Ukiah City Council
June 17, 2026

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

ELECTRIC UTILITY
Project Description
Org/Object
Project Number
Allocation to Multifunds
Project Status
Funding Source
Funding Identified
Funding Source Add'l
Comments
Costs to date
Estimated Costs per
Fiscal Year
Totals
Comments
City Council Status
Shovel Ready
Definition of terms used:

Project is ready to be sent out to bid.

Provides a description and additional narrative to assist in the understanding of the need and value of the proposed project.

The proposed account code where the expense will be accounted for.

The number assigned to track all expenses related to the project.

Indicates if the cost of the proposed cost is shared. In this case, here it will state what other funds are sharing the cost.

This indicates whether the project is "NEW", "IN PROGRESS", "ONGOING", "DEFERRED", or "COMPLETED".

The Fund the actual expense will come out of.
"Yes" indicating funding has been identified and will be available, "No" indicating funding has not yet been identified and is unavailable.

To further explain, as necessary, the funding type used selected.

Costs spent on the project.

Costs estimated to be spent in each of the fiscal years.

The sum of the five year estimate for each project.

Additional information as needed.
"Not Reviewed"- First time that Council has been presented the project; "Reviewed" - Council has been presented the project during an agendized meeting; "Explore" - Council has reviewed and has asked staff to further explore; "Reviewed and Supported" - Council has reviewed and supports the placement of the project on the CIP Plan; "Budget Adopted" - Council has approved the project through the Council action that takes place through either the full budget adoption process, or through a specific agendized item brought to Council. *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 7

FINANCE/I.T.

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

FINANCE/IT
Modernizes the City’s core network infrastructure through replacement of aging switches and network equipment. Standardizes configurations across facilities to improve performance, security, and operational reliability, while establishing a scalable foundation for future initiatives.

Additional Comments: Logical design and implementation plan are complete.

Equipment has been selected; some hardware is on hand and currently being configured as part of a phased deployment. Remaining equipment will be procured and deployed in subsequent phases. Project completion is targeted for FYE 2026–2027. Moved from FYE 26. Increased from $231,463.

Network Rebuild 20913940.80100 18493 N/A 300 Seminary Ave. Deferred Cost Allocation NoIT Fund Reserves
$ 405,000 Reviewed $ 405,000
Costs to date Shovel Ready Org/Obj

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Totals City Council Status

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
26/27 29/30 Project Status Funding Source Funding Identified Funding Source Add'l Comments Project # Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location Project Name Project Description 27/28 28/29 30/31 *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 1

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

FINANCE/IT
The Information Technology Division, at the direction of the City Manager, will lead the development of a structured Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance and enablement framework for the City. This initiative will establish policies, security standards, risk controls, and evaluation procedures for the responsible use of AI tools across departments.

Key components include: AI acceptable use standards, data protection and privacy safeguards, vendor and tool evaluation criteria, integration with cybersecurity, and staff education and awareness. Staff education and awareness
The initiative will also evaluate targeted use cases where AI may improve operational efficiency, documentation workflows, data analysis, and service delivery while ensuring compliance with regulatory and ethical standards.

Additional Comments: The City is currently evaluating enterprise-grade AI platforms, including Azure OpenAI (Azure ChatGPT), OpenAI for Government, and Microsoft Copilot, to determine the most secure, compliant, and costeffective solution for municipal operations. Initial market research and pricing estimates are being requested to assess licensing models, data residency requirements, integration capabilities, and alignment with public-sector security standards. Concurrently, the Information Technology Division is developing formal AI governance policies to establish acceptable use standards, data protection requirements, risk management controls, and oversight procedures. Any selected platform will be required to align with these policies and meet the City’s cybersecurity, privacy, and regulatory compliance standards prior to implementation. Moved from FYE 27.

Implements a Zero Trust security strategy to reduce cybersecurity risk across the City’s environment. This approach assumes threats can exist both outside and inside the network and requires continuous validation of users, devices, and access to systems. Initial implementation focuses on Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), shifting from network-based trust to identity-driven, leastprivilege access. This project is a top IT and organizational risk-reduction priority for the fiscal year.

Additional Comments: This initiative addresses security gaps that exist even within traditionally secured networks. Without Zero Trust controls, a single compromised account or device can allow broad access across systems, increasing the risk of ransomware, data loss, and operational disruption.

Zero Trust limits exposure by ensuring users and devices can only access what is explicitly required, significantly reducing breach impact. ZTNA represents the foundational phase, with future expansion into device compliance, segmentation, and continuous monitoring. Implementation will occur in phases and is targeted for completion in FYE 2029–2030. Moved from FYE 27. $ 405,000 - $ 110,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 650,000 $ Artificial Intelligence
(AI) Governance &
Enablement Initiative 20913950.54100 TBD N/A 300 Seminary Ave. New SUB-TOTAL: Cost Allocation No$ 15,000 45,000 $ 15,000 $ $ 90,000 Reviewed $ 15,000
$ 30,000 65,000 $ 30,000 $ $ 155,000 Not Reviewed $ 30,000 Zero Trust
Architecture
Implementation 20913950.54320 TBD N/A 300 Seminary Ave. New Cost Allocation No *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 2

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

FINANCE/IT
Project Name
Project Description
Org/Object
Project Number
Allocation to Multi-funds
Project Status
Funding Source
Funding Identified
Funding Source Add'l
Comments
Costs to date
Estimated Costs per
Fiscal Year
Totals
Comments
City Council Status
Shovel Ready
The proposed account code where the expense will be accounted for.

Definition of terms used:

The name of the project.

Provides a description and additional narrative to assist in the understanding of the need and value of the proposed project.

Project is ready to be sent out to bid.

To further explain, as necessary, the funding type used selected.

Costs spent on the project.

Costs estimated to be spent in each of the fiscal years.

The sum of the five year estimate for each project.

Additional information as needed.
"Not Reviewed"- First time that Council has been presented the project; "Reviewed" - Council has been presented the project during an agendized meeting; "Explore" - Council has reviewed and has asked staff to further explore; "Reviewed and Supported" - Council has reviewed and supports the placement of the project on the CIP Plan; "Budget Adopted" - Council has approved the project through the Council action that takes place through either the full budget adoption process, or through a specific agendized item brought to Council.

The number assigned to track all expenses related to the project.

Indicates if the cost of the proposed cost is shared. In this case, here it will state what other funds are sharing the cost.

This indicates whether the project is "NEW", "IN PROGRESS", "ONGOING", "DEFERRED", or "COMPLETED".

The Fund the actual expense will come out of.
"Yes" indicating funding has been identified and will be available, "No" indicating funding has not yet been identified and is unavailable. *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 3

FIRE AUTHORITY

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY
The Fire Training Tower was purchased in FYE 2023 for $468k of which $445k was reimbursed by PG&E Settlement funds through the County of Mendocino. An initial location for the tower was identified behind the Civic Center, however it was later determined not to be a good location due the adjacent neighborhoods. Staff is still working to determine a suitable location.

Additional Comments: Moved from FYE 26 due to the continued lack of a suitable site for the proposed live-fire training tower. To date, no location has met the operational requirements for infrastructure, utility access, zoning compatibility, and City or District ownership or acquisition feasibility. The project estimate has been adjusted to reflect inflation. Increased from $110,000.

The South Station (Station-681) has surpassed its useful life span as the facility infrastructure no longer meets the needs of the UVFA as current staffing levels have outgrown the existing living space. Station-681, initially a California Highway Patrol station, was converted into a fire station and designed to house one full-time staff member; UVFA currently staffs the station with three full-time team members per day (24-hours).

Additionally, as UVFA grows, it is anticipated that a full-time ambulance with another two full-time team members will be there per day in the foreseeable future. Station-681's current footprint would not be equitable or appropriate for use or a remodel due to size.

Complete replacement of the station is necessary, also a consideration for station location, selecting a strategic location to give the most optimal service to the Ukiah Valley.

Additional Comments: Prioritization and funding source(s) under review; Need to explore grant funding. Department estimate/request is $10 million. 27/28
$ 120,000
28/29 30/31
$ 120,000 Reviewed 91521400.80220 18334 N/A 1500 S State/141 Lovers Ln. New TBD NoSeeking grant funding.
$ - Reviewed 18337 N/A TBD In Progress Multiple YesFire District Measure B Funds $ 468,773
Costs to date Shovel Ready Org/Obj

FACILITIES/BUILDINGS/LAND
Totals City Council Status

FIRE AUTHORITY
26/27 29/30 Project Status Funding Source Funding Identified Funding Source Add'l Comments Project # Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location Project Name Project Description South Station
Replacement
X
Training Tower Site
Work and
Installation 91721400.80220
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 1

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY
The North Station (Station-683) has surpassed its useful life span as the facility infrastructure no longer meets the needs of the UVFA as current staffing levels have outgrown the existing living space and equipment storage. Station-683 was purchased as a temporary solution to have equipment and personnel stationed in the north end of Ukiah Valley for strategic planning and deployment of services. UVFA currently staffs the station with three full-time team members per day (24-hours). As with all other UVFA stations, it is anticipated that a full-time ambulance with another two full-time team members will be there per day in the foreseeable future. Station-683's current footprint would not be equitable or appropriate for use or a remodel due to size. Complete replacement of the station is necessary, also a consideration for station location, selecting a strategic location to give the most optimal service to the Ukiah Valley.

Additional Comments: Prioritization and funding source(s) under review; Need to explore grant funding. Department estimate/request is $10 million.

The Central Fire Station (Station-682) is in need of upgrades and retrofit. Station-682, until recently, was used as equipment storage and base of operations for volunteers, along with housing the On-Duty Duty Officer. It currently is staff with the Duty Officer and one fulltime ambulance staffed by two team members per day (24-hours). Retrofits and upgrades are needed for bedrooms, bathrooms, office space, kitchen, living space, apparatus bay, the exterior (including roof repairs), heating and cooling systems, and installing security measures to protect the facility and fire equipment. These upgrades/retrofits will maintain the building's footprint utilizing a change in layout to accommodate the Department's current and future needs as it is anticipated that additional staffing (fire/EMS) will be added in the foreseeable future.

Additional Comments: Prioritization and funding source(s) under review; Need to explore grant funding. Department estimate/request is $850,000. $ - 468,773 $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000 $
Central Station
Retrofit 10021210.80220 18336 N/A 1500 S State/141 Lovers Ln. New TBD NoSeeking grant funding. $ - Reviewed
Seeking grant
funding. 91521400.80220 18334 N/A 1500 S State/141 Lovers Ln. New TBD No $ - Reviewed North Station
Replacement
SUB-TOTAL:
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 2

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY
The crucial component utilized by the Fire Service allows team members to respond to any emergency ranging from fire, medical, rescue, hazmat, vehicle fire/crashes, etc. Fire engines and trucks are broken down into various classes (Type-I, Type-II, Type-III, etc.) based on the capabilities or specialized equipment of the apparatus. The most notable benchmark is response volume which indicates usage hours. Other aspects include accepted future use, mileage, past apparatus required maintenance, and downtime (out of service due to repairs); it is recommended that front-line vehicles be placed in reserve status at 6k hrs. or 7 to 10 yrs. of front-line service. Additionally, it is recommended that all reserve apparatus be retired after 12k hrs. of service or 15 to 20 yrs. of service. BR-6861 (Type-VI): This new purchase will be recommended in 2023, switching from our current Type-II apparatus to a more versatile and maneuverable Type-VI for our front-line team members and stations. E-6861 (Type-II): recommended to be repurposed as a reserve with the purchase of B-6861 in 2023; current E-6861 will replace E-6872. E-6872 (Type-III): will be replaced as the current front-line apparatuses (Type-II) are moved to surplus.

Additional Comments: Following UVFA Current Fleet Replacement Plan. Reduced the budget amount from $547k.

The Boat is used for water operations and rescue. The recommended replacement is frontline for 7 to 10 years and retired after 15 to 20 years of service. Based on the degrading of the marine material over time and hard use. B68-1: recommended replacement in 2023; the current B68-1 will be placed in reserve status as B68-2. B68-2: will be replaced as current front-line vehicles are moved to reserve status and be listed as surplus.

Additional Comments: In accordance with the UVFA Fleet Replacement Plan, this item was originally scheduled for FYE 2025; however, due to funding constraints, it has been deferred to FYE 2027. The rescue boat has not yet been procured, and the adjusted timeline reflects the revised funding availability. Staff will continue to monitor the procurement process and evaluate opportunities to advance the purchase should funding conditions improve, ensuring alignment with long-term capital planning and budgeted appropriations. Moved from FYE 26. Moved from FYE 27.
27/28 28/29 30/31 City Council Status Funding Source Funding Identified Funding Source Add'l Comments Costs to date Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location Project Status Project Name Project Description Org/Obj TBD$ 400,000 10021210.80100 18487Rescue Boat (Specialized
Vehicle) N/A No New
$ 32,000 Reviewed $ 32,000 X

VEHICLES, MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT

FIRE AUTHORITY
26/27 29/30 Shovel Ready N/A 1500 S State St. New General No Type VI Brush
Squad TBD TBD
$ 400,000 Reviewed 1500 S. State St. Project #
Totals
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 3

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY
The crucial component utilized by the Fire Service allows team members to respond to any emergency ranging from fire, medical, rescue, hazmat, vehicle fire/crashes, etc. Fire engines and trucks are broken down into various classifications (Type-I, Type-II, Type-III, etc.) based on the capabilities or specialized equipment of the apparatus. The most notable benchmark is response volume which indicates usage hours. Other aspects include accepted future use, mileage, past apparatus required maintenance, and downtime (out of service due to repairs); it is recommended that front-line vehicles be placed in reserve status at 6,000 hours or 7 to 10 years of front-line service. Additionally, it is recommended that all reserve apparatus be retired after 12,000 hours of service or 15 to 20 of service. T6852 recommended replacement in 2024; the current T-6852 will be moved to surplus.

Additional Comments: This project is being advanced in accordance with the UVFA Fleet Replacement Plan. The apparatus was originally scheduled for acquisition in the Fiscal Year End (FYE) 2025; however, due to funding constraints, it was deferred to FYE 2027. Given the opportunity to secure external funding through a USDA grant, the project timeline has been accelerated to FYE 2026. If awarded, the USDA grant will provide $1,554,804.24 toward the total project cost. The remaining balance of $518,268.08 will be funded through Fire District Measure B revenues and Mitigation Funds. Moved from FYE 28.

Increased from $1,800,000.

Specialized vehicles are generally designed for a specific purpose (Support/Air Unit, USAR, Boat) utilized by the UVFA. These units play a critical role in the success of the UVFA’s mission. The USAR (Urban Search & Rescue) is designed for natural disasters, confined space rescue, and collapse rescue. Support/Air and USAR were based on usage of the vehicle; it is recommended for replacement at 12,000 or 15 to 20 years of service. A significant change, USAR-68 is currently a pull-behind trailer without a dedicated vehicle for towing; this will be a utility truck with a crane to haul the specialty trailers (USAR/Swiftwater rescue trailers). It will allow for a rapid response in a time sensitive environment, with the small crane attached making the vehicle more versatile and adaptable for any situation that team members encounter. USAR-68: recommended replacement in 2027; the current USAR-68 trailer will be placed as surplus or utilized by another City Department.

Additional Comments: Following UVFA Current Fleet Replacement Plan. Moved from FYE

28. This trailer will be dedicated to swift water rescue equipment including a boat. This trailer gives team members the ability to maintain and rapidly respond to any water rescue incident. All water rescue equipment will be stored within the trailer, including the inflatable boat. The trailer allows the ability to maintain all equipment in a controlled environment.

Additional Comments: Following UVFA Current Fleet Replacement Plan. Moved from FYE

28. Swiftwater Rescue
Equipment Trailer TBD TBD N/A 1500 S State St. Deferred TBD No N/A 1500 S State St. $ 35,000 $ 35,000
$ 260,000 Reviewed $ 260,000 Reviewed
X
X
Quint Aerial
Apparatus 10521210.80100 TBD N/A 1500 S State St. Deferred Reviewed $ 2,073,072 X TBD Yes
USDA Grant; Fire
District Measure B
(917) and Mitigation
Funds (918)
$ 2,073,072
Tech Rescue
Tow/Haul
(Specialized
Vehicle) TBD TBD Deferred TBD No
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 4

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY
M-6822 is a 2020 Ford Braun ambulance serving as our primary (first-out) EMS unit. To extend its service life and reduce replacement costs, we recommend a remount and refurbishment—preserving the existing ambulance module and installing it on a new chassis. This industry-standard practice costs approximately 50% less than a new unit and extends service life by up to 10 years.

Additional Comments: A reliable ambulance fleet is critical to emergency medical response. Per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and industry standards, frontline ambulances should be moved to reserve status after 7–10 years or 6,000 hours, and be retired from service after 15-20 years or 12,000 hours. M-6822 is approaching that threshold. Remounting extends its usefulness while supporting fiscal sustainability. Each module can typically be remounted two to three times before full replacement is necessary, allowing us to maximize capital investment while maintaining operational readiness.

This command chief vehicle will replace C-6800 as the primary first-out response unit. The current C-6800 will be reassigned as a reserve and utility vehicle, expanding operational support capacity.

Additional Comments: Replacement benchmarks for UVFA response vehicles are primarily based on usage hours—typically 6,000 hours or 7–10 years in frontline service.

Full retirement is generally recommended at 12,000 hours or 15–20 years. Additional factors include maintenance history, operational downtime, projected future needs, and overall cost-effectiveness.

This command chief vehicle will replace C-6806 as the primary first-out response unit. The current C-6806 will be reassigned as a reserve and utility vehicle, expanding operational support capacity.

Additional Comments: Replacement benchmarks for UVFA response vehicles are primarily based on usage hours—typically 6,000 hours or 7–10 years in frontline service.

Full retirement is generally recommended at 12,000 hours or 15–20 years. Additional factors include maintenance history, operational downtime, projected future needs, and overall cost-effectiveness.

M-6821 is a 2021 ambulance currently serving as the primary (first-out) EMS unit within a hybrid deployment model, providing Advanced Life Support (ALS) response to 911 emergencies while also supporting interfacility transfer (IFT) operations across both divisions.

Additional Comments: A reliable ambulance fleet is essential for EMS delivery. According to NFPA and industry standards, frontline units are typically moved to reserve after 7–10 years, or around 6,000 hours, and retired between 15–20 years, or approximately 12,000 hours; M-6821 is approaching this limit. Staff recommends a remount and refurbishment, which involves replacing the chassis while keeping the module. This industry-standard method costs about 50 percent less than buying a new unit, extends the service life by up to 10 years, and maximizes capital investment.
$ - $ 2,073,072 $ 432,000 $ 295,000 $ 350,000 $ 150,000 $ 3,300,072 Reviewed $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Reviewed
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 TBD N/A 1500 S State Street New TBD No Ambulance
(M-6822) Remount
/ Refurbishment 71021110.80100 TBD N/A 1500 S State Street New TBD No Command/ Chief
Vehicle TBD TBD N/A 1500 S State Street New TBD No Reviewed $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
SUB-TOTAL:

Command/ Chief
Vehicle TBD ReviewedAmbulance
(M-6821) Remount
/ Refurbishment TBD TBD N/A 1500 S State Street New TBD No *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 5

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

UKIAH VALLEY FIRE AUTHORITY
Project Description
Org/Object
Project Number
Allocation to Multifunds
Project Status
Funding Source
Funding Identified
Funding Source Add'l
Comments
Costs to date
Estimated Costs per
Fiscal Year
Totals
Comments
City Council Status
Shovel Ready
Costs spent on the project.

Costs estimated to be spent in each of the fiscal years.

The sum of the five year estimate for each project.

Additional information as needed.
"Not Reviewed"- First time that Council has been presented the project; "Reviewed" - Council has been presented the project during an agendized meeting; "Explore" - Council has reviewed and has asked staff to further explore; "Reviewed and Supported" - Council has reviewed and supports the placement of the project on the CIP Plan; "Budget Adopted" - Council has approved the project through the Council action that takes place through either the full budget adoption process, or through a specific agendized item brought to Council.

Project is ready to be sent out to bid.

Provides a description and additional narrative to assist in the understanding of the need and value of the proposed project.

The proposed account code where the expense will be accounted for.

The number assigned to track all expenses related to the project.

Indicates if the cost of the proposed cost is shared. In this case, here it will state what other funds are sharing the cost.

This indicates whether the project is "NEW", "IN PROGRESS", "ONGOING", "DEFERRED", or "COMPLETED".

The Fund the actual expense will come out of.
"Yes" indicating funding has been identified and will be available, "No" indicating funding has not yet been identified and is unavailable.

To further explain, as necessary, the funding type used selected.

Definition of terms used:
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 6

POLICE

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR
POLICE
Annually the Police Department schedules the replacement of two patrol cars.

Typically, a patrol car lasts about 3 years before it reaches the end of it's service life. It takes the department about a year to order, receive and outfit a car for patrol use. By scheduling regular replacement of cars, the department ensures we have enough cars available for use.

Additional Comments: The Department has maintained a vehicle replacement plan of two vehicles per year, which was previously reduced due to COVID-19.

The budget has been increased from $100k yearly, as current vehicle replacement actual cost exceeds prior budgeted amounts. This is also a consideration of inflation. Revised PC's. Have purchased 1 Honda Accord Sedan Hybrid that was available locally. Purchase of more hybrid police vehicles challenging due to current Ford production delays. Costs to date reflect actuals in current fiscal year.

The Ukiah Police Department would like to purchase and implement an additional 17 Flock cameras in or around the Ukiah City Limits to help with solving felony crimes occurring in our community.

Additional Comments: Flock cameras have been proven to assist officers in locating stolen vehicles, wanted persons and helped in solve crimes around the City of Ukiah. Currently we have some areas of the City of Ukiah that are not covered by Flock Cameras. Unsuccessful with finding grant funding so far.

Updated estimate of cameras is 17, 4 of which are portable. Increased funding from $41k, and moved from FYE 24. Deferred to FYE 27.
26/27 27/28 Totals 30/31 City Council Status Reviewed $ 53,000 X28/29 $ 180,000 Reviewed $ 180,000 Annual Police Car
Replacement 10020210.80100 $ 185,000
Flock Cameras 10020210.54100 18483
$ 180,000 $ 725,000 New General No

VEHICLES, MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT Project # V4118/V4120 N/A 300 Seminary Ave. Funding Source Funding Identified Funding Source Add'l Comments Costs to date Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location Project Status Project Name Project Description Org/Obj General 29/30
XShovel Ready
May explore
financing options. N/A 300 Seminary Ave. $ 220,450 Ongoing Yes Continue to seek
grant funding. $ 53,000 61,450 $ 53,000 $
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 1

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR
POLICE
Based on the recommendation of the Department's consultant and technician, in order to upgrade the radio consoles, the radio microwaves must first be updated.

Additional Comments: Dispatch currently has no backup system in place. If a microwave link fails, they would lose radio contact with officers. Their consulting technician noted that Dispatch could spend approximately $8–10K on an outdated spare unit compatible with their current system but this would only be a short-term solution, likely about a year. The current estimate for this project is $518,351. Due to funding challenges, the department plans to begin this upgrade in FYE 28.
$ 6,596 518,351 $ 6,596 $ 6,596 $ $ 538,139 Update Radio Microwaves 20620231.80100 300 Seminary Ave New TBD NoExploring Funding Options Reviewed X TBD N/A *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 2

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR
POLICE
The radio repeaters are out of date with no service contract or warranty service. This cost is for two repeaters, creating redundency for the department. The Repeaters do not have an annual fee.

Additional Comments: This project is being postponed. Consulting technician estimates this can be pushed out for about one year, and possibly up to two years if there are sufficient spare parts available.

After the 25/26 CIP was approved to upgrade our Dispatch Radio Consoles, Motorola advised that the previous quote had expired and the cost for the basic upgrade had increased significantly. As a result, the deparment is reviewing alternate vendors.

Additional Comments: This should move forward now. The timing aligns well with the planned server room relocation, as the consoles are currently located there and will need to be moved regardless.

During a recent fire in the kitchen adjacent to the dispatch center, dispatch operations were temporarily relocated to nearby offices. This incident highlighted opportunities to strengthen operational continuity during evacuations or other emrgency situations. Specifically: 1) Current portable radios do not support direct communicateion with Fort Bragg PD, and 2) Dispatch does not currently have a fully equipped mobile incident command kit to support rapid rerlocation of operations. To enable portable radio communication with Fort Bragg PD, additional repeaters would need to be purchased and programmed by our radio technician at an estimated cost of $50,000. Followed by the purchase of a CommandIQ portable radio station for roughly $20,000. In addition, a dedicated laptop capable of supporting CAD/RMS operations would be required at an estimated cost of $2,500. (NO

ANNUAL FEES)
Additional Comments: Deferred to FYE 28.
$ 375,418 - $ 1,009,158 $ 248,910 $ 253,910 $ 68,909 $ 1,956,305 $ $ 9,314 195,418 $ 9,314 $ 9,314 $ 9,313 $ $ 232,673 Reviewed Update Dispatch Radio Consoles 20620231.54320 18484 N/A 300 Seminary Ave New TBD No Update Radio
Repeaters TBD N/A 300 Seminary Ave New TBD No 20620231.80100 $ 167,543 Dispatch Mobile
Incident Command
Bags 20620231.54100 TBD N/A 300 Seminary Ave New TBD NoX $ 167,543 Reviewed X
X
$ 72,500
SUB-TOTAL:
$ 72,500 Reviewed
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 3

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR
POLICE
Project Name
Project Description
Org/Object
Project Number
Allocation to Multifunds
Project Status
Funding Source
Funding Identified
Funding Source Add'l
Comments
Costs to date
Estimated Costs per
Fiscal Year
Totals
Comments
City Council Status
Shovel Ready
The proposed account code where the expense will be accounted for.

Definition of terms used:

The name of the project.

Provides a description and additional narrative to assist in the understanding of the need and value of the proposed project.

Project is ready to be sent out to bid.

To further explain, as necessary, the funding type used selected.

Costs spent on the project.

Costs estimated to be spent in each of the fiscal years.

The sum of the five year estimate for each project.

Additional information as needed.
"Not Reviewed"- First time that Council has been presented the project; "Reviewed" - Council has been presented the project during an agendized meeting; "Explore" - Council has reviewed and has asked staff to further explore; "Reviewed and Supported" - Council has reviewed and supports the placement of the project on the CIP Plan; "Budget Adopted" - Council has approved the project through the Council action that takes place through either the full budget adoption process, or through a specific agendized item brought to Council.

The number assigned to track all expenses related to the project.

Indicates if the cost of the proposed cost is shared. In this case, here it will state what other funds are sharing the cost.

This indicates whether the project is "NEW", "IN PROGRESS", "ONGOING", "DEFERRED", or "COMPLETED".

The Fund the actual expense will come out of.
"Yes" indicating funding has been identified and will be available, "No" indicating funding has not yet been identified and is unavailable. *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 4

PUBLIC WORKS

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
Complete renovation of existing Corporation Yard, teardown of all accessory buildings and build new structures for Streets, Water & Sewer staff and whatever else is deemed necessary from study.

Add'l Comments: Needs Assessment for Corp Yard Facility Design contract has been awarded for $1.2M. Reduced funding by amount of design contract. Staff exploring opportunity of new corp yard facility off Airport property. Staff has determined to focus on purchasing an existing structure to retrofit. Updated costs to date from $27,725, and updated amount in FYE 26 from $12k to reflect total amount of bond funds available. Design and construction to continue through 27/28. Moved from FYE 26. Decreased amount from $13.3M. Deferred to FYE 28.

The tiles in the bathrooms at the Civic Center have come loose and are creating a tripping hazard. Tile needs to be removed and replaced. Cement floor needs to be treated to exclude calcium intrusion.

Add'l Comments: Nearly all items on pause waiting for the BofA building and planning of moving departments around. Unsure of what needs the Civic Center will need to address. CM hold. Moved from FYE 26.This year's funds were used to address failing tile in PD.

Civic Center Bathroom
Tile 20824700.80220 18107 N/A 300 Seminary Ave. Deferred Building Fund Reserves Yes Funded by Yearly
Cost Allocation SetAside to Building
Maintenance
Reserves

FACILITIES/BUILDINGS/LAND
$ 170,890 20824300.80220 18190 N/A 1320 Airport Rd. In Progress Series 2022 Lease Rev Bonds Yes$3M Bond Funding, Balance unfunded.

Costs to date
Corporation Yard
Renovation Project

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
26/27 27/28 Project Status Funding Source Funding Identified Funding Source Add'l Comments Project # Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location $ 8,000,000
Project Name Project Description 29/30 Org/Obj 28/29
$ 40,000 ReviewedX
30/31 Shovel Ready Totals City Council Status Reviewed
$ 40,000
$ 8,000,000
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 1

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
Roof and skylights are showing signs of failure. Failed over dispatch and a temporary tarp roof was implemented.

Add'l Comments: Department estimates roof replacement/repair cost at $400,000; The intent here is to set aside $100k every year through the cost allocation for the ultimate roof replacement in final year of set aside, thus not reflecting an actual budgeted amount in each set-aside year. Staff asked for an amendment in Dec. '22 to amend FYE 23 budget by $40k to take care of area above Police dispatch, which has been completed. Adding and additional $100k set aside, for a total of five years. Currently on pause waiting for the BofA building and planning of moving departments around. Unsure of what needs the Civic Center will need to address. Total project cost: $500,000.

The insulation in the exterior parking cover has failed that cover the public safety vehicles. To protect police vehicles and improve aesthetics.

Add'l Comments: Total project cost: $35,000. Moved from FYE 26. Spray foam to be installed, tool needed to be purchased and work to be performed by BM staff.

HVAC units are aging and failures are imminent.

Add'l Comments: Replace two units per year. Nearly all items on pause waiting for the BoFA building and planning of moving departments around. Unsure of what needs the Civic Center will need to address. Total project cost: $250,000.

Roof should be replaced before HVAC units are replaced. 20824700.56300 18419 N/A 300 Seminary Ave.

Civic Center Roof
Replacement Internal Allocations Funded by Yearly
Cost Allocation SetAside to Building
Maintenance
Reserves 18320 Yes Deferred Internal Allocations Internal Allocations Civic Center Police
Parking Cover Insulation
Replacement 20824700.56300 Deferred 20824700.80220
Civic Center HVAC
Replacement 18319 N/A 300 Seminary Ave. Deferred
Funded by Yearly
Cost Allocation SetAside to Building
Maintenance
Reserves N/A 300 Seminary Ave. Yes Yes
Funded by Yearly
Cost Allocation SetAside to Building
Maintenance
Reserves
X Reviewed
$ 35,000 X
$ 500,000
$ 100,000 Reviewed $ 50,000 $ 50,000 X
$ 37,484 Reviewed $ 500,000
$ 35,000
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 2

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
Currently the Ukiah Police Department parks their vehicles, enters and exits the station on the south side of the Civic Center. This area is unsecured and a high security risk to those entering and exiting the building & vehicles. Securing the area with fencing and gates that only UPD and Staff have access to will provide the necessary safety needed for the UPD. Fencing and a gate would be installed near the entrance at Oak Street, follow the driveway to the Civic Center building. An additional gate would be installed near the Fire bay doors closer to Dora Street and run down the driveway back toward Oak Street.

Add'l Comments: Prioritization and funding source(s) under review; Department estimate/request is $200,000; Project is contingent on the identification of a non General Fund source. Nearly all items on pause waiting for the BofA building and planning of moving departments around. Unsure of what needs the Civic Center will need to address.

Install Police Department entrances and exits with key fobs and access cards.

Add'l Comments: This is already being utilized at the Civic Center and Annex, providing a high level of security. Due to the timing and need for coordination with the B of A building remodel and the Corporation Yard property purchase and renovation, moving from FYE 26. Deferred to FYE 28.

Walkway and fountain tile replacement.

Add'l Comments: Tile purchased in FYE 25 was returned/not acceptable so Building Maintenance staff is coordinating with the City Manager's department on replacement. Added back to CIP for FYE 27.

Replacement of floor needed in the dispatch area of PD.

Add'l Comments:

The pool pump house pool is in need of replacement due to age and general deterioration of the building.

Additional Comments: Project was formerly called "Pool Block House". Looking for funding. Moved from starting FYE 21. Prioritization and funding source(s) under review. Estimated cost is $250k. Project deferred if we pursued pool replacement as below. Consider incorporating into Municipal Pool Replacement.
$ 50,000 Dispatch Floor
Replacement TBD TBD N/A
Pool Pump House 10022100.80220 18012 N/A 511 Park Blvd. New Reviewed 300 Seminary Ave. New Building Fund Reserves Yes Civic Center Fountain/Walkway Tile TBD No
$ 80,000
CardLock Phase II 20824700.80220 15019 N/A$ 85,000 $ 85,000 Reviewed $ 250,000 Reviewed New Revenues NoFiscal Year Allocation TBD
Security Fencing at Ukiah
Police Department
Parking/Entrance/Exit
Areas 20824700.80220 18187 N/A 300 Seminary Ave. Deferred $ -
X Reviewe
$ 80,000
Indirect Cost
Allocation 300 Seminary Ave. In Progress Internal Allocations Yes Fiscal Year Allocation
TBD N/A TBD New TBD No Reviewed
$ 50,000 20824700.80220 18106
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 3

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
Replacement of this equipment is necessary, due to the age and high usage of this equipment, as well as safety concerns. Staff will be seeking grant funds to assist with the cost.

Additional Comments: Staff applied for Prop 68 funds for park renovations including new playground equipment. Department estimated request is $200k.

Replace roof at softball fields.

Additional Comments: Prioritization and funding source(s) under review. Roof currently has some leakage and panels are pealing up. Staff is currently evaluating the project. Need to explore grant funding. Department estimate/request is $70k, revised from $50k.

Replace irrigation at softball fields.

Additional Comments: Irrigation system is inefficient and difficult to control coverage to maintain healthy turf. Needed to remain competitive for tournaments and reduce liability. Need to explore grant funding. Department estimate/request is $500,000.

The Day Camp Office and Storage Buildings are premanufactured buildings that have reached their life expectancy.

Additional Comments: Frequency of maintenance needs and costs are increasing. Estimated cost: $240k.

Oak Manor Park is a popular Park with significant daily use, currently served by a "porta-potty."
Additional Comments: Grant funds currently being applied for. Department estimate/request is $130k.

The irrigation system is more than 50 years old. It is failing and requires frequent costly maintenance. Similarly, the landscaping is old and dated and needs replacement.

Additional Comments: In 2023 a conceptual plan for irrigation and landscape renewal was completed by a consulting landscape design firm. The plan was presented to the Public Spaces Commission. The plan estimates the project at approximately $1 million.
$ 705,000 208,374 $ 9,185,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 11,280,000 $ TBD TBD N/A TBD No 310 Dora St. New$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 New TBD No Seeking grant
funding. Fiscal Year
Allocation TBD Grant NoSeeking grant
funding 30022210.80220 18110 N/A TBD N/A 512 Park Blvd. New TBD NoFiscal Year Allocation TBD New
Softball Fields Irrigation
Replacement 30022200.80220 TBD N/A 901 River Street New TBD No Seeking grant
funding. Fiscal Year
Allocation TBD
Softball Fields Restroom
Concession Building
Roof Replacement 901 River Street New TBD NoFiscal Year Allocation TBD
McGarvey Park Irrigation
and Landscape
Seeking Grant
Funding
Day Camp Office and
Storage Building
Replacement TBD
Oak Manor Restroom TBD TBD N/A 501 Oak Manor Dr. Reviewed $ 240,000
$ 70,000
$ 200,000
$ 500,000
$ 130,000 Reviewed
$ 200,000
SUB-TOTAL:

Oak Manor Playground
Equipment Replacement 30322230.80100 18010 N/A 500 Oak Manor Reviewed Reviewed Reviewed Reviewed *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 4

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
This project will permanently close the Landfill Disposal site per Federal Mandates.

Add'l Comments: Project specifics will require additional Council review. EIR Litigation in progress. Moved from FYE 26 and increased from $10.3M.

Remediation at the site of the City gas plant.

Additional Comments: Project is being coordinated with private development on Leslie Street with CM Dept. Moved from FYE 26. Deferred to FYE 28. $ 16,000,000 - $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 16,030,000 $ 18496 N/A Leslie Street Leslie Street Remediation Plan 10024210.52100 Yes Project Status

INFRASTRUCTURE
28/29
$ 30,000
27/28 Reviewed
X City Council Status
$ 30,000 Reviewed
X
29/30 3100 Vichy Springs In Progress Current Revenues Exploring financing. $ 16,000,000 $ 16,000,000 No PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Shovel Ready Funding Identified Project Name Project Description Org/Obj Costs to date Totals SUB-TOTAL: Project # Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location 26/27 Funding Source Funding Source Add'l Comments
Landfill Closure 70224500.80230 18025 N/A New Yes
30/31
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 5

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
This project will improve East Clay Street from Main Street to the Railroad Crossing in order to facilitate the development of the new Courthouse site. This project includes water, sewer, pedestrian facilities and drainage facilities as well as reconstruction of the street section.

Add'l Comments: Introduced and discussed at the January 16, 2019 Council meeting. Moved out 2 years from FYE 26 due to anticipated resources.

Incorporated into scope of grant application for Leslie St/Clay St. Will know if awarded around May/June 2025. Would be constructed in FYE 26. Grant awarded. Construction to occur in FY 26/27. Cost shared with Water and Sewer for replacement of utilities. Estimated total project cost: $5.8M. Reduced overall project amount from $5.8 and moved to Water Resources CIP.

This will update striping on streets in selected areas.

Add'l Comments: Ongoing work. Increased cost from $60k to $80k for additional striping for newer projects and to promote pedestrian, cyclist and motorist safety. Moved out 2 years from FYE 26 due to anticipated resources.

Increased costs from $80k in FYE 28 and 29. Added $100k to FYE 27. Deferred to FYE 28.

This project will complete the environmental, ROW, and design phases for a roundabout at Low Gap Road and N. Bush St. Construction phase not currently funded.

Add'l Comments: Design authorized, but project requires additional Council review. Design 26/27, const. 27/28. Added $600k to FYE 28.

This project will improve the Streets network.

Add'l Comments: Moved out 2 years from FYE 26 due to anticipated resources.

Moved up from FYE 28 and 29. Increased costs for both years from $400k. 12024200.52100 18332 N/A Yes Low Gap Rd & N. Bush In Progress Special Revenues Yes Various Streets Ongoing Yes Measure Y N/A Various Streets Funding Identified Funding Source Add'l Comments Costs to date 26/27
$ 100,000
Typically Measure Y,
but utilizing HUTA
funds for FYE 28 City Council Status 27/28 28/29
$ 100,000
$ 800,000 $ 800,000
29/30 Reviewed Reviewed
X
$ 300,000 X
$ 600,000
$ 1,600,000
$ 100,000
$ 600,000
Totals
$ 4,984,647 Shovel Ready Ongoing Special Revenue Project Status Funding Source 821 and 844 Reviewed Low Gap Road and North
Bush Street Roundabout 18251
East Clay/Leslie Street
Improvement Project
X
Project Name Project Description Org/Obj Project # Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location CalTrans - Local
Partnership Program
Grant Awarded -

58.2% Match from
Water/Sewer
Utilities, Surface
Transportation Block
Grant and Hwy Users
Funding
$ 4,984,647 50024620.52100 50024620.80230 Grant/Other
MCOG Revenues $ 250,000 50924210.80230 15024 N/A
Street Striping

STREETS & RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Slurry Seal Project Special 18128 Clay and Leslie Street New PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Yes
X Reviewed
30/31
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 6

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
This project will replace the water main, sewer main and include reconstruction and paving of the overlay, additional sidewalks and ADA accessibility.

Add'l Comments: RFP completed and contract awarded to GHD for design in February of 2022. Scope greatly changed due to EUD undergrounding, moved from FYE 23. PG&E and San District. Cost increased from $1M due to utility coordination. Engineering work was canceled due to further utility coordination between PG&E and UVSD.

Street reconstruction and overlay on Waugh Land from Gobbi to Talmage Road.

Additional Comments: Combination of reconstruction and overlay. Reduced amount from $1M.

Street rehabilitation work and street improvements.

Additional Comments:

Dora Street rehabilitation from Washington to Luce Avenue.

Additional Comments:

Road reconstruction.

Additional Comments:

SUB-TOTAL: $ 250,000 $ 4,984,647 $ 2,900,000 $ 8,150,000 $ 100,000 $ 16,134,647 - $ N/AMendocino Place TBD TBD Talmage Road
Rehabilitation Project 25224220.80230 18310 N/A Talmage Road New Reviewed Reviewed $ 5,000,000
$ 400,000 $ 400,000
$ 5,000,000 TBD
Possible use of
California
Transportation
Commission Local
Partnership Program
funds.
$ 1,000,000 TBD TBD
$ 2,000,000 Yes TBD
Possible use of
California
Transportation
Commission Local
Partnership Program
funds. No
Waugh Lane Street
Reconstruction and
Overlay TBD TBD
Hastings / Commerce
Rehabilitation TBD TBD
$ 250,000 $ 250,000 Hastings/Commerce New TBD
$ 1,000,000 N/A Waugh Lane New Reviewed TBD New Reviewed Reviewed TBD No Waugh Lane N/A Dora Street
Rehabilitation TBD TBD
Possible use of
California
Transportation
Commission Local
Partnership Program
funds. NewNo No
Possible use of
California
Transportation
Commission Local
Partnership Program
funds.
$ 2,000,000 N/A
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 7

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
Dump Truck Replacement for 3 years. This equipment is used to maintain and repair the Infrastructure for our citizens.

Add'l Comments: Increased total amount from $500k. Moved from FYE 27.

USDA funds may be available similar to the grader.

Service Truck for Fleet & Plant Maintenance.

Additional Comments:

USDA Grant will be partially paying for the purchase, rest of funds will be shared between responsible departments. Water tank access roads, Western Hills, etc.

Additional Comments: The Grader is 75% USDA grant funded, the remaining 25% will be split between Water Resources and Public Works. $ 500,000 - $ 525,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ 1,275,000 $
$ 250,000
$ 525,000 Reviewed
X Project Status Allocation to Multi-funds No
Dump Truck
Replacement 20824300.80100 TBD
F550 Service Truck 10024800.8010 TBD N/A N/A New
$ 525,000 N/A 1320 Airport Rd. New Internal Service Yes Department plans to
set aside funds for
this replacement.

Seeking grant funds.

U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
funds may be
available. General Fund $ 250,000 Reviewed
U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
Grant (75%)
$ 500,000 $ 500,000 Reviewed
29/30

VEHICLES, MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
SUB-TOTAL:

Project Name Funding Source Add'l
Comments Costs to date 27/28 Org/Obj
Road Grader 70024500.80100 E1515 Yes N/A New Landfill Yes Project Location PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Shovel Ready City Council Status Project Description 26/27 30/31 Totals Funding Identified 28/29 Project # Funding Source *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 8

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

PUBLIC WORKS
Project Name
Project Description
Org/Object
Project Number
Allocation to Multi-funds
Project Status
Funding Source
Funding Identified
Funding Source Add'l
Comments
Costs to date
Estimated Costs per Fiscal
Year
Totals
Comments
City Council Status
Shovel Ready Project is ready to be sent out to bid.

Additional information as needed.
"Not Reviewed"- First time that Council has been presented the project; "Reviewed" - Council has been presented the project during an agendized meeting; "Explore" - Council has reviewed and has asked staff to further explore; "Reviewed and Supported" - Council has reviewed and supports the placement of the project on the CIP Plan; "Budget Adopted" - Council has approved the project through the Council action that takes place through either the full budget adoption process, or through a specific agendized item brought to Council.

This indicates whether the project is "NEW", "IN PROGRESS", "ONGOING", "DEFERRED", or "COMPLETED".

The name of the project.

Provides a description and additional narrative to assist in the understanding of the need and value of the proposed project.

The proposed account code where the expense will be accounted for.

The number assigned to track all expenses related to the project.

Indicates if the cost of the proposed cost is shared. In this case, here it will state what other funds are sharing the cost.

Definition of terms used:

The Fund the actual expense will come out of.
"Yes" indicating funding has been identified and will be available, "No" indicating funding has not yet been identified and is unavailable.

To further explain, as necessary, the funding type used selected.

Costs spent on the project.

Costs estimated to be spent in each of the fiscal years.

The sum of the five year estimate for each project.
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 9

WATER RESOURCES

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

WATER RESOURCES
Improve Well 3 building enclosure.

Add'l Comments: Moved from FYE 26.

Replace roof at the Water Treatment Plant.

Add'l Comments: Moved from FYE 26. Increased from $100,000.

Cover for the AWT Chorine Contact Basin - big car port.

Add'l Comments: Revised info to change project from WTP to WWTP.

Replace exisiting roof with metal roof.

Additional Comments: Deferred to FYE 28.
$ 300,000 - $ 30,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ 480,000 $ Water Fund No$ 30,000 $ 30,000 Not Reviewed Replace Roof at WTP 82127115.80220 18498 N/A
X 935 River Street New Water Fund Yes
$ 150,000 Reviewed $ 150,000
AWTCCB Cover 84427222.80230 TBD N/A 300 Plant Road New
Well #7 & #8 Roof
Replacement 82127115.80220 TBD N/A 465 E Gobbi & 500 New X
Well 3 Structural
Improvements 82127115.80220 18497 N/A Vichy Springs Rd. New Water Fund Yes $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Reviewed

FACILITIES/BUILDINGS/LAND
Totals City Council Status

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
26/27 27/28 Project Status Funding Source Funding Identified Funding Source Add'l Comments Project # Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location Project Name Project Description Costs to date Shovel Ready Org/Obj 28/29 30/31 29/30 Wastewater Fund Yes $ 150,000 Reviewed $ 150,000
SUB-TOTAL:
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 1

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

WATER RESOURCES
Plan for water main replacements throughout the City, performed in conjunction with street improvement projects.

Add'l Comments: Added $249k for FYE 27. Moved from FYE 26 due to current lack of resources. Added amounts to FYE 29 and FYE 30.

This project will provide an additional source of groundwater to increase our system redundancy during periods of surface water scarcity.

Add'l Comments: Feasibility study in progress, test well drilling in spring of FYE 25, construction summer of FYE 26. Moved from FYE 26 due to current lack of resources.

Recondition the levees on the Percolation Ponds.

Add'l Comments: Eliminated $200k for 2 prior years due to COVID-19.

Changing scope of project to excavating bottom of perc ponds and grading.

Revised project name from "Recondition Levees" as well. Received and estimate of $1M for this project so revised from $200k, and pushed out from FYE 26. Will revisit.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Project Name Shovel Ready 26/27 Funding Source Add'l
Comments 29/30 30/31
$ 1,500,000
Project Description City Council Status
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,500,000 Reviewed
$ 1,000,000
Costs to date Totals Reviewed N/A Funding Source Funding Identified 27/28 28/29 Water Main
Replacements Ongoing
Develop Additional
Groundwater
Facilities 82227115.80230 18425 N/A Org/Obj Project # Allocation to Multi-funds Project Location Project Status Recondition Perc
Ponds 84027225.80230 Wastewater Fund Yes 82127113.80230 18072 18447 300 Plant Road New NA $ 1,500,000 $ 3,749,000 Various TBD No Water Fund No In Progress X Water
X
$ 249,000
X Reviewed $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 2

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

WATER RESOURCES
Replace the 16" steel water main, from PZ1 to Bush Street Add'l Comments: Increased overall project amount from $1M. Removing Sewer and reducing total project amount from $3M.

This project will improve East Clay Street from Main Street to the Railroad Crossing in order to facilitate the development of the new Courthouse site. This project includes water, sewer, pedestrian facilities and drainage facilities as well as reconstruction of the street section. 84427222.80230 $ 210,000 Add'l Comments: Public Works applied for a CalTrans Local Partnership Program grant. Will know if awarded around May/June 2025. If awarded, Water and Sewer funds will be part of the required match for the grant. Grant awarded. Construction to occur in FY 26/27. Project shared with Public Works/Streets. Estimated total project cost: $5.8M. Deferring Sewer portion to FYE 28. 82127113.80230 $ 643,765
Constructing wall along hillside at PZ1.

Additional Comments:

WTP asphalt repair/reconstruciton. Actual correction method TBD, will revise cost once decided.

Additional Comments:
$ 972,765 - $ 3,350,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ - $ 9,322,765 $ PZ1 Retaining Wall 82127113.80230 18531
$ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Replace Water Main -
PZ1 to Bush TBD N/A
$ 140,000 Not Reviewed No
$ 853,765 N/A$ 140,000 N/A N/A New Water New 82127115.80230 Bush Street New Repave WTP 82127115.80230 TBD 300 Plant Road New Water Yes Bush Street Reviewed x Water
X Yes
$ 80,000 Not Reviewed Reviewed No
$ 80,000
SUB-TOTAL:

East Clay/Leslie
Street Improvement
Project 18128 Water/Sewer No
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 3

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

WATER RESOURCES
This project will replace chlorine gas at the Water Treatment Plant and convert to Liquid Chlorine for safety reasons
Add'l Comments: Due to other priorities, moving this from FYE 26. Due to other priorities, this has been moved out from FYE 26.

Solar Generation Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to reduce energy costs and improve operational sustainability. Estimated project cost is $6.85 million before incentives. Need to explore/develop project scope, cost-benefit analysis modeling, funding and potential incentives.

Add'l Comments:

Methane Scrubbers are needed in order to clean the methane gas to provide an alternate energy source to operate the boilers at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which will in turn decrease the City's energy cost at the plant.

Add'l Comments: Moved from FYE 26 - more research needs to be done.

Deferring.

This needs upgrading to install two new pumps, the pump guides, and the discharge valves.

Add'l Comments: Increased total amount from $250k. Moved from FYE 26 to make room for other projects.
30/31
Cost will be offset by
savings in the
purchase of natural
gas. Project #
Totals City Council Status Funding Source Funding Identified Funding Source Add'l Comments Org/Obj New
Project Name Project Description Project Location
Solar at the WWTP 84027225.80100 TBD N/A
29/30
X
Ukiah Valley
Sanitation District
Project Yes 300 Plant Rd. Allocation to Multi-funds
Vichy Springs Lift
Station Upgrade 84027229.80100 18530 N/A 18135 N/A 300 Plant Rd. Digester Rehabilitation and
Methane Scrubber 84027225.80100
Costs to date 27/28 28/29 New Vichy Springs Rd Water Fund Yes 935 River Street Wastewater Fund No Potential CA
Proposition 4
funding (and other
grants) and
partnership with the
City's Electric Utility Project Status Deferred
$ 1,500,000 X
$ 400,000 $ 400,000 ReviewedX
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Shovel Ready VEHICLES, MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT $ 270,000
Convert Chlorine Gas
to Liquid Chlorine at
Water Treatment
Plant 82127115.80100 18133 N/A Reviewed
26/27
$ 270,000 New Wastewater Fund District Yes Not Reviewed $ 1,500,000 Reviewed
$ -
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 4

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

WATER RESOURCES
Tank with temperature controller and insulation.

Add'l Comments: Tank is in OK condition. Staff will explore the possibility of removing tank need. Increased from $1,000,000. Deferring.

Part of the dewatering solids process.

Add'l Comments: Moved from FYE 27 to reprioritize ahead of the digester rehab. Moved from FYE 26. Engineers and construction needs to wait for RW Phase 4. Deferred to FYE 28.

Upgrade the enclosure and electrical components in the structure enclosing the booster pump for Pressure Zone 2 to increase reliability and security.

Add'l Comments: Increased scope, increased estimate from $50k, and moved from FYE 25 due to cost increase. Moved from FYE 29.

Replace aluminum screens with stainless steel screens in clarifier.

Add'l Comments:

The current vehicle's useful is expected to be exceeded in future years and will need replaced 82127113.80100 Water Fund $ 45,000
Add'l Comments: EV is not an option at this time due to the heavy duty needs. 84427222.80100 Wastewater Fund $ 45,000 F350 Service Truck.

Add'l Comments:
$ 90,000 $ 90,000 Reviewed
Bisulfite Tank 84027225.80100 TBD N/A 300 Plant Rd. New Wastewater Fund No Replace
Water/Sewer
Operations Call Truck
- Shared Cost
$ 90,000 Reviewed
$ 1,500,000 84027225.80100 TBD N/A 300 Plant Road New Wastewater Fund TBD Yes TBD Yes 1320 Airport Road In Progress No Rehabilitation of
Zone 2 Booster Pump
Station 82227113.80100 TBD
Solids Conveyor 18427 N/A 300 Plant Rd. New Water Fund New Wastewater Fund No X N/A 935 River Street New Water Yes
WWTP Service Truck 84027225.80100 N/A Golf Course
$ 500,000
$ 950,000 Reviewed
$ 250,000 Reviewed
$ 950,000 Reviewed
$ 250,000
X
$ 500,000 Reviewed
Replace Screens in
Water Treatment
Plant Clarifiers 82127115.80100 18532
$ 1,500,000
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 5

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

WATER RESOURCES
F350 Service Truck.

Add'l Comments:

Machinery for accepting and processing septage.

Add'l Comments: Infrastucture used to receive septage from local contractors and residents. The receiving station will generate user-fee revenue to help offset wastewater system operations and maintenance costs. Current project estimate: $1.2M.
6" pump replacement
Additional Comments: Deferred.
8" pump replacement.

Additional Comments:

Purchase new M120 Grader.

Additional Comments: The Grader is 75% USDA grant funded, the remaining 25% will be split between Water Resources and Public Works under Public Works Project Code E1515.

Purchase new 420 CAT Backhoe.

Additional Comments: Backhoe will be split between Water Resources and Public Works under Water Resouces Project Code V2519.
$ 150,000
$ 50,000 TBDPump Replacement
at WWTP 84027225.80100 TBD
Road Grader 82127113.80100 E1515 Yes
$ 75,000 Not Reviewed $ 75,000
$ 150,000 Not Reviewed
$ 50,000 Not Reviewed
Pump Replacement
at WWTP 84027225.80100 TBD N/A 300 Plant Road New Wastewater Fund TBD Backhoe $ 180,000 82127113.80100 TBD Yes N/A New Water Fund Yes N/A New Water Fund Yes USDA Grant (partial) Looking at Financing
Options - Currently
Unfunded N/A 300 Plant Road New Wastewater Fund
Septage Receiving
Station 84027225.80100 TBD N/A
$ 180,000 Not Reviewed TBD New Wastewater Fund TBD Reviewed Reviewed $ -
WTP Service Truck 82127115.80100 TBD N/A TBD 935 River Street New Water Fund $ 90,000 $ 90,000 *Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 6

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN*
26/27 FISCAL YEAR

WATER RESOURCES
Purchase smaller impact vactor truck used to navigate small spaces. 82127113.80100 Water Fund $ 265,000 Add'l Comments: Added shared cost with Water. Increased overall cost from $500k based on recent quote. Deferred to FYE 28. 84027225.80100 Wastewater Fund $ 265,000 Replace existing vactor truck at EOL.

Additional Comments:
$ - $ 790,000 $ 3,475,000 $ 1,590,000 $ 770,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 7,625,000 Project Name
Project Description
Org/Object
Project Number
Allocation to Multifunds
Project Status
Funding Source
Funding Identified
Funding Source Add'l
Comments
Costs to date
Estimated Costs per
Fiscal Year
Totals
Comments
City Council Status
Shovel Ready
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Not Reviewed 12-Yard Size Vactor Truck 82127113.80100 TBD N/A N/A New Water Fund No
Project is ready to be sent out to bid.

To further explain, as necessary, the funding type used selected.

Costs spent on the project.

Costs estimated to be spent in each of the fiscal years.

The sum of the five year estimate for each project.

Additional information as needed.
"Not Reviewed"- First time that Council has been presented the project; "Reviewed" - Council has been presented the project during an agendized meeting; "Explore" - Council has reviewed and has asked staff to further explore; "Reviewed and Supported" - Council has reviewed and supports the placement of the project on the CIP Plan; "Budget Adopted" - Council has approved the project through the Council action that takes place through either the full budget adoption process, or through a specific agendized item brought to Council.

The number assigned to track all expenses related to the project.

Indicates if the cost of the proposed cost is shared. In this case, here it will state what other funds are sharing the cost.

This indicates whether the project is "NEW", "IN PROGRESS", "ONGOING", "DEFERRED", or "COMPLETED".

The Fund the actual expense will come out of.
"Yes" indicating funding has been identified and will be available, "No" indicating funding has not yet been identified and is unavailable.

The proposed account code where the expense will be accounted for.

Definition of terms used:

SUB-TOTAL:

The name of the project.

Provides a description and additional narrative to assist in the understanding of the need and value of the proposed project.

Impact Vactor Truck TBD Yes 1320 Airport Road NewNo $ 530,000 Reviewed X
*Refer to last page of this document for definition of terms used. PAGE 7

ESTIMATED COST: $175,000

FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

SIGNATURE DATE
EST. MILEAGE/HOURS PER YEAR
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS EXPLORED: N/A
OTHER INDIRECT BENEFITS: N/A
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS: N/A

MAINTENANCE COSTS TO DATE

PROPOSED BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR

EACH DEPT/DIV

ESTIMATED LIFE IN ESTIMATED SALVAGE/RESALE VALUE

MILEAGE/HOURS
CITY EQUIPMENT # YEAR

ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE
MODEL

CURRENT MILEAGE/HOURS
Police Patrol TBD $87,500
CURRENT CONDITION: Poor

ESTIMATED OUT-OF-SERVICE TIME PARTS AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL NEEDED REPAIRS ESTIMATE (IF APPLICABLE) MEET CARB STANDARDS? Police Patrol TBD 10020210.80100
Vehicle & Heavy Equipment Request & Justification

DIVISION(S)

PROJECT
CODE
ITEM: POLICE CARS - ANNUAL REPLACEMENT - 2 EACH
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Corning, Police Chief
FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2026/2027

EXISTING VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT REQUESTING TO BE REPLACED

ORG & OBJECT ACCOUNT CODE
10020210.80100

DEPARTMENT(S)
ASSET USEFUL LIFE: 5-10 YEARS
VIN/SERIAL #
$87,500
NEW REQUEST OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING?: Replacement
Police
Police

DEPARTMENT HEAD
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: N/A
REVIEWED & APPROVED BY:

PROPOSED VEHICLE OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT
JUSTIFICATION/USE/NEED: The standard annual replacement is necessary to keep the Police fleet in service. This is especially important as staff navigates supply chain issues and delays.

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS (ATTACH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IF NECESSARY): Based on standard features, and what is available at time of purchase.

ATTACHMENT 3

ESTIMATED COST $90,000.00

FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

DEPARTMENT HEAD
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The vehicle being replaced will be transferred to the building maintenance department. 10,000 miles
ASSET USEFUL LIFE: 10-15 years
1FDBF3A61EEB27664
VIN/SERIAL #
$45,000.00
NEW REQUEST OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING?: Replacement
192 hours Yes
FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2026/2027
2014 Ford

EXISTING VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT REQUESTING TO BE REPLACED

ORG & OBJECT ACCOUNT CODE
Vehicle & Heavy Equipment Request & Justification

DIVISION(S)

PROJECT
CODE
ITEM: Ford F-350 with Service Body
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Kirby Water/Sewer Maintenance Supervisor REVIEWED & APPROVED BY:

Water Resources

DEPARTMENT(S)

PROPOSED VEHICLE OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT
151319 miles
Yes
CURRENT CONDITION: Fair
$10,000.00

ESTIMATED OUT-OF-SERVICE TIME PARTS AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL NEEDED REPAIRS ESTIMATE (IF APPLICABLE) MEET CARB STANDARDS? None
100,000 miles
MODEL

CURRENT MILEAGE/HOURS
84027221.80100 $45,000.00
82027221.80100
Water/Sewer TBD
JUSTIFICATION/USE/NEED: This vehicle will be used on a daily basis for the operation of the Water & Sewer , Booster Pump Stations, lift stations, operation and maintenance of the Recycled Water System. . In addition to supporting in-city operations the vehicle will be used to service the surrounding outer districts recently inherited by the Water Authority. Staff are required to respond to water and sewer maintenance issues and emergency service calls. Due to the terrain and road conditions in many of these locations, including dirt roads and narrow rural access roads, a four wheel- drive vehicle is necessary to safely and reliably access these sites year-round. The addition of this service truck will improve operational efficiency, response times, employee safety, and the departments ability to properly maintain critical infrastructure throughout the service areas.

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS (ATTACH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IF NECESSARY): 2026 Ford F350 Service Body

MAINTENANCE COSTS TO DATE

PROPOSED BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR

EACH DEPT/DIV

ESTIMATED LIFE IN ESTIMATED SALVAGE/RESALE VALUE

MILEAGE/HOURS
CITY EQUIPMENT # YEAR

ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE
3739

SIGNATURE DATE
EST. MILEAGE/HOURS PER YEAR
$25,200.00
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS EXPLORED: N/A
OTHER INDIRECT BENEFITS: N/A
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS: N/A

ESTIMATED COST: $330,000 403,058.98

FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

DEPARTMENT HEAD
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: USDA Grant
Last 5 Years 320 hours Yes
REVIEWED & APPROVED BY:

PROPOSED VEHICLE OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT
JUSTIFICATION/USE/NEED: This equipment will be used at the following : Western Hills, Riverside park, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ukiah Airport, landfill, gun range and the City owned parcels south of Emerald Sun. UVWA properties with Millview, Redwood Valley Water District and Calpella Water District. These properties include treatment facilities, raw water pumping stations a Lake Mendocino, water tanks, wells and access roads to these properties. Work in conjunction with fire fuel reduction crews to protect the Ukiah Valley.

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS (ATTACH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IF NECESSARY): 2026 Caterpillar 120 Motor Grader ASSET USEFUL LIFE: 30 years
1999
VIN/SERIAL #
NEW REQUEST OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING?: Replacement
Landfill
Water Resource
FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2026/2027
1973 JD 570A

EXISTING VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT REQUESTING TO BE REPLACED

ORG & OBJECT ACCOUNT CODE
70024500.80100

DEPARTMENT(S)
E1515 82127113.80100
Vehicle & Heavy Equipment Request & Justification

DIVISION(S)

PROJECT
CODE
ITEM: Caterpillar 120 Motor Grader
SUBMITTED BY: Dave Kirch, Fleet & Plant Maintenance Supervisor NO
CURRENT CONDITION: Poor
$3,000.00

ESTIMATED OUT-OF-SERVICE TIME PARTS AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL NEEDED REPAIRS ESTIMATE (IF APPLICABLE) MEET CARB STANDARDS? 6,000
MODEL

CURRENT MILEAGE/HOURS
E1515
3,808

PROPOSED BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR

EACH DEPT/DIV

ESTIMATED LIFE IN ESTIMATED SALVAGE/RESALE VALUE

MILEAGE/HOURS
CITY EQUIPMENT # YEAR

ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE
1510

SIGNATURE DATE
EST. MILEAGE/HOURS PER YEAR
NA
Last 5 Years- $10,000
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS EXPLORED: upgrade emissions to meet current CARB standards is not an option as the equipment is not available OTHER INDIRECT BENEFITS: N/A
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS: The current equipment does not meet CARB standards and is limited to use of 200 hours per year. A USDA Community Facilities Water Disaster grant has been awarded to the City in the amount of $322,500 for a new grader. The amount allocated by the City for this purchase will cover the minimum 25% of the purchase price per grant requirements.

MAINTENANCE COSTS TO DATE

ESTIMATED COST: 211,770

FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

SIGNATURE DATE
EST. MILEAGE/HOURS PER YEAR
???
$4,252.00
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS EXPLORED: EV Forklift
OTHER INDIRECT BENEFITS:

COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS:

JUSTIFICATION/USE/NEED: The current large lift capacity forklift does not comply with OSHA forklift standards. This unit is used for heavy material handling including large electric distribution transformers.

PROPOSED EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS (ATTACH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IF NECESSARY): Toyota EV Forklift Model 9FBZ80U 17,500lbs

MAINTENANCE COSTS TO DATE

PROPOSED BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR

EACH DEPT/DIV

ESTIMATED LIFE IN ESTIMATED SALVAGE/RESALE VALUE

MILEAGE/HOURS
CITY EQUIPMENT # YEAR

ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE
1720
MODEL

CURRENT MILEAGE/HOURS
Utility E1721 80126100.80100 $211,770.00

ESTIMATED OUT-OF-SERVICE TIME PARTS AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL NEEDED REPAIRS ESTIMATE (IF APPLICABLE) MEET CARB STANDARDS? Brakes,Hyd. Pump
REVIEWED & APPROVED BY:

Electric

DEPARTMENT(S)

PROPOSED VEHICLE OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT
1107
NO
CURRENT CONDITION: Poor
$0.00

DIVISION(S)

PROJECT
CODE
ITEM: Toyota EV Forklift Model 9FBZ80U 17,500lbs
SUBMITTED BY: Dan Quarles
42 NO
FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2025/2026
???? G3P-150-CFS-158

EXISTING VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT REQUESTING TO BE REPLACED

ORG & OBJECT ACCOUNT CODE

DEPARTMENT HEAD
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: As part of the grant there is a required district destruction-inspection protocol for destroyed engine and equipment prior to disposal..

ASSET USEFUL LIFE: 10-15 years
J-008281
VIN/SERIAL #
NEW REQUEST OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING?: Replacement
ATTACHMENT 3
Vehicle & Heavy Equipment Request & Justification

ATTACHMENT 4

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-x

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 7910, the City Council must, by resolution, establish its appropriations limit for each fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the appropriations limit for the City of Ukiah for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year shall be sixty-one million, three hundred ninety-five thousand, fifty-six dollars ($61,395,056). The appropriations subject to this limit are estimated to be twenty million, three thousand, nine hundred twenty-five dollars ($20,003,925).

This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Ukiah at a regular meeting thereof on the 17th day of June, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
______________________________
Susan Sher, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 4

EXHIBIT A
Gann Limit Calculation
FY 2026-27
Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 4.95 percent
Population Change(1) = -0.93 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 4.95 + 100 = 1.0495 (a) 100
Population converted to a ratio: -0.93 + 100 = 0.9907 (b) 100
Calculation of factor for FY 2026-27: (a) x (b) = 1.0397 (c) Appropriations Limit, Fiscal Year 2025-26 $ 59,048,489 (d) Appropriations Limit, Fiscal Year 2026-27 $ 61,395,056
[(c) x (d)]
FY 2026-27 appropriations subject to Gann Limit
Budget Estimates
$ 4,718,395
6,633,234
Measure S/P District Tax 3,442,379
Measure Y District Tax 3,442,379
1,187,500
514,000
800
65,238
$ 20,003,925

32.58%
(1) When calculating its appropriation limit, the City may use either the change in population for the City or Mendocino County as a whole.

Business license tax
Percentage Use of Appropriations Limit
Tax Revenue
Other governmental taxes
Interest earning from taxes
Property tax
Sales tax (1.0% Bradley-Burns)
Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT)

1 BUDGET APPROVAL AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered on July 1, 2026, in Ukiah, California, between the City of Ukiah (“City”), a general law municipal corporation, and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (“District”), a county sanitation district.

1. The City and the District agree to approve as shared costs of the Combined CITY/DISTRICT Sewer System (“Combined System”) for fiscal year 2026-27 the City budget for direct expenditures of personnel, operations, and capital outlay, and the indirect expenditures of internal service use of the Wastewater Enterprise, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.

Total direct operating budgeted costs, defined as costs of Personnel and Operations in Exhibit A of $5,337,835 as well as an Operating Indirect Rate (“OIR”) on such costs of 7.27% (estimated to be $376,844) and insurance premiums $1,162,742 for a total operating budgeted estimate of $6,877,421 will be shared [ ]% District and [ ]% City. This share is for 2026-27 fiscal year and will be effective July 1, 2026.

Total direct costs of $368,743 for Capital Outlay, including encumbrances (if applicable), as well as what is termed, “Capital Investment” which is the share of debt service to the Combined System of the state loan for the construction of the recycled water treatment facility to be expended in the 2026-27 fiscal year in Exhibit A will be funded by both the City and District at [ ]% District and [ ]% City, as well as an Indirect Rate on the Capital Outlay incurred not to exceed 9.0%, which is the five-year average of Indirect Costs incurred and budgeted by the Combined System related to purchasing, insurance, and other applicable indirect costs, excluding administrative and overhead. This rate will be referred to as the Capital Indirect Rate (“CIR”). The City and District will use the CIR on all Capital Outlay with costs less than $200,000 unless either party desires to negotiate the rate for any individual project. The indirect rate will be negotiated for projects over $200,000 based on an estimate of required indirect costs to complete the capital project. The City Engineer or City’s Water Resources Director will communicate verbally or in writing to the District Manager when such expenditures are expected to accrue. The District will pay to the City the District’s share of the cost for an approved capital expense within fifteen (15) days of the date of an invoice given to the District for that expense. On and after the effective date of this Agreement, any portion of capital projects paid by the District will be capitalized on its books as intangible assets and depreciated.

The shared costs presented in Exhibit A exclude District and City administrative and other overhead costs allocated directly to the wastewater activities of the City and District. The City and District shall incur 100% of each agency’s own administrative and other costs not shown on Exhibit A.

2. For any costs incurred for District-only activities or projects (e.g. a main line replacement of a District asset), that the City is required to perform or contracted to perform on the District’s behalf, the City may include in total project costs an amount to cover the City’s indirect administrative and overhead costs. Before the City is required to perform the work, the Attachment 5

2 parties shall negotiate and agree on the amount thereof to include in the project costs to be paid by the District. In the event of an emergency or urgent need to commence work before the parties can negotiate and agree on the total project costs, including indirect administrative and overhead costs, the City and the District shall negotiate and agree on those costs before a final cost settlement is made.

3. The District shall pay to the City by the 1st of every month starting July 1, 2026, 1/12th of the District’s share of the agreed operating budget (Personnel, Operations, and Operating Indirect Rate) shown in Exhibit A (i.e., $[ ] x [ ] = $[ ]). City is not required to generate an invoice for these payments which are fixed monthly payments to the City by the District. As provided in Section II.D.4.a of the Operating Agreement, the City and District will review every quarter the actual costs incurred. The City and District will reconcile differences between actual costs incurred, budget costs, and over/under payments made by either agency no later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year (June 30) or after any quarterly review as agreed upon by both parties
Per Section 6 of the Refinancing Agreement between the City and District, the true up process results in a true up payment of the [ ] to the [ ] of $[ ] (see Exhibit B). The parties agree the [ ] will remit this payment to the [ ] after the third quarter reconciliation, no later than April 15, 2027.

In addition to the provisions above, the parties acknowledge that the City and the District have entered into a separate Installment Purchase Agreement related to the financing of the Recycled Water Pipeline Project, pursuant to which the District is obligated to make annual installment payments to the City representing its allocable share of the wastewater disposal benefits of the Project to the Combined System. For purposes of this Budget Approval Agreement and Exhibit A, the total shared obligation of the Combined System is reflected in the budget as “Capital Investment.” Payment of the District’s share of such Capital Investment amounts shall be made by the District in accordance with the terms and schedule set forth in the Installment Purchase Agreement and shall not be subject to the monthly payment provisions of Section 3 of this Agreement.

The total amount of the operating, capital outlay, and capital investment budget is $7,246,164.29

4. Payments under Sections 1, 2, and 3 above shall be subject to interest as provided in Section II.D.4.b of the Operating Agreement.

Attachment 5

3 The parties have entered this agreement on the date first written above.

UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT CITY OF UKIAH
By: _____________________
Ernie Wipf, Chairperson Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager
By: _________________ _____________________
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
Attachment 5

4 Exhibit A
Shared Costs Between City and District for the Combined City/District Sewer System Fiscal Year 2026-27

BUDGET BY ACTIVITY
Attachment 5

5 BUDGET BY MAJOR COST

OPERATING BUDGET
Attachment 5

6 CAPITAL AND ENCUMBRANCES
Attachment 5

7 BUDGET DETAIL
Attachment 5

8 Attachment 5

9 Attachment 5

10 Exhibit B
Cost Split Between City and District
Fiscal Year 2026-27
[TO BE INCLUDED WHEN CALCULATIONS COMPLETE]
Attachment 5

The City of Ukiah
Appendix
Financial Management Policies

GENERAL FINANCIAL GOALS
The general financial goals of the City of Ukiah are:

A.1. To maintain a financially viable City that provides an adequate level of municipal services.

A.2. To maintain financial flexibility to be able to continually adapt to local and regional economic changes.

A.3. To maintain and enhance the sound fiscal condition of the City.

BUDGET ADMINISTRATION
B.1. The City will strive to adopt a balanced budget by June 30 preceding the fiscal year. A balanced budget means that recurring operating revenues and recurring financing sources are suƯicient to fund recurring operating expenditures operating revenues and other financing sources must fully cover operating expenditures, including debt service, as set forth in B.6. below.

Fund balance, strategic reserve funds, and other one-time resources should generally be used only to fund capital improvement projects, emergencies, or other one-time, nonrecurring expendituresA balanced budget allows for total expenditures to exceed revenues and other financing sources; however, beginning fund balance and strategic reserve funds should only be used to fund capital improvement projects or other one-time, non-recurring expenditures, as set forth in B.10. below. Commented [DB1]: Purpose of change: clarification and alignment to best practice. Introduces the concept
of structural balance, which is a core GFOA principle,
without changing City practice.

Attachment 6

B.2. The City will prepare a budget calendar no later than January 15 preceding the budget period.

B.3. The City will use a budget development process based primarily on best practices as promulgated by the Government Finance OƯicers Association (GFOA) that emphasizes long range planning and eƯective program management. The process will:

1. Reinforce the importance of long-range planning in managing the City's fiscal aƯairs.

2. Focus on developing and budgeting for the accomplishment of significant goals.

3. Establish realistic timeframes for achieving goals.

4. Create a proactive budget that provides for stable operations and assures the City's long-term fiscal health.

5. Promote orderly spending patterns.

B.4. During the budget development process, the existing budget will be thoroughly examined to ensure City services deemed necessary and desirable by the City Council are planned and delivered eƯectively and eƯiciently.

B.5. The City will avoid budgetary and accounting practices that balance the current budget at the expense of future budgets.

B.6. The City will strive to support current operating expenditures, including debt service, with current revenues.

B.7. The City will forecast its revenues and expenditures for each of the succeeding five years and will update this forecast at least annually.

Attachment 6

B.8. The status of major program goals will be formally reported to the City Council on a periodic, ongoing basis.

B.9. Budget amendments and adjustments. Budgetary control is maintained at the following levels:

For purposes of budgetary control and appropriations, a "fund" shall mean the primary or parent fund adopted by the City Council, including all associated subfunds, departments, divisions, projects, programs, and accounts contained therein unless otherwise specified by the City Council.

1. The City Council maintains budgetary control for the entire overall City budget. It will review and amend appropriations regularly as needed to any budgeted fund, with the following exceptions:

1. The City Manager maintains budgetary control at the fund level. The City Manager may approve and adjust the budget within any budgeted fund, including increases or decreases to budget line items, objects, accounts, projects, or programs. The City Manager may also approve adjustments that increase a fund's total appropriations by an amount not to exceed five percent (5%) of the total appropriations adopted by the City Council for that fund. Any such adjustments shall be reported to the City Council as an informational item in quarterly financial reports. Budget adjustments that would increase a fund's total appropriations by more than five percent (5%) or $250,000, whichever is less, shall require approval by the City Council so long as the net appropriation to the fund is not increased, e.g., an increase to a budget line item or account is oƯset by a commensurate reduction to a diƯerent budget line item or account.

2. The Finance Director, or designee, maintains budgetary control at the line item, object, or account level. The Finance Director may approve and adjust the budget within objects, e.g. between a parent object account and a project sub object account. Also, the Finance Director may approve budget adjustments that result in a total increase to a fund budget appropriation so long as a commensurate revenue amount is recognized, [e.g. an expenditure is reimbursed by a third party (reimbursable jobs)].

Commented [DB2]: Purpose of change: eƯiciency.

Reduces time and cost of having to prepare a separate
agenda item every time a small adjustment is made while still ensuring Council is informed. Particularly important for enterprise funds where unforeseen operational needs may require immediate action.

Attachment 6

B.10. The City will strive to preserve the spending of fund balance and strategic reserve funds for capital improvement projects, or other one-time, non-recurring expenditures.

Non recurring expenditures are defined here as those that do not regularly recur beyond a stated limited amount of time, e.g. beyond three years, as recommended by the City Manager and approved by the City Council.

B.11. Unspent, unencumbered operating and capital improvement program appropriations will lapse at the end of the budget period. Requests for lapsed program appropriations may be resubmitted for inclusion in the subsequent fiscal year. Unspent but encumbered appropriations at the end of a fiscal year shall amend the budget of the subsequent fiscal year. The Finance Department shall execute this amendment as part of its year-end closing procedures.

B.12. Internal Service Fund Budget Adjustments. Budget amendments and adjustments to Internal Service Funds shall be reflected in the rates, charges, allocations, or cost recovery methodologies used to distribute costs to user funds unless an alternative funding source is specifically identified.

When an appropriation or expenditure budget of an Internal Service Fund is increased, the Finance Director may adjust the corresponding charges, allocations, or cost recovery amounts to participating funds as necessary to fully recover the costs of providing the service. Such adjustments may be incorporated into existing cost allocation plans, internal service rates, or other approved allocation methodologies.

Alternatively, the City Manager or Finance Director, as authorized by this policy, may identify and authorize the use of available working capital, retained earnings, fund balance, reserves, or other available resources within the Internal Service Fund to fund all or a portion of the budget adjustment. To the extent such resources are utilized, corresponding charges, allocations, or cost recovery amounts to participating funds may or may not be adjusted.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that all Internal Service Fund budget adjustments be immediately allocated to user funds if suƯicient reserves or other available resources have been identified and approved for such purpose. That option, however, remains at the discretion of the Finance Director, and the Finance Director shall make such determinations, approvals, and authorizations.

Commented [DB3]: Purpose of change: clarification.

This revision clarifies and makes explicit the City's
longstanding practice regarding Internal Service Fund
budget adjustments and their impact on cost allocations to benefiting funds. Because Internal Service Funds are designed to recover the costs of providing centralized
services, increases in their appropriations generally
result in corresponding adjustments to internal service charges, rates, or allocation methodologies unless an
alternative funding source is identified. The revision also clarifies the authority of the Finance Director to
determine whether available reserves or other resources should be used in lieu of increasing charges to benefiting funds.

Attachment 6

B.13. Budgets Administered on Behalf of Separate Governing Bodies. Certain funds and activities administered, accounted for, or budgeted by the City on behalf of separate governmental entities are subject to the budgetary authority of their respective governing bodies. Budget amendments, appropriations, and adjustments for such entities shall be authorized in accordance with the policies and actions of those governing bodies and may be administratively incorporated into the City's accounting records by the Finance Director or designee as necessary to maintain consistency with the approved budgets. Such entities include, but are not limited to:
 The Ukiah Valley Water Authority (UVWA), whose budget is subject to the budgetary authority of the UVWA Executive Committee;
 The Ukiah Valley Fire Authority (UVFA), whose budget is subject to the budgetary authority of the UVFA Finance and Executive Committee and the UVFA Board, as applicable;
 The Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA), whose budget is subject to the budgetary authority of the MSWMA Board of Directors; and  The Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District, whose budget is subject to the budgetary authority of its governing Board.

Budget amendments approved by these governing bodies shall not require separate approval by the City Council unless such action would directly aƯect City appropriations, require the commitment of City resources not previously authorized, or otherwise require City Council action by law.

GENERAL REVENUE MANAGEMENT

C.1. The City will seek to maintain a diversified and stable revenue base to protect it from short-term fluctuations in any one revenue source.

C.2. To emphasize and facilitate long-range financial planning, the City shall strive to maintain current projections of revenues for the succeeding five years.

Commented [DB4]: Purpose of change: clarification. It
is prudent to speak to how budget adjustments aƯecting
other agencies are handled by staƯ and the City. This has not been clearly articulated elsewhere.

Attachment 6

C.3. Because revenues, especially those of the General Fund, are sensitive to both local and regional economic conditions, revenue estimates adopted by the City Council should be conservative and based primarily on best practices promulgated by GFOA.

C.4. The City will annually review the General Fund operating position (revenues less expenditures) to determine if funds are available to operate and maintain future capital facilities. If funding is not available for operations and maintenance expenditures, the City will evaluate all viable options.

C.5. User fees will be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis to recover the full cost of services provided, except when the City Council determines that a subsidy from the General Fund is within the cost recovery policy adopted by the Council. The City will strive to establish a master fee schedule that will encompass all fees and charges of the City and make that fee schedule publicly available.

C.6. Any transfers between funds for operating purposes shall be clearly set forth in the Adopted Budget. These operating transfers, under which financial resources are transferred from one fund to another, are distinctly diƯerent from interfund borrowings, which are usually made for temporary cash flow reasons and are not intended to result in a transfer of financial resources by the end of the fiscal year. From time to time, interfund borrowings may be appropriate but are subject to the following criteria and in accordance with the City's adopted Debt Management Policy:

1. The Finance Director is authorized to approve temporary interfund borrowings for cash flow purposes whenever the cash shortfall is expected to be resolved within 60 days or the next fiscal year. The most common use of interfund borrowing under this circumstance is for grant programs where costs are incurred before drawdowns are initiated and received.

2. lnterfund advances or other long-term interfund borrowing exceeding one year in maturity can be executed by the Finance Director, pursuant to any applicable law, and shall subsequently be reported to the City Council.

Attachment 6

UTILITY RATES AND FEES

D.1. The City will set utility rates and user fees at levels that fully recover the total direct and indirect costs of the activity. Direct costs include the costs of operations, including the maintenance of facilities, capital outlay, debt service and annual depreciation of capital assets. Indirect costs include those associated with administrative allocations and internal services used.

D.2. The City shall review and adjust utility rates and user charges as required no less than once every five years to ensure that they remain appropriate and equitable.

INVESTMENTS

E.1. The Finance Director will annually submit an investment policy to the City Council for review and adoption.

E.2. Under the guidance of the City's Investment Oversight Committee, the Finance Director will invest the City's idle monies with an outside investment advisor in accordance with applicable law and adopted investment policies and direct the investment of bond or note monies on deposit with a trustee or fiscal agent in accordance with the applicable indenture or issuance document.

EXPENDITURES

F.1. The City will strive to maintain a level of expenditures that will provide for the public well being and safety of the residents of the community.

F.2. The City will strive to provide a level of expenditure that will maintain its assets.

Attachment 6

F.3. The City will maintain purchasing methods in accordance with law and the City's adopted purchasing policies and procedures to secure the most competitive price consistent with the highest quality desirable for use intended and the needs of the City.

F.4. The City Council will annually adopt a resolution establishing the City' s appropriations limit calculated in accordance with Article Xlll-8 of the Constitution of the State of California, Section 7900 of the State of California Government Code, and any other voter approved amendments or state legislation that aƯects the City's appropriations limit. The Council will generally consider this resolution in connection with final approval of the City's budget.

EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUNDS

G.1. The City will maintain a General Government Equipment Replacement Fund (Fund 220) for governmental funds and equipment replacement funds for each proprietary fund where appropriate and desirable to provide for the timely replacement of vehicles, equipment, network and computer, and other short-lived capital assets.

G.2. The City will strive to make an annual contribution to these funds based on the annual use allowance, which is determined by the estimated life of the vehicles or equipment to be replaced and their original purchase costs.

G.3. Interest earnings and sales of surplus equipment as well as any related damage and insurance recoveries will be credited to the funds in which the asset was capitalized (proprietary funds) or from which the original capital expenditure was incurred.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

H.1. The City will develop a five-year capital improvement program (CIP) each budget cycle.

The purpose of the CIP is to systematically plan, schedule and finance capital projects to ensure cost-eƯectiveness as well as conformance with the City's established policies.

Attachment 6

H.2. Questions to consider when prioritizing a capital project include:

1. Is it mandated?

2. Is there an emergency need?

3. Is there a direct or indirect economic benefit?

4. Is there full or partial funding?

5. Does it detail with other capital projects that are a priority for other reasons?

6. How does it fit in with the City Council's strategic goals?

H.3. The City will identify the estimated costs, potential funding sources, and project schedule for each capital project proposal in the CIP before it is submitted to the City Council for approval.

H.4. The City will coordinate the development of the CIP with the development of the operating budget.

H.5. Construction projects that cost $20,000 or more and equipment purchases that cost $10,000 or more will be included in the CIP, except for replacements of police squad cars which are included in the operating program budget. Minor capital construction outlays of less than $20,000 and minor equipment purchases of less than $10,000 will be included in the operating program budgets.

H.6. The City will make all capital improvements in accordance with an adopted and funded CIP.

H.7. Cost tracking procedures for current-period components of the CIP will be implemented and updated quarterly to ensure project completion is within budget and established timelines.

Attachment 6

DEBT MANAGEMENT

I.1. The City will consider the use of debt financing in accordance with its Debt Management Policy and when determined reasonable and cost-eƯective, notably for highpriority, non recurring capital improvement projects and only under the following circumstances :

1. When the project's useful life will exceed or equal the term of financing, and;

2. When projected revenues or specific resources will be suƯicient to service the longterm debt.

I.2. Debt financing should not be considered appropriate for any recurring purpose such as current operating and maintenance expenditures. The issuance of short-term instruments such as revenue, tax or bond anticipation notes is excluded from this limitation.

I.3. The City will carefully monitor its level of debt because debt capacity is limited. Funds borrowed for a project today are not available to fund other projects tomorrow, and funds committed for debt repayment today are not available to fund operations tomorrow.

I.4. A feasibility analysis will be prepared for each long-term financing which analyzes the impact on current and future budgets for debt service and operations. This analysis will also address the reliability of revenues to support debt service.

I.5. The City will diligently monitor its compliance with bond covenants and ensure its adherence to federal arbitrage regulations.

I.6. The City will maintain good, ongoing communications with bond rating agencies about the City' s financial condition.

Attachment 6

I.7. Periodic reviews of all outstanding debt will be undertaken to determine refinancing opportunities. Refinancing will be considered under the following conditions:

1. There is a net economic benefit.

2. It is needed to modernize covenants that are adversely aƯecting the City's financial position or operations.

3. The City wants to reduce the principal outstanding in order to achieve future debt service savings, and it has available working capital to do so from other sources.

FUND BALANCE AND RESERVES

J.1. The City shall strive to maintain a unassigned fund balance in the General Fund, including the General Fund's Strategic Reserve Fund, of at least 25 percent of General Fund operating expenditures. A 25-percent fund balance is equivalent to approximately three months of operating expenditures. The primary purpose of this minimum fund balance is to meet cash flow requirements; to protect the City's essential service programs and funding requirements during periods of economic uncertainty, local disasters, other financial hardships or downturns in the local economy; and to provide for unforeseen operating or capital needs. Additionally, a fund balance of 25 percent is considered the minimum level necessary to maintain the City's credit worthiness and is consistent with GFOA best practices.

J.2. The City Council may assign specific fund balance levels for future development of capital projects that it has determined to be in the best long-term interests of the City.

J.3. The City's enterprise funds shall strive to maintain a minimum working capital balance (defined as current assets minus current liabilities) of at least 25 percent of operating expenditures. The primary purpose of this balance is to set aside funds to maintain cash balances suƯicient to pay expenses as needed and to provide for unanticipated or emergency expenses that could not be reasonably foreseen during the preparation of the budget.

Attachment 6

J.4. In addition to the designated balances noted above, levels of fund balance and working capital will be suƯicient to meet:

1. Debt service covenants and reserve requirements.

2. Reserves for encumbrances.

3. Established rate stabilization reserves.

4. Funding requirements for projects approved in prior years that are carried forward.

5. Credit worthiness standards or requirements.

6. Other assignments required by contractual obligations, state law, generally accepted accounting principles, or GFOA best practices.

Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting

K.1. The City's accounting and financial reporting systems will be maintained in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

K.2. A capital asset system will be maintained to identify all City assets, their historical cost, and useful life. Consistent with the accompanying policies set forth for the City's Capital Improvement Program, the capitalization threshold for capital assets is a minimum two-year lifespan and total initial cost of $10,000.

K.3. An annual audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm with the subsequent issue of, at a minimum, General Purpose Financial Statements that include an audit opinion. The City shall strive to issue audited financial statements within 180 days after year-end.

Human Resources Management
Attachment 6

L.1. The City Council shall establish and authorize all regular positions, including part-time, seasonal, and extra-help regular positions through the budget process. The City Manager is authorized to hire limited-term extra-help positions when needed and necessary. The City Manager also is authorized to over-hire for positions where vacancies are expected or imminent during the fiscal year to mitigate service disruption.

L.2. The budget will fully appropriate the resources needed for authorized regular positions and will limit programs to the regular staƯing authorized.

L.3. The City will strive to provide competitive compensation and benefits for its authorized regular employees. Market adjustments may be made by the City Council upon recommendation by the City Manager.

L.4. All requests for additional regular positions will include evaluations of:

1. The necessity, benefits, term and expected results of the proposed activity

2. StaƯing and materials costs including salary, benefits, equipment, uniforms, support, and facilities and related funding requirements

3. Alternative means of service delivery, with consideration given to quality of service

4. Additional revenues or cost savings that may be realized

Powered by OpenGov
Attachment 6

Agenda Item No: 14.a.

MEETING DATE/TIME: 6/17/2026

ITEM NO: 2026-1084

AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Approve Submittal of Appeal of the 7th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Determination for the City of Ukiah to Mendocino Council of Governments; and/or Provide Additional Direction to Staff as Necessary.

DEPARTMENT: Community
Development PREPARED BY: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director PRESENTER: Craig Schlatter, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:

1. RHNA Draft Methodology 2026 - HCD Submittal 5.14.26

2. RHNA Appeal Letter
Summary: Council will consider approving the submittal of an appeal of the 7th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Determination for the City of Ukiah to Mendocino Council of Governments and/or provide additional direction to Staff as necessary.

Background: City Community Development Department Staff have been involved in discussions with community development staff from other Mendocino County local governments and the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) for the last few months regarding the proposed Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 7th Housing Element cycle (2027-2035). Per Government Code, each council of governments and delegate subregion, as applicable, shall distribute a draft allocation of regional housing needs to each local government in the region or subregion, where applicable, and the department [(the State Department of Housing and Community Development, or "HCD")], based on the methodology adopted pursuant to Section 65584.04 and shall publish the draft allocation on its internet website. At their June 1, 2026, meeting, the MCOG Board adopted the revised RHNA methodology (Attachment 1) and directed MCOG staff to issue the draft RHNA allocations to Mendocino County local governments.

The table below, also found on page 10 of Attachment 1, breaks down each local government's allocation by income category:

Categories HCD
Determination
Fort BraggPoint
Arena
Ukiah Willits Unincorporated
Acutely Low 533 43 5 218 52 215
Extremely Low 891 108 6 207 85 485
Very Low 677 97 5 120 32 423
Low 1,151 137 8 291 95 620
Moderate 648 52 3 145 35 413
Above Moderate 2,556 231 8 519 174 1,624
TOTAL 6,456 668 35 1,500 376 3,780
As noted above, the City of Ukiah's 7th Cycle RHNA was determined by HCD and MCOG to be 1,500 units. In contrast, the City's 6th Cycle RHNA, also an eight-year cycle (2019-2027), was 239 units.

The RHNA represents the total number of new housing units the local government must help facilitate, or plan for, in the next Housing Element cycle. Approval of the RHNA marks the first step in the updating process of a local government's Housing Element.

However, due to several new housing laws and regulations approved by the State legislature since 2017, RHNA has become much more than the planning tool it once was in the past. Enforcement mechanisms added through State laws, including the strengthening of the Housing Accountability Act, now penalize jurisdictions — primarily, through the withholding of grant funds for transportation and other infrastructure projects — where housing is not being built at the speed at which the State believes is necessary to advance State housing goals.

The State's penalizing of jurisdictions for not meeting RHNA goals assumes the jurisdiction is to blame for housing not being built. Although unnecessarily excessive regulation and discretionary approvals can indeed delay housing construction, new housing starts depend on a variety of factors, such as labor availability and cost, local housing and economic conditions and household incomes, access to capital, availability of suitable land, and housing developer capacity.

Discussion: According to Government Code Section 65584.05(b), within 30 days following receipt of the draft allocation, a local government within the region or the delegate subregion, as applicable, or the department [(HCD)] may appeal to the council of governments or the delegate subregion for a revision of the share of the regional housing need proposed to be allocated to one or more local governments.

Because the City received its 7th Cycle RHNA draft allocation from MCOG staff on June 3, 2026, per Government Code, the date appeals are due to MCOG is July 3, 2026.

Due primarily to the nature in which HCD (and by extension, MCOG) assigned the RHNA to the City for this 7th Cycle, Staff has prepared an Appeal (Attachment 2) for City Council consideration. Although Staff acknowledges the chances of a successful appeal to be very low, in Staff's opinion it is important to establish this record and document potential issues with the State's new approach to assigning RHNA, both for the City and for other California jurisdictions.

Recommended Action: Approve submittal of appeal of the 7th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Determination for the City of Ukiah to Mendocino Council of Governments.

BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: N/A
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
FINANCING SOURCE: N/A
REVENUE: No GRANT: No
PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH: Councilmember Criss
STRATEGIC PLAN (SP): N/A
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (GP): GP-A8 - Housing Element (2019-2027).

Mendocino Council of Governments
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Cycle 7: 2027 – 2035
Draft Methodology
ATTACHMENT 1

Introduction
Overview
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a state-required process that seeks to ensure cities and counties are planning for enough housing to accommodate all economic segments of the community. The process is split into three steps:

1. Regional Determination: The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides each region with a Regional Determination of housing need, which includes a total number of units split into six income categories. Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) received the Final Regional Determination for Cycle 7 (2027 – 2035) on August 15, 2025.

2. RHNA Methodology: Council of Governments are responsible for developing a RHNA methodology for allocating the Regional Determination to each jurisdiction in the region. This methodology must further a series of State objectives.

3. Housing Element Updates: Each jurisdiction must then adopt a housing element that demonstrates, among other things, how the jurisdiction can accommodate its assigned RHNA number through its zoning. The state reviews each jurisdiction's housing element for compliance.

This document describes the Draft Methodology for Mendocino County’s 2027 – 2035 RHNA Cycle 7. The Final Regional Determination for Mendocino County is 6,456 units and includes adjustments, as required by state law, for vacancy, overcrowding, cost-burden, replacement, homelessness, and units lost during a state of emergency.

State law requires the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) to show how its methodology advances the five RHNA objectives, as described in Government Code (GC) Section 65584(d). Additionally, GC Section 65584.04(b)(1) requires that MCOG survey its member jurisdictions for information to inform development of the RHNA Methodology. To address this, MCOG formed a RHNA Methodology Committee comprised of community development representatives from the County of Mendocino and the cities of Fort Bragg, Point Arena, Ukiah, and Willits. Multiple committee meetings were held between September and November 2025 where the information regarding the factors listed in GC Section 65584.04(e) was discussed to help guide the development of the methodology. Furthermore, GC Section 65584.04(d) requires that MCOG conduct at least one public hearing to receive oral and written comments on the proposed methodology. MCOG held a public hearing on the first iteration of the draft methodology at the October 2025 Board meeting. Following substantial changes to the draft methodology, an additional public hearing was held at the February 2026 Board meeting. As part of the outreach process, MCOG sent the draft methodology to agencies (Redwood Coast Regional Center, Area Agency on Aging, etc.) that assist vulnerable populations with housing. The draft methodology was also posted on MCOG’s website where it was accessible to all interested parties.

Implications of RHNA for Local Governments
California requires that all governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing at all income levels and informs local land use planning in addressing existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment, and household growth. As such, in addition to the total overall housing need number of 6,456 units, the Final RHNA Determination includes units required to meet housing needs across six income categories which are

defined in terms of local area median household income (AMHI). These housing needs by income level are found in Table 1.

Table 1 Final HCD RHNA Determination for MCOG
Base RHNA Calculation
The initial step in the development of the RHNA methodology was to determine each jurisdiction’s total base RHNA allocation, broken down by income category. The first step in doing this was to determine the percentage of the county’s population within each jurisdiction using the 2025 Department of Finance Population Estimates found in HCD’s Regional Housing Need Allocation Workbook. Table 2 below shows the percentage distribution of population between the four incorporated cities and the unincorporated County as a percentage of the total population.

Table 2 Regional Population Distribution
The percentages found in Table 2 were then multiplied across the units for each income level identified in Table 1 to determine each jurisdiction’s initial total RHNA allocation, broken down by income category. Table 3 below shows each jurisdiction's base allocation of units.

Table 3 Base RHNA Allocation Based on Population Distribution Income
Category
Income Limits
of AMHI Percent
Housing Unit
Need
Acutely Low <15% 8.3% 533
Extremely Low 15% - 30% 13.8% 891
Very Low 30% - 50% 10.5% 677
Low 50% - 80% 17.8% 1,151
Moderate 80% - 120% 10.0% 648
Above Moderate <120% 39.6% 2,556
Total 100.0% 6,456
Jurisdiction Pop. % of Pop.

Fort Bragg 7,187 8.00%
Point Arena 452 0.50%
Ukiah 16,325 18.17%
Willits 4,838 5.39%
Unincorporated 61,025 67.94%
Total 89,827
2025 Dept. of Finance Population Estimates
Categories HCD Determination Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 533 43 3 97 29 362
Extremely Low 891 71 4 162 48 605
Very Low 677 54 3 123 36 460
Low 1151 92 6 209 62 782
Moderate 648 52 3 118 35 440
Above Moderate 2556 205 13 465 138 1,736
TOTAL 6,456 517 32 1,173 348 4,386

Allocation Adjustment Factors
The RHNA methodology is designed to advance each of the statutory objectives. The first two objectives are intrinsically addressed through the assignment of units for each income category during the base RHNA calculations. The remaining objectives will be addressed through various adjustment factors approved by the Methodology Committee.

Median Household Income Adjustment
Following the base RHNA calculation, an adjustment factor was added based on the jurisdictions’ percentage of Median Household Incomes (MHIs) in each income category compared to regional averages.

Multiple jurisdictions were found to have disproportionate shares of units across the income categories.

Table 4 shows the income level distribution across the income categories for each city and the unincorporated area of the county compared to the region. Table 5 highlights the diƯerence between the jurisdictions compared to the region.

Table 4 Median Household Income Distribution
Table 5 Median Household Income Comparison
The resulting percentage adjustments found in Table 5 were added to the base RHNA allocations as a means of balancing the current shares by income category within each jurisdiction.

Overcrowding and Cost Burden Adjustments
The Methodology Committee discussed overcrowding and cost burden data for the region provided by HCD in the Regional Housing Need Allocation Workbook. Similar to the regional averages and jurisdictional deviations for the MHI adjustments above, Table 6 shows the “overcrowding” and “cost burden” percentages for each jurisdiction that were identified by HCD and compared to the region as a whole.

Categories % % % % % %
Acutely Low 6.7% 3.4% 13.2% 11.9% 6.9% 8.3%
Extremely Low 16.8% 15.0% 12.5% 19.5% 13.3% 13.8%
Very Low 15.2% 10.7% 7.2% 7.3% 11.0% 10.5%
Low 21.6% 13.9% 17.6% 21.9% 17.1% 17.8%
Moderate 11.1% 3.2% 10.1% 12.0% 9.8% 10.0%
Above Moderate 28.5% 53.9% 39.5% 27.4% 41.9% 39.6%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits
Unincorporated
County
County
Total
Categories Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low -1.5% -4.8% 4.9% 3.7% -1.3%
Extremely Low 3.0% 1.2% -1.3% 5.7% -0.5%
Very Low 4.7% 0.2% -3.3% -3.2% 0.5%
Low 3.7% -4.0% -0.3% 4.0% -0.7%
Moderate 1.1% -6.9% 0.0% 2.0% -0.2%
Above Moderate -11.0% 14.3% -0.1% -12.2% 2.3%

Table 6 Additional Adjustment Factors
The percentages for each jurisdiction found in Table 6 were then multiplied across the corresponding jurisdiction’s MHI percentages for the income categories found in Table 4, allowing for the adjustment factors to be distributed across the six income categories.

Table 7 Overcrowding Adjustment Factors
Table 8 Cost Burden Adjustment Factors
Overcrowding and Cost Burden metrics can both be used as measures of aƯordability. An increase in the housing supply as well as a healthy mix of housing types can work to alleviate these dual barriers, addressing Objective 1 in GC Section 65584(d), as well as factors discussed under GC Section 65584.04(e)(6) and (7).

The table below shows RHNA allocation after the MHI, overcrowding, and cost burden adjustment factors have been applied.

Table 9 RHNA allocation with MHI, Overcrowding, and Cost Burden Adjustment Factors applied Categories Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Overcrowding 2.2% 0.4% -2.2% 7.2% -0.3%
Cost Burden 10.0% -0.1% 2.2% 9.6% -2.8%
Categories Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 0.1% 0.0% -0.3% 0.9% 0.0%
Extremely Low 0.4% 0.1% -0.3% 1.4% 0.0%
Very Low 0.3% 0.0% -0.2% 0.5% 0.0%
Low 0.5% 0.1% -0.4% 1.6% -0.1%
Moderate 0.2% 0.0% -0.2% 0.9% 0.0%
Above Moderate 0.6% 0.2% -0.9% 2.0% -0.1%
Categories Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% -0.2%
Extremely Low 1.7% 0.0% 0.3% 1.9% -0.4%
Very Low 1.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% -0.3%
Low 2.2% 0.0% 0.4% 2.1% -0.5%
Moderate 1.1% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% -0.3%
Above Moderate 2.9% -0.1% 0.9% 2.6% -1.2%
Categories HCD Determination Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 533 44 3 92 28 366
Extremely Low 891 71 4 164 47 606
Very Low 677 53 3 127 38 456
Low 1151 91 6 210 62 783
Moderate 648 52 3 118 35 440
Above Moderate 2556 234 11 465 161 1,674
TOTAL 6,456 545 30 1,176 371 4,325

Manual Adjustments
Following discussion of the aforementioned adjustment factors, the Methodology Committee discussed applying manual adjustments to account for: the Western Hills Annexation, targeted adjustments based on the jurisdictions’ Neighborhood Opportunity scores, availability and preservation of land, and to account for rounding errors.

The Western Hills Annexation between the County and City of Ukiah transferred 14 low-income and 13 moderate-income units from the County to the City.

Table 10 RHNA allocation with manual adjustment for Western Hill Annexation Measurements of educational, economic, and environmental “opportunities” are provided in the 2025 Opportunity Map (CTAC/HCD), which identifies Census Block Groups with higher or lower resources associated with positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families, particularly long-term outcomes for children.

The average “Neighborhood Opportunity” scores among the five jurisdictions, as seen in the table below, range from 3.7 to 7.0.

Table 11 Neighborhood Opportunity scores
The cities of Fort Bragg and Ukiah and the unincorporated county have scores within 10 percent of the county average, while the cities of Point Arena and Willits have scores approximately 44 percent higher and 24 percent lower than the county average, respectively. Based on these scores, the Methodology Committee was comfortable making manual adjustments to accommodate more acutely low, extremely low, very low, and low units in the City of Point Arena relative to the City of Willits, where opportunity resources are more limited, and an adjustment to accommodate more above moderate units to the City of Willits. This targeted adjustment aligns with and advances the State’s AƯirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives by directing more lower-income capacity toward higher opportunity neighborhoods, while avoiding unjustified concentration in lower-opportunity areas.

Categories HCD Determination Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 533 44 3 92 28 366
Extremely Low 891 71 4 164 47 606
Very Low 677 53 3 127 38 456
Low 1,151 91 6 224 62 769
Moderate 648 52 3 131 35 427
Above Moderate 2,556 234 11 465 161 1,674
TOTAL 6,456 545 30 1,203 371 4,298
Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorportated County County Average Score 5.29 7.00 5.00 3.67 4.76 4.84

Table 12 RHNA allocation including adjustments for Western Hills Annexation & Neighborhood Opportunity scores Next, a manual adjustment that was applied was to account for rounding errors that arose during the process. Applying the allocation adjustment factors described above led to one additional extremely low unit, one additional low unit, and a deficit of 11 above moderate units. The extremely low unit was deducted from the unincorporated County, and the low unit was subtracted from Ukiah’s total. The additional 11 above moderate units were distributed across four of the jurisdictions, with two each going to Fort Bragg, Ukiah, and the unincorporated County, and five to Willits. The adjustments to account for rounding were made in an eƯort to balance the above moderate units while trying to adhere to GC Section 65584(d)(1) as best as possible. The table below shows the allocation of units for each jurisdiction after all adjustment factors, both formula and manual, have been applied.

Table 13 RHNA allocation including all adjustment factors Lower-income Jobs-to-Housing Ratio Adjustment
After an initial review by HCD of the potential allocation figures, additional consultation followed with MCOG staƯ concerning available employment/housing opportunities within the Cities of Fort Bragg, Ukiah, and Willits. Based on lower-income jobs-to-household ratio data provided by HCD in their letter dated April 3, 2026, MCOG staƯ was able to calculate the number of jobs in those three jurisdictions as well as the unincorporated County. StaƯ then used the jobs data from Table 14 to determine the lower-income jobs to RHNA units for the jurisdictions and the region.

Table 14 Lower-income jobs-to-household ratios

Categories HCD Determination Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 533 44 5 92 26 366
Extremely Low 891 71 6 164 45 606
Very Low 677 53 5 127 36 456
Low 1,151 91 8 224 60 769
Moderate 648 52 3 131 35 427
Above Moderate 2,556 229 8 465 169 1,674
TOTAL 6,456 540 35 1,203 371 4,298
Categories HCD Determination Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 533 44 5 92 26 366
Extremely Low 891 71 6 164 45 605
Very Low 677 53 5 127 36 456
Low 1,151 91 8 223 60 769
Moderate 648 52 3 131 35 427
Above Moderate 2,556 231 8 467 174 1,676
TOTAL 6,456 542 35 1,204 376 4,299
Jobs/HH ratio HH Jobs
Fort Bragg 1.46 1,793 2,618
Ukiah 1.55 3,063 4,747
Willits 1.56 1,187 1,852
Unincorporated County 0.65 11,256 7,316
Total 0.96 17,299 16,533

Table 15 Lower-income jobs-to-RHNA unit ratios
Using the data from Table 15, staƯ calculated the number of lower-income units each jurisdiction would need to add to their proposed allocation to achieve the regional ratio of 5.12. Based on this, new lowerincome RHNA unit allocations were calculated by applying a 50% factor to the units in Table 16. Table 17 below shows the new lower-income units and the updated jobs-to-RHNA unit ratios.

Table 16 Number of RHNA units needed to achieve the regional ratio of 5.12 Table 17 New lower-income RHNA allocations & lower-income jobs/RHNA ratios Based on data in Table 18 from HCD’s Regional Housing Need Allocation Workbook, Table 19 shows the distribution percentage of lower-income household units for the jurisdictions based on data for the region.

Table 18 Distribution of lower-income households
Jobs/RHNA ratio RHNA Jobs
Fort Bragg 10.11 259 2,618
Ukiah 7.83 606 4,747
Willits 11.09 167 1,852
Unincorporated County 3.33 2,196 7,316
Region 5.12 3,228 16,533
Fort Bragg 252
Ukiah 321
Willits 195
Unincorporated County -768
Jobs/RHNA ratio RHNA Jobs
Fort Bragg 6.80 385 2,618
Ukiah 6.20 766 4,747
Willits 7.02 264 1,852
Unincorporated County 4.04 1,812 7,316
Total 3,227
Categories Mendocino County Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 2,853 200 9 800 234 1,610
Extremely Low 4,771 501 40 758 381 3,091
Very Low 3,624 452 28 438 143 2,562
Low 6,165 640 37 1,066 428 3,993
TOTAL 17,413 1,793 114 3,062 1,186 11,256

Table 19 Distribution percentage of lower-income household units Using the data in Table 19, staƯ then distributed the lower-income allocations from Table 17 across the four lower-income categories. The following manual adjustment was then made to the County’s allocation to align the jurisdictions’ totals for each income category with HCD’s original determination:
 -26 units from Acutely Low
 +4 units to Extremely Low
 +21 units to Very Low
 +1 unit to Low
Tables 20 and 21 show the new distribution of lower-income RHNA units and total RHNA units, respectively.

Table 20 New distribution of lower-income RHNA units
Table 21 New distribution of total RHNA units
Finally, additional manual adjustments were made between the County and City of Ukiah, shifting a total of 135 units from the County to Ukiah, helping to further Objective 2. This final adjustment was the result of HCD review and direction to shift units from the unincorporated area into the City of Ukiah in an eƯort to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase access to jobs, including out of county jobs. Although units within the unincorporated county could also provide access to jobs, HCD looks at a jurisdiction’s average per capita VMT when conducting their assessment, which is higher in the unincorporated area. Table 22 shows the distribution of the 135 units across the income categories based on Ukiah’s data in Table 4. Table 23 Categories Mendocino County Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 16.4% 11.2% 7.9% 26.1% 19.7% 14.3%
Extremely Low 27.4% 27.9% 35.1% 24.8% 32.1% 27.5%
Very Low 20.8% 25.2% 24.6% 14.3% 12.1% 22.8%
Low 35.4% 35.7% 32.5% 34.8% 36.1% 35.5%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Categories HCD Determination Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 533 43 5 200 52 233
Extremely Low 891 108 6 190 85 502
Very Low 677 97 5 110 32 433
Low 1,151 137 8 267 95 644
TOTAL 3,252 385 24 767 264 1,812
Categories HCD Determination Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 533 43 5 200 52 233
Extremely Low 891 108 6 190 85 502
Very Low 677 97 5 110 32 433
Low 1,151 137 8 267 95 644
Moderate 648 52 3 131 35 427
Above Moderate 2,556 231 8 467 174 1,676
TOTAL 6,456 668 35 1,365 473 3,915

incorporates the noted additions/subtractions, which will also be proposed as the final allocation for the region. These final adjustments should ensure compliance with state Objectives 2, 3, and 5 under Government Code Section 65584(d).

Table 22 Manual adjustment of 135 units from the County to Ukiah Table 23 Final distribution of RHNA units after all adjustments Consistency with State Housing Law
Pursuant to GC Section 65584.04(b), the methodology discussed herein is the product of multiple meetings of the Methodology Committee and incorporates information to demonstrate compliance with State statutes, objectives identified in GC Section 65584(d), and goals with respect to housing policy.

RHNA Objectives
As previously mentioned, state law requires MCOG to show how its methodology advances the five RHNA objectives, as described in GC Section 65584(d). The objectives listed below include a brief discussion of how they have been addressed within the methodology:

Objective 1. Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and aƯordability in all cities and counties in the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low income households. The regional housing needs allocation plan shall allocate units from extremely low- and acutely low income households in a manner that is roughly proportional to, and within a range of 3 percent of, the housing need for very low income households.

As previously discussed, the methodology includes several adjustment factors designed to consider equitable distribution of units for various income specific categories. For instance, data on the median household income (MHI) of existing units will be used to adjust the final allocation in order to bring local Categories Uninc. County Ukiah
Acutely Low -18 18
Extremely Low -17 17
Very Low -10 10
Low -24 24
Moderate -14 14
Above Moderate -52 52
TOTAL -135 135
Categories HCD Determination Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated Acutely Low 533 43 5 218 52 215
Extremely Low 891 108 6 207 85 485
Very Low 677 97 5 120 32 423
Low 1,151 137 8 291 95 620
Moderate 648 52 3 145 35 413
Above Moderate 2,556 231 8 519 174 1,624
TOTAL 6,456 668 35 1,500 473 3,780

housing markets into balance with respect to the six income categories. Additionally, jurisdictional deviation above or below average Overcrowding or Cost Burden factors will also be used to level the playing field.

Objective 2. Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of eƯicient development patterns, and the achievement of the region’s greenhouse gas reductions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080.

Equity, eƯiciency, and environmental considerations were included in developing the methodology by considering “opportunity” scores in the final allocation. Based on the 2025 Opportunity Mapping Tool, the cities of Fort Bragg and Ukiah and the unincorporated County have roughly the same amount of general amenities (e.g., services, educational opportunities, etc.) and have opportunity scores within 10 percent of the County average. However, Point Arena had a significantly higher score, and Willits had a significantly lower score, when compared to the county average. Manual adjustments to the acutely low, extremely low, very low-, and low-income units from Willits to Point Arena will be applied at the end of the process to help with socioeconomic equity. Conversely, Willits is seeking a larger share of above moderate accommodations so that higher skilled, better paid professionals may be able to locate within the city, shortening commute times and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related impacts.

Furthering this objective are the adjustments made regarding the lower-income jobs to housing units ratio, which transferred units from the unincorporated County to the Cities of Fort Bragg, Ukiah, and Willits, as well as the additional manual transfer of units from the County to the City of Ukiah as directed by HCD. Both adjustments promote infill, thereby further reducing VMT and GHG emissions. It’s important to note that while the adjustments made to further this objective may reduce VMT and GHG emissions, the portion of Objective 2 regarding achieving GHG reduction targets provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) pursuant to Section 65080 does not apply to the Mendocino County region. The targets referenced in Section 65080 are set by CARB for areas under the jurisdiction of a metropolitan planning organization, which Mendocino County is not.

Objective 3. Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units aƯordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction.

Similar to the discussion under Objective 2 above, the methodology includes eƯorts to balance jobs and housing within the region. As noted earlier, the jurisdiction with the highest “neighborhood opportunity” score in the 2025 Opportunity Mapping Tool was Point Arena. Their accommodation of higher shares of lower income household units helps to advance this objective. Furthering this objective is the transfer of lowincome household units from the County to the City of Ukiah as part of the Western Hills Annexation. This transfer helps improve the balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units aƯordable to low-wage workers within the City of Ukiah. Additionally, the adjustments made regarding the lower-income jobs to housing units ratio further improves the intraregional relationship between jobs and housing by transferring units from the unincorporated County to the Cities of Fort Bragg, Ukiah, and Willits.

Objective 4. Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent American Community Survey.

Based on data from HCD, the median household income levels for existing households in each jurisdiction were analyzed, finding the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits to hold smaller shares of above-moderate units and disproportionately large percentages of acutely low, extremely low, very-low, and low-income units. The methodology supports this objective by aiming to correct the imbalances, where deemed appropriate.

Objective 5. AƯirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). Per GC Section 65584(e), this means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.

The 2025 Opportunity Mapping Tool discussed within this methodology was used to evaluate “disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity” for all residents of the region, regardless of race or ethnicity, in an eƯort to equalize the allocation of income tiered units among the jurisdictions. The intention is to incorporate AFFH concepts into its overall distribution.

RHNA Factors for Consideration
Government Code Section 65584.04(e) requires that MCOG, to the extent that suƯicient data is available from the local jurisdictions, consider 13 factors when developing the allocation methodology for regional housing needs. The following list provides a summary of these considerations based on information received from the region’s five jurisdictions:

1. Relationship between existing and projected jobs and housing aƯordability.

Specific data on local “jobs/housing aƯordability” was not available for the region as a whole or for the individual jurisdictions. This was discussed by the Methodology Committee and they chose to look at other factors in determining the final allocation.

2. Constraints due to the availability of sewer, water, developable land, land preservation policies, and impacts caused by climate change.

Data was not available, nor provided by local community development agencies with respect to constraints based on infrastructure availability or development policy. Given the proposed distribution of units from factors that were used, the Methodology Committee did not feel these to be significant obstacles to overcome in determining the final allocation.

3. Distribution of household growth as a means of maximizing public transportation or existing transportation infrastructure.

Infill development is emphasized in policy language found within the current housing elements of the region’s jurisdictions and will continue to be a consideration when determining residential zoning objectives within each jurisdiction. However, growth rates overall are expected to remain relatively flat over the next decade, and the existing transportation infrastructure will be able to accommodate housing production scenarios over this span. As such, the Methodology Committee didn’t consider this to be a significant factor in determining the allocation of units.

4. Agreements between jurisdictions directing growth toward incorporated areas and away from areas used for agricultural purposes.

While no oƯicial growth boundary agreements exist between jurisdictions, policies within current housing elements contain language directing growth inward, towards established communities and away from agricultural or rural areas.

5. Loss of units contained in assisted housing developments.

Data was not readily available, and the Methodology Committee did not consider this a significant factor in determining the allocation of housing units.

6. Housing cost burden at each relevant income level.

While information was not readily available from the local jurisdictions with respect to housing cost burden, data used by HCD to calculate the initial housing needs of the region found this to be a significant factor in their overall assessment. Relative cost burdens for homeowners and renters were considered by the Methodology Committee, and adjustments will be made to the number of housing units assigned to the five jurisdictions and distributed across the six income categories.

7. Rate of overcrowding
Similar to cost burden factors, relative rates of overcrowding were considered by the Methodology Committee, and adjustments will be made to the number of housing units assigned to the five jurisdictions and distributed across the six income categories.

8. Housing needs of farmworkers.

Data was not readily available on the housing needs of farmworkers, and the Methodology Committee did not consider this to be a significant factor in determining the allocation of housing units.

9. Housing needs of college students at private schools, state schools, or universities.

Mendocino College is largely considered to be a “commuter” school, and the student population is not expected to have a large impact on housing needs within the region. Therefore, the Methodology Committee didn’t consider this to be a significant factor in determining the allocation of units.

10. Housing needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness Data was not readily available, and the Methodology Committee did not consider this a significant factor in determining the allocation of housing units.

11. Loss of units during a state emergency during the previous (current) planning period that have yet to be rebuilt.

Data was not readily available, and the Methodology Committee did not consider this a significant factor in determining the allocation of housing units.

12. Consideration of the region’s greenhouse gas emission targets.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions aren’t expected to reach a level of significance in the Mendocino County given the relatively flat growth rates and smaller existing population numbers. As such, the Methodology Committee didn’t consider this to be a significant factor in determining the allocation of units. Additionally, the Mendocino County region doesn’t have any GHG emission targets set by the California Air Resources Board.

13. Other factors adopted by MCOG
No other policy factors have been adopted by MCOG with respect to housing needs allocation.

300 Seminary Avenue • Ukiah • CA • 95482-5400
Phone: (707)463-6200 · Fax: (707)463-6204 ·www.cityofukiah.com June 18, 2026
Mendocino Council of Governments
Attn: Nephele Barrett, MCOG Executive Director
525 S Main St, Ste. B
Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: City of Ukiah 7th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Appeal Dear Nephele:

Thank you for the difficult work to ensure the 7th Cycle RHNA is distributed in a way that both ensures compliance with the State RHNA process and attempts to equitably distribute housing production numbers across Mendocino County local governments. The City of Ukiah (Ukiah) has been an active partner in this process, and as evidenced by its performance in meeting 6th Cycle RHNA goals, willing to take on its fair share of Mendocino County’s housing needs.

However, according to State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff on a recent call arranged by MCOG staff and attended by planning representatives of Mendocino County local governments, it is Ukiah’s performance in meeting its 6th cycle RHNA and achieving its ProHousing designation, not the data or other evidence within the record, that justify the nearly 530% increase in Ukiah’s 7th Cycle RHNA determination. HCD’s comment, among other questionable sources of housing data documenting the need for the increase, necessitate further review and analysis, which it does not appear MCOG has undertaken on Ukiah’s behalf.

Therefore, pursuant to Government Code 65584.05(b), the City of Ukiah is submitting this formal appeal of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) adopted Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology and resulting allocation for the 7th Cycle Housing Element. This appeal is submitted pursuant to direction provided by the Ukiah City Council at its regular meeting of June 17, 2026, and within the statutory 30-day appeal period.

BASIS FOR THE APPEAL

1. MCOG failed to consider information submitted by the City of Ukiah in its local jurisdiction survey, as required by Government Code, subdivision (b) of Section 65584.04.

In August of 2025, MCOG received the 7th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) for Mendocino County from HCD, which assigned a total of 6,456 housing units to the Mendocino County region. Because the previous (6th) Cycle, also an eight-year cycle, assigned 1,845 units, and population growth in Mendocino County has been relatively flat over this period, this 250% increase warranted closer scrutiny.

Working closely with planning representatives in the four incorporated cities and the County of Mendocino, MCOG staff submitted a well-articulated, data-driven appeal of HCD’s 7th Cycle RHND ATTACHMENT 2

300 Seminary Avenue • Ukiah • CA • 95482-5400
Phone: (707)463-6200 · Fax: (707)463-6204 ·www.cityofukiah.com on September 14, 2025 (Attachment 1). Within this letter, numerous examples are provided by MCOG as to why the 7th Cycle RHND is unreasonable and not supported by data.

As noted in MCOG’s letter:
“We believe that the numbers included in the determination do not represent a reasonable application of the methodology due to a lack of reliable data resulting in extremely high margins of error for much of the data…the margins of error for data used to determine the cost burden adjustment, which accounts for the largest adjustment to Mendocino County’s housing need determination, have margins of error (MoE) as high as 36%, making the data statistically unreliable…The data points used in the calculation for overcrowding are even less reliable, with MoE ranging from 35.3% to 125% for the ranges of occupants per room used in the calculation.” “…the methodology itself appears to be unreasonable as it requires comparison to national data rather than state data or regional data. Through this standardized, homogeneous approach, the state is in effect saying the levers a local jurisdiction has for facilitating housing production in the City of San Francisco are the same as in the City of Ukiah and that the market responds in the same way in each locale, which has been disproven by housing experts and shown in real world examples.” “…the City of Ukiah had 1,443 acres categorized as “very high” fire hazard severity zones, an increase from 388, resulting in nearly half of the City now in this zone, including most of the west side of Ukiah. Unfortunately, the area affected most by the expansion encompasses much of the remaining land within the City available for housing development.” “Based on the unreasonable application of the methodology and assumptions described previously, as well as the characteristics of our regional population discussed in this letter, we propose an alternative regional housing need determination of 4,936.” Even with MCOG’s analysis and research proving numerous data irregularities and inconsistencies in the State’s assignment of 6,456 units and proposal of an alternative RHND of 4,936, the MCOG Board ultimately adopted the State’s methodology and unit count. In so doing, MCOG adopted a methodology with known errors instead of adopting a methodology based on information submitted by the City of Ukiah, affirmed by MCOG staff, in its local jurisdiction survey.

The State, and by extension MCOG through its adoption of the State’s methodology, used questionable data to arrive at the RHND. With this number then established, MCOG’s resulting consultations with local government planning representatives were a series of bargaining-style negotiations, not in any way based upon the very data that was supposedly underpinning them.

For example, on April 23, 2026, City staff received an email from MCOG staff noting:
“[MCOG staff] met with [HCD staff] a little while ago to get some more clarity. Their suggestion was to shift another 200 – 250 units, preferably lower income, from the County to the City of Ukiah. They felt that this manual adjustment would push the methodology across the finish line. I’m going to split the difference and shift 225 lower-income units.”

300 Seminary Avenue • Ukiah • CA • 95482-5400
Phone: (707)463-6200 · Fax: (707)463-6204 ·www.cityofukiah.com

2. MCOG failed to determine the share of the regional housing need in accordance with the information described in, and the methodology established pursuant to, Section 65584.04, and in a manner that furthers, and does not undermine, the intent of the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584.

It is required through Government Code that the RHNA methodology further, and does not undermine, the intent of all five listed objectives within 65584.05(d). In City staff’s preliminary analysis of the methodology’s alignment with these five objectives, it is clear MCOG’s RHNA methodology undermines at least two of the stated objectives for Ukiah. 65584.05(d)(2): Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region’s greenhouse gas reductions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080.

The City of Ukiah is actively attempting annexation of urbanized unincorporated areas adjacent and contiguous to City incorporated boundaries in an attempt to promote infill development and socioeconomic equity, protect environmental and agricultural resources and encourage efficient development patterns. Additionally, the City’s implementation of road improvement projects, including the Downtown Streetscape project, encourage active transportation and connectivity between jobs and housing. As enabled through SB 743, the City Council also adopted a hyper-local Ukiah Smart Growth tool, the first known planning tool of its kind, to incentivize and streamline housing near existing job centers.

However, new constraints in Ukiah that limit housing development, such as the 2025 Office of State Fire Marshal-mandated Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) and FEMA-mandated flood maps, have resulted in few new opportunities for infill development. Such State housing accelerators like SB 9, which allowed infill accessory dwelling units and subdivision by-right in low density residential zoning districts, are now suspended in nearly half of Ukiah because of the new FHSZs. Due to the misalignment between the unrealistically determined RHND number of 1,500 housing units and existing Ukiah development constraints, new housing development projects, particularly for lower income households, will only be built in non-constrained areas.

This will result in at least one, but likely all, of the following four outcomes: 1) increasing of urban sprawl and pressure to convert agriculturally zoned parcels to residential just beyond City limits; 2) pressure to rezone existing commercial areas of the City to residential, even when the market conditions are not appropriate for the very housing the rezoning would be designed to encourage; 3) increased greenhouse gas emissions due to the increase of urban sprawl; and 4) perpetuation of income segregation in certain urbanized areas within and just beyond City limits (see 2 below); Because neither the local housing market economics nor suitable land exist for Ukiah to accommodate 1,500 housing units, MCOG’s RHNA methodology also places tremendous pressure on the City to successfully annex unincorporated territory to meet RHNA goals. A Master Tax Sharing Agreement executed between the City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino was designed to address and facilitate such a transfer of RHNA from the County to the City. However, with an

300 Seminary Avenue • Ukiah • CA • 95482-5400
Phone: (707)463-6200 · Fax: (707)463-6204 ·www.cityofukiah.com organized and active group of anti-Ukiah Annexation stakeholders and with annexation approval determined by the Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission, annexation is far from guaranteed.
65584.05(d)(5) Affirmatively furthering fair housing.
65584.05(d)(5)(e) describes “affirmatively furthering fair housing” as taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.

Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

Most new affordable housing projects rely on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program as the principal source of financing. LIHTC works by providing tax credits to developers, who sell them to investors for cash equity in the affordable housing project; and like any economically-based transaction, limiting risk is of central importance to investors. In general, and especially in rural areas like Ukiah, a way to limit risk is to ensure long-term cash flow of the affordable housing project, which primarily involves limiting vacancies. There are economies of scale in managing and maintaining more units in one location than less units in several locations, and this incentivizes the affordable housing developer to build as many units as possible on one large parcel.

Due to existing development constraints and few large parcels, reliance on the LIHTC is resulting in the majority of new affordable housing being built in northeastern Ukiah, within and just beyond City boundaries, and specifically in a census tract with a high concentration of low-income households.

Assignment of 1,500 units of housing, including a greater share of low-income households, will perpetuate, rather than replace, the increasing segregation of lower income households in this area of Ukiah. It may also increase concentrated areas of poverty.

The City will likely lose its ProHousing designation and may even struggle, for the first time in eight years, to make adequate progress in attaining its RHNA goals. This would result in the loss of housing and transportation funding and the degrading ability to continue taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.

REQUESTED REVISION
For the reasons described above, the City of Ukiah respectfully requests that MCOG reduce the regional housing needs allocation for Ukiah by 612 housing units. This number reflects the proportional share of housing units for Ukiah based upon MCOG’s alternative Mendocino County RHND of 4,936 units. At the minimum, however, and due to the apparently arbitrary nature in which additional low-income housing units were transferred from the County of Mendocino to the City of Ukiah, the City requests the 225 additional housing units be transferred back to the County.

300 Seminary Avenue • Ukiah • CA • 95482-5400
Phone: (707)463-6200 · Fax: (707)463-6204 ·www.cityofukiah.com Sincerely,
Craig Schlatter, AICP
Community Development Director

September 14, 2025
Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
Attn: Marisa Prasse, Fair Housing Section Chief
651 Bannon Street, Ste 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
Re: Regional Housing Needs Determination – Mendocino County Dear Marisa Prasse:

On August 15, 2025, we received from your office the Regional Housing Needs Determination for Mendocino County. The proposed determination assigns a total of 6,456 housing units to the Mendocino County region. This number was quite a shock considering that in the last RHNA cycle, our determination was 1,845 units for an 8.8 year period. The Cycle 6 determination also represented a dramatic increase from the Cycle 5 determination, which was 250. Although Cycle 6 was a longer planning period than Cycle 5, the change still represents a nearly 900% increase when compared on an annual basis. In the years covered by these planning periods, Mendocino County’s population has been relatively stagnant, and even declined in some years. According to Department of Finance estimates, our population in 2014 (start of the Cycle 5 period) was 89,569. Our population projection for 2035 used in the current RHNA determination is only 89,696, a total increase in the years covered by RHNA Cycles 5, 6, and 7 of only 127 people. I understand that the housing determination is based on factors other than just population, but it is hard to make sense of the exponential increases in our determinations while our population has barely changed.

We believe that the numbers included in the determination do not represent a reasonable application of the methodology due to a lack of reliable data resulting in extremely high margins of error for much of the data.

For instance, the margins of error for data used to determine the cost burden adjustment, which accounts for the largest adjustment to Mendocino County’s housing need determination, have margins of error (MoE) as high as 36%, making the data statistically unreliable. In fact, the only data points for that calculation that are statistically reliable (MoE between 4% and 8%) are the total number of units in each of the payment/ownership categories (with a mortgage, without a mortgage, paying rent, etc.). The data points used in the calculation for overcrowding are even less reliable, with MoE ranging from 35.3% to 125% for the ranges of occupants per room used in the calculation. Similarly, data used to determine vacancy has MoEs as high as 108%.

Regarding the adjustments, the methodology itself appears to be unreasonable as it requires comparison to national data rather than state data or regional data. Through this standardized, homogeneous approach, the state is in effect saying the levers a local jurisdiction has for facilitating housing production in the City of San Francisco are the same as in the City of Ukiah and that the market responds in the same way in each locale, which has been disproven by housing experts and shown in real world examples. The City of Ukiah released a notice of funding availability making $1 million available for developers two years ago but has yet Attachment 1

to facilitate a project despite a whole-city, multi-department effort. In a similar region to the north, the City of Eureka has zoned areas allowing for 10-story buildings and created a 2-story minimum but only received push back due to a lack of market demand. Within individual housing markets, different attributes cause variations in pricing and each housing market throughout a state or region behaves differently from others in terms of demand, development pressure, affordability, etc.

In addition to these general concerns with application of the methodology and the methodology itself, we also believe that many characteristics of the composition of our projected population will have an effect on the regional housing need. Relevant characteristics include age, fields of employment, Tribal membership, income and ability which will have specific effects, described here. Factors of our region affecting all future housing which have not been reasonably considered in developing the determination are the limitations posed as a result of wildfire severity, regulatory requirements and restrictions, and requirements of the Coastal Act, further discussed below.

According to the Department of Finance projections, the age groups that are expected to have the most significant growth are those 75 years and over. Unfortunately, Mendocino County does not have services that would support such a large population increase in those age categories. The region lacks the medical services that are needed by older populations, even in our more populated areas. According to Community Health Survey data, lack of providers was the second most significant barrier to healthcare (cost being the first), with 36% of respondents citing this as a problem. As people age and become more dependent on easily accessible medical care, it is unlikely that they would choose to locate in Mendocino County. Older people also are more likely to have mobility limitations. The land that is available for development of new units tends to be outside of the few areas in which transit is available, making healthcare even less accessible.

In fact, older people in our local communities often find that it is necessary to relocate outside of the county as they age in order to have better access to healthcare. Unfortunately, this situation is only expected to get worse. Recent federal cuts to Medicaid are expected to have significant impacts to healthcare in the Mendocino region. In a recent Mendocino County Health Summit, in which health care professionals and local leaders discussed upcoming impact to local healthcare, it was noted that the region could lose 600 healthcare jobs as a result of recent legislation. This dire situation is likely to affect the future population by forcing elderly residents to leave as well as those previously employed in our local healthcare industry who will have to leave the area to find employment.

Another characteristic of the composition of our projected population is the presence of ten federally recognized Native American Tribal communities within the region. The members of these communities are part of our population that must be accommodated in the housing needs and housing elements, however, housing needs of these members of the community are sometimes met by the Tribal governments through Tribal development of housing. Unfortunately, the provisions of these Tribal housing units or the available land do not apply toward local progress as long as it is on trust land, and to our knowledge, is not accounted for in any way in the calculation of the housing determination.

A recent factor that restricts our region’s ability to properly plan for and develop housing in order to achieve the goals set for us by the State is the recent update to the State’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, which has severely impacted all of Mendocino County, placing over 69% of the region into High or Very High FHSZ. The impacts affect not only the unincorporated areas, but also incorporated cities that have the most availability of services and utilities to support housing. In the recent FHSZ mapping, the City of Ukiah had 1,443 acres categorized as “very high” fire hazard severity zones, an increase from 388, resulting in nearly half of the City now in this zone, including most of the west side of Ukiah. Unfortunately, the area affected most by the expansion encompasses much of the remaining land within the City available for housing development. The City of Ukiah is designated as a ProHousing community, but this change will significantly impact the City’s future ability to produce housing for residents. The update also placed 122 acres in the City of Willits into the Very High FHSZ, and much of the unincorporated area around both Willits and Ukiah also fall into this category. While any category of new housing could be a concern in these

areas, placing housing for community segments that may face challenges in times of evacuation, particularly the elderly or lower income households without vehicles, is of particular concern.

While the coastal areas of the County are less affected by the fire zones, other constraints impact housing development in those areas. All of Mendocino County faces regulatory challenges when it comes to new development due to our abundance of biological and cultural resources, as well as policies to protect prime agricultural land, but development in the coastal areas are also hindered by further restrictions and requirements of the Coastal Zone. For instance, the City of Fort Bragg as of the latest vacant parcel report, has 11 parcels in the Coastal Zone and 7 in the Inland Zone. Parcels in the Coastal Zone will require multiple studies (botanical, wetland and archaeological), and sometimes require expensive analyses (visual, traffic, and geotechnical). They always require a Coastal Development Permit plus other planning entitlements, and the planning process can be lengthy, and often subject to appeals and/or lawsuits. These constraints make our area less appealing for developers of housing across all segments. In fact, developers have backed out of proposed projects because of these issues and the costs associated with addressing them.

Added in this RHNA cycle is an adjustment for seasonal, recreational or occasional use housing. HCD’s background data indicates that the numbers of these units in the ACS increased by 112% between 2015 and 2023. Unfortunately, like many of the data points used to calculate the adjustments, the margin of error for this data is above what’s considered acceptable, at 12.5%. In addition, Mendocino County’s accessory dwelling unit policies prohibit use of any dwelling on a parcel with an approved ADU to be used in this way, which, along with an eventual saturation in the market, will likely reduce the overall percentage of seasonal or recreational housing units as a total of all new units in the future. Additionally, as a coastal county, Mendocino is subject to maintaining consistency with the Coastal Act’s prioritization of lower-cost visitor accommodations and public access to the coast. The Coastal Commission has historically recognized that vacation rentals can provide an important source of visitor accommodations in the coastal zone and has typically found that undue restrictions on this type of lodging are inconsistent with Coastal Act provisions prioritizing public access and visitor-serving uses. We have concerns with our region essentially being penalized with a high RHNA determination as a result of compliance with another State requirement.

Regardless of the challenges noted in this letter, our local agencies are making efforts to accommodate and encourage housing development. Multiple agencies have streamlined the process for adding accessory dwelling units. They have reduced regulatory barriers. Municipal utility systems have been improved. Our local jurisdictions have entered into agreements that have facilitated one annexation and paved the way for the possibility of future annexation. The City of Ukiah has achieved ProHousing designation and created a housing trust fund, making funding available to developers. Our local jurisdictions are doing what they can to create more housing for current and future residents. However, an unreasonably high housing needs determination is very likely to put our agencies in the position where they will struggle to meet housing element compliance, in spite of substantial efforts to encourage housing.

Based on the unreasonable application of the methodology and assumptions described previously, as well as the characteristics of our regional population discussed in this letter, we propose an alternative regional housing need determination of 4,936. We have arrived at this alternative by modifying adjustments for cost burden, overcrowding, vacancy, and seasonal/recreational/occasional use units. We believe that data points with a margin of error of 30% of more should not be used. Our agencies should not be put in situations in which they are potentially at risk of lawsuits or other penalties established by statutes related to RHNA and housing elements based on unreliable data. However, if HCD must apply some adjustment across all categories, we propose that where margins of error are greater than 30%, the least detrimental possible value be used to avoid inaccurately and unfairly assigning a higher adjustment when it can't be statistically justified. In addition, we propose reducing the percentage adjustment for seasonal to 5% to address some of the local policy changes regarding short term rentals as well as allow for requirements of the Coastal Act.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the housing need determination provided by the Department of Housing and Community Development. We urge HCD to consider this alternative determination for the Mendocino County region. Unrealistically high numbers will make our local agencies vulnerable to lawsuits and other repercussions that will result from housing goals they are not able to meet despite local efforts.

Sincerely,
Nephele Barrett
Executive Director
cc: Craig Schlatter, Ukiah
Jesse Davis, Ukiah
Dusty Duley, Willits
Sarah Peters, Fort Bragg
Paul Anderson, Point Arena
Julia Krog, County of Mendocino
Liam Crowley, County of Mendocino

Agenda Item No: 14.b.

MEETING DATE/TIME: 6/17/2026

ITEM NO: 2026-1080

AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Receive Updates on City Council Committee and Ad Hoc Assignments, and, if Necessary, Consider Modifications to Assignments and/or the Creation/Elimination of Ad Hoc(s).

DEPARTMENT: City Clerk PREPARED BY: Kristine Lawler, City Clerk PRESENTER: Mayor Sher and Various Councilmembers
ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2026 City Council Special Assignments & Ad Hocs
Summary: City Council members will provide reports and updates on their committee and ad hoc assignments. If necessary, the Council may consider modifications.

Background: City Council members are assigned to a number of committees and ad hoc activities. These assignments are included as Attachment 1.

Discussion: Previously, the City Council discussed having more time allocated to reporting on committee and ad hoc activities. Often, the Council Reports section of the regular agenda is rushed due to impending business (i.e., public hearings), and not enough time is afforded for reports beyond community activities.

In an effort to foster regular updates on committee and ad hoc assignments, this item is being placed on the agenda to provide the City Council members an expanded opportunity to report on assignments and modify assignments as necessary.

Recommended Action: Receive report(s). The Council will consider modifications to committee and ad hoc assignments along with the creation/elimination ad hoc(s).

BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: N/A
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
FINANCING SOURCE: N/A
REVENUE: No GRANT: No
PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH: N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN (SP): N/A
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (GP): N/A

2026 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT LIST

LOCAL / UKIAH VALLEY MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Investment Oversight Committee Varies
Civic Center
300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
Reviews City investments, policies, and strategies
CraneOrozco - Alternate
Alan Carter, Treasurer
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance; 463-6220
[email protected]
Disaster Council
Shall meet a minimum of once a year at a time and place designated upon call of the chair Place designated upon call of the chair or, if she/he is unavailable or unable to call such meeting, the first vice chair and then the City Manager or her/his designee.

Office of Emergency Management
300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482467-5720 - Traci Boyl
Develop any necessary emergency and mutual aid plans, agreements, ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations.

OrozcoCriss - Alternate Traci Boyl, City Manager's Office Management Analyst; 467-5720; [email protected] Greater Ukiah Business & Tourism Alliance (GUPTA)
4th Monday of month, 10 a.m.
200 S School St.Ukiah, CA 95482
200 S School St.Ukiah, CA 95482
Promotes tourism and works to strengthen and promote the historic downtown and businesses within the greater Ukiah area Marianne Davison - Community Services Department Staff Orozco - Alternate Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager;
467-5793 [email protected]
Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC) 2nd Thursday of month, 6:00 p.m.

Civic Center
300 Seminary Avenue
conference room 5
IWPC Staff P.O. Box 1247Ukiah, CA 95482391-7574 - Candace Horsley Develops coordination for water resources and current water rights: Potter Valley project - Eel River Diversion
RodinOrozco - Alternate
Jared Walker, Director of Water Resources; 467-5712, [email protected] North Coast Opportunities (NCO) 4th Wednesday of month, 2 p.m. Alternating locations - Ukiah and Lakeport Governing Board Chair
North Coast Opportunities413 North State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Assist low income and disadvantaged people to become self reliant Neil Davis Neil Davis, City [email protected] Sun House Guild ex officio 2nd Tuesday of month, 10:30 a.m. Sun House 431 S. Main St. Ukiah, CA 431 S. Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 467-2836 Support and expand Grace Hudson Museum Orozco, Sher Jake Burgess - Alternate David Burton, Museum Director; 467-2836 [email protected] Ukiah Men's Golf Club Liaison 1st Tuesday of month, 4 - 5 pm Golf Course Clubhouse 599 Park Blvd. Golf Course Clubhouse 599 Park Blvd [email protected] An association of male golfers who promote and support golf in Ukiah. Jake Burgess Jake Burgess, Community Services Director; 463- 6201, [email protected] Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) 2nd Thursday of month, 1:30 p.m.

Board of Supervisors Chambers; 501 Low
Gap RoadUkiah, CA
County Executive Office
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010Ukiah, CA 95482463-4441
GSA serves as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency in the Ukiah Valley basin CraneN/A - Alternate
Jared Walker, Director of Water Resources; 467-5712, [email protected]

MENDOCINO COUNTY MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT City Selection Committee Called as required by the Clerk of the Board BOS Conference Room 501 Low Gap Rd. Rm. 1090 Ukiah, CA C/O: BOS 501 Low Gap Rd., Rm 1090 Ukiah, CA 95482 463-4441 Makes appointments to LAFCO and Airport Land Use Commission (Mayor - Primary; Vice Mayor - Alternate) Mayor Sher Vice Mayor Orozco Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217 [email protected] Economic Development & Financing Corporation (EDFC)
2nd Thursday of month, 2:00 p.m.

Primarily 631 S. Orchard Street (location varies)
Executive Director631 South Orchard AvenueUkiah, CA 95482467-5953 Multi-agency co-op for economic development and business loan program Riley (appointed 12/19/18) Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager; 467-5793 [email protected] Library Advisory Board
3rd Wednesdays of alternate months; 1:00
p.m.

Various Mendocino County Libraries Ukiah County Library 463-4491 Review library policy and activities Sher Rodin - Alternate Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217; [email protected] Mendocino County 1st District Liaison Monthly; TBD
Civic Center Annex
conference room #5411 West Clay St.Ukiah, CA 95482
Civic Center
300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
To coordinate activities and policy development with the City's 1st District Supervisor Crane Rodin - Alternate
Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager;
463-6221; [email protected]
Mendocino County 2nd District Liaison 1st Wednesdays of month, 8:00 a.m.

Civic Center Annex
conference room #5411 West Clay St.Ukiah, CA 95482
Civic Center
300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
To coordinate activities and policy development with the County's 2nd District Supervisor CrissRodin - Alternate
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager;467-5793 [email protected] Mendocino Council of Governments
(MCOG)
1st Monday of month, 1:30 p.m.

Board of Supervisors Chambers
501 Low Gap RoadUkiah, CA
Executive Director
367 N. State Street, Ste. 206
Ukiah, CA 95482
463-1859
Plan and allocate State funding, transportation, infrastructure and project County wide Criss Sher - Alternate
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer;
463-6280 [email protected] Schlatter, Community Development Director; 463-6219; [email protected]
Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission As needed
BOS Conference Room
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1090,Ukiah, CA
Mendocino County Executive Office
501 Low Gap Rd. Rm. 1010 Ukiah, CA 95482
To formulate a land use compatibility plan, provide for the orderly growth of the airport and the surrounding area, and safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity Liaisons: Owen/Schlatter
Greg Owen, Airport Manager; 467-2855; [email protected] Craig Schlatter, Director of Community
Development; 463-6219; [email protected]
Mendocino Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo)
1st Monday of month, 9:00 a.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers Executive Director200 S. School Street, Ste. 2
Ukiah, CA 95482
463-4470
Required by legislation - planning spheres of influence, annexation, service areas, and special districts RodinCrane - Alternate for both city seat
members on Commission
Craig Schlatter, Director of Community Development; 463-6219; [email protected] Updated: 2/5/2026
Attachment 1

2026 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT LIST

MENDOCINO COUNTY
Continued MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA)
3rd Thursday of every other month (varies), 10:00 a.m.

Willits Council Chambers
Solid Waste Director3200 Taylor DriveUkiah, CA 95482468-9710 County-wide Solid Waste JPA Crane Sher - Alternate Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) Board of Directors
Last Wednesday of month, 1:30 p.m.

Alternating locations - Ukiah Conference Center or Fort Bragg, or Point Arena Executive Director241 Plant RoadUkiah, CA 95482462-1422 County-wide bus transportation issues and funding Sher Rodin - Alternate Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] Mendocino Youth Project JPA Board of Directors
3rd Wednesday of month, 7:45 a.m. 776 S. State Street Conference Room Mendocino Co. Youth Project776 S. State Street, Ste. 107Ukiah, CA 95482 707-463-4915 Targets all youth with a focus on drug and alcohol prevention, healthy alternatives and empowering youth to make healthy choices Criss Max Brazill, Admin Lieutenant - Alternate
Tom Corning, Police Chief; 463-6254;
[email protected]
Russian River Flood Control District (RRFCD) Liaison
1st Monday of month, 5:30 p.m.
151 Laws Ave.,Suite D Ukiah, CA
151 Laws Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482; [email protected]; 462-5278 Proactively manage the water resources of the upper Russian River for the benefit of the people and environment of Mendocino County Walker/Orozco Jared Walker, Director of Water Resources; 467-5712, [email protected]
Ukiah Players Theater Board of Directors
3rd Tuesday of month, 6:00 p.m
1041 Low Gap Rd Ukiah, CA 95482 462-1210
1041 Low Gap RdUkiah, CA 95482462-1210
To oversee the activities, organization and purpose of the Ukiah Players Theater Greg Owen, Airport Manager(appointed 12/19/18)
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217 [email protected] Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD) Committee Quarterly 511 S. Orchard, Ste. D Ukiah, CA 95482 511 S. Orchard Ukiah, CA 95482 Information exchange with UUSD Board Chair, Mayor, Superintendent, and City Manager Orozco, Criss Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager Tom Corning, Police Chief Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; 463-6221 [email protected]

REGIONAL MTG DATE/TIME LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Great Redwood Trail Agency (GRTA) Bi-monthly, 3rd Thursdays, 10:30 a.m. Various Locations - announced 419 Talmage Road, Suite M Ukiah, CA 95482 463-3280 Provides a unified and revitalized rail infrastructure meeting the freight and passenger needs of the region Rodin Sher- Alternate Jake Burgess, Community Services Director 463-6201, [email protected] League of California Cities Redwood Empire Legislative Committee Prior to Division Meetings, meets 3x in person and then via conference call Various locations that are announced
Redwood Empire League President; Public Affairs Program Manager (916) 658-8243 Elected city officials and professional city staff attend division meetings throughout the year to share what they are doing and advocate for their interests in Sacramento OrozcoCriss - Alternate
Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; 463-6221
[email protected]
Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA)
4th Thursday of month, 9:00 a.m. (only 5 times a year)
Windsor Town Hall9291 Old Redwood Hwy, #400Windsor, CA 95492707-838-1000 Russian River Watershed Association 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 105Santa Rose, CA [email protected] 707-508-3670 (message only) Consider issues related to Russian river - plans projects and funding requests RodinSher - Alternate
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer;
463-6280 [email protected]
Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) - Commission
4th Thursday of month, 9:00 a.m. (see NCPA calendar)
Roseville, CA and other locations
651 Commerce Drive Roseville, CA 95678916-781-4202
Pool of State and local power utilities developing and operating power generation, providing scheduling and related energy services and providing regulatory and legislative support.

Crane - Commissioner Sher - City Council Alternate Sauers - Alternate and Commissioner in absence of Commissioner Crane
Cindy Sauers - Electric Utility Director;463-6286 [email protected] Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) – Lodi Energy Center (LEC) Appointment 2nd Monday of month, 10:00 AM Lodi, CA and other locations 651 Commerce DriveRoseville, CA 95678916-781-4299
Committee oversees the operation, maintenance and expenditures of the LEC 300 MW generating project.

Sauers – Project Participate Appointee
Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director,463-6286, [email protected] Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC)
4th Wednesday of month, 10 a.m. 35 Iron Point Circle Suite 225 Folsom, CA 35 Iron Point Cir #225Folsom, CA 95630916-852-1673; [email protected] Provide electric transmission to its Member utilities through transmission line ownership or contract arrangements.

CraneSauers - Alternate
Cindy Sauers - Electric Utility Director;
463-6286 [email protected]

STANDING COMMITTEES MTG DATE/TIME LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Diversity and Equity TBD Virtual Meeting Room (link to be created) Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Improve diversity and equity in the City’s workforce and municipal services Orozco/Criss Traci Boyl, City Manager's Office Management Analyst; 467-5720; [email protected] Fire Executive Committee
2nd Tue, every other month beginning in January; 5:00 p.m.

Ukiah Valley Conference Center,200 S. School Street Ukiah, CA Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482 [email protected] Per the recently adopted agreement between the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Fire Protection District Orozco/SherAlternates: Criss
Doug Hutchison, Fire Chief; 463-6263;
[email protected]
Countywide Oversight Board to the RDA Successor Agencies 4th Thursday of January, 4:00 p.m.; meets annually
Ukiah Valley Conference Center,200 S. School Street Ukiah, CA City of UkiahATTN: City Clerk300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482 Oversee and direct the Successor Agencies of the former redevelopment agencies Crane Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance; 463-6220 [email protected] Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217, [email protected] Water Executive Committee(Ukiah Valley Water Authority) 1st Tue of each month
at 5:00 p.m.

Ukiah Valley Conference Center,200 S. School Street Ukiah, CA City of UkiahATTN: Water Resources 300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482 Oversight of UVWA; set annual budget for the combined water system; Manage rates and collect levies; modify existing water rights for the provision of water service; mediation and dispute resolution; Crane/Orozco Jared Walker, Director of Water Resources; 467-5712, [email protected] Updated: 2/5/2026

COMMITTEE ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT
Electric Grid Operational Improvements Crane/Orozco Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director; 463-6286 [email protected]
Advance Planning & Policy for Annexation
Applications Crane/Rodin
Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director
463-6219 [email protected]
UVSD/ City Relations
Ad hoc committee to address specific issues with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, including discussion of overall sewer system service delivery policies, operating policy revisions, potential revisions to the current Operating Agreement, and cost sharing
Crane/Orozco
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance;
463-6220 [email protected]
Jared Walker, Water Resources Director
467-5712, [email protected]
Complete Streets Rodin/Crane
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer;
463-6280 [email protected]
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager
467-5793 [email protected]
Jake Burgess, Community Services Director
463-6201 [email protected]
Special Districts (Water District Consolidation) Orozco/Crane Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager 467-5793 [email protected]
Corp Yard Planning Crane/Orozco Jason Benson, Senior Civil Engineer 463-6284 [email protected]
Mendocino County Courthouse Project and Reuse Sher/Orozco Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager 467-5793 [email protected]
City's 150-Year Anniversary Planning Orozco/Rodin Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager 467-5793 [email protected]
Airport Policy Criss/Crane Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director 463-6219 [email protected]
Parks & Recreation Special District Exploration Rodin/Orozco Jake Burgess, Community Services Director 463-6201 [email protected]
Downtown Zoning Code Crane/Rodin Jesse Davis, Chief Planning Manager 463-6207, [email protected]
Tourism Advisory Committee Rodin/Sher Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager 467-5793 [email protected]
Historic Preservation Code Sher/Criss Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director 463-6219 [email protected]
Fire Severity Rodin/Orozco Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director 463-6219 [email protected]
CalPERS Crane/Orozco Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance;
463-6220 [email protected]
City Council Handbook Review and Update Sher Kristine Lawler, City Clerk 463-6217; [email protected]
Energy Resilience Sher/Orozco Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director; 463-6286 [email protected]
Proclamation Sher/Rodin
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager
467-5793 [email protected]
Traci Boyl, Senior Management Analyst
467-5720 [email protected]

2026 AD HOC COMMITTEES
*Note: Changing the composition of an existing ad-hoc among current councilmembers after work has begun presents potential Brown Act issues. Requests for fully filled ad-hocs are represented on the draft, but staff does not recommend changes except to fill vacated assignments. The current requests on the sheet for fully composed ad-hocs are primarily intended to convey interest in topics covered by these ad-hoc committees for possible future consideration of new assignments.

Updated: 6/11/2026