California Community Colleges Economic & Workforce Development Programs

Number of Funding Centers / 1 2 EWD Program Program Description Amount Projects Advanced Transportation Provide technical education, assistance and outreach $2,092,418 10 Technologies and Energy programs in transportation and energy technology that Centers are tailored to the needs of regional employers and employees in California. California Applied Identify the workforce needs of the biotechnology $1,230,000 6 Biotechnology Centers industry and businesses in California and to develop solutions through a balance of entrepreneurial, academic and vocational resources Centers for Applied Enhance the competitiveness of California's small and $2,775,000 12 Competitive Technologies medium-sized manufacturers by facilitating the transfer and adoption of advanced and environmentally-sound manufacturing technologies and techniques and by assisting in the deployment of new technologies Centers for International Provide quality training and services to small to medium $2,870,000 14 Trade Development sized enterprises that are potential or current exporters or importers Centers of Excellence Provide real-time regional and local labor market research $2,049,776 10 Coordination Services Advance economic growth and global competitiveness $205,000 1 through high quality education and services focusing on continuous workforce improvement, technology deployment and business development consistent with the current needs of the state's regional economy. Data Collection Provides an external evaluation role, as well as housing $205,000 1 the programs' reporting system Environmental Scanning Assist rural colleges identify opportunities and trends in $274,210 1 the areas of economic and workforce development, which will enable these colleges to become market responsive to students and their communities by having better information for decision-making Environmental Training Coordinate statewide programs and services designed to $1,221,667 6 Centers mitigate the impact on the environment as well as health and safety compliance regulations Faculty In-Service Training Build the capacity of community colleges and WIBS to $205,000 1 partner in the development and delivery of workforce development services Industry Driven Regional Provide specialized education and training services within $4,085,000 32 Collaborative a geographic region Industry Driven Regional Provide specialized education and training services within $952,000 5 Collaborative - Economically an economically distressed area Distressed Areas

1 Based on 2008-2009 funding amounts 2 While funding for centers range from $50,000 to $205,000, funding for projects varies by program and project scope. Number of Funding Centers / 1 2 EWD Program Program Description Amount Projects Job Development Incentive Provides training on a no-cost or low-cost basis to $2,123,000 11 Fund participating employers who create employment opportunities at an acceptable wage level for the attainment of self-sufficiency Leadership for the Strategic Develop and improve local economic and workforce $1,326,000 10 Priority Initiatives development efforts and provide leadership support to the Strategic Priority areas Linking Grants - Career To extend the Career Advancement Academies model to $521,526 5 Advancement Academies regionally relevant employment sectors at five sites, linking after-school employment to longer career pathways and building needed connections between local after-school providers and community colleges Multimedia and Create environments in which students can achieve $1,089,500 6 Entertainment Industry artistic excellence and develop technological expertise for careers in the communications, entertainment and interactive learning industries Regional Health Occupations Identify workforce needs of the health care delivery $1,762,500 8 Resource Centers / Health system and develop solutions through a comprehensive, Care Delivery problem-solving process Responsive Incumbent Enable colleges to expand the delivery of performance $5,505,632 24 Worker Training Fund improvement training (assessment and provision of training solutions) to employers and incumbent workers in high-growth industries Small Business Development Provide one-on-one counseling, seminars, workshops and $8,790,348 26 Centers other technical assistance to small businesses Strategic Priority Initiative Extend services into underserved geographic areas $4,305,000 21 Hubs through marketing, advocacy, serving as program resources centers Training and Development Builds system capacity and provides various types of $174,038 1 professional development for colleges Workplace Learning Provide business and industry with a variety of workplace $3,170,841 12 Resource Centers learning services, including occupational-specific skills assessments, task analysis, basic skills, English as a Second Language, analytical and problem-solving skills, and teamwork, which are customized and flexible to meet employers’ incumbent work upgrade training needs Grand Total $46,933,456 223

A s s e s s i n g t h e Re g i o n Via In d i c a t o r s The Economy (Third Edition)

Th e St a t e o f t h e Gr e a t c e n t r a l va l l e y o f Ca l i f o rn i a

Supporting the economic, social, and environmental well-being of California’s Great Central Valley

Great Valley Center 201 Needham Street, Modesto, CA Tel: 209 /522-5103 Fax: 209 /522-5116 www.greatvalley.org [email protected] ABOUT THE GREAT VALLEY CENTER

Founded in 1997, the Great Valley Center is a nonprofit organization working in partnership with the University of California, Merced to support the economic, social and environmental well-being of California's Great Central Valley.

WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS

The Great Valley Center 201 Needham Street Modesto, California 95354 (209) 522-5103 [email protected] www.greatvalley.org

REPORT PREPARED BY

Amy Moffat Director of Research and Communications Great Valley Center

WITH RESEARCH ASSISTANCE FROM

Matthew Andrews Citi Foundation Intern Great Valley Center

Lila McIver Research and Communications Specialist Great Valley Center

Catherine Tarone Volunteer Intern Great Valley Center Supporting the economic, social, and environmental well-being of California’s Central Valley

201 Needham Street Modesto, CA 95354 Phone: (209) 522-5103 Fax: (209) 522-5116 www.greatvalley.org

October 2009

Dear Friends:

This is the third edition of The Economy, a Valley-wide report first published in 1999 as the Great Valley Center’s flagship measure of well-being, and more recently a second edition covering 1999-2004. This report is a part of The State of the Great Central Valley indicator series.

We revisit a number of economic indicators first reported ten years ago, along with a couple new indicators chosen to illustrate the current recession. The data are divided into five general categories: population, income, and housing; business vitality; agriculture; transportation; and Federal and nonprofit spending.

The Economy marks the beginning of the third cycle in The State of the Great Central Valley indicator series, which also includes The Environment, Community Well-Being, Public Health and Access to Care, and Education and Youth Preparedness. The series strives to provide a comprehensive glance at the region as compared to the state of California and other California regions. The reports have identified a number of serious challenges that are likely to increase as the population of the Valley does, and are available at www.greatvalley.org.

Overall, poverty and unemployment are high. There is a deficit of good jobs while the general population and those seeking jobs continue to grow. Whereas in the past we asked if Valley residents were able to afford buying and owning a house, we now measure how many families are losing their homes to foreclosures. Addressing these challenges will require sustained, concentrated effort throughout the Valley.

The report has been funded in large part by Citi and Kaiser Permanente. Not only have Kaiser and Citi consistently supported the Great Valley Center, their leaders are tremendously committed to improving the economic outcomes in the Valley. We extend to all our partners and funders and the staff who worked to make the report possible our appreciation for their support of and investment in the Great Central Valley.

Sincerely,

David H. Hosley President T h e St a t e o f t h e Gr e a t Ce n t ra l Va l l e y — T h e Ec o n o m y Assessing the Region Via Indicators (Third Edition)

What are Indicators? The Central Valley is a vast region – some 450 miles Indicators are powerful tools for monitoring and long, averaging 50 miles wide. Stretching from tracking overall quality of life and for comparing Redding in the north to Bakersfield in the south, performance against goals or benchmarks. They the Valley encompasses 19 counties. It is bound help communities monitor conditions by providing a by mountain ranges – to the east and north are the baseline against which future changes can be measured. snow-capped Sierra Nevada and the Cascades, and Indicators help to answer important questions such to the west are the Coast Ranges, a barrier against as how well the economy is functioning, how the the moister and milder climate of the Pacific Coast. schools are doing, or whether air and water quality are The Tehachapis separate the Central Valley from the improving or worsening. metropolitan areas to the south. In this report, we divided the large region into three What are Good Indicators? sub-regions: the North Sacramento Valley, the A good indicator has several characteristics: Sacramento Metropolitan Region, and the San Joaquin • It addresses the fundamental part of long-term Valley. Occasionally, the San Joaquin Valley is further regional or community well-being. divided into the North San Joaquin Valley and the South San Joaquin Valley. • It is clear and understandable.

• It can be tracked, is statistically measured at How to Use this Report: regular intervals, and comes from a reliable The data presented are a snapshot of information source. providing tools for measuring the economic well- • It is easy to communicate in concept as well as in being of the Valley. The report offers data, analysis, terms of its value and importance to the region. and structure which can be used as a benchmark for assessing the progress of the Valley, providing valuable • It measures an outcome rather than an input. comparative information at the county, subregional,

regional, state, and national levels. About this Report:

Since 1999, the Great Valley Center has produced an The indicators do not present the entire picture of annual report in the five-part State of the Great Central conditions or issues in the Valley, but they may serve as Valley series. The themes are updated in five-year a guide and model for further research and dialogue. increments. This publication is a follow-up to the As with any indicator effort, the data should be used flagship report released in 1999, and the second edition with the understanding that there is much more covering 1999-2004 produced in 2005. Other reports information available to create a more complete, and in the series cover The Environment, Community sometimes more local, assessment. Well-Being, Public Health and Access to Care, and Education and Youth Preparedness. All reports in the series are available at www.greatvalley.org.

2 R e c o m m e n d at i o n s

Taken together, the indicators in this report suggest five strategies related to the economy that can improve outcomes in the Great Central Valley.

1 IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE VALLEY’S WORKFORCE The characteristics of the workforce in the Central Valley are not competitive when compared to other regions in the state and the nation as a whole. Economic development efforts, job training, the educational system, and the business community must work in concert to develop a skilled workforce that will have food, shelter, necessities, and hope for a secure future. Regional strategies tied to economic development, diversification, and business support will have the potential to deliver greater economic benefits. 2 CONTINUE TO SUPPORT AGRICULTURE AS A REGIONAL ECONOMIC BASE With Valley-wide unemployment consistently well above the state average, the region cannot absorb any more loss of jobs or decrease in wages that would occur should agriculture disappear. Historically home building and retail sales positively impacted the regional economy, but were seasonal and have been dramatically reduced during the current recession. Agricultural jobs and businesses can be expanded to add even more value. 3 DIVERSIFY THE ECONOMY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A GROWING WORKFORCE The Valley needs to become more diverse economically while providing support to agriculture. New, innovative industries like clean technology, as well as established, steadily growing industries like health care and professional services, need to be nurtured. Individuals and businesses should seek training and employment opportunities in the growing fields of energy and renewables. 4 CAPITALIZE ON THE MOMENTUM SURROUNDING THE FEDERAL RECOVERY ACT The negative outcomes of the recession are exacerbated in the Central Valley and require resources. The region is underserved by public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Now is the time for all three sectors to seek stimulus funds so that organizations and agencies are able to provide services to a greater number of people in need. The Central Valley should demand greater parity of funding to address the disparity that exists between the region and the rest of the state and nation. This is also a fitting time for nonprofits to seek out training opportunities to build their capacity at all levels, from board development to grant writing. 5 KNOW THE NEEDS OF RURAL COMMUNITIES Because of their small population, rural communities are often overlooked in many ways but may be very diverse in their economic environments and needs. By investing resources in helping communities understand themselves and how they can make changes, more appropriate and effective solutions can be developed for local and regional issues.

2 3 T h e Gr e a t Ce n t ra l Va l l e y o f Ca l i f o r n i a

Because different parts of the Valley have different characteristics, the region has been divided into the following subregions:

• North Sacramento Valley: (5 counties—Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, and Tehama)

• Sacramento Metropolitan Region: (6 counties—El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba)

• North San Joaquin Valley: (3 counties— Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus)

• South San Joaquin Valley: (5 counties— Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, and Tulare).

To give context to the data, statewide and regional data are presented.

• San Francisco Bay Area: (9 counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma);

• Los Angeles Region: (5 counties—Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura).

4 Table of Contents

P o p u l a t i o n , In c o m e , & Ho u s i n g 6 Po p u l a t i o n g r o w t h 7

Pe r Ca p i t a In c o m e 8

Re s i d e n t i a l Bu i l d i n g Pe r m i t s 9

Fo r e c l o s u r e Ra t e 10

Is s u e Br i e f : Th e Ho u s i n g Cr i s i s 11

B u s i n e s s Vi t a l i t y 12

Jo b Gr o w t h a n d La b o r Fo r c e Gr o w t h 13

Un e m p l o y m e n t Ra t e 14

Wa g e s b y In d u s t r y 15

Em p l o y m e n t b y In d u s t r y 16

Em p l o y m e n t Ch a n g e s b y In d u s t r y 18

Re t a i l Sa l e s 19

To u r i s m 20

A g r i c u l t u r e 21

Ce n t e r Es s a y : Pl a n n i n g f o r Vi b r a n t Ag r i c u l t u r e 22

Fa r m Em p l o y m e n t a n d Wa g e s 24

V a l u e o f Ag r i c u l t u r a l Pr o d u c t i o n 25

A g r i c u l t u r a l o u t p u t r a n k i n g 26

A g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d c o n v e r s i o n 28

I s s u e Br i e f : Ce n t r a l Va l l e y Fa r m l a n d Tr u s t 29

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Co mme r c e , & Mobility 30

V e h i c l e Mi l e s Tr a v e l e d a n d Ve h i c l e Ho u r s o f De l a y 31

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o Wo r k 32

A i r p o r t Tr a ff i c 33

Fr e i g h t Tr a ff i c 34

F e d e r a l & No n p r o f i t Sp e n d i n g 35

P e r Ca p i t a Fe d e r a l Sp e n d i n g 36

Pe r Ca p i t a Re v e n u e b y No n p r o f i t Organizations 37

Is s u e Br i e f : Fu n d i n g St r a t e g i e s f o r No n p r o f i t s 38

Da t a So u r c e s & Re f e r e n c e s 39

S p e c i a l Th a n k s 40

4 5 POPULATION, INCOME, A N D H O U S I N G regional economy.regional the Valley’sof areasCentral many The affects population rapidly-growing • • • • • • Foreclosures occurred earlier in the Central Valley,Central the Foreclosuresin earlierup. occurred caught California of rest the then and 2008. and 2005 between 404% declined has buildings residential new of Construction growth. population highest the with areas also are which areas, rural more in occurs income less whereValley disparities Central wealth regionalThe encounter to continues country.the Valleyin Central lowest the the in among Perincome is capita state. the in regions some Valleythan Central faster the significantly growingof still population is The century.twentieth the of beginning the since years thirty every doubled had it while years, forty next the in Valley’sdouble Central to The expected is population P o p l u a n o i t , I e m o c n 6 , & , H g n i s u o 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 5,000,000 ulation Growth Population The population of the Central ValleyCentral the rapidly.of grow population to The continues Why is it important? important? it is Why Definition: housing, transportation, and water supply.water and transportation, housing, health, government, corrections, communications, as such services, public and infrastructure of kinds all on be will demands the greater the population, Conversely, services. and the greatersales the expand to opportunities businesses offering base, consumer the boost Populationcan increases jobs. for compete workersmore as unemployment higher and wages low in result may jobs, in increase capacity.an However,without workforce,larger a production expand to opportunity business a be may and pool labor aggregate the increases workers available of number the in Growth care. medical and protection, fire and police services, educational including services, and goods public of delivery and economy the of aspects many Populationimpacts growth time. of period a over population a to added people of percentage the or number the Populationis growth 0 2000-2008 (PERCENTAGE CHANGE) AND THE CENTRAL VALLEY ACTUAL POPULATION INCALIFORNIA, GROWTH LOS ANGELES, 2000 California 33.7 million

(11.3%) 2008 38.0 million Sour Los Angeles 2000

ce: StateofCalifornia,EmploymentDevelopment 16.3 million (11.7%) 2008 18.5 million Department, LaborMarketInfo Central Valley 2000 5.7 million (15.2%)

2008 6.7 million How are we doing? doing? we are How 10,000,000 12,500,000 15,000,000 5,000,000 7,500,000 7 year, second only to Riverside County (PPIC). (PPIC). County Riverside year,to only second per percent 10.5 of average an by increased County Kernin immigrants of number the 2006, and 1990 Between migration. from come to continues growth Valley’sCentral the of majority population The (PPIC). residents million exceed1 will alone County Joaquin San 2025, By state. the of areas other than ValleyJoaquin faster much grow to projectedare San the and regionMetropolitan Sacramento The 2020. to 2010 between percent 22 another by grow ValleyCentral the in to predictedpopulation is The percent. Valley'sCentral the 17 saw at increasing population 1999 to 1990 from period time reportedpreviously The percent. 11.7 at average state the above slightly was growth population region Angeles Los the and percent 11.3 increased population average state the Valley’swhile percent, 15.2 by increased population Central The California. of regions other than rate growth population faster a had combined counties Valley’sCentral the From2008 through 19 2000 2010-2050 PROJECTED POPULATION IN GROWTH THE CENTRAL VALLEY 7,143,460 2010 8,738,798 2020 Sour ce: StateofCalifornia,DepartmentFinance 10,478,993 2030 12,413,484 2040 14,512,268 2050

POPULATION, INCOME, A N D H O U S I N G POPULATION, INCOME, A N D H O U S I N G Why is it important? it is Why Definition: Per capita income in the Central Valley is among the lowest in the country.Valleythe Central in the lowest in the Perincome among capita is CAPITA PER income areas often have a lower cost of living. of cost lower a have often areas income lower as misleading be can indicator economic an as alone income However,capita per using health. economic region’sa of indicator approximate an as used often is Perincome capita opportunities. entertainment and recreational,educational, more have to tend income capita per higher a Regionswith living. of standard community’s a in factor major a is Perincome capita lower.are half and higher are incomes the half which at level the is which income, median as same community.the that not in is living It people of number total the by it dividing and community a in income of dollars total the taking by calculated is It jurisdiction. or community a in individual per income annual average the is Perincome capita $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 INCOME $0 United States 2000, 2007(Percentage Change) PER CAPITA INCOME IN THE U.S., CALIFORNIA, ANDCENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS 2000 29.4% 2007 California North Sacramento Valley

28.8% Sacramento Metropolitan Region 32.5% 8

North San Joaquin Valley Bureau ofBusinessandEconomicResearch How are we doing? we are How 27.1% highest population growth. population highest the with regions the with coincide also disparities Valley.Joaquin San South the wealth regional These in lowest RegionMetropolitanand Sacramento the in highest is ValleyIt region. by considerably varies Central the in income Averagecapita per whole. a as ValleyCentral California behind lagged consistently the in income capita per the 2007, Fromto 2000 income. capita per in nation the in 48th rank would it state, individual Valleyan as taken be to was Central the if perspective, Toin this $41,805. put of average state the below percent 29 $29,790, was ValleyCentral the of income capita per the 2007, In Sour ce: UniversityofNewMexico, South San Joaquin Valley 23.0% 32.8% Why is it important? important? it is Why Definition: The Central Valley’s construction industry continues to suffer the effects of the housing crisis. crisis. housing the of effects Valley’sthe Central suffer The to continues industry construction PERMITS BUILDING RESIDENTIAL materials, and architects who design the structures. the design who architects and materials, deliver that companies trucking purchased,are supplies building wherestores including construction, for needed materials the supply that businesses to go benefits Indirect costs. materials and labor including home, new a of construction the with associated directly those are benefits Direct construction. the with associated indirectly and directly both those for benefits economic generates construction Housing growth. steady is there when health economic to contributor significant a is Construction term. short- and seasonal typically are jobs construction although jobs, creates also construction Housing population. growing rapidly a for necessary is housing New units. housing new of predictor accurate an are housing residential for permits Building apartments. and condominiums, houses, including construction, residential new for issued permits building new of number the measures indicator This 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 5,000 0 2000-2008 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGPERMITS ISSUEDINCENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS 2000 Sacramento Metropolitan Region Sacramento North Valley 2001 Office ofPolicyDevelopmentandResearch,State oftheCitiesDataSystems 2002 Sour 2003 ce: U.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment, 2004 How are we doing? we are How 9 2005 68.4 percent. 68.4 by decreased has which Joaquin San South the was crisis housing the by affected Least percent. 88.3 at 2008 through 2005 from decline overall greatest ValleyJoaquin San North the The experienced 2000. since decreasepercent 58 overall an percent, 75 by granted permits building residential in decrease a showing 2008, through 2005 fromgreatly differs trend The Valleysubregions. Central the throughoutpercent 68 by increased drastically granted permits building residential of number the period, 2000-2005 the During 2004. in peak a with 2000 from construction housing in increase dramatic a experienced Valley,California, of majority the with along ValleyCentral the in force economy. Central The primary a was construction residential 1996, Since 2006 South San Joaquin San South Valley North San Joaquin San North Valley 2007 2008

POPULATION, INCOME, A N D H O U S I N G POPULATION, INCOME, A N D H O U S I N G The Central Valley has experienced significant increases in the foreclosure rate. foreclosure Valleythe Central in The increases significant experienced has rate foreclosure Definition: Definition: How are we doing? we are How important? it is Why the loan has not yet defaulted. yet not has loan the whichismerely latea payment onthemortgage but Foreclosuresare different from loan delinquencies, data. housing Census U.S. of percentage a as notices,auction sale notices andbank repossessions, default fromforeclosure filings of amount the is rate andloses their right property.toa Theforeclosure homeownerdefaults ontheir mortgage (home loan) a whereprocess legal the foreclosureis home A Valleyhigher.percent 10 only foreclosurerate In2008 thegap contracted with theCentral average. state California the than higher percent In2007 theCentral Valley foreclosure rate was57 foreclosurerate (Simon andHagerty, 2009). the to factor contributing significant a now is However,loss ofincome andunemployment payments. monthly their pay to unable were then outrisky loans, like sub-prime mortgages, and took borrowers because foreclosuresoccurred of wave first The debts. personal of kinds other on betweenunemployment, foreclosures, and defaults property).There isalso strong a correlation moretothebank than themarket price ofthe foreclosure(owing to leads drop price large This sharply.fallen have but average, national the to compared expensive are prices home California’s typeofmortgage assistance onequalifies for. income,theprice andavailability ofhouses, andthe buyer’s the by affected is home a own to ability The classes. between mobility” “upward promote can property of appreciation addition, In community.their in interest vested long-term a have residents that ensure helps ownership Home make. usuallythelargest financial decision householda will is It people. many of goal a is ownership Home 10 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 2007, 2008 FORECLOSURE RATE IN THE U.S., CALIFORNIA, ANDCENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS

California 1.9% North Sacramento Valley vacant houses (PPIC, Aug2009). (PPIC, houses vacant soonerthan other areas inthecountry with many needed be will construction and quickerrebound may neighborhoods that suggests This nation. the in vacancyrates are lower than other metropolitan areas Valley,Joaquin San the In but high foreclosuresare average. state the whichboasts foreclosurea rate 52percent lower than lowerpopulated North Sacramento Valley subregion, the in seen However,be can reverseaverage. the in2008, making it79percent higher than thestate JoaquinValley subregion staggeringata percent7 Theforeclosure rate ishighest intheNorth San year.one that over percent 104 increased average state the whereas 2008, to 2007 frompercent TheCentral Valley foreclosure rate increased by43 3.9%

Sacramento Metropolitan Region 1.5% 1.9% 3.0% North San Joaquin Valley 4.0% Sour 4.7% ce: ForeclosureRadarandRealtyTrac South San Joaquin Valley 7.0% 2.5% 3.8% ISSUE BRIEF ISSUE hope and stability.and hope of seeds the sown have agencies government federal and local and organizationsnonprofit both of efforts the foreclosures,wide-spread the by hit hardest populations reaching by Nevertheless, recession. the of cloud dark the in lining silver a see to difficult it find may one these, as such times unpredictable and worrisome In foreclosures.of result a as faces City the that costs the decreasesprogram This projects. building own their for them appropriate then and properties on taxes delinquent the off pay to Habitat TaxNegotiated allows Program, County’s which Sales Sacramento Lien of part as acquired was homes four the for land The lighting. to landscaping from advances, green other of multitude a and control climate efficient more boast also homes The families. struggling for even affordable,more becomes ownership home bills, utility monthly low With needs. energy family’s a of percent 90 and 80 between generate will that panels solar with Humanity,outfitted for be Habitat will Sacramento’s homes greenfor these officer Miller, development Leah Accordingfund to building. sustainable for criteria necessary the – standards Gold (LEED) Design Environmental and Energy in Leadership meet which homes single-family four of comprised ForrestProjectThe Streetis families. vulnerable helping at aimed projects on working also is funding, of Valleyshortage Central own the its in organizationdespite an that, is Humanity for Habitat Sacramento The Valley’sCentral the populations. of vulnerable stability most and safety the thus, and conditions, living the improve to government federal the of ability the of sign hopeful a as Reinvestment(ARRA)2009 Act of Recoveryand elderly.American the the for see apartments renovateSome RedevelopmentAuthority to and Housing Sacramento the ARRAto million grant $10 a with in, stepping also is government federal The downtown. economic the to prior began that problemchronic a but crisis, housing the of symptom a simply not population, homeless its of many for was, that poverty the to solutions seek to Sacramento of City the pressureon put turn, in attention, The issue. this with attention media’s the sparking also shock, her expressed and city tent the of inhabitants interviewed Oprah homeless. the for concern and awareness new public’s the to due light to brought was Sacramento in River American the by tents in living individuals homeless hundred a of plight a Accordingto efforts. and priorities its redirectingby region the strengthen to serve also can However,crisis housing businesses. the and families both of prosperity the threatened has situation housing the that indicators housing and income, Valley’sCentral the from evident population, is It SilverLining The article (Paul,the article 2009), Newsweek of 11 11 Photo Credit:Flickr/NoahWesley risis C Housing the

POPULATION, INCOME, A N D H O U S I N G B u s i n e s s Vi ta l i t y

While agriculture remains a significant part of the Central Valley’s economy, service industries continue to be important.

• The labor force in the Central Valley is growing faster than job growth.

• From 2002 to 2008, the Central Valley’s unemployment rate averaged 2.6% higher

than the state average, which is an improvement from the prior five years when the

y v italit b usiness Central Valley was 4.2% higher.

• Wages in the Central Valley in every industry were lower than the state average.

• Central Valley jobs are increasing in service-producing industries, especially

educational and health services, professional and business services, and government.

• Taxable retail sales in the Central Valley peaked in 2006 and then started to decline.

• Tourism and travel spending continue to grow in the Central Valley, particularly in

Sacramento County.

Photo Credit: Flickr/Gary Simmons

12 Job Growth and Labor Force Growth The labor force is growing faster than the number of jobs.

Definition: How are we doing? Job and labor force growth are two distinct, but From 2000 to 2008 the Central Valley’s labor related indicators: force grew faster (15.9%) than jobs (13.2%). The most significant difference was in the Sacramento • Job growth measures the change in the number of Metropolitan Region where the labor force grew by jobs in a county over a period of time. 16.3 percent while jobs grew by 12.8 percent. •3.0 Labor force growth measures the change in the The South San Joaquin Valley had the greatest civilian labor force in an area over a period of Central Valley percentage increase for the entire period, 2000-2008 2.5time. It includes civilians, non-institutionalized, in job growth, with a total of 144,400 jobs added 16 years old and older with jobs and the over the eight years. 2.0unemployed. y v italit b usiness Why1.5 is it important? For most people, jobs are the primary source of

income1.0 through wages and benefits. In a healthy economy, job growth will keep pace with the growth of0.5 the labor force to provide adequate employment opportunities. If this does not occur, residents will be unemployed,0.0 underemployed, may commute to jobs 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 outside of their home region, or relocate.

ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY JOB GROWTH IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS (2000 Benchmark) 2000-2008 (NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED) 2000-2008 (NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED) 3,500,000 20%

3,062,500 15%

2,625,000 10%

2,187,500 5%

1,750,000 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Labor Force Employment (# of Jobs) North Sacramento Valley North San Joaquin Valley Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division Sacramento Metropolitan South San Joaquin Valley

Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division

13 U n emp l o y me n t R a t e Central Valley unemployment remains substantially higher than the state average.

Definition: How are we doing? The unemployment rate measures the percentage of While California’s unemployment is higher and rising the workers 16 and older who are not working or faster than the U.S. rate, all the subregions of the are working less than full time and who are actively Central Valley consistently exceed the state rate. As seeking employment. The unemployment rate of 2008, the last complete year of data available, the excludes those who are self-employed, no longer Central Valley annual unemployment rate was almost seeking employment, or those with unreported wages. 42 percent higher than the California average. Why is it important? Annual unemployment rates are consistently highest The unemployment rate is one of the best ways to in the North and South San Joaquin Valley ranging measure the economic health of a region. High from 9 to 12 percent on average. In the Sacramento unemployment means that there are more workers Metropolitan Region the foreclosure rate is

y v italit b usiness seeking work than there are jobs available. consistently the lowest in the Central Valley ranging from 6 to 9 percent. Unemployed workers often face serious financial difficulty, such as losing their homes to foreclosure. The Central Valley is home to the cities of Merced People who are unemployed frequently receive and Yuba City, which reported the second and unemployment insurance for a limited time to third highest unemployment rate in the country maintain a minimal standard of living. (May 2009) at 20.4 percent and 19.5 percent respectively, behind El Centro, reporting 25.1 percent High unemployment also can result in greater unemployment, located near the U.S./Mexico border competition for existing jobs and lead to lower overall in Southern California. wages.

ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR THE U.S., CALIFORNIA, MONTHLY UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR THE U.S., CALIFORNIA, AND AND CENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS CENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS 2002-2008 (SEASONALLY ADJUSTED) 2009 (NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED) 12% 20%

10% 16%

8% 12%

6% 8%

4% 4% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug (prelim)

Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division (and) US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. North Sacramento Valley North San Joaquin Valley

California Sacramento Metropolitan Region South San Joaquin Valley

14 wages by industry Wages in the Central Valley are lower than the state average.

Definition: Wages are consistently lowest in the South San This indicator measures the average dollar amount Joaquin Valley and the North Sacramento Valley and earned annually by employees in different areas and in highest in the Sacramento Metropolitan Region. different industries. The highest salaries in the Central Valley are found in the construction, manufacturing, and information Why is it important? industries. However, as seen in the following The level of wages earned greatly influences quality indicators, the number of jobs in these higher paying of life. People paid higher wages usually have more industries has declined significantly. discretionary money to spend on goods and services other than basic expenses such as food, shelter, and clothing. How are we doing? y v italit b usiness In every industry category, wages in the Central Valley are lower than the state average. This may reflect lower levels of education throughout the Central Valley population. This may also be caused by the relative lack of high-level professional positions, headquarters, and offices outside of the agricultural industry.

AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE BY INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA & THE CENTRAL VALLEY 2008 $80,000 California $70,000 Central Valley

$60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0

Construction Information Government Manufacturing Other Services & Mining Natural Resources Financial Activities Leisure & Hospitality

Trade, Transportation & Utilities Educational & Health Services Professional & Business Services Source: State of California, Employment Development Department

15 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY Jobs in the Central Valley are increasingly in service industries.

Definition: support and waste management and remediation This indicator measures how employment is services sector. distributed across industries. Education and Health Services: The education The North American Industry Classification System and health services supersector is made up of two (NAICS) defines the following sectors. parts: 1) educational services sector, and 2) the health care and social assistance sector. Only privately- Natural Resources, Mining, and Construction: owned establishments are included; publically-owned The natural resources and mining supersector is made establishments that provide education or health up of two parts: 1) the mining, quarrying, and oil services are included in government. and gas extraction sector and 2) the construction sector. The construction sector comprises Leisure and Hospitality: The leisure and establishments primarily engaged in the construction hospitality supersector is made up on two parts: y v italit b usiness of buildings or engineering projects (e.g. highways 1) arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 2) the and utility systems). accommodation and food services sector.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing sector consists of Other Services: The other services sector is establishments engaged in the mechanical, physical, or comprised of establishments engaged in providing chemical transformation of materials, substances, or services not specifically provided for elsewhere components into new products. in the NAICS. Establishments in this sector are primarily engaged in activities such as equipment and Trade, Transportation, and Utilities: The trade, machinery repairing, personal and laundry services, transportation, and utilities supersector is made up promotion or administering religious activities, of four parts: 1) wholesale trade, 2) retail trade, 3) grantmaking, advocacy, etc. transportation and warehousing, and 4) utilities. Government: The government sector is made Information: The information sector comprises up of public administration of publicly-owned of establishments engaged in the following establishments. This sector includes establishments processes: a) publishing industries (excluding the of Federal, state, and local government agencies that Internet), b) motion picture and sound recording administer, oversee, and manage public programs and industries, c) broadcasting (except Internet), d) have executive, legislative, or judicial authority over telecommunications, e) data processing, hosting, and other institutions within a given area. related services, and f) other information services. Agriculture: The agriculture sector is made up of Financial Activities: The financial activities businesses that are primarily engaged in agriculture, supersector is made up of two parts: 1) the finance forestry, fishing, and hunting. and insurance sector, and 2) the real estate and rental and leasing sector. Why is it important? Professional and Business Services: The Comparing employment by industry shows how professional and business services supersector is made important different industries are to a region’s up of three parts: 1) the professional, scientific, and economy. Information on the mix of industries technical services sector, 2) management of companies within the region shows the diversity of the regional and enterprises sector, and 3) administrative and

16 economy. An economy focused on one or two However, the status of the state economy and industries is more vulnerable to economic cycles than budget crisis seen during the summer of 2009 a diverse economy. disproportionately affects all other publically administered programs throughout the entire Central How are we doing? Valley, such as public education and public healthcare In the U.S. there are two major sectors in the systems. economy identified as goods-producing and service- The second largest portion of employment for producing. The goods-producing sector includes the Central Valley is found within Education and natural resources, mining, construction, and Health Services which accounts for more than 12 manufacturing industries. The service-producing percent of the overall employment. In 2003, Trade, sector includes all other industries shown. In the Transportation and Utilities was the second largest

Central Valley 11.8 percent of jobs were goods- industry for the Central Valley at more than 17 y v italit b usiness producing and 88.2 percent service-producing, in percent; currently that industry equals more than 12 California 14.6 percent of jobs were goods-producing percent of the total jobs. and the other 85.4 percent were service-producing. Employment in the agricultural industry, the Government is the largest employer in the Central Central Valley’s economic cornerstone, varies widely Valley at 26 percent, which could be influenced partly throughout the Central Valley subregions ranging by the state capitol being located in Sacramento. from 1.6 percent in the Sacramento Metropolitan The Sacramento Metropolitan Region accounts for Region to 17 percent in the South San Joaquin Valley almost 33 percent of the employment coming from subregion. government positions within its own subregion.

CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY CENTRAL VALLEY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY May 2009 May 2009

Natural Resources, Mining & Construction 4.9% 2.7% 5.3% 9.0% 6.9% Manufacturing 9.3% 17.4% Trade, Transportation & Utilities

Information 0.3% 12.4% Financial activities 18.8% 25.6% 1.5% 10.3% Professional & Business Services 4.8% Education & Health Services

3.2% Leisure & Hospitality 12.2% 3.4% 10.4% 5.7% Other Services 8.9% 14.8% 12.5% Government

Agriculture

Source: State of California, Employment Development Department

17 employment changes by industry The Central Valley is gaining jobs in service sectors and losing jobs in goods-producing industries.

Definition: Government agencies, researchers, educators, This indicator describes job changes among and others can use this information to develop industries. It shows which industries are adding plans for economic development and training and jobs and which are providing fewer jobs and by how infrastructure planning. much. How are we doing? See previous pages for more information on the From 2003 through 2009, the Central Valley lost North American Industry Classification System jobs in all goods-producing industries and gained (NAICS). jobs throughout the service-producing industries Why is it important? except information and financial activities. This Changes in the numbers and types of jobs are could be due to the current recession straining consequences of many conditions of the economy the goods-producing industries and forcing more y v italit b usiness and affect many other aspects of the economy. For employment in the service-producing industries. example, different industries require different levels of The largest industrial change in the Central Valley education and training. They also provide different was in trade, transportation, and utilities with a loss levels of wages, which can influence where people of 46 percent of employed positions. However, the live and how much they can afford for housing and largest increase in the number of jobs was found in other expenses. Changes in jobs can also affect the the educational and health services industry with an types and costs of government services provided to a increase of 16 percent, about an increase of 44,780 community. jobs over six years. Government had the second Job seekers and job counselors can use information largest number of jobs created during the same on employment changes to identify job opportunities. period (43,970).

EMPLOYMENT CHANGES BY INDUSTRY IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY 2003 and 2009 (Percentage Change)

600,000 +8%

2003 500,000 2009

-46% 400,000

300,000 +16%

Number of Jobs +11% +7% +2% 200,000 -10% -44% -9%

100,000 0% -16%

0

Information GovernmentAgriculture Manufacturing Other Services Financial activities Leisure & Hospitality

Educational & Health Services Trade, Transportation & UtilitiesProfessional & Business Services Source: State of California, Employment Development Department Natural Resources, Mining, & Construction

18 retail sales Retail sales have grown significantly faster than the population, yet have been affected by the current recession.

Definition: How are we doing? This indicator measures annual taxable transactions Taxable retail sales in the Central Valley have in the Central Valley. Taxable retail sales include substantially increased faster than the population sales from goods such as furniture, office supplies, since 2003. This indicates that the current populous clothing, food, automobiles, and household items. was making higher salaries or going into debt until 2007 when retail sales started to decrease. Why is it important? Retail sales are a good indicator of economic vitality, Sales have increased from $50.8 billion in 2002 to particularly when compared to changes in population $92.3 billion in 2007, an overall increase of almost growth. Also, retails sales impact hiring trends. 82 percent; meanwhile the population increased only For example, an increase in retail sales may lead to 10.8 percent. From 2004 through 2007 the increase an increase in local employment. Increased retail begins to subside to a peak spending of $93.8 billion

sales may lead to a greater selection of goods in a in 2006 and begins to decline in 2007. y v italit b usiness community, thereby attracting more spending and From 2004-2007 the Sacramento Metropolitan new businesses. Retails sales generate sales taxes Region lead the Central Valley in taxable retail which have become an important revenue source for sales averaging $33.5 billion annually. During this local governments. time the North Valley lagged behind the rest of the Central Valley with only $7.6 billion in sales.

RETAIL SALES AND POPULATION GROWTH IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY as a Percentage of 2003 Levels TAXABLE RETAIL SALES IN CENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS 2003 - 2007 2003 - 2007 25% $35

$30 20%

$25 15%

$20

10% $15

5% (in billion $) Volume Retail Sales $10

0% $5 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Central Valley Central Valley North Sacramento Valley North San Joaquin Valley Population Growth Retail Sales Sacramento Metropolitan Region South San Joaquin Valley Source: California State Board of Equalization (and) State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Info Source: California State Board of Equalization

19 tourism Travel and tourism continues to grow in the Central Valley.

Definition: nearly triple that of El Dorado and Fresno counties, This indicator includes two measures related to tourism the second and third highest ranked counties in the in the Central Valley: Central Valley. The overall revenue generated by the transient occupancy tax in the Central Valley in 2007 • Transient occupancy taxes, are tax receipts on was more than $106 million, an increase of almost lodging, like hotels. Since tax collections and tax 28 percent since 2002. The increase suggests that rates vary by jurisdiction and are reported on a fiscal tourism is becoming more valuable to the Central year basis, typically corresponding to July1 through Valley, especially as other industries are losing jobs June 30, the most recent tax rate is used. and retail sales decreased during this period. Some • Travel spending is spending by visitors to and of the revenue increase is likely due to changes in the through the Central Valley counties, including tax rate adopted by local governments, which vary by transportation, accommodations, and food. local jurisdiction. y v italit b usiness Why is it important? Travel spending increased in the Central Valley by 29 Travel and tourism is considered an “export- percent between 2002 and 2007, from $7.2 billion oriented” industry whose sales support jobs for local in 2002 to $9.4 billion in 2007, which is similar to communities and contribute tax revenue to local and the state’s percentage increase of 30.8. The South state governments. Tourism is an important source of San Joaquin Valley subregions had the fastest growth jobs for local communities and generates significant rate (33%). Both the San Joaquin Valley (north and revenue for the Central Valley. south combined) and the Sacramento Metropolitan subregions increased by approximately $800 million How are we doing? in spending during that period. Sacramento County generated the most revenue from the transient occupancy tax 2002 and 2007,

TRANSCIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RECEIPTS IN CENTRAL VALLEY COUNTIES TRAVEL SPENDING IN CENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS 2002 and 2007 2002-2007

$35 $5 2002 2007 $30 $4

$25

$3 $20

$15 $2

$10 Spending (in billions $) Travel Tax Revenue Volume (in millions $) Volume Revenue Tax $1 $5

$0 $0 Yolo Butte Yuba Kern Kings 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Colusa GlennShasta Placer Sutter Fresno Tulare Tehama MaderaMerced El Dorado Stanislaus Sacramento San Joaquin San Joaquin Valley North Sacramento Valley Sacramento Metropolitan Region

Source: provided to Dean Runyan Associates, Inc. by the California State Controller's Office Source: Dean Runyan Associates, Inc. (data provided by the California State Controller's Office)

20 state’s economy and the nation’s food supply.food nation’s the and economy state’s productiveagricultural criticaltheregion countyofapart theand in Valley,Central the of base economic the remainsAgriculture most the • • • • agricultural land was converted to urban uses. urban to converted was land agricultural Valley’sCentral the of acres) prime 35,488 (or 4.9% 2006, and 2000 Between Valley.Central the in located are California in agriculture-producingcounties eight top the of Seven (20%). rate that twice Valley.Central the in jobs of 10% was than moreprovidesit Agriculture ago Fiveyears production. agricultural in nation the in first rankedValley be Central would the it If state, a were A g r tu lt u c i 21 r e

AGRICULTURE Planning for Vibrant Agriculture By Ka r e n Ro ss President, California Association of Winegrape Growers Member, State Board of Food and Agriculture

ur world is in constant flux. New technologies, environment. By drawing on the input of disparate Opressing demands, limited resources, evolving groups inside and outside production agriculture, Ag contradictions and constantly changing markets are Vision hopes to create a 20-year plan that will be used today’s norm. Amid these changes, agriculture is being to guide policy, budgetary and regulatory decisions. profoundly affected and that has implications for the It should inform public policy and industry practices economy and culture of the Central Valley and the with an eye to environmental stewardship and public citizens of our state. health that ensures a vibrant future for California with a thriving agriculture and food production system. California leads the nation in agricultural production valued at over $38 billion annually. More than three- Our future is intrinsically tied to our consumers, fifths (63%) of that value comes from the 19 counties our neighbors and the political interests that shape of the Great Central Valley, home of world-class California. Accordingly, the individuals involved in soils, a climate for growing anything and innovative, Ag Vision understand this reality. Utilizing an open resourceful farmers. California agriculture is a planning approach, we are courageously stating status strategic asset providing for one of the fundamental quo is not an option. needs of society — a safe, secure, and affordable food supply. With so few in the state actively engaged in farming, the lack of consumer understanding of agriculture has Growers today are expected to not only stay ahead been well chronicled. Without that knowledge, it isn’t of change but, in many cases, to anticipate it years in surprising that non-farm citizens view agriculture’s advance and react appropriately. Where nature used to concerns as unrelated to their own. Yet conflicting be the growers’ great unknown, today it’s a myriad of demands from population growth, land use and decisions and actions by consumers and policy makers natural resources are impacting our food production far from the farm gate that dictate success and failure. system. If the value of agriculture is not recognized, it is easy to view ag issues — like water availability or Given these unpredictable and overwhelming pressures, invasive pest control — as competitive to your own it would be easy to hunker down and take a defensive interests. position. But success in today’s complex and inter- linked world economy demands inclusion of many And while we may decry the lack of understanding that parties and many voices. Under the leadership of urban and non-farm populations have of agriculture, California’s Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura, we have to ask: How much effort do we expend to and the State Board of Food and Agriculture, a bold fully understand and empathize with their issues and step to face that actuality has been initiated with concerns? Are we as detached as we complain our California Ag Vision 2030. non-farm neighbors are?

Ag Vision is a strategic planning process that is a Ag Vision strives to reduce the level of disconnect vital demonstration of agriculture’s ability to step out between all sides. By bringing non-traditional of its comfort zone and react to a rapidly changing stakeholders together to discuss agriculture and food production from varying perspectives, we believe we to ensure that agricultural resources are preserved have the best chance to hammer out approaches that and supported by regulators and governments will provide long-term support for California’s food in their attempts to achieve these objectives. and fiber system. • Thriving Communities: Because food When Ag Vision stakeholders started meeting in the production is a driver of sustainable economic midst of California’s water and budget crisis, some may growth, this principle aims to unleash have questioned the timing. Frankly, I think it helped agriculture and food production to grow and cement the need for bold, non-traditional thinking. It diversify while being supported with research allowed us to seriously consider the role agriculture and a trained, well-educated, stable workforce. and food production plays as an economic engine. The Ag Vision planners are dedicated to recasting With these guiding priorities, the diverse Ag Vision agriculture as a strategic resource for this state — a participants are hammering out a series of strategies. source of food security, employment opportunities tied Some deal with perennial and traditional challenges to emerging science and technology, and a provider like water and land use, while others are looking to of environmental services. As California struggles to a bigger, and as yet undefined, role for agriculture in pull out of its fiscal dilemma, we are intent on not California’s future. By sitting at the table with advocates only highlighting agriculture’s amazing bounty but representing urban, environmental, labor, shipping, also making sure the dots are connected between our investment and hunger issues, agriculture has stepped communities of greatest need to ensure all of our up to a higher plateau, searching for common ground citizens are well-fed and nourished. that not only allows it to survive into the future but to once again be a dominant factor in the environmental, social and cultural fabric of the state. If the value of agriculture is not recognized, it is easy to view ag The end result of the Ag Vision effort will be a concrete document that guides policymakers, agriculture issues as competitive to your own and affiliated interests in harnessing the power of interest. California’s largest industry. The report will set the stage for future public investments. With a belief that agriculture in our state should be a leader—a positive This inclusive process aims to develop a dynamic entity whose impact stretches beyond the traditional roadmap reflective of the complex challenges before us role of delivering quality, affordable, safe products to and the varied interests that have a stake in overcoming the market—California agriculture will be out front them. The three guiding Ag Vision principles are: on evolving issues, lending its expertise, counsel and resources to reinstitute California as a viable, stronger • Better Health and Well-Being: Priority is set state. not only on delivering the safest, highest quality food and fiber while protecting California’s natural We believe we are positioning agriculture as an resources, but also on ensuring that all Californians integral player in a host of state issues. We can show have access to healthy foods and understand how our impact to California citizens, politicians and our that food is grown and prepared for their table. new partners in a myriad of ways. We can help all of these influential audiences reconnect with our work • A Healthier Planet: The symbiotic nature of and understand its importance and value. With added agriculture and the environment is established prestige, we can anticipate a warmer reception to those in this theme with a renewed commitment not issues that dictate our viability—things like regulation, only to be good stewards of the land but also for labor, water and pest control. We are casting our role agriculture to play a consistent and dominant role as leading actors in the economic, environmental and in helping the state address water, climate, energy well-being of all Californians, while constantly working and air issues. A key element of this principle is to build a vibrant future for California agriculture. § agriculture Sour 10% 15% 20% 5% 0 ce: StateofCalifornia,EmploymentDevelopment Department,LaborMarketInformationDivision How are we doing? we are How important? it is Why Definition: subregion. by varies employment total of percentage a as jobs agricultural of number The EMPLOYMENT FARM 2008 AGRICULTURAL JOBSASAPERCENTAGE OF TOTAL JOBS

CALIFORNIA is Valley’ssubregion dependent job agricultural least Central The jobs. based agricultural on heavily ValleyCentral the of economy reliesthe California, of majority the to Contrary jobs. all of percent 10 ValleyCentral the in Agriculture than moreprovides processes. production integrated vertically other and sales, equipment transportation, processing, food as such industries related in jobs generates also It operations. farming throughdirectly jobs providesAgriculture interchangeably.used are“agriculture” and “farm” case, this In workers. ValleyCentral farm the for in wages employment and on agriculture of impact the measures indicator This

CENTRAL VALLEY 1.25%

North Sacramento Valley 10.3% Sacramento Metropolitan Region 5.4%

North San Joaquin Valley 1.7%

South San Joaquin Valley AND 10.6% 19.7% WAGES 24 an average of $14.04 per hour.per $14.04 of average an ValleyNorth the in found with is jobs agricultural for salary highest The $9.83. of average state California the Valleyabove Central dollar the a in $10.82, is agriculture in wage hour.hourly per average $14 The than more to hour per $9 over just from ranging region by considerably Wagesvary jobs agricultural in agriculture. upon dependence Valley’sCentral reinforcesthe further This percent. ValleyValleyCentral the 10.6 to at closer average is Joaquin San North The region. the in jobs all of percent 20 nearly of consisting jobs agricultural on Valleydependent Joaquin heavily San most the is South percent. 1.25 of average California the than higher still is that however jobs, all of percent 1.7 only being region sub Metropolitan Sacramento the Labor MarketLabor Information Division Source: State ofCalifornia, Employment Development Department, 2008 Mean F California Central Valley Joaquin San South Valley Joaquin San North Valley Region Sacramento Metropolitan Sacramento North Valley arm W Region a ge Hourly $10.82 $10.43 $14.04 $9.83 $9.16 $9.66 Annual $20,446 $19,053 $20,093 $22,506 $21,694 $29,203 VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION The Central Valley is becoming more indispensable to the state’s total agricultural production.

Definition: Within the Central Valley, the San Joaquin Valley This indicator measures the annual market value of leads in agricultural production. In 2007, the San agricultural products grown in California and the Joaquin Valley accounted for 88% of the Central Central Valley. The annual market value is the U.S. Valley’s agricultural output, compared with 6.5 Department of Agriculture estimate of the value of percent for the North Sacramento Valley and over the crop, whether or not it is sold on the market. 5 percent for the Sacramento Metropolitan Region. From 2002 to 2008 these percentages scarcely Why is it important? changed. Agriculture plays a vital role in California’s economy, with a gross value of more than $36 billion in 2007. The agricultural production in the Central Valley is Agriculture contributes positively to the U.S. balance primarily focused throughout the entire San Joaquin of trade payments. Valley. The South San Joaquin Valley’s production value alone is worth over $17 billion which is 62 How are we doing? percent of the total output from the Central Valley In 2002 the Central Valley provided 57 percent of and 47 percent of the total gross value of agricultural California’s agricultural production. In 2007 the output from California. The North San Joaquin state’s gross cash receipts for agricultural products was Valley is still responsible for over 20 percent of the $36.6 billion, of which the Central Valley provided state’s total. 76.5 percent of all the agricultural production in California, an increase of nearly 20 percent from the previous five years. AGRICULTURE VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, CALIFORNIA TOTAL 2007 2007 $30 $28.01

$25

Remaining 25 counties $20 23.7% $17.30

$15 Central Valley 63.0%

Los Angeles Region 8.7% $10 $7.42 San Francisco Bay Area $5 $3.89 4.5% Gross Value of Agriculture ($billions) of Agriculture Value Gross $2.01 $1.83 $1.46

$0

Central Valley

Los Angeles Region San Francisco Bay Area North Sacramento ValleyNorth San SouthJoaquin San Valley Joaquin Valley Source: State of California, Source: State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Sacramento Metropolitan Region

24 25 agriculture

Gross Value of Agriculture (in billions $) $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $0 $5 2007 REVENUES FROMREVENUES THE TOP 5AGRICULTURAL STATES IN THE U.S. How are we doing? doing? we are How important? it is Why Definition: Valley,Central the and areas. California, agricultural nation’sleading the are ranking output agricultural

California and crops 70 over of production the in nation the leads state The commodities. and cropsdifferent 400 than moreproduces and vegetables and nuts, fruits, States’ United the half over grows California percent. 92 almost by state, productive agriculturally highest second Texas,surpasses California the output. agricultural national entire the of percent 12 over producing country,the in state productive agriculturally most the far by is California of state The security.food with country the provides food grown ValleyCentral Domestically- the of California. and economy the of component major a is Agriculture ValleyCentral California. the of rest the with of output country.agricultural the compares also It the of rest the with California of output agricultural of value dollar the compares indicator This $36.6

Texas $19.1 Sour ce: StateofCalifornia, DepartmentofFoodandAgriculture

Iowa $19.0 $3.8

Nebraska $14.6

Minnesota $12.5 26

Gross Value of Agriculture (in billions $) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2007 REVENUES FROMREVENUES THE TOP 8AGRICULTURAL COUNTIES INCALIFORNIA Agricultural Issues Center, Issues Agricultural 2009). ValleyCentral the of sharegreater(UC economy much a for accounts directlyregion the in agriculture Valleyeconomy,Central total smaller a has so the example, for Coast, Central the to Compared 2007. in output agricultural state’s the of percent ValleyCentral the 63 California, over In generated Texas.than morepercent 47 nearly by production agricultural in highest rank easily would it state, independent ValleyCentral the If subregion.own Coast its were Central the in AreaFrancisco Bay San the of south County,Monterey exception of the just located Valley,Central the in located are counties with producing agriculturally seven top California’s of Six Japan. and Union European the by followed produce, Californian of recipient one number the is Canada globe. the aroundproducts in billion $10.9 over shipping exports, agricultural in leads also

Fresno $5.3

Tulare $4.9

Kern $4.1 Sour Monterey ce: StateofCalifornia, DepartmentofFoodandAgriculture $3.8

Merced $3.0

Stanislaus $2.4 San Joaquin $2.0

Kings $1.8 Leading Commodities of California’s Top 10 Agricultural Counties 2007

Rank County Leading Commodities 1 Fresno Grapes, Almonds, Milk, Poultry, Tomatoes

2 Tulare Milk, Oranges, Cattle & Calves, Grapes, Alfalfa Hay & Silage

3 Kern Milk, Grapes, Citrus, Almonds & Byproducts, Carrots

4 Monterey Lettuce, Strawberries, Nursery, Broccoli, Grapes

5 Merced Milk, Chicken, Almonds, Cattle & Calves, Tomatoes

6 Stanislaus Milk, Almonds, Chickens, Cattle & Calves, Walnuts

7 San Joaquin Milk, Grapes, Cherries, Almonds, Walnuts

8 Kings Milk, Cotton, Cattle & Calves, Alfalfa, Pistachios

9 Ventura Strawberries, Nursery Stock, Lemons, Celery, Tomatoes

10 San Diego Foliage Plants, Trees & Shrubs, Bedding Plants, Avocados, Tomatoes

California’s Top 20 Commodities California’s Top 20 Agricultural Exports 2007 2006-2007

Rank Commodity Value Rank Commodity Value (Millions of (Millions of dollars) dollars) 1 Milk and Cream $7,328 1 Almonds $1,879 2 Grapes, All $3,078 2 Dairy and Products $963 3 Nursery & Greenhouse Products $3,066 3 Wine $816

4 Lettuce, All $2,178 4 Table Grapes $553 AGRICULTURE 5 Almonds $2,127 5 Cotton $505 6 Cattle & Calves $1,784 6 Walnuts $444 7 Hay, All $1,435 7 Pistachios $364 8 Strawberries, All $1,339 8 Rice $313 9 Tomatoes, All $1,242 9 Tomatoes, Processed $300 10 Floriculture $1,003 10 Strawberries $297 11 Walnuts $754 11 Lettuce $274 12 Chickens, All $713 12 Oranges and Products $260 13 Broccoli $669 13 Raisins $213 14 Cotton, All $599 14 Beef and Products $199 15 Rice $583 15 Dried Plums $175 16 Pistachios $562 16 Lemons $169 17 Oranges, All $518 17 Peaches and Nectarines $147 18 Lemons $513 18 Hay $134 19 Carrots, All $495 19 Broccoli $119 20 Celery $401 20 Carrots $100

Source: State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, California Agricultural Resource Directory, 2008-2009

26 27 agriculture

North Sacramento Valley Number of Acres 10,000 15,000 20,000 2000-2002 and2004-2006(Percentage Change) SUBREGIONS TOTAL CONVERTED LAND TO USEIN URBAN LAND THE CENTRAL VALLEY 5,000 0 Definition: Definition: farmland. prime was 2006 and 2000 between Valleyland Central built-up the and in urban land to of converted percent 28 Nearly Why is it important? it is Why AGRICULTURAL Sacramento Metropolitan Region agricultural production. agricultural term long sustain to able features chemical and physical of combination best the with farmland as defined is Primefarmland parcel. 10-acre a to structures 6 approximately or acres, 1.5 to unit 1 least at of density building a with structures by occupied land is land built-up and urban Conservation of Department California the by defined As farmland. prime in changes emphasizing 2006, to 2000 from ValleyCentral the in land built-up and urban to use land in changes the measures indicator This agricultural economic base. economic agricultural Valley’sCentral the to significance particular of is development urban to farmland prime of conversion The resource. limited a considered is and available land agricultural quality highest the is Primefarmland -49%

North San Joaquin Valley +30% Sour ce: CaliforniaDepartment ofConservation

South San Joaquin Valley CONVERSION LAND -13% 2000-2002 2004-2006 +14% 28

North Sacramento Valley 2000-2002 and2004-2006(Percentage Change) SUBREGIONS* PRIME FARMLAND CONVERTED TO USEIN URBAN LAND THE CENTRAL VALLEY Number of Acres 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 How are we doing? we are How than 16,000 acres over this six-year period. six-year this over acres 16,000 than more at loss, farmland prime of amount greatest the experiencing is state, the in counties agricultural three Valley,Joaquin San South top the contains which (-49%). decline greatestValley the North had urbanization of rate the while (30%) urbanization of rate the in increase highest the RegionMetroexperienced Sacramento significantly.differ counties individual The and respectively.percent 4.9 However,subregions in rates ValleyCentral entire the and in percent 4.4 region, slightly increased have land urbanized to conversion farmland prime and urbanization of rates the Overall, farmland. prime was (27.6%) acres 35,488 land, the of amount significant a conversion, the to prior used was land the all how precisely identify to possible not is it While uses. urban for converted were ValleyCentral the in land of acres 128,715 period, 2004-2006 the to period From2000-2002 the 0

Sacramento Metropolitan Region +94% * nodataavailablefor ButteCounty(partofNorthSacramentoValley)

North San Joaquin Valley +9% Sour ce: CaliforniaDepartment ofConservation

South San Joaquin Valley -29% 2000-2002 2004-2006 +46% ISSUE BRIEF

FARM LAND TRUSTS PREVENT DEVELOPMENT OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND

Urban development has slowly crept across the expanse of prime agricultural land in the Central Valley. One consequence of the current recession is the deceleration of the conversion of farmland into urban development, creating a climate favorable to land conservation. This is illustrated by the severe drop in the number of residential building permits. The agricultural output of California remains impressive, ranking number one in the nation. This success has boosted the desire to legitimize and enforce farmland conservation, developing a variety of farmland-conservation models. One of the more effective farmland-conservation models is the establishment of land trusts. An agricultural land trust is a non-profit organization that works with willing landowners to place agricultural conservation easements on quality farmland. An easement is a contract between the landowner and the land trust that limits the way in which the land may be used in the present and the future. The easements usually specify that the land must remain in agriculture, prohibiting any non-agricultural use or development of the land. The criteria used by land trusts in order to select

potential properties for easements include characteristics such as: location, water availability, soil quality, size, AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE and proximity to other properties with easements. Farmers are financially compensated for their adherence to the restrictions on development. Once an easement is placed on a piece of land, it remains with the land in perpetuity and subsequent owners of that land must adhere to the terms of the easement. Easements also allow farmers to receive tax benefits if they donate the easement to the land trust or allow the trust to purchase the land at a decreased price. The Central Valley Farmland Trust is one such land trust serving farmers in the Central Valley. First formed from the independent farmland trusts of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties, it is now one of five land trusts in California that are accredited by the National Land Trust Accreditation Commission. The Trust’s mission is to assist farmers in protecting and preserving quality farmland. According to William Martin, the Trust’s Executive Director, land trusts are qualified entities and can hold agricultural easements. The Trust’s policy is to place easements only on properties that are not in the path of development and to promote, rather than hinder, city development by helping to organize and direct urban expansion. The Central Valley Farmland Trust holds 80 easements totaling 11,200 acres of farmland. About 75 to 80 percent of the Trust’s client farmers are primarily concerned with the most advantageous financial option for their farmland. The other 20 to 25 percent are emotionally attached to their land and wish to prevent its loss. The opportunities and services offered by the Trust will remain indispensable even after the recovery of the economy. Land trusts will continue to have the capacity to serve the needs of cities, since cities typically lack the necessary infrastructure to administer land easements. In partnership with cities and the agricultural community, the Trust’s focus is on the long-term preservation of the farmland that has made the Central Valley known as one of the richest areas of food production in the world.

28 2929 TRANSPORTATION Commerce & MOBILITY sales –hasimpactedthenumberofcarsandtrucksonroads. However, therecession –withhighunemploymentand decreased retail With populationgrowth comestheneedformore infrastructure. • • • • Air traveltoandfrom CentralValley airports,primarilySacramentoInternationalAir More than76%ofworkers intheCentralValley commutetoworkbydrivingalone. from 2002to2007. Traffic congestionandthenumberofhoursdelayedonmajorhighwayshaveimproved Freight trucks,asapercentage oftotalvehiclestraveling onhighways,hasdecreased. port, continuestosteadilyincrease. T A R s n p o & M r t a n o i t o 30 b ility , C e m m o r e c , - VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED and vehicle hours of delay Cars and trucks traveling in the Central Valley have increased but traffic congestion has decreased.

Definition: Congestion affects the quality of life as it prevents Vehicle Miles Traveled measures the growth in vehicle people from spending time with family or in other miles traveled in the Central Valley by cars and more productive ways and frequently leads to trucks. frustration and accidents. Vehicle Hours of Delay measures the amount of How are we doing? time it takes to travel a freeway during peak times The increase in miles driven in the Central Valley compared to the time it takes to travel the same is slower than the rate of population growth. An distance at 35 miles per hour. This measurement exception is the Northern San Joaquin Valley, provides a general indication of traffic congestion. where driving is increasing faster (21.7%) than the In the Central Valley, California Department of population (20.6%). Five years ago the increase in Transportation (CalTrans) tracks this information for miles driven in the Central Valley was similar to the three districts (see which counties fall in the districts rate of population growth. on page 39). Traffic congestion actually improved in the major Why is it important? Central Valley metropolitan areas over the past six The number of miles driven reflects economic activity years. From 2002 through 2007, delays decreased in and the quality of life. As population grows, traffic the Central Valley, while statewide delays increased by in more populated areas becomes congested, creating almost 14 percent. delays, longer commutes, and more air pollution. Economic activity and the price of fuel are significant Congestion, a result of too many people wanting factors impacting changes in traffic congestion. to be in the same place at the same time, reflects an As the economy declines and fuel prices increase, imbalance between the capacity of transportation less commuter traffic exists, use of alternative systems and demand. Congestion may increase transportation options increase, and a reduction in when there is not a viable public transit alternative. the number of optional driving trips can occur.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED WITH PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN VEHICLE HOURS OF DELAY IN CENTRAL VALLEY CALTRANS DISTRICTS CENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS 2002-2007 2000, 2008

12,000 17.0% 25,000

8.3% 10,000 20,000

8,000 15,000 21.7% -7.5% TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION

6,000 10,000 C ommerce & MO B ILIT Y Daily Number of HoursDaily Delayed

Number of Miles Traveled (millions) Traveled Number of Miles 4,000 5,000 6.2% -16.6%

-26.2% 2,000 0 2000 2008 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 North Sacramento Valley North San Joaquin Valley District 3 District 6 District 10

Sacramento Metropolitan Region South San Joaquin Valley

Source: California Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Branch Source: California Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Branch

30 31 TRANSPORTATION Commerce & MOBILITY Public Transportation 2008 THE CENTRAL THE CENTRAL VALLEY* PRINCIPAL MEANSOF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK IN Why is it important? important? it is Why Definition: Central Valleywork. Central to alone drive primarily residents ortation to Transportation work. to getting to related activities other in spent time and carpools, in passengers up picking transportation, public for waiting spent time includes time travel The week. work the during day each work to home from get to worker a took usually it that minutes of number total the to refers work to time travel Mean Valleyjobs. Central their the to commute to of residents by used often most transportation of mode the measures transportation of Principalmeans driving alone to work become more viable. more become work to alone driving to alternatives areas, urban in concentrated are centers employment When created. pollution air of quantity the affects and work from and to get people how by influenced greatly is driving of amount The 1.7% Carpooled 14% at Home Worked 4.2% Drove Alone * datanotavailablefor Colusa,Glenn,orTehamaCounties Sour Walked Means &Other 76% ce: U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunity Survey

5.1% Work 32 MEAN TRAVEL TIME TO ANDCENTRAL WORK INCALIFORNIA VALLEY COUNTIES Number of Minutes 2008

California 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 27 How are we doing? we are How and contributing to unemployment. unemployment. to contributing and difficult more counties rural more in living making employment, secure to ability worker’s affects also them takes it long how and work to get people How Butte Survey,Community 2004). YorkNew in minutes (American 30.6 State of time travel mean highest the with time, commuting in highest sixth ranks California Nonetheless, average. state the than time commute longer a had Joaquin) Dorado,Sutter,(El San counties threeand Only walking. or biking as such means other or transit public use who number small a and percent, 12 at carpooling by followed work, to alone drive commuters of percent 72 than more California In California. of rest the in those to similar very are ValleyCentral the in work to travel of modes The 21.3

El Dorado * nodataforColusa,Glenn,Madera,Shasta,Tehama, andYubaCounties 27.4 SacramentoPlacer 26.7 25.8

Sour Sutter 28.6 ce: U.S.CensusBureau,AmericanCommunity Survey Yolo 20.7

San MercedJoaquin 26.7

Stanislaus 29.1 26.8

Fresno 21.8

Kern 22.8 Kings 20.4 Tulare 20.7 AIRPORT TRAFFIC Air travel continues to be dominated by the Sacramento Airport, although the number of passengers has increased at the majority of the small Central Valley airports.

Definition: same percentage reported in 2003), with more than This indicator measures passenger traffic at the 10.7 million scheduled passengers. The Sacramento Central Valley’s commercial aiports. Passenger International Airport continues to expand its capacity, traffic data were compiled from the annual scheduled increasing its passengers by 12.4 percent from 2004 passenger service activity reports provided by to 2007. commercial airports in the region. Fresno-Yosemite International Airport is the second Why is it important? busiest airport in the Central Valley with scheduled The level of passenger traffic at commercial airports passenger service activity averaging more than one is generally a good indicator of economic activity million people per year, and expanded by 17.8 and reflects the choice of airlines to provide service percent from 2004 to 2007. to a community. Reliable, frequent, and affordable From 2004 to 2007 there was significant increase commercial air service is essential to the economic in scheduled passenger traffic at six of the seven vitality of a region; regions without such air remaining commercial airports in the Central Valley. connections risk economic isolation. Some Valley Visalia Municipal Airport increased by more than residents drive to large airports in the San Francisco 240 percent during this time, while Inyokern was the Bay Area (such as SFO, SJC, and OAK) and the Los only Central Valley airport to decrease (-1.2%). Angeles Region (such as LAX, BUR, and SNA) for air travel. How are we doing? The Sacramento International Airport dominates passenger air travel in the Central Valley. It accounted for 86 percent of the Central Valley’s scheduled passenger service activity in 2007 (the

ANNUAL SCHEDULED PASSENGER SERVICE ACTIVITY IN CENTRAL VALLEY AIRPORTS, 2007

Redding Municipal

Chico Municipal 18% Sacramento International Fresno-Yosemite Stockton Metropolitan International 86%

11% TRANSPORTATION 7% Other Valley Modesto City-County Airports 44% 3% C ommerce & MO B ILIT Y 8% Merced Municipal

Visalia Municipal

14% Inyokern

3% 3% 2% Bakersfield Meadows Field

Source: California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics

32 33 TRANSPORTATION Commerce & MOBILITY FREIGHT Freight traffic in the Central ValleyCentral the 2001. in since Freighttraffic decreased has Why is it important? important? it is Why Definition: excludes pickups and vans with only four tires. four only with vans and excludespickups “trucks” case, this In system. highway state the on ValleyCentral the of trucking out via and in goods freight of movement the measures indicator This of Central ValleyCentral and of travel passenger and freight backbone the are They economies. national and state the to critical are – 5 Interstate and 99 Highway – Valley’sCentral arteries the north-south major two inter-regionalcorridors, majortransportation As region. the from exported and to imported be can goods that ensure to needed is system transportation robust a rural, mostly is and production agricultural ValleyCentral of the center Because the is Valley.Central the of economy the to trucking of importance the demonstrates ValleyCentral the through moving goods and of volume the of indicator an is system highway state the on traveled miles truck of number The 10% 15% 20% 25% 5% TRAFFIC TRUCK TRAVEL ASAPERCENTAGE OFHIGHWAY TRAVEL INCENTRAL VALLEY COUNTIES 2007

Butte Colusa

Sour Glenn ce: CaliforniaDepartment ofTransportation,TrafficDataBranch,Annual AverageDailyTraffic Shasta Tehama

El Dorado

Sacramento Placer

Sutter

Yolo 34 Yuba

San MercedJoaquin How are we doing? we are How Stanislaus Valley subregions. Central other the than (1,443,176) system highway state the on traveled miles truck total most the ValleyJoaquin San have Southern to The continues 2001. in percent 16 from down percent, 10.5 was travel truck Valley’sCentral the 2007, of In share percent. 20 Tehama)Kern,and Glenn, Merced, above measured (Colusa, counties five when 2001, fromdecrease a is This 2007. in county that within travel all of more or percent 20 for accounted trucks Madera), ValleyCentral three In Kern,(Glenn, and counties state and regional economies. regional and state the in effects ripple be will there system, highway the of capacity exceedsfreightthe of movement for need the If Portland, and Oregon. Angeles Los Portthe of between locations many from and to shipped freight for capacity transportation provide

Fresno

Kern Kings Madera

Tulare F e d e ra l & No n pr o f i t Sp e n d i n g

The Central Valley economy is characterized by high unemployment, low wages, and per capita incomes that are among the lowest in the country. Such weak economic conditions require a “safety net” to provide for the basic human needs of a growing number of residents in the Central Valley. The historic sources of this safety net have been government and nonprofit organizations. Both spend significantly less in the Central Valley than elsewhere, despite the immense economic challenges.

• California receives only 89% of the average Federal per capita spending.

• The Central Valley receives only 64% of the average Federal per capita spending.

• Nonprofit revenues in the Central Valley are only 56% of the national average.

34 35 F E D E R A L A N D NONPROFIT SPENDING F E D E R A L A N D NONPROFIT SPENDING Definition: CAPITA peR Federal spending in the Central Valley continues at significantly lower rates than the state and national averages. national and state the Valleythan Central rates the Federallower in significantly spending at continues consists of four major categories: major four of consists It region. particular a in person per Federalspending of amount annual the measures indicator This • • • • employees, and others. and employees, military,the of (USPS) members service postal wages and Salaries services. and goods of purchases Procurement education. local and highways, Medicaid, as Grants compensation. unemployment and stamps, Security,Social as such individuals food Medicare, disability,for payments direct other 2) and payments Direct to government agencies for programs such programs for agencies government to (contract payments) for Federalfor payments) (contract such as 1) retirementand 1) as such for Federal employees including Federalemployees for $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 SPENDING FEDERAL $0 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES IN FEDERAL THE U.S., CALIFORNIA, AND CENTRAL CENTRAL VALLEY 2008 Direct PaymentsDirect

$4,768

Sour $3,907

ce: U.S.CensusBureau,ConsolidatedFederal FundsReport,FiscalYear2008 $3,439

Grants $1,890

$2,237

36 $1,633 How are we doing? we are How Why is it important? it is Why Procurement of 89 percent of the national average. national the of percent 89 of Federalspending capita per California’s below is This 2002. in percent 69 from down average, national Valleythe Central of percentthe 64 in only capita is per Federalspending states. other in than California in capita per spent areFewer dollars nation. the and ValleyCalifornia Central of rest the in than the in capita per spent FewerareFederal dollars regions. to and recipients to economy.benefits economic substantial provides It U.S. the of part significant a is Federalspending $1,690 $1,416

$425 Salaries & Salaries Wages California $835 Central Valley U.S.

$599

$424 PER CAPITA REVENUE BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Central Valley nonprofit revenue is substantially lower than state and national averages.

Definition: How are we doing? This indicator measures the amount of money Nonprofit revenue per person in the Central Valley received by 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations in a is 56 percent of the average in the United States particular community or region. It is calculated and 62 percent of the state average. Revenue is by dividing the total revenues for nonprofit significantly higher in the Sacramento Metropolitan organizations in a region by the number of people Region than other parts of the Central Valley. This living there. may reflect a high number of statewide nonprofits in Sacramento that receive large grants and then While revenues are not an exact measure of the level disperse to other counties. Because of this potential of spending by nonprofits, they provide a reasonable bias, the Sacramento Metropolitan Region is shown estimate. both with Sacramento County included and excluded Why is it important? in the following graph. Along with government, nonprofit organizations are Nationally, 22 percent of the total revenues came a key part of the traditional “safety-net” providing from contributions, gifts, and grants, 67 percent support for low income people and serving a number came from program service revenues, and the of worthwhile purposes in communities. remaining 11 percent came from “other” sources.

NONPROFIT REVENUE PER CAPITA IN THE U.S., CALIFORNIA, AND CENTRAL VALLEY SUBREGIONS 2007 $6,000

$5,000 $5,121 $4,685

$4,000 $3,724

$3,000

$2,444 $2,293 $2,370 $2,000 $2,211

$1,000

$0

California United States

North Sacramento Valley North San JoaquinSouth Valley San Joaquin Valley

Sacramento Metropolitan Region Sacramento(excluding Metropolitan SacramentoSource: National County) Region Center for Charitable Statistics (and) U.S. Census Bureau (for population statistics)

36 37 F E D E R A L A N D NONPROFIT SPENDING FF E E D D E E R R A A L L A A N N D D NONPROFITNONPROFIT SPENDINGSPENDING current economic conditions. economic current of spite in success achieve FamilyMercedResourceto the like Council nonprofits support and effectiveness and stability sector’s nonprofit the rejuvenate Fresnoto the help RegionalFoundation,as will such sources, funding local traditional with Fund,along Innovation Social the like funding of sources new that is hope The recession.current the during even productive, and Foundationstable the kept have investment of forms long-term These trusts. and bequests donors, individual including sources, many from Foundation’scomes The funding organizations. service community and donors, leaders, community linking by connect, to goals similar with nonprofits for means Foundationa providesthe that suggests Clanton organizations. nine to $190,000 granted has Foundation’sthe YouthForexample, region. the cycle to funding important causes and citizens, local organizations, community benefit that funds of variety a and scholarships programs, in invest to donors enables that Fresnotrust the community RegionalFoundation,for a Administration of Director is Clanton Lori needs. local of perceptions own their reflects that program a craft to ability their limit may and stipulations grant’s the matches that program a build must nonprofits funding, public for qualify to order in that but nonprofits,resource for important an is funding federal that acknowledges Haines person. a of behalf on established are which trusts as such giving, planned and fundraising, Wayservices, United for funds, fees public sources,funds, private include: nonprofits for funding of sources common Some programs. and staff necessary on back requiressourcescutting three than fewer having Often, productive. and stable optimally be to order in sources funding different five least at have should nonprofits that FamilyMercedResourcesuggests the Council, of Director Haines, Dennis volunteers. of use efficient more the and volunteers on reliancegreaternonprofits’ encourage programs these Both nonprofits. medium and small to subgrants make then that nonprofits “mediator” to $200,000 least at of grants providing by nonprofits of advancement the Programsupports Building also Capacity Nonprofit the program, additional An 2009). (Scott, structure” volunteer nation’s the strengthen and volunteers support and manage, “recruit, to order in nonprofits and states both Volunteerto the grants authorizes gives Fund,also which ActGeneration America Serve The revenue. of sources additional find nonprofits that necessary it making thus funding, own their with amount grant’s the match to organizationFundrequire the Innovation However,Social the projects.from grants innovative and new create to or projects their of reach the broaden to organizations community to subgrants BRIEF ISSUE FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR NONPROFITS STRATEGIESFOR FUNDING 38 approved grant makers for the purpose of making of purpose the for makers grant approved to grants authorize will Fund,which Innovation Social the as such sources funding new introduce will Act This organizations. grant-making for also but AmeriCorps, likeprograms national-service for funding provide only not will that Act KennedyAmerica Serve M. Edward The passed Congress 2009, October In market. stock the in base their losing foundations or budget, state away,the dwindle in sourcesdecrease the by whether funding traditional their see organizationsnonprofit many led has recessioncurrent The sources. funding effective and new seeking fervently areNonprofits 38 data Sources & References

Population, Income, & Housing • University of New Mexico, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, bber.unm.edu • (PPIC) Public Policy Institute of California, California 2025: Planning for a Better Future, For more information: authors Louise Bedsworth, Tracy Gordon, Ellen Hanak, Hans Johnson, Jed Kolko, and Eric Larsen, July 2009, www.ppic.org Mead, Andrea. “Secretary Donovan Announces Nearly 100 Million Dollars in Recovery Act Grants to Improve Public Housing.” Homes and • (PPIC) Public Policy Institute of California, The Communities U.S. Department of Housing and Urban California Economy: Housing Market Update, by Development. September 3, 2009. Jed Kolko, August 2009, www.ppic.org Shaw, Michael. “$10M in Stimulus Funds for • Foreclosure Radar, www.foreclosureradar.com Riverview Apartments.” Sacramento Business Journal, Published September 9, 2009. • Paul, Katie. “Can California Get Rid of Its Tent Cities?” Newsweek, August 24, 2009, BUSINESS VITALITY www.newsweek.com/id/211383 • State of California, Employment Development • RealtyTrac, www.realtytrac.com Department, Labor Market Information Division, www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov • Simon and Hagerty, “Unemployment Vexes Foreclosure Plan,” Wall Street Journal, June 26, • State of California, Employment Development 2009 Department, www.edd.ca.gov

• State of California, Department of Finance, • US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor www.dof.ca.gov Statistics, www.bls.gov

• State of California, Department of • North American Industry Classification System Transportation (CalTrans), www.dot.ca.gov (NAICS), www.census.gov/cos/www/naics

District 3: Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, • California State Board of Equalization, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, www.boe.ca.gov Yolo, and Yuba counties.

• District 6: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, and Dean Runyan Associates, Inc., Tulare counties. www.deanrunyan.com/traveldata.html

District 10: Alpine, Amador, Mariposa, AGRICULTURE Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne counties. • Martin, William and Susan Hooper. Central Valley Farmland Trust. Ed. Tina Campillo, 2007. • State of California, Employment Development www.valleyfarmland.org Department, Labor Market Information Division, www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov • State Department of California, Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), www.cdfa.ca.gov • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development • State of California, Department of Food and and Research, State of the Cities Data Systems, Agriculture, California Agricultural Resource socds.huduser.org Directory, 2008-2009, www.cdfa.ca.gov

38 39 data Sources & References

• State of California, Employment Development • U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Department, Labor Market Information Funds Report, Fiscal Year 2008, Division, www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf

• University of California, Davis, Agricultural • National Center for Charitable Statistics, Issues Center, www.aic.ucdavis.edu www.nccs.urban.org

TRANSPORTATION, COMMERCE, & MOBILITY For more information:

• California Department of Transportation, Scott, Sandy. “President Obama Signs Landmark Division of Aeronautics, National Service Legislation” Corporation for www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut National and Community Service, April 21, 2009, www.nationalservice.gov • California Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Branch, Brown, Katrina. “More Details on the Social www.traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov Innovation Fund.” Philanthropy Front and Center- Washington D.C., August 3, 2009, • U.S. Census Bureau, American Community www.foundationcenter.org Survey, www.census.gov/acs “Nonprofit Capacity Building Program.” National FEDERAL & NONPROFIT SPENDING Council of Nonprofits, updated July 31, 2009, www.councilofnonprofits.org • U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Reports, www.census.gov/govs/cffr/

SPECIAL THANKS TO:

Lori Clanton - Director of Administration, Fresno Regional Foundation www.fresnoregfoundation.org

Dennis Haines - Operations Supervisor, Merced County Family Resource Council www.frc.merced.k12.ca.us/frcweb

William Martin - Executive Director, and Susan Hooper - Associate Director, Central Valley Farmland Trust, www.valleyfarmland.org

Leah Miller - Fund Development Officer, Sacramento Habitat for Humanity www.shfh.org

Karen Ross President, California Association of Winegrape Growers, www.cawg.org Member, State Board of Food and Agriculture, www.cdfa.ca.gov/State_Board Ag Vision: www.cdfa.ca.gov/agvision

40

T h e St a t e o f t h e Gr e a t Ce n t r a l Va l l e y I n d i c a t o r r e p o r t Se r i e s

Each topic area in the Great Valley Center’s indicator report series is updated every five years. The following reports are available for download free of charge at www.greatvalley.org/indicators.

The Environment Education and

A SSESSING THE REGION VIA INDICATORS Education and Youth Preparedness Youth Preparedness 2000 Edition 2005 Edition 2004 Edition Update scheduled for 2010 The State of the 2008 Edition Gr e a t central valley of California Update scheduled for 2013 Supporting the economic, social, and environmental well-being of California’s Great Central Valley

Great Valley Center 201 Needham Street, Modesto, CA Tel: 209/522-5103 Fax: 209/522-5116 www.greatvalley.org info@ greatvalley.org

Community Well-Being The Economy

2002 Edition 1999 Edition 2006 Edition 2005 Edition Update scheduled for 2011 2009 Edition Update scheduled for 2014

Public Health and Access to Care

2003 Edition 2007 Edition Update scheduled for 2012

The Great Valley Center 201 Needham Street Modesto, California 95354 www.greatvalley.org

40 Major support for this report was provided by Citi and Kaiser Permanente.

The Great Valley Center is a nonprofit organization working in partnership with the University of California, Merced to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of California’s Great Central Valley.

1415 L St. Ste 870 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 440-8800 • www.k20cetc.org

March 9, 2010

David Douglas, Manager

Central Valley Independent Network, LLC

1346 N. Floyd Avenue

Fresno, CA 93723-9519

Dear Mr. Douglas,

I am writing on behalf of the K-20 California Education Technology Collaborative (K20CETC) to express our organization’s strong support and engagement with the Central Valley Independent Network (CVIN) and their Central Valley Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure Plan to expand and improve broadband options in 18 counties within the California Central Valley area. Our two organizations recognize the synergies between our applications; one for Middle Mile infrastructure and the other to provide sustainable broadband programming that would be provided by this new robust network, and have been diligently working together to improve digital services within the 18 counties and beyond.

The K-20 California Education Technology Collaborative (K20CETC) consists of K-20 education leaders from across the state including the K-12 community, higher education, and informal educational partners such as libraries and community based organizations whose mission is to support highly effective, innovative, network-enabled teaching and learning opportunities throughout the state. Our organization recognizes the need to enhance broadband services to the 18 Central Valley counties that the project would reach and the bandwidth it would provide for our own proposed services via our California Connect project. This region consistently has one of the lowest levels of computer and Internet usage in the state with some of the highest levels of unemployment and lowest levels of income as well. The K20CETC believes the proposal by the Central Valley Independent Network to provide these 18 counties with ubiquitous next generation broadband connectivity will have long-term economic, educational, and healthcare impacts for the Central Valley residents it hopes to serve.

Supporting highly effective and innovative network-enabled teaching and learning opportunities for the California K-20 education community We are eager to work with the CVIN and its partners, CENIC, to bring this exciting vision of an expanded network infrastructure and the innovative educational programs it could support to these 18 counties and the residents of unserved and underserved communities in the area they serve and urge NTIA for their favorable consideration of this grant.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Couch, Director of Communications, Outreach & CollaborationK-20 California Education Technology Collaborative

1415 L St. Ste 870 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 440-8800 • www.k20cetc.org

Supporting highly effective and innovative network-enabled teaching and learning opportunities for the California K-20 education community

MARIPOSA COU TY TECH ICAL SERVICES

March 18, 2010

Mr. Jim Dolgonas President and CEO Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) 16700 Valley View Avenue, Suite 400 La Mirada, CA 90638

Dear Mr. Dolgonas:

I am writing on behalf of Mariposa County to express our strong support for CENIC and CVIN’s Central Valley Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure Plan to expand and improve broadband options in 18 counties within the California Central Valley.

If this plan is funded it is our intent to utilize this robust new infrastructure to help meet the goals set out in our mission. With this sustainable technology infrastructure the ability of Mariposa County to carry out its delivery of technical services will be enhanced.

If funded, the deployment of the Central Valley Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure Plan will be used by Mariposa County to:

• Exploit computer applications to improve government services • Connect remote Public Safety and Human Services offices • Provide consistent voice and data communication

If we are to meet the needs of the Mariposa County and other key anchor institutions in our county that are vital to California’s success, then we must invest now in our technology infrastructure ensuring we can provide the ubiquitous, seamless connectivity global markets and their supportive technologic tools demand.

We look forward to working with CENIC and CVIN to bring this capability to Mariposa County and the residents of unserved and underserved communities in the area we serve.

Sincerely,

Richard Peresan Technical Services Director Mariposa County

2 MARIPOSA PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT P.O. BOX 494 MARIPOSA, CA 95338 209-966-2515 [email protected]

March 22, 2010

Mr. Jim Dolgonas President and CEO Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) 16700 Valley View Avenue, Suite 400 La Mirada, CA 90638

Dear Mr. Dolgonas,

I am writing on behalf of the Mariposa Public Utility District (MPUD) to express our strong support for CENIC and CVIN’s Central Valley Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure Plan (CVNGBIP) to expand and improve broadband options in 18 counties within the California Central Valley.

While the CVNGBIP project will significantly benefit many areas of our community’s development, we believe that CENIC’S and CVIN’s Central Valley application would assist key public agencies and public service organizations within the counties to communicate with one another via radio communication systems and/or share information with one another accurately, on demand, in real time, when needed.

MPUD provides water, wastewater and fire protection services. We recognize the importance of developing and promoting an overall operable and interoperable communications strategy throughout California. The communities in the Central Valley of California face a multitude of challenges to interoperability due to the unique characteristics of the region, from rugged terrain to large tracts of forested land to open farmland. Additionally, many of the areas in the region this plan will service are sparsely populated. Revenues from local taxes are typically not sufficient to fund large fiber-based trunking networks.

Without a robust network infrastructure such as this project proposes to build, operability will remain a significant challenge, and the region will continue to suffer from its lack of a cohesive communications network that facilitates communication across organizational and geographic boundaries. Though radio communications in the valley region are easier to achieve due to relative flat terrain and the use of high mountaintops on either side of the valley for the placement of radio sites, radio communications in the coastal and Sierra mountain regions are difficult due to the very rugged mountainous terrain and its heavily forested areas.

We realize few initiatives have the ability to positively impact the delivery of improved services to our region as does increased broadband capabilities and services. The public entities in Mariposa County look forward to working with CVIN and its partner CENIC to finalize a detailed plan we can begin to work with when this proposal is funded.

Sincerely,

Mark Rowney General Manager

March 11, 2010

Mr. Jim Dolgonas President and CEO Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) 16700 Valley View Avenue, Suite 400 La Mirada, CA 90638

Dear Mr. Dolgonas:

I am writing on behalf of California State Library, the state entity who oversees libraries across the entire state, to express our strong support for CENIC’s Central Valley Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure Plan. It is our understanding that the proposed middle mile project will serve the counties of Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, King, Kern, Mariposa, Merced, Madera, Nevada, Placer, Tuolumne, Tulare, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sutter and Yuba.

In my role as the State Librarian, I have been actively seeking out ways to enhance broadband connectivity for libraries, especially those that currently have Internet access of less than T-1 speeds. Our intent, if this project is funded, is to utilize this robust new infrastructure to help meet the goals of our regional libraries in providing key community services including internet access and digital literacy outreach and training to the unserved and underserved communities within these 18 counties. We have managed to get a small amount of grant funding for planning efforts to bring better connectivity to the library system from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The planning process has helped clarify the significant challenges our libraries face with limited access and growing demands for connectivity from library users. It has also shed light on the many valuable services libraries can provide to their community via high speed networks.

One of the most common themes to emerge from the planning process is the potential role libraries can play in helping people look for and find jobs. This is especially true in the Central Valley. Facing a statewide unemployment rate above 12% and ranging as high as 25% in the regions served by some of the 18 counties that are part of CENIC’s middle mile application. There is no doubt that libraries can make a difference in the lives of the families in these regions through the provision of on-line job search and workforce preparation efforts.

Library – Courts Building P.O. Box 942837 Sacramento, CA 94237-0001

As you can tell, I believe that the libraries will receive significant benefit from CENIC’s Central Valley Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure Plan, and strongly urge you to approve the proposal. The State Library looks forward to working with CENIC and its partners to bring enhanced broadband connectivity to residents of unserved and underserved communities in California.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Stacey A. Aldrich State Librarian of California

Library – Courts Building P.O. Box 942837 Sacramento, CA 94237-0001

MMOUNTAIN-VALLEYOUNTAIN-VALLEY LLIBRARYIBRARY SSYSTEMYSTEM 55 E Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404-4728, VOICE: 707-544-0142 FAX: 707-544-8411

Jim Dolgonas President and CEO Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California 16700 Valley View Avenue, Suite 400 La Mirada, CA 90638

March 22, 2010

Dear. Mr. Dolgonas,

The Mountain Valley Library System strongly supports CENIC’s Central Valley Next Generation Broadband Infrastructure Plan. Mountain Valley Library System is a network of 18 libraries within a ten county area. Six of the counties will directly benefit from this exciting project: Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada, Placer and El Dorado.

This proposal, in partnership with selected private firms to build a 500+ mile multi-wavelength fiber optic broadband network and providing gigabit network connectivity to libraries as well as Internet access to local communities, will assist Mountain Valley libraries and local residents in moving forward to catch up with other areas of the state in providing ubiquitous broadband connectivity.

As our name implies, Mountain Valley libraries are located in geographic areas that are often hard to reach, rural and do not have broadband access. Residents rely on their local libraries to access the Internet and obtain information about employment, do research for homework, start a new business, or stay connected with family and friends. Where broadband access is available, it is expensive and with perennially limited funding, libraries are unable to afford the required capacity.

We realize few initiatives have the ability to positively impact the delivery of education. Building this robust network and the programs it will support once built, will have a significant impact on Mountain Valley libraries and communities, and will dramatically change the ways in which our communities interact.

At the March 19, 2010 Mountain Valley Council of Librarians meeting it was decided to our name to the list of supporters and look forward to working with CENIC and its partners to make this vision a reality.

Sincerely yours,

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

William H. Michael Chair, Mountain Valley Library System Council of Librarians El Doneuo y CoUNTv Ltnrarv*1

r;lr . lii

iill.i l.j;

March 18,2010

Mr. Jim Dolgonas President and CEO Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in Califomia (CENIC) 16740 Valley View Avenue, Suite 400 La Mirada, CA 90638

Dear Mr. Dolgonas

On behalf of the El Dorado County Library, I am writing this letter of support to express our strong support for CENIC's Central Valley Next Generation Br:oadband Infrastructure Plan. The opportunity to extend and improve broadband in El Dorado County and in 17 ather counties within the California Central Valley area will dramatically change our ability to serve the residents of the county. Some of our branch libraries are located in areas that have dial-up access only, and this proposal will allow us to concentrate on the "last mile" w:ireless network infrastructure necessary to serve our citizens.

Having recently returned from a conference that focused on new applications that will drastically increase future demand for increased broadband capacity, I recognize the significant impact that this proposal offers to our libraries to increase our fiber optics network infrastructure at a very nominal marginal cost. Our residents are already being left behind other areas in California in their ability to access necessary services.

Our libraries have seen a significant increase in the numbers ofjob seekers, local businesses, and students who rely on the library's computers and access for broadband access. This project will enable us to give them the connectivity to find employment, seek out educational opportunities and connect with the information they need. The fiber optics infrastructure for the middle mile, along with working with private firms to provide the last mile wireless network, will ensure a successful project that will benefit the lives of many of our residents.

The El Dorado County Library is pleased to support this Broadband Infrastructure Plan, and will commit to work with CENIC to make this exciting vision a reality in our area and throughout the Central Valley. Sincerely. , : l i:r I .''\'* i-!- ,:'r*... j, i ;il! Jeanne Amos Library Director

PIACERVILLE. CAMERONPARK. ELDORADOHILLS. GEORGETOWN. POLLOCKPINES. SOUTHLAKETAHOE

Post Office Box 1070, Pine Grove, CA 95665-1070

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson, SHPO Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation PO Box 942896 Sacramento Calif. 94296-0001

Dear Mr. Donaldson, Central Valley Independent Network (CVIN) along with the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) has submitted a middle mile application under the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP) in 18 counties in California (Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Mariposa, Madera, Merced, Nevada, Placer, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Yuba). The Federal Agencies offering these grants are required to comply under the NHPA and its implementing regulations. Should our project advance to grant approval, we will have to provide SHPO concurrence that the project does not impact any cultural or historic resources. Our proposal involves building, operating and maintaining fiber infrastructure that will traverse 600+ miles of rural Central Valley area and metropolitan rings in Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton. Each of the anchor institutions in this plan will be directly connected via fiber to this new middle mile infrastructure. This new middle mile infrastructure will provide “next generation connectivity” between rural interconnection points and CENIC’s existing statewide backbone network and to commercial nationwide network facilities. The new construction will be almost exclusively on previously disturbed county and state highway rights-of-way under permit as necessary. A map of the proposed project (new construction depicted in blue) is attached. Your review and response is greatly appreciated (pdf to email address or fax preferred). I am available at 559-846-5355 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David Douglas, President CVIN, LLC 1346 N Floyd Avenue Fresno, CA 93723 (559)846-5355 FAX (559)846-5313 [email protected]

SEBASTIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. ● CALAVERAS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY ● SIERRA TEL BROADBAND ● VOLCANO COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY

STAGELINE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ● VARNET, INC. ● CAL-ORE TELEPHONE CO. ● SISKIYOU TELEPHONE COMPANY

OMB Approval No. 4040-0008 BUDGET INFORMATION - Construction Programs Expiration Date 07/30/2010 NOTE: Certain Federal assistance programs require additional computations to arrive at the Federal share of project costs eligible for participation. If such is the case, you will be notified. a. Total Cost b. Costs Not Allowable c. Total Allowable Costs COST CLASSIFICATION for Participation (Columns a-b)

1 . Administrative and legal expenses 227,000.00 227,000.00$ $ $

2. Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. $ $ $ 0.00 0.00 3. Relocation expenses and payments $ $ $

4. Architectural and engineering fees $ 1,212,173.00$ $ 1,212,173.00

5. Other architectural and engineering fees $ $ $ 0.00 730,319.00 6. Project inspection fees $ 730,319.00 $ $ 0.00 7. Site work $ $ $ 0.00 8. Demolition and removal $ $ $

9. Construction $ 64,430,176.00$ $ 64,430,176.00

10. Equipment $ $ $ 0.00

11. Miscellaneous $ $ $ 0.00

12. SUBTOTAL (sum of lines 1- 11) $$66,599,668.00 0.00 $ 66,599,668.00

13. Contingencies $ $ $ 0.00

14. SUBTOTAL $ 66,599,668.00$ 0.00$ 66,599,668.00

15. Project (program) income $ $ $ 0.00

16. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (subtract #15 from #14) $ 66,599,668.00 $ 0.00 $ 66,599,668.00 FEDERAL FUNDING 17. Federal assistance requested, calculate as follows: (Consult Federal agency for Federal percentage share.) Enter eligible costs from line 16c Multiply X 70% $ 46,619,768.00 Enter the resulting Federal share.

Authorized for Local Reproduction Previous Edition Usable Standard Form 424C (Rev. 7-97) Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SF-424C

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 180 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0041), Washington, DC 20503.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.

This sheet is to be used for the following types of applications: (1) "New" (means a new [previously unfunded] assistance award); (2) "Continuation" (means funding in a succeeding budget period which stemmed from a prior agreement to fund); and (3) "Revised" (means any changes in the Federal Government’s financial obligations or contingent liability from an existing obligation). If there is no change in the award amount, there is no need to complete this form. Certain Federal agencies may require only an explanatory letter to effect minor (no cost) changes. If you have questions, please contact the Federal agency.

Column a. - If this is an application for a "New" project, enter Line 4 - Enter estimated basic engineering fees related to the total estimated cost of each of the items listed on lines 1 construction (this includes start-up services and preparation of through 16 (as applicable) under "COST CLASSIFICATION." project performance work plan).

If this application entails a change to an existing award, enter Line 5 - Enter estimated engineering costs, such as surveys, tests, the eligible amounts approved under the previous award for soil borings, etc. the items under "COST CLASSIFICATION." Line 6 - Enter estimated engineering inspection costs. Column b. - If this is an application for a "New" project, enter that portion of the cost of each item in Column a. which is not Line 7 - Enter estimated costs of site preparation and restoration allowable for Federal assistance. Contact the Federal agency which are not included in the basic construction contract. for assistance in determining the allowability of specific costs. Line 9 - Enter estimated cost of the construction contract. If this application entails a change to an existing award, enter the adjustment [+ or (-)] to the previously approved costs Line 10 - Enter estimated cost of office, shop, laboratory, safety (from column a.) reflected in this application. equipment, etc. to be used at the facility, if such costs are not included in the construction contract. Column. - This is the net of lines 1 through 16 in columns "a." and "b." Line 11 - Enter estimated miscellaneous costs.

Line 12 - Total of items 1 through 11.

Line 13 - Enter estimated contingency costs. (Consult the Federal agency for the percentage of the estimated construction cost to use.) Line 1 - Enter estimated amounts needed to cover administrative expenses. Do not include costs which are Line 14 - Enter the total of lines 12 and 13. related to the normal functions of government. Allowable legal costs are generally only those associated with the Line 15 - Enter estimated program income to be earned during the purchases of land which is allowable for Federal participation grant period, e.g., salvaged materials, etc. and certain services in support of construction of the project. Line 16 - Subtract line 15 from line 14. Line 2 - Enter estimated site and right(s)-of-way acquisition costs (this includes purchase, lease, and/or easements). Line 17 - This block is for the computation of the Federal share. Multiply the total allowable project costs from line 16, column "c." Line 3 - Enter estimated costs related to relocation advisory by the Federal percentage share (this may be up to 100 percent; assistance, replacement housing, relocation payments to consult Federal agency for Federal percentage share) and enter displaced persons and businesses, etc. the product on line 17.

SF-424C (Rev. 7-97) Back BTOP Comprehensive Community Infrastructure Detailed Budget

Please complete the General Budget Overview and Detailed Project Costs worksheets.

Please refer to the Comprehensive Community Infrastructure Grant Guidance for detailed instructions on the completing this upload.

Applicants are required to provide this upload as an Excel file, and not to convert it to a PDF prior to upload. Applicants should not alter the layout of the provided templates, except to insert additional line-items as needed in the Detailed Project Costs worksheet.

Important Update - 3/19/2010: This template has been updated with the addition of a new column in the Detailed Project Costs worksheet. The new column, titled "Cash Match Percentage" allows Applicants to specify the percentage of the line item cost the will be provided by the cash match. This column is only relevant if "Cash Match" is selected in column C (the "Match" column). If "Cash Match" is selected in column C, Applicants should specify a percentage in the Cash Match Percentage field--100% means that the line item will be paid for entirely from the cash match, 0% means that it is paid for entirely from the federal request, any other amount will allocate the costs between the federal request and the cash match.

Note that it is not required for Applicants to use this updated template. Applicants that submit their detailed budget using the previously available template will not be penalized. In the previous version of this template, selecting "Cash Match" in column C indicates that 100% of the line item cost will be paid from the cash match. General Budget Overview

Federal Funding Matching Funds Matching Funds Last Mile Middle Mile Allocated Budget Budget TOTAL Request (Cash) (In-Kind) Allocation Allocation TOTAL Network & Access Equipment (switching, routing, transport, access) $8,298,629 $3,556,555 $11,855,184 $2,669,280.00 $9,185,904.00 $11,855,184 Outside Plant (cables, conduits, ducts, poles, towers, repeaters, etc.) $28,682,729 $12,292,598 $40,975,328 $720,000.00 $40,255,327.66 $40,975,328 Buildings and Land – (new construction, improvements, renovations, lease) $8,083,496 $3,464,355 $11,547,851 $0.00 $11,547,851.00 $11,547,851 Customer Premise Equipment (modems, set- top boxes, inside wiring, etc.) $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Billing and Operational Support Systems (IT systems, software, etc.) $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Operating Equipment (vehicles, office equipment, other) $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Engineering/Professional Services (engineering design, project management, consulting, etc.) $1,518,644 $650,848 $2,169,492 $94,510.00 $2,074,982.03 $2,169,492 Testing (network elements, IT system elements, user devices, test generators, lab furnishings, servers/computers, etc.) $36,269 $15,544 $51,813 $0.00 $51,812.86 $51,813 Site Preparation $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL BROADBAND SYSTEM: $46,619,767 $19,979,900 $0 $66,599,668 $3,483,790 $63,115,878 $66,599,668 Cost Share Percentage: 70.00% 30.00% 0.00% DETAIL OF PROJECT COSTS

PLEASE COMPLETE THE TABLE BELOW FOR THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR COMPLETING THE PROJECT. EACH CATEGORY SHOULD BE BROKEN DOWN TO THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL FOR IDENTIFYING UNIT COST

Match (Cash/In- Cash Match No. of Last Mile Middle Mile SF-424C Budget Unit Cost Total Cost Allocated Total Support of Reasonableness kind) Percentage Units Allocation Allocation Category NETWORK & ACCESS EQUIPMENT 11,855,184 2,669,280 9,185,904 11,855,184 Switching 0 0 0 0 0 0 Routing CSU Locations Cash Match 30.00% 110,512 6 663,072 663,072 663,072 9. Construction Based on multiple vendor quotes, installation costs in line with industry averages and supported by expereince CC/COE/PS Locations Cash Match 30.00% 37,244 21 782,124 782,124 782,124 9. Construction Based on multiple vendor quotes, installation costs in line with industry averages and supported by expereince Library Locations Cash Match 30.00% 24,850 20 496,996 496,996 496,996 9. Construction Based on multiple vendor quotes, installation costs in line with industry averages and supported by expereince DWDM (cabinet installation) Cash Match 30.00% 64,567 50 3,228,352 3,228,352 3,228,352 9. Construction Based on multiple vendor quotes, installation costs in line with industry averages and supported by expereince DWDM (WilTel installation) Cash Match 30.00% 250,960 9 2,258,640 2,258,640 2,258,640 9. Construction Based on multiple vendor quotes, installation costs in line with industry averages and supported by expereince DWDM CENIC Backbone Cash Match 30.00% 219,590 8 1,756,720 1,756,720 1,756,720 9. Construction Based on multiple vendor quotes, installation costs in line with industry averages and supported by expereince Access Wireless Broadband Sites Cash Match 30.00% 222,440 12 2,669,280 2,669,280 2,669,280 9. Construction Based on multiple vendor quotes, installation costs in line with industry averages and supported by expereince 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 OUTSIDE PLANT 40,975,328 720,000 40,255,328 40,975,328 Cables Mainline Fiber Cash Match 30.00% 10,113 850 8,595,753 8,595,753 8,595,753 9. Construction Competitive rates based on experience and subcontractor quotes Secondary Fiber Cash Match 30.00% 7,286 36 262,310 262,310 262,310 9. Construction Competitive rates based on experience and subcontractor quotes 0 0 9. Construction

Conduits The terrain varies significantly on this project. This price includes 167 miles of boring at $15 per foot (industry standard is $17 per foot). Construction in the mountainous regions tends to be slow and require frequent work stopage to mitigate New Construction Cash Match 30.00% 40,595 720 29,228,743 29,228,743 29,228,743 9. Construction rock veins. In Leased Conduit Cash Match 30.00% 6,072 130 789,360 789,360 789,360 9. Construction Facility Entrance Cash Match 30.00% 38,310 36 1,379,162 1,379,162 1,379,162 9. Construction Ducts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Towers Wireless Broadband Cash Match 30.00% 60,000 12 720,000 720,000 720,000 9. Construction 0 0 0 0 Repeaters 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Match (Cash/In- Cash Match No. of Last Mile Middle Mile SF-424C Budget Unit Cost Total Cost Allocated Total Support of Reasonableness kind) Percentage Units Allocation Allocation Category BUILDINGS 11,547,851 0 11,547,851 11,547,851 New Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre-Fab Huts 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improvements & 0 0 Renovation 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 Cabinet Site Prep Cabinet Site Prep Cash Match 30.00% 230,957 50 11,547,851 11,547,851 11,547,851 9. Construction pricing for 84” X 32 enviornmental cabinets with installation. Equipment quoted by multiple vendors. 0 0 CUSTOMER PREMISE EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 Modems 0 0 0 0 0 0 Set Top Boxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inside Writing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 BILLING SUPPORT AND OPERATIONS SUPPORT SYSTEMS 0 0 0 0 Billing Support 0 0 Systems 0 0 0 0 Customer Care 0 0 Systems 0 0 0 0 Other Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 Match (Cash/In- Cash Match No. of Last Mile Middle Mile SF-424C Budget Unit Cost Total Cost Allocated Total Support of Reasonableness kind) Percentage Units Allocation Allocation Category OPERATING EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Equipment / 0 0 Furniture 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,169,492 94,510 2,074,982 2,169,492 Engineering Fiber Network Cash Match 30.00% 60 15,771 946,283 946,283 946,283 4. Architectural and engr. Design Wireless Broadband Design Cash Match 30.00% 60 1,386 83,160 83,160 83,160 4. Architectural and engr. 0 0 4. Architectural and engr. Project Project Management Cash Match 30.00% 60 3,046 182,730 182,730 182,730 4. Architectural and engr. Management 0 0 4. Architectural and engr. 0 0 4. Architectural and engr. Consulting Pre Application Expenses Cash Match 30.00% 227,000 1 227,000 11,350 215,650 227,000 1. Admin and Legal 0 0 0 0 Other OSP Inspection Cash Match 30.00% 60 12,172 730,319 730,319 730,319 6. Inspection fees 0 0 0 0 TESTING 51,813 0 51,813 51,813 Network Test and Acceptance Cash Match 30.00% 60 864 51,813 51,813 51,813 9. Construction Elements 0 0 0 0 IT System 0 0 Elements 0 0 0 0 User Devices 0 0 0 0 0 0 Test Generators 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lab 0 0 Furnishings 0 0 0 0 Servers/Computer 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 Match (Cash/In- Cash Match No. of Last Mile Middle Mile SF-424C Budget Unit Cost Total Cost Allocated Total Support of Reasonableness kind) Percentage Units Allocation Allocation Category OTHER UPFRONT COSTS 0 0 0 0 Site 0 0 Preparation 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT TOTAL: 66,599,668 3,483,790 63,115,878 66,599,668

SF-424C Cross-check Totals Matching Contribution Cross-check Totals 1. Admin and Legal $227,000 Federal Funding Request $46,619,767 2. Land, structures $0 Cash Match Contribution $19,979,900 3. Relocation expenses $0 In-kind Match Contribution $0 4. Architectural and engr. $1,212,173 5. Other archit. and engr. $0 6. Inspection fees $730,319 7. Site work $0 8. Demolition/removal $0 9. Construction $64,430,176 10. Equipment $0 11. Misc. $0

Approach to allocating Last Mile and Middle Mile costs: The Wireless broadband Network is the only Last Mile part of the project. All tower locations are on the existing middle mile route. Preapplication expenses were allocated at a rate of 5% to last mile as that is the portion of last mile to total project. BTOP Comprehensive Community Infrastructure Community Anchor Institution and Network Points of Interest Detail Template

Please complete the Anchor Institution Details worksheet by providing information on all Community Anchor Institutions that will be directly connected by the proposed network. Add rows as necessary. All Community Anchor Institutions should be given a type from the specified list. Community Anchor Institution is considered a minority-serving institution if it is a post-secondary educational institution with enrollment of minority students exceeding 50% of its total enrollment. "Project Role" column only requires a word or two, or a short phrase, not a detailed explanation. A detailed explanation of the role of project partners and community anchor institutions should be provided in the essay portions of the application.

Please complete the Points of Interest worksheet by providing information on all points of interconnection (passive, non-environmentally controlled points of interconnection, e.g. points, may be excluded), collocation facilities, central offices, head ends, and other centralized facilities, network access points to last mile service providers, Internet peering points, and towers. For each point of interest you may provide either a street address or geocoordinates or both. You must provide detail on what the point of interest is, whether it is already existing or would be created by the proposed project. Where more than one facility type applies, select the larger facility type. For example, if a central office houses a point of interconnection, select central office as the facility type, or if a cell site is located on a tower, select tower as the facility type. The Interconnection Available at the Facility field should be Yes if interconnection to the proposed network is available at that location, otherwise No. The brief description field is optional, but may be used to convey a better understanding of what the facility is. You may use the space provided at the bottom of the table to provide additional notes, if desired.

The data provided via this template will be subject to automated processing. Applicants are therefore required to provide this upload as an Excel file, and not to convert it to a PDF prior to upload. Additionally, applicants should not modify the format of this file. Please complete the Anchor Institution Details worksheet by providing information on all Community Anchor Institutions that will be directly connected by the proposed network. Add rows as necessary. All Community Anchor Institutions should be given a type from the specified list. A secondary educational institution with enrollment of minority students exceeding 50% of its total enrollment. The "Project Role" column only requires a word or two, or a short phrase, not a detailed explanation. A detailed explanation of the role of project partners and community anchor institutions should be

Please complete the Points of Interest worksheet by providing information on all points of environmentally controlled points of interconnection, e.g. splice points, may be excluded), collocation facilities, central offices, head ends, and other centralized facilities, network access points to last mile service providers, Internet peering points, and towers. For each point of interest you may provide either a street address or geocoordinates or both. You must provide detail on what the point of interest is, whether it is already existing or would be created by the proposed project. Where more than one facility type applies, select the larger facility type. For example, if a central office houses a point of interconnection, select central office as the facility type, or if a cell site is located on a tower, select tower as the facility type. The Interconnection Available at the Facility field should be Yes if interconnection to the proposed network is available at that location, otherwise No. The brief description field is optional, but may be used to convey a better understanding of what the facility is. You may use the space provided

The data provided via this template will be subject to automated processing. Applicants are therefore required to provide this upload as an Excel file, and not to convert it to a PDF prior to BTOP CCI Community Anchor Institutions Detail Template

Title: Easy Grants ID:

Minority Serving Institution Facility Name Organization Address Line 1 City State Zip Facility Type Project Role Type Amador County Office of County Offices of Education Education 217 Rex Ave. Jackson CA 95642-2020 School (k-12) N/A Customer Calaveras County Office of County Offices of Education Education 185 South Main St. Angels Camp CA 95221-0760 School (k-12) N/A Customer Colusa County Office of County Offices of Education Education 146 Seventh St. Colusa CA 95932-2432 School (k-12) N/A Customer El Dorado County Office of County Offices of Education Education 6767 Green Valley Rd. Placerville CA 95667-8984 School (k-12) N/A Customer Fresno County Office of County Offices of Education Education 1111 Van Ness Ave. Fresno CA 93721-2002 School (k-12) N/A Customer Kern County Office of County Offices of Education Education 1300 17th St. Bakersfield CA 93301-4533 School (k-12) N/A Customer Kings County Office of County Offices of Education Education 1144 West Lacey Blvd. Hanford CA 93230-4334 School (k-12) N/A Customer Madera County Office of County Offices of Education Education 28123 Avenue 14 Madera CA 93638-4905 School (k-12) N/A Customer Mariposa County Office of County Offices of Education Education 5082 Old Highway North Mariposa CA 95338 School (k-12) N/A Customer Merced County Office of County Offices of Education Education 632 West 13th St. Merced CA 95341-5908 School (k-12) N/A Customer Nevada County Office of County Offices of Education Education 112 Nevada City Hwy. Nevada City CA 95959-3117 School (k-12) N/A Customer Placer County Office of County Offices of Education Education 360 Nevada St. Auburn CA 95603-3720 School (k-12) N/A Customer San Joaquin County Office of County Offices of Education Education 2901 Arch-Airport Rd. Stockton CA 95206-3974 School (k-12) N/A Customer Stanislaus County Office of County Offices of Education Education 1100 H St. Modesto CA 95354-2338 School (k-12) N/A Customer Sutter County Office of County Offices of Education Education 970 Klamath Ln. Yuba City CA 95993-8961 School (k-12) N/A Customer Tulare County Office of County Offices of Education Education 2637 West Burrel Ave. Visalia CA 93278-5091 School (k-12) N/A Customer Tulare County - Earlimart COE County Offices of Education Hub 949 E. School Street Earlimart CA 93219 School (k-12) N/A Customer Tuolumne County Office of County Offices of Education Education 175 South Fairview Ln. Sonora CA 95370-4809 School (k-12) N/A Customer Yuba County Office of County Offices of Education Education 935 14th St. Marysville CA 95901-4149 School (k-12) N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Kern Community College Offices District 2100 Chester Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301-4099 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District State Center Community Offices College District 1525 East Weldon Avenue Fresno CA 93704 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Offices West Hills Lemoore 555 College Avenue Lemoore CA 93245 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Yuba Community College Offices District & College 2088 North Beale Road Marysville CA 95901-7699 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Offices Merced College 3600 M Street Merced CA 95348-2898 Community College N/A Customer Minority Serving Institution Facility Name Organization Address Line 1 City State Zip Facility Type Project Role Type Community Colleges & District Yosemite Community College Offices District 2201 Blue Gum Modeso CA 95358 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Offices Porterville College 100 East College Avenue Porterville CA 93257-5901 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Offices Reedley College 995 N. Reed Avenue Reedley CA 93654-2099 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Offices San Joaquin Delta College 5151 Pacific Avenue Stockton CA 95207 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Offices College of the Sequoias 915 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia CA 93277 Community College N/A Customer Community Colleges & District Offices Columbia College 11600 Columbia College Dr. Sonora CA 95370-8518 Community College N/A Customer CCC Behind District Offices Bakersfield College 1801 Panorama Drive Bakersfield CA 93305-1299 Community College N/A Customer CCC Behind District Offices Fresno City College 1101 E. University Avenue Fresno CA 93741-0001 Community College N/A Customer CCC Behind District Offices Modesto Junior College 435 College Avenue Modesto CA 95350-5800 Community College N/A Customer Other Institution of Higher Universities CSU Stanislaus One University Circle Turlock CA 95382 Education N/A Customer Other Institution of Higher Universities CSU Bakersfield 9001 Stockdale Hwy. Bakersfield CA 93311-1022 Education N/A Customer Other Institution of Higher Universities CSU Fresno 5241 N. Maple Ave. Fresno CA 93740 Education N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Amador County Library 530 Sutter St. Jackson CA 95642 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Calaveras County Library 891 Mountain Ranch Rd San Andreas CA 95249 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Colusa County Free Library 738 Market Street Colusa CA 95932 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries El Dorado County Library 345 Fair Lane Placerville CA 95667 Library N/A Customer

County & Main Libraries Fresno County Public Library 2420 Mariposa Street Fresno CA 93721 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Kern County Library 701 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Kings County Library 401 N. Douty Street Hanford CA 93230 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Madera County Library 121 North G Street Madera CA 93637 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Mariposa County Library 4978 10th Street Mariposa CA 95338 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Merced County Library 2100 O St. Merced CA 95340 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Nevada County Library 980 Helling Way Nevada CA 95959 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Placer County Library 350 Nevada Street Auburn CA 95603 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Porterville Public Library 41 W. Thurman Porterville CA 93257 Library N/A Customer

County & Main Libraries Stanislaus County Free Library 1500 "I" Street Modesto CA 95354 Library N/A Customer Stockton-San Joaquin Cty County & Main Libraries Public Library 605 N. El Dorado St Stockton CA 95202 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Sutter County Library 750 Forbes Avenue Yuba City CA 95993 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Tulare County Free Library 200 West Oak Avenue Visalia CA 93291-4931 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Tulare Public Library 113 North F Street Tulare CA 93274-3857 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Tuolumne County Library 480 Greenley Road Sonora CA 95370 Library N/A Customer County & Main Libraries Yuba County Library 303 Second Street Marysville CA 95901 Library N/A Customer Public Safety Fresno Op Area 2220 Tulare Street Fresno CA 93721 Public Safety Entity N/A Customer Public Safety Kern Op Area 2601 Panorama Dr. Bakersfield CA 93306 Public Safety Entity N/A Customer Public Safety Kings Op Area 1400 West Lacey Blvd. Hanford CA 93230 Public Safety Entity N/A Customer Public Safety Madera Op Area 14143 Road 28 Madera CA 93638 Public Safety Entity N/A Customer Public Safety Merced Op Area 2222 M Street Merced CA 95340 Public Safety Entity N/A Customer Public Safety Tulare Op Area 11871 Avenue 272 Visalia CA 93277 Public Safety Entity N/A Customer Public Safety Mariposa Op Area 2100 Bullion Street Mariposa CA 95338 Public Safety Entity N/A Customer Minority Serving Institution Facility Name Organization Address Line 1 City State Zip Facility Type Project Role Type BTOP CCI Network Points of Interest Detail Template

Title: Easy Grants ID:

Interconnection Facility Type Address Line 1 City State Zip Longitude Latitude Available at this Status in Proposed Network Location

Tower (cell site) CA W 119.159 N 35.502 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.346 N 35.762 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.270 N 35.885 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.5102 N 36.1298 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.3470 N 36.2088 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.0528 N 36.0807 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.1370 N 36.3080 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.4175 N 36.3489 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.5649 N 36.3427 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.8211 N 36.2918 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.2864 N 36.5552 No New for Proposed Network Tower (cell site) CA W 119.4557 N 36.6067 No New for Proposed Network Other Centralized Facility 1005 B Street Sacramento CA 95811-0303 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 13368 Alta Mesa Road Galt CA 95632 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 3105 E. Carpenter Road Stockton CA 95205 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 1224 13th Street Modesto CA 95354 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 6850-A North Santa Fe Drive Winton CA 95388 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 24200 Santa Fe Drive Madera CA 93636 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 364 W. Fallbrook, Ste. 103 Fresno CA 93711-5858 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 5613 Avenue 400 Dinuba CA 93618 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 630 N. J Street Tulare CA 93274 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 11094 Browning Road Delano CA 93215 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 2020 P Street Bakersfield CA 93301 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 210 10th Street Colusa CA 95932 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 1075 Triangle Court West Sacramento CA 95691 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 2079 East Miner Ave. Stockton CA 95205 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 2236 N. Franklin Road Merced CA 95348 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 305 W. Napa Avenue Fresno CA 93706 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 11090 Avenue 10 1/2 Hanford CA 93230 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 28931 Highway 155 McFarland CA 93280 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Other Centralized Facility 7731 Dimiller Drive Bakersfield CA 93307 No Existing - Leased from Third Party Point of Interconnection 217 Rex Ave. Jackson CA 95642-2020 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 185 South Main St. Angels Camp CA 95221-0760 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 146 Seventh St. Colusa CA 95932-2432 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 6767 Green Valley Rd. Placerville CA 95667-8984 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1111 Van Ness Ave. Fresno CA 93721-2002 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1300 17th St. Bakersfield CA 93301-4533 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1144 West Lacey Blvd. Hanford CA 93230-4334 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 28123 Avenue 14 Madera CA 93638-4905 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 5082 Old Highway North Mariposa CA 95338 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 632 West 13th St. Merced CA 95341-5908 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 112 Nevada City Hwy. Nevada City CA 95959-3117 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 360 Nevada St. Auburn CA 95603-3720 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2901 Arch-Airport Rd. Stockton CA 95206-3974 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1100 H St. Modesto CA 95354-2338 Yes New for Proposed Network Interconnection Facility Type Address Line 1 City State Zip Longitude Latitude Available at this Status in Proposed Network Location

Point of Interconnection 970 Klamath Ln. Yuba City CA 95993-8961 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2637 West Burrel Ave. Visalia CA 93278-5091 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 949 E. School Street Earlimart CA 93219 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 175 South Fairview Ln. Sonora CA 95370-4809 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 935 14th St. Marysville CA 95901-4149 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2100 Chester Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301-4099 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1525 East Weldon Avenue Fresno CA 93704 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 555 College Avenue Lemoore CA 93245 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2088 North Beale Road Marysville CA 95901-7699 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 3600 M Street Merced CA 95348-2898 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2201 Blue Gum Modeso CA 95358 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 100 East College Avenue Porterville CA 93257-5901 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 995 N. Reed Avenue Reedley CA 93654-2099 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 5151 Pacific Avenue Stockton CA 95207 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 915 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia CA 93277 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 11600 Columbia College Dr. Sonora CA 95370-8518 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1801 Panorama Drive Bakersfield CA 93305-1299 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1101 E. University Avenue Fresno CA 93741-0001 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 435 College Avenue Modesto CA 95350-5800 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection One University Circle Turlock CA 95382 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 9001 Stockdale Hwy. Bakersfield CA 93311-1022 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 5241 N. Maple Ave. Fresno CA 93740 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 530 Sutter St. Jackson CA 95642 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 891 Mountain Ranch Rd San Andreas CA 95249 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 738 Market Street Colusa CA 95932 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 345 Fair Lane Placerville CA 95667 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2420 Mariposa Street Fresno CA 93721 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 701 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield CA 93301 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 401 N. Douty Street Hanford CA 93230 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 121 North G Street Madera CA 93637 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 4978 10th Street Mariposa CA 95338 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2100 O St. Merced CA 95340 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 980 Helling Way Nevada CA 95959 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 350 Nevada Street Auburn CA 95603 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 41 W. Thurman Porterville CA 93257 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1500 "I" Street Modesto CA 95354 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 605 N. El Dorado St Stockton CA 95202 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 750 Forbes Avenue Yuba City CA 95993 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 200 West Oak Avenue Visalia CA 93291-4931 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 113 North F Street Tulare CA 93274-3857 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 480 Greenley Road Sonora CA 95370 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 303 Second Street Marysville CA 95901 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2100 Bullion Street Mariposa CA 95338 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2220 Tulare Street Fresno CA 93721 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2601 Panorama Dr. Bakersfield CA 93306 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 1400 West Lacey Blvd. Hanford CA 93230 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 14143 Road 28 Madera CA 93638 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 2222 M Street Merced CA 95340 Yes New for Proposed Network Point of Interconnection 11871 Avenue 272 Visalia CA 93277 Yes New for Proposed Network Interconnection Facility Type Address Line 1 City State Zip Longitude Latitude Available at this Status in Proposed Network Location OMBApproval No. 404&0009 ASSURANCES- CONSTRUCTIONPROGRAMS ExpirationDate 07/30/201 0 Publicreporting burden for this collection of informalionis eetimatedto average15 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instruc{ions,searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the colleclion of information.Send comments regading the burden estimate or anyother aspect of thiscollection of information,including suggestions for reducingthis burden, to theOffce of Managementand Budget, Papenrork Reduciion Project (034E.0042), Washington, DC 20503. PLEASEDO NOTRETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICEOF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET.SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.

NOTE:Certain of theseassurances may not be applicableto yourprojec't or program.lf youhave questions, please contact the AwardingAgency. Further, certain Federal aEsistance awarding agencies may require applicants to certifyto additional assurances.lf such is thecase, you will be notified. As theduly authorized representative of the applicant, I certify that the applicant: 1. Hasthe legal authority to applyfor Federalassistane, 8. \Mllcomply with the IntergovemmentalPersonnel Act andthe institutional, managerial and fnancial capability of 1970(42 U.S.C. $547284763) relating to presoibed (includingfunds sufficient to paythe non-Federal share standardsfor meritsystems for programs of projectcosts) to ensureproper planning, fundedunder one of the '19statutes or regulationsspecified managementand completion of theprojecl described in in AppendixA of OPM'sStandards for a MeritSystem of thisapplication. PersonnelAdministration(5C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).

2. Willgive the awarding agency, the Comptroller General 9. \Mllcomply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning of the UnitedStates and, if appropriate,the State, PrcventionAcl(42 U.S.C. $54801 et seq.)which theright to examineall records,books, papers, or prohibitsthe u6e of lead-basedpaint in constructionor documentsrelated to theassistance: and will establish rehabilitationof residence structures. a properaccounting system in accordanoewith generallyaccepted accounting standards or agency 10. Willcomply with all Federalstatutes relating to non- direclives. discrimination.These include but are not limited to: (a) TitleVl of theCivil Rights Ac{ of 1964(P.L. 88-352) Vvillnot dispose of, modifythe use of, or changethe whichprohibits discrimination on the basis of race, termsof thereal property title, or otherinterest in the coloror nationalorigin; (b) Title lX of the Educaiion siteand facilities without permission and instructions Amendmentsof 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 5S1681 fromthe awarding agency. Wll recordthe Federal 1683,and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination awadingagency direc'tives and will include a covenant on thebasis of sex;(c) Section504 of the in thetifle of realproperty acquired in wholeor in part RehabilitationAct of 1973,as amended (29 U.S.C. withFederal assistance funds to assurcnon- $794),which prohibits discrimination on the basis of discriminationduring the useful life of theprojecl. handicaps;(d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975,as amended(42 U.S.C. S56101€107), which prohibits discriminationon the basisof age;(e) the Drug Abuse \Alillcomply with requirements the of theassistanoe Offie andTreatment Act ol 1972(P.L. 92-255), as withregard review awardingagency to thedrafting, and amended,relating to nondiscriminationonthe basis of approval constructionplans of andspecifications. drugabuse; (f) the Comprehensive AlcoholAbuse and AlcoholismPrevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Willprovide and maintain competent and adequate Actof 1970(P,1. 91€16), as amended,relating to engineeringsupervision at theconstruction site to nondiscriminationonthe basis of alcoholabuge or ensurethat the complete work conforms with the afcohofism;(g) SS523 and 527 of the PublicHealth approvedplans and specifications and will fumish ServiceAc{ of 1912(42 U.S.C. $$290 dd-3 and 290 ee progressreport$ and such other information as maybe 3),as amended,relating io confidentialityof alcohol requiredby theassistance awarding agency or Siate. anddrug abuse patient records; (h) Title Vlll of the CivilRightsAcl of 1968(42 U.S.C. $$3601 etseq.), as amended,relating to nondiscriminationin lhe sale, Willinitiate and complete the work within the applicable rentalor financing of housing;(i) any other timeframe after receipt of approvalof theawarding agency. nondiscriminationprovisions in thespecific statute(s) underwhichapplication for Federalassistance is being ., Wll establishsafeguards to prohibitemployees from made;and, fi) the requirementsof any other usingtheir positions for a purposethat constitutes or nondiscriminationstatute(s) which may apply to the presentsthe appearance of personalor organizational application. conflic-tof interest,or personalgain.

PreviousEdition Usable Authorizedfor LocalReproduction StandardForm 424D (Rev. 7-97) Prcscribedby OMBCircular A-102 11 Wll comply,or has alreadycomplied, with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(P.1. 91- requirementsof Titles ll and lll of the UniformRelocation 190)and ExecutiveOrder {EO) 11514; (b) notification Assistanceand Real PropertyAcquisition Policies Act of of violatingfacilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) 1970(P.1. 91-646) which provide for fairand equitable protectionof wetlandspursuant to EO 11990;(d) treatmentof personsdisplaced or whose propertyis evaluationof flood hazardsin floodplainsin accordance acquiredas a resultof Federaland federally-assisted with EO 11988;(e) assuranceof projectconsistency programs.These requirementsapply to all interestsin real with the approvedState managementprogram propertyacquired br projectpurposes regardless of developedunder the CoastalZone ManagementAct of Federalparticipation in purchases. 1972(16 U.S.C.SS1451 et seq.);(f) conformityof Federalactions to State (CleanAir) implementation 12. Will complywith the provisionsof the HatchAct (5 U.$.C. Plansunder Section 176(c) of the CleanAir Act of SS1501-1508and7324-7328) which limit the political 1955,as amended(42 U.S.C.SS7401 et seq.);(g) activitiesof employeeswhose principal employment protectionof undergroundsour@s of drinkingwater activitiesare fundedin whole or in part with Federalfunds. underthe SafeDrinking Water Act of 1974,as amended(P.1. 93-523); and, (h) protectionof 13. Will comply,as applicable,with the provisionsof the Davis- endangeredspecies under the EndangeredSpecies BaconAct (40 U.S.C.$$276a lo 276a-7),the CopelandAc't Act of 1973,as amended(P.L. 93-205). (40 U.S.C.$276c and 18 U.S.C.$874), and the Contracl Work Hoursand SafetyStandards Act (40 U.S.C.SS327- 16. Will complywith the Wild and ScenicRivers Act of 333) regardinglabor standards for federally-aesisted 1968(16 U.S.C.SS1271 et seq.)related to protecting construclion$u bagreements. componentsor potentialcomponents of the national wild and scenicrivers system. 14. Wll complywith flood insurancepurchase requirements of Section102(a) of the FloodDisaster Protection Ad of 1973 17. Wll assistthe awardingagency in assuringcompliance (P,L.93-234) which requires recipients in a specialflood with Section106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation hazardarea to participatein the programand to purchase Actof 1966,as amended(16 U.S.C. 5470), EO 11593 flood insuranceif the total cost of insurableconstruction and (identificationand proteciionof historicproperties), and acquisitionis $10,000or more. the Archaeologicaland HistoricPreservation Act of 1974(16 U.S.C.$$469a-1 et seq). 15. Wll complywith environmental standards which may be prescribedpurcuant to the following:(a) institutionof 18. Wll causeto be performedthe requircdfinancial and environmentalquality control measures under the complianceaudits in accordancewith the SingleAudit Ac{Amendments of 1996and OMBCircular No. A-1 33, "Auditsof States,Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations."

19. Wll complywith all applicablerequirements of all other Federallaws, executive orders, regulations, and policies governingthis program.

srcNxtuRffi';Y,fffwi;f,:> ,TITLE fneriBaMT -APPLI CANT ORGAN IZATIbN *DATESUBMITTED U .i CVtN,t-tL blL{ llo o.oo

SF424D (Rev.7-97)Back