City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the Visayas City Council work session. We're going to go ahead and get this meeting started. We will start off with public comments. Citizens are now invited to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visayas City Council. The Council asks 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, you can come on up to the lectern over here on your right-hand side. Okay, and seeing no one, we will close public comments and we will start our work session by starting off with item number one, which is Town Center Business Improvement Area Annual Report.

downtown by celia isn't just a place good afternoon members of the council and thank you for the opportunity to come before you today my name is valerie felix and i serve as the executive director for downtown by celians before we begin we'd like to share a short video highlighting downtown by celia

Town Visalia isn't just a place, it's people. It's the early mornings, the sound of doors opening, and the familiar faces that walk in every day. It's where business feels personal, where relationships are built, and where community comes first. Here, you're not just another storefront, you're part of something bigger. A network of businesses that support each other and grow together. That's what makes downtown different. It's the energy during events, the people filling the streets, and the pride of being here. For many of us, downtown is where we took a chance and built something of our own. And that doesn't happen on its own. Downtown Visalians helps make it possible, supporting businesses, creating events, and bringing people together. They help keep downtown active, visible, and moving forward. Because when downtown is strong, our entire community benefits. This is more than where we work. This is our downtown.

All right, well, before I begin, I'd like to provide a brief background on our organization. Downtown Visalia was founded in 1963 as a merchant association during a time when the emerging shopping mall concept was drawing customers away from traditional downtown districts. At that time, Downtown Visalia was primarily a retail center, and local business owners recognized the need to work together to protect its future. Rather than watching their downtown decline, a dedicated group of merchants came together with a shared vision to protect, promote, and preserve the heart of our community. Their leadership and advocacy were instrumental in the adoption of the TCBIA, which continues to serve as a funding source supporting downtown programs and services today. Because of their commitment, downtown Visalia did more than survive. It evolved and thrived. More than 60 years later, the commitment of those founding merchants continues to shape a downtown that remains active, welcoming, and essential to the identity of Visalia. Currently within our district, there are over 700 business licenses and members of downtown Visalians.

We can go first, oh yeah, we're there.

Our mission statement can be summed into one sentence, where friends meet, fun happens, and businesses prosper. Everything we do from supporting local businesses and organizing events to enhancing the downtown environment is centered around creating a downtown that is welcoming, vibrant, and economically successful. We take pride in our unique specialty shopping, diverse dining experiences, and the wide variety of community events and entertainment that make downtown Visalia a destination for both residents and visitors.

You can keep it on the first slide.

Behind the Downtown Visellians team is a team of three, myself as Executive Director, Gabrielle as Assistant Executive Director, and Rudy as our Enhancement Technician. Together we manage downtown programs, support businesses, coordinate events, and help keep Downtown Visalia clean, vibrant, and welcoming.

You can go to the second slide now. Thank you.

Our organization is guided by a 12-member board of directors, including a five-member executive board. This board is intentionally structured to represent the downtown business community with two service businesses, four retail businesses, and six restaurants. Over the past year, Downtown Visalians has experienced significant growth in its marketing reach and community engagement. Our Instagram following has increased by 49%, reflecting the growing interest in Downtown Visalia as a destination for events, business highlights, and community activities. Today, our social media platforms serve as a primary source of information for residents and visitors looking to stay informed about what's happening downtown. In addition, we email a monthly newsletter featuring upcoming events, business news, and downtown Visalia initiatives. At the end of last year, we saw a significant increase in demand for our events, with many of our second half events selling out. That momentum has continued into this year, as we have already hosted two sold out events. One of our newest additions, the dessert walk, debuted this year and sold out, demonstrating the community's enthusiasm for unique downtown experiences. All of our events are intentionally designed to drive foot traffic into downtown Visalia and support our local businesses. Looking ahead, we are excited for our upcoming events, beginning with the Taste of Downtown Visalia on October 13th. Downtown Visalians also proudly produces the Candy Cane Lane Parade, one of Visalia's longest standing traditions. This year marks the 80th annual Candy Cane Lane Parade. a milestone celebration for our community. Last year, the parade drew an estimated 30,000 spectators to downtown Visalia, making it one of the largest and most impactful community events of the year. Downtown Visalians also oversees the ongoing care and upkeep of the downtown district. A key part of that work is carried out by our enhancement technician, Rudy, who has proudly served the organization for over nine years. Rudy works early morning hours from 3 a.m. to 11 a.m. to ensure downtown Visalia is clean, presentable, and ready for the day before the community arrives. His consistent attention to detail and rapid response to maintenance needs including graffiti removal, play an important role in maintaining the overall appearance and pride of our downtown. In closing, everything we do at Downtown Visalians, from supporting businesses and producing events to enhancing our downtown environment, is focused on strengthening a vibrant and thriving district for our community. With that, I'd like to turn it over to our treasurer, Emily Van Duren, who will walk us through the budget.

Good afternoon, everyone. We're proposing a budget increase of 3.1% for the year 2026, calculated from 2025 budget totals. We're projecting an income of $689,400. Broken down, we anticipate receiving $32,960 from city contracts, $196,730 in property owners association services and reimbursements, $66,950 received from premier sponsorships, $74,160 in service agreements, such as parking permits, gift check sales, and associate memberships, and $195,000 from DID assessments. Our calculated expenditures for 2026 total $687,010, an increase of $20,000 from last year, which includes $59,740 on POA and city, which includes items such as insurance on company vehicles, repairs and maintenance costs around downtown, and supplies, $66,950 for downtown events, $350,200 in administration costs, $121,540 for office operations, $8,240 in team development opportunities, and $80,340 for services such as donations and gift checks issued. Thank you for listening.

Perfect, well, thank you very much. Councilman Pichigian, any questions or comments?

Yeah, real quick. So I'll be supportive of 3%. Everything's gone up across the board, so I understand that things go up. So I'll be fully supportive of that. When I'm looking at your guys's, let me find it here real quick, your board of directors, I noticed that executive board, you have two members from the same company on there. Is that normal? Usually you try to like, Yeah, so you have Dwayne Rodriguez, on-site security, Janine Robbins, Janine's Furniture, Emily Van Duren, on-site security. So two from the same company.

That might have been a typo. Is that a typo? Is that a typo? It's a typo.

I'm from Tacoma's.

Okay. I'm wearing my Tacoma shirt.

Perfect. Well, that took care of that question for me. So I just wanted to make sure. You see, right there, it says on-site, on-site. So on our staff report, you guys have the same company there. I just wanted to clear things up there.

All right, cool. Vice Mayor Winn, any comments or questions?

No, it looked all in line, and your treasurer is still a certified CPA, correct? I mean, doesn't Tom gave you, or is that the other, no, that's the other, okay. Okay. And did you, was this the organization that was going to have the audit?

We have been told that both organizations are going to be having an audit.

That's our understanding. Okay. Because that would be my... Is that still the case? Yes. Yeah. That would be my only concern is that we make sure we follow through on that audit. But I'll support an extension as well.

Wonderful. I had one question. So the proposed income is going to be just slightly above the total expenses.

So are you guys anticipating next year coming back and asking for another increase in the assessments also We haven't Kind of decided that this year is kind of a transitional year for us so when we come next year, we might restructure the way the budget looks so I

All right, well, fantastic. Yeah, on behalf of the city council, we wanna say thank you for the hard work you do. Congratulations on your new job. Also heard you just had a new baby, correct?

I did, yeah, she is two months old.

Congratulations, that's exciting. Thank you. And I'm sure your hands are full with the downtown and with your new baby. So we're excited and we wanna say thank you for what you guys do. Really, I mean, Visalia is uniquely special because of our downtown. And so what you guys do, it really brings a lot of value to our community. And it's one of the main reasons a lot of people remember and love our cities because we have an amazing downtown. So I just want to say thank you for all the hard work and all the amazing events that you guys host downtown that really draw on the crowd and then keeping it beautiful. So we appreciate what you guys do. So we'll go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item, please come on up.

Good evening, Council. April Lancaster. I am speaking tonight on behalf of a number of downtown stakeholders who have become increasingly concerned about the governance, financial oversight, and accountability of the downtown Visalians. This council is being asked to renew an agreement with an organization that is currently facing significant unresolved questions. Council Member Steve Nelson resigned from his position with the downtown Visalians earlier this year following months of questions regarding financial oversight executive compensation reporting, payroll liabilities, and an ongoing government code section 1090 conflict of interest investigation. In October of 2025, I formally raised concerns regarding inconsistencies in information reported to the IRS relating to executive compensation and payroll reporting. Shortly thereafter, the organization initiated a three-year look-back audit. In February of 2026, financial documents were presented to the board containing numerous highlighted entries, yet no explanation was provided regarding the significance of those items. And the 2025 financial statements were ultimately tabled pending further review. At the same time, several governance concerns remain unresolved. Two board members appear to be serving well beyond their term limits, established by the organization's bylaws. I did attach all Form 990 filings that were available from 2015 going forward so that that information can be verified. One of those board members maintains a financial relationship with an entity managed by the Downtown Visillions, creating, at minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Members have effectively been denied the opportunity to nominate and elect directors in the manner prescribed in the bylaws since 2019. The executive board has repeatedly acted on manners outside of his delegated authority without authorization from the full board of directors and not properly noticed in compliance with the Brown Act. I did attach minutes from March 17th, April 21st, and May 19th as well. Financial trends also warrant further scrutiny. According to the organization's IRS Form 990 filings, significant changes in compensation reporting first appear in 2022. Prior to that year, executive compensation was not separately reported in the manner reflected in later filings. Beginning in 2022, compensation of officers, directors, trustees, and key employees was separately disclosed, coinciding with substantial increases in overall personnel-related expenditures. Personnel-related expenses, including salaries, compensation benefits, and payroll taxes, increased from approximately $220,000 in 2021 to nearly $360,000 by 2024. This year, $377,000. During that same period, revenue attributed to POA services increased from approximately $133,000 in 2021 to more than $253,000 in 2024, peaking at nearly 350,000 in 2023. That continues. I'm not gonna have time to continue the rest, but you guys really need to table this approval until that audit is completed. I don't see how you can approve this agreement. They have plenty of liquidity to continue.

Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment and we'll turn it back over to council with any follow-up questions or I'll entertain a motion as well.

I move to accept the annual report for the Town Center Business Improvement Area and approve the renewal of the TCBIA Management Agreement with Downtown Visillions, Inc. for an additional one-year term to commence July 1st, 2026.

I'll second.

Thank you. First and second. All those in favor, please vote. And item passes 3-0 with Council Member Soto and Council Member Nelson absent. Thank you very much for your report. Next we're going to item number two, which is fiscal year 2026-27 and 2027-28 proposed budget.

Good evening, Council. My name is Renee Nagel, and I'm the Finance and Technology Director for the City of Visalia. With me, I have Amy Swearengen, who's a Financial Analyst for the City of Visalia. Tonight, we're here to present the proposed 26-27 and 27-28 budget. The city's biannual budget was completed on May 22nd and was made available to the public on May 26th. The budget document is comprised of the following, a budget message, financial summaries, department, which includes nine sections, a capital, and then an appendix, which includes allocated positions, salaries, financial policies, Measure N, Measure T recertification, many other documents as well. The budget document is a pretty thick document, and so we don't expect council to have gone through it all in a matter of a week, so therefore we will be presenting again the second meeting of council to potentially adopt. We're here to answer questions tonight, and then bring back any that we cannot answer as well, and then if we need to have additional meetings, we will so that way council has more time if needed as well. The budget document is a team effort and it's put together by all the departments. We start this in August and we work back and forth, many meetings, not just with departments but with city council as well. But with that, the heavy lifting at the end comes from my department. And so with that, I'd like to thank some of my staff, which is Amy Swearingen, our financial analyst, Jaina Ferguson, who's a financial analyst as well, and then Nicole Ritchie, who's our finance manager. They spend a lot of hours, a lot of time, combing through numbers, putting together. The document doesn't just have, we don't have a system that just spits it out. So it's done in many systems, a lot of Excel spreadsheets, a lot of looking over numbers to make sure we're human, that there's no errors. I'm not saying it's errorless, but we try to check our work and this document takes a lot of time and we're proud of it.

So for tonight's discussion, we're gonna review the proposed budget for fiscal year 26-27 and 27-28, which includes a general fund discussion, recommended positions, and future challenges. Council has reviewed the budgets for all capital projects, CDBG home, and measuring at previous meetings. The final budget presentation and proposed adoption will be June 15th. Council's concerns arising from tonight like Renee said, can be brought back on June 15th or sooner if needed. The budget process calendar, as Renee mentioned, it started back in August. We've come through multiple meetings. You guys saw us January, February, almost every meeting, March, April, May, we were here almost every meeting with you guys. And we'll be here in June for the actual adoption. For budget revisions, the adopted budget can be revised at any regular meeting. Throughout the year, staff continues to monitor revenue and expenditures. Future presentations for this two-year budget, we will come back in March of 2027 to review the first year of the budget, which is fiscal year 26-27. Then we'll be back again in June for the mid-cycle, which will go over any revisions for or any updates for fiscal year 26-27 and focus on 27-28. And then we'll be back again in March of 28 for the second year. Our budget strategic goals, we brought that to you guys back in November to adopt for this year. We have quality of life, infrastructure and growth, fiscal strength, organizational excellence, and economic vitality. For the 26-27 and 27-28, our proposed budget, this is the whole budget summarized all rolled up into one. For fiscal year 26-27, it's gonna be a total of 409 million. And for fiscal year 27-28, it's 359 million. The difference in the second, from the first year to the second year, it's a lot higher due to our capital

Can you kind of explain why the special revenues funds and the business-type funds are significantly higher this year compared to future projections?

Due to the second year?

Yeah. So, like, for example, special revenue funds is almost $80 million for the 26-27 year, and then 27-28, it's $62 million, give or take. And same thing with the... Internal service funds, no, I'm sorry, the business type funds, it drops $36 million.

So those large differences are, they're heavier in capital projects for the first year of the budget. So they have more projects and more money being appropriated for those capital projects in the first year of the budget.

So it's funds from our measure are projects that we're actually working on that we're spending those funds and that's why we're budgeting for them in the future. those projects are not as large, so that's why we're not spending as much.

So over the last four months, we've been presenting capital budgets, which is the six-year capital plan, and in that six-year capital plan was the first two years of proposed projects. Some of those projects were continuing phases that we've started, and then some of them are starting new projects, with the heavy lifting maybe being in the first year. So in special revenues, the first year is higher, To name a project would be measure in Station 51 construction. That was $21 million. So that's a continuing of a project, but that's in fiscal year 26-27 for that construction. For the business type funds, a large project would be the wastewater expansion project. So that one's in the first year. And so all those capital projects for the public that's here, they're listed in detail in the budget document under the capital section. And again, it's a six-year capital plan with the first two years being adopted in the budget. The remaining four years are planning projects for our future.

So these charts, it's a pie chart that's broken out by the different categories that were listed in the earlier slide, and it shows the percentage of the total appropriation or total budget appropriation. So the largest category is the business type funds at 41%, and that consists of 14 funds. And then the next one is our general fund, which is 27%. That's the single largest fund that we have, and that's why we go into a little bit more detail throughout this presentation on that fund.

So the budget includes 21 new positions. As we would love to add more staff, all the departments are always needing additional staff. However, we do try to balance the budget to ensure that we're not overcommitting. And so with that, we are adding five new positions in the general fund. These are full-time positions. There are additional hourlies that get added, but we do report on the full-time because they include health benefits and additional costs such as PERS and stuff, so they're more expensive. And so for general fund, again, five positions for Measure N, five was included in the plan. And then for internal service funds and enterprise funds, 11, which totals 21 new positions for the two-year budget. These 21 positions brings our total full-time allocated positions to 742 for fiscal year 27-28. And at any given time, the city, which includes full-time and hourlies, on average, we have about 950 employees. And that goes up and down depending on the season. So such as right now, we've got a lot of the aquatics program happening. So our hourlies are going to be going up for that. But on average, we have about 950 employees throughout the year. So this table is a summary of the general fund proposed budget. As Amy mentioned, the general fund is our single largest fund, which is why we're going to go over a few slides and spend more time on the general fund. Its revenues fluctuate based on our economic situations, and so we do spend more time on it. So for operating revenues, we're proposing the budget to be $112,000. and then for the second year increased to 116.4 million. For our total expenditures, 110.5 and then 110.8. Both years we're projecting a surplus, which is 2.4 in the first year and then 5.6 in the second year. This is before meeting the emergency reserves, 30% of operations. to continue that policy at the end of the year, we always transfer to keep that at the 30%. So this would be before that, this would be your actual surplus. Let's see here, yep. So this next slide talks about the general fund revenues. We have the top six revenues listed on the side and their growth assumptions. We're always conservative as we have been in the past. We're conservative with our revenues and then we're overly conservative again with our expenditures. And we do that for several reasons. For the revenue side, we always hope that they will come in higher. If the economy starts to turn, we would have some wiggle room there because we weren't overshooting it. And you never know the slightest economic change. It could be foreign or domestic changes or a policy that can affect your revenues. And so for sales tax, we're projecting a 2.5 growth over both years. For property tax, a 3%. The VLS swap, a 2%. Franchise, 2% for both years, and TOT, 2%, and business license, a 2%. These right here that I listed, those top six, represents 90% of the general fund revenues, which are sensitive to economic conditions as well. So that's another reason why you should really be conservative. If revenues come in higher, we always have expenditures that we tried to plan for everything, but things do come up throughout the year or the two years. And so the additional revenues we've used in the past to fund capital projects that maybe we didn't anticipate, maybe a pump going out at a park. We try to foresee and plan for the future, but you just never know what's going to happen. Or there could be a change of something that you may need for security reasons. And so, therefore, we recommend continuing to budget conservative.

Renee, real quick, just for the public, would you explain what the VLF swap property taxes are?

Yeah, so the VLS swap was a change that California did in 2004. We used to get revenues from the vehicle license fees, and then the state did a swap with how we got paid, because they could use their money to do different things. And then they backfilled cities and counties by property tax. And so they did a trade, basically.

Thank you. I think for most people listening, they probably have no idea what that is, and it makes up a big chunk of our money, so I appreciate that.

For sales tax, for fiscal year 20, whoops, let's see. For sales tax, this is our largest general fund revenue source, which represents 44%, as I just shown on that chart. Sales tax continues to increase due to our continued development and growth here. We have a very wide span of sales tax type categories, which we've benefited from, which is our commercial, our residential, and our industrial categories. and being that our commercial is also very large here, we're able to draw from the surrounding cities, which helps our sales tax growth as well, versus some of our neighboring cities. So we are conservative, as I mentioned, for fiscal year 25-26, which is the current year we're in. We're projecting now at 3.5, and as you can see, it's lower. We're not projecting to see the economy go down, so we're not saying doom and gloom, but this is just us being conservative, because if there is starting to be a change, We didn't overshoot that mark and so it's easier so you don't have to immediately start making cuts. And right now our sales tax number for fiscal year 25-26, we don't know that total number until we get into September. And so that's still quite a ways away and so we're going off of projections which the state is projecting. So there's really nobody has that final number and that number changes constantly. You could have one month that's good, one month that's not and that depends on when people pay. It depends on if they pay to the wrong agency. We get that all the time as well. And so the final number doesn't come until September. So we're being very conservative. Like sales tax, property tax is projected to have continued growth due to the new development in the city. This chart shows the past eight years, and it shows that we've had continued growth in property tax. Over the last eight years, the city has seen a $7 million increase in property tax, which we're projecting, again, an increase over both years of a 3% in each year.

Hey, Renee?

Yes.

So property tax is probably our more secure line of money coming in. probably be the last city in the county where you kind of see things slowing around us before it actually hits us here, correct?

Correct. So property tax typically, if you have an economic downturn, lags a couple of years in your commercial and then of course in your residential, you'll start to, sales tax you'll see immediately. For your property tax, you'll see it usually, like I said, it lags a year or two. So you have time to kind of change and make changes in your expenditures before you need to do something dramatic. So this next table is our general fund expenditures. It shows for fiscal year 26-27, we're projecting our total operating expenditures to be $98.5 million. And then the total expenses, which includes transfers, debt, CIP, of $110.5 million. And then for 27-28, $102 million. And then for the total, $110.8. Salaries and benefits represent 76% of our total operating expenditures. Inside fiscal years 26, 27, you'll see that we're projecting a growth. In that 8% growth in salary and benefits is a 4% wage adjustment, which was approved in the MOU throughout the fiscal year. And then we also have health increases. And then for the second year, we're assuming a 4%, which is just for health and PERS. It does not include any MOU changes, and that's because those still have to be negotiated. So the total, again, is 110 for both years. does not have such a large increase in operations. The first year has more operating expenses due to technology. We are renewing some of our contracts with technology and those costs are rising as those technology agreements do come for renewal.

Renee, when you're talking about 4% increase in 27-28 for benefits, You were including health in that?

Yes, health, workers' comp, it will be.

When was the last time health insurance only went up 4%?

Correct. It's overall, though, it includes all our wages. So you'd have to, it's not just taking the line item health and then raising it. It's coming out with our total. So the total net for salaries and benefits, which includes our wages, has a 4%. So that's not just health. So the actual, if you were to break it down onto health, it would be higher than that.

Okay.

I'm talking 27, 28, I'm sorry. So it's an average across the board?

So it takes your total salaries and benefits and it increases at a total of 4% across the board.

So 4% of the 87 million?

Yes.

4% of the what? 87 million.

But you just said the MOUs that haven't been included, right? Correct. Okay, I think that's low.

Yeah, I would agree. Worker's comp goes up pretty substantial. Health benefits went up pretty substantial. Yeah, I kind of got lost on that myself when I was going through this.

It's on the wage total, though. So the wages aren't increasing. So it's a 4% on the total. And so if your wages aren't increasing because we don't have an MOU agreement, so if you were to break that difference out, that increase, and put it on to just health and PERS, it's not going to be four. It's going to be higher than the four because it's coming out of the total.

Yeah. Okay.

So it would be way more than four.

Yeah, it's going to end up being way more than four.

Yes, because this has the wages in it, and the wages aren't getting an increase because that's MOU negotiated.

Right. Well, if they're saying that MOU hasn't been increased, does that mean you guys are giving it up? You laugh. Okay, so that's probably a low figure is what is going to end up after we do salary negotiations and health insurance.

That's why we point that out is because your surplus could change and then, of course, If you have more revenues, that can help offset any additional costs. But we need to point out, because in the past, if we put a number in here for wage increases, we've had in the past some bargaining units think that we weren't negotiating. So we try not to put any wage adjustments inside the budget. Okay, that makes sense. Okay, thank you. So this slide here breaks out the general fund operating expenditures by department. As mentioned earlier, we have nine departments and then we have a category called non-departmental. And that's where we put all our revenues and stuff that have to do, that are not associated with departments such as the sales tax, property tax. those go into non-departmental. But we have nine individual departments. So this pie chart's showing us that public safety represents 61%, with police being the single largest with 43%.

So I'm curious, with other cities, have you ever compared to see if this budget kind of falls in line with other cities of our size and finances? If you look at Clovis or other cities that are roughly the size of Isiah, are these budgets similar, like with police being roughly 43% and Fire 18, Parks and Rec, is this kind of similar to what other cities are doing, or are you aware of those numbers?

I haven't looked at it in a long time. Years ago, we did look at it to see if public safety was the larger piece of most cities operating general fund budgets, and it is. You know, as to the percentage, I can't tell you that. It's been a while, but it is typical to have public safety with police being your single largest.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to see if we could, you know, get at least like three other cities just to show, you know, what our spending looks like compared to theirs percentage-wise.

And we can do that and bring that back on our presentation on the 15th.

Because theoretically, even if the, city were larger or smaller, they would probably be spending the same percentage, I would think on public safety. And I mean, that would just be good to know. Yeah, we'll bring that back.

So this slide shows our current general fund debt. So we recently retired in this fiscal year. Our last payment was in December on the City Hall East Convention Center refinance. And so that one was paid off in December. And then we have two debt COPs left, or loans. And so the next one will be paid off in the second year of the budget, which is fiscal year 27-28. And then the last one will be paid off in December 29-30. So the annual payments that are included in the two-year budget is $1.6 million annually. So this is the five-year general fund projection. And so we try to project out so that way we always have a bigger picture than just where we're at today and where we're projecting the next two years. And so we do include additional two years just to kind of see what the trends are and then looking at it. And so we are showing that with a continued growth, no recession, continued growth in all revenues, no additional employee benefit costs other than what we're having and we continued that growth out. No changes in wages, no new state federal mandates and then of course the debt is paid off as I just talked about. And so with these forecast, this shows us with a surplus each year, it does get smaller in the out years. But then that could be mainly due to us also being conservative. And again, there's no vacancies in this. We assume in our budget that we're fully staffed at all times. And that's the same with our operating expenditures that I just went over. It assumes that we have no vacancies. And as much as we'd like that to be reality, it's not. There's always people retiring or leaving maybe for a promotion or just a change. And so we know we will always have additional funds available just from vacancies. So this slide is our general fund emergency reserve policy, or reserve, and it also talks about the general fund reserve policy. So the policy is to transfer surplus to the emergency reserve fund up to 30% of operating expenditures, and any surplus remaining above the 30% be deposited into the Civic Center Facility Reserve Fund. And so this shows that in fiscal year 23-24 that council did change that from 25% to 30 and we met that that first year. Last year we did not due to some GASB changes which caused us not to meet it. We are projecting to meet that reserve this year and which would be a catch up period which includes from last year and this year and then to continue with meeting council's policy of setting aside 30%. So this also shows the importance of the reserves and how fast we used it when the Great Recession hit in 2008 and over a short time span of five years of how we went from 13.6 million to 1.4. We're a much larger organization now, and the larger your operating budget gets, you can always freeze capital, but when your operating budget gets larger, it's much harder And so you do need those funds in there to help to be able to function if the economy does ever turn.

So I know I make this comment every year, but if you look at 2012, 2013, how low we were to where we are now, that just shows the long-term vision that the city of Visalia has always taken. Previous councils should be applauded for this. We are in such a good financial state and very stable compared to a lot of other cities because of the conservative nature of the work that your department does and the long-term planning to make sure if something really bad happened that the residents could rest easy because we are covered because we've been saving for years in case of emergency. So to the staff and previous councils, hats off to all the work that they've done to get us to the spot we are today.

I would agree and thank you for making that statement on the reserves.

A question on the reserves and 24-25 you had the accounting change. Will you kind of give us a layman's overview of that accounting change again and then did that carry, that carries over from year to year so our reserves are pretty, are actually pretty high. based on some things that may not happen, right?

Yes, so in 24-25, there was a new GASB change requirement. And GASB is? Our Government Accounting Standards, yeah. And that we have to meet. And so in order to, we had to implement a new ruling. And so that new ruling required us to set aside funds for leaves, balances, and it would be estimating based on people's retirement age, when how much money would be needed to be set aside, meaning vacation, sick leave, what would be the payouts, and it was across all funds that we had to implement that. So that money is set aside in a separate fund, and so it is earning interest as well. And so that large set aside will, the set aside will continue, but it won't be large anymore. It'll just be the difference each year of what needs to be set aside.

But that's also included in our 30% as well, right? So if something catastrophic happened, we would have those GASB costs would be covered, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

For the special revenue and capital funds categories, for special revenues, the major funds are gas tax, measure R, N, and T. We are assuming a 2.5 increase for both years for those funds. It funds several capital projects. Fiscal year 26-27 is $62.2 million or 107 projects. Fiscal year 27-28, we have 44.2 million and 87 projects. These categories include 48 funds, which are like impact fee funds that fund new infrastructure for parks, streets, storm, and sewer. For the enterprise funds, enterprise fund revenues are derived from user fees and charges. They operate like a business, and all their revenues should cover all their costs. The proposed budget for this category for fiscal year 26-27 is $166.6 million, and for fiscal year 27-28, it's $130.7 million. Again, this category represents 41% of the total budget. And it consists of eight distinct operations and a total of 14 funds. All funds are projected to have continued revenue growth. For the enterprise funds, their capital projects for fiscal year 26-27 is 63.7 million or 79 projects. And for fiscal year 27-28, it's 25.2 million and 51 projects. There are a couple funds that receive a general fund transfer or subsidy that helps cover operations debt and capital. One is the Animal Services Fund, and that's $2.1 million a year. And then for the Convention Center, it's $3.1 million a year. There's a couple other funds that rely heavily on grants for their operations and capital, and that's airport and transit. For our internal service funds, these are funds that provide services to other city operations on a cost basis reimbursement. It represents about 8% of our total budget, and the proposed budget for fiscal year 26-27 is 34.2 million, and for fiscal year 27-28, it's 35.5 million. It includes capital projects of 3.9 million for fiscal year 26-27, and 4.1 million for 27-28, and each year has 19 projects in it. This category consists of nine funds. A couple of them are fleet, risk, information services, and our vehicle replacement funds. Some of our future challenges, like other cities, this city is dealing with rising employee costs, wages to remain competitive, health insurance costs, PERS, and workers' comp increases. We have technology cost increases. We also are dealing with inflation, interest rates, and foreign and domestic factors. Overall, the city is in a good financial shape. Revenues are up in all categories and are projected to continue. Development continues throughout Visalia. Departments are controlling expenses. And the budget includes investments in our city infrastructure, maintenance and replacement. And the general fund has a healthy reserve balance as we saw earlier, and both years are projected to have a surplus. So for tonight, no action is required tonight. Our next scheduled meeting is June 15th, where we will continue the budget presentation and discussion, conduct a public hearing and potentially adopt the city budget for fiscal year 26, 27 and 27, 28.

Thank you very much for your report. I will start off with Council Member Nelson. Any questions or comments?

Very thorough document. Made for a good reading for the last two weekends. Very thorough. And you guys always do a great job putting the information together and make it pretty simplistic to understand. And I appreciate the effort that goes into it. I think the citizens also should be applauded in the fact that they passed measure R, N, and T, which creates a great revenue stream and benefits the city in a lot of tremendous ways. So I applaud the citizens for that foresight and seeing that. I think your last statement where it said overall in good financial shape. I think the city's in great financial shape. When you look at other surrounding cities and the complexity of their budgets, the thought process of to prioritize by doing outside contracts and doing away with their own employee base. I think that speaks volumes on the foresight that this city has had prior councils, the staff, your department, Renee, to put the city in the situation that we're in, which is phenomenal compared to other cities. I think for me overall, You know, the sales tax revenue is up. When you look at cost of goods going up, your sales tax goes up. I think if, I've always brought this up, sales tax is a crapshoot. I mean, it depends on domestic issues and governmental policies and international situations. The areas I look at is the sales tax number, your PERS number, which is state volatility. We never know what they're going to do. And I don't know how well they're doing so far this year. That's concerning. I do understand the fact that we're never fully staffed, so there's always a surplus there. But that's a bad way to look at it. I understand that. But overall, I think this city is in great financial shape, and I applaud you for the efforts you guys do. Some of your numbers are low, I would say, but that's good because that's conservative. I think your property tax number could be higher, but I also think some of your other numbers could be a little higher than in the expense realm as well. But overall, excellent document, and thank you very much.

Council Member Pugetian?

Yeah, great report. Very thorough. I appreciate all the work that your department does. You know, I have the running joke here that I don't even need to look at the document. I can just look at Renee's face when you ask about something because if she gets nervous, you could tell maybe the money's not there. So you guys would do a fantastic job. I understand expenses are going up sometimes because Like we see it with the foreign affairs going on now with diesel going through the roof. Expenses are gonna go up, and those weren't something that we expected. Even at my day job, all of a sudden everything was going fine, and truck rates went up $1,000 per truckload, and that's not something that we have in the budget, so this is a breathing document, something that's not set in stone that we have to adapt, and your department's always done a really good job adapting to all the changes. I think back to 2020, we were almost done with the budget and all of a sudden COVID happened and you guys had to rip it all up and start from scratch again. So I know that you guys can adapt because you have adapted in the past. So great job on this. And yeah, great work as always. Vice Mayor Wynn.

Again, thank you for always being available to answer questions and explaining things and the millions of questions I asked during the review period. But I wanted to point out, how many years in a row have you won that award for the financial audit?

To be safe, 30 plus years. I know it's more than 30, but for the end of year financial audit is 30 plus years, but for the budget, how many for budget? We're at the same, 30 plus years.

That's a great accolades to you and the staff and those before you and councils before you who've really held everybody accountable, and you've risen to that challenge and surpassed it every time. So thank you.

Yes, and their requirements change every year, and so the city does its best to try to meet and stay ahead of those as well, so yeah.

Yeah, and when I see in the news all the other cities and things around us that are in deficits, I'm very thankful that we're here. I'm thankful for our community who has supported the city with sales tax measures, too.

We appreciate the report, and I want to echo the same sentiments that financially, our city is doing really, really well. About a month ago, we received the report that we had under-budgeted $13 million, which means financially we were stronger than what we anticipated, which is the way that this budget is looking at. They put real cost and anticipated income a little bit lower, and so I appreciate that because so many other cities are now dealing with which employees are gonna be letting off. I mean, we're looking at some of our school districts are looking at letting go some employees. And so Visalia is in a strong position because we spend within our means. And so some of the most impressive things that I loved about your report was that on that giant pie graph, it showed a debt service at 0%, but it's really a few million dollars a year. Any other city of our size or of any decent size, I mean, they're putting out millions and millions of dollars a year in debt. And we don't live off debt. And so we're not having to pay off that debt, which is huge. And the fact that we have a 30% reserve, we're not quite there, but we're literally just probably a few hundred thousand dollars away. No other city is in that position. And so it really speaks volume about our community and what we do. When I meet with little kids, I think last time I – and I were here and there was a handful of schools here and we got to tell them like, how much money do you think that the city actually collects every year? And you know, they throw out all kinds of numbers and then we could tell them, no, we have about $300 million a year. And then out of that, know realistically about 270 million dollars is spoken for stuff that we really you know can't make major changes and realistically as a council we have about give or take 30 million dollars of funds that we can you know do things outside of you know payroll and salaries and vehicles and everything else and so it's neat to see that we're able to to run a great city to provide the services that we do and retain a strong budget and so i appreciate all of our staff for living within your means I know it would be really easy to, you know, every staff to go out there or every department to go out there and ask for more cool technology and toys and employees, but, you know, everyone does a really good job of doing what is absolutely necessary to protect our community, to serve our community, and to make sure that we're not financially putting our citizens in a stranglehold. So we really appreciate our staff and what they do, and we just want to say thank you. This is a public hearing item, so anybody who would like to speak on this item, please come forward and speak.

I just had a quick question about the emergency reserve fund, the 30% number. Where does that money sit? Does that sit in a savings account? Is that invested in the stock market and whatnot? If, worst case scenario, the stock market went in the tank, Are those reserve funds liquid for the city, or does some of them go away? Other than that, I didn't try to read the 500-page PDF that was in the packet, but it was interesting, and I think the city does very well. I think you're all right about how well past councils and city staff have done over the years to put us in such a good situation, but that's just my question. Thank you.

Good afternoon my name is Maria Guillen accent over the E. I live in Visalia. I thought it was really interesting that at the last hearing for the budget I did make an observation about the public safety being a very huge part of our budget. general fund spending and so I was kind of glad to hear that it was raised today, you know, through the comments of our mayor and questioned about that and also talked about maybe we could explore what similar sized cities might be putting into their budgets as well for public safety. Because one of the other concerns I had was how much are we spending on parks and recreation and prevention of crime and the need for such a large budget for public safety. The city of Clovis was mentioned. So with a quick Google search, I was able to find out that that actually Clovis spends even more money for their public safety and they also have a lot more that they can put into their parks and recreation as well to include senior programs and so forth. And that is all because of the fact that they passed a 1 percent sales tax called Measure Y right. This is something again that our city council was reluctant to do to even pursue the concept or to put out a survey to residents here in Visalia as to whether or not we would be willing to do that for certain enhancements in our city. So I just wanted to bring that up. Also for comparison's sake, Visalia says for the Approximate general fund spending per residence in Visalia is about 680 per resident. In Clovis it's 950 per resident. I'm sure that that makes quite a bit of difference. I love living in Visalia. But I also know that there are lots of issues that we could be addressing. You hear it all the time when I talk about our poor parks being locked up and looking like detention centers with fences around it. And again, you always say it's because we have to, for public safety and you know, But I'm really hoping we get to the point where you see that you do have some reserves and those could be put to some good use to maybe remedy some of our societal faults or flaws right now that we have in the city. And thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak? Seeing nobody, we'll go ahead and close public comments. If staff wouldn't mind responding to the question about where the 30% reserve funds are held, if it's held in a money market or an investment account, or where is that held?

Yes, so the city does not invest any funds for our investment policy in the stock market. We do invest our funds in our local type investments, which could be treasury funds, type bonds, we do try to stack. So we have our money invested within one year, two year, three year, four year, and five. That's so we can try to get better interest rates. But our emergency reserves are at any times we are able to get our hands on them if we needed to. Yes.

Thank you. Okay, so there's no action required. So any other comments or questions from council? Nope. Thank you. We appreciate the report. And I think you guys are probably doing the next one. So next we'll go on item number three, which is a fiscal year 2026-2027 rates and fees.

Good afternoon, Council. I'm Jaina Ferguson, Financial Analyst. I'm here with Renee Nagel, our Director of Finance and Technology Services, to present to you the proposed rates and fees for fiscal year 26-27. And just as a note, staff is also here tonight to address any questions you may have throughout the presentation. Tonight's discussion will include the review of the 26-27 proposed rates and fees. Tonight is information only and for staff to receive your comments and directions and any concerns brought up tonight will be brought back on June 15th along with the public hearing. As you know, we have multiple purposes for our fees to help cover department and capital costs, to recover actual costs of services, and to ensure that we are encouraging the appropriate use of services. And fees change for a variety of different reasons each year. Several are set by ordinance requirements or fees set by other government agencies such as FEMA. We also have contractual services that the fees will adjust with contract adjustments. And then we have departments that review their services frequently and make sure to align their costs with their fees. For this fiscal year, the three inflationary rates, as every year, are the California Consumer Price Index. This year that came in at a 3.09% increase, and that is for a majority of all of the funds. And we have the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. that is for all of our impact fees, and this year that was actually a negative .79%. And then our business tax division uses the U.S. Consumer Price Index, and it uses a rolling three-year average, and this year that is 3.23%. And before we get deep into the weeds with all of the individual fees, we wanted to make sure that we followed up on a request from council last year. We were directed to evaluate the feasibility of rounding fees. And staff did review, and we have nearly 1,600 fees, 34 of which are established by ordinance, so it would take changes to the ordinance to round. and we have an additional 18% that are subject to Proposition 218 requirements. We also looked at cash transactions throughout city departments and discovered that only 12% of the overall transactions received by any city department are made with cash. And we also analyzed the effects of rounding to see what the compounding variance is over time. would be both positively and negatively. These discrepancies in the compounding variances increase annually and typically skew the balance between cost recovery and actual cost. And therefore, based on this analysis, the staff is not recommending implementing a rounding policy. Tonight we have five different types of fees that will be changes for discussion. We have new fees. We have increases that exceed the approved CPI that are not dictated by ordinance. We have fees that are adjusted by less than CPI, decreased due to costs, changed due to salary and benefit changes, or changes simply in the fee description. We have a few fees that are being charged but were not in the document that we'd like to include in the document, and a few fees that are no longer needed to be in the document. So we can dive right in with proposed fees. At council's direction, the parks and recreation staff researched adding a fee for non-residents. This fee is consistent with the parks and recreation fee policy, which notes that Visalia residents support program costs through local taxes. With their review, they are proposing a 25% increase in all non-residents. and this would apply across all parks and recreation fees, picnic areas, indoor facility rentals, the rental of athletic fields or courts, the lights and concession stands, and then special permits and staff fees that are required for those facilities. It's obviously a lengthy amount of fees. They are listed in the document, pages 17 through 21, or we can review individual ones if you would like to. And additionally, Parks and Recreation, because this is such a new fee, would like to ask that if these are approved, they are not implemented July 1st, as most fees are, but rather August 10th of this year, so that it can align with fall registration, so it doesn't skew and make really funky the rest of the summer registrations.

So I have a few questions on that one. So what percentage of youth are, applying for different leagues that are not Visalia residents that we've been accepting in the past? Because obviously there's a lot of cities nearby, but like Goshen, they don't really have any resources. They're county, but then they use our facilities, our parks, I know they play in our sports teams. So do we know what percentage of youth are actively engaged in our sports activity leagues who are not Visalia residents?

Jason Glick, Parks and Recreation Director. It's generally around 10%.

Okay, and then so how difficult is it going to be to basically like add to every questionnaire, you know, are you a Visalia resident? And then, you know, get people to prove it because, I mean, other than showing a utility bill or a driver's license and, you know, when they're, especially if they're younger. So for staff, is this going to be more of a burden to add this question onto all the questionnaires that you guys are already doing? Or is this, do you guys think this will be easy just to tack on?

So we currently have information in our recreation software system for those folks who are non-residents because we have their mailing addresses. And the folks who are registering, we do have their information, but for new registrants, we'll ask for their place of residence, and if we need to, we'll ask for a utility bill. And it will take some work, not gonna hide from that.

In some respects, it's also just that our addresses look different, right? My kids were two of those, and it's a very different address. Even in the Goshen, where they call it West Visalia, it's a very different address than it is when they're in the city. So there's some cues that you can tell almost from the beginning.

Okay. And so when, I know there's times where, like, Vice City Unified will, you know, help pay some of the funding for the sports teams or leagues and different things. The ones that are, like, in Goshen and Farmersville and Ivanhoe, would the county school district be increasing those payments, or do we receive any funding from the county office of ed?

We do not receive any funding from the County Office of Education, but we do receive funding from Visalia Unified School District through ELOP programming, specifically with our swim teams, and that's gonna be coming to your council during the next meeting on June 15th.

So like that, Goshen is not in the city of Visalia, but it is in Visalia Unified School District. So how would we figure out what increase they would be paying to those kids who are in Visalia Unified School District, but not within our boundaries?

And if they had an ELOT benefit?

Yeah.

I think we would still honor that ELOT benefit. That's a good question.

So if they're in the Visalia Unified School District, they would still get the rate of Visalia Citizens?

If they, no, if they were in, if they are in, it's for folks who are in the Visalia city limit, but if they're in a Visalia Unified School District and they're outside of the city limit, they've gotta pay the non-resident fee. But in this scenario you're talking about, if they are enrolled in Visalia Unified, and they're getting ELOP funding specifically for a swim team, they would still receive that funding. But if they were going to participate in a youth enrichment program or a flag football program, the way we have it set up now, they'd pay the non-resident fee.

Okay. So then anyone who's coming through by site unified, their fees will stay the same even though they might be out of area? Yeah. Okay. All right. That's all I got for now. Thank you.

Next we have a section of fees that are exceeding the approved 3.09% CPI increase. Again, Parks and Recreation would like to increase the per person capacity charge for indoor facility rentals. This would help with the recovery of operational cost and the increases would be applied as you see here. It's mathematical based on the capacity, so it would go from 35% cents per person to 50 cents per person for all of these locations.

But if I'm renting room A in the Anthony Center and I only have 20 people, it's 20 times 35? 20 times 50? Or is it just going to be 20 bucks?

No, it's based on the capacity. Okay, so it's a flat fee. Yes. These locations as well. And then we have fire equipment has historically been based on the FEMA chart for equipment reimbursement rates. And so the fire is proposing to increase the rates for these two items to match up with the FEMA rate. And airport is seeking to increase the overnight parking. to stay competitive within the market. And then Solid Waste would like to adjust these items, which are pass-through items, so they are reflective of our actual city costs. The rates listed here, just as a side note, are correct. However, the percentages in the staff report were miskeyed, and they should be reflected as 18.79% and 3.58% respectively for the residential can and the one-yard bins. But again, the price is reflected here and the document are correct. And transit on the advice of their advertising agency is requesting to increase the cost for the interior panel advertising on both the fixed route buses and the V line by $1 per month. And now we move to adjusted fees. These first several ones are just wording adjustments. So in the general government finance section, it's being requested to add the verbiage lien releases. This is just to more clearly identify that there is a charge when we are releasing a lien from somebody. We added the tax roll last year and realized that some liens are not tax roll items necessarily. They're simply liens, and so we wanted to make more clarity with this and add the lien releases in there. And Convention Center wants to add the word custodial to the employee description to more accurately cover any type of staff service that may be required of an event. And in order for customers to be able be able to clearly identify that a table rental does not include the tablecloth or any type of linen or skirt. They wanted to add the word bare. Those are obviously available at an additional cost. And then the Wi-Fi services is just to clearly define what type of services available for them to use. And these solid waste charges, like those that we saw, previously are again pass-through charges. And these listed here are actually being adjusted by less than the approved CPI based on our actual charges. And they're in a range of 0.19% to a negative 21.5%. So we did see some decrease in some of our costs for these items. And so we're going to reflect that back to the customer in these rates. The following rates are based on specific employees and are adjusted by the upcoming new MOUs, which are effective on July 1st. You see engineering, planning for the home occupation permit. We have a couple of the police charges and then some special services that solid waste can offer. We have just a couple of rates that the Convention Center discovered were on their client rate sheet, but were not listed in our document. And so we wanted to add the consistency between the two documents and add them here. And these are all shown with a CPI increase of the 3.09%. And we're proposing to remove these fees from the city document. Business tax no longer feels like they need to have these reported because it is redundant. These are listed in our general government section of the rates and fees document and is applicable to all departments. FEMA no longer differentiates in the truck size, so only one aerial truck rate needs to be listed, so there's no need to have this one included any longer. And again, Convention Center feels like these rates are repetitive as they are already listing an hourly rate and there is no discount to obtain the service for the full day so there's no need to have both of them listed. These four committees have all received presentations regarding the rates and fees and each one has submitted a recommendation for council approval as they were presented. And then as stated earlier, there is no action required today. We can bring back any follow-up that's necessary on June 15th when we'll be here to hold a public hearing as well. And then the effective dates, if approved, would be July 1st for most of the fees except for Parks and Recreation and Impact fees, August 10th by request for Parks and Recreation fees, again, to coordinate with the registration for fall, and then August 14th for Impact fees because those do require a 60-day notice. Do we have questions?

Wonderful, thank you. Any questions by council?

Just a quick comment. I know we have to raise on some fees, but I appreciate that you found some savings on some other fees that we lowered. I know a lot of things don't ever go down once they go up, so the fact that we found things to go back down, good job on that. Yeah, great report.

Yeah, and again, another thorough report from the department, pretty self-explanatory, and I agree with the increases that are necessary, and I also agree with the non-citizen rates fees for the park and rec, so excellent report, thank you.

Thank you. A great report, thank you, no questions.

Yeah, thank you, we appreciate the report and we appreciate the fact that you're coming to update us with these new fees yearly rather than every five years or 10 years, because then when you're jumping it up, 30% people are kind of shocked and awed and angry. When we're increasing every year or two, then it's a lot easier to swallow and it's going up by a few dollars or a dollar. And then I also agree with charging out of citizens rate higher than our local citizens. We visited a city last summer and to use their facilities for us as non-residents was double the cost. And I gladly paid for it because it was a great amenity, but I don't have a problem with that. But yeah, thank you for the report and for doing this for our community every year. Because realistically, this can bleed our budget really quickly. I remember the county one time hadn't raised fees in like 15 years in some of the things. And their costs almost tripled what it was. And so I appreciate the fact that we're doing this every year or every two years. So let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence. Seeing no one, thank you for your report. We appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, next we're going to item number four, which is a narrow lot subdivision discussion staff report.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the Council. I am Paul Burnell, your Planning and Community Preservation Director. And with me this afternoon are both Jared Olsen and Brandon Smith, both principal planners with the Planning Division. And as outlined in the staff report in today's presentation, which we'll we'll go through and like all presentations that your planning staff provides, if there's any questions at any point during the discussion or slides, feel free to ask them so that we can address them or follow up with additional information at the conclusion of our presentation. But what I kind of want to kind of just reiterate in making sure we as staff inform the council We've noticed a trend here recently that we want to bring to council's attention with regards to how residential subdivisions are starting to somewhat change, not all of them, but there are a few out there that have drastically shifted what your staff has traditionally or the city's traditionally seen with residential development. and that's not a bad thing. I don't think we ever wanna come off as saying we think this should be a hard no, but I think when we start to deviate from traditional standards that we typically have in place, we need to start thinking outside the box and maybe coming up with other standards to help address those types of requests so at the end of the day, we have a better neighborhood. better project that we all recognize and that addresses some of the things that come up when items aren't thoroughly addressed. So again, this is kind of an overview of what we're beginning to see. Some things that we're noticing with regards to drastic deviations from what are traditional standards. Ultimately, really, some of the ones, some of these current residential projects, really, at the end of the day, the only standard that we believe are being complied with are local streets, standard widths at 60 feet wide, and your drive approach. Outside of that, everything else appears to be a deviation from the standard. So with that, I'll turn it over to Jared Olson to kind of guide you through the staff report and presentation. And again, we'll address questions that you may have during the presentation or at the conclusion of tonight's presentation.

Thank you. Thanks, Paul. Jared Wilson, Planning Division. So tonight's discussion here is to review the emerging trends for these narrow lot subdivisions here in Visalia and in the surrounding areas and discuss our concerns regarding impacts on neighborhood livability, functionality, your input for future action and to evaluate potential changes to the objective design centers or to the zoning ordinance. Narrow lot subdivisions generally in Visalia require a planned residential development permit, which is a very long way of saying you're asking for special deviations to standards. And generally, in exchange for some added benefit, that could be a larger park. That could be other areas. community amenities in the area. Things that are typically asked for, reduced lot sizes, reduced lot widths, setbacks, those sorts of things. And so far we have both approved, received, and anticipate on receiving subdivisions meeting this narrow lot subdivision criteria, which is generally 45 feet wide or less, about 1400 lots is what we've seen so far.

Chair, and if I may, Council, just to clarify, We have seen traditional PRDs, small lot subdivisions, that are less than the standard 50 foot wide lot. We've seen them down to 45 foot wide, but the lot shape tends to be more of a square, which still facilitates a lot of things that we'll talk about here later in the report. I think where the trend now has shifted in some more recent submittals, both at Site Plan Review and actually been filed, is we're now below that 40-foot wide lot range. We're down into 33-foot wide lots, 35-foot wide lots. So something that maybe outside of in the mid-'80s up in the Northeast when the whole Northeast Pacific Plan had a lot of PRDs, a lot of town homes, there was a move towards HOAs and so forth to accommodate that type of development. Those are the lots we're now starting to see, which we hadn't seen in quite some time. So you're talking about a very, very narrow lot that's long and rectangular, which again, looking at it, emphasizes more for vehicular access and not so much for livability. That's again, some of the wording we use in the report that kind of addresses that. So I just wanted to clarify that. We have processed, City by City has been really good at processing PRDs for deviations, gated subdivisions, and so forth. What we're seeing now is just a lot, lot less wide lot than we traditionally have seen in the past.

Thanks, Paul. What's the smallest lot we've seen so far? Or narrowest, I'm sorry.

Narrowest, we have approved, I want to say there are about and the one of them was in the Pratt Ranch subdivision. Those lots are gated with an HOA. And then one that we recently seen that was submitted prior to the adoption of Objectives 9 standard, so it was in the queue, is Ritchie Ranch. And that is on Desmarais, just north or south of Riverway. So it's kind of northeast of where the Lowe's or that shopping center is. But that has a mixture of both some 35 foot wide lots with 45 to 50 foot wide lots. So they kind of mixed and matched for that project. We've seen two recent projects where the entire lotting count is at 35 to 33 foot wide, no exceptions outside of that. Hopefully we addressed the question.

And were those slots all garage facing? I mean, the garage was the first thing you seen rather than the front door?

So with regards to Ritchie Ranch, it was before objective design standards were adopted. I believe what we've seen with some of the elevations as part of the PRD, the front door was in line with the garage. Okay. With the two recent... lots that are less than, they're in that 33 foot wide range. I have not seen elevations to say otherwise, but based on just what we're seeing, it appears to be just similar to this picture, which is predominantly the garage with maybe the second story on top of that.

And just real quick, are those that you're seeing, are they single or double car garages?

It would appear to be double. I'm looking at Jared, because I know he has one of the applications assigned to him. Okay, thank you.

As Paul alluded to here, these subdivisions generally emphasize the garage space, driveways, over a habitable living space. What you generally don't see are our front doors, ground floor windows facing onto the public way. And what this essentially does is it removes the eyes on the street. You hear something concerning outside, you're downstairs, are you really likely to go upstairs to go find out what that was, or are you just going to stay inside and just carry on with your day? It really detracts from the walkable environment when you see a lot of of hardscapes, driveways, more so on a block because you have more homes on any given block. One of our main concerns is parking impacts. Having more homes per block means there's more driveways. And with more driveways means that there's less curb space to park. And with larger homes, more vehicles, not everyone uses... their garage to store their vehicle. You're gonna see more of the curbside being used for resident parking, obviously guest parking too. And what we anticipate seeing is more calls for service regarding illegal parking, and code enforcement complaints because there's less space available to accommodate these vehicles. In this subdivision here in Goshen, there's about one vehicular space for every five units. This is on a regular local street. However, in this particular subdivision on the right there, in the red star, the county actually provided off-street parking for guests to accommodate the lack in curbside parking. Here's that same view, that same block on the ground here. One thing that you can see is you mainly see the driveways, not so much the front doors, ground floor windows. You also see no street trees. There's no street trees in this area, and given we have a very hot climate here in the summertime, not a very conducive environment. You'll also notice this picture here was actually taken during lunchtime, so there's only two vehicles there. However, come to the afternoon, evening time, where are these vehicles going to go? We could potentially see with these projects in Visalia, more driveways being blocked is our concern.

And, Council, just to kind of know, I mean, yes, there are no street trees here. What makes it difficult is because you have lotting that's so narrow, most of those areas that are dedicated to your park strip or your public utility easement, you're locating your water meter in there, your electrical, so it really gives you no additional room to plant some of those amenities that make neighborhoods attractive. Granted, I'm sure you've all received complaints about street trees lifting sidewalks, and we get that, but part of our Visalia standards are ensuring that we have well-designed neighborhoods that include those amenities that make our neighborhoods attractive. So in this case, and then looking at what we're seeing today, we're starting to try to ask those questions. If you're asking for deviation, how do you meet some of our standards? And we're not really getting clear answers on how developers would do that in this case. So we're looking at an example right next door to our community where this has kind of occurred. We're seeing this could be kind of what's replicated here in Visalia if we don't ask those questions of how, We understand deviations to some standards, but how are you meeting some of the standards that we don't have a different design standard for? So in this case, it's clear. Utilities take preference and maybe not so much in street trees. In addition to the parking, I mean, you've gotten complaints when people park on the street for too long and the car hasn't moved in over two weeks. Well, when you're jockeying for position on getting the only available on-street parking, that is something that gets turned into police department code enforcement, so we're always dealing with those calls as well. Not to say that we don't want to respond to people's complaints, but again, if we allow design to be done in this manner, these are the issues that will arise if we don't address it in some form.

If you have cars parked on both sides of the roadway, how much access do you have for emergency vehicles?

Council Member Nelson, in this case, this is still a 60-foot wide street, so you still have the appropriate width to facilitate emergency vehicles, but what you don't get if you're a homeowner or a resident of the neighborhood is maybe where you traditionally may have had a space or two in front of your house because your lot was 50 feet wide, that no longer is viable in some cases because again, you have too many driver approaches that are too close that doesn't allow for a space to allow a vehicle being parked without blocking driveways. So if you go back, Jared, to the aerial. So if you see the blue stars, those are areas where it is wide enough between lots to accommodate a parking stall. All the other sites are just too narrow because of driver approaches. And again, we're just showing you a standard at a 33, less than 35 foot wide lot.

And really, our street standards are really designed to afford curbside parking. However, when these driveways are two by four, or their lots and too close together, you really have a very wide street that is conducive to higher speeds. So some things that we've seen in other cities are rear-loaded or alley-loaded garages. What that means is that is generally a detached garage facing the alley or other type of home products. And with that, you see better porches, a more attractive entryway. It really lends itself to a better pedestrian-oriented neighborhood design. This example here is in San Luis Obispo. This one has a single-car driveway with a single or a two-car tandem-style garage. And this, I believe, is on a 33-foot wide lawn here. Alternatively, the alley-loaded garage-style house products move those driveways to the back. And what that does is that it puts full focus from the sidewalk on the home itself. And when you have a block, that is almost completely devoid of driveways. You have the most on-street parking you can get, and you can host Super Bowl there, no problem, right? And with, very few curb cuts, more shade trees. This subdivision here in Rancho Cordova, this one here has around 10 homes for every one curb cut on the sidewalks. So you can really get resident vehicles into the into the garages and I guess parking out on the street.

I mean there's not to be cars all over this kind of like like there'll be cars up and down the street or if you have any kind of type of family party that people are gonna be upset because they can't park at their house there's gonna be no parking in this kind of subdivision correct?

So Council Member Cheeky, if we're looking at the 33-foot wide lot layout that was, and we looked at Goshen, which had a subdivision that was built in that manner, then to address your question, yes, parking would be difficult in our assessment based on what we're seeing. In the example that was just noted and a couple other examples both in the cities that Jared mentioned and in Clovis, where the smaller lots or narrow lots, garage loaded on the back, you have more parking, yes, on the street. So in those cases where there's no curb cuts for driveways in these garages, there's ample parking, it would appear based on those layouts.

Also in San Luis Obispo, these homes here also face, or their garages face onto the alley. And generally one concern that we normally see is that if you have, a garage facing the back, where is your backyard, right? So with these home products here, their private space is actually wrapped around by the house and also by the garage too. So there's a way that we can achieve everything that is desired in a way That doesn't necessarily mean congested on-street parking. And plenty walkable, too. This example here is also in that same sub. Plan residential developments don't need to mean detached single-family residences. Developers can be creative. And so you can have attached townhomes. These are on pretty simple lots. they aren't financed like a condo is. That typically means interest rates are better, more lenders available for these. And with this example here, These ones here, hummus in the front, face the street. The ones in the back face the walkway. Heartland Ranch and Clovis, same thing. Plenty of shady street trees there. And also plenty of street parking. Going on to our general plan policies, we do have some objectives to really focus on prioritizing walking, bicycling. And in our active transportation plan, we do have a policy to consider installing shade trees. where streets don't currently have shade trees, and it makes it difficult to implement this if these streets are actually designed to preclude those from actually happening. It makes it difficult to implement this policy, should we choose to. We took this to a planning commission a couple of weeks ago. Their concerns revolved around a lack of ground floor windows, on-street parking complaints, stallways and fire access, lack of shading. A committee member recommended establishing minimum standards, alley access, additional residential design features, and there was also concern that if the city were to consider requiring alleys, that that there are concerns about the additional construction and maintenance costs from those alleys. So today we are here before you to seek your support to initiate either a zoning ordinance amendment or an amendment to the objective design standards. And prior to do so, we would conduct an outreach with the stakeholders prior to a planning commission and also the city council hearing for that. And so with that, our recommendation is is to move to direct staff to begin drafting an ordinance and objective design centered amendments to address narrow and or small lot designs and to conduct outreach with the stakeholders to discuss the proposed changes. With that, staff is available for questions, and Paul has them.

Yeah, Mayor, just really quick in closing. So looking at our ordinance, and your council's already adopted objective design standards that address some of this, we think maybe some refresh and clarification on things that are maybe less than 40 feet wide maybe need to be re-looked at and reconsidered. We believe there's some stuff in our ordinance that kind of directs or not allows council, your staff to maybe require if a developer elected to go smaller than what we traditionally see that maybe looks in an alleyway. What we could do there, and again, based on input we received this evening, it'll be to come back for better clarification to council looking at if, So understanding alleyways have an additional cost, an additional impact on city services, but maybe if you go in the manner that we were discussing with 33 foot wide lots, maybe it is private street, maybe it is an HOA alley. We have examples of where that's occurred even recently with the five packs development along Kimball Avenue between West and Court Street. where they've elected to do HOA, maintain front yard areas, driveways, and so forth. So we think there are some tools already in our ordinance. We would just need to refresh those and beef them up so it's clear when somebody looks to deviate beyond what we've traditionally seen with PRDs, that we maybe have better language in there that says, okay, that's okay, but if you're gonna deviate beyond that, here's really what you need to start considering and looking to do. Again, we believe density done in the right manner is achievable, and we've seen examples in other communities that are doing this. It's just another tool in addressing how subdivisions are developed Especially when you're deviating from so much that by say is traditionally seen in the past So with that we're at a little bit more bill for any questions or that commission our council may have at this time Thank you very much for that report.

We appreciate you guys have any any questions or You want to hear the public comments first? Okay, then let's go ahead and open this up to the public anyone wishing to speak on this item please come forward and state your name and city of residence and Anybody from the public? Seeing none. We got one person.

Well, I guess I'm the only one. Good evening. My name is Dolores Taylor. I live in Visalia. I'm here representing the Builders Industry Association of Tularegans County. And I just want to, first of all, thank the staff for that very nice presentation and for taking the time to look into this more. And also to the city council for revisiting this item and to look into providing new direction to staff about an amendment to the ordinance. As you know, I support this narrow lot. Our bill is supported as this is something that the consumers are looking into it for more affordability. In California, it's just become really expensive to buy a new home. So this new narrow lots do come at a lower price for our consumers. So that's when you look into this, please take into consideration that as well as that we always looking to toy in Kings County as a place where we can still afford to buy a new home. So with that being said, we appreciate the time and if you can continue keeping us involved, we would like to provide our feedback as you work on this changes. Thank you.

Anybody else? Yes, no? Okay, we're gonna go ahead and close public comments then. And we'll turn it back over to council with any questions or comments.

Sure, I appreciate the report. Again, another thorough report from the department. You know, call me a traditionalist, but I have a hard time accepting the narrow light concept. The subdivision I live in, which is your normal sized lot, some lots are even bigger than normal, we deal with parking issues. And I see this being a major issue in the narrow lot deal. I look at that, I look at, if you go the alleyway concept, you already addressed, Paul, that it adds additional burden on city costs and so forth and so on. I'm concerned with emergency vehicle access, public works vehicles. And then overall, I understand affordability. I understand the need for affordable housing. And I think enough council members up here said enough times that if the state would stay out of it, maybe we would have affordable houses. And I know this is another tool to create that opportunity. I think if we did this concept, I would definitely look at an HOA to cover whether it be landscape costs, whether it costs of the alley, I think that's sorely needed. Another concern I have is that what stops investors going in, buying up the narrow lot housing and turns it into a residential rental subdivision? where you're dealing with rentals, come and goes, and people don't have a vested interest in the house, and that's a real concern. Yeah, so I have a hard time, I understand, You got the Pratt moving forward and so forth. But I definitely think there needs to be some criteria and standards. And like I said, I'm all in favor of HOAs. But I am concerned on becoming a rental subdivision, and that concerns me.

Councilman Pritchett again?

Yeah, good report. You know, this subdivision isn't for me. You know, but I always say let the market dictate because an investor is going to come in and build something like this. If they're not going to get a return on their investment, they're going to lose it. You're not going to see any of these kind of developments. I lived this story when I lived in San Diego for school and you would see cars up and down the street and what we would do. because we have four people on a two-bedroom place, is you would leave and your roommate would take your car. I mean, your spot, so you wouldn't lose your spot. That's always a concern. That being said, when the five-packs came, if I was on council, I would probably say I didn't like them. And then they got developed and I walked in. I was like, it's actually a pretty nice, development and it turned out pretty nice. So I'm a firm believer in letting the market dictate because if someone doesn't build a good product, it's not gonna sell and they're gonna lose their investment. I would say if we do do this, like the fire packs, you would have to do an HOA or make it private. I think that would be a necessity. because I think there was a lot of shared use going in there. I wouldn't want us to have to keep coming in there and fix those. I think that would be on the HOA. That's the way I would support it. So, yeah, I'm okay with having staff research this a little bit more and put some standards on there so it's done right. It's not my cup of tea, but I'm not the one. I understand that housing is very expensive in California, and if this is a pathway for someone to purchase their house, I would be supportive of that.

Vice Mayor Wynn?

I currently live in a small lot subdivision, an old one, 50 years old. So I've kind of seen and they're all garage or out front. There's 50 units. 25 are rentals. We have an HOA, but it doesn't cover front yard landscaping. So we're constantly having the slumlord wars. with the people who are renting and moving in and out. So I would, I would, uh, I love living in my little tiny house. Well, it's not that tiny, my tiny little lot. I have enough for a garden. And, but what happens is everybody starts with trees. And then after 50 years, those trees get too big. So they're all cut down. So if you go down my street, probably out of 20 houses, there's maybe two trees. And one of them is my Japanese maple because they're, you know, it's 40 years old, but it's still a smaller tree. Parking is not allowed on our street. We have guest parking, which all of the rental people use to park, so there's never any parking for your guests. So, you know, it's great to have the small because there are a lot of seniors living in there. It's great to have these small lots because they're less maintenance, but I think it has to come with an HOA that has some teeth that requires front yard landscaping to keep the place looking nice because no matter what you say, it will turn out to be an investor's dream. And they won't want to take care of it. And we have to look at these things, how they're going to age over 50 years. Ours is starting really to kind of have a revitalization after 50 years. But it was in pretty, because we bought it as investment to begin with. And it was in pretty sad shape. And then we ended up moving in there. But so my personal experience with the small lots has been good. I like the freedom. to not have to worry about a big yard or a gardener, but parking's a nightmare. We don't even have sidewalks in ours, but parking needs to really be considered. If you're gonna have guest parking, you need to have an adequate number of guest parking because then that turns out to be an issue. So I would embrace this if done properly. And I think I look at Clovis. We just had a speaker talk about Clovis. Of course, they have a metal sales tax or a bond measure they don't love. But we can follow some of those. And I've been to the one in SLO. It's nice. I've been to the one in Goshen. It's going to go downhill quick. So I think properly regulated, it can be a great tool for everyone.

I appreciate the report and you know the the homes we're looking at and those are beautiful homes so I want to say thank you to all the builders out there who are attempting to bring beautiful affordable homes to our community I know this works in other cities, but when you're talking about like San Luis Obispo, you're talking about lots that are gonna cost you a half a million dollars for a 2,000 square foot lot. And they're almost forced to build these small lots because nobody can afford to spend $2 million on a home enough as a $1.2 million home on a 2,000 square foot lot. And so I know why it's working in other communities, because that's literally all they can do. And one of the great things about the Central Valley is land's more affordable here, which means you get a little space. I lived in a smaller lot, not as small as yours, but we always had problems with our neighbors behind us. I mean, they were 10 feet from our window. You could hear every fight, every drunken brawl. I mean, everything that happened. And then there was no HOA, and so the police turned into our HOA, and we called the police constantly. And so... I know this can work, but I also know it can be bad. And at the end of the day, I don't think the city should be telling builders how to build a product. But what things that I'm looking at is, you know, parking. I want to make sure we have sufficient parking. San Luis probably doesn't have four kids per home like we do here. You know, they're not having multi-generational homes like we do here. We have a different community. And so I don't know if these would work the same way that it's being envisioned. And I don't want the city to be the de facto HOA. Every time there's a dispute about parking, trash cans, they're gonna be calling us and they're gonna be complaining. And so that's what I don't want to be dealing with. But I think it possibly could work. I don't wanna say no. I wanna hear what options are available to us. So I'm willing to listen to those options. Because, I mean, those products were beautiful. Right now, in this phase of my life, I wouldn't want to live in one. We purposely found some of the biggest, oldest lots in Visalia when we bought our house because I was tired of the little neighborhood lots where I could hear my neighbors fighting all the time. I like to fight in peace and quiet and not have the whole neighborhood hear it. So anyways, I am willing to listen. I don't know if I would be supportive of this unless it was some type of gated community or an HOA because at the end of the day, I just don't want this to turn into a landlord's dream where it's affordable housing and the builders do a great job of building affordable housing, but then affordable housing can easily turn into people fighting. When I asked the question about how small some of these lots are, You said that some of them I think were 33 feet. And a garage is anywhere from 20 to 24 feet wide on your standard two-car garage, which means you're literally getting five, seven feet on each side. And that's just not a lot of buffer. I mean, you're essentially, you know, apartments almost at that point. And I've also lived in apartments. And when you have great neighbors, it's great. When you have bad neighborhoods, it's hell on earth. And so I wouldn't mind having the discussion. I don't know if I'll be supportive of it unless it's in an HOA or – some type of situation where the city does not have to get involved with the neighborhood disputes. All right. So I will entertain any other questions, comments, or a motion at this time.

I move to direct staff to begin drafting ordinance and objective design standard amendments to address narrow and or small lot designs and to conduct outreach with stakeholders to discuss proposed amendments.

Well, I second. I second. I second.

Fantastic first and second all those in favor, please vote Item passes for zero that's former sort of absent. Thank you. Thank you very much. I So it is six o'clock. We don't have any closed session. How long do we think this next item will be?

I believe you'll have time to complete it and still have a meal before the, I think it's probably 30 minutes.

Let's go ahead and do a hard cut off that if we're not done by 6.30 that we'll just go ahead and adjourn and continue back when we hold our regular session with city council. All right, so next we'll go on to item number five, which is the Civic Center Phase 3 Scope of Work.

Good evening, council members, Mayor Taylor. This isn't my presentation. Thanks, Jason. Okay, so Mike Porter from Building and Engineering Department. I'm here tonight with Renee Nagel and Jason Huckleberry. We have a short I think short enough presentation tonight where we wanna talk about some possible scope of work and amenities that we might include in phase three of the Civic Center project. So at the end of the presentation, your motion's going to include our recommendation that you hire Darden Architects to begin design, just the design phase now, we're not talking about construction, The design phase for phase three will also ask for an appropriation of funds from the Civic Center Fund and ask you to select kind of the design criteria. We put together kind of a grocery list of design options starting with a basic building and then adding different amenities that you might want to include. And this is all up for discussion. Again, ask any questions during the presentation. Feel free, we'll stop and address your questions as they come up. All right, so for phase three, we've been talking about this for a long time. As you all recall, the Civic Center's been designed to be implemented in phases. The VEC was phase one. We're currently under construction of phase two. And then phase three really includes, I mean, the basic building block of phase three would be a new city hall building. So what we're calling the base building or city hall building, city administration building. And what we're proposing for City Hall would basically be moving everybody that currently works in our admin department, I think admin, HR, risk, everybody that's currently at the Santa Fe address, plus everybody who's currently in City Hall East. So we would have engineering and building, I'm sorry, finance would go into this building, planning and community development, code enforcement, and then our building department as well. So basically doing away with City Hall East and admin, consolidating everything into one new City Hall building. In addition to the base building, the base administration building, we've included a list of separate options that you might choose to include. These all were suggestions that came about through our discussions with the Civic Center Committee and through discussions with department, heads and staff about different amenities that they might like to include. One is a cafe food service area, maybe patio space that could be located on the first floor level. This would be a great amenity, we think, for staff, but would also be available for public use. Another potential option would be including an employee health center actually onsite. Right now our health clinic is located by PD headquarters, right, Fire Station 1. So this would actually be an onsite health clinic. Another possible addition at this point, again, just for the design phase, would be adding an entire fourth floor for growth space. That would be a shell floor. Our current planning efforts that go back several years are indicating that a three-story building would be sufficient for our current needs, but a fourth floor could be utilized for long-term growth and potentially leased out to other agencies or something other than the City of Visalia. And then lastly, there's interest from the police department to develop a training facility slash practice range on this site, and we have the available space to accommodate that request within the Civic Center footprint. So just to kind of recap, here's a rendering of the current Civic Center site plan. As I mentioned before, phase one was development of the VEC, the 911 dispatch center, which is on the right side of your screen. Everything that's under construction on the site right now is phase two. So we have the current or the planned new city council chambers on the bottom of your screen. And then that's connected by the covered outdoor gathering area we've been calling the pavilion, connecting city council chambers to the public safety administration building. And then on the corner of Goshen and Burke is our evidence storage and crime lab. And we're also adding a new parking lot across the street. The area that's shown highlighted in blue is a building pad area that we've been reserving specifically as the location for a new city hall building. So that's just an empty pad at this point. It would have to be developed with construction of the city hall building. The area that's highlighted in green is an area that's set aside for the location of the police training facility and gun range training facility. So part of the motion at the end is gonna be requesting that you appropriate money for Darden to start the design phase, but before we start talking about The design costs, we thought it would be good to give you kind of some updated cost estimates for the overall project cost. And these are based on some high-level planning efforts that took place going back many years, 10 to 15 years ago in some cases, where we did macro programming to try to understand what the size of these buildings might be. During development with Darden, we'll fine tune all these building sizes, be able to arrive at much more accurate building costs. But these are some estimates that we've developed just for planning purposes for now. And the way this table kind of works, we've broken it down into the four separate components that are included in your staff report. The first one is city hall, the base building that we talked about. This requires service site development. No off-site development because it's sitting on a parcel that's already developed as part of this phase. So we don't have a lot of work in the right of way or anything like that to do. when we get to the city hall building. But there is utility services that need to be extended, general site development, and then the actual building construction costs. So if you take those four numbers, add them straight down, that's where we get the $52,900,000 total, excuse me, for construction of the, again, the city hall or the base building. The second column, the $7,400,000, if you just go down below that, that's actually a combination of two of the amenities that staff is recommending. One is the cafe food service slash patio area for an estimated cost of $4.1 million, and then the additional onsite health clinic for an additional cost of $3.3 million. So those two added together are the 7.4, which you just plug back into the building construction. Again, those are just additions to the building, which are already the base building, so there's no additional site work or anything that goes along with the cost for that. The fourth floor addition, again, if we want that for growth space, we're estimating just the cost of that fourth floor shell would be 11,400,000. And then the training facility, since it's a separate building onsite, but an entirely separate building, it does have some offsite development utilities and things associated with that. So the total estimated cost for that is 7.2 million. If you bring all of those, I'm sorry, 7.2 million plus the 500, 300. So that total for the training facility is the 8,350,000 at the bottom. So taking all four of those components together, we come up with our overall, again, early cost estimate, construction cost estimate of $80,050,000. And now we have that number available to plug into an overall project cost estimate. The top part of this table is what we're really here to ask you about tonight. We're asking you to award a sole source contract for Darden to do the design phase. And they've broken their contract out into separate fees that align with the different options that we've already talked about, right? The first total would be if we just do the base building without the extra amenities that we're proposing. That cost would be 3,735,101. And then additional costs for each of the extra elements, 751,000 for adding an additional floor. The separate building, the training facility, the design price tag is 956,778. The addition of the cafe space patio on the first floor is relatively inexpensive compared to the training facility, for example, 96,990. And design of a onsite health clinic is 180,730. So the total Darden design phase fee proposal that we're recommending, including everything that we could design at this time, would be 5,720,609. The rest of it is just typical estimated costs that we've been applying to other phases of the project. If we decide to hire a construction management consultant, similar to what we did with the VEC and with phase two, we're estimating 1.6 million city permits and fees. staff project management, miscellaneous costs, testing and inspection, surveying, FF&E, we're talking about a whole big new building, so obviously a whole new building of furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and then audiovisual technology equipment to go in there, utilities. That subtotals all up to about $6 million. Sorry, that's not broken out on the table. And then we just plugged in the $80,050,000 for the construction costs from the previous slide. So by the time you add the design fees, all of the so-called soft costs that are listed above, the construction cost estimate, and then for early planning, we always add 5% construction contingency for budgeting purposes. puts us at a grand total project cost estimate of $95,793,109. And with that, Renee, I think, is going to take over some slides and talk about some potential funding, unless you had some questions for the first part before Renee takes over.

So this slide is Civic Center funding. So the first column is what we're estimating are two funds that are available today, which is estimated through the end of the fiscal year, which is a Civic Center impact fee fund. We're estimating it to have about $1.6 million, and then the Civic Center reserve And then of course there's some other funds. We always just want to have that up there. We have additional funding options as well. The general fund building maintenance fund. It was a reserve that was set aside many years ago before Measure N and we started building maintenance out of that. And then we also have some other funds that are still sitting there, which we do not recommend using that money, but we just want to have transparency. So animal reserve, that money was left over from the construction of the animal shelter. At some point you might need to do some improvements out there, and so it's always hard to compete with the general fund. So if you needed to re-roof or do something that's unexpected, you have that money there. And then of course we have the regional park reserve fund. That was set aside for the sports park. So we recommend leaving it there since that park is not completed yet and it's gonna need a lot more money. And then of course you have the sale of police headquarters in City Hall West. I have an estimated dollar amount there. It's not in this year because obviously we still own it. But maybe by 27, 28 we could potentially get two million. It could be more, it could be less. It depends on what the market is for this block, let's say. So we're estimating total available funds could be 16.3. You definitely have enough to pay for the design Today, if you approve the contract of 5.7 million. Where will we be in two years with this? How much money is available? If you put the budget surplus that I just presented for fiscal year 26, 27, and 27, 28, it will bring the Civic Center Reserve to 19.1 million. We're hoping that that's a low number because as I mentioned in our presentation with the budget, revenues were conservative. We assumed that there were no vacancies. So we would hope that we would have larger surplus to be able to deposit into the Civic Center Reserve to continue with this project as well into the future. This slide is a slide I just went over literally an hour ago on the general fund debt. And so as mentioned earlier, we paid off the 2014 COP this fiscal year. We're still having to pay on two more, which totals $1.6 million annually. And the animal control facility loan will be paid off in 27-28, and then the last one would be paid off in 29-30. Go ahead, Mike. So I did put up here some debt scenarios. So that way we can just be thinking about what does this mean for us in the future as we start to design this? What would that look like when we go out for our bond? We've talked about paying this first phase with cash and then paying this last one and issuing some new debt. We'd be retiring all the debt. And so I just threw up two examples up there with an interest rate of 4.5 and an interest rate of four. That's, it could fluctuate. It could go up to be fives. It could be right now our current one. And that last slide that I showed, our lowest one on there was 3.02. And that was a 2014 refinance. That 2014 refinance was actually an original 1996 COP. That was at 5%. And then we refinanced it twice and paid down some of it each time we refinanced it to where that one was ending. So we were able to finally get that down to 3%. So again, not knowing what the market's gonna do and when we go out for debt, I just threw up two scenarios. Hopefully it would be less. I didn't throw a lesser amount up there.

Real quick, do you know what the current bond rates are?

So I was really researching that. It kind of depends on your, there's several things. It depends on the market condition. So maturity timeline, so is it 20 years versus 30 years? It depends on your financial stability, your credit risk. As we know, Visalia is not a credit risk. We financially are in good shape. And when we went out in the 2015 COP for the VEC, they were quite impressed with us then, which helped us get a lower rate. We're sitting even better today with the emergency reserves at 30%.

And so I would hope that we would get the lowest rate So right now if we were to do it right now, I think we'd be a four Darden's provided us with a pretty aggressive schedule I think because we've done a significant amount of planning and kind of micro programming and on this facility in the past. It's not like we don't know what we want the city hall building to look like or where it's going to go, right? So the planning effort is minimal compared to previous efforts. We think if we could execute agreement in July, we could move through the planning phases pretty quickly. In August, have our space needs assessment done. That's meeting with all of the affected stakeholders in all the departments. Schematic design phase, preliminary design, already in the month of September. Design development phase should go pretty quickly, and then have the complete construction document package ready within a year from starting, which would put us ready to go out to bid potentially in October of 2027, if we move forward with the design and approve the various amenities that staff is requesting. So to recap and what your motion includes, staff is recommending approving option one at this time. If we're gonna design a new city hall, it makes sense from our perspective to design all of the amenities if you want to include them now that we include them in the design phase and include them in the design contract with Darden. So that would include the base building, the fourth floor addition, the PD training facility, the cafe patio space, which is all, to be designed and we'll have input on that and then the in-house health clinic. Part two of the motion includes approving a sole source contract with Darden for phase three. We're recommending approving a sole source agreement with Darden because of the extensive work that they've already done. It makes sense and I think it's justifiable in this case to use their experience and they have a head start on the design already. And then lastly, to appropriate $5,721,000 from the Civic Center Reserve Fund. And then any questions you might have. Thank you very much.

All right, Council Member Nelson. Have you start off?

No, I support the staff recommendation. What I look at is how long it took us to get to phase two. And I agree with you. I think when we looked at... the admin building, we are building it on space needs as of today. But I think it does make sense to look at what are our space needs five years after today, 10 years after today. And if we don't build that fourth floor, we're gonna be out taking staff and moving to some building offsite again. I support all of it. I think we need to keep moving forward with this, because I think it's an integral part of the growth of the city of Visalia, and it's also an integral part of a meeting place for the citizens of Visalia, and they will reap the benefits of what we decide today. So I support staff report.

Council Member Boucher again.

Yeah, I mean, I will be supportive up to a point. I think we need to keep going on this. If we stop, it'll be another 20, 30 years before we finish this. Is planning going to be in this building as well? Yes. So everything's going to be underneath one roof. That was always the plan, correct?

Okay. Public works would not be, and some of the parks and rec would not be.

Okay, where I have a problem with, I don't like the cafe patio. I don't want to be in the food and beverage industry. I don't think the city, when we think back about food and beverage and government agencies, I don't think people always think that's that good. Think about hospitals and different things. I would cross that out. If we do that good enough of a development, I think you'll have restaurants and coffee shops pop up around there where people could go It would be a better service for us because this is something that we're going to have to keep paying. Honestly, Cousteau's at Cuyah Delta Rehab is one of the only places that have edible food that I've ever been to. So I would want to be out of the cafe patio business. We want an area where individuals can sit down and eat. That's one thing. But I don't want to be providing food because that's another expense. We're going to have to hire a cook. We're going to have to hire food service. I don't want that out completely. I agree with the fourth floor addition. We build buildings, it's for 40, 50 plus years. So as we grow, we could grow into this building. I think that fourth floor addition would be good because as we grow, we'll have room to grow. I'm a little wary on how it'll look with the buildings around it and the canopy going there, but I'm sure they'll do a good job on that. Health clinic too. I mean, we're gonna have to build a new health clinic. The health clinic we have now is pretty rough and pretty run down. So I'd be okay with that. PD training facility and range. Is this gonna be a multi-use facility or is this gonna be a range? I'm sorry, Chief.

Jason Salazar, Chief of Police. It will be primarily an indoor training for the range facility. We have training space that will also be in the police administration building. This will be primarily firearms range.

Right now we currently have the outdoor range, correct? Yes. Any issues out there?

Yes. I mean, obviously, so there's expenses, and it gets continuously more expensive to mine the lead out of the berms that we're required to do. So you have an environmental issue that is just going to get more challenging in California in the years to come. And then all the growth in the industrial park, the range used to be out in the middle of nowhere, and it's not in the middle of nowhere anymore. So we do have some time constraints that we're allowed to operate the range there as well. So you're running into some of those things as you get down the road.

So I was on the fence on the training range that you kind of just pushed me over and convinced me. So I'll be sort of on that. I'll be supportive of everything besides the cafe and patio. Like I said, I don't want to be in the food and beverage business.

Can I make a point of clarification? It's certainly council's choice. I don't think we ever envisioned us being in the food service business, but it would be something that would be put out for an RFP for someone else to operate, but I understand.

No, I agree. I think if we do a good enough development, some business person or outside business person would be like, man, I could open a shop right outside this thing, and everybody would go to that, and it would cost us absolutely nothing. So that's why I'd be fully supportive of that.

Vice Mayor Wynn?

A couple questions. The health clinic, would it fit in the original three-story design? Was it intended? I don't know. You guys were on the committee, right? Did you ever discuss any of these options?

I don't remember discussing the health clinic.

Or the cafe? Okay.

Okay. I mean, it makes sense, but I was just, you know. if we're gonna have a fourth floor for growth and then all of a sudden we're pushed into that fourth floor because we're putting the health clinic in there, I just wanted to make sure that that's clear.

I think there are a couple of other things we can assess as we go through this. One would be the use of some of our other buildings that we may not fully utilize, including possibly part of the VEC or part of one of the district, yeah.

Having lived the Cahuilla Cafe debacle, even the ones when they were sent out to vendors like out at Lifestyle, which has a tremendous amount of traffic, they still couldn't make it there. I think I've stated before that the cafe is fine as long as that means there's no break rooms anywhere else on the facility. Otherwise, you're doubling up. I would not be in favor of a cafe or patio. I think you're going to have enough open space. And I'm sure you will have break rooms on each floor because it's really not... feasible to send everybody down to a cafe for their half hour lunch. I'm mixed on the range. Chief, how are you going to mine the lead in town? I mean, yeah, what's the difference?

It's a completely different process. So the bullet traps are designed different for an indoor range so that it catches them easier. It's much easier to clean. Right now you're shooting into a dirt berm. And so we've done some modifications. That's actually a rubber kind of berm. But you have to go back into that and mine it out of the berm, which is much more costly than what you would be doing in an indoor range. It's a different process.

There's also the time and the travel expense out to the range where it is currently.

Now, that range, that's really what it is. It's just a range. There's not classrooms or anything in there. You're not going to have, like...

It'll have, like, an area where they can work on the firearms, like an office space for a range master, a small room where you can do some training before they go onto the range. But in terms of larger classrooms, those are in the public safety administration building.

Okay, and that's exclusively for VPD, or will you open it for other agencies to use?

We've talked about it just as VPD, but you could always talk about it down the road, leasing it out. We currently lease out our outdoor range to other agencies to use.

That's what I was wondering. And then how often do your officers have to be recertified?

They qualify quarterly is what they're required to qualify, but then we have other, we have other trainings that we kind of mix in there as well. So they have in this new schedule that they're working, they have monthly trainings. This would allow us to incorporate some more of that monthly and actually probably help us reduce some of the costs in overtime. by not having to do one mass every quarter, having everybody come out and shoot. You would have more time available to you to kind of spread it out, plus as the city manager mentioned, just more efficient logistically even instead of having to have people leave their shift and drive out to where the range is, they'd be right there on site.

And I'd be really supportive of the range if you were to allow other agencies to lease it from you as well and to work cooperatively with some of the smaller agencies that don't have the benefits.

Yeah, we can certainly look at other agencies that have used a similar model.

And Renee, when do you think this bond would occur? I mean, if we moved forward, when would that likely happen?

Like 2028, 2029?

Because we're gonna have some money.

Right, so it depends. And when I say depends, it's gonna depend on the cost and where we are financially. So if you look at the 4%, 100 million, because right now Mike's estimate is 95 million, I think it was, right? So you'd be close to the 100 million. But the more money we're able to put from our surplus is gonna get that down to from 100 to 75 million. So just at the 4%, 30-year, it goes from 5.8 million annual payment to 4.3 million annual payment. We're going to have to make sure in our forecast that we can afford that as well.

Yeah, because that's way more than what you've been paying.

Yes, it's way more than what we've been paying and what we're currently paying is 1.6. So there's gonna be some financial analysis that we're gonna have to do when we come back for the next step, which is when do you wanna go out for construction? What's gonna be in construction? And so based off of what we could afford, because I just presented the five year forecast as well. We were very conservative in it. And so we would be updating our numbers as we continue. So it's very important as we move forward with the end of year surpluses, what that policy looks like. And I know we've talked about changing the policy and using the end of year surplus to do other projects that are in need as well. but that is going to dictate how much money you have available and what you can afford as well, because that's gonna buy down what we're gonna go out to debt for. And then can you go back a couple of slides to the schedule?

Oh, to the schedule? No, just the timeframes, right there. So all of these, the space needs assessments, will the council members be involved in that? especially like these two have already been through this process.

Yes, they can be to the extent that you want to participate in those meetings, absolutely.

Well, I'm a volunteer, you know. Sure. The design development phase, so when we get to that point, and that's a year away, a little, you know, well, not quite a year away. At that point, if we approve tonight, can we put the brakes on? If we see that the economy is going south, if we feel like the costs are going way too high? Is that an option at that point that we can reassess?

Yes, we're just trying to get a head start on the design, but going into some kind of a construction phase can always be postponed.

Yeah, the construction documents, because that's probably a pretty big number to put together those documents.

And for clarity, should you happen to proceed, we're currently designed to the 2025 building code for six months into. So that code would stay in effect until the end of 2028. If we were keeping on track here, we'd want to submit for permit before the end of 2028, but the permit issuance likely in 2029, carry a 12-month expiration date, it's now your 2030, you could extend that another year. So you can carry your permit off of a plan set that was derived now under this current code cycle until 2031 pretty easily. Worst case scenario, if you really put the brakes on it and you waited, you would do a code update after 2028 and have to just modify your plan set.

But will our contract with Darden allow us to stop after the development phase? Can we put that in the, like that each one of these, there's a breaking point as far as the fees go? Because $5 million is a lot of money to design a building that's going to cost $95 million. What do we pay for the whole phase two? Like it was $110 million or something? Everything we're building right now?

The total construction cost for all of phase two is about $110 million. Yeah.

All right. Do you guys want to postpone this? We still have to open up to public comments.

Do you guys want to postpone this to our next meeting or do you want to push through?

Can we start at 7 o'clock with public comments?

Can we push the regular meeting to start at 7 and start late so we can get...

I don't think we can, can we? I believe we can. I mean, we'll just announce it at that time.

We'll just start like 15 minutes late. I'd rather just start to do this. If we have to start 10 minutes late, start 10 minutes late.

Okay, let's go ahead and push through. You had another question?

Yeah, I had another question. On the health clinic, is the thought of putting that in the four-story building

I have Bob from Darden here. Bob, I don't recall if we incorporated enough space for a health clinic. Can we fit it in the three-story building?

Before you say that, I struggle with putting that in the four-story building because if someone's going to the clinic, they want some privacy or something like that. I don't want to go in there. I can't believe I'm saying this. The Sonic buildings might be a perfect fit for a health clinic. They're sitting there like, uh-huh. like it could be like it's like kind of still on the same campus but separate where people get their privacy um that's my only concern with the health clinic going in on the campus like i feel like that needs to be its separate entity where people have privacy because someone's sick they're not going to go into city hall to walk into a health clinic that's all i'm saying That's why I thought maybe the Sonic buildings might be a perfect fit and we'll finally have a use for those empty shell buildings.

Yeah, I mean, that's why we put together these options and can include this and this and this, but not that, right? Whatever you want to include at this stage.

Yeah, that was it for me.

All right, so luckily a lot of my questions were answered. So the health clinic are the physicians or physician assistants or nurse practitioners, whatever they are, are those our employees? No. So we're just, we contract them out. Do we own that building currently that they're in? Okay. But they could go rent another building, or we could just rent another building. I mean, they don't have to be operating in a building owned by us, right? Okay. Man, so obviously, like, we need this. But man, I just have a hard time, and if it took us 40 years to save up $110 million, and then we're gonna go getting $195 million in debt, I just have a hard time. We just bragged about our financial strength as a city, and not being in debt, we're having very little debt, and now we're gonna be getting into 7.6 million, possibly 6.7, 6.1 million per year. I mean, that's gonna really limit our ability to function in the future as a council. We've been talking about potentially doing pools, potentially doing parks and recreation. I mean, a lot of different things. That's gonna take away our future ability to do any of those because we're gonna be straddled with a significant amount of debt. and for a long time. And when you're looking at, I mean, police, I love you guys all, but $7 million, $8 million actually probably to build an indoor shooting range, I just don't see it. I love going out to the shooting range. I go out there often. I'm actually a lifetime member over there. I think it's a great facility. I agree we should not be building at $1,200 a square foot to have a cafe. If it's that successful, let the private sector do it. Health clinic, I just looked it up. Those health clinics are not operating centers. They're just rooms. and private sector can build those for about 300 to $350 a square foot. We're gonna be building it. So that would be $1.4 million if private sector were to build it. If we're building it, it's gonna be over 4 million, possibly up to $5 million to build the same building. So I have a hard time paying for a health clinic, a cafe, a food center, and a firing range where we have a gentleman who's been trying to open up an indoor firing range for a couple years now. Why don't we just go rent a few hours from him a week and allow that to be the police-specific time to get in there? Because just those alone, I mean, you're looking at $16, $20 million just by cutting those. And so I just have a hard time. And then even on top of that, just going in and getting in a bunch of debt, I would almost wanna wait a few years to see if we actually can put aside 30, $40 million before we get into $100 million in debt. So I don't know if I can support this just because I just think it's kind of reckless. I think we're putting a ton of debt into our future and things can change really quick. I mean, our 30% reserves could get wiped out really quick if we have to continue paying seven, $6 million a year for something that would be great. But I think the community is gonna sit there and say, man, we built a $8 million shooting range for our police. And we made a $5 million cafe for our staff. A $4 million health clinic when, like Brian said, there's going to be a few police stations empty here pretty soon. Some old civics or old admin, I think, is going to be empty. And we're going to have a lot of buildings that we already own that will be empty. And I, too, would like a little privacy. I don't want people seeing my business if I have to go. You know, and then if our family is going there, our family is going to be going up to the third or fourth floor, you know, visiting the health clinic. I would rather just go somewhere else. So I can't support those items for sure. But realistically, I don't know if I can support getting $100 million in debt. So let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anybody who wishes to speak at this time, please come forward and state your city and your name and your city of residence. Seeing no one, we will close public comment, and I will entertain a motion or any further discussion.

I can make a motion and table this. This is a big decision, and we're missing a council member tonight, and I think this is a $100 million project, and I think everyone should be here, so I'll make a motion and table this.

It's not a $100 million project. Vice Mayor brought it up. This is just a design. So you postpone this, and no offense, Darden, but if you wait another year to do the design, you're going to go up another 15, 20% just in design costs. This is just to design it. At the end of this, you can then make a conscious decision, and Renee can come in and say, hey, the bond market's 3%. We need to do it. Or she's going to say, no, it's not a good time to do it. But I think you're... You have a chance to, yeah, it's expensive to design it. If you wanna pull some of the things out, I would disagree on the training facility. Yeah, you don't send police officers to a private facility and rent by the hour. That just doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. But if you wanna move the clinic out and the cafe out, I don't have a problem with that. But I think you're being foolish not to move forward with the design phase. because it's gonna cost you more money just to design the thing. Right now you're out at 2030 completion, rough numbers.

Well, and that's why I wanted to have a hard stop at the design development.

Exactly.

You got that. And you can at least get a site plan. You can get some better cost estimates. You can get a better idea of what it's really going to look like or what the needs are. And then you can just stop at that point if it's to construction. You don't have to do the construction documents.

You're talking about spending $5.7 million?

Well, it wouldn't be that much to go to design development.

That's exactly what it would cost. Arden Architects in the amount of $5.7 million. And what happens if in two years we don't have the money to move forward? Then we've just spent almost $6 million in building something really nice that we're going to have to then redesign to get into modern codes, updated codes.

What's the cost of bringing it? Say we do what we have to deposit to bring it up to modern codes. Is it a huge expense on top of that or no?

I'm really guessing because we don't know what the code change might be and how big of an impact it would be. You might see 10 to 15% on top of what you're seeing today. It could be 20%. It just depends on what the state does with the building codes.

So we'll basically have a plan and basically those have to hand it off to someone to bring in the code. So there should be an expense if we pause the project.

My apologies, Councilman. Say it again.

So if we pause the project, say we get two years, say like... Economy takes a dip, but we can't want to move forward. We have the plans, we table the plans, and then also when everything gets better, we can put the plans back in place and just basically, here, modernize these codes. It's not going to be a huge expense because all the work's already been done, correct? That's correct.

Council, I think there's two things that you're discussing up here. One is, I think the Vice Mayor has suggested you get to October of this year, basically, so you're at the design phase. You don't go to construction documents, so you haven't spent that entire five million. I don't know, it'd be what, 1.5 maybe at that point? Yeah, I don't. Or you go all the way through working drawings. I think both of those are options you're discussing here. I just wanna make sure we separate those two for your discussion.

Because we have the funds right now in the Civic Center Fund to basically put us to the finish line of the project, right? And this is what it's going to do. The design, yeah. So really, we're not wasting the money on spending it. We're finishing the plan. Now, if we execute that plan, great. But if we don't, we actually have the plan in place. And then whatever we decide to do build it, we hand it off and they bring it up to modern code. So technically, we're just finishing up the plan and have the, from my understanding, correct?

Yeah, we have about $15 million in the Civic Center Fund. So we could definitely fund this first phase. That wouldn't be an issue. Okay.

So with that, I'll make a motion to approve option one, which includes the fourth floor addition PD training facility range. and approve sole source contract with Darden Architects for a design of phase three, an appropriate of $5,721,000 from the Civic Center Reserve Fund.

I'll second it. Thank you. We have first and second. All those in favor, please vote. It's not popping up.

Yeah, mine didn't pop up either.

Oh, there it goes. Perfect. Item passes 3-1 with Council Member Soto absent. Thank you very much. We appreciate that report. We're going to go ahead and close this meeting. And we welcome everyone to come back at our 7 o'clock meeting here in a few minutes. And we might actually be starting just a few minutes late if Council needs time to finish eating and the rest of the business. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Visayas City Council meeting. We apologize we're starting a little bit late. Our previous meeting got out about 20 minutes ago, so we had to wrap up some other work. So we appreciate you guys being patient while we finished eating and came in a little bit late. We're going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. We'll start by offering our Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilmember Puchigian, and then we will have an invocation led by Pastor Lance Allensworth from Gateway Church, and we will go to that point.

Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Good evening. Thanks for allowing me to be here. I'd like to read from 1 Timothy 2, verse 1 through 6. I urge you then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made for all people, for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceable and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good and pleases God, our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the knowledge of truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. Father, we thank you for this great city that we live in. Thank you for the leaders of our city or their commitment and their devotion to God. the citizens, and also to make wise choices. Father, I pray for all the agenda items today, Lord, that there would be wisdom and thoughtfulness and that you would guide and direct them. And Father, as a pastor in the city, my hope is that all in Visalia and the surrounding area will come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. In Jesus' name, amen.

Thank you very much. All right, we'll first start tonight with a special presentation by Shawna O'Neill. She'll be doing the PRSA award recognition.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Shawna O'Neill, Administrative Services Director here with the City of Visalia. And tonight I am pleased to share the city was the recipient of three 2026 image awards from the Public Relations Society of America. These awards focus on excellence in public relations. Other awardees include Fresno State and Valley Children's Hospital. I would like to thank the communications division for their ongoing efforts and achievements and introduce Macy who will briefly highlight the awards received.

Thank you, Shawna. The communications team and I put together three project applications and in return received three PRSA image awards, as Shawna mentioned. Our first merit award is for our Look Back and What's on Track video series for digital or social media campaign category. This campaign was created to strengthen communication and transparency through our community through short monthly video updates featuring city council members discussing what happens in Visalia.

Sorry.

The result has been increased engagement with over 100,000 views, stronger community connection, and greater participation. Yes, thank you. And city programs and events.

The second award of merit is for the

Civic Center phase two groundbreaking in the special event category. This event went beyond traditional groundbreaking, celebrating decades of vision while connecting the community to the future of Visalia. Through strategic outreach, storytelling, and a thoughtful planned ceremony, the project engaged over 200 residents, leaders, and partners, generating strong media coverage while highlighting the long-term impact of Civic Center. Sorry, I'm having a panic attack right now. My goodness. I'm so much better than this, my apologies. Lastly, we received the Award of Excellence for Independent Spectacular Award Event in the Special Event category. While this event was produced by our Parks and Rec Department, this award highlights the work of our communications team in building awareness and excitement. Through a strategic multi-channel marketing campaign that included the, geez Louise, through a strategic multi-channel marketing campaign that included social media, video, media outreach, and community partnerships, we were able to expand the event's reach with a social media viewership of more than 130,000 views. As a result, attendance more than doubled from the previous year, drawing over 10,000 community members and helping establish this event as a signature Independence Day celebration for Visalia. Again, these awards were awarded to the hardworking communications team of Allison Mackey, Joey Gallardo, and myself. We do much better with marketing. As you can see, I'm not a good public relations speaker, so that is the awards. Thank you. All right.

We just want to say thank you on behalf of the Visayas City Council. This is something that the council was hearing from the community that we were not getting enough public outreach and that there wasn't enough communication with the public. And so we made an effort to go out and hire a good team of individuals who can help get our message out to the community. And clearly it's working. So we appreciate all that you guys do. You guys really make us look good. You turned us into little semi-movie stars, so we appreciate that. But you guys really do a fantastic job on getting the message out to the community, which at the end of the day, that's the most important thing. We need to be transparent to our community, and that's what we've been able to accomplish. So thank you. Come on up. We'd love to take a photo with our stars behind the scenes. All right, now we'll go into public comments. This is the time for the general public to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visayas 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 up to 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 asks 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 is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence. Anyone wishing to speak at this time, come on up.

Good evening. My name is Maria Guillen. That's G-U-I-L-L-E-N, accent over the E, and I live in Visalia. Tonight I wanted to highlight an event that's coming up here in Visalia, and it's the second annual Juneteenth Freedom Event that we'll be holding on on June 19th. It's a Friday. It'll be held at the Anthony Community Center over on Jacob Street, and it'll be from the hours of 5 p.m. to 7.30. This is a free event for the community. We hope everyone will join for a meaningful experience at the second annual celebration. It's a very family-friendly event, and it'll be a celebration of freedom, culture, and community. It is a federal holiday, so a lot of people have it off. So we hope that families will join. There'll be lots of educational exhibits, interactive live music, kids activities, and also there'll be food, there'll be a couple food trucks, one with African cuisine, and also a taco truck. So I just wanted to point out that this is the second annual event. Last year's event was held at a smaller location and we were packed. It was a really well attended event and it's a collaboration of the City's Park and Rec Department with a few other community organizations to help round it out and provide collaboration. So this is really a wonderful opportunity for all of us to get together and celebrate freedom and celebrate diversity.

Irene Lapping, Visalia. About the huge number of responses from residents on the city Facebook page over the last few days, I was on one hand encouraged to see that the vast majority of residents weighing in on the Tulare Avenue, I call it upheaval, then was disappointed that they showed their objections after the project was well underway. Then I realized that I was in the same boat. Even after coming to meetings year after year, I still have no idea what the project would turn into because it morphed in ways no one could expect. It's bizarre. It's surreal. 99% of residents still have no clue what those painted lines mean. Compare it to the White House ballroom. At first, what could go wrong with the ballroom? Then it turns out a good part of the White House would have to be wrecked. The video shown on the city's Facebook page reminds me of one of those picturesque TV pharmaceutical ads that says, this pill is good for you because well is good for you. Then the jolly project manager who narrated the whole video didn't even identify himself, and he's the one who gave the presentation at the school cafeteria in April. By the way, we're not . Now, I was absent last time, but did watch the meeting online. I was gratified to see that you, Councilman Pachinko, and my representative in District Three, had the foresight and wisdom to vote against the class four bike lane configuration. But it was a letdown to see that one of you was absent, and that one of you who had yourself admitted right here in council that you were mistaken in supporting it in the first place was now approving it. Last, I've seen a lot of the tail wagging the dog factor here. Conjectures have been flying around about our future eligibility for more ATP grants. If we weren't to comply with every single state criterion, that remains a conjecture. And until I see it borne out in black and white, I won't believe it and refuse to be held hostage to fear and what ifs. Because what I and the majority of residents want is safe roads for cyclists, pedestrians, and property owners. Fix the streets. They're awful. That's all you need to do. Consider floating another revenue measure like Measure R for road repair. Otherwise, leave well enough alone. We're not Europe. We're not Henderson, Nevada. will never be so enough of this nonsense. Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to speak? So yours is actually on the agenda. This is on items not on the agenda. Okay, absolutely.

My name is Hermit Singh. I'm a resident of Visalia, California. The issue that I want to bring up is that I have an ongoing issue, but I've tried to reach the leaders of the city, tried to reach the mayor's office, tried to set up a meeting so I don't have to come here to speak because I have other obligations, right? For one month, what is the process? I want to know how can I reach a public servant to help when I'm not getting any help from anyone? Why is it taking so long? Why is it taking a month for me to get? Last week I spoke to Raina. She said she was going to either have somebody from the mayor's office set up a meeting or she was going to have the city manager call me back. And as of yet, no calls back. She said she was going to do it last Friday by 10 o'clock.

Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comments. We're going to be skipping items of interest, correct? Yep, okay. And we'll go into the consent calendar. Council Member Nelson, do you have any items you'd like to pull? I have no items to pull. Council Member Pichigian? No items to pull. Vice Mayor Nguyen?

No items.

And I have no items. I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to accept a consent calendar as presented. Actually, I apologize. You're right. We need to open this up for the public. Anyone wish to speak on it? the consent calendar items, please come forward. Seeing no one wanting to speak on the consent calendar, sorry, go ahead and read your motion.

I'll make a motion to accept a consent calendar as presented.

I'll second. First and second. All those in favor, please vote. Item passes 4-0 with Council Member Soto absent. All right, now we'll go into our regularly scheduled items, which is item number one, public hearing, authorization of miscellaneous special assessments on the Tulare County secured property tax roll.

Excuse me before you start. I have an online complaint that they can't hear online. If we can turn the volume up. They say they have their volume all the way up, and they still can't hear the meetings.

Go ahead. They'll look at fixing that, so go ahead. Okay.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. I'm Ruth Pena from the Finance Department. The public hearing tonight is to receive public testimony on the proposed resolution allowing the city to place miscellaneous assessments on Tulare County's property tax roll for the fiscal year 26-27. The tax roll process consists of the following items. Annually, there's council approval, council reviews and approves all assessments placed on the tax roll annually, and that's what we're doing tonight. There's contested items. If there's any items contested during the public hearing, they will be discussed in detail at the following council meeting. The county deadline for these assessments to be placed on the tax roll is August 10th. We do have a payment deadline for property owners. They can continue to make payments even though they're on the assessment list right now. They can pay through June 30th to avoid that. There are three categories of tax roll items. The first is owner requested services. We have special district assessments and delinquent service charges. Property owners are notified of the tax roll assessments in various ways. The first is there's public hearing notification placed in the newspaper by the city clerk, and this was done on April 16th and May 21st. Second, when agreements are signed as in the case of owner-requested services, that it serves as the notification. And third, by mail as in the case of delinquent service charges where individual letters are sent out to the property owners. The next three slides are going to list the different assessments within each category. The first category covers agreements the city has with property owners who have requested to be assessed for sewer connections and deferred impact fees. The total agreements of this year that we're proposing is 131,668. The second category is for special assessments such as the Property and Business Improvement District, Northeast Improvement District, Landscape and Lighting Districts, Landscape and Lighting Parks Construction, Open Space District, and the Lauren Atwood Water Main assessments. These special assessments total $9.4 million. The third category is delinquent service charges such as utility delinquencies, code enforcement violations, and weed and lot abatement. These charges total $1.8 million. The preliminary figures expected to be placed on the property tax roll for 26-27 are shown here in table one, which is in the staff report as well. This totals $11.3 million for 26,594 parcels. Please note that these are preliminary figures and adjustments will be made to this list until the county accepts the final list that is due on August 10th. Action required tonight, we need to conduct a public hearing to allow public testimony or protest regarding any of the proposed property tax rule assessments and council action to approve the 2627 tax rule for all non-protested items. At the end of the public hearing, staff recommends that council move to adopt the resolution, which will allow the city to place these assessments on the 26-27 property tax roll. If there are protested assessments, we will return at the next council meeting.

Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?

Ruth, do they have to be here in person to protest or can they write that into you as well?

We've received them from different ways, online or written.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item, come forward and state your name and city of residence.

My name is Ramit Singh. I'm here also speaking on behalf of my wife, Ramandeep Kaur, both residents of Visalia, California. So I don't know how long I have to speak on this, but I'll try to make it brief as possible. I moved from the county, from Tulare County to Visalia. I called the city building department, asked them about, I have a hobby of keeping homing pigeons. bought a house, they said all I had to do was keep my sheds three feet away from the fence line and 25 feet away from other people's houses, which I did. Nothing about lot size, nothing was given to me, okay? My neighbor in the back decided to build an ADU, right? And I had animal control show up. Animal control said, hey, I can't have homing pigeons, I need a permit. I went to the building department. They also issued a citation when I went to them. They said, I need a lot size of, actually at that time they didn't even mention the lot size. They just said, hey, I need to have them three feet away, the distance away, they have to be, if they're less than 10 by 12, I don't need a permit for anything, which I did. When the, So the problem was that I got letters saying they conducted inspections on my property, which nobody did. Nobody had conducted any inspections. But I have a citation saying, hey, they conducted inspections. And that's another thing. If you're going to put something on the tax bill, And city officials are going to say they conducted an inspection. They need to conduct an inspection, not just say they conducted an inspection and they're going to send us a bill. So at that time, they collected money from my wife. I went and I had a meeting with the code enforcement person that I was talking to was Jesse Villegas. Jesse Villegas says, hey, go talk to my supervisor. He gave me his name was... Val Garcia. I went, I had a meeting. I set up a meeting. I went to the building department, planning department, had a meeting with him, showed him what I had. He said everything was fine. Jesse, he's strung somehow, oh, let me confirm with Val, right? So he comes back. He goes, oh, the sheds are not 10 feet apart from each other. I go, nobody told me that I had to have them 10 feet apart. Well, OK. Then he goes, okay, Val said that's okay if they're six feet apart. There was an accessory. I just had a... There was a wire section, so I had a roof put on. That was not connected. It was separate structure. He goes, oh, that structure can't be there. You have to knock it down. Okay? I go, okay. I can do that. That's not a problem. Then he goes, oh, if you don't have...

If you don't have... Sir, we allow three minutes, so your time's expired, unfortunately. What's his ability to get extra time on this? Or to contest it?

Mayor, that would be at your discretion, or he can submit it in writing. whichever you choose.

Okay. Sir, have you already contested this bill?

I have. I've been trying to reach you for a month. I've not been successful. Okay. And that's why I didn't want to come into the public meeting, right? Because I wanted not name names in public of the people that are high strung because they have a little power.

Thank you. So we appreciate it. I will make sure I personally call you after this meeting and we'll speak and I'd like to hear the rest of the story. So thank you.

So I would like a few more minutes just to really clarify what's going on. So I try to comply, right? I bought a new house.

Sir, we only allow three minutes. We're very strict on that. So I promise I will call you after this meeting and I'll hear the rest of the story and we'll talk about this.

I'll take three minutes on behalf of my wife if you're okay.

We don't allow to do that. So we actually have a staff who will talk to you outside, but I promise I'll call you after this meeting and I'll discuss this with you.

I'd like to have it in public so that way people know what's going on here. That you can't just be accountable. You know, like you got to hold.

Thank you, sir. People are going to say they're going to take things off. Your time's expired. Yes. Thank you.

But it needs to be accountable.

Hi. My name is Terry Jada. I'm here on behalf of, I am the trustee for the property that I got this notice from. I'm not used to speaking in front of people, excuse me. I'm a trustee for the property associated with this notice. This notice was addressed to my sister who is deceased. This is the first time I personally, I have personally become aware aware of this action. I'm requesting, it's for dumping. Somebody dumped something on Shirk Road and something, they dumped it. My sister's has been passed away for a couple of years. This is the first notice that I've gotten from it that I notice about it. They want to add it to a tax bill. And they said, I called and they said, how do you know it was my sister? And they said they found some paperwork in this dump with her name on it. Anybody could have done that. And that's why I'm here. I'm requesting information about the basis for the charges, copies of the prior notices, and an opportunity to review the records before any amount is placed on the tax roll. because this is my first time. I've only been in Visalia for five months trying to handle the situation with the trust and the property and everything.

Okay, so you're formally appealing it, correct?

Yes, I am, I am.

If you want to go outside also, we'll have someone go out and speak with you right now.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Am I calling you?

Good evening, my name's Christine Marquez. I am an occupant of my residence here in Visalia, I'm from Visalia, and I've never done this before. I've attended a few of these things, but what I am here for, I'm looking at the timer, I just need a little assistance as far as paying my bill down, because I do not want it to go to the property tax, role assessment. I've usually done really good in the past. I don't know if this is the first time that it's ever come this far, getting so close. So I don't know what I can do. I'm actually kind of uncomfortable and a little embarrassed, but I want to ask, is there a way where they maybe take past two fees, waive those off, or what are my options, I guess? Or is there anything I can do?

Okay, if you want to step outside, we'll have someone go out there and speak with you also. So thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Hi, my name's Kendall.

I moved on this property on April 2025. The utility remained in the landlord's name. She's actually deceased now. So the property went to the grandson. I started renting from the grandson a room from him in April. And now there's like a fine for $769 for the sewer and trash. And I wasn't aware of paying those. I pay the electric, I pay the gas, and I pay the water. there's nothing to be told about paying sewer or the trash. So I have no problem establishing service in my name for the period that I've lived on this property. But as for anything that the charges that were in penalties that were before that I was that I was unaware of, I don't feel like I should have to pay that because I have taken over because this grandson now moved to Wisconsin. So even though he's still the landlord there, I'm still renting from him, and I just don't find it. I don't have no clue what his deal was with the whole trash and sewer, but I have no problem putting it in my name since April of 2025 up until now. but I mean, is there anything that I could do?

The bill is not in your name, correct? It's in someone else's name?

Yeah, it's in somebody else's name. I've been trying to get it under my name. They've sent me something in the mail stating I could. Well, I called that number, and they said that I couldn't get it in my name. It's up to the owner of the property, and I said, okay, well, she's deceased, but her grandson is taking over it now. How do I get that in my name? Because he's not going to do it. So I've been trying to get it in my name, and they're just not working with me. Okay.

Do we have someone who can speak at this lady also? Okay. If you want to follow Nicole out, she'll help you.

Good evening. My name is Benjamin Pineda, and I'm a room and board operator for Tulare County Mental Health. A house I own at 1706 West Dorothea Avenue that I bought 25 years ago. And I've been running that place. I provide housing for mentally disabled people. And there are some violations here that I was cited. And 80% of this I have already corrected them. So this amount of $2,907, I would like to contest this or reduce it. Because 80% I've done this already. Yeah, I've been running this place for Tulare County Mental Health and I have issue with homeless people coming in the house there. So my request is if I can have more time to correct the other 20% that needs to be corrected. And I would like request a reduction of this amount here because I did already about 80%. I already corrected it. Okay, so you're actually appealing it? Tommy Contreras is the code enforcement officer.

Perfect. We will also have you step out with someone, and they will kind of explain to you all the rules in which we can and can't do. All right. Thank you, Benjamin.

Good evening, Council. I'm Kyle McDonald. I'm an engineer with Four Creeks. I'm actually here representing a client of mine, she couldn't make it, she's traveling, but she actually has two tax liens put on two different properties over off of Burke, one 770 North Burke, the other at 250 South Burke. This is for illegal shade structures that were built without a permit, right? So after we were notified by the city, we started to work with the city, bring in an engineer, redesign, submit a building permit packages for both shades we did that last year met with the city we met with uh met with the city got comments and then we actually resubmitted back in october we didn't receive a response or a receipt that the city had received the resubmittal but the next thing that we received was back in april two months ago of a notice of hearing to show up here tonight to help to basically say, talk about taxing. So yeah, so I'm here contesting it on behalf of my client. So I'm assuming I could probably go talk to somebody outside. Absolutely. Okay. I know this guy anyway, so.

Anybody else wishing to speak on a contested item? last call on a contested item okay seeing no one okay we will go ahead and close public comment and turn it back over to council with any further questions or comments or a motion yes she just won't have so anyway okay oh yeah we're done then right yeah do a motion okay

I move to adopt Resolution 2026, which allows the City of Isaiah to place miscellaneous special assessments on the Tulare County Secured Property Tax Roll for Sewer Connection, Deferred Impact Fees Property and Business Improvement District, Northeast Improvement District, Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, Landscape and Lighting Parks Construction, Open Space Assessment District, Laura and Atwood Water Main Assessment District, Delinquent Utilities Code Enforcement, and Weed and Lot Abatement.

I'll second. And just to make sure, everyone who came and spoke, they're formally recognized as appealing this. Fantastic, thank you.

As well as all written submissions that we received prior.

Thank you. Okay, we have a first and then a second by Council Member Pichigan. All those in favor, please vote. And item pass is 4-0 with council member Soto absent. Thank you very much. We're going to go on to item number two, which is ordinance adoption.

Oh, sure. It's okay. Council members, Jared Olsen with the Planning Division. We are here tonight to report back to you on the map streamlining ordinance that was previously directed by your council to to initiate the subdivision streamlining ordinance amendment process and one thing that we were asked to look at was what the 80 lot threshold could look like if we increased the number of lots that could be streamlined to 20%. We also conducted outreach with the BIA and is nationally very supportive. And we also received Planning Commission's recommendation to For the streamlining ordinance, already lots. They wanted to consider a higher threshold, but they felt that they really wanted to get their feet wet a little bit first before jumping in with a larger threshold. They were concerned about hasty approvals, lacks of checks and balances, but as staff had previously mentioned, the appeal process is still there. This is just simply, we are looking to streamline simple maps that do not require any sort of a special permit, general plan amendment, change of zone, plan developments, things of that nature. So going back to the 20% lot calculation, we determined that in order to STREAMLINE 20% OF THOSE LOTS IN THE PAST, THAT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY A 160-LOT THRESHOLD. SO WHILE WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE TRIPLING THE PERCENTAGE, WOULD ONLY RESULT IN A DOUBLING OF THAT THRESHOLD. is how we came to that number. It's also in the staff report too. This map here shows where those lots would be in relation to the 80 lot and the 160 lot threshold. As previously mentioned, 19 sites would be eligible. This would increase a 160 lot threshold, would only include one additional site for 96 lots. This site actually has already been received a subdivision approval. I want to say back in 2022. We've also identified urban lot splits and starter home developments. These are subdivisions subdivision applications that staff is already to approve, and so thus we aren't really discussing these so much, but they are also shown on this map. As you can see, most of these lots are gonna be found in the northeast part of Visalia, where we see a lot of So those would certainly help with streamlining in the area. Here is a list of the changes to the review authority. Small and simple maps is proposed to be decided on. by the estate manager or their designee, both for non-residential maps and for residential maps. Urban lot splits, small lot subdivisions are required to be approved without any sort of a hearing. So we are proposing to keep that with the city planner. And also time extensions are being proposed to be approved at the staff level too Currently these are are generally placed on the consent calendar with with a Planning Commission and are considered very Routine so this would just essentially Expedite that a process II even faster Here is the existing process for a tentative map. The proposed changes for small and simple maps would essentially create the administrative hearing process. Notices still go out to property owners, neighbors nearby. Those those that have concerns about the project still have the opportunity to comment. And they can also receive notice of what the decision made is, at which point that would then kick into the the typical 10-day appeal period process. No newspaper hearing notice would be provided. It would all be via mail. We also added in the streamlining provisions that are required by state law. We've also included some departmental practices, removing hard copy plans, things of that nature. There was one entire chapter that we are removing related to school impact fees. That's because state law supersedes this from a bill back in 1998. So we're taking that out to reduce confusion. Tentative maps previously discussed. Um, environmental review. We're not, we are not creating any new ministerial process, um, with this and, and discretion is still being afforded. Stick was still, still available. EXISTS FOR THESE PROJECTS WHERE APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT UNDER CEQA DUE TO A COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO INTRODUCE FOR THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-04 AMENDING TITLE 26 SUBDIVISIONS OF THE of the Pisces Municipal Code to implement a streamlined process for small and small maps to include a number lot threshold for your consideration. With that, staff is available for questions and discussion.

Wonderful, thank you for the report. Thank you. Council Member Nelson, any questions?

No, I mean, it was a great report. I'm struggling with a 160 lot threshold versus a smaller threshold. So I'll take public comments to hear on that.

Thank you. Council Member Puchigan?

Yeah, great report. Any way we could streamline the process, I think the better. And I will be supportive of the 160 lot threshold.

Vice Mayor Wynn?

Same here, I would support 160 because these are all lots that meet our current standards with no deviations, no special exceptions. And it wasn't, if you looked at the report, it wasn't really that many more than the 80.

Yeah, I think this is great. I mean, everyone in government talks about streamlining government process. Here, we're actually doing it, and I think 20% is kind of dipping our toe into it. I would love to hear a report back, you know, within a year to see if we can't streamline even more, potentially all of them, because any time we can streamline the process, it makes it easier, more affordable, and, you know... What most people don't realize is, like our Costco, they built it in three months, but it took five or six years to actually go through the planning phase. And so a lot of the cost is in the years and years and years it takes to get these things through the state of California, the county, and the city of Visalia. And so I definitely will be supporting of doing the 160 lot, but I definitely would be interested to see what our community is going to say about that. I'll go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence. Seeing no one excited about subdivision law, we're gonna go ahead and bring it back to council, and I'll entertain a motion.

I move to introduce for the first reading of Orders Number 2026-04, amending Visalia Municipal Code Title 16, Subdivisions to Implement a Streamlined Process for Small and Simple Maps to Include a 160 Lot Threshold.

I second.

We have first and second. All those in favor, please vote. Item passes 4-0 with Council Member Soto absent. Thank you very much. Next, we're going to item number three, which is a revised salary schedule and employment terms update.

Hello again, Shawna O'Neill, Administrative Services Director. This item before you tonight is to approve the revised salary schedule for full-time employees. the city manager and city council members and approve corresponding amendments to the city manager's employment agreement. The proposed salary schedule includes a 4% salary increase effective the pay period that includes July 1 The increase consists of the previously approved 2% increase and an additional 2% increase triggered by the general fund sales tax revenues exceeding the 46.6 million threshold that was established in labor agreements. Although the additional 2% increase was originally scheduled for October of 2026, staff is presenting this option to the council to implement the full 4% increase in July of 2026. Accelerating this increase would provide earlier relief from inflation and cost of living impacts and support employee recruitment and retention. The estimated one time cost of accelerating the additional 2% increase is approximately $467,000 of which $292,000 is from the general fund and all of these funds have already been included in the proposed budget that was presented to you earlier this evening. The updated salary schedule also reflects classification and reclassification changes approved during the fiscal year. That includes new positions proposed in the budget. City Council salaries are included for transparency and CalPERS compliance purposes only. and are unchanged. The recommended action also includes the sixth amendment to the city manager's employment agreement to provide compensation adjustments consistent with the department head bargaining group, which is that total of the 4%. And that concludes my staff report. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you, Shawna. Any questions for staff at this time?

Yeah, again, I know you said it, but I want to be very clear to everybody else here that we are not giving, the city council is not getting a raise on any of these things. Our stipend stays the same. This is for employees only, but none of the city council members will be getting a 4% raise. Correct? Correct. Perfect. Thank you. I'll be fully supportive of this tonight. Our staff's done a really good job throughout the year. I appreciate us in negotiation setting metrics. If numbers were hit, then bonuses would kick in, and I think it shows the great relationship we have with our staff, so I'll be fully supportive of this this evening.

Yeah, I'm fully supportive of this idea. I think with the inflationary impact, it's infecting everybody, gas prices, and increasing costs of food costs because of the increase in diesel fuel and so forth and so on. I think for some of our folks, this is very impactful to move this forward, and I totally support it. And so, yeah, I'm in agreement.

Vice Mayor?

I agree.

Yeah, I mean, our staff, they're amazing. They work extremely hard. And we are in a really good position as a city because of our employees and our city council. And so, you know, if we can help them out just a little bit, I think this is a great opportunity to reward our employees who do an amazing job for our city and are really, you know, the ones who make everything run on the back end. So we appreciate what they do. We'll go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence.

Irene Lavin again. This is awkward. I looked at this League of California Cities guidelines on raises at top management level, but these are mostly my impressions. I see it as a mistake to lump a city manager with a group raise, one in which all staff raises from code enforcement officer to positions like land surveyor. Now you, council, I believe deserve an occasional cost of living raise because I don't see you as salaried as such. It's just an honorarium you get along with an optional benefits package and expenses. Number three, what's proposed for the city manager is, forgive me, totally out of range. It's even higher than that of the police chief or the state governor. Why? This isn't Beverly Hills or San Ramon or Fresno or Sacramento, for that matter, whose populations are more than half a million. The Visalia City Manager currently gets, now looking at this table, maybe I'm seeing things, $22,000 a month. That's almost $300,000 a year. Data shows that city manager top earners in the state, the 90th percentile get $148,000 a year. So my questions are, number one, the term bargaining group keeps getting mentioned and I've been wondering for some time, why does someone at top management have a bargaining group negotiate on his or her behalf? It may be naive to say, but I've always associated collective bargaining with unions and rank and file service employees. Two, apropos of that, is there any reason the assistant manager isn't included on the list? Number three, this increase consists of the originally approved 2.2% adjustment and an additional 2% increase triggered by the city's general fund sales tax revenue. Can you explain what triggered means? And last, the item specifically includes city council members as up for a raise, but the summary says city council salaries are included for transparency and compliance purposes only and remain unchanged. Could you explain that discrepancy? Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comments. Shawna, if you could respond to those questions.

Yeah, so as to the word triggering, during the last round of negotiations, each of the bargaining units, which also includes represented and unrepresented bargaining units, there was a threshold set for the sales tax measure. And if the city reached those sales tax goals of the $46.6 million, that word trigger just means that per the agreements, that additional 2% would be required. The assistant city manager is in the department head group. And even though they're not a recognized bargaining unit, they're all lumped together. The city manager has a separate contract that is pulled aside. So this just incorporates everybody in the city is getting the same COLA increase of the 2% plus the 2%. It's just we're required to have the amendment in the city manager's agreement. And so it was included as a proposed sixth amendment.

So can you explain that this was already guaranteed in our contract with the employees and that we're just bumping it up a few months early?

That's correct.

All right. Any other questions or comments from council? Okay. Then I will entertain a motion.

I move to authorize changes to terms and conditions of employment by between the city of Isaiah, city manager, and adoptive vice. I will reschedule for full-time employees, city manager... And city council members of the city of I-7 proceed with a 4% negotiated increase affecting the pay period July 1st, 2026.

I'll second. First and second. All those in favor, please vote. Item passes 4-0 with Council Member Soto absent. Thank you very much. And next, we're on to the last item of the evening, which is... Item number four, Senate Bill 707, Implementation Overview. I think this was Raina's first presentation, so I know she'll do an amazing job.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Reyna Rivera, Chief Deputy City Clerk. Oh, I'm a little nervous. Tonight's presentation provides an overview of Senate Bill 707, which amends the Brown Act and establishes new requirements for public access, participation, and transparency for meetings of eligible legislative bodies. So slide number one is the why, right? So SB 707 was adopted to enhance public access to local government meetings and encourage broader participation in the decision making process. So the legislation focuses on the four primary areas seen on the screen. The overall goal is to make public meetings more accessible while maintaining transparency and accountability. So this next screen talks about the who. So SB 707 applies only to certain legislative bodies that meet population thresholds established by state law. For the city of Visalia, the city council is the only eligible legislative body subject to these requirements. At this time, city commissions and committees are not subject to the new requirements under SB 707. So staff implementation efforts are focused solely on city council meetings. So our next slide is the what. So what is SB 707? So the legislation establishes five major requirements listed here, which I will be going over in detail in the next few slides. So this slide talks about the requirements for language. So SB 707 establishes several language access requirements designed to improve participation by residents with limited English proficiency. So first, meeting agendas must be translated into applicable languages within certain population thresholds that are met under state law. Based on current demographic data, Visalia meets the threshold for Spanish language agenda translation. So this new legislation also requires agencies to maintain accessible meeting information online and support interpretation efforts by members of the public. Additionally, agencies must provide a publicly accessible location near agenda posting sites where members of the public may post translated versions of the agendas. So what that means is if somebody were to come in and the city is not required to provide interpretation for members of the public, but we can provide a place in a corner or maybe outside where they can come in with someone and provide that. And then the other part about providing, posting requirements, all of that means is we have to provide a spot outside where it is, similar to where we post on the bulletin board. So anyone, maybe someone with a different dialect in Spanish would be able to translate the agenda using their own dialect or the dialect that they're native to and they would be providing that translated agenda. So the city would not be liable for any information that is posted on that agenda. This next slide discusses outreach requirements. So one of the new requirements is to make reasonable efforts to encourage participation from individuals that might not traditionally attend public meetings, including underrepresented and non-English speaking communities. What's important here is that the law provides council with the flexibility in determining what constitutes reasonable outreach. It doesn't require outreach to any specific organization, group or individual and expressly recognizes that council may determine what that outreach method that best fits their community. So that means it's not a one size fits all for each community. So following a presentation to the CAC earlier this year, staff solicited feedback regarding potential outreach strategies and community engagement opportunities. Based on that discussion and the flexibility provided by SB 707, staff developed a draft outreach policy for council's consideration, and that's what's included in your packet. So that proposed policy establishes a flexible outreach framework that may include things as reaching out to CBOs, also known as community-based organizations, outreach to underrepresented and non-English speaking communities, accessibly focused outreach and evaluation of available accommodations and communication tools. And what that means is, very fancy talk for just saying, we're using what we have now and we will continue to make those changes when we have maybe more technology. So this is not only looking at what we currently have in making those requirements effective July 1, we're also looking at what's gonna be available to us for July 2027, which will look completely different in a new city hall, council chambers. So we're looking at what's available now and using that draft policy that was provided to you with that framework that says we're doing stuff now, but we're also going to make differences or make changes effective when we're in a new city hall with new equipment. So as I mentioned, the policy is intentionally flexible and will allow staff to adapt outreach efforts over time as communication method, available resources, which means our new council chambers, and the community needs evolve. So this evening staff was seeking council feedback regarding the proposed outreach framework and whether there are additional outreach strategies, organizations, or communication methods that council would like staff to specifically consider. This is a fun one. The internet disruption policy. So this new law requires city council to adopt a procedure addressing disruption to remote public participation. If a disruption prevents the public from participating remotely, the meeting must recess while staff attempts to restore service. The meeting is not allowed to resume an open session until one of two things happen. The disruption has been resolved or one hour has passed, whichever occurs first. There is a caveat. During that period, council may convene into closed session, if appropriate, and what that means is if we have an agenda, if we have a posted agenda for closed session. You can't just make up a closed session on the fly. So, If service cannot be restored within one hour, council must either adjourn the meeting or make a specific finding that A, good efforts were made to restore the service, or B, the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the loss of remote participation. And what that means is an example would include there's members of the public like there was tonight that are here in public wishing to speak on the item. So the proposed disruption policy before council this evening is intended to satisfy that requirement. This next slide has a lot of information, but I'm here to break it down for you, pretty simple. So this slide summarizes the evolution of teleconferencing requirements under the Brown Act. To the left, it talks about the member teleconferencing. So prior to the pandemic, teleconferencing required remote locations to be publicly noticed and accessible to the public. Those are the old Brown Act rules. Those are the standard rules that we're all very familiar with. Temporary COVID era provisions allowed fully remote meetings without having to meet those requirements. SB 707 establishes a new framework for teleconferencing post COVID. So council members may participate remotely under specified circumstances, including something that's now called just cause and disability related accommodations. So if using Just Cause, remote locations are no longer required to be publicly posted. However, a majority of council members must still participate from locations within the city's jurisdiction. On the right side of this slide, it talks about the legislation that were required to provide members of the public with the ability to participate remotely through either a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform, similarly known as a Zoom platform. Regardless of the method selected, the remote participants must be afforded the same opportunity to address the council as individuals attending in person. All that means is if we allow members of the public that are here three minutes, we have to abide by that same three minute rule for those online. So staff has begun implementation of remote participation via two-way telephonic service, which will ensure compliance with these requirements by July 1. This slide is a fun one. So what we do when we're responding to disruptive behavior, I know this has been a big topic of discussion for a lot of people. So SB 707 clarifies procedures for maintaining order during public meeting. So the presiding officer may address disruptive conduct occurring either in person or remotely. Examples may include repeated interruptions, shouting, disruptive behavior, or disruptions commonly referred to as Zoom bombing. Any actions taken must be based solely on disruptive conduct and not on the content or viewpoint being expressed. The legislation preserves the public's right to express criticism, disagreement, or unpopular viewpoints while providing agencies with the tools necessary to maintain orderly meetings. I feel that this council does a really great job of doing that. In closing, SB 707 establishes several new requirements intended to increase public access, participation, transparency, and inclusivity for local government meetings. Staff has begun implementation efforts related to technology, language access, website updates, public outreach, and required policies. This evening, staff is requesting that the City Council receive the report regarding SB 707, adopt the proposed policy on disruption to telephonic or internet service during public meetings, and lastly, provide direction regarding the proposed outreach policy and any additional outreach strategies Council would like to consider as implementation efforts continue. That's my presentation for tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions.

You did a great job, thank you. Any questions or comments? Council Member Nelson? Okay. Council Member Pichigian? Okay. Vice Mayor? Okay. Let's go ahead and open this up to the public. Anyone wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and state your name and city of residence.

We're going to ask anyone's name.

I would like to see a two-way video ability, at least in the new facilities. I don't expect them here, but I think having it available as a video feed would be a little bit better than just a two-way telephone line. Other than that, it looks good. Thanks. Thank you.

Good evening, Council, Ephraim Becerra. I live in District 1, Vice Mayor Liz Nguyen. I just wanted to add, I've visited other cities that are a little bit bigger than us. One thing I noticed, they do have the screens. I know we're getting a new building, but a suggestion I would make is during Council, you can have the translation on the screens also while you're speaking. I mean, we have technology now, and it'll pop up like what's being discussed on the screens. I've seen it at other cities. um clearly uh the majority of the people that we have in california are spanish speaking so i would say spanish if we were to get i think something that i would suggest you guys should discuss somebody that is probably from laos or mong or you know a language that's not as common as spanish i think reina mentioned something that there is available translations based on technology and abilities but My recommendation would be having it on the screens at the new location probably at the Civic Center when it's built. I think that's great. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak?

Maria Guillen accent over the E. I want to congratulate Reina. It was a great presentation. And it's an important topic, accessibility, something that I take great advantage of. And I would really love it if there were more folks that would. So when you did suggest that perhaps there could be some way to figure out how to do more outreach to get more people aware that they can come and address this council and participate and do civic engagement. I think that would be really great. I know personally that there are some neighbors within that try to do a really good job at letting people know about what's on the agenda and giving proper notice in addition to the timely agendas that go out by Reyna. But I really appreciate when people do that. Also I had a question regarding if someone needed to address the council and their monolingual say Spanish speaking is it the custom then or is it the rule then that if they were to come to address the council they too would have three minutes but if they were able to bring a translator with them would that person also get three minutes in addition? I see her nodding yes. That's good to know. I also had a question about earlier when we had a resident addressing the council with a very, he was very impassioned and frustrated and he had extended his time. No one gave him an indication as to how much time he did have. He was the first time, obviously, first time here. I wish he would have been given the proper acknowledgement of how much time since he did ask the question. And also the fact that I, in other jurisdictions that I've been in, when the council or county board of supervisors When somebody needed more time or they wanted to extend a little bit more time to the speaker and not just expire in three minutes, All they had to do was just ask a question to the speaker. So it's like you're initiating a question that you wanted the answer from them so then they could give you some more information. So it's not like you're breaking the rules or anything, but you have that discretion to ask a question. And that's what I thought maybe you could have done this evening. Thank you.

All right, seeing nobody else, we'll go ahead and close public comments, and I'll turn it back over to Council Member Nelson.

Great first report from Raina. I appreciate the report. I struggle with it. I believe in, the city can always do a better job of outreach, but I've always said, you know, you can do all the outreach you want, and you can't make people read it, or you can't make people look it up, or you can't, yeah. But I think the city can always do a better job. I think we should always strive to do a better job. I think it should be noted that cities required to follow this But the state legislature is not even required to follow this. You know, what's good for the goose, good for the gander kind of thing. They're forcing this on cities and municipalities, but yet they don't follow their own structure. In the recent legislative body, every transparency law that affected the state assembly was tabled. They don't believe in transparency, but yet they want to force it down on the municipalities. I have a problem with phone-in participation. I understand the need. If I'm disabled and I can't get to a meeting, I should be able to still participate. But you can't control someone from Florida calling in on your meeting and trying to be disruptive, or someone from Northern California wants to be disruptive of your meeting. And I have a problem with that. I have no problem if you can control our own citizens using this system. That the way the system is set up right now, you can't control that. So I struggle with this. I've asked, did the League of Cities take a position on this? And they opposed it, but I don't think they opposed it very strongly. Therefore, the State Assembly moved it on to the cities. I wish the League of Cities would have been more outspoken. I wish the city would have been more outspoken because I think this could have been tabled until there's better technology to control outside interference coming into your meetings. Like I said, I believe in better outreach. I believe we need to continually investigate how we can touch the people of our community. And I'm all in favor of that, but I'm struggling with the acceptance of this. I'm struggling with the state legislation or forcing it down our throat. And I wish there was a way to stall it. But until someone comes up with that idea, let me know. But thank you.

Council Member Poochigan?

Yeah, so some of this... I'm honestly okay with. Like Council Member Nelson said, if we could reach more people, I'm okay with that. Many people don't know this, but my mom immigrated to this country when she was 16 with her twin brother and my grandparents not speaking a word of English. So this would help somebody like that coming in and get more involved and know what's going on. I think that's great. I think any way you could get more translation and more people involved, I think that's fantastic. Um, where I struggle with is, like Councilmember said, the teleconference communication. If someone's from the city limits and wants to be involved in city government, that's fantastic. I'm okay with that. But when, like you said, someone from another state or another, like, not even in this region is calling just to disrupt the meeting, that's going to be a problem. Um, so hopefully, I mean, we're going to have a kill switch on the phone or we have to let them keep going? I got, like, I'm... Is there going to be a kill switch where we can kind of just kill a phone or something that happens? Oh, they'd be so like. So also my wife's a high school English teacher during COVID that they would have meetings and everything was on Zoom and people would Zoom bomb the meeting and the kids would see inappropriate stuff and you can shut it down fast enough. That's my concern for this thing. That's the bad part of this law. I think the more people we reach in our community, the better, and I think that's a fantastic way, and I think our team does a good job, and I think if we could do a better job, great, let's do it. The more people in the Spanish community, Chinese community, different communities, if we could get more people involved, we've always said that's the best. You know, the four people here, like, hats off to you guys because you guys are always here. And like I said, you guys are involved, and we might not always agree, but at least you guys are here and you guys are involved in the process. And if we had more people involved like this, we'd be a better community for that. So if this gets more people here, that's fantastic. My concern is the teleconference and people doing weird things on Zoom because that's the kind of world we live in these days. So I'll be supportive of this tonight, and we'll see how it all works out.

Vice Mayor Nguyen. I like in your policies how you have you listed distribution for information. My other question, and this is just because I don't know, do you have a mailing list that you send the agendas out to?

We do. We actually have two mailing lists. We have one that has contacted the city clerk's office for a number of years. We email that information out and then there's a secondary list that people sign up on the website using our Granicus platform and that sends it out.

Okay, because that's what I would encourage too, especially like social service agencies that might help disadvantaged community members, CSET and places like that and self-help that, that they would be on regular mailing of the agenda, both the English and Spanish. And I think we're just gonna have to wait and see. I serve on a multi-jurisdictional board that does everything by Zoom, but it's so obscure that really the only people who call in and Zoom in are really the ones that are interested. I don't think that'll be the case here, but we'll just have to kind of wait and see how that works out. But thank you for researching this, and I wanted to just commend you for that. And I assume we'll just start in this old chambers as just telephone, phoning in. Yes, that is the goal. Okay. And could you just clarify the disruption again? So if somebody calls in, and it's my understanding, if somebody calls in and just starts cursing at us, and I mean, they're not even from here. I mean, people curse at us from here, but not outside of our hometown. They can do that, right?

Yes, unfortunately. Is this freedom of speech? Yeah, freedom of speech, and nothing in, I mean, we can add maybe language in our disruption policy if council so chooses, and I think this is a question for Ken, you know, if we just add something that states, you know, if there's foul language being used, that we want to eliminate that. I mean, how does that happen with First Amendment? I know there's cities talking about this up and down California.

Real quick, once they say derogatory terms or, racist terms, can we shut that down right away? Because I mean, nobody should have to sit through something like that, no?

My first impression, I'd need to look into this a little bit further, but my first impression is no, unless it was over the top egregious, there are First Amendment protections to certain words that we might all find offensive.

We can't limit it to within the jurisdiction of the city council? That's one thing that we can limit it to is specifically the language that's on the agenda currently where it does talk about issues within the jurisdiction. So I think that would be our saving grace.

Okay.

Possibly.

We're gonna find out a lot. Learning.

We're in a great job appreciate it. I don't really need to add much I mean, I think this has a lot of good potential to it But the idiots up in Sacramento didn't think it all out through and you know I think it's extremely hypocritical that you're gonna pass a law that you exempt yourself from and then on top of that the cost come to the city and There was no funding so You know, this is gonna add an immense cost to our city, and they just don't care. They like taking our jobs, but they don't wanna actually be responsible for doing it themselves. So shame on those folks up in Sacramento, but at the end of the day, we live in California, and they tell us what to do most of the time, so we have no other option. So I'll entertain a motion at this time.

I move to receive the report on Senate Bill 707 requirements, adopt the policy on disruptions to telephonic or internet service during public meetings, provide direction of staff with outreach strategies on draft reasonable efforts to encourage public participation.

I second.

All right, we have first and second. All those in favor, please vote. Item passes 4-0, Council Member Soto absent. Thank you very much. All right, we're going to go ahead and adjourn this meeting, and we welcome everyone to come back at our next meeting, which is June 15th. And we had no closed session items to report, so thank you, guys.