Visalia City Council Meeting - June 2, 2025
Visalia City Council Meeting - June 2, 2025
The Visalia City Council held a work session and regular meeting on June 2, 2025, with Council Members Brian Poochigian, Steve Nelsen, and Emmanuel Hernandez Soto present (Mayor Brett Taylor and Vice Mayor Liz Wynn absent). The work session (4:23 PM to 5:09 PM) covered proposed FY 2025-26 fees and a Fire Prevention Division overview. The regular session (7:00 PM to 7:58 PM) included public comments, consent calendar approvals, a special assessment hearing, a subdivision annexation, and a continuation of a zoning text amendment.
Work Session
- Fiscal Year 2025-26 Rates and Fees: Finance Director Renee Nagel and Financial Analyst Jana Ferguson presented proposed fee changes, including new fees, CPI-based increases (3.06% for California CPI, 1.68% for construction cost index), and adjustments tied to MOU settlements. Council discussed rounding fees and potential discounts for seniors, veterans, and children. No formal action taken; final consideration set for June 16, 2025.
- Fire Department Prevention Division Overview: Fire Chief Dan Griswold and Fire Marshal Corbin Reed presented the division's functions, including fire inspections (132 per engine crew per year), property maintenance code enforcement, fire alarm permits (~800 annually), fire investigations, community education, construction access standards, and illegal fireworks enforcement. Council praised the division's work.
Public Comments
- Irene Lapin (Visalia) urged the council to address the low number of TNR surgery appointments (only 12 per week, resulting in only 6 residents able to participate) and proposed funding a local veterinarian or mobile sterilization service. She also requested item 6 on the consent calendar be pulled.
- Jatinder Chopra (physician, property owner) complained about city harassment from neighborhood preservation regarding tenant issues and utility bills.
- Susan Gundhi (property owner) spoke about high fines (120% of actual charges) on utility bills and asked for negotiation.
- Efrain Becerra (District 1) questioned approving new housing when water restrictions are in place; Council Member Nelsen responded that water supply is adequate due to conservation.
Consent Calendar
The consent calendar was approved 3-0, with item 6 pulled for separate discussion. Approved items included:
- Authorization to read ordinances by title only.
- Civic Center Phase 2 materials testing contract with BSK Associates for $437,933.60.
- Chemical supply contracts with Target Specialty Products ($235,000/year) and Helena Agri Enterprise ($215,000/year).
- FY 2025/26 Appropriations Limit (Resolution 2025-33).
- Confirmation of Stripe contract for microtransit credit card processing (up to $30,000/year).
- Revised Resolution 2025-27 for historic preservation appeal at 410 North Court Street.
- Wastewater Capital Improvement Program budget increase of $24,760,000.
- Measure T District Tax Recertification.
- Reappointment of City Attorney (Peltzer Richardson Law Firm) for two years at $50,600/month (year one) and $52,625/month (year two), plus hourly rates for special services.
Item 6 (Alcohol exemption at Riverway Sports Park): Pulled by Council Member Poochigian. Parks & Recreation Director Jason Glick explained it's for the Independence Spectacular drone show (budget ~$40,000, grant applied for $20,000). Public comment included concerns about safety and naming of the foundation; council approved 3-0.
Discussion Items
Public Hearing: Miscellaneous Special Assessments (Resolution 2025-17) Finance analyst Ruth Pena presented. Total assessments: owner-requested services ($214,079), special districts ($7.5 million), delinquent service charges ($1.7 million). One formal protest received; several property owners spoke about fines. Council adopted the resolution as amended, 3-0, with items contested to be brought back.
Blankenship Subdivision Annexation Assistant Planner Colleen Moreno presented a proposal by San Joaquin Valley Homes to annex 71.43 acres (APNs 123-400-005 and 123-400-001) into the city for a 203-lot single-family subdivision and commercial remainder. Includes adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration, initiation of annexation proceedings with LAFCO, detachment from County Service Area No. 1, and a pre-annexation agreement. Public comment from Efrain Becerra; council approved all actions 3-0.
Ordinance Adoption (Zoning Text Amendment No. 2025-01) City Manager requested continuation to June 16, 2025. Council continued the item 3-0 with no public comment.
Measure N Spending Plan and Axon Contract Amendment Police Lieutenant Dan Ford presented first of two public hearings to amend the Body-Worn Camera contract with Axon Enterprises. Request: additional 34 officer safety plans (including TASER 7 and auto-tagging software) for total $431,350.65 over three years, with $138,121 appropriation for FY 2025/26. Measure N committee approved. No action taken; second hearing and vote scheduled June 16.
Key Outcomes
- Work session: No formal actions; fees will return June 16.
- Consent calendar: Approved 3-0 (all items except item 6).
- Item 6: Approved 3-0 for one-time alcohol exemption at Riverway Sports Park for Independence Spectacular.
- Special Assessments Resolution 2025-17: Adopted as amended 3-0.
- Blankenship Subdivision Annexation: Approved 3-0 (resolutions and pre-annexation agreement).
- Zoning Text Amendment: Continued to June 16, 2025, 3-0.
- Measure N Amendment: First hearing held; second hearing and vote on June 16.
- City Attorney Reappointment: Approved on consent calendar, effective for two years.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon and welcome to the work session for June 2nd. We're going to begin with public comments. Citizens are now invited to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of Isaiah City Council. And items listed on the closed session agenda. Creative criticism presenter, if appropriate, courtesy is always welcome. Since it's all staff, probably not the case. With me, I have Gina Ferguson, who's a financial analyst with the City of Isalia. Tonight we'll be presenting the proposed rates and feeds for fiscal year 2526. So if you have any questions that we cannot answer up here, they'll be coming to the podium to answer your questions. Take comments and direction. There's no action required tonight. We will return on June 16th to provide answers to any questions that arise tonight and for the for the public hearing. The purpose of the of our work annually to maintain the fees is to encourage the appropriate use of service to ensure fees are limited to the costs of service, and with the use of the CPI adjustments to help departments and capital projects cover costs. There's a few reasons why we change our fees, such as requirements set by ordinance for business tax or impact fees. Some of our fees are related to city contracts, so as those fees for the contract change, we need to update our RITs and fees document. And by reviewing fees annually, we're able to ensure that we align the rates correctly to the cost of service. This year you'll actually see some fees decreasing because of this process. There are three committees and commissions that meet to review their respective fees, and the citizens advisory committee reviews all of the fees in the proposed document. All these committees and commissions did meet prior to this meeting, and they have all recommended that council approve these fees as presented. We use three different indexes to provide the inflationary rates. The California consumer price index is what's used for a majority of the fees. This year that calculates out to 3.06%. Impact fees are required by ordinance to use the engineering news record construction cost index. And this year that is 1.68%. And then business tax again stated in their ordinance is required to use a three-year average of the United States consumer price index. Tonight we'll be reviewing all five types of fees. We're only going to discuss the ones that fit these categories. Any that are increased simply equivalent to the approved indices are not presented tonight, but they are shown in the document that you were given, and they are highlighted to show that there's an increase. So starting with the proposed new fees, under general government and finance, the first fee proposed is a fee for it a removal or a change to an item on the tax roll. The tax roll process is used by several city departments, and it's a lengthy process. This fee will cover costs that are charged by Tilarie County and city staff time. The second is a pass-through fee for online payments made through the different payment portals that are offered in different city departments. These fees are charged by the payment processors and are passed directly to the customer. This is listed as an actual cost because the fees vary, but they're typically between two and a half and three percent. And in a direct response to the feedback at those forums, they would like to introduce a fee for illegal breeding. This fee would be applicable to anyone who has a litter that does not hold a breeder's permit or to permitted breeders that have more than the allotted number of litters. In deciding what this fee should be, they did an area study and they decided that it would be best to go with the same fee that the county of Tilary and that the county of Fresno are using. And convention center staff would like to propose a fee for elevating, we call it piano lifting, meaning elevating it up to a platform or a stage. The inner workings of a piano, as we all know, are sensitive and complicated, and the size of the piano can often propose a risk to our staff. So this fee would cover the cost of hiring a professional to do that movement. This is covering our costs, right? We're not making any money. No, we're not making any money just to pass through. Um wastewater would like to add a fee. On occasion, our wastewater staff is needed to clean up situations in town, whether it's an overflowing grease trap at a restaurant or a spill into a catch basin. Our crews and our equipment are what's best qualified to do those cleanups within our own systems. Um this fee would be calculated on a per incident basis and would use the direct and indirect rates that are approved annually for the city and the published Caltrans rates for the equipment. The next several fees are fees that are increasing above the allowed CPI. As mentioned with the new fees, the tax rule process is used by several departments to help cover delinquencies or even agreed upon services like sewer connections. It's a very detailed process, very timely, and this fee would allow us to recover the cost that we receive from the county for placing an item on the tax roll plus some additional city staff time.
openpublica.com