Agenda Packet — Redding City Council, September 20, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Project Budget
City of Redding
Task

1.11.22.12.23.13.24.14.25.15.26.16.27.17.28.18.29.19.2 10.110.2 Purchases and Direct Costs
A Postage and Courier Services
B PotholingC ReproductionD Specialty Tools/Survey EquipmentE Vehicle MileageF Employee Per Diem Subtotal Hours
Dollars
Optional Tasks

2.11 Historic Resources Evaluation Report2.12 Finding of Effect Notes: 1. Above hourly billing rates are approximate and will be based on

2. Vehicle mileage will be charged at the IRS rate.3. Employee per diem will be capped at $144.00 (Up to $98.00 for4. It is assumed that the above hours will be shifted between Tasks5. Rates will be adjusted up to 5% one time per year on July 1.

Task 9 Preparation of Contract Documents
Victor/Cypress Ave
Task 4 Data Collection and Field Survey
Alfreda WayVictor/Cypress Ave
Task 10 Assistance During Bidding and Construction
Victor/Cypress Ave
Task 8 Right of Way
Alfreda WayVictor/Cypress Ave
Task 1 Project Management Review and SchedulingTask 5 Geotechnical Investigation Alfreda WayVictor/Cypress Ave
Task 3 Preliminary Design (30% Design)
Alfreda WayVictor/Cypress AveVictor/Cypress AveAlfreda WayAlfreda WayAlfreda WayVictor/Cypress Ave Class Rate for
Budget Development
Task Description
Date: 08/19/2022Task 2 Environmental Documentation; Permitting; and Coordination with Caltrans Local Assistance Victor/Cypress Ave
PRO No. 12571663
Alfreda WayAlfreda WayAlfreda Way
Task 6 Drainage / Hydraulic Study Report
Victor/Cypress Ave
Task 7 Utility Coordination
BC D E
Indirect Costs
Total Direct +
Indirect Fee
182.630% A+B 10.00%
$18,697.81 $28,935.89 $2,893.59 $31,829.48$64,637.87 $100,030.67 $10,003.07 $110,033.74 $8,775.30 $13,580.26 $1,358.03 $14,938.29
$19,044.66 $29,472.66 $2,947.27 $32,419.93$16,898.95 $26,152.06 $2,615.21 $28,767.27$51,267.47 $79,339.24 $7,933.92 $87,273.16$19,464.01 $30,121.63 $3,012.16 $33,133.79$58,795.43 $90,989.17 $9,098.92 $100,088.09 $834.18 $1,290.94 $129.09 $1,420.03
$1,023.24 $1,583.52 $158.35 $1,741.87$4,336.15 $6,710.43 $671.04 $7,381.47 $12,723.54 $19,690.38 $1,969.04 $21,659.42
$3,669.18 $5,678.26 $567.83 $6,246.09
$11,200.70 $17,333.70 $1,733.37 $19,067.07
$4,247.24 $6,572.84 $657.28 $7,230.12$4,440.39 $6,871.75 $687.18 $7,558.93 $82,451.42 $127,598.12 $12,759.81 $140,357.93
$248,446.93 $384,485.33 $38,448.53 $422,933.86
$4,725.00 $7,312.20 $731.22 $8,043.42
$14,175.01 $21,936.61 $2,193.66 $24,130.27$23,013.97 $35,615.39 $3,561.54 $39,176.93 $500.00 $ 500.00
$30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
$5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
$5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
$1,740.00 $ 1,740.00
$1,440.00 $ 1,440.00
$672,868.45 $1,084,981.05 $104,130.11 $1,189,111.16
GHD
TOTAL
C+D

Page 2 ends

Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Project Budget
City of Redding
Task

2.11 Historic Resources Evaluation Report2.12 Finding of Effect Notes: 1. Above hourly billing rates are approximate and will be based on

Task 9 Preparation of Contract Documents
Victor/Cypress Ave
Task 4 Data Collection and Field Survey
Alfreda WayVictor/Cypress Ave
Task 10 Assistance During Bidding and Construction
Victor/Cypress Ave
Task 8 Right of Way
Alfreda WayVictor/Cypress Ave
Task 1 Project Management Review and SchedulingTask 5 Geotechnical Investigation Alfreda WayVictor/Cypress Ave
Task 3 Preliminary Design (30% Design)
Alfreda WayVictor/Cypress AveVictor/Cypress AveAlfreda WayAlfreda WayAlfreda WayVictor/Cypress Ave Class Rate for
Budget Development
Task Description
Date: 08/19/2022Task 2 Environmental Documentation; Permitting; and Coordination with Caltrans Local Assistance Victor/Cypress Ave
PRO No. 12571663
Alfreda WayAlfreda WayAlfreda Way
Task 6 Drainage / Hydraulic Study Report
Victor/Cypress Ave
Task 7 Utility Coordination
Subtask Totals Task Totals
Aerial Mapping Geotechnical Landscape Arch. R/W-Utilities Environmental Cost Estimating Traffic/Elect/ Striping Total Aerotech (DBE) BAJADA (DBE) Mike Lander Monument (DBE) Stantec g
(DBE) TJKM (DBE) Subs $141,863.22
$31,829.48
$110,033.74
$228,892.22
$91,594.50 $91,594.50 $106,532.79$89,939.50 $89,939.50 $122,359.43 $150,178.91
$1,000.00 $9,272.39 $10,272.39 $39,039.66
$5,000.00 $2,600.00 $16,266.09 $23,866.09 $111,139.25
$146,811.88
$4,077.00 $4,077.00 $37,210.79$9,513.00 $9,513.00 $109,601.09 $48,904.93
$4,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,420.03
$41,743.03 $41,743.03 $43,484.90
$29,040.89
$7,381.47
$21,659.42
$51,023.10
$4,284.99 $4,284.99 $10,531.08
$21,424.95 $21,424.95 $40,492.02
$136,477.37
$60,844.16 $60,844.16 $68,074.28$60,844.16 $60,844.16 $68,403.09 $656,769.11
$1,750.00 $21,635.59 $23,385.59 $163,743.52$8,750.00 $23,387.50 $37,954.23 $70,091.73 $493,025.59 $35,173.69
$500.00 $500.00 $8,543.42
$2,500.00 $2,500.00 $26,630.27
$39,176.93$43,680.00
$500.00
$30,000.00
$5,000.00$5,000.00$1,740.00$1,440.00
$13,590.00 $45,743.03 $19,500.00 $147,398.26 $181,534.00 $25,987.50 $85,128.30 $518,881.09 $1,707,992.25 $13,590.00 $45,743.03 0 $147,398.26 0 $25,987.50 $85,128.30 $317,847.09 DBE Total $317,847.09

0.8% 2.7% 8.6% 1.5% 5.0% 18.6% DBE % 18.6%
$12,028.00 $12,028 $12,028.00
$6,522.00 $6,522 $6,522.00
Optional Tasks Total $18,550.00
Sub-Consultants

COST PROPOSAL

CITY OF REDDING

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE
Victor and Cypress Avenues Active Transportation Project - Schedule No 5278

Page 3 ends

Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Consulting and Professional Services Contract (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following actions regarding acceptance of Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds for the following:
(1) Accept ATP funds in the amount of $2,665,000 for the Turtle Bay to Downtown Gap Completion Project;
(2) Accept ATP funds in the amount of $7,822,000, and Highway Infrastructure Program funds in the amount of $1,448,780, for the Victor Avenue and Cypress Avenue Active Transportation Project; and
(3) Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 18th Amendment to City of Redding Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 appropriating $11,935,780 for the two projects.

Fiscal Impact
The total estimated cost of the Turtle Bay to Downtown (TB2DT) Gap Completion Project is $3,935,000. The attached budget resolution is for State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ATP funds of $2,665,000. STIP ATP funds in the amount of $1,170,000 were previously accepted and budgeted for this project. The remaining $100,000 will come from Street funds.

The total estimated cost of the Victor and Cypress Active Transportation (VCAT) project is $10,362,000. The attached budget resolution is for STIP ATP funds of $7,822,000 and leverage federal Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funds of $1,448,775 from Shasta Regional Transportation Agency. The remaining project funds in the amount of $1,091,225 will come from Street funds or other potential funding sources.

MEETING DATE: November 16, 2021
ITEM NO. 4.11(e)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(e)--Accept Active Transportation Program Funds and Highway Infrastructure Program Funds for Active Transportation Program Cycle Five (5) and Adopt Budget Resolution Appropriating Funds
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Report to Redding City Council November 12, 2021
Re: 4.11(e)--Accept Active Transportation Program Funds & Highway Infrastructure ProgFunds ATP Cycle 5 Page 2
Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to accept the ATP, STIP, and HIP funds or approve the budget resolution. The City would lose ATP, STIP, and HIP funds in the amount of $11.935,775 and the projects may not be completed.

Background/Analysis
On September 26, 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation creating the ATP program in the Department of Transportation. The ATP consolidated several federal and state transportation programs into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP is administered by the Division of Local Assistance, Office of State Programs. The purpose of the ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation. On July 21, 2019, the Council directed staff to apply for funds through ATP Cycle Five (5) for two projects.

The proposed TB2DT Gap Completion Project is located along Sundial Bridge Drive from the interchange with State Route 44 and north to the Sacramento River. It will provide a buffered two-way cycle track, a shared-use path, a raised intersection with curb extensions, bollards to provide separation, lane reductions, raised crosswalks, and shade trees.

The proposed VCAT Project is located along Victor Avenue from south of Hartnell Avenue to East Cypress Avenue, along East Cypress Avenue from Victor Avenue to Alfreda Way, and along Alfreda Way to Del Monte Street. It will construct shared-use paths, curb ramps, and bike lanes. The project will enhance safety by constructing mid-block crossings with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and by installing protected intersections for safer crossings. It will also include a roundabout installation at the Victor/Cypress Intersection.

Appropriating the funding for these projects will allow environmental clearance and engineering design work to commence.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” • Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
Attachments
Resolution
Location Map
State Transportation Improvement Program Funding (available online) Project List ATP Cycle 5 (available online)
SRTA Staff Report 04-27-21 (available online)
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) RESOLUTION NO. 2021-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 18 TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078
APPROPRIATING $11,935,780 FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS

FOR THE TURTLE BAY TO DOWNTOWN GAP COMPLETION PROJECT AND

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE VICTOR AVENUE AND CYPRESS AVENUE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
128 566

Transportation Grant Projects $11,935,780
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase (Decrease) Revenue
128-566-6-1200-18 State Grant Capital - Public Works $ 10,487,000 128-566-6-2650-18 Federal Grant - Capital - Public Works $ 1,448,780 Increase Expenditures
128-566-4775-05 Turtle Bay to Downtown Trail $ 2,665,000 128-566-4775-14 Victor/Cypress ATP $ 9,270,780
Total $ 11,935,780 $ 11,935,780
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $11,935,780 for Active Transportation Program funds for the Turtle Bay to Downtown Gap Completion Project and Active Transportation Program and Highway Infrastructure Program funds for the Victor Avenue and Cypress Avenue Transportation project for fiscal year 2021-22.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 16th day of November, 2021, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ERIN D. RESNER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution)

CITY OF REDDING

LOCATION MAP

EXHIBIT A
PUBLIC WORKS ATP CYCLE 5 PROJECTS

DEPARTMENT

LOCATION
PROJECT 1 2

HARTNELL AVE

E CYPRESS AVE VICTOR AVE ALFREDA WAY
HWY 44

BUTTE ST
TURTLE BAY 2 1
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) State Transportation Improvement Program
Shasta County
Document Year 2018, Version Number 4
PPNO: 2588
(Dollars in Thousands)
DIST:
02 PPNO:
2588
EA: CTIPS ID:
111-0000-0268
TCRP NO.:

CT PROJECT ID:
0219000109
COUNTY:

Shasta County
ROUTE: PM:

TITLE (DESCRIPTION):

Downtown to Turtle Bay Non-Motorized Improvements
(In Redding, on Trinity Street from Center Street and
along State Route 44 from Continental Street to Sundial Bridge Drive. The project will construct non-motorized
improvements including a paved pedestrian and bicycle
multi-use path linking downtown Redding with the Turtle Bay Exploration Park and trails leading to the eastside of Redding.)
ELEMENT: Local Assistance MPO ID: 11 LAW: 18
SPONSOR: Redding, City of
MPO: Shasta County RTPA
CORRIDOR:

PRJ MGR: Chuck Auckland
PHONE: (530) 225-4170
EMAIL: [email protected]
ASSEMBLY: 1
SENATE: 1
CONGRESS: 1

IMPLEMENTING
AGENCIES:

PAED Redding, City of
PSE Redding, City of
RW Redding, City of
CON Redding, City of
Categories Outputs/Outcomes Unit Total
Local streets and roads Bicycle lane mile(s) Miles 2
PROJECT VERSION HISTORY (Printed Version is Shaded) (Last 9 versions displayed) Programmed Dollars in Thousands - Total for Project Version Status Date Updated By Change Reason Amend No. Vote Cum Award Prog Con Prog RW PA & ED PS & E RW Sup Con Sup 4 Official 12/04/2019 JLEUNG Amendment - Cost/Scope/Sch. Change FP-19-35 1,170 5,600 1,170 100 3 Official 05/15/2019 JLEUNG Allocation - CTC Vote FP-18-66 1,170 5,600 1,170 100 2 Official 05/17/2018 EZECHLIN Amendment - Technical Correction G-18-21 5,600 1,170 100 1 Official 03/21/2018 EZECHLIN Adoption - New Project G-18-16 5,600 1,170 100 Fund Source 1 of 3 Local Funds
Extension
LOCAL FUNDS - Locally
Generated Funds
Fund Type
Local Transportation Funds -
Advance Construction
Funding Agency
VOTE DATE AMOUNT PRIOR 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 FUTURE TOTAL PA&ED
PS&E

R/W SUP

CON SUP
R/W
CON 5,500 5,500
Total: 5,500 5,500
Fund Source 2 of 3 Local Funds
Extension

20.10.400.100 - Locally
Generated Funds
Fund Type
Local Transportation Funds
Funding Agency
Redding, City of
VOTE DATE AMOUNT PRIOR 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 FUTURE TOTAL PA&ED
PS&E

R/W SUP

CON SUP
R/W
CON 100 100
Total: 100 100
Products of CTIPS Page 1 01/13/2020 10:27:06 Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) State Transportation Improvement Program
Shasta County
Document Year 2018, Version Number 4
PPNO: 2588
(Dollars in Thousands)
Fund Source 3 of 3 RIP
Extension

20.30.600.620 - Local Roads
Fund Type
National Hwy System
Funding Agency
Shasta County RTPA

VOTE DATE AMOUNT
PAED 05/15/2019 1,170
PRIOR 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 FUTURE TOTAL
PA&ED 1,170 1,170
PS&E 100 100

R/W SUP

CON SUP
R/W
CON
Total: 1,170 100 1,270
Project Total:

VOTE TOTAL AMOUNT
PAED 1,170
PRIOR 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 FUTURE TOTAL
PA&ED 1,170 1,170
PS&E 100 100

R/W SUP

CON SUP
R/W
CON 5,600 5,600
Total: 1,170 5,700 6,870
HQ Comments:
******** Version 4 - 12/09/2019 ********
CTC approved to amend Res FP-18-66 to revise the original allocation of $1,170k in federal funds to state funds per Res FP-19-35 on 12/4/19. -ad ******** Version 3 - 05/08/2019 ********
CTC approved allocation of $1,170k RIP PA&ED FY 18-19 per Res FP-18-66 on 5/15/19. -ad ******** Version 2 - 05/28/2018 ********
CTC approves Technical Correction to the 2018 STIP per resolution G-18-21, on 05/16/2018. -ez ******** VERSION 1 - 04/05/2018 ********
^^^^^^^^ Version 1 - 02/02/2018 ^^^^^^^^
New project per PPR 12/05/17 - ad
Delayed PS&E from FY 19/20 to FY 22/23 and added RIP Env of $1,170 to FY 19/20 per Errata. -ls ATP funds $5,500 con
Products of CTIPS Page 2 01/13/2020 10:27:06 Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) ATP Cycle 5 SOF Proejct List
Statewide and Small Urban Rural
District Application ID Project Title State Only
Funded
Total Project
Cost (in 1000)
ATP Funds
(in 1000) Project Type Implementing Agency County
1 1-Arcata, City of-1 Arcata Annie & Mary Trail Connectivity Project YES $ 5,286 $ 4,220 Infrastructure - Medium Arcata, City of Humboldt 2 2-Redding, City of-2 Turtle Bay to Downtown Gap Completion Project YES $ 3,935 $ 2,665 Infrastructure + NI - Medium Redding, City of Shasta 3 3-El Dorado County-3 Pollock Pines - Pony Express Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
YES $ 2,000 $ 1,440 Infrastructure - Small El Dorado County El Dorado 3 3-Sacramento County-2 South Sacramento County Safe Routes to School Project YES $ 1,946 $ 1,946 Infrastructure + NI - Small Sacramento County Sacramento 3 3-Sacramento, City of-1 Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Project NO $ 16,265 $ 9,323 Infrastructure - Large Sacramento County Sacramento 3 3-West Sacramento, City of-2 Sycamore Trail (Phase 2) Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing YES $ 11,538 $ 3,500 Infrastructure - Large West Sacramento, City of Yolo
4 4-Contra Costa County-2 North Bailey Road Active Transportation Corridor YES $ 6,845 $ 6,159 Infrastructure - Medium Contra Costa County Contra Costa 4 4-Fairfield, City of-1 West Texas Street Complete Streets Project YES $ 16,922 $ 10,903 Infrastructure + NI - Large Fairfield, City of Solano 4 4-Oakland, City of-1 7th Street Connection Project NO $ 21,037 $ 14,180 Infrastructure - Large Oakland, City of Alameda 4 4-Oakland, City of-2 East Oakland Neighborhood Bike Routes NO $ 21,859 $ 17,269 Infrastructure - Large Oakland, City of Alameda 4 4-Santa Clara County-1 Active and Safe Routes to a Healthier City YES $ 2,510 $ 2,510 Non-Infrastructure Santa Clara County Santa Clara 5 5-San Luis Obispo County-1 San Luis Obispo County-Bob Jones Trail Gap Closure NO $ 23,414 $ 18,248 Infrastructure - Large San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo
5 5-Santa Cruz, City of-2 Santa Cruz Rail Trail Segment 7 Phase 2 Construction YES $ 12,030 $ 9,184 Infrastructure + NI - Large Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz 5 5-Watsonville, City of-1 Safer Access to Pajaro Valley High School and Beyond YES $ 15,823 $ 11,709 Infrastructure + NI - Large Watsonville, City of Santa Cruz 6 6-Delano, City of-1 ATP-5 SRTS Intersection Enhancement and NI Work Plan YES $ 1,178 $ 1,164 Infrastructure + NI - Small Delano, City of Kern 6 6-Fresno County-1 Biola Community Sidewalks YES $ 1,498 $ 1,255 Infrastructure - Small Fresno County Fresno 6 6-Fresno, City of-1 Kids Crossing: Safe Routes to School in South Fresno YES $ 1,636 $ 1,636 Infrastructure + NI - Small Fresno, City of Fresno 6 6-Huron, City of-1 City of Huron Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project YES $ 1,969 $ 1,769 Infrastructure - Small Huron, City of Fresno 6 6-Porterville, City of-2 Butterfield Stage Corridor (Henderson Avenue to Date Avenue) YES $ 4,650 $ 4,000 Infrastructure - Medium Porterville, City of Tulare 6 6-Porterville, City of-4 Butterfield Stage Corridor (W North Grand Ave to College Ave) YES $ 7,750 $ 7,100 Infrastructure - Large Porterville, City of Tulare 7 7-Bell Gardens, City of-1 Bell Gardens Complete Streets Improvements - Phase 1 YES $ 6,999 $ 6,499 Infrastructure - Medium Bell Gardens, City of Los Angeles 7 7-Long Beach, City of-1 Downtown Long Beach Walkable Corners NO $ 8,771 $ 7,893 Infrastructure + NI - Large Long Beach, City of Los Angeles 7 7-Long Beach, City of-2 Pacific Avenue Cycle Track NO $ 8,332 $ 7,498 Infrastructure + NI - Large Long Beach, City of Los Angeles 7 7-Los Angeles, City of-11 Connecting Canoga Park Through Safety and Urban Cooling Improvements
NO $ 38,655 $ 30,731 Infrastructure - Large Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles 7 7-Los Angeles, City of-3 SRTS Carver Middle, Ascot Avenue and Harmony Elementary Schools Project
YES $ 6,700 $ 6,030 Infrastructure - Medium Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles 7 7-Los Angeles, City of-4 SRTS Berendo Middle and 3 Feeder Elementary Schools Safety Project
NO $ 11,057 $ 9,951 Infrastructure - Large Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles 7 7-Los Angeles, City of-5 SRTS Panorama City Elementary School Project YES $ 6,832 $ 6,149 Infrastructure - Medium Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles Statewide
3-30-2021 Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize ATP Cycle 5 SOF Proejct List
Statewide and Small Urban Rural
District Application ID Project Title State Only
Funded
Total Project
Cost (in 1000)
ATP Funds
(in 1000) Project Type Implementing Agency County
7 7-Maywood, City of-1 City of Maywood Active Transportation Plan YES $ 263 $ 263 Plan Maywood, City of Los Angeles 7 7-Santa Monica, City of-2 Stewart-Pennsylvania Safety Enhancement Project YES $ 4,000 $ 3,196 Infrastructure + NI - Medium Santa Monica, City of Los Angeles 7 7-South El Monte, City of-1 South El Monte Safe Routes to School Pedestrian Safety Project YES $ 1,637 $ 1,637 Infrastructure - Small South El Monte, City of Los Angeles 7 7-Ventura County-2 El Rio Pedestrian Improvement and Safe Route to School Project YES $ 6,960 $ 6,195 Infrastructure - Medium Ventura County Ventura 8 8-Ontario, City of-1 Vine Ave & B St Bike Boulevard Project YES $ 4,881 $ 4,392 Infrastructure - Medium Ontario, City of San Bernardino 8 8-Perris, City of-1 City of Perris Bike and Pedestrian Network Project YES $ 1,999 $ 1,931 Infrastructure + NI - Small Perris, City of Riverside 8 8-Riverside County-10 Riverside County Safe Routes for All - San Jacinto YES $ 600 $ 600 Non-Infrastructure Riverside County Riverside 8 8-San Bernardino County-2 Muscoy Area Safe Routes to School Pedestrian Improvements Project
YES $ 2,355 $ 1,881 Infrastructure + NI - Medium San Bernardino County
San Bernardino
10 10-Mariposa County-1 Mariposa Elementary School Connectivity Project YES $ 1,900 $ 1,900 Infrastructure - Small Mariposa County Mariposa 10 10-Mariposa County-2 Mariposa Creek Parkway YES $ 5,176 $ 4,415 Infrastructure - Medium Mariposa County Mariposa 11 11-Imperial Beach, City of-1 9th St Active Transportation Corridor YES $ 3,354 $ 3,018 Infrastructure - Medium Imperial Beach, City of San Diego 11 11-National City, City of-3 Highland Avenue Inter-City Bike Connection YES $ 1,897 $ 1,343 Infrastructure - Small National City, City of San Diego 11 11-Oceanside, City of-1 Laurel Elementary Safe Routes to School YES $ 1,535 $ 1,522 Infrastructure + NI - Small Oceanside, City of San Diego 11 11-San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG)-1 Orange Family Friendly Street Project YES $ 5,660 $ 4,317 Infrastructure - Medium San Diego Association of Governments San Diego 1 1-Clearlake, City of-1 Dam Road Extension & South Center Drive Bike/Pedestrian Improvements
YES $ 997 $ 997 Infrastructure - Small Clearlake, City of Lake 2 2-Karuk Tribe-1 Happy Camp Complete Streets Project NO $ 12,221 $ 9,971 Infrastructure - Large Karuk Tribe Siskiyou 2 2-Redding, City of-1 Victor Ave & Cypress Ave Active Transportation (VCAT) Project YES $ 10,409 $ 7,822 Infrastructure + NI - Large Redding, City of Shasta 2 2-Shasta County-3 Cottonwood Active Transportation Trunk Line Express (CATTLE) Network NO $ 17,844 $ 7,056 Infrastructure + NI - Large Shasta County Shasta 2 2-Siskiyou County Transportation
Commission-1 Siskiyou- Regional Active Transportation Plan YES $ 212 $ 202 Plan Siskiyou County
Transportation
Commission
Siskiyou
5 5-Santa Barbara, City of-3 Upper De La Vina Street Gap Closure and Safe Crossings YES $ 1,998 $ 1,998 Infrastructure - Small Santa Barbara, City of Santa Barbara 5 5-Seaside, City of-1 Broadway Ave Complete Street Corridor YES $ 14,001 $ 12,041 Infrastructure + NI - Large Seaside, City of Monterey 6 6-Corcoran, City of-1 Corcoran Safe Routes to School YES $ 1,998 $ 1,998 Infrastructure - Small Corcoran, City of Kings 10 10-Tuolumne County-1 Jamestown Community Connectivity Project YES $ 2,300 $ 2,071 Infrastructure - Medium Tuolumne County Tuolumne Small Urban and Rural
3-30-2021 Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 27, 2021
SUBJECT: Approve Match Funds for Victor Avenue and Cypress Avenue Active Transportation Program Project
AGENDA ITEM: 14
STAFF CONTACT: Kathy Urlie, Senior Transportation Planner SUMMARY:

In the city of Redding Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 5 grant application for the Victor Avenue and Cypress Avenue Active Transportation (VCAT) Project, SRTA tentatively committed 15% match to the total ATP eligible project cost subject to board of directors’ approval and available funding. Redding received an ATP award of $7,822,000. Staff recommends $1,448,775 in federal Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funding as match.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the board of directors approve:

1. $1,448,775 in Shasta Region Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) match funds for the Victor Avenue and Cypress Active Transportation Project; and

2. an additional $44,240 of HIP funding if a 2022 HIP allocation is made to SRTA.

DISCUSSION:

In March 2021, the California Transportation Commission approved $7,822,000 of discretionary Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding for the city of Redding’s VCAT Project. SRTA assisted in the development of the application and tentatively committed 15% match ($1,493,015) to the total ATP eligible project cost ($9,953,433), subject to board of directors’ approval. The match contribution from SRTA was to enhance the project’s competitiveness.

Over the past four years, SRTA has been receiving discretionary allocations of Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funding from the US Department of Transportation, which may be used for a variety of uses, including bicycle and pedestrian projects. The following table shows these amounts and expirations dates by year. Each year, there is no guarantee of receiving another apportionment.

Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Approve Match Funds for Victor Avenue and Cypress Avenue ATP Project April 27, 2021

Page 2 ends

The time frame for obligating the earlier allocations is quickly approaching, so SRTA staff recommends using all available HIP funds for most of the 15% match. For the remainder of the 15% match ($44,240), SRTA staff recommends using the 2022 HIP apportionment, if received. If it is not received, then SRTA Non-Motorized funds, or another appropriate fund source, will be used for the residual.

ALTERNATIVES:

The SRTA Board of Directors may elect not to use available HIP funds or approve a lesser amount down to 10% match.

OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:

The city of Redding is committing at least 5% of the ATP eligible project cost in match. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommends approval.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The recommended action will deplete all HIP reserves ($1,448,775), consistent with staff intent to utilize these reserves to leverage grant funding.
__________________________________
Daniel S. Little, AICP, Executive Director
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: 11-16-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the Public Works Department to submit three grant applications for a total amount not to exceed $19 million for Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for improvements along: (1) Victor Avenue, East Cypress Avenue and Alfreda Way; (2) Sundial Bridge Drive; and (3) California Street.

Fiscal Impact
The grant applications will request funds to design and construct improvements for three proposed ATP projects. The cost for all three projects is estimated to be $19 million. The ATP program does not require a local match for the funding. However, the scoring criteria for this competitive program provides more points for applications depending on the amount of funds the local agencies leverage relative to total project costs. The City will provide leveraging funds from various sources should one or all of the applications be successful. Sources include a combination of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant funds, regional bicycle and pedestrian program funds and the Citywide Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) Program.

Alternative Action
The City Council may choose not to apply for funds under this grant program, or provide staff with alternative direction.

Background/Analysis
On September 26, 2013, then Governor Brown signed legislation creating the ATP program in the Department of Transportation. The ATP consolidated several federal and state transportation programs into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP is administered by the Division of Local Assistance, Office of State Programs.

MEETING DATE: July 21, 2020
ITEM NO. 4.11(j)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(j)--Authorization to Apply for Active Transportation Program Grant Funding
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: 7-21-20 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Report to Redding City Council July 14, 2020
Re: 4.11(j)--Active Transportation Program Grant Funding Page 2 The purpose of the ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation. The City of Redding (City) has been successful in this purpose by obtaining over $16 million in ATP grant funds in recent years to design and construct improvement projects on Placer Street, Quartz Hill Road, Bechelli Lane, West Street, and on the Diestelhorst to Downtown project. Building on this track record and taking the next step toward implementing the City’s Active Transportation Plan, staff recommends applications for ATP funding on the following projects:

The proposed California Street Bikeway project is located along California Street from Yuba Street north to Division Street. It will construct a new 12-foot wide two-way separated cycle track with raised curbing and delineators for separation, modify three signalized intersections for two-way cycle track operations, install curb extensions for pedestrian safety, and complete the connection from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Development project in downtown to the Diestelhorst to Downtown project at Division Street. The California Street Bikeway project is estimated to cost up to $5 million.

The proposed Turtle Bay to Downtown project is located along Sundial Bridge Drive from the interchange with State Route 44 and north to the Sacramento River. It will provide a buffered two-way cycle track, a shared-use path, a raised intersection with curb extensions, bollards to provide separation, lane reductions, raised crosswalks, and shade trees. The cost for the project is estimated at up to $4 million.

The proposed Victor, Cypress, and Alfreda project is located along Victor Avenue from south of Hartnell Avenue up to E Cypress Avenue, along E Cypress Avenue from Victor Avenue to Alfreda Way, and along Alfreda Way to Del Monte Street. It will construct shared-use paths, curb ramps, and bike lanes. It will enhance safety by constructing mid-block crossings with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and by installing protected intersections for safer crossings.

The project is estimated to cost up to $10 million.

The due date for ATP grant applications is September 15, 2020.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” • Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
Attachments
Location Map
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: 7-21-20 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution) Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: 7-21-20 Previous Staff Report (4.11(b)--Award Request for Proposal No. 5278 and Authorize Execution)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Approve the sole source acquisition of Grizzly Crane components from Crane Equipment Manufacturing Corporation (Crane Equipment) in an amount not-to-exceed $97,000 for the City of Redding Solid Waste Utility; and adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 59th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 appropriating funds for the purchase.

Fiscal Impact
In the most recent ten-year Financial Plan, the Solid Waste Utility (Utility) forecast $80,000 for crane repairs in Fiscal Year 2024-25. The proposed appropriation will reduce the current reserve in the Utility’s Capital Improvement Plan by $97,000 for the necessary components and repairs.

The purchase of new crane components would eliminate the need for $80,000 in planned crane maintenance and repairs which was originally included in the projected Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget. Net delivered cost of the crane components will be $90,527.35, plus sales tax of $4,896.46, which is not collected by the vendor but will be submitted to California Department of Tax and Fee Administration by the City’s Finance Department. Staff is requesting $97,000 to be appropriated to account for unforeseen minor increases that might occur. Sufficient reserves remain available for potential contingencies.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to adopt the resolution and not make a finding of a sole source acquisition for the crane components, and advise staff on how to proceed. This may result in crane failure that will severely impact transfer station operation and ultimately induce a more expedient and expensive replacement or repair.

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(c)--Adopt Resolution and Approve Sole Source Acquisition to Crane Equipment Manufacturing Corporation
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 260
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2022
Re: 4.11(c)--Adopt Resolution and Approve Sole Source Acquisition to Crane Page 2 Background/Analysis
One of the functions of the City of Redding Transfer and Recycling Facility (Facility) is to serve as a processing and loading facility for municipal waste from residential and commercial collection as well as self-haul loads. At this facility, waste is loaded from the tipping floor into trucks that transfer the material to the Richard W. Curry West Central Landfill (Landfill) for disposal. In order to maximize each trip, a mounted crane is used to adjust and pack the load of the truck to the legal hauling limit.

The crane system, a Grizzly Crane, was installed in 1995 when the facility opened. In 2003, the main portion of the crane was replaced and the Utility kept the existing power pack, grapple, and rubber pad on the mount. In 2016, the main boom assembly and jib boom assembly were also replaced. In 2019, the base, cab, and a grapple were replaced. Currently, the main boom and jib boom are worn and have significant areas that need to be repaired. A temporary weld is in place to allow continued operations until a permanent repair can be made. Staff has completed an evaluation of the crane and determined that the most cost effective and expedient path forward is to replace the main boom assembly, jib boom assembly, and grapple, and keep the rest of the existing machine since it is still in good working order. Parts are not interchangeable between different crane manufacturers, so the needed repair can only be accomplished through Crane Equipment as this vendor is the sole manufacturer of Grizzly Crane products. Crane Equipment has provided a quote for these parts that totals $90,527.35.

In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 3400.C.2, the Council may make a finding for a material, product or service by specific brand or trade name in order to match products in use within the Solid Waste Division. Such a finding above would allow the benefits described above to be realized.

Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Resolution
^Quote
Packet Pg. 261
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 59 TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078
APPROPRIATING $97,000 FOR A SOLE SOURCE ACQUISITION OF GRIZZLY

CRANE COMPONENTS FROM CRANE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
149 557 Transfer Station $97,000
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Decrease (Increase) Beginning Balance
149-557-01-0001-01 Beginning Balance $ 97,000
Increase Expenditures
149-557-4465-04 SWIP Crane Repairs $ 97,000
Total $ 97,000 $ 97,000
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $97,000 for a sole source acquisition of Grizzly Crane components from Crane Equipment Manufacturing Corporation for fiscal year 2022-23.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 20th day of September, 2022, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(c)--Adopt Resolution and Approve Sole Source Acquisition to Crane) Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(c)--Adopt Resolution and Approve Sole Source Acquisition to Crane) Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: ^Quote (4.11(c)--Adopt Resolution and Approve Sole Source Acquisition to Crane)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Schedule No. 5306, (Job No. 2651) Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project:
(1) Award to Axner Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $927,160; (2) Approve $117,324 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees and $136,000 for project development costs;
(3) Approve $92,716 to provide construction contingency funding; and (4) Find that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, per Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project (Project) is being funded by a federal grant in the amount of $1,273,200 from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $136,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $1,019,876
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $117,324
Total Project Costs $1,273,200
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget.

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5306, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 265
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2022
Re: 4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not award the bid for the Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement HSIP Project and provide staff with an alternative direction. Without this project, much needed pedestrian and safety improvements will not be completed. In addition, if this project is not awarded, the City of Redding (City) is at risk of losing $1.2 million in federal funding due to grant requirements for project delivery.

Background/Analysis
The Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project is a planned improvement to provide enhanced pedestrian crossings at nine locations within the City. These locations include the intersections of West Street and Placer Street, Court Street and Placer Street, Parkview Avenue and State Street, Hilltop Drive and Sandpoint Drive, Churn Creek Road and Palacio Drive, Browning Street and Lancers Lane, Old Alturas Road and Bradford Way, Shasta View Drive and Saturn Skyway, and Churn Creek Road and Echo Road. The improvements include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps, enhanced pedestrian crossings, rapid flashing beacons, traffic signs, new striping, and pedestrian refuge islands, as is detailed on the plans. On September 30, 2019, the Council accepted and appropriated HSIP grant funds in the amount of $1,273,200 for costs related to the project.

Attached is a tabulation of bids received and opened on August 23, 2022, for the Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement (HSIP) Project. The low bid in the amount of $927,160 was received from Axner Excavating, Inc., of Redding, California. Since the grant funds are from a federal source, the City is required to establish a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal of six percent for this project. Axner Excavating, Inc., achieved the six percent participation goal.

The engineer's estimate was $917,385. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $136,000. Project development costs include engineering, surveying, right-ofway, environmental, and consultant services.

Environmental Review
Staff has reviewed the project and determined that the project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, per Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities. Class 1 exemptions include minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use. This includes the addition of bicycle lanes and bicycle facilities, sidewalk and pedestrian crossings, transit improvements, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes. The proposed project will enhance the existing facility for pedestrians, but will not create additional vehicle capacity. The project has been reviewed for sensitive resources and will not have a significant effect on biological or cultural resources such as threatened or endangered species or their habitats, sensitive vegetation communities, tribal lands, or tribal cultural resources. The project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

On August 25, 2021, the California Department of Transportation determined that the project is Categorically Excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117(c)(3) – Pedestrian Improvements.

Packet Pg. 266
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2022
Re: 4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project Page 3 Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Resolution
^Location Map
^Bid Tabulation
^Notice of Expemption
Previous Staff Report 9-30-19
CalTrans CEQA Exemption/NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determination Form Packet Pg. 267
RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 098

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 13TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2019-050
APPROPRIATING $ 1, 273, 200 FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019- 20

BE IT RESOL VED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2019- 050 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION
128 566

DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
Transportation Grant Projects 1, 273, 200
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FINDS
Increase Revenue
128- 566- 06-2650- 18 Federal Grant - Capital
Increase Expenditures
128- 566-4775- 11 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements $ 1, 273, 200 1, 273, 200
Total $ 1, 273, 200 $ 1, 273, 200
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $ 1, 273, 200 for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project for fiscal year 2019- 20.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 30th day of September, 2019, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dacquisto, McElvain, Resner, Schreder, and Winter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ATTEST:

PAMELA MIZE, CiIerk
JULIE rINTER, Mayor
FORM APPROVAL:

Y E. eW , City Attorney
n
v
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project) Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project)

Page 1 of 2 ends

BID TABULATION FOR:

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5306
Job No.: 2651 ENGINEER'S EST Axner Excavating, Inc. Builder Solutions, Inc. 1/0/1900 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 Water Pollution Control LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $9,950.53 $9,950.53 $7,087.00 $7,087.00 2 Traffic Control LS 1 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $107,635.00 $107,635.00 $83,700.00 $83,700.00 3 Construction Area Signs EA 62 $350.00 $21,700.00 $319.00 $19,778.00 $609.68 $37,800.16 4 Project Funding Sign LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,172.00 $1,172.00 $3,037.50 $3,037.50 5 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $9,400.00 $9,400.00 $6,970.00 $6,970.00 $8,775.00 $8,775.00 6 Replace Asphalt Concrete SF 267 $50.00 $13,350.00 $156.40 $41,758.80 $20.08 $5,361.36 7 Concrete Curb and Gutter (6" Vert) LF 1287 $85.00 $109,395.00 $116.86 $150,398.82 $95.78 $123,268.86 8 Concrete Curb LF 432 $70.00 $30,240.00 $118.25 $51,084.00 $107.76 $46,552.32 9 Sidewalk (4"PCC) SF 6490 $28.00 $181,720.00 $14.34 $93,066.60 $19.66 $127,593.40 10 Concrete (4" DECO) SF 995 $52.00 $51,740.00 $38.27 $38,078.65 $66.48 $66,147.60 11 Concrete (4" PCC MEDIAN) SF 202 $30.00 $6,060.00 $116.00 $23,432.00 $85.31 $17,232.62 12 Concrete Curb Ramp SF 2446 $50.00 $122,300.00 $36.31 $88,814.26 $36.15 $88,422.90 13 Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 5375 $6.00 $32,250.00 $12.00 $64,500.00 $13.06 $70,197.50 14 Traffic Stripe (6" Thermoplastic) LF 834 $3.50 $2,919.00 $6.00 $5,004.00 $9.55 $7,964.70 15 Traffic Stripe (8" Thermoplastic) LF 7 $5.00 $35.00 $9.62 $67.34 $33.75 $236.25 16 Pavement Marker EA 38 $8.00 $304.00 $31.00 $1,178.00 $40.86 $1,552.68 17 Remove Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 206 $4.00 $824.00 $19.00 $3,914.00 $38.01 $7,830.06 18 Remove Pavement Stripe (Thermoplastic) LF 518 $1.00 $518.00 $6.00 $3,108.00 $16.42 $8,505.56 19 Install Sign EA 62 $500.00 $31,000.00 $557.00 $34,534.00 $422.65 $26,204.30 20 Remove Sign EA 10 $400.00 $4,000.00 $61.00 $610.00 $337.50 $3,375.00 21 Beacon (Rectangular Rapid Flashing) 2-pole EA 6 $20,000.00 $120,000.00 $11,550.00 $69,300.00 $16,312.50 $97,875.00 22 Beacon (Rectangular Rapid Flashing) 3-pole EA 4 $26,000.00 $104,000.00 $17,325.00 $69,300.00 $24,468.75 $97,875.00 23 Detectable Warning Surface (Surface Applied) EA 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $690.00 $2,760.00 $1,856.25 $7,425.00 24 Object Marker (Type Q) EA 24 $70.00 $1,680.00 $61.00 $1,464.00 $75.60 $1,814.40 25 Object Marker (Type OM1-3) EA 6 $75.00 $450.00 $151.00 $906.00 $171.00 $1,026.00 26 Street Lighting EA 2 $9,000.00 $18,000.00 $19,188.00 $38,376.00 $18,225.00 $36,450.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $917,385.00 $927,160.00 $983,310.17 Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement

Page 2 of 2 ends

BID TABULATION FOR:

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
Bid Schedule No.: 5306
Job No.: 2651
1/0/1900

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
1 Water Pollution Control LS 1
2 Traffic Control LS 1
3 Construction Area Signs EA 62
4 Project Funding Sign LS 1
5 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1
6 Replace Asphalt Concrete SF 267
7 Concrete Curb and Gutter (6" Vert) LF 1287
8 Concrete Curb LF 432
9 Sidewalk (4"PCC) SF 6490
10 Concrete (4" DECO) SF 995
11 Concrete (4" PCC MEDIAN) SF 202
12 Concrete Curb Ramp SF 2446
13 Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 5375
14 Traffic Stripe (6" Thermoplastic) LF 834
15 Traffic Stripe (8" Thermoplastic) LF 7
16 Pavement Marker EA 38
17 Remove Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 206
18 Remove Pavement Stripe (Thermoplastic) LF 518
19 Install Sign EA 62
20 Remove Sign EA 10
21 Beacon (Rectangular Rapid Flashing) 2-pole EA 6
22 Beacon (Rectangular Rapid Flashing) 3-pole EA 4
23 Detectable Warning Surface (Surface Applied) EA 4
24 Object Marker (Type Q) EA 24
25 Object Marker (Type OM1-3) EA 6
26 Street Lighting EA 2

TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS
S.T. Rhoades Const., Inc. SnL Group, Inc.

UNIT UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$10,000.00 $10,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00
$106,500.00 $106,500.00 $129,000.00 $129,000.00
$265.00 $16,430.00 $260.00 $16,120.00
$975.00 $975.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
$15,000.00 $15,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
$40.00 $10,680.00 $24.00 $6,408.00
$140.00 $180,180.00 $144.00 $185,328.00
$115.00 $49,680.00 $144.00 $62,208.00
$25.00 $162,250.00 $43.00 $279,070.00
$80.00 $79,600.00 $35.00 $34,825.00
$39.00 $7,878.00 $34.00 $6,868.00
$39.00 $95,394.00 $20.00 $48,920.00
$9.50 $51,062.50 $11.00 $59,125.00
$7.00 $5,838.00 $8.50 $7,089.00
$25.00 $175.00 $35.00 $245.00
$30.00 $1,140.00 $36.00 $1,368.00
$28.00 $5,768.00 $34.00 $7,004.00
$12.00 $6,216.00 $15.00 $7,770.00
$546.00 $33,852.00 $400.00 $24,800.00
$200.00 $2,000.00 $100.00 $1,000.00
$10,500.00 $63,000.00 $14,000.00 $84,000.00
$15,750.00 $63,000.00 $21,000.00 $84,000.00
$1,000.00 $4,000.00 $800.00 $3,200.00
$75.00 $1,800.00 $65.00 $1,560.00
$395.00 $2,370.00 $150.00 $900.00
$20,000.00 $40,000.00 $11,000.00 $22,000.00
$1,014,788.50 $1,106,308.00
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: ^Bid Tabulation (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: ^Notice of Expemption (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds for pedestrian crossing enhancements at nine locations throughout the City of Redding (City) and adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 13th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2019-050 appropriating $1,273,200 for Fiscal Year 2019-20.

Fiscal Impact
The Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is estimated to cost $1,273,200 and will be reimbursed in the full amount of $1,273,200 by the HSIP program. No local matching funds are required for the project.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to accept the HSIP funds or approve the budget resolution. The consequence will be the loss of $1,273,200 in HSIP funds. The City will lose the opportunity to obtain grant funding and projects may not be completed.

Background/Analysis
The HSIP program is a federal program, administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which funds transportation-related safety projects. Typical safety project types include traffic signal installation, pavement markings and delineation, intersection improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements along local roadways.

At its meeting on August 21, 2018, the Council directed staff to apply for funding from the HSIP program for a project to construct pedestrian crossing safety enhancements at various locations.

Our application was highly competitive and the project has been selected and awarded the grant funding. The enhancements include construction of high visibility crosswalk markings, MEETING DATE: September 30, 2019
ITEM NO. 4.11(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(a)--Accept Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements and Adopt Budget Resolution Appropriating Funds Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-30-19 (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project) Report to Redding City Council September 26, 2019
Re: 4.11(a)--Federal Hwy Safety Improvement Funding Page 2 pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian refuge islands, curb ramps, and associated traffic signs, stripes and pavement markings.

The City analyzes traffic safety through various resources including: maintenance of a collision database, a comprehensive and systemic engineering analysis, and through collaboration with risk management and enforcement personnel to ensure the its limited resources are allocated to the projects yielding the most benefit relative to their cost. Using this approach, nine uncontrolled intersections having similar roadway geometrics, features, traffic hazards, and pedestrian and bike activity were identified. By implementing this systemic improvement project, the installation of pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features at the identified intersections will pro-actively improve safety for pedestrians and bicycles.

The HSIP funds have been programmed through Caltrans into the 2019 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. The attached budget resolution is necessary to make funds available so that staff can begin working on the project.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” c: Dan Little, SRTA
Attachments
Resolution
Location Map
HSIP Success Letter
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-30-19 (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project) RESOLUTION NO. 2019-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 13TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2019-050
APPROPRIATING $1,273,200 FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2019-050 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
128 566 Transportation Grant Projects 1,273,200
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase Revenue
128-566-06-2650-18 Federal Grant - Capital $ 1,273,200
Increase Expenditures
128-566-4775-11 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements $ 1,273,200 Total $ 1,273,200 $ 1,273,200
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $1,273,200 for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project for fiscal year 2019-20.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

JULIE WINTER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-30-19 (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project)

CITY OF REDDING

SYSTEMIC PEDESTRIAN

CROSSING ENHANCEMENTS PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT

VICINITY MAP

LOCATION

PROJECT

LOCATION MAP
I-5
SR 44

E CYPRESS AVE

HARTNELL AVE
SR 273
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8 #9
ATTACHMENT 2

VICINITY MAP/LOCATION MAP
#1 - PLACER ST & WEST ST
#2 - GOLD ST & COURT ST
#3 - PARKVIEW AVE & STATE ST
#4 - HILLTOP DR & SANDPOINT DR
#5 - CHURN CREEK RD & PALACIO DR
#6 - BROWNING ST & LANCERS LN
#7 - OLD ALTURAS RD & BRADFORD WAY
#8 - CHURN CREEK RD & MICHAEL LN
#9 - SHASTA VIEW DR & SATURN SKYWAY

PROJECT LOCATIONS
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-30-19 (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project) Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-30-19 (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project) Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-30-19 (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project) Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: CalTrans CEQA Exemption/NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determination Form (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: CalTrans CEQA Exemption/NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determination Form (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: CalTrans CEQA Exemption/NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determination Form (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: CalTrans CEQA Exemption/NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determination Form (4.11(d)--Award Bid Schedule No. 2651, Pedestrian

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the research and development of the City of Redding Wildfire Mitigation Program options to include: vegetation management; Building, Fire, and Subdivision Code changes; calculation of the estimated cost for the various options; and identification of potential program funding.

Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact for authorizing further investigation into wildfire mitigation program options, potential funding sources, and calculating the estimated costs. There may be minimal costs associated with utilizing existing personnel who have been previously budgeted in City of Redding (City) department budgets.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could decline to authorize additional investigative work on potential wildfire mitigation program options. The Council could also provide additional direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
At the Council meeting on April 5, 2022, the City Council directed staff to meet with stakeholders to receive input on proposed vegetation management standards and Redding Municipal Code (RMC) changes that would help reduce fire threat to homes, businesses, and other valued resources in the community.

Proposed vegetation management standards were also presented to Council which would apply to new and existing properties in the City. In summary, the standards are as follows unless directed otherwise by the City’s Fire Marshal or designee:

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.2(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program options, costs and potential funding sources for the City of Redding.

Sheri DeMaagd, Assistant
City Manager
Packet Pg. 283
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program options, costs and potentia Page 2
1) Maintain defensible space of a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from the exterior of any building or structure on the lot or parcel.
2) Maintain defensible space of up to thirty (30) feet from the property line when it overlaps the one hundred (100) foot defensible space of an adjacent property. 3) Maintain defensible space of a minimum of ten (10) feet from a right-of-way including roadways, streets, private roads, and driveways that are on or adjacent to a lot or parcel. 4) Maintain vacant and/or undeveloped parcels of one-half (1/2) acre or less free of weeds and hazardous vegetation.
5) Maintain a defensible space fuel break of thirty (30) feet minimum around the perimeter of vacant and/or undeveloped parcels of one-half (1/2) acre or more.

Further, the proposed RMC changes within the Building, Fire, and Subdivision Codes were presented and the draft ordinance is included in the attached staff report.

Staff sought community input on the proposed changes by hosting four community workshops with various stakeholders, one of which was specifically hosted for developers and builders. In addition, the workshop presentation was recorded and posted on a dedicated page within the City’s website along with a recorded podcast on the topic with the City’s Fire Marshal. Two online community surveys were conducted, one for the community at large and one specifically for developers and builders. A review of the comments provided with the survey revealed some consistent themes among respondents including:
• Concern for the affordability or burden of vegetation management standards on low- and middle-income homeowners, residential tenants, and elderly and disabled owners and tenants.
• Concern for the affordability of homes as a result of stricter building codes. • The need for more educational resources as well as specific guidance from the City for land and homeowners to meet the proposed standards.
• The need for incentive programs to help residents offset the cost of making homes and property wildfire resistant.
• Environmental damage and heat concerns related to wholesale vegetation and tree removal as a result of overzealous execution of defensive space. • Government entities, City, County, and State, should all be held to the same standard for defensible space within the City of Redding.
• Having a nuanced approach that differentiates between Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) and non-WUI spaces.

A number of comments also indicated support for owner liability while other comments advocated for education and steps-for-compliance based approach to enforcing the vegetation management standards.

Before proceeding further with development of vegetation management standards and RMC changes, staff is recommending the Council provide authority to research wildfire mitigation program options, calculate the estimated costs of those options, and return to the Council with potential program funding options.

Packet Pg. 284
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program options, costs and potentia Page 3
Environmental Review
The research and development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program options, estimated costs, and potential funding sources is not a project under CEQA, therefore, no further action is required at this time.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” Attachments
^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management
Packet Pg. 285

!" #
$$
%&'()*!&
'+
$)!& !
%&$,#&
-&!&()!&
'- )+.
+/ 012.!"

&3 +!)##!
- !%&!"+!)4 "
$,
+!

* & &'
.!
'

+ , ( !)!&
'
-)')( - '!+!)',)
,+5)', 0627

&, ,&
*!&
'!
+!)##
'
!"

++&8$ %&$,#&
-&!&()!&
'- )+.
+&'!" #
$$
%&'( )
)+
#!" 9 ,,&'(:.'&*&
)$;
, <)',, !
-&' &#!" - )+.
+%&$$)

$=;&!=>%&,

'$=&'!" ?&$,$)',@
8)'A'!
#)* / 0)2B.&$,&'(;
, 082C&
;
, 0*2D.8,&&+&
';
, 0,2E
'&'(;
, FGHIJ K"
&+'
&-- ,&)! #&+*)$&-
)*!#

*
'+&,
&'( ( !)!&
'-)')( - '!
(.$)!&
'+LK"

-)=8 &'*
- '!)$*
+!+
$)! ,!
!" !&- !)4 '8=+!)##!
+ 4*
--.'&!=&'
.!
'!"

+ , ( !)!&
'-)')( - '!

,&')'* )',),,&!&
')$%&$,#&
-&!&()!&
'- )+.
+L MHNOM K" ;&!=;
.'*&$*
.$,, *$&' !

.
+. ) ( !)!&
'-)')( - '!

,&')'*

!"
%&$,#&

-&!&()!&
'- )+.
+<

&, ),,&!&
')$,&
*!&
'!
+!)##L PQRNSTMHUGG V'W.' X<6Y61<!" ;&!=;
.'*&$" $,)%

4+"

& %!" C&')$9 *
-- ',)!&
'+9

)
,8=!" ;
--.'&!=7$)''&'(++&+!)'* #

?&$,#&
0;7?2

(
)-+!)##%"&*"
.!$&' ,!" ! *"'&*)$
*
-- ',)!&
'+*.+!
-&3 ,#

!" ;&!=
#9 ,,&'(0;&!=2!")!*
.$, " $

,.* %&$,#&
!"
)!!
"
- +<8.+&' ++ +<)',
!"
)$. +&'!" ?&$,$)',>@
8)'
Z

[ \

&$]<6Y66 Z
^_L60)2 Z\ ```[

a
b``` cdefgghdijklmnopeddkqh^nph rlksskqijklmnopeddkqh^nph tbu \_L60)2>>; '+&,
&-
$ - '!)!&
'
# ( !)!&
'-)')( - '!
(.$)!&
'+)',
!"
%&$,#&
-&!&()!&
'- )+.
+#

!" ;&!=
#9 ,,&'(L D"
&v :))(,<++&+!)'! ;&!=:)')(
wPacket Pg. 286 xyz{|w}~Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

#

$%&'()*+',-.$/01&&2''%34)&2'56%'7(384(9:24;<&2'=46%+>?;(4@>3'33>('+&>4%&4:&*))&4 A'B>%3'@'?4;>%B('+4CC'%3*&>4%:*%3('&6(%&4&2'=>&D=46%+>?*&*?*&'(3*&')4()6(&2'( 3>:+6::>4%*%33>('+&>4%4%@*(>46:'?'C'%&:&4('36+'8>?3)>('&2('*&>%&2'+4CC6%>&D0
18>?3)>('+*%A'>B%>&'3>)*:;*(9,2'*&/+4%%'+&:8>&2*%D&2>%B+4CA6:&>A?'>%*%D '%@>(4%C'%&+4%&*>%>%B4EDB'%0->?3)>(')6'?:+*%>%+?63''@'(D&2>%B)(4C&('':<6%3'(A(6:2< 3'*3@'B'&*&>4%*%33(DB(*::D)>'?3:&424C':*%34&2'(:&(6+&6(':0F&*))('+4CC'%3:&2'=>&D =46%+>?+4%:>3'(':&*A?>:2>%B+>&D8>3'@'B'&*&>4%C*%*B'C'%&:&*%3*(3:0G2'@'B'&*&>4% HIJIKLHLJMNMIJOIPONQRSSRHTPUVLMWLXRMYZ:(':>?>'%+'&48>?3)>('AD+('*&>%B3')'%:>A?':;*+' *(46%3:&(6+&6(':<(4*38*D:*%3@*+*%&*%3[4(6%3'@'?4;'3;*(+'?:0G2'('C4@*?4)2*\*(346: @'B'&*&>4%>%&2'*('*::6A]'+&&4&2':&*%3*(3:*('('+4B%>\'3*:*%'::'%&>*?*+&>4%24C'48%'(: *%3;(4;'(&D48%'(:+*%&*9'&4>%+('*:'&2'?>9'?>2443&2*&24C':<:&(6+&6(':<*%34&2'(;(4;'(&D 8>??:6(@>@'*8>?3)>('<82>?';(4&'+&>%B&2'%*&6(*?'%@>(4%C'%&0
^')'%:>A?':;*+'(')'(:&4*%*('**(46%3&2';'(>C'&'(4):&(6+&6(':)(4C82>+2@'B'&*&>4%< 3'A(>:<*%34&2'(&D;':4)+4CA6:&>A?')6'?:*('&('*&'3<+?'*('3<4(('36+'3&4:?48&2'(*&'*%3 >%&'%:>&D4)*%*;;(4*+2>%B8>?3)>('4(*)>('':+*;>%B)(4C:&(6+&6(':0G2'+('*&>4%4)*3'_6*&' 3')'%:>A?':;*+')4+6:':4%C'*:6(':&4C43>)D4(A('*96;&2'2*\*(3:)(4C&2'+4%&>%6>&D4) A4&224(>\4%&*?*%3@'(&>+*?)6'?:0`'B6?*(@'B'&*&>4%C*%*B'C'%&*%3C43>)>+*&>4%:+4%:>:&'%& 8>&2&2':&*%3*(3:;(4;4:'3*('%''3'3&4'%:6('*3'_6*&'3')'%:>A?':;*+'>:*+2>'@'34% ;(4;'(&>':&2(46B246&&2'=>&D0

G2'*&&*+2'3?>:&4);(4;4:'3@'B'&*&>4%C*%*B'C'%&:&*%3*(3:,3(*)&a'B'&*&>4%b*%*B'C'%& c(3>%*%+'/3'&*>?&2''?'C'%&:&2*&846?3*;;?D&4%'8*%3'E>:&>%B;(4;'(&>':>%&2'=>&D0$% :6CC*(D<>)*34;&'3*&*?*&'(3*&'<&2':&*%3*(3:846?3A'*:)4??48:6%?'::3>('+&'34&2'(8>:' dYMWLXRMYZNeRPLfIPNWISUPOLNRKJLLg

,h/b*>%&*>%3')'%:>A?':;*+'4)*C>%>C6C4)4%'26%3('3,hii/)''&)(4C&2''E&'(>4(4) *%DA6>?3>%B4(:&(6+&6('4%&2'?4&4(;*(+'?0
,j/b*>%&*>%3')'%:>A?':;*+'4)6;&4&2>(&D,7i/)''&)(4C&2';(4;'(&D?>%'82'%>&4@'(?*;: &2'4%'26%3('3,hii/)44&3')'%:>A?':;*+'4)*%*3]*+'%&;(4;'(&D0 ,7/b*>%&*>%3')'%:>A?':;*+'4)*C>%>C6C4)&'%,hi/)''&)(4C*(>B2&k4)k8*D>%+?63>%B (4*38*D:<:&(''&:<;(>@*&'(4*3:*%33(>@'8*D:&2*&*('4%4(*3]*+'%&&4*?4&4(;*(+'?0 ,l/b*>%&*>%@*+*%&*%3[4(6%3'@'?4;'3;*(+'?:4)4%'k2*?),h[j/*+('4(?'::)(''4)8''3: *%32*\*(346:@'B'&*&>4%0
,m/b*>%&*>%*3')'%:>A?':;*+')6'?A('*94)&2>(&D,7i/)''&C>%>C6C*(46%3&2';'(>C'&'( 4)@*+*%&*%3[4(6%3'@'?4;'3;*(+'?:4)4%'k2*?),h[j/*+('4(C4('0
G2':>C;?':&*%3C4:&;(*+&>+*?8>?3)>(';('@'%&>4%*%3C>&>B*&>4%*+&>4%;(4;'(&D48%'(:+*% &*9'>:&4&('*&*%3('C4@')6'?:<>%+?63>%B2*\*(346:@'B'&*&>4%*%34&2'(+4CA6:&>A?'C*&'(>*?< )(4C&2'*('**(46%324C':*%34&2'(:&(6+&6(':0-2>?'&2':':&*%3*(3:+46?3A'?>C>&'3&44%?D &2'->?3?*%3.(A*%$%&'()*+',-.$/*('*:<&2'=>&DA'+4C':C4('8>?3)>('(':>?>'%&*:* +4CC6%>&D82'%&2':&*%3*(3:*;;?D&4*??*('*:4)&2'+4CC6%>&D0
F4C'(':>3'%&:C>B2&>%>&>*??D:''*%>%+('*:'>%+4:&:&4+4C;?D8>&2&2';(4;4:'3:&*%3*(3:< A6&4%B4>%B+4C;?>*%+':246?3A':>C>?*(&4+6(('%&?*%3:+*;'C*>%&'%*%+'+4:&:0G2'+4:&: 248'@'(<*('&'C;'('3B('*&?D82'%+4C;*('3&4&2'2>B2+4:&4)8>?3)>('3*C*B'&4*24C'< A6:>%'::<4(4&2'(;(4;'(&D0n6(&2'(<=>&D(':>3'%&:C*D6?&>C*&'?D('*?>\''+4%4C>+A'%')>&4% &2'>(;(4;'(&D>%:6(*%+'*:&2'+4CC6%>&D+4C;?>':8>&2&2':'A':&;(*+&>+':0
oPacket Pg. 287 pqrstouvwxyAttachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

#

$%&'&'()%&*)+,-.%/012%3(.&%+-45&6778%//.+-2,.&+,&3(6.'&+3(5%2(-&56-2+&'(39(* 5&69('+/2(35&+3(.(%:(.+;;(-&56-27((2<6.9+-&'(=3+=+5(25&6-26325>?7&(33(.(%:%-@&'( ABCCDEFGH01FEIDGJ1GKLLMFNNLFEKNFOPGQPIRBIB1PSTPUPGKGFBECKEKUPCPEG1GKESKRS12+.,;(-& 6-23(&,3-&+&'()%&*)+,-.%/7+37,3&'(3.+-5%2(36&%+-+76)%&*V32%-6-.(>
W&%56/5+3(.+;;(-2(2&'6&&'()%&*)+,-.%/6,&'+3%X(5&677&+.+-&%-,(&+2(:(/+=622%&%+-6/ 8%/27%3(;%&%@6&%+-;(65,3(58%&'%-&'(Y,%/2%-@4Z%3(46-2[,<2%:%5%+-)+2(5.+-&6%-(2%-&'( \(22%-@],-%.%=6/)+2(653(.+;;(-2(2<*)^?$&+5&3(-@&'(-8%/27%3(3(5%/%(-.*%-&'( .+;;,-%&*>?/%5&+73(.+;;(-2(2.'6-@(5%56/5+6&&6.'(2&+&'%55&6773(=+3&>W&%55&677 3(.+;;(-26&%+-&'6&&'(;%&%@6&%+-;(65,3(5<(2367&(2&+6==/*)%&*_8%2(436&'(3&'6-+-/*%- &'($`W>W75+2%3(.&(245&6778%//2(:(/+=&'(3(@,/6&%+-545((9.+;;,-%&*7((2<6.946-23(&,3- 6&65,<5(a,(-&)%&*)+,-.%/;((&%-@7+37,3&'(32%5.,55%+->
bcdefghijgcjgklmbgklnoeopqjrcohs

tuvwxyz{xz|v}|~x|xz|y
PRPNPTKEGKESIRBKAGFTPGBGQPBIIBRGDEFGFP1KES
.'6//(-@(5+7&BSKH01RP1FSPEG1KESMBRLBRAPEGFAFIKGPGQPLDGDRPGBCKPPGGPR SPAF1FBE1GBSKH
t}x|
BRGBFCIRBTPKNNK1IPAG1BLIDNFA1KLPGHGBQPNIIPBINPLPPN1PADRP KES1KLPMQPRPGQPHNFTPJMBRJKESINKHFEGQPFGHBLPSSFEU
kkofqeks
367&(@(&6&%+-]6-6@(;(-&V32%-6-.(6:6%/6</(+-/%-( ?22%&%+-6/$%/27%3(]%&%@6&%+-](65,3(5Z+3)+-5%2(36&%+-6:6%/6</(+-/%-( Packet Pg. 288 ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

!

"#

$ #
%&'

!

#

()

$
#

'

"

) *
+,-./0&12345678395:5;;2<=>?<2@2AB4C7;52DBE5<;5;37B;;C9BA35F6GHIJ239B32345 37F5B;BD87447JDK
'

+,-./0L*

%&M&M+N.0.-./0L

%&M%M )++OLP0OPQPRO/SL'+T+-P-./0+,UPR+O#SVU.,S.LP0,+
%&MWMX+YZ-./0L-/#SVU.,S.LP0,+

%&M[M+LZ/0L.V.U.-\/N
]0+R/R+LZ/0L.VU+#PR-\

%&M^M+Y/_PU/NPQPRO/SL'+T+-P-./0P0O)++OL

%&M`M0N/R,+Y+0-(VP-+Y+0-P0O+Y+O.+L

%&MaM
.PV.U.-\P0OYYS0.-\
+,-./0%12345678395:5;;2<=>?<2@2AB4C7;52DBE5<;5;37B;;b5@327<D6GHIGcIc39F7?=9 6GHIGcdce2<@4?D2f5e37C9BA35F6GHI37F5B;BD87447JDK

%&M&M +N.0.-./0L
gGC7Eh?D32h45>B35F2B4i:?hh2D9e42335F7FEB35F2B478B<jk2<;7395F39B<9BlBF;7?D f5=53B327<39B32D@7Eh?D32h45m84BEEBh45B<;5<;B<=5FD395A?h42@DB853jhj@F5B32<=B82F5 9BlBF;G
nGo585<D2h45bAB@5pg<BF5B52395F<B3?FB47FEB<EB;5eJ95F58?549BDh55<3F5B35;e @45BF5;7FE7;2825;37D47J395FB35B<;2<35<D23j78B<B;fB<@2<=J24;82F5e37@F5B35B< qrstuvqwxyz{
|vrs}~uvrvuw vr
r rwu~uv
r sur
u
uxyr
u~u~uvr
uw vr
r rwu~uv
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

!"#$%&
& '

(

)

(&*+

&
,

,

&

&& .'

/*+ 0

1 1
*2

2

3

456%789%!:;67<5"#=!9>6?"!89@A@BACDC

F G0

<9IJ856"K<9L8M5!9?K6%NO=PK!QKR<9IS6Q6"<"!89"K<"!%<K6<;"KK<T<5IR%M?K<%

U+

-

U

+

VWXYZ[V\]^_`
a[WXbcZd[efgWh[iZ\ [WjkdlW W\ZcZd[mgnjdW XZoWpjqrZkdjZsot]^WsuvkdwjnZgxcyqZcZd[WjkdhiZ\ [WjkdlW W\ZcZd[ Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

!" "
#$$%&
'(%
)'*'+%,-&
.$/$0'01,(
2$34'+$%
'
5-6413
7-1&'(3$

9

:

;

<

=
>

?
@

!"A"
BC$DE01,(&
0,
5-6413
7-1&'(3$

F
8

GHIIJK
JLIM
NLO

PNQRSJI

TIUIOVOPLN
OWVO

QLNMOPOSOIM
VN

VUXPQSROSXVR
QXLY
LX

=
>

Z
[

:

;

:
] :

=
>

^

\

!"_"
`$&E,(&161410a
,b
cd($+
,+
`$&E,(&164$
5'+0a

F
8

9

;

<

9
:

:
9

[

: 9

=
>

9

e

f
g

h

[:
e

ifjjk

YIXPlIOIX
Lm
VNn
PlYXLTIlINO
LN
OWI
LHNIX
LX
XIMYLNMPoRI
YVXOPIMp
RLO
LX
YVXQIRq

r
g

h
F
?
s
e

itjk

XIMYLNMPoRI
YVXOnpM
YVXQIR

ifjjk

^

:

t
g

h
F

F

<
u

e

ifjk

vwxyz{
v|}
~~
{wxz{

w{
z| {w
w w|zz{
w xz
wz
z
}~wz
zz{w
z| {w
w w|zz{
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

!"#$
%
&'($
&

%
)
$*+

-./0

1
2

4 5
67

8
9:

,

67

-;0

=

>

-40

,
,

>-?0

,,
,

1

6

-;0

<
,=

-./0

:
,=

-40

,=

,
,

>-?0

,=
,3

A B

8

9B

,,

,
=

6

,1
2

5

,

,,

B

,

<
,

,
C

1
D

,

-E0

FGHIGJKJ LMNOPQROSTQUQVWOXYZM[M\Q\]O^Q^W_MMWYG
+

, <

9
:+<

,

<

C

-`0

,

>
-E0

@
1
2

@
,

,1
2

bcdefgbhijkl
mgcdnofpgqrsctgufh gcvwpxc chfofpgyszvpc df{c|v}~fwpvf{ijcwpvzfso }fofpgcvwptufh gcvwpxc chfofpg
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

!
"#!$
#%&$
!'
$ ()

&$*+

+
*,*

,

*
+

+

+

*

*
**

+

-.

*

+

/0

*

+

+
*
+

+*
,

+ ,

+,

12342565 789:;<=>=8?@ABC?=>=8?@C8DE=>=DF=G2

*H+

*
/
++I+

*
+

/
JJK

JJL
*
-

M+/

*
+
**+
0

*

+

+

+

*

-

M+/

*
H
*/*
N

+

/
*-

*
+
+
,+,
+

+

123425O5 PFCBFQF?RC8DS>>T8F?R2
0 /
*-

*+

**+,
**+

*

*

*
+

*
/
,

/

,

+

,

*+

/
-

U
/

+
VJLW
X=<?F:8Y2X=Z=;CBFQF?R2[*+
,+
,

,
,+,+

*
\
+,
+

+++,*

*
+,+

*
+

**+

*
+
*
+
,+
,

,
,
+,+

*
\
+,
+

+++
0 //
+
*
/
*-

+
+
,
+

,+,+

*,+
*
*+

+
,+

,+,+

*
+

*
+
X=<?F:8]20
/
*-

)(^ )'$
#
$_!' )#)`
$)
#ab!
c
`d#``
!' )(

'
^ )
)$
^
!
)

e#% ^
!) #f)g !
)h
)#%ij#% kl`maefildno#)'obj!$j#)

/pqU
+
JLrWrs+tsuts
+

+

*

+
++

t
JLrWJstsKts

+.

*+**+

t,

+
*

I+

.

vwxyz{v|}~
{wxz{
w{z| {ww w|zz{w xzwzz}~wzzz{wz| {ww w|zz{ Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

!"#""

$

!"#""!

%
&

'() *+,-..()
,*() *+,-..()
'(, )*+,-..()
'( ',)*+,-..()

/////////////////////////////////
0( ,(12.3456

' ( ) '77*81'( *
*.)

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 7'.-'.92:;4<=6> '?1=@'- 2:;4';;56A=4
BCDEFGBHIJKL
MGCDNOFPGQRSCTGUFH GCVWPXC CHFOFPGYSZVPC DF[C\V]^FWPVF_[`IJC_abWPcVZFSdOe]FOFPGCVWPTUFH GCVWPXC CHFOFPG Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

!
"
#$%&'( )*+', -. /(%%+01 2+3( 4&.( *-05'367'+-0 &0% 8('9-%5 :$$;+7&'+-0 <!! =
> ?!@#3A&0 B0'(3.&7( 2+3( :3(&5C '- +07;6%( 0(D A6+;%+01 >E>FG" ! >H"
" G
>=IG >E>FG"
= I>>G
!=
>!
J"G!

!
K> F" "L =
> !GGIM !H ! I
>I HG"
NO!G >E>FG" =
> PG>
> K
K"M K
K K!"M
!L

>" !

!L
O
" KG PG>
>

>"
! ""
= G "G>IG>
H O>"I>OGH >E>FG =
> HG" !
O
" O>
H
!II"" G

G>
> "O!I
H >E>FG =
> G !F
G
= H>GI!
@I
FQ"GQ ">=!I !Q
H
="
>!
! PG>
> K!"

!
"
>E>FG G !G
I
FQ"GQ ="
F!G>! "
Q
I!G
KG =H STU =G
= ! !QG!Q "G>IG>
!II""
>V Q
" KG TW =G
= ! !QG!Q "G>IG> "
!H
"!F ?! N>Q! XG>=!I S?NXU "G!!> !" G !QG!Q "G>IG> <FF
= =H STU =G
=
@I
FQ"GQ ">=!IM =>
= H
G!G
!
!
G > I
FQ"GQ F!G>! QGK
G> K!"
= G !QG!Q "O!I
H FFF
= G >GV SYWU =G
>L
G! "G!I QGK G> I>
K" ! G
=>G "G PGG
= !V !QG!Q "G>IG> "
Q F!G!
H >G! G>" KG
> SZWWU =G
= !QG!Q "G>IG> "

Q O> G
! FFF
= "P S[U =G !Q
H
>! H
H =>K

! I
FQ"GQ F!G>! "
Q "G
> ! FFF "G!I

= G >GV SYWU =G =>
F ! !QG!Q "G>IG>
> KG ! !OO>
H FQ>@
O>

= "G>IG>
H Q!>\M FI M H
G!GH Q>" KG G >GV SYWU =G
= ! !QG!Q
"G>IG> "
Q
O> G ! =
> S]U I "
H O>
O! G!\" "
!H !
@I
FQ"GQ ">=!I F!G! >
! KG =H STU =G
= G FM ! "
!H ! FFF I!>!I
= G
SZWU =G =>
F !V H
G!G

> I
FQ"GQ"
P ^H
O ! "G
= =>@>""G!G O!G" G !G =
I""
G "OI=I "G>IG> !

I!G
I !>!IG>"GI"
= O!G" G !G K FFL =>
G
! "O>!
P ^H
O ! O>
QG O!G "GM
G>"
> O!G" "G "
Q O!G
>
F!G!
G O>
O>GV

_QH"

!
"
_QH"
"
>E>FG" =
> => "!=GV "
Q O>
H >
G
G! "
>HK O !"
`abcde `fg hij
keablmdneo kp qernas tqpuqvd wqeqfa rn wdaxyvd zrv{ nxqpdvaeqrn |a}qs~d rnqd |gha{rnxqpdv msdmdneaqrn udf eaqrn Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

!
$
!

!

&

&
!

&
!%

!

!

!

!
'

(
#

&
!

))
(

&

*

&
%+

!

(
#

,-./01,23455
61-.78091:6; <1=9->?<;@<A0B<1<2- =9B0-CDA0E=AF 9C<;0A-1<=9G-H<>I0=9<0JGK34-JLF=9C<;0AM8N>08091-<=9@O02 1-<=9 Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: ^Previous Staff Report - 4.5.22_ 9.2(a) Veg Management (9.2(a)--Consider development of City-wide wildfire mitigation program

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Information only.

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.2(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.2(b)--Oral presentation providing a downtown Redding Block 7 Project progress report.

Steve Bade, Assistant City
Manager
Packet Pg. 297

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept Redding Electric Utility’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 Financial Report, Industry Activities Update, and Power Content Label.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact related to accepting this report.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to accept the report and provide further direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
Attached for review and information purposes is Redding Electric Utility’s (REU) financial report for the Fiscal Year 2021-22. The report provides comparisons to the budget and comparisons with the prior year.

The financial report is unaudited. Operating revenues are reported as billed. Costs for energy, other operating expenses, and capital outlay are recorded when paid. Debt service was paid twice this year (in December and June). For this report, debt payments are spread evenly over the year, giving a more helpful picture of the financial results. These recorded results are preliminary and subject to revision until the final audit is complete.

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.5(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.5(c)--Consider Redding Electric Utility's Fiscal Year 2021-22 Financial Report, Industry Activities Update, and Power Content Label.

Nick Zettel, Director of
Redding Electric Utility
Packet Pg. 298
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2022
Re: 9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report Page 2
Projections are based on normal weather trends and known industry activity. If actual weather conditions are above or below average for the month or unexpected industry disruption occurs, revenue and expenses will increase or decrease accordingly. REU’s residential and Small Commercial rate structures are heavily weighted on volumetric charges ($/kWh), and abnormal weather causes more significant variances in Net Operating Results, which emphasizes the difference between the rate structure and cost structure.

The annual transfer from the REU Fund to the Rolling Stock and Major Maintenance Funds is included in the Generation & Transmission and Other Operating Expenses lines, respectively.

The Financial Report shows that while REU utilized a significant amount of reserves during the fiscal year, the cash reserve balance is within the Council’s Financial Management Policy.

Revenue
Billed retail revenue for the year was $3,584,792 (3.0 percent) above forecast. Total wholesale sales for the year were $16,924,256 (133.7 percent) above forecasts. Overall, operating revenue for the year came in $18,916,094 (13.5 percent) above projections. On balance, operating revenue after energy costs was $7,065,085 (12.4 percent) above expectations but approximately $9 million lower than Fiscal Year 2021’s operating revenues after energy costs. The decrease in margin is primarily due to REU’s Power Cost increasing by $10,714,552 (12.7 percent) yearover-year despite Operating Revenues only rising by $1,366,990 (0.9 percent). The primary driver for increased wholesale sales were sales into the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and monthly natural gas sales.

Expenses
Power Cost (Cost of Energy)
The combined costs for generation, purchases from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Big Horn Wind Project, contracts, and the spot market were $11,851,009 (14.3 percent) above budget projections for the year. The actual cost of Redding Power Plant (RPP) generation was higher than forecast due to an increase in load, the ongoing drought’s impact on hydro deliveries, the price of natural gas due to the war in Ukraine, and the inclusion of gas purchases for wholesale energy sales. The total Cost of Energy increased by $10,714,552 (12.7 percent) year-over-year.

System Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
System O&M costs for the year were $6,086,970 (11.2 percent) below projections.

Approximately half of these savings are attributable to employee vacancies (realized savings).

Other factors are the delay of expenditures and activities until the next fiscal year (unrealized savings).

Packet Pg. 299
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2022
Re: 9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report Page 3
Net Operating Results
Recorded data for the year shows positive net financial results before Capital Outlay of $16,033,290; these results are approximately $14 million lower than last year, primarily due to increased power costs and planned use of reserves as part of the REU’s five-year financial plan.

Debt Service and Capital Outlay
Debt service payments and obligations for the year totaled $14,069,320. Capital Expenditures for the year totaled $14,069,320 (50.5 percent spent). It should be noted that Capital Encumbrances total approximately $7 million (projects in progress), which is included in REU’s remaining capital budget of $13.8 million.

Special Fund Expenditures
Special Fund Expenditures include the expenditures for Public Benefit and Cap-and-Trade Programs, which totaled $6,998,838 (39.8 percent spent) through the fiscal year. Encumbrances total approximately $2.7 million (projects in progress), which is included in REU’s remaining Special Fund budget of $10.6 million.

Electric Utility Unrestricted Cash Balance
The unrestricted cash balance at the end of the year was $44.9 million and represented approximately 134 days of cash on hand (about 114 days when considering unencumbered capital projects). The June 2021 balance of $50.8 million represented 150 days of cash on hand (forward-looking). REU’s Financial Management Policy (Council Policy 1414) has a minimum of 75 days of cash on hand and a goal of 150 days of cash on hand.

Power Content Label
The City of Redding’s (City) Annual Power Content Label and Power Source Disclosure are attached. The Power Source Disclosure Program, administered by the California Energy Commission (CEC), requires retail suppliers of electricity to disclose to its customers accurate, reliable, and simple to understand information on the sources of energy that are used to provide electric services; this is accomplished through the completion and publication of the annual Power Content Label.

The City’s Power Content Label shows our portfolio included 43.8 percent Eligible Renewable Resources for the calendar year 2021. While the State does not consider large hydro generation (Shasta Dam, etc.) as eligible renewable, REU’s resource mix was 81.4 percent carbon-free, exceeding the balance of the State by 29.3 percent.

Before publication and submission, the CEC requires approval of attestation of the report’s accuracy from the Council. By accepting this Financial Report, the Council attests to the accuracy of the 2021 Power Content Label and permits its submission to the CEC.

Director’s Contingency Fund
For the year, $461,780 (92.4 percent) of the REU Director’s Contingency Fund was primarily used to offset inflationary pressures in the Transmission and Distribution Division.

Packet Pg. 300
Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2022
Re: 9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report Page 4
Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
c: Allyn F. Clark, Finance Director
Attachments
^Attachment 1 - Notes on Financial Operating Statement
^Attachment 2 - Electric Utility Financial Results for June 2022 ^Attachment 3 - Electric Utility Financial Dashboard for June 2022 ^Attachment 4 - Electric Utility Unrestricted Cash Balance June 2022 ^Attachment 5 - Industry Update
^Attachment 6 - 2021 COR Power Content Label
^Attachment 7 - City of Redding 2021 Power Source Disclosure Packet Pg. 301
City of Redding Electric Utility
Quarterly Financial Report
Notes on Financial Operating Statement
Operating revenues are divided into three revenue elements: Retail Sales are sales of electricity to end-use customers; Wholesale Sales are to customers who resell electricity; Other Revenue includes the sale of services, joint-pole arrangements, interest income, and other miscellaneous revenue generated in the operations of Redding Electric Utility (REU).

Operating Expenses are divided into two expense elements: Power Cost and System O&M.

Cost of Energy summarizes Purchased Power costs. The primary sources of purchased power include Western Area Power Administration deliveries and long-term contracts for Wind Energy through M-S-R. Fuel expenses, purchases from the spot market, and expenses associated with participation in the California Independent System Operator make up the remainder. The Generation and Transmission component comprises power plant variable costs (fuel) and fixed costs (all non-fuel costs), as well as all JPA costs (M-S-R and TANC), except Wind Energy.

The Wholesale Sales and Power Costs budgets are based on known contracts and confirmed resources. Throughout the year, the effort is made to provide the most cost-effective energy supply for our ratepayers. This is often done by buying and selling natural gas or electricity to reduce the overall cost. This could include selling natural gas and replacing it with electricity that is less expensive than burning the gas in our power plant. It could also include selling energy we have contracted for at one trading hub and buying it at another less expensive trading hub. It could also include maximizing the value of our gas storage facility to purchase natural gas in one month when it is less expensive and use it or sell it in another month. All these transactions benefit our customers but significantly inflate the Wholesale Sales and Cost of Energy numbers over their original budgets. This is because accounting rules require us to record these transactions at their gross revenue and expense amounts and not on the net benefit to the Utility.

System O&M Expenses summarizes costs for all other functional groups, i.e., Administration, Customer Services, Engineering, Financial Services, Line, Compliance, and Resources.

Special Revenue funds, i.e., Public Benefits and Cap-and-Trade, are shown separately.

Debt Service is paid twice per fiscal year, once in December and again in June.

Capital Outlay includes current-year appropriations and unfinished projects approved by Council in prior years.

Attachment 1
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: ^Attachment 1 - Notes on Financial Operating Statement (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report) ELECTRIC UTILITY FINANCIAL RESULTS ‐ JUNE 30, 2022
YTD‐Actual YTD‐Budget Variance Variance YTD‐Actual
June June % Value June
Item FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 FY2021
Energy
System Load (MWh) 755,289                          734,054 2.9% 21,235                               789,466 Operating Revenues
Retail Sales 124,143,792            120,559,000 3.0% 3,584,792                   126,460,669 Wholesale Sales 29,586,524                12,662,268 133.7% 16,924,256                  25,058,002 Miscellaneous Income 5,387,336                     ‐ 6,980,290 22.8% (1,592,954)                     6,231,990 Total Operating Revenues 159,117,652          140,201,558 13.5% 18,916,094               157,750,662 Operating Expenses
Power Cost
Purchased Power 29,328,262                21,884,488 34.0% 7,443,774                     29,867,404 Generation, Transmission and JPA (Variable) 32,730,120                23,922,444 36.8% 8,807,676                     27,129,891 Generation A&G and O&M (Fixed) 32,929,119                 ‐ 37,329,560 11.8% (4,400,441)                   27,275,654 Subtotal Power Cost 94,987,501              83,136,492 14.3% 11,851,009                 84,272,949 System O&M
General & Administrative 6,486,286                     ‐ 8,092,370 19.8% (1,606,084)                     6,573,994 Payment in Lieu of Tax 5,464,000                    5,464,000 0.0% 0                                      6,097,590 Transmission & Distribution 27,028,517                 ‐ 30,050,931 10.1% (3,022,414)                   22,242,883 Customer & Field Services 9,118,058                   ‐ 10,576,530 13.8% (1,458,472)                     8,388,127 Subtotal System O&M 48,096,861               ‐ 54,183,831 11.2% (6,086,970)                 43,302,594 Total Operating Expenses 143,084,362 $   $  137,320,323 4.2% 5,764,039 $          $  127,575,543 Net Operating Revenue 16,033,290 $     $       2,881,234 456.5% 13,152,055 $        $    30,175,119 Total Debt Service 12,785,570 $     $     ‐ 12,785,570 $            ‐ $                      $    12,780,320 YTD‐Actual Budget % of Budget Budget YTD‐Actual
June Annual Spent Remaining June
Item FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 FY2021
Capital Outlay
Capital Outlay (Revenue Funded) 14,069,320                27,863,400 50.5% 13,794,080                    9,294,430 Capital Outlay (Bond Funded)
Total Capital Outlay 14,069,320 $     $    27,863,400 50.5% 13,794,080 $        $       9,294,430 Special Fund Expenditures
Public Benefit Programs 3,666,531                    6,714,040 54.6% 3,047,509                       5,166,593 Cap‐and‐Trade Programs 3,332,308                  10,849,940 30.7% 7,517,633                       5,776,757 Total Special Fund Expenditures 6,998,838 $        $    17,563,980 39.8% 10,565,142 $        $    10,943,350 Financial Results (17,820,438) $    $     (2,842,981)
Council Report
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: ^Attachment 2 - Electric Utility Financial Results for June 2022 (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report) ELECTRIC UTILITY FINANCIAL DASHBOARD ‐ JUNE 30, 2022 2.0 3.03.33.6 3.2 3.3 3.0 1.92.93.2 3.3

3.6 ‐
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
$‐Millions
Retail Sales ($‐Millions)
Cummulative Difference 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2022 Budget ‐1.0
‐0.6
‐0.0
‐1.5

0.4 ‐0.2

1.2 2.5

2.5 2.4

4.9 5.8
(4)
(2)
‐
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
$‐Millions
Operating Expense ($‐Millions)
Cummulative Difference 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2022 Budget Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: ^Attachment 3 - Electric Utility Financial Dashboard for June 2022 (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report) Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Unrestricted Cash - 2021-22 52.0 57.6 58.4 59.1 54.0 54.7 53.2 52.7 52.9 48.0 44.2 44.9Unrestricted Cash - 2020-21 66.3 66.0 68.3 69.0 65.1 64.1 54.2 53.2 52.6 51.2 46.7 52.6

40.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.0
MILLION $

REU UNRESTRICTED CASH BALANCE
JULY 2020 ‐ JUNE 2022
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: ^Attachment 4 - Electric Utility Unrestricted Cash Balance June 2022 (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's City of Redding Electric Utility
Industry Activities Update – August 2022
Federal Legislation Update
After more than a year, the Senate agreed to a $740 billion budget reconciliation package addressing climate change, tax reform, health care, and prescription drug reform. The legislation, titled the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, has been touted as the United States’ largest investment in clean energy. Historically, tax credits have mostly not been made available to public power utilities because of the exemption of federal taxation. Under the new act, public power entities qualify for such credits through direct US Treasury payments.

Grid reliability has also impacted federal legislation, with several bills introduced to enhance grid reliability while protecting and assisting with operational challenges.

State Legislative Update
After several weeks of time off, the State legislature has returned. Redding Electric Utility and Northern California Power Agency legislative staff are working aggressively to either support or oppose several bills that impact our operational efficiencies and reporting requirements.

Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: ^Attachment 5 - Industry Update (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report) 2021 POWER CONTENT LABEL
Redding Electric Utility
www.reupower.com
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Intensity (lbs CO2e/MWh) Energy Resources REU Power
Mix
2021 CA
Power Mix
Eligible Renewable1 43.8% 33.6%
Biomass & Biowaste 0.7% 2.3%
182 456 Geothermal 0.0% 4.8%
Eligible Hydroelectric 5.3% 1.0%
Solar 8.6% 14.2%
Wind 29.2% 11.4%
Coal 0.0% 3.0%
Large Hydroelectric 36.7% 9.2%
Natural Gas 17.9% 37.9%
Nuclear 0.9% 9.3%
Other 0.1% 0.2%
Unspecified Power2 0.5% 6.8%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%
Percentage of Retail Sales Covered by
Retired Unbundled RECs3
:
0%
1 The eligible renewable percentage above does not reflect RPS compliance, which is determined using a different methodology. 2
Unspecified power is electricity that has been purchased through open market transactions and is not traceable to a specific generation source. 3
Renewable energy credits (RECs) are tracking instruments issued for renewable generation.

Unbundled renewable energy credits (RECs) represent renewable generation that was not delivered to serve retail sales. Unbundled RECs are not reflected in the power mix or GHG emissions intensities above.

For specific information about this
electricity portfolio, contact:

Redding Electric Utility
530-339-7300
For general information about the
Power Content Label, visit: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/ For additional questions, please
contact the California Energy
Commission at:

Toll-free in California: 844-454-2906
Outside California: 916-653-0237
REU Power Mix 2021 CA Utility Average
0 200
400
600
800
1000
REU Power
Mix
2021 CA
Utility
Average
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: ^Attachment 6 - 2021 COR Power Content Label (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report) Version: May 2022
722,772
722,772
-
0 129,595
-
593,177
59,738

0.0827

DIRECTLY DELIVERED RENEWABLES
Facility Name Fuel Type
State or
Province WREGIS ID RPS ID N/A EIA ID
Gross MWh
Procured
MWh
Resold
Net MWh
Procured
Adjusted Net MWh
Procured
GHG Emissions
Factor (in MT
CO2e/MWh)
GHG Emissions (in MT
CO2e) N/A
Whiskeytown Hydro Eligible hydro CA W851 61135 7189 18695 18,695 18,695 - - Nimbus Power Plant Eligible hydro CA W1161 61045 444 2,258 2,258 2,258 - - Stampede Power Plant Eligible hydro CA W1177 61046 7066 351 351 351 - - Lewiston Power Plant Eligible hydro CA W1108 61044 977 206 206 206 - - Ameresco Keller Canyon Biomass & biowaste CA W2071 61298 56897 1,306 1,306 1,306 0.0027 4 Ameresco Ox Mountain Biomass & biowaste CA W2033 60022 56895 3,563 3,563 3,563 0.0027 10 Ameresco Santa Cruz Energy Biomass & biowaste CA W2014 61297 56428 428 428 428 0.0034 1 Coram Tehachapi, L.P. Wind CA W4897 63223 54750 541 541 541 - - Mesquite Solar 3, LLC Solar AZ W4959 62987 60308 62,485 62,485 62,485 - - Narrows No. 1 Powerhouse Eligible hydro CA W363 60052 262 16,677 16,677 16,677 - - Tule Wind, LLC Wind CA W5902 63721 57913 15,000 15,000 15,000 - - Big Horn 1 Wind WA W240 60776 56361 31,670 31,670 31,670 - -

FIRMED-AND-SHAPED IMPORTS
Facility Name Fuel Type
State or
Province WREGIS ID RPS ID
EIA ID of
REC
Source
EIA ID of
Substitute
Power
Gross MWh
Procured MWh Resold
Net MWh
Procured
Adjusted Net MWh
Procured
GHG Emissions
Factor (in MT
CO2e/MWh)
GHG Emissions
(in MT CO2e)
Eligible for
Grandfathered
Emissions?
Big Horn 1 Wind WA W240 60776 56361
Unspecified
Power 163,727 163,727 163,727 0.4280 70,075 Yes

SPECIFIED NON-RENEWABLE PROCUREMENTS
Facility Name Fuel Type
State or
Province N/A N/A N/A EIA ID
Gross MWh
Procured MWh Resold
Net MWh
Procured
Adjusted Net MWh
Procured
GHG Emissions
Factor (in MT
CO2e/MWh)
GHG Emissions
(in MT CO2e) N/A
Redding Power Plant Natural Gas CA 7307 373,930 244,335 129,595 129,595 0.4498 58,287 WAPA - New Melones Large hydro CA 6158 20,557 20,557 20,557 - - WAPA - Shasta Power Plant Large hydro CA 445 45,167 45,167 45,167 - - WAPA - Spring Creek Power Plant Large hydro CA 450 14,200 14,200 14,200 - - WAPA - Trinity Power Plant Large hydro CA 451 13,237 13,237 13,237 - - WAPA - Folsom Power Plant Large hydro CA 441 6,798 6,798 6,798 - - WAPA - Gianelli Power Plant Large hydro CA 448 4,901 4,901 4,901 - - WAPA - JF Carr Power Plant Large hydro CA 442 17,800 17,800 17,800 - - WAPA - Keswick Power Plant Large hydro CA 443 13,830 13,830 13,830 - - WAPA - O'Neil Power Plant Large hydro CA 446 567 567 567 - - Lake Chelen Hydro Large hydro WA 6424 87 87 87 - -
Mid-C Hydro - Rock Island (Chelan County PUD) Large hydro WA 6200 28,689 28,689 28,689 - - Mid-C Hydro - Rocky Reach (Chelan County PUD) Large hydro WA 3883 13,932 13,932 13,932 - - Mid-C Hydro - Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams
(Grant County PUD) Large hydro WA 3887 51,689 17,280 34,409 34,409 - - Mid-C Hydro - Wells (Douglas County PUD) Large hydro 3886 47,561 47,561 - - - -

PROCUREMENTS FROM ASSET-CONTROLLING SUPPLIERS
Facility Name Fuel Type N/A N/A N/A N/A EIA ID
Gross MWh
Procured MWh Resold
Net MWh
Procured
Adjusted Net MWh
Procured
GHG Emissions
Factor (in MT
CO2e/MWh)
GHG Emissions
(in MT CO2e) N/A
Bonneville Power Administration - ACS Large hydro BPA 42,908 42,908 0.0211 905 Bonneville Power Administration - ACS Solar BPA - - 0.0211 - Bonneville Power Administration - ACS Natural gas BPA - - 0.0211 - GHG Emissions Intensity (in MT CO2e/MWh)
Net Specified Natural Gas
Net Specified Coal & Other Fossil Fuels
Net Specified Nuclear, Large Hydro, Renewables, and ACS Power GHG Emissions (excludes grandfathered emissions)
Retail Sales (MWh)
Net Specified Procurement (MWh)
Unspecified Power (MWh)
Procurement to be adjusted
2021 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT
SCHEDULE 1: PROCUREMENTS AND RETAIL SALES
For the Year Ending December 31, 2021
City of Redding
Electric Service
Instructions: Enter information about power procurements underlying this electricity portfolio for which your company is filing the Annual Report.

Insert additional rows as needed. All fields in white should be filled out. Fields in grey auto-populate as needed and should not be filled out. For EIA IDs for unspecified power or specified system mixes from asset-controlling suppliers, enter "Unspecified Power", "BPA", or "Tacoma Power" as applicable. For specified procurements of ACS power, use the ACS Procurement Calculator to calculate the resource breakdown comprising the ACS system mix. Procurements of unspecified power must not be entered as line items below; unspecified power will be calculated automatically in cell N9. Unbundled RECs must not be entered on Schedule 1; these products must be entered on Schedule 2. At the bottom portion of the schedule, provide the other electricity end-uses that are not retail sales including, but not limited to transmission and distribution losses or municipal street lighting. Amounts should be in megawatt-hours.

Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: ^Attachment 7 - City of Redding 2021 Power Source Disclosure (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Version: May 2022
Bonneville Power Administration - ACS Nuclear BPA 5,970 5,970 0.0211 126 Bonneville Power Administration - ACS Other BPA 435 435 0.0211 9 Bonneville Power Administration - ACS Unspecified Power BPA 2,808 2,808 0.0211 59 Tacoma Power - ACS Large hydro Tacoma Power 8,529 8,529 0.0337 287 Tacoma Power - ACS Solar Tacoma Power -
- 0.0337 -
Tacoma Power - ACS Natural gas Tacoma Power -
- 0.0337 -
Tacoma Power - ACS Nuclear Tacoma Power 678 678 0.0337 23 Tacoma Power - ACS Other Tacoma Power - - 0.0337 -
Tacoma Power - ACS Unspecified Power Tacoma Power 768 768 0.0337 26 END USES OTHER THAN RETAIL SALES MWh
For the calendar year 2021, the City of
Redding consumed a total of 34,485 MWh
to maintain City services. The energy
consumption was used by multiple City of
Redding Facilities and departments such
as the various Electric Department
locations (i.e. Power Plant, Administration
building, Corporation Yard). 34,484.686
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: ^Attachment 7 - City of Redding 2021 Power Source Disclosure (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Version: May 2022
Adjusted Net
Procured (MWh)
Percent of Total
Retail Sales
Renewable Procurements 316,907 43.8%
Biomass & Biowaste 5,297 0.7%
Geothermal - 0.0%
Eligible Hydroelectric 38,187 5.3%
Solar 62,485 8.6%
Wind 210,938 29.2%
Coal - 0.0%
Large Hydroelectric 265,610 36.7%
Natural gas 129,595 17.9%
Nuclear 6,649 0.9%
Other 435 0.1%
Unspecified Power 3,576 0.5%
Total 722,772 100.0%
722,772
182

0.0%
Total Retail Sales (MWh)
GHG Emissions Intensity (converted to lbs CO2e/MWh)
Percentage of Retail Sales Covered by Retired Unbundled RECs
2021 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT
SCHEDULE 3: POWER CONTENT LABEL DATA
For the Year Ending December 31, 2021
City of Redding
Electric Service
Instructions: No data input is needed on this schedule. Retail suppliers should use these auto-populated calculations to fill out their Power Content Labels.

Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: ^Attachment 7 - City of Redding 2021 Power Source Disclosure (9.5(c)--Electric Utility's Annual Report)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Information only.

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.6(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.6(a)--Oral report regarding the 2022 Community Creek Clean-Up to be held on October 1, 2022, at the Nur Pon Open Space.

Kim Niemer, Community
Services Director
Packet Pg. 311

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept the Year End Budget Report for the City of Redding; and adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 62nd Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 increasing appropriations by $2,409,130 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and $7,810,050 for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

FiscalImpact
The recommended changes to the General Fund will meet the City Council (Council) directive to maintain a ten percent reserve in the General Fund. The other recommended changes will not reduce reserve levels below those required in the respective funds.

AlternativeAction
The City Council could choose to reject the report and request additional or different information. Additionally, the Council could reject or modify the budget resolution.

Background/Analysis
As in the past, the Finance Department has prepared a Mid Cycle Budget Report (attached) for the City Council’s review and consideration. The report focuses primarily on the General Fund but also includes information regarding each of the City of Redding’s (City) Enterprise Funds, i.e., Water, Wastewater, Storm Drain, Redding Electric Utility, Airports, and Solid Waste funds. The report also includes other funds of the City.

General Fund
General Fund revenue for fiscal year ending (FYE) 2022 totals $110,899,656, which is $140,046, or 0.1 percent, above staff’s cash flow projection. Total revenue represents 100.1 percent of the annual budget estimate as amended by the Council’s resolution.

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.10(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.10(a)--Consider City of Redding Mid Cycle Budget Review for Fiscal Year Ending 2022 and 2023 and Resolution approving adjustments.

Greg Robinett, Finance
Officer
Packet Pg. 312
Report to Redding City Council September 15, 2022
Re: 9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Budget Resolution Page 2 General Fund expenses for FYE 2022 total $99,813,232, which is 75.7 percent of total appropriations. This is $31,988,500, or 24.3 percent, below staff’s cash flow estimate of $131,781,962 for FYE 2022.

Below is a table of expenditure changes being recommended by staff with full details in the attached report.

Department FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
City Council $ 14,300 $ 14,300
Animal Control $ 4,980
Non Departmental $ 158,900
Police $ 170,030 $ 329,780
Fire $ 295,640 $ 174,670
Parks $ 71,200 $ 205,000
Public Works $2,670,000
Total $ 556,150 $3,552,650
The request in Public Works is partially offset by increased revenues from increased Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenue expectations.

General Fund Overtime Expense
The General Fund overtime expense for FYE 2022 totals $7,584,337, which is $1,952,247, or

34.7 percent, above overtime appropriations of $5,632,090.

The expenditures year to date compared to total budget are listed below, of which, the four largest overtime budgets are Fire, Police, Parks, and Streets:
• The Fire Department had total overtime expenses of $5,376,931 compared to a total overtime budget of $4,072,440;
• The Police Department had total overtime expenses of $2,009,462 compared to a total overtime budget of $1,473,000;
• The Community Services Department had total overtime expenses of $73,317 compared to a total overtime budget of $7,000;
• The Public Works Department had total overtime expenses of $100,765 compared to a total overtime budget of $70,000; and
• All other General Fund Departments had total overtime expenses of $23,862 compared to a total overtime budget of $9,650.

Although some of the aforementioned expenses exceed the budgeted amount there is only one budget increase requested for overtime expenditures. The Fire Department is requesting increased budget funding for overtime; however, the requested amount is much less than the amount listed above due to associated savings in other personnel expenditures which can be used to offset the remaining overtime that is over the originally budgeted amount. All remaining departments have adequate savings in areas such as personnel expenditures and/or additional cross charges to other City departments to offset the excess cost in this expenditure category.

Packet Pg. 313
Report to Redding City Council September 15, 2022
Re: 9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Budget Resolution Page 3 General Fund Reserves
As of the writing of this staff report through June 30, 2022, the General Fund Cash Balance was $30,829,014, or a 28.2 percent reserve. This current cash balance will be adjusted as a result of year-end closing entries. Additionally, this cash balance includes American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding which will be spent as the approved Council ARPA projects are completed. The adjustment to the cash balance will occur prior to the completion of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).

The difference between the current General Fund Cash Balance figure and the attached General Fund Ten Year Plan is due to the budget basis used in the Ten-Year Plan compared to the financial statements. Staff corrects the cash balance and presents the revised Ten-Year Plan to the Council during the Mid-Year budget update.

Other Funds
The attached report recommends the following changes to other City funds (enterprise, internal service, and capital project fund):

Department FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
Airports $ 68,360 $ 138,000
Water $ 14,620
Solid Waste $ 84,420 $ 535,900
Electric $ 697,000
Total $ 167,400 $ 1,370,900
Building Maintenance $ 90,850
Insurance $ 1,590,000 $ 2,700,000
Reprographics $ 4,250 $ 1,500
ET/USA $ 480
Risk Management $ 185,000
Total $ 1,685,580 $ 2,886,500
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Communication and Transparency – “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
Packet Pg. 314
Report to Redding City Council September 15, 2022
Re: 9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Budget Resolution Page 4 Attachments
^Resolution
Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 Packet Pg. 315
Resolution No. 2022 - ____

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

Fiscal Year Ended 2022
Fund Division Description Increase Decrease
111 401 City Council 14,300 -
111 455 Animal Regulation 4,980 -
111 441 Police Administration 28,650 -
111 442 Police Field Operations 126,800 -
111 444 Police Services 14,580 -
111 462 Fire Suppression 295,640 -
111 610 Parks 71,200 -
134 821 Airports 68,360 -
143 863 Water Treatment 14,620 -
149 557 Solid Waste 84,420 -
154 891 Building Maintenance 90,850 -
160 816 Employee Benefits Insurance 1,590,000 -
162 807 ET/USA 480 -
168 893 Reprographics 4,250 -
Fiscal Year Ended 2023
Fund Division Description Increase Decrease
111 401 City Council 14,300 $ - $
111 427 Non Departmental 158,900 -
111 442 Police - Field Operations 292,790 -
111 444 Police - Services 36,990 -
111 462 Fire - Suppression 160,670 -
111 463 Fire - Prevention 14,000 -
111 610 Parks 205,000 -
111 501 Public Works Engineering 15,000 -
111 518 Streets 2,655,000 -
134 821 Airports 138,000 -
142 852 Electric Power Production 282,000 -
142 853 Electric Distribution 355,000 -
142 889 Field Operations 60,000 -
149 551 Residential 71,000 -
149 552 Commercial 53,000 -
149 553 Roll-off 44,400 -
149 556 Resource Recovery 169,900 -
149 557 Transfer Station 135,600 -
149 558 Hazardous Household Waste 62,000 -
160 816 Employee Benefits Insurance 2,700,000 -
168 893 Reprographics 1,500 -
172 897 Risk Management 185,000 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 62nd AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078 INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS BY $2,409,130 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 AND INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS BY $7,810,050 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23.
62nd AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021 -078

Page 1 of 5 ends

Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: ^Resolution [Revision 1] (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Budget Resolution) Resolution No. 2022 - ____
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

Fiscal Year Ended 2022
Decrease (Increase) Fund Balance Use of Funds Source of Funds 111 427 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance - $ 556,150 $
134 821 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 68,360
143 861 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 14,620
149 551 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 84,420
154 891 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 90,850
160 816 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 1,590,000
162 807 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 480
168 893 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 4,250
169 815 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
172 897 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
191 990 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
194 954 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
Revenue Use of Funds Source of Funds
111 441 7 9100 01 Miscellaneous 125,160
111 442 5 5067 01 Transfer to Equipment Replacement (125,160) Expenditures Use of Funds Source of Funds
111 401 158 01 Miscellaneous Pay Adjustment 900
111 401 173 01 Group Insurance Program 13,400
111 455 2258 01 Animal Control Contract 4,980
111 441 2253 01 Professional Services/Consulting 28,650 111 442 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel & Lubricant 126,800
111 444 2248 01 SHASCOM 14,580
111 462 140 01 Overtime 193,460
111 462 2248 01 SHASCOM 14,580
111 462 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel & Lubricant 65,320
111 462 2291 01 Utilities 9,080
111 462 2444 01 Operating Materials & Supplies 13,200
111 610 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel & Lubricant 31,200
111 610 2291 01 Utilities 40,000
134 821 2291 01 Utilities 8,460
134 821 4581 67 Terminal Loop Construction 59,900
143 863 2291 01 Utilities 14,620
149 557 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel & Lubricant 84,420
154 891 2254 01 Specialized Services 10,010
154 891 2444 01 Operating Materials & Supplies 80,840
160 816 2262 01 Group Health Cost 1,590,000
162 807 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel & Lubricant 480
168 893 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel & Lubricant 350
168 893 2281 01 Office Equipment & Repair 2,700
168 893 2444 01 Operating Materials & Supplies 1,200
$ 2,409,130 2,409,130 $
62nd AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021 -078

Page 2 of 5 ends

Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: ^Resolution [Revision 1] (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Budget Resolution) Resolution No. 2022 - ____
Fiscal Year Ended 2023
Decrease (Increase) Fund Balance Use of Funds Source of Funds 111 427 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance - 587,780
122 741 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
134 834 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 138,000
142 851 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 697,000
143 861 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
145 870 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
147 801 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
148 555 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
149 550 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 535,900
150 890 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
151 895 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 70,000
153 810 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
154 891 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
158 894 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
160 816 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 2,700,000
165 438 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
166 899 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
168 893 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 1,500
169 815 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
172 897 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance 185,000
191 990 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
193 930 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
200 989 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
230 972 01 0001 01 Beginning Balance -
Revenue Use of Funds Source of Funds
111 442 6 8620 9 School Contribution 309,870
111 518 5 5003 01 Fund Transfer From Gas Tax 2,655,000
127 377 5 5001 01 Fund Transfer to General Fund (2,655,000) 127 377 6 8100 01 TDA Revenues 2,655,000
151 895 5 5067 01 Transfer to Equipment Replacement (70,000) Expenditures Use of Funds Source of Funds
111 427 4134 01 Tiger Field Improvements 40,000
111 427 4103 5 Facility Improvements 100,000
111 427 2254 01 Specialized Services/Tech 18,900
111 401 158 01 Miscellaneous Pay Adjustment 900
111 401 173 01 Group Insurance Program 13,400
111 442 2259 01 Other Contracts 5,000
111 442 2447 01 Software 23,000
111 442 2481 01 Officer Equipment - Issued 5,000
111 442 2482 01 Officer Equipment - Replace 5,000
111 442 2782 01 Employee Training 10,000
111 442 2785 01 POST Program 10,000
111 442 111 01 Full Time Regular 127,570
111 442 171 01 Worker's Compensation 12,830
62nd AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021 -078

Page 3 of 5 ends

Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: ^Resolution [Revision 1] (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Budget Resolution) Resolution No. 2022 - ____
Fiscal Year Ended 2023 (Continued)
Expenditures (Continued) Use of Funds Source of Funds
111 442 173 01 Group Insurance 20,430
111 442 175 01 Retirement Program 72,110
111 442 177 01 Medicare 1,850
111 444 2248 01 SHASCOM 36,990
111 462 2248 01 SHASCOM 36,990
111 462 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 65,000
111 463 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 4,000
111 462 2248 01 Specialized Services 26,880
111 462 2631 01 Taxes 1,800
111 462 5934 01 Miscellaneous Equipment 30,000
111 463 2786 01 Safety Metings & Trainings 10,000
111 610 2291 01 Utilities 50,000
111 610 2252 01 Security Contracts 5,000
111 610 4590 01 Park Improvements 150,000
111 501 2447 01 Software 15,000
111 518 3580 01 Overlay Projects 2,655,000
134 821 2291 01 Utilities 88,000
134 821 2472 01 Advertising/Promotion 15,000
134 821 2782 01 Employee Training 5,000
134 821 2253 01 Professional Services/Consulting 30,000 142 852 8549 5 CT Misc. Materials/Supply 50,000
142 852 8553 5 CT Equipment Maintenance Supply 150,000
142 852 8553 95 Catalytic Unit Material & Supply 50,000 142 852 8928 5 NERC Compliance - Non Labor 32,000
142 853 8570 4 Transmission Maintenance 230 EQ 100,000
142 853 8588 6 Dist Ops Safety Gear 25,000
142 853 8921 90 A&G PC Equipment & Software 100,000
142 853 8923 80 Adm & Gen Consultants 45,000
142 853 8930 6 Adm & Gen Misc Training 85,000
142 889 2254 1 Specialized Services 60,000
149 551 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 71,000
149 552 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 53,000
149 553 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 44,400
149 556 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 169,900
149 557 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 135,600
149 558 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 62,000
160 816 2262 01 Group Health Cost 2,700,000
168 893 2274 01 Vehicle Fuel 1,500
172 897 2444 01 Operating Materials & Supplies 15,000
172 897 2493 01 Insurance Premiums 170,000
7,810,050 7,810,050
Personnel 2022-23
School Resource Officer 1 FTE
Status 9 Public Works Maintenance Worker .5 FTE
62nd AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021 -078

Page 4 of 5 ends

Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: ^Resolution [Revision 1] (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Budget Resolution) Resolution No. 2022 - ____
THAT the purpose is to increase appropriations by $2,409,130 for fiscal year 2021-2022 and increase appropriations by $7,810,050 for fiscal year 2022-23.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Redding on the_____day of ____________, 2022 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
62nd AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021 -078

Page 5 of 5 ends

Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: ^Resolution [Revision 1] (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Budget Resolution) Cash Flow
Estimate Actual Actual Actual Estimate Actual Actual Actual Revenue FYE 2022 FYE 2022 FYE 2021 FYE 2020 FYE 2022 FYE 2021 FYE 2020 FYE 2019 Sales tax $31,982,570 $32,088,786 $30,189,084 $25,859,713 $31,982,570 $30,189,084 $25,859,713 $25,319,127Property tax 23,961,450 24,285,060 22,820,856 21,182,617 23,961,450 22,820,856 21,182,617 19,949,318Transient Occupancy Tax 7,240,530 8,262,335 5,915,535 5,352,432 7,240,530 5,915,535 5,352,432 6,837,195Internal Departments 12,992,510 12,992,510 13,090,570 11,537,660 12,992,510 13,090,570 11,537,660 12,295,180Revenue from Other Governments 17,766,150 15,406,264 2,929,851 4,309,727 17,766,150 2,929,851 4,309,727 2,495,001Other 16,816,400 17,864,701 14,679,657 16,362,005 16,816,400 14,679,657 16,362,005 12,779,277Total Revenue $110,759,610 $110,899,656 $89,625,553 $84,604,154 $110,759,610 $89,625,553 $84,604,154 $79,675,098The above revenue chart excludes transfers Cash Flow
Estimate Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FYE 2022 FYE 2022 FYE 2021 FYE 2020 FYE 2022* FYE 2021 FYE 2020 FYE 2019Police $44,859,650 $39,682,218 $35,049,109 $31,641,369 $44,839,880 $35,049,109 $31,641,369 $30,416,588Fire 26,468,120 26,045,242 28,526,091 21,774,444 26,468,120 28,526,091 21,774,444 21,701,221Public Works 20,905,527 9,511,416 7,221,574 6,889,613 20,905,527 7,221,574 6,889,613 6,944,744Development Services 7,229,360 5,170,813 5,319,892 4,556,208 7,229,360 5,319,892 4,556,208 4,370,305Community Services 13,023,085 6,773,247 5,936,020 5,550,231 13,023,085 5,936,020 5,550,231 5,343,197Other 19,315,990 12,630,296 10,132,220 9,533,422 19,315,990 10,132,220 9,533,422 9,868,543Total Expenditures $131,801,732 $99,813,232 $92,184,906 $79,945,287 $131,781,962 $92,184,906 $79,945,287 $78,644,598*Includes carryover amount of $10,797,072 from prior year's budget.

July through June Amounts Total For Fiscal Year
Comparison of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures (Budgetary Basis) Report for the Period July through June, 2022
REVENUE COMPARISON
July through June Amounts Total For Fiscal Year
EXPENDITURE COMPARISON
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- $0
$5,000
$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000
Sales Tax Property Tax TOT Other Gov. Internal Other
General Fund Revenues Through June 2022
(In Thousands)
BudgetActualPrior Year
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- $0
$5,000
$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000$50,000 Police Fire Public Works Development Services Community Services Other Expenditures General Fund Expenditures Through June 2022
(In Thousands)
BudgetActualPrior Year
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23

MID CYCLE BUDGET REPORT
Fiscal Year 2021-22
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23

INTRODUCTION
The Finance Division has completed its year end budget review for fiscal year 2021-2022 and respectfully submits this report for the City Council’s review. This fiscal year ended (FYE) June 30, 2022 budget report is submitted in-lieu of the typical quarterly financial report.1 This report compares actual expenditures and revenues through June 30, 2022, to budget projections (or subsequent revisions, if applicable). The report focuses primarily on the General Fund, but also includes a brief review of revenues and expenditures for each enterprise fund, i.e., the Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, Electric, Airport, Solid Waste, and internal service funds. In the interest of time and space, we have not included information regarding all individual internal service funds or special revenue funds; however, staff would be pleased to provide this additional information upon request.

GENERAL FUND

REVENUES
Overview
General Fund revenue as of June 30, 2022, totals $110,899,656 which is $140,046 or .1 percent above staff’s cash flow projection. Total revenue represents 100.1 percent of the annual budget estimate, as amended by Council resolution. Below is a further discussion of various revenues of the General Fund.

Sales Tax
Sales tax revenue for FYE 2022 totals $32,088,786 or $106,216 (.3 percent) above staff’s amended cash flow estimate of $31,982,570. Staff is not recommending any changes at this time to the sales tax revenue projection.

Property Tax
Property tax revenue for FYE 2022, totals $24,285,060 or $323,610 (1.3 percent) above staff’s cash flow estimate of $23,961,450. Staff is not recommending any changes at this time to the property tax revenue projection.

Transient Occupancy Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for FYE 2022 totals $8,262,335 or $1,021,805 (14.1 percent) above staff’s cash flow estimate of $7,240,530. Staff is not recommending any changes at this time to the transient occupancy tax revenue projection.

Other Taxes
Other taxes (Business License Tax, Real Property Transfer Tax, Franchise Tax, and Cannabis Tax) revenue for FYE 2022 totals $4,954,214 or $592,044 (13.6 percent) above staff’s cash flow estimate of $4,362,170.

This includes Cannabis Tax revenue of $2,207,680 for FYE 2022, which was 319,520 (16.9 percent) above 1 Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed summary of General Fund revenues and expenditures.

Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23
staff’s cash flow estimate. Staff is not recommending any changes at this time to the other tax revenue projections.

Revenue from Other Governmental Agencies
Revenue from Other Governmental Agencies total $15,406,264 FYE 2022 or $2,359,886 (13.3 percent) below staff’s cash flow estimate of $17,766,150. This is due to timing differences of grant funding being received compared to budget.

Revenue from Internal Departments
Revenue from internal departments for FYE 2022 totals $11,970,410 which is the same as staff’s cash flow projection. Revenues from internal departments are trending as expected and no changes to revenues from internal departments are being recommended at this time.

Licenses and Permits
Revenue from licenses and permits for FYE 2022 totals $2,446,514 or $232,914 (10.5 percent) above staff’s cash flow projection of $2,213,600. Staff is not recommending any changes at this time.

Fines and Penalties
Revenue from fines and penalties for FYE 2022 totals $1,039,077 or $8,787 (.1 percent) above staff’s cash flow projection of $1,030,290. Staff is not recommending any changes at this time.

Charges for Current Services
Revenue from charge for current services for FYE 2022 totals $5,574,059 or $25,321 (.05 percent) below staff’s cash flow projection of $5,599,380. Staff is not recommending any changes at this time.

All Other General Fund Revenues
Revenue from all other General Fund revenues total $3,532,892 FYE 2022 or $78,368 (2.2 percent) below staff’s cash flow estimate of $3,610,960. Staff is not recommending any changes at this time.

EXPENDITURES
Overview
General Fund appropriations through June 30, 2022, total $131,781,962 which is an increase of $35,242,392 or 36.5 percent, since the budget was adopted by the City Council on June 15, 2021. Of this increase, $10,797,072 is from carryover from the prior year (primarily relating to grants and projects). Additionally, the City received American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding of $18,693,440 of which approximately $14 million was appropriated in the General Fund. The remaining increase is due primarily to increases in grant and grant-like revenues and appropriations.

Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23
Police
The Police Department’s budget, including the grant division, totals $44,839,880, or 34.0 percent of total General Fund appropriations. The Police Department has expended $39,682,218 or 88.5 percent of its budget, as of June 30, 2022. Police is requesting three increases in fiscal year 2021-22. The first is a cost to cover attorney’s fees related to various personnel litigation costs for $126,800. The second request is for vehicle fuel and lubricant due to the increased fuel costs for $28,650. The final items includes both fiscal year 2021-22 and is for SHASCOM services that exceeded budget assumptions by $14,580 and $36,990 respectively. The Police Department is requesting a transfer to their equipment replacement for their evidence funds that were authorized by Council in June 2021. This allocates the funding for future Police Department equipment needs in alignment with the allowable uses. For fiscal year 2022-23 has multiple requests including funding for contracts related to increase towing costs of $5,000, software costs of $23,000 for iSubpoena, which will help to mitigate overtime costs for court, costs for additional equipment related to officers of $10,000, employee training and post program costs for additional training for new and more officers that are being hired for $20,000. Finally, the department is requesting a new School Resource Officer for fiscal year 2022-23 and the cost will be offset by additional revenues from school contributions.

Fire
The Fire Department’s budget totals $26,468,120, or 20.1 percent of total General Fund appropriations. The Fire Department has expended $26,045,242 or 98.4 percent of its budget, through June 30, 2022. The Fire Department is requesting four increases for fiscal year 2021-22 for a total of $281,060. These increases include vehicle fuel of $65,320, utility costs of $9,080, COVID related expenses of $13,200, and Overtime costs of $193,460. The overtime request is due to unanticipated overtime related to industrial injuries in the Fire Department. The Fire Department is requesting increases for SHASCOM services for fiscal year 2021- 22 and 2022-23 for $14,580 and $36,990 respectively. In fiscal year 2022-23 the Fire Department is requesting budget revisions of $137,680. These requests include increases for fuel costs expected of $69,000, unexpected IPS user fees of $26,880 due to requirements of certain members of the organization having access, $30,000 for miscellaneous equipment for a portable radio in the new radio system for SHASCOM and expenditures for the Fire Department Community Education Response Team, unexpected taxes from the county for the fire stations of $1,800, and finally additional training funds of $10,000 to provide necessary training to the fire inspectors.

Public Works
The Public Works Department’s General Fund budget (Public Works Engineering, Transportation and Engineering, and Streets) totals $20,905,527 or 15.8 percent of total General Fund appropriations. The Transportation and Engineering Department’s General Fund has expended $9,511,416 or 45.5 percent of its budget, through June 30, 2021. Public Works is making two requests for budget modifications. The first request is for software for Auto CAD and Civil 3D necessary on new computers of $15,000. The second request is offset by an increase in expected gas tax revenue but it is for $2,655,000 of additional overlay projects that will be funded through increased TDA estimates.

Development Services
The Development Services Department’s General Fund budget (Planning, Building, Permit Center, and Engineering & Design) totals $7,229,360 or 5.5 percent of total General Fund appropriations. The Department expended $5,170,813, or 71.5 percent of its budget, through June 30, 2022. Staff is not Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23
recommending any changes to the budget at this time.

Community Services
The Community Services Department’s General Fund budget (Recreation, Parks and Community Services Administration) totals $13,023,085, or 9.9 percent of total General Fund appropriations. The department has expended $6,773,247, or 52.0 percent of its budget, through June 30, 2022. For fiscal year 2021-22 staff is recommending two changes. The first is for $31,200 due to increased fuel costs incurred. The second is for increased utility costs of $40,000. For fiscal year 2022-23 is requesting additional funding of $205,000. The first is an item that was previously approved by Council in concept on Feburary 17, 2022 at a budget workshop. This was to provide $250,000 of funding to help improve aging infrastructure owned and maintained by the General Fund. Of this funding $150,000 is recommended for Park facilities including the Bonnyview boat ramp restroom, K1 scoreboard replacement, crack sealing on the trail system, updated signage for multiple playgrounds, replace damaged slides throughout the City parks system, and to repair damages to restrooms at Caldwell Park. The next item is for $50,000 of expected increased utility costs due to more sites coming online and related to the over budget in 2021-22 of $40,000. The final item is related to security contract of $5,000 to lock and unlock the South River Trail restrooms daily. This is approximately $415 per month of additional costs.

Non-Departmental/Debt Service
The budgets for the Non-Departmental, Animal Regulation and Debt Service divisions total $12,995,620, or

9.9 percent of total General Fund appropriations. Expenditures through June 30, 2022 total $6,755,951, or

52.0 percent of the amount budgeted for this purpose. Staff is recommending one change in fiscal year 2021-22 and multiple changes in fiscal year 2022-23. In 2021-22 Staff is recommending a change for additional services performed on the animal regulation contract of $4,980 related to emergency care. In 2022-23 staff is recommending total budget modifications of $158,900. The first component of this is the remaining amount of the $250,000 of annual repairs and maintenance to general fund owned facilities. The amount requested in Non-Departmental is for $100,000 and will go to make repairs at the Senior Citizens Hall, Caldwell Recreation Center, Carter House, and the Teen Center. This will provide repairs to exterior buildings to make necessary repairs and painting, fixing issues with drinking fountains, ceilings, and dry rot.

Staff is recommending $40,000 to assist in purchasing a new scoreboard at Tiger Field. This is part of a larger project around the 100th year anniversary of Tiger Field which will be funded through fund raising efforts of the Colt 45’s.

General Government
The current budgets for general government departments and divisions (i.e., City Council, City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Manager, City Attorney, Finance, Purchasing, Personnel and Midtown) total $6,320,370, or

4.8 percent of total General Fund appropriations. These departments and divisions have expended $5,874,348, or 92.9 percent of their budgets, through June 30, 2022. The only change being recommended at this time is for City Council unbudgeted benefit costs of $14,300 in each fiscal year.

Cash Flow Analysis
The attached 10-year plan now projects that the General Fund will end fiscal year 2021-22 with a cash reserve of approximately $15.8 million. The decrease to the cash reserve from prior 10 year plans presented is due primarily from the additional expenditure requests in this report and includes previous budget Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23
resolutions adopted by council to increase General Fund appropriations. The primary difference between the current cash balance of approximately $30.8 million and the projected cash balance of $15.8 million has to do with the budget vs actual results of the budget but also American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds which are currently in the General Fund cash balance but awaiting utilization as approved by Council in March of 2022. Fiscal Year 2021-22 as outlined above had better results in both revenues and expenses from what was anticipated. Another contributing factor has to do with year end closing entries and accruals that are not displayed in the 10-year plan which is a budgetary basis as compared to adjustments that reflect the full accounting process of closing the General Fund Cash. After the completion of the annual audit and the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report staff will amend the beginning cash figure to the appropriate amount.

TEN YEAR PLAN
With the changes outlined above the General Fund Ten Year Plan maintains a ten percent minimum reserve for the entirety of the Ten Year Plan..

ENTERPRISE FUNDS

WATER UTILITY FUND
Expenditures
Appropriations from the Water Utility Fund total $51,877,900. Expenditures through June 30, 2022, total $22,224,219 or 42.8 percent of total appropriations. Expenditures are substantially lower than budget as a result of capital outlay being substantially below their appropriated amount. Most of these funds will be carried over to FYE 2023 to complete the capital projects. Without capital outlay, the Water Utility expended 93.3 percent of its budget. Staff is recommending a change to the Water Department utility expense account due to increased costs associated with pumping from wells in fiscal year 2021-22 of $14,620.

Revenue
Revenue in the Water Utility Fund through June 30, 2022 totals $26,762,280. This level of revenue represents 111.1 percent of the estimate contained in the amended FYE 2022 budget. No changes are being recommended.

WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND
Expenditures
Appropriations from the Wastewater Utility Fund total $69,529,270 through June 30, 2022. Expenditures to date total $30,897,381 or 44.4 percent of total appropriations. The ratio of expenditures to appropriations is low because expenditures related to capital projects are low; however, most of these funds will be carried Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23
over to FYE 2023 for completion of the projects. Without capital outlay, the Wastewater Utility expended

93.6 percent of its budget. No adjustments to the Wastewater Utility’s budget are being requested.

Revenues
Revenue in the Wastewater Utility Fund through June 30, 2022 totals $33,786,242. This level of revenue represents 100.7 percent of the estimate contained in the amended 2022 budget. No changes are being recommended.

STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY
Expenditures
Appropriations from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund total $5,630,990 through June 30, 2022. Expenditures to date total $1,348,128 or 23.9 percent of total appropriations. The ratio of actual expenditures to date to total appropriations is low due to the fact that expenditures associated with several capital projects are low at this point in time. Some of these funds will be carried over to FYE 2023 to complete the projects. Without capital outlay, the Storm Drainage Utility expended 81.9 percent of its FYE 2022 amended budget. No changes are being recommended.

Revenue
Revenue in the Storm Drainage Utility Fund totals $4,280,101 through June 30, 2022. This level of revenue represents 101.4 percent of the estimate contained in the amended FYE 2022 budget. No changes are being recommended.

ELECTRIC UTILITY
Expenditures
Appropriations from the Electric Utility Fund total $213,127,801 through June 30, 2022. Expenditures for FYE 2022 total $177,484,557, or 83.3 percent of total appropriations. Without capital outlay, the Electric Utility expended 87.4 percent of its FYE 2022 amended budget. Staff is recommending multiple changes in the Electric fiscal year 2022-23 budget for a total of $697,000. These changes include warehouse modification of $50,000 to finish a project began in 2021-22, which has seen significant costs increases and requires additional funds to complete. $150,000 is being requested to replace HEPA filters in units 5 & 6 each filter costs $65,000 with installation costs covering the remaining $20,000 of the expenditure. Due to significant increases to the cost of UREA staff is recommending a $50,000 increase to cover these increased costs in fiscal year 2022-23. There are anticipated costs over budgeted amounts for a NERC compliance audit of $32,000 which is a requirement of the utility. Staff is recommending $100,000 for work anticipated at Airport 230 substation and increased labor costs from WAPA for emergency work that was unanticipated.

Staff is recommending a $25,000 increase associated with safety gear due to five new linemen anticipated to be hired and the increased costs associated with this type of safety gear required. Staff is recommending $100,000 to cover costs of a new drafting printer, $40,000, anticipation of hiring new engineers which will require new computers and new phones, $10,000, and finally additional equipment for servers, UPS systems, and server racks for $50,000, which will complete the move of the backup power control center from the airport substation to Avtech. There are $45,000 of costs associated with an AUD consultant for the Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23
planning division and a new pole modeling software. There is $85,000 of training costs associated with new staff and anticipation of new staff in the T&D asset management division. Finally, the meter reading division is requesting $60,000 to replace handhelds utilized for meter reading due to lack of support from the vendor on the existing handheld reading devices.

Revenue
Revenue in the Electric Utility Fund totals $159,536,510 through June 30, 2022. This level of revenue represents 98.9 percent of the estimate contained in the amended FYE 2022 budget. No changes are being recommended.

AIRPORTS FUND
Expenditures
Appropriations from the Airports Fund total $19,278,860. Expenditures total $4,895,083, or 25.4 percent of total appropriations, through June 30, 2022. The ratio of expenditures to appropriations is low because expenditures related to capital projects are low; however, most of these funds will be carried over to FYE 2023 for completion of the projects. Excluding capital outlay, the Airports fund expended 91.0 percent of its FYE 2022 amended budget. In fiscal year 2021-22 the Airports Fund is requested increases associated with Utility expenses of $8,460 and $59,900 of expenditures associated with part of the terminal loop project which is no longer expected to be covered by grant funding. The Airport will continue to attempt to secure grant funding for this project but none is expected to cover this portion of the cost in fiscal year 2021-22. IN fiscal year 2022-23 the Airports Fund is requesting costs to cover utility expenses anticipated due to damage to the Airports solar farm of $88,000. Airports is requesting $15,000 to cover advertising and promotion efforts associated with attempting to obtain additional airline services. Staff is recommending $30,000 to cover the ACDBE Program which will be renewed in the next triennial cycle in Fall 2022. Finally the department is requesting $5,000 to cover industry training for new staff at the Airports.

Revenues
Revenue in the Airports Fund totals $3,369,768 through June 30, 2022 excluding grant revenue. This level of revenue represents 118.1 percent of the estimate contained in the amended FYE 2022 amended budget.

No changes are being recommended.

SOLID WASTE FUND
Expenditures
Appropriations for the Solid Waste Fund total $28,967,430 for FYE 2022. Expenditures through June 30, 2022 total $22,906,110 or 79.1 percent of total appropriations. Without capital outlay, the Sold Waste Fund expended 94.2 percent of its FYE 2022 amended budget. Staff is recommending increases in fiscal year 2022-23 to cover increased fuel costs for a total of $558,320. The other item being requested by the solid waste department is to cover the increased cost of disposal of hazardous waste, recycling, and the associated transportation costs.

Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt City of Redding – Mid Cycle Budget Report
Fiscal Year 2021-22 & Fiscal Year 2022-23
Revenues
Revenue in the Solid Waste Utility Fund totals $24,057,673 through June 30, 2022. This level of revenue represents 103.1 percent of the estimate contained in the amended FYE 2022 budget. No changes are being recommended.

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
All internal service funds are trending as expected, with the following exceptions.  Building Maintenance division is requesting total increases to appropriations of $90,950 in fiscal year 2021-22. These include $10,010 for increases associated with inflation costs associated with on-call contracts. The other change is a result of the impacts of COVID and include expenses for mitigation of spread of the virus for a total of $80,840. These expenses are expected to be reimbursed by FEMA. There are adequate reserves available to cover the requested increases.
 ET/USA Locates is requesting $480 in fiscal year 2021-22 for increased fuel costs. There are adequate reserves available to cover the requested increases.  The Employee Benefits Insurance division is requesting $1,590,000 in fiscal year 2021-22 and $2,700,000 in fiscal year 2022-23 due to a computational error during budget associated with the insurance expected to be paid by the division. This error is strictly computational and one for budget enforcement as the funding was properly budgeted in all the operating divisions. This fund collects funding from the employees and departments in order to pay the insurance bills citywide. The appropriate amount was collected in order to pay the bills and therefore only impacts this fund. There is adequate funding available to cover the requested increases.
 The Risk division is requesting a total of $185,000 of budget increases in fiscal year 2022-

23. The first is for $15,000 to cover additional COVID testing kits. The second is for $170,000 to cover increased costs associated with General Liability insurance. The cost of General Liability Insurance continues to see significant increases. There are adequate reserves available to cover the requested increases.
 The Reprographics division is requesting budget increases of $4,250 in fiscal year 2021-

22. This includes $350 to cover increased fuel costs, $1,200 for increased costs of paper, and $2,700 for increased costs associated with maintenance of some of the larger machines utilized by the division. In fiscal year 2022-23 the division is requesting an increase of $1,500 to cover expected increased fuel costs. There are adequate reserves available to cover the requested increases.

Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Mid-Cycle Budget Report

APPENDIX A

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND

EXPENDITURES
For the Period
July 2021 through June 2022
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Year End Budget Report
Section One
Actual Revenues Compared to Cash Flow Estimates
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt RVR213A CITY OF REDDING 12:13:15 7/25/2022 JUNE 4TH RUN 2/17/22 Finance Department MONTH OF JUNE 2022

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ACTUAL REVENUES

GENERAL FUNDS
----------------- Current Month ------------------ ------------------ Year to Date ------------------ Monthly Over YTD Over ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Projection Actual (Under) % Projection Actual (Under) %

GENERAL FUNDTAXES
Property Taxes 167,518 721,391 553,873 430.6 23,961,450 24,285,060 323,610 101.3Sales Tax-Nondedicated 3,295,669 2,602,668 (693,001) 78.9 31,982,570 32,088,786 106,216 100.3Transient Occupancy Tax 1,104,961 718,646 (386,315) 65.0 7,240,530 8,262,335 1,021,805 114.1Viacom Cablevision - - - - 912,360 883,096 (29,264) 96.7Pacific Gas & Electric Co. - - - - 336,650 354,815 18,165 105.3Business License Tax 72,924 68,285 (4,639) 93.6 875,000 899,507 24,507 102.8Real Property Transfer Tax 29,174 54,087 24,913 185.3 350,000 609,116 259,116 174.0Commercial Cultivation Cannabis - - - - 138,160 155,696 17,536 112.6Retail Cannabis Business Tax - 63,558 63,558 - 1,750,000 2,042,568 292,568 116.7Other Commercial Cannabis Business Tax - - - * - 9,416 9,416 * ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Taxes 4,670,246 4,228,635 (441,611) 90.5 67,546,720 69,590,395 2,043,675 103.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ LICENSES AND PERMITSAnimal Licenses 3,337 3,631 294 108.8 40,000 49,345 9,345 123.3Building Permits 131,410 130,372 (1,038) 99.2 1,576,920 1,526,424 (50,496) 96.7Engineering Encroachment Permit 7,500 12,745 5,245 169.9 90,000 248,731 158,731 276.3Electical Permits 15,939 14,282 (1,657) 89.6 191,180 255,919 64,739 133.8Transportation Permit 775 208 (567) 26.8 9,300 8,127 (1,173) 87.3Plumbing Permits 8,874 5,929 (2,945) 66.8 106,400 101,430 (4,970) 95.3Mechanical Permit 15,824 21,337 5,513 134.8 189,800 236,211 46,411 124.4Engineering Grading Permits 837 1,680 843 200.7 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ 10,000 20,327 10,327 203.2 Total Licenses and Permits 184,496 190,184 5,688 103.0 2,213,600 2,446,514 232,914 110.5 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ FINES, FORFEITS, AND PENALTIES Traffic Safety Fines 114,888 5,920 (108,968) 5.1 928,590 906,364 (22,226) 97.6Code Enforcement Fines 12,174 135,779 123,605 115.3 146,000 760,532 614,532 520.9Other Fines & Fees 4,424 9,635 5,211 217.7 53,000 94,384 41,384 178.0Cannabis Delinquency Penalty - - - * - 13,231 13,231 * ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Fines, Forfeits & Penalties 131,486 151,334 19,848 115.0 1,127,590 1,774,511 646,921 157.3 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ REVENUE FROM INTERNAL DEPARTMENTSFixed Reimbursements 410,891 410,880 (11) 99.9 4,930,560 4,930,560 - 100.0Fixed Reimbursement Public Works Admin 74,240 74,240 - 100.0 890,880 890,880 - 100.0Fixed Reimbursement NDPES 37,503 37,498 (5) 99.9 449,970 449,970 - 100.0In-lieu Payment from 821--Muni Airport 19,587 19,583 (4) 99.9 235,000 235,000 - 100.0In-Lieu Payment from Division 854-Electric 455,337 455,333 (4) 99.9 5,464,000 5,464,000 - 100.0advances from internal department - 318,245 318,245 - 1,022,100 1,340,345 318,245 131.1 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Revenue from Internal Departments 997,558 1,315,779 318,221 131.8 12,992,510 13,310,755 318,245 102.4 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ * Unbudgeted revenue 1 Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- RVR213A CITY OF REDDING 12:13:15 7/25/2022 JUNE 4TH RUN 2/17/22 Finance Department MONTH OF JUNE 2022

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ACTUAL REVENUES

GENERAL FUNDS
(continued)
----------------- Current Month ------------------ ------------------ Year to Date ------------------ Monthly Over YTD Over ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Projection Actual (Under) % Projection Actual (Under) %

GENERAL FUNDREVENUE FROM OTHER GOVERMENTAL AGENCIES
State Grant Operating for General Gov't 108,138 - (108,138) 0.0 875,690 45,197 (830,493) 5.1Federal Grant-Operating-General Gov't 190,998 12,905,590 12,714,592 756.9 15,050,610 13,631,085 (1,419,525) 90.5Shasta County Grant - Operating - Police 51,636 114,596 62,960 221.9 602,120 270,642 (331,478) 44.9SHASTA CO OPERATING REIMB-POLICE 6,000 - (6,000) 0.0 60,000 31,821 (28,179) 53.0State Reimbursement - 10,000 10,000 * - 13,251 13,251 *STATE LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OPERATING-POLICE 268,543 269,705 1,162 100.4 348,590 365,305 16,715 104.7Reimbursement of Mandated Costs 4,750 - (4,750) 0.0 57,000 58,499 1,499 102.6POST Grant - Operating - Police 20,450 2,991 (17,459) 14.6 72,700 98,516 25,816 135.5Home Owner Property Tax Relief 12,750 21,755 9,005 170.6 153,000 145,031 (7,969) 94.7Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax - - - - 45,000 105,954 60,954 235.4School District Contrib-Operating-Police 22,333 7,367 (14,966) 32.9 267,930 404,198 136,268 150.8Redding Rancheria Payment 9,961 - (9,961) 0.0 119,510 119,509 (1) 99.9Contribution RABA - Operating - Police 2,087 2,083 (4) 99.8 25,000 25,000 - 100.0Buckeye Fire Service Dist-Operating-Fire - - - * - 5,000 5,000 *Buckeye Fire District - Capital - Fire 4,587 - (4,587) 0.0 64,000 64,000 - 100.0SHASCOM - Payroll 2,087 - (2,087) 0.0 25,000 23,256 (1,744) 93.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Revenue - Other Government Agencies 704,320 13,334,087 12,629,767 893.1 17,766,150 15,406,264 (2,359,886) 86.7 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ OTHER REVENUESLate Fees 141,674 139,960 (1,714) 98.7 1,700,000 1,386,837 (313,163) 81.5Contributions - Operating - General Gov't 7,850 20 (7,830) .2 347,210 345,774 (1,436) 99.5Developer Contributions 2,934 - (2,934) 0.0 22,070 22,074 4 100.0Compensation - Loss & Property Damage - 43 43 * - 28,795 28,795 *Miscellaneous Receipts 173,480 229,435 55,955 132.2 586,910 844,580 257,670 143.9Reimbursement 21,176 5,468 (15,708) 25.8 254,090 294,431 40,341 115.8 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Other Revenues 347,114 374,926 27,812 108.0 2,910,280 2,922,491 12,211 100.4 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICESPlanning Permits (Subdivisions) 36,878 23,834 (13,044) 64.6 442,470 566,840 124,370 128.1Building Plan - Record Fees 1,542 2,190 648 142.0 18,460 21,899 3,439 118.6Building Plan - Check Fees 46,130 53,986 7,856 117.0 553,450 731,528 178,078 132.1Fees for Outside Plan Checks 24,515 - (24,515) 0.0 25,560 25,565 5 100.0Plan Check Fees - Fire Department 6,250 6,374 124 101.9 75,000 95,536 20,536 127.3Engineering Land Development Fees 8,337 70,847 62,510 849.7 800,000 807,806 7,806 100.9Technology Surcharge 10,136 14,923 4,787 147.2 121,610 229,660 108,050 188.8Cannabis Application & Permit Fees 39,580 11,623 (27,957) 29.3 474,850 545,864 71,014 114.9Sale of Publications 13 (58) (71) 446.1 90 107 17 118.8Recording Fees - 188 188 * - 188 188 *Animal Shelter Fees 587 417 (170) 71.0 7,000 5,431 (1,569) 77.5Inspection Fees 249 - (249) 0.0 2,900 3,136 236 108.1 * Unbudgeted revenue
2 Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- RVR213A CITY OF REDDING 12:13:15 7/25/2022 JUNE 4TH RUN 2/17/22 Finance Department MONTH OF JUNE 2022

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ACTUAL REVENUES

GENERAL FUNDCHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES
Fingerprint Fees 837 650 (187) 77.6 10,000 5,747 (4,253) 57.4Fire Permits & Fees 24,174 7,736 (16,438) 32.0 290,000 52,090 (237,910) 17.9DUI - Emergency Response 6,161 (1,845) (8,006) 29.9 73,800 70,434 (3,366) 95.4Swimming Pool Receipts 11,674 26,599 14,925 227.8 140,000 99,373 (40,627) 70.9RAC Swim Shop / Rental 2,837 3,481 644 122.7 34,000 5,075 (28,925) 14.9RAC Admission 9,174 28,938 19,764 315.4 110,000 33,252 (76,748) 30.2RAC Swim Team 924 - (924) 0.0 11,000 2,748 (8,252) 24.9Swimming Pool Concession 4,587 11,380 6,793 248.0 55,000 14,650 (40,350) 26.6Other Charges & Fees 1,761,040 3,416 (1,757,624) .1 1,871,040 1,792,916 (78,124) 95.8Recreation Sports 40,283 58,311 18,028 144.7 483,150 464,214 (18,936) 96.0Bad Debt Writeoff (8,123) (37,245) (29,122) 458.5 (97,300) (735,434) (638,134) 755.8 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Charges for Current Services 2,027,785 285,745 (1,742,040) 14.0 5,502,080 4,838,625 (663,455) 87.9 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ REVENUE FROM THE USE OF MONEY & PROPERTYRental - Land or Facility 42,438 104,898 62,460 247.1 509,190 438,667 (70,523) 86.1SHASCOM Base Rent - Police Portion 6,138 - (6,138) 0.0 73,480 77,283 3,803 105.1Investment Income 9,847 16,772 6,925 170.3 118,010 94,150 (23,860) 79.7Fiscal Agent Investment Income - - - * - 1 1 * ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Revenue - Use of Money & Property 58,423 121,670 63,247 208.2 700,680 610,101 (90,579) 87.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ TOTAL GENERAL FUND 9,121,428 20,002,360 10,880,932 219.2 110,759,610 110,899,656 140,046 100.1 =========== =========== =========== ===== =========== =========== =========== ===== RVR213A 12:13:15 7/25/2022 3 Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- Year End Budget Report
Section Two
Comparative Summary of Actual Revenues
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt RVR213B CITY OF REDDING 12:13:15 7/25/2022 JUNE 4TH RUN 2/17/22 Finance Department MONTH OF JUNE 2022

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ACTUAL REVENUES

GENERAL FUNDS
------------------ Budget Year -------------------
Budget Over ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ As Amended Actual (Under) %

GENERAL FUNDTAXES
Property Taxes 23,961,450 24,285,060 323,610 101.3Sales Tax-Nondedicated 31,982,570 32,088,786 106,216 100.3Transient Occupancy Tax 7,240,530 8,262,335 1,021,805 114.1Viacom Cablevision 912,360 883,096 (29,264) 96.7Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 336,650 354,815 18,165 105.3Business License Tax 875,000 899,507 24,507 102.8Real Property Transfer Tax 350,000 609,116 259,116 174.0Commercial Cultivation Cannabis 138,160 155,696 17,536 112.6Retail Cannabis Business Tax 1,750,000 2,042,568 292,568 116.7Other Commercial Cannabis Business Tax - 9,416 9,416 * ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Taxes 67,546,720 69,590,395 2,043,675 103.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ LICENSES AND PERMITSAnimal Licenses 40,000 49,345 9,345 123.3Building Permits 1,576,920 1,526,424 (50,496) 96.7Engineering Encroachment Permit 90,000 248,731 158,731 276.3Electical Permits 191,180 255,919 64,739 133.8Transportation Permit 9,300 8,127 (1,173) 87.3Plumbing Permits 106,400 101,430 (4,970) 95.3Mechanical Permit 189,800 236,211 46,411 124.4Engineering Grading Permits 10,000 20,327 10,327 203.2 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Licenses and Permits 2,213,600 2,446,514 232,914 110.5 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ FINES, FORFEITS, AND PENALTIESTraffic Safety Fines 928,590 906,364 (22,226) 97.6Code Enforcement Fines 146,000 760,532 614,532 520.9Other Fines & Fees 53,000 94,384 41,384 178.0Cannabis Delinquency Penalty - 13,231 13,231 * ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Fines, Forfeits & Penalties 1,127,590 1,774,511 646,921 157.3 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ REVENUE FROM INTERNAL DEPARTMENTSFixed Reimbursements 4,930,560 4,930,560 - 100.0Fixed Reimbursement Public Works Admin 890,880 890,880 - 100.0Fixed Reimbursement NDPES 449,970 449,970 - 100.0In-lieu Payment from 821--Muni Airport 235,000 235,000 - 100.0In-Lieu Payment from Division 854-Electric 5,464,000 5,464,000 - 100.0advances from internal department 1,022,100 1,340,345 318,245 131.1 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Revenue from Internal Departments 12,992,510 13,310,755 318,245 102.4 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ * Unbudgeted revenue 1 Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- RVR213B CITY OF REDDING 12:13:15 7/25/2022 JUNE 4TH RUN 2/17/22 Finance Department MONTH OF JUNE 2022

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ACTUAL REVENUES

GENERAL FUNDS
(continued)
------------------ Budget Year -------------------
Budget Over ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ As Amended Actual (Under) %

GENERAL FUNDREVENUE FROM OTHER GOVERMENTAL AGENCIES
State Grant Operating for General Gov't 875,690 45,197 (830,493) 5.1Federal Grant-Operating-General Gov't 15,050,610 13,631,085 (1,419,525) 90.5Shasta County Grant - Operating - Police 602,120 270,642 (331,478) 44.9SHASTA CO OPERATING REIMB-POLICE 60,000 31,821 (28,179) 53.0State Reimbursement - 13,251 13,251 *STATE LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OPERATING-POLICE 348,590 365,305 16,715 104.7Reimbursement of Mandated Costs 57,000 58,499 1,499 102.6POST Grant - Operating - Police 72,700 98,516 25,816 135.5Home Owner Property Tax Relief 153,000 145,031 (7,969) 94.7Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 45,000 105,954 60,954 235.4School District Contrib-Operating-Police 267,930 404,198 136,268 150.8Redding Rancheria Payment 119,510 119,509 (1) 99.9Contribution RABA - Operating - Police 25,000 25,000 - 100.0Buckeye Fire Service Dist-Operating-Fire - 5,000 5,000 *Buckeye Fire District - Capital - Fire 64,000 64,000 - 100.0SHASCOM - Payroll 25,000 23,256 (1,744) 93.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Revenue - Other Government Agencies 17,766,150 15,406,264 (2,359,886) 86.7 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ OTHER REVENUESLate Fees 1,700,000 1,386,837 (313,163) 81.5Contributions - Operating - General Gov't 347,210 345,774 (1,436) 99.5Developer Contributions 22,070 22,074 4 100.0Compensation - Loss & Property Damage - 28,795 28,795 *Miscellaneous Receipts 586,910 844,580 257,670 143.9Reimbursement 254,090 294,431 40,341 115.8 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Other Revenues 2,910,280 2,922,491 12,211 100.4 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICESPlanning Permits (Subdivisions) 442,470 566,840 124,370 128.1Building Plan - Record Fees 18,460 21,899 3,439 118.6Building Plan - Check Fees 553,450 731,528 178,078 132.1Fees for Outside Plan Checks 25,560 25,565 5 100.0Plan Check Fees - Fire Department 75,000 95,536 20,536 127.3Engineering Land Development Fees 800,000 807,806 7,806 100.9Technology Surcharge 121,610 229,660 108,050 188.8Cannabis Application & Permit Fees 474,850 545,864 71,014 114.9Sale of Publications 90 107 17 118.8Recording Fees - 188 188 *Animal Shelter Fees 7,000 5,431 (1,569) 77.5Inspection Fees 2,900 3,136 236 108.1 * Unbudgeted revenue
2 Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- RVR213B CITY OF REDDING 12:13:15 7/25/2022 JUNE 4TH RUN 2/17/22 Finance Department MONTH OF JUNE 2022

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ACTUAL REVENUES

GENERAL FUNDS
(continued)
------------------ Budget Year -------------------
Budget Over ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ As Amended Actual (Under) %

GENERAL FUNDCHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES
Fingerprint Fees 10,000 5,747 (4,253) 57.4Fire Permits & Fees 290,000 52,090 (237,910) 17.9DUI - Emergency Response 73,800 70,434 (3,366) 95.4Swimming Pool Receipts 140,000 99,373 (40,627) 70.9RAC Swim Shop / Rental 34,000 5,075 (28,925) 14.9RAC Admission 110,000 33,252 (76,748) 30.2RAC Swim Team 11,000 2,748 (8,252) 24.9Swimming Pool Concession 55,000 14,650 (40,350) 26.6Other Charges & Fees 1,871,040 1,792,916 (78,124) 95.8Recreation Sports 483,150 464,214 (18,936) 96.0Bad Debt Writeoff (97,300) (735,434) (638,134) 755.8 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Charges for Current Services 5,502,080 4,838,625 (663,455) 87.9 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ REVENUE FROM THE USE OF MONEY & PROPERTYRental - Land or Facility 509,190 438,667 (70,523) 86.1SHASCOM Base Rent - Police Portion 73,480 77,283 3,803 105.1Investment Income 118,010 94,150 (23,860) 79.7Fiscal Agent Investment Income - 1 1 * ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total Revenue - Use of Money & Property 700,680 610,101 (90,579) 87.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ TOTAL GENERAL FUND 110,759,610 110,899,656 140,046 100.1 =========== =========== =========== ===== RVR213B 12:13:15 7/25/2022 3 Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)-- Year End Budget Report
Section Three
Actual Expenditures Compared to Cash Flow Estimates
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt EXR214 CITY OF REDDING 12:12:26 7/25/2022 JUNE 4TH RUN 2/17/22 Finance Department MONTH OF JUNE 2022
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO CASH FLOW ESTIMATES PAGE 1 GENERAL FUND ----------------- Current Month ------------------ ------------------ Year to Date ------------------ Monthly Over YTD Over
___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Projection Actual (Under) % Projection Actual (Under) % CITY COUNCIL 14,485 16,198 1,713 111.8 165,050 175,092 10,042 106.0 CITY CLERK 75,749 61,057 (14,692) 80.6 916,320 899,840 (16,480) 98.2 CITY MANAGER 120,086 26,643 (93,443) 22.1 1,360,430 1,055,493 (304,937) 77.5 CITY TREASURER 61,942 67,475 5,533 108.9 706,300 678,190 (28,110) 96.0 CITY ATTORNEY 34,110 (2,503) (36,613) 7.3 361,600 386,535 24,935 106.8 CODE ENFORCEMENT 75,793 184,692 108,899 243.6 907,240 750,740 (156,500) 82.7 FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING 134,639 (54,202) (188,841) 40.2 1,598,850 1,517,001 (81,849) 94.8 NON DEPARTMENTAL 492,654 2,112,703 1,620,049 428.8 9,453,710 3,226,367 (6,227,343) 34.1 PURCHASING 54,984 54,649 (335) 99.3 631,350 586,418 (44,932) 92.8 PERSONNEL 50,610 (15,272) (65,882) 30.1 580,470 575,779 (4,691) 99.1 PERMIT CENTER 66,397 (1,928) (68,325) 2.9 761,950 734,036 (27,914) 96.3 BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT 287,170 74,290 (212,880) 25.8 2,717,270 2,020,653 (696,617) 74.3 PLANNING 254,168 129,359 (124,809) 50.8 2,842,900 1,665,383 (1,177,517) 58.5 POLICE - ADMINISTRATION 275,989 265,094 (10,895) 96.0 3,316,640 3,167,702 (148,938) 95.5 POLICE - FIELD OPERATIONS 2,692,278 2,604,861 (87,417) 96.7 29,853,970 25,992,852 (3,861,118) 87.0 POLICE - INVESTIGATIONS 502,829 510,082 7,253 101.4 4,953,200 5,268,309 315,109 106.3 POLICE - SERVICES DIVISION 334,625 225,784 (108,841) 67.4 4,503,320 4,111,673 (391,647) 91.3 POLICE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STAFF 2,801 (31,257) (34,058) 115.9 (19,770) - 19,770 0.0 POLICE GRANTS 384,339 481,725 97,386 125.3 2,252,290 1,141,681 (1,110,609) 50.6 ANIMAL REGULATION 75,041 78,181 3,140 104.1 886,750 891,917 5,167 100.5 FIRE - ADMINISTRATION 163,527 131,666 (31,861) 80.5 1,824,270 1,701,520 (122,750) 93.2 FIRE - SUPPRESSION 3,859,368 1,678,906 (2,180,462) 43.5 23,482,900 23,244,072 (238,828) 98.9 FIRE - PREVENTION 94,234 104,919 10,685 111.3 1,160,950 1,099,650 (61,300) 94.7 PUBLIC WORKS-ENGINEERING 174,983 118,476 (56,507) 67.7 1,633,450 1,074,361 (559,089) 65.7 ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 17,303 67,570 50,267 390.5 908,060 638,129 (269,931) 70.2 TRANSPORTATION/ENGINEERING 1,119 (69,138) (70,257) 178.5 (8,990) - 8,990 0.0 STREETS-GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 618,908 476,473 (142,435) 76.9 4,779,930 3,850,537 (929,393) 80.5 STREETS-CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL OUTLAY 582,973 1,506,251 923,278 258.3 13,593,077 3,948,388 (9,644,689) 29.0 PARKS 560,159 366,216 (193,943) 65.3 9,572,205 4,093,290 (5,478,915) 42.7 RECREATION 241,382 336,436 95,054 139.3 2,743,500 1,966,707 (776,793) 71.6 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION 59,864 65,991 6,127 110.2 707,380 713,250 5,870 100.8 MIDTOWN MALL 1,126 268 (858) 23.8 16,980 3,512 (13,468) 20.6 GENERAL FUND DEBT SERVICE 712 - (712) 0.0 2,638,180 2,634,155 (4,025) 99.8 ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ ___________ ___________ ___________ _____ Total - General Government 12,366,347 11,571,665 (794,682) 93.5 131,801,732 99,813,232 (31,988,500) 75.7 =========== =========== =========== ===== =========== =========== =========== ===== EXR214 12:12:26 7/25/2022
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Year End Budget Report
Section Four
Actual Expenditures Compared to Budget
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt EXR58 CITY OF REDDING 12:12:49 7/25/22 JUNE 4TH RUN 2/17/22 Finance Department MONTH OF JUNE 2022
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET PAGE 1

GENERAL FUND
Budget Prior Year Current Year-to-Date Encumbrances Unencumbered % ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ _________ As Amended Appropriations Expenditures Expenditures Outstanding Balance Obligated CITY COUNCIL 165,050.00 - 16,198.36 175,091.50 - ( 10,041.50) 106.0 CITY CLERK 906,340.00 9,980.00 61,057.41 899,839.96 3,337.81 13,142.23 98.5 CITY MANAGER 1,352,010.00 8,420.00 26,643.01 1,055,492.68 767.12 304,170.20 77.6 CITY TREASURER 702,290.00 4,010.00 67,474.76 678,189.79 - 28,110.21 96.0 CITY ATTORNEY 356,180.00 5,420.00 ( 2,503.11) 386,535.34 - ( 24,935.34) 106.8 CODE ENFORCEMENT 870,700.00 36,540.00 184,691.73 750,739.82 - 156,500.18 82.7 FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING 1,514,470.00 84,380.00 ( 54,201.54) 1,517,001.38 19,197.87 62,650.75 96.0 NON DEPARTMENTAL 9,248,350.00 205,360.00 2,112,702.64 3,226,367.14 489,783.21 5,737,559.65 39.3 PURCHASING 624,620.00 6,730.00 54,649.47 586,418.17 - 44,931.83 92.8 PERSONNEL 580,390.00 80.00 ( 15,271.91) 575,779.34 - 4,690.66 99.1 PERMIT CENTER 749,340.00 12,610.00 ( 1,927.85) 734,036.33 - 27,913.67 96.3 BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT 2,594,110.00 123,160.00 74,289.77 2,020,653.09 48,102.30 648,514.61 76.1 PLANNING 2,684,700.00 158,200.00 129,358.83 1,665,383.48 410,999.64 766,516.88 73.0 POLICE-ADMINISTRATION 3,158,230.00 158,410.00 265,093.90 3,167,702.45 120,940.91 27,996.64 99.1 POLICE-FIELD OPERATIONS 29,681,970.00 172,000.00 2,604,860.52 25,992,852.27 258,988.95 3,602,128.78 87.9 POLICE-INVESTIGATIONS 4,952,290.00 910.00 510,081.57 5,268,309.11 55,952.55 ( 371,061.66) 107.4 POLICE-SERVICES DIVISION 4,496,770.00 6,550.00 225,784.26 4,111,672.84 938.95 390,708.21 91.3 POLICE I/T STAFF ( 19,770.00) - ( 31,257.40) - - ( 19,770.00) 0.0 POLICE GRANTS 2,039,260.00 213,030.00 481,724.89 1,141,681.04 261,227.02 849,381.94 62.2 ANIMAL REGULATION 886,750.00 - 78,181.44 891,916.55 69,150.12 ( 74,316.67) 108.3 FIRE-ADMINISTRATION 1,818,160.00 6,110.00 131,666.45 1,701,520.00 5,394.58 117,355.42 93.5 FIRE-SUPPRESSION 23,235,330.00 247,570.00 1,678,906.12 23,244,072.04 324,712.17 ( 85,884.21) 100.3 FIRE-PREVENTION 1,139,440.00 21,510.00 104,918.95 1,099,650.19 22,646.84 38,652.97 96.6 P/W-ENGINEERING 1,504,060.00 129,390.00 118,475.53 1,074,361.48 76,641.56 482,446.96 70.4 ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 907,350.00 710.00 67,570.10 638,129.23 344.00 269,586.77 70.3 TRANSPORTATION/ENGINEERING ( 8,990.00) - ( 69,138.11) - - ( 8,990.00) 0.0 STREETS - GENERAL & ADM 4,764,650.00 15,280.00 476,472.79 3,850,537.47 502,569.17 426,823.36 91.0 STREETS - CONSTRUCTION 5,583,600.00 8,009,477.00 1,506,250.91 3,948,387.58 6,885,878.40 2,758,811.02 79.7 PARKS 8,501,270.00 1,070,935.00 366,215.54 4,093,290.09 970,031.40 4,508,883.51 52.8 RECREATION 2,720,610.00 22,890.00 336,436.39 1,966,707.45 21,372.97 755,419.58 72.4 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN DIV. 623,800.00 83,580.00 65,990.99 713,249.63 - ( 5,869.63) 100.8 MIDTOWN MALL 13,380.00 3,600.00 268.13 3,512.49 - 13,467.51 20.6 GENERAL FUND DEBT SERVICE 2,638,180.00 - - 2,634,154.54 - 4,025.46 99.8 ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ _____ Total - General Government 120,984,890.00 10,816,842.00 11,571,664.54 99,813,234.47 10,548,977.54 21,439,519.99 83.7 ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== ===== EXR58 12:12:49 7/25/22
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt

GENERAL FUND TEN YEAR PLAN
Updated August 2022 (Mid Cycle)
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt Amended Amended
21-22 22-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27
Beginning Cash Balance 19,300 15,754 16,152 15,332 15,688 14,615 Revenues 103,021 94,104 96,664 99,551 102,540 105,607
Net Transfers 2,917 6,332 3,668 3,936 4,020 4,140
Total Revenues 105,938 100,437 100,332 103,487 106,559 109,747 Personnel Costs (65,161) (69,778) (72,791) (74,258) (77,077) (78,508) Operating Costs (21,438) (20,883) (21,350) (21,991) (22,650) (23,330) Capital Outlay (22,279) (8,543) (6,415) (6,507) (7,647) (8,932) Debt Service (2,630) (2,613) (2,118) (1,957) (1,965) (1,318) Savings 2,023 1,778 1,522 1,582 1,707 1,774
Net Expenditures (109,484) (100,039) (101,152) (103,131) (107,633) (110,313) Ending Cash Balance 15,754 16,152 15,332 15,688 14,615 14,049 Projections toward Council Objectives
Ending Cash as Percentage of
Expenditures 14.4% 16.1% 15.2% 15.2% 13.6% 12.7%
Projected Personnel Percentage 58.4% 68.5% 70.9% 70.9% 70.5% 70.0% Fiscal Year
City of Redding
General Fund Ten Year Plan (in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ending 2022 & 2023
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32
Projected Cash Balance 14,049 11,565 11,642 11,955 12,309 Projected Revenues 108,775 112,024 115,400 118,884 122,478 Projected Net Transfers 4,264 4,392 4,524 4,660 4,800
Total Projected Revenues 113,040 116,416 119,924 123,544 127,277 Projected Personnel Costs (82,313) (83,346) (85,708) (88,251) (90,471) Projected Operating Costs (26,580) (26,151) (26,893) (27,758) (29,096) Projected Operating Costs (7,200) (7,416) (7,638) (7,867) (8,103) Projected Debt Service (1,314) (1,313) (1,310) (1,309) (1,311) Projected Savings 1,884 1,886 1,938 1,996 2,073
Net Projected Expenditures (115,523) (116,340) (119,611) (123,190) (126,909) Projected Ending Cash 11,565 11,642 11,955 12,309 12,678 Projections toward Council Objectives
Ending Cash as Percentage of
Expenditures 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Projected Personnel Percentage 70.1% 70.5% 70.5% 70.5% 70.1% Fiscal Year
City of Redding
General Fund Ten Year Plan (in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ending 2022 & 2023
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Mid Cycle Budget Update including charts and graphs for FY 2021-22 & FY 2022-23 (9.10(a)--Mid Cycle Budget Report and Adopt

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept the Report of the City Attorney relative to the ruling made by the Court in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding (Shasta County Case No. 195500).

Fiscal Impact
Receiving the report will have no fiscal impact.

Alternative Action
There is no alternative action. This report is made in response to direction from the City Council (Council).

Background/Analysis
On May 19, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-055, which had the effect of declaring certain property located at the southern terminus of Bechelli Lane (the “Property”) as exempt surplus property pursuant to the Surplus Property Act (Gov. Code section 54220 et seq.).

On May 19, 2020, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2020-057 which vacated the right-of-way for the property pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8334. The aforementioned acts were challenged in the case of Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding (Shasta County Case No. 195500) filed on July 30, 2020.

As a matter of first importance, it is necessary to understand the case in its proper context. This case was not about whether the decision to sell the property was unlawful. The Plaintiff did not make such an allegation, the Court was not asked to make such a determination, and the Court did not conclude that the decision to sell the property was unlawful. The case was about the process used to sell the property, not the underlying decision to sell.

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.14(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.14(a)--Consider Report of the City Attorney regarding the ruling of the Shasta Superior Court (Court) in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding litigation.

Barry DeWalt, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 349
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Report of the City Attorney on Ruling of the Court in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding Page 2
The case was resolved based on the procedural defects alleged by the Plaintiff and the Court’s conclusions relating to the alleged procedural defects. The Plaintiff’s petition had three causes of action. The first is that the City of Redding (City) failed to abandon the property at issue in accordance with the law. The second was that the City failed to comply with the Surplus Land Act. The last was that the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Court concluded in favor of the Plaintiff on these causes of action. Each is described in turn.

Streets & Highways Code (Vacation Law)
The Plaintiff began its analysis with a critique of a legal analysis provided by City staff as to whether the property could be vacated pursuant to the Summary Vacation Law. Unlike the more robust body of law (the “General Vacation Law”) requiring a public hearing, the Summary Vacation Law permits a city to vacate and abandon property without public hearing if certain findings can be made. Staff concluded that the property could be abandoned by means of the Summary Vacation Law if it is determined to be excess and not required for street or highway purposes.

The Plaintiff was critical of the use of Summary Vacation Law because it limited notice and opportunity to be heard. In contrast to the Summary Vacation procedure, the General Vacation Law requires the setting of a public hearing, notice of the hearing in the local newspaper, and posting at the site. The General Vacation Law would not have required personal notice to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff made a technical argument that Streets & Highways Code section 8334(a) provides that a legislative body can only vacate excess right-of-way of a street if such right-of-way is not required for street or highway purposes. In contrast to the ability to vacate right-of-way with this legislative finding, the Plaintiff argued that a street (as compared to right-of-way) can only be vacated if “it lies within property under one ownership and does not continue through such ownership or end touching the property of another.” The Plaintiff’s argument follows that the City actually vacated a street section and not right-of-way, and, as a consequence, the legislative determination that it was no longer required for street or highway purposes does not apply. Per the Plaintiff, that standard applies only to right-of-way. Additionally, the Plaintiff argued that the record, and specifically the resolution vacating the Property, does not demonstrate any evidence that the Property was no longer necessary for street or highway purposes.

In rebuttal, the City argued that, notwithstanding the legal means to vacate right-of-way, the Plaintiff retains “abutter’s rights,” which are rights separate and apart from the right of the general public in the street. Effectively, this means that the Plaintiff retains a right to access the public street even if it has been vacated according to law. Put another way, the Plaintiff retains a private easement for access to the public street. The City argued that whether a street is no longer necessary for public use is a legislative determination. It was further argued that the record is clear that the property was unnecessary for public use. The area beyond the terminus of South Bechelli has never been used by the public. It is located at a dead end, and it is gated.

Additionally, the City argued that the right-of-way was unnecessary for future public use, as compared to private use by the Plaintiff and its invitees.

Packet Pg. 350
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Report of the City Attorney on Ruling of the Court in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding Page 3
The City further argued that the distinction between right-of-way and street made by the Plaintiff is not supported by the definition of “street” which includes “all or any part of, or any right in” a public road. In essence, the argument is that a “street” and a “right-of-way” are one and the same. As such, the City did use the correct legal standard of “no longer necessary for public use.”
The Court found that “street” and “right-of-way” are not the same thing. As such, the legal standard that the City needed to establish was that the property qualified as “excess right-of-way of a street or portion of street that lies within property under one ownership and that does not continue through such ownership or end touching property of another.” The Court concluded that the Property does not satisfy these requirements. It does not lie under one ownership because it abuts both the Plaintiff’s property and that of real party in interest, Shasta Land Holdings. In essence, the Court concluded that the City used the wrong legal standard and, as a result, the Summary Vacation Law was not available to it.

The Plaintiff further argued that the City did not follow its own processes. More particularly, it alleged that the application form used by the City was vague and incomplete. Further, the Plaintiff argued that there was obvious haste in considering the application because the City’s own application materials advised that it can take 10-12 weeks to complete the process and, per the Plaintiff, this process was completed in three (3) days.

The Court concluded that the City did not follow its own procedures set in place for applications by a private party for property to be vacated. The flier that the City provides to prospective applicants includes an obligation for the City to consider whether the street is needed for present or future public purposes. A bit of explanation is pertinent here. The Summary Vacation Law that the City relied upon requires a finding that the street is “no longer necessary for public use.” Put another way, it suggests a current analysis of whether it is needed for public use rather than whether it may be necessary for future public purposes.

However, the flier appears to impose the additional requirement to consider future use. Given this additional requirement imposed by the City’s processes for application for vacation of a street, the Court ruled that there was significant future use anticipated by the public due to the potential for a casino. As such, the property could not be considered excess by definition under the City’s own processes. Additionally, the Court noted that the City’s own process requires that, for property to be eligible for summary vacation, the street must have been impassable for vehicular travel for five consecutive years and no public money was expended for maintenance of the street during such period. The Court noted that the administrative record was absent from any such factual findings.

Having addressed the above, it is important to identify lessons to be learned. Going forward, in all cases where a street is to be vacated, staff has been directed to not use the Summary Vacation Law. The City is very familiar with the General Vacation Law, and its implementation in cases where the City owns the underlying fee title to real property has been used in the past. Staff will simply ensure that it is used in all such cases going forward. Consistency in approach is preferable.

Packet Pg. 351
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Report of the City Attorney on Ruling of the Court in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding Page 4
With regard to the issue of the City’s own internal policies which the Court concluded were not followed, the simple fix is to not impose requirements on a form which go beyond the requirements of state law. Generally, when a Court makes a determination that a city has not followed its own processes, such processes are adopted by a City Council or the chief executive.

It appears very unusual that a court would conclude that the contents of an application form composed by staff at the lowest levels of City government should be considered an official policy of the City. Additionally, it has been explained by staff that the form is used for informational purposes only. It is not, and has never been considered, as imposing additional legal standards on applicants. Because it is intended as informational for the use of staff, the form was used in this instance for that sole purpose. Additionally, staff has explained that the form is used even in situations where abandonment of the right-of-way is City initiated. In such cases, if there is a private party that is benefited, only portions of the form are filled out. Once again, this is for the purpose of gathering information from persons who have information.

Notwithstanding, the lesson learned here is to draft forms for use by the community so that it is clear that it is informational only rather than an application which contains legal standards that must be satisfied. Put another way, if the form is informational and there to assist staff, it should be entitled as such. This would eliminate any appearance that the City is attempting to impose legal standards in excess of state law. The forms used should reflect its actual purpose. This direction has been communicated to staff.

Surplus Land Act
Plaintiff argued that the City violated the Surplus Land Act in two respects. First, it argued that the property was not exempt surplus, by definition. Secondly, it argued that the City took action to dispose of the property before making an exempt surplus finding.

The first argument that the property was not exempt surplus is based on the definition of “exempt surplus land.” Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(E) defined “exempt surplus” to include “surplus land that is a former street, right-of-way, or easement conveyed to an owner of adjacent property.” Here the Plaintiff argued that the property was not a “former street.” This is because the process of vacating property is not effective until a certified copy of a resolution of street vacation has been recorded. In this case, the resolution to vacate the property and then declare it “exempt surplus” occurred at one meeting. As such, the resolution vacating the street could not have been recorded prior to taking action to declare the property “exempt surplus.” This is a sound argument.

In response to this argument, and the one discussed below, the City alleged that the Plaintiff was barred from arguing violations of the Surplus Land Act based on its failure to “exhaust administrative remedies.” Generally, the law requires that any person alleging a deficiency in the law by an act of a legislative body must exhaust administrative remedies. This means that a plaintiff must appear before the Council and inform the Council of the legal deficiencies of its proposed action. This permits the City to consider the argument and, if it is found to have merit, correct its course prior to taking action. Failure to do so bars a lawsuit on this basis.

Packet Pg. 352
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Report of the City Attorney on Ruling of the Court in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding Page 5
The resolution to declare the property “exempt surplus” was properly agendized. The Plaintiff did not argue that it was not. Unfortunately, the Court did not address this argument at all. As such, it is unclear whether the Court would find that the Plaintiff was excused from the obligation to exhaust administrative remedies or whether the lack of analysis on the subject was merely an unintended omission.

The City further argued that remedies for violations of the Surplus Land Act are with the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (“HCD”). HCD has the authority to enforce the Surplus Land Act. It took no enforcement action in this case. However, the Court noted that the Surplus Land Act also provides that the remedies made available to HCD do not bar other remedies authorized under law to enforce the Surplus Land Act. Although it is unclear whether a housing provider (like the Plaintiff) has standing in a situation where the property at issue would not support the construction of even one affordable home, the Court’s general conclusion is reasonable.

The main focus of the Plaintiff’s argument and the Court’s conclusion, as they relate to the Surplus Land Act, was based on the prohibition against negotiation prior to declaring property surplus or exempt surplus. The facts support this conclusion.

It is important to note here that the prohibition against negotiation prior to declaring property surplus or exempt surplus was made law only a few weeks before the City was approached with the idea of selling the property in January, 2020. The HCD did not issue final guidelines interpreting the Surplus Land Act until April, 2021. As such, the City did not have the benefit of administrative guidelines.

The Guidelines would have been helpful in this situation in addressing confusion about the application of the Surplus Land Act. To further the point, there is a seeming contradiction in the Surplus Land Act itself. Government Code section 54222.3 provides, in pertinent part, that “This article (the Surplus Land Act) shall not apply to the disposal of exempt surplus land, as defined in Section 54221 by … any local agency.”
In contrast, Government Code section 54221 provides, in pertinent part, that “Land shall be declared either ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land’ … before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedure.” In essence, does the Surplus Land Act apply to property determined to be “exempt surplus land” or does it not? One statute reads “Yes” and the other “No.” The Court ruled that the prohibition against negotiation prior to a declaration of “exempt surplus” holds and that the City was in violation of this prohibition.

This conclusion is reasonable. This is because the final HCD Guidelines issued fifteen (15) months after the City was first approached to sell the property support the conclusion. In conversations with HCD at the staff level, we have learned that even HCD is struggling with interpreting the Surplus Land Act. Should it apply in situations, like this, where there is no possibility that the purposes of the Surplus Land Act are furthered (i.e., where the parcel is so small that no affordable housing could be constructed)? Packet Pg. 353
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Report of the City Attorney on Ruling of the Court in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding Page 6
As for lessons learned relating to the Surplus Land Act, we have grown in understanding of the Surplus Land Act as we now have had multiple occasions to apply the law in this area. Most, if not all, of our learning has resulted from direct discussions at the staff level with HCD and analysis and use of HCD’s Final Guidelines; and not all of the learning has been necessarily a direct result of this case. Through those discussions, our determination has been to apply the law strictly. When in doubt, err on the side of a conservative application of the law. We have done so, for example, in the discussions relating to the use of the Riverfront Property. As such, if staff is approached with an idea to sell property that has not yet been made surplus or exempt surplus, no negotiable response is made to the offer other than that the property at issue must first be determined surplus or exempt surplus.

California Environmental Quality Act
Plaintiff advanced a couple of arguments related to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). First, the Plaintiff argued that the Categorical Exemption used for the resolution to vacate the property was inapplicable. It applies to land use limitations. I believe that is a sound argument.

With regard to the Categorical Exemption for the resolution to declare the property exempt surplus, the Plaintiff argued that this Categorical Exemption, though typically applicable in cases like this, was defeated by the “unusual circumstances” exception. This argument is also applicable to the Categorical Exemption relating to land use limitations addressed above.

The City argued case law that stands for the proposition that the sale of property is not a “project” and therefore not within the scope of CEQA. The Court determined that there were not findings in the record to establish the Categorical Exemptions. Perhaps of more practical importance, the Court concluded that the “unusual circumstances” exception applies thereby forbidding the use of any Categorical Exemption. In so doing, Court cited a well-known case, Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086.

This case establishes that the burden of proof in establishing “unusual circumstances” lies with the party advancing the case that there are indeed unusual circumstances. Notable in the section of the opinion cited by the Court, the Court concluded that a potentially significant environmental effect does not by itself constitute “unusual circumstances.” The Court reasoned that “it is not enough for a challenger merely to provide substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment” and that “such a showing is inadequate to overcome the Secretary’s determination that the typical effects of a project within an exempt class are not significant for CEQA purposes.” Put more plainly, the Categorical Exemptions are there for a reason, and they represent a conclusive determination that the class of activity is “exempt” because the Secretary has determined that they do not have a significant effect on the environment.

This being the case, a party advancing the “unusual exception” argument can advance the argument if the project “has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location.” As applied in our case, what is it about this particular property that makes it different from other similarly situated properties? The Court concluded that this property is different from other similarly situated properties due to its location. As noted by the Court, it appears “at the hub of three known future developments.” The Court cited the City’s Packet Pg. 354
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Report of the City Attorney on Ruling of the Court in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding Page 7
analysis of the Plaintiff’s own Environmental Impact Statement for its proposed casino project as representative of potential significant impacts to the environment.

In Berkeley Hillside, the Supreme Court concluded that the mere fact that a potentially significant environmental effect on the environment may result is not, by itself, sufficient to trigger the “unusual circumstances” exception. If it were the law that a mere finding that a significant impact would occur, then the Categorical Exemption would be meaningless.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Legislature has established a class of categorical exemptions that are exempt from CEQA, “notwithstanding the potential effect on the environment.” To bar the use of a Categorical Exemption merely on the basis that there may be a significant impact occasioned by the project “would render useless and unnecessary the statutes the Legislature passed to identify and make exempt classes.” The bottom line is that there must be something about the “unusual circumstance” that itself causes a significant effect on the environment. The Berkeley Hillside case is, admittedly, difficult to apply. CEQA practitioners frequently struggle with the case. The Court did as well but in a way that simply provides that the property is located in a hub area of three projects and there may be a potentially significant environmental impact that may occur. However, looking at the property itself, it would not appear to have any unusual characteristic that sets it apart from other properties which may be proximate to other commercial development.

Notwithstanding, the practical import of this conclusion is that it really did not matter what Categorical Exemption the City used for both the resolution vacating the property and the resolution declaring the property “exempt surplus.” Ultimately, the Court concluded that there were unusual circumstances present due to the location of the property at issue.

In dealing with this aspect of the ruling, what lessons are learned? By its very nature, the analysis about “unusual circumstances” is fact and case specific. Put another way, the facts of this case do not lend to a consistent application of the “unusual circumstances” exception to use of a Categorical Exemption in other situations because the facts will present differently. However, this does not mean that staff cannot improve its processes. First, the City Attorney has provided CEQA training to staff in an effort to redouble its focus on assessing the environmental implications of matters that come before the City Council on an agenda. This training focuses on how to assess environmental impacts, general familiarity with Categorical Exemptions, and how it may be applied and supported in the record with findings. This includes direction to staff as to how to flag situations in which “unusual circumstances” may exist.

CONCLUDING MATTERS
Having concluded my recitation of the positions of the Parties and the Court’s conclusions, this memorandum will briefly summarize the conclusion of this litigation. After the Court issued its initial ruling on the merits of the case on May 17, 2022, as described above, the Court required the Parties to brief two issues. The first is whether the contract for the purchase of the property at issue should be rescinded. The second was whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs of suit.

When a final determination by the Court on these issues was still pending, on September 6, 2022, the City Council determined that it would rescind the real property purchase and sale agreement.

The real party in interest (Shasta Land Holdings, LLC) concurred in this result. Additionally, the Packet Pg. 355
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Report of the City Attorney on Ruling of the Court in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding Page 8
City Attorney was directed to return at the regular meeting of the City Council on September 20, 2022, with a resolution which would rescind the resolutions which vacated the right-of-way and declared the property exempt surplus property.

In advance of the Council’s opportunity to take action on September 20, 2022, the Court issued its Final Ruling and Issuance of Writ on September 12, 2022. The Final Ruling directed that the real property transaction be rescinded. It additionally directed that the resolutions which vacated the right-of-way and declared the property exempt surplus property be rescinded. Lastly, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney fees is denied and that its request for costs of suit is granted. Costs of suit are generally those costs associated with the filing of the lawsuit (i.e., filing fees).

Environmental Review
The presentation of this report is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Communication and Transparency – “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
Packet Pg. 356

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution to rescind Resolution Nos. 2020-055 and 2020-057 in compliance with a Court order issued on May 17, 2022, in Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding (Shasta County Case No. 195500); and direct the City Attorney to undertake all necessary actions to report the adoption of the proposed resolution to the Shasta County Superior Court.

Fiscal Impact
Adoption of the proposed Resolution will have no fiscal impact.

Alternative Action
Although the City Council (Council) directed that the proposed action be accomplished in advance of the Court’s final ruling, the Court has now issued its final ruling. As such, there is no alternative action.

Background/Analysis
On May 19, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-055, which had the effect of declaring certain property, located at the southern terminus of Bechelli Lane (the “Property”), as exempt surplus property pursuant to the Surplus Property Act (Gov. Code section 54220 et seq.).

On May 19, 2020, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2020-057 which vacated the right-of-way for the property pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8334.

The aforementioned acts were challenged in the case of Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding (Shasta County Case No. 195500) filed on July 30, 2020. By Order of the Court dated May 17, 2022, the Court declared that substantial evidence did not support the adoption of both resolutions. On September 12, 2022, the Court issued its final ruling ordering that the underlying real property transaction be rescinded and that the aforementioned resolutions be rescinded.

MEETING DATE: September 20, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.14(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.14(b)--Consider Resolution to rescind two Resolutions previously adopted in 2020.

Barry DeWalt, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 357
Report to Redding City Council September 14, 2022
Re: 9.14(b)--Adopt Resolution to Rescind Resolutions in Compliance with Court Order Page 2 The City Council, at its special meeting on September 6, 2022, directed the City Attorney to take all necessary actions to rescind the real property transaction with Shasta Land Holdings.

Direction was provided at the same meeting to return to the City Council at its regular meeting on September 20, 2022, with a resolution which rescinds the resolutions vacating the right-ofway and declaring the subject property as exempt surplus property.

However, the Court has now made its final ruling directing that the approvals represented by Resolution Nos. 2020-055 and 2020-057 be rescinded. Adoption of the proposed resolution will return the property to the status quo existing before Resolution Nos. 2020-055 and 2020-057 were adopted. It will comply with the Court final order issued on September 12, 2022.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 2020-055 AND 2020-057 THEREBY

RETURNING THE EFFECTED PROPERTY TO ITS STATUS QUO ANTE
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2020, the City Council of the City of Redding adopted Resolution No. 2020-055, which had the effect of declaring certain property, described by legal description in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein, as exempt surplus property pursuant to the Surplus Property Act (Gov. Code section 54220 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2020, the City Council of the City of Redding adopted Resolution No. 2020-057, which had the effect of declaring the right-of-way described in Exhibit A as vacated pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8334; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned acts of the City Council were challenged in the case of Redding Rancheria v. City of Redding (Shasta County Case No. 195500) filed on July 30, 2020; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, the Honorable Judge Tamara L. Wood issued a ruling (the “Order”) declaring that that substantial evidence did not support the adoption of the aforementioned resolutions and that a writ of mandate is granted; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2022, the Honorable Judge Tamara L. Wood issued a final ruling ordering that the City Council void and set aside its decisions in summarily vacating the right-ofway addressed in Resolution No. 2020-057 and declaring the underlying fee title of the real property as exempt surplus land in Resolution No. 2020-055.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:

1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. Resolution Nos. 2020-055 and 2020-057 are hereby rescinded and shall have no force or effect.

3. The property described in Exhibit A is hereby returned to the status quo existing prior to the adoption of Resolution Nos. 2020-055 and 2020-057.

4. The City Attorney is authorized to take all actions necessary to inform the Court of the adoption of this Resolution and to comply with Court directives accordingly.

5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.

Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: ^Resolution (9.14(b)--Adopt Resolution to Rescind Resolutions in Compliance with Court Order) 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 20th day of September, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: ^Resolution (9.14(b)--Adopt Resolution to Rescind Resolutions in Compliance with Court Order) Packet Pg. 361
Attachment: ^Exhibit A to Resolution (9.14(b)--Adopt Resolution to Rescind Resolutions in Compliance with Court Order)

Redding City CouncilSeptember 20, 2022

Redding City Council
September 20, 2022