Agenda — Mount Shasta City Council, September 11, 2023

“Our mission is to maintain the character of our “small town” community while striking an appropriate balance between economic development and preservation of our quality of life. We help create a dynamic and vital City by providing quality, cost-effective municipalservices and by forming partnerships with residents and organizationsin the constant pursuit of excellence.”
Page Item STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1. Call to Order and Flag Salute

2. Roll call

3. Special Presentations: Siskiyou Economic Development Council

4. Public Comment:

This time is set aside for citizens to address the City Council on matters listed on the Consent Agenda as well as other items not included on the Regular Agenda. If your comments concern an agenda item noted on the regular agenda, please address the Council when that item is open for public comment.

Each speaker is allocated three (3) minutes to speak. Speakers may not cede their time. Comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the City. Council discussion or action cannot be taken on items not listed on the agenda other than to receive comments. If you have documents to present to members of Council, please provide a minimum of seven (7) copies to the Deputy City Clerk. Email Comments may be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office ([email protected]). Items received no later than 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council prior to the meeting. These items will NOT be read into the record.

5. Council and Staff Comments

6. Committee Updates:
a) Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee
b) Library Tax Advisory Committee
c) Beautification Committee
d) Active Transportation Committee
Mt. Shasta City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2023, 5:30 p.m.

This meeting will be presented in a hybrid format and can be attended in two ways:

In-Person at the Mt. Shasta City Park Upper Lodge, 1315 Nixon Rd. Mt. Shasta, CA OR
Online at the following link:

MountShasta.22Ave.tv
For the safety of our staff, the council, and public, we are no longer allowing members of the audience to carry large bags, backpacks, or other items outside of small personal items such as purses or satchels. Only service animals are allowed inside council chambers; nonservice pets are not allowed under any circumstances. Violators will be asked to remove the bag and/or animal, and refusal to do so will be cause for removal from the meeting.

Mt. Shasta Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS

Page 7 ends

All Resolutions and Ordinances on this agenda, or added hereto, shall be introduced or adopted, as applicable, by title only, and the full reading thereof is hereby waived. a. Approval of Minutes: August 28, 2023 Regular Meeting b. Approval of Disbursements: Accounts Payable $955,209.15: Total Gross Payroll and Taxes: For Period Ending 9/7/2023
c. Second Reading of CCO-23-09 Amending Chapter 10.44 Restricted Parking: Eliminating Two-Hour Parking in Specific Locations
d. Police Department Monthly Report, August 2023

8. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Resolution of Intention: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Mt Shasta Declaring it’s Intention to Establish an Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District
Background:

Report By: Todd Juhasz, City Manager
Recommended Council Action:

9. Discussion and Possible Action: Discussion on Whether to Extend Snow Removal Operations on Mt.

Shasta Blvd
Background:

Report By: Ken Kellogg, Public Works Director
Recommended Council Action:

10. Discussion and Possible Action: Consideration of an Ordinance Establishing a Minimum Floor Price Law (MFPL) to Help Decrease Tobacco Use
Background:

Report By: Todd Juhasz, City Manager and Robert Gibson, Chief of Police Recommended Council Action:

Mt. Shasta Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

CITY COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTING PERIOD

11. Reports Re: Outside Meetings: None

12. Future Agenda Items and Meetings (Appearing on the agenda within 60-90 days):
a. Emergency Shelter Ordinance – 9/25/2023
b. Discussion and Possible Action: McCloud Avenue Parking Prohibition – TBD c. Discussion and Possible Action regarding the Active Transportation Committee – TBD d. Approval of Funds to Complete a Survey of Washington Avenue – TBD e. Amendment of Parklet Ordinance - TBD
Future Agenda Items Over 90 Days:
f. Discussion and Possible Action: Review of Chapter 13.95 Extraction and Exportation of Groundwater from the City of Mt. Shasta

13. Adjourn
I, Kathryn Joyce, declare under penalty of perjury that this agenda has been posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Mt.

Shasta City Hall, 305 N. Mt. Shasta Blvd, Mt. Shasta, CA, in the glass case and on the City website at www.mtshastaca.gov.

Agendas and packets shall be made available at least 72 hours in advance of regular meetings and 24 hours in advance of special meetings on the City’s web site. Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting shall be made available on the City’s web site www.mtshastaca.gov.

Availability of Public Records: All public records related to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at City Hall located at 305 North Mt. Shasta Blvd.

The City of Mt. Shasta does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability in employment or provision of services. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance, a disability-related modification or accommodation, agenda materials in an alternative format, or auxiliary aids to participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at 530-326-7516 or [email protected] as soon as possible.

Providing at least 72 hours’ notice will help ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made.

Mt. Shasta City Council Regular Meeting DRAFT Minutes
Monday, August 28, 2023; 5:30 p.m.

City Park Upper Lodge 1315 Nixon Road, Mt. Shasta
Meeting allowed for virtual attendance via ZOOM
“Our mission is to maintain the character of our “small town” community while striking an appropriate balance between economic development and preservation of our quality of life. We help create a dynamic and vital City by providing quality, cost-effective municipal services and by forming partnerships with residents and organizations in the constant pursuit of excellence.”

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1. Call to Order and Flag Salute: At the hour of 5:30 p.m. Mayor Clure called the meeting to order and led the audience in the flag salute.

2. Roll Call:

Council Members Present: Redmond, Stackfleth, Collings, Clure. Councilmember Stearns arrived at 5:49 p.m.

Council Members Absent: None

3. Special Presentations: None

4. Public Comment:

David Ream – Read prayer.

5. Council and Staff Comments:

Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Review of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District resolution of intention to come before Council. Comments regarding flooding during previous storm.

6. Committee Updates: No updates.
a) Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee
b) Library Tax Advisory Committee
c) Beautification Committee
d) Active Transportation Committee

CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
City of Mt. Shasta Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Monday, August 28, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

7. Consent Agenda:

COUNCIL ACTION: Approved the following Consent Agenda items. All Resolutions and Ordinances on this agenda, or added hereto, shall be introduced or adopted, as applicable, by title only, and the full reading thereof is hereby waived.
a. Approval of Minutes: August 14, 2023 Regular Meeting b. Approval of Minutes: July 24, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting and July 27, 2023 Special City Council Meeting
c. Approval of Disbursements: Accounts Payable 8/17/2023: Total Gross Payroll and Taxes: For Period Ending 8/6/2023
d. Monthly Investment and Financial Report
MOTION TO APPROVE: Stackfleth
SECOND: Redmond
AYES: Redmond, Stackfleth, Collings, Clure
NOES: None
ABSENT: Stearns
ABSTAIN: None

8. Awarding Cleanup Consultant and Administration of Brownfields Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cleanup Grant
Muriel Terrell, Finance Director – Review of resolution accepting administration and bid for cleanup activities for the Brownfields site at the Roseburg property.

Clarifying questions from Council.

No public comment.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approve CCR-23-23, Awarding The Administration Of An EPA Brownfield Clean Up Grant To Siskiyou Economic Development In The Amount Of $149,970 And Awarding The Cleanup Consultant To Geocon In The Amount Of $375,529, And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute The Agreement MOTION TO APPROVE: Redmond
SECOND: Stackfleth
AYES: Redmond, Stackfleth, Collings, Clure
NOES: None
ABSENT: Stearns
ABSTAIN: None

9. CALFIRE Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant Acceptance
Cory Burns, Acting Fire Chief – Review of staff report, purpose and amount of grant award.

Clarifying questions from Council.

No public comment.

COUNCIL ACTION: Adopt Resolution CCR-23-24, Approving The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Agreement #7GF23303.

MOTION TO APPROVE: Redmond
SECOND: Stackfleth
AYES: Redmond, Stackfleth, Collings, Clure
NOES: None
ABSENT: Stearns
ABSTAIN: None

10. Small Disadvantaged Community State Revolving Grant Fund Application - Mt. Shasta Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Review of staff report, grant application for stormwater projects.

Clarifying questions from Council and discussion.

No public comment.

City of Mt. Shasta Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Monday, August 28, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize Resolution CCR-23-25 Entering Into A Funding Agreement With The State Water Resources Control Board And Authorizing And Designation The City Manager Or Designee As The Signatory For The Mt. Shasta Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
MOTION TO APPROVE: Redmond
SECOND: Stackfleth
AYES: Redmond, Stackfleth, Collings, Stearns, Clure
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

11. First Reading of Ordinance CCO-23-XX Amending Chapter 10.44 Restricted Parking: Eliminating Two-Hour Parking in Specific Locations
Robert Gibson, Chief of Police – Review of staff report, proposed amendments to the Municipal Cod, Business Improvement District location, off-street parking requirements.

Clarifying questions from Council and Council comments.

Nancy Gandrau – Comments about July Council meeting and location of business in the downtown business district. Comments in opposition to removal of two-hour parking requirements, comments about incomplete stops at stop sign near business. Comments stating that the two-hour parking sign has been removed.

Debbie Castro – Comments in opposition of removal of two-hour parking requirements, comments regarding trucks and trailers parking in the area.

David Ream – Comments regarding recent removal of signage.

Council comments and discussion.

COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the first reading of the proposed Ordinance amendments to Mount Shasta Municipal Code Section 10.44.080 Parking Restricted, by title only, and move the Ordinance to a second reading and adoption.

MOTION TO APPROVE: Redmond
SECOND: Stackfleth
AYES: Redmond, Stackfleth, Clure
NOES: Stearns, Collings
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

12. Discussion and Possible Action: Consideration of an Ordinance Establishing a Minimum Floor Price Law (MFPL) to Help Decrease Tobacco Use
Todd Juhasz, City Manager – Review of item, proposed program to reduce adolescent tobacco use. Review of model ordinance, various points.

Clarifying questions from Council.

Steve Bryan, Community Resource Center – Review of statistics related to tobacco use.

Clarifying questions from Council.

Caitlyn Gannon, Community Engagement Coordinator – Review of facts from previous presentation, review of assistance available through the program.

Questions from Council and Council discussion.

COUNCIL ACTION: Continue the item for more information.

MOTION TO APPROVE: Stearns
SECOND: Collings
AYES: Stearns, Collings, Clure
NOES: Redmond, Stackfleth
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City of Mt. Shasta Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Monday, August 28, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

13. Reports on Outside Meetings: Mayor Pro Tem Stackfleth reviewed his attendance at a recent Collier Interpretive and Information Center board meeting.

14. Future Agenda Items (Appearing on the agenda within 60-90 days):

COUNCIL ACTION: Reviewed items a through f. Item added: Snow removal operations on South Mt. Shasta Boulevard
a. Emergency Shelter Ordinance – 9/2023
b. Discussion and Possible Action: McCloud Avenue Parking Prohibition – TBD c. Discussion and Possible Action regarding the Active Transportation Committee – TBD d. Approval of Funds to Complete a Survey of Washington Avenue – TBD e. Amendment of Parklet Ordinance - TBD
Future Agenda Items Over 90 Days:
f. Discussion and Possible Action: Review of Chapter 13.95 Extraction and Exportation of Groundwater from the City of Mt. Shasta

15. Adjourn: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted By: Kathryn M. Joyce, Administrative Assistant/Deputy City Clerk City Council Agenda Item #7c
Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Muriel Howarth Terrell, Finance Director
Subject: Approval of Warrants and Payroll
Recommendation:

Staff requests the Mayor and City Council Approve warrants paid including payroll benefits and withholding, and payroll distribution, in the amount of $955,209.15.

Background & Summary:

Approval of Check Numbers 51025-51145 $ 661,150.70
Total Payroll Distribution $ 167,892.75
Total EFTPS – CalPERS, Nationwide $ 47,102.78
Total Payroll EFTPS Taxes $ 79,062.92
$ 955,209.15
Financial Impact:

Expenditures are consistent with the Budget that the City Council has adopted.

Attachments:

1.) Check Registers – 8/24/23, 8/29/23, 9/8/23

2.) ACH Payroll Distribution – 8/24/23, 9/7/23

3.) EFTPS Reports – 8/24/23, 9/7/23
Regular
x Consent
Closed
Presentation

City Council Agenda Item # 8
Staff Report
Meeting Date: 9/11/2023
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Todd Juhasz, City Manager
Subject: Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District
Resolution of Intention
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 2023-26, a Resolution declaring its intention to establish the Mount Shasta Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and establishing the Mount Shasta EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA); and

2. Approve the organization of the Public Financing Authority Board, which would consist of three Council Members and two members of the public, and in the scenario where the County of Siskiyou participates in the EIFD, two Council Members, one County Supervisor, one member of the public appointed by the City Council, and one member of the public appointed by the County Board of Supervisors; and,

3. Find that the adoption of the Resolution of Intention and establishment of the Public Financing Authority are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as these actions do not constitute a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15378(b)(5), and that these actions are also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

BACKGROUND:

An Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (“EIFD”) is a governmental entity that may be established by a City, County, or through a partnership between the two, that uses future incremental revenue from existing tax rates to help fund and complete public capital facilities and infrastructure projects, as well as other specified projects of communitywide significance, that provide a significant benefit to the properties within the EIFD as well as the surrounding community. EIFDs are funded by capturing all or a portion of the future property tax increment revenue (i.e., the difference in property taxes owed prior to and post establishment of the EIFD) generated within the boundaries of the district. The EIFD may finance projects through the issuance of bonds or under a “pay-go” model where money is spent as it is collected (the proposed Mount Shasta EIFD would not be anticipated to issue bonds). The requirements for the City’s establishment of an EIFD are set forth in California Government Code Sections 53398.50, and following (referred to as the “EIFD Law”). The following X Regular
Consent
Closed
Presentation
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Resolution of Intent City Council Meeting of September 11th, 2023

Page 2 ends

chart illustrates how tax increment financing (TIF) captures that new revenue from new development into the EIFD (note these dollars are for illustrative purposes only):

In 2021, the US EDA awarded the City a grant to study the formation of an EIFD that would encompass specific project areas needing infrastructure investment to catalyze private sector investment. The City, supported by the Siskiyou EDC, then procured the services of Kosmont Companies through a competitive procurement process.

A presentation was provided to the City Council on September 12, 2022 to provide City Council and interested parties an opportunity to discuss EIFDs, and for Council to provide direction to staff as may be deemed appropriate. The City Council provided direction to further explore EIFDs as another tool for the City, including outreach to the County of Siskiyou regarding potential partnership in the EIFD.

At a County Board of Supervisors meeting on August 8, 2023, the Board provided direction to County staff to collaborate with City staff and consultant firm Kosmont Companies on next steps for potential implementation of an EIFD.

DISCUSSION:

As part of the next steps of the EIFD process, a Resolution of Intention (ROI) will need to be adopted for allow for the formation steps to occur, which will include additional opportunities for the public to comment. The adoption of the City Council’s ROI, which is provided as an attachment, will provide for the following:

1. Preliminary boundaries of the EIFD. The proposed EIFD boundaries are noted in color in Exhibit A of the Resolution of Intention. Though the exact boundaries of the EIFD are subject to further review and refinement as the formation process continues, the current boundary is focused on properties with potential for new development or rehabilitation. The land included Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Resolution of Intent City Council Meeting of September 11th, 2023

Page 3 ends

in these boundaries totals approximately 466 acres (approximately 19% of citywide acreage) and approximately $10 million in existing assessed property value (which currently only represents approximately 3% of citywide assessed value).

2. The public facilities and development proposed to be financed by the EIFD. The activities listed under the Resolution of Intention include all eligible activities under the EIFD legislation and are listed in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention (more specific projects will be delineated in the required Infrastructure Financing Plan prior to the district formation).

3. Use of Incremental Tax Revenue. The ROI anticipates that portion of the City property tax increment revenue generated within the EIFD will be allocated to the EIFD. Previous discussions to date have contemplated allocation of 50% of incremental property tax to the EIFD, with the remaining 50% allowed to flow to the General Fund. The exact amounts will be determined and confirmed in future resolutions adopted by the City Council.

4. In the future, should another taxing entity such as the County of Siskiyou participate in the EIFD, a portion of that taxing entity’s property tax increment revenue will also be contributed to the EIFD. The exact percentage of tax increment recommended to be contributed by the City and County are still being analyzed, and that final decision will be made by the City Council (and potentially the County Board of Supervisors) at hearings toward the end of the formation process.

5. Establishes a Public Financing Authority to serve as the governing board of the EIFD. The PFA membership is comprised initially of three members of the City Council and two public members. Alternate Board members will also be appointed to represent the City Council in the absence of a regular member.

6. If another taxing entity wishes to participate in the EIFD after the initial formation (such as the County of Siskiyou), the PFA membership will be revised to include members from that new entity in accordance with the resolution.

7. Sets a time and place for the first public hearing on the EIFD to be conducted by the Public Financing Authority. The first public hearing TBD. Likely scheduled in February 2024. in the City Hall Council Chambers.

Approval of the Resolution of Intention and subsequent appointment to the PFA will begin a series of activities that will take place over the next several months, primarily by the PFA Board. The following schedule outlines the various key tasks and milestones in the formation process. As the schedule indicates, the final City Council approvals follow later in Spring to Summer of 2024:

Task Target Date Notes
EIFD Intro Presentation to City Council September 2022 Complete Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Resolution of Intent City Council Meeting of September 11th, 2023

Page 4 ends

Discussions with County Board of
Supervisors
June and August
2023
Complete
City Council Resolution of Intention Sept, 25th 2023 September 25th, 2023 County Board of Supervisors Resolution
of Intention TBD
Initial meeting of PFA November 2023
PFA will review the EIFD, adopt
bylaws, direct the preparation of the
draft Infrastructure Financing Plan
(IFP)
PFA meets to review draft IFP January 2024
Presentation to Planning Commission
on EIFD and draft Infrastructure
Financing Plan (IFP)
Jan/Feb 2024
Statute requires that the Planning
Commission be informed about the IFP
and review the CEQA documentation
PFA holds Public Hearing #1 February 2024
Written and oral comments taken on
IFP; no action taken
Consideration by the City Council to
adopt the resolution approving the IFP
and allocation of property tax increment
March 2024
PFA holds Public Hearing #2 April 2024
Written and oral comments taken on IFP;
opportunity to revise IFP or terminate
EIFD
PFA holds Public Hearing #3 May 2024
Majority protest opportunity; other adopt
resolution approving IFP and forming
EIFD
The Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) referenced in the timeline above becomes the roadmap for the work to be accomplished by the EIFD. The IFP will analyze the tax increment anticipated to be generated by the properties in the EIFD boundary, consider the cost of various infrastructure options to be considered for investment, evaluate the bonding capacity created by the tax increment generated, and provide a plan for how the EIFD will capture tax increment to fund infrastructure investments.

The IFP contents are currently under development and will be provided in draft format to the public, PFA, City Council, and Planning Commission in accordance with the schedule above.

Public information and outreach are also an important part of the EIFD formation process. Work has already begun on various public information materials and an information page on the City Website that will serve as a resource to interested stakeholders. Landowners and residents within the EIFD boundaries will also receive mailed notification of the process, and public hearings will be advertised as well. In the event of a majority protest by property owners or residents within the boundaries, the formation proceedings would be discontinued.

Key projects that have been discussed include the following:

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Resolution of Intent City Council Meeting of September 11th, 2023

Page 5 ends

• Housing and commercial supportive infrastructure (e.g., roadway improvements, utility enhancements, remediation activities)
• Potential water tank improvements in northern region of the City A key objective is infrastructure to enable and facilitate and catalyze growth at the Landing / One Shasta LLC Sites and other potential development opportunity site areas (e.g., Orchard) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The City Council’s adoption of the Resolution of Intention and establishment of the Public Financing Authority are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as actions solely related to the creation of a government funding mechanism and the administrative or organizational activities of the City. Therefore, these actions do not constitute a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15378(b)(5). Neither of these actions could result in a physical change in the environment because the City has not committed itself to any specific project(s) that could be funded by the EIFD. Further, these actions are also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that they will have a significant effect on the environment. However, future actions (such as the approval of infrastructure improvements using funding from the EIFD) will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact for establishing the Mount Shasta EIFD or PFA. If ultimately established, the EIFD would create the opportunity to use tax increment financing to fund targeted infrastructure investments in the City. Further information regarding fiscal impact will be analyzed as part of the development of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP), which will be presented to the PFA and City Council as noted in the timeline above.

Attachments: Resolution 2023-26

EXHIBIT A
Proposed Mount Shasta EIFD Boundary
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNT

SHASTA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE MOUNT

SHASTA ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT TO

FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, ACQUISITION, AND/OR

MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES,

INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION AND/OR REMEDIATION OF LAND
FOR SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES; ESTABLISHING A
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN

OTHER ACTIONS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, SB 628, effective as of January 1, 2015, allows a city or county to create a separate government entity known as an “Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District” (EIFD) within a defined area to finance certain infrastructure projects with community-wide benefits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 53398.50) (the "EIFD Law"), the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta ("Council") is authorized to initiate the process to establish an EIFD; and,
WHEREAS, EIFDs are financed through tax increment generated from the growth in property taxes collected from within a designated district boundary. There are no new taxes or impacts to the property owner within an established EIFD; and, WHEREAS, EIFD tax increment may be used to pay for a variety of public facilities and other projects authorized by the EIFD Law within the established EIFD boundaries or outside of the established EIFD boundaries if there is a tangible connection to the work of the EIFD, including but not limited to infrastructure such as roads, utilities, streetscapes, parks and public recreation, or other community facilities. Funding may also be used to facilitate public-private activities by enticing development with infrastructure development and expansion, including new industrialmanufacturing facility construction and repair, and brownfields remediation. Affordable housing, including affordable senior housing, is also an eligible activity; and, WHEREAS, the City, supported by the Siskiyou County Economic Development Council (SEDC), was awarded a grant from the United States Economic Development Administration (EDA) for EIFD feasibility study technical advisory services. The City then retained Kosmont & Associates, Inc. DBA Kosmont Companies through a competitive procurement process as the consultant to provide the necessary technical analysis and advisory; and, WHEREAS, on September 12, 2022, City Council expressed preliminary interest and direction for City staff during a City Council Meeting to move forward with initial EIFD formation activities, including discussion with the County of Siskiyou regarding potential partnership in the EIFD; and,
WHEREAS, the prerequisites set forth in Government Code Section 53398.54 have been complied with prior to the City initiating the creation of or participating in the governance of the EIFD, and the City will provide the required certification to the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) in accordance with the EIFD Law; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed boundaries of the Mount Shasta EIFD are identified on Exhibit A entitled "Proposed Mount Shasta EIFD Boundary", a copy which is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and,
WHEREAS, the EIFD will be governed by a Public Financing Authority ("PFA") board which will be responsible for implementing the Infrastructure Financing Plan for the EIFD ("IFP"), and the PFA is required to be established by the City Council at the same time that the Council adopts its intention to form the proposed EIFD; and,
WHEREAS, this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as an action solely related to financing and is not in-and-of itself a “project” (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378) since it does not result in a physical change in the environment because the City has not committed itself to fund any specific projects through the EIFD. However, future actions (such as the funding and/or approval of infrastructure improvements using funding from the EIFD) will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Mount Shasta City Council does hereby find, determine, conclude, and resolve as follows:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Mount Shasta proposes and intends to cause the establishment of an EIFD under the provisions of the EIFD Law.

Section 2. The name proposed for the EIFD shall be the “Mount Shasta Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District.”
Section 3. The proposed boundaries of the EIFD are as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, which are preliminarily approved and on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4. The types of public facilities and development proposed to be financed or assisted by the EIFD pursuant to the EIFD Law are those listed on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 5. The City Council hereby finds that the EIFD is necessary for the area within the boundaries of the EIFD and the City. The City Council's stated goals for the EIFD are to create a means by which to assist in the provision of public facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to, promote economic development of, and enhance quality of life within, the boundaries of the EIFD or the surrounding community.

Section 6. The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the EIFD Law and if approved by resolution pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.68, incremental property tax revenue from the City of Mount Shasta and some or all other affected taxing entities within the EIFD may be used to finance the activities described in Section 4 and listed on Exhibit B. The incremental property tax financing will be described in an IFP to be prepared for approval by the PFA, the City Council, and the legislative bodies of all participating taxing entities under EIFD Law.

Section 7. The City or County of Siskiyou may allocate tax revenues derived from local sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) or transactions and use taxes imposed in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part

1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) to the EIFD pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.75.5, if applicable. The City Council does not intend to contribute sales and use taxes or transactions and use taxes to the EIFD.

Section 8. The City Council hereby establishes the “Public Financing Authority of the Mount Shasta Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District” to serve as the governing board of the EIFD:

A. The PFA membership shall be comprised initially of three members of the City Council appointed by the City Council and two public members selected by the City Council. Members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, as the case may be, and shall serve until their successor assumes office.

B. The City Council further declares that, pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.51.1, should another taxing entity agree to participate as a taxing entity, then the PFA membership shall be modified in accordance with Government Code Section 53398.51.1. For example, if the County of Siskiyou (“County”) agrees to participate as a taxing entity and the participating taxing entities consist of the City and the County, then the PFA membership shall be modified to be two members of the City Council, one member of the County Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors”), and two public members jointly selected by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Members shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing legislative bodies and shall serve until their successor assumes office.

C. The legislative body of each participating taxing entity may appoint one of its members to be an alternate member of the PFA board who may serve and vote in place of a member who is absent or disqualifies themselves from participating in a meeting of the PFA.

D. The members are subject to compliance with the EIFD Law and all applicable ethics laws, including Article 2.4 (commencing with Section 53234) of Chapter 2 of the Government Code.

E. The City Council, and the governing bodies of any other participating entities shall comply with Government Code Section 54974.

Section 8. The City Council hereby sets the time and place for a public hearing of the PFA, the proposed EIFD and IFP, to be held on a date TBD Likely February, 2024, or as soon thereafter) as the matter may be heard, at City Hall Council Chambers, City Park Upper Lodge, 1315 Nixon Road, Mt. Shasta, California.

Section 9. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.60, the City Clerk is hereby directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to the PFA and each owner of land (as defined in the EIFD Law), or alternatively with respect to the owners of land may mail a single-page notice of intention identified in Government Code Section 53398.60(b), within the EIFD and to each affected taxing entity (as defined in the EIFD Law). In addition, the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the public hearing to be published not less than once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City. The notice shall state that the EIFD will be used to finance public works, briefly describe the facilities, briefly describe the proposed financial arrangements, including the proposed commitment of incremental tax revenue, describe the boundaries of the proposed EIFD and state the day, hour, and place, when and where any persons having any objections to the proposed IFP, or the regularity of any of the prior proceedings, may appear before the PFA and object to the adoption of the proposed IFP.

Section 10. As the City did not have a Redevelopment Agency, EIFD formation prerequisites involving a Successor Agency Finding of Completion from the DOF do not apply.

Section 11. As the City did not have a Redevelopment Agency, EIFD prerequisites involving certification to the DOF and to the PFA that no former Redevelopment Agency assets have been or will be used to benefit any efforts of the EIFD do not apply. The City Clerk is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to provide or make this clarification to the DOF within 10 days after the City Council’s action to participate in the EIFD pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.68 or the City Council’s action to form the EIFD pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.69, by delivery of a copy of the appropriate Resolution or signing a separate certification, if and as required by the DOF.

Section 12. As the City did not have a Redevelopment Agency, EIFD prerequisites regarding State Controller reviews of asset transfers and corresponding State Controller's findings do not apply.

Section 13. This Resolution in no way obligates the PFA to establish any EIFD.

Section 14. If any section, subsection, phrase or clause of this Resolution is for any reason found to be invalid, such section, subsection, phrase or clause shall be severed from, and shall not affect the validity of, all remaining portions of this Resolution that can be given effect without the severed portion.

Section 15. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 16. The City Manager, or designee, are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or advisable to give effect to the transactions contemplated by this Resolution.

Section 17. The City Clerk of the City of Mount Shasta shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of September, 2023 by the following vote:
___________________________
Tessa Clure, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kathy Joyce, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
John Kenny, City Attorney

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF MOUNT SHASTA

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT

LIST OF AUTHORIZED PUBLIC FACILITIES
The Mount Shasta EIFD may finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, or rehabilitation of any real tangible property with an estimated useful life of 15 years or longer which are public capital facilities or other projects of community-wide significance that provide significant benefits to the EIFD or the surrounding community. The EIFD may also finance the ongoing or capitalized costs to maintain public capital facilities financed in whole or in part by the EIFD. Facilities funded may be located outside the boundaries of the EIFD, as long as they have a tangible connection to the work of the EIFD as detailed in the infrastructure financing plan. The EIFD may also finance the planning and design work that is directly related to the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of property. The EIFD may finance costs described in Government Code Sections [53398.52 [list of eligible improvements]] 53398.56 [replacement housing and relocation obligations if required by actions of EIFD] and 53398.57.

Projects financed by the EIFD may include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
• Highways, interchanges, and ramps;
• Bridges;
• Arterial streets;
• Parking facilities;
• Transit facilities;
• Parks, recreational facilities, and open space;
• Sewage treatment and water reclamation plants and interceptor pipes; • Facilities for the collection and treatment of water for urban uses; • Facilities for the transfer and disposal of solid waste, including transfer stations and vehicles;
• Storm water conveyance and collection facilities;
• Flood control levees and dams, retention basins, and drainage channels; • Child care facilities;
• Libraries;
• Broadband and telecommunications infrastructure;
• Sidewalks and streetscape improvements;
• Bicycle lanes and paths;
• Public art;
• Corporation yards;
• Police facilities;
• Brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; • Affordable housing as authorized under the EIFD Law;
• Projects that implement a sustainable communities strategy and transit priority projects; • Acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; • Acquisition, construction, or repair of commercial structures by the small business occupant of such structures, if such acquisition, construction, or repair is for purposes of fostering economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and of ensuring the long-term economic sustainability of small businesses;
• Projects that enable communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including, but not limited to, higher average temperatures, decreased air and water quality, the spread of infectious and vector-borne diseases, other public health impacts, extreme weather events, sea level rise, flooding, heat waves, wildfires, and drought;

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF MOUNT SHASTA

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT

LIST OF AUTHORIZED PUBLIC FACILITIES
• Facilities in which nonprofit community organizations provide health, youth, homeless, and social services.

Other Expenses
In addition to the direct costs of the above facilities, other incidental expenses as authorized by the EIFD Law, including, but not limited to, the cost of environmental evaluation and environmental remediation; engineering and surveying; construction staking; utility relocation and demolition costs incidental to the construction of the facilities; costs of project/construction management; costs (including the costs of legal services) associated with the creation of the EIFD; costs of issuance of bonds or other debt of the EIFD, of a community facilities district of the City, or of any other public agency for authorized facilities and payment of debt service thereon; financing costs of improvements incurred by developers until reimbursement from the EIFD; costs incurred by the County or the EIFD in connection with the division of taxes pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.75; or costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the EIFD; reimbursements to other areas for facilities serving the EIFD; and any other expenses incidental to the formation and implementation of the EIFD and to the construction, completion, inspection and acquisition of the authorized facilities.

Agenda Item # 11
Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 11th, 2023
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Subject: Proposed Tobacco Retailer License Ordinance
Recommended Action:

Direct staff to prepare a Comprehensive Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance for Mt Shasta with recommended changes.

Recap of the Discussion at the August 28th Council meeting:

At the August 28th Council meeting, the discussion was focused on whether the City should be interfering with local retailers by adopting a price floor for the sale of tobacco product. Though there was some reluctance to interfere with local retailers, there appeared to be some interest related to potentially adopting the Ordinance with some elements that were included in the model ordinance. These elements included the potential ban on the sale of flavored tobacco, a ban on tobacco coupons, and a ban on the provision of free samples.

Summary:

At the August 28th and the July 24th, 2023 Council meetings, presentations were made regarding a model ordinance that was prepared to assist California cities and counties interested in establishing or strengthening a local tobacco retailer licensing program (“TRL”) and further regulating the tobacco retail environment with the aim of adopting this ordinance within Mt Shasta.

Communities adopt TRL laws to ensure compliance for the purposes of reducing youth access to tobacco products, limiting the negative public health impacts associated with tobacco use, and in order to enforce local, state, and federal tobacco control laws.

The model ordinance was originally developed by ChangeLab Solutions, a non-partisan nonprofit organization that uses law and policy to advance health equity. The ordinance, written in 2018, was revised further by the Public Health Law Center in 2020. The ordinance further regulates the sale of tobacco products by retailers in cities/counties. It builds upon core provisions such as requiring a local tobacco retailer license by incorporating several policy options. It also reflects changes to state and federal tobacco control laws such as Tobacco 21 and the FDA’s Deeming Rule that expands the FDA’s regulatory authority over all tobacco products. The model ordinance X Regular
Consent
Closed
Presentation
is based on an independent and objective analysis of the relevant law, evidence, and available data. Council should consider aspects of the ordinance that are appropriate for the community.

What is not clear from the model ordinance is who has jurisdiction when conducting compliance checks. Determining this aspect of the ordinance, should Council decide to seek adoption, will require further study.

The core provisions of the model ordinance include:

Tobacco Retail License Requirements
• License required for all tobacco retailing
• Non-transferable license
• Fees fully cover the cost of enforcement and administration • Applicable to one fixed location
• Age verification required for all transactions
• No pharmacy licenses for tobacco sales
Density Limitations
• Population density: allowable licenses limited by population • Proximity to other retailers: minimum distance from any “youth-friendly facility or location (e.g.school, park, community center)
Prohibitions
• Smoking-including e-cigarette use-is prohibited inside and within 25 feet of a licensed retailer
• All flavored tobacco products, including menthol, prohibited for sale • On-site sales with the final customer only/no deliveries • Self-service displays are prohibited
Packaging and Labeling
• Retailers may only sell products that 1)are in the manufacturer’s original packaging, 2) conform to all federal labeling requirements, and 3) conform to all child-resistant packaging and requirements
• Prices clearly marked
• Minimum quantity for cigarettes and little cigars of 20 • Minimum quantity for non-single purchase cigars of 6
Pricing
• No tobacco products should be sold below an established minimum price • No coupons or discounts honored
• No free samples of promotions
Penalties
• Seeling tobacco products without a license shall result in tiered penalties, including fines and license suspensions
• Violations are a public nuisance
• Options for civil or criminal legal action against retailers Definitions
• Comprehensive definition of tobacco products including electronic smoking devices, nicotine, products, heated products, other plant products, natural and synthetic products, and components or accessories
License Revocation
• License revoked after a minimum number of violations in a defined period • Enforcement only against employers/licensees
Compliance
• Enforcement conducted by a civil local government agency (e.g. code enforcement department)
• Multiple inspections annually
• Underage decoy operations annually
Miscellaneous
• Include detailed fndings and purpose section
• No purchase, use, possession (PUP) penalties
City Council Agenda Item # 9
Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Public Works Director, Ken Kellogg
Subject: Extending Snow Removal Operations South on Mt. Shasta Blvd.

Recommendation:

Staff does not recommend extending snow plowing to the center of the street along South Mt Shasta Boulevard due to the cost and potential for additional traffic collisions.

Background & Summary:

Currently, when the city faces significant snow events, the City Public Works Department staff plows snow to the center of the street on Mt. Shasta Blvd. from Alma Street south to Forest Street, on Chestnut from Ivy south to Mt. Shasta Blvd. After being plowed to the center of the street, the snow is moved a second time. It is loaded into dump trucks and taken to the Old Mill site and deposited. Municipal Code Section 12.24.070 outlines where and how snow is moved in the “downtown shopping area” or “snow removal district,” terms that are used synonymously.

Under the Ordinance it states that the snow removal district was:
established to protect and provide for the safety and general welfare of the public using the “downtown shopping” areas where snow is plowed from the street curb to the center of the street, and establishes that sidewalk snow removal is a direct benefit to all businesses and properties within the mandatory removal district. (Ord. CCO-06-01, 2006; Ord. 406 § 8, 1982) Moving the snow twice from the center of street to the Old Mill Site significantly increases the cost of clearing snow from our streets. Last winter, the City spent approximately $47,000 on contractors hauling snow to the Old Mill Site. In addition, another approximately $15,000 was expended through a force account prepping a site for the snow to be deposited, loading the contractor’s trucks, and running one of our own. This does not account for staff time.

Recently, there have been more than one request to plow snow to the center of the street further south on Mt Shasta Boulevard (moving the Southern boundary to Roelofs Court). It is anticipated that this would increase the cost of snow removal by approximately thirty percent.

Last winter, the increased snow removal cost, if the additional roadway segment was included, would have increased costs by $20,000 and would require additional staff time.

X Regular
Consent
Closed
Presentation
2 Besides the additional cost, there are vehicle safety concerns especially as relates to South Mt Shasta Boulevard. The berms in the center of the road can grow quite large, both in width and height, before it can be removed to the Old Mill location. The center berm poses an obstruction to the sight distance of drivers turning onto the Boulevard. Also, drivers on South Mt Shasta Boulevard tend to drive faster, there is more traffic, and there are no traffic signals to slow the flow of traffic.

Recommendation:

For the reasons stated above, the Public Works Director does not recommend extending the area in which snow is plowed to the center of Mt. Shasta Boulevard. The increased cost and significant potential for collisions are reasons not to support the change.

Attachment: N/A
RESOLUTION CCR-23-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MOUNT SHASTA

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH

THE MOUNT SHASTA ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT TO

FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, ACQUISITION, AND/OR

MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES, INCLUDING

THE ACQUISITION AND/OR REMEDIATION OF LAND FOR SUCH
IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES; ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS RELATED

THERETO
WHEREAS, SB 628, effective as of January 1, 2015, allows a city or county to create a separate government entity known as an “Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District” (EIFD) within a defined area to finance certain infrastructure projects with community-wide benefits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 53398.50) (the "EIFD Law"), the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta ("Council") is authorized to initiate the process to establish an EIFD; and,
WHEREAS, EIFDs are financed through tax increment generated from the growth in property taxes collected from within a designated district boundary. There are no new taxes or impacts to the property owner within an established EIFD; and,
WHEREAS, EIFD tax increment may be used to pay for a variety of public facilities and other projects authorized by the EIFD Law within the established EIFD boundaries or outside of the established EIFD boundaries if there is a tangible connection to the work of the EIFD, including but not limited to infrastructure such as roads, utilities, streetscapes, parks and public recreation, or other community facilities. Funding may also be used to facilitate public-private activities by enticing development with infrastructure development and expansion, including new industrialmanufacturing facility construction and repair, and brownfields remediation. Affordable housing, including affordable senior housing, is also an eligible activity; and, WHEREAS, the City, supported by the Siskiyou County Economic Development Council (SEDC), was awarded a grant from the United States Economic Development Administration (EDA) for EIFD feasibility study technical advisory services. The City then retained Kosmont & Associates, Inc. DBA Kosmont Companies through a competitive procurement process as the consultant to provide the necessary technical analysis and advisory; and, WHEREAS, on September 12, 2022, City Council expressed preliminary interest and direction for City staff during a City Council Meeting to move forward with initial EIFD formation activities, including discussion with the County of Siskiyou regarding potential partnership in the EIFD; and,
WHEREAS, the prerequisites set forth in Government Code Section 53398.54 have been complied with prior to the City initiating the creation of or participating in the governance of the EIFD, and the City will provide the required certification to the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) in accordance with the EIFD Law; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed boundaries of the Mount Shasta EIFD are identified on Exhibit A entitled "Proposed Mount Shasta EIFD Boundary", a copy which is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and,
WHEREAS, the EIFD will be governed by a Public Financing Authority ("PFA") board which will be responsible for implementing the Infrastructure Financing Plan for the EIFD ("IFP"), and the PFA is required to be established by the City Council at the same time that the Council adopts its intention to form the proposed EIFD; and,
WHEREAS, this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as an action solely related to financing and is not in-and-of itself a “project” (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378) since it does not result in a physical change in the environment because the City has not committed itself to fund any specific projects through the EIFD. However, future actions (such as the funding and/or approval of infrastructure improvements using funding from the EIFD) will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Mount Shasta City Council does hereby find, determine, conclude, and resolve as follows:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Mount Shasta proposes and intends to cause the establishment of an EIFD under the provisions of the EIFD Law.

Section 8. The City Council hereby establishes the “Public Financing Authority of the Mount Shasta Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District” to serve as the governing board of the EIFD:

D. The members are subject to compliance with the EIFD Law and all applicable ethics laws, including Article 2.4 (commencing with Section 53234) of Chapter 2 of the Government Code.

E. The City Council, and the governing bodies of any other participating entities shall comply with Government Code Section 54974.

Section 8. The City Council hereby sets the time and place for a public hearing of the PFA, the proposed EIFD and IFP, to be held on February 12th, 2024, at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at City Hall Council Chambers, City Park Upper Lodge, 1315 Nixon Road, Mt. Shasta, California.

Section 10. As the City did not have a Redevelopment Agency, EIFD formation prerequisites involving a Successor Agency Finding of Completion from the DOF do not apply.

Section 12. As the City did not have a Redevelopment Agency, EIFD prerequisites regarding State Controller reviews of asset transfers and corresponding State Controller's findings do not apply.

Section 13. This Resolution in no way obligates the PFA to establish any EIFD.

Section 15. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 16. The City Manager, or designee, are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or advisable to give effect to the transactions contemplated by this Resolution.

Section 17. The City Clerk of the City of Mount Shasta shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of September, 2023 by the following vote:
___________________________
Tessa Clure, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kathryn M. Joyce, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
John Kenny, City Attorney
Proposed Mount Shasta EIFD Parcel List
037-060-030-000
037-060-040-000
037-060-050-000
037-060-060-000
037-070-060-000
037-070-070-000
037-070-080-000
037-070-090-000
037-070-210-000
037-140-020-000
037-140-110-000
037-160-010-000
037-160-020-000
037-160-030-000
037-220-030-000
037-220-050-000
057-621-010-000
057-621-030-000
057-781-160-000
057-791-020-000
057-791-030-000
057-801-010-000
057-801-150-000
057-811-190-000
057-821-370-000
057-821-480-000
067-010-010-000
067-010-020-000
067-010-140-000
067-010-150-000
067-010-160-000
067-010-170-000
Prepared by:

Kosmont Companies
Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing District (EIFD)
Analysis Summary
August 2023
Executive Summary
Communicating in a Digital World
2 • Mt. Shasta has significant potential for new private sector investment and development over the next 5-20 years across multiple opportunity site areas in the City (One Shasta LLC, Newman, Orchard Property) • Investments in critical infrastructure are needed to support new development, such as roadway improvements, water and other utility enhancements, and remediation activities • A public/private financing strategy that includes Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) financing among other complementary sources has been evaluated by Kosmont to be well-suited to capture value from future development to fund targeted critical infrastructure (not a new or increased tax) • While a City-only special district strategy would likely achieve favorable “return on investment” for the City, a partnership between the City and County of Siskiyou with emphasis on funding regionally beneficial infrastructure would further improve financial feasibility and long-term positive fiscal impacts for both the City and County general funds
• Immediate next steps include City Council consideration of a non-binding Resolution of Intention (ROI) and subsequent County consideration of an ROI to partner with the City in the EIFD Outline
Communicating in a Digital World
3 1. Overview of TIF / EIFD

2. District Boundary and Strategic Considerations

3. Targeted Infrastructure

4. Potential Financing and Funding Plan

5. Next Steps
4 $0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
$500M
$600M
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Baseline Property Value
Property taxes continue to flow to City / County / Schools / Other Taxing Entities as normal New Property Value from
New Development / Rehabilitation
Available to TIF District
Years from District Formation
Assessed
Property Value
(A/V) within
TIF District
Boundaries
New Total
Value After
TIF District
Benefits all
Taxing Entities
Period of New
Development
Note: Illustrative. Conservative 2% growth of existing assessed value (A/V) shown; does not include mark-to-market increases associated with property sales.

What is Tax Increment Financing (TIF) –Not a New Tax
EIFD Fundamentals
Communicating in a Digital World
5 45 years from first bond issuance Long Term
Districts
Governance Public Financing Authority (PFA) implements Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) Approvals Mandatory public hearings for formation with protest opportunity; no public vote Any property with useful life of 15+ years & of communitywide significance; purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation, and maintenance Eligible
Projects

NOT A NEW TAX
Types of Projects EIFD Can Fund
Partial List
6 Roadway / Parking / Transit
Brownfield Remediation
Water / Sewer / Storm / Flood Parks / Open Space / Recreation Childcare Facilities & Libraries Affordable Housing
Broadband Small Business /
Nonprofit Facilities
Wildfire Prevention / Other
Climate Change Response
Why are Public Agencies Authorizing EIFDs?
Communicating in a Digital World
7 1. Return on Investment: Private sector investment induced by district commitment on a “but for” basis accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, job creation, housing production, essential infrastructure improvements

2. Ability to attract additional funds (“OPM”) – tax increment from other entities (county, special districts), federal / state grants / loans (e.g., for TOD, water, housing, parks, remediation) TIF Districts in Progress
Statewide
(Partial List)
Fully Formed In Formation Process Under Evaluation
Jurisdiction Purpose
Azusa Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure
Banning Housing and industrial infrastructure
Barstow Housing and commercial infrastructure
Brentwood Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Buena Park Mall reimagination, housing-supportive infrastructure Carson + L.A. County Remediation, housing infrastructure, recreation Coachella Valley Association of Govts (CVAG) Cities Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Covina Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure
El Cajon Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure
El Segundo + L.A. County Various infrastructure, regional connectivity Fairfield Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Fontana Housing, mixed-use and industrial infrastructure Fresno Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure
Fresno County Industrial and commercial supportive infrastructure Humboldt County Coastal mixed-use & energy supportive infrastructure Indian Wells Housing and tourism-supportive infrastructure Imperial County Housing and greenfield infrastructure
La Verne + L.A. County Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Long Beach (Multiple Areas) Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Los Angeles (Downtown, San Pedro, LACUSC Med Center) Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Los Angeles County Uninc. West Carson Housing / bio-science / tech infrastructure Madera County (3 Districts) Greenfield infrastructure (water / sewer) Modesto + Stanislaus County Housing, transit, recreation-supportive infrastructure Mount Shasta + Siskiyou County Rural Brownfield site mixed-use infrastructure Napa Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure
Oakland Affordable housing and housing-supportive infrastructure Ontario Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure
Palmdale + L.A. County Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Pittsburg Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Placentia + Orange County Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Rancho Cucamonga Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Redlands Housing and mixed-use supportive infrastructure Redondo Beach + L.A. County Parks / open space, recreation infrastructure Riverside Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Sacramento County (Unincorporated) Industrial / commercial supportive infrastructure San Bernardino County (Unincorporated) Transit-supportive infrastructure San Jose Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure
Sanger Housing and commercial supportive infrastructure Santa Ana Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure South Gate Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Vacaville Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Yucaipa Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure
9 Boundary and Strategic Considerations
Feasibility Analysis Approach for Mt. Shasta

1. Define district boundary alternatives based on areas where infrastructure investment will catalyze and support new/accelerated investment and development

2. Estimate future development within each boundary scenario in terms of magnitude (# units, square footage, hotel rooms), timing, and assessed value

3. Identify eligible public agencies that receive property tax increment within the district (e.g., City, County), as well as their corresponding shares of future property tax increment (different levels of contribution evaluated)

4. Determine EIFD revenue potential based on boundary and development assumptions (#1 and #2 above) and portion of increment available to an EIFD based on EIFD-eligible taxing entities (#3 above)

5. Identify additional complementary funding sources, such as Community Facilities Districts (CFD) and grants on a project-specific basis
Map of EIFD Study Area
10 Source: City of Mount Shasta, Siskiyou County Auditor-Controller (2022) • Approx. 19% of Citywide acreage
• Approx. 3% of Citywide Assessed Value (A/V)
• Includes areas with future development potential,
including initial private sector investment interest
Existing
Acreage
Existing
A/V
Currently within City limits 318 AC $5.2M
Currently outside City limits 148 AC $4.9M
Total Study Area 466 AC $10.1M
11 Source: Discussions with City of Mount Shasta and Siskiyou County EDC staff (2021-2022) Potential Targeted Infrastructure Improvements
• Housing and commercial supportive infrastructure (e.g., roadway improvements, utility enhancements, remediation activities)
• Potential water tank improvements in northern region of the City • Target is infrastructure to enable and facilitate and catalyze growth at the Landing / One Shasta LLC Sites and other potential development opportunity site areas (e.g., Orchard) 12 Future Development Assumptions
Absorption Assumed over 10-30 Years
Note: AV at buildout values in current 2022 dollars..

Source: City of Mount Shasta, CoStar (2022)
Area # SF / Units / Rooms Estimated
AV Factor
Estimated
Total AV at Buildout
Area 1: Landing
Market-Rate Residential 160 units $250K / unit $40.0 million Affordable Housing 40 units (property tax-exempt) $0
Commercial / Retail 27,500 SF $250 PSF $6.9 million
Office / Flex 10,000 SF $200 PSF $2.0 million
Industrial / Flex 25,000 SF $125 PSF $3.1 million
Hotel 75 rooms $200K / room $15.0 million
Hostel 75 rooms $100K / room $7.5 million
Area 2: Orchard / Newman
Affordable Housing TBD (property tax-exempt) $0
Industrial / Flex (illustrative example) 100,000 SF $125 PSF $12.5 million Total New Development Assumed $79.5 million
13 Potential Partner Agencies
Property Tax Distribution
• Primary non-school recipients and potential
contributors of property tax are City of Mt. Shasta and County of Siskiyou
• City share of property tax varies between 0% and 15%
among the opportunity sites evaluated (e.g., partly due to previous annexation / sharing agreements)
 City additionally receives equivalent of approx. 8% of property tax in lieu of MVLF, also available to EIFD
• County share similarly various between 5% and 21%
 County additionally receives equivalent of approx. 11% of property tax in lieu of MVLF, also available to EIFD, but not incorporated into this analysis to be conservative
• School-related entities cannot participate
As counties tend to rely more heavily on property tax revenue sources generated by new development within incorporated jurisdictions, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is not reasonable to assume contribution of property tax in lieu of MVLF by the County. As cities benefit from additional non-property tax revenue sources (e.g., sales tax, transient occupancy tax) from new development, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is reasonable for cities to consider contributing property tax in lieu of MVLF.

Tax Rate Area (TRA) weighted average distributions for EIFD Study Area shown. Post-ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund) distribution.

Source: Siskiyou County Auditor Controller (2022)
City
7% County
10%
Other / School
Entities (not eligible)
83%
Approx. Weighted Average Property Tax
Distribution within EIFD Study Area (not incl. VLF)
14 Scenario Analysis Summary Matrix
The Landing
EIFD Revenue
Contribution Scenario
Year 5
Accumulated
Revenue
Year 10
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
50-Year
Present Value
@ 3% Discount
Rate
50-Year
Nominal
Total
A) City 50% $62,000 $310,000 $1,898,000 $4,454,000
B) City 100% $124,000 $619,000 $3,796,000 $8,907,000
C) City 50% + County 50% $85,000 $422,000 $2,587,000 $6,071,000 D) City 100% + County 100% $169,000 $1,868,000* $5,174,000 $12,142,000 City allocation includes both AB8 property tax + property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees (MVLF); County allocation includes only AB8 property tax * Only scenario D represents a likely bond issuance scenario due to fixed costs of issuance. Bonding capacity assumes Year 10 is first bond issuance for EIFD. “Year 10 means 10th year of revenue following district formation. Net proceeds shown. Bondable revenue assumes $25,000 admin charge, 125% debt service coverage. 6.0% interest rate; 30-year term. Proceeds net of 2% underwriter's discount, estimated reserve fund (maximum annual debt service), costs of issuance estimated at $350,000.

Source: Kosmont Transactions Services (KTS), registered municipal advisor. • Market-rate development on the Orchard, Newman, and/or former Crystal Geyser sites would be accretive / in addition to values above (would likely assume annexation of Orchard and Crystal Geyser sites currently outside of City limtits) 15 Potential Cash Flow / Debt Issuance Approaches
• Kosmont Transactions Services is in active discussions with public finance underwriters regarding EIFD debt issuances in other jurisdictions
• Underwriters have proposed several approaches for the leverage of EIFD tax increment for accelerated debt issuance (e.g., 2-3 years from EIFD formation), for example:
a) EIFD increment only, based on completed (or nearly completed) improvements b) EIFD increment only, based on completed improvements PLUS near-term growth c) Overlapping EIFD and CFD (CFD Backstop) – landowners / developers must be willing to pay CFD special taxes in the short term (e.g., 5-10 years) until EIFD increment reaches a level to cover debt service
d) EIFD increment with City or County general fund backstop • There are advantages and disadvantages with each approach (e.g., upfront proceeds available, public agency risk, cost of capital)
16 Private Sector Partnership Approaches
• Outside of debt issuance alternatives, certain other EIFDs have negotiated partnerships with private sector landowner / developer partners (e.g., Madera County EIFDs, Carson / L.A.

County EIFD)
• Private sector may be willing to advance infrastructure funding in exchange for reimbursement from EIFD proceeds
• Could be documented via Reimbursement Agreement, Development Agreement, other alternatives
• May be of particular interest for interested developers for the Landing / One Shasta LLC opportunity sites
17 EIFDs work better with a City/County Partnership
Federal & State Sources
 Cap-and-Trade / HCD grant & loan
programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC,CERF)
 Prop 68 parks & open space grants
 Prop 1 water/sewer funds
 Caltrans ATP / HSIP grants
 Federal EDA / DOT / EPA funding
 Federal Infrastructure Grant Program
Other Potential Funding Sources
 Development Agreement / impact fees
 Benefit assessments (e.g., contribution from CFD)
 Private investment
• Ideal strategy includes City and County partnership
• EIFDs which involve a City / County joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources • EIFDs explicitly increase scoring for CA state housing grants (e.g., IIG, AHSC, TCC) Report Card on City/County TIF Partnerships
18 1. Placentia + County of Orange

2. La Verne + County of Los Angeles

3. Palmdale + County of Los Angeles

4. Carson + County of Los Angeles

5. Stockton + Manteca + Lathrop + County of San Joaquin Others in progress…
County of Siskiyou “Return on Investment”
19 • Implementation of essential infrastructure improvements of communitywide and regional benefit
• Social impacts: Quality of life improvement, environmental sustainability • Housing production, including affordable housing
• Economic benefits:
 200+ permanent, direct jobs from operation; additional 40+ indirect and induced permanent jobs (240+ total jobs), supporting $7.6M+ in ongoing annual wages in the City and County  Additional 1,200+ temporary construction-related jobs*, supporting $58M+ in construction-related wages • Acceleration of development and related fiscal revenues:
 Positive County general fund net fiscal impact of ~$462,000 over district lifetime versus “no-EIFD” scenario (assuming 50% allocation scenario), further improving drastically after district termination (net of County service costs and net of County allocation to EIFD)*
* One construction job-year = one year of employment for one construction employment position ** “No-EIFD scenario” assumes slower, less intense development due to lack of supportive infrastructure; present value benefit at 3% discount rate ($866,000 benefit in nominal dollars)
20 Summary of Potential Net Fiscal Impacts
Net of Potential 50% Increment Allocation to EIFD
Note: Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure. $2022 Estimated County of Siskiyou
Fiscal Revenues and Expenditures
Within EIFD Study Area
Stabilized
Annual
Revenues
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value
@ 3.0%
Estimated Fiscal Revenues $208,470 $12,878,500 $5,271,200 Potential EIFD Tax Increment Allocation (50% Scenario) ($28,200) ($1,688,700) ($699,200) Estimated Fiscal Expenditures ($134,200) ($9,471,700) ($3,722,900) Estimated Net Fiscal Impact $46,070 $1,718,100 $849,100 Fiscal Return on Investment for County of Siskiyou
Net Fiscal Impact – EIFD (50% Scenario) vs. “Do-Nothing” Scenario 21 $0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 w/ EIFD enabled
investment
Annual NET New Fiscal Revenue to County General Fund (EIFD Parcels) w/o EIFD – delayed,
muted revitalization
• ~$462,000 in cumulative net fiscal benefit to County over 50 years (present-value discounted at 3%), further improves drastically after year 50
EIFD terminates in Year 50
and 100% property tax
flows to General Fund
22 Illustrative EIFD Formation Schedule
 Tax increment allocation begins fiscal year following district formation  Debt issuance, if desired, would occur after a stabilized level of tax increment has been established Target Date Task
Q3 2023 a) Conduct outreach / discussion among City staff and Council, County staff and Board of Supervisors (BOS), potential private sector investment partners
Sept/Oct 2023 b) Final determination of EIFD boundaries, tax increment contributions, targeted projects, governing Public Financing Authority (PFA) Board composition
Oct 2023 c) City Council / County BOS adopt Resolution(s) of Intent (ROI) to form EIFD and formally establish PFA Board Nov 2023 d) PFA directs the drafting of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) Jan 2024 e) Distribute draft IFP to property owners, affected taxing entities, City Council, County Board of Supervisors, planning commission, with corresponding project-related CEQA documentation Jan 2024 f) PFA holds an initial public meeting to present the draft IFP to the public and property owners Feb 2024 g) PFA holds first “official” public hearing to hear written and oral comments but take no action (noticing must occur at least 30 days after “f”)
Mar 2024 h) City Council / legislative bodies of other affected taxing entity contributing increment adopt resolution(s) approving IFP
Mar 2024 i) PFA holds second public hearing to hear additional comments and take action to modify or reject IFP or CRIA Plan (at least 30 days after “g”)
Apr 2024 j) PFA holds third public hearing to consider oral and written protests and take action to terminate proceedings or adopt IFP and form the EIFD by resolution (at least 30 days after “j”) 23 Next Steps
• Receive and incorporate feedback from County Supervisors and Executive Staff • Refine analysis assumptions (e.g., boundary, development projections, levels of contribution, targeted infrastructure costs) based on feedback
• Pursue district formation to establish base year for incremental value growth as soon as feasible (first action would be City/County adoption of a non-binding Resolution of Intention) • Continue to pursue opportunities for private sector partners and external funding sources (e.g., IIG and AHSC grants), ideally under joint City/County EIFD platform for greater priority 24 THANK YOU
Questions?
Kosmont Companies
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #382 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Ph: (424) 297-1070 | Fax: (424) 286-4632
www.kosmont.com
Disclaimer
25 The analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections only.Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.

Discussions or descriptions of potential financial tools that may be available to the City are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to be to be “advice” within the context of this Analysis.

Municipal Advisory activities are conducted through Kosmont Companies’ affiliate, Kosmont Transaction Services, which is Registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and MSRB.

Communicating in a Digital World
26 Appendix
27 Mechanics of TIF / EIFD
Private property
investment or new
development
Increased property
tax revenue from
new property value
Deposited in
separate EIFD
fund
Funds pay for public
improvements

NOT A NEW TAX
Public Financing Authority (PFA) Members
Communicating in a Digital World
28 • City-Only EIFD Scenario: PFA consist of five members, including, three members of the City Council and two members of the public appointed by the City Council • If partnering with other taxing entity (e.g., City / County): PFA consist of five members, including two members of the City Council, one member of the County Board of Supervisors, one public member appointed by the City Council, and one public member appointed by the County • Public member appointment is flexible (e.g., open application process versus specific recommendations by staff / Council)
29 EIFD versus Former Redevelopment Agencies
Sample of Differences
Former RDAs EIFDs
Eligible Use of Funds • Infrastructure and affordable
housing
• Market-rate housing
• Land clearing and parcel assembly
• Tax and other private business /
developer subsidies
• Public infrastructure (e.g., roads,
sewers, open space, utilities)
• Affordable housing
Eminent Domain /
Condemnation
• Allowed • Not allowed
Eligible Areas • Must qualify as “blighted” • No “blight” finding required Governance • City Council or County Board
• School entity participation
• Public Financing Authority including
Public Members (no school entities)
Formation • Vote of governing body • 3 public hearings, majority protest opportunity
EIFDs as a Component of the Mount Shasta Economic
Development and Public Financing Toolkit
Communicating in a Digital World
30 • There are advantages / disadvantages to EIFD compared to other mechanisms, such as general obligation (GO) bonds, lease revenue bonds / COPs, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) financing, assessment districts, and other tools
• Advantages of EIFD include no encumbrance of existing city/county resources, can attract tax increment contributions from other taxing entities, increased priority for grant funding, ability to demonstrate commitment to multiple infrastructure (and/or affordable housing) projects to catalyze private sector development, capacity to fund maintenance, no additional taxes to property owners / residents / businesses, and ease of voter approval • Disadvantages of EIFD include lack of comparable financings thus far, statutory vs. constitutional authority to issue debt, and subordination to redevelopment successor agency obligations, • Advantages of EIFD vs. Other CA TIF Tools (e.g. CRIA, IFD, IRFD, AHA, SIFD) include flexibility in delineating project areas, capacity to dedicate property tax in lieu of MVLF, district duration, and governing board composition and corresponding implications for taxing entity partnership • Complementary Tool: EIFD should not be considered a replacement for other useful financing mechanisms, but rather a complementary tool; other jurisdictions have been successful in utilizing EIFD as well as other tools for different projects within the same community
Comparison of TIF/EIFD and Other Tools
Communicating in a Digital World
31 District Type Description Revenue
Source
Approval
Structure
Use of
Funds
TIF (e.g., EIFD, CRIA,

IFD, IRFD)
Incremental property tax
revenues from new
development used to fund
local infrastructure.

Max term is 45 years from
approval to issue debt.

Incremental (new
development) property tax
revenues (incl. VLF) – does not
increase taxes
District formation – No vote,
but majority protest
opportunity by landowners
and registered voters
Bond issuance – None
• Infrastructure of regional or
communitywide significance
• Maintenance
• Affordable housing
Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District (CFD)
and/or Assessment
District
Additional assessment or
“special tax” used to fund
infrastructure / services that
benefit property.

Max term is 40 years from
date of debt issuance.

New property assessment or
tax – appears as separate line
item on tax bill
District formation – 2/3 vote of
landowners or registered
voters in district*
Bond issuance – vote of elected
body (City)
• Infrastructure capital
expenditures of benefit to
landowners
• Maintenance
• Public services (e.g. safety,
programs)
General Obligation Voter-approved debt that is
repaid with “override” to 1%
tax levy; City-wide
Direct property tax levied on
all properties at same millage
rate
2/3 vote of registered voters in
entire City
• In accordance with bond
plebiscite
Lease Revenue / COPs General Fund-supported
borrowing, generally utilizing
City-owned assets to be
leased and leased back
General Fund (or other legally
available revenues as
determined by City)
Vote of elected body (City) • In accordance with bond
authorization
 Potential funding strategy can utilize MULTIPLE mechanisms * For CFD formation, a vote of registered voters within the district boundary is required if 12 or more registered voters live therein (otherwise a vote of landowners prorated by acreage).

Mount Shasta City CouncilSeptember 11, 2023

Mount Shasta City Council
September 11, 2023