City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Visalia City Council work session meeting. We're gonna go ahead and get started. We wanna thank all those who are here today. We will start our meeting today by offering public comments. Citizens are now invited to comment on the issues within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The council ask that you keep your comments concise and positive. Creative criticism presented with appropriate courtesy is welcome. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time has expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence. Anyone wishing to speak to the council at this time, please come forward.

Jim Rees Visalia. On the tenth or 10/21/2024, the council approved in a consent calendar item the purchase of or the subscription to I'm not really sure how that works to the FLAC license plate reader system. And the paperwork, the agenda packet at that said there were 13 I'm sorry, let me double check that they were going to get 15 cameras and that a discount brought it up to 22. Currently, the web page for that system is showing 13 cameras. And on Friday, the Oxnard Police Department and the Ventura Police Department released media releases announcing that they were suspending their use of the system due to a security breach that occurred last year, where a third party vendor changed a setting and allowed nationwide access to California's systems.

And California law does not allow any agencies outside of California, including the federal government, to access the data that individual agencies collect. That's supposedly been corrected now. I'm wondering if the Visalia Police Department was aware of that breach, if anybody or if any data from Visalia PD's access was accessed by outside agencies unauthorized to receive it. They continuing well, they're continuing to use it. Are they going to audit it?

Have they audit it? Have they received assurances that the breach has been fixed and cannot happen again? Can the police department see who accesses our data, local data? I was looking at the web page before I came down today, and a lot of interesting information there. Three hundred and twelve thousand six and thirty vehicles were identified in the last thirty days on Visalia's system.

That's a lot of people. Their hot list hits in the last thirty days were eleven oh eight. And I was wondering if that's stolen cars, missing persons, what that is. The agreement listed 15 cameras, 22 because they were going do a discount. The page shows 13 operational cameras. So do we have more in the pipeline? Did they just decide to stop at thirteen? If they did, did we get a break on the cost? I'm thinking PD needs to let us know what's going on with the system. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you. If you wouldn't mind meeting with, I think, Dan Ford over there, giving him your contact information so he can be able to assist you with those. Appreciate it. Anybody else wishing to speak at this time?

Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public comment, and we'll go ahead and start our work session. We'll start off with item number one, which is new employee introductions.

Good evening, counsel. My name is Britney Ontiveros. I'm a financial analyst in our finance department. The finance department is going to be introducing two new employees. So I'm gonna start with Cheyenne Breann. She is our new accounting assistant in our accounts receivable department. She will be responsible for monthly billings, such as airport hangers, citations, towing, etcetera. Cheyenne has grown up in the Central Valley. She currently still resides in Porterville. When she is not working, she definitely loves to travel. She loves to be outdoors. She likes to spend time with her friends and family. In addition, we have taken Cheyenne from Tulare County. She spent seven years in their finance department in their claims division.

Welcome.

Good afternoon. I'm Elizabeth Forrester, management analyst with the purchasing division. I'd like to introduce Sandy Kinzel. She is our new purchasing specialist. Sandy also comes to us from the County Of Tulare, where she held various purchasing roles over a ten year span. Those roles included contract manager, procurement technician, and procurement specialist. Sandy lives in Dinuba with her husband and seven rescue pups. In her spare time, she enjoys spending time with her grown children and grandsons. Photography and traveling. Please help me welcome both Sandy and Cheyenne.

You're very welcome.

So if either one of you would like to say anything, you're more than welcome. If not, come on up, and we would like to shake your hands and welcome you. Alright, well thank you. Next, we're gonna go on to item number two, which is a state legislation presentation.

Thank you, mayor council. Devin Jones, I'm your economic development manager. And this evening, we have Michelle Rubukawa and Jeff Neal from our state lobbying firm, Nielsen Merxmer. I never say all of them. But Nielsen Merxmer they've been our lobbyist firm for quite many years. They're going to do their kind of annual recap of the last legislative session and then kind of give us a little crystal ball into the next session. They're here to answer all your questions about everything state legislation. With that, I'll let Michelle kick off.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Devin. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and council members. We're excited to be here with you again today. We usually come on an annual basis. I do wanna start off by saying you'll see that we're missing our colleague, John Moffett. He really wanted to be here today but had a personal conflict of interest, could not join us, but he's still very much involved in the advocacy and strategy planning for the city and its priorities in Sacramento, California. So Jeff and I hopefully will be, know, we'll we'll live up to his big shoes. Okay so really quickly as we do every year this is who your advocacy team is Nielsen Merxamer.

We have John Moffett who's a partner at Nielsen Merxamer, myself as well also a partner, and then my colleague here Jeff Neal who is our senior legislative advocate. The three of us along with our colleague Andrew Langley, who manages all of our, bill tracking and letter responses, make up your legislative advocacy team. Quickly, just by the numbers so you could take a look at last year what we worked on. We had about 2,400, a little under 2,400 bills introduced in the last legislative session. 1,500 of those were assembly bills, 864 were senate bills, nine seventeen of those bills actually made it to the governor's desk for either signature or veto.

He did end up signing seven ninety four of those and 123 bills were vetoed. That's a 13% veto rate. Those numbers are pretty static every year. Maybe the veto rate goes up or down one or 2%, but that's a normal legislative session. Getting into some of the bills that we did engage on last year.

Two years ago, AB 98 was a hot topic bill for city of Visalia and other similarly situated cities that had warehouse distribution locations. Last year, we had cleanup bills to that. So there was significant well, I wouldn't say significant there was some tweaking of the laws that hopefully helped some localities. Some of the big things were delaying. Every city in the state of California is going to have to, implement new truck routes, and there were some shorter deadlines in the 2024 bill and the 2025 bill for some smaller cities.

Those, requirements were pushed out to 2030. For you guys, I think it's 2028. So that's the timeline that we're looking at for city of Visalia. And so even though there is still significant requirements on cities like Visalia when you are going to be building some of these new warehouses. I think that hopefully there's a little bit of breathing room there in the cleanup bill. The city was neutral on this legislation just because it didn't really either hurt or help us. And so we were just monitoring for information purposes.

Another bill that got a fair amount of attention from cities around the state, including by Zayo, was SB seven zero seven by Senator de D'Azzo. This bill made a host of changes to Brown Act meetings such as this one. Many of them will put in new requirements for access to the public. It requires most city councils and boards of supervisors to stream their meetings live requires telephonic or audio visual two way communication so that people can make comments remotely. It does also make it a little bit easier for any advisory committees you have to meet fully remotely instead of some of the current requirements that are a little more stringent.

And then it also put some new requirements on city councils and county boards of supervisors to make reasonable efforts to assist people who would like to access translations or translate the meetings into other languages for members of the public. So those are all aspects that most cities around the state are figuring out how to implement over the next few months. So I know that Calcities has had a couple of webinars on the issue, and hopefully we'll be doing some more to do some information sharing about the best way, the easiest ways, the safest ways to be implementing those provisions. We have seen a bill introduced this year that doesn't have a lot of content in it yet, but is by Senator D'Arrazzo. It's on a pretty minor aspect of the Brown Act for now, but we suspect that that will be vehicle for her to carry any cleanup that's necessary or hopefully smaller changes.

We'll say the the full bill at the end of last year had a lot of different provisions in it. I would say that both from the the local government community and the advocates, the the transparency advocates, say nobody was entirely happy with all the parts in final SB seven zero seven, so there's still people asking for fairly big changes in both directions. So we'll see how some of those discussions pan out and if it makes it into her bill this year.

Next, we have a list of some Cal City sponsored bills. As you know, Cal City is the statewide association for all California cities, and they do have a very full legislative advocacy unit there. The first bill on this list is SB three forty six by senator D'Arrazo. Actually, a positive outcome for cities here now that you'll be able to track some of these short term, rentals and collect on the transient occupancy tax. A reminder for everybody, and I think, Devin and others already know this, but cities do have to proactively request this information before it can be given to you.

But once you have it, I think it's useful information. SB four fifty four by Senator McNerney also, was meant to combat PFAS contaminated, water supply by providing some financial assistance to cities in order to help remediate some of those, contaminated water supplies. Unfortunately, oh, it was signed. Sorry, I'm going to the next one. So that's another positive, was signed by the governor.

AB four ninety two by, Assembly Member Valencia would have required the, Department of Health Care Services to send written notice to a city or county where a new alcohol or drug recovery treatment facility is licensed at the time of licensing. I think that that is, a positive for you. It will be able to give law enforcement, or will will provide more local oversight and transparency on the licensing of these facilities. AB four seventy six by Assembly Member Gonzales, we have here a creation of a statewide database that will give law enforcement increased visibility into organized metal theft rings.

A couple more of the Cal City sponsored bills. These two were both vetoed by the governor. The first one is AB six twenty by Assembly Member Jackson from the Inland Empire. It would have allowed local agencies to, when they're making long term rentals of medium and heavy duty trucks that fit the advanced clean fleets requirements, count them toward the fleet retirement. This one that has been tried a couple of years in a row has not been able to get the governor's signature on it yet.

Maybe it'll come up again. A lot of these bills do seem to come up after year when they don't get through. The other one was one having to do with the housing element and RENO requirements would have given cities basically more time to start working with HCD in the state to get their housing elements in place by the deadline. Those deadlines have gotten really short over the years as it's given the state a heavier hand in being able to deny or otherwise regulating the housing elements. This would have let cities start basically six months earlier, unfortunately, like I said, vetoed by the governor.

But this is not the end to the housing legislation. There will be a lot more bills in the space next year as we'll talk about in a couple of slides.

Moving on to some of the bills that the City Of Visalia took position on, the first one we have here is AB two sixty two by Assembly Member Kalosa, the California Individual Assistance Act. This bill did fail in appropriations mostly due to the cost associated with implementation. We're in a difficult budget year this year as we were last year. And so when a bill costs the state too much money and it hasn't been incorporated into the budget, this is the fate that usually, you know, bills they end up failing in the Appropriations Committee. But the bill would have provided direct state financial aid for local governments that do not meet the minimum damage threshold for FEMA assistance.

So I think a good idea there with all of the local disasters that our state has been facing lately, was good policy, just too costly at the time. The next bill, a b three three nine by assembly member Ortega. This is going to be something that you guys are gonna have to implement, new notice requirements that, for cities that intend to contract out services. So one of the examples is, right, you're gonna have to be you have to give forty five day notice to some of these organized labor unions before you put out an RFP or an RFQ. There's some meet and confer requirements there as well.

And if you want, we can help with just a quick little FAQ on there. I know Calcities has also had, I believe, some information out on these bills. AB six twenty by Assembly Member Jackson having to do with medium and heavy duty zero emission vehicle rentals. We already talked about this bill in the Calcities bill list, but was vetoed mostly because it was sponsored by the rental car companies. It was sponsored by Enterprise Rental Car and I think the governor just felt like they needed to go through the car process and wasn't really looking to give them a win. So that's one of the reasons why. AB650, actually Jeff just mentioned that in his comments and so we'll move on to the next.

AB735 was the other version of the AB98 eight cleanup. The city had a, in the end, a neutral position on it. That bill didn't pass because the other AB 98 bill cleanup that we already talked about did pass. They just had two. They had an assembly version and a senate version. AB seven thirty six is the $10,000,000,000 housing bond. This is the one authored by assembly member Wickes. They're sort of a companion slash competing measure in the senate sponsored authored by senator Cabaldon. They're almost exactly the same. I think we might end up seeing some differences between the two and then a little competition to see which one passes.

But it's very likely that one of the two housing bonds in the legislature will make it onto the November ballot this year. AB nine eleven, no coincidence there, is about emergency telecom. It was again part of the advanced clean fleets rules. It's really a good job by Korea staff to get that bill introduced at exactly the right time to get that 911 number for emergency vehicle communications. The city did support the bill.

It would have given a little bit of relief from those advanced clean fleet mandates. The bill has not passed at this point. It's not technically dead, but it is unlikely to move forward where it is right now. And then s v 79 was a bill that the city originally had an opposition position on it because it applied statewide. It would have given the city significantly less influence over development near number of different types of transit stops, development up to 75 feet high and various other changes.

Ended up right at the end of session getting restricted to only applying in essentially big urban counties with technically, it's counted by the number of rail stops in the county, but the intent is that it really just applies in the big urban counties, and so the city did move to a neutral position once those went in. That bill did get signed. We will be seeing cleanup on that this year. We're monitoring it to make sure that it doesn't apply more broadly, and so far it doesn't, but we'll keep keeping an eye on it.

This is the last slide on by sale of bill positions. The only bill that we haven't discussed because the three others have already been spoken to and earlier in our presentation is SB five sixty nine, the Blake Spear bill. This is a two year bill, and the purpose of this is to streamline and expedite the removal on Caltrans properties. The bill was set for hearing twice and postponed by the committee twice, and so really what that tells us behind the scenes is they're probably working out amendments. They're trying to figure out some kind of obstacle to the bill. It is a two year bill. It still has until the end of the session to possibly pass, and so we'll see if that gets a hearing in 2026, and we'll keep you informed.

So again, just wrapping up things that happened in 2025, significant legislative importance. Prop 50 obviously changed the map drawing process for congressional maps California. It's pretty big news. You guys probably heard about it. It passed with 64% of the vote. One of the districts is obviously not far from Visalia, the Valaddeo District. District. It's kind of unique in that it it moved it's one of the targeted districts, but it didn't actually move the district into quite being a a Democratic favorite from Republican to immigrant. It moved it to the left, but not quite over the line. So it still has, I think if I remember right, a 1.7% registration advantage for the Republicans.

Nevertheless, as you guys know, no doubt, and as it says on the slide, there are five seats that were shifted to try and give more of an advantage to Democratic candidates. We'll see how that works out. Of course, the Republican legal challenge has at this point failed. They lost and then their appeal was denied.

Looking at the fiscal situation for the state of California, the governor did propose a budget on January 10. Unlike other previous January 10 budgets, this really was kind of a status quo. He didn't have any new programs, wasn't, you know, allocating any new funds, and I think it's because he's in a situation where the fiscal our fiscal climate is deteriorating. He's trying to run for higher office. It doesn't look good if you can't manage the fiscal situation in your state.

And so he's waiting until May revise to figure out like how much money does the state really have and before he puts out any new programs. So the January 10 budget is what we call just a status quo budget. We don't really know what the fiscal situation is going to be until we see some of these receipts that come in in May. But just so you know, we are in this kind of structural deficit because the way the state is set up is we have revenues that are coming in that are over the estimate that people thought like, oh, we're actually bringing in more money. But the way the constitution is written, we have some constitutionally required spending.

Prop 98 takes a lot of those new funds, which still will result in a deficit for us, even though our revenues are above the projected estimates. That's just a funny way the way the state is. There are conversations about trying to budget in two year cycles. We haven't done that. They're having those conversations.

I don't know if they're going to try and do that this year, but I know that it's a topic of conversation in Sacramento. Also, it's not looking better for us. The projected deficit in the out year is $20,000,000,000 That's something that's going to impact counties, cities, special districts. So we're looking at pretty rough couple here. But we have an intended $23,000,000,000 in reserve in the twenty twenty six-twenty seven fiscal year. So the fiscal situation is murky right now. We will give you more information as we hear it. The subcommittees have started to meet. They are just discussing potential programs. There are some cuts.

There was some early action earlier this year. The Governor did provide some funds for Planned Parenthood, high speed rail, so he's taking little actions, but really the bulk of the fiscal situation will be in May, and so we'll have to report that out in May.

So looking ahead to the rest of this year, the legislature just had their deadline to introduce bills a week ago Friday. So all of the bills have been introduced. The legislature, both houses now have a slightly lower limit on the number of bills they can introduce. Every senator and assembly member has maximum 35. We were looking at the math the other day, and we looked at the total number of introduced bills, not counting the ones that don't count toward the cap like resolutions and constitutional amendments.

And when you divide you take that total number of bills and you divide it by a 120 members of the legislature, we got 35.025 bills introduced per member because committees can introduce bills if they're not controversial. Basically, member of the legislature took their full opportunity to introduce 35 bills each. They're gonna be in a number of different areas. One is there will continue to be, this one's actually not on the list if I remember, there will continue to be a lot of bills on the housing and development subject. We've seen a lot of them over the last few years requiring certain types of development to be approved, shortening timelines for developments to be approved, on warehouses and other logistics use, those will continue to be hot topics.

We thought maybe going into this year they've done so much, they made so much progress as they see it on requiring housing especially to be built that maybe they take a breath and see how it goes as it gets implemented. That has not actually turned out to be the case. There are at least as many housing related bills this year as there have been the last few years, so we'll be working with Devin and the rest of the city staff on that to keep a close eye on those, make sure that we can limit those where they're harmful and support them where they're helpful. Obviously, the the Democrats or the super majority party in Sacramento, they will continue to spend a lot of their time responding to actions at the federal level, whether there's a lot of bills on immigration enforcement and the behavior of immigration enforcement officers, as well as trying to respond to the massive cost shifts and cuts to primarily Medi Cal and CalFresh that the federal government passed last year. We're going to see some kinds of budget cuts.

Michelle was just talking about their out year budget deficits in the 20 to $30,000,000,000 range. That's a permanent out year debt. Those those are as far as the budgeting projection goes, it's 20 to $30,000,000,000 deficit, so there have to be some kind of reining in spending. Although, so far, revenues for this year look very, very good, but everybody knows that that's a short term benefit. Everybody knows.

That means that it's not really gonna happen, but it is it is commonly accepted that those are going to run out fairly quickly. A lot of attention on AI, both the development of AI, the implementation of AI, especially in the workplace and the way that it affects California workers as well as other automated decision systems. Obviously, the cost and availability of insurance is a big issue in a lot of parts of the state. And then, of course, influencing all of this behavior in the legislature will be all elections that many of them are Of course, every assembly member has to run every two years. Half of the senators have to run as well, but this year, we're for the first time really in memory, a governor's race where the Democratic nominee is not a foregone conclusion.

It's a wide open race. In fact, there are so many Democratic nominees that it's conceivable that they will all split the Democratic vote, and the two Republican candidates will end up as the top two candidates. We don't know. It's gonna be very exciting to watch. And those candidates and the way that they're campaigning, all of them have some number of endorsers in the legislature who will no doubt be trying to act on the issues that their gubernatorial candidates see as the ones that can distinguish them from some of their rivals.

But also, there are a lot of initiatives pending, some of them put on the ballot by the legislature themselves, many of them ballot citizen initiatives. And the legislature for the last six, eight, ten years at this point because of some reforms that we implemented as voters, the legislature now has an opportunity initiatives to get them to withdraw a measure from the ballot or usually by replacing it with a constitutional amendment that is in some way different, a little more moderate or takes care of the issue they really care about and takes some of the things off November ballot that the proponents don't care about as much. So that will have a huge impact on the legislating, especially through the budget process, not because it's the budget process, but because of the timing of it. The budget has to be passed by mid June. The deadline for initiatives to qualify for the ballot is at almost exactly the same time, just based on counting backwards from the election and how long it takes the Secretary of State and all the local registrars to get all that work done.

So that has become every other year now a significant piece of the budget negotiations. Not really negotiating on the budget, but negotiating with the ballot measure, the citizen initiative proponents to see if they can take a few off the ballot, make it simpler for voters, get ones they don't like off the ballot, etcetera. And then of course Governor Newsom's future ambitions continue to inform his leadership style. So there's gonna be a lot. Everything old is new again.

Everything new is old again. All the bills that didn't pass last year, all they're coming back in the same or a similar form this year, partly because a lot of the big issues that the legislature tried to deal with last year did not really go through. That's why we're seeing a lot of the same issues again.

Thank you, Jeff. And that is our presentation. We're here to answer any questions. I will say we work very closely with your city manager, your assistant city manager, and with Devon, to figure out where the city wants to position itself on legislation. But we're also here to just be state government problem solvers for you. Walking in council member Wynn, we had a couple minutes to discuss a Calvan issue that we're gonna engage on. It's not a bill, but I think that we're hoping to bring home a win here for the city. So if you're ever thinking about, you know, a state government problem, I would encourage you to reach out to Leslie and John and Devin and say, like, hey. You know, where can John, Michelle, and Jeff be helpful here on this? So with that, I will let you ask you any questions that you might have.

Wonderful. Thank you very much for your report. We'll go ahead and start off. Councilman Patrigan, any questions?

Yeah. I have a bunch of questions. Uh-oh. First of all, thank you for

all the work

that you guys do. I know Sacramento is a difficult, confusing place sometimes because on one hand they say we want lower housing costs and more affordable housing, but on the other hand they raise more and more restrictions that raise the cost of building a house. So, I get how frustrating it must be working there. I'm really concerned about homelessness. Obviously, we have Olympics coming and the World Cup coming and these bigger cities are trying to flush their homeless to other areas.

I'd like to see what the state has planned for that because we're kind of concerned. We don't want to be a dumping ground here in the city of Visalia. Also, a really big concern for a lot of individuals is probably the mileage tax coming down the pipe probably this next year. It's crazy. Everyone got pushed to clean and energy efficient cars, but now we don't have enough money coming in to repair the roads so we're going tax everybody.

So, it's essentially a double tax on individuals here in California. I'm really concerned about heavy equipment and heavy duty trucks coming in. We're getting forced to use trucks that the technology is not there and they're three times the cost and do half the amount of the work. I already talked about affordable housing is always an issue that I'm concerned about and also about how state legislation seems like it's loosening up a little bit on our public safety individuals where they're really trying to bring the hammer down on those individuals trying to serve and protect our communities. It seems like the pendulum is swinging in the other direction right now. Mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean, those are the issues that I'm really concerned about, especially here for the city of Isle. Yeah.

No. Absolutely. And I I do think that you're right on prop 36 and other public safety issues. I think the pendulum swaying so far to the left that it had nowhere else to go but come back Yeah. A little bit to center. So we're seeing that as well and we're happy to report out on any further efforts there.

I will say that it's kind of frustrating that our governor, instead of serving in the community or the state of California, is trying to propel himself to a higher office by using this as springboard instead of doing what the residents need. I mean, were one of the top economies in the world and people are fleeing this state like I've never seen before. So that's it for me.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Russodo. Thank you for the report. I got one question specifically with the unhoused community. I know there's money coming in line for construction. Do you see or hear any conversations or any legislatures that are talking about funding for people that are already housed that have gone through that process that are I keep hearing from a lot of the NGOs that that's where they're lacking funding. And so I'm just curious to see if you've heard anything.

There are some efforts in that area. I know there was a federal rule change, say, earlier in the year, but I guess I can't remember if it was early this year or the very end of last year that actually would have made it harder to use some of the anti homelessness funds for keeping people in housing instead of that ended up getting reversed, so I think it's kind of influx. It might have just gotten reversed temporarily. We'll keep an eye on that. The governor made an announcement this morning about the most recent or I guess for now the last round of HAP funding, which is half the amount that it had been the previous several years, putting some new accountability requirements on the use of the HAP funds.

I haven't had a chance to look at it in-depth much because we've been here talking to your staff for most of the day, but we will take a look at that. It looked like he was tying it in some way to counties more quickly implementing the care court program, so we'll see how that works. Obviously, doesn't have to do with keeping people in their homes, but I do think that'll be one of the difficult things as the state's confronting its budget woes in the out years is finding money for programs like that. It's hard to take them away from existing programs and then it's harder again to find new money. So there is one bill introduced by Assembly Member Solace that would give direct HAP allocations to cities under $300,000 Right now that's the cut for getting direct allocations, so we'll see where that goes.

Obviously that would benefit give your city council more discretion over how to use some amount of those funds. We'd have to see how that conversation shakes out. Thank you.

You.

Councilman Nelson, any questions? Sure.

On SB seven zero seven, you kept mentioning city councils and board of suits. Does that affect state legislature?

No. The the the state well, there's two, actually. I mean, to to give you more information than you asked for and to avoid what you're getting at.

Ask for more. Don't worry.

The The state commissions and whatnot has a separate Open Meeting Act called the Bagley Keane Act. It's very similar to the Brown Act in almost every particular actually a little more stringent in a couple of particulars, a little more lax than others. Neither of those applies to the legislature. They do have some open meeting requirements, if you will, in the constitution. However, for example, the prohibition against having meetings not in public when it's a majority of the body doesn't apply to them, as we know, because the Democrats caucus a couple of times every week.

So, yes. Okay.

In that deficit number you threw out, does that include pension

liability? Oh no. That's just their it's basically their cash flow

annual deficit. It is a liability on the state though.

Yeah, so their annual required payments, if you will, are included in it, but no, that's their annual deficit, not their accumulated debt, to your point. Because the amount that they expect their required expenditures to exceed their annual revenues, part of which is paying down the pension debt, but very, very slowly.

Okay. And is there any money being brought forth for mental health and drug addiction for the homeless?

I I think that's really an area that's kind of being cut back by the legislature in the last couple of years and by the governor. There's the HAP funding for the homeless, various programs. There's the Prop one, which changed the Mental Health Services Act to the Behavioral Health Services Act, sort of changed more of the funding. To Council Member So to's question has to be spent on housing now. I think 40% of it means less being spent on people who are at risk of having more serious mental and behavioral health issues.

There's the CARE Court program, which only deals with a very narrow but the most severe set of mental and behavioral health. I think there are a couple of bills still about conservatorships, conserving people when they're unable to care for their basic needs. A couple of the bills would make it a little easier to conserve someone, which we saw with the CARE Act. But again, those are only really in the most significant cases.

And we'll have more information about that in May as some of our fiscal situation clears up.

Because the governor's rule is housing first, and so you build houses, you build availability for housing, but you don't take care of the people going into the house so that bad habits go into the house.

Mhmm.

I mean, we got this backwards. And I'm not saying it's your fault, but I'm just saying the housing first, nationwide. I mean, it just doesn't work. And it amazes me that people aren't clamoring for some way to handle the mental health, drug addiction, get them clean, get them get jobs, transitional housing, permanent housing. And it's amazing that programs are being cut, and I don't understand that. Just for my because I watch a lot of this. Many of you don't want to answer. That's fine. How strong is Cal Cities? Oh, you don't have to answer.

Cal Cities does its absolute best to represent all cities in the state of California. However, they do have a divided membership. They have the big cities. They have small cities. They have rural cities.

They have suburban cities. And it really does depend, I think, who is in leadership at Cal Cities at any given time. I would encourage, if you have the time, to find a way to maybe become more involved in Cal Cities so that the voice of Visalia is at Cal Cities. I think what you're trying to get at is, does Cal Cities really represent the interest of the city of Visalia? I don't know that I can say yes to that question, but I do think that they do the best with what they have, and that is a divided membership.

They have the big 13 mayors that have peeled off essentially from Cal Cities and kind of run ramshod in Sacramento because it has the biggest 13 cities in the state of California. And then that basically neuters cow cities sometimes. And

that's my point is that you're engulfed by Southern California, Northern California, and your smaller cities, entities that are trying to move forward don't have a collective voice. They and there's gotta be some way to come up with a strong voice. And I'm not sure how that is, I'd sure like to be involved in it because we're being inundated with rules and regs because of large cities, and they don't really apply to the smaller cities.

We were involved in a very small conversation today about brainstorming on how to fix that problem. So Thank you. To keep you involved.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Report.

Vice Mayer Wynn?

Yeah. Thank you. Council Member Nelson asked my question on SB seven zero seven. On SB three forty six on the short term rental properties, we have audit authority. So what does that mean? And maybe that's more for

our

staff. Can we actually go after the short term rental people that are not reporting?

Right, so what the bill does, I mean, it's really fairly simple in terms of the way it legislates it. It just says that the short term rental Airbnb, VRBO, etc, it requires them to give the city information about which properties are listed on its platform upon request. So up to this point, they've been able to keep that private. So the city can't make sure that it's getting the hotel tax revenue from those properties. The city some cities have other regulations on short term rentals as well, party ordinances, maximum number of people.

Sometimes it's for wildfire purposes, sometimes it's just for neighborhood, good neighbor policies. It makes it really hard to enforce those when you don't know which houses are on it. So there's a cottage industry that sprung up of consultants who try and figure out which properties are, and from what I can tell they do a pretty good job. The cities I've talked to have been fairly happy with the consultants that they found, but it's never 100%. And so now you can just go to Airbnb, you can go to VRBO, you can go to the other platforms, I don't know who they are, and they just have to tell you who they are.

And so then you'll be able to audit the books to make sure that you're getting from those property owners the correct amount of hotel tax, that they aren't if you have a restriction on how many days of the year, if you have restriction on somebody has to live there, the property owner has to live there, or if the good neighbor says, you can keep a closer eye on those properties.

Okay, thank you. And do you see any further modifications of seven zero seven? I'm hearing some horror stories about people calling in that are not even in the local jurisdiction, and they're just using it as a platform to curse and show pornographic material. And yeah, it's been something else going on there. Do you see any modifications that are going to at least

I think there will be some further changes to Brown Act, possibly minor. When Dirazzo, Senator Dirazzo carried that bill last year, her intent was for the several since before COVID, but really from the COVID lockdown, everybody trying to figure out how to do everything remotely. There had been bills every year pretty strongly trying to go in each makes it much easier for local agencies to meet more remotely or make it much easier for people to participate remotely, they get a lot more requirements on translations, things like that. Her intent with that bill was to just have one bill to at least for now end the conversation. Like, look, this is the one, we've done it, let's not worry about it for at least a few more years.

We'll see how that works out. I will say I think the only Brown Act bill that was introduced this year is hers that could be used as a cleanup. If what you're asking is will you see those requirements roll back, the answer is no, you won't. The legislature is extremely leery allowing to Council Member Nelson's point of allowing local agent see governing boards the same leeway that they enjoy as the legislature. Many of them came from local agencies and you'd think that they'd be sympathetic, but often when we talk to them, when we talk to them pretty often about these issues, they say, well, when I was there, I had to look people in the eye, and the people that are in those positions now should have to do the same.

So no, I think the legislature will not roll those back, at least not anytime soon.

But there are still some remote meeting capabilities. I'm on several multi jurisdictional boards, and we can still meet remotely rather than trying to bring people from each ends of the state into

Those one of are some of the benefits. 07/2007, there was also a Cal Cities, CSAC, and I think others co sponsored bill by Senator Aragine earlier last year that was just a bill to make it easier, at least for advisory bodies, to meet remotely, and that bill's provisions got folded into SB seven zero seven, so that bill didn't continue and it just got rolled in. So seven zero seven has, highlighted I think three or maybe four pieces of it in the presentation day. There are a lot of pieces in SB seven zero seven, and they cut both ways, just that the new transparency requirements are pretty onerous on some city councils, some smaller boards of supervisors, some special district bodies that it applies to. The ability to meet remotely more easily is limited to most types of advisory bodies.

There's still a few that it doesn't if they have to do with, I'm not going remember all of them, police oversight, if it's that type of body that adjudicates things like an assessment appeals board or something like that, then they aren't able to meet remotely as easily. But for the most part, it's easier for advisory bodies and multi jurisdiction bodies.

Okay, thank you.

So had a few questions. You said there's going be a $20,000,000,000 deficit, but then there's going be $23,000,000,000 in reserves. Does that mean that at the end they're expecting $3,000,000,000 left over? Or is that $23,000,000,000 left after their negative $20,000,000,000 budget? Most of that reserve is the rainy day fund and there are restrictions on how much

of it they can which years they can use it and how much of it they can use in any given year.

Okay. So in what areas do you guys think there's actually going to be the cuts? What areas will the cuts be in? Is it going be in health care? Is it going to be in homeless, roads, gas? What areas do you guys feel that the governor's going to be making those cuts?

Health care is gonna be a very big topic in Sacramento. I think a lot of counties and cities are coming together to try and figure out where exactly some of those cuts are going to be made. I do think probably some of the areas that don't have a lot of advocates that are gonna come and pound on the doors. So, you know, maybe, like, roads and stuff like that. We it's hard to kind of have a crystal ball because it really depends. I'm gonna be honest with you. If labor wants it, they're gonna get it. If labor doesn't care, it might get cut.

Alright. So you guys have probably heard about the 5% wealth tax that they're looking at doing. What do you guys think that's gonna do? Because it looks from what I've seen, like, in in polling, it looks like it's very likely to pass. How do you guys think that'll affect the the future budgets?

You know, Jeff and I had about three hours in the car together this morning driving down. Well, that was one of our topics is, like, what do you think happens with that? And I think that in order for any initiative to pass in the state of California, you're looking at it has to start with at least like a 65%, yes rate because everything starts to go down from there. And the way that the statistics have been holding, if it doesn't start at 65%, it's probably going to fail. And people tend to, if they don't really know what to do on initiative, they usually don't vote at all or they vote no because they're afraid of, like, voting yes and not understanding what they're voting for.

So I don't know that it passes. I think it's, you know, I'd say maybe give it, like, sixty forty. It fails. That's my 2¢.

Yeah. There there are a lot. It's hard to tell. I appreciate that Devin started this conversation off by saying we were gonna tell you our crystal ball about what was gonna happen in 2026, but it's difficult, obviously, to project the future. If we could, we'd be in the stock market.

The lottery. There are going to be a lot of tax issues on the but there are gonna be a lot of thorny issues on the ballot in November. But in particular, unless some of them get taken off through the legislative negotiation process, there gonna be a lot of tax issues particular. The billionaire tax, which I think is actually pretty ripe for being negotiated off on the list of of all the ballot measures. There are a couple that are really gathering signatures because their goal is to get the legislature to do something.

They don't actually wanna run a campaign. Aside from those couple that are doing that on purpose, I think the billionaire's tax might be one that has a higher chance than some of them have 0% chance of coming off the ballot through legislative negotiation process. Think the billionaire's tax is somewhere in between partly because the proponents, the proponents, the legislative Democrats are split. There's a lot of you know, governor Newsom has been extremely clear he does not want that on the ballot. He didn't want them to introduce it. He doesn't want them

to gather

signatures, but also because there are a lot of tax measures on the ballot, which makes all of them harder to predict for the proponents as well. And what they really don't want is to go to the ballot and fail because then that next time you try if you do the same thing, if you try and get on the next ballot, if you've already failed once, it makes it a little bit harder the next time. So we'll see. That's a tough one to call.

So then Councilmember Burchigan had mentioned the mild tax. Do you guys think, I mean, your crystal ball, what do you guys think is gonna happen with that? Is there gonna be legal challenges? Does it pass? I mean, what do you guys think is gonna happen with that?

There will continue to be efforts to find ways to get especially the electric vehicle car owners to pay more into the system because they're not, as the council pointed out, they're not paying into the gas tax, which is where the bulk of the money comes. So part of the question, and I think going to part of your concern and Councilmember Pachigian's concern, is will they do it in a way affects everyone, including the people who are also paying the gas tax, or will they do it in a way that's targeted on the EV owners? That's hard because they still want to encourage the EV sales. And so I think Assembly Member Wilson, from Solano County and represents part of Contra Costa as well, she's the chair of the Transportation Committee. I think she's trying to work it out.

She's definitely Democrat. She's chair of a committee. I don't think she's trying to hide that. She's a fairly strong local government advocate. She was a city council member and has stayed more than most members of the legislature do. She stayed pretty true to that point of view. I don't know what that says about who will get charged. She's working on this issue right now. My cloudy crystal ball looks more like a cat's eye marble maybe is that it doesn't happen this year. Obviously I could be wrong, but I think we've got a couple more years of trying to hash this out and I think getting it done in a non election year is probably going to be easier for the legislature as well as we'll see who the next governor is.

That could have a significant influence on the outcome as well.

Perfect. And then my last question, Prop 36. Obviously that passed overwhelmingly throughout the state. Every county I believe supported it, but there was no funding mechanism in there. What's gonna happen with that measure moving forward without funding? Are they challenging it? What are you guys seeing happening with that right now?

We have a senator in the legislature, Tony Strickland. He comes from Orange County. This is a big priority for him. I know that he's gonna try to move this conversation forward. I realistically think that there are no more funds this year for prop 36, but I don't think that that conversation goes away. I think the voters spoke to it. The state of California understands that people want some enforcement there. But this year, specifically with all of the federal cuts that the state of California is trying to grapple with, I think that falls lower on the priority list.

So this gonna have to are they gonna have to put another measure on to do a funding measure for it, or are they gonna have to sue to try to get, you know, funding for this measure? I mean, what do you think this looks like? Or is it just gonna be potentially see who the new governor is?

I think it is one of those conversations that pushes until the new governor to see how he responds to it. Governor Newsom, as we said, you know, he's trying to leave in the best position possible, and, you know, he's gonna have a lot of he has a lot of priorities that he's trying to manage right now, and I just don't see proposition 36 being one of those.

Alright. Well, thank you very much for appreciate your time and we always appreciate the update for our community. So thank you.

Thank you.

Oh yeah I'm sorry. We do need to open this up public comments. Anyone from public wishing to speak on this item, please come forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Maria Guilen. That's g u I l l e n, accent over the e. I live in Visalia. Thank you for your report.

I learned a lot. I do have a few comments. One in particular, had to do with, assembly bill three three nine, the bill that was carried by assembly member Liz Ortega, giving local public employee organizations the right to get notices in case of the contracting out of their jobs. I saw with I was very dismayed to see that our position locally was to oppose that. And yet, every meeting or we're fortunate enough to see new employees come into the city of Aistelia employment.

And you all take the time to have them presented, shake their hands, and so forth. And yet, you would oppose their bargaining unit or their union to get notice that their job might, in fact, be contracted out. I find that very ironic. I wanted to state that. So I'm glad that we do have assembly members that are looking out for public employees and employees in general, like Senator Durazo and Liz Ortega.

I also wanted to mention that SB seven zero seven, I think, is also a really good thing. It worked when we were in COVID. A lot of people that don't normally get to come down that don't have the ability to come into chambers and be able to lend their voice will now have an opportunity to do that. So I think that's a good thing. In regards to the party that is right now helping to support the safety net for a lot of people that are going to be without health care, right, due to actions by the other party.

Not solely, but that. I'm glad that they're there taking this up. Also, in regards to protecting our rights and the rights of immigrants and looking out for the people that actually do make our economy strong and work. Thank you.

Jim Rees, Visalia. I just wanted to maybe clarify that the current initiative or ballot or vote or whatever that we were talking about on the gas tax is to fund a study on how to come up with funds as more EV vehicles come online and we use them. Our gas tax revenues are going to continue to drop as more people buy EVs, and this is a study to how to make up that difference. Nobody's at least as far as I understand it, no changes in the gas tax. It's going to happen right away. Thank you.

I'm seeing no one else. We'll go ahead and close public comments and thank you guys for your report.

Thank you again.

All right, next we're gonna go on to item number three, which is capital improvement program.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm Nicole Ritchie, Finance Manager. This is Renee Nagel. She's Finance Director. We're here this evening to discuss our six year capital budget. We're at the second meeting now to discuss the funds. There we go. Sorry about that. So before I move into the next several slides, I just wanted to make a note that some of the structure might feel a little bit redundant from the last meeting. I wanted to ensure that everyone here who wasn't here prior or anybody who is listening this evening is for the first time clearly understands the the CIP process.

So, again, we're here tonight to review the second meeting, or for the second meeting to review the proposed six year capital budget. The capital improvement program is six year capital plan. The first two fiscal years, '26, '27 and 2728 are proposed for adoption and appropriation with the biannual budget. Budget. Again, the remaining four years are only for the planning purposes only and not to be included in the appropriation.

So this slide slide outlines the capital improvement process, different stages. The first stage, project development. Departments identify infrastructure needs, evaluate regulatory requirements. We move into the council review, which is where we sit tonight, and then we move into council approval stage where the staff will go in and refine any projects based on the council's feedback, and then we'll move into the final adoption stage that is in conjunction with the operating budget adoption in June. Tonight's discuss CIP is divided into the three primary objectives.

The objective one is to protect our public health and regulatory compliance. Two, preserving and modernizing core infrastructure. And three three is supporting the strategic growth and service enhancements. And our projects that we're presenting this evening will align with at least one of these objectives. The seven capital funds for review this evening is the Measure R bike trail bike and trail, recreational service facilities, storm sewer maintenance.

The proposed appropriations for fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven is 11,300,000 and the proposed fiscal year for twenty seven-twenty eight is 7,300,000.0. The outer four years reflect planning purposes only, and that is 60,300,000.0. The six year capital in these seven projects represent 79,000,000. And, again, to stay consistent with how we've been doing this, I've continued to highlight anything that's multi funded in the salmon color, which, again, is just showing the cost in that portion of the fund. It's not the total cost as a whole.

And the next few slides will show each fund's cash balance summary, a list of the proposed projects for twenty six, twenty seven, twenty seven, twenty eight period. And then we have department here staff available to answer any of council's questions if necessary.

So the first fund that we're gonna discuss is the Measure R Bike and Trail Fund. So the Measure R Bike and Trail Fund supports the city's investment in active transportation infrastructure, including multi use trails, trail connectivity, and pavement preservation of existing trail systems. All projects in this fund are reimbursed by TCAG, which is why you'll why you see the capital improvement cost matching the revenues because they're reimbursed. So we submit reimbursements for those projects as they occur. Staff is proposing nine projects over the six years, which total 7,600,000.0.

All right. So on these slides, again, just for consistency purposes, it might look like we've skipped in the numbering, but we've done this intentionally and it will stay consistent with the attachment a that you have received in your agenda. Staff is proposing seven capital projects in the measure r bike and trail for the two appropriated years, which totaled 2,500,000.0. The multi funded projects that are highlighted again in the salmon or peach color, it's coordinating with other fund sources, allowing allowing the city to leverage measure our dollars while supporting larger multi benefit capital improvements. Council, do you have any questions for staff regarding this set of funds?

Just one on the, item six. So we're doing this site the site streets, the street and site layout for that entire park or just where the basins are? What

Just for clarity for counsel, Chris Crawford, city engineer. What's going to go on with that East Side Regional Park is that engineering is working with the Parks Department to get the whole master plan updated. And after that master plan is updated, the plan was to go through and design a lot of the interior streets, kind of prep the site for future play areas, possible things we could get grant funding for and things like that. Does that answer your question, Council Member Wood?

Yes. Thank you. I

have a question. It's not on the slide, on Basin E item number five, that's pushed out to '28, 29, '29, 30. If that project is shovel ready and we are able to get grant funding, because that's multiple, a lot of sources of funds, will that project be moved forward?

Yeah, a lot of the basin projects that we have right now are dependent on grant funding. So all that basin F stuff that you're seeing in there is dependent on grant funding. It's definitely possible that Basin EQ move forward on a different schedule if we get grant funding for it. I think that Assisting Mayor has been able to get some federal earmarks and stuff like that for some of those recharge basins. So that's why you see some of these things moving forward faster than we thought. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions?

So moving on to the next one, which is the recreational facilities fund. The recreation facilities fund receives revenues from park and and recreational impact fees paid by developers. Funds are restricted for park acquisition, park development, and recreational facility improvements in accordance with the park's master plan. Staff is proposing total of six capital projects in the six year capital plan, which totals 21,500,000.0. To keep the fund balance, staff has deferred projects to the outer years.

Staff is currently updating the parks and recreation master plan, which will be brought back to council for adoption. Once the Master Plan has been adopted, staff will return to council to potentially increase fees with the Nexus study. Other than the annual CPI increases, these fees were last updated in 2005.

This slide outlines the proposed recreational facility project for the two year CIP period. Staff has requested four projects in this fund for appropriations in the first two years of the capital budget that totaled 2,800,000.0. These four proposed projects reflect major park and rec projects aligned with growth areas and parks master plan. Council, do you have any questions for staff regarding these projects?

I have a question. On number six, the city inclusive park, I'm a supporter of the park, but I thought that was gonna be that we're gonna get full funding for that when the project first came to us. Was that? Am I remembering wrong or

no? Chris

Crawford, City Engineer. Yeah, that could have been possible, I guess, back when that grant was, obtained, but that was quite a few years ago now. So just with the construction cost increases that have occurred, especially through COVID over the last four or five years, that that's a little significantly more cost than what it was originally when that grant was, was obtained. And that's not a great answer, but that's probably the realistic answer with that.

Yeah, because if I remember correctly, we were at the convention center when we approved this, and it was like, oh, 100% paid for.

I believe 1999. I mean,

2019.

2019. Sorry. Not quite as far back as yeah. That was 2019.

But that took several years for the state to get that. It took two years for

the state to give us even the contract to begin it. You know, it was all right before COVID. Everything kinda shut down. I think we got the contract in, like, 2021, later of 2022. It's just been protracted.

Yeah. I guess to add a little bit more to that too, these are like estimates. So we're really not going to know until that we get the actual bid in for that. Like, and there's some other things going on with that park that some of you guys probably going to ask me questions about here in a little bit. The park location is we're looking at a different location right at the moment too. So we could mess with the cost a little bit with that too and see if we can bring some down, do some savings, things like that. So there's a lot of things going on with that park right now.

So for a park that was supposed to be done quite a while ago, we're now looking at this is seven years, we're now looking at eight to nine year

Yeah. Yeah. That piece of property over there was right next to the railroad. It ended up being a lot of difficulties and stuff And like so it resulted in just recently staff talked to the grant agency, like asked them if we could move the park to a spot that would be a lot more, I guess, work out well for the park that we're proposing. They said they were in support of that. So we're kind of looking into that right now.

And there's no way to accelerate?

Right now, what's going on, the only spot we could probably accelerate maybe possibly would be with the redesign with the consultant. So what's going on right now is the city staff is doing due diligence, making sure that the new property we're looking at that's at Mill Creek and McAuliffe is free of any kind of entitlement issues or any kind of contamination issues. We've got the deed to that property now where we're working on doing a phase one environmental assessment with the geotech on that property to kind of make sure it's clear of those issues. There's going to be public outreach being done amongst that community area over there. So we may have a little bit of area we could speed up during the design portion.

But you're probably looking at six to eight months for the design portion. What staff did do, which was like a really good move, was that all the equipment that we need for that project was kind of preordered about maybe six months to twelve months ago. So we kind of locked in like really low prices with that to like save a lot of money and everything. So that was kind of a good move on the part of staff and just administrative staff and everything. But yeah, that's about what we're looking at. It's going to be a six to eight month redesign with probably three month bidding. Like we still need the phase one. You're probably talking maybe like around ten to twelve months like to get it to construction.

And one other question, maybe Chris, while you're there. I should have asked this last time. The Road 48148, is that the where is gonna put the new overpass? Okay. So that's the Tower Line Road or whatever it is. Okay. Just so I would just want clarification on

that. Yeah.

And a

lot of

that being started right now is gonna be design. Like, and then there's kind of phasing for the construction for that. But a lot of it falls in the out years. So that's going be really dependent on if there's grant money available, if there's not grant money available, how city funds are doing. So there probably is going to be some changes on that, I'd imagine, in the future for sure, depending on what funding availability we have for the construction part. But we're at least trying to figure out the design now. So when the money comes available, we're going to be ready to actually like build.

Thank you.

The next fund is the storm sewer construction fund. So this fund receives revenues from developer impact fees and a portion of the monthly storm sewer user fees. Funds are restricted to construction and infrastructure implementation consistent with the storm sewer master plan and may not be used for operations or maintenance. Staff is proposing a total of 15 capital projects over the six year capital plan to which totaled 28,300,000.0. To keep the fund balance, staff has deferred projects to the outer years.

Staff is currently updating the storm sewer master plan, which will be brought back to council for adoption. The updated master plan will affect three funds that are being presented tonight. And once the master plan has been approved, a nexus study will also be conducted on those three funds to potentially increase their fees as well. This fund has received annual CPI increases, but the fees were last updated in thousand and as well.

Alright, in this slide, it shows the what staff is proposing in fiscal year twenty six twenty seven for the storm sewer construction, four. 5,000,000 and 2,100,000.0 in fiscal year twenty seven twenty eight for storm drainage and infrastructure improvement citywide.

I do have a question on number 12, the Modoc Basin Linwood Embankment, that 1.7. Just because we met with some constituents not long ago. Chris, can you tell us, what that 1.75 is gonna take care of? Is that just deepening? Is that design? What's going on with that?

Yeah. So I think that whole project this is, like, one of those multi funded projects that I think there was, like, three to five different funds associated with that. So this is just this part of that project. Like but the way that whole thing was budgeted, think there's about 5 something million dollars, and this is just a part of it to actually do the construction work in 2627. Like, and what it was containing was it's under design right now.

It's basically, like, taking that basin, like, and filling in the portion that would be, like, West Of Linwood Street if you extended it, like, filling in that whole portion to kinda make a flat, like, pad on the west side, like, and then deepening the basin on the east side. Like and then it involves, like, a proposed trail around there, some improvements for recharge, and a bunch of different things like that. But that project doesn't include the road. So there's a separate project that's going to include the road because there's no reason for the city to build a road that's not going to be used. But there a whole bunch of subdivision projects that are proposed on the north side of that Modoc Basin that we're going to really need that road once they're actually developing.

But the actual road portion is not part of that project. We're just building the embankments and the sub grade for the road with the intent of putting together another basin like what you see at the Eastside Regional Park so people can have recreation stuff and trailed out in that area and things of that sort. It's going to be dependent on getting some of the Measure R money for the trail or possibly grant funding for landscaping. So a lot of that stuff is being looked at right now too.

Okay. But you're planning I see this in multiple funds. But that is planning for this 'twenty six, 'twenty seven year? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. At minimum, a lot of the earth work will get done in 'twenty six, 'twenty seven is what we're anticipating. Then the trail and landscape money, we'll see what happens with the grant funds and the measure R funds and stuff like that.

Okay. Thank you.

This next one is the storm sewer deficiency. It receives its revenues from dedicated portion of the monthly storm sewer, fee as well. Funds are restricted to correct existing existing system deficiencies as identified in the storm sewer master plan, and and this fund can only be used for, deficiencies and not for operations and maintenance as well. Staff is proposing a total of three capital projects in this six year capital plan, which totals 687,000. The storm sewer master plan update will identify future projects that are not included in this six year capital plan.

So we have two projects in the storm sewer deficiency fund that are approximately 570,000 for the two years with high priority deficiency corrections along with smaller ongoing ongoing allocations in the outer years. Nothing major in the first two years. Any questions? This

next fund is the groundwater recharge fund. Its revenues are derived from a portion of the monthly utility bill. Revenues are dedicated to groundwater recharge, water acquisition, and related activities that enhance groundwater levels and long term water supply for the city. Staff is proposing a total of seven capital projects in the six year capital plan, which totals 3,600,000. This fund maintains a positive cash balance throughout the forecast period and grows through 2031 to 2032. This increase is estimate in cash is due to projects being proposed at this time for the two outer years. As budgets progress, there'll be additional projects which will be using up that cash.

This slide outlines the proposed groundwater recharge product projects for two years in the CIP period. Staff is proposing approximately $2,300,000 in groundwater recharge related capital projects over the two fiscal years of the CIP. These projects are critical for improving groundwater recharge capacity and long term water sustainability. Any questions regarding these projects?

Waterway construction fund, this fund is derived from developer impact fees. Funds are restricted for acquisition of development setbacks along waterways designated in the Visalia general plan, and it's for restoration of repairing vegetation. Staff is proposing a total of seven capital projects in the six year capital plan, which totals 9,000,000. This fund maintains a positive cash balance throughout the six years.

This slide outlines the proposed waterway construction projects for the two year CIP period. Staff is proposing 1,100,000.0 in fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven and 2,000,000 in fiscal year twenty seven-twenty eight for a series of waterway construction and restoration projects funded through developer impact fees. Three of these projects are multi funded with other capital funds. Do you have any questions regarding any of these projects?

And the last fund for tonight is the storm sewer maintenance fund. This fund is supported by storm sewer user fees collected through the monthly utility bill and a portion of the Coia Lake fees. Funds are restricted for ongoing storm drainage system, system maintenance, channel upheap, and flood risk reduction activities throughout the city. As shown in the above cash flow summary, operating expenditures are starting to exceed or are starting the expenditures are starting to exceed the expenditures and this fund is also part of the storm sewer master plan and a nexus study will be conducted on this fund as well. Staff will be bringing back, as mentioned earlier, the master plan and then potentially to increase the fees over the next year or two.

This slide outlines the proposed storm sewer maintenance projects for the two year CIP period. These projects primarily focus on ongoing system upkeep, rehabilitation, preventative maintenance of the city's storm drainage infrastructure. The proposed expenditures are approximately 415,000 for fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven and 190,000 in fiscal year twenty seven-twenty eight. Do you have any questions regarding these projects? As mentioned earlier, staff will be presenting capital over the next several months to council.

Funds will be presented in groups as shown above. Funds with an asterisk will be reviewed separately from the capital budget process due to any additional requirements of the individual funding, but will be included in the final budget.

Okay, any additional questions at this time from council? I think you answered them. We'll go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone wishing to speak on this item, please come forward. Seeing no one going up there, no motions are required. So thank you for the second reading of this ordinance. Alright, so our next item will be item number four and that's gonna be subdivision streamlining ordinance and discussion. And because we are getting awfully close to 06:30 and we do have some closed session work today. Oh, don't have closed session.

Okay.

Oh, no. We got plenty. I thought it 06:30. I apologize. It's 05:30. Oh, you guys have all the time in the world. I was gonna give you five minutes because I wanted to eat for thirty minutes, but yeah, we got plenty of time.

All right. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Paul Burnell, Planning and Community Preservation Director and with me this afternoon is Jared Olson, our new principal planner, although he's been here with us just under six months. I think first time presenting to you formally, although he was introduced when he was first hired on. Any questions directed at him, I will try to also help interject what we're here discussing this afternoon.

But before we begin, it's actually kind of a decent segue into the presentation you heard from the state lobbyists. You did hear that there are several housing bills that are out there. Your planning staff does track those things to see what's going to happen. And I mean I would venture to say that you know we have lost some local control, though we still control some areas of housing approval processes, and that's actually what we'll be speaking with you this afternoon because your staff has identified solution to help maybe streamline some of these processes. This is not the one solution that's gonna solve everything, but we believe it's something that helps and goes in that direction.

It also includes a requirement under our housing element that says cities by Celia should look at potential constraints or roadblocks to housing production or construction, and we believe this is one step in that process of trying to achieve something where we believe there's an opportunity here. Based on today's presentation, we'll walk you through what that looks like. Again, there are three major questions. Question one does have some subsections to it that we'll be asking for direction with counsel this afternoon. But with that, I'm gonna go ahead and turn it over to Jared to walk you through this. There are some points where we may just stop to ask any questions of counsel before we proceed to the next portion of our presentation. So with that, go ahead, Jared.

Thank you, Paul. Jared Olson, Honey Division. So why we are here tonight, as Paul mentioned, state the state has been asking us to to find ways to streamline the development of housing. Our housing element, same thing. And we have identified some time and cost saving measures to do just that by streamlining the approval of small and simple subdivisions, both residential and nonresidential.

And we are seeking your authorization to pursue that. So the questions that we will be asking you tonight are would council support an amendment to the subdivision ordinance to subject the following types of subdivisions to a streamlined process. These are small and simple maps, tentative maps for residential Haiti lots or units or less that don't require a general plan amendment, a prezone, annexation, conditional use permit, variance, planned unit development. Basically, no other permits that that have to go to planning commission or to your council for review or approval. And then also on the nonresidential side, the same thing but not have any unit restrictions because they aren't residential.

So that's question number one. Question number two, would council support identifying identifying a designated official to oversee this process? And three, would council support establishing an administrative hearing process which will limit the noticing to nearby property owners and residents. The process also includes sending out notice through the newspaper as well. So what we have identified is that approximately 6% of the lots that were developed in the past ten years would be subjects complied with all of the city's requirements.

And that is essentially, it is within city limits, and it complied with all of our rules, regulations, policies, standards, and no other permit was needed. We've also acknowledged that most non residential subdivisions don't actually authorize development. They are just there to subdivide land for sale, lease, or finance. They're typically already developed up parcels, and the subdivision itself wouldn't allow a developer to develop more than what they are already authorized to do. So we have identified that this would probably save or reduce the approval process by about one month in a several month process.

Does this mean we can ask them to lower the prices? No?

Probably not gonna lower

the No. And actually that's kind of a valid question. We're not an enterprise department, so what we charge is less than typically what other jurisdictions that our enterprise funds would charge. So that is, though, something I think your planning staff would need to look at. Can tell you there's a deficiency in what we charge for environmental review versus what the private sector does and or any other jurisdiction in our area.

We're lacking in what we do charge. Again, with environmental review, it's just getting more and more technical. So the expertise and understanding what those requirements are just very burdensome because you have to read through a lot of documents to truly understand what you're mitigating and how that mitigations are being applied to a project.

And actually, I've just gone over this, so we'll skip this slide, save you guys some time. Come back to questions 1a and 1b. Maybe lots or 80 units or less that do not require other discretionary permits. Non residential tentative maps also no other discretionary permits. Our staff's analysis on that, here's a couple of subdivisions here that would have qualified.

Standard infill lots, maybe lots or less, complied with a public works standards, and no deviations to our standards at all. So really what we're looking to say is that if you comply with our standards, you can be subject to a faster process for you. Not expediting staff's review of them, but just simply carving out some of the processes that we would reserve for more complex projects. Another subdivision here too, again, complied with all of our standards. So we chose the 80 unit threshold because that's currently what is established as the administrative approval threshold for multifamily.

So thinking, why can we approve 80 units on multifamily more quickly, but we can't single family. So this is really, I think, something to help level the playing field and also to help incentivize the development of infill lots, bypass parcels, ones that are smaller in nature and could really benefit from the additional certainty in the timeline and the approval process by basically bringing that through a separate faster process. On the non residential side, like I said, most of these subdivisions are seeking to subdivide existing developments. This one here was at the Southeast Corner Of Riggin And Plaza, already built out. So this is just seeking to subdivide to sale, lease, or finance of the of the mall separately.

So yeah. This one here, this was a parcel map that that subdivided the one of the warehouse facilities on the Southwest

Corner

Of Plaza And Kibler. And, yeah, same thing. Existing development, so no brainer in my opinion. Yep. We'll just continue on here.

Next up, we'll be talking about the approval body. So right now, Planning Commission approves all tentative subdivision and tentative parcel maps. The Subdivision Map Act does allow us to select either a designated official or an official body. The designated official in this case could be the city manager, could be the director, a city planner, principal planner, or their designee. And really, is because we would like to recommend this because of our technical expertise, our availability.

Right now, Planning Commission meets twice a month, whereas a designated official works forty hours per week. So there was no need to work around such a a tight schedule for that. And then also the ability to delegate. So we all have conflicts of interest. We live all over the city.

And by allowing us to to designate to to someone else, we can maintain a quick and fast process while also maintaining objectivity

too.

The alternative is the official body, which is essentially like a planning commission now. The benefit of that is that you get a wider array of opinions. However, that comes with selecting people to sit on the committee, training them, working out a schedule to have those meetings open to the public. And this would essentially run counter to the streamlining intense by essentially making a separate commission that would meet simply on these small and simple subdivisions. Subdivisions.

For that reason, we do recommend the designated official approach. And lastly, we're asking you to consider establishing an administrative hearing process, which would simply notice to nearby property owners and residents and essentially not the newspaper. The reason for this is because there is a lengthy lead time to the newspaper. I think currently it's around six to seven days prior. So really when we're looking to everything scheduled, we're looking out not just ten days prior, we're looking out when we're looking at two, three, four weeks out to get something on the agenda for for a planning commission.

So this would certainly help help out there. So this is what the current process looks like, site plan review followed by projects and environmental review. Once those are completed, we then send out the ten day hearing notice to property owners, residents, the newspaper, followed by a planning commission hearing, and then the ten day appeal period. The proposed process here would essentially be an administrative hearing written only. So this would be the notice would go out to a property owner's residence and it would inform them that the designated official will be taking a decision on a small and simple subdivision and that they can find more information on the website, they can provide comments, and then they can also request to be notified what the decision actually was.

The decision would generally be done in the designated official's office, reviewing the staff reports, the application, comments received, and the environmental review that was done. And then at that point, would make a decision, render it in writing. That would then be sent both to the applicant and to those who had requested to be notified. That would then commence the 10 appeal period just like we have now for a planning commission. And then should a project be appealed, it would then go to planning commission first, not to city council.

But essentially the same process except it would be in writing and no one would really need to take time out of their night to come here to speak. They would have ten days to submit everything in writing.

So just to kind of clarify, then go to the next slide, Jared. That's fine. Counsel, this would be no different than even our current site plan review process where once a decision is rendered by the staff, that decision is subject to an appeal to Planning Commission and then ultimately City Council. It mirrors that. It does provide a checks and balance, and we'll talk about briefly what Commission's concerns were. But again, if you're a concerned citizen or resident or a neighbor of a project and you felt the designated official somehow erred in their decision, there is an ability to get it back before commission and council if needed.

Thanks Paul. Question. I guess probably an estimate. How many parcels or acreage do we have that would apply, that this would apply to? Because I know you said infill, this would apply to, but I'm just curious.

Councilor Marston, I don't have an exact acreage amount, but what I could tell you, it would apply to a lot of the parcels in tier one or existing city limits. There could be some eligible that might have been annexed in, had a project. If that project were never to proceed and that map expires, there's maybe an opportunity to come back with this type of project. I think the caveat here is if we get directed, the threshold right now is 80 units. So on the fringe, have more than 80. But there's a lot of vacancy in the Northeast area that this could help maybe spur some of that development on those parcels.

And I'm going say that in the past ten years, there have only been 10 residential subdivision maps, totaling approximately three forty lots out of approximately 3,400. So yeah, that's small. We discussed everything on this slide here, so I will move on. So planning commission did vote four zero to pass a recommendation to you. This was they did recommend the designated official approach and to have the administrative hearing approach.

But they were kind of split on what kind of maps should be subject to this streamlined approval process. Their primary concerns was with regards to staff workload, staff impartiality, and the potential to limit public engagement and staff's analysis here. So like I had mentioned, this would actually reduce staff's workload on these projects. Toby can actually move on to to the next one faster. We're looking at a total of about five hours saved per application.

We don't expect a large number of projects to hit us immediately after, it would just simply carve out the

we

would be able to get them to the decision maker faster by not having having to wait for these administrative processes to occur. So that's why so that's why we are still recommending this streamlined process as is. Additionally, with regards to staff impartiality like yourselves, we do make decisions in our everyday life or work here. Excuse me. And and so we are are required to file a form 700, which does requires to to report stakes in a company's ownership of a rental properties, things like that.

And so the designated official process would actually allow us to identify a designee should those conflicts of interest occur. So for that reason, still recommend the designated official approach. And then on to the receptiveness to public comments, like I had mentioned earlier, we would

be

giving the public a ten day notice just like what we currently do now for for planning commission followed by a ten day appeal period afterwards. The decision maker would still be required to review the application staff's report and any public comment that comes in before rendering that decision. Should they be dissatisfied with that condition, would still have the opportunity to appeal to a planning commission followed by city council as well. So for those reasons, we are still recommending the process as as proposed today. Other benefits.

Aside from the reduced processing time, it would actually help us comply with state housing laws. And then also, there it would actually help us potentially get more funding should we apply for for a certain state pro housing funds, which I believe we will be discussing in more detail at the next council meeting at a work session for that. So we so we can go into more detail then on that one. So lastly, what we would like to do is go back to question one and open it up for questions and comments on that one.

Thank you, Mayor. Just again, like I said, it's not We're looking at an opportunity here, something that's simplistic right now given that it would be a departure from what we traditionally do. And I think I've kind of repeated it based on a movie I like to quote sometimes and What About Bob? Is Baby Steps in the Right Direction? So right now granted it's only 80 lots but it gives us a chance to kind of identify process if councils direct us to do so, frame it in an ordinance that we run back through commission and council for consideration and adoption, and hopefully maybe steers us in a direction where if successful there's opportunities to expand it if need be.

So do you want us to make comments on each one of the three options or do you want us to just take a motion on all three?

At this point, mayor, if the council feels that they can give one motion to direct all three sections, that's fine, but we also open to addressing any questions on any of the three questions council has at this time or any comments you receive from the public with regards to what's been presented before you make a recommendation to direct us to do something.

Okay, well we'll just go ahead and have questions from council from items one, two, and three. So, we'll stop for Councilman Russo. Any questions?

Thank you for the presentation. My only concern same as the Planning Commission is you know, the public public's ability to comment. Is this just going be via email, phone, and in person, like at someone's office, the designee's office?

How is that going work? So looking at how in prior experience Jared and I both worked for the city of Fresno and how those decisions when the director, city manager, whoever makes that decision, that's usually just done reading the staff report, the analysis, and signing off on the report, and then the decision's sent out. We will still notify property owners within 300 feet or anyone that has interest in that project that the item is being considered. And then once a decision is rendered or issued, excuse me, we would provide notification to those individuals saying hey the decision's been made. That starts that ten day appeal window if they want to appeal.

Okay thank you. Councilwoman Nelson.

Great report. I'm in favor of anything that speeds the process up and alleviates some burden on our staff. I'm supportive all three items and would move forward to implement. So thank you. Councilwoman Petriegan.

Yeah, same here. I think you guys are simplifying the process and I think I'll be fully supportive of all three staff recommendations.

Vice Mayor Wynn? Ditto. Jared, great job on your first presentation. Appreciate it. Yeah, it's kind of funny. I was reading this and I don't know if a city has ever, that I've heard of, actually done a streamline policy. Every politician who runs for office says that's what they're gonna do, but very few of them actually do it from what I've seen. On top of that, this is actually part of our strategic plan and our priorities. So my only question and it looks like there was 10 maps over the last ten years and this it's only on average 34 lots which represents roughly 6% of the maps we've approved. Why don't we bump it up?

I know it was just to match the 80 multi family residential project, but why don't we bump it up? Why don't we try to get 50% out of the way rather than, you know, and then make it baby step from there? Because I'm 6%, I appreciate the fact that it's gonna reduce your, you know, the workload for you guys, it'll streamline the process, but I mean that's a pretty small baby step.

Great question. I think we had a metric with multifamily that we felt comfortable with and it wasn't just an arbitrary number we came up with. I would tell you, as I said, we're making baby steps in the direction that we believe we need to go based on what's happened. But I think in prior conversations related to the discussion on housing, we've indicated that we were going come back to Commissioning Council for consideration on increasing the threshold for multifamily from 80 to 200, at which point then we maybe revisit this topic. I think really at this point, given that we had a identified unit count that was permitted by Wright, we felt that we could at least using that same number establish the parameters in an ordinance to start moving staff in the city in a direction that provided some authority for review and approval by structuring the ordinance.

And then as time went on, once we refined that process to make sure we were doing things correctly, we could expand that number knowing that we were also going be talking about unit count increase for multifamily, which would probably dovetail into looking at considerations to increase that for single family.

I mean, to me, you're about one project per year. I think it's gonna be hard to improve or to see how this works when you're only doing it once a year. So, mean, me personally, I would like to see you guys come back in the future in the next year. Hopefully, you've done one to see what we can do to make this better for everyone.

And again, counsel, the recommendation is 80. It's entirely up to you once the parameters of an ordinance that are drafted and brought back. If you feel otherwise, we're still covering our bases with environmental review. Same things would apply. We would still hold the request that a subdivision that has no other type of entitlement be subject to that. But again, if the direction is eighty's fine, but we may look to increase it, we can make sure that we cover ourselves to see what other potential issues may occur as we're drafting that ordinance.

Right. Because, obviously, we don't want any any issues with you guys, with staff or, know but at the end of day, if we can speed up the process and get this done, it meets the governor and the state's goals of of getting more housing.

And are we able to to designate separate unit counts for single family and multifamily? Like, could we do a 100 single family and 80 multi?

At this point, I don't see why not. We would still be analyzing the project like we typically So yes, if there was a consideration to bump it to 100 for single family right now, we could definitely still look at that as well.

No, I just see this as a great infill incentive.

And mayor, if I may, there's one piece I just wanna make sure that I wanna highlight, which we didn't give you numbers on. The parcel map non residential piece, that's also a big, we process several maps that are shopping centers that are being redivided, subdivided via the parcel map process. Again that would eliminate some timelines on getting those through and approved.

Okay, fantastic. And if we did decide to change that, would the recommendation be doing now or if this decides to go forward, go to public, do some public outreach and then would you prefer that we make it on the next viewing of this?

I think in this case, if it's a consensus of the council to consider an increase beyond the 80 up to not to exceed a number that council's comfortable with, then at least is when we start to draft the ordinance and present it to the public, we can say council, even though we looked at 80, council has considered a higher number. So if again, collectively wants to identify maybe a number, a max number, then make that in or your motion this evening, direct staff to consider that number.

Can

you come back, and that's if counsel's okay with, too, because I know this will specifically affect some infill, but I also don't want to go too high to where we affect traffic, neighborhood conditions. And so I know based off your experience, could probably come back with an approximate number that would be an appropriate limit.

I think in this case, if we get direction whether it's 80 and up to consider a max number, we still have to run the ordinance back through the process for adoption. At that time, we could say even though you said 100, here are some issues we see, so we still recommend

80 or less. If we were gonna try to hit a goal rather than 6%, maybe a goal of 20%, roughly what number do you think that would be?

I don't know, wanna speculate. Sorry about that.

And that's why I had

a number of them, I don't wanna speculate. I'd be throwing out

the opportunity. Right, and that's why what's gonna be hard for us is I don't wanna say 500 homes, because I don't know. But I would like to see more than six percent because I think if we get 20%, then you can actually get some time to review these and see if they work or not. And if it doesn't work, we can pull it back. If it works, great, maybe we can expand a little bit.

Paul, they're still gonna do traffic studies and everything on these projects though when they turn everything in, correct?

So at 80 unit threshold, we'll review it at site plan review for any traffic

analysis So there's traffic issue, we'll catch it at site plan review right there

before, Yes, a full blown traffic study for something of this nature, no, not required. But we'll definitely look at constraints to existing street layout and making sure that it's designed appropriately.

And the traffic study would have been done in the general plan.

Right. So projects These that are already zoned appropriately, have been covered in the general plan.

Correct.

There's no deviate. Yeah. That's why I don't have any problem raising that number single family.

Why don't you guys think about that, and then we'll open it up to the public, and then we'll make that discussion.

And again, Mary, before you open to public, again, right now, if we took the number aside, and we know 80 is what we've asked, is the structure and how we streamline and set this ordinance up to address what's been presented to you this afternoon.

Absolutely. Let's go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city residents. Alright, seeing no one. There we go. Come on up. Hi,

my name is Kathy Faulkner. I do live here in city of Visalia. And I wish there were more hours in a day to prepare for everything that goes on within this lifestyle that we live in. But right now, I was looking just as I was hearing this. I was thinking, Okay, where are the bus stops?

Where are the bike trails? We have Tulare that has been accommodating the bike trails East West travel. And it's restricted driving so much that I get there at night, and I'm very scared when I drive along to Larry because for fear of somebody's going to step out of their car or whatever. AI is going to be impacting our lifestyle, style, our our job opportunities. Everything that happens that we believe in today in ten years will be so different.

And I'm hoping that that is a consideration that is occurring. Because if you've got 80 in multi and 100 in single family, what are their jobs going to be like? Do we really need to look at accommodating more of the services, such as plumbers, electricians, all of that? And I know you're bringing that up later on. But I just see that there's going to be energy demands that are dramatically being controlled by AI, as well as the growth of our population, And if it mentioned Cal Water might be overtaking some of our conservation, the question is, will we have the ability to have enough water for our residential?

These are just issues that I thought But anyway, thank you for your time. Great reporting. Gosh. All

right. Seeing nobody else, we'll go ahead and close public comment. And I'll open up for discussion or any additional input or questions.

Paul, so it would be easier to just give you a number now?

I think it would be helpful if you just said maybe look at 80 is fine, consider a number up to x collectively.

I think we went 120. Would that put us at

somewhere around 20% or no? I know. If could go to

20%, could you find out roughly what that

would be? Could look at, if that metric is 20%, we can do the math and figure that out.

So I'll make a motion. I move to direct staff to begin the preparation of subdivision streamlining ordinance for future consideration that will also address residential tentative maps of 80 lots or 80 units up to getting us, should I say 20% there? Would that be the way to say it?

Yes. Yes,

perfect. Or less, that do not require a general plan amendment, annexation, pre zone, change of zone, conditional use number

one the past. Only

the including provisions questions establishing an administrative hearing process where noticing is limited to nearby property owners and residents.

I second. Thank you. And a second. Please go ahead and vote.

Do we need to provide a designated official from your list?

Well, says in there that you would you would decide, right?

So, I'm actually recommending to be the city manager just so there's maximum flexibility depending on what can happen with individual staff or what it's even called at the time.

Put it bring that back, though. Right?

Yes. Yes.

And a city manager or designee, which means Yeah.

Absolutely designee. Absolutely designee.

And, again, just for clarification, when the ordinance gets drafted, that language would be carried into that.

Fantastic. Okay, so we have first and second, please vote. And I'm not seeing anything pop up on my I vote yes. And item pass is five zero. Thank you very much for your staff report. All right, we, perfect, we still got another twenty five minutes before our cutoff. So, let's go ahead and do you think we'll be able to do item five in twenty five minutes?

It's all up to you, counsel.

All right, well let's just go but at 06:30 if we haven't gotten to the end, let's go ahead and we'll put a pause on it and bring it back during regular session items. So item number five, a review of progress of city council goals and priorities.

Good evening council. Leslie Cavillea, your city manager, and indeed pleased and proud to be that. Last January, the council focused on the future and set out four major topic areas with 13 subcategories that focus on continuing a legacy of planning for the future that could result in Visalia, that could result in many positive aspects of the community and its growth and its development in the future so that Visalia continues to be a place of a better way of living. Your senior staff took that direction and prepared a workshop, work plan with more than 120 projects to implement council's goals and priorities. It is an aggressive work plan, and it is also a living document, one that we have already seen evolve based on current conditions.

In April 2025, we presented the work plan to counsel, and it was accepted, and then your senior staff got to work. Included in your packet is an update of the workshop work plan. Rather than going through all more than 120 items today, I'm going to focus on a few of the key work plan items, as well as some trends that we are seeing in our industry and in our community. What would appear I believe that this would be appear to be most useful is to do this brief overview and then to focus what is important to you. What would you like to discuss?

Do you have questions for us? Would you like to obtain additional information, provide feedback on the progress thus far, or provide alternative direction regarding our work? While the majority of the projects are items that are underway, there are also a number of projects that are completed, although in almost every case, completion meant that we were just moving on to another phase or to additional work in one way or another. So talking about some of the things that have been accomplished, one of the major items as we look back a little over or just about a year ago was we were still focused on the wastewater treatment plant, getting some significant work done on that, getting the master plan accomplished and completed for that major facility. That has been accomplished.

You have seen on agenda after agenda that there have been projects moving forward, and we have made significant progress in that. I think one of the downsides is that we have been trying to work very closely with the Goshen Community Service District. There is an option, and the master plan was done to include an opportunity for them to increase their capacity. They gave us a number. We have built that into master plan, but they have not agreed to an additional or to an augmented contract that would provide for that.

And I just worry moving forward that that's going to be difficult. It is not for a lack of trying on your staff and your legal counsel with almost weekly or at least bimonthly reminders about getting this put on their agenda appropriately. So I just put that out there as something that we have been working very hard on. And I'm afraid push is going to come to shove at some point. And I want to note that we have been working very hard on that, and we look forward to a prompt response from the district.

Another item that got completed was the industrial land inventory that was completed and present to you mid last year. The single family objective design standards, the massage ordinance was completed. We have been working on a lot of issues related to energy alternative transportation. We have purchased our first all electric vehicle, and we're working with our lobbyists and with Cal Cities on clarification on the zero emission vehicles, and will there be a fix for the agencies like ours that selected the milestone program? That is something we have got to focus on this year.

There were two categories you could select from. We selected the one that was most applicable for us, but they only fixed the other category. They think it was an oversight, but we're still waiting for that correction. There's also just been some major change in the hydrogen program. We very much want to focus on that. I think staff across the board believes that hydrogen fuel is probably the better alternative moving forward, but it is not favorable these days for funding. So we have made several attempts. The air district has agreed to match some grant funds for us if when when I'm gonna say when we get them. It could be if and when. I believe it will be forthcoming.

There are many other agencies and just in general folks in the industry who believe that that's going to be the better way. So we will continue to work on that, but it's one that I would say has slid a bit in our projections because we need for that to turn around and to become an alternative that, in fact, can qualify for grant funding. There were several items related to some of our greenways and landscaping and so on. There were medium design standards that we'll be looking at. We'll be looking at landscape and lighting processes.

Are there better ways perhaps that we could address that maintenance of the downtown street project? And those are going to be pushed off just slightly, and it's due to just staff changes. When we have got some new folks on, they're bright, they're going to do well, but they need time to get settled before we start looking at some of those major projects. On the other hand, we're also losing the engineer that was working on the downtown street project. So we'll need to adapt and and probably look at a little bit of a delay in that project, but we know how important it is to the council and to the community, so we'll be looking at ways to adapt on that one.

There was a focus on a lot of digital access. Exela is moving forward well. That will make a major change in how we process in community development. The website is on the verge of being released. Very critical that we get that up, not only for ADA access, but just for a more user friendly approach. So we're excited to see that launch mid this month. Business licenses have gone online. We're we're we're finally turning that corner. We're looking at animal control licenses being able to be purchased online. There'll just be a lot more of that coming in addition to, you know, you can now call your own Visalia Connect right on your digital app.

So it's progressing, but we do have work to do in that. Promoting infill was another important aspect for you. The missing middle presentation you received last August, and we'll be bringing that forward mid this year for further consideration. The rezoning of the property East of Ben Maddox is going to be helpful with infill in there, and we're already seeing that work. And then tonight, you saw the streamlining of the subdivision ordinance.

So again, work is being done to look at how that can be accomplished in this community. Also, a big focus from the council was on parks and recreation. The master plan RFP was issued. The consultant was selected. They've held their first round of focus groups.

They'll be doing surveying work. They will be part of this community for the next approximately eighteen months as they look at finalizing the master plan, also doing the nexus study so that we'll be able to bring back appropriate impact fees for your consideration so that we can actually build what they say what this community says that they want. Other things that you've seen, the recreation projects that you approved at the end of last fiscal year, good progress is being made on those. We should see all of those go into effect this year with perhaps the exception of one of the air conditioning projects that has proven to be a little more problematic in getting it fully designed within the existing building. But everything else should be moving forward this year.

The Elliot property project, I've actually had somebody tell me today they can already see roadwork going or not the rough grading going on out there. So a lot of excitement about that. Pearlwood is in its final design. Victory Oaks has been designed, has just been put we'll 'll be shovel ready, and we'll be be bringing bringing you you later this spring proposal to go ahead and design the final phase of the Civic Center. So a number of projects that could be as well as the plethora of road projects that we have.

So I think we are meeting that goal as well.

Real quick, I'm gonna interrupt. I will say on the road projects, I think we've been in such a good job that we've been upsetting people how much we've been closing I think we know, like we always said, progress is painful, but we've heard from the residents and we've heard how much they want a better road, so I think we're doing that. Somehow we could stagger it where it's not all on top of each other for the future, but I I appreciate the hard work on that.

Yeah. So do I. And, you know, I'm not even I don't even apologize for it anymore. I just say this is what you want, and this is how we can deliver it, and I'm proud of the staff for getting it done. Some of the things that we are going to be looking at here in the future is impact fee studies, and fee studies Solid in waste hasn't been you heard tonight three of the fees have not been increased since 2005.

We do have CIP increases that are that are figured into our impact fees, but they have simply not been enough to keep up with the acceleration of the costs. And so the hard part is is you have to have an updated master plan, and then you have to do the NEXUS study. So like everything else in California, it just takes a long time. So you will be seeing within the next well, the TIF will be coming before you this summer, and you will then start to see them domino going out. Probably the longest one out is the storm sewer. Did I get that right? Storm sewer? Yep. It's the one that is still eighteen months from the plan being connected, then we need to do the NEXUS study. We regret that, but it is a complicated one.

The other thing you'll see in your CIP is we are recommending that we do a nexus study on a public safety fee impact fee to increase that as well. We have one currently, but, again, it's not gonna keep up with the fire station, probably in a new district, and some of the other capital needs that will come with growth in this community. General plan, we have they're working on the RFP to get that out. It will bring with it a lot of good community discussion, I hope, but it will also come with some painful decisions. You know, where are we going to grow? Is it gonna be North of the river? Is it gonna be West of the of 99? Is it going to be closer to Farmersville? And the East, is it going to be South to Tulare? And

is

it gonna be up? Is most of the growth gonna come up? All those will be things that this general plan committee, our planning commission, and you as a council council will need to grapple with. And let's face it, it's gonna make for some interesting conversations with our neighbors, very much so. I also just wanna point out, this was a very successful year for us in the way of grants.

There's been the Cross Valley Corridor that has come to fruition. John and Chris and many have worked very hard on that. That is $63,000,000 that we'll be able to be spent within this community and improving many things that will help us in more than just the Cross Valley Corridor as we look at it. There is the ATP grant we got that will take the Goshen Community Trail, revitalize that. It's very difficult to get revitalization money.

That was a great way to go after it and to expand it all the way into Goshen so that it becomes a true travel way for people trying to get to the industrial park or for people come especially, I'm gonna say, from Goshen into Bicelia. But just today, I was making a presentation to a group and but to the I'm gonna say little old ladies were talking about how they walked the Goshen Trail, and I was telling them about the improvement, and they were just delighted. But we've also seen the CalVIP grant that we just learned at, the earmarks that we haven't gotten before. Public safety has been very good in getting grants. We've just had a very successful year out there.

It does create more work for our staff, and I wanna say thank you to the department heads for what they've accomplished. This is over a 120 items that we developed in this work plan to bring forth those four key priorities that you wanted us to focus on, and we owe them a debt of gratitude as well as the rest of our staff. And I just want to note, and then I'll be done. In addition to this, crime statistics are down in this community in almost every major category. We transported more than 1,500,000 people on our transit system.

We picked up 31,000 residential bins every day that we ran and another 18,000 commercial bins. We served more than 18,000 adults and youth in our recreation programs, and those are just the ones that they registered for, let alone just the activities that go on, either as community events or just activities in our parks that we aren't necessarily involved we don't put on. We ran over 9,000 medical calls. I could go on and on. The work that gets done every day is in addition to what you have before you.

And I'd be glad to address any questions, or let's face it, toss it to one of the department heads to truly answer. You do have a copy, I believe, of the, full report that was provided in your packet.

Thank you very much. Fantastic presentation. We'll start with council member Puchigian. Any questions or comments?

Well, first of all, thank you for the staff for kind of running with what our goals were for the year. I know a lot of hard work's been put in by the department heads and their staff. Really appreciate it. You for me, it was really like roads. You guys really hammer the roads the past couple of years. Like I said, so good

that people

are upset about it. I appreciate all the hard work that you guys have done and thank you for the report.

Councilwoman Nelson? Yeah, great thorough report and I appreciate the efforts by everybody. You know, we sit up here and sometimes get the accolades when in reality, the department heads and the staff should get the accolades. And you guys need to hear it, and you need to hear it often because you guys do a phenomenal job. And looking at some of the projects in here and some of the ideas moving forward is amazing to me. What we've achieved is amazing in a year timeframe. So I applaud all of you. I thank all of you. Because of you, you make us look good. So, thank you.

Council Member So to.

Thank you for the report, Leslie and and of course, for your leadership and the rest of the department directors and and your leadership and and again and echoing what Council Member Nelson said is making the city look great and a place that we all want to live and love and just be at. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Wynn.

Yeah, just want to thank Leslie and John and the whole team, all the directors. You have done a tremendous job. I really, really appreciate the focus on this, and I hope that we will continue to get these six month and twelve month updates because sometimes it feels like we're just spinning our wheels. But when you have it down in writing and you see what we're doing and you see what the challenges are with the ever changing government funding and grants and things and how the staff has been right on top of it, and how you've taken advantage of those grants that apply to us, and all the hard work that's done by this city staff, which, it's just incredible. It's really incredible.

I appreciate everyone and everything that they've done. And I think we need to remember what was, like, two years ago. We were down 30 police officers. We were down city engineers. We were down planners. And now it feels like, well, we're getting back to close to being staffing, the staffing that we really need to help our people move forward. And I appreciate the focus on the staff too and giving them leadership training and giving them opportunities to just learn more and grow in their position because happy staff will make our happy life.

Yeah. I just wanna say, you know, this was such an amazing report to read through. For for us, having our strategic plans and priorities written and then actually going through and and fulfilling those goals and obligations, it really leads to a great city. I was recently meeting with a state leader, and the whole time I was just bragging about how great Visalia is. I was telling them how our parks are full, our shops are full, our businesses are doing great. I mean, we have a baseball, we have, you know, safe streets. Our police are fire at a 100%. Our streets are getting repaired. I mean, if you look at everything that we've done, we are a wildly successful community. And one the most important things, we haven't gotten any new debt.

You know, we've been doing this with the funds that our our community has entrusted us. And so I am just so proud of our staff. I'm I'm proud of the council for really making Visalia just one of the grace greatest places to live and raise a family and just to to enjoy life. So I appreciate you, and and I absolutely appreciate all the work that our staff has done to make sure that they're keeping up with our very rigorous goals that we we set for them. So thank you. Absolutely. Just mind blowing at how great our city has been running. I will go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone wishing to come speak on this item, please come do so.

Jim Rees, Asaya. I just wanted to compliment compliment the city staff also. I've had a couple

of,

interactions with the staff in the last few months, and it's always been, very positive. And they've responded to my requests requests in days when I expected weeks that it might take. Every time I've had to deal with anybody in the city, it's been very good. The building permit people still can't tell the difference between AM and PM on their appointment requests, but that's a rather minor thing, I guess. But overall, I have a very good response with the city, and I think we've got some good people.

I appreciate all of their services, your guys' service, department heads, everybody. It's a good city to live in. Thank you.

All right. Seeing none else, we'll go ahead and just thank you for your report. There's no motion required. So we appreciate it. Thank you.

All right, we're gonna go ahead and adjourn and we will be back for our regular at 7PM. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Visalia City Council meeting. We're gonna go ahead and start our regular session. We will start by offering a pledge of allegiance by council member Puchigian, and then please stay standing for invocation led by pastor Joshua Escobedo of the Praise Center.

Please join me in standing in the pledge of allegiance. Ready? Begin.

Dear heavenly father, we come before you today with grateful hearts, thankful for this community, for the privilege of serving our neighbors, and for the opportunity to gather in this city council meeting. Lord, as we face important decisions that affect so many lives, we humbly ask for your guidance. Your word reminds us in James one five, if any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. So we ask boldly for wisdom, generous wisdom, for each council member, for clarity of thought, fairness in judgment, and courage to do what is right. We also thank you for the truth in Proverbs fifteen twenty two.

Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers, they succeed. Help us to listen listen well to one another, to value every voice, and to work together in unity so that our plans may succeed for the benefit of all who call this place home. Guide our decision, our discussion, guard our hearts from division, and let everything we do honor you and serve the common good. We pray this in the name of Jesus Christ our lord. Amen. Amen. Thank

you very much. Alright. We have a special presentation. Do we have California Water Service here today? We do. Have a So, this is for you guys. I don't know if you guys well, I'll read the proclamation, then we'll we'll present it to you, and then we'll take a photo. So, alright. This is a resolution for California Water Service. It says, whereas California Water Service, Cal Water, was founded in 1926 and has served communities throughout California for one hundred years, providing safe, clean, reliable water to more than 2,000,000 people statewide.

And whereas Cal Water has been a trusted partner of the city of Isiah since 1926, delivering essential water services guided by their promise to provide quality service and value, and whereas Cal Water has invested responsibly into infrastructure, initiatives, and community well-being, undertaking proactive ongoing maintenance and upgrades to deliver safe drinking water and improved emergency readiness and whereas through generations of employees and leadership, Cal Water has maintained its commitment to enhancing the quality of life for customers and communities creating jobs, supporting local economy, and engaging with community organizations in our neighborhood and throughout California. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the city council does hereby recognize and congratulate California Water Service for the momentous occasion of its one hundredth anniversary and extend our appreciation for one hundred years of providing safe, clean, reliable water to our community. Congratulations. A hundred years for any organization is pretty amazing, but we really do appreciate you. We appreciate the valued partnership that you guys have always been.

It's very common to see you guys in these seats, listening about what's going on in our community and always providing safe, clean, and reliable water. If you wanna come on up, we'd love

to take

a picture with you. And then

Say something.

Let's up here. And then afterwards, if guys would like to say something, feel free to do so. So come on up, we'll take a quick photo.

Good evening, mayor, members of the council. I'm Stuart Skogland with California Water Service. Last name is spelled s k o g l u n d. I just wanted to say thank you very much. This is great. Cal Water, we're really thankful for this. I wish we could say we were the first water system that Cal Water purchased, but we were the second. The first one was Chico, which was on October 14, back in 1926. Visalia was the very next day, October 15. So, missed it by a day.

For us to be around for one hundred years is pretty exciting. I wish I could say I'd be around for the next one hundred, but obviously I won't be here that long. This means a lot to us. Our number one goal, as you all know, is to deliver clean, safe, reliable drinking water to our customers. Another big important goal of ours is to be involved in the community.

That's why our management staff here in Visalia were involved in different organizations and clubs around town, because we feel like it's very important for us to give back and to be involved. We do appreciate the partnership we have with the city. We feel like strong one, it's a good one, and we will continue. As the city continues to grow, we're going to grow right along with the city, and we're just very thankful for this. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. Now we will start off with our public comments. This is the time for the general public to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. Each speaker tonight may speak for up to three minutes during the general comment period on a matter that is not on the agenda.

The public may also make one comment for up to three minutes prior to the consideration of the consent calendar and immediately before any regular agenda item is heard. The council ask that you keep your your comments concise and positive. Creative criticism presented with appropriate courtesy is welcome. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time has expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence. Anyone wishing to speak on an item that's not on the agenda, please come forward.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Vicen Totten, and that's spelled first name, v I c k e n, last name Totten, t o t t e n. I have two issues that I wanted to bring up. The one is Chinauth. The street Chinauth is very short, just north of Goshen, and I have to travel through the intersection of Goshen and or, I have some word finding difficulties from time to time, Houston and Goshen. Should Chinauth be put all the way through to Goshen, it would relieve some of that some of that pressure on that intersection.

And especially since we are about to open those new apartment buildings up there, the road comes right up to the railroad track. It wouldn't be hard to extend it as a right turn only. That was issue number one. I would like the council to consider that in their road planning for traffic purposes. The other is that, as many of you do, I have some dogs and I like to walk with my dogs.

I was out walking on the trail, the, Saint John River Trail with my dogs and, there were quite a few youngsters who were riding, gasoline powered small motorcycles, dirt bike type, up and down. I was very pleased to see that all of them were wearing helmets. Unfortunately, many of them were in shorts. And having been a motorcyclist for fifty years, I think that that's a an unwise way to ride a motorcycle even if it's even if it's not very powerful and you're only going 25, 30 miles an hour. Dirt hurts at that speed.

That be that as it may, do we have any ordinances about riding motorcycles on the, walk on the riverbanks and the and the walkways? If so, I wish they would be, enforced. There must have been at least 10 during the course of our run. Thank you. That's all I had to say.

Jim Reyes, Visalia. Last year, the council changed the regulations on the oak tree ordinance. And at that time, I said we were gonna lose all of our oak trees, at least the ones that weren't on government property. That's come true in my neighborhood. There's a plot of land on Ree just south of Tulare Avenue.

And there's been it's been mostly open all the time that I can remember. There was a house there that's been cleared. It's been approved for subdivision for houses to go in there. And there were at least four oak trees on that property. I've noticed Friday, I think it was, down Demery, that all four trees, however many there were, they're all gone now. So the removal of oak trees and Visalia has begun. I think we're going to be poorer for it, but I just wanted to let you guys know about that part of it. Thank you.

Irene Lappin, Visalia. I'd like to have consent item number nine pulled please for discussion, and then I'll be commenting on it. Messaging and the power of words. As you know, messaging plays an essential role in shaping how government community communicates, builds trust, and engages with citizens. I know it seems obvious, but for me, it bears repeating that, especially in today's digital world, good communication isn't just about sharing information.

It's also about making people feel connected and understood. Every public announcement, campaign, or online post can influence how people see their city and its leaders. That's why clear and thoughtful messaging is a key part of effective governance. Now about the frequently used buzzwords transparency and outreach, an ideal government provides both outreach and transparency. Outreach lets officials share their knowledge about what's happening, and it lets them argue for particular policy choices.

Transparency means giving us the information that we, the resident citizens, want to get. Now, I love government in general. As I mentioned before, it was one of my fields. But contrived, awkward, or just plain incorrect messages makes me cringe. So here are a couple of things I'd love for you, the council, to get administration and staff to to example, Parks and Rec leadership first urges a resident to weigh in at a public meeting and then does everything he can to quash that opinion.

That kind of leadership needs serious coaching, and the practice needs to be stopped. Last, infantilization. Infantilization can be social, emotional, or institutional. It's treating the public as though they are younger or older than their actual age, less capable or incapable of making decisions? In too many Facebook city, Facebook posts, baby talk, unless it's for classes, let's say for infants or toddlers, puppies or kittens, will masquerade as being welcoming, upbeat, cute, or fun.

But it's likewise a form of control, control over the public. So your communications department needs to be enlightened and retrained in this regard as well. Thank you.

My name is Max Lupersio, m a x l u p e r c I o, and I am here in Visalia. I just wanted to, read a little letter to you all, from the Sequoia Symphony. I'm also the executive director there. And it says that we at the Sequoia Symphony understand the significance of the grand history of the city and our wonderful Tulare County. And having had Tulare County in our name for most of our existence, we appreciate all the efforts from nonprofit organizations like ourselves who honor the great traditions and accomplishment accomplishments of our citizens.

Many of you on this council, past and present, are patrons of the symphony, attending our concerts, galas, and fundraising efforts, so we realize your personal appreciation, love, and support for our beloved symphony. Recently, we were recognized and awarded $6,500 through your City Of Isonia nonprofit grant with the recommendation of citizens advisory committee. This support allows us to increase the number of middle school students from our Visalia City Schools this April by including 4,000 more young musicians to participate in our link up concerts, which is a collaboration between our symphony and Carnegie Hall. This means we now can host four concerts over two days right here in our downtown Visalia Fox Theater that celebrates musical education, its connection to positive mental health, and fires up the passion that many of our young people have for orchestral music by performing alongside our symphony. Your support ensured that this powerful medium never dies in our community.

I commend the council for recognizing the areas in our community that need support the most, and I am humbled and appreciative that you have chosen us. On behalf of our staff and board, we thank you so much for this grant and thank you for all the hard work that may go unnoticed or underappreciated. And if any of you are available on Tuesday, April 21 or, oh, on Tuesday twenty first, I would love to host you in our balcony seats to watch these middle schoolers perform when at the concert for that day. Thank you so much.

Anybody else wishing to speak at this time? Okay. Let's go ahead and close public comments. We're gonna go ahead and skip items of interest and move on to the consent calendar. Councilwoman Nelson, do have any items you wanna pull?

I'd like to pull item three and miss Lampin beat me on item nine.

Alright. Councilwoman Pucheegan? Yeah. Was gonna pull item nine as well. Okay. Vice mayor.

No items.

And council member So to. No items. Thank you. Fantastic. I will entertain a motion to Let's go ahead and pull item three and nine and then I'll entertain a motion to approve the remainder of the consent calendar.

I'll make

a motion to approve the balance of the consent calendar as presented.

I'll second. All right, we have first and second. All those in favor, please vote.

Everything's off today.

Yeah, it's not like in mine, so yes please for me. Item passes five zero to approve the remainder of the consent calendar. Let's go ahead and open this up to the public. This is the time for members to provide public comments on an item that is on a consent calendar. Comments will not be taken individually by the public if an item is pulled by a council member. Each speaker is allowed up to three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time has expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city residence. Anybody wishing to speak on any of these items, please come forward. I

wanna speak on addendum nine. Good evening, everyone. My name's Harold Myers. That's H A R O L D M Y E R S, and I live in Visalia. I'm asking the council to you've already pulled item nine from the consent calendar for discussion and to vote no on spending the money for a survey.

I've served on two city council committees citizens committees for the city distinction matters because there is a real difference between a need and a want. Visalia has done well. We have focused on needs first. Measure N is a perfect example. It addressed the police, the fire department, the streets, and the parks.

And it's been a fabulous success. I understand the police department, for the first time in a long time, is fully staffed. Roads are being built all over everywhere as everybody can attest trying to get around. And the parks seem to be spending money like wildfire. So it's working.

They're all they're all benefiting by measuring money with a need targeted. All the departments are in good shape. This survey costs $37,000 plus travel. I feel that's a waste of Citi's money. That is a significant amount of money for taxpayers to spend simply residents whether they are open to a tax increase for projects that fall in the category of wants.

Our priority should be to focus on our needs, including completing the civic center, that. To we the to case. And I think

reasons, I urge the

that's council to vote no on spending the money on this survey. As a side note, I guess the buzzer hasn't went off. I wanna point out to you that the last measure that was voted on by the city members,

mean, I

the the citizens, was not contested because it was very important to the city. If you come up with something that is less than as important as police and fire, it will be contested. And your survey won't matter because last time it wasn't

Thank you, sir.

Contested. Thank you.

Irene Lappin again. I wholeheartedly concur. And I would like to reread the paragraph, the blurb describing the item. Authorize the city manager to award a contract to FM Research for an amount not to exceed $45,000 and appropriate $45,000 from the general fund to conduct public opinion research, feasibility analysis regarding a potential local sales tax measure for the November. Okay.

At no more than $45,000 you can get away with hiring the same consultancy you used before without the customary RFP. But make sure that if you all decide on this, that when they conduct the survey, they don't obfuscate the real issue. Make clear that the sales tax increase will be for a luxury Olympic size aquatic center and inform those surveyed of the proposed bike price range. Don't ask people about general parks and rec preferences, as that would be duplicative and a waste of money. Presumably, already being done with your with your other highly paid consultant, PROS Consulting. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Guilen. That's g u I l l e n accent over the e. I live in Visalia. And I stand tonight to support this this vote.

I urge a yes vote on this item, and I'm gonna explain why I'm going in contrary to the previous two speakers. Although I don't always favor hiring of consultants for some things, but this this time, this thing seems like a good use and a good reason to bring in a more neutral party. And I understand that they have a really good track record. I read through their proposal and find that they seem prepared to to do an adequate job. Also, in a more perfect world, we wouldn't need to tax those that are already paying their fair share.

So I am on team tax the billionaires. And also, another prickly item was mentioned earlier today and something I heard at the master plan park and rec department that the development impact fee rate hasn't been updated for twenty one years. With all the development Visalia is attracting and being approved, this makes this is so irresponsible. But let me get back to why I want to see the feasibility survey pass. It will conduct interviews with at least 400 Visalia residents.

This survey will get input from the public we don't usually hear from. Let's get the information, do a careful analysis, and use it to guide us in a responsible manner. My faith community, The United the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Visalia, is getting ready to hold a retreat. We decided to conduct a anonymous survey to get feedback from our congregation. We were framing we are framing the questions to not just hear where our members stand on whether they're good, bad, or in need of improvement.

We also are asking how willing they may be to help us improve and grow. If they want change, are they willing to put up the time and effort and resources to make the change? Anytime you get information from concerned entities, money is well spent. It's well worth it. We rather just ignore sometimes, right, because now we're gonna penny pinch.

Right? But people are living right now with decisions that you have all made, not all of you, but some of you have made, that they didn't have a chance to give their opinion upon. So this is an opportunity to get the information from our residents about this important issue, and we'll be better off for that.

Jim Rees, as I say. I support this item. I think we should do it. Eventually, I'd love to see a good pool in the city. I think that's something that, while technically maybe not a need, the quality of life qualifies qualifies as a want and in my opinion a need. And I think of Olympic size pool or competition pool, whatever terms we're using on it, is an asset that would benefit greatly in the long run. And personally I'm willing to pay a quarter percent or a half percent more in sales tax to make that happen and be another asset to our city. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no one else, will close the public comment and we will go ahead and pull item three, which is a membership Can we get a staff report on that? And councilor Nelson, did you have a specific question? Would you like a report? What would you like on that?

No. No. I've dealt with this agency since I stepped on council. And, every year, we try to figure out how to fix it. We try to figure in the fill in the gaps. We try to hire different, executive director. We at one point, we were spending a lot of money on membership fees, that was adjusted, which I appreciated, and we gave it another try. And now you have the executive director resign. Now we wanna pay just half the fees. At some point, you gotta make a decision that we've wasted ten years on this on this entity.

We can do it on our own. And so I won't support spending any more money on an agency that hasn't really been producing, much for the city of Iselia.

Other questions or comments?

I'll jump in real quick. So, sit on this committee. I was the one that got lowered our fee almost by 50%, which I was pretty proud of. The organization's going through change. They want to hire a consultant to revamp the organization, totally start from new.

And I think as being one of the larger cities, we should be at the table because a lot of these big companies that come in want a regional EDC and that's what this is. This is our chance to shape it the way that we want. This is our dues that we've already for the past half year that we haven't really paid because we're waiting to see which way the organization went. Right now, they have the county kind of running the day to day operations just to make sure we have someone there, so we have a savings there. I think this pays for our half a year that we've already been a part of. We can see where this consultant goes and we could shape this. I'd rather be at the table than walk away from it and not have a say on how this whole thing is gonna kinda go. So I'll be supportive of it today.

Any other questions or comments?

Yeah. I mean, you've lost people at the seat of the table, and you're paying for half of a year. And I would ask the question, and if Paul wants to come up and answer it, what has been accomplished in the last half year that warrants a $30,000 membership fee other than you want to play nice in the sandbox.

So is that your question of have we received any leads from this organization? Yeah.

What be what have we accomplished in the last half a year?

So I would say that there is continued to be prospecting activity, and the city has responded to leads that have come through the agency. What I would say in just over the last week, I would say under a a more collaborative so the county right now is without without any independent staff is operating it through its shop and tending to it while it goes through, you know, reimagination of it, if you will, to what it really should be, which is focused on industrial development. It's for a long time been, to your point, council member, you know, it's been involved in tourism. It's been involved in a number of things. I've been along for this ride along with you for twenty years.

So but it's returning back to the roots of really focusing on industrial development. And I can speak to in the last week, and and part of this is responsiveness on behalf of the city, but we had prospect come forward from the egg show and has almost immediately looked at potential location. They're focused on Tulare County in the Central Valley, but focused primarily on Tulare County and had the opportunity to demonstrate our best foot forward with this. And it's a manufacturing prospect. So to your point, there's been continued to be prospect activity, granted that a lot of the locates that have happened in Visalia have been those that we've been fortunate to work with our development community in developing.

I think the merits of going forward in the EDC, and I would say is is that and this is another pivot within what's looking at is that really focusing on the 99 Corridor and the three major agencies that are are focused on industrial development, that being by City Of Islay, County Of Tulare, and city of to City Of Tulare and County Of Tulare. What one of our approaches to that regional collaboration is also that we are not stepping on one another and especially looking at electrical production. There are specific interests that City Of Tulare has, County Of Tulare has, and the City Of Visalia has. And we need to make sure that we're aligned in that just as we are with water, that you don't have a symptom that or a situation that happened like what where Tulare County said, we're not really interested in a water bottling facility, and then it ended up just on our periphery in Kern County in Delano. So I guess that's the merits of having some regional coordination given our proximity to one another and our neighbors that are very active in looking at industrial development.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? So, I'll share my kind of comments. I agree with Council Member Nelson that this thing has kind of just floundered over the last ten plus years, but I realistically think that the place would be to either have the city of Isiah or Tulare County running this organization to hold it more accountable. The current nonprofit strategy that they're operating with with their staff and just the oversight for whatever reason is just not being successful.

So I think a change needs to happen. And I think most likely actually having the county running this is probably the most appropriate way to do it in my vision. And I do appreciate the fact that because they haven't really done a whole lot this year and they've had no staff that cutting the cost in half for us is definitely very appropriate.

I will say this Accounting has been handling it for probably the past month, I would say. And you've actually seen a lot of good work getting done. It's kind of unraveling the mess that was there before right now. But I do think we need to have a seat at the table because we could kind of structure this the way that we want. I will say that when I first got on this committee going on eight years ago, I thought that was the biggest waste of time I've ever been a part of.

We made some changes and it was going on the right path, and then some things happened and people get different positions or people leave. Now we're at the spot now, but it's a really good opportunity. Like I said, totally reimagine this organization and get this work in the way you want. One of the things that we've talked about now too is really getting out of the way and letting the people in the room that know what they're doing, the Devin Jones and the Mike Washums, actually work as a, I hate to say, TAC committee because it's so close to TCAC, but kind of like that and report back to us because they're the ones doing the economic work. Let's put all those individuals in the room and start working together so they could come up with a better plan of ways organization could actually work.

Alright, no other discussion. I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

First and second, please vote. Again, not popping up for me, mine's a yes vote. And the item passes four to one. Thank you very much. Next we're go on to item number nine, and that appears to be pulled by multiple council members. So do we wanna report? What would we like to hear from this one?

I don't need a report. Just a couple things. First, know, mister Myers it right. We've always had well thought out projects. You look at that with the Civic Center and we saved for years to build for that and we're paying that in cash.

We're not taking on any debt for that. Where I struggle with this is don't believe in taxing our individuals for something like this. I think it needs to be well thought out and that's what I said at the last meeting where we went for this. I'm not against the poll, to just say we're gonna tax our residents and increase taxes for that is I'm totally against. Second of all, you know, I wanna make sure that I'm gonna vote no on this tonight regardless, but if we do go down this path, the motion was to vote purely for parks and recreation.

I don't want this to play any games and throw public safety or any other organizations that pull out just to get this passed. If you guys decide to go down this path, I do want to make sure that it is solely for a new swimming pool and parks and recreation sales tax. I think it would be very dishonest. We try to play word games just to get this passed, just so we do get the funds. If So, I see this and it says public safety or anything like that, I think we're being completely dishonest. So, I'll be voting no on this thing.

I pulled the item. And I agree with the customer. The city has done a great job in the past of planning for different projects, I. E. The Civic Center, and how do finance it, how do we budget for it, and we have a process we go through. I think this is a knee jerk reaction. I said at the meeting, I support a rec pool. Hindsight, the city should have done a rec pool a long time ago. But that's hindsight. I think to build to Taj Mahal, and I agree with councilmember Pucci, and the motion was for a pool.

And I think that's wrong. And I agree with council member Parchigi. And if any other fluff is put on it, think that's dishonest. And I think there's other ways we can look at financing a pool. I've always said you can find grant funding to build a pool. You've to figure out how to maintain it and what do you do for maintenance. I don't want to see a tax measure used for maintenance. I'd rather see it used for something else. And I oppose taking money out of the general fund.

Wanted to just clarify some things. We're not voting to increase taxes on the voters or on the citizens of Islaya. We're allowing them to choose. So I'll make that clear.

That's a tax raise.

Of course, we're proposing a tax raise, but the voters are choosing, not us. We're just allowing them to have the choice or putting the choice on the ballot. So, we're not voting to increase taxes I didn't just say the pool when I mentioned this at the last meeting. I mentioned the convention center, which needs a lot of funding. The civic center Phase 3, which we don't have the complete funding for.

Yes, I mentioned the aquatic center. Eastside Regional Park, the $10,000,000 in funding that we don't have for our current parks projects. And then just recently, we're losing a grant with public safety on the clinicians on the hope team. This could be another way to fund the clinicians on the hope team that we're gonna lose. So this is for anything that we as a council see that the city needs. Some of these things are quality of life items. And I I don't want see us I mean, I don't want to plan here for an aquatic center, Civic center Phase 3, Convention Center, East Side Regional Park that's going to happen forty years from now. I'd love to see in the next ten if possible.

I would disagree on something. The motion included East Regional Park, Convention Center, Civic Center, and I forget the other litany of items you said. I probably would be more in support of putting a survey out. But my recollection is the measure the vote was for sales tax for the pool complex, which included a rep park and a humongous pool.

That's the way I remember it. I remember no point that we talked about East Regional Park. We didn't talk talk about the Hope Team. If we talked about the Hope Team, that would be a Brown Act violation because that was even on the agenda. We didn't. Didn't. To say that's on there now, I think is lying to the public. Don't want

to say that's on there now. I'm saying that's what I said in my comment. That's what I said. And then tonight I included that because we just had a meeting with old staff who mentioned that they're losing the grant funding for the clinicians on the hope team. So we gotta find some funding for that. This could be another avenue for that. That's all I'm saying.

Can I ask for clarification on the motion? Because I don't remember correctly.

Just pulled up the motion. And then I'd like when you're ready to make a couple of comments. Can you read it from there? Yeah.

So on 01/20/2026, council member Emmanuel Hernandez Soda motioned to direct staff to return with funding options for total and phased approaches to the project, including project timelines and funding for consultant to look at a sales tax measure and the viability for that in November. The motion was then seconded by vice mayor Winn, and it carried with a three two vote.

And that that is when what you both said is exactly correct. I think the reason measure n passed so easily was it was very well spelled out. We know the percentages. We have a a citizens oversight and I think that's, what what I would support, and that's what this feasibility study would also help. There is I don't want to assume at my age and my point in life that I know what's best for everyone in this city.

That's why I think taking it to a ballot measure and giving the people the opportunity to speak and to decide if they wanna spend $3.50 on every $500 that they spend in this city to increase, improve our amenities, whether it's to hope team, the parks. That's what the surveyor is gonna find out. I mean, he's going to see what do we think we need. And then it comes back to us, and then we make that decision if it's if we put the allocation. But our voters are not stupid.

They will want those things spelled out, and that citizens oversight committee is a must. Because look how well they've done on r and n and all the other measures that we've passed. But I don't want to assume that I know all the answers and know what every 30, 40, and 50 year old in this city want. I'm at the point where I don't really care about an aquatic center, but others may. It may be really important to them. It may be important that we have the hope team counseling. You know, let's let the people decide. Representatives. We're not their gods.

Any other comments?

Yeah. Okay. I'm not up I'm not up here saying I know everything that what the citizens want. I can talk about what citizens are concerned with, and that is how to put food on the table, medicine for their kids, get them to school, so forth and so on. The people are struggling in the economy. And when you look at different agencies in the local community area that are looking also to do a tax measure or a bond measure, and now you're gonna throw this measure in there. I think the timing is poor. I think the economy is poor. And in every time we've done something of this magnitude, we have done outreach, not necessarily with consultant. We've done it through park and rec.

We've done it some other ways to have that communication. And I think to jump on this immediately and spend $45,000 out of the general fund tell you what. Take the $45,000 and put it on the inclusive park. That's been languishing for seven freaking years. It's time to it's time to complete what we start instead of setting up another Taj Mahal, and this is what you're looking to do.

So, know, this item I'm kind of torn on because earlier we received an update because of all the goals and objectives that our city has established over the last few years and to hear all the amazing things that we've done as a community, it's amazing. I encourage everyone to read this strategic goals and planning session and then all the things that we've accomplished because our city is pretty amazing. The things that we've done, just mind blowing that a city of our size has been so fantastic at really just thriving and that we've done it without debt and that we've really just heard the citizens with all the issues from roads to police, fire, parks, recreation. Then it kind of brings us to the point that we've been running the city so efficiently and so beautifully it's like, well, what else is there really left? Right?

Really the life enjoyment, the parks and recreation. So I can see how we got here because it's like so many things have been going well. Well, what other great things can we do well? Well, you know, if we had funds for, you know, pools and parks and, you know, our East Side Regional Park and if we we could do it all tomorrow, that would be fantastic. You know, and my eyes were kinda like bright eyed and bushy tailed and wide over the excitement of potentially getting, you know, a $100,000,000, whatever, 200,000,000, whatever we could get from this potential tax measure.

But I always said, I think it shouldn't be coming from a council. If it was like a major need that we needed police fire that, you know, that's a different story. I wanted this to come from the citizens. I wanted to be a citizen based ballot measure. And then when I look to see that it's gonna cost a $100 for every survey, you know, that just seemed a little excess And so I would still like to see the citizens push this forward rather than having it pushed from the council.

Like I said, we're gonna do a parks master plan. To jump in now and say, let's just do this now before the parks master plan is this. We're just trying to rush this through and that's something that this council and this city has never done. Like we've always prided ourselves on our long term planning. I said that when we were talking about the pool beforehand. No one's saying we don't want the pool. Let's just think it out and it's a, we always took a long approach, process to think, long term planning. That's why our city looks the way it does. We haven't made snap decisions like other cities have. That's why we said before, we're not against the pool, but let's just think this out and really put some long term planning in this.

Just say, oh, let's do something quick and tax our residents, increase sales tax. I don't think that's really long term planning. That's knee jerk thinking and will not support that.

Potentially putting this measure on the ballot does not mean that we cannot plan accordingly. If if this measure were to be on the ballot and it it was approved, it would still take two or three years to raise this money, which allows us proper time to plan this accordingly as prior councils have done in the past. Again, we're not gonna increase taxes. This is something the voters will get to choose at the end of the day, not us. And this would also allow us continue to not ever be in debt and and pool loans, like other count other cities are, you know, digging themselves out of. Again, this is up to the voters at the end of the day.

Alright. I'll entertain a motion.

I move to authorize payment to oh, sorry.

Go ahead. Wrong one.

I move to authorize city manager to award a contract to FM three Research for an amount not to exceed 45,000 to evaluate the feasibility of a potential local sales tax measure for the November twenty six twenty twenty six general election and appropriate 45,000 from the general fund.

I second.

We have in person second. All those in favor please vote. And again, I'll be a no on this one. My button's not working. And the item fails on a two to three vote. All right, thank you very much. We are gonna go on to Actually, have no regular items to be heard at this time. So we will go ahead and be adjourning and we welcome everyone to come back at our next meeting, is 03/16/2026 at 7PM.