Agenda — Susanville City Council, December 4, 2024

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (Additions and/or Deletions)

2. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (if any): No closed session.

3. CLOSED SESSION: No business.

4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION:

Reconvene in open session at 5:00pm
Pledge of allegiance
Invocation
Report any changes to agenda
Report any action out of Closed Session
Proclamations, awards or presentations by the City Council

5. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR: Any person may address the Council at this time upon any subject on the agenda or not on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the City Council. However, comments on items on the agenda may be reserved until the item is discussed and any matter not on the agenda that requires action will be referred to staff for a report and action at a subsequent meeting.

Presentations are subject to a five-minute limit.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council. There will be no separate discussion on these items. Any member of the public or the City Council may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar to be considered separately.

6.A Minutes of the City Council November 19, 2024 special meeting and the November 20, 2024 regular meeting.

6.B Vendor and payroll warrants

6.C Utility Accounts Receivable Write-Offs.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: No business.

8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/ANNOUNCEMENTS:

9. NEW BUSINESS:

CITY OF SUSANVILLE
66 N. Lassen Street • Susanville CA
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
Russ Brown, Mayor pro tem
Dawn Miller • Patrick Parrish • Curtis Bortle
Susanville City Council
Regular Council Meeting • City Council Chambers
Wednesday, December 4, 2024 – 5:00 PM
MEETING TO BEGIN AT 5:00PM DUE TO NO CLOSED SESSION
1 9.A Consider Resolution No. 24-6384,Â approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute agreement with Lance and Patricia Monath for the encroachment of ADA accessible ramp into North Alley.

9.B Consider Resolution No. 24-6387, approving the 2025 through 2030 Airport Capital Improvement Plan.

9.C Consider waiving the first reading and introducing Ordinance No. 24-1047, temporarily suspending Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.32 of the Susanville Municipal Code - Public Facilities Impact Fee for a period of five years.

9.D Consider accepting Honey Lake Valley Recreation Authority amendment letter from the HLVRA Board and discussion regarding changes that Council may wish to make to the joint powers agreement and give direction to staff.

10. SUSANVILLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: No business.

11. SUSANVILLE MUNICIPAL ENERGY CORPORATION: No business.

12. CONTINUING BUSINESS:

12.A Consider Resolution No. 24-6386, adopting the city of Susanville Procurement Policy and Resolution No. 24-6388, adopting the city of Susanville Credit Card Policy

13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS:

13.A Department Reports

14. FUTURE COUNCIL ITEMS:

14.A Future Council Items

15. ADJOURNMENT:

The next regular meeting of the Susanville City Council will be held on December 18, 2024 at 4:30PM.

Reports and documents relating to each agenda item are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during normal business hours and at the meeting. These reports and documents are also available at the City’s website www.cityofsusanville.net, unless there were systems problems posting to the website.

Accessibility: An interpreter for the hearing-impaired may be made available upon request to the City Clerk seventy-two hours prior to a meeting. A reader for the vision-impaired for purposes of reviewing the agenda may be made available upon request to the City Clerk. The location of this meeting is wheelchair-accessible.

I, Heidi Whitlock, certify that I caused to be posted notice of the regular meeting scheduled for December 4, 2024 in the areas designated on November 27, 2024 .
2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.A
Action Item
Submitted By: Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the City Council November 19, 2024 special meeting and the November 20, 2024 regular meeting.

PRESENTED BY: Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
SUMMARY: Attached for the Council’s review are the minutes of the City Council’s November 19, 2024 special meeting and the November 20, 2024 regular meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: None
ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to waive the reading of and approval to receive and file the City Council's minutes from the November 19, 2024 special meeting and the November 20, 2024 regular meeting.

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ATTACHMENTS:
241119.cc.spec.min.draft.pdf
241120.cc.min.draft.pdf
3 SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL
Special Council Meeting Minutes
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024 – 10:00 AM
Mayor Schuster called the meeting to order at 10:00am.

Roll Call of Councilmembers Present: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Dawn Miller

Absent: Patrick Parrish

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (Additions and/or Deletions)
Moved by Russ Brown; seconded by Curtis Bortle to approve.

Motion Carried: 4 - 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Dawn Miller Voting Against: None

Absent: Patrick Parrish

2. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (if any): No business.

3. CLOSED SESSION: No business.

4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION: Mayor Schuster offers the pledge of allegiance and the invocation.

5. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR: No comments.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR: No business.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: No business.

8. NEW BUSINESS:

8.A Consider Resolution No. 24-6375, authorizing the execution of construction services agreements for investigation, search, traffic safety, and partial demolition, also authorizing the execution of a professional services agreement with NST engineering to assess the structure, and authorizing the finance director to modify the budget in response to the St. Francis fire of November 1, 2024.

Dan Newton, City Manager, stated that multiple items are needed for this project including a contract with PeeWee Enterprises for assisting in the investigation and placing k-rail on Main Street. The cost for their services is just under $8,800. This was verbally agreed upon, but approval is requested prior to signing this contract.

Mr. Newton stated that he did execute an agreement with NST Engineering for a structural assessment of the building.

He added that the third item is for the partial demolition of the Main Street fronting wall. He stated that contract language is currently being reviewed with multiple contractors and that there is a court proceeding this afternoon. If the hold is lifted by the court, the demo is scheduled for this Friday, depending on weather. He added that the resolution is for $94,800 but it is written in a way that would permit spending up to that amount.

Council Member Bortle inquired if the front facing wall was going to be braced by the property owner. Mr. Newton responded that it was discussed, but he is unaware of whether the owner's engineer showed up on the day stated by the owner. 4 Mayor pro tem Brown inquired as to whether the costs are recoverable to which Mr.

Newton responded that, at this time, they are all recoverable. 24-6375 St. Francis.pdf
Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6375, authorizing the execution of construction services agreements for investigation, search, traffic safety, and partial demolition, also authorizing the execution of a professional services agreement with NST engineering to assess the structure, and authorizing the finance director to modify the budget in response to the St. Francis fire of November 1, 2024.

Moved by Russ Brown; seconded by Dawn Miller to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Dawn Miller Voting Against: None

Absent: Parrish

9. CONTINUING BUSINESS: No business.

10. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn at 10:12AM.
___________________________ ___________________________ Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk Mendy Schuster, Mayor
Approved on:
5 SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL
Regular Council Meeting Minutes
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024 – 4:30 PM
Mayor Schuster called the meeting to order at 4:30pm.

Roll Call of Councilmembers Present: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish

Absent: Dawn Miller

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Moved by Russ Brown; seconded by Curtis Bortle to approve.

Motion Carried: 4 - 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

2. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (if any): No public comment.

3. CLOSED SESSION:

The City Council convened in closed session at 4:30pm to discuss the following item:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - pursuant to Government Code Section §54957.6

1. Management Unit

4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION:

The City Council reconvened in open session at 5:00pm. The pledge of allegiance and invocation were provided.

Dan Newton, City Manager, stated that prior to going into closed session, the Council approved the agenda as written. The Council then met in closed session to discuss the above-mentioned item to which direction was provided to staff, but no reportable action was taken.

5. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR: No public comment.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR:

6.A Minutes of the City Council November 6, 2024 regular meeting.

Council Member Bortle requested 6A to be considered separately. He then requested a change to the minutes regarding the spelling of a community member’s name. 241106.cc.min.draft.pdf
Motion to waive the reading of and approval to receive and file the City Council's minutes from the October 16, 2024, regular meeting.

Moved by Curtis Bortle; seconded by Patrick Parrish to approve with the requested change.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

6.B Vendor and payroll warrants
10-03-24.pdf
10-09-24.pdf
6 10-17-24.pdf
10-18-24.pdf
10-24-24.pdf
10-31-24.pdf
Motion to receive and file
Moved by Russ Brown; seconded by Patrick Parrish to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: No business.

8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/ANNOUNCEMENTS: Council Member Bortle provided the land acknowledgement statement.

9. NEW BUSINESS:

9.A Consider Resolution No. 24-6378, approving and accepting a donation of $2,000 from the Walmart Spark Good Foundation for the Fire Department and Police Department.

Michael Bengoa Bollinger, Public Safety Chief, provided an explanation of the item and requested council approval of resolution No. 24-6378.
24-6378.pdf
Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6378, approving and accepting a donation of $2,000 from the Walmart Spark Good Foundation for the Fire Department and Police Department Moved by Curtis Bortle; seconded by Russ Brown to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

9.B Consider Resolution No. 24-6379, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Sunrise Engineering Inc. to design a 2,100 foot extension of the city's eight inch polyethylene natural gas pipeline.

Bob Godman, Public Works Director, provided an explanation of the item and requested council approval of resolution no. 24-6379.

Design Proposal - Sunrise Engineering - 2024.pdf
24-6379.pdf
Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6379, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Sunrise Engineering Inc. to design a 2,100 foot extension of the city's eight inch polyethylene natural gas pipeline.

Moved by Curtis Bortle; seconded by Patrick Parrish to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller
7 9.C Consider Resolution No. 24-6380, authorizing the Mayor to execute a Letter Agreement for Consultative Services with Interstate Gas Services Inc. (Dan Bergman) for consulting assistance related to the the City's natural gas utility.

Mr. Godman provided an explanation of the item and requested council approval of resolution no. 24-6380.
24-6380.pdf
IGS Agreement November 2024 Proposed.docx
Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6380, authorizing the Mayor to execute a Letter Agreement for Consultative Services with Interstate Gas Services Inc. (Dan Bergman) for consulting assistance related to the City's natural gas utility.

Moved by Patrick Parrish; seconded by Russ Brown to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

9.D Consider Resolution No. 24-6381, authorizing Mayor to sign a Program Supplement Agreement Revision with Caltrans for the Riverside Drive Trail Project and authorize the budget amendment to the 2007 budget for the Riverside Drive Trail Project.

Mr. Godman provided an explanation of the item and requested council approval of resolution no. 24-6381.

Maria Fregulia, public, inquired as to whether or not there is a contract in place to which Mr.

Godman responded not yet.
24-6381.pdf
Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6381, authorizing Mayor to sign a Program Supplement Agreement Revision with Caltrans for the Riverside Drive Trail Project and authorize the budget amendment to the 2007 budget for the Riverside Drive Trail Project.

Moved by Russ Brown; seconded by Curtis Bortle to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

9.E Consider Resolution No. 24-6382, Supporting Sacred Heart Church procession in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe and authorizing closure of Nevada street from N. Roop street to Weatherlow Street and Union Street from North Alley to North Street on Sunday, December 8, 2024, from 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm.

Mr. Godman provided an explanation of the item and requested council approval of resolution no. 24-6382.
24-6382.pdf
Sacred Heart Church 2024 Request.pdf
Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6382, Supporting Sacred Heart Church procession in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe and authorizing closure of Nevada street from N. Roop 8 street to Weatherlow Street and Union Street from North Alley to North Street on Sunday, December 8, 2024, from 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm.

Moved by Curtis Bortle; seconded by Russ Brown to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

9.F Consider Resolution No. 24-6383, authorizing the Finance Director to increase the golf course community services budget by $7,500 and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Smith's Pumps for repairs needed at the well pump located on the front nine near the Wingfield Clubhouse at the Diamond Mountain Golf Course Jolene Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, provided an explanation of the item and requested council approval of resolution no. 24-6383. 24-6383.pdf
Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6383, authorizing the Finance Director to increase the golf course community services budget by $7,500 and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Smith's Pumps for repairs needed at the well pump located on the front nine near the Wingfield Clubhouse at the Diamond Mountain Golf Course.

Moved by Patrick Parrish; seconded by Russ Brown to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

10. SUSANVILLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: No business.

11. SUSANVILLE MUNICIPAL ENERGY CORPORATION: No business.

12. CONTINUING BUSINESS:

12.A Consider waiving second reading and adopting Ordinance No. 24-1046, amending Chapter 3 for Title 3, Revenue and Finance of the Susanville Municipal Code, including sections

3.08.010 through 3.08.200.

Mr. Newton provided an explanation of the item and requested the council waive the second reading and adopt ordinance no. 24-1046.
24-1046.pdf
Motion to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 24-1046, amending Chapter 3 for Title 3, Revenue and Finance of the Susanville Municipal Code, including sections

3.08.010 through 3.08.200.

Moved by Curtis Bortle; seconded by Russ Brown to approve.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller
9 12.B Consider Resolution No. 24-6385, authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with PACE Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering services for the HVAC Replacement Project at Susanville Fire Department.

Chief Bollinger provided an explanation of the item and requested council approval of resolution no. 24-6385.
24-6385.pdf
Ltr Prop_ Susanville Fire Station HVAC Replacement.pdf
1080.05 EA Susanville Fire Station - HVAC Replacement.pdf 21-5948.pdf
Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6385, authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with PACE Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering services for the HVAC Replacement Project at Susanville Fire Department.

Moved by Russ Brown; seconded by Curtis Bortle to approve with the change to the number on the attached resolution to reflect the correct resolution no. 24-6385.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

12.C Discussion regarding 830 Main Street - St. Francis Mr. Newton provided an explanation of the item and requested council discussion and direction regarding what should be completed moving forward.

Ms. Fregulia, public, inquired as to whether or not the property owner would be billed for the work being performed.

Mr. Newton responded that yes, the property owner would be responsible for not only the abatement of the building but also the cost of the fencing, etc... He stated that some cost recovery methods could include placing a lien on the property, etc...

Unidentified member of the public inquired as to if it could be made into a memorial and left as is, even if it meant moving the building.

Mr. Newton responded that the building is a blight as well as a public safety risk that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.

Review emergency actions taken to safeguard the public and determine if it is necessary to continue the emergency action.

Moved by Russ Brown; seconded by Curtis Bortle to approve the continuation of the emergency action.

Motion Carried: 4- 0
Voting For: Mendy Schuster, Russ Brown, Curtis Bortle, Patrick Parrish Voting Against: None

Absent: Miller

13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS:

13.A Department Reports
10 The department heads in attendance provided an update on the happenings within their departments.

14. FUTURE COUNCIL ITEMS:

14.A Future Council Items
Mr. Newton provided an explanation of the item and requested council discussion and direction.

Mayor Schuster would like an item regarding the Community Garden as LARP has not yet provided their annual report. Brown and Parrish support the request. Mr. Newton stated that he will see if they can attend prior to the end of the year. 241120.FutureItemsList.pdf

15. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn at 6:06pm.
___________________________________ ________________________________ Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk Mendy Schuster, Mayor
Approved on:
11 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.B
Action Item
Submitted By: Alicia Cordova, Finance
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Vendor and payroll warrants
PRESENTED BY: Chandra Jabbs, Finance Manager
SUMMARY: Warrants dates November 4, 2024 through November 20, 2024 numbered 222558-222597, 222608-222613, 222629-222694.

FISCAL IMPACT: Accounts Payable vendor warrants totaling $753,978.75, plus $384,624.31 payroll warrants, for a total of $1,138,603.06.

ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to receive and file

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ATTACHMENTS:
11-7-24.pdf
11-14-24.pdf
11-18-24.pdf
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 CITY OF SUSANVILLE Check Register - Payments by Vendor Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 11/18/2024 - 11/18/2024 Nov 18, 2024 01:26PM Report Criteria:

Report type: GL detail
Check.Voided = False
GL Check Check Vendor Description Invoice Inv GL Account GL Account Title Seq Check Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Number Seq No Amount Amount 11/24 11/18/2024 222694 728 U.S. POSTMASTER UB BILLING GAS 111824 1 7401-430-62-46 POSTAGE 432.78 432.78 11/24 11/18/2024 222694 728 U.S. POSTMASTER UB BILLING WATER 111824 2 7110-430-42-46 POSTAGE 840.12 840.12 Total 111824: 1,272.90 1,272.90
Grand Totals: 1,272.90 1,272.90
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
45 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.C
Action Item
Submitted By: Alicia Cordova, Finance
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Utility Accounts Receivable Write-Offs.

PRESENTED BY: Chandra Jabbs, Finance Manager
SUMMARY: The Finance Department is responsible for the collection of the utility revenues that are owed to the City. When accounts become past due, the City follows certain procedures for the collection of these accounts such as sending delinquent letters, searching for new accounts in the utility billing system or performing a search using our current credit reposting agency resources and calling phone numbers from closed accounts. After all attempts have failed, staff brings reports to City Council requesting approval to remove the uncollectible balance from our books and send them on to a collection agency. Our collection agency has access to additional records and has been successful in recovering additional funds. They have also informed us that accounts received in the first 6-12 months have the highest potential for recovery. As delinquent accounts age, there are limitations placed on collection options. The City receives 60% of delinquencies collected and there is no additional fee charges for this service.

Resolution 22-6080 approved the Accounts Receivable Policy, which provides that accounts with balances over $1,000 must be submitted to Council for approval for write-off. Currently, there is only a single account with an uncollectible balance over $1,000. At the time we are requesting that the Council approves writing $1,338.20 in uncollected utility revenues from September 6, 2024 to November 20, 2024. Staff will then send delinquent account balance to a collection agency for cost recovery.

FISCAL IMPACT: Write off $1,338.20 in potential revenue with a portion to be later recovered through collections.

ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve to write-off accounts receivable and send $1,338.20 to collections.

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ATTACHMENTS:

COLLECTIONS LIST $1000 AND OVER.xlsx
46 11/20/2024
Account # Balanced Owed Water Amount Gas Amount Deposits Action Taken Termination Date 105.0140.00.20 $1,338.20 $210.98 $1,127.22 None
No new address
found on the
Online
Information
Website, no
response to bills
being mailed out.
6/13/2024
Total $1,338.20
47 Last Payment
1/29/2024
48 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.A
Action Item
Submitted By: Erik Edholm, Public Works
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution No. 24-6384, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute agreement with Lance and Patricia Monath for the encroachment of ADA accessible ramp into North Alley.

PRESENTED BY: Bob Godman, Public Works Director
SUMMARY: Lance and Patricia Monath are the property owners of 805 Main Street. The rear of the property abuts North Alley of which the city has reserved a 20 foot right of way. The Monath's have requested to encroach 4.5 feet in North Alley to allow for the installation of an ADA accessible ramp to the rear entrance of 805 Main Street. Existing utility poles encroach 4.5 feet in the alley right of way limiting the use of the 20 foot right of way. The installation of the ADA accessible ramp would not further limit the flow of traffic through the alley.

FISCAL IMPACT: None
ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6384, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute agreement with Lance and Patricia and Monath for the encroachment of an ADA accessible ramp into North Alley.

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ATTACHMENTS:
24-6384.pdf
Monath North Alley Encroachment.docx
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 RESOLUTION NO. 24-6384

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH

LANCE AND PATRICIA MONATH FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO NORTH ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY
WHEREAS, Lance and Patricia Monath of 805 Main St have requested consideration from the City of Susanville to encroach into North Alley to install an ADA accessible ramp; and WHEREAS, due to the location of existing utility poles in the alley the encroachment will not further impact the flow of traffic on the alley; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City of Susanville is hereby authorized to execute the AGREEMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT ON NORTH ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY between the City of Susanville and Lance and Patricia Monath.

APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 4th day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:_____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney
50 AGREEMENT FOR ENCROACHMENT ON NORTH ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY This Agreement, entered into this day of December, 2024, by and between the City of Susanville ("City") and Lance and Patricia Monath ("Monaths") property owners of 809 Main Street, Susanville, California.

WHEREAS, the City of Susanville has reserved a 20-foot right of way of North Alley between North Gay Street and North Weatherlow Street; and WHEREAS, Monaths own property at 805 Main Street of which rear property line abuts said right of way; and
WHEREAS, existing utility poles encroach 4.5 feet into said right of way: and WHEREAS, Monaths wish to install an ADA accessible ramp on rear property line of 805 Main Street encroaching 4.5 feet into said right of way; and WHEREAS, said encroachment will not further in any way interfere with the flow of traffic on North Alley between North Gay Street and North Weatherlow Street; and WHEREAS, by this Agreement Lance and Patricia Monath acknowledge that their ADA accessible ramp encroaches upon the right of way and further acknowledge that there is a possibility that at some time in the future City may need to utilize the entire 20 feet of North Alley right of way; and
WHEREAS, the City assumes no liability for the ADA accessible ramp encroaching into the North Alley right of way; and
WHEREAS, responsibility for ensuring compliance and maintaining safe access in the area around the ramp rests with the Monaths; and
WHEREAS, both parties wish to cooperate in allowing the installation of ADA accessible ramp while still maintaining the right of way to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Susanville and the Monaths, agree as follows:
1) That the Monaths shall be allowed to install ADA accessible ramp at the rear property line of 809 Main Street in theNorth Alley right of way and encroach 4.5 feet into said right of way; and
2) That the Monaths agree that City allowing this encroachment to persist in no way jeopardizes or invalidates City's right of way.
51 This Agreement is the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations and agreements whether written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement and no purported oral amendment to this Agreement shall be valid.

Entered into this day of December, 2024.

CITY OF SUSANVILLE APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By : By :

Name : Name:

Title : Title :

Date : Date :

OWNER: OWNER
By : By :

Name : Name:

Address: Address :

Date : Date :
52 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.B
Action Item
Submitted By: Marci Rojas, Public Works
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution No. 24-6387, approving the 2025 through 2030 Airport Capital Improvement Plan.

PRESENTED BY: Bob Godman, Public Works Director
SUMMARY: Each year staff works with the Susanville Municipal Airport Commission to prepare a five year Airport Capital Improvement Plan.

The plan outlines planning and execution dates for projects at the Susanville Airport that can utilize the annual FAA AIP grant and over the next five years the Federal Government is offering addition funding through the BIL grants. The AIP funds can be built up over three years so some of the larger projects in this years ACIP reflect that.

FISCAL IMPACT: None, but the ACIP is needed to secure up to $284,000 per year in project funding from the FAA.

ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6387, approving the 2025 through 2030 Airport Capital Improvement Plan.

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ATTACHMENTS:

ACIP 2025 2030 Submission ex..pdf
24-6387.pdf
53 &'. Qr Sl:£-1 t·
'-.l � ◊"-�I
f::I . , .. �
• -, •• !t-
'1· � r: 'v' O.f PoR,\'\�'\\

SUSANVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2025 - 2030
Airport: Susanville Municipal Airport State: California NPIAS# 06-0251 Project Description & Year Feder al Funds State Funds Local Total 2025
1 -Taxiway 'B' Reconstruction (-650 LF), Phas e II -Construction (PCI: 50) $ 448,000 $ 11,745 $ 60,623 $ 520,368 2 -AWOS Replac ement $ 150,000 $ 10,500 $ 83,255 $ 245,000 TOTAL (FY 2025 $ 598,000 $ 22,245 $ 143,878 $ 765,368
2026
1 - South Apron (-110,000 SF) Reconstruction Re-Packag e (PCI: 50) $ 10,800 $ 540 $ 660 $ 12,000 2-Taxiway 'C ' Reconstruction (-800 LF)- Re-Packag e (PCl:50) $ 10,800 $ 540 $ 660 $ 12,000 TOTAL (FY 2026) $ 21,600 $ 1,080 $ 1,320 $ 24,000
2027
1 -South Apron (-110,000 SF) Reconstruction -Construction (PCI: 50) $ 675,000' $ 33,750 $ 41,250 $ 750,000 2-Taxiway 'C ' Reconstruction (-800 LF) -Construction (PCI: 50) $ 585,000 $ 29,250 $ 35,750 $ 650,000 3 - Runway 29-11 (-4,050 LF) Sealcoat -Design (PCI: 50) $ 67,500 $ 3,375 $ 4,125 $ 75,000 4- Perimet er Fenc e (-4, 100 LF)-VVHAIWHM P $ 108,000 $ 5,400 $ 6,600 $ 120,000 5-Taxiway 'D' Reconstruction (-BOO LF) -Design (PCl:50) $ 88,200 $ 4,410 $ 5,390 $ 98,000 TOTAL (FY 2027 $ 1,435,500 $ 71,775 $ 87,725 $ 1,595,000 2028
1 -Taxiway 'D' Reconstruction (-800 LF) -Construction (PCl :50) $ 360,000 $ 18,000 $ 22,000 $ 400,000 TOTAL (FY 2028 $ 360,000 $ 18,000 $ 22,000 $ 400,000
2029
1 -Fenc e Installation. Design $ 85,500 $ 4,275 $ 5,225 $ 95,000 2 - Runway 29-11 (-4,050 LF) Sealcoat - Construction (PCI: 50) $ 450,000 $ 22,500 $ 27,500 $ 500,000 TOTAL (FY 2029) $ 535,500 $ 26,775 $ 32,725 $ 595,000
2030
1 -Fenc e Installation• Construction $ 450,000 $ 22,500 $ 27,500 $ 500,000 TOTAL (FY 2030) $ 450,000 $ 22,500 $ 27,600 $ 500,000
TOTALS $ 3,444,700 $ 164,580 $ 317,843 $ 3,928,388
DATE: 10/ 1012024

LOCIO SVE
Funding So urce Environmental Start Date Comp. Date
AIP CATEX 2021 May-25 Dec-25
AIP /BIL NIA May-25 Dec-25
BIL CATEX 2024 Jun-24 Dec-26
BIL CATEX 2024 Jun-24 Dec-26
AI P CATEX 2024 Jun-25 Dec-27
AIP CATEX 2024 Jun-25 Dec-27
BIL CATEX 2023 May-25 Dec-27
BIL NA May-25 May-28
BIL CATEX 2023 Jun-24 Dec-27
AIP CATEX 2024 Jun-24 Dec-28
BIL CATEX 2019 Jun-29 Dec-29
AIP CATEX 2024 Jun-29 Dec-29
AIP CATEX 2019 Jun-30 Dec-30
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 RESOLUTION NO. 24-6387

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE

APPROVING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2030 SUSANVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT,

AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (ACIP)
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducts their annual update of the Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) and uses the ACIP to identify and prioritize airport capital improvement needs and to plan the distribution of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds; and
WHEREAS, all proposed projects must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), be depicted on the City’s approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP), and be included in the City’s ACIP submission in order to be eligible for the AIP funding; and WHEREAS, the City is required to identify all proposed projects for which the City is requesting grant funding; and
WHEREAS, the Susanville Municipal Airport Commission (SMAC) has made the proposed ACIP recommendation.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby approves the 2025-2030 ACIP as presented at the December 4, 2024, meeting.

APPROVED: _______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST: _______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Cityof Susanville, held on the 4th day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney
67 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.C
Action Item
Submitted By: Tamra Spade, Economic Development
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Consider waiving the first reading and introducing Ordinance No. 24- 1047, temporarily suspending Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter

3.32 of the Susanville Municipal Code - Public Facilities Impact Fee for a period of five years.

PRESENTED BY: Tamra Spade, Economic Development Director SUMMARY:

In recognition of the current economic conditions and to promote growth and development within the City of Susanville, staff request the city council enact a five-year moratorium on the collection of Development Impact Fees. During this period, all new residential, commercial, and industrial developments shall be exempt from paying the fees outlined in Chapter 3.32.

The city council would continue to assess the city’s development and infrastructure needs during this moratorium and reserves the right to modify, extend, or terminate the moratorium as necessary. At the end of the five-year period, unless further action is taken by the council, the development impact fees shall resume as outlined in the following sections.

In establishing the fee structure and moratorium, it has been found the fees and temporary suspension to be consistent with the general plan.

Pursuant to Government Code Section §65913.2, staff has considered the effects of the fee and the moratorium with respect to the city’s housing and commercial needs as established in the general plan.

FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated, $77,700 annual revenue reduction from public facility impact moratorium per Tischler Bise feasibility study. Streets:
$23,400; Police: $30,100; $24,200.

ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to waiving the first reading and introducing Ordinance No. 24- 1047, temporarily suspending Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter

3.32 of the Susanville Municipal Code - Public Facilities Impact Fee for a period of five years.

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
68 ATTACHMENTS:
24-1047.pdf
Susanville, CA Feasibility Study_1.26.24.docx
69 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ORDINANCE No. 24-1047

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING TITLE 3 REVENUE AND FINANCE CHAPTER 3.32 OF THE SUSANVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE – PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE

FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS
The City Council of the city of Susanville does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1:

City of Susanville Municipal Code: Title 3 Revenue and Finance, Chapter 3.32, is hereby amended to add the following:

3.32.70 City waiver of or reduction of or deferment of fees:

The city may waive fees or reduce fees or defer fees pursuant to this Chapter by resolution or impose a moratorium on collection of fees for a specified, limited amount of time.

SECTION 2.

The City Clerk shall, within fifteen (15) days after its passage, cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the general area.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of Susanville, California, on the 4th day of December 2024, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, California, on the ________day of ___________ 2024.

APPROVED: ________________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the_____ day of ______________ 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

70 Development Impact Fee
Feasibility Study
Submitted to:

City of Susanville, California
January 26, 2024
Prepared by:
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
800.424.4318
www.tischlerbise.com
71 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
i
TischlerBise
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
800.424.4318
999 W Main Street
Suite 100
Boise, Idaho 83703
208.515.7480
www.tischlerbise.com
72 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
ii
Impact Fee Feasibility Study
City of Susanville, California
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1 Overview of Impact Fees...........................................................................................................................1 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................................1 Recommendations....................................................................................................................................2 Overview of Impact Fees ..............................................................................................................................3 Legal Framework.......................................................................................................................................3 The mitigation Fee Act..............................................................................................................................3 Required Findings......................................................................................................................................4 Summary of Capital Improvement Plans and Development Impact Fees................................................6 Growth & Revenue Concerns........................................................................................................................7 Development Trends.................................................................................................................................7 Revenue & Level of Service Concerns.......................................................................................................7 Economic Development & Local Considerations......................................................................................8 Demographic Assumptions...........................................................................................................................9 Base Year Housing Units and Population..................................................................................................9 Building Permit History & Realistic Infill .................................................................................................10 Housing Unit and Population Projections...............................................................................................11 Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area.............................................................................13 Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections.......................................................................14 Impact Fee Feasibility Analysis ...................................................................................................................16 Streets.....................................................................................................................................................16 Police.......................................................................................................................................................16 Fire ..........................................................................................................................................................17 Cash Flow Projections for Current Impact Fee .......................................................................................17 Capital Improvements Needed to Serve Growth....................................................................................18 Takeaways...............................................................................................................................................19 Recommendation....................................................................................................................................20 73 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
iii
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
74 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Susanville, California, retained TischlerBise, Inc. to examine the feasibility of continuing and updating its development impact fee program. It is the intent of the City of Susanville to evaluate impact fees for: (1) streets, (2) police, and (3) fire infrastructure. This report presents the findings used to determine the next steps recommended by TischlerBise, Inc. It is intended to serve as supporting documentation for the evaluation of impact fees in the City of Susanville.

OVERVIEW OF IMPACT FEES
Impact fees are one-time payments used to fund capital improvements necessitated by new growth.

Impact fees have been utilized by local governments in various forms for at least sixty years. Impact fees are not without limitations and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure financing needs. Rather, they should be considered one component of a comprehensive revenue portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities and maintenance of current levels of service in a community. Any community considering impact fees should note the following limitations:
 Impact fees can only be used to finance capital infrastructure and cannot be used to finance ongoing operations and/or maintenance and rehabilitation costs; and  Impact fees cannot be deposited in the local government’s General Fund. The funds must be accounted for separately in individual accounts and earmarked for the capital expenses for which they were collected; and
 Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies unless there is a funding plan in place to correct the deficiency for all current residents and businesses in the community.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A summary of findings from our evaluation is listed below:
 The city has seen a stagnation in growth. Over the last five years, there has been an annual average of seven new homes constructed in the City. Identified in the Susanville General Plan 2019-2024 Housing Element, there is a realistic infill capacity to add 563 single family housing units and 476 multifamily housing units in the existing city limits. Additionally, there is an existing residential development project of a 70-unit apartment complex which is estimated to add 105 new residents.
 There is considerable potential to expand the existing tax base with annexation of the surrounding unincorporated areas. Identified in the 2022 City of Susanville Land Use Assessment Report, there is potential for a total of 25,693 residents if all areas were annexed to expand city 75 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
2 limits, a 281 percent increase from 2023. Currently, the City’s policy is to pursue only voluntary annexation of unincorporated communities that approach the City.  Conversations with City staff indicate that impact fees are a very small portion of the funding received by the Streets, Police, and Fire Departments. While there are growth related needs for the departments, the current situation with stagnating growth makes showing the nexus between need, benefit, and proportionality for an impact fee program difficult.  Economic development has been a priority for City leaders to spur employment along with quality-of-life benefits to residents. Downtown Susanville has not attracted the desired vibrant business environment, however, there are a few potential commercial projects on the edge of the city that would bring needed healthcare services and on-going tax revenue.

RECOMMENDATIONS
A summary of recommendations from our evaluation is listed below:
 Streets: The Streets Department receives additional funding from the State that vastly outweighs the revenue from the current impact fee program. For Streets to justify the collection of impact fees, projects that add capacity are required such as adding additional lanes, traffic signals, or turn lanes. As it stands, the majority of projects are for maintenance or efficiency purposes with one potential project in conjunction with Caltrans actually reducing the capacity of Main St which runs through the heart of downtown Susanville. Therefore, TischlerBise recommends that Susanville temporarily halt its Streets impact fee program.  Police: According to conversations with staff, the Police Department is facing significant shortages in space, vehicles, and radio communication systems. It is clear that as the city grows there will be a need for more officers and additional building space along with vehicles and overhaul of the radio communication network. However, with stagnating growth it is difficult to show a clear benefit and proportionality of an impact fee program to new residents. Therefore, TischlerBise recommends that Susanville temporarily halt its Police impact fee program.  Fire: Susanville Fire Department provides services to both the city and on occasion the surrounding areas of Lassen County. The Fire Department receives AFG grants for new fire apparatus and receives additional funding through a levy that covers between 80 and 90 percent of operational expenses. While there are potential plans to expand with an additional station on the northern side of the city (potentially being co-housed with the Police Department), current response times are reasonable due to the central location of the existing station. Due to stagnating growth, level of service may not be a concern unless there is a large spike in growth pushing response times higher. Therefore, TischlerBise recommends that Susanville temporarily halt its Fire impact fee program. 76 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
3 OVERVIEW OF IMPACT FEES
Impact fees are one-time payments used to fund capital improvements necessitated by new growth.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U.S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services.

There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. County of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for monetary exactions such as impact fees.

THE MITIGATION FEE ACT
California’s development impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January of 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government 77 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
4 Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time the development impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.

The Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which development impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Government Code (see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of development impact fees for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on capital costs only.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. It does use the more common term “impact fee” but only defines the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, … that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely-accepted term “impact fee,” which should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

Assembly Bill 602 amending Section 66016.5 effective January of 2022 requires that before the adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study must be adopted and, if applicable, identify the existing level of service of public facilities and the new proposed level of service. Any nexus study adopted after July 1 2022 must “calculate fees imposed on a housing development project proportionally to the square footage of proposed units of the development.” Additionally, a nexus study must be completed every eight years.

The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing development impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re-evaluations of development impact fee programs. Certain fees or charges related to development are exempted from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Among them are fees in lieu of park land dedication as authorized by the Quimby Act (Section 66477), fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement or developer agreement, and fees for processing development applications.

REQUIRED FINDINGS
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that are closely related to “rational nexus”, or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of state courts.

Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U. S. Constitution, we prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: “impact or need” “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. 78 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
5 The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. We will use the nexus terminology in this feasibility report because it is more concise and descriptive. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.

Demonstrating a Need. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality, or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. Following this requirement, an impact fee study details the impact from development on improvement needs in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards.

Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities funded with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, existing development may benefit from these improvements as well.

Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by the State enabling act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or refunded. For example, in California pursuant to Section 66001(d), on the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the impact fee fund and every five years after, the local agency collecting the fee must make findings in accordance with Section 66001(a) in connection with the annual report specified in Section 66006(b). Failure to adequately do so results in the need to refund the undisbursed collected dollars to the owner of record of the project sites originally contributing to the fund. Such an example can be found in Walker v. City of San Clemente, 2015. All of these requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues.

Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus.

Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the need for road improvements is measured by the number of vehicle trips generated by development.
79 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
6 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Development impact fees can be calculated by any one of several legitimate methods. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for each facility type. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.

Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development impact fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating development impact fees, and how each method can be applied.

Cost Recovery. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for systems that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities.

Incremental Expansion. The incremental expansion method documents the current level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard (such as park land acres per 1,000 residents). This approach ensures that there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community.

Plan-Based. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Facility plans identify needed improvements, and land use plans identify development. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per specific unit of development (e.g., single family detached unit).

Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of “credits” is integral to the development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of “credits,” each with specific and distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the calculation of development impact fees.

The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations. This could occur when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital costs of the public facility covered by the impact fee.

This type of credit is integrated into the impact fee calculation. The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of public sites or improvements provided by the developer and for which the facility fee is imposed.
80 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
7 GROWTH & REVENUE CONCERNS
Susanville is the county seat of Lassen County, California and is the only incorporated city in the county.

The region is stagnating in terms of growth but is close to high growth areas, being less than an hour drive away from Reno, Nevada along US 395. The most recent estimates using US Census Bureau Decennial (2020) data had Susanville’s population at 9,099 household population and approximately 5,219 jobs.

DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
According to conversations with City staff, while there is not significant development happening around the city at this time, there is potential for infill development with available parcels allowing for 563 additional single family units and 476 multifamily units. Additionally, there is a 70-unit multifamily apartment complex in the residential pipeline that is anticipated to be constructed in the near future.

Those new multifamily housing units are estimated to bring 105 new residents to the city.

City staff are working to bring in additional commercial development as well. Among the pipeline of future development projects, there is a medical facility planned on the northern edge of the city’s impact area and a commercial project catering to the trucking and logistics industries. Both would bring needed economic activity. The medical facility would provide services to Susanville residents that need to drive to Reno for care and the trucking site would generate a meaningful amount of tax revenue to the City’s budget.

REVENUE & LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCERNS
Conversations with City staff indicate that like most communities across the country, Susanville is finding it harder and harder to fund City services and facilities at desirable levels without grants or additional funding. The closure of one of the two state prisons near Susanville was a large economic hit to the city by nature of both being a large source of employment and economic activity with families moving to the city to be closer to the incarcerated.

The Streets Department indicated that a nominal portion of completed projects are funded from the collection of impact fees with most of their funding coming from the State. While there are a number of growth-related projects, State funding is sufficient to cover the cost.

Similarly, the Fire Department indicated that much of their funding comes from grants, more specifically the AFG (Assistance to Firefighters Grant) from FEMA, and a levy that covers between 80 and 90 percent of operating expenses.

During interviews with City staff, it was indicated that especially for police there is a need for additional staff and capital facilities in order to maintain the current level of service as growth occurs. The Police Department does not receive the same level of grant or State funding and has existing station maintenance needs that are not impact fee eligible.
81 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS
City staff indicated that there is a potential truck stop that is in talks to be developed on the south side of the city. Conservatively, this truck stop would generate $300,000 annually in tax revenue which is nearly half of what the impact fee program is projected to generate over ten years at current growth rates. The removal of the impact fee program could thus incentivize similar development to expand sources of revenue potentially allowing the City to grow at a more accelerated rate.

There is large existing potential surrounding Susanville for annexation to expand the tax base, drive revenue for additional funding of City services, and provide additional land for development. The current plan of City staff is to annex these unincorporated communities voluntarily, and thus far there has been minimal interest from the communities to do so. Identified in the 2022 City of Susanville Land Use Assessment Report, the potential total population in the event of annexation is 25,693, a 281 percent increase from 2023.

On January 9, 2024, the Board of Supervisors for Shasta County, neighbor to Susanville, voted to remove their development impact fees with a major argument being that the removal of impact fees would incentivize economic development from smaller developers. At the moment, Lassen County does not have impact fees as well. It is the opinion of TischlerBise that a similar consideration to temporarily halt the impact fee program until growth trends accelerate could be beneficial to Susanville.

Lastly, the United States Supreme Court is hearing an impact fee related case from California. Sheetz v.

County of El Dorado is addressing the proportionately of El Dorado County’s traffic impact mitigation program and if the program meets the constitutionally of the Takings Clause. At the time of this report, a decision had not been made, however, there is indication that the Court will side with the plaintiff. In this case, TischlerBise anticipates a heightened level of scrutiny on impact fees in California and nationally.
82 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
9 DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS
Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per household to derive proportionate share fee amounts. Housing types have varying household sizes and, consequently, a varying demand on City infrastructure and services. Thus, it is important to differentiate between housing types and size.

When persons per housing unit (PPHU) is used in the development impact fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. In contrast, when persons per household (PPHH) is used in the development impact fee calculations, the fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. For the purposes of this feasibility study, TischlerBise will be using persons per housing unit for analysis.

Based on housing characteristics, TischlerBise will be using two housing unit categories: single family and multifamily. Each housing type has different characteristics which results in a different demand on City facilities and services. Figure 1 shows the US Census American Community Survey 2022 5-Year Estimates data for Susanville. Single family units have a PPHU of 2.33 persons and multifamily units have a household size of 1.60 persons. Additionally, there is a housing mix of 77 percent single family and 23 percent multifamily.

The estimates in Figure 1 are for PPHU calculations. Base year population and housing units are estimated with another, more recent data source.

Figure 1. Persons per Housing Unit

BASE YEAR HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION
Base year population is derived from US 2020 Decennial Census and building permit data. Based off this data, the base year population estimate for the City is 9,142. PPHU data shown in Figure 1 is used to convert this total population number to a total housing unit number, which is estimated to be 4,232.

Then the housing unit mix percentage is applied to this total housing unit estimate to get a breakdown between single and multifamily units.

Note: Susanville household population is used in this analysis since other population types (i.e., those in detention centers) do not have a direct impact on city infrastructure.

Housing Persons per Persons per Housing
Housing Type Persons Units Housing Unit Households Household Unit Mix Single Family [1] 7,461 3,206 2.33 2,708 2.76 77%
Multifamily [2] 1,560 977 1.60 739 2.11 23%
Total 9,021 4,183 2.16 3,447 2.62
[1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes [2] Includes all other types
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 83 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
10 Figure 2. Base Year Housing Units and Population

BUILDING PERMIT HISTORY & REALISTIC INFILL
To illustrate the residential development trends in Susanville, the past five years of building permit history is listed for Susanville in Figure 3. Over the last five years, there has been an annual average of two single family units and five multifamily units.

Figure 3. City of Susanville Building Permit History
Additionally, the City of Susanville performed analysis on realistic capacity and available infill parcels which were included in the Susanville General Plan 2019-2024 Housing Element. Figure 4 below shows a summary of the findings to further highlight residential development potential in the city.

Figure 4. Realistic Residential Development Capacity by Zoning Type Base Year
2023
Household Population [1] 9,142
Housing Units [1]
Single Family 3,244
Multifamily 989
Total Housing Units 4,232
City of Susanville, CA
[1] U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial
Census, City of Susanville Building Permit
History, TischlerBise analysis
Housing Type Total
5-Year
Average
Single Family 12 2
Multifamily 27 5
Total 39 7
Source: City of Susanville Planning & Building Services R-1 271 -
R-2 - 68
R-3 - 306
R-3A - 31
R-4 - 71
MHP 156 -
Plus: Infill Parcels 136 -
Total 563 476
Source: Susanville General Plan 2019-2024 Housing Element Single
Family Multifamily
Realistic Capacity by
Zoning Type
84 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
11 HOUSING UNIT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
To highlight the growth potential in the city, TischlerBise has projected two scenarios of growth. The first Status Quo Scenario (Figure 5) is based on annual average trend from the building permit data. The second is an Accelerated Infill Scenario (Figure 6) using the realistic capacity identified in the 2019 General Plan. This Accelerated Infill Scenario is assumed to be developed over the course of twenty years, with ten years of growth shown. Both scenarios include the 70-unit apartment complex discussed earlier in the report in 2024.

In the Status Quo Scenario, the past housing construction trends are assumed to continue through the next ten years. The five-year annual average totals are included in the projections to estimate housing growth in the city. Population growth is estimated based on housing development and PPHU by housing type. As a result, there are 135 new housing units projected in the city over the next ten years, 20 units single family and 115 units multifamily. Based on the housing development, population in the city is estimated to grow by 232 residents or 2.5 percent. The majority of this growth being the apartment complex underway.

Figure 5. Residential Development Projections – Status Quo Scenario Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Household Population 9,142 9,259 9,272 9,285 9,298 9,310 9,323 9,336 9,348 9,361 9,374 232

1.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2.5%
Housing Units
Single Family 3,244 3,246 3,248 3,250 3,252 3,254 3,256 3,258 3,260 3,262 3,264 20 Multifamily [1] 989 1,059 1,064 1,069 1,074 1,079 1,084 1,089 1,094 1,099 1,104 115 Total Housing Units 4,232 4,305 4,312 4,319 4,326 4,333 4,340 4,347 4,354 4,361 4,368 135 [1] Includes Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex units
Source: Annual average new construction totals in the city are assumed to continue over the next ten years. Population growth is based on housing development and PPHU factors.

Percent Increase
City of Susanville, CA
Total
Increase
85 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
12 Under the Accelerated Infill Scenario there are 566 new housing units projected in the city over the next ten years. Resulting in 282 single family units and 284 multifamily units. Population growth is estimated based on housing development and PPHU by housing type. Based on the housing development, population in the City is estimated to grow by 1,111 residents, a 12.1 percent increase from the base year.

Figure 6. Residential Development Projections – Accelerated Infill Scenario Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Household Population 9,142 9,319 9,423 9,527 9,630 9,734 9,838 9,941 10,045 10,149 10,252 1,111

1.9% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 12.1% Housing Units
Single Family 3,244 3,272 3,300 3,328 3,356 3,385 3,413 3,441 3,469 3,497 3,525 282 Multifamily [1] 989 1,059 1,082 1,106 1,130 1,154 1,178 1,201 1,225 1,249 1,273 284 Total Housing Units 4,232 4,330 4,382 4,434 4,486 4,538 4,590 4,642 4,694 4,746 4,798 566 Source: City of Susanville General Plan 2019-2024 Housing Element; TischlerBise analysis [1] Includes Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex units
Total
City of Susanville, CA Increase
Percent Increase
86 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
13 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
Utilizing ESRI Business Analyst data and the Susanville Land Use Assessment Report, the base year (2023) total employment in the city is estimated at 5,219 jobs. ESRI Business Analyst profile data is used to breakdown this job total. Listed in Figure 7, there are an estimated 1,637 retail jobs, 245 office jobs, 208 industrial jobs, and 3,129 institutional jobs located in the city.

To estimate the nonresidential floor area, employee density factors from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2021) are applied to job estimates. Figure 8 lists the land use type and density factors that are included in the analysis. Overall, there is 2,073,888 square feet estimated in the city in the base year. Institutional and retail development make up the majority of this with a combined 90 percent of the total floor area.

Figure 7. Base Year Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Figure 8. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Employment Density Factors Shown in Figure 9 is the jobs per resident factor used for employment and nonresidential floor area projections. Currently, there are 0.57 jobs for every resident in Susanville. This is relatively high; however, Susanville is the employment center for Lassen County, thus attracting an inflow of employment.

Figure 9. Jobs per Resident Factor
City of
Susanville
Base Year
Jobs [1]
% of
Total
Base Year
Sq. Ft. [2]
% of
Total
Retail 1,637 31% 771,027 37%
Office 245 5% 75,215 4%
Industrial 208 4% 132,496 6%
Institutional 3,129 60% 1,095,150 53%
Total 5,219 100% 2,073,888 100%
[1] Susanville Land Use Assessment Report, ESRI Business Analyst
[2] Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021)
Employment ITE Demand Emp per Sq. Ft.

Industry Code Land Use Unit Dmd Unit per Emp
Retail 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 2.12 471
Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 3.26 307
Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 1.57 637
Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 2.86 350
Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021) Base Year
2023
Household Population 9,142
Base Year Jobs 5,219
Jobs per Resident 0.57
City of Susanville, CA
87 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
14 EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA PROJECTIONS Similar to the residential growth projections, presented below are two growth scenarios. First, in Figure 10 is the Status Quo scenario where growth continues at the current pace. Next is an Accelerated Infill Scenario shown in Figure 11. This Accelerated Infill Scenario is assumed to be developed over the course of twenty years, with ten years of growth shown. Both scenarios include the 40,000 square foot medical facility discussed earlier in the report in 2024. Employment projections are based on the jobs per resident factor for each scenario.

Job growth in the Status Quo Scenario is detailed in Figure 9. Over the next ten years there is a projected increase of 132 jobs in the city, a 2.5 percent increase from the base year. Retail and institutional developments account for the greatest share of the increase.

Job growth is converted into nonresidential floor area using the ITE square feet per employee factors shown in Figure 8. Over the next ten years there is a projected increase of 93,000 square feet, a 4.5 percent increase from the base year.

Figure 10. Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections – Status Quo Scenario Job growth in the Accelerated Infill Scenario is shown in Figure 11. Over the next ten years there is a projected increase of 634 jobs in the city, a 12.1 percent increase from the base year. Retail and institutional developments account for the greatest share of the increase.

Job growth is converted into nonresidential floor area using the ITE square feet per employee factors.

Over the next ten years there is a projected increase of 289,000 square feet, a 13.9 percent increase from the base year.

Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Jobs [1]
Retail 1,637 1,641 1,645 1,649 1,654 1,658 1,662 1,666 1,670 1,674 1,679 42 Office 245 246 246 247 247 248 249 249 250 251 251 6
Industrial 208 209 209 210 210 211 211 212 212 213 213 5 Institutional 3,129 3,137 3,145 3,153 3,161 3,169 3,177 3,185 3,193 3,200 3,208 79 Total 5,219 5,232 5,245 5,259 5,272 5,285 5,298 5,312 5,325 5,338 5,351 132 Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 sq. ft.) [2]
Retail 771 773 775 777 779 781 783 785 787 789 791 20
Office 75 75 76 76 76 76 76 77 77 77 77 2
Industrial 132 133 133 133 134 134 134 135 135 135 136 3 Institutional 1,095 1,138 1,141 1,144 1,146 1,149 1,152 1,155 1,158 1,160 1,163 68 Total 2,074 2,119 2,124 2,130 2,135 2,140 2,146 2,151 2,156 2,162 2,167 93 [1] Susanville Land Use Assessment Report; ESRI Business Analyst; TischlerBise analysis [2] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation , 2021 Industry
Total
Increase
88 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
15 Figure 11. Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections – Accelerated Infill Scenario Shown below in Figure 12 is a summary of total growth between the two scenarios over the next ten years highlighting the minimal growth if the status quo is maintained.

Figure 12. Summary of Residential and Nonresidential Growth Projections by Scenario Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Jobs [1]
Retail 1,637 1,657 1,677 1,697 1,717 1,736 1,756 1,776 1,796 1,816 1,836 199 Office 245 248 251 254 257 260 263 266 269 272 275 30
Industrial 208 211 213 216 218 221 223 226 228 231 233 25 Institutional 3,129 3,167 3,205 3,243 3,281 3,319 3,357 3,395 3,433 3,471 3,509 380 Total 5,219 5,282 5,346 5,409 5,473 5,536 5,599 5,663 5,726 5,790 5,853 634 Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 sq. ft.) [2]
Retail 771 780 789 798 807 816 825 834 843 852 861 90
Office 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 10
Industrial 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 20 Institutional 1,095 1,148 1,161 1,174 1,187 1,200 1,213 1,226 1,239 1,252 1,265 170 Total 2,074 2,138 2,163 2,188 2,213 2,238 2,263 2,288 2,313 2,338 2,363 289 [1] City of Susanville General Plan 2019-2024 Housing Element; ESRI Business Analyst; TischlerBise analysis [2] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation , 2021 Industry
Total
Increase
10-Year 10-Year
Population Growth Job Growth
Status Quo 232 132
Accelerated Infill 1,111 634
Growth Scenario
89 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
16 IMPACT FEE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
The results of onsite discussions with City of Susanville staff are discussed below. The purpose of these discussions was to illustrate each department’s outlook on their growth-related needs as well as identify capital improvement projects in the pipeline.

STREETS
There is little doubt that growth will cause an increase in vehicle trips on the City street network. In order to justify street impact fees, the City will need to provide expansion of either streets or intersections to future development. This typically means additional lanes, traffic signals, or turn lanes.

Below are identified projects that may have a future growth-related share:
 Improvements at the Numa intersection
 Improvements along Skyline Rd
 Potentially exploring adding a traffic circle at the 5-way intersection of Paiute & Chestnut However, the majority of the Streets Department’s activities are maintenance and rehab of existing gravel roads, paved roads, and pathways. Activities such as resurfacing, adding curbs and gutters, etc., do not explicitly increase capacity and therefore are not eligible for impact fees. Additionally, generally new street projects are not eligible for 100 percent impact fee funding because of the demand from the existing residents. Additionally, one potential project in conjunction with Caltrans would actually lower lane capacity from Main St which runs through downtown Susanville.

POLICE
The Susanville Police Department has experienced an increasing number of calls for service. Calls for service are up 35 percent year over year and at current employment levels for the Police Department, which have been at the same levels since 2003, there is difficulty keeping up with demand. There are existing deficiencies with the radio communication system that need overhaul and the existing police station is deteriorating. However, repairs for existing deficiencies are not impact fee eligible.

Additionally, there is a need to expand station space for storage and room for fleet vehicles, as well as for a second secured entrance. Police staff identified that currently the biggest use of impact fee dollars is purchasing and fully outfitting new fleet units which costs approximately $72,000 for each vehicle.

Currently, most of the funding for the Police Department comes from a one percent Public Safety Tax on sales with impact fees mostly being used for new fleet units. While there are growth-related needs for the Police Department, growth itself is stagnating which limits the revenue potential and more importantly the benefit of an impact fee program to new residents. 90 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
17 FIRE
The Susanville Fire Department is well staffed with both full-time employees and reliable volunteers able to respond to calls for service around the clock. Response times are also reasonable as the existing station is centrally located. Currently, a potential new fire station is being explored that could be cohoused with Police near Skyline Rd. Fire staff identified that currently the biggest use of impact fee dollars is purchasing new SCBAs. The Fire Department receives AFG grants which are used to purchase new fire apparatus with the most recent being a new ladder truck purchased for $1,200,000 in 2021.

Additionally, the Fire Department is also funded through a fire levy which, according to staff, covers 80 to 90 percent of the department's operating expenses. While there are growth-related needs for Fire services, growth itself is stagnating which limits the revenue potential and more importantly the benefit of an impact fee program to new and existing residents. As response times are now, level of service may not be a concern unless there is a large spike in growth.

CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR CURRENT IMPACT FEE
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Susanville with the current development impact fee schedule for both growth scenarios. Figure 13 lists the current impact fees by square foot footage for each department.

Figure 13. Current Impact Fees by Department
Figure 14 shows the projected revenue over ten years for both growth scenarios. Under the Status Quo Scenario there is an estimated total of $777,000 revenue over ten years between the three departments. Under the Accelerated Infill Scenario projected revenue is estimated to be $3,219,000 over ten years, resulting in over a $1,000,000 for each department. It is important to note that realistic capital expansion over the next ten years is considerably different if impact fee revenue is $1,000,000 compared to $250,000 for each department.

Streets $0.98 $0.98
Police $1.26 $1.26
Fire $0.93 $1.15
Commercial
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Current Fees
by Department
Residential
Fee per Sq. Ft. [1]
[1] Note: Future ave. single family unit is 1,500 sq. ft.; future ave. multifamily unit is 1,000 sq. ft.; Source: General Plan 2019-2024 Housing Element 91 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
18 Figure 14. Projected Revenue by Department

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH
Shown in Figure 15 are projected facility space needs for both Police and Fire split between the growth scenarios. At current levels of growth, the Police Department has a growth-related need of 308 additional square feet of facility space. The average cost per square foot of $250 for Police facility space is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($77,000). In the Accelerated Infill Scenario, there is a growth-related need of 1,293 additional square feet of Police facility space. The average cost per square foot is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($323,250).

Similarly for Fire facility space, at current levels of growth, the Fire Department has a growth-related need of 227 additional square feet of facility space. The average cost per square foot of $400 for Fire facility space is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($90,800). In the Accelerated Infill Scenario, there is a growth-related need of 954 additional square feet of Fire facility space. The average cost per square foot is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($381,600).

The combined growth-related need for both departments at current levels of growth is 535 square feet of facility space with a capital need of $167,800. Under the Accelerated Infill Scenario, the combined growth-related need for both departments is 2,247 square feet of facility space with a capital need of $704,850.

Streets
Status Quo $234,000 $23,400
Accelerated Infill $976,000 $97,600
Growth Scenario
Projected 10-Year
Impact Fee Revenue
Annual
Average
Police
Status Quo $301,000 $30,100
Accelerated Infill $1,254,000 $125,400
Growth Scenario
Projected 10-Year
Impact Fee Revenue
Annual
Average
Fire
Status Quo $242,000 $24,200
Accelerated Infill $989,000 $98,900
Growth Scenario
Projected 10-Year
Impact Fee Revenue
Annual
Average
Total
Status Quo $777,000 $77,700
Accelerated Infill $3,219,000 $321,900
Growth Scenario
Projected 10-Year
Impact Fee Revenue
Annual
Average
92 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
19 Figure 15. Summary of Department Needs by Growth Scenario

TAKEAWAYS
Although both scenarios show some level of growth for the City of Susanville, a more detailed understanding of the results is important. Below is a summary and a few takeaways of the impact fee feasibility analysis:
 The city has experienced a stagnation in growth which makes linking the nexus between “need” and “benefit” of the impact fee program to new growth difficult. Over the last five years, there has been an annual average of seven new homes constructed in the city. While there is an existing project for a 70-unit apartment complex and additional potential for infill development, the main concern is that there is not enough growth to show a clear benefit in reevaluating or continuing the impact fee program. At status quo levels, population growth is projected to be

2.5 percent over ten years, while in the Accelerated Infill Scenario population growth is projected to be 12.1 percent over ten years.
 Conversations with City staff indicate that impact fees make up a small portion of revenue generated for each department. To recap, the estimated total revenue potential under the Status Quo Scenario is $777,000 over ten years while under the Accelerated Infill Scenario estimated total revenue is $3,219,000 over ten years. Streets receives additional funding from the State, Fire receives AFG grants and revenue from a levy that covers approximately 80 to 90 percent of operating expenses, and Police receives additional funding from a Public Safety Tax that amounts to one percent of sales. There are growth-related needs, however, stagnated growth means that the required nexus between “need” and “benefit” is limited.  There are economic development concerns at the local, state, and national level that should be considered when evaluating Susanville’s impact fee program. It is the opinion of TischlerBise Police
Police Facility Needs by
Growth Scenario
10-Year Growth-Related
Need (Sq. Ft.)
Growth-Related
Cost
Status Quo 308 $77,000
Accelerated Infill 1,293 $323,250
Fire
Fire Facility Needs by
Growth Scenario
10- Year Growth-Related
Need (Sq. Ft.)
Growth-Related
Cost
Status Quo 227 $90,800
Accelerated Infill 954 $381,600
Total
Facility Needs by
Growth Scenario
10- Year Growth-Related
Need (Sq. Ft.)
Growth-Related
Cost
Status Quo 535 $167,800
Accelerated Infill 2,247 $704,850
93 City of Susanville
2024 Impact Fee Feasibility Study
20 that a temporarily halt the impact fee program (similar to Shasta County) until growth trends accelerate could be beneficial to Susanville.
 For example, the potential new truck stop would conservatively generate $300,000 annually in tax revenue which is nearly half of the projected impact fee revenue generated over ten years in the Status Quo Scenario. The removal of the impact fee program could incentivize similar development, expanding sources of revenue and allowing the City to address facility and personnel levels of service.

RECOMMENDATION
There is a need in Susanville to consider economic development strategies. One approach communities can implement is to lessen the cost burden on development by reducing building fees and impact fees.

With Shasta County ending its impact fee program, Susanville will be the only community in the area with impact fees, increasing the cost of construction compared to its neighbors. Additionally, the current level of growth in Susanville is not generating a meaningful amount of new demand on facilities nor generating a meaningful amount of impact fee revenue. Also, much of the growth-related cost to Susanville is not impact fee eligible (i.e., hiring of additional police patrol). With this in mind, TischlerBise recommends that Susanville halt their impact fee program for Police, Fire, and Streets.

However, impact fees play a critical role in funding capital expansion. If Susanville were to begin growing similar to the Accelerated Infill Scenario, TischlerBise recommends reinstating the impact fees. This would include a comprehensive analysis of current capital costs, capital needs, and consistency with California’s Mitigation Fee Act.
94 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.D
Discussion Item
Submitted By: Bob Godman, Public Works
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Consider accepting Honey Lake Valley Recreation Authority amendment letter from the HLVRA Board and discussion regarding changes that Council may wish to make to the joint powers agreement and give direction to staff.

PRESENTED BY: Bob Godman, Public Works Director & HLVRA Executive Director SUMMARY: Increases to the minimum wage and inflation have had serious impact to the operations of the Pool. The HLVRA relies on generous support from the City of Susanville and Lassen County, however the fiscal impacts of the last few years have greatly impacted the HLVRA's ability to provide recreation serves and properly care for the facility.

The HLVRA Board has approved the attached letter and ask for increased funding in the future. Staff also have concerns that the current accounting system for the HLVRA is very cumbersome, so we would ask to change the system so the City does all of the accounting for the HLVRA. Finally, staff is looking for Council's direction about how long they would like the HLVRA agreement to be amended for.

FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time.

ACTION REQUESTED: Direction to staff on how Council would like to proceed with amending the HLVRA joint powers agreement with Lassen County.

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ATTACHMENTS:
95 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.A
Action Item
Submitted By: Jolene Arredondo, Administrative Services Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution No. 24-6386, adopting the city of Susanville Procurement Policy and Resolution No. 24-6388, adopting the city of Susanville Credit Card Policy
PRESENTED BY: Dan Newton, City Manager
SUMMARY: Procurement policies play a crucial role in promoting transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the acquisition of goods and services by the city. As the city of Susanville continues to grow and evolve, it is imperative to update the existing Procurement Policy to guide the procurement processes and ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards. At the November 6, 2024 city council meeting, staff introduced Ordinance No. 24-1046, amending Chapter 3 for Title 3, Revenue and Finance of the Susanville Municipal code and presented proposed modifications. The proposed modifications to Chapter 3.08 provide efficiencies in procurement of goods and services and clarity for procurement processes. The Procurement Policy copies Chapter

3.08 and provides in depth processes for city staff. As referenced in the attached policy, it is also imperative to update the city's Credit Card Policy as the city staff utilizes the credit card program more frequently to procure services and supplies.

Procurement Policy Changes:

Identification and clarity of roles and responsibilities City Manager authorized to execute service agreements in the amount not to exceed $25,000
Department Heads authorized to execute service agreements in the amount not to exceed $15,000
Addition of language requiring written agreements for services over $3,000
Addition of Professional Services Procurement
Expansion of Public Project Procurement procedures
Addition of Auction Purchasing
Clarification of and language added to:

Vehicle purchasing
Surplus property
Emergency situation purchasing

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
96 Credit Card Policy Change:

Credit cards will be issued by the Finance Department to individual employees by written recommendation of employee's Department Head.

Clarification of:

Duties of the CAL-Card Program Administrator (Finance
Director)
Cardholder Responsibilities
Accounts Payable Responsibilities
Department Head Responsibilities
Online usage
Lost or stolen cards
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Resolution No. 24-6386, adopting the city of Susanville Procurement Policy and Resolution No. 24-6388, adopting the city of Susanville Credit Card Policy
ATTACHMENTS:

Procurement Policy 2004.pdf
24-6386.pdf
2024 Procurement Policy.pdf
2001 Credit Card Policy (1).pdf
24-6388.pdf
2024 Credit Card Policy.pdf
97 98
99 100
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 24-6386

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE

ADOPTING THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE PROCUREMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, the city of Susanville recognizes the need to establish clear, consistent, and efficient policies and procedures for the procurement of goods, services, and construction to ensure the effective and responsible use of public funds; and WHEREAS, adopting a comprehensive procurement policy will promote transparency, accountability, and fairness in the procurement process while ensuring compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, the city council has approved amendments to the city of Susanville Municipal Code, Chapter 3 for Title 3, Revenue and Finance by Ordinance 24-1046 at the November 6, 2024, regular city council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the proposed city of Susanville Procurement Policy, which outlines the guiding principles, procedures, and authorization levels for purchases made on behalf of the city reflects changes in Chapter 3 for Title 3 of the city of Susanville Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this policy will enhance the City's ability to manage contracts, maintain fiscal responsibility, and ensure the highest value and quality in procurement activities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby authorizes the following:

1. Adoption of the city of Susanville Procurement Policy, as presented, to govern the procurement of goods, services, and construction for the city; and

2. The City Manager and Finance Director are authorized and directed to implement the Procurement Policy and ensure compliance with its provisions by all city departments; and

3. The City Manager is further authorized to make minor administrative updates to the Procurement Policy as necessary to remain in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, provided such changes are reported to the City Council in a timely manner; and

4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption of Ordinance 24- 1046, amending Chapter 3 for Title 3, Revenue and Finance of the Susanville Municipal Code, including sections 3.08.010 through 3.08.200.

APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
101
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 4th day of December 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:_____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney
102
pg. 1
City of Susanville
Procurement Policy
Scope: Citywide
Policy Contact:

City Clerk
(530) 252-5103
[email protected]
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................2 DEFINITIONS..............................................................................................................................................2 II. Purchase Orders................................................................................................................................6 III. Service Agreements..........................................................................................................................6 IV. Professional Services........................................................................................................................6 V. Local Purchase Preference................................................................................................................8 VI. Credit Cards......................................................................................................................................8 VII. Splitting Orders.................................................................................................................................8 VIII. Supplies, Materials, and Equipment Purchasing...............................................................................8 IX. Auction Purchasing...........................................................................................................................9 X. Vehicle Purchasing ...........................................................................................................................9 XI. Equipment Leasing ...........................................................................................................................9 XII. Surplus Property..............................................................................................................................10 XIII. Exemptions from Purchasing Policy in Emergency Situations:......................................................11 Adopted by Resolution Number: 24-6386 on December 4, 2024 Supersedes: Procurement Policy 2004 version
Effective Date: December 28, 2024 with Ordinance No. 24-1046 Policy Review Schedule: Every 2 years from adoption date 103
pg. 2

CITY OF SUSANVILLE

PROCUREMENT POLICY

INTRODUCTION
In order to establish efficient procedures for the purchasing of supplies and equipment, to secure for the city supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost commensurate with quality needed, to exercise positive financial control over purchases, to clearly define authority for the purchasing function and to assure the quality of purchases, a purchasing system is adopted.1 There is created a centralized purchasing authority in which is vested authority for the purchase of equipment, supplies, nonprofessional services and services not involving particular ability. 2
When purchasing materials and supplies for the city, preference should be given to recyclable materials and supplies and/or materials and supplies containing recycled post-consumer materials, provided such materials and supplies are sufficient in performance, reasonably available and cost effective. When purchasing materials and supplies for the city, efforts should be made to avoid unnecessary waste generation. Consideration should be given to extended product life, product reusability, bulk purchasing, and avoidance of excessive packaging materials.3

DEFINITIONS
“Bidders List”: List of qualified contractors identifying qualified bidders for city projects, identified according to categories of work. Also known as vendors catalogue file. “Budget Responsible Individual”: City department head or department head appointed employee as appointed annually and reported to the Purchasing Authority. “California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS)”: Statewide contract that companies obtain to sell to California state and local government agencies.
“California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission (CUCCAC)”: Commission created to administer the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act; appointed by the State Controller.
“California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting (CUPCCA)”: Legislative Act enacted to help promote uniformity of the cost accounting standards and bidding procedures on construction work performed or contracted by public entities in the state of California. PCC Section 22000, et seq. “Check Request”: A request for payment for the purchase of supplies, materials, or equipment; for payment of service contracts; and or for payment of travel advances, reimbursements, and petty cash requests for employees.
1 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.010
2 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.020
3 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.170
104
pg. 3
“Contractual Service”: Rendering of services by an Independent Contractor, consisting of the Contractor’s time and effort.
“Department Head”: A head of a city department authorized by city policy to expend department budgets.

Department heads are responsible for ensuring that purchases made for services and supplies are reasonably priced and competitive in the current market. Department heads include the city clerk, public safety chief, public works director, finance director, economic development director, or any other city official designated as a department head by the city council.
“Department of General Services (DGS)”: Award and manager of CMAS, along with other statewide contracts.
“Emergency”: As defined by California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission, an emergency is a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services. “Finance Director”: Designated as purchasing authority for the city of Susanville. “Force Account”: Use of city’s own forces in public projects of $60,000 or less “Formal Bidding”: Issuing a solicitation to qualified bidders that is prepared, advertised, and distributed with the intent of receiving bids or proposals in a sealed envelope(s) to be publicly opened at a set date and time. Public projects at a cost of more than $200,000 must use formal bidding procedures pursuant PCC Section 22032(c)
“Local Bidder”: Business physically maintained and operating at a fixed office or other business premises located within the geographical limits of Lassen County. Local Bidder must have city business license, issued by the city of Susanville.
“Maintenance Agreement”: Routine, recurring, and usual work for the preservation or protection outlined in a written contract wherein the contractor (or vendor) agrees to maintain city equipment in good operating condition subject to terms and conditions agreeable to both the contractor (or vendor) and the city.4 “Non-Purchasable Equipment”: Equipment which is available through “lease only” plans. “Professional Services”: Services provided to the city that are any of the following: professional architectural; landscaping architectural; professional engineering; environmental; land surveying; construction project management; legal, accounting; professional planning services; and administrative services.5
“Public Project”: As defined by Section 22002 of the California Public Contract code, may include construction, reconstruction, erection, alteration, renovation, improvement, demolition, and repair work involving any publicly owned leased or operated facility. Painting or repainting of any publicly owned, leased, or operated facility. In the case of publicly owned utility systems, construction, erection, 4 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.140
5 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.010
105
pg. 4
improvement or repair of dams, reservoirs, power plants and electrical transmission lines of 230,000 volts and higher.
“Purchase Order”: A request to authorize the purchase of supplies, materials or equipment, or equipment from a specific vendor.
“Purchasable Equipment”: Equipment which can be acquired through “lease with option to purchase” type plans.
“Purchasing Authority”: The city finance director is designated the purchasing authority for the city of Susanville. 6
“Service Agreement”: A contract between a service provider and the city, outlining the terms and conditions and covering various aspects such as quality, availability, and responsibility of services. “Vendor”: In the context of a purchasing policy for the city of Susanville, a vendor refers to an individual or a business entity that supplies goods, services, or works to the city in exchange for payment. Vendors can include suppliers, contractors, consultants, and other entities involved in providing products or services to the city.

I. Roles and Responsibilities
A. Finance Director
The city finance director is designated as purchasing authority for the city of Susanville. The finance director shall ensure that the purchase of equipment, supplies, professional or nonprofessional services, or services not involving particular ability required by any office or department of the city in accordance with purchasing procedures prescribed by this policy, and such other rules or regulations as shall be prescribed by the city council. The finance director acts to procure for the city the needed quality in equipment, supplies, nonprofessional services, or services not involving particular ability required by any office or department of the city, at least expense to the city. The finance director shall encourage uniform bidding, and endeavor to obtain as full and open competition as possible on all purchases hereunder. Prepare and recommend to the city manager and city council rules governing the purchase of equipment, supplies, nonprofessional services, or services not involving particular ability for the city. The finance director shall maintain a bidder’s list, vendors’ catalogue file, and records for the efficient operation of this procurement policy.7
The finance director, upon written approval of the city manager, may authorize in writing any city department to purchase or contract for specified supplies and equipment independently of the purchasing authority, but the finance director shall require that such purchases or contracts be made pursuant to Chapter 3.08 of the Susanville Municipal Code. 6 City of Susanville Municipal Code 2.24.010
7 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.030
106
pg. 5
The finance director, or delegate pursuant to 3.08.030 of the Susanville Municipal Code, shall keep a list of qualified contractors that identifies qualified bidders for city projects identified according to categories of work. Also known as vendors catalogue file.

The finance director shall keep an up-to-date list of authorized signers and designated responsible individuals with listed invoice signatory thresholds, purchase order signatory thresholds, and related budget divisions in which they can sign for. The authorized signers list is submitted annually by each department head to the finance director and kept on file by the finance director.

B. City Clerk
The city clerk will maintain records of all executed agreements and contractual agreements and ensure that no contract or agreement in excess of $25,000 shall be entered into without city council approval. The city clerk will attest by signatory action on all agreements that agreements are signed by the appropriate city officials.8

C. City Manager
The city manager is authorized to execute agreements in the amount not to exceed $25,000 including multiyear agreements not exceeding $25,000 in aggregate, agreements in excess of $25,000 require city council approval. Services, in excess of $3,000, including multiyear agreements exceeding $3,000 in aggregate, require written agreements in a form approved by the city attorney. The city manager may not delegate contract signatory authority.

The city manager will consider recommendations of the finance director and, as appropriate, delegate the routine administrative responsibilities as specified in this policy, and other applicable purchasing regulations as shall be prescribed by the city council. The city manager will provide periodic reports to the city council regarding city manager approved agreements under $25,000 executed by the city manager or department heads. 9 D. Department Head(s)
Department heads are authorized to execute agreements in the amount not to exceed $15,000 including multiyear agreements not exceeding $15,000 in aggregate, without the city manager or city council approval. Prior to executing any agreements, department heads will identify no existing agreements or contracts are in place and which additional services could be added for an equal share of cost increase prior to executing any agreement or contract.10 Services, in excess of $3,000, including multiyear agreements exceeding $3,000 in aggregate, require written agreements in a form approved by the city attorney.

Department heads may not delegate contract signatory authority; however, department heads are responsible for submitting an authorized signers list notating designated individuals to the finance director notating signatory thresholds for department invoices and purchase orders.

Department heads will be responsible for updating the list when personnel changes occur. 8 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.030 9 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.030 10 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.030
107
pg. 6
II. Purchase Orders
Purchase Orders are required for all purchases (including credit card purchases) exceeding $3,000 and must be approved by the purchasing department’s department head or designated budget responsible individual. Purchase orders must accompany informal quotes from at least three (3) different business vendors or must be accompanied by an executed contract or agreement. Informal quotes must contain the names of the vendors, their business address and telephone numbers, and their price quotes. A description of the item purchased must be included with the purchase order with an accompanying statement that vendor quotes are for the same or substantially similar item (justification required). If the type of item being purchased is so specialized that less than three (3) vendors are available, a signed memo documenting so must accommodate purchase order and be included in submission.

If purchasing through CMAS and other DGS purchasing contracts, there is no need to obtain quotes from three vendors because these prices have already been negotiated. A signed memo documenting so must accommodate purchase order and be included in submission.

The finance director shall not issue any purchase order for equipment, supplies, nonprofessional services or nonprofessional services not involving particular ability for which there is an insufficient appropriation in the budgetary account against which said purchase is to be charged.11 III. Service Agreements
Services, in excess of $3,000, including multiyear agreements exceeding $3,000 in aggregate, require written agreements in a form approved by the city attorney. 12 Service procurements shall not be split
for the purpose of evading the requirement to obtain a written agreement.

Contractual services in excess of $25,000 per agreement must go to the city council for approval. The city manager is authorized to execute agreements in the amount not to exceed $25,000 without city council approval; department heads are authorized to execute agreements in the amount not to exceed $15,000 without city council or city manager approval. All executed agreements under the $25,000 threshold will be reported to the city council at a frequency as directed. All executed agreements must be filed with the city clerk and the city clerk shall attest by signatory action on all agreements that agreements are signed by the appropriate city officials.13 Departments must identify no existing agreements are in place in which additional services could be added for an equal share of the cost increase prior to executing agreement. 14 City departments must use
the standard city agreement forms whenever possible.

IV. Professional Services
Procurement of the architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, and land surveying, construction management, and environmental services as defined in California Government Section 4525 shall be made as follows:
11 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.080 12 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.180 13 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.030 14 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.140 108
pg. 7

1. Selection shall be made on the basis of demonstrated competence and professional qualifications for the satisfactory performance of the services required at a reasonable cost.

2. Selection procedures for projects using city funds:
a. The city shall endeavor to obtain a statement of qualifications from no less than three firms. If statement of qualifications from three firms cannot be obtained, the requesting department shall provide a written justification statement of the process used to solicit statements, specifically stating the number of firms contacted and the reasons that qualifications from at least three firms could not be obtained. The finance director shall review the justification statement and approve the selection process to move forward or require the department to increase their efforts. In the event the finance department is implementing the selection process the city manager shall approve the justification statement if needed.
b. The requesting department’s department head shall convene a review committee, the review committee shall:
i. Consist of at least three members knowledgeable in the field of services being solicited. Committee members shall not have any financial interest or personal relationship with any of the firms that have submitted statements of qualifications.
ii. Review the experience qualifications of the prospective firms and select three firms based on demonstrated competence and qualifications. iii. Engage in discussions with the top three firms, or fewer as approved in section “a” above. Discussions shall include anticipated concepts, the relative utility of alternative methods of approach for furnishing required services, and cost. iv. Make a recommendation to the department head based on the responses to selection criteria in section iii above.

3. Selection procedures for projects using grant or other non-city funding sources:
a. Absent any procurement requirements specific to the funding source being utilized, the city shall follow Section 2 “Selection procedures for projects using city funds”. b. When the funding source for a project requires a specific competitive selection process, the city shall adhere to the specific competitive selection process required by the granting agency for the applicable funding source.

4. Procurement of financial, economic, accounting, legal, professional planning services, or administrative services shall be made as follows:
a. Selection shall be made on the basis of demonstrated competence and professional qualifications for the satisfactory performance of services required at a reasonable cost. b. Specific competitive selection requirements of funding entity must be adhered to when applicable.
109
pg. 8
V. Local Purchase Preference
Except for federal contracts and public projects, or when utilizing funding that does not allow local preference, a local vendor may qualify for local purchase preference. Local purchase preference is a two and one-half percent (2.5%) [higher quote] difference of a quote price over the next vendor. A local vendor must submit a copy of a current city business license, issued by the city of Susanville, and complete and sign a declaration under penalty of perjury, stating that as of the date the request for quotes was issued, the business listed on the quote was physically maintained and operates at a fixed office or other business premises located within the geographical limits of Lassen County, and providing such other information as may be requested.15 Verification of active city business licenses can be made by written request to the finance department, or copies of the active license can be provided by vendor with submission of quote.

VI. Credit Cards
All credit cards purchases shall be made in conformance with the city’s Credit Card Policy.

VII. Splitting Orders
Purchases shall not be split for the purpose of evading the requirement of obtaining a Purchase Order.

It is unlawful to split or separate into smaller orders the purchase of supplies, materials, or services of the purpose of evading the competitive bidding provisions.

VIII. Supplies, Materials, and Equipment Purchasing
Except in cases of emergency as described in 3.08.200 of the Susanville Municipal Code, the finance director shall not issue any purchase order for equipment, supplies, nonprofessional services or nonprofessional services not involving particular ability for which there is an insufficient appropriation in the budgetary account against which said purchase is to be charged.16 When purchasing from a local vendor within city limits, verification of active business license must be obtained. Verification can be obtained by written requests to the finance department.

The department head shall inspect supplies and equipment delivered and determine their conformance with the specifications set forth in the order or contract. The department head shall have authority to require chemical and physical tests of samples submitted with bids, and samples of deliveries which are necessary to determine their quality and conformance with specifications. Department heads may delegate this duty to an appropriate department of the city.17

1. ITEMS COSTING BETWEEN $0 and $2,999: Inexpensive materials, supplies, and equipment can be purchased directly by department, no purchase order is required.

2. ITEMS COSTING BETWEEN $3,000 AND $14,999: Purchase of these items requires a purchase order signed by a budget responsible individual with accompanying documentation. 15 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.160
16 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.080 17 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.100 110
pg. 9

3. ITEMS COSTING OVER $15,000: Purchases of more than $15,000 must be pre-approved by the city manager.

4. PUBLIC PROJECTS LESS THAN $60,000: Requires pre-approval by the city manager and may be completed by force account or negotiated contract. Multiple quotes are not required. Public project purchases must be conducted in accordance with the most recently adopted California Unform Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual.

5. PUBLIC PROJECTS LESS THAN $200,000 may be let to contract by informal procedures as set by SMC 03.08.070. Public project purchases must be conducted in accordance with the most recently adopted California Unform Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual.

6. PUBLIC PROJECTS MORE THAN $200,000 are subject to formal bidding procedures as set by SMC 03.08.090. All contracts shall be awarded by the city council. Public project purchases must be conducted in accordance with the most recently adopted California Unform Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual.

IX. Auction Purchasing
Department head to submit Purchase Order to finance director for approval with a do not exceed amount with attached memo depicting reasonable explanation or like and kind comparison of item sought through auction.

X. Vehicle Purchasing
Notwithstanding other requirements as presented in this policy, vehicles should be selected for purchase in accordance with approved vehicle replacement plans, if applicable. In general base model vehicles should be selected for purchase. When requesting a purchase order for a vehicle. Information regarding approved vehicle replacement plans shall be provided, if applicable.

XI. Equipment Leasing
Leasing equipment shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in this policy. Department heads acquiring said assets shall provide a cost analysis of payment options which shall include lease versus purchase and review of lease agreement proposed. The cost analysis shall include, but not be limited to, the type of lease, be it operating lease or capital lease, purchase options (cash versus financing), lease rate, purchase price, payment schedule, interest rate, expected useful life, residual value at lease end, maintenance, service, and supply costs.18 Department heads may execute lease agreements in an amount not to exceed $15,000 and $25,000 for the city manager. Leasing agreements, in excess of $3,000, including multiyear agreements exceeding $3,000 in aggregate, require written agreements in a form approved by the city attorney. Leasing agreements must be assigned an agreement number provided by the city clerk prior to execution.
18 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.130
111
pg. 10
For leasing of non-purchasable equipment in excess of $15,000 for department heads and in excess of $25,000 for the city manager, it shall be the policy of the city of Susanville that when property is acquired by lease rather than outright purchase that all lease agreements must be reviewed by both the finance director and the city attorney prior to consideration by city council and must be signed by the mayor or city manager after said and approval by the city council. 19 For leasing of non-purchasable equipment in excess of $15,000 for department heads and in excess of $25,000 for city manager, it shall also be the policy for all lease agreements that the head of the department acquiring said asset shall be required to provide a cost analysis of payment options which shall include lease versus purchase and review of any lease agreement proposed. The cost analysis shall include, but not be limited to, the type of lease, be it operating lease or capital lease, purchase options (cash versus financing), lease rate, purchase price, payment schedule, interest rate, expected useful life, residual value at lease end, maintenance, service and supply costs.20 Departments must identify no existing agreements are in place in which additional services could be added for an equal share of the cost increase prior to executing the agreement. City departments must use the standard city agreement forms whenever possible.

It shall be the policy of the city of Susanville that when property is acquired by lease rather than outright purchase that all lease agreements and documentation must be reviewed by both the finance director and the city attorney prior to consideration by city council.

XII. Surplus Property
Department heads shall annually notify the finance director if they have items to surplus and list the items in a format approved by the city manager showing all supplies and equipment which are no longer used which have become obsolete or worn out. Vehicles to be surplused will need to have verification of city ownership prior to being placed on the list.21 The department head of the department owning the vehicle proposed to be surplused will verify ownership with the city clerk prior to placing vehicles on surplus list.

The finance director shall have the authority to make transfers between departments of any usable surplus supplies or equipment as needed22 should another department desire items from the surplus list.

The department receiving the surplused item will pay depreciated (scrap value) amount, determined by the finance director, to the department that has surplused the item. The final proposed public surplus list will be provided to the city manager’s office which will prepare a staff report for council approval and coordinate disposal and/or sale of surplus property. Items that are not purchased at auction may be disposed of. No minimum bid.23
19 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.130 20 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.130 21 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.110 22 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.030 23 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.110
112
pg. 11
XIII. Exemptions from Purchasing Policy in Emergency Situations:

All bidding requirements and purchases of equipment, supplies, nonprofessional services, and nonprofessional services not requiring a particular ability may be dispensed with in an emergency. An emergency is a situation where the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health and/or property.24 The city manager is authorized pursuant to Government Code section 22050 to order any action to repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes without giving notice for bids or to let contracts. The city manager must report the action to the city council for review within 7 days after the action or at the next regularly scheduled meeting if that meeting will occur not later than fourteen (14) days after the action. The city council shall review the emergency action at least every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the action is terminated, to determine, by a four-fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the action, unless the city manager has terminated the action prior to the city council reviewing the emergency action, in which case the city manager will report to the city council the city manager’s decision to terminate the action at the next regularly scheduled meeting. When the city council reviews the emergency action, it shall terminate the action at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant so that the remainder of the emergency action may be completed by giving notice for bids to let contracts.25 24 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.200
25 City of Susanville Municipal Code 3.08.200
113

CITY OF SUSANVILLE

CREDIT CARD USE POLICY

PURPOSE
The Purpose of the City of Susanville Credit Card Use Policy is to provide guidelines for the use of City credit cards. The use of City credit cards is deemed to be an efficient use of City resources and provides for better control and accounting of funds than the use of cash. Proper use of credit cards may limit the City's liability in many cases. Because any use of a City credit card is the use of public funds the use thereof shall follow the guidelines of this policy.

POLICY
City credit cards are to be used in the conducting of authorized City business. City credit cards will not be used for any personal expenses even if the intent is to reimburse the City at a later date.

ALLOWED USES

1. Under certain circumstances, the use of a City credit card may be the most appropriate method for making travel arrangements and purchasing lodging, transportation and other minor purchases associated with official travel and activities of the City.

2. The purchase of authorized meals for which no cash advance has been received.

3. The purchase of fuel, oil and minor repairs of City owned vehicles.

4. The purchasing of other minor purchases associated with official functions and activities of the City.

5. The use of credit cards offers the City an alternative method of confirming travel reservations and making payments for related transportation, meals and lodging needs. However, significant problems can arise from inappropriate use and control of credit card purchases that can hinder any benefits associated with their use. To ensure that the use of City credit cards is not abused, the most practical approach is confidence in the discretion and judgment of City personnel.

Accordingly, the use of City credit cards will be closely monitored by the Finance Director, and any abuses or excessive costs associated with the use of City credit cards will lead to termination of the offending person rather than development of more sophisticated internal control procedures.

Page 1 of 5 ends

114

PROHIBITED USES

1. Under the City's Travel Policy, the City reimburses employees for the use of their private automobile in conducting City business. Therefore, City credit cards may not be used to purchase gasoline for privately owned automobiles.

2. City credit cards will not be used for any personal expenses even if the intent is to reimburse the City at a later date including spouse and family member expenses.

3. Any purchases for which proper authorization has not been received.

PROCEDURES

1. City credit cards will be assigned by the City Clerk to each department, not to individual officers or employees. It is the responsibility of the Department Head to safeguard against misuse of cards under their control. Any unidentified charges on a credit card will be charged to the assigned department.

2. Employees requiring the use of a City credit card shall request the credit card from the Department Head not more than one business day in advance of departure on City business.

3. When a City credit card is used, the employee will make a notation on the front of the charge slip stating the purpose of the charge and, in the case of meal charges, the names of the persons for whom meals were purchased.

4. All purchases by City credit card shall be subject to all other purchasing policies, including those for travel and meals. Under no circumstances may credit cards be used to circumvent regular solicitation and review procurement procedures for purchasing goods and services, including vendor credit cards such as Wal-Mart, Safeway, Chevron, Costco and Office Depot.

5. City gasoline credit cards should only be used to fuel City vehicles in conjunction with out-ofarea travel. For local travel, the City's fueling facilities at the Public Works Yard should be used. City gasoline cards are not to be used for the purchase of fuel in a privately-owned vehicle.

6. All credit card charges relating to travel shall be listed on the Travel Request and Expense Report. All credit card charge slips must be retained and attached to the report. For purchases on a City credit card, the Finance Department must have the charge slip immediately (prior to receiving the bill or statement).

7. Lodging expenses may be charged to the City credit card, but any charges due to persons other than City employees occupying a room, personal expenses, or incidentals must be paid for separately by the City employee and not charged to the City credit card.

DISPUTES
If items purchased with a City credit card are found defective, the department employee has the responsibility to return the item (s) to the merchant for replacement or to receive a credit on the

Page 2 of 5 ends

115
,
•
r •
purchase. If the merchant refuses to replace or correct the faulty item, then the purchase of this item will be considered to be in dispute and will not be paid until resolved.

A disputed item must be noted on the Statement of Account so it will not be paid until the problem is resolved.

LOST OR STOLEN CITY CREDIT CARDS
Should any employee lose or have a City credit card stolen, it is their responsibility to contact the City Clerk within 24 hours of discovery.

This policy does not claim to have addressed all contingencies and conditions. Any necessary and reasonable expense that may from time-to-time be justified due to circumstances or opportunities for the City will be honored upon approval by the Department Head and City Administrator. When in doubt, the employee must pay for the item and seek reimbursement, rather than charging items to the City credit card.

The City Administrator may, from time to time, make minor changes to procedures and forms necessary to implement this policy.

VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CREDIT CARD USE POLICY WILL BE SUBJECT TO

DISCIPLINARY ACTION, UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION

Page 3 of 5 ends

116
..
·-

CITY OF SUSANVILLE

CITY CREDIT CARD USE AGREEMENT
I agree to use this card only for actual and necessary business expenses for the City of Susanville, incurred by me in accordance with City procurement procedures. I understand and acknowledge that use of the card may not be delegated to anyone other than myself ( except when a Department Head delegates use of a credit card to a department employee).

I agree to abide by the City of Susanville Credit Card Use Policy. I acknowledge that use of this card for any purpose other than official City of Susanville business is prohibited and will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination. In addition, I will be required to reimburse the City of Susanville for such charges.

I agree to surrender the City Credit Card immediately upon retirement, termination, or upon request of the City Administrator. I understand that use of the City credit card after charge privileges are withdrawn is prohibited.

If the City credit card is lost or stolen, I will immediately notify the Finance Director. I understand that failure to promptly notify the Finance Director of the theft, loss or misplacement of the City credit card could make me responsible for any fraudulent use of the card.

VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CREDIT CARD USE POLICY WILL BE SUBJECT TO

DISCIPLINARY ACTION, UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION
City Credit Card User: Department Head
Date: _ Date: ----

Page 4 of 5 ends

117
,
"
, ·. J

CITY OF SUSANVILLE

REQUEST FOR CREDIT CARDS
The City Administrator and Department Heads are authorized to use City credit cards for City authorized purposes only. Department Heads may designate departmental employees use of City credit cards. This form must be submitted to the Department Head prior to authorized use. The credit cards must be returned immediately after returning to the work site. A copy of this authorization must accompany any billing documents submitted by City employees other than Department Heads, to the Finance Department for payment.

NAME: _
DEPARTMENT: _
ACCOUNT CODE#: _
FUND ACTIVITY OBJECT %
Purpose of Travel/Activity: _
Location: ---------------------------------
Dates:----------------------------------
Requested By: _ Date: ---------------
****************************************************************************** Authorized By: _
Department Head Date

Page 5 of 5 ends

118
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 24-6388

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE

ADOPTING THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE CREDIT CARD POLICY
WHEREAS, the city of Susanville recognizes the necessity of providing authorized employees with access to city-issued credit cards for efficient management of approved expenses related to city operations; and
WHEREAS, the use of City-issued credit cards requires clear guidelines to ensure appropriate usage, accountability, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed city of Susanville Credit Card Policy establishes detailed procedures, controls, and safeguards to govern the issuance, use, and oversight of employee credit cards in conducting City business; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the Credit Card Policy will promote transparency, fiscal responsibility, and the efficient administration of city resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and supports the proposed policy as an important tool to maintain accountability and prevent misuse of city-issued credit cards.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby authorizes the following:

1. Adoption of the city of Susanville Credit Card Policy, as presented, to govern the issuance, use, and oversight of city-issued credit cards by employees; and

2. The City Manager and Finance Director, or their designee, are authorized to implement and enforce the Credit Card Policy and ensure compliance with its provisions by all applicable employees and departments; and

3. The City Manager is further authorized to make minor administrative updates to the Credit Card Policy as necessary to remain in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, provided such changes are reported to the City Council in a timely manner; and

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:_____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney
120
Pg. 1
City of Susanville
Credit Card Policy
Scope: Citywide
Policy Contact:

City Clerk
(530) 252-5103
[email protected]
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 2 I. GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................................... 2 II. OBTAINING A CITY CREDIT CARD ............................................................................................ 2 III. CREDIT CARDHOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................. 3 IV. DEPARTMENT HEAD RESPONSIBILITIES: ............................................................................... 3 VI. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR FOR CREDIT CARDS RESPONSIBILITIES: .......................... 4 VII. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE RESPONSIBILITIES: ............................................................................. 5 VII. ALLOWED USES: ........................................................................................................................... 5 VIII.PROHIBITED USES ........................................................................................................................ 6 IX. DISPUTES ......................................................................................................................................... 6 X. LOST OR STOLEN CITY CREDIT CARDS ................................................................................... 6 USER AGREEMENT FOR CITY ISSUED CREDIT CARD .................................................................. 7 Adopted by Resolution Number: 24-6388 on December 4, 2024 Supersedes: 2001 version Credit Card Policy
Effective Date: December 28, 2024 (adoption of 2024 version Procurement Policy) Policy Review Schedule: Every 2 years from adoption date and in accordance to applicable Procurement Policy updated or review.
121
Pg. 2

CITY OF SUSANVILLE

CREDIT CARD USE POLICY

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the city of Susanville Credit Card Use Policy is to establish guidelines for the appropriate use of city employee issued credit cards. The use of city credit cards is deemed to be an efficient use of city resources and provides for better control and accounting of funds than the use of cash. Proper use of credit cards may limit the city's liability in many cases. The use of the program is intended to provide appropriate city team members with a flexible payment mechanism for the acquisition of goods with flexible spending limits and merchant category codes. This Policy applies to all employees who are issued a city of Susanville Credit Card. Because any use of a city credit card is the use of public funds the use thereof shall follow the guidelines of this policy.

DEFINITIONS
“CAL-Card”: The city of Susanville utilizes the CAL-Card, which is the registered name of the State of California’s Purchase Card Program. CAL-Card is a VISA purchase card provided by a State of California leveraged procurement agreement (LPA).
“Department Head”: City of Susanville designated department heads are depicted in the city’s organizational chart and assume responsibilities for that department. “Missing Receipts Memo”: Memo written to the finance department that explains rationale for missing credit card receipts. The memo should detail the description of the purchase, the budget the purchase should be coded to, and include department head signature. “Monthly Statement of Accounts”: Account statement issued by credit card vendor listing all financial transactions per credit card user within a specific time period. “Program Administrator”: The program administrator is responsible for reviewing required forms for completion, approving, and issuing the credit card. The city’s program administrator is the city’s finance director.

Split Purchases: Single procurement intentionally divided into two or more purchase transactions or orders to avoid procurement policy review or competitive selection.

I. GUIDELINES
City credit cards are to be used in the conducting of authorized city business. City credit cards will not be used for any personal expenses even if the intent isto reimburse the city at a later date. Failure to follow this Policy may lead to the suspension or termination of a credit card and disciplinary action. Credit cards will only be issued to cardholders who certify they have read, understand, and will comply with this policy. Employees issued credit cards are responsible for any and all use. Use of a city credit card is a privilege, and the Finance Director or his/her designee may suspend or revoke cards at any time in accordance with his/her assessment of the city’s best interests such as, but no limit to, lack of timely submission of invoices and violations of this policy.

II. OBTAINING A CITY CREDIT CARD
Various employees are authorized to receive a CAL-Card issued in their name for city-related business. 122
Pg. 3
Employee department heads shall evaluate the operational necessity for issuance of a credit card based on the duties and responsibilities of employees and the operational requirement and provide recommendation to the finance director for the issuance and limit suggestion in writing.

III. CREDIT CARDHOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Acknowledge receipt of the credit card and understand the Credit Card Policy by completing the User Agreement for City-Issued Credit Card Form (see policy attachment).

2. Direct questions about the proper use of the credit card to the finance director, or designee.

3. Ensure there is available budget for each credit card transaction.

4. Never use the credit card for transactions other than for official city purchases.

5. Never split purchases to avoid credit card transaction limits.

6. Never purchase items or services not for city use, inappropriate items or services, or items or services which violate any city policy and must follow city procurement policies.

7. Never assign or loan your credit card to other employees.

8. Ensure that any use of the credit card is in accordance with this policy.

9. Ensure the credit card is secure from theft and misuse.

10. Return the credit card upon request from the finance director, or designee.

11. Notify the finance director, or designee, immediately if the credit card is lost or stolen.

12. Verify that the amount on the sales draft/receipt corresponds to the items purchased, including applicable taxes, before signing the sales draft/receipt.

13. Ensure the merchant provides an itemized receipt, which includes a description of the goods and/or services purchased, the quantity purchased, the price per item, amount of sales tax, total amount, shipping charges (if applicable), and date of purchase.

14. Keep records of the invoice or packing slip, and credit card slip for each credit card transaction and submit the receipts to the finance department for payment on the monthly statement of account.

15. Dispute charges, as appropriate, with the financial institution.

16. Ensure that all documentation supporting each transaction, including a document disputing charges or a missing receipt memo, if applicable is attached to the monthly statement of account.

17. Record appropriate codes on the monthly statement of account and a description of each transaction.

IV. DEPARTMENT HEAD RESPONSIBILITIES:

1. Department heads are responsible for all credit card purchases made by their subordinates.

2. Department heads may designate intermediary reviewers, e.g., managers, supervisors, to review and confirm purchases made by cardholders before review and approval by the department head. 123
Pg. 4

3. Evaluate the operational necessity for issuance of credit cards to department employees based on the duties and responsibilities of employees and the operational requirement.

4. If operational necessity, complete and submit the Application for Credit Cards to the finance director or designee.

5. Accountable for the adherence to this policy for department cardholders.

6. Accountable for the maintenance of appropriate internal controls.

7. Review and approve all monthly statements of accounts for department cardholders ensuring that cardholders’ credit card monthly statement of account includes the appropriate documentation to support transactions.

8. Review the utilization of the credit cards on a periodic basis, at least annually, for the purpose of identifying credit cards that may no longer be needed or that may be under-utilized.

9. Review cardholder transactions for split purchases attempting to avoid transaction limits, purchases that are not for city use, inappropriate purchases, and purchases in violation of any city policy.

10. Follow appropriate disciplinary measures for violations of this policy.

11. Report violations of this policy to the finance director, or designee.

VI. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR FOR CREDIT CARDS RESPONSIBILITIES:

The city of Susanville’s program administrator will be the finance director or his/her designee. The program administrator’s responsibilities include the following:

1. Maintain and review the citywide Credit Card Policy.

2. Establish and update credit card accounts, including termination of credit cards.

3. Administer transaction thresholds and transaction templates, which limit the utilization of credit cards, in accordance with this policy.

4. Review monthly statement of accounts to verify the adherence to this policy and ensure that cardholders’ credit card monthly statement of account includes the appropriate documentation to support transactions.

5. Accountable for the maintenance of appropriate internal controls.

6. As needed, provide training and advice to credit cardholders.

7. Review cardholder transactions for split purchases attempting to avoid transaction limits, purchases that are not for city use, inappropriate purchases, and purchases in violation of any city policy.

8. Follow appropriate disciplinary measures for violations of this policy.

9. Report violations of this policy to the city manager and department heads.

10. Ensure destruction of credit cards of cardholders who left the city or a particular department and termination of the card with the issuing financial institution. 124
Pg. 5

11. Ensure signed User Agreement for Credit Card is forwarded to human resources and included in the cardholder’s personnel file.

VII. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE RESPONSIBILITIES:

1. Ensure the monthly statement of accounts are exported from U.S. Bank into the financial software for monthly reporting.

2. As needed, provide program advice to credit cardholders.

3. Review cardholder transactions for split purchases attempting to avoid transaction limits, purchases that are not for city use, inappropriate purchases, and purchases in violation of any city policy.

4. Ensure that each credit card transaction is assigned an appropriate expense code on the monthly statement of account and charges for accrual for California Sales Tax are identified.

5. Ensure that there is available budget for each credit card transaction.

6. Issue payments for credit cards to the appropriate financial institution.

7. Report any violations of this policy to the finance director.

VII. ALLOWED USES:

1. Travel:

Under certain circumstances, the use of a city credit card may be the most appropriate method for making travel arrangements and purchasing lodging, transportation and other minor purchases associated with official travel and activities approved by the city. The use of credit cards offers the city an alternative method of confirming travel reservations and making payments for related transportation, meals, and lodging needs. However, significant problems can arise from inappropriate use and control of credit card purchases that can hinder any benefits associated with their use. To ensure that the use of city credit cards is not abused, the most practical approach is confidence in the discretion and judgment of city personnel. Accordingly, the use of city credit cards will be closely monitored by the finance director and finance department. Any abuses or excessive costs associated with the use of city credit cards will lead to termination of the offending person rather than development of more sophisticated internal control procedures.

Lodging expenses may be charged to the city credit card, but any charges due to persons other than city employees occupying a room, personal expenses, or incidentals must be paid for separately by the city employee and not charged to the city credit card.

All credit card charges relating to travel shall be listed on the Travel Request and Expense Report.

All credit card charge slips must be retained and attached to the report. For purchases on a city credit card, the finance department must have the charge slip immediately (prior to receiving the bill or statement).

2. Minor Purchases:

The purchase of authorized meals for which no cash advance has been received. The purchase of fuel, oil, and minor repairs of city owned vehicles when transaction cannot be invoiced directly to the city.
125
Pg. 6
The purchase of other minor purchases associated with official functions and activities ofthe city, such as supplies purchased through a local vendor where the city does not have an established account with vendor (I.e., janitorial, office supplies, etc.).

3. Online Purchases:

When purchases cannot be procured locally, it may be necessary to purchase necessary items online with a city credit card. Credit cards may be used to execute these transactions when direct invoicing is not available. All city purchases utilizing city credit cards must follow the city’s Procurement Policy.

4. Memberships and Subscription Charges:

Reoccurring charges for memberships and/or subscriptions may require credit card use if invoicing is unavailable.

VIII. PROHIBITED USES

1. Under the city's Travel Policy, the city reimburses employees for the use of their private automobile in conducting city business. Therefore, city credit cards may not be used to purchase gasoline for privately owned automobiles.

2. City credit cards will not be used for any personal expenses even if the intent is to reimburse the city at a later date including spouse and family member expenses.

3. Any purchases for which proper authorization has not been received.

IX. DISPUTES
If items purchased with a c ity credit card are found defective, the department employee has the responsibility to return the item(s) to the merchant for replacement or to receive a credit on the purchase. If the merchant refuses to replace or correct the faulty item, then the purchase of this item will be considered to be in dispute and will not be paid until resolved.

A disputed item must be noted on the statement of account so it will not be paid until the problem is resolved.

X. LOST OR STOLEN CITY CREDIT CARDS
Should any employee lose or have a city credit card stolen, it is their responsibility to notify their department head and contact the finance director within 24 hours of discovery.

This policy does not claim to have addressed all contingencies and conditions. Any necessary and reasonable expense that may from time-to-time be justified due to circumstances or opportunities for the city will be honored upon approval by the department head and city manager. When in doubt, the employee must pay for the item and seek reimbursement, rather than charging items to the city credit card.

The city manager or finance director may, from time to time, make minor changes to procedures and forms necessary to implement this policy.

VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CREDIT CARD USE POLICY WILL BE SUBJECT TO

DISCIPLINARY ACTION, UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION
126
Pg. 7

CITY OF SUSANVILLE

USER AGREEMENT FOR CITY ISSUED CREDIT CARD
The use of city credit cards is deemed to be an efficient use of city resources and provides for better control and accounting of funds than the use of cash. Proper use of credit cards may limit the city's liability in many cases. The city of Susanville utilizes the CAL-Card, which is the registered name of the State of California’s Purchase Card Program. CAL-Card is a VISA purchase card provided by a State of California leveraged procurement agreement (LPA). The use of the program is intended to provide appropriate city team members with a flexible payment mechanism for the acquisition of goods with flexible spending limits and merchant category codes. This policy applies to all employees who are issued a city of Susanville credit card.

By initialing the below terms, you agree to comply with the terms and policies of the city of Susanville Credit Card Policy

1. ________ I agree to use this card only for actual and necessary business expenses for the city of Susanville, incurred by me in accordance with city procurement policy and procedures. I understand and acknowledge that use of the card may not be delegated to anyone other than myself.

2. ________ I agree to abide by the city of Susanville Credit Card Use Policy. I acknowledge that use of this card for any purpose other than official city of Susanville business is prohibited and will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination. In addition, I will be required to reimburse the city of Susanville for such charges.

3. ________ I agree to surrender the city credit card immediately upon retirement, termination, or upon request of the city manager. I understand that use of the city credit card after charge privileges are withdrawn is prohibited.

4. ________ If the city credit card is lost or stolen, I will immediately notify the finance director. I understand that failure to promptly notify the finance director of the theft, loss or misplacement of the city credit card could make me responsible for any fraudulent use of the card.

5. ________ I have been provided with a copy of the city of Susanville Credit Card Policy and the city of Susanville Procurement Policy.

6. ________ VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CREDIT CARD USE POLICY WILL BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION, UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION.

Employee Name: ____________________________________________________________ Department: ____________________________________________________________ Signature: ____________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________
127
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.A
Discussion Item
Submitted By: Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Department Reports
PRESENTED BY: Dan Newton, City Manager
SUMMARY: The City Manager's Report is designed for Department Heads to address the Council on a variety of topics, is needed. Also, for the Council to address any questions or comments regarding that Department Head.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

ACTION REQUESTED: Information only.

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ATTACHMENTS:
128
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.A
Discussion Item
Submitted By: Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
Action Date: December 4, 2024
SUBJECT: Future Council Items
PRESENTED BY: Dan Newton, City Manager
SUMMARY: Council may provide direction to staff to bring back items for discussion or action at a future meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

ACTION REQUESTED: Possible direction to staff.

SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ATTACHMENTS:
241204.Future.Items.List.pdf
129
11/6/2024 Consider program and faciliites for the homeless youth of the community 11/6/2024 Consider purchasing the old Uppal building for a homeless facility 9/18/2024 Request to bring back an ARPA discussion item due to the Elk's Lodge no longer accepting the funds - IN

PROGRESS
9/18/2024 Request to have the council review and possibly update the priorities 9/18/2024 Request to bring back scope of work for the Wingfield Clubhouse improvements 9/18/2024 Request to discuss a Master Plan for the Barry Reservoir area 11/20/2024 Request to bring back an item regarding the community garden and LARP 8/21/2024 Request to bring back a resolution related to natural gas purchases at 80% 8/21/2024 Request to bring back discussion to disolve the planning commission 9/4/2024 Request to discuss Barry Reservoir Project
9/4/2024 Request to discuss old clubhouse updates
9/4/2024 Request to discuss dissolving of Planning Commission 9/18/2024 Planning Commission discussion item to be brought back on October 16, 2024 LAST THREE MONTHS (9/4/2024 to current)

BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Council requested - FUTURE COUNCIL ITEMS
Completed List Items
130

Susanville City CouncilDecember 4, 2024

Susanville City Council
December 4, 2024