations;
4 Contractual Liability;
5 Personal Injury & Advertising Liability;
6 Independent Contractor's Liability;
(7 Cross Liability and Severability of Interest.
b. Suchinsurancemustincludethefollowingendorsements,copiesofwhichmustbe provided to City:
(1) Inclusion of City and their directors, officers, representatives, agents and employees as additional insured as respects to Consultant's services or operations under this Agreement;
(2) Waiver of Subrogation in favor of City and their directors, officers, representatives, agents and employees; and
(3) Stipulation that the insurance is primary insurance and that no insurance or self-insurance of the City will be called upon to contribute to a loss.
12.1.2Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provideslimits ofliability of not less than One Million Dollars ($I,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence applicable for all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles.
12.1.3 Statutory Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance For not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident applicable to Employers' Liability coverage for all employees engaged in services or operations under this Agreement. The policy must include Broad Form All States/Other States coverage. Coverage must be specifically endorsed to include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in favor of City and their directors, officers, representatives, agents and employees, a copy of which will be provided to City.
12.1.4 Professional Liability Insurance for damages arising out of Consultant's acts, errors or omissions. The policy must provide a coverage limit of not less than Two Million Dollars 6 1698041-1
($2,000,000) per claim/aggregate as respects Consultant's services under this Agreement. Such insurance must be maintained for a period of not less than two (2) years following completion of services.
12.1.5 Cyber Coveraqe For damages arising out of Consultant's use of data network that may be subject to cyber security breaches, privacy breaches, and hacking attacks. The policy must provide a coverage limit of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per claim/aggregate as respective Consultant's services under this Agreement for Network Security and Privacy Liability. Such insurance must be maintained for a period of not less than two (2) years following completion of services.
12.1.6 Umbrella/Excess Liability insurance on an occurrence basis in excess of the underlying insurance described above which is at least as broad as each and every one of the underlying policies. The policy must provide coverage limits of not less than $5,000,000 (each claim), $5,000,000 (general aggregate), and $5,000,000 (products & completed operations aggregate). Umbrella limits may be used to satisfy limit requirements as long as the total amount of insurance is not less than the limits specified in this Agreement.
12.2. Consultant shall require each of its Subconsultants to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Agreement.
12.3. The policy or policies required by this Agreement shall be issued by an admitted insurer or an approved insurer with the Surplus Line Association in the State of California and with a rating of at least A:VII in the latest edition of AM Best's Insurance Guide.
12.4. Consultant agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and effect, City may (in addition to any other remedy provided by this Agreement, law, or equity) either: (i) immediately terminate this Agreement; or (ii) take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Consultant's expense, the premium thereon.
12.5. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain on file with City a certificate or certificates of insurance showing that the aforesaid policies are in effect in the required amounts and naming City and its officers, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insureds.
Consultant shall, prior to commencement ofwork under this Agreement, file with City such certificate(s).
12.6. Consultantshallprovideproofthatpoliciesofinsurancerequiredhereinexpiringduringtheterm of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Such proof will be furnished at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of the coverages.
12.7. AIIpoliciesmustbeendorsedtoprovidetheCitywiththirty(30)calendardayspriorwrittennotice of any cancellation, reduction, or material change in coverage. Notices, including evidence of 7 1698041-1
insurance, must be forwarded to:
City of Hughson
Pa Box 9
Hughson, CA 95326
Consultant will submit certifications confirming that the insurance has been renewed and continues in place.
12.8. The insurance provided by Consultant shall be primary to any coverage available to City. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City and/or its officers, employees, agents or volunteers, shall be in excess of Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
12.9. All insurance coverage provided pursuant to this Agreement shall not prohibit Consultant, and Consultant's employees or Subconsultants, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss.
Consultant hereby waives all rights of subrogation against City.
12.10. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City
12.11. Procurement of insurance by Consultant shall not be construed as a limitation of Consultant's liability or as full performance of Consultant's duties to indemnify, hold harmless and defend under the terms of this Agreement.
13. MUTUAL COOPERATION
13.L CityshallprovideConsultantwithallpertinentdata,documentsandotherrequestedinformation as is reasonably available for the proper performance of Consultant's services under this Agreement.
Consultant shall be entitled to reasonably rely upon the accuracy and completeness of such information and materials, provided that Consultant shall provide City prompt written notice of any known defects in such information and materials.
13.2. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance in connection with this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance that City may require.
14. NOTICES
Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be deemed received on: (i) the day of delivery if delivered by hand, facsimile or overnight courier service during Consultant's and City's regular business hours; or (ii) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail if delivered by mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses listed below (or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing).
8 1698041-1
If to City: If to Consultant:
City of Hughson
PO Box 9
Hughson, CA 95326
Attn: City Manager
(209) 883-4054
15. SURVMNG COVENANTS
Willdan Financial Services
27368 Via Industria, Ste 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Attn: Chris Fisher
(951) 587-3500
The parties agree that the covenants contained in Section 10, Section 11, and Section 13.2 of this Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
16. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION
16.1 ConsultantshallbeliableforanyandalllossanddamagessustainedbyCityasaresultofdelays resulting from any breach of this Agreement by Consultant.
16.2. If at any time City shall have reasonable doubt that Consultant has the ability to perform or complete the Services in the time and manner hereunder set forth because of Consultant's financial condition, or insufficient manpower, equipment, or materials, Consultant shall immediately furnish adequate assurance of its ability to perform satisfactorily to City. The failure of Consultant to furnish such assurance shall be deemed an event of default of this Agreement.
16.3 All of the following shall constitute events of default, which is not an exclusive list:
46.3.1 Consultant's failure to perform in full or in material part any or all of its obligations under this Agreement.
16.3.2 The filing against Consultant of an involuntary petition seeking to declare Consultant a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code if such involuntary petition is not dismissed within thirty (30) days after Tiling, or the granting of an order of relief against Consultant by the Bankruptcy Court, the commission of any act of insolvency, or making of an assignment for benefit of creditors without City's consent, or if for any cause a receiver shall be appointed for Consultant or Consultant's assets or interests under this Agreement.
16.3.3 Any act or omission by Consultant that would provide a basis for any claim by City against Consultant under applicable law, whether for damages or other legal remedy.
16.4 Should City terminate this Agreement due to the default of Consultant, Consultant shall owe as a debt to City all money damages sustained by City, including without limitation the following:
@ Any increased cost required to complete Services of the terminated Consultant. g
1698041-1
* Any delay damages, including increased bank penalties or interest and all other financial damage, caused by delay in completion of Services due to replacement of Consultant. * All other costs and damages sustained by City due to any default of Consultant.
16.5 If City, in its subjective good faith judgment, determines that the Services has been improperly performed, has caused delay, or has caused damages to other work performed by Other Consultants, and if Consultant refuses or for any reason is unable to correct or pay for the improper Services, damage, or cost of delay, City may correct or pay for the correction of the improper Services, damages, or cost of delay and charge the costs to Consultant, which costs may be deducted from any monies owed by City to Consultant.
16.6 City may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason by written notice to Consultant.
Effective on receipt of such notice of termination from City, Consultant will cease all Services unless otherwise directed by City in writing. Upon such termination, Consultant may submit an invoice or invoices to City in amounts which represent the compensation specified herein for Services actually performed to the date of such termination and for which Consultant has not been previously compensated. Upon payment of the amount due, City will be under no further obligation to Consultant, financial or otherwise, and it is agreed that Consultant will not have any claim and will not be entitled to recover monetary damages for lost or anticipated profits for remaining work or for lost or anticipated profits based in any way on forgoing or not seeking, bidding or entering into other contracts or projects in reliance upon this Agreement.
17. GENERAL PROVISIONS
17.1. Consultant shall not delegate, transfer, or assign its duties or rights hereunder, either in whole or in part, without City's prior written consent, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no effect.
City shall not be obligated or liable under this Agreement to any party other than Consultant.
17.2. The captions and headings in this Agreement are intended to be descriptive only and for convenience in reference in this Agreement. Should there be any conflict between the Heading and the specific content of a section or paragraph, the specific content of the section and paragraph shall control and govern in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Masculine or feminine pronouns shall be substituted for the neuter form and vice versa, and the plural shall be substituted for the singular form and vice versa, in any place or places herein in which the context requires such substitution(s).
17.3. The waiver by City or Consultant of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. No term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by City or Consultant unless in writing.
10 1698041-1
17.4. Each right, power and remedy provided for herein or now or hereafter existing at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other right, power, or remedy provided for herein or now or hereafter existing at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise. The exercise, the commencement of the exercise, or the forbearance of the exercise by any party of any one or more of such rights, powers or remedies shall not preclude the simultaneous or later exercise by such party of any of all of such other rights, powers or remedies. In the event legal action shall be necessary to enforce any term, covenant or condition herein contained, the party prevailing in such action, whether reduced to judgment or not, shali be entitled to its reasonable court costs, including accountants' fees, if any, and attorneys' fees expended in such action. The venue for any litigation shall be Stanislaus County, California.
17.5. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, then such term or provision shall be amended to, and solely to, the extent necessary to cure such invalidity or unenforceability, and in its amended form shall be enforceable. In such event, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
17.6. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
17.7. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. In the event or any material discrepancy between the express provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of any document incorporated herein by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. This instrument contains the entire agreement between City and Consultant with respect to the transactions contemplated herein. No other prior oral or written Agreements are binding upon the parties. Amendments to this Agreement and change orders shall be effective and binding only if made in writing and executed by City and Consultant.
17.8 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original for all purposes, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. A signed copy of this Agreement delivered by email shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City and Consultant each shall deliver original counterparts to the other on or before FIFTEEN (15) days from the date hereof.
City Wildan Financial Services
BY: BY:
Name:
Dominique Romo
City Manager
Title:
11 1698041-1
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[to be attached]
12 1698041-1
City of Hughson, California
e. Scope of Work Comprehension
f)roject Methodologies
The following describes our proposed approach, and work plan to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan, and an optional Development Impact Fee Review.
Cost Allocation Plan Methodology
The purpose of this cost allocation plan engagement is to ensure that the City is maximizing the allowable recovery of indirect overhead costs from identified operating departments, as well as enterprise and other chargeable funds.
A sound cost allocation plan is also a foundational element in the development of internal hourly rates, including position billing rates. We will work closely with staff in identifying the proper balance of allocation factors appropriate for the City so that the City has a method of identifying and distributing administrative costs that is fair, comprehensive, well documented and fully defensible.
We will work collaboratively with City Staff in the development of this model to verify that our assumptions are sound and accurate, given specific City characteristics. Further, we will ensure that appropriate allocation factors are selected for various City functions and enterprises to ensure that the overall allocation strategy is tailored for the City of Hughson. Cost allocation studies should be simple in concept and form. Our plans are not over-complicated, can be easily understood by non-finance-oriented individuals, and are readily presentable to elected officials, appointed finance committees and the public.
We deliberately design our cost allocation models to quickly and easily transition from a simple model to a progressively more inclusive plan. The logical step-by-step presentation of our plans fosters confidence in their results and facilitates adoption and implementation.
The allocation models utilize an iterative method which is the most accurate allocation methodology. Unlike a direct or "step-down" methodology, an iterative method uses the chosen distribution bases and allocates central service costs iteratively until all allocable costs have been distributed. Using this method, the model can detail the allocation for each central function individually for complete transparency and accountability, while removing bias that might result from the order in which allocations occur in a step-down approach.
A direct methodology is essentially a one-iteration methodology, while a step-down method is typically only two iterations and is less precise and unable to accurately track the allocations from start to finish.
Approach for Managing the Project
Willdan's "hands-on" supervision of Cost Allocation Plan studies, include the following methods:
Effective Project Management - Principal-in-Charge Chris Fisher will manage the entire project with an eye toward high responsiveness, while ensuring that all stakeholders are "on board" with the direction of the project, as well as with the final results. Mr. Fisher will ensure that regular status updates are provided to City staff, conference calls are scheduled, and that in-person meetings are conducted (as necessary).
Adherence to Time Schedule - Willdan recognizes that the use of "timelines" is highly effective in meeting all required deadlines. To keep the project on schedule, there are several tasks that must be completed in a timely manner.
Therefore, we will present a project timeline at the kick-off meeting that should be closely followed.
Approach in Communicating with the City
Willdan staff is accustomed to interfacing with local government councils, boards, staff, community organizations, and the public in general in a friendly and helpful manner; we are always mindful that we represent the public agency.
We are sensitive to the need of delivering a quality product, with the highest level of service and professionalism. Therefore, as the work on the project progresses, we understand that it will be necessary for our staff to work closely with you and City personnel. To accomplish this, we employ a variety of tools, including monitoring project status and budget costs; and ensuring effective communication through several options that are based on the City's preferences.
Experience with Development Service Processes
A unique aspect of our firm is our relationship with our Engineering Division. For many agencies throughout California and other Western states, this division provides contracted services in planning, engineering, and building and safety. When conducting cost recovery studies, we regularly consult with our engineering and land-development staff of experts on development-related issues. By working with our planners, engineers, and building officials, we understand developmentrelated agency service procedures and workflow functions, which often make the entire user fee study process smoother for your staff.
W"WILLDAN COStAllocation Plan, Comprehensive user Fee stuoy, and Optional Development Impact Fee PeVieW City of Hughson, California
Comprehensive User Fee Study Methodology
To comprehensively update fees, the City should develop a comprehensive user fee schedule that accurately accounts for the true cost of providing services. Once the study is complete, the fee study model must be flexible so that the City can add, delete, and revise fees in the future. To meet this goal, we will bring our expertise and unique perspectives to your fee study by approaching the project with these three principles:
1) Defensibility
Our user fee projects have not been legally challenged since the inception of this practice area in our firm. We have accomplished this by closely working with legal counsel familiar with user fee studies, our engineering division and with agency staff. In this way, we can tailor the correct approach to ensure full cost recovery combined with a sound and reasonable basis for each user fee you implement.
While Proposition 218 does not directly apply to non-property-related fees, we employ principles from this important constitutional article to make certain that your user fee and rate schedule is developed with fairness, equity, and proportionate cost recovery principles in mind. With the addition of Proposition 26, Willdan will review each analyzed user fee for compliance and appropriateness to ensure continued defensibility. 2) Project and Staff Time
The City must have a sound and technically defensible fee schedule to ensure costs are appropriately recovered, as applicants approach the City For its services. Our standards and approaches serve to get to the issues of your fee study quickly.
Starting with the project kick-off, we will make certain that your staff understands the purpose and scope of the study and its corresponding on-site departmental interview. As Willdan is able to communicate directly with the service providers, this face-to-face interaction provides valuable time estimates. 3) Pesponsiveness
We take great pride in providing responsive service to our client agencies. Frequent communication is critical to a successful user fee study experience. We will provide a list of data requirements in advance of the project kick-off so that the introductory meeting can focus on the survey input process, answering questions, determining policy goals, and defining next steps in the project. We will follow up weekly with you at each step in the fee study process to make sure that staff "buys in" to the fee study approach and results.
Approach
Our approach to preparing the user fee study and documentation for Hughson includes:
Close coordination with your staff to devise a consensus approach. Different programs and/or different service delivery methods will necessitate different approaches. We will discuss specific pros and cons with City staff as we determine which methods work best for each fee category;
Strict adherence to key legal and policy issues with regard to user fees, including the percent of cost recovery that the City seeks to achieve. A user fee shall not be set higher than the reasonable cost of providing a fee-generating service.
Our approach provides you with a fee schedule that achieves maximum legal cost recovery while ensuring that each fee is supported by technically defensible documentation; and Technical analysis necessary to ensure State compliance, and to anticipate and resolve potential policy issues using a combination of industry standards as well as City specific methods.
As described below, there are two basic approaches to calculating user fees:
Approach 1: Case Study Method
This is also sometimes referred to as a cost build-up approach. Using a time and materials approach, the "Case Study Method" examines the tasks, steps and City staff involved in providing a particular 'unit' of service, such as a permit review, and then uses that information to develop estimates of the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. It is ofien used when a service is provided on a regular basis, and staff and other costs associated with the service can be segregated from available budget data.
A typical case study fee model should comprise the following three general cost layers:
1) Central Services Overhead: This category may involve such costs as labor, services, and supplies that benefit more than one department, division, or project. The exact benefits to specific areas are impossible to ascribe to a single activity.
Examples are purchasing, human resources, and liability insurance. As part of the user fee study, these costs are calculated in the overhead cost review.
dWILLDAN COStAllocation Plani Comprehensive USer tee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee PeVieW City of Hughson, California
2) Department Overhead: This category may include expenses related to such items as office supplies, outside consultants, and membership dues. It may include management, supervision, and administrative support that are not provided to a direct feegenerating service. Typically, these items are charged, on an itemby-item basis, directly to the department, division, or project. 3) Personnel Costs: This category refers to direct salary and benefit costs of staff hours spent on providing a fee-generating service (e.g., on-site building inspector).
Approach 2: Average Cost Method
This is also sometimes referred to as a programmatic approach, because it looks at costs at a program level, and then allocates them to participants on an occurrence basis. By taking total service costs across a substantial sample period (a year) and dividing by the total number of service units delivered over that same period, costs per unit of service is estimated. This approach is useful when services or programs are provided in a more aggregate manner, where it might be difficult to identify a specific sequence of steps associated with one user or participant; or where it is not feasible to costeffectively segregate costs associated with specific activities.
Overhead
Optional Development Impact Fee Review Methodology
The objective of this project is to review the City's development impact fees. This will include the categories charged, the legal basis for the current fees, and fees charged in comparable jurisdictions, while meeting the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 to 66025). The resulting Feeswill fund new development's share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.
Summary Approach
To accomplish the City's objective, Willdan will meet with City staff and review documents to understand the current development impact fees and how they are used, as well as understand any capital needs currently unfunded by impact fees that could be added to the City's fee program. Willdan will also bring the City information for comparable jurisdictions and statewide to understand new fees that could be charged. Finally, Willdan will evaluate the current fee program and its compliance with state law (AS 1600), especially nexus, proportionality, and reporting requirements (such as annual reporting and five year reviews).
Flexibility is important so we can tailor our approach to the available data, and the agency's policy objectives. Our understanding of the technical standards established by statutes and case law suggests that a range of approaches are technically defensible. Consequently, we can address policy obiectives related to the fee program, such as economic development and affordable housing.
fflwiuoxx CostAllocationPlan,ComprehensiveUserFeeStudy,and0ptionalDevelopmentlmpactFeePeview 2J City of Hughson, California
Work Plans
Our proposed work plans, described in detail by task, are provided below. We explain how each task will be accomplished and identify associated meetings and deliverables. We want to ensure our scopes of work provides quality and clarity and is responsive to the City's needs and specific local circumstances. We will work in concert with the City to adjust scopes as needed during the course of the studies.
Cost Allocation Plan
This proposed scope of services addresses the completion of both the full and OMB compliant versions of the Cost Allocation Plan (CAP). We have noted where activities specific to the OMB compliant plan occur.
Objective:
Description:
Initial due diligence.
Prior to the kick-off call, relevant documentation will be obtained and reviewed. As necessary, specific data may be requested to better understand any changes that have occurred withing the City's internal structure since our completion of the previous CAP. A written request for specific data will be sent to the City. The data provided in this task will provide the building blocks for later model development.
Our request may include (but is not limited to):
Detailed budget and accounting data;
Data related to various allocation bases that may be used in the study and incorporated as part of the methodology, i.e., City Council agenda frequencies by department, AP/AR transactions by department, IT equipment distribution by department, etc.;
Prior year's financial data, salary, position, and staffing data; Prior cost allocation plan and/or user fee documentation and models; and Organizational structure.
Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.
City: Provide requested data to Willdan (prior to Task 2, Kick-off Call/Refine Scope). We will follow up with the City to confirm in writing the data that we have received, or which is still outstanding.
Task 2:
Objective: Confirm project goals and objectives. Identify and discuss policy matters related to the study and determine appropriate fee categories.
Description: Willdan will begin this portion of the project with a discussion of the City's exiting Cost Allocation Plan or methodology. We will identify and discuss policy implications typically raised in conjunction with these studies and address data gaps in order to gain a full understanding of the City's goals for the cost allocation plan. We will establish effective lines of communication and processes for information gathering and review. We will also discuss costs that may not be allocable for OMB purposes, and the potential impact on the OMB version of the CAP.
During this call, we will ask that the City assign a project manager to serve as its primary contact. The selected City project manager will ensure that available data is provided to Willdan in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project's schedule.
Meetings:
We will obtain and review the current cost allocation methodology and discuss with City staff. The objective of this review is to determine specific areas of focus as they relate to the City's objectives, and to discuss and evaluate current and potential cost categories, allocation factors, and methodology.
One (1 ) project kick-off conference call to initiate the project, discuss data needs and methodologies and to address policy issues. We would propose conducting the user fee study kick-off during this same call, to maximize efficiency and cost effectiveness of staff and Willdan time.
Deliverables: Willdan: If needed, a revised project scope and schedule.
City: Provide further data requirements and select / introduce City's project manager.
Task 3:
Description: This task involves the gathering of specific information, directly from City staff, through interviews and discussion, related to the functions served by indirect staff and the departments served by their activities. fflwiuoxx Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive user Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee Qeview 22 City of Hughson, California
This task also focuses on the development of, and/or adjustment of existing, allocation bases, and the development and testing of a model that will ultimately be used to calculate the proper cost allocations derived from data gathered in prior tasks.
We will develop a model that reflects current practices and service models and structures within the City and identifies the total costs of providing indirect overhead support services and allocates them to operating groups and functions.
The model will also be developed to allocate only those costs eligible under Title 2 CFR Part 200. This is accomplished by loading relevant data into the model, identifying which costs are not allocable under the OMB guidelines. The OMB Super Circular compliant model is valuable as the City may receive Federal or State grant funding that mandates compliance with Federal OMB regulations.
The model will include flexibility to add or delete support service and/or operating groups as changes occur and also the ability to adjust the model and the results annually for inflation, salary, and benefit increases, as well as contract rates.
We will utilize budget and organizational information, and other required information gathered from City staff to complete the work in this task. Specific discussions will be held to discuss allocation bases, services provided by indirect groups, how central overhead services are provided to and utilized by other departments, cost categories and allocation criteria, and how these will factor into the overall cost allocation methodology.
The model and methodology will produce indirect cost rates and overhead percentages. These rates will be used to develop the full hourly cost of City Staff and will be suitable for a variety of uses, including incorporation into the User Fee Study's fully burdened personnel rates, billing to CIP projects, and in the OMB Super Circular compliant CAP, to Federal grants.
Meetings: Online meetings with staff to understand structure and operations as model and allocation bases are developed. Key staff will be interviewed to best understand central overhead staffing and functions and the departments served.
Deliverables: Willdan:One(1)user-friendlymodelinMicrosoftExcelformatthatprovidesbothafullcostallocationplan and an OMB Super Circular compliant cost allocation plan.
Objective:
Description:
Test and review model and results with City.
The draft cost allocation plan model will be reviewed with City staff, and adjusted as necessary, to ensure that preliminary allocations provide an accurate depiction of how the central overhead costs should be borne by the operating programs and funds.
Meetings:
Over the past several years, we have successfully integrated online meetings by using WebExTM as an element to our approach. This allows us to remotely guide staff through the model review and allows you the opportunity to interactively change inputs and test approaches.
One (1) online meeting and demonstration with City Staff to review the model, and present to the City's management group for feedback.
Deliverables: Willdan and City: Draft cost allocation plan model review.
Objective: Prepare the draft cost allocation report.
Description: This task involves the draft report preparation.
The cost allocation plan's background, model methodologies, and results will be discussed; calculations and supporting data will be presented textually and in easily understood tables and provided to the City.
Meetings: One (1) meeting to present the draft report to City Staff and assist in presenting the results to the City's management group for review and feedback.
Deliverables: Willdan: Draff report for City review and input.
City: Review of draft report, with comments, and edits. #WILLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User Fee Study, and OpLiui ieil Dvvelopment Impact Fee Peview 23 City of Hughson, California
Objective:
Description:
Review of drafi report, cost distribution methods, and model.
An in-depth review of the draft report and model will be conducted to arrive at an optimum allocation method for each expenditure type. Often, through the course of an engagement, comments usually revolve around issues of understandability; appropriate levels of enterprise funds' cost recovery, etc.; ease of calculation; and overhead costs' distribution methods.
Meetings:
Deliverables:
Our reports are structured to include both the full and OMB compliant plan, but in the course of review if a separate report is desired for each or just one of the plans, they will be split.
Following a round of comments from City staff and Management concerning the draft report, the final report will be prepared for presentation to the Council.
One (1 ) conference call with City staff to review the report with changes and revisions.
Draft report, and revised draft/final report.
Objective: Prepare and present the final report to City Council. Educate City staff on the operation and use of the model for future modifications.
Description: This task is the culmination of the cost allocation plan project. Based on staff comments on the draft report, Willdan will prepare the final report for presentation to Finance Director, City Manager, City Staff and City Council.
Meetings: One (1 ) meeting to assist the City's management group with the presentation of the results and plan to the City Council. This meeting would be held in conjunction with the presentation of the User Fee study results.
We will also provide staff instruction on the operation and use of the model.
Deliverables: Willdan: Provide one (1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report, on USB, and models and two (2) bound copies to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules, will also be provided on CD/ROM.
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Task 1: Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence; obtain study-related data.
Description: Prior to the kick-off meeting, we will obtain and review relevant documentation to further enhance our understanding of the services, fees, and rates to be studied. A written request for data will be sent to the City. Please note that Time Survey data is not part of this request and will be gathered during the on-site interviews described in Task 5.
We will request information and documentation on current fees and fee programs, activity levels, and budget and staffing information (to the extent not already available) related specifically to programs and activities which have associated fees, and for which the City has this level of detail.
Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.
City: Provide requested data to Willdan (prior to Task 3, Kick-off Meeting/Refine Scope). As with the cost allocation plan, we will follow up with the City to confirm receipt of requested data and information and highlight data elements that are outstanding.
Objective: Willdan will identify a schedule of fees and methodology for calculating the fees.
Description: Based on the results of the initial document request and independent research, incorporate into our model the existing fees, provided by the City, to comprise the parameters of the fee study.
Meetings: It is possible that a conference call with the City may be necessary to discuss new fees to implement or existing fees that may no longer be required.
Deliverables: Willdan: One (1) draft list of current fees based on initial data provided (to be discussed and finalized during the kick-off call).
City: Review completed fee schedule with comments/revisions to be discussed during the kick-off meeting. dwiuopx Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee Review 24 City of Hughson, California
Objective: Confirm goals and objectives for the User Fee Study. Identify and policy matters typically related to a User Fee Study, address gaps in data, and refine appropriate existing or new fee categories (based on Task 2).
Description: Verify our understanding of the City's goals, the City's cost-recovery policy for user fees, and to fill any gaps in data/information necessary for the project. It is important for the City and Willdan to identify and address any foreseeable problems and maintain open communication throughout the process.
During this call, we will ask that the City identify a project manager who will serve as the primary contact for the project. The project manager shall have responsibility for ensuring that all available data is provided in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project's schedule.
Meetings: One (1) project kick-off call to initiate the entire project, discuss data needs, and address policy implications. This will be held in conjunction with the kick-off for the cost allocation plan. As mentioned in the cost allocation plan work plan, we suggest combining the kick-off calls to increase efficiency. [)eliverables: Willdan: 1) Revised project scope and schedule (if needed); and 2) brief summary of policy decisions (if needed).
City: '1) Provide further data needs; and 2) determine/introduce City's project manager.
Task 4 Develop User Fee Model
Objective: Develop and test model.
Description: This task involves the development of the model ultimately used to calculate the fees, based on data and information gathered in previous tasks and in the Time Survey Interviews described in Task 5. To ensure that City policies are met through the imposition of the calculated fees, the model will be formatted to include appropriate costs.
Key model inputs will include staff and allocated overhead costs per position, and relevant budget data on salaries and benefits. Most of this information will be developed during the cost allocation plan phase of this project and will be incorporated directly into the user fee model. We will request clarification and/or additional data if necessary.
The model will build upon the cost allocation plan results, to provide an allocation of administrative and overhead costs to fee related activities and departments providing services to customers, so that Fees and billable rate schedules incorporate applicable costs. Furthermore, the fees and rates charged to customers will also reflect the cost of the services being provided, to the extent possible given policy and/or political considerations.
Deliverables: Willdan:One(1)user-friendlymodelinMicrosoftExcelFormat,which,whenTinalized,Citystaffcanuseto calculate fee changes annually, or as often as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
Meet with City staff to complete Time Surveys and understand service delivery processes and operations.
Description: In order to assist staff with the completion of the survey worksheets, we will schedule one (1.0) day of meetings with staff; however, the number of meetings needed may vary depending on the number of staff involved.
The Willdan Team will conduct interviews with supervisors/managers, as well as other staff, as deemed appropriate and/or necessary, from each organization involved in the user fee study to determine the average time required by City staff to provide each of the services for which a fee is collected.
The fee model is designed so that full cost recovery fees are calculated immediately upon input of staff time. These full costs are also compared to current cost recovery levels. This will allow Willdan and City staff to conclude with a final meeting to review the draft full cost recovery fees and adjust any times as necessary once all information has been compiled and input into the fee model. We will schedule the interviews with staff to minimize any disruption to their normal workflow.
Meetings: One (1) business day of meetings/staffinterviews. Depending upon circumstances and availability, we may discuss the option with City Staff of conducting these meetings via WebEx or Zoom.
Deliverables: Willdan and City: Time surveys and draft full cost recovery fees. dwiuoxx Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee Peview 25 City of Hughson, California
Objective: Incorporate information obtained from on-site surveys to fully develop model, calculate the full cost of service and compare full cost to current level of cost recovery.
Description: We will update the model, based on information received during the on-site surveys, to generate a comprehensive user fee schedule. In addition, it is very common that a supplemental data request may be necessary, based on new fees identified that the City is not currently collecting. Where appropriate, we will suggest and discuss with staff alternate approaches to existing fee programs (i.e., building fees) and suggest potential areas where fees could be collected where they are not currently.
We will calculate and present the full cost recovery level for fees, both current and projected under the new calculated fees, and revenue projections, given certain assumptions about the levels of subsidy for different fees.
Current levels of cost recovery will be compared to actual full costs calculated during the course of this study. Cost will be calculated at reasonable activity levels and include all appropriate direct and indirect costs and overhead. We will review fee programs for compliance with Propositions 218 and 26 in developing the fee schedule, we will make recommendations for new fees where appropriate, based on our experience with other cities. Some areas for new fees may be due to changes in law (legalized cannabis), or for activities that the City finds itself performing regularly, but for which no fee is collected.
The model will include provision for inflationary adjustments for appropriate costs, i.e., personnel and/or contractor rates associated with fee-based activities.
We will also evaluate deposit-based fees for recommended improvements, deposit levels, or other suitable structures.
The user fee data analysis and model development may take three (3) to four (4) weeks with frequent correspondence with City staff to discuss current cost recovery amounts, necessary to recover full cost and frequency activity.
Meetings: One (1) meeting, as necessary, to gather additional input, complete analysis and finalize fee schedule.
Please see the note in Task 5 regarding in-person meetings.
Deliverables: Final user fee model for City Council presentation and discussion.
Objective: Examine selected user fees charged by up to five (5) comparable cities in Stanislaus County, or jurisdictions that are similar to the City of Hughson. Where practical, we will utilize the same comparisons from the previous study for continuity and consistency.
Description: Wewillaccessanduseourknowledgeofothe2urisdictionstobenchmarktheCity'sfive(5)mostcommon fees or highest yielding fees with comparable jurisdictions agreed.
Fee schedules are rarely readily or directly comparable from agency to agency due to definitional and operational differences. For example, a grading permit in one jurisdiction may include the plan check service, while the same permit in another jurisdiction may not, resulting in similar sounding services with widely varying costs. For this reason, where possible, Willdan will develop comparisons for prototype projects that include applicable fees (i.e., compare the fee burden for a standard residential home, or a 5,000 sq. ft. commercial building) or take a selection of the City's most commonly used and/or highest yielding fees.
The survey will contain the following, a comparison of common or similar fees and charges used by the City and other jurisdictions; current and proposed fees and charges unique to the City of Hughson; fees and charges used by other public entities not currently used in the City; and If possible, identify characteristics and processes unique to the City that account for significant variances in fees and charges used by other jurisdictions.
Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 8 will incorporate the data gathered during our examination.
Task 8: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective:
Description:
Prepare draft report.
This task involves the preparation of the draft report that discusses the study's background, the methodologies utilized in the study, and the results and presentation to various stakeholder groups. As noted below, meetings may occur during this or the next task as appropriate. The calculations used to generate the user fee study will be included textually, as well as in easy-to-understand tables. dwiiiopx COStAllocation Plani Comprehensive USerFee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee PeVieW 26 City of Hughson, California
Individual fee summaries by department and a comprehensive fee schedule will be included.
The draft report will include the following:
n Key results and findings;
s Basic descriptions of each service;
s Projections of potential fee revenue;
a Calculation of full cost of services, with costs broken down graphically into indirect and direct components, with a graphic display of the level of cost recovery a Current fees, as well as fee recommendations with associate levels of cost recovery; n The full cost of each service and current cost recovery levels; s Fee comparisons with other cities from Task 7;
a As appropriate, recommend alternative methodologies for building permit fee calculation; and n Summary and recommendations.
The objective of the report is to communicate the recommendation of appropriate fees, which include the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with City staff and the City's management group, to present draft results, address questions and receive feedback.
Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and comment.
City: Review of drafi report, with comments and edits.
Task 9: Revise Draft Report/Determine Cost Recovery Levels for Recommended Adoption Objective: Review of draff report and fee model.
Description: The goal of this task is to conduct an in-depth review of the draft report and model, incorporate feedback from Task 8, and changes as a result of previous discussions, and arrive at an optimum fee structure.
Often through the course of an engagement, City staff will volunteer insightful likes and dislikes regarding the existing fee structure. We listen to this feedback carefully because your staff members know the community best. Comments usually revolve around issues of:
Understandability;
Meetings:
Deliverables:
s Fairness to applicants;
ffl Ease of calculation;
s Appropriate levels of cost recovery; and
a Full cost recovery hourly rates.
When adjusting fee recovery levels, we believe it is important to address these concerns.
Following one (1 ) round of comments and feedback from City staff on the draft report, we will prepare the final report for presentation to the City Council.
One (1 ) online demonstration (WebEx) to review the report and model, with any revisions.
Draft report, revised draft /final report.
Objective: Prepare and present final report to City Council. Instruct staff on the operation and use of the model for future modifications.
Description: This task is the culmination of the entire project. Based on staff comments received regarding the draft report, we will prepare the final report for presentation.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with the City Council to present the results and adopt the updated fee schedule. One (1) meeting with City Staff to provide instruction on the operation and use of the model on the same day, during regular business hours. We will also consult with the City as necessary to address questions related to the User Fee Study, or to defend the Study as the result of a challenge.
Deliverables: Provide one (1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report, on USB, and models and two (2) bound copies to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules, will also be provided on CD/RO MWILLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee Review 27 , City of Hughson, California
Optional Development Impact Fee Review
Willdan will work with the City to update its impact fees consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and other relevant laws.
The City's Development Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared in 2006 the firm of Bartle Wells. Willdan willreviewthe2006study,andtheCity'sannualandfive-yearABl600reports. OnceWilldanhasreviewed the documents it will meet with the City to discuss them and any other concerns.
Willdan will review the data sources used for preparation of the 2006 report, including demographics and cost estimates. Willdan will make recommendations for changes in data, if appropriate.
Task 3: Review Methodology
Willdan will review the methodology of the 2006 report, including the determination of nexus, allocation to new development and which calculation methods used to arrive at fees in each category.
Task 4: Meet with Staff to Discuss Findings and Recommended Changes Based on the review of the items identified in Task I through Task 3, Willdan will attend a meeting with City of staff to discuss findings.
Task 5: Provide Written Review of Current Fee Program and Recommended Updates and/or Additional Fee Categories to Implement
Based on previous tasks provide a written review of the existing impact fee program, and any recommended changes to the fee methodology, or additional impact fee categories to examine further.
Task 6: Attend Meeting
Attend a meeting with the City on the findings of Willdan's analysis and discuss next steps.
City Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City staff. We suggest that the City of Hughson assign a key individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the City's project manager will:
1) Coordinate responses to requests for information;
2) Coordinate review of work products; and
3) Help resolve policy issues.
Willdan will endeavor to minimize the impact on City staff in the completion of this project. We will ask for responses to initial information requests in a timely manner. If there are delays on the part of the City, we will contact the City's project manager to steer the project back on track. We will keep the City's project manager informed of data or feedback we need to keep the project on schedule.
MWILLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive Llser Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee Qeview 28
EXHIBIT B
APPROVED FEE SCHEDULE
[to be attached]
13 1698041-1
City of Hughson, California
f. Proposed Fees
Fixed Fees
Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan") proposes a fixed fee of $36,830 for the Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan engagement.
Willdan Financial Services ("Willdan") proposes a fixed fee of $53,510 for the Comprehensive User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan, and optional Development Impact Fee Review engagement.
Cost Allocation Plan
Willdan Financial Services proposes a fixed fee of $9,945 for the Full Cost Allocation Plan.
I
€1f WIPff['4if i!'Ql t t 1, -
11 IIT li I all III -'
11i Ili IIN' IIqI11f.I
a @ 17 2 .L!.i Ill ffl-I .:
a s s II i 81 a I a s nii I @i a I II a & Fuiiaraii.bi saw lla} .k+lilll %!n: -Nu AK t ml- ' -M 4Ji i. ' iiw+im . . ' MmWmtMWfa&9 I M a "' - " a" " " - . - . ' . ,
ily N vt 110'-'l-l 'l ' Th Iv- l- -' X' T' lffl 111Ti ' ji i ffi I a 1 TIF ' -'1-! I" jljli m 1l'-XF IT l I Ill"l T I'nl ! T IlFnNl1Tl"" Im T ll " l"'I r '!" ' Tl nlll ImFII'I 1111' ntnniurnint'iiynx=:i')'TYfl' '-E. "is}ier--T Tirashtr P. Patel S. Latitan R. Quaid
Principal-in- Project Senior Analytical QA/Tech
Charge Nlanager Analst Support Advisor
$ -250 $ -210 $ 135 $ "125 $ 210 HoursCost
Scope of Services
Task 1: Initial Document Request 1.0
Task 2: Kick-off /Refine Scope 1.0 1.0 1.0
Task 3: Gather Staffing Information & Develop CAP Model 1.0 2.0 8.0 8.0 1.0 Task 4: Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology O.5 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 Task 5: Prepare and Present Draft Report O.5 2.0 4.0 6.0 1.0 Task6: Discussand Revise Report O.5 3.0 3.0 2.0
Task 7: Prepare and Present Final Report/Instruct Staff on Model 4.0 3.0 L J t i i _ 0 0 I & a 0 0 0 * i I 0 0 # _ 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 - - _ _
1.0 $ 135
3.0 470
20.0 2,960
10.5 1,680
13.5 2,045
8.51,410
7.0 1,245
l- - - - _ _ _
llal*1@:IaPfiA1llaiatalllalt@RMt !! €'ffl!-!IC?I@W xsss=a=*i+-i Comprehensive User Fee Study
Willdan Financial Services proposes a fixed fee of $26,885 for the Comprehensive User Fee Study. j
IN I a f1P4 ses i1 a ff
J
-l-li: l': @.'l ;
i I 4
I
i
tliIliiIll i l iIt i J
Ia
s :!i! J
i
J i I lai ikii i
;l! rl: jllE €K6 L(I <1..jis rIIa a a a & w M&
I hii.im -ti is- ffi -ffl t t *i :l Thffl Eta !14m M -vt 'j !t!}- 8 -M -W e I . ._ . .. _. _ .. .' . . I I \'t4 rfflV € ' a'Mi i M m ff aWa'M" I iiqsi I l...1. J.. J i ti'mn ThNffiNN11nlTTHfffflTffjT+'jlnNT TlllrlFlF1n!IllffllllnllP'lflTl''!1 P'jlff'' i'lF' C. Fisher"""-'T. Thrasher P. Patel S. Labnan R. Quaid
Principal-in- TechProject Senior AnaJical QA/Tech
_C_h_a_rge Manager Analyst Support Advisor ZQ!U!
7250 $ 210 $ 135 $ "125 $ 210, Hours Cost
Scope of Services
Taskl:InitialDocumentRequest 1.0
Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees 1.0 1.0 Task3: Kick-off/RefineScope 1.0 1.0 1.0
Task 4: Develop user Fee/ Model, Incorporate Overhead 1.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 1.0 Task 5: Time Survey Interviews and Information Gathering 8.0 10.0 8.0 Task 6: Data Analysis and Final Fee and Rate Schedule O.5 6.0 32.0 22.0 1.0 Task7: CommonFeesComparison O.5 1.0 4.0 12.0
Task 8: Prepare and Present Draff Report O.5 2.0 6.0 8.0 1.0 Task 9: Revise Draft/Determine Cost Recovery Levels O.5 3.0 12.0 8.0 Task 10: Prepare and Present Final Report/Train Staff on Model 5.0 4.0 2.0 I
1.0 $ 135
2.0 260
3.0 470
j ;_t.o 3,170
26.0 4,030
61.5 8,665
17.5 2,375
17.5 2,565
23.5 3,375
11.0 1,840
jl a i i ii il _ J i i s s s z i z i z z xi
Mfi1a'Ptal#i-Pal!r!kY € lffiJllffiullffijllli{*NI al:rfla%J4:T=L4 .1.4...4,47 a t i a ir -II - T- I l- " - a-II--II-8' ffi l- H n-J'il-n-1711 W'WILLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive Llser Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee Review CityofHughsonyCalifornia
Optional Development Impact Fee Review
Willdan Financial Services proposes a fixed fee of $16,680 for the Development Impact Fee Review.
Development Impact Fee f?eview Notes:
s The fee denoted above includes attendance at one in-person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council.
Attendance at more than one meeting will be billed at the per meeting fee. Attendance at additional on-site meetings or presentations will be $2,000 per meeting; attendance at additional remote mpp+ings or presentations will be $1,000 per meeting.
Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report, will be classified as Additional Services, and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the hourly rate schedule listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded.
Notes
Our fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project.
We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed.
Additional services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly overhead consulting rates.
City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan 's rates in effect at the time of such response.
The cost of preparing the user fee study can be included in the resulting new user fee schedule. Therefore, over time, the City can recover the initial outlay of funds that was required to complete the studies.
Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City's data and documentation to complete the analysis. Willdan will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy and will not be responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party. dWILlDAN Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee Review 35 EXH BIT C"
SCHEDULE OF WORK
[to be attached]
14 1698041-1
CityofHughsonyCalifornia ,
Project Schedules
Willdan understands time is of the essence for the City of Hughson to begin this engagement. The schedules can only be met with the prompt cooperation of City staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data, policy guidance, clarifications, other information and review will likely result in corresponding delays to the project schedule. If that is the case, we will notify the City immediately of the possible impact on the schedule. It is also important to note that there are statutory requirements for a 60-day waiting period for the implementation of fees related to development, after they've been adopted by the City Council.
Cost Allocation Plan
Scope of Services
Task 1: Initial Document Request
Task 2: Kick-off / Refine Scope (conference call)
Task 3: Gather Staffing Information and Develop Model (conference call) Task 4: Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology (conference cal0 Task 5: Prepare and Present Draft Report (meeting)
Task 6: Discuss and Re*se Report (conference call)
Task 7: Prepare and Present Final Report/Instruct Staff on Model (meeting) 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 I 8 15 22 29
maims
Deliverables:
Information Request
Revised Project Scope and Schedule (if needed)
User-friendly Model in Microsofi Excel
Draft Cost Allocation Plan Model Review
Comprehensive User Fee Study
W 5: Draft Report
86 : Revised Draft Report/Final Report
87 : FinalReport-HardandElectronicCopies
.llffll a iaiii a a s I a z sa
ffii71i Itail r I
iilI: 'i Ji
liWi i iap II IIIJI
Iqtt
iq ) II f !)t' ] =4 l
1, ,i I 4 I
l; ji q U 7
I i*.s+.mm.rmtii.mw-_ebmirmiiiiaiait ( I!AI a 1€ a I gall I a al I h i.iwarm. eiii n!l . . _ ' mam:smrmm '4'!??"'?\'tAX'f!TiV?'Ji!"'!'tS'r)"Plran I'VIflA'aW)l'Y;'i 0:,l)),j: K N 'I!'IW. ffi IN e: I l X l l' il !Xfea" !Rt # t;)if,MIiffi WaUM ta!a Scope of Services
l ffl Jffiii i Jti
r'I b
I'=l s a ffll!. a s z ffT!J='U14s s A-f=l:}m?1111dz n I*rlv 'I'l'll ffl ' -6 -=l 2) 27 -l 'i 0
l..:!:.: 24 18 il5 22 29 5";,!-i-19i
26 2 9 16 23 j:io !...l14i
21 28
aal"""""""""' i llilllllMffllla&ffl""' 11111111111111"""""' iiiniixniiimiiiiiiinniiixiiiiinivmiiiuiid ..l""' .....?" ,,,,,0111111 Task 1: Initial Documen!"-R-equest """""""
Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees Task 3: Kick-off / ReTine Scope (vab meebngrbonference call) Task 4: Develop User Fee Model
Task 5: Tme Survey Infermews and Information Gathering [vab meebngsl Task 8: Date Analysis and Final User Fee Schedule (Web mlgs/conT calls) Task 7: Common Fees Comparison
Task 8: Prepare end Present Draft Report (conrerence cal0 Task 9: Revse Dtafi ReporU[)etetmine Cost Recovery Levels [conMnce call) Task 10: Prepare and Present Final Reporulnslruct Staff on Model (w_b meebng) a@Xl ' -
= iX2
' Z=_:i _ , ,
" : ffiffl=5 , , , , ,,
ma7
-'I:!' - $48
mmaX_;_
. WIO
Deliverables:
81: InTormabonRequest
$12: DraTtListofCutrentFees
X3: RewedProjeclScopeendSchedule(tfiieeded)
X4: User-friendly Model in Microsoft Excel
85: Time Surveys and DtaTt Full Cost Recovery Fees
H 6: DraTt Fee and Rate Model Reyew
X7: Common Fee Comparison
88: DtaTt Report
N 9: Revsed DraTt Report/Final Report
X 10: Final Report - Hard and Electronic Copies
dwiriopx COStAllocation Plani Comprehensive USer Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee PeVieW 32 City of Hughson, California
Optional Development Impact Fee Review
Scope of Services 6 13 20 27 3 10
Task I :
Task 2: Review Data Sources
Task 3: Reiew Methodology
Task 4: Meet with Staff to Discuss Findings and Recommended Changes Task 5: Provide Written Review of Current Fee Program
Task 6: Attend Meeting
Deliverables:
X "I: Written Review or Current Fee Program and Recommended Updates #wiuoqx Cost Allocation Plan, Comprehensive User Fee Study, and Optional Development Impact Fee Review 33
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF HUGHSON
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGHSON
APPROVING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN
FINANCIAL SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A USER FEE STUDY, COST
ALLOCATION PLAN, AND A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the Hughson City Council approved a project list for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds that were received by the City of Hughson; and
WHEREAS, included in the list of approved projects was $75,000 set aside to hire a consultant to develop a master fee schedule and cost allocation plan; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a Request for Proposal process to identify and select a Consultant; and
WHEREAS, the City will use the services of Willdan Financial Services to develop a User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan, and develop a Development Impact Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services has a depth of experience of the staff who will be providing the services as well as positive references provided from other cities who hired Willdan to provide similar services for them; and WHEREAS, the scope of services includes cost allocation plan methodology, comprehensive user fee study methodology, and development impact fee review methodology; compliance with legal requirements and all services rendered, not to exceed $58,861 for the term of this Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hughson does hereby approve the Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Financial Services in an amount not to exceed $58,861 for preparation of a User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan, and a Development Impact Fee Study, attached hereto as Attachment “A” and authorizes the City Manager to sign the agreement, inclusive of any final edits by the City Attorney.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hughson at its regularly scheduled meeting on this 8th day of April 2024 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_____________________
GEORGE CARR, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
ASHTON GOSE, City Clerk
Date: March 26, 2024
To: Clerk to the County Boards of Supervisors for the San Joaquin Valley Clerk to City Council Members of incorporated cities in the San Joaquin Valley County Public Health Officers for the counties in the San Joaquin Valley From: Brian Clements, Director of Permit Services
RE: Annual Air Toxics Report for 2023
As required by State Law, the attached Annual Air Toxics Report for 2023 is being distributed to city and county officials throughout the San Joaquin Valley. A copy of this report is being made available through each County and City Clerk, as well as to all County Public Health Officers in the San Joaquin Valley.
This report describes emissions of toxic air contaminants from Valley facilities, and the actions taken by the District and affected facilities to reduce those emissions. The District is providing you with this report to keep you informed of air toxics issues that may affect you and the communities you serve. An electronic version of this report may be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/air_toxics_annual_reports.htm Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this report or the District’s air toxics programs, please call Seth Lane, Program Manager, at (559) 230-5817.
Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
Attachment: Annual Air Toxics Report for 2023
2023 Annual Report
AIR TOXICS
March 21, 2024
i
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD
CHAIR: VITO CHIESA
Supervisor, Stanislaus County
VICE CHAIR: DEBORAH LEWIS
Councilmember, City of Los Banos
MEMBERS:
GILBERTO REYNA
Councilmember, City of Wasco
ROBERT RICKMAN
Supervisor, San Joaquin County
RUSTY ROBINSON
Supervisor, Kings County
ALEXANDER C. SHERRIFFS, M.D.
Appointed by Governor
AMY SHUKLIAN
Supervisor, Tulare County
LIZ WYNN
Councilmember, City of Visalia
DAVID COUCH
Supervisor, Kern County
ROSA ESCUTIA-BRAATON
Councilmember, City of Modesto
BOBBY MACAULAY Supervisor,
Madera County
BUDDY MENDES
Supervisor, Fresno County
TANIA PACHECO-WERNER, PHD
Appointed by Governor
LLOYD PAREIRA
Supervisor, Merced County
ALVARO PRECIADO
Mayor, City of Avenal
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER:
SAMIR SHEIKH
ii
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program Executive Summary
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) is a public health agency whose mission is to improve the health and quality of life for all Valley residents through efficient, effective and entrepreneurial air quality-management strategies. The District has spent nearly three decades implementing and integrating a wide variety of methods reducing toxic air contaminant emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Based on the latest California Toxics Inventory (CTI) available from CARB, 14% of all air toxics in the Valley are now emitted from stationary sources of pollution under the direct control and regulation of the District, while 52% comes from mobile sources such as cars and trucks, and the remaining 34% is emitted from area-wide sources like road dust, paints, solvents, and other consumer products. Mobile and area-wide sources of emissions are generally under the regulatory authority of the State of California and the federal government.
The District’s integrated approach to addressing and reducing risks from toxic air contaminants has taken three main paths: reducing air toxic emissions from existing stationary sources of emissions; preventing the creation of new or modified stationary sources of significant risk; and finding creative and cooperative methods of reducing risk from emissions sources that the District does not typically regulate. This approach has resulted in dramatic reductions in emissions of air toxics from sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
Under Assembly Bill (AB) 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act), the District works with facilities to quantify emissions of air toxics, determines the health risk caused by those emissions, reports emissions and any significant risks through written public reports and neighborhood public meetings, and as required, takes steps to reduce such risks. As a result of these ongoing efforts, and the resulting emissions reductions, no Valley facility currently poses a significant risk under this program.
The State’s Hot Spots Act, however, is only one part of the District’s comprehensive program to regulate air toxics. To achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness, the District operates an integrated air toxics program that harmonizes local, state, and federal mandates wherever possible.
A number of regulations have also been adopted by the District, the state, and the federal government, and implemented through the District’s integrated air toxics program, to directly reduce existing emissions from specific types of facilities and sources of air toxic contaminants. For example, the toxic air contaminant emissions from emissions sources like dry cleaners, chrome platers, gas stations, and diesel internal combustion engines have drastically decreased in the San Joaquin Valley since the implementation of the District’s air toxic program.
In addition to the above efforts to minimize emissions, the District also performs comprehensive and conservative toxic emission evaluations and air dispersionmodeling before issuing permits to new and modified stationary sources of emissions. This assures the District minimizes the increase those sources add to the existing toxic load and any iii
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program potentially significant public health impacts associated with the release of those airborne toxic emissions.
Under its integrated air toxics program, the District has also implemented numerous methods of reducing emissions from mobile sources and other sources of emissions that the District does not have the authority to regulate. For instance, the District developed the first Indirect Source Review rule in the nation, designed to reduce emissions from construction equipment and mobile sources associated with new land use development projects. The District also provides assistance and guidance to the cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley so that they can be assured that land-use decisions are based on a full understanding of the potential for increasing emissions of air toxics, and new air toxics risks can be avoided. One of the most effective methods of reducing emissions of air toxics from emissions sources not directly regulated by the District has been the incentive grant programs that have leveraged billions of dollars in reducing emissions from diesel internal combustion engines on trucks, tractors and agricultural irrigation operations.
This 2023 Annual Air Toxics Report describes the District’s ongoing efforts to regulate and minimize air toxic emissions. An electronic version of this report may be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/air_toxics_annual_reports.htm. iv
Table of Contents
Summary of Toxic Air Contaminants in the San Joaquin Valley ........................................ 1 California Air Toxics Assessment.................................................................................... 2 Federal EPA Air Toxics Screening Assessment.............................................................. 5 Assembly Bill (AB) 617 - Community Air Protection Program ......................................... 6 Criteria Air Pollutant and Toxics Air Contaminants Reporting Regulation ........................... 7 Summary of California’s Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act .............. 8 Background................................................................................................................ 8 Assessing the Risk to the Public................................................................................ 8 Implementation .......................................................................................................... 8 AB 2588 Evaluation Process ................................................................................... 10 CARB’s Recent Updates to AB 2588 Guidance....................................................... 13 Air Toxics Hot Spot Assessments Summary............................................................ 14 Preventing Creation of Significant Health Risk.............................................................. 15 New or Modified Stationary SourceEvaluations ........................................................ 15 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act.......................................... 16 Incentive-Based Programs....................................................................................... 16 Attainment Plans and Control Strategies ................................................................. 17 Indirect Source Review Rule.................................................................................... 17 California Environmental Quality Act and Health Risk Assessments ....................... 17 Outreach and Education .......................................................................................... 18 Air Toxics Regulations ............................................................................................. 18 Air Dispersion Modeling ................................................................................................ 26 EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD).......................................................................... 26 Meteorological Data................................................................................................. 26 Appendix A. Facilities Assessed under AB 2588 in 2023.............................................A-1 Appendix B. Update Summary Facilities Evaluated .....................................................B-1 Appendix C. Toxics Emissions Summary.................................................................... C-1 Appendix D. AB 2588 District Implementation Flow Chart .......................................... D-1 Appendix E. Current Status of NESHAP Delegation ....................................................E-1 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 1 Summary of Toxic Air Contaminants in the
San Joaquin Valley
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have identified over 1,700 substances that are emitted into the air that may affect human health. Some of these substances are considered to be carcinogens, while others are known to have short-term acute or long-term chronic health impacts. As part of ongoing efforts to identify and assess potential health risks to the public, the District has collected and compiled air toxics emissions data from industrial and commercial sources of air pollution throughout the Valley. The State has developed similar inventories for mobile sources of air pollution. These District and State inventories have been combined into the CARB’s California Toxic Inventory (CTI), which provides emission estimates available for hazardous air pollutants of concern from all sources. A summary of the latest available CTI data for key pollutants is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Primary San Joaquin Valley Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Inventory (tons/yr)
Acetaldehyde 3,512
Diesel Particulate Matter 2,520
Formaldehyde 2,318
Benzene 1,020
Perchloroethylene 448
1,3-Butadiene 269
Methylene Chloride 247
p-Dichlorobenzene 130
Carbon Tetrachloride 0
Chromium, Hexavalent 0
A more detailed summary of CTI emission estimates for the San Joaquin Valley is provided in Table C1 in Appendix C.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), otherwise known as air toxics, are emitted from mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses, tractors, etc.), which are primarily regulated by the State and EPA; area sources (e.g., consumer products), which are regulated by the State, EPA, and the District; and from stationary sources regulated primarily by the District. Figure 1 below shows a comparison of mobile, area, and stationary source emissions of hazardous air pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley. Of these sources, approximately 86% of hazardous air pollutant emissions occurring in the Valley are from mobile sources and area sources.
Stationary sources include point source emissions provided by facility operators and/or air districts and aggregated point source emissions estimated by CARB and/or air districts. 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 2 This stationary source information is included in the CTI pursuant to the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act of 1987 (AB 2588). Area-wide sources are those that emit over an unspecified area. This could include paved roads, unpaved roads, or consumer product emitting sources.
Figure 1. Air Toxics Emissions (tons/year) in the San Joaquin Valley (per CARB’s CTI)
California Air Toxics Assessment
The California Air Toxics Assessment (CATA)1 is a tool that uses detailed emission inventory data from CARB, meteorological data, and an integrated modeling approach to assess health risk for air basins located throughout California. Based on risk data collected between 2012 and 2017, CATA shows an average percent reduction in cancer risk of 55% over that time period in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, with the majority of the cancer risk reduction from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. The vast majority of the remaining cancer risk in the Valley is coming from mobile DPM emission sources under federal and state jurisdiction.
Most of the reductions seen across the air basins are attributed to reductions in on-road mobile emissions in the past years due to implementation of the state’s on-road truck and bus rule and other programs. Note, the 2017 data includes wildfire emissions, which are a large contributor of certain TACs like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde but were not available for the 2012 data.
Prior to the 2017 CATA study, an initial statewide air toxics study was conducted, which covered a 2012 base year. For both years, DPM sources were the major contributor to the overall risk, and the main driver of the risk reductions from 2012 to 2017. Table 2
1 https://california-air-toxics-assessment-californiaarb.hub.arcgis.com/ 1,568
3,881
5,871
Permitted Stationary Sources
Area-wide Sources
Mobile Sources
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 3 below presents the population-weighted averages of census tract total cancer risks in 2017 and 2012 in the six major air basins in California (from CARB’s CATA Technical Report, 2023).2 Note that the total population in the six modeling domains where exposure and cancer risk are estimated is 36,727,572, which accounted for around 99% of the total population in California.
Table 2. Population-Weighted Total Air Toxics Cancer Risk in the Six Major Air Basins (per CARB’s CATA Technical Report, 2023)
Air Basin
2012 Average Risk
(chances per
million)
2017 Average Risk
(chances per
million)
Risk Change from
2012 (%)
Sacramento Valley 597 356 -40.3
San Joaquin Valley 1,063 474 -55.4
San Diego 803 486 -39.5
Bay Area 871 510 -41.4
Imperial 806 671 -16.7
South Coast 1,244 830 -33.3
Figure 2. Cancer Risk Trends in the San Joaquin Valley (per CARB’s CATA)
2 https://california-air-toxics-assessmentcaliforniaarb.hub.arcgis.com/documents/9cce94a930314324a4101b5b1a549b7c/explore 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 4 As shown in Figures 3 and 4 below, for the 2017 CATA year, DPM remained the primary driver for cancer risk in the Valley, with on-road mobile being the highest contributing source.
Figure 3. Cancer Risk Contributions by Air Toxics in SJV (per CARB’s CATA Technical Report, 2023)
Figure 4. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Population-Weighted Cancer Risk by Emission Source in SJV (per CARB’s CATA Technical Report, 2023)
58.0%
9.6%
32.3%
0.1%
Mobile On-Road
Mobile Off-Road
Area
Point
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 5 Note, in Figure 4 above, the emission source categories include the following specific emission activities:
• Mobile On-Road includes diesel trucks and buses,
• Mobile Off-Road includes diesel locomotives, transport refrigeration units, commercial harbor craft,
• Area Sources include mobile off-road equipment for agricultural-related activities, construction-related activities, forklifts, gen-sets, air compressors, etc., • Point Sources include stationary sources subject to AB 2588.
Federal EPA Air Toxics Screening Assessment
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Toxics Screening Assessment (AirToxScreen), formerly known as The National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), is a screening tool to provide communities with information about health risks from air toxics.
AirToxScreen is part of EPA's approach to air toxics that provides updated data and risk analyses on an annual basis, helping state, local and tribal air agencies, EPA, and the public more easily identify existing and emerging air toxics issues. State and air district toxic emissions inventory data are compiled to create a national emissions inventory of air toxic sources, which is used by EPA to generate the AirToxScreen Mapping Tool. The AirToxScreen Mapping Tool can be found at:
https://www.epa.gov/AirToxScreen/airtoxscreen-mapping-tool.
EPA’s AirToxScreen calculates public health risk using a four step process. First, national emission inventories are compiled to identify all types and quantities of air toxic sources.
Secondly and thirdly, those emissions are input into photochemical and steady-state air dispersion models to estimate long-term ambient air concentrations and population exposures across the United States. Finally, exposed concentrations are multiplied by corresponding air toxic’s unit risk factors to estimate cancer risk and the public health impacts from breathing air toxics.
AirToxScreen estimates cancer risk from a variety of sources including secondary formation, background risk, area-wide sources, mobile sources, biogenics, fires, and permitted stationary sources. Secondary formation are the processes where emissions react in the atmosphere to form other substances. Background concentrations are emissions that exist in the air and accumulate from non-specific naturally occurring or distant sources. Biogenic emissions come from specific natural sources, like plants and trees. Fire emissions come from prescribed wildfires and agricultural burning.
AirToxScreen estimated the cancer risk associated with common sources and toxic pollutants emitted during the 2019 inventory data year. Based on those emissions, the 2019 AirToxScreen identifies 25 elevated cancer risk areas in the country as having a cancer risk score of greater than 100 in a million. None of the 25 elevated cancer risk areas are located within the San Joaquin Valley. In the Valley, the average cancer risk from air toxic emissions is 28 in a million, compared to the national average of 30 in a million. As shown in Figure 5 below, about 77% of the total cancer risk in the San Joaquin 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 6 Valley came from secondary formation, area-wide, and mobile source emissions in 2019, while only 4% of the total cancer risk came from stationary source emissions.
Figure 5. Cancer Risk by Source in the San Joaquin Valley (per EPA’s AirToxScreen)
Of the cancer risk data from AirToxScreen, exposure to formaldehyde is responsible for 60% of the total cancer risk in the San Joaquin Valley. Other chemicals contributing to the calculated cancer risk include carbon tetrachloride (11%), benzene (7.2%), acetaldehyde (6.9%), naphthalene (3.2%), and 1,3-butadiene (2.2%). It is important to note, diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions are not included as an air toxic in EPA’s AirToxScreen cancer risk data.
Assembly Bill (AB) 617 - Community Air Protection Program The implementation of AB 617 (C. Garcia, 2017) has brought additional clean air resources and strategies to Valley communities. Despite the significant reductions in emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants that have already been achieved across the Valley, there remain many Valley communities that are disproportionately burdened by the cumulative effects of various environmental and socioeconomic factors. AB 617 requires the expedited implementation of advanced control technologies for existing stationary source facilities; development and implementation of community-specific air quality monitoring networks; development and implementation of community emission reduction programs; enhanced reporting of facility emissions inventory data, and the creation of publically 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 7 accessible online clearinghouses of emission control technology determinations.
Resources available through this legislation have allowed the District and Community Steering Committees, through a comprehensive public outreach and community engagement process, to develop programs for community protection and develop a robust plan for reducing local exposure to fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants in Valley communities.
Criteria Air Pollutant and Toxics Air Contaminants Reporting Regulation
AB 617 requires CARB to develop a uniform statewide system of annual reporting of emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants for certain categories of stationary sources. The bill requires stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. In order to implement these reporting requirements, CARB developed the "Regulation for the Reporting of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants" (CTR) to implement statewide annual reporting of criteriaair pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions data from facilities, and was adopted in support of mandates under AB 617, AB 197, and AB 2588. For Valley permitted facilities, the District will implement this regulation on behalf of the state through the District’s existing annual emission inventory and air toxics processes. Emissions inventory data is critical to understanding the sources of emissions that may contribute to adverse health risks or other impacts at the local, regional, and statewide level. In 2023, more than 6,700 facilities reported their emissions inventory-related data, including process rates, types of fuels used, materials received and processed. Utilizing this information, the District quantified the criteria and toxic emissions for these facilities and transmitted the inventory to CARB.
Facility emissions reported under the state’s CTR regulation are visualized in CARB’s Pollution Mapping tool. The tool provides an interactive platform where users can select facilities by name, location, or industrial sector; view their reported emissions using maps, charts and tabular formats; and download data. It can be found at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/tools/pollution_map/.
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 8 Summary of California’s Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act
Background
The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in September 1987 and later strengthened in 1992. Under this act, stationary sources are required to report the types and quantities of certain toxic substances their facilities routinely release into the air. The goals of AB 2588 are:
• to identify Valley facilities that release toxic air contaminants as a result of their day to day operations
• to collect and quantify emission data
• to identify facilities causing localized impacts
• to determine facility-wide health risks
• to notify nearby residents and businesses of significant risk facilities in their vicinity • to require that significant-risk facilities reduce their risks below the level of significance in accordance with the provisions of the “Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report” adopted by the Air Resources Board The District’s implementation of AB 2588 has minimized health risks to the public associated with the release of air toxic emission from sources located within the San Joaquin Valley. Under this right-to-know law, the District has worked with facilities to quantify air toxic emissions, determine the potential health risk associated with those emissions, and report any risk determined to be significant by the District through written public reports and neighborhood public meetings. A flowchart summarizing the AB 2588 implementation process is provided in Appendix C.
Assessing the Risk to the Public
The State Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act requires the District to compile an inventory of toxic emissions from Valley facilities, prioritize facilities for health risk, evaluate public health risks for facilities ranked as high priority, and notify individuals who may be impacted by any significant health risks. Although Hot Spots is primarily a public right-to-know and notification program, the public awareness achieved through the Hot Spots program has led many Valley businesses to voluntarily reduce their toxic emissions to ease community concerns.
Implementation
The District utilizes the applicability criteria outlined in CARB’s Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulation (EICGR) to determine which facilities are evaluated under the program. Facilities are subject to quantifying and reporting their toxic emissions if one or more of the criteria below is met:
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 9 • Emit 10 or more tons per year of criteria pollutants (particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, or organic gasses)
• Emit less than 10 tons per year of criteria pollutants, but meet one or more of the classes listed in Appendix E of the EICGR
• Emit toxic substances that have been added to Appendix A of the EICGR • Emit toxic substances that have new health risk values published by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) • Increase of potential health risk from the previously evaluated level due to an increase in actual emissions, change to a state-established risk value, threshold, or other calculation or methodology changes.
The District’s implementation of the AB 2588 Hot Spots Program incorporates the state’s guidelines for evaluating health risks from stationary sources in the Valley. Facilities determined to be subject to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” program are required to prepare a Toxic Emission Inventory Plan (Plan) and a Toxic Emission Inventory Report (Report) in order to provide site-specific inventories of air emissions of toxic substances.
In 2016, the District began the outreach and reassessment of facilities by following the phased processing schedule outlined in AB 2588, which was originally implemented in the late 80’s and early 90’s. AB 2588 subjected three major categories (or phases) of facilities to the regulation based upon their level of annual emissions. The AB 2588 regulation also allows for “Industry-wide” toxics emissions inventory, which consist of facilities that are small businesses where emissions can be generally characterized such as gasoline dispensing facilities, auto body coating facilities, etc. These industry-wide facilities are being addressed under the fourth assessment phase. Similar to industry-wide facilities, small single source facilities, such those with only diesel internal combustion engines (DICE), are also being assessed in the fourth phase of the implementation schedule. The fourth phase also includes auto body shops and agricultural facilities. The following summary outlines each phase within the District’s implementation plan:
First phase: Phase I Facilities (≥ 25 tons emissions per year) Second phase: Phase II Facilities (10 ≤ tons emissions per year <25) Third phase: Phase III Facilities (< 10 tons emissions per year) Fourth phase: Phase IV Facilities (Industry-wide such as Gas Stations, Auto Body Shops; DICE only, Agricultural facilities)
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 10 AB 2588 Evaluation Process
Toxic Emission Inventory Plans and Reports
Under this act, facilities are required to prepare Toxic Emission Inventory Plans and Reports to develop site-specific inventories of air emissions from toxic substances. Plans provide an outline and methodology for calculating toxic emissions for all permitted and non-permitted stationary sources operated at the facility. This is reviewed and approved by the District prior to emission quantification. Reports Include calculations of facility’s toxic emissions using site-specific process rates and emission factors in order to perform a “Prioritization” of the facility’s air toxic emissions.
Prioritization
AB 2588 requires air districts to prioritize facilities to determine a facility’s status within the program. In establishing priorities, the air districts are to consider the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials released from the facility, the proximity of the facility to potential receptors, and any other factors that the district determines may indicate that the facility may pose a significant health risk. The District uses the prioritization methodology outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Facility Prioritization Guidelines to prioritize facilities under AB 2588. Utilizing the facility’s approved Plan and Report, a facility’s priority status is determined using the prioritization thresholds listed in District Policy APR 1906, as identified in Table 3 below.
Table 3: AB 2588 Prioritization Thresholds and Categories Prioritization
Thresholds
Priority
Category Category Requirements
< 1 Low Priority Facility is conditionally exempt from further AB 2588 requirements
>1 and < 10 Intermediate
Priority
Facility is required to provide an update summary
on a quadrennial basis
> 10 High Priority Facility is required to perform a Health Risk Assessment
Health Risk Assessment
Facilities that classify as “High” priority are required to perform a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to determine whether its toxic emissions are expected to pose a significant risk to nearby residents and workers. Under AB 2588, the District and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) review each HRA. HRAs performed under the program are required to use the methodologies and procedures outlined in District guidelines and OEHHA’s 2015 Air Toxic Hot Spots Program “Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments”. A facility’s status under the program is determined using established health risk thresholds as identified in Table 4 below:
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 11 Table 4: AB 2588 Health Risk Assessment Thresholds
Health Risk Thresholds Risk Category Category Requirements Cancer risk < 1 in a million, and Total
hazard index of < 0.1 Low Risk
Facility is conditionally
exempt from further AB
2588 requirements
1 < Cancer risk <10 in a million, or
0.1 < Total hazard index < 1.0 Intermediate Risk
Facility is required to
provide an update
summary on a
quadrennial basis
Cancer risk > 10 in a million, or Total
hazard index of > 1.0
Public
Notification
Required
Facility is required to go
through the public
notification process
Cancer risk > 100 in a million, or Total
hazard index of > 5.0 Risk Reduction
Facility is required to go
through the public
notification process and
prepare a Risk Reduction
Plan
Public Notification
Facilities that are determined to pose a potential health risk to nearby residents or workers by exceeding the District’s public notification risk thresholds are required to notify those exposed persons, through the District’s Public Notification process. This process allows the District to inform the public of their potential exposure to toxic substances routinely released into the air from facilities and the potential health risks associated with those exposures. Additionally, this process allows any public questions or concerns regarding exposure and health risk associated with the facility’s toxic emissions to be heard and discussed.
Risk Reduction Audit and Plan
Facilities that pose health risks above District action levels are required to submit risk reduction audits and plans (RRAP) to reduce their risk. The District's review of completeness of any facility RRAP includes a substantive analysis of the emission reduction measures included in the plan, and the ability of those measures to achieve emission reduction goals as quickly as feasible. If the District determines that the RRAP does not meet those requirements, the District shall return the audit and plan to the facility to remedy the deficiencies identified by the District. No District permitted facilities have been determined to pose risks in excess of the risk reduction action levels. 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 12 Update Summary Facilities
Intermediate Priority and Intermediate Risk facilities are subject to the regulation’s Update Summary reporting process. At least once every four years, these facilities must provide their annual activity and resulting emissions inventory in order to provide the District with updated facility information and to determine whether any operational changes at the facility have the potential to affect the facility’s health risk status under the program.
Operational changes could consist of increasing process rates, or by operating new or modified equipment at the facility.
In addition, each Update Summary provided by facilities undergoes an assessment based on their toxic weighted emissions (TWE). These TWE values are aggregated into three risk categories: cancer, chronic, and acute, and are compared over the four-year update summary inventory cycle. This comparative analysis addresses any updates from OEHHA regarding risk factors or reference exposure levels on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis during the quadrennial period. Using the TWE allows a more refined evaluation to determine whether a facility needs to submit an updated Plan, because it factors the toxicity of air toxic emissions and assesses their impacts accordingly.
It is important to note that changes to the facility that require a District permit or permit modification must be approved by the District prior to being implemented. Based on the information submittal, the District determines if an updated AB 2588 assessment is required (reinstatement).
Industry-wide and Small Single Source Facilities
Under the state’s regulation, common types of smaller commercial facilities where the air toxics emissions from individual facilities can easily and generically be characterized and calculated, qualify for a more streamlined assessment process referred to as “industrywide.” These facility industry-wide classes include gasoline dispensing facilities, dry cleaning operations, and automotive coating facilities.
Similar in concept to the industry-wide facilities, smaller operations operating only a single type of emission unit, cannot qualify as industry-wide, and where the emissions can easily and generically be characterized and calculated, qualify for a more streamlined assessment process referred to as “small single source” facilities. Small single sources include facilities only operating a diesel-fired emergency IC engine. 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 13 CARB’s Recent Updates to AB 2588 Guidance
Recent Amendments to the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulation
Amendments were made to the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulation (EICGR) and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on March 21, 2022. CARB amended the EICGR to collect more comprehensive emission data across the state.
The primary amendments to the EICGR include:
• Updated reporting requirements for diesel engines
• Added factors in determining facility exemptions, reinstatements, and update reporting provisions
• Increased the number of reportable substances in Appendix A from approximately 700 to over 1,700 substances
• Established a phase-in schedule for evaluating newly added substances, consistent with the CTR Regulation’s emissions inventory schedule • Added new source test requirements for certain source types Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidance To assist air districts in assessing Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (GDF) as required under AB 2588, CARB and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) prepared an updated standardized Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidance in 2022. This guidance provides a framework for air districts to use when evaluating the public health risks from GDFs. This guidance replaces the 1997 Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines that was previously used by air districts for their health risk evaluations. Changes in the 2022 technical guidance include new health risk methodologies, updated emission factors for gas stations, and new information on the toxic chemicals in gasoline. Due to the significant changes in the methodology and the state-wide effort to evaluate GDFs under AB 2588, the District recently evaluated the Valley’s permitted GDF facilities (approximately 1,500 facilities).
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 14 Air Toxics Hot Spot Assessments Summary
The District has finalized 7,425 AB 2588 facility assessments from 2016 - 2023. Table 5 below identifies the number of facilities assessed in 2023 through a prioritization analysis (after completion of a Plan and Report), applicability exemption determination, or a health risk assessment (after completion of a prioritization).
Table 5: Summary of Facilities Assessed Under AB 2588 in 2023 AB 2588 Category Number of Facilities
Assessed in 2023
Low/Exempt Priority 213
Low/Exempt Risk 7
Intermediate Priority 238
Intermediate Risk 31
High Priority 10
Public Notification Required 0
Risk Reduction 0
Total 499
A detailed list of the facilities evaluated in 2023 and their current status under AB 2588 can be found in Appendix A, along with maps that visually display the location of those facilities that were evaluated as intermediate priority, high priority, and intermediate risk.
The District also re-evaluated 95 facilities subject to the update summary reporting process in 2023 to determine whether reinstatement into the program is required in order to perform an updated AB 2588 facility assessment. A detailed list of those facilities and associated reinstatement status can be found in Appendix B.
Table 6: Summary of Quadrennial Reporting (Update Summaries) AB 2588 Category Number of Facilities
Assessed in 2023
Needs Reassessment 6
Continued Quadrennial
Reporting Cycle 89
Total 95
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 15 Preventing Creation of Significant Health Risk
The overall goal of the District’s integrated approach to air toxics emissions in the San Joaquin Valley aims to maximize public health improvements and minimize public exposure to air toxic emissions. The integrated air toxics program assists in preventing, minimizing, and reducing health risks through a variety of programs.
New or Modified Stationary SourceEvaluations
One goal of District risk management review efforts is to minimize the increase that new and modified stationary sources add to the existing toxic load and any potentially significant public health impacts associated with the release of those airborne toxic emissions. In order to achieve this goal, the District evaluates the health risk of stationary sources as part of the District’s permitting process and engineering evaluation.
Under the District’s risk management policy, Toxic Best Available Control Technology must be applied to all units that may pose greater than de minimis levels of risk (i.e., a cancer risk greater than one in one million). Projects that would pose significant impacts to nearby residences or businesses (i.e., by causing an increased cumulative facility cancer risk of 20-in-a-million or greater) are not approvable. When a project is determined not to be approvable as proposed, District staff will work with the applicant to find approvable low-risk alternatives, such as installing air toxic emissions control devices or limiting the operation of the proposed equipment. Under this program, the District has performed over 16,800 Risk Management Reviews for facilities throughout the District.
As a consequence, no permit for a new or modified operation has been approved since the program was initiated in 1995 that would have created a significant health impact through increases in air toxic emissions.
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 16 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act As noted earlier in this report, this law is designed to provide information on the extent of emissions from existing stationary sources and the potential public health impacts of those emissions. Facilities are required to calculate and report to the District their actual emissions of air toxic emissions. Facilities with health risk assessment score above public notice thresholds must disclose their impacts to nearby residents that may be impacted.
Facilities that exceed a higher risk reduction action threshold must go even further and reduce emissions of air toxics. No Valley facility currently poses a significant risk under the “Hot Spots” program utilizing state/OEHHA guidance, while at the beginning of the implementation of the program, in 1989, 16 facilities were classified “Significant Risk Facilities.”
Incentive-Based Programs
Toassistinreducingairtoxic emissions throughout the Valley, more than $6 billion in public and private funding has been invested in clean-air projects through the District’s voluntary incentive programs. In total, these programs have reduced more than 271,300 tons of harmful emissions. Carcinogenic diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions have been significantly reduced in the Valley, where District voluntary incentives programs have provided critical funding toward replacing more than 35,000 older, high-polluting heavyduty diesel engines with zero emission electric motors or cleaner burning engines equipped with the latest emissions control technologies. In addition, these incentive programs provide critical funding to replace older, higher-polluting school buses, lightduty passenger vehicles, residential wood burning devices, and numerous others.
Through the District’s first-of-its-kind Ag Burn Alternatives Grant program, the District provides funding to support the Valley’s ongoing phase-out of agricultural open burning and the development of innovative alternatives to open burning.
In 2017, AB 617 initiated a statewide
effort to monitor and reduce localizedair
pollution, and highly improve public
health, in communities that experience
disproportionate burdens from exposure
to air pollutants through new communityfocused and community-driven actions.
The communities of Shafter, South
Central Fresno, Stockton and
Arvin/Lamont were selected to receive
clean air resources available under AB
617 through the Community Air
Protection Program. This program
includes a substantial investment of
community-level funding through a wide variety of voluntary incentive funding measures, including the Tune-In & Tune-Up program and the Fireplace & Woodstove Change-Out Program. The Tune-In & Tune-Up program provides incentives for primarily low-income 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 17 District residents to perform much-needed smog related repairs to their personal vehicles.
In some cases, the District is even able to offer greater incentives for residents to replace their old, high polluting vehicle with a much cleaner and much newer vehicle. Through the Fireplace & Woodstove Change-Out Program, the District is able to provide funding for District residents to replace, older, high polluting residential wood burning devices with new, clean burning devices or natural gas inserts. Through this program, the District offers a higher incentive for the District’s low-income population.
Attainment Plans and Control Strategies
Within the District’s 2018 PM2.5 Plan, the District prioritized strategies achieving the greatest public health benefits while satisfying applicable attainment planning requirements. The District also analyzed the health benefits that would result from implementation of the plan. Several examples of prioritized control strategies included in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan include new measures to further reduce PM2.5 emissions, with rules since being adopted to reduce harmful emissions from residential wood burning (Rule 4901) and industrial sources. These measures reduce some of the most harmful types of particulate matter, particularly where these reductions are most needed in urban, highly populated areas. Additionally, as part of the District’s 2022 Ozone Plan, the District adopted strategies to further reduce harmful volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from oil and natural gas sources and petroleum refining (Rules 4401, 4409, 4455, 4623, and 4624). Through ongoing attainment planning efforts, the District continues to prioritize programs and strategies that reduce harmful emissions and result in public health benefits.
Indirect Source Review Rule
The District's Indirect Source Review (ISR) rule, in place since 2005, achieves combustion-related NOx and PM10 emission reductions from the construction and operation of new development projects through the incorporation of clean-air design features and on-site mitigation measures. The focus of these emissions reductions are from development-related mobile source heavy duty off-road diesel equipment and heavy duty on-road diesel trucks, which emit diesel particulate matter, one of the most potent carcinogens.
California Environmental Quality Act and Health Risk Assessments The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to evaluate environmental impacts from a development project and all feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially reduce or avoid those impacts. Generally, the main responsibility for satisfying CEQA requirements, or “lead agency” role, falls under the responsibility of city or county planning agencies.
From a health risk perspective, land use decisions are critical to improving and preventing degradation of air quality within the San Joaquin Valley, as land use patterns greatly influence potential exposure of sensitive receptors to sources of air pollution. Under 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 18 CEQA, land use agencies must evaluate the potential significance of health risks associated with development projects. The District provides support to land use agencies when making air quality impact determinations by assisting in the review of health risk assessments performed for the project.
Outreach and Education
As we move forward in achieving our
mission, the District shall continue its
ongoing efforts to educate the public
about air quality, and the significant clean
air investments and air quality progress
that have been made in the Valley.
The District’s information and
educational programs include the RealTime Air Quality Advisory Network (RAAN), Web-based Archived Air Quality
(WAAQ) System, and Healthy Air Living
Schools program.
RAAN uses real-time data from air
monitoring stations throughout the Valley
to provide hour-by-hour air quality
updates to schools and other
subscribers. WAAQS was implemented in 2015 and takes RAAN a step further by providing neighborhood-by-neighborhood historical air quality data for any address in the Valley air basin. Valley residents can use this information to make informed decisions and plan outdoor activities for times with the best air quality, reducing potential air quality health risks. As a high priority area of focus, the District has continued working to expand the Healthy Air Living Schools initiative to deliver an extensive set of tools and information, including the recent launch of school-based Real-Time Electronic Air-quality Displays (READ), to enable Valley schools to understand and respond to air quality conditions and protect the health of students.
Air Toxics Regulations
In addition, the District implements a variety of state, federal, and District rules reducing and regulating the emissions of toxic air pollutants. Such regulations have generated significant reductions in air toxics from a wide variety of sources, from requiring the gradual phase-out of perchloroethylene used at dry cleaners and mandating emissions controls at chrome platers, to a large number of rules aimed at reducing particulate emissions from diesel internal combustion engines.
Due to this diverse set of risk reduction efforts, approximately 14% of all air toxics in the San Joaquin Valley are now emitted from stationary sources of pollution under the direct 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 19 control and regulation of the District, while 52% comes from mobile sources such as cars and trucks, and the remaining 34% is emitted from area-wide sources like road dust, paints, solvents, and other consumer products (per CTI). Mobile and area-wide sources of emissions are generally under the regulatory authority of the State of California and the federal government.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Risk Reduction
CARB identified particulate matter emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant with the potential to pose a significant cancer risk to the public. Historically the cancer risk from the exhaust of diesel internal combustion engines has been determined to be far higher than the estimated cancer risk from all other sources of air pollution combined. Because of the high level of risk associated with diesel exhaust, and because of the prevalence of the engines, the State chose not to address diesel exhaust using the existing risk management guidance. Instead, the State decided to establish an advisory committee of interested parties, and developed a comprehensive risk management plan that would result in significant reductions in emissions of diesel particulate matter. CARB adopted the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from mobile and stationary Diesel-fueled Engines.
Several of the following Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) were developed as a part of ARB’s diesel exhaust risk reduction efforts, which continue to be developed. Related information is available on CARB’s ATCM website at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/airborne-toxic-control-measures.
ATCM Portable Diesel-Fueled Engines
The purpose of the CARB adopted Portable Diesel ATCM is to protect public health by controlling particulate matter (PM) emissions from diesel fueled portable engines rated at 50 horsepower and greater operating in California. All existing portable diesel engines were required to be certified by January 1, 2010, and all new portable engines were required to meet the latest certification standards. In addition, the ATCM contains stringent diesel PM fleet standards that apply after 2010.
The latest version of the ATCM became effective on November 30, 2018 and contains stringent emissions standards and operational requirements that impact new andexisting portable diesel engines. The District has been implementing the requirements of the Portable ATCM in the review of applications for District Portable Registrations and permits for portable diesel engines. This ATCM is expected to continue to result in a substantial reduction in Valley diesel PM emissions over the next several years.
ATCM Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines
The purpose of the CARB adopted Stationary Diesel ATCM is to protect public health by controlling particulate matter (PM) and criteria pollutant emissions from stationary diesel fueled portable engines rated at 50 horsepower and greater operating in California.
This ATCM is satisfied via Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines) in combination with the District’s permitting or Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration (PEER) program.
These District programs have collectively been found by the CARB to be equivalent to the 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 20 Stationary ATCM for stationary agricultural engines. This ATCM and District Rule 4702 are expected to continue to result in a substantial reduction in Valley diesel PM emissions over the next several years.
CARB Control Measure for In Use Off-road Diesel Vehicle Rule The purpose of the CARB adopted an off-road diesel vehicle rule is to reduce diesel PM and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The regulation applies to self-propelled diesel-fueled vehicles that cannot be registered and licensed to drive on-road. Examples include loaders, crawler tractors, skid steers, backhoes, forklifts, and airport ground support equipment. Vehicles with engines less than 25 horsepower are exempt. The regulation is expected to reduce diesel exhaust emissions by over 1,600 tons per year statewide between 2010 and 2030.
Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-road Heavy-duty Diesel-fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities The purpose of the CARB adopted control measure will reduce emissions from on-road heavy duty vehicles over several deadlines, with the first groups of vehicles required to be in compliance by December 31, 2007. This control measure is particularly effective because it reduces diesel PM emissions in the heart of residential communities where municipal and utility vehicles frequently conduct business, and where the public is significantly impacted by diesel PM emissions.
ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling CARB initially adopted an ATCM to reduce emissions of toxics and criteria pollutants by limiting idling of new and in-use sleeper berth-equipped diesel trucks. The emission performance requirements require technologies used as alternatives to idling the truck's main engine. The new engine requirements required 2008 and newer model year heavyduty diesel engines to be equipped with non-programmable engine shutdown systems that automatically shut down the engine after five minutes of idling or, alternatively, meet a more stringent NOX idling emission standard. Beginning January 1, 2008, in-use truck requirements require operators of both in-state and out-of-state registered sleeper berth equipped trucks to manually shut down their engine when idling more than five minutes at any location within California. Each year heavy-duty diesel truck idling contributes to hundreds of pounds of PM as well as other pollutants to the Valley. The District Incentive Program has subsidized truck stop support equipment to reduce diesel truck idling along the main goods movement corridors. Tests conducted by the District and CARB have determined that an idling truck can consume up to a gallon of diesel fuel an hour. The idling of heavy-duty trucks, at the time of delivery, represents a high percentage of emissions around developed areas in the Valley.
ATCM for Transport Refrigeration Units
The purpose of the CARB adopted ATCM is to reduce emissions of diesel PM from Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs). TRUs are refrigeration systems powered by diesel internal combustion engines designed to refrigerate or heat perishable products that are transported in various containers, including semi-trailers, truck vans, shipping containers, and rail cars. Although TRU engines are relatively small, ranging from 9 to 36 horsepower, significant numbers of these engines congregate at distribution centers, truck stops, and 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 21 other facilities, resulting in the potential for health risks to those that live and work nearby.
CARB estimated that diesel PM emissions from TRUs will be reduced by 83% by 2040.
CARB has recently developed amendments to this ATCM. Related information is available on their TRU ATCM website at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/transportrefrigeration-unit.
ATCM for Hexavalent Chromium for Decorative and Hard Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Facilities
The purpose of the CARB adopted ATCM is to established new, more stringent emission limitations that depend upon size and nearness to sensitive receptors, limited the use of chemical fume suppressants, and adopted new housekeeping, education, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
CARB amended the ATCM in 2023 to establish enhanced best management practices (e.g. building enclosures, limits, source testing, etc.) for all chrome plating facilities using hexavalent chrome. The stated goal of the amended ATCM is eliminating toxic hexavalent chromium emissions from the chrome plating industry in California over time. The amendments phase out the use of hexavalent chromium from chrome plating operations for all new chrome plating facilities in California. The amendments went into effect January 1, 2024.
There are numerous expected benefits from the revised ATCM, including eliminating hexavalent chromium emissions from California’s chrome plating industry, reducing the potential cancer risk to individual residents and off-site workers near chrome plating facilities, and reducing occupational exposures for on-site workers.
ATCM for Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Operations The purpose of the CARB adopted ATCM is to phase out the use of perc dry cleaning machines and related equipment by January 1, 2023. In addition, the amendments will put in place revisions to the Curriculum for the Environmental Training Program for Perc Dry Cleaning Operations (Training Curriculum). There were changes to the operational requirements for dry cleaners as well. For example, the revised ATCM requires that owners/operators maintain a spare set of gaskets on-site. Also, the trained operator must now be on-site whenever the machine is operated. These amendments became effective upon final approval by the Office of Administrative Law on December 27, 2007. The District adopted the revised ATCM in 2008 by reference.
ATCM for Composite Wood Products
The purpose of the CARB approved ATCM is to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, thin medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with composite wood products Formaldehyde is produced on a large scale worldwide. One major use includes the production of wood binding adhesives and resins.
CARB developed a modified version of the Composite Wood Product ATCM that was released for a 15-day public comment period on January 31, 2008, and was approved April 18, 2008, by the Office of Administrative Law. Further amendments to this ATCM 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 22 were approved in May of 2012.
ATCM for Benzene from Retail Service Stations
CARB adopted the ATCM for Emissions of Benzene from Retail Service Stations. The ATCM reflects the use of best available control technology, which requires the installation of CARB-certified Phase I and II vapor recovery control equipment at all retail service stations. The ATCM is designed to reduce benzene and total hydrocarbon emissions from uncontrolled stations by 95 percent. Figure 6 shows the trend of benzene emissions in the Valley.
Figure 6. Benzene Emissions Trend, San Joaquin Valley (CARB Annual Toxics Monitoring Data)
ATCMs Adopted by the District as Regulations
• District Rule 7011: Chromium Plating And Chromic Acid Anodizing Facilities • District Rule 7012: Hexavalent Chromium - Cooling Towers • District Rule 7021: Ethylene Oxide - Sterilizers and Aerators • District Rule 7031: Dioxin - Medical Waste Incinerators • District Rule 7041: Fluorides - Phosphoric Acid Plants • District Rule 7050: Asbestos - Containing Material for Surfacing Applications • District Rule 7060: Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting • District Rule 7070: Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations Other ATCMs are implemented primarily through the permitting process. These include 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 23 the ATCM for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines and the ATCM for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines Rated at 50 Horsepower and Greater.
Reducing Health Risk through Enforcement Delegation
On July 1, 2008, the District began enforcing California Air Resources Board’s ATCM to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools and ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, during timeframes in which state funding is available to support these efforts. The purpose of these ATCMs is to reduce toxic and criteria air pollutants by limiting idling time. By enforcing these requirements in the Valley, the District is able to directly reduce public exposure from toxic emissions, especially in sensitive areas.
The District was delegated the responsibility of enforcing the U.S. EPA’s NESHAP for asbestos, a known carcinogen, and as a result performs hundreds of inspections of construction projects that have the possibility of disturbing asbestos containing materials.
By ensuring that these materials are removed and handled correctly, the probability of harmful releases of asbestos is significantly reduced.
Implementation of Federal Air Toxics Mandates
EPA has issued NESHAPs through Part 61 and Part 63 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Part 61 NESHAPs were issued prior to the adoption of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Those NESHAPs are specific to a particular hazardous air pollutant (HAP). Due to little activity in adopting NESHAPs, the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act established a new procedure for developing NESHAPs. A list of 189 HAPs was established. EPA identified industries that emitted those HAPs and established a prioritized list of over 70 source categories for which Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards would be promulgated.
These MACT standards apply to major sources of HAPs, defined as sources with emissions greater than 10 tons per year of a single HAP, or 25 tons per year of combined HAPs. Many of these sourcecategories are already subject to state and local regulation, which have traditionally been more stringent than the federal regulations. EPA has already adopted MACT standards to address the majority of the source categories identified.
In addition to the MACT standards for major sources, EPA is also required to adopt NESHAPs standards to reduce the health risk associated with area (non-major) sources of HAPs. As the result of a lawsuit, EPA was under court order to promulgate area source NESHAPs for 4 categories of sources by December 15, 2006; for 6 categories by June 15, 2007; and for 10 categories each 6 months thereafter until June 15, 2009. Similar to the MACT standards for major sources, many of the area sources subject to these standards are already subject to state and local regulation. Area source NESHAPs have already been promulgated for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities; Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals - Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium; Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 24 Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving; Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing, and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing; Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities; and Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers. See Appendix D for the current status of the District’s implementation of NESHAPs.
An amendment to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ (control of HAPs from reciprocating internal combustion engines) was proposed on June 6, 2012, and was finalized by EPA on January 14, 2013. This regulation requires reductions in hazardous air pollutants from stationary internal combustion engines over the next several years, and requires significant recordkeeping and monitoring of the engines affected. The District is currently developing processes and policies to assist those facilities affected to comply with the new requirements.
Many other amendments to existing NESHAPs were finalized in 2012: Chemical Manufacturing, Hard & Decorative Chrome electroplating and HCL supplements, Polyvinyl Chloride, Nitric Acid Plants, Petroleum Refineries process heaters and flares, etc. While these NESHAPs have lesser applicability in California and the San Joaquin Valley then the engine NESHAP discussed above, the District will identify, notify, and assist those facilities affected.
In December 2021, EPA issued a decision extending Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting for ethylene oxide to 29 facilities across the country. These facilities were required to begin tracking their chemical activities, releases and other waste management quantities starting in January 2022 and submit TRI data to EPA in 2023. None of these facilities are located within the San Joaquin Valley.
On July 25, 2023, EPA announced proposed updates to the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) to improve EPA's collection of certain emissions data critical for performing air quality and risk analyses, among other regulatory and non-regulatory activities. This proposed action would allow for EPA to annually collect (starting in 2027), HAP emissions data for point sources including non-major sources. The proposed amendments would ensure that EPA has sufficient information to identify and solve air quality and exposure problems and ensure that communities have the data needed to understand significant environmental risks that may be impacting them. Due to numerous requests to extend the comment period given the complexity and length of the proposed rulemaking, EPA extended the comment period for the proposed revisions to November 17, 2023. The District is following this development and will incorporate any updates into the Integrated Toxics Program as necessary.
The District currently is delegated authority by EPA to implement and enforce NESHAPs through two mechanisms. First, all major sources of HAPs are required to obtain Title V operating permits. The NESHAP requirements for these major sources are included in the Title V permits for which the District is delegated authority by EPA. Second, the District is delegated authority to implement and enforce all area source NESHAPs that are included in District Rule 4002, most recently amended on May 20, 2004. Under the District’s Air Toxics Program and federal regulations, there are several options for 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 25 implementing new NESHAP requirements. These options are discussed in more detail below. The District will choose the most appropriate option for implementing each Federal standard, and will hold public workshops to obtain public input on the implementation of these additional standards.
• Straight Delegation: Accepting delegation of the federal standard as written by amending Rule 4002 or by agreeing to automatic delegation with an option of optingout for specific NESHAPs using an approach developed by the (CAPCOA); • Rule Adjustment: Proposing minor changes to the federal MACT rule that make the adjusted rule no less stringent than the federal standard; • Rule Substitution: Substituting one or more existing, new, or amended District rules for the federal standard (It should be noted that California Districts have been delegated authority for the chrome plating and dry cleaning NESHAPs because EPA has agreed that the ATCMs for those source categories are equivalent to the NESHAPs.);
• Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements: Minimizing duplicative requirements by placing the more stringent emission limit or workplace practice standard on the permit along with the corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements;
• Program Substitution: Using existing programs to assure compliance with the requirements of federal standards;
• No Delegation: Using existing programs to reduce the emissions of hazardous air pollutants without delegation of federal standards.
The NESHAPs for which the District has received delegation through Rule 4002 are listed in Table E1 in Appendix E. All current NESHAPs for which the District has not received delegation through Rule 4002 are listed in Table E2 in Appendix E.
Regardless of the status and type of delegation, the District believes strongly in working with the affected sources to make them aware of the requirements in a timely manner, and then help them understand and comply with these public health protective regulations. 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 26 Air Dispersion Modeling
Air quality models use mathematical techniques to simulate the physical and chemical processes that affect air pollutants as they disperse and react in the atmosphere. These models form the backbone of the air toxics management process, as they are used to assess the potential exposure of the public to various toxic emissions. Using inputs of meteorological data and source parameter information such as emission rates and stack height, models predict ambient concentrations of primary pollutants that are emitted.
Models are also important to the air quality management process because they determine compliance with National/State Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/SAAQS), and other regulatory requirements such as New Source Review (NSR).
EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD)
The American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) was formed to introduce state-of-the-art modeling concepts into the EPA's air quality models. Through AERMIC, a modeling system, AERMOD, was developed to incorporate air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain.
With the promulgation of AERMOD as the preferred air dispersion model in EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (signed by the EPA Administrator on October 21, 2005 and published November 9, 2005 in the Federal Register), AERMOD is used for appropriate application as a replacement for ISCST3 since November 9, 2006.
Meteorological Data
The District makes available meteorological data from both the National Climatological 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air Toxics Program 27 Data Center (NCDC) and the Fifth-Generation Penn State/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5). The NCDC data were collected at major airports in the San Joaquin Valley. The MM5 data were derived from a numerical model for locations in the valley where there are no airports. These locations are primarily in the western part of the Valley. All processed data is freely available for download on the District’s web page at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm Appendices
Appendix A: Facilities Assessed Under AB 2588 in 2023
Appendix B: Update Summary Facilities
Appendix C: Toxic Emissions Summary
Appendix D: AB 2588 District Implementation Flow Chart
Appendix E: Current Status of NESHAP Delegation
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 1
Appendix A. Facilities Assessed under AB 2588 in 2023
Appendix A includes a detailed list of the facilities assessed under AB 2588 in 2023. Table A1 Includes facilities prioritized and Table A2 Includes the facilities with completed health risk assessments.
In addition to the tables listed below, Appendix A also includes maps that visually show the locations of all facilities that were evaluated in 2023.
Table A1. Facilities Prioritized in 2023
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
N 7856 Family Pet Mortuary Turlock 47.8 High
N 1252 Foster Food Products Livingston 33.8 High
N 3028 Westland Technologies, Inc. Modesto 30.8 High
N 2369 Arrow Infrastructure Holding IA
LLC Stockton 29.9 High
C 841 Dos Palos Cooperative Gin Inc. Chowchilla 29.1 High C 9232 Modern Custom Fabrication, Inc. Fresno 23.0 High S 8848 Peters-Loyd Funeral Services Porterville 20.7 High S 1135 AERA Energy LLC Kern County 19.8 High
S 1128 Chevron USA Inc. Kern County 19.7 High
N 2174 Silgan Containers Mfr. Corp. Riverbank 18.1 High S 2777 California Resources Production
Corp. Bakersfield 9.89 Intermediate
N 3302 City of Modesto Modesto 9.44 Intermediate
N 3510 City of Lodi (Water Well #16) Lodi 9.41 Intermediate C 2886 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Fresno 9.32 Intermediate N 704 Dynatect Ro-Lab Inc. Tracy 9.08 Intermediate
N 2868 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Riverbank 9.04 Intermediate
C 3098 Comcast Cable Communications
Inc. Madera 8.94 Intermediate
S 8712 Kern Asphalt Paving & Sealing
Co Inc. Bakersfield 8.93 Intermediate
S 3344 Level 3 Communications Dinuba 8.82 Intermediate
N 3305 City of Modesto Modesto 8.73 Intermediate
S 91 Mt Poso Cogeneration Co LLC Bakersfield 8.65 Intermediate N 7365 Pelican Renewables LLC Stockton 8.57 Intermediate N 1662 Gallo Glass Company Modesto 8.56 Intermediate
N 2873 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Los Banos 8.56 Intermediate
N 3458 Applied Aerospace Structures
Corp. Stockton 8.55 Intermediate
C 214 California State Prison – Corcoran 8.32 Intermediate 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 2
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
Corcoran
C 7501 Signature Flight Support Fresno 8.27 Intermediate C 3572 Level 3 Communications LLC Fresno 8.23 Intermediate C 1647 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Selma 8.21 Intermediate
S 2486 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA Dinuba 8.06 Intermediate
C 4071 Algonquin Power Sanger LLC Sanger 8.03 Intermediate N 4522 City of Merced Merced 7.95 Intermediate
S 568 Rosewood Retirement
Community Bakersfield 7.88 Intermediate
N 8942 World Class Distribution, Inc. Stockton 7.86 Intermediate S 3546 California Water Service Bakersfield 7.82 Intermediate C 2055 The Ponderosa Telephone Co. Friant 7.61 Intermediate N 2564 Stockton Municipal Utility Stockton 7.51 Intermediate S 8690 Dirt Worx Inc. Bakersfield 7.47 Intermediate
C 205 California Water Service Co. Selma 7.35 Intermediate N 4527 City of Merced Merced 7.35 Intermediate
S 2474 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 7.33 Intermediate C 9419 Crestwood Kingsburg Healing
Center Kingsburg 7.08 Intermediate
C 1627 Fresno County Build
Maintenance Division Fresno 7.08 Intermediate
N 4666 Dale Commons MSL LLC Modesto 6.94 Intermediate
N 9211 San Joaquin County Stockton 6.89 Intermediate
N 9754 Amazon.Com Services LLC Stockton 6.85 Intermediate S 1469 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 6.85 Intermediate N 3038 Monschein Industries Inc. Riverbank 6.84 Intermediate N 4956 City of Newman Newman 6.78 Intermediate
S 8561 J.P. Oil Company, LLC Shafter 6.76 Intermediate
S 18 Kern County General Services Lamont 6.70 Intermediate N 3306 City of Modesto Modesto 6.66 Intermediate
N 811 Stockton RWCF Stockton 6.63 Intermediate
N 2885 City of Modesto Modesto 6.54 Intermediate
N 558 Diamond Pet Foods-Lathrop Lathrop 6.47 Intermediate C 2054 The Ponderosa Telephone Co. Shaver Lake 6.42 Intermediate C 3321 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 6.29 Intermediate N 9482 Keyes Community Services
District Keyes 6.28 Intermediate
N 10034 Amazon.Com Services LLC -
SCK6 Tracy 6.21 Intermediate
S 1915 Tulare City Water Division Tulare 6.13 Intermediate 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 3
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
S 6817 Lowe's HIW Inc. Tulare 6.07 Intermediate
S 2609 The Cardinal Group LLC Bakersfield 6.00 Intermediate N 1647 Martin Marietta CA A&P, LLC -
Merced HMA Merced 5.96 Intermediate
N 3087 City of Modesto Modesto 5.83 Intermediate
C 3318 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 5.80 Intermediate S 9681 Chevron Cogeneration
Company Bakersfield 5.80 Intermediate
S 1131 Chevron USA Inc. Kern County 5.80 Intermediate
S 88 Kern River Cogeneration Facility Bakersfield 5.8 Intermediate S 511 Sycamore Cogeneration Facility Bakersfield 5.8 Intermediate N 4724 City of Atwater Atwater 5.76 Intermediate
N 4723 City of Atwater Atwater 5.74 Intermediate
S 2634 Kern County Supt of Schools Bakersfield 5.73 Intermediate N 3086 City of Modesto Modesto 5.61 Intermediate
S 9156 Alliance Ready Mix, Inc. Shafter 5.49 Intermediate N 2456 City of Stockton/CB Richard Ellis
Inc. Stockton 5.47 Intermediate
C 9905 EZ-Trip Madera 5.43 Intermediate
C 1059 Saint Agnes Medical Center Fresno 5.25 Intermediate S 2568 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Earlimart 5.21 Intermediate
C 3615 City of Fresno Fresno 5.11 Intermediate
C 930 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Fresno 5.07 Intermediate N 4519 City of Merced Merced 5.02 Intermediate
N 4016 Comcast Cable Communications
Inc. Stockton 5.01 Intermediate
S 2493 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 5.01 Intermediate S 4275 City of Wasco Wasco 4.93 Intermediate
S 2300 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 4.89 Intermediate S 3391 Verizon Wireless - Woodmere Bakersfield 4.80 Intermediate C 3368 AT&T Mobility Madera 4.69 Intermediate
C 1764 Madera Valley Water Company Madera 4.64 Intermediate N 3842 City of Stockton, California Stockton 4.61 Intermediate N 2022 Sutter Valley Hospitals dba
Memorial Medical Modesto 4.59 Intermediate
C 3008 MCI Fresno 4.52 Intermediate
C 3026 Frontier California Inc. Reedley 4.48 Intermediate N 8553 New Bethany Los Banos 4.37 Intermediate
N 4727 City of Atwater Atwater 4.36 Intermediate
N 4728 City of Atwater Atwater 4.36 Intermediate
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 4
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
N 3482 City of Ripon Ripon 4.27 Intermediate
C 216 California Air National Guard Fresno 4.17 Intermediate N 4824 Los Banos Police Department Los Banos 4.08 Intermediate N 4472 City of Modesto Modesto 4.06 Intermediate
N 4725 City of Atwater Atwater 4.02 Intermediate
N 1670 Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC Modesto 4.00 Intermediate N 2875 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Gustine 3.92 Intermediate
S 6527 Visalia Eye Center Visalia 3.89 Intermediate
C 8864 City of Fresno Fresno 3.86 Intermediate
C 9728 JT Atwal Petroleum Inc. Fresno 3.84 Intermediate N 1758 Berry Seed & Feed Company Keyes 3.71 Intermediate N 4521 City of Merced Merced 3.70 Intermediate
S 1160 Pacific Bell Telephone Co dba
AT&T CA Frazier Park 3.58 Intermediate
C 2953 City of Selma Fire Dept. Selma 3.57 Intermediate S 3897 Centennial Asphalt Company Bakersfield 3.56 Intermediate S 8857 FJM Inc. Fellows 3.56 Intermediate
N 2859 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Newman 3.51 Intermediate
N 3932 Plymouth Square Stockton 3.43 Intermediate
S 1167 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Shafter 3.42 Intermediate
C 9490 Jammu Petroleum Inc. Fresno 3.40 Intermediate
N 9517 Lakha Corporation Atwater 3.39 Intermediate
C 8863 City of Fresno Fresno 3.36 Intermediate
C 1607 Bear Communications Squaw
Valley 3.28 Intermediate
N 8880 Fedex Freight Inc. – STK Stockton 3.18 Intermediate S 9576 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 3.12 Intermediate N 2860 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA)
Crows
Landing 3.11 Intermediate
N 2866 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Waterford 3.07 Intermediate
C 933 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Fresno 3.03 Intermediate S 1470 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 3.02 Intermediate C 2684 City of Corcoran Public Works Corcoran 2.98 Intermediate N 4181 City of Modesto Grayson 2.96 Intermediate
S 1494 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 2.92 Intermediate S 9230 City of Tulare, Public Works,
Water Dept. Tulare 2.91 Intermediate
S 1164 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. dba
AT&T CA Mettler 2.89 Intermediate
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 5
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
N 4017 Comcast Cable Communications
Inc. Stockton 2.85 Intermediate
N 608 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Holt 2.81 Intermediate N 7341 City of Patterson Patterson 2.81 Intermediate
N 4653 City of Tracy Tracy 2.81 Intermediate
S 9727 City of Delano Delano 2.77 Intermediate
N 4525 City of Merced Merced 2.73 Intermediate
N 7499 Travelcenters of America
Operating Corp. Livingston 2.72 Intermediate
S 6161 Level 3 Communications Tulare 2.68 Intermediate
N 2874 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Planada 2.64 Intermediate
S 2483 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Woodlake 2.64 Intermediate
S 2847 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 2.62 Intermediate S 1158 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Lebec 2.59 Intermediate
C 3296 Comcast Cable Communications
Inc. Fresno 2.59 Intermediate
N 9641 City of Modesto Modesto 2.58 Intermediate
S 2476 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Pixley 2.58 Intermediate
N 2877 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Le Grand 2.54 Intermediate
C 2877 Del Rey Community Ser District Del Rey 2.51 Intermediate N 9919 Jim Todd C/O Todd Energy
Corporation Los Banos 2.47 Intermediate
S 2479 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Terra Bella 2.46 Intermediate
S 3035 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 2.45 Intermediate C 3104 Housing Authority City of
Madera Madera 2.45 Intermediate
C 8773 New Cingular Wireless PCS,
LLC dba AT&T Chowchilla 2.45 Intermediate
S 2475 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Orosi 2.41 Intermediate
S 8762 Sully's Food Stores LLC Bakersfield 2.39 Intermediate S 2234 California Resources Elk Hills
LLC Tupman 2.38 Intermediate
S 9168 Elk Hills Power LLC Tupman 2.38 Intermediate
N 9297 City of Oakdale Oakdale 2.36 Intermediate
C 1649 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Avenal 2.34 Intermediate
S 2487 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Farmersville 2.33 Intermediate
C 1955 Biola Community Services Dist. Biola 2.27 Intermediate 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 6
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
N 9555 BP Products North America Inc. Modesto 2.26 Intermediate S 8912 Sullivan Petroleum LLC Bakersfield 2.25 Intermediate C 2876 Malaga County Water District Fresno 2.22 Intermediate S 267 California Water Service Co Visalia 2.18 Intermediate S 6276 MCI Bakersfield 2.12 Intermediate
C 1614 Fresno County Build
Maintenance Div. Fresno 2.10 Intermediate
S 4202 Housing Authority of the County
of Kern Bakersfield 2.08 Intermediate
N 4182 City of Modesto Del Rio 2.07 Intermediate
S 3991 Foster Farms- Traver Feedmill Traver 2.04 Intermediate C 1648 Pacific Bell Telephone Co dba
AT&T CA) Stratford 2.03 Intermediate
C 9635 SCI California Funeral Services,
Inc. Reedley 2.02 Intermediate
S 8013 Sullivan Petroleum LLC Bakersfield 2.01 Intermediate C 9034 California Highway Patrol Fresno 2.00 Intermediate N 9529 Fam Autobody Stockton 1.98 Intermediate
N 9686 San Joaquin County Office of
Education Stockton 1.98 Intermediate
S 1471 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 1.98 Intermediate S 8351 Hope Elementary School Porterville 1.95 Intermediate S 1760 VSS Emultech Bakersfield 1.95 Intermediate
N 2867 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Turlock 1.92 Intermediate
S 2489 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Ivanhoe 1.92 Intermediate
S 8918 Timothy Van Beek, SP dba Two
Fiets Tipton 1.91 Intermediate
N 9893 Westley Property LLC Westley 1.89 Intermediate
C 3204 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 1.85 Intermediate C 1664 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Lemoore 1.85 Intermediate
C 3783 Cocola Broadcasting Companies Fresno 1.84 Intermediate N 8255 Linden County Water District Linden 1.82 Intermediate N 7839 Doctors Behavioral Health
Center Modesto 1.76 Intermediate
N 9927 ATC Sequoia LLC Modesto 1.75 Intermediate
S 3675 Home Depot #6687 Bakersfield 1.73 Intermediate
C 3581 Millbrook Fresno LLC Dba
Cottonwood Center Fresno 1.73 Intermediate
N 9208 San Joaquin County French
Camp 1.68 Intermediate
S 2645 Horizon Nut LLC Tulare 1.67 Intermediate
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 7
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
S 2478 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Springville 1.67 Intermediate
C 3163 Kfsn-Tv/ABC Inc. Meadow
Lakes 1.66 Intermediate
C 3440 Sinclair Television-Fresno LLCKmph-TV Fresno 1.66 Intermediate C 9199 California Rock Crusher Various
Unspecified 1.65 Intermediate
S 9664 City of Shafter Shafter 1.61 Intermediate
N 9993 Denair Community Service
District Denair 1.60 Intermediate
C 3316 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 1.57 Intermediate N 9792 Home Depot USA, Inc. Tracy 1.56 Intermediate
N 4730 City of Atwater Atwater 1.51 Intermediate
N 474 Leprino Foods Tracy 1.51 Intermediate
S 691 Bakersfield City C/O Cal Water Bakersfield 1.50 Intermediate N 9645 City of Lathrop Lathrop 1.47 Intermediate
C 1951 California Water Service Co. Selma 1.44 Intermediate C 1952 California Water Service Co. Selma 1.44 Intermediate N 9912 Cepheid Lodi 1.44 Intermediate
C 3552 City of Madera Madera 1.44 Intermediate
N 2929 City of Stockton Stockton 1.41 Intermediate
N 2861 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Knights Ferry 1.40 Intermediate
N 3521 City of Modesto, Public Works Modesto 1.37 Intermediate C 2438 City of Sanger Sanger 1.36 Intermediate
C 195 CA State Prison - Avenal Avenal 1.34 Intermediate N 4149 Keyes Community Services Dist. Keyes 1.34 Intermediate C 954 Prison Industry Authority -
Avenal Avenal 1.34 Intermediate
S 614 California Water Service Co. Visalia 1.33 Intermediate C 2042 J.W. Myers Inc.-Chevron Madera 1.33 Intermediate N 8803 Walmart Store #5843 Patterson 1.33 Intermediate
N 2942 City of Ripon Ripon 1.33 Intermediate
S 2924 Wasco City Westside Pump
Station Wasco 1.31 Intermediate
C 2882 County of Kings Kettleman
City 1.31 Intermediate
C 544 Fresno County Service Area #31 Shaver Lake 1.31 Intermediate N 9817 7-Eleven Store #41187 Stockton 1.30 Intermediate S 3857 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 1.28 Intermediate N 3995 City of Escalon Escalon 1.28 Intermediate
N 9478 City of Modesto Modesto 1.28 Intermediate
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 8
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
C 7868 Home Garden Community
Service District Hanford 1.28 Intermediate
N 9935 Amazon.com Services LLCSCK9 Stockton 1.26 Intermediate S 2485 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA)
Camp
Nelson 1.23 Intermediate
N 8102 Anthony Souza Tracy 1.22 Intermediate
S 6860 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 1.22 Intermediate C 2361 Madera Valley Water Company Madera 1.20 Intermediate N 7386 City of Ripon - Public Works Ripon 1.19 Intermediate S 799 California Water Service Co. Visalia 1.19 Intermediate S 9805 American Towers LLC Bakersfield 1.19 Intermediate N 1910 Crystal Creamery, Inc. Modesto 1.17 Intermediate S 6541 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 1.16 Intermediate S 9141 El Centro Corner Petroleum LLC Visalia 1.16 Intermediate C 7569 Kuldeep Dhaliwal Coalinga 1.11 Intermediate
S 9760 American Towers LLC Bakersfield 1.09 Intermediate S 258 California Water Service Co. Visalia 1.09 Intermediate N 9420 Department of Transportation Los Banos 1.08 Intermediate S 1377 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 1.07 Intermediate S 3234 KGET-TV 17 Bakersfield 1.06 Intermediate
C 3705 Lowe's HIW Inc. #795 Fresno 1.06 Intermediate
C 1646 Pacific Bell dba SBC Parlier 1.04 Intermediate
C 1814 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Chowchilla 1.04 Intermediate
N 9872 City of Newman Newman 1.03 Intermediate
N 2010 George W. Lowry, Inc. Modesto 1.03 Intermediate
C 1662 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Kingsburg 1.02 Intermediate
C 8740 Kings Nursing & Rehabilitation
Center Hanford 1.00 Exempt/Low
N 3973 Level 3 Communications LLC Modesto 0.99 Exempt/Low N 4585 The Dimare Company Newman 0.98 Exempt/Low
N 7480 Canary Renewables Corp. Stockton 0.97 Exempt/Low S 1475 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 0.96 Exempt/Low C 3885 City of Fresno, Police Dept. Fresno 0.95 Exempt/Low N 3692 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Lockeford 0.94 Exempt/Low
S 8521 Express Messenger Systems
Inc. Visalia 0.92 Exempt/Low
S 1689 Quality Refinishing Bakersfield 0.92 Exempt/Low
S 1491 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 0.91 Exempt/Low 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 9
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
S 9656 Rocket #0255 Goshen 0.90 Exempt/Low
S 4124 California Water Service Bakersfield 0.90 Exempt/Low S 2481 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Tipton 0.88 Exempt/Low
N 1248 Foster Poultry Farms-Kopro Livingston 0.88 Exempt/Low S 266 California Water Service Co. Visalia 0.87 Exempt/Low N 3673 City of Ripon Ripon 0.84 Exempt/Low
S 3315 Porterville Fire Dept. Porterville 0.83 Exempt/Low C 3030 Frontier California Inc. Squaw
Valley 0.82 Exempt/Low
C 3327 Qwest Communications Co
LLC/Centurylink Fresno 0.81 Exempt/Low
C 3250 KGPE Television Auberry 0.81 Exempt/Low
N 3113 San Joaquin Co. Public Works Manteca 0.79 Exempt/Low C 1661 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Huron 0.79 Exempt/Low
C 1667 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Madera 0.77 Exempt/Low
S 268 California Water Service Co. Visalia 0.77 Exempt/Low S 183 Crop Production Services Inc. Alpaugh 0.77 Exempt/Low C 1654 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Del Rey 0.76 Exempt/Low
C 1651 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Caruthers 0.72 Exempt/Low
C 9930 Amazon.com Services LLC Fresno 0.72 Exempt/Low
S 265 California Water Service Co. Visalia 0.72 Exempt/Low C 4168 City of San Joaquin San Joaquin 0.70 Exempt/Low
N 4009 Level 3 Communications LLC Winton 0.70 Exempt/Low N 5404 JCPenney Company Merced 0.69 Exempt/Low
S 2480 Pacific Bell dba SBC Three Rivers 0.69 Exempt/Low N 4530 City of Merced Merced 0.67 Exempt/Low
N 5088 JCPenney Company Modesto 0.66 Exempt/Low
N 472 Lawrence Livermore Natl
Security, LLC Tracy 0.65 Exempt/Low
N 4183 City of Waterford Waterford 0.64 Exempt/Low
C 1645 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Riverdale 0.64 Exempt/Low
N 9730 Vanguard of California Stockton 0.63 Exempt/Low
N 3555 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Manteca 0.62 Exempt/Low
S 2484 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA)
Ash
Mountain 0.61 Exempt/Low
C 2179 Sierra Unified School District Prather 0.61 Exempt/Low N 9059 New Cingular Wireless Pcs LLC El Nido 0.607 Exempt/Low 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 10
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
dba AT&T
S 7131 AT&T Corp Mckittrick 0.604 Exempt/Low
C 1663 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (dba
AT&T CA) Laton 0.569 Exempt/Low
N 4289 MCI Worldcom Turlock 0.562 Exempt/Low
C 4261 Seaboard Energy California,
LLC Madera 0.56 Exempt/Low
C 9418 Del Rey CSD Del Rey 0.553 Exempt/Low
C 70 Burrows & Castadio Inc. Lemoore 0.548 Exempt/Low
N 4358 City of Livingston Livingston 0.541 Exempt/Low
N 9679 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Merced 0.533 Exempt/Low S 263 California Water Service Co. Visalia 0.532 Exempt/Low N 3817 Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. Crows
Landing 0.526 Exempt/Low
S 2418 Jeffries Brothers Inc. Buttonwillow 0.52 Exempt/Low N 9850 7-Eleven, Inc. Stockton 0.511 Exempt/Low
S 9698 7-Eleven, Inc. #41516 Bakersfield 0.511 Exempt/Low C 9075 New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC
dba AT&T Firebaugh 0.506 Exempt/Low
N 4096 MCI World Com Corp Lodi 0.503 Exempt/Low
C 3240 Hanford Mall Hanford 0.497 Exempt/Low
S 3708 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 0.494 Exempt/Low N 3691 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Thornton 0.493 Exempt/Low
S 1375 Ming Property LLC Bakersfield 0.488 Exempt/Low
C 8894 Fedex Ground Fresno 0.473 Exempt/Low
N 7768 Modesto Irrigation District Modesto 0.467 Exempt/Low N 9180 City of Lathrop - Lathrop Well
#10 Lathrop 0.459 Exempt/Low
C 8188 State of California Dept. of
Transportation Miramonte 0.452 Exempt/Low
C 9091 Eriksson LLC Riverdale 0.449 Exempt/Low
C 1650 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Burrel 0.448 Exempt/Low
S 1487 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 0.44 Exempt/Low N 4306 City of Los Banos Los Banos 0.438 Exempt/Low
C 3502 Sears Roebuck & Co. #1098 Clovis 0.423 Exempt/Low N 3996 Level 3 Communications LLC Tracy 0.403 Exempt/Low S 3977 California Water Service Co Bakersfield 0.399 Exempt/Low N 4603 City of Manteca Manteca 0.392 Exempt/Low
N 2909 Pacific Bell Telephone Co (Dba
AT&T CA) Modesto 0.382 Exempt/Low
C 7256 Garry Packing, Inc. Del Rey 0.365 Exempt/Low
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 11
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
N 4742 Hilmar County Water District Hilmar 0.365 Exempt/Low S 4266 City of Bakersfield / CA Water
Services Bakersfield 0.358 Exempt/Low
C 1644 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Orange Cove 0.354 Exempt/Low
C 2124 Biola Community Services Dist. Biola 0.344 Exempt/Low C 973 Fig Garden Packing Inc. Fresno 0.334 Exempt/Low
N 5024 City of Los Banos Fire
Department Los Banos 0.333 Exempt/Low
N 4334 City of Manteca Manteca 0.33 Exempt/Low
S 5256 California Water Service Co Visalia 0.327 Exempt/Low S 4226 Golden Empire Concrete
Products Bakersfield 0.322 Exempt/Low
N 9861 Prologis Tracy 0.318 Exempt/Low
S 2951 Taft City Wastewater Plant Taft 0.305 Exempt/Low S 8652 Verizon Wireless Tulare Tulare 0.296 Exempt/Low
C 4057 Cocola Broadcasting Companies
LLC Auberry 0.274 Exempt/Low
N 9373 City of Livingston Livingston 0.259 Exempt/Low
N 3516 City of Modesto Modesto 0.254 Exempt/Low
C 1987 Ponderosa Paint Co., Inc. Fresno 0.254 Exempt/Low S 3547 California Water Service Bakersfield 0.25 Exempt/Low N 4097 Level 3 Communications LLC Stockton 0.245 Exempt/Low C 3425 Comcast Cable Communications
Inc. Clovis 0.241 Exempt/Low
N 8549 Department of Transportation Terminous 0.24 Exempt/Low C 1868 Manheim Central CA/TRACentral CA Fresno 0.24 Exempt/Low N 3344 MCI Telecommunications Corp. Manteca 0.24 Exempt/Low N 9381 Oak Ridge Winery LLC Lodi 0.24 Exempt/Low
S 8711 Verizon Wireless - "Belridge &
Hwy 33" Lost Hills 0.237 Exempt/Low
C 3038 County of Fresno Clovis 0.236 Exempt/Low
C 9248 Faraday & Future, Inc. Hanford 0.232 Exempt/Low
N 4515 Central Valley Broadcasting Merced 0.225 Exempt/Low N 3263 City of Lathrop Lathrop 0.212 Exempt/Low
C 9397 A1 Blasting Various
Unspecified 0.211 Exempt/Low
C 3546 Madera County Madera 0.207 Exempt/Low
N 9530 City of Manteca Manteca 0.204 Exempt/Low
S 1495 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 0.199 Exempt/Low C 2404 Lotus Communications, Corp Fresno 0.195 Exempt/Low C 3847 City of Clovis Clovis 0.191 Exempt/Low
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 12
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
N 4108 City of Los Banos Los Banos 0.191 Exempt/Low
N 9585 McFadden Construction Stockton 0.182 Exempt/Low
C 1656 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (dba
AT&T CA) Five Points 0.177 Exempt/Low
S 3925 City of Delano CCF Delano 0.176 Exempt/Low
S 9165 M.O Dion & Sons, Inc. Bakersfield 0.172 Exempt/Low S 7254 Goertzen Quality Gypsum Bakersfield 0.171 Exempt/Low C 9426 Superior Soils Supplements,
LLC Mendota 0.166 Exempt/Low
S 264 California Water Service Co. Visalia 0.158 Exempt/Low S 4248 California Water Services Co.
Station 218 Bakersfield 0.158 Exempt/Low
N 5977 City of Turlock Turlock 0.158 Exempt/Low
C 3710 City of Huron Huron 0.156 Exempt/Low
N 3784 Kohl's Department Stores Inc. Merced 0.151 Exempt/Low C 3517 Clovis Unified School District Clovis 0.149 Exempt/Low C 3000 Clovis Unified School District Clovis 0.144 Exempt/Low N 1980 Evergreen Beverage Packaging Turlock 0.141 Exempt/Low C 9338 Gar Bennett, LLC Reedley 0.14 Exempt/Low
C 3081 Quail Lake LLC Clovis 0.134 Exempt/Low
N 9075 City of Tracy Utilities Dept. Tracy 0.129 Exempt/Low C 4044 Fresno Unified School District Fresno 0.125 Exempt/Low S 3503 KTFF - Telefutura Tulare 0.119 Exempt/Low
C 3527 Educational Employees C.U. Fresno 0.115 Exempt/Low C 9024 New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC
dba AT&T Fresno 0.112 Exempt/Low
N 3397 San Joaquin County Svc Area
31 Lodi 0.11 Exempt/Low
N 9073 New Cingular Wireless Pcs LLC
dba AT&T Gustine 0.109 Exempt/Low
S 6533 City of Dinuba Dinuba 0.0891 Exempt/Low
C 351 City of Clovis Clovis 0.0849 Exempt/Low
S 1196 Plains Pipeline LP Kern 0.0817 Exempt/Low
C 3511 Educational Employee Federal
Credit Union Fresno 0.081 Exempt/Low
C 3379 Ross Aviation Investment, LLC Fresno 0.0776 Exempt/Low N 3948 City of Riverbank Riverbank 0.077 Exempt/Low
N 4652 Winton Water And Sanitary
District Winton 0.072 Exempt/Low
N 9371 Mcmanis Family Vineyards Ripon 0.0719 Exempt/Low N 4109 City of Los Banos Los Banos 0.0636 Exempt/Low
S 3159 Plains Pipeline LP Bakersfield 0.0622 Exempt/Low 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 13
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
N 8949 City of Tracy Dept. of
Emergency Services Tracy 0.062 Exempt/Low
C 9097 California Resources Production
Corp. Fresno 0.0464 Exempt/Low
C 7958 City of Firebaugh Firebaugh 0.0456 Exempt/Low
N 8643 Graham Packaging LC LP Plant
0176 Modesto 0.041 Exempt/Low
S 9447 Porterville Rock And Recycle Porterville 0.0402 Exempt/Low N 3944 Salida Sanitary District Salida 0.0398 Exempt/Low N 7676 City of Dos Palos Dos Palos 0.0383 Exempt/Low
N 7895 City of Oakdale Oakdale 0.0352 Exempt/Low
N 7675 City of Dos Palos Dos Palos 0.0342 Exempt/Low
N 3735 City of Tracy Tracy 0.034 Exempt/Low
C 3791 CVIN LLC Kettleman
City 0.03 Exempt/Low
C 2906 City of Clovis Clovis 0.0262 Exempt/Low
N 9524 Lathrop-Manteca Fire Station 35 Lathrop 0.0203 Exempt/Low S 3624 Frontier California Inc.
Kings
Canyon
National Park
0.0161 Exempt/Low
S 3283 Terra Bella Irrigation Dist. Terra Bella 0.0159 Exempt/Low S 3559 Delaware North Parks Services Sequoia
National Park 0.014 Exempt/Low
N 4083 City of Riverbank Riverbank 0.013 Exempt/Low
N 1004 CSREH Charter 540 E Main,
LLC Stockton 0.0127 Exempt/Low
S 7653 Edison Beneficial Reuse Bakersfield 0.0124 Exempt/Low S 8216 Kern County Fire Department
Station #65 Bakersfield 0.00532 Exempt/Low
C 3196 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Shaver Lake 0.00332 Exempt/Low S 9018 City of Woodlake Woodlake 0.003 Exempt/Low
N 3383 David J. M. Field Farmington 0.003 Exempt/Low
C 2875 Malaga County Water District Fresno 0.00289 Exempt/Low N 3380 David J. M. Field Patterson 0.002 Exempt/Low
C 9548 Left Mendota 1, LLC Mendota 0.00149 Exempt/Low
N 8950 City of Tracy Dept. of
Emergency Services Tracy 0.001 Exempt/Low
N 3663 Kabariti's AM/PM Lathrop 0 Exempt/Low
S 1480 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 0 Exempt/Low S 1492 California Water Service Co. Bakersfield 0 Exempt/Low N 7985 Cardoza Enterprises Manteca 0 Exempt/Low
N 9782 Carriage Services Inc. Manteca 0 Exempt/Low
N 4729 City of Atwater Atwater 0 Exempt/Low
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 14
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
C 2904 City of Clovis Clovis 0 Exempt/Low
C 2905 City of Clovis Clovis 0 Exempt/Low
C 2907 City of Clovis Clovis 0 Exempt/Low
C 3590 City of Clovis-Public Utility Clovis 0 Exempt/Low C 3266 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 0 Exempt/Low C 3315 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 0 Exempt/Low C 3317 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 0 Exempt/Low C 3319 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 0 Exempt/Low C 3320 City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 0 Exempt/Low N 4551 City of Gustine Gustine 0 Exempt/Low
N 4360 City of Livingston Livingston 0 Exempt/Low
N 4465 City of Lodi Station #13 Lodi 0 Exempt/Low
N 4107 City of Los Banos Los Banos 0 Exempt/Low
C 3751 City of Parlier Parlier 0 Exempt/Low
C 3753 City of Parlier Parlier 0 Exempt/Low
N 7384 City of Ripon- Public Works Ripon 0 Exempt/Low
N 3959 City of Riverbank Riverbank 0 Exempt/Low
N 3960 City of Riverbank Riverbank 0 Exempt/Low
N 3961 City of Riverbank Riverbank 0 Exempt/Low
C 9725 City of Sanger Sanger 0 Exempt/Low
N 5976 City of Turlock Turlock 0 Exempt/Low
N 5979 City of Turlock Turlock 0 Exempt/Low
C 2307 CLF Fresno Business Trust Fresno 0 Exempt/Low
C 3282 County of Kings Hanford 0 Exempt/Low
S 2025 Earlimart Public Utility Dist. Earlimart 0 Exempt/Low N 3255 Lowe's Home Centers, LLC Tracy 0 Exempt/Low
S 7506 Nelson's Ace Hardware Visalia 0 Exempt/Low
C 916 Patton Sheet Metal Fresno 0 Exempt/Low
S 3438 Sinclair Television-Fresno LLCKMPH-TV
Sequoia
National
Forest
0 Exempt/Low
S 3456 Sinclair Television-Fresno LLCKMPH-TV Springville 0 Exempt/Low N 8045 Strand Ace Hardware, Inc. Modesto 0 Exempt/Low
N 10041 Tripoint Building 5, LLC Lathrop 0 Exempt/Low
N 10040 Tripoint Building 7, LLC Lathrop 0 Exempt/Low
S 7448 Tulare Co RMA Delft Colony
Water Dinuba 0 Exempt/Low
S 7447 Tulare County RMA - Solid
Waste Exeter 0 Exempt/Low
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
A - 15
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Prioritization
Score
Prioritization
Category
C 3630 XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.- UKC Kettleman
City 0 Exempt/Low
A - 16
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
Table A2. Facilities with Health Risk Assessments Performed in 2023 Region Facility ID Facility Name City Cancer
Score
Acute
Score
Chronic
Score
Risk
Category
S 3149 Frontier California Inc. Lindsay 8.89 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3357 City of Lathrop Lathrop 8.67 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3577 West Valley Mall Tracy 8.16 0.00 0.01 Intermediate Risk
S 1173 Pacific Bell Telephone
Co. (dba AT&T CA) Oildale 7.86 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk N 3550 City of Modesto Modesto 7.75 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3649 Pacific Bell Telephone
Co. (dba AT&T Ca) Stockton 6.97 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk C 1933 City of Fresno Water
Division Fresno 5.99 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
S 3347 Level 3
Communications Delano 5.86 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
C 2500 Comcast Cable
Communications Inc. Hanford 5.66 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk C 2948 Comcast Cable
Communications Inc. Reedley 5.62 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk S 3203 Valley Strong Credit
Union Bakersfield 4.93 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
S 12 Judicial Council of
California JCC 15-C1 Bakersfield 4.71 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk S 3984 Bowman Asphalt Inc. Bakersfield 4.71 0.54 0.11 Intermediate Risk
C 6923 Ampersand Chowchilla
Biomass LLC Chowchilla 4.68 0.09 0.16 Intermediate Risk S 13 Kern County General
Services Bakersfield 4.63 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
S 3526 City of Porterville Porterville 4.48 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 7617 USA Waste of
California, Inc. Lathrop 3.84 0.89 0.05 Intermediate Risk N 624 Park View Mausoleum
& Crematory Manteca 3.65 0.11 0.34 Intermediate Risk
S 1482 California Water
Service Co. Bakersfield 2.95 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk S 6847 Kern County Water
Agency Bakersfield 2.39 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3165 City of Modesto Modesto 2.29 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3509 City of Lodi (Water Well
#9) Lodi 2.26 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
S 2198 Pacific Bell Telephone
Co. dba AT&T CA Tulare 2.18 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk N 4520 City of Merced Merced 1.96 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
S 3343 Level 3
Communications Arvin 1.96 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
A - 17
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Cancer
Score
Acute
Score
Chronic
Score
Risk
Category
S 3362 City of Shafter Shafter 1.91 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3304 City of Modesto Modesto 1.56 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3164 City of Modesto Modesto 1.50 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3998 Remembrance
Cremation Center Atwater 1.40 0.14 0.11 Intermediate Risk N 3511 City of Lodi (Water Well
#7) Lodi 1.37 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3541 Federal Aviation Admin Stockton 1.31 0.00 0.00 Intermediate Risk
N 3085 City of Modesto Modesto 0.88 0.00 0.00 Exempt/Low Risk
C 2950 Geil Enterprises Inc. Fresno 0.77 0.00 0.00 Exempt/Low Risk
N 7771 Modesto Irrigation
District Modesto 0.70 0.00 0.00 Exempt/Low Risk
S 3530 County of Tulare
Resource Mgmt. Visalia 0.68 0.00 0.00 Exempt/Low Risk
S 3704 Level 3
Communications LLC Bakersfield 0.29 0.00 0.00 Exempt/Low Risk N 2907 Pacific Bell Telephone
Co. (dba AT&T CA) Modesto 0.28 0.00 0.00 Exempt/Low Risk N 3863 City of Lodi Lodi 0.24 0.00 0.00 Exempt/Low
Risk
A - 18
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
Figure A1. Map of Intermediate Facilities Assessed in 2023 A - 19
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
Figure A2. Map of High Priority Facilities Assessed in 2023 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
B - 1
Appendix B. Update Summary Facilities Evaluated
Appendix B includes facilities that were re-evaluated as an update summary project.
Table B1. Update Summary Facilities Assessed in 2023
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Reinstatement
Required
C 4071 Algonquin Power Sanger LLC Sanger Yes
N 7856 Family Pet Mortuary Turlock Yes
S 3991 Foster Farms- Traver Feedmill Traver Yes
S 3860 GMC Roofing & Paper Products Shafter Yes
S 8132 Golden Valley Crematory Bakersfield Yes
S 301 R B & J Industries Inc. Dinuba Yes
C 7832 Advanced Drainage System Inc. Madera No
N 4408 Aero Turbine Inc. Stockton No
N 1166 Andersen Nut Company Gustine No
S 3232 Bakersfield Metropolitan Landfill at Bena Edison No S 3435 Best Buy Dinuba No
S 1876 Bluescope Buildings North America Inc. Visalia No C 7542 Buttonwillow Warehouse Co Corcoran No
S 864 Cal Dept. of Corrections Delano Delano No
S 559 Cal Dept. of Corrections Wasco Wasco No
N 1363 California Dairies, Inc. Los Banos No
S 382 California Resources Elk Hills LLC Kern No
S 1738 California Resources Production Corp. Kern No
S 8282 California Resources Production Corp. Kern No
S 8454 California Resources Production Corp. Kern No
N 1788 California State University Turlock No
S 97 Carrage Funeral Services of California Bakersfield No C 628 Cbus Ops dba Mission Bell Winery Madera No
N 2321 Cbus Ops Inc (dba Woodbridge Winery) Acampo No
C 252 Central Cal Women's Facility Chowchilla No
N 2518 Chemical Transfer Co., Inc. Stockton No
C 9095 Chevron Pipe Line Company Kettleman Hills No
N 3266 Chinchiolo Stemilt California LLC Stockton No
C 3913 City of Clovis Clovis No
N 7827 City of Modesto Composting Facility Modesto No
C 343 Clovis Unified School District Clovis No
C 4051 Coalinga State Hospital Coalinga No
N 230 Con-Fab California LLC Lathrop No
C 4163 Del Rey Packing Del Rey No
S 8504 Delano Rock And Asphalt LLC Delano No
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
B - 2
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Reinstatement
Required
N 283 Deuel Vocational Institute Tracy No
S 879 Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Bakersfield No
S 2821 Drilling & Production Co. Kern County No
N 3386 E & J Gallo Winery Modesto No
N 7478 E&J Gallo – Spirits Modesto No
N 4939 E&J Gallo Winery - Turner Road Vinters Lodi No
C 3733 Evergreen Cremation Service of California Fresno No N 4070 Foothill Sanitary Landfill Linden No
N 3838 Frazier Nut Farms, Inc. Waterford No
N 3309 G3 Enterprises, Label Division Modesto No
C 2265 Gary V. Burrows Inc. Corcoran No
C 7218 Golden State Crematory Inc. Fresno No
S 724 Grade 6 Oil, LLC - Western Power & Steam Bakersfield No S 3078 Griffith Co. Tejon Ranch No
S 381 Heck Cellars Digiorgio No
N 7416 Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC Modesto No
N 8533 Highway 59 Composting Facility Merced No
N 2140 Hunt & Sons Inc. Newman No
N 1380 Hunt & Sons Inc. Atwater No
N 2307 Hunt N Sons Inc. Modesto No
N 421 International Paper Tracy No
C 1713 J W Myers, Incorporated Coarsegold No
N 1161 J.R. Simplot / French Camp French Camp No
S 6458 Kern County Water Agency Bakersfield No
S 4128 Kern Valley State Prison Delano No
C 724 Kings County Public Works Dept. Hanford No
C 234 Kraft Heinz Foods Company Fresno No
N 2000 Lakewood Memorial Park Hughson No
C 848 Moore Quality Galvanizing Madera No
C 2341 NAS Lemoore Lemoore No
S 3434 Newby Rubber Inc. Bakersfield No
N 139 Nutrien Ag Solutions Stockton No
C 629 O'neill Beverages Co LLC Parlier No
S 3636 Pastoria Energy Facility LLC Lebec No
S 71 Plains LPG Services LP Shafter No
S 185 Porterville Developmental Center Porterville No
N 1646 QG Printing Ii LLC Merced No
S 4254 Salser & Dillard Funeral Chapel Visalia No
C 3029 San Joaquin Figs Fresno No
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
B - 3
Region Facility ID Facility Name City Reinstatement
Required
N 1655 Santa Fe Aggregates, Inc. Winton No
C 1080 Scelzi Enterprises Inc. Fresno No
N 9137 Shepard Bros, Inc. Stockton No
N 1717 Silgan Container Corp. Modesto No
C 393 Silvas Oil Company, Inc. Fresno No
N 2177 Sky Trek Aviation Fuels Inc. Modesto No
N 4986 State of California, Dept. of Trans Stockton No
N 913 Stockton Metropolitan Airport Stockton No
N 571 Stockton Port District Stockton No
N 4058 Stockton Rubber Mfg. Co., Inc. Linden No
N 810 Stockton Tri Industries, LLC Stockton No
N 825 Stockton Wood Shavings Company French Camp No
S 1602 The Boeing Co. Taft No
N 956 The Wine Group, Inc. Ripon No
N 3187 Tracy Material Recovery Tracy No
S 548 Tulare City Wastewater Plant Tulare No
N 754 US Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey Lathrop No
N 8114 Valley Custom Powder Coating Lathrop No
N 2820 Vanderlans & Sons, Inc. Lodi No
C 1344 Vie-Del Winery #1 Fresno No
N 7989 Wilbur-Ellis Company - Manteca Manteca No
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
C - 1
Appendix C. Toxics Emissions Summary
Emissions for eight counties of San Joaquin Valley from the latest California Air Resources Board California Toxics Inventory (CTI).
Table C1. Toxic Emissions Summary
Pollutant CTI (tons/yr)
Acetaldehyde 3,512
Diesel Particulate Matter 2,520
Formaldehyde 2,318
Benzene 1,020
Perchloroethylene 448
1,3-Butadiene 269
Methylene Chloride 247
PAHs 238
Manganese 217
Acrolein 153
p-Dichlorobenzene 130
Styrene 96
Trichloroethylene 46
Chromium 34
Lead 28
Nickel 18
Acrylonitrile 7
Vinyl Chloride 7
Arsenic 5
Cadmium 3
Mercury 2
Chloroform 2
Ethylene Oxide 0
Ethylene Dichloride 0
Beryllium 0
Carbon Tetrachloride 0
Dioxins/Benzofurans 0
Chromium, Hexavalent 0
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
D - 1
Appendix D. AB 2588 District Implementation Flow Chart
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
E - 1
Appendix E. Current Status of NESHAP Delegation
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for which authority has been delegated to the District are included in District Rule 4002. This rule incorporates the NESHAPs from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (Table E.1), and the NESHAPs for Source Categories from Part 63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (Table E.2).
Table E1. District Delegated NESHAPs from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
Subpart Description
A General Provisions
C National Emission Standard for Beryllium
D National Emission Standard for Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing E National Emission Standard for Mercury
F National Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride
J National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene
L National Emission Standard for Benzene Emissions from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants
M National Emission Standard for Asbestos
N National Emission Standard for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants
O National Emission Standard for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Primary Copper Smelters
P National Emission Standard for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Arsenic Trioxide and Metallic Arsenic Production Facilities
V National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) Y National Emission Standard for Benzene Emissions from Benzene Storage Vessels BB National Emission Standard for Benzene Emissions from Benzene Transfer Operations FF National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations 2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
E - 2
Table E2. District Delegated NESHAPs from Part 63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
Subpart Description
A General Provisions
F-I National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
J National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production
L National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries
R National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)
S National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry
T National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (except §63.462 - Batch cold cleaning machine standards)
U National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
W National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon Polyamides Production
X National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Secondary Lead Smelting
Y
National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations AA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants
BB National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants
CC National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries DD National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
EE National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations GG National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities HH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities
II National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) JJ National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations KK National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing Industry LL National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
MM
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
YY National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology (Generic MACT)
CCC National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants DDD National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production
GGG National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Pharmaceutical Production
HHH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities
III National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
E - 3
Subpart Description
JJJ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins
LLL National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry
MMM National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Pesticide Active Ingredient Production
NNN National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
OOO National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins
PPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyether Polyols Production
QQQ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Primary Copper Smelting
RRR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production
TTT National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Lead Smelting UUU National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries:
Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units VVV National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works
XXX National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production:
Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese
AAAA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
CCCC National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast
EEEE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
FFFF National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
GGGG National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production
HHHH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Wet- Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
JJJJ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Paper and Other Web Coating
KKKK National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Surface Coating of Metal Cans
MMMM National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
NNNN National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Surface Coating of Large Appliances
OOOO National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
PPPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
QQQQ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Surface Coating of Wood Building Products
RRRR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
2023 Annual Report on the District’s Air ToxicsProgram
E - 4
Subpart Description
SSSS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Surface Coating of Metal Coil
TTTT National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Leather Finishing Operations
UUUU National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Cellulose Product Manufacturing
VVVV National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Boat Manufacturing WWWW National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
XXXX National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from f Rubber Tire Manufacturing
YYYY National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Stationary Combustion Turbines
AAAAA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Lime Manufacturing Plants
BBBBB National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Semiconductor Manufacturing
CCCCC National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
EEEEE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Iron and Steel Foundries
FFFFF National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
GGGGG National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Site Remediation HHHHH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
IIIII National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants
JJJJJ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
KKKKK National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
LLLLL National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
MMMMM National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations
PPPPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Engine Test Cells/Stands
QQQQQ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities
RRRRR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Taconite Iron Ore Processing
SSSSS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Refractory Products Manufacturing
TTTTT National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Primary Magnesium Refining