[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[16:10] Good evening, everybody. We're going to go ahead and call the closing city council meeting to order for March 16, 2026 at 601 PM and leaving us in the flag salute will be Mayor Protem, Diane Pierce.
[16:30] I'd like to lead you to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
[16:49] If our city clerk, parah would call the road.
[16:52] Yes, Councilmember Ashbeck, Councilmember Baskill, Councilmember Bessinger, Mayor Pro Tempiers here, and Mayor Moana to it.
[16:59] here. At this time, you're going to open the public comments portion. If you're here to speak
[17:05] on item that is within our jurisdiction, but not on the agenda, you may do so at this
[17:09] time. You have three minutes. If you can state your name and give your address for the record.
[17:20] Brian Wilson, Bergen Avenue, Clovis. I'm here today to discuss our flag policy for the city of Clovis.
[17:28] Are we got an exceptional city manager? I know that. He worked on that policy and has changed the
[17:34] to reflect what we're actually doing because we've been in violation since 23 of our own flag policy.
[17:42] So the next step is I would like to, since that was one, was to change the policy to reflect what we're actually doing on our flags.
[17:51] The second request was that we have the city council make it policy of the city, not just in an administrative memorandum.
[18:02] 223.01 was the memorandum for that.
[18:07] And it was done by hope when he was in a city manager.
[18:11] I'd like to see that done by city council
[18:13] resolution and open for public hearing,
[18:18] and so that if the city council has that jurisdiction
[18:20] and not the city manager.
[18:21] Thank you.
[18:22] Thank you, Brent.
[18:26] Anyone else?
[18:28] see them we're going to close the public portion. Oh go ahead.
[18:35] Go ahead and do.
[18:42] Bill Scott 341
[18:43] evergreen. I want to kind of bury the hatchup with Lynn. No, this is good. This is good.
[18:52] I've been talking with Brian and I know what he's, you know, looking to do. And. Brian
[18:58] do. What? Oh, that Brian that just talked? Yeah. Yeah. And you would brought up what you'd
[19:05] to see is some kind of a program or procedure. So you must have some idea what was you were
[19:10] looking to do and I've got some ideas. Why don't you and me get together and come up with
[19:15] something that will solve this? So that if somebody does want to do something, there is a procedure.
[19:20] I'd be willing to work with you, wouldn't it? And you want to invite someone to come and be part of
[19:25] it that, yeah, let's solve this. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Bill. You and Councilman Rache,
[19:32] I can figure that one out.
[19:35] It's within our jurisdiction.
[19:35] We were awesome.
[19:36] Good story.
[19:37] We had a little derelative.
[19:38] But I appreciate that, Mr. Scott.
[19:40] I will circle back.
[19:43] Anyone else?
[19:43] Do I have to buy breakfast?
[19:46] Oh, maybe.
[19:48] OK.
[19:48] See you then.
[19:49] We're going to close the public portion.
[19:51] Before we move to consent, I'm just going to ask the council
[19:54] if we're willing to move item 13 to the after 14.
[20:00] And just in case there are things we can just talk about the budget at the end.
[20:07] Is that okay with the council?
[20:10] Everybody good?
[20:11] Okay.
[20:12] All right.
[20:12] Thank you.
[20:12] Now we'll move to consent.
[20:14] Concent items are considered.
[20:16] Routine in nature.
[20:17] We've considered as a proven emotion together as one.
[20:21] This evening we will be pulling item number 10.
[20:24] And so that's the only one council like to pull any of the items.
[20:31] Okay, is the public, anyone like to address items one through nine?
[20:36] I don't, okay, seeing none.
[20:38] Why don't we, or you do? Okay.
[20:42] This is for consent items one through nine.
[20:46] Yeah, I just walked in, so one second.
[20:49] I was going to speak on one of the items on the agenda that you were,
[20:53] the $1.3 million.
[20:56] Which item is that?
[20:58] Item 3, yes, go ahead.
[21:01] So an item 3 you're asking for $1.3 million.
[21:04] But I was adding up the $1.8 million that is supposed to be in the housing dress fund.
[21:14] So the numbers weren't matching to me, and I'm just wondering,
[21:17] this one three five osmine senior apartment project.
[21:22] When did it first come to city council and then the money that you're giving from there from the housing trust fund?
[21:30] How much is left in the housing trust fund after it all goes?
[21:34] What is actually left in the housing trust fund right now?
[21:38] I'll have to come back on a schedule like I said I just walked in.
[21:41] But this is something I definitely want to flag is the item number three.
[21:46] And why are we giving another $1.3 million to the same project?
[21:53] I think it's been a peer for a minute.
[21:55] I just want to confirm the date.
[21:58] Trying to read it.
[21:58] See what else I had before my time runs out.
[22:03] But if you guys can look into that,
[22:06] and then also I want to make sure that we're
[22:07] staying in compliant with the rena,
[22:10] that we're actually having these units done
[22:13] because I think I was looking at your guys' report
[22:15] And the report has in there no turn over of like multi-family housing and stuff like that.
[22:22] And I just wondering in the report that you're given to HDD or to the state, why in three years after this agreement that you can address that one on the reading numbers on public hearing number 11.
[22:36] So we're only on one through nine.
[22:37] Oh, yes, we can still address 11 in a little bit.
[22:40] Okay, yeah, one call the reading numbers up.
[22:41] What was your name?
[22:43] Des.
[22:44] Des, okay.
[22:45] Thank you.
[22:49] And do we have any answers?
[22:51] Anyone else in the public right to address?
[22:53] Okay.
[22:54] And I think this one point through is approval while back.
[22:56] And this is the same project.
[22:58] We're not adding any additional funds to what we approve.
[23:01] So this project has been under consideration for a couple of years.
[23:04] We have committed funding from the Housing Trust Fund of about a million.
[23:09] And then we also have committed funding from the
[23:17] the trust fund contribution. Could be a little off on a numbers, but that is, we're
[23:22] putting everything into that. Okay. Well, let's see, the person who knows is out the
[23:26] desk. Did you have anything to add Claudia to that or?
[23:29] That's correct. It also has, all the housing trust fund money is still in the housing
[23:34] trust fund. It has not been used. It is being set aside for 1.5 oz. The additional 2 years
[23:40] of housing trust fund is also going to be set aside for 1.5 oz. And Mike was mentioned
[23:45] another two years of PLC funds as well.
[23:49] All right.
[23:50] Thank you.
[23:51] Any other questions from the council?
[23:53] Close the public portion now.
[23:55] We have items one through nine.
[23:57] I'll take a motion to provide us one through nine.
[23:59] The consent calendar.
[24:00] Second.
[24:01] We have motion.
[24:02] Second.
[24:02] All those in favor seem to probably see an eye.
[24:04] Any opposed?
[24:05] Motion carries.
[24:06] And we have item 10.
[24:11] Good.
[24:11] Andy, I'll give it to you.
[24:12] Yeah.
[24:13] We received an appeal on this bit of word and we have staff available for a short presentation.
[24:20] We'll turn it over to them and go from there.
[24:25] Good evening Mayor and city council members.
[24:28] My name is Sarah Yanowski.
[24:29] I'm a principal utilities engineer for Public Utilities Department.
[24:33] And I do want to say city staff received an official bid protest as of March 13th,
[24:40] And this was submitted by the company so-called Pacific Construction Corporation.
[24:48] And after a thorough review, it was considered and determined that the items identified
[24:54] in the protest lack merit.
[24:58] And today's city staff would like to award the project to Polytech Industrial Incorporated.
[25:05] We do have a representative from the little biter and we also have a representative from the second little biter here in this meeting and I am here for any questions.
[25:20] Okay, are there any questions of staff at this time?
[25:23] Okay.
[25:23] I have a process question.
[25:25] I don't know that I've seen many of these over the years.
[25:27] So what is the process?
[25:30] They appeal staff has reviewed it and determined it's without merit.
[25:35] Are we acting on the item as presented?
[25:38] Are we going to hear people say this is why I think it's inappropriate?
[25:43] Did I, I guess I don't know what the process is from here?
[25:47] Yes, do what I just said?
[25:48] Help.
[25:48] Scott, help her.
[25:50] I'll take that if that's okay.
[25:53] Yeah, you're absolutely right.
[25:54] These are somewhat rare.
[25:55] I mean, we've had a couple of bid protests over the years on various items, so the process.
[26:00] The reason why staff asked to pull this item is because the protests came in after we
[26:04] had submitted the materials for the bid packet.
[26:08] So we didn't have the benefit of the protests at the time we prepared the staff report.
[26:11] However, the protests came in late on Friday, we reviewed it, staff reviewed it.
[26:16] We provided that also to the apparent low bidder, the one that we're recommending or staff
[26:21] recommending that we award to, so that they can respond to the contentions in the bid
[26:26] protests.
[26:27] We've also done the research on that, and again, we feel that the protests, although it
[26:31] raised two issues, we feel that they've been adequately addressed, and staffs recommendation
[26:36] remains the same as what's in the staff report, to award to the parent low bidder.
[26:41] Again, I think you'll hear from the low bidder who were recommending that the Council
[26:45] still award to, which you're still within your right to award the contract tonight, not
[26:50] stand in the protest because we think we've resolved the issues raised in the protest.
[26:55] You'll also probably hear from the protestor as well.
[26:57] Second, a little bit of asking for either the item to be continued for further deliberation.
[27:03] We don't think there's any reason to do so at this point.
[27:06] Okay, so the low bitter is the person we're awarding it to recommending.
[27:12] Recommending to.
[27:13] The second little bitter is the person who submitted the protest.
[27:16] Correct.
[27:17] Okay, and then what's the responsibility to reply back to the person who didn't get the contract?
[27:24] We've already provided a response staff provided a response this afternoon before the meeting.
[27:29] Saying, hey, we reviewed your protests and fairness to you.
[27:31] We're going to let you know we're sticking with our recommendation, and here's why.
[27:36] But of course they have the ability to show up at the hearing at the meeting tonight and voice that, so we expect them to.
[27:42] But again, based on our findings and I think we included some material to the council members on the protest and our findings along with staff's findings and the emails that were sent to both both bidders this afternoon after we had made the determination.
[28:04] Okay, since we just got this slide, it just was hard to sort of scan as I'm trying to figure out.
[28:08] Understood, and that's, again, that's why it's poll tonight.
[28:11] The recommendation has not changed, but some of the facts that had led to the recommendation
[28:16] have changed, so we thought it fair, obviously, for the council to know there has been
[28:19] an official protest.
[28:20] We reviewed it.
[28:21] We made the determination that it won't change the staff's recommendation tonight.
[28:26] Is it appropriate to just, I mean, it looks like the, can you just comment, either one of you?
[28:32] I mean, the protests are licensing in eligibility, that's not small, and then the false
[28:38] statements on bitter qualifications, and they're saying that's actually not true.
[28:42] So, can somebody help? I mean, they can say that, but is there evidence that those are incorrect statements?
[28:49] I think this looks kind of serious what they're talking about, so I want to make sure we're careful.
[28:54] Yeah, absolutely. And we did take it in serious business when it came in on Friday.
[28:57] And again, our research has determined that the contracting issue or the licensing issue,
[29:03] Although on its face might look like something, it ultimately is not, based on the actual bid that was submitted by the parent low bidder.
[29:11] There are C33 specialty license.
[29:13] The majority of the work falls within that license.
[29:16] There is a portion of the project that falls with outside of the C33 specialty.
[29:22] However, as a prime contractor or the lead contractor, if you will, on the project,
[29:27] They're authorized to bid on that even with the C33 specialty license, and then subcontract the additional portion of the work to an A license
[29:36] Engineering contractor, which they have done. So that was the issue raised. I think in item one of the protests was that it should really be the A contractor that's the prime or the lead with the specialty doing the other.
[29:49] But the law allows it as it's being proposed here, because the majority of the work is under the C33 specialty license.
[29:56] The second point raise goes to responsibility.
[30:00] Of the contractor or the bidder in this case, which can be a serious issue. The responsibility, again, the law requires that in this context, the agency award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, or the bidder that submits the lowest bid, who is responsible.
[30:18] So, if a bidder is not responsible, then their bid gets kicked out. But in this instance, the allegations for the lack of responsibility actually go to another issue.
[30:27] And I don't want to get into the weeds unless you want me to, but there's a difference.
[30:31] The law recognizes a distinction between the responsibility, a bidder's responsibility, trustworthiness,
[30:37] ability to do the project, those sorts of things, versus the responsiveness of the bid.
[30:43] So bid responsiveness versus bidder responsibility are two separate things.
[30:47] And what we found, and we had the low bidder, they may be able to speak to it again tonight.
[30:52] They submitted information to the city and an affidavit sworn under oath that they didn't
[30:58] have any of these responsibility issues that have been alleged in the bid protests.
[31:02] They were an essence responsible bid responsiveness issues which really are much smaller
[31:08] things like they forgot to dot an eye on a bid document or they forgot to submit something
[31:13] that might be required by an agency's bid document.
[31:16] And for those reasons as we've run into on several occasions with other projects, if a bid
[31:21] is non-responsive or it doesn't provide everything that we want.
[31:26] Although the bidder may be responsible, may be totally trustworthy and able to do the project,
[31:30] but their bid documents just don't fully respond to the invitation for bid.
[31:36] Then the bid can't be awarded to that non-responsive bid.
[31:42] But again, totally separate issue, the bidder responsibility.
[31:45] And in this instance, the two allegations, and then there was a third that was raised later,
[31:52] reporting to be based on bitter responsibility are really bid responsiveness.
[31:57] So again, easily addressed, I think, in the response from the low bitter, and again, doesn't
[32:03] change the staff's recommendation, that we determine that polytech is a responsible bitter,
[32:09] has submitted the lowest bid on this item, and so therefore we're recommending a word
[32:13] to Pauli today.
[32:15] All right.
[32:16] Thank you.
[32:17] Any other questions?
[32:19] This time we're going to go ahead and open up the public portion.
[32:22] I understand that.
[32:24] Who is online?
[32:26] Brianna, we can go to the person online first.
[32:29] Is it so calm?
[32:29] Yes.
[32:29] Can we have Matt?
[32:31] Who is the second lowest bit?
[32:34] Okay.
[32:35] For so-called Pacific Court.
[32:37] And Matt, would you like to speak?
[32:42] Yes.
[32:43] The word is coming to you guys tonight to ask you guys to please consider holding off so
[32:48] we're asking for actually one or two things to either postpone the award to give us the appropriate
[32:53] time to go through the actual protest process. This was kind of an out of sort of how it's worked
[33:01] on this one. So we're either asking for you guys to either postpone and award at a later time or reject
[33:07] all bids. And the reason we're asking to reject all bids is because
[33:18] tabulations,
[33:19] and
[33:22] did not receive them until Friday the 13th
[33:32] not give us the appropriate window needed.
[35:17] Any questions of the representative from SoCal?
[35:23] Thank you, Matt. Anyone else here?
[35:27] Speak.
[35:32] Okay. We're going to go ahead and close the public portion and then bring it back to the council.
[35:37] Any other questions?
[35:39] So, Scott, or Sarah, I just wanted to note, what we've done has complied with our policies
[35:47] with regards to time and how we responded so that we are legally compliant moving forward,
[35:55] should the council choose to?
[35:57] Correct.
[35:58] We have.
[35:59] So, we did receive their request for the tabulation, the Biversal tabulation, and we were
[36:06] ready to to we our evaluation wasn't complete. So we were not ready to issue that
[36:12] tabulation until March 12th on Wednesday, like Wednesday afternoon. So and then
[36:19] the tabulation results were provided to a so-called company on Friday, early
[36:25] Friday, you know, March 13th. Okay. And so from from Friday to today that's we are
[36:33] We were good. We were good. We were good enough time.
[36:35] In all fairness to the bitter who did protest, I think there was a little bit of confusion about the request that came in initially.
[36:44] I think I would suggest that we would provide the doctor.
[36:47] The bid documents, maybe a little bit earlier, to allow more time to protest.
[36:51] But I think he had adequate time to protest. He did submit it.
[36:54] Well worded protests. I don't think he's prejudiced here tonight if we award.
[36:59] Okay. He had the opportunity to protest. I don't know that 10 days is going to give him more time to comb through a bid to find more potential errors that he might raise. It was certainly enough time.
[37:09] Although short, I will grant that although short, they had time. They submitted a protest on Friday. They followed up even today after a full weekend of having the bid documents and submitted another basis for the protest.
[37:22] I think we, again, adequately addressed or the low-bitter adequately addressed, so we think there's been a fair opportunity for a protest.
[37:29] It's been validly considered and reviewed.
[37:32] And again, I think the Council is well within its right tonight to award the contract as recommended.
[37:38] And in our protest processes, it doesn't specify sort of like in court where there's, okay, you have two weeks to reply.
[37:46] We have two weeks, it's none of that, correct?
[37:48] Correct, I think we had anything in this particular one.
[37:51] And we don't really have a set protests process with days, but obviously we'll consider any
[37:57] protests whenever it's submitted.
[37:59] And we do try to suggest that the protests be done as early as possible in that case.
[38:04] In this case, it wasn't really allowed just given the short time.
[38:08] But again, I think the protests that has been submitted was a valid protest.
[38:12] We accepted it, reviewed it and have addressed, I think, the issues in that protest.
[38:18] Council Member Bessinger?
[38:21] If we don't award this bid tonight, is there, is there some time issue here?
[38:28] Do we need to get this done as quickly as possible or can this be delayed until the next meeting in April?
[38:36] I would recommend that we award as soon as possible because we are on a timing constraint.
[38:42] And we would need to do this, take recoding in the spring due to possibilities of if we prolong
[38:52] it and it goes into the summer time, we may have some issues with our water system at that
[38:58] point.
[39:00] So we do rather proceed now than at a later time.
[39:04] Explain again what they've been on, what exactly is this project?
[39:09] This is for our tank for a recoding project.
[39:14] It's going to basically recode the interior of our tank.
[39:19] And with that, with the project, it will have some structural elements that will need to
[39:23] be sam blasted and then further either repaired or modified.
[39:29] We also have a halo system that will need to be redone and installed.
[39:35] So that's a majority of the work as well that will involve.
[39:38] This is the surface water treatment plant tank.
[39:42] This is a water reservoir tank project.
[39:46] And where is this located?
[39:47] This is going to be on toll house.
[39:51] So it's staff opinion that if we were to delay this until the first meeting in April,
[39:57] we're putting ourselves in a potentially difficult situation getting this done in a timely manner
[40:05] and have some problems with our water starch.
[40:09] Correct.
[40:11] Thank you.
[40:12] You're waiting.
[40:13] Where are you?
[40:14] I was actually just going to make a motion to approve that.
[40:16] Oh, come on in.
[40:18] Any other questions?
[40:19] No, I do have one question.
[40:22] The city had the opportunity in previous projects or dealings to work with polytech industrial,
[40:27] the low bidder have they done work with the city before?
[40:31] not that I'm aware of and what about the protests company so
[40:37] calpacific, and not that I'm aware of.
[40:41] Linda, do you have any more questions?
[40:43] How long is the project take, 60 days, 16 working days?
[40:49] Okay, thank you.
[40:50] Good day, Matt.
[40:53] I would just make a motion to go ahead and prove consent item number 10 and
[40:57] approve the bid award for CIP-2515 Reservoir's four tank liner to
[41:01] policy and industrial in the amount of 817,000,000,
[41:05] and $450,000.
[41:07] We had a second,
[41:10] just a motion, no second.
[41:14] I'll second it for the discussion.
[41:17] Any further discussion?
[41:19] Will?
[41:20] I don't like getting something at 535 Council meeting night
[41:28] that I don't quite frankly understand.
[41:31] I think it's, I understand staff's position that this is a project that needs to start.
[41:43] I would have to wonder why we waited this long.
[41:46] I had to be critical.
[41:49] But if this was a priority, we should have been dealing with this pretty much earlier than this.
[41:55] But I'm just, this is a lot to digest in 30 minutes.
[42:06] There's a motion, second on the floor, all those in favor of approving consent item and
[42:10] return to see if I'm seeing I, I, any opposed?
[42:14] Do you know?
[42:15] No.
[42:16] So motion fails?
[42:18] It's on it.
[42:19] Okay.
[42:19] Can we?
[42:20] Yeah.
[42:21] Let's do a roll call.
[42:22] Vote on this.
[42:23] I think it sounds pretty.
[42:25] The reason for the type timeline is because the irrigation canal was shut down and we
[42:29] the water and the tank to be there until it restart.
[42:32] That's the reason why we have the
[42:33] Taiwan know that we're working with.
[42:36] And so can we just.
[42:38] We just.
[42:39] Yeah, because it can get it.
[42:42] But okay, so.
[42:44] Roll call vote.
[42:44] Go ahead.
[42:46] Brianna.
[42:49] Just call it.
[42:50] Okay.
[42:51] Council member basketball.
[42:52] Council member Ashrek.
[42:55] Mayor.
[42:55] Yes.
[42:56] Mayor.
[42:57] Protem.
[42:57] No.
[42:58] And Council member.
[43:00] That's easier.
[43:00] No.
[43:02] So make a new motion that we, let's see what's the verb here.
[43:06] We, what's the verb?
[43:09] Accept the appeal of reject the bid?
[43:14] Yes.
[43:14] But that's what I'm going to do.
[43:16] Continue to decide them?
[43:18] Yeah.
[43:18] If you want to continue.
[43:19] I know.
[43:19] I guess.
[43:20] Until next meeting.
[43:21] Next would be the next appropriate thing.
[43:24] There's two options.
[43:25] One is to reject all of this and have a certain process over.
[43:27] the other is to have a come back for additional consideration.
[43:31] I'm okay continuing. If we can't wait till April 13th, I know you want to cancel the
[43:35] April 6th meeting, but we could do something special if we had to. If that if April
[43:40] 16th is April 13th is a problem, is it appropriate for us to go?
[43:46] I'm just giving you time to respond to that.
[43:50] So I'm hearing word that because of the tight timeline, it would be wisest to reject all
[43:54] And come back during our next window to do this with the new process because of the length of time
[43:58] It would be before they could begin working. So is that it is is that my motion to reject all bids and come back
[44:03] That's the request from staff
[44:04] All right, and that's always an option as well for the legislative body here the council you can always reject all bids and just re-apportize the project
[44:12] So that's within your throughout the world. I'll make a motion that we reject all bids and
[44:16] Read the project and if we need to meet center, we can we can do something else. We have three Mondays to go that we could come back
[44:23] if we need to do it sooner, wait, I hear the 60-day window,
[44:27] but I think we should get it right before we offer the bid.
[44:30] So that's my question.
[44:30] There's a motion, we're going to take a second.
[44:34] Discussion?
[44:35] OK, go ahead.
[44:36] I'm the reason I'm going to vote no,
[44:40] is because the numbers are out there.
[44:44] Every people bid on the numbers.
[44:46] And then when you re-bid it, people can go, well,
[44:49] I could say 15 cents on a yard of pipe here
[44:53] and make this $3,000 cheaper, and I just don't think it's fair to the now out.
[45:00] Would it have been more comfortable if the winning or the low bidder had been here tonight to just
[45:07] choke their face and actually had a conversation?
[45:11] But I think when you have sealed beds and the numbers are out there, I think it's unfair to
[45:19] the other parties, but that's all right. I'll withdraw that motion.
[45:23] Then we just, okay, we want to withdraw you. I just want to say this, I think this is more in response
[45:29] to you, Councilmember Bessinger, with regards to consent items.
[45:31] consent items are put here because they are routine and there are things in which
[45:36] staff has done routine jobs with it.
[45:40] I know there is a protest, but even in that protest, staff has done the compliance
[45:46] per-art legal, per-art processes, that's why I think because it is consent and now we also
[45:51] hear there's a time on very comfortable with it moving forward.
[45:55] Now, if it was something which, yeah, our statute says five days and we only took them three, then okay, let's do it.
[46:03] But if we are operating current procedures, I think just because it's not consenting because it's, we got it right away.
[46:12] Staff did their due diligence. That's why it's on a consent calendar.
[46:16] There were some issues that would have put it placed in on a regular hearing.
[46:19] So I just wanted to say that.
[46:20] if there's a new motion.
[46:22] That's not wrong.
[46:23] We might not agree with the way it happened,
[46:25] so I think it's not wrong what you said.
[46:27] Is there a new motion?
[46:28] So I'll make a new motion that is we bring,
[46:31] what is it?
[46:32] What's my third option?
[46:33] Bring it back in at the next available meeting
[46:35] to reconsider or to give the,
[46:38] what are my inputs, the bid?
[46:39] Well, the motion now.
[46:40] If I could, if you'll indulge me.
[46:42] So I certainly understand councilman
[46:44] best of your point about the bids being out there.
[46:46] But frankly, I mean, that's part of the deal.
[46:48] If you reject all bids,
[46:49] That's allowed by law and perhaps the city gets a better deal out of it because you get more competitive bid.
[46:57] So although I certainly understand the concern.
[46:59] So if there's not a desire to reject all bids, I guess the only other option is just to continue the item.
[47:05] I don't know that staffs recommendations are going to change for weeks from now to the end of the year.
[47:10] But it gives the bid that was rejected, it's changed more than a weekend to look at the data I suppose.
[47:17] I guess if you think you can come up with other grounds that to demonstrate that we didn't award it correctly, right?
[47:24] I think that's the request.
[47:26] Okay, I'll do that.
[47:27] I'll make that happen.
[47:28] Government is so great isn't it beautiful?
[47:31] I'll make a motion that we continue to side them and allow the rejected bid the time to review more than a weekend.
[47:40] I guess.
[47:41] And bring it back to the next available Monday or a special meeting if needed.
[47:44] Second motion a second any further discussion. Okay, can we just go ahead and just do a roll call vote Brianna
[47:53] Yeah, council or basketball
[47:59] Council member Ashrock. Yes, mayor monitor.
[48:05] No
[48:05] Mayor Mayor Pro Tempierce. No
[48:14] There's no other option
[48:16] We can still make a motion of proof, right?
[48:19] Can we still do it?
[48:21] We want to reconsider, I guess.
[48:23] We're still on the items.
[48:25] Anything we're going through?
[48:29] Can the same motion maker make a motion to reconsider?
[48:35] Because from what I and I asked to be the same motion maker who made it and voted
[48:38] technically the reconsideration technically should come from one of the three
[48:43] voting against it.
[48:44] But I will say for the record, you have not yet considered a motion to reject all
[48:49] So emotion was made. I don't think it was seconded and then it just died. It was seconded, but it didn't
[48:54] It didn't get to go. It pulled it back because it was just roots.
[48:59] So I guess councilor rest is you can make emotion to approve.
[49:03] Or you.
[49:08] Oh, yeah.
[49:08] Can I do that or is that?
[49:09] That's the recheck.
[49:11] No, kids.
[49:11] I'll try that again.
[49:13] Okay. Motion two.
[49:14] I'll do it.
[49:16] Second.
[49:16] Motion. Okay.
[49:17] Motion. Second.
[49:19] Okay.
[49:20] Roll call vote.
[49:20] Who is the second?
[49:23] It was mayor protein.
[49:28] Let me just get my...
[49:30] This isn't even a hard thing.
[49:31] This is worrisome.
[49:33] All right.
[49:34] You need to keep it for me?
[49:36] Council member basketball.
[49:37] We can say yes.
[49:38] The same thing.
[49:42] Council member Ashbeck.
[49:43] Yes.
[49:44] Mayor Moana to us.
[49:46] Mayor Pro Tempierce.
[49:48] Council member basketball.
[49:49] Our passenger.
[49:51] Yes.
[49:52] Okay.
[49:54] So, that motion passes three, two, to reject all bids and re-abortize.
[49:58] So, staff will take that direction.
[50:00] Thank you.
[50:02] All right.
[50:02] Thank you.
[50:08] Now we'll move to public hearings.
[50:10] We have item 11.
[50:12] Resolution, approving the annual review and update to the regional housing means
[50:17] zoning overlay zone district, including approval of a map of parcels and associated lists reflecting those parcels that qualify for development as a
[50:30] RHN overlay project.
[50:33] Melissa Parker is our associate planner. We have George and we got Lily. So the full team almost.
[50:39] Yes. Good evening Mayor and council members. So like you said, this is our annual update
[50:47] on our RHN overlay zone district. So we have a map and a list of sites to go over
[50:55] tonight and this will probably look pretty familiar to you because every March we come
[51:00] back with a very similar presentation. But I will give you some background on our overlay
[51:07] district first. So the RHN overly district was established back in November of 2018 as a tool for the city to help meet our regional housing needs allocation requirements. And it is included today in our six cycle housing element.
[51:26] The purpose of the overlay district is to allow multi-family housing at 35 to 43 units per acre as a by-right use.
[51:37] And there are certain eligibility requirements that a parcel needs to meet in order to be included on the map and on the list.
[51:47] So these eligibility requirements are that they can be no larger than 10 acres in size.
[51:52] and they have to be undeveloped or underdeveloped.
[51:58] The map and list are adopted and reviewed annually by the Council,
[52:02] which is what we are here doing tonight.
[52:05] And just because a parcel is on that list,
[52:09] does it mean it has to develop at the overlay density?
[52:12] It can still develop at a different density.
[52:15] But if that is the case, and it's no longer eligible,
[52:19] the site can be removed from the map by our director of planning and development services.
[52:26] We are required to hold a public meeting and we posted a notice in the paper on February 20th.
[52:35] We received no comments from that and we also held a public meeting here in the council chambers on March 3rd and we had no attendees.
[52:45] which leads us to our map. So this is actually the map from last year, from 2025. So we went into
[52:52] 2026 with 24 eligible sites and staff reviewed the list and we have determined that site
[53:02] 24 is kind of hard, but it's over here, kind of hard to see, but it's circled in red.
[53:08] site 24 has been subdivided for single-family residential. Therefore, it is no longer eligible
[53:16] to be on the map, so we have removed it, which leaves us with a total of 23 remaining sites.
[53:25] We also have 12 sites that are included in our six cycle housing element sites inventory,
[53:32] and these are on the screen, along with their total size and their realistic units.
[53:37] that they could be developed at.
[53:41] And with that, I have on the screen our 2026 map and staff is recommending that the council
[53:48] adopt this map and approve our annual review and update to the list of sites.
[53:55] Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[53:58] Any questions?
[53:59] Can you remind me does the removal of a parcel require an addition of a parcel somewhere else to make up?
[54:06] it is not for this for this overly district okay any other questions so what's
[54:14] cycle we in right now we're in the sixth cycle we're still in the sixth
[54:17] cycle yes in 2023 to 2031 okay thank you this time we'll go in open the
[54:27] public portion if you'd like to comment on this item you may do so at this time
[54:42] if
[54:42] to speak your name and give you address for the record.
[54:45] Hello, Des Martinez.
[54:48] I'm going to speak on item number 11.
[54:51] According to the staff report,
[54:52] the city has identified site 24,
[54:55] a 4.86 acre property for removal
[54:59] from the Rina Overlay district
[55:02] because it now has an alternative use
[55:04] that is not eligible for inclusion
[55:06] on the RHN overlay map.
[55:09] The report also states that the staff
[55:11] has not identified any new sites to add to the overly district.
[55:15] Given that the city council originally created the RHN overly district to address the affordable
[55:21] housing shortfall of 4,299 units from the city's fourth cycle of RHN allocation,
[55:28] can the council explain why the city is removing the initial housing site without identifying
[55:33] a replacement and will the city commit to working collaboratively with community members
[55:41] and affordable housing developers to identify new sites, particularly ones that replace
[55:47] site 24 to ensure that the city continues making progress towards meetings, it's affordable
[55:53] housing obligations.
[55:58] Thank you, guys.
[56:01] Anyone else like to comment?
[56:02] I'm sorry.
[56:04] Okay, seeing that we're going to go ahead and close the public portion in the comments
[56:07] for questions for the staff.
[56:15] We entertain a motion.
[56:17] We approve the annual review and update to the urgent overlay zone district as presented.
[56:23] Second.
[56:24] We have motion.
[56:25] We're going for all those in favor.
[56:26] If I was saying aye.
[56:27] Aye.
[56:28] Any opposed?
[56:29] Motion carries.
[56:31] Now to item 12.
[56:33] It is the consider resolution.
[56:34] accepting an authorizing submission of the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report, including
[56:40] the 2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report APR, to the Governor's Office of Land
[56:46] Use and Climate Innovation and the California Department of Housing and Community Development
[56:52] staff on this again is the same three Musketeer, Marissa, George and Lily. Go ahead.
[56:59] Yes. So similarly to our last item, this is another regularly annually occurring item.
[57:07] So this will also probably seem a little bit familiar to you in format. But this is our annual
[57:14] progress report on our general plan. So the city is required to submit, like you said,
[57:22] by April 1 of each year to the governor's office of land use and climate innovation,
[57:27] which used to be known as the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
[57:32] And this year is all about the year 2025.
[57:36] So we will also be touching on the housing element
[57:40] and our annual progress on that, which is a key component of our general plan.
[57:47] The APR is broken down into eight different sections.
[57:51] The first being introduction and purpose.
[57:54] are implementation summary, general plan background,
[57:58] our amendment application that we've received,
[58:01] housing element and general plan update,
[58:04] the major projects that we have in the queue,
[58:07] our housing development update,
[58:09] and then also our appendix A, which is the actual progress report.
[58:15] On the screen, you will see 12 different general plan
[58:20] amendment applications that staff are currently working on.
[58:25] Four of these, the first four on the list we received prior to 2025, but we have continued
[58:33] to work on them and the other eight we received in 2025.
[58:38] As you'll see on the table, none of these have yet gone before the Planning Commission or
[58:44] City Council for consideration, but we expect that by the end of 2026 or mid 27, these will
[58:52] all be completed.
[58:56] So switching gears a little bit into our housing element portion, which
[59:01] is a key portion. We have made quite a bit of progress in our housing element programs that
[59:10] we have through the sixth cycle housing element and a lot of that information is derived from
[59:17] our building permit activities and also our development entitlement activities in 2025.
[59:25] And this APR not only gets submitted to the land use and climate innovation office but also
[59:32] California Department of Housing and Community Development or HCB.
[59:40] So this table we're going to
[59:41] a little bit of time on it is all about our rena progress. There are a lot of columns and rows,
[59:51] but basically this table is all about our permitting process and it is broken down by income level.
[1:00:00] Reena allocation by income level and then the different years that are within the six cycle, total units to date and total remaining rena by income level.
[1:00:16] So, if we went over here to the income levels, I did want to point out that acutely low is a new income level,
[1:00:26] this year from HCD, which means it is less than 15% of the Fresno County area median income,
[1:00:36] which for Fresno County is $93,900 and working down the list.
[1:00:44] The extremely low level is 16 to 30% of the Fresno County AMI.
[1:00:51] Very low is 31 to 50% low is 51 to 80 and moderate is 81 to 120%
[1:01:06] and above moderate is over 121%.
[1:01:12] So our six cycle housing element allocated us
[1:01:17] 2,926 units that we are required to permit for our very low district
[1:01:25] or very low income level throughout the years and 1,549 units in the low category
[1:01:34] 1,448 in moderate and 3,353,054 in above moderate.
[1:01:44] So in the very first projection period, once the six cycle has started,
[1:01:51] we was just from June to December of 2023,
[1:01:56] and we permitted eight very low units, three low units,
[1:02:00] and 180 above moderate units, which is a grand total of 1951.
[1:02:08] So that, there we go, that also encompasses our 23 category, which is why this is blink.
[1:02:18] But moving on to 2024, we issued 13 very low units, 13 low units, 16 moderate and
[1:02:29] and $612 above moderate for a grand total of $654.
[1:02:34] And then this past year in 2025,
[1:02:37] we issued 33 moderate permits,
[1:02:41] $564 above moderate,
[1:02:47] and, yes, sorry, I can't see.
[1:02:50] $597 total units for $205.
[1:02:54] And then over on the right hand side,
[1:02:56] we have our total units that we have issued permits
[1:03:00] for 21, very low, 16 low, 49 moderate, and 1,356 above moderate, which is a total of
[1:03:11] 1442, and then in green on the far right is our total remaining rena, which is about
[1:03:30] total of 7,500 and 35.
[1:03:37] And another key part of our housing element is the programs. So we have
[1:03:43] three different goals, 25 policies and 29 implementation programs. The first goal is to accelerate
[1:03:54] housing production. The second is to preserve and improve the existing housing stock and the third
[1:04:01] is too affirmatively for their fair housing.
[1:04:05] So the first goal to accelerate housing production
[1:04:08] includes 12 different programs.
[1:04:11] I am not going to touch on all of them,
[1:04:14] but I do have some updates for a few of them.
[1:04:17] The first one being program number two,
[1:04:19] which is our no-net loss procedures.
[1:04:23] So staff has developed and implemented a tracking system
[1:04:27] for our rena inventory
[1:04:28] and also our rena responsibilities. So we will be proceeding with this on an ongoing basis
[1:04:36] to ensure we are up to date with all of our rena numbers. Also program number 11, which is
[1:04:43] the infill resone program that is wrapping up. We are tentatively targeting planning commission
[1:04:50] in the next month or two and then the council will consider it shortly thereafter. And also program 12,
[1:04:57] which is the mixed income zoning ordinance that program development has been completed and approved by the
[1:05:04] planning commission back in February. So that will be coming to the council in the next few months.
[1:05:14] Our second goal of the housing element is to preserve and improve the existing housing stock.
[1:05:19] And this provides six different programs and I'm going to touch on two of them. So the first one is
[1:05:26] preserve at risk affordable housing. And so our housing staff has been working directly with
[1:05:33] different governmental agencies to review any of our affordable housing developments that may be
[1:05:40] at risk of becoming market rate in 2025 and none of them were at risk, but as we get further on
[1:05:48] in the sixth cycle, that could be a possibility. So that is an ongoing process. And then the next
[1:05:55] when I want to touch on is number 16 which is our housing rehabilitation so in 2025
[1:06:03] the city received one and a half million dollars in Cal program funds and in the
[1:06:09] 2024 25 fiscal year the city helped seven homeowners repair their homes with that many
[1:06:18] and lastly program or goal H3 which is affirmatively further fair housing
[1:06:25] includes 11 programs and I'm going to touch on three of them. Program 20 is our housing
[1:06:32] choice vouchers and our city staff is planning to host a workshop for landlords to promote
[1:06:38] the use of the housing choice vouchers in 2026. Program 21 is the analysis of impediments to
[1:06:48] housing. So again the housing stuff is working on a plan and analysis which targets being
[1:06:57] completed sometime in 2026. And then lastly a program number 24 which is our home buyer assistance
[1:07:05] program. And the city does administer this program funded by $415,600 in Cal Home program funds.
[1:07:15] And these funds are specifically set aside for the purchase of mobile homes by low-income residents.
[1:07:24] In 2025, there were several applications, but no one qualified for one of these funds by being over the income limits.
[1:07:36] So, with that, staff is recommending that the Council accept and authorize the 2025 General
[1:07:44] Plan APR to submit to the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation and the
[1:07:52] HCD.
[1:07:53] Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:07:55] I have any questions of staff.
[1:07:57] Good.
[1:07:57] Just one.
[1:07:58] Does do Section 8 vouchers count toward affordability, affordable housing in the community?
[1:08:08] More Section 8 vouchers work, released or administered. Does that count toward our...
[1:08:14] I've been asked to answer. I've been asked to answer.
[1:08:16] I've been asked that for six years.
[1:08:19] You have. I do recall seven years now.
[1:08:21] Seven years now. Okay. I forgot to answer six times.
[1:08:23] So unfortunately they do not.
[1:08:26] This is intended for new development.
[1:08:32] And that restriction on how you can count them
[1:08:34] as a state law.
[1:08:35] This is correct.
[1:08:37] It's directly from HCD.
[1:08:40] It's intended for new developments.
[1:08:43] We're projecting units that were needed for this eight-year cycle.
[1:08:48] And the city's responsibility is to ensure
[1:08:50] that we have lands available designated with the correct
[1:08:55] to accommodate these types of development.
[1:08:58] So going backwards, you know, with existing units,
[1:09:02] no, but there is new legislation,
[1:09:06] recent legislation that may allow us to,
[1:09:10] if there are existing units that are converted
[1:09:14] to not such a need, but deed-restricted units,
[1:09:18] that we may potential be able to count those units
[1:09:22] for up to 25% of our total responsibility when it comes to Rita?
[1:09:28] We should probably watch that.
[1:09:30] I would be curious to know, are there more section eight housing
[1:09:33] vouchers today than there were three years ago or five years ago?
[1:09:36] Do we have any way to track that?
[1:09:39] Honestly, in PDS, we don't, we don't.
[1:09:41] I don't know if housing or Claudia's group does that.
[1:09:55] It just seems to me, I mean, if it requires a legislative fix,
[1:09:57] So it seems to me if people are accessing section eight housing vouchers more, allowing them
[1:10:04] to afford a close apartment rents or housing rents, does that not accomplish your goal
[1:10:10] of getting suitable housing for low-income families?
[1:10:14] So I do think that's worth tracking a little more closely, and if it's a legislative fix or
[1:10:18] I'm not quite sure, but it's a question, probably that time has come, maybe we need to
[1:10:23] be more active in that space.
[1:10:25] Thanks.
[1:10:26] because it's still not to get credit for it.
[1:10:28] I mean, thanks.
[1:10:31] And every year I've said, if I put my home as a section eight,
[1:10:35] that is a new unit for someone that is affordable.
[1:10:40] And yet the state doesn't look at that at all.
[1:10:42] Or if I allow my adult child to move in with me,
[1:10:47] that should be also one family off of,
[1:10:50] and I let her live below whatever the rental market is,
[1:10:54] That should also count, but yet the state only wants new homes, and yet they give us no money to build it and they put all these restrictions on it.
[1:11:02] And so Claudia, I think we need to be the first to go to the housing authority and go give us our numbers.
[1:11:11] We're going to start tracking these. How many more new section eight this next year in the city of Clovis?
[1:11:16] Because there are good families here with good homes who are willing to have a section eight family live in their home.
[1:11:24] and go, okay, that's my rental property, but for us not to reward the goodness of our citizens who do that,
[1:11:32] to reward the family who gets to live in our city, and be accounted for, I think it's just nonsense,
[1:11:37] and Lynne, I'm glad you agreed with this, and that we need to start to count these and go to this
[1:11:43] fading, go, yeah, we can't build it, no one's going to build it, but we can allow affordable units here,
[1:11:49] we are allowing affordable units here and if we can start tracking all that, I think it will
[1:11:56] start to hopefully bring that drum louder and have our legislators we think this, what
[1:12:04] affordable affordability really means.
[1:12:06] I heard the story I heard recently was the value and Ms. Martinez probably can correct me,
[1:12:12] but that the value of the section housing has gone up and is allowing families to relocate
[1:12:17] to Clovis, new apartment complexes, great, that is great.
[1:12:22] But if we can't count that as an affordable house
[1:12:25] for a family to move to Clovis if that's what they choose,
[1:12:30] that does, is it new home construction,
[1:12:33] or is the goal affordable roof over your head?
[1:12:36] Like, there's a difference.
[1:12:37] So I agree with Vlog.
[1:12:38] I think we need to be a little more aggressive on that.
[1:12:40] And if the legislation needs some adjusting
[1:12:42] or some advocacy, I think it's a story worth telling,
[1:12:45] because we don't get credit for any of that work.
[1:12:47] and it happens every day, and if that's true on the Section 8 vouchers, I guess to Ms. Martinez
[1:12:53] early comment, where we didn't answer your question, you look like white insurance for
[1:12:57] my question.
[1:12:58] I do think we're collaborative.
[1:12:59] I do think we're working hard.
[1:13:00] I do think this programs are going to get us to where we need to be to the arena, and so
[1:13:04] we're committed to that.
[1:13:06] It's just some of these barriers are like to me, they seem silly that you can't count
[1:13:09] for that.
[1:13:10] So, if we could maybe keep an eye on that or maybe get a report back from housing authority
[1:13:14] or others, if we need to work on that, I think it's important.
[1:13:16] There is one situation when housing choice factors are coming and that's what's called a project based housing choice voucher
[1:13:24] So a new project can come to close this sponsored by a nonprofit developer and get a commitment of housing choice vouchers
[1:13:30] And we get to count those units, so there is a model that we can put out there that may be on the expanse of
[1:13:37] Is that new homes?
[1:13:40] Andy that is a new construction. Yeah, see the store maybe potentially rehabilitation
[1:13:44] But I'll get to it and then we'll start to agree.
[1:13:46] Thank you.
[1:13:47] Thank you.
[1:13:48] Any other questions for our staff?
[1:13:50] At this time, we'll go ahead and open up the public portion.
[1:13:53] If you have any comments, please.
[1:13:55] You can address the council this time.
[1:13:57] Yes, Ms. Martinez.
[1:14:00] Y'all, Tim, was quiet, man.
[1:14:01] You know, but you want to ever speak, huh?
[1:14:05] In response to you, Lynn, we're only here because
[1:14:09] this club is prevented the units.
[1:14:14] So we're now three years into the current housing planning period, yet according to the information
[1:14:20] provided, the city has not permitted or entitled any multi-family housing projects, meaning
[1:14:26] developments of two units or more.
[1:14:29] At the same time, the city has permitted and entitled several hundred single-family homes under
[1:14:34] The city's 2023-231 regional housing needs allocation.
[1:14:39] Clovis has an obligation to plan for 2,926 very low income units and 549 low income units.
[1:14:48] Those numbers represent thousands of families, seniors, and workers who are struggling
[1:14:54] to find housing that they can actually afford.
[1:14:57] For my own experience working closely with individuals.
[1:15:00] Rules and families living paycheck to paycheck or who have already followed into homelessness. I can tell you that the need for housing at these income levels is very urgent and very real.
[1:15:11] So my question to you is, why has the city been able to approve hundreds of single-family homes during this period yet no multi-family housing projects that would help meet the very low and low-income RHA requirements?
[1:15:27] what specific actions will the city take in the coming year to begin permitting and
[1:15:33] entitling multi-family affordable housing projects that meet the very low and low-income
[1:15:38] categories of the city's RH and A obligations. Because meeting the RH and A goals requires
[1:15:45] planning for housing at all income levels, not just market rate and single families.
[1:15:52] Also, according to the report, the city indicates that the mixed income zoning
[1:15:56] ordinance or miso would be adopted in early 2026. However, the city previously committed to
[1:16:02] adopting this ordinance in February 28th, 2025. As a part of the housing element implementation,
[1:16:10] the planning commission has now approved a miso as of February 24, 2026. So I would strongly
[1:16:16] encourage the city council to move quickly to adopt this ordinance as soon as possible, especially
[1:16:23] since we are already nearing the end of the first quarter of 2026. Also, I want to
[1:16:29] highlight that we are now already brought that part up. So yeah, that's about what
[1:16:35] I have so far and also in addition to building new affordable housing, it's
[1:16:39] important to protect affordable housing that is that risk. I think I read in
[1:16:44] your report that you guys currently have about three complexes here over a
[1:16:49] housing units come in together that are at risk so that would actually lower the affordable housing units so I'm concerned about that also and if you can give us an update on the at risk affordable housing complexes that you do have here in close California.
[1:17:04] Thank you.
[1:17:05] Thank you.
[1:17:06] No, that must not part of the numbers reported but any comments on regarding the current numbers and all.
[1:17:13] Andy, those sort of maybe the deed restricted one's on.
[1:17:17] Yeah, so those are focused on projects that have had public investment in the past
[1:17:21] or deed restricted and they have time frames where they expire.
[1:17:24] We actively pursue talking to the owners in the financing structures to try and continue
[1:17:28] those or look at other financing methods that they can continue that.
[1:17:31] In the end, it is that property owners decision on to continue that financing.
[1:17:36] But we encourage it and try to bring partners to the table to make a happen.
[1:17:41] And when I was here to speak on this item, good Mr. Trevina.
[1:17:49] I'm very pleased to be in the out of unborder.
[1:17:52] Where I live, we have two houses.
[1:17:56] And one of them, it was built in, I don't know,
[1:18:00] even when it was built, it was built before I was even born.
[1:18:03] And for what I understand, to have two houses on the lots,
[1:18:08] you have to have the city wouldn't even allow it during that time.
[1:18:12] And nowadays, I see people, they're building where I live in the alleys, they're building colleges.
[1:18:20] And usually the people that are building these are people who have money.
[1:18:23] And they're running them out for $15 to $2,000 a month.
[1:18:27] They're living in an alley.
[1:18:30] And to me, I see that's being crazy.
[1:18:33] I mean, who's going to pay that kind of money?
[1:18:35] But I don't know if they're on any kind of assistant or anything like that.
[1:18:38] But I can see the problem the city has is housing, my wife, for example, she has got
[1:18:46] Social Security.
[1:18:47] She's getting at the $800 a month.
[1:18:50] Well, we're married, okay.
[1:18:50] So it doesn't really matter, but let's say she was single on her own.
[1:18:55] Where would she live?
[1:18:56] You know, $800 a month?
[1:18:59] You know, even at $2,000 a month.
[1:19:01] You know, these apartments over here in Minuawa, they're going for $1,000 a month.
[1:19:09] And even if you get HUD, even if you get housing, they might pay half to rent, but if
[1:19:16] you're paying a thousand dollars a month and you're making, you know, let's say $2,000
[1:19:21] or $15,000 a month, you're still, you're still not making it, and recently I read, you know,
[1:19:29] the Wall Street Journal, you know, there are only people that have houses anymore, California,
[1:19:33] our people in Herodine these thousands, and not what happened to me. Many of the people
[1:19:38] where I live, we didn't buy those thousands. We inherited them. Otherwise we wouldn't be living,
[1:19:45] I wouldn't be living here in a province. I can't afford to buy a house in Clovis, you know. And a lot
[1:19:53] of people, they can't, you know, the, our times are that, you know, even if you're making 20
[1:19:58] books an hour, you can't afford to buy a house, and you can barely pay rent, and have
[1:20:06] these other expenses, you know.
[1:20:09] So I mean I don't know everything that's going on, but we need to make it easier for people
[1:20:15] would we have a house to build onto it, you know, and without breaking the laws or to ease
[1:20:23] these requirements where if you have a lot you can build apartments, you know, and I know
[1:20:29] the city problems, but easy, easy, not on this, but you know, I heard the young lady
[1:20:38] said something a while ago about we put it in the newspaper, I don't know what newspaper to
[1:20:43] was talking about, but I talked to a lot of people in my neighborhood and they're unaware
[1:20:47] of the college program, you know, and we almost need someone to go door to door and tell them
[1:20:54] are you aware of these things that weren't on the town? Because, you know, a lot of these
[1:20:59] flyers that the city sends out, you know, they end up in the garbage, you know, and so I think
[1:21:08] that the city promised, I don't know, we need to get the word out more, you know, and because,
[1:21:16] you know, a lot of people don't read the news, you know, they watch Netflix and Amazon Prime,
[1:21:23] And that's all. I was talking to my steps on the other day. I go, are you aware you're about to war, right?
[1:21:28] I don't know anything about it. We watch Netflix at the house, and that's all we watch.
[1:21:35] So a lot of people just aren't aware of what is going on anymore. So anyways, thank you.
[1:21:41] Thank you, Mr. Treeno. Anyone else?
[1:21:44] Just the council? Okay.
[1:21:47] All right. We're going to close the public portion.
[1:21:49] And I just wanted to say that the city does not build any affordable homes.
[1:21:52] that's we don't have any funds for that.
[1:21:54] And this, this council has not rejected any application
[1:21:57] that has come to this council for any affordable home.
[1:22:03] So just if it comes, the council is ready to support
[1:22:06] an investor who would like to do that.
[1:22:09] And so I just wanted to say that.
[1:22:11] And we have not stopped and we researched many, many,
[1:22:15] and we are probably the most forward in the programs
[1:22:19] in this region in the Miso, all that and so we are probably the most forward in the central valley
[1:22:25] with regards to making Clovis affordable and allowing affordable units to come to this town.
[1:22:32] So, but we're just ready for it. Any other comments or questions? Go ahead, Dan.
[1:22:35] Yeah, I just wanted to kind of echo what you said there and that is the whole exercise that we do here
[1:22:41] is for planning purposes. We make sure that we have areas in our sphere and in our city limits
[1:22:49] that are zoned to allow for someone who wants to come and offer a development of that density
[1:22:55] and that type and the reason that isn't happening is because no one's coming forward to build
[1:23:00] those projects and yet we do have people who are coming forward to build single family homes and
[1:23:07] per our allocations that is what we permit and those developments actually happen so it has nothing
[1:23:13] to do with the city itself as far as the developments that come forward we can't make a
[1:23:18] developer do something that doesn't pencil out, and I also think that in terms of the affordability
[1:23:25] thing, probably every year when this comes forward, I make a comment similar to this,
[1:23:30] but I think the real frustration that people have is so many of these programs that come
[1:23:34] down from this state. They're the ones that are causing the affordability crisis for the working
[1:23:40] class, for the middle class. People who are wealthy and have the ability, these things aren't
[1:23:46] going to impact them, they'll be able to afford their million dollar homes.
[1:23:49] The people who are going to receive the subsidies and the vouchers or whatever that might
[1:23:54] be, they're going to have that assistance.
[1:23:57] It's all the people working in the middle that are going to get pinched out and are going
[1:24:01] to have those costs go up and go up and go up because of these regulations and these programs
[1:24:07] that come down from the state.
[1:24:08] So they're exacerbating their own problem and they think we should come around and fix it for
[1:24:13] but that's not realistic, and that's not what the people want us to be doing.
[1:24:17] It would be nice if they recognize that and started addressing a problem from Sacramento,
[1:24:22] rather than continuing to ask us to do things that we have no money to do.
[1:24:27] Thank you. I think this has a motion to approve. Yes,
[1:24:38] so.
[1:24:38] I think it's important to know for the record that we are committed to implementing our
[1:24:44] housing element. Staff here, here today, have been dedicated to ensuring that we're tracking
[1:24:52] all of our goals and policies with our housing element. I think it's important to make it
[1:24:59] distinction as to, there's a difference between the regional housing needs allocations that
[1:25:04] is in no housing elements and we know overlay.
[1:25:06] There are two different programs.
[1:25:08] So the overlay, even though we have that program to promote
[1:25:12] and encourage more multi-family, if it's built something
[1:25:16] other than that, we're not required to replace those units
[1:25:20] for the overlay, which is different again from the housing
[1:25:23] element.
[1:25:24] So again, I just want to say, we're watching it and tracking it
[1:25:28] closely and ensure that we're in compliance with it.
[1:25:32] You guys have done an excellent job of sharing that message to those who come forward.
[1:25:40] So thank you very much.
[1:25:42] Mr. Pleasure to cancel.
[1:25:43] We're going to approve this.
[1:25:45] I'll make a motion that we accept and authorize this submission of the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report,
[1:25:52] including the 2025 Housing Development to the Governor's Office as noted on the staff report.
[1:25:57] Second. Second.
[1:25:58] Motion second on the floor.
[1:25:59] All those in favor, so if I was saying aye, aye, any opposed?
[1:26:02] Motion carries five o'clock.
[1:26:05] We'll now move to item 14.
[1:26:07] Okay, we'll hear 13 after this.
[1:26:10] So item 14 is acknowledging the upcoming expiration
[1:26:16] of measure C and 2027 recognizing the city's benefit
[1:26:20] for measure C funds since 1986,
[1:26:23] and expressing support for citizen bed,
[1:26:26] transportation fund measure for Fresno County.
[1:26:28] And stamp on this would be Paul Armandiris, or Assistant City Manager for the fall.
[1:26:34] Yes, good evening.
[1:26:35] Mayor members of the council.
[1:26:37] Starting with the brief history of measure C. So measure C is a half cent sales tax in Fresno County.
[1:26:43] It was originally passed by our voters in 1986 renewed in 2006.
[1:26:48] And their first measure was 20 years.
[1:26:51] The renewal was another 20 years and now set to expire in 2027.
[1:26:55] And Measure C has funded a variety of projects, not only in the city of close but in the county of Fresno and surrounding agencies or cities.
[1:27:04] As funding construction and maintenance of local roads, bike lanes, sidewalk trails, accessibility improvements in the operation and maintenance of public transit as well.
[1:27:13] So with the expiration of Measure C, there's a potential for a new measure.
[1:27:17] There have been two citizen-led measures filed with the county.
[1:27:22] One title is the Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act.
[1:27:27] Also known as better roads, safe streets.
[1:27:30] And then there's the fix our roads for
[1:27:32] as no county transportation improvement measure.
[1:27:36] During our March 9th Council meeting,
[1:27:39] during Council Commons, Council directed staff prepare a resolution
[1:27:42] to consider supporting, is that it's the lead measure.
[1:27:45] And just part of the process in order to get this on the November 2026 ballot.
[1:27:51] There are approximately 33 signatures that need to be gathered by May 4th of 2026.
[1:27:57] I will note that James Cuce, the Fresno County Clerk, is also an audience if there are any questions regarding the process of getting neither measure on the ballot.
[1:28:08] So tonight again for Council's consideration is approval of a resolution acknowledging the upcoming
[1:28:14] expiration of measures C in 2027, recognizing the city's benefit for measures C funds since
[1:28:19] 1986.
[1:28:20] And expression support for a citizen-led transportation funding measure for Fresno County.
[1:28:25] And we like, in the resolution that's included in the agenda package, there is a blink
[1:28:30] in that resolution for Council to provide direction on should they wish on which measure
[1:28:34] to include in that resolution.
[1:28:36] And with that, that completes staff's presentation and hand it back over to Council.
[1:28:42] And I think I'm going to go ahead and open the public portion first of that way.
[1:28:45] If the public's here to speak, we can hear all of that before the Council deliberates on,
[1:28:51] which measure if any that we want to move forward with.
[1:28:54] And our county clerk is here, if you can come forward first, Mr. Coose, that way you can kind of share with us the process and procedures for putting a measure on any deadlines that we know and maybe some of us will have questions for you directly.
[1:29:15] Good evening.
[1:29:18] Thank you for the council members, James Coose, President County Clerk, Registrar of voters.
[1:29:23] Thank you for letting me know that this item was going to be on today, this is an item that I think many of our local jurisdictions have an interest in.
[1:29:34] We do have two citizen initiatives that are currently circulating or about to start circulating.
[1:29:44] Both initiatives have done a notice of intent and have now been published and adjudicated newspapers.
[1:29:50] and so both are eligible to be circulating at this time.
[1:29:56] Both are currently targeting the November 2026.
[1:30:01] Election. And that's a bit of a challenge, because to make the November ballot, the Board of Supervisors need to pass the initiative to my office by 88 days before that. That would be August 7th.
[1:30:22] And then we have issues of when the board has a meeting, and we have to prior to that verify the signatures, as mentioned by the Assistant City Manager,
[1:30:37] they don't need 33,000 signatures.
[1:30:39] they actually need 22,000, just a little under 22,000, but realistically, for one of these
[1:30:47] two petitions to be on the November ballot, they must pass under what we call a random sample
[1:30:53] verification process. My office has two methods of verifying the signatures on the petitions,
[1:31:02] the random sample process, and a full count. If the random sample process doesn't find
[1:31:10] an abundance, an over-abundance of valid signatures, but almost passing, then we go to
[1:31:19] the full count.
[1:31:20] So there kind of a step-wise process, we're already too late.
[1:31:25] You cannot qualify right now if I have to do a full count.
[1:31:28] You won't make November.
[1:31:30] There's just not enough time.
[1:31:32] My office has 30 working days that's basically 42 calendar days to do a random count.
[1:31:38] to do a full count is an additional 60 working days, that's 84 calendar days, that we're talking
[1:31:45] months of time getting blocked out here and the clock is just running down. There's
[1:31:51] a fair bit of competition out there and there might be some members of those proponents here
[1:31:56] to talk about the competition that they're seeing out there. There are multiple state
[1:32:01] propositions that are out there collecting signatures as we speak. We actually already have
[1:32:05] three that have turned in signatures to begin the review process, so there's actually competition
[1:32:10] in the field and in my office to get that process going. So it's going to be very interesting
[1:32:16] to see what's happened. I think we have some proponents that are very gung-ho and supporting
[1:32:22] both of these initiative processes and we'll be looking forward to see what comes into the office
[1:32:29] as we get closer here and actually get to May which is really the start of May is when we expect
[1:32:34] to see all of these petitions coming in.
[1:32:37] There's also, when we expect to see
[1:32:38] some of these state petitions coming in as well,
[1:32:42] so a fair bit of activity already down
[1:32:44] at the office down there,
[1:32:45] and it's just gonna keep getting busier,
[1:32:47] while we're already doing an election.
[1:32:50] So, fun times there.
[1:32:53] But yeah, questions right now,
[1:32:58] but they need to get some of the questions of the board.
[1:33:00] Go ahead, man.
[1:33:02] Yeah, just a quick question.
[1:33:03] You mentioned the Board of Supervisors
[1:33:05] has to receive it or has to put it to you by August 7th. Is there any obligation for the Board of Supervisors to present it?
[1:33:12] So they have a ministerial duty. Once I verify that the proponents have gathered the minimum number of valid signatures,
[1:33:21] I do need to present it to them at their next available meeting.
[1:33:26] And they have a ministerial duty to actually move it forward to the voters or to put it into law.
[1:33:34] It's going to go to the voters.
[1:33:36] They're not going to put that as an ordinance directly into law.
[1:33:39] They're going to give the people a chance to have their say in the process.
[1:33:45] They do have an opportunity to do a 30-day review that actually applies whether it be a county initiative
[1:33:50] or a city initiative you have the opportunity to do a review on what the impact would be.
[1:33:56] that's a 30-day report period and then they again need to provide that measure to my office
[1:34:05] to be on the next available scheduled election.
[1:34:11] They can't call a special election, a county-wide special election is a major undertaking
[1:34:18] and a significant cost.
[1:34:21] So if they ask for a 30 day review prior to August 7th and it went past August 7th, then it would make the ballot.
[1:34:29] Correct. It would make the ballot but not the November ballot.
[1:34:34] So it would be scheduled at that point for the March 2020-8 ballot.
[1:34:46] Just saying on that for just a second.
[1:34:47] Do they, if they receive the item, do they have an obligation to act on it or can they?
[1:34:54] They must.
[1:34:55] They have a ministerial duty once that I have certified that the valid number of signatures
[1:35:00] is sufficient to take one of two actions, put it into law right away, or give it to the
[1:35:09] people to vote.
[1:35:09] So that is their action to be required.
[1:35:12] Okay.
[1:35:12] Okay.
[1:35:13] So just so I'm clear, you said that both measures have met the proof of publication, and both measures, well, that it allows both measures to collect signatures, yeah?
[1:35:25] And can you collect signatures before the proof of publication?
[1:35:30] So in law you must publish the notice of intent and the title and summary provided by county council prior to circulating your petition.
[1:35:40] Okay. And we asked to have proof of publication right away so that we have a very clear record there for when we receive those petitions that there's no question that any have been any signatures are prior to that publication point that way we've got a good clear starting point.
[1:36:00] Okay. When we do our verification process.
[1:36:02] Okay, I was a certain, and you say the dates for me one more time.
[1:36:06] So, we don't have time to do a full count under any circumstance.
[1:36:10] So, what's the date again? Is it May 4th?
[1:36:13] Right now, May 4th is what I was putting out as the suggested final date for the
[1:36:18] proponents to get that in.
[1:36:20] There are, I have 30 working days to do a random sample.
[1:36:27] And we have had, there are county-wide initiatives in the last four six years.
[1:36:32] We were able to turn around much quicker than just 30 working days, which is why I brought up the level of competition in the field and in my office right now.
[1:36:43] It is very unlikely that we could get at 28 days or something, but I can't promise anything less than 30.
[1:36:50] Yeah, I know that makes sense.
[1:36:51] All right, thank you.
[1:36:52] Appreciate that.
[1:36:52] Thanks for being here.
[1:36:53] Two by the way.
[1:36:55] Any other questions from Mr. Good?
[1:36:58] Mr. Cousin, with regards to funding, do they file with you or are they filing straight
[1:37:04] with the FEPC and then do those documents come to you at all?
[1:37:08] So the proposals.
[1:37:09] Anyone that's supporting either of these citizen initiative groups, those are actually
[1:37:16] county committees. And so they would be filing with my office. And once we start seeing spending,
[1:37:23] there should be documents that have been filed with the 460s and 470s to get in or that.
[1:37:28] The 460s and the county or the committee formation documents all should have.
[1:37:33] And have both filed.
[1:37:35] That was formed.
[1:37:36] I'm not saying fine.
[1:37:37] I'm aware of one, but I haven't seen the other.
[1:37:39] But until money is spent and technically just like use candidates until $2,000 has been
[1:37:46] been spent, they don't have to yet, so we would be expecting the second one to be filing soon
[1:37:52] if they haven't filed already.
[1:37:55] Unfortunately, I do have to admit that I am a bit busy now, starting to prepare ballots
[1:38:01] for our June elections.
[1:38:02] So I haven't been tracking committee formations or FVBC filings for anything in the past couple
[1:38:10] weeks.
[1:38:10] We watched closely candidate filings for that deadline back on at the start of the month,
[1:38:19] but now we're, I have not seen whether they're any candidate filing, there are campaign
[1:38:24] filing, it's have occurred.
[1:38:26] Any other questions?
[1:38:27] Any other questions?
[1:38:28] Any other questions?
[1:38:29] Thank you.
[1:38:30] Thank you, Mr. Cook.
[1:38:31] Anyone else from the public?
[1:38:33] I'd like to address the council on this side.
[1:38:38] Eric Rollins.
[1:38:39] I live on Ashcroft Avenue in Clovis.
[1:38:42] So, one of my big concerns is, what if they both pass? What do we do? Okay, so we've got
[1:38:49] a mess there, potentially.
[1:38:53] My big priority, if I was choosing between these is there needs
[1:38:58] to be some local control, because I thoroughly believe in local control, so which one provides
[1:39:02] more local control, the other one is, which one in some ways ties our hands or ties city governments
[1:39:10] hands and out those two are kind of working against each other so that the vast majority of the
[1:39:16] money goes to roads. Everywhere I go outside of the city of Clovis, the roads are terrible.
[1:39:23] I mean it's kind of embarrassing.
[1:39:26] So how do we compromise those two elements? We give as much
[1:39:31] local control as possible so cities can define their own destiny and set their own priorities
[1:39:35] and yet at the same time. Everybody I know that is expressed anything against this. It's
[1:39:42] always about, hey, we're not fixing the roads. That's the priority. That's the cost of them being
[1:39:50] willing to vote for this. So, whichever if the council does make a decision or doesn't, if you do,
[1:39:56] please keep those to two elements in mind. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Eric.
[1:40:06] And I think
[1:40:06] question to if, whether both past Mr. Kuzzi, can you verify it and set the one with the highest number of votes?
[1:40:14] That's the winning petition.
[1:40:24] Okay.
[1:40:25] So that, yeah, I think the question we all have.
[1:40:27] Thank you, Mr. Kuzzi.
[1:40:30] Yeah, my name is dear Trevin. I'm looking forward to it.
[1:40:33] You know, when it comes to these measures, my problem that I have with all this,
[1:40:38] has everybody has a different opinion of what where the money should be spent.
[1:40:45] And I've been in here a hundred times, I don't know, I don't know how many times.
[1:40:51] I've been in here many times complaining about bike lanes and the width of the sidewalks.
[1:41:00] Even just a little while ago, I'll walk it over here.
[1:41:03] And the junk girl came behind me in the scooter.
[1:41:07] And the sidewalk is maybe three feet wide.
[1:41:11] You know, and so I, you know, of course, I moved over a much that good, but I still
[1:41:18] see these kids riding on the streets, and you know a couple of years ago, a customer
[1:41:24] ambassador, he, I saw him in my Facebook, and he was the Joe Forrest, the former mayor, and
[1:41:32] they were in New York.
[1:41:34] And you go to other countries, and they have streets under a bit of Europe, okay, some
[1:41:39] day.
[1:41:39] And by the way, they have streets where they're dedicated to B1 bikes and people walking
[1:41:47] same with the medical city, their famous for that.
[1:41:50] For those having streets, they're only for riding horses and for people walking and riding
[1:41:58] horses and on foot and on bicycles and now we're having a lot of people riding e-bikes.
[1:42:04] And so these people are these politicians, people are making these decisions.
[1:42:10] That's where I see the problem.
[1:42:12] We need more bike paths, paths.
[1:42:16] We need, for example, human provis,
[1:42:18] we have the bike path that goes north and south.
[1:42:22] We need a major one that goes east to west.
[1:42:27] So that if you want to ride your bike,
[1:42:29] If you're, you can ride your bike without, without the, you know, without the danger of being run over by a car.
[1:42:37] So anyway, thank you.
[1:42:38] Thank you, Mr. Tribune.
[1:42:44] Hello, my name is Neil Malay.
[1:42:45] Hello, I'm Paulson.
[1:42:47] I doesn't say this for the budget talk, but it seems appropriate now.
[1:42:51] Let me get over to it.
[1:42:54] Over the past year, the city has simply increased spending on employees and compensation,
[1:42:59] largely supported by Measure Y, with the goal of improving public safety.
[1:43:02] I would encourage the Council to look more broadly at public safety means in my experience
[1:43:08] when most dangerous aspects of living in Clovis is neving in the city outside of a car.
[1:43:14] I enjoy walking and biking, but incomplete routes and disconnected paths create a real hazard
[1:43:19] and navigation issues. Invest in safer streets connected by routes and pedestrian infrastructure.
[1:43:26] I have a greater long-term public safety impact than add more employees or equipment.
[1:43:32] City already knows many dangerous locations through the after-trans station plan and past pedestrian
[1:43:38] fatalities. With these resources now available, this is an opportunity to make meaningful improvements
[1:43:43] to the build environment and future tragedies. Thank you.
[1:43:47] Thank you.
[1:43:54] Good evening.
[1:43:56] It's a shorty here.
[1:43:57] Hi.
[1:43:57] Hi.
[1:43:58] My name is Crystal and I live on a tall house somewhere in close.
[1:44:05] So I didn't intend on speaking tonight for once, but I wanted to piggyback on what the previous
[1:44:11] gentleman we're speaking as some of you probably have known that I traveled by E-bike
[1:44:17] is parked right outside, in fact.
[1:44:19] And I have to say I clobus is probably more dangerous for me to ride than in major cities
[1:44:27] San Diego, San Francisco, even in Phoenix, and as a gentleman, we're saying the incomplete
[1:44:34] paths are very dangerous, you know, for those of us on e-bikes and e-bike writers are
[1:44:44] increasing. They're going to increase because I'm sure with the gas prices toppling up
[1:44:49] what eight dollars in some areas. And we've seen an increase of e-bike writers in the last few
[1:44:56] years. I became a writer in 2019.
[1:45:00] And I thought I was the only one. One hour all over the place, right? But the problem is, you know, we write on the street, because we are, you know, battery operated, and for consideration of walking paths, if there's someone walking, we are to take the street, however, when we're in a bike path, and it's, it dead ends without any rhyme or reason, that forces us either into the traffic with cars who aren't paying attention to us anyway.
[1:45:30] or on the sidewalk and then we're intrusive on, you know, families that are, you know,
[1:45:36] with their babies or whatever, right? So I would hope that that would be a
[1:45:42] consideration as the city grows and as it's measure, you know, move forward. So thank
[1:45:48] you. Thank you very much, Kristen. Anyone else?
[1:45:56] Hi. I'm Jenny Kran. I live on
[1:45:59] And one of the things I think that we really need to keep in mind about these measures,
[1:46:07] about the whole transportation issue and such.
[1:46:11] I mean, I've heard comments about, we need to have more bike lanes or whatever,
[1:46:16] or we need to focus mostly on pod holes.
[1:46:21] We also have to remember that this is a county issue, and it's not just close, and what's, you know, what we're going to have.
[1:46:33] There's a real need for public transportation that goes from the rural communities to the cities.
[1:46:44] And we have, I was listening to somebody talking about how getting the public transport
[1:46:51] to it was one of the trustees for the State Center about how, once they had transportation
[1:46:58] from the rural community to the community colleges, the kids were enrolling, and they couldn't
[1:47:05] enroll in college because they couldn't get to college.
[1:47:09] So, there's a lot of change happening we need to be looking at how what's most flexible
[1:47:16] for the county, not just what people, you know, what works for a few of us here in
[1:47:26] Clovis.
[1:47:27] So, I'm just encouraging a broader look at the issue.
[1:47:32] Thank you, Jenny.
[1:47:38] Brian Wilson, Bergen Avenue, I'm not for either one of these.
[1:47:41] I was burned twice, I wanted pot holes fixed way back in 86.
[1:47:47] The pot holes are still there.
[1:47:49] They're just a little different, so I'm not for either one of them.
[1:47:52] Thank you.
[1:47:53] Thank you, Brian.
[1:47:55] Anyone else, thank you to the rest of the council?
[1:47:58] OK, see you now.
[1:47:59] We're going to go ahead and close the public portion,
[1:48:01] and just bring it back to the council.
[1:48:02] I want to know for the record that we do have three emails.
[1:48:06] I think these are all in support of the better road
[1:48:10] streets measure, one two three of them. So I just wanted to note that for the record.
[1:48:17] Okay, what's the pleasure of the council? We have a resolution with a blank name on it.
[1:48:28] I had a couple questions for Andy.
[1:48:32] So, measure C,
[1:48:38] how much of an impact is it if we don't have that for the city?
[1:48:42] And that's kind of a general question.
[1:48:44] Yeah, so generally we get around $2 million a year
[1:48:47] to support our transit entity and about $4 million a year
[1:48:51] to support maintaining our rooms.
[1:48:53] So between the $6 million a year,
[1:48:56] it's critical.
[1:48:57] One measure must pass for us to continue providing the level of service
[1:49:02] that our residents have come to express both
[1:49:05] on the transit side and on the maintaining streets side.
[1:49:08] So it's safe to say that it's pretty much imperative
[1:49:11] for our transit department to have something.
[1:49:14] Yes, okay.
[1:49:15] So, in looking through the two different measures,
[1:49:19] one of them guarantees 10% to close transit
[1:49:22] out of the fun set aside for transit.
[1:49:25] And the other one was 1.79% for close transit.
[1:49:30] What was the difference there?
[1:49:31] Is there some leeway that the 1.79 are not seeing?
[1:49:34] So, I think on a dollar basis, we currently get 2 million.
[1:49:38] The measure that is a higher percentage would move up to about four million, Paul correct me if I'm wrong.
[1:49:45] And the measure that basically maintains this at slightly less than two million.
[1:49:51] And it's 10 percent of the tool.
[1:49:53] It's two and a half percent for Clovis transit on one and then 1.79 percent on the other.
[1:49:58] Okay.
[1:50:00] We're all total exactly.
[1:50:02] And we're currently adding.
[1:50:03] So we're just broken down that 10 percent of that total funds.
[1:50:06] Exactly. Okay. That we're putting it there. Okay, what else do I have here for questions?
[1:50:15] Does either distinguish helping with trails? Is there one that provides money for trails?
[1:50:21] And one that doesn't, or do they both provide funding to repair trails? They both provide funding for trails.
[1:50:34] In reading through, and if I don't understand, if I missed it,
[1:50:39] It says, one of them appears to provide money to cow trans.
[1:50:43] Does one of them provide money to cow trans?
[1:50:48] So, one of the measures provides more funds for regional projects.
[1:50:53] We could be cow trans facilities such as a freeway or an interchange.
[1:50:57] And one provides a very little for that project.
[1:51:00] Which one provides money to cow trans projects?
[1:51:02] Let me show you the names right because I have shifted.
[1:51:05] So you fixed our roads as more regional projects that would be for counter-transfacities likely.
[1:51:11] Why would we want to fund, I guess my question would be why would we want to fund state projects with local dollars if they were kelp trans projects.
[1:51:21] So that would that would be my question there.
[1:51:29] I think that's all I have for right now.
[1:51:32] Okay.
[1:51:32] Thank you, man.
[1:51:35] I was just going to reference what Matt just asked about there as far as CalTrans being part
[1:51:40] of it.
[1:51:41] And I mean, previously, it's Highway's 180, 168, that measure C has helped to fund and build
[1:51:47] out in all of that.
[1:51:48] And so, just the fact that CalTrans or the fact that we have measure C at all is because state
[1:51:54] projects weren't getting funded.
[1:51:56] And so, we had to kind of do the self-help deal to start with.
[1:51:59] And so those types of interchanges in that, it's not, it doesn't have to go to CalTrans,
[1:52:04] but it just allows for continuation of what measures C has provided inbuilt.
[1:52:08] And so it isn't restrictive in that sense, it still allows for that to continue.
[1:52:16] Do you have some questions?
[1:52:17] Yes.
[1:52:18] I met with staff this afternoon to discuss some questions I had.
[1:52:24] As I understand it, fix our roads is more original than local.
[1:52:32] Do we not get as much money out of fix our roads for Clovis Transit versus, I'm sorry, what's the other one?
[1:52:42] Better road safe streets.
[1:52:45] This Clovis Transit come out better on one or the other.
[1:52:50] On the better roads, safe streets, there is more money allocated to COVID transit on an annual basis, and it's over a 30-year proposed measure compared to a 20-year measure.
[1:53:03] And one of the concerns that I had that I've voiced the staff was the local control aspect.
[1:53:10] If I believe that the fix our roads requires a study and part of that study could require consolidation of services, I'm not an advocate of losing local control.
[1:53:28] I don't want, and this conversation was had, I think, in the 80s about police services.
[1:53:35] No. We have control over our employees. We have control over the manner in which they treat our citizens, and I don't know that I trust a regional entity like a regional transportation system to work in the manner that we treat our citizens.
[1:54:02] That's a big concern to mind.
[1:54:05] And I know some people can say, well, it's just the study, and maybe they won't recommend that.
[1:54:12] Well, I had to say that I have never seen a traffic study that was funded by the helper.
[1:54:20] That said, gee, we shouldn't build this thing.
[1:54:23] It's always, yes.
[1:54:25] So, I don't, I'm a little dubious on that with trails, off-road FID trails, they're not paved.
[1:54:38] Are both of those funded in these two versions and is there a penalty at some point with one or the other if we're not paving them?
[1:54:52] It does appear that both proposed measures have funding that can be allocated towards trails along
[1:54:59] our canal banks.
[1:55:02] The better road safe streets does have metrics in its proposed guidelines that so many miles
[1:55:10] of class one and class four trails must be constructed or built by the cities that will
[1:55:17] there's specifically figures in there for Fresno and Colbus in that one, whereas the fixed
[1:55:22] r roads is does not specifically state how many miles, but that money can be used towards
[1:55:29] trails.
[1:55:30] And there were some verbiage about recreational trails, but it seems vague is that what constitutes
[1:55:39] a recreational trail or has not been defined.
[1:55:43] Yes, the better road safe streets proposed guidelines does have language in there that no funding can be used for recreational trails.
[1:55:57] I think recreational trails would be defined as a trail that doesn't lead from one pointer community to a point of business or commercial use.
[1:56:08] As long as we would have those trails included, and I think in our ATP, they wouldn't be deemed recreational.
[1:56:15] But there is language in one regarding recreational. It doesn't need to be, I feel better defined as what is exactly as recreational.
[1:56:23] And that would probably come later with the strategic implementation guidelines.
[1:56:29] Should either of the measures be approved.
[1:56:32] We think the recreational trail definition was a trail that's for pure enjoyment.
[1:56:37] So think of a trail up in the foothills or a shaver for enjoying a scenic view.
[1:56:42] Versus the trail that you could use to commute or go to a park or go in between place of business.
[1:56:49] Yeah, just a little concerned about a vague term that's not defined because you could have some glass half empty person saying that
[1:56:57] writing your bike is recreation and it's some transportation. I, which is wrong. There was
[1:57:05] something else, and I can't remember what it was. I'll just, I may have to remember, I may have
[1:57:11] it.
[1:57:12] Good, ma'am before.
[1:57:14] We'll go with Ma'am.
[1:57:14] This is one of the quick questions. The safe school routes. What exactly does that
[1:57:20] entail with this?
[1:57:22] Safe routes to school?
[1:57:23] Yeah, both our current measures see as money allocated to safe routes for school, so that could be completing sidewalks, nearby schools.
[1:57:32] I know the better road safe streets has a specific metric of so many projects must be completed related to safe routes to school,
[1:57:42] whereas, again, our fixed roads has money that you can use for safe routes for school to complete sidewalks.
[1:57:46] It doesn't state exactly how many projects, so it's more flexible in that sense.
[1:57:50] So an example of a project that would be completed we can look at would that be like closed east right now
[1:57:57] We're we're trying to get Ashlyn that sidewalk completed in front of that apartment complex
[1:58:02] In the crosswalk
[1:58:03] Yeah, I think that'd be a good example and that's something that would be funded under
[1:58:07] I think either would have fun in available for for something like that
[1:58:13] That's all I got now. You remember I just remember okay. I as I understand it the
[1:58:19] safe streets, roads, better roads, safe streets.
[1:58:23] There we go.
[1:58:25] It only covers maintenance to roads with, but there is a safety exception.
[1:58:34] Here's what my concern is.
[1:58:37] We have roads that, as we develop going north, we are putting stress on some
[1:58:49] B-hymer and probably Taikondrogan, some other ones, and we would be able to, in the name
[1:58:59] of safety, cooperate with the county to fix, we wouldn't be able to pay me for it.
[1:59:06] We couldn't make a foul or a four-lane road, but we could improve the two-lane road
[1:59:13] as is and maybe put in turning areas so that we don't have a rear end as that.
[1:59:18] Would that be accurate?
[1:59:21] The, um, uh, better road safe streets has language in there that funding cannot be used
[1:59:29] for capacity increasing projects, unless a variety of metrics are met.
[1:59:33] So as you had mentioned, as long as there's a study that shows that, um, safety issues being
[1:59:37] addressed, we feel that funding are added peers through the guidelines that funding could
[1:59:41] be used to address those issues and concerns.
[1:59:43] And the Pixar roads has tiered plans and it's fairly extensive.
[1:59:51] I don't recall seeing any items regarding some of the county roads that we put stress on as poor.
[2:00:00] Are there a tier run program unless somebody could correct me?
[2:00:05] Yeah, the fixed-hour road. So there's the local part of local monies that can be, that's flexible,
[2:00:10] but then there's the regional part, and with the fixed-hour roads guidelines, there's a tier list of tier one projects included on that.
[2:00:17] The roads that you just mentioned don't appear to be included in that tier one list. There are other segments, but not the ones specifically that you had mentioned out in the county rural areas.
[2:00:27] I remember it every time. Thank you.
[2:00:30] I was just going to add just to that the better roads, safer streets, I trouble those
[2:00:38] consents. We'll allow the list of projects to be developed once the measures passed according to some frameworks.
[2:00:46] What you see in the fix our roads is really the exact same, more or less the same list. It was in 2022.
[2:00:51] And those are all, I think, of the 25, 19,
[2:00:53] we're a counter-trans project and six, is that math, 25,
[2:00:56] six, we're local projects.
[2:00:58] So I think that is the difference.
[2:01:00] But the projects will come in the implementation strategy
[2:01:02] of better roads, safer streets.
[2:01:04] The other comment I want to make on trails
[2:01:06] is they both fund trails, but I want to say four,
[2:01:11] but fix our roads requires a match for any trail construction
[2:01:16] that we would do.
[2:01:17] And if we don't have a match, we're not going to get the trail,
[2:01:19] or we're going to get it less of a trail. So that's the one difference in the two in the two measures.
[2:01:27] Good day.
[2:01:28] Yeah, just I think I'm the only one up here who is a proponent for fix our roads. So in the interest
[2:01:34] of just kind of trying to offer that perspective to some of my colleagues questions and comments
[2:01:39] drew the issue on transportation. I to agree with you that consolidation is not something
[2:01:46] that should be required. And my understanding is that the study would simply return the findings.
[2:01:53] And there's nothing conscripted within the measure itself that enforces those findings.
[2:01:59] But I also believe that what we have seen over the past 20 years when measures
[2:02:05] see was renewed in 2006. There was an interest in increasing public transportation funding
[2:02:10] to enable an increase in ridership.
[2:02:14] And unfortunately, well, fortunately,
[2:02:15] Clovis Transit, well done.
[2:02:18] We have increased our ridership.
[2:02:19] We are back above pre-COVID levels.
[2:02:21] Unfortunately, neither the city of Fresno nor the rural transportation
[2:02:25] have seen that increase in ridership.
[2:02:28] And so, part of the whole concept of the Pixar roads,
[2:02:32] approach to public transportation is in line with that,
[2:02:36] keeping everything kind of status quo.
[2:02:38] The flexible pot of local money that Paul has referenced would enable the city of Clovis to make up any shortfall to our transit, but it also doesn't force the entire county to be subsidizing other public transit that hasn't seen the rebounding and ridership.
[2:02:56] Now, let's see, I'm going to have to remember everything that you said, too.
[2:03:01] So I started at the beginning, and now I'm going to, but also the study itself,
[2:03:06] the concept there is, you know, if all we're looking at doing is getting people around
[2:03:11] the county or even around our jurisdiction or our cities and not on buses, you know, as
[2:03:17] well as anyone up here, the difficulty that the state of California is putting on public
[2:03:20] transit in general with things like zero mission vehicles.
[2:03:23] And so the idea of reimagining transit just opens the box to say are there arenas are there areas that we haven't really considered that would help us get people around this county in a more efficient manner than these systems that we've been using that don't have the ridership to
[2:03:41] to necessitate an increase in funding, et cetera, et cetera.
[2:03:45] So that's my perspective on the public transit part.
[2:03:48] We've always agreed specifically here in Clovis
[2:03:51] that the people we serve with our public transit are,
[2:03:55] that's so important.
[2:03:56] It's our seniors.
[2:03:58] It's people who really rely on that for essential service.
[2:04:02] And so the ability to continue providing that is critical.
[2:04:07] And, but at the same time, I've said it before.
[2:04:09] So I'll say again, the other land, if you can't figure out the name of it, how am I supposed to?
[2:04:19] The fact that there's so much money going to public transit for the Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act.
[2:04:28] What you really find out is that the entire county, all of the money that comes into this measure from the entire county,
[2:04:36] for every five and a half dollars that comes in about one dollar of that goes to the city
[2:04:43] of Fresno's public buses. They don't have the ridership. Why should we ask the entire county
[2:04:50] to subsidize their public transit system? That's my kind of, again, I want the flexibility,
[2:04:57] I want the local control. That's why I love the idea that there is what I call of the
[2:05:03] looks accounts with fixed arrows that allows whether it's
[2:05:07] Selma, whether it's here on, whether it's an
[2:05:10] unincorporated area to address their own unique needs.
[2:05:14] The idea that recreational trails that would be up in
[2:05:18] the foot hills, that would purely be recreational that
[2:05:21] somewhere up in the foot hills, they don't even have the option
[2:05:24] to do that because we've decided or whoever put this measure
[2:05:28] together decides that they shouldn't be able to do that.
[2:05:30] I'm not I'm not down with that. I think the flexibility of the different jurisdictions to be able to set their own priorities and to have that flexibility to address these things to not be subsidizing the city of Fresno's public transportation system all of those things to me kind of separate these out and cause me to at least at you know my first looking at everything to say I kind of like this fix our roads thing I like the local control I like the flexibility I like maintaining transit without
[2:06:00] predicting so far into the future in such a volatile, you know, arena.
[2:06:06] I also really think the first two iterations of measures see the initial one in 1986,
[2:06:11] the renewal in 2006, both being 20-year measures, particularly again, with the uncertainty
[2:06:16] of what's coming before us, looking and trying to set us up for something for 30 years.
[2:06:21] It just doesn't seem like the way to go.
[2:06:22] 20 years has worked.
[2:06:24] We've seen what it's done.
[2:06:25] Maybe it didn't fix all of Mr. Wilson's pot holes.
[2:06:28] But at least it has been what it was intended to be in 20 years, I think, makes more sense
[2:06:34] again, particularly with the uncertainties that we face.
[2:06:38] Was there anything else not that I need to say anything else?
[2:06:42] So those are kind of some of the things that I've seen come about.
[2:06:45] I also really have to say that I've been incredibly disappointed with the process that brought
[2:06:50] us to this place.
[2:06:51] And I think that's where we see a lot of the public angst about how we got here because
[2:06:56] We have trusted our Council of Governments, which is the 15 Mayors of our cities, a representative from the County Board of Supervisors, to kind of oversee this, and they had a steering committee, our
[2:07:07] the city of Clovis, had a member on that committee that we appointed at unfold.
[2:07:11] And the process that went through the steering committee ultimately couldn't even get something that the cog process could complete.
[2:07:19] And so I just think that's a big part of this, too, and when we see the public coming
[2:07:25] forward and saying, I'm against all of it, I think there's a lot of the process and
[2:07:29] procedure that went through that has caused people to have a lot of hesitation and gives
[2:07:34] them a lot of pause about it, too.
[2:07:37] What my question of the Garce of the Process, as you guys sent me, so what out of the product
[2:07:44] is wrong with the product.
[2:07:47] What is wrong with what the process developed?
[2:07:52] Because I think that that process was approved unanimously
[2:07:55] by all 16 members.
[2:07:59] Say, we will not sit on this committee.
[2:08:02] So everyone voted for it, including me.
[2:08:05] And we said we would allow public members to go on.
[2:08:08] So we incorporated our own Clovis represented onto it.
[2:08:15] So I keep hearing that in the public going,
[2:08:18] it was hijack, it was hijack.
[2:08:19] I keep going, show me in the paper, where did they hijack?
[2:08:24] What number?
[2:08:25] Because it still has to come a number.
[2:08:28] And until you say, you just can't call people names
[2:08:30] and go all that, that's a winning argument.
[2:08:32] No, what number is it that produce something
[2:08:36] and which this city cannot live with.
[2:08:39] Because in every meeting that I've been in,
[2:08:41] so we allow the steering committee to meet
[2:08:43] and it brings it back.
[2:08:45] And then I meet with our staff,
[2:08:47] and I say, here it is, here's the latest.
[2:08:49] What can we not live with?
[2:08:51] Amy, you know, Paul, Andy.
[2:08:55] Every time we went to the process and said,
[2:09:00] hey, you say here to your point, Drew,
[2:09:04] This, this road, it can't be new construction, you can 5% new construction automatically.
[2:09:10] But if it's for safety, so we'll just talk about the radio towers, okay?
[2:09:14] The radio towers are in a lovelier.
[2:09:16] If you complete the street, because it's a safety, you can use it.
[2:09:21] And you know what you can build?
[2:09:23] The sidewalk and the bike lane.
[2:09:26] Okay, so you can do that.
[2:09:28] In other words, right here in a sunny side, in front of you, Mr. Torrino, we could have used it.
[2:09:32] Over there, safe streets, we can build the sidewalk itself.
[2:09:37] This new measure, which didn't talk to anyone,
[2:09:41] didn't talk to anyone.
[2:09:42] Just said, boom, here it is.
[2:09:44] We don't like the other one here.
[2:09:46] Our measure talked to thousands and thousands of people.
[2:09:51] And then it goes, okay, what is it that you need?
[2:09:55] We can now do a project, a sidewalk, okay?
[2:10:01] I'm pleading outside work without any issues.
[2:10:04] Now with regards to the consolidation,
[2:10:06] well, let me address just the regards to what happened.
[2:10:10] When it came back, the simple math was this,
[2:10:15] 16% regional, so instead of going regional,
[2:10:19] we did that 40 years, all the mayors,
[2:10:22] and the steering community said,
[2:10:24] let's just move that.
[2:10:25] Don't touch anything else.
[2:10:27] Let's just move that to cities.
[2:10:28] You control it now.
[2:10:30] And the mayor's majority of the mayor said, that sounds good.
[2:10:34] We've done regional for 40 years, and so now let's just move it over.
[2:10:40] And at the meeting, we asked all the mayor.
[2:10:42] I was the one who asked all the mayor's.
[2:10:44] All days was went to regional.
[2:10:46] How much are you willing to give back to put into regional?
[2:10:50] Really?
[2:10:51] Collinga?
[2:10:52] Clovis?
[2:10:52] I'll put in one percent.
[2:10:53] How about you?
[2:10:54] Just to get it back?
[2:10:55] No one wanted to get money back.
[2:10:57] Get more money.
[2:10:58] We're going to keep it.
[2:10:58] we're going to fix our roads. Okay, we're going to fix this in our city. So in other words,
[2:11:05] it's not hard, we're just bringing it back and allowed us to do that. With regards to trails,
[2:11:12] we can actually improve southwest trails with this money, without any match. If you go for a match,
[2:11:18] what does the Fed say? Oh, the Fed said it has to be there. There's to be over there. What does the state say?
[2:11:23] It has to be this type, that type, it has to be paved.
[2:11:27] When we argued for what we advocated for it,
[2:11:30] we said it has to still be dirt,
[2:11:32] because our FID trails are dirt.
[2:11:34] And if you don't allow it, globalists is out.
[2:11:37] Whether they're committee, they're crazy committee,
[2:11:39] what do they say?
[2:11:40] Sounds good, globalists.
[2:11:42] We'll let you have it.
[2:11:43] You know what Fresno said?
[2:11:44] We got a lot of FID trails too.
[2:11:46] We want the same deal.
[2:11:47] And we got that.
[2:11:49] So in other words, it allows us to do that,
[2:11:51] to fix the trails that we've never had
[2:11:53] in the Southwest and to just do it without having to fix the road itself.
[2:11:57] The flexibility is in the 65% that goes to the entire complete street.
[2:12:04] Street is only 50% in the new measure that fix our roads.
[2:12:10] 50 only and that only touches the pavement you go on the roads.
[2:12:15] You want to do the bike lane match to it and you also want to do the sidewalk, get a match.
[2:12:21] How are you going to get a match?
[2:12:23] How can you match?
[2:12:24] You know what we also asked for from the crazies?
[2:12:27] You said, okay, we can't build new roads.
[2:12:30] I'm good with that.
[2:12:32] I'll allow us to maintain new roads.
[2:12:34] You know what they said?
[2:12:35] That sounds good.
[2:12:37] 10 years you may need to fix.
[2:12:39] It's 70% 80% now.
[2:12:41] We want you to be able to maintain it.
[2:12:43] That's what we wanted.
[2:12:44] We got that.
[2:12:45] What else did I ask for?
[2:12:46] I said,
[2:12:51] the crazy said, okay, we're going to keep using that word because they keep saying
[2:12:54] they're crazy, but I feel like they're pretty reasonable, they keep going, okay, you have
[2:12:58] to go to this advantage communities first.
[2:13:01] I said, no, Clovis is 70% average already, we don't go to Clovis, this advantage means
[2:13:05] so we go to the bad roads first, allow us to fix the road according to our rules, and they
[2:13:13] said, that's fine, Clovis, you can do that.
[2:13:17] And so these are the things that we negotiate
[2:13:22] for with our staff.
[2:13:24] We got every single one.
[2:13:26] Clovis likes complete streets.
[2:13:28] We like our trails.
[2:13:29] We don't want to be restricted by that.
[2:13:32] And the other thing that is lost in all this until you read it
[2:13:36] is better road safe streets has cap, 1% admin, none of these are consultant fees and all that.
[2:13:46] You know what fix our roads does? 1% admin. But hey, if it's for this, you can add another
[2:13:53] percent. If it's for regional transit, you can get 5% more on top of that. You can get one
[2:13:58] to 2% on that. So notice every one of the categories we see, they allow consultants to charge
[2:14:05] public for more. And the committee, our member, with everybody said, no, no, no, no, no,
[2:14:12] we're not paying consultants, we're not paying counter-trans. You asked about what about,
[2:14:18] the Tier 1. I looked at the Tier 1 projects, and it was scary, because there are
[2:14:27] what, where are the Tier 1? I wrote it down, because I wanted to see how many of our
[2:14:34] projects, 19 of the 31 account trans, 1.5 to billion dollars go to
[2:14:41] account trans if those get approved. Clovers is way at the bottom and they just hope
[2:14:47] it can fix tier one. And then account trans to get that plus 5% on top of the one
[2:14:55] percent. To go do this. So I said, no, you're not doing
[2:15:00] And now, you're not taking any more monies from us. You are not. It only has a regional only $702 million.
[2:15:07] So those dream on Clovis, you know, that you're going to get your regional projects in. So we're not going to get that. So good.
[2:15:15] Don't put it in regional. Give it to us. Let us work. Let us deal with it. They don't be the best. Best for us. Now with regards to consolidation, you have to read it.
[2:15:26] You have to read it to get to where we're at.
[2:15:29] It says here, a consolidation.
[2:15:35] Transit consolidated in shallow,
[2:15:38] be systematically implemented within a one-year timeframe
[2:15:41] result in a consolidated county-wide transit agency
[2:15:46] by December 31, 2030.
[2:15:49] That sounds pretty firm.
[2:15:50] It's not a half you want to.
[2:15:52] That's a pretty much aiming too bad.
[2:15:55] Facts is bigger, paying our buses facts now.
[2:15:59] You see, by 2030.
[2:16:01] And so we're gonna know, no, no, no,
[2:16:02] Clovis does it well.
[2:16:04] Clovis does it really well.
[2:16:06] Back to the math problem with transit.
[2:16:08] Transit is 24% now.
[2:16:11] It's gonna go down to 16.
[2:16:13] I just ask us again, who of the 200,000 people
[2:16:18] in this community we want to not serve?
[2:16:20] The elderly?
[2:16:21] They're disabled?
[2:16:23] The students?
[2:16:23] which route do we want to take away? Because it's done to be automatically that way.
[2:16:28] And after consolidation we're not going to get it either.
[2:16:32] This allows us to do what's great already and with additional dollars.
[2:16:37] More dollars for transit.
[2:16:39] And so it makes perfect sincerity. Flexibility, it's us.
[2:16:44] Local control us. Sorry, Lynn, you were on FCTA, but you were one vote out of five, which was equal.
[2:16:50] So, cog our percentage of population counts in the cog meeting.
[2:16:57] Our mayor will represent us in cog, no second body at all.
[2:17:02] It'll just be mayors looking after their own dollars, looking after their own governance
[2:17:07] of it, and going, this is what's best.
[2:17:10] That is what is listed here, that is what is important.
[2:17:14] And so I want us to read it, know it, see where it's at, and see if that makes sense.
[2:17:22] I know the better road safe streets.
[2:17:24] It's not perfect.
[2:17:26] It's not perfect.
[2:17:27] But it gives us the most amount of money, the most amount of control, and the most amount
[2:17:32] of flexibility to do what we want, and what we have.
[2:17:36] Then if we think that the other one sounds better because it's a bloated number of 80
[2:17:41] something percent for roads.
[2:17:42] it's not, it's only 50%. Active transportation, you need a match. And they write it. They don't
[2:17:50] hide it. They put it very clearly, and I have to show you, because they know I read this stuff.
[2:17:58] See, on page 12, this is matching fund requirement. So in other words, you have to go find a match
[2:18:06] If you don't, don't think about that trail, don't think about that side one.
[2:18:11] This allows us to give whatever clothe is needs.
[2:18:15] And if it's not a road, 65%, we can still do a sidewalk, we still do a trail.
[2:18:21] That's what Clovis wants, that's what Clovis needs, and this gives us the most.
[2:18:28] And for 30 years, even more dollars of a plan that is already set that we can do.
[2:18:34] So I just wanted to say that because I was involved in it in the past.
[2:18:39] You have trusted, or we have trusted each other when we place each other into committees.
[2:18:45] When Matt goes to the safety committee of Cal Cities or Drew, and he comes back and
[2:18:50] go, hey, this is a resolution or a policy we should support, you went to it, we trust you.
[2:18:56] That's good.
[2:18:57] And if today we go, no, wrong, you went, but you're just the mayor, but you don't know what
[2:19:04] doing, you didn't read anything, you didn't go with the staff. Then that would go, well,
[2:19:09] you didn't believe Andy, you didn't believe Paul, you didn't believe Amy, you didn't believe Sean,
[2:19:15] you didn't believe Thad when we reviewed this all, because they were involved intimately
[2:19:20] throughout. If other cities were involved, that's great for them too, but if they did what we did,
[2:19:26] they would go, this gives us the most amount of dollars, that's bang for our buck. And finally,
[2:19:32] you said about Jenny, you said about the community and think of everyone as a whole.
[2:19:39] You're right, we do.
[2:19:40] We appreciate those who come and spend dollars here because it's their tax dollars when
[2:19:44] they're coming and spend here.
[2:19:46] But we will also go on their roads every once in a while and think they deserve it as well.
[2:19:51] And so I think they deserve money within their towns to fix their pot holes and this gives
[2:19:57] them more of it.
[2:19:58] We were getting three something percent. Now we will get seven something seven point two something percent of measure
[2:20:04] $C dollars. That's almost a doubling and why not take that doubling up dollars for us to control.
[2:20:13] I don't have too much more to add to that. Thank you. I think there's a couple of just maybe final points on what you said.
[2:20:19] So, Clovis has had a long through line of measure C dating back. I don't know. Did Harry join him FSCT in 1986?
[2:20:25] All right, so you served for let's call it 30 years until he left in 2016 and I've served on FCC since then.
[2:20:33] I was also the co-chair in 2006, I was the co-chair in 2022, and started off this process in
[2:20:39] 2026. And I want to just reinforce a few points. So first of all, the process was not hijacked.
[2:20:45] It was not by socialist communist liberal wackos. That language is so distasteful. It doesn't help a thing.
[2:20:52] And it wasn't actually true.
[2:20:54] Nobody walked out and said, if we don't get our way,
[2:20:56] we're not going to do it anymore.
[2:20:57] None of that is true, but it is a popular talking point
[2:21:00] on radio stations and newspapers.
[2:21:03] So for someone in the room, like the Alexander Hamilton play,
[2:21:08] in the room when it happened, none of that happened.
[2:21:11] So I think we need to be very careful
[2:21:12] on the narrative that gets talked about these things.
[2:21:16] From a local control perspective, better roads,
[2:21:21] safe streets is about local control. The 65% rose, I just want to reiterate that, is 65%
[2:21:28] rose full stop. Fixed our roads is touting 82% rose, bigger number, that sounds kind of cool.
[2:21:36] It's really 50% rose, 16% flexible, which to some in government or to some in the public,
[2:21:43] what are you going to do with that? It's also how this city of Fresno is going to have to pay for the
[2:21:47] airport. It's going to have to make up their transit shortfalls.
[2:21:50] So, for the city of Fresno, which may be not my interest in this moment, that money is not for roads.
[2:21:56] So, selling it as it's an 82% roads is absolutely false.
[2:22:01] The counter-trans projects, as I said, are really a carryover from 2020, whatever the last
[2:22:05] one was 2022, no public input.
[2:22:08] Understand, no public input has gone into fix our roads.
[2:22:11] We're talking zero, and that's a little bit hard to understand how we're going to try to get
[2:22:16] people to support it when they didn't have any chance to put input.
[2:22:19] I think the other point on the admin fees is notable.
[2:22:24] 20-year measure, fix our roads,
[2:22:25] 103 million dollars admin fees.
[2:22:29] Better roads, safer streets, 30 years, 73 million.
[2:22:33] So 30 more million in a 10-year less measure.
[2:22:36] That's notable and it is really a consulted funded measure.
[2:22:41] So there will be consultants making a lot of money
[2:22:44] in fix our roads based on the formula.
[2:22:46] The other advantage of 30-year metrics at Diane's point has been 20, both times, but 30 years
[2:22:52] gives you a chance to bond against it.
[2:22:54] If we had a large transportation project that needed some bonding capacity, it's not going
[2:22:58] to come from a 20-year revenue source.
[2:23:00] It's going to come from a 30-year revenue source.
[2:23:03] So I think to have long, longs point, we, as a Council, have had norms broken, often on,
[2:23:08] mostly on for the last three and a half years, we used to trust the people that are in
[2:23:13] the room.
[2:23:14] whether it was me, whether it was drew with the Arab Lord.
[2:23:17] We didn't go to the Arab Lord and go, hey, Drew,
[2:23:19] I know you're our city representative,
[2:23:20] but we got a different idea.
[2:23:21] We just, that isn't how that worked.
[2:23:23] That's not how we do it today.
[2:23:25] So we're here because we have evaluated it
[2:23:28] me from my engagement,
[2:23:30] long from his, you trusted us to do that about what's best for
[2:23:33] Clovis.
[2:23:34] It is not perfect, a long point.
[2:23:37] And it is also not just about Clovis.
[2:23:39] We live in a county.
[2:23:41] We cannot be happy if we say, oh, you know what?
[2:23:43] It doesn't matter if a man told it doesn't get anybody because we don't live there, we don't care.
[2:23:48] No, that's not how this county is going to thrive together.
[2:23:51] There are somebody on the radio who said not too long ago, well, if somebody wants to come here from Crowther,
[2:23:54] they should just buy a car or call a Uber.
[2:23:57] I'm going to bet if they live in Crowther's and could do either of those things.
[2:23:59] That's exactly what they would do.
[2:24:01] But they can't do that.
[2:24:02] So we have an obligation that knit our county together over 30 years.
[2:24:07] There's room for innovation and better roads, safer streets.
[2:24:09] It's not the same thing for the next 30 years.
[2:24:11] We can't even imagine 30 years.
[2:24:13] now I won't be around to see it for sure. We're trying to leave something behind that's an interesting
[2:24:17] transportation system, not just roads everywhere you look. So I just think there is more to the
[2:24:24] better roads safer streets measure. It's better for Clovis. It's better for the county. We have support
[2:24:29] from end to end in our county and it's really from the city of Clovis's perspective. We will be fine
[2:24:35] and we do well in this measure. The things that matter to us, Clovis transit trails are protected and
[2:24:42] And I just, I would just simply say, under-fix our roads,
[2:24:46] Clovis Transit is dead as we know it.
[2:24:48] That's it. We're going to have to tell our riders.
[2:24:50] We're sorry, free-fares, sorry, new bus stops, nice,
[2:24:53] but nothing's going to happen.
[2:24:54] No one's ever going to stop there.
[2:24:56] So losing control over Clovis Transit in my mind is enough to say,
[2:25:01] that is not local control.
[2:25:02] So Mr. Rollins, you said that was one of your criteria.
[2:25:05] We're going to give that away in 5th our road.
[2:25:08] So I think both of them, and I have hundreds of hours in this.
[2:25:12] We've done our homework, we weren't late to the game,
[2:25:14] we didn't show up in a press conference.
[2:25:16] Okay, we've got this now.
[2:25:18] No, we've done the work, we've done the math,
[2:25:20] we've worked with staff.
[2:25:21] So I feel really confident that better roads,
[2:25:24] safer streets while I can't say for concerts in a row,
[2:25:27] is really the right thing for Clovis.
[2:25:30] So when you are ready,
[2:25:31] I'd be willing to make a motion
[2:25:32] that our resolution includes support
[2:25:35] for better roads, safer streets,
[2:25:38] for the transportation funding in the county.
[2:25:41] Yeah, I think that's a lot to give an alternate perspective too, and I don't think there's
[2:25:47] any question of trust in people who are in the room, et cetera, et cetera.
[2:25:53] But I think, again, there's a perception of how the process went.
[2:25:58] And I actually think you articulated it very well, Mayor, when you said, I asked the crazies
[2:26:03] if Clovis could have this.
[2:26:05] And, unfortunately, that's the problem.
[2:26:08] I don't think the people of Clovis felt that there was a need to have to ask the crazies
[2:26:13] for what we wanted and what we needed and the process that started out with the steering
[2:26:18] committee had representation for each jurisdiction for relevant parties and all of that.
[2:26:26] And that was one person for the city of Clovis that we said this will be someone who will
[2:26:31] percent our interests and then at some point along the way you asked for what number is it
[2:26:37] that gave people concern I think the number was 12 and that's how many of those what you
[2:26:42] called crazy's were brought on to the steering committee at that point and altered the entire
[2:26:48] dynamics of the process and so we can you know go over numbers and talk about this in that but
[2:26:55] again what we're doing is we're putting something forward to ask the voters of Fresno County to
[2:27:00] say, we want you to continue this have since sales tax measure county wide, and here's
[2:27:08] what we've brought forward to you. And so I think it's not surprising that people would
[2:27:13] have, again, some angst and some concern about haul of this came out. If that number of
[2:27:18] 12 hadn't happened and you weren't sitting here having to say, I asked the crazies for this.
[2:27:24] If that fixed a better road safe streets had come out of that process had gone to cog, had gone
[2:27:29] to the Board of Supervisors and done what everyone was expecting it to do. I think this would
[2:27:33] be an entirely different conversation. But I also think it is imperative again to be honest
[2:27:40] about what local control is and what flexibility is and there's a lot of prescriptiveness in the
[2:27:46] better road safe streets. One of the main things that came out of the public engagement not only
[2:27:50] was fix our roads, fix our roads, fix our roads, fix our roads. But it was we have a lot of congestion.
[2:27:55] And we want to alleviate congestion and to say that we can't add driving lanes unless we also add a certain miles of bike lanes and sidewalks.
[2:28:05] And we must do complete streets. That's not necessarily what every single jurisdiction for as no county wants or needs to do.
[2:28:12] And so to force that on them when just because it might work for us, again, this is a county-white thing.
[2:28:18] And we have to be mindful of that.
[2:28:20] But again, I think it is so much about the process
[2:28:23] that has given people an unease about what's come out of it.
[2:28:29] And just because Pixar roads didn't go through that process,
[2:28:32] it could have been what it came out of the cog process
[2:28:34] in the steering committee if it had had its natural course.
[2:28:38] We don't really know because we'll never know
[2:28:40] we had extra people put on that committee.
[2:28:43] So it's just one of those things.
[2:28:44] We are where we are now.
[2:28:45] We have a couple of options, and you know, to staff has said, hey, we need a measure to pass,
[2:28:53] and I respect that. But I do think that there are legitimate reasons to have differences of
[2:28:58] opinion about which one is best. But again, I still see the local control and the flexibility
[2:29:04] being in one. And you know, also as far as matching funds go, there are so many projects that come
[2:29:10] forward from staff where they have gotten matching funds to enable us to do more with less.
[2:29:15] That's just another element that makes sense in how we do things when it comes to transit,
[2:29:22] when it comes to roads and all of these different projects.
[2:29:25] So the fact that one measure actually allowed for that and made room for that and said,
[2:29:31] hey, we do want matching dollars.
[2:29:33] I don't think that's a bad thing.
[2:29:34] That's what we do all the time when we bring these things forward because we don't have
[2:29:38] the resources to do it all ourselves.
[2:29:40] And so to again force that on jurisdictions,
[2:29:43] I don't think is the right way to go to allow for that to say, hey, this is an opportunity to find matching funds.
[2:29:48] We're doing it all the time.
[2:29:50] So it's not necessarily a bad thing to have that as part of the FixR Road's measure.
[2:29:55] I don't think you understood.
[2:30:00] Student, when I said, I asked, that was the process we agreed to, steering committee means it
[2:30:08] bring it back to cog, then the cog gives the input. That's the ask. That's what happened, and
[2:30:15] we followed that process. And so what I mean, you didn't have to ask. Everything that came
[2:30:22] of the string committee was over 80% 90% approval and still there were things that the call can
[2:30:29] still change and so you know in the whole entire time it was never the ones that I guess
[2:30:39] us conservators feared that created all the chaos in this process. It was our peers who caused
[2:30:47] all this chaos. They did not stay. They did not value and honor their vote. They did not participate in the process to see what would come out.
[2:30:59] And if you did it, and I just asked everyone, go read it. You see, many of us have talking points, transit, bad, whatever.
[2:31:08] They did this, hijacked that, no, we just treated.
[2:31:13] Colvers is a smart city, we got a read.
[2:31:15] And when we read it, we go, oh, this makes much more sense.
[2:31:19] And if you look at the record, you go,
[2:31:21] that was a much better process.
[2:31:25] And with regards to the match,
[2:31:26] if it's required, there's no flexibility.
[2:31:30] Right now, the flexibility means,
[2:31:33] we can just go right now, fix the street
[2:31:35] that Drew has had issues with right on a new view.
[2:31:40] No match needed.
[2:31:41] Can we still do match?
[2:31:42] Do all the match we want?
[2:31:44] Double the money.
[2:31:45] But we can do the ones that Matt and you mentioned Ashland.
[2:31:49] We can go fix right there.
[2:31:50] So now it's a safe street so we can do it under two items now.
[2:31:55] Just completing the street plus making it safe.
[2:31:59] Match.
[2:32:00] Look how long we've been looking for the matches to fix the northeast corner of, uh,
[2:32:04] Clovis he's high school. I've been on this council eight years. I mentioned it the first year I came in
[2:32:11] But if this passes we can fix it tomorrow. We'll get our reimbursements when Clovis fixes or when the land develops
[2:32:18] That's how we do it. That's how we can do it much quicker flexibility is also in the quicker
[2:32:25] And so I I just want to say to the residents.
[2:32:31] I
[2:32:31] I'm passionate about it because I was invested in it, not because of allegiances, not
[2:32:38] because of, oh, I need to do that, no, Clovis deserves this.
[2:32:43] Clovis deserves this, and if Clovis benefits, it lifts everyone up, it lifts everyone
[2:32:49] up.
[2:32:49] We are important in this process.
[2:32:52] That's why they don't want us to support because it'll fail.
[2:32:57] And if it fails, that's probably the only objective they have.
[2:33:03] But we wanted to pass, we wanted to pass with it, seamless, and so that our staff can do
[2:33:08] the great work that it's doing now.
[2:33:10] And so I just wanted to respond because you said that, you know, I had to ask, that was our duty
[2:33:17] to ask.
[2:33:18] That was our duty to ask.
[2:33:19] Good.
[2:33:20] I'm going to do two things when I was on the second lens motion and give you an opportunity
[2:33:27] the crazy, crazy comment, you were saying that they are, you're saying that other people
[2:33:34] characterized people as, and it was unfair.
[2:33:39] I want that to become, no, I think that's that's not what you're saying, no, I think
[2:33:46] that people who have known me, you know, labels don't mean anything, you've got to meet
[2:33:51] people face to face and that's what we did, and every time we met face to face, as
[2:33:56] decent people and with respect, we can solve things, even with people we disagree with and that's
[2:34:03] I think that's all we got. Thank you Drew for that clarification. And I didn't mean it in that
[2:34:07] way anyway. That was a good culture. I also want to say in 2020, it's 20, it's 20, it's 26,
[2:34:14] again, we had a steering committee of 40, including all the groups that are opposed it,
[2:34:21] And it works, the fallacy that we can pass anything with only people that we agree with is insanity.
[2:34:29] So I just think there's power in people that think differently than the rest of us.
[2:34:32] And that's what the group was able to achieve.
[2:34:35] And because it went back to cog at every step, the mirrors were the ones who had the final
[2:34:40] stay at every step.
[2:34:42] We elect them, they go to represent us.
[2:34:44] So I think that the only thing that's crazy about that is the narrative that it's a great
[2:34:51] talking point, that they were crazy, radical, socialist communist, and it's just, it's so
[2:34:56] not true, and nothing about the process was worse because they engaged, it was actually
[2:35:01] better, because we ended up with a measure, our commitment was one county, one plan.
[2:35:06] We couldn't deliver that, not because of the sort of people we disagreed with, but because
[2:35:11] of our peers to longs points.
[2:35:13] So there's not a lot of honesty going on, it's, I often tell people, this isn't transportation
[2:35:17] measure, it's a politics measure.
[2:35:19] But I think this measure is good for Clovis and good for the whole.
[2:35:23] And that's our job up here.
[2:35:26] So motion stands for my second true.
[2:35:29] Yeah, and final point because I feel like I am very invested.
[2:35:35] Regardless of who you put on there, it still is, what's wrong with it?
[2:35:41] What's wrong with it?
[2:35:42] It's talk the numbers, let's talk the language.
[2:35:45] It's never the language.
[2:35:46] It's never the, it's always the name calling that gets thrown out there.
[2:35:51] And so you can get a thousand people, it doesn't matter, it still comes out to what is in the measure.
[2:35:57] And how do we divide those numbers up with the directions that it's given?
[2:36:02] And when you look at the numbers on both, you will agree that, okay, this, this better
[2:36:09] That is the best way forward.
[2:36:15] Any other comments that we call?
[2:36:17] It's their motion.
[2:36:18] Meant the motion.
[2:36:19] Drew, you second?
[2:36:21] We have motion.
[2:36:22] All those in favor.
[2:36:23] If I was saying aye.
[2:36:25] Any opposed?
[2:36:25] No.
[2:36:26] Motion passes.
[2:36:27] Order one.
[2:36:28] We will now move to item 13.
[2:36:31] And this is 2026-2027.
[2:36:34] Budget priorities.
[2:36:36] let me back up to the slides here. I was getting a sneak peek. All right. Thank you, Mayor.
[2:36:46] Thank you. Thank you.
[2:36:51] So last week we had a five year forecast presented to Council that looked at our financial health and fitness for the next five years. Tonight, what we're looking for is to get some guidance on budget priorities.
[2:37:05] to service levels, how much we should invest in capital, things like cars,
[2:37:11] fleet, facilities, and what level of emergency reserves and basically our
[2:37:16] checking account balance, our facilities and sustainability balance we should have.
[2:37:21] So as a quick update on what we're at in the budget process, we've completed
[2:37:23] department updates, we've done the measure of why oversight committee report, we did
[2:37:28] the five or four cast last week, and now we are on to the City Council budget
[2:37:31] session after this, staff will go and develop the budget and present it on May 18th to Council
[2:37:37] for Consideration. Final votes will be in June. So the five-year forecast, we are going to
[2:37:44] be focusing on the first year, the forecast tonight, and the red box there. And I am grateful
[2:37:50] to say that our five-year forecast, and next year we are in a stable position. That is not
[2:37:55] similar to many of our counterparts, other cities, and agencies around. So we are grateful
[2:38:00] for that. In that five-year forecast, we are implementing your two of a plan to implement measure
[2:38:07] why. So last year we did a lot of heavy lifting as a council, as a community to talk
[2:38:13] through what kind of services we wanted to add. And this year we have represented those in
[2:38:18] the forecast and in this presentation on the number of positions to be added. So we have 13 positions
[2:38:24] in police, that's six officers and seven positions.
[2:38:29] Those are things like CSOs, records, clerks.
[2:38:33] And then fire, they have three positions to restore their support team.
[2:38:36] They had incredible acceleration, thanks to some grants this last year.
[2:38:39] Thanks to measure why.
[2:38:41] And we just got to implement the first engine crew this morning.
[2:38:45] That's funded by measure why.
[2:38:46] So very excited about that.
[2:38:47] And about eight weeks, we'll have the squad that wasn't planned to be implemented
[2:38:51] until the second year this year.
[2:38:54] But since we already able to do it, it's been included,
[2:38:57] but it's not really a consideration
[2:38:58] and councilority tick option on that.
[2:39:01] We also get a chance to improve our streets in parks crews.
[2:39:05] We have four positions in that area for parks,
[2:39:09] and we have two positions in improving road maintenance.
[2:39:15] And then we have some support positions for all goals.
[2:39:17] A fleet mechanic, someone in IT,
[2:39:19] and then personnel as well.
[2:39:21] And then, adequately funding critical of emergency measures, and we'll get into that in a little bit.
[2:39:26] So there are more things that we are doing with Measure Y that were funded last year.
[2:39:30] I didn't want to go into super detail on that, but the sake of time.
[2:39:34] But we're continuing to address those issues with the positions that we're allotted for last year.
[2:39:39] And then through the budget process, if we find the ability through Measure Y to come back to Council within the guardrails, we're going to establish.
[2:39:45] We'll try to do more.
[2:39:48] So, if we adopted a budget with the information we know tonight, 88% would be going to maintaining
[2:39:56] public safety, and then the balance is the other goals of the measure.
[2:40:00] I want to call out one addressing homelessness is 2%, and that is two public safety officers
[2:40:06] that are focused on homelessness.
[2:40:08] So one can say 90% is going into public safety.
[2:40:11] We have seen an increase in keeping close to safe and clean from 2% to 4% as well as
[2:40:17] as repairing streets and roads from 2% to 4%.
[2:40:20] So we're starting to see growth in those areas
[2:40:22] as we move along in this plan.
[2:40:27] Staff proposed in the forecast that we invest
[2:40:30] a two million increase in our facilities.
[2:40:33] There was a plan that was, or a assessment
[2:40:35] that showed that we had about a two million dollar gap
[2:40:38] to get there and start addressing some
[2:40:39] of our backlog of maintenance.
[2:40:41] So we even included that.
[2:40:43] We'd love for feedback on that.
[2:40:45] Next, our fleet, we have a one time catchup.
[2:40:48] thanks to measure why that we can get our fleet fund into a correct position and then continue
[2:40:52] $1 million in addition going forward.
[2:40:56] So those are two things that were in the forecast as well.
[2:41:00] When it comes to the emergency reserve and our checking balance, which is our general fund balance,
[2:41:05] the second block, we have 17.6% as what is proposed in the next year and with our fund balance,
[2:41:14] 5.2 percent. Between those two, we'd be at 22.2 percent of cash available should in
[2:41:19] emergency arise. The goal is to get to 20 percent and then 25 percent, flooding
[2:41:27] emergency reserve, and the sustainability level is about where we want to be, 3 to 6 percent
[2:41:31] any given year so that we can maneuver and deal with things as they come. And with those
[2:41:36] investments, this chart doesn't change. They're already included. So the question for council
[2:41:42] the community is all those service level priorities still right the work that we did last year moving forward
[2:41:49] all those capital investment levels where we want to put our money and then the emergency
[2:41:53] reserve and physical sustainability level is appropriate. With that I'll turn it to council for any
[2:41:57] questions or discussion. Andy we're going to go ahead and just into the public first and certainly
[2:42:03] so that way we can make common afterwards. We're going to go ahead and open the public portion now
[2:42:10] Um, listen to his hand out.
[2:42:14] Good.
[2:42:15] Eric Rollins.
[2:42:16] I live on Ashcroft Avenue.
[2:42:20] So, what I looked at the budget last year, this is the third year.
[2:42:24] It's amazing that I'm still awake.
[2:42:27] But just are difficult, though incredibly important.
[2:42:31] I noticed that last year, the measure why money,
[2:42:34] we spent approximately 92% on public safety.
[2:42:39] Is that correct?
[2:42:39] Yeah, correct.
[2:42:40] And are we now shifting it to 88 percent?
[2:42:44] 88 to 90 is what it was just looking like at this moment.
[2:42:48] So I would say that if we were to talk to the chief,
[2:42:54] the two different chiefs, do they feel like they're adequately funded?
[2:42:58] If they tell me yes, and they're good, then I don't have a problem with that.
[2:43:02] But if they're not, again, it was the promise of this council,
[2:43:06] but at least the majority of them.
[2:43:08] I was even fair to say the fast majority that they wanted to spend that money on police and
[2:43:14] fire and I thought that what we did last year was appropriate. So I'm opposed to that idea of
[2:43:21] 88 percent that that big fairly large shift unless I hear from the chiefs and they say I'm good.
[2:43:29] I get that at some point I would love to be at the point where police and fire were both able to say
[2:43:36] Look, I'm doing great and I want you to be able to spend the money because there are other
[2:43:42] legitimate needs. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate needs. I'm just trying to get us to
[2:43:48] keep our promise. In regards to what is happening with saving money, having an emergency fund,
[2:43:58] I would encourage you to work as hard as you can. We never know what the future will bring.
[2:44:05] So, I'm not quite sure how you get there, but I'm glad we're thinking of that.
[2:44:10] I'm proud of the city and that we are actually ahead of the curve in that respect.
[2:44:16] Anyway, kind of all I had to say and thank you for your time.
[2:44:18] Thank you,
[2:44:24] Eric.
[2:44:25] My name is Neil Malone and I live on Pocen.
[2:44:28] I just want to get back to the public safety as, you know, increasing roads and our things.
[2:44:34] Like we spent a lot of money last year, increasing staffing.
[2:44:38] And five years from now, are we going to say, like, this is, this may the city better or
[2:44:44] clean, you know, spend money on roads and other capital improvements in the city, there
[2:44:48] are going to be lasting for the rest of our lives.
[2:44:51] And I, you know, I asked you guys to look into that vision in the future and be able to do that.
[2:44:56] Before this meeting, I watched the report from the police.
[2:45:00] Chief, and he hit all the call-time classes and all of them. They hit their goals. We're at that 1.1, you know, employees per
[2:45:11] 1,000, we're hitting the metrics now. So I'm not saying take off the gas completely, but there are other things that we can do that I would see as a greater public safety issue. Thank you.
[2:45:22] Thank you, New.
[2:45:26] Any others?
[2:45:28] Seeing none, go ahead and close the public portion.
[2:45:31] I think Andy had a couple items there.
[2:45:34] Yes, service level priorities, capital loan investments.
[2:45:36] If there's anything else or any comments on the three that he's proposed.
[2:45:42] I'll just chime in.
[2:45:43] I think the reserves we talked about last week,
[2:45:45] I think this is too conservative.
[2:45:47] I don't think 17%, 20, whatever you had.
[2:45:50] I don't think he's not enough.
[2:45:51] What'd I say?
[2:45:53] Go farther.
[2:45:54] Go farther faster.
[2:45:56] I think I have a tiny little, like we're spending so much money, it makes me nervous.
[2:46:02] I'll never see this much money.
[2:46:04] We never had this much money.
[2:46:06] But I think that's all great.
[2:46:08] And I do think that that range is not enough.
[2:46:12] 17% from this year I don't think is enough given the revenues that we're seeing.
[2:46:16] And last week we heard that the best practice is 35%.
[2:46:20] So long-term goal needs to be 35% or whatever the industry metric is.
[2:46:24] So that would be one of my priorities.
[2:46:27] Now's our chance to save as much money as fast as we can
[2:46:30] because Mr. Rollins is right.
[2:46:31] We don't have any idea.
[2:46:33] No idea what's going to happen anywhere.
[2:46:35] So I would say that's first for me.
[2:46:37] The second for me would be the language
[2:46:39] of maintaining the rec service.
[2:46:41] No.
[2:46:42] I think we could invest in that.
[2:46:44] Because I agree with, and I didn't catch your last name.
[2:46:46] We're first in Miss Neal.
[2:46:47] No, no.
[2:46:48] Mallory.
[2:46:49] I agree with Mr. Mallory what you didn't specifically say.
[2:46:51] But public safety is more than police and fire for sure.
[2:46:54] So investing in our kids, so maintaining the reg center,
[2:46:58] or the reg programs?
[2:47:00] No, I think we need to expand them in some ways,
[2:47:03] whether it's a place to play,
[2:47:04] or whatever that notion is about giving kids a chance
[2:47:06] to engage, talk to our police officers in a sports setting,
[2:47:10] whatever it is, but that's my second.
[2:47:13] My 30 specialties, I think that's a good investment,
[2:47:15] because our buildings are going to eventually crumble.
[2:47:17] So I think that's right.
[2:47:18] And then I would say from our earlier conversation,
[2:47:20] I added to my list housing stock.
[2:47:22] I think our investment in housing stock
[2:47:25] that's on the verge of not being habitable
[2:47:27] is probably a worthy invention to hold on to those.
[2:47:31] So that's what I would say.
[2:47:33] I think the service levels are right.
[2:47:35] I think I think all that makes sense.
[2:47:36] The chiefs have all spoke and I think that's great.
[2:47:38] But those will be the four things I would highlight out
[2:47:40] of the budget.
[2:47:43] Thanks.
[2:47:44] Goodman.
[2:47:45] Also, recreation brought that up several years
[2:47:48] as far as trying to figure out a way to, you know,
[2:47:51] I know that our current wreck center is just kind of a mess and whether or not we put money into that down the road or something along those lines I'm going to say it again, but I still think we can make money off the billboards to pay for that.
[2:48:02] If we were to go to the billboards and use that revenue source strictly for using that to the youth programs and stuff would be a kind of a deal down the road, but I know we'll talk about that again in a few months.
[2:48:13] I do agree on the reserves that if there is an opportunity to put more money into reserves right now just to
[2:48:19] you know, go forward to the comment about public safety.
[2:48:25] I do think we need to keep going with public safety as much as we can,
[2:48:29] which I think you're doing.
[2:48:32] When you talk about hiring people and you hire six to ten people a year,
[2:48:36] you get to a point where you can only hire six to ten people a year
[2:48:39] because you got to bring in training officers.
[2:48:41] You have to, you have to have the vehicles ready.
[2:48:44] You have to have the equipment that goes with it.
[2:48:48] It was not just as simple as saying I want to hire 15 cops right now.
[2:48:51] It's all the stuff that goes with it in order to get to those numbers that you want to be.
[2:48:56] When the metrics and stuff are talked about, I will say when I was chief, one of the things that drove me absolutely crazy was to come back and they would say,
[2:49:05] Well, you're a victim of your own success.
[2:49:08] And that's great, but we were always putting band aids on things to try and plug those holes to not be,
[2:49:14] It's great. We were victims of our own success, and it's because of the men and women of the police departments and the fire departments and the things that they were doing that was above and beyond every day in order to fill those gaps so obviously I'm more biased towards public safety but I just want to make sure that we don't obviously that you know that's still not the main focus as well.
[2:49:39] Okay, thanks. Anything else?
[2:49:44] Good night.
[2:49:44] Yeah, I'll just agree with Lynn on the emergency reserve.
[2:49:49] We referenced that last week and so I do think whatever we can do to increase the current allocation to that and also increasing our mid and long term goals of what we see there for all the reasons.
[2:50:03] And I will also agree with Matt, I think one of the things I really appreciated out of this process last year when we were talking specifically about staffing levels and particularly from our public safety departments was talking about the support staff that was needed to prepare for bringing on more officers, more firefighters, whatever those things were and also being able to invest in some of the technology that might be out there to assist in being even more efficient at what they're doing.
[2:50:29] And so I look forward to the day where I think we can say,
[2:50:34] hey, measure why, you know, that promise we made to the public
[2:50:37] of prioritizing public safety police and fire specifically,
[2:50:41] we are ready to kind of pivot from that and maybe look at some of these other
[2:50:45] things that can be more broadly defined in public safety.
[2:50:48] I think that is an excellent goal and maybe it'll be here sooner rather than later.
[2:50:53] But I do think there are still priorities when I'm, you know, out and about.
[2:50:57] I still see things where it's like, ah, you know, I guarantee you our police department wants
[2:51:03] the manpower, woman power, technology, whatever to address that more efficiently. A lot of
[2:51:08] those kind of quality of life issues and that I know there's still a lot that we need
[2:51:14] to progress on there. I think before we kind of turn our attention from that. So those are
[2:51:19] kind of my two things. I completely agree with Lynn on the reserve and just echoing also what
[2:51:26] was saying as far as maintaining that extreme priority on police and fire at this point.
[2:51:36] Andy, with regards to facilities, the two million is sort of the minimum we need to just get
[2:51:42] a sort of on track or can we put more so that we are, you know, kind of get to fixing a lot of the
[2:51:51] items that were identified. Yeah, this study came back, I believe, around 4.2 to 4.3 million
[2:51:56] needed, we currently invest about two to two and a half typically in an average year.
[2:52:01] So that two million being invested would get us up to an average, that would meet the
[2:52:06] plans and needs over 20 year time frame.
[2:52:08] That doesn't include like a new structure or expansion.
[2:52:12] So we also, at some point, will probably need to think through how to set money aside for those
[2:52:17] things.
[2:52:17] One of the items we have in this budget plan is to do a facilities master plan that would
[2:52:24] while it starts to, it's usually thinking about the financing of what money should we put
[2:52:28] where relative to buildings we want to keep or not.
[2:52:31] So we'd always love to put more money in facilities and fleet, but we also need to balance
[2:52:36] that with providing the critical service.
[2:52:38] So we think that's a good start.
[2:52:39] Okay.
[2:52:40] And then with regards to rent programs, I support that.
[2:52:44] Where is parks in that?
[2:52:46] Or is parks totally separate?
[2:52:48] Because I think we need to take pride in the parks.
[2:52:55] And he thought given that.
[2:52:57] So we have another crew coming on for parks in this.
[2:53:00] Last year, we had a position in REC.
[2:53:02] We don't have positions in REC in the current plan
[2:53:04] additional, but we'll see what we can do.
[2:53:07] My comment on all these goals are still valid.
[2:53:10] So this is what was put in that five-year plan.
[2:53:13] And that's what we're planning for.
[2:53:14] But we'll see how things go through during the budget process
[2:53:17] as to what we can say yesterday.
[2:53:18] And still maintain our fiscal sustainability.
[2:53:21] And I'm assuming it's none of it is going to sort of the physical part of it instead of just the people side of it, meaning purchasing upkeeping.
[2:53:31] Are we just relying strictly on the park fees for that?
[2:53:35] Or is there a need?
[2:53:36] We've set aside approximately three-hundred thousand a year for general fund park maintenance that we never had before.
[2:53:42] We'll have to start in last year with another one.
[2:53:43] We're starting to see improvements from that, and that was planned to continue.
[2:53:47] And then I also agree with the reserves, I think me, I think we just need to get the 25 as quickly as possible and then we can discuss internally that policy with getting up to 35 that we heard about.
[2:54:04] So I did a little math to get to 20% is an extra next year would be an extra 3.3 million has to come from somewhere.
[2:54:14] So, we can work on where that comes from relative to fleet and facilities and kind of put together a plan.
[2:54:21] We have proposed putting 2 million in a year going forward and that buys you in the front part of the five year plan about a percent a year.
[2:54:28] Because as this finishes grow, we're having to catch up our dollar amount of housing dropped.
[2:54:32] This just our expenditures have grown.
[2:54:34] So, I'll take a little bit of time for us.
[2:54:36] If we got to 20 percent next year because we made that investment, we'd be sitting closer to 25 or 24 or 26.
[2:54:43] Another practice that we have done in the past is that if we have a fund balance at the end of the year where people
[2:54:50] Departors spend less to give us an opportunity at the end of the year to put money into reserves.
[2:54:54] That usually comes to counsel in December.
[2:54:56] So it could be talked about at that point as well as kind of a, hey, if we have one time money now, we can make a shift to whatever these funds are demanding.
[2:55:04] We stopped a 100,000 a year to the affordable housing process.
[2:55:10] That's included.
[2:55:11] What is that Android?
[2:55:12] Is it never in?
[2:55:13] I believe it's at least eight years.
[2:55:15] Eight years.
[2:55:16] Okay.
[2:55:16] Let's run a two.
[2:55:17] Remember that?
[2:55:18] And then with regards to the 88 percent, this is with the blessings of the two chiefs, right?
[2:55:24] That's why you're presenting it to us.
[2:55:26] Yeah.
[2:55:27] We've worked.
[2:55:27] Yeah.
[2:55:28] These are with the plans, the five chiefs that we've been hearing.
[2:55:33] Let's see.
[2:55:33] Yeah.
[2:55:34] So another time.
[2:55:36] Okay.
[2:55:37] I just wanted to get that on the record.
[2:55:38] Yeah, what they're proposing is things they have been planning for like I think this is based on that five-year plan
[2:55:44] We all put together last year. So kind of implement year two. It's probably not going to look exactly like we proposed
[2:55:50] Disvest things change. Okay. That's the goal. Let's all have go ahead one more comment
[2:55:56] Economic development. I don't know that means but I do think we have to invest if there's things we shouldn't be investing in that
[2:56:02] Help us generate additional tax revenue besides taxes like sales tax or business tax
[2:56:06] I think that's worth, whether it's land, whether it's, I don't know, alternate reuse of some empty
[2:56:13] big box store that it popped up every now and then. So I just, I think a mindfulness of job creation
[2:56:19] opportunities, whatever that is going forward. I think it doesn't quite fit in these categories,
[2:56:26] but it does add to the revenue stream facility.
[2:56:30] Yeah, I measure why I can now enter the album. It was one of the goals that was listed and
[2:56:34] is on my radar and it's near and dear to my heart.
[2:56:36] Yeah. So I think we don't want to forget that either because we do, we do not just want
[2:56:40] to rely on the tax revenue. We want businesses and maybe we expand the culinary center
[2:56:45] or we build an, I mean, I've been advocating for another incubator for a long time. I think
[2:56:49] we could do that and there's a lot of empty retail. It would be a great incubator location.
[2:56:53] So I just think that's that kind of thinking and investment if there's some incentives we need
[2:56:57] to do to get the folks, some of that behind us. To start that, I think that would be worth adding
[2:57:01] to my list of five now. Thank you.
[2:57:03] If we can make it happen, we will.
[2:57:06] All right, that's all you need it, right?
[2:57:07] There's no motion.
[2:57:08] There's no motion.
[2:57:09] There's no motion.
[2:57:09] There's no motion.
[2:57:10] All right.
[2:57:11] Thank you.
[2:57:15] Now item 15, changing council meeting schedule.
[2:57:19] Yes, we've been able to consolidate meetings in April, and I can ask to cancel the April
[2:57:24] 6 meeting into the council's purview, so we appreciate your support on that.
[2:57:29] I needed that to do the thing we just continued.
[2:57:34] You didn't continue it, you rejected all the time.
[2:57:37] I don't want to be ready.
[2:57:38] I don't want to be ready.
[2:57:42] I want you to one more time.
[2:57:44] Because that was the most important thing we could have another variation.
[2:57:48] Stop it.
[2:57:50] OK, so any comments on with regards to canceling April 6 meeting from public?
[2:57:57] It's seen on.
[2:57:57] All of make a motion.
[2:57:58] We cancel it, maybe.
[2:57:59] OK.
[2:58:00] Second.
[2:58:01] Second, all those papers in fine scene I.
[2:58:03] Hi.
[2:58:05] Motion carries.
[2:58:06] I forgot to vote.
[2:58:07] All right.
[2:58:08] All right.
[2:58:10] We'll go to city manager comments.
[2:58:12] Yes.
[2:58:12] Thank you, Mayor and council.
[2:58:14] We've got a planning commission meeting coming up next week.
[2:58:17] And then we have the community eastern luncheon.
[2:58:19] So I know they're looking for some volunteers.
[2:58:21] But I love making this statement that Amy says there's no reason to be alone.
[2:58:25] So come on out.
[2:58:26] Be part of the eastern luncheon on Sunday April 5th.
[2:58:28] And they are looking for volunteers, if you want to step up in that way.
[2:58:32] The battle turned back to you, Mayor.
[2:58:36] This is City Council Comments, Councilmember Banschman.
[2:58:38] I just have, I guess, really just kind of a question on what Mr. Wilson presented earlier about
[2:58:43] the flag policy.
[2:58:44] And then the picture provided, it's said, by Miss Winkle's military flags that are around
[2:58:49] the K-9.
[2:58:50] Did we remove those flags or what's the deal there?
[2:58:53] No, our current flag policy does not allow for any flags.
[2:58:57] but the U.S. flag, the California flag, and the city flag.
[2:59:01] So those flags, they're still there, are on city property,
[2:59:05] but we're not called out in the policy.
[2:59:07] So we're working on adjusting that.
[2:59:08] If I remember, right, there was in this part of the heroes,
[2:59:11] dog, being that they did a presentation on in order to,
[2:59:15] and I think they paid for all the funding and everything,
[2:59:17] as part of the do the veterans, as we did that,
[2:59:19] that particular thing.
[2:59:22] So we did clean it up a little bit.
[2:59:24] Make sure we're in a good spot.
[2:59:25] All right.
[2:59:26] That's all I got.
[2:59:27] Councilmember Bessinger.
[2:59:30] We got some very good news.
[2:59:32] We had applied for an exemption for the innovative clean transit vehicle requirement that would make
[2:59:42] we had to approach the electric vehicles.
[2:59:47] Carb gave us a one-year extension.
[2:59:51] I'm sure that was done with gridded teeth.
[2:59:53] Extension or Exemption.
[2:59:57] Exemption.
[2:59:57] OK.
[3:00:00] I'm sure, like I said, I'm sure it was done with gritted teeth. We had a lot of help Senator Groves set us up with the card director who resigned two weeks later.
[3:00:13] There was no connection, I'm sure. I'm sure she was at the end of the fund. But this is a big deal. This in conjunction with the work that the federal government is doing to push back on the electric vehicle.
[3:00:29] mandates and our heavy duty vehicle mandates that had been coming down.
[3:00:37] I think this is a step in the right direction.
[3:00:39] It was a really good job by Amy.
[3:00:43] Amy, we've had fan letters from other people who want to,
[3:00:48] they want our letters so that they can copy it, right?
[3:00:53] So they were more than happy to have us go to the front of the line and take the hits.
[3:00:57] And now everybody loves a victor.
[3:01:02] That's all I have.
[3:01:05] Can I ask for an Ashbick?
[3:01:07] Just a couple of items.
[3:01:10] It was a nice, bad ceremony for close fire last week.
[3:01:15] I think there might be a future chief in that crowd.
[3:01:17] That was the most impressive group of young men.
[3:01:20] I think they're always impressive.
[3:01:22] But there was something about those folks because they were lateral transfers.
[3:01:25] They were a little bit.
[3:01:26] Anyway, it was super impressive, and they all spoke with such pride, so that was great to see.
[3:01:34] Okay, I have three things, well, two things that are silly, but one is litter.
[3:01:38] Okay, I'm back to litter.
[3:01:39] I send Andy a picture yesterday, so I walked from Lola Vista Parkway to Gettysburg, along to Wolf.
[3:01:46] That isn't even a block.
[3:01:49] And I picked up an entire bag of trash.
[3:01:50] Just someone said, you picked it up, and I did say, took a bag.
[3:01:53] So I don't know, I don't know how we've ever managed it.
[3:01:56] I'm reminded of the Taco Bell at Sean Armstrong when it went in
[3:02:00] and Clovis High kids went there for lunch,
[3:02:02] and through trash everywhere and all of that.
[3:02:04] And somehow we managed to figure that out.
[3:02:06] But there's something, it's out of control.
[3:02:09] So whether it's care for Clovis signs, pick up litter signs,
[3:02:14] you're on camera, I'm taking your picture signs,
[3:02:16] but it really is, it is terrible.
[3:02:18] And there's no trash cans.
[3:02:19] So there really is an option except to throw them
[3:02:21] around a few were so inclined.
[3:02:23] So, I just think we got to figure that out,
[3:02:25] because that community has a chance to start out nice
[3:02:27] and clean and fresh, but Dutch brothers and McDonald's
[3:02:31] are the two worst offenders.
[3:02:33] All of the trash is that, all of it.
[3:02:36] And I know that's a thing, but I don't know.
[3:02:37] It just, it really is, it is shocking to see.
[3:02:41] So I don't know if there's something we can do.
[3:02:43] I don't, I don't blame it on the kids at close east,
[3:02:45] but just the neighborhood, people need to take care
[3:02:47] of their neighborhood, that's part of it.
[3:02:48] So I just want to kind of continue to rant about that.
[3:02:51] Um, I want to give a shout out to Judith Prus, um, she was the let's, let's talk
[3:02:57] Clovis speaker last week and if you, uh, I learned so much from her in 35 minutes,
[3:03:03] but she talked about the quarry that was on Clovis Avenue between 3rd and 4th, that
[3:03:09] was sort of the, uh, cousin to the Academy quarry, Italian, stone, what do they call stone?
[3:03:18] Stone mations?
[3:03:20] And they were mostly Italian, including her own ancestors.
[3:03:24] But she just talked about how that grew and grow and on
[3:03:27] Pulaski between 7th and 8th was the Italian block of
[3:03:31] Pulaski.
[3:03:32] And she talked about what that was like growing up there.
[3:03:35] And she talked about Mrs. Sparza and Apologize for the
[3:03:39] Mrs. Boldini, I'm not sure the name.
[3:03:41] And they would have animated conversations over the fence
[3:03:43] in their native languages, not speaking a word of English.
[3:03:47] All that's to say, it speaks to why Clovis is unique and if we lose that, as I say, every single time, I just think we will forget why that's how we started.
[3:04:00] So it was a wonderful story.
[3:04:02] I'd never heard that the Academy Corps and all that.
[3:04:05] So it was really great, but it brought me back to historical markers in Old Town.
[3:04:10] I know we talked about that.
[3:04:11] I don't know where that historical preservation work all went, but I really think we could invest in markers in Old Town.
[3:04:17] like who knew that Polasky between 7th and 8th was the Italian block in the 40s and she taught.
[3:04:23] I mean, I was overwhelmed with kind of emotion-lessing your story, but I think we're not going to have many years left with people that can tell those stories.
[3:04:33] That grew up on Polasky between 7th and 8th, Mr. Trevino, where you grew up.
[3:04:37] I mean, we're not getting any younger, so I do think we need to try to work on capturing some kind of historical markers with boot maybe or with the historical society.
[3:04:45] But it was such a powerful story that it was sort of the counterparts in Mississippi Cata and her
[3:04:50] Seat neighbor when she was went to the internment camp right there all sprinkled in our history and most people don't know that
[3:04:56] So anyway, I just want to give her a shout out for that. It was really a wonderful wonderful evening
[3:05:00] It was great to hear so anyway if we can put the historical preservation and idea back on the list and historical markers would be great
[3:05:07] Even if we had to do fundraising to pay for the markers
[3:05:10] I don't know who paid for the trail markers
[3:05:12] I don't like them necessarily, but
[3:05:17] So I think we could start a citizen's campaign to tell the old town story because it is extraordinary and most people don't know.
[3:05:26] Anyway, that's all.
[3:05:28] Thank you.
[3:05:28] Mayor Patent Pierce.
[3:05:29] I don't have anything.
[3:05:32] All right.
[3:05:32] I want to report that on Saturday morning.
[3:05:35] Thank you to Rosino.
[3:05:39] What's his lieutenant?
[3:05:42] and rosin, okay, sorry, and there was the gentleman with him
[3:05:47] the officer with my forgot his name, and then
[3:05:49] customer ambassador, and I went to the flag retirement, and they
[3:05:52] retired 5,950 flags, and so that's amazing.
[3:05:57] Thank you to the VFW, and the American Legion for putting that on.
[3:06:03] Went to Manolia, crossing eight years ago, they opened up, and they are
[3:06:11] 100% full with the weight list and so that was Andy I think you were major part of getting them all the funding and it was a
[3:06:19] Ponding basin that we allowed them or kind of worked it all out and so yeah, so they're looking for to expand because they're they're full
[3:06:27] They serve a medicale all the way to private pay of just assisted living and so that's it's wonderful success story there
[3:06:34] Went to the workforce, graduation of EMTs.
[3:06:40] This is the first cohort, and one of our firefighters had an up, he was a mentor to them.
[3:06:48] He forgot his name, but he just saw the young man, I was thinking through church and
[3:06:54] just said, you should go to this, it's paid for, and he went through, and he was just so
[3:06:58] grateful and it was good to hear their story, and they graduated about 20, they have funding
[3:07:04] for three cohorts, and so that's through workforce connection.
[3:07:09] So thank you for that.
[3:07:11] And then I agree with Lynn with the Garcid Lighthouse,
[3:07:13] Councilman of Bessenger was also there.
[3:07:15] We saw them in this morning.
[3:07:17] Was the in-service for Engine 41?
[3:07:20] Put it back on with the new crew and get to see that.
[3:07:24] And I just wanted to announce everyone
[3:07:26] tomorrow, Commander LeBretto.
[3:07:29] I think he's with the American Legion.
[3:07:33] He's going to retire and he's going to move to Michigan at the end of the month that wanted to bring him in here to recognize him for all his work, but we don't have any more meaning.
[3:07:42] So I'm just going to go tomorrow just to recognize him, but if you see him, if you know him, he's been a commander of the American Legion for a while.
[3:07:50] Just an excellent work and they're recognizing him tomorrow. So it's one of like everyone.
[3:07:55] Yeah. So that's all I have. And we are adjourned at 83.
[3:08:01] Thank you.
[3:08:02] Thank you very much.
[3:08:06] I will come.
[3:08:07] I will come.
[3:08:07] I will come.
[3:08:08] Who?