Agenda packet — Hanford City Council, April 18, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

City Council Meeting
Agenda
April 18, 2023
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

Council Members will meet in-person in the Council
Chambers. The meeting will also be lived streamed on the City’s website: http://livestream.hanford.city/
5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Study Sessions are considered Special Meetings under the Bown Act. Accordingly, comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). Public Comment will be accepted during each agenda item. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

STUDY SESSION:

A. Presentation of the Council-Approved Goals for the Fiscal Years 24 & 25 and discussion regarding measurable objectives for the Goal of Outreach and Open Governance for FY 23/24.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8):

Property: 113 Court Street
APN: 010-264-002, 010-265-002, 010-265-001
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez and Ty Mizote
Negotiating Party: Michelle Brown and Bill Lynch for Main Street Hanford B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8):

Page 1 of 228 ends

Property: 504 W. 7th Street
APN: 012-062-012
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez and Ty Mizote
Negotiating Party: Angie Dow for KCAPTA
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Jay Rubalcava
FLAG SALUTE:

RECOGNITION:

Oath of Office and Badge Pinning Ceremony for Officer Cristian Jimenez.

COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:

Brief information-only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters within the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

A. Procedural Waiver: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the March 7, 2023 Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the March 21, 2023 Meeting D. Public Works: Authorization to transfer and appropriate $67,000 from street sweeping fleet reserves to the Refuse Fund to cover the increased cost of a previously approved refuse truck purchase for a total of $374,067.

E. Public Works: Authorization to enter into an agreement with Kings County Water District to utilize the 1600 acre farm owned by the City of Hanford's Wastewater fund to be used to lay off water from local ditches. Expected timeframe is through August 2023.

F. Public Works: Authorization to enter into a lease agreement for the City's 1600 acre farmland with Philip Verway Farms. This is a five year lease, renewable for an additional five years on mutually agreeable terms.

G. Police: Approval of the Annual Hanford Police Department Military Equipment Report and authorization for the Department to move forward with the replacement of the Scout

Page 2 of 228 ends

Recon Camera system.

H. Finance: Authorization to award a three-year agreement to Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott LLP Certified Public Accountants, for a total amount of $245,325, as the City's independent financial auditor, to perform the annual financial auditing and accounting services associated with an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report of the City of Hanford for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2023; 2024; 2025; with option to renew for two additional years; and Authorization for the City Manager to execute all related documents.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Community Development: Historic Resources Permit 2022-02, a request to replace the porch and balcony of the Kings Hand Laundry building. The property is designated as a contributing building within the Historic Overlay Zone. The project is located at 214 N.

Green St. (APN 010-274-020)
B. Community Development: Council consideration and approval of the Hanford Area Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update (Phase I) and Adoption of Resolution 23-07-R, directing staff to file an application with Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for a request to expand the City’s Sphere of Influence
C. Community Development: Authorization to award a contract to QK, Inc, for an amount not to exceed $94,840 and appropriation of said funding in the General Fund to provide planning and environmental services for the Hanford Reorganization Project, consisting of annexations, general plan amendments, zone changes, pre-zonings, and the accompanying environmental documents.

COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:

April 21:Western Hoedown Date Night Mother/Son Civic at the Civic Auditorium 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm Get tickets here
April 22:Western Hoedown Date Night Father/Daughter at the Civic Auditorium 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm Get tickets here
May 2: Regular City Council Meeting
May 6: Food Truck Take Over in Civic Park 5:30 pm - 9:00 pm May 10: City/County Coordinating 6:00 p.m. Meeting Hosted by the City of Hanford, Location: TBD, 6:00 p.m.

May 16: Regular City Council Meeting
ADJOURNMENT:

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, during normal business hours. Such agendas are also available at the city’s website, www.cityofhanfordca.com subject to staff’s

Page 3 of 228 ends

ability to post the agenda before the meeting.

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office, 559-585-2515, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, at least 2 days prior to the meeting {28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II}

Page 4 of 228 ends

4.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/18/2023 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION
SUBJECT:

Presentation of the Council-Approved Goals for the Fiscal Years 24 & 25 and discussion regarding measurable objectives for the Goal of Outreach and Open Governance for FY 23/24.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council receive the presentation on the established goals and arrive at a consensus on the measurable objectives in furtherance of the Council goal of Outreach and Open Governance for FY 23/24.

BACKGROUND:

During March 22, 20232, Goals and Objectives meeting, Council approved the following five (5) new goals:

Quality of Life Goal
The City of Hanford will be a leader in the coordination of resources and pursuit of new opportunities to enhance the health, safety, and individual rights of all.

Fiscal Sustainability Goal
The City of Hanford will explore funding mechanisms to meet evolving community needs.

Outreach and Open Governance Goal
The community will be kept informed of current, future and emerging city matters through a wellaligned and multi-faceted system of public communications.

Customer Service Goal
All parties interacting with the City of Hanford at all levels shall experience professional, efficient, and effective customer service.

Employer of Choice Goal
The City of Hanford will strive to focus on recruitment and retention of the best and the brightest.

Goal Objectives
In small groups, the Council and Staff discussed each new goal and identified the impact that each goal would have on the community; what success indicators would look like; six-month objectives for each goal that would move the needle towards success; and potential resources needed to implement the chosen objectives. Given that the City has recently rolled out the new

Page 5 of 228 ends

website, the City's new domain name for the website and email, staff felt that it would be timely to have the first goal to be reviewed by the Council to be that of Outreach and Open Governance.

Goal: Outreach and Open Governance
Impact
• Better informed citizens and employees
• Increased public participation
• Increased public trust
Success Indicators
• Continued growth in Civic Courier subscriptions
• Positive feedback, fewer complaints about City website • Continued growth in Civic Plus "Notify Me" subscriptions • Increase in public engagement on City social media platforms • Positive public engagement on City social media platforms • High rate of participation in public surveys
• Higher level of employee satisfaction, appreciation
Resources Needed
• Staff time
• City Council input and direction
Now Objectives
• Maximize existing City communication tools to the fullest extent possible • Adopt and implement City of Hanford Media Relations Policy • Utilization of new social media platforms, including Nextdoor • Launch Civic Plus "Notify Me" and build subscription base Soon Objectives
• Increase use of internal and public surveys, including Annual Citizen Public Opinion Survey • Adopt and implement City of Hanford Social Media Policy • Adopt and implement Website Governance Policy
• Produce videos to inform, educate and showcase City initiatives and employees Later Objectives
• Rebranding rollout
• Intranet rollout
During this study session, Staff will seek input from Council and determine if there is a consensus to move forward with any of the recommended objectives or to substitute or add any Councilsupported objectives.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

None

Page 6 of 228 ends

Page 7 of 228 ends

13.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/18/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of the Minutes of the March 7, 2023 Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the March 7, 2023 meeting.

BACKGROUND:

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. March 7, 2023

Page 8 of 228 ends

City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
March 7, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

Mayor Paden called the study session and closed session to order at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

Present: Absent:

Council Member Mark Kairis
Council Member Lou Martinez
Council Member Travis Paden
Council Member Kalish Morrow
Council Member Diane Sharp
PUBLIC COMMENT:

Study Sessions are considered Special Meetings under the Brown Act. Accordingly, comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). Public Comment will be accepted during each agenda item. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

Study Session Item B:

Bob Ramos suggested allocating funds for a senior center.

STUDY SESSION:

A. Parks and Community Services: Presentation to Council on the status of funding in the Various Landscape Assessment Districts (LAD's); levels of service options for the LAD's; other types of funding mechanisms for subdivision improvements; and the ability and process for residents to request additional amenities or improvements.

Parks and Community Services Director Brad Albert and Wildan Financial Senior Project Manager, Jim McGuire discussed funding in the various LAD, levels of service options and other types of funding mechanisms for improvements.

Dir. Albert also discussed community outreach and the strategies moving forward. Mr. McGuire, Dir. Albert and City Manager Cifuentez answered questions from the Council. The presentation was for informational purposes only. No action was taken.

B. Community Development: Council review and Discussion of the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Activity Funding for the 2023-2024 CDBG Cycle and

Page 9 of 228 ends

Provide Direction to Staff to Prepare the Annual Action Plan for HUD Housing Analyst Sandra Lerma presented an overview of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Activity Funding for the Council's review and direction. Ms. Lerma also discussed priority needs, recommended preliminary allocations and the next steps and timeline in the process. Deputy City Manger Waters and City Manager Cifuentez discussed a potential navigation center project. Staff answered questions from the Council and after much discussion, the Council directed staff to move forward with the presented recommendations.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:57 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (GC 54956.9 (d)(2)):
2 Workers Compensation Claims
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (GC 54956.9)(d)(1)):

Ortiz v. City of Hanford
Kings County Superior Court 21C0396
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

Mayor Paden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Absent:

Council Member Mark Kairis
Council Member Lou Martinez
Council Member Travis Paden
Council Member Kalish Morrow
Council Member Diane Sharp
INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Chief Sever.

FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Council Member Sharp.

RECOGNITION:

Oath of Office and Badge Pinning Ceremony for Officer Robert Parker, Officer Wayne Shoemake, and Officer Manuel Pasillas; Presentation of Life Saving Medals to Officer Fabian Avalos and Officer Idalis Rubalcava City Clerk Natalie Corral administered the oath to Police Officers Robert Parker, Wayne Shoemake, and Mauel Pasillas. Chief Server presented Life Saving Medals to Officers Fabian Avalos and Idalis Chandler.

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

None.

COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:

Brief information-only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).

The Council discussed the meetings and events they attended. The Mayor and Vice Mayor provided an overview of

Page 10 of 228 ends

the community meeting held on March 28, 2023 in the City Hall training room.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Noor Memon commented on the Bastille, he knows people who are interested in buying the property.

William Ochoa spoke in opposition to the traffic circle project. He also commented on a news article.

Susan Davis commented on the traffic circle project, and spoke in opposition.

Bob Ramos stated he was disappointed in Council Member Morrow's comments regarding the traffic circle project.

He also commented on the meeting held on Tuesday March 28, 2023.

Brian Yoosh expressed his concerns about the traffic circle project and pedestrian safety.

Jim Nelson expressed his concerns about Council Member Morrow's comments on social media about the traffic circle project.

Onan Champi commented on Annextion 160, part 4, and provided a background of the expansion of his business.

Anna Brookeshire suggested using the traffic circle project funds for storm drains.

Nick Wagner commented on the Stardust Motel and the transition homes in the County.

Michael Portugal commented on the Exeter roundabouts and expressed his concerns about putting one in Hanford.

He also commented on the annexation.

Chris Jordan commented on the traffic circle project, and the downtown meeting hosted by the Mayor and Vice Mayor. He also expressed his concerns regarding the number of people who are opposed to the traffic circle project.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Council Member Martinez pulled items E and H. Motion to approve the consent calendar except for the item pulled for separate discussion.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Council Member Diane Sharp
Council Member Mark Kairis
Diane Sharp, Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden, Lou Martinez A. Procedural Waiver: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the January 17, 2023 Meeting C. City Clerk: Appointment of Garry Curtis to the vacant Alternate Planning Commissioner seat with an unexpired term ending on 12/31/2025.

D. City Attorney: Approval of a Compromise Agreement and Release with Luis D. Ortiz Alonzo

Page 11 of 228 ends

E. Public Works: Acceptance of the Offers of Dedication for Tract 922, Unit 1, Authorization for the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file the Acceptance of Dedication for Tract No. 922, Unit 1 with the Kings County Recorder’s Office.

F. Public Works: Authorization to Award a contract to Aramark Uniform Services (Fresno, CA) to provide uniform and laundry services, initially up to $21,200 annually per specifications of Request for Bid No. 2023-04 for up to three years.

PULLED CONSENT ITEMS:

A. Fire: Authorization to accept a FEMA 2021 Assistance for Firefighters Grant for $45,525 for the purchase of firefighting personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate an additional $20,078 to the Fire Department's capital outlay in the General Fund to cover the purchase.
[Item H]
Pulled by Council Member Martinez.

Chief Pendergrass presented the item for the Council's review and approval.

Motion to Approve
RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Council Member Lou Martinez
Council Member Kalish Morrow
Diane Sharp, Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden, Lou Martinez B. Community Development: Waive and adopt the 2nd Reading of Ordinance 23-02, approving Prezone No. 2021-09, a request to prezone Annexation 160 Part 4 as a combination of R-L-5 Low-Density Residential and MX-C Corridor Mixed Use, in accordance with the General Plan designation for the area, Low-Density Residential and Corridor Mixed Use. The project is generally located east of 10th Avenue, south of Florinda Street, and north of Lacey Boulevard.
[tem E]
Council Member Sharp pulled the item to recuse herself.

Motion to Approve
RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

Passed
Council Member Kalish Morrow
Council Member Mark Kairis
Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden
Lou Martinez
Diane Sharp
GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Fire: Presentation to Council for direction regarding the 2022 Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response Grants (SAFER) program, review of the proposal by the Hanford Fire Department to utilize potentially over $2 million in funding to hire more firefighters and reduce the overtime costs to the City's General Fund

Page 12 of 228 ends

Fire Chief Steve Pendergrass discussed the SAFER program and the proposal for the Council's review and direction.

Staff answered questions from the Council. After a brief discussion, Council Member Morrow made the motion to approve.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Council Member Kalish Morrow
Council Member Mark Kairis
Diane Sharp, Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden, Lou Martinez COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS::

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)
A. Council Future Agenda Items
Vice Mayor Kairis addressed the comments about the traffic circle project and the comments. Council Member Morrow addressed the comments directed at her during public comment. Council Member Martinez commented on the public comment time limit. The Mayor announced that the downtown meeting presentation would be available at the City Clerk's office.

B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:

March 11: Helping Hands Volunteer Program - Encore Park 465 E. Encore Dr. 8:00 amNoon Sign up here March 21: Regular City Council Meeting
April 1: Run Walk & Roll 5k for Autism Awareness Civic Park Register here ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Paden adjourned the meeting at 8:39 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Natalie Corral
Natalie Corral, City Clerk

Page 13 of 228 ends

13.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/18/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of the Minutes of the March 21, 2023 Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the March 21, 2023 meeting.

BACKGROUND:

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. March 21, 2023

Page 14 of 228 ends

City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
March 21, 2023 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION:

Mayor Paden called the study session and closed session to order at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

Present: Absent:

Council Member Travis Paden
Council Member Diane Sharp
Council Member Kalish Morrow - LATE
Council Member Lou Martinez
Council Member Mark Kairis
PUBLIC COMMENT:

Study Session Item C:

Mark Evans addressed his violation notice he received from the city, and he stated that the concrete in his driveway was permitted to be added and his basketball hoop is not in the right of way.

Dave Duram addressed the violation notice he received from the city. He requested the Council to consider allowing basketball hoops in the right of way.

STUDY SESSION:

A. City Clerk: Recognition of Employees of the Year and Service Award Recipients Chief Parker Server and Payroll Analyst Penny Suphin received a 25-year service award, and Firefighter Tom McKean received a 20-year service award.

B. Finance: Review of the FY 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget and Council Approval of an additional Appropriation of $936,962 in the GF and $5,408,780 across all other funds for the 2022-23 Fiscal Year Budget
Finance Director Chris Tavarez and Finance Manager Destiny Borba presented the Mid- Year budget and additional appropriations for the Council's review and approval. The Council thanked the staff for the presentation and report. Mr.

Page 15 of 228 ends

Tavarez addressed questions and concerns from the Council.

Motion to Approve
RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Council Member Diane Sharp
Council Member Mark Kairis
Diane Sharp, Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden, Lou Martinez C. Community Development: Discussion regarding Title 12 “Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places” of the City’s Municipal code and City Policies for Encroachment and Uses and Obligations of property owners within the City’s Right-of-Way Deputy City Manager Jason Waters discussed Municipal code Title 12 streets, Sidewalks and public places, Right of way violations, for the Council's review. City Attorney Ty Mizote, elaborated on the sidewalk right of way and answered questions from the Council. Code Enforcement Supervisor, Gavino Barrera discussed the violation citation process. Staff addressed the basketball hoop concerns expressed during public comment and answered questions from the Council.

City Attorney Mizote discussed the potential liability to the city for permitting basketball hoops in the streets. After much discussion, the Council directed staff to bring back future discussion regarding a possible permitting system, or other solutions.

The Mayor adjourned the study and closed the session at 5:28 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

Mayor Paden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Absent:

Council Member Travis Paden
Council Member Diane Sharp
Council Member Kalish Morrow
Council Member Lou Martinez
Council Member Mark Kairis
INVOCATION:

The invocation was led by Pastor John Malogi.

FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Officer Mark Carillo.

COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:

Brief information-only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).

Chief Parker Server presented Officer Carillo with a 20-year service award.

The Council discussed the meetings and events they attended. Mayor Paden also discussed the notifications he continually receives from city residents, and thanked the staff for their response to those calls and concerns.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Page 16 of 228 ends

Bob Ramos commented on an article regarding visual impaired individuals crossing on roundabouts. He also commented on the Downtown Committee, and questioned the timeline of the traffic circle project.

Michael Cook commented on traffic circles and expressed his concerns regarding blind people crossing a traffic circle. He also commented on the bathrooms at Hidden Valley Park.

Amory Marple requested adding a discussion of creating a subcommittee for the Hanford Chamber of Commerce to a future agenda.

Shelly Barker expressed her concerns about the fee of a citation she received. City Manager Cifuentez responded to her comment.

A man, who did not state his name, expressed his concerns about the homeless people in the parks. He also commented on the safety of blind people crossing traffic circles.

Lavarse Carter commented on the warming centers and expressed his concerns regarding the safety of homeless people, and he asked, what is the Council doing to help the homeless people.

Michelle Brown commented on the Main Street Hanford contract. She also listed the events and services they provide to the community.

Craig Johnson provided the Council with a handout and commented on the Main Street Hanford Events. He also commented on his experience diving on roundabouts.

Micheal Quinn commented on his drive around the city and questioned the plans for the vacant lots in the city. He also commented on the traffic circle project.

Kimber Regan commented on the traffic circle project. She also expressed her concerns about the businesses that will be affected by the construction of the traffic circle. She also commented on the homeless people downtown.

Kristy Kairis expressed her dissatisfaction with the amount of opposition associated with the traffic circle project.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Motion to approve.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Council Member Mark Kairis
Council Member Diane Sharp
Diane Sharp, Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden, Lou Martinez A. Procedural Waiver: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the January 30, 2023 Special Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the January 31, 2023 Special Meeting D. City Clerk: Appointment of James Nelson to the Parking and Traffic Commissioner Alternate seat with a term ending on 12/31/2026, Sheldon Blackwell to the Parks and Recreation Commissioner seat with an unexpired term ending on 12/31/2024, and Judy Scott to the Parks and Recreation Commission Alternate Commissioner seat with a term ending on12/31/2026.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Page 17 of 228 ends

A. Administration: Council review of the Central Parking and Business Improvement District, the Municipal Code related to the formation and oversight of the District, the transaction history for the restricted fund (025) and direction to staff regarding the renewal of the Agreement with Main Street Hanford for the delivery of services with proceeds from Downtown Assessments.

City Manager Cifuentez provided the background of the contract with Main Street Hanford. He also provided an overview of the Central Parking and Business Improvement Area, which is referred to as the Business Improvement District (BID).

Mr. Cifuentez recommended creating a sub committee. After a brief discussion, Vice Mayor Kairis recommended appointing Council members Martinez and Morrow to serve on the sub-committee.

Motion to Approve
RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

Passed (UNANIMOUS)
Council Member Mark Kairis
Council Member Diane Sharp
Diane Sharp, Mark Kairis, Kalish Morrow, Travis Paden, Lou Martinez COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS::

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)
A. Council Future Agenda Items
Council Member Sharp discussed some of her concerns about the downtown BID. She also addressed Amory's request for a subcommittee committee for Hanford Chamber of Commerce to potentially explore a new arrangement. After a brief discussion, the Council directed staff to bring back a future agenda item.

Mr. Kairs discussed the city's ARPA funds and addressed the comments made regarding the traffic circle project.

B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:

March 22: Special City Council Meeting in the City Hall Training Room 9:00 am - 4:00 pm
March 25: Free Fitness Court classes (Every Saturday from 9-10 am, Hidden Valley Park)
March 30: City Employee Appreciation Luncheon in Civic Park 11:00 am -2:00 pm April 1: Run Walk & Roll 5k for Autism Awareness Civic Park Register here April 1: Food Truck Take Over in Civic Park 5:30 pm - 9:30 pm April 4: Regular City Council Meeting
April 15: Walk with a Doc (third Saturday of each month, 9-10 am, rotating between Freedom and Centennial parks)
ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Paden adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Natalie Corral
Natalie Corral, City Clerk

Page 18 of 228 ends

13.E.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/18/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Authorization to enter into an agreement with Kings County Water District to utilize the 1600 acre farm owned by the City of Hanford's Wastewater fund to be used to lay off water from local ditches.

Expected timeframe is through August 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: It is recommended that Council, by motion, authorize KCWD or other entity to utilize the City's 1600 acre farm site to lay off water through approximately August.

Recommended Motion: I move to authorize City Manager to enter into an agreement to utilize the City's 1600 acre farm site to lay off water from nearby canals through approximately August 2023 and to enter into an agreement with individuals willing to chop the weeds for use as a feedstock, followed by disking at minimal or no cost to City.

BACKGROUND:

The city's wastewater operation owns a 1600 acre parcel of farmland generally located at 14th Ave and Laurel Ave. In the past, the property has been leased to various farm interests, most recently City Farms Industries (CFI). CFI recently abandoned the lease. The property is now fallow and weeds have overtaken the property.

In late March, the city was contacted by Dennis Mills from Kings County Water District, and was asked if the City would be willing to allow KCWD to utilize the property to lay off water from nearby canals. The plan being to flood the property with between 800 and 3200 acre feet of water to lessen the volume going to the Tulare Lake bottom. At that time, the City expressed a willingness to allow the action but Council approval is needed.

Recent communications from KCWD continue to show an interest in the project, but the urgency has diminished somewhat due to the fact that the property is outside of the District's boundaries.

Nonetheless, KCWD is pursuing state and federal funding to move forward with the project. There is no information on the timing such funding might be available.

In the meantime,the weeds on the property need to be dealt with. According to KCWD, they are aware of dairymen who might be willing to chop the weeds to use as cattle feed, and afterwards, disk the property at no cost to City.

It should be noted that at a previous Council meeting, Council authorized spending money to get the weeds disked and the cost proposals were on the order of $30,000. Upon Council approval, staff will

Page 19 of 228 ends

pursue this potentially cost-free option of addressing the weeds.

An RFP was issued for leasing of the subject property. The RFP stated that the property would be used for water lay off and would not be available until fall 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact to general fund. Potentially positive impact to wastewater fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

Page 20 of 228 ends

13.F.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/18/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Authorization to enter into a lease agreement for the City's 1600 acre farmland with Philip Verway Farms. This is a five year lease, renewable for an additional five years on mutually agreeable terms.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: It is recommended that Council, by motion, authorize City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with Philip Verway Farms for the lease of the City's 1600 acre farm property.

Recommended Motion: I move to authorize City Manager to enter into a five-year lease agreement with Philip Verway Farms for the lease of the City's 1600 acre farmland.

BACKGROUND:

The City owns approximately 1600 acres of farmland located on 14th Avenue and Laurel Avenue that was purchased with the sole intent of being the long term solution to disposal of wastewater effluent generated at the Wastewater Treatment Plant ("WWTP"). Though the preferred disposal option continues to be discharge to Lakeside Irrigation District facilities, the 1600 acre site offers a secondary disposal site should it become necessary. To do so, a piping system would need to be installed to transport the effluent the approximately 8 miles to the approved farmland for discharge.

Recently, the land lessee abandoned the property and City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a new lessee. Two proposals were received. The table below summarizes to proposals.

Gross Rent /
year
Property tax
paid by City
Work in lieu of
rent
Net income to
City /year
5 year total rent
Philip Verway
Farms
$101 /acre $46,908.51 $69,000 /year
(wells)
$45,692 $228,460
Lawerance
Dairy
$60 /acre $46,908.51 Well rehab &
scraping (at
cost TBD)
$0, until cost of
maintenance
recovered
Unknown
Evaluation of the two proposals shows that the Verway proposal is more favorable to City. This is due to:

Page 21 of 228 ends

• Higher per acre rent payment
• immediate net income to City
• Development of two well sites
The lease is structured as a five year lease that is renewable for an additional five year term upon mutually agreeable terms. The Verway proposal is structured so that each year, 10% of the well development cost is credited to the lessee. After 10 years, the $69,000 per year equipment cost is paid in full. If the lease is not renewed after 5 years, City would reimburse Verway $345,000 for the unused 5 year life of the wells.

FISCAL IMPACT:

All funds associated with this lease are credited to the wastewater fund. No general fund impact.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Verway proposal

2. Lawrence proposal

Page 22 of 228 ends

Page 23 of 228 ends

Page 24 of 228 ends

Page 25 of 228 ends

Page 26 of 228 ends

13.G.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/18/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of the Annual Hanford Police Department Military Equipment Report and authorization for the Department to move forward with the replacement of the Scout Recon Camera system.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, approve the Hanford Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report and the replacement of the Scout Recon Camera system.

BACKGROUND:

On September 30, 2021, Assembly Bill 481, relating to the use of military equipment was signed into law. AB 481:

1. Requires the police department to report the following to council annually:
a. Description of each type of military equipment.
b. Purpose and authorized use of said equipment.
c. The fiscal impact of each type of equipment.
d. Legal and procedural rules that govern its use.
e. Training that is required for its use.
f. The mechanism to ensure compliance.
g. Complaint procedure.
h. Post policy of department website.
i. A summary of any complaints received.
j. The amount in possession of each piece of equipment. k. If any additional equipment is to be obtained in the coming year. l. The department must conduct one public meeting within 30 days of the annual report going to council.

In accordance with the requirements of AB481, the Hanford Police Department established Policy 705, which provides a description of all military items possessed by the department, the purpose of the item, authorized use, expected life span, fiscal impact, training required, and legal and procedural rules that govern its use. Policy 705 is attached to this report as enclosure 2. This policy remains current and is on the department website. The amount in possession of each type of equipment has not changed during the 2022 year with regards to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Robots, Armored Vehicles, 40MM launchers, Less Lethal Shotguns, Rifles, and our Mobile Incident Command Vehicle.

However, the department's chemical agents, 12-guage shotgun super-sock rounds, 12-guage shotgun barricade breaching rounds, .223 ammo, .308 ammo, and diversionary devices are constantly fluctuating due to training and operational use as well as the ordering/restocking

Page 27 of 228 ends

timeframes of vendors that the city uses. Some ammo and items drop below the listed amounts but every attempt is made to keep inventories as close to the listed numbers as possible.

The complaint procedure is well established as a policy and there is a computer system in place that manages any and all citizen complaints. The department's citizen complaints are also reported to the state each year. The department has received zero complaints regarding military equipment, or its use, during the annual year 2022.

A summary of how the military equipment was used throughout the year is attached to this report in enclosure 1.

The Hanford Police Department would like to acquire a new Recon Scout Remote Camera during this fiscal year and the replacement has been included in the FY 22-23 budget. The current recon scout remote camera has been in use for well over 10 years and we have experienced issues with it while on scene in very high-risk situations. This presents safety issues for operators who rely on it to clear dangerous areas before personnel enter or to gain intelligence in areas with a potential threat.

The cost of the new robot falls within the City Manager's authority but Council must approve the replacement to comply with the requirements of AB481.

The Hanford Police Department will conduct a public community engagement meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2023, in the briefing room at the Hanford Police Department. This meeting will allow the general public to discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no annual fiscal impact on the approval of the annual military equipment report. The mentioned replacement Recon Scout Remote Camera system is a onetime cost of approximately $16,500 dollars, which will be paid out of the approved budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Enclosure 1_AB 481 Training 2022

2. Enclosure 2_Policy 705 Military_Equipment

Page 28 of 228 ends

AB 481 reporting for training in the year 2022
DATE MRAP ARV Command post GAS 40 mm launcher Robot Drone Breaching Rifle Flashbang 1/5/2022 1 1
1/19/2022 1 1 1
2/2/2022 1 1
2/16/2022 1 1 1
3/2/2022 1
3/16/2022 1 1
3/30/2022 1 1 1
4/13/2022 None used
4/27/2022 1 1 1 1
5/11/2022 1
5/25/2022 None used
6/8/2022 None used
6/22/2022 1 1 1
7/6/2022 1 1
7/20/2022 1
8/3/2022 1 1 1
8/17/2022 None used
9/7/2022 1
9/21/2022 1
10/5/2022 1 1
10/19/2022 None used
11/2/2022 1
11/16/2022 1 1
12/14/2022 1 1 1
4 14 1 1 2 6 3 6 3
Enclosure 1

Page 29 of 228 ends

AB 481 reporting for Call outs in the year 2022
DATE Location MRAP ARV Command post GAS 40 mm launcher Robot Drone Breaching Rifles Flashbang 1/13/2022 Rd 159 & Heather Ave, Ivanhoe 1 1 1
4/14/2022 Oleander Ave & Crystal Ave, Fresno 1 1 1 1 1
4/14/2022 Cattail Ct & Creek View Ln, Fresno 1 1 1 1 1
5/20/2022 Ninth St & Brown St, Hanford 1 1
6/16/2022 Cabrillo Ct & Fargo Ave, Hanford 1
6/24/2022 North Ave & Hale Ave, Corcoran 1 1
7/22/2022 18th Ave & Jackson Ave, Lemoore 1 1 1
10/29/2022 Laurel Ln & Cypress Ln, Lemoore 1 1
6 7 3 0 0 4 3 0 0 0
AB 481 reporting for Public Relations in the year 2022
DATE Location MRAP ARV Command post GAS 40 mm launcher Robot Drone Breaching Rifles Flashbang PR Chirstmas parade Hanford 1 1
PR Nationa night out Corcoran 1
PR National night out Lemoore 1
PR 5.11 photo shoot 1 1
PR Red ribbon week (Frontier) 1
PR Autisum awareness 1
PR National night out Hanford 1
PR Hanford united youth football 1
PR Stuff the swat truck 1 1
3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AB 481 reporting for Public Relations in the year 2022
Grand Totals MRAP ARV Command post GAS 40 mm launcher Robot Drone Breaching Rifles Flashbang 13 30 4 1 2 4 9 3 6 3
Enclosure 1

Page 30 of 228 ends

Policy
705
Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 1

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
705.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, use and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
705.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.

POST –Police Officers Standards and Training
Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following items or as amended in California Government Code Section 7070:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue service weapons. • Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.

Page 31 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 2
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
705.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Hanford Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. This is to be accomplished by:
(a) An annual report documenting each use of military equipment throughout the year to the Hanford City Council.
(b) A complaint procedure, for citizens to report possible misuse of military equipment by police personnel. This complaint procedure is outlined in the Hanford Police Department General Orders Manual 1020 Personnel Complaints. These complaints related to military equipment and the outcome of each complaint shall be reported to the Hanford City Council on an annual basis.
705.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of the Hanford Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

I. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

II. Preparing for public questions regarding the department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) The complaint procedure will follow the personnel complaint procedure as outlined in Section 1020 of the Hanford Police Department Policy manual. (h) Ensure publication of the annual military equipment report submitted to and approved by the Hanford City Council.

Page 32 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 3
705.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
Pursuant to California Government Code §7070, the Police Department will submit a Military Equipment Use Policy for approval to the Hanford City Council annually. 705.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 705.6 USE IN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
In exigent circumstances and with the approval of the Chief of Police or his/her designee, the Police Department may acquire, borrow and/or use Military Equipment that is not included in the Military Equipment Use Policy.

If the Police Department acquires, borrows, and/or uses Military Equipment in exigent circumstances, in accordance with this section, it must take all of the following actions:
• Provide written notice of that acquisition or use to the City Council within 30 days following the commencement of such Exigent Circumstance, unless such information is confidential or privileged under local, state or federal law. • If it is anticipated that the use will continue beyond the Exigent Circumstance, submit a proposed amended Military Equipment Use Policy to the City Council within 90 days following the borrowing, acquisition and/or use, and receive approval, as applicable, from the City Council.

Page 33 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 4
• Include the Military Equipment in the Police Department's next annual Military Equipment Report.
705.7 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by any member of this jurisdiction shall be approved for use and in accordance with this department policy. Military equipment used by other jurisdictions that are providing mutual aid to this jurisdiction shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies in rendering mutual aid.
705.8 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 705.9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
705.10 MILITARY USE EQUIPMENT
A. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
(a) Description, quantity, life span, capabilities and purchase cost.

I. DJI Mavic Air, cost:444.00, Quantity 1, 30-minute flight time, record video/ audio
II. DJI Matrice, cost: 5000.00, Quantity 1, 55-minute flight time., record video (b) Purpose
To be deployed when its view would assist officers or incident commanders with the following situations, which include but are not limited to.

I. Major crime investigations
II. Search for missing persons
III. Natural disaster management
IV. Crime scene photography

Page 34 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 5
V. SWAT, tactical or other public safety and life preservation missions VI. In response to specific requests from local, state and federal authorities for fire response and/or prevention
VII. At the request of another city department to assist with a legitimate City aerial photography needs.

VIII. Search and/or rescue operations.

IX. Public presentations with department approval
c. Authorized use
Only assigned operators who have completed and receive regular quarterly training on its use and possess a certification of waiver and authorization through the FFA (d) Expected Life Span
All UAS equipment has an expected lifespan of 5-7 years. (e) Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established under FAA regulation 14 CFR Part 107 and the Hanford Police Department UAS Policy. It is our policy that UAS equipment is to be used for official purposes and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community, pursuant to State and Federal law.

B. Robots: A remotely -controlled unmanned machine that operates on the ground, which is utilized to enhance the safety of the community and officers (a) Description, quantity, life span, capabilities and purchase cost I. Recon Scout, cost: $3000.00, Quantity 1, 30-yard range, hand-held throwable, relays video/audio
(b) Purpose
To be used to gain visual and audio data.

I. Major crime investigations
II. Search for persons
III. Natural disaster management
IV. SWAT, tactical or other public safety and life preservation missions V. In response to specific requests from local, state and federal authorities VI. Search and/or rescue operations.

VII. Public presentations with department approval.
c. Authorized use
Only assigned operators who have received training on its use and policy. (d) Expected Life Span

Page 35 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 6
All robot's equipment have an expected lifespan of 10 years or until no longer usable (e) Legal and Procedural Rules
It is our policy that all robot equipment is to be used for official purposes and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community, pursuant to State and Federal law.

C. Armored Vehicles: Commercially produced wheeled armored personnel vehicle utilized for law enforcement purposes
(a) Description, quantity, life span, capabilities, and purchase cost I. MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) Manufactured by Navistar for the U.S.

Military. Acquired for free through the DRMO process. Estimated value of $900,000.00., Quantity 1, Seats 16 personnel with an open floor plan. It is capable of stopping a wide variety of projectiles beyond what a vest or shield is capable of.

II. ARV (Armored Response Vehicle) manufactured by Supreme Corporation. Quantity 1, Cost $400,000.00, Seats 10 with an open floor plan. It is capable of stopping a wide variety of projectiles beyond what a vest or shield is capable of. (b) Purpose
To be used to respond to critical incidents and to enhance officer and community safety. To improve scene containment and stabilization, and assist in resolving critical incidents. The types of incidents these vehicles respond to are:

I. High Risk Search Warrants involving SWAT operations.

II. High Risk Search for persons
III. Natural disaster management
IV. SWAT, tactical or other public safety and life preservation missions V. In response to specific requests from local, state and federal authorities VI. Search and/or rescue operations.

VII. Approved equipment request from an outside jurisdiction related to high-risk operations
VIII. Public relations events such as national night out and other community events for people to see and understand it's use.
c. Authorized Use
The use of the armored vehicles is only authorized by the Chief of Police or SWAT commander, based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident. Armored vehicles shall only be used for deployment by officers trained in their use by the department.
(d) Expected Lifespan
Armored vehicles have a 25-year lifespan.
(e) Fiscal Impact

Page 36 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 7
Annual Maintenance costs:

I. MRAP - $5000.00
II. ARV - $15,000
(f) Training
All Drivers/Operators shall attend formalized department or other approved training in the vehicle's operation, capabilities and practical driving instruction. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules
It is our policy that all Armored Vehicles are to be used for official purposes pursuant to State and Federal law.

D. 40MM Launchers and rounds used to launch impact and gas rounds. (a) Description, quantity, life span, capabilities and purchase cost I. Defense Technologies, 40MM single shot launcher, cost $1000.00, Quantity 4. The 40MM Tactical launcher is a single shot launcher and features an expandable stock and a front grip it will fire standard 40MM rounds up to 4.8 inches in length up to 131 feet. The tactical launcher is only authorized to be used by swat personnel on approved missions and training.

II. 40MM Ferret CS or gas rounds: A less lethal rounds used to penetrate barriers such as windows, hollow core doors, wallboard, and thin plywood. Cost: $30.00, quantity 105. Upon impact the nose cone delivers a small chemical payload into a structure or vehicle. The working range is 5 feet to 120 feet from the target.

III. Spede heat CS or gas canister. Cost: $30.00, quantity 5 used in crowd control situations to with a high-volume burn that expels its gas or smoke in 20-40 seconds used to disperse large crowds, conceal tactical movements or to route a crowd.

IV. Defense technologyFlameless tri chamber gas canisters. Cost: $30.00, quantity 21.

A less lethal munition dispensed into a vehicle or residence. Due to flameless technology, it is not prone to igniting other nearby objects and starting a fire. (b) Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or to attempt to prevent the escalation of a situation to the point of using lethal force. (c) Authorized Use
Situations for use of the less lethal weapons system may include, but are not limited to:

I. High Risk Search Warrants involving SWAT operations.

II. High Risk Search for persons
III. In response to specific requests from local, state, and federal authorities IV. Approved equipment request from an outside jurisdiction related to high-risk operations

Page 37 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 8
V. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals VI. Riot/Crowd control and civil unrest incidents.

VII. To obtain a tactical advantage.

VIII. Potentially vicious animals.

IX. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
d. Expected Lifespan
40MM rounds have a 5-year life span.
(e) Fiscal Impact
Annual Maintenance costs of $1500.00, 50 rounds purchased annually. (f) Training
Sworn members utilizing 40MM less lethal chemical agents or impact rounds are trained in their use by department less lethal and chemical agents instructors. All chemical agent deployments are to be reviewed by Chemical agent instructors who have been to a 40 Hour Peace Officer Standards and Training course on chemical agent use and deployment.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules
It is our policy that all 40MM chemical, impact and gas rounds are for official law enforcement purposes and are used consistent with department orders and state/federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

E. Less Lethal Shotgun: Used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round and Royal Arms, 420 grain Copper Frangible Barricade Breaching Rounds. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost I. Remington 870 Less lethal Shotgun, Cost $1000.00 Quantity 8. The Remington 870 is used to deploy Super Sock Beanbag rounds up to an effective distance of 75 feet.

The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between the officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat and possibly preventing the deployment of lethal force options.

II. Remington 12gauge stockless shotgun for barricade breaching rounds, Cost 800.00, Qty 2. This weapon system is only utilized by the SWAT Team on approved missions and in training. It is a faster and effective means of defeating fortified locations.

III. 12-gauge super-sock beanbag round. Cost $5.00, Qty 2000 rounds. A less lethal; 2.4- inch 12-gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of shot.

Fired at a speed of 270-290 feet per second it has an effective range of between 5-75 feet. Effective range is dependent upon a variety of variables such as distance, clothing, stature, and point of impact. All less lethal shotguns firing this munition are distinguished by orange slings and orange stocks which are indicative of a less lethal weapon. All less lethal identified shotguns are never to fire live rounds other than the super sock or other approved less lethal round for any reason.

Page 38 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 9
(b) Purpose
To limit the escalation of a conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Breaching ammunition may be used to breach entry obstacles. (c) Authorized use
Only assigned operators who have received training on its use and policy. (d) Expected Life Span
No expiration on lifespan.
(e) Fiscal Impact
I. Annual Cost of $200.00 for breaching ammunition.

II. Annual cost of $2000.00 for less lethal shotgun rounds. (f) Training
I. Breaching instructors must complete an approved training course for this specialized tool. They must also train at least twice a year on its operations.

This tool is only used on approved SWAT operations.

II. The less lethal shotguns shall only be used by sworn personnel who have received annual training from the department. The training is conducted annually and shall review policy and contain a course of live fire. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules
It is our policy that all less lethal and breaching shotguns are to be used for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

F. Distraction Devices: A device used to distract dangerous persons. (a) Description, quantity, life span, capabilities, and purchase cost I. Combined tactical systems, 7290 FLASHBANG, Cost $50.00, Quantity 55. The 7290 Flash-Bang emits an output of 175db and produces 6-8 million candelas of light. (b) Purpose
A distraction device is ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high risk arrest situations. To produce an atmospheric overpressure and brilliant white light and as a result, can cause short term (6-8 Seconds) physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officer a tactical advantage. (c) Authorized Use
Situations for use of the less lethal weapons system may include, but are not limited to:

I. By officers who have been trained in their proper use.

II. High Risk Search Warrants involving SWAT operations.

III. In hostage and barricaded subject situations.

Page 39 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 10
IV. To obtain a tactical advantage in a high-risk situation where there may be extreme hazards to the officers.

V. During training exercises.
d. Expected Lifespan
Until used.
(e) Fiscal Impact
Annual Maintenance costs of $1500.00, 30 rounds purchased annually. (f) Training
Prior to use officers must attend diversionary training conducted by POST certified instructors.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules
It is our policy that all distraction devices are for official law enforcement purposes and are used consistent with department orders and state/federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

G. Mobile Incident Command Vehicle (MIC):
a. Description, quantity, life span, capabilities, and purchase cost I. Freightliner Chassis (Custom Built) vehicle, cost $450,000.00. Quantity 1, The MIC is used for SWAT/CNT and other critical incidents, preplanned large events, natural disasters, and Community events.
b. Purpose
To be used as the incident command vehicle in specific circumstances of a given critical incident, large event, natural disaster, or community event that is taking place. c. Authorized Use
Only officers trained in the deployment and operation of the MIC consistent with department policy. Situations in which the MIC is authorized for use would include but not be limited to critical incidents, emergencies, natural disasters, and community events.
d. Expected Lifespan
Vehicle has an expected 25-year lifespan with upgrades needed to equipment every 10 years to maintain IT equipment.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual Maintenance costs of $5000.00.
f. Training

Page 40 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 11
The driver/operator shall receive training from a current driver/operator on its safe use and deployment. The driver/operator shall maintain a driver's license endorsement consistent with the use of this vehicle.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is our policy that the MIC is for official law enforcement purposes and is to be used consistent with department orders and state law regarding the operation of vehicle H. Rifles: Guns that are fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make bullets spin and thereby having a greater accuracy over a long distance. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost I. AR-15's of various makes, Cost $1200.00 Quantity 63. The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between the officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat and possibly preventing the deployment of lethal force options.

II. Sig Sauer SIG716 DMR AR-10.308 Caliber, Cost $1600.00, Qty 4. This weapon system is only utilized by the SWAT/ Sniper Team on approved missions and in training. This rifle is primarily used in an overwatch capacity to protect the community and SWAT Team during large events and other approved SWAT missions.

III. Speer Gold Dot.223 caliber 62 grain rifle round. Quantity 74 cases 500 rounds per case at a cost of $285.00 per case. Remington ammunition made by Speer.

Features nickel plated brass cases that are reloadable and do not corrode. Gold DOT ammunition is widely used by law enforcement as it is a quality round with excellent ballistics. The brand of round may differ as we have experienced shortages and delays in acquiring our necessary ammunition. Any replacement ammunition will be of similar quality.

IV. Federal.223 Caliber 55 grain rifle round. Quantity 74 cases of 500 rounds per case at a cost of $179.00 per case. This is high quality full metal jacket round produced by Winchester. This round is safe to fire through our Rifles but is only used at the range in practice situation. This round is used in place of the Speer round as a cost saving measure as they are over $100 cheaper per case. The brand of round may differ as we have experienced shortages and delays in acquiring our necessary ammunition.

Any replacement ammunition will be of similar quality.

V. Federal Tru.308 168grain Tactical Tip MatchKing. Quantity 7 cases of 500 rounds at a cost of $434.00 per case. This round is used exclusively in the AR-10 Weapon system utilized by the SWAT/Sniper Team. This round was specifically made for law enforcement and AR-10 weapons systems. It is a flat trajectory bullet with uniform loads to ensure repeatable accuracy. The brand of round may differ as we have experienced shortages and delays in acquiring our necessary ammunition. Any replacement ammunition will be of similar quality.
b. Purpose
To be used as a precision weapon to address a threat with more precision and/or distances than a handgun.

Page 41 of 228 ends

Hanford Police Department
Hanford PD Policy

MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/01/20, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Hanford Police Department
MILITARY EQUIPMENT - 12
c. Authorized use
Only members that are POST certified and department trained are authorized to use a rifle.
d. Expected Life Span
Until used..
(e) Fiscal Impact
(f) Annual Cost of approximately $23,985.00 for ammunition. Price may vary depending upon the availability of ammunition and brands.
(g) Training
(h) Prior to use of the rifle, officers must be trained by a POST certified instructor in the operation of the rifle. Additionally, all members of the department will qualify with the rifle two times per year.
(i) The.308 rifles may only be used on SWAT missions by a SWAT member who has been to the Swat/Sniper POST certified school.
(j) Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established by Hanford Police Department General Orders 300, Use of Force.

It is the policy of the Hanford Police Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force. They may also be used for department approved public presentations. 705.11 MAINTENANCE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT SUPPLY LEVELS
When stocks of perishable items have reached a level where they are nearing exhaustion based upon current supplies and projected needs. In order to maintain essential availability for Department needs the Hanford Police Department is authorized to acquire additional stock items listed here, consistent with the City of Hanford's purchasing policing. 705.12 ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT
A. The Hanford Police department will review its listed military equipment annually to determine the following:
(a) If the equipment is still needed for its intended purpose (b) If there are other alternatives to the military equipment listed.

B. The Hanford Police Department will present this information to council annually at the same time this policy is updated.
705.13 SECTION TITLE

Page 42 of 228 ends

13.H.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/18/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Authorization to award a three-year agreement to Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott LLP Certified Public Accountants, for a total amount of $245,325, as the City's independent financial auditor, to perform the annual financial auditing and accounting services associated with an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report of the City of Hanford for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2023; 2024; 2025; with option to renew for two additional years; and Authorization for the City Manager to execute all related documents.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to enter into a three-year contractual agreement with Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott (RAMS) LLP for a total of $245,325, as the City’s independent financial auditors, to perform the annual auditing and accounting services associated with the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report of the City of Hanford for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2023; 2024; and 2025; with an option to renew for two additional years.

The contract amount for each year is:

June 30, 2023 $83,775
June 30, 2024 $78,775
June 30, 2025 $82,775
TOTAL $245,325
Recommended Motion: I move to authorize the City Manager to enter into a three-year contractual agreement with RAMS LLP for a total of $245,325, as the City’s independent financial auditors, to perform the annual auditing and accounting services associated with the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report of the City of Hanford for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2023; 2024; and 2025; with an option to renew for two additional years.

Background: Periodically, the City needs to evaluate its continuing contracts and review the providers of various services. The scope of work for the independent auditors for the City is to provide annual financial auditing and accounting services, which includes auditing the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the City and related Single Audit. Also included in the scope of work is preparing the State Controller’s Report, State Street Report, the Management Letter Report to the City Council, the Report on Internal Controls to the City Council and other auditing tasks such as performing procedures and issuing an opinion on the City’s compliance with Proposition 4 appropriation limit requirements (GANN Limitations). This ACFR would be the City's first ever, as prior editions have been Audited Financial Statements which do not include as much statistical and narrative information that is helpful to readers/users.

Page 43 of 228 ends

The previous 5-year contract to perform the annual auditing and accounting services for the City expired with the completion of the auditing of fiscal year ending June 30, 2022. Staff prepared and issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for annual auditing and accounting services in February 24, 2023 and closed on March 31, 2023.

Submissions were received from qualified and experienced firms of certified public accountants (CPA) for conducting the audit of the City’s financial records to express an opinion on the City’s financial statements and supplemental financial schedules; to perform the Single Audit; to prepare the State Controllers report; to prepare the Management Letter Report to the City Council; to prepare the Report on Internal Controls to the City Council; and to issue an opinion on the City’s compliance with Proposition 4 appropriation limit requirements (GANN Limitations).

Proposals were solicited by posting the RFP on Bidnet (City's online procurement site), and e-mailing proposal notices to CPA firms (including the existing firm). The RFP closed on March 31, 2023. The City received proposals from two firms by the deadline:
• Badawi & Associates – Berkeley, CA
• Rogers Anderson Malody and Scott (RAMS), LLP – San Bernardino, CA Each proposal was evaluated by a committee of staff members from the Finance Department. As a part of the evaluation process, the committee rated each firm using the following criteria:
• Responsiveness of the proposal, clarity and completeness of the proposed scope of work • Demonstrated ability, technical competence and experience to perform the services • Record of Past Performance
• Demonstrated ability to perform the work or services within the given time frame • Cost as a Total Maximum Fee
All firms were qualified in government finance and auditing and would be able to complete the auditing service requirements. For professional services selection is not based on lowest costs of a proposal. After careful review of the proposals by the committee, the Finance Department recommends RAMS, LLC. as being the most qualified firm to provide the financial auditing services required by the City of Hanford. Staff checked references, and all responded with excellent reviews.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The annual audit cost is budgeted in the General Fund and allocated out to all funds based on level of service. The first year is slightly higher in price due to the City's first year effort to issue an ACFR and the increased effort required.

The contract amount for each year is:

June 30, 2023 $83,775
June 30, 2024 $78,775
June 30, 2025 $82,775
TOTAL $245,325
Additional years:

June 30, 2026 $82,775
June 30, 2027 $86,970
ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of Hanford 2023 Proposal

Page 44 of 228 ends

Page 45 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD
RFP NO. 2023-07

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 2023, 2024 AND 2025 (WITH THE OPTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEARS)

PREPARED BY

ROGERS ANDERSON MALODY & SCOTT, LLP
735 E Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
LICENSE #2596
FEIN 95-2662063
MARCH 31, 2023
CONTACT PERSONS:

SCOTT W. MANNO, CPA, CGMA
[email protected]

BRIANNA SCHULTZ, CPA, CGMA
[email protected]
909.889.0871

Page 46 of 228 ends

-iMarch 31, 2023
City of Hanford
315 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Dear Evaluation Committee:

We are pleased to respond, on behalf of Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP, (RAMS) to your request for a proposal regarding professional auditing services. As a recognized industry leader and innovator, our goal for the past 75 years has been to provide honest, high-quality objective results to all our clients, including governmental organizations such as yours. The results of these efforts are witnessed by the tremendous organic growth of our firm while still providing personnel, client focused services to each client, some of which we have served for over 20 years.

At RAMS, we are committed to achieving the highest quality audit possible, in the most effective manner possible. We understand the complexity of performing governmental audits and that is why we have a dedicated team of auditors that possess the specialized knowledge and experience to help ensure our audits are planned and executed in a way that maximizes audit efficiency and effectiveness and provides you the highest quality services.

We are aware that the City of Hanford (the City) will be reviewing other proposals during this process, but we believe that RAMS would be the exceptional choice for the audit for the following reasons. Our firm:
x Has an established reputation in the governmental and not-for-profit accounting and auditing community for providing excellent, timely service with high quality reporting to our clients.
x Utilizes Teammate Analytics, a suite of more than 200 Computer Aided Audit Tools (CAATs). This software empowers our audit teams with the ability to perform powerful, meaningful data analysis which builds upon our other robust, substantive audit procedures. This value-added service also helps to identify specific transactions or amounts which may be indicative of fraud.
x Performs an intelligent, risk-based audit (using our CAAT) which enables us to focus on key audit areas allowing us to become more efficient resulting in a higher quality audit at a reasonable fee. x Currently provides auditing services to over 70 governmental agencies and not-for-profit organizations, including over 30 cities, most of which have enterprise activities and over 35 special districts. x Developed a comprehensive remote working environment for our audits. All our staff currently have the tools for working remotely in an effective and efficient manner allowing us to still provide a quality, effective audit.
x Is committed to helping you meet all reporting/auditing deadlines, resolving any issues encountered during your audit (e.g., accounting or auditing, new pronouncements, etc.), and providing you with quality audit services.

Page 47 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-iix Understands the audit process can be a stressful experience for you and your staff; we understand that you have other commitments and regular workloads during the audit. We make every effort to ensure the audit process, from the interim fieldwork to the preparation of any required financial reports, will be as trouble-free as possible for you and your staff. We accomplish this by comprehensively planning the audit and utilizing our staff and audit technologies in the most efficient and effective manner while keeping disruptions and miscommunications to a minimum.
x Has audit team members that are personable and easy to work with, yet still focused on the audit. Through open and responsive communication with all parties involved in the audit process, we work to have the most efficient audit possible by minimizing operational distractions of your staff, while maximizing quality service.
x Has an extensive internal quality control review process to ensure your financial reports meet the highest standards. In addition to the preparation of financial reports by the engagement team and reviewed by the engagement manager, each report is also thoroughly examined by 2 partners and at least 1 professional proofreader.
x Has assisted many of our clients with the preparation of their Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, and all our clients that have submitted their reports for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) or California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) awards have received the awards.

Our participation as a GFOA reviewer also indirectly benefits our clients in the quality review process. x Believes that our fee estimate provides a fair and reasonable investment, commensurate with level of service provided and the experience of the audit team members. While we may not be the lowest bidder, that is not our objective; we focus on delivering the best value, providing high quality services and price our prospective engagements accordingly.

As you will see from our proposal, it was prepared in a clear, concise and simple manner in accordance with the request for proposal. We feel our firm, staff and reputation as a leader in governmental auditing exceeds the need for the typical excessive information you will see in other proposals.

Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP is properly licensed to practice in California, including all the assigned professional staff to the engagement. Mr. Scott W. Manno, Partner, and Mrs. Brianna Schultz, Partner, are authorized to represent the firm, are empowered to submit the bid and authorized to sign a contract with the City.

We understand the work to be done as listed in the section of this proposal titled Services to be provided. In addition, we will be committed to meeting any agreed upon time frames.

We can be reached at: 735 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100, San Bernardino, CA 92408, (909) 889-0871, [email protected] or [email protected].

Thank you for the opportunity to present our proposal to the City. We will be committed to exceeding your expectations of an auditor and believe this proposal provides you with information about our firm, the service team members and our customized audit approach. We look forward to having a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the City. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this proposal.

Respectfully yours,

ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY & SCOTT, LLP

Scott W. Manno, CPA, CGMA
Partner

Page 48 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-iiiCover letter
Table of Contents
Page
Technical Proposal
License to practice in California ................................................................................................. 1 Independence ............................................................................................................................ 1 Firm qualifications and experience ............................................................................................ 1 About our firm
Range of services
Governmental Audit Quality Center
Housing Authority and Successor Agency experience
Single Audit experience
ACFR preparation
Engagement quality control
Equal Opportunity Employer
Business license
External quality control review
Disciplinary action
Firm partners
Partner, supervisory and staff qualifications and experience .................................................... 5 Partner and supervisory staff involvement
Staff continuity
Continuing professional education
Assigned personnel
Engagement team resumes
Client references ........................................................................................................................ 14 Specific audit approach .............................................................................................................. 16 Services to be provided
Engagement approach
Audit approach and proposed audit segmentation
Level of staff and approximate number of hours assigned to each segment Sample sizes (including for compliance testing)
Intelligent audit technology
Analytical procedures
Understanding of internal control over financial reporting Approach in determining applicable laws and regulations Auditing in a remote environment
Proposed audit timing
Proof of insurance
Contract terminations
Other ........................................................................................................................................... 25 Proposed contract revisions
GASBS implementation
Condition of records
First year ACFR preparation
Attachment A: Government clients served

Page 49 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-1-
License to practice in California
Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP is licensed to practice in the State of California. Our key professional staff, which includes the partners, managers, and supervisors, are all certified public accountants licensed to practice in the State of California and follow all applicable Board of Accountancy standards.

Independence
Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP is independent of the City and any component units, as defined by general standard number two of the generally accepted auditing standards, and by the second general standard for government auditing in the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards.

Firm qualifications and experience
About our firm
We are a local firm founded in 1948 and located at 735 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100, San Bernardino, California. We provide a full range of services as expected of a full-service accounting firm. We are one of the oldest, most trusted and respected CPA firms in Southern California, with over 75 years of public practice experience, specializing in governmental agency and not-for-profit
organization auditing, accounting, and management advisory services. Over sixteen thousand hours per year are devoted to our audit practice, which includes cities, redevelopment successor agencies, water districts, other special districts, notfor-profit corporations, and joint power authorities. We do not use our government accounting and auditing practice as “fill work” for the firm, it is one of our primary focuses thus allowing us to provide quality services to local governments.

We understand your desire to engage auditors that have a thorough understanding of the ever-changing complex accounting and compliance issues confronting governments today. Our firm has an extensive history of governmental accounting and auditing. During that time, we have gained valuable experience, acquired an in-depth knowledge of, and obtained the technical expertise needed to perform high quality governmental audits. This expertise has enabled us to provide exceptional, high-quality service and to provide solutions at fees we feel represent our value to our clients. In addition, we use our participation in various industry associations to continuously update our knowledge with respect to issues relating to governmental accounting, auditing, and operations. Any insight we gain is immediately passed on to our clients if we feel they will benefit from it.

Our firm has a total staff of forty people, which includes fifteen certified public accountants. The staff consists of seven partners, four managers, ten supervisors/senior accountants, fourteen staff accountants, and five support staff. The audit staff consists of twenty-three members who devote over 80% of their time to municipal engagements. The engagement team assigned to the City’s engagement will consist of the following full-time staff: one audit partner, one audit manager, one audit supervisor/senior, and two to three staff auditors. All personnel are out of our San Bernardino office.

Page 50 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-2-
Firm qualifications and experience (continued)
Range of services
Our firm provides various other services in addition to auditing services to governmental entities, including:
x Internal control agreed upon procedures
x Finance director and accounting support services
x Study and evaluation of financial condition and fiscal policies x Transient Occupancy Tax agreed upon procedures
x Franchise (refuse, cable) agreed upon procedures
x Accounting policies and procedures
x Cash management studies
x Financing and public bond offering assistance
x Franchise agreement assistance (ambulance, cable, television, refuse, etc.) In addition, the firm provides accounting, auditing, attest, and consulting services to for profit and not-for-profit entities. We also provide tax preparation and tax consulting services to individuals, corporations, and partnerships.

Governmental Audit Quality Center
As a member of the American Institute of CPAs Governmental Audit Quality Center (Center), we are committed to adhering to the highest quality standards by voluntarily agreeing to the Center membership requirements, which include designating a partner responsible for the quality of our governmental audit practice, establishing quality control programs, performing annual internal inspection procedures, and making our peer review report findings publicly available. At RAMS, our goal is to continue to enhance our quality initiatives within our governmental audit practice to deliver the highest quality audit services possible.

In addition, the Governmental Audit Quality Center provides access to comprehensive resources that will assist us in further enhancing the quality of your audit. The Center membership provides us with timely information on a variety of technical, legislative, and regulatory subjects that we can in turn apply to your audit to help ensure compliance with the appropriate standards and changes in regulations which we pass on to our clients.

Housing Authority and Successor Agency experience
Over the past five fiscal years, the firm has audited the Housing Authorities and Successor Agencies for the following entities:

City of South Pasadena City of San Bernardino
City of Thousand Oaks City of La Verne
City of San Marcos City of San Jacinto
City of Moorpark City of Twentynine Palms
City of Fillmore City of La Mesa
City of Sierra Madre City of Rosemead
City of El Cajon City of Hawthorne
Town of Yucca Valley City of West Covina
City of Poway City of Claremont

Page 51 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-3-
Firm qualifications and experience (continued)
Single audit experience
Many of our municipal clients, and some of our other governmental and not-for-profit clients, have been subject to an audit in accordance with Uniform Guidance. We recently performed single audits for the following entities:

Elsinore Valley Muni. Water District City of San Bernardino City of El Cajon City of La Mesa
City of San Marcos City of West Covina
City of Poway City of Twentynine Palms
City of Fillmore City of Woodlake
City of Exeter City of Rosemead
City of La Verne City of Hawthorne
Our specialized Single Audits Team is led by Partners and Managers with Intermediate and Advanced Single Audit Certifications issued by the AICPA guaranteeing a successful and thorough engagement.

ACFR preparation
We have extensive experience in the preparation of Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFR). For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2020 and 2021, our staff prepared over 20 ACFR’s, with each entity receiving the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the GFOA. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, again, our staff prepared over 25 ACFR’s for our clients for submittal to the GFOA. In addition, we have helped many cities and special districts develop their first year’s report for submittal. Four of our audit partners and five of our managers/supervisory staff are technical reviewers for the GFOA award program. In addition, we review all the ACFR’s for compliance with the GFOA certificate program checklist, as well as addressing any prior year comments, if applicable, to insure they have been addressed.

Engagement quality control
We have an extensive internal quality control review process to ensure your audit meets the highest standards. In addition to the preparation of financial reports by a senior member of the engagement team, each report is reviewed by the engagement manager/supervisor and then is examined by the engagement partner. Subsequently, a technical review is then performed by the engagement Quality Control partner along with being proofread by at least one professional staff. In addition, all audit workpapers are reviewed by the in-charge auditor and the partner in-charge of the engagement.

Equal Opportunity Employer
Our firm is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to providing employment opportunities to all qualified persons regardless of race, color, sex, religion, national origin or handicap. Our staff represents a wide range of cultures and ethnic backgrounds. We provide opportunities for advancement for all staff based on ability, skill and desire to advance.

Business license
If we are selected as auditor, we will obtain a City of Hanford business license for the duration of the contract term and any applicable extensions.

Page 52 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-4-
Firm qualifications and experience (continued)
External quality control review
As a member of the AICPA Private
Companies Practice Section, our firm
has participated in the “Peer Review”
program since 1993 and has been
examined every three years since that
date by an outside, independent firm of
certified public accountants.

Participation in this program ensures
that our engagements, firm policies,
and audit procedures meet the
standards of the AICPA, the Yellow
Book, and the California State Board
of Accountancy. Throughout our
participation in this program, the firm
has only received pass ratings from
the peer reviewers.

During each review, an independent
firm reviews our policies and
procedures and then inspects a
representative sample of engagement
workpapers and reports, including
governmental entities and
engagements subject to the Uniform
Guidance. For the year ended
November 30, 2020, our firm received
a rating of pass which indicates our
auditing practice is suitably designed
and complied with to provide
reasonable assurance of performing
and reporting in conformity with
applicable standards. The results
provide confirmation that the custom
audit approach and procedures we
use are technically sound and in
compliance with applicable standards.

Disciplinary action
The firm has never had any disciplinary action taken or pending against it with state regulatory bodies or professional organizations, nor has it ever had any pending or settled litigation, civil or criminal investigations.

In addition, we are not aware of any federal or state desk reviews or field reviews of its audits during the last three years.

Our firm does not have a record of substandard work.

In addition to the external quality control review, our firm performs in-house monitoring procedures, which mirror the outside peer review procedures, over our audit and attest engagements annually. .

Page 53 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-5-
Firm qualifications and experience (continued)
Firm partners
The following is a list of the firm’s partners:
x Scott W. Manno – over 26 years in public accounting serving government clients; graduate of California State University, San Bernardino (BS); CPA (CA), CGMA
x Terry P. Shea – over 40 years in public accounting serving government clients; graduate of California State University, Fullerton (BA); CPA (CA)
x Bradford Welebir – over 18 years in in public accounting serving government clients; graduate of La Sierra University (BA) and California State University, Fullerton (MBA); CPA (CA), CGMA, MBA x Brianna Schultz – over 13 years of practical, governmental accounting and auditing experience; graduate of California State University, San Bernardino (BS); CPA (CA), CGMA x Gardenya Duran – over 12 years in public accounting serving government and not-for-profit clients; graduate of California State University, San Bernardino (BS); CPA (CA), CGMA x Leena Shanbhag – over 30 years’ experience in accounting, auditing and taxation; graduate of University of Pune, India (BS) and Golden Gate University (MS Taxation); CPA (CA), CGMA, MS x Jenny Liu - over 20 years’ experience in accounting and taxation; graduate of California State University, San Bernardino (BS) and Golden Gate University (MS Taxation); CPA (CA), CGMA, MS Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience The quality of service you receive is dependent on the capabilities of the individuals assigned to the engagement, and the manner in which those personnel resources are organized to efficiently focus their abilities on providing you with the requested audit services. Our professionals are highly trained and knowledgeable and have a thorough understanding of the environment in which governmental and not-forprofit entities operate. This experience is a critical component in providing the City with an effective and efficient audit.

Our engagement team will provide significant experience coupled with an extensive, practical understanding of governmental accounting and auditing along with a broad business perspective. Each member will have access to a wide range of technical resources and knowledge bases which will enable them to provide the City with practical observations and effective solutions.

Partner and supervisory staff involvement
All partners and supervisory staff are working professionals and are actively and continually involved in all aspects of their engagements. We believe that partner and supervisory staff involvement in all areas of the audit is a key aspect of the overall audit process. This involvement includes being on-site for interim and yearend fieldwork, thus facilitating a proper, efficient, and effective audit, with minimal disruption of your staff. In addition, the time spent on-site by the partners and supervisory staff ensures they gain an understanding of the entire City’s accounting processes and procedures. This understanding will enable them to evaluate and develop opportunities for efficiency, as well as offer practical and functional advice for improving your accounting processes and procedures.

All professionals on this engagement have worked on audits similar in nature to the City’s, therefore, the City will not have to train our engagement team.

Page 54 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-6-
Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience (continued) Staff continuity
Continuity of audit staff is a principal concern with our firm. In order to retain our staff, we offer extremely competitive wages, opportunities for advancement, generous medical packages, a retirement plan, bonus opportunities, as well as educational benefits. Even with the benefits we provide, we realize we may lose staff at any given time. Knowing this, we plan to provide staff continuity from year to year, which is in the best interest of the City and our firm. Continuity ensures an orderly, efficient, and less disruptive audit experience.

Since we cannot guarantee staff will remain with us, principal supervisory and management staff, including engagement partners, managers, other supervisory staff, and specialists, may be changed if those personnel leave the firm or are promoted. However, the City reserves the right to accept or reject replacements.

We believe that due to the significant involvement of the partners on all our engagements, any staff transition would have a minimal effect on the audit efficiency and effectiveness of subsequent years.

Continuing professional education
Our team of auditor specialists stays current in this highly technical practice area by adhering to, and typically exceeding, the continuing professional education requirements of Government Auditing Standards as well as the State Board of Accountancy guidelines. All professionals at our firm participate in continuing professional education (CPE) programs, which are sponsored by various organizations including the Government Finance Officers Association, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the California State Society of Certified Public Accountants, the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers and the Association of Government Accountants. Participation in these programs helps us to ensure that our clients are serviced with the best trained and most proficient government auditors and accountants available. In addition, we periodically provide in-house training taught by our partners and senior level staff using published resources.

All staff are required to attend fraud and ethics training. It is our goal to provide our professional staff continuing education which exceeds the minimum standard of 80 hours over two years.

In accordance with our firm’s Quality Control document and Government Auditing Standards (GAS), all staff members who work on audits subject to GAS are required to complete CPE in accordance with GAS standards which require 24 hours directly related to governmental accounting and auditing.

In addition to the required CPE, we also use the following to increase our technical knowledge: view the Governmental Audit Quality Center Annual Webcast Update and other relevant seminars and review monthly publications from the AICPA, the GFOA, and various other resources. We also attend conferences and seminars sponsored by the GFOA, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers, California State Society of Certified Public Accountants and the California Special Districts Association.

Assigned personnel
It is our goal to provide you with capable, competent, and personable individuals who offer an extensive background, not only in governmental accounting and auditing, but also in general business practices. By doing so, it allows us to offer practical solutions, as well as provide technical support. This enables you to stay at the forefront of governmental accounting and provides you with the support you need in dealing with the complex issues confronting entities such as yours.

Page 55 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-7-
Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience (continued) In addition, our engagement team has the managerial and supervisory experience to provide the City with a comprehensive audit of the highest quality, while still focusing on personal service. The resumes of the key engagement personnel assigned to the audit are presented below. The following individuals will be assigned to the engagement for the entire contract period (see staff Continuity section of this proposal):

Scott W. Manno, CPA, CGMA – Partner, Engagement Partner Scott is a municipal audit partner with the firm and will be the engagement partner. He is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in the State of California. He has been in public accounting for over 26 years’ specializing in serving local governments such as yours. As the engagement partner, he will be responsible for overall engagement quality, as well as ensuring that the engagement is performed in the most effective and efficient manner. Scott will directly oversee all engagement staff while assisting in planning and performing the engagement, as well as reviewing all work-papers prepared during the engagement, in addition to all required reports. Like all of our partners, Scott is a working partner and will be actively and continually involved in all aspects of the engagement.

Terry Shea, CPA – Partner, Concurring Partner
Terry is also a municipal audit partner with the firm. He is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in the State of California. Terry has over 40 years of public accounting experience and has provided accounting, auditing, and consulting services for municipalities, special districts, water agencies, and various not-for-profit organizations. As the concurring partner, Terry will work directly with Scott in planning and performing the engagement. In addition, he will provide technical consultation for the engagement team.

Brianna Schultz, CPA, CGMA – Partner, Quality Control Reviewer Brianna will be the Quality Control Reviewer. She is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in the State of California and has over 13 years of practical, governmental accounting and auditing experience. Brianna will be responsible for the final quality control review of all released opinions and related reports.

Veronica Hernandez, CPA – Audit Manager
Veronica is an audit manager with the firm. She is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in the State of California. Veronica has over 7 years’ experience in providing accounting and auditing services for municipalities, special districts and various not-for-profit organizations. As an audit manager, she will work directly with the audit in-charge and partner, while supervising the engagement team during all phases of the engagement. In conjunction with the audit in-charge, she will also oversee the preparation of any required reports.

Jeffery McKennan, CPA – Audit Senior
Jeff is an audit senior with the firm. He has over two years of experience in providing accounting and auditing services for municipalities, special districts and various not-for-profit organizations. As an audit senior, he will work closely with the engagement partner and manager and be responsible for planning the audit, supervising the staff assigned to the engagement, and performing reviews of all work-papers prepared for the engagement. In addition, he will also be responsible for the preparation of any required reports.

Page 56 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-8-
Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience (continued) Staff level accountants
All staff accountants employed by us and working on governmental audits are qualified to perform such audits. Prior to “audit season”, our staff are subject to a rigorous training regimen in which we go over all aspects of our audit process and audit programs ensuring staff members have a solid foundation prior to starting fieldwork. Each staff member is encouraged to take on increased responsibility for engagements previously worked on. This enables our staff to grow on each engagement and allows them to continue to gain the skills and knowledge required to perform the audits.

In summary, we want to emphasize the credentials of the above professionals who will be directly responsible for the quality of service that you will receive. Additionally, our audit team has another attribute that is very important, even though it is intangible – the professionals assigned to the audits have previously worked together as a multi-disciplined team, thus ensuring a smooth, efficient, and effective audit. We are committed to allocating the necessary resources to ensure that we provide continuity of personnel throughout the term of our relationship with the City.

Full engagement team resumes are provided as follows.

Page 57 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-9-
Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience (continued) Engagement team resumes
Scott W. Manno, CPA, CGMA
Engagement
Professional experience
Mr. Manno began his career with Thomas, Bigbie and Smith in 1995 after serving in the United States Army. He spent six years with the firm primarily working on audits of municipalities, special districts and redevelopment agencies as well as various not-forprofit organizations. He joined Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP in July 2001.

Currently, Mr. Manno serves as a technical reviewer for the GFOA ACFR Award program.

In addition, he is part of the California State Society of Certified Public Accountants Governmental Accounting and Auditing Committee which meets periodically to discuss current events, pronouncements, etc.

Education/licenses
Bachelor of Science, Business Administration – California State University, San Bernardino Certified Public Accountant – State of California
Chartered Global Management Accountant – American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Related professional experience
Partial listing of relevant governmental agencies served (*includes enterprise fund accounting):

City of El Cajon* Town of Yucca Valley City of La Mesa* City of La Verne City of Sierra Madre* City of Santa Paula* City of Beaumont* City of 29 Palms City of Moreno Valley* City of Beaumont* City of San Marcos* City of Loma Linda* City of Live Oak* City of Perris* City of Exeter* City of Woodlake* City of San Jacinto* City of Menifee City of Rolling Hills Est. City of Ojai* Mr. Manno has completed over 232 hours of continuing professional education courses over the past three years of which the following select courses are relevant to this engagement:
i Government Risk Assessment
i Audits of State and Local Governments
i Government Accounting and Auditing Update
i State and Local Government Audit Planning Considerations Professional affiliations
Mr. Manno is a member of the following organizations:
i American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) i California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA) i Association of Government Accountants (AGA)
i Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE)
i Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
i California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
i California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)

Page 58 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-10-
Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience (continued) Terry P. Shea, CPA
Concurring
Professional experience
Mr. Shea began his career with Thomas, Byrne and Smith in 1981. He spent five years with the firm primarily working on audits of municipalities, special districts, redevelopment and other governmental agencies. He joined Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP in 1987 where he has completed governmental audits including municipalities and provided financial consulting services for various cities.

Education/licenses
Bachelor of Arts – California State University, Fullerton Certified Public Accountant – State of California
Related professional experience
Partial listing of relevant governmental agencies served (*includes enterprise fund accounting):

City of La Mesa* City of Loma Linda* City of Sierra Madre* City of Grand Terrace* City of San Jacinto* City of El Cajon* City of Imperial Beach* City of 29 Palms City of Ojai* City of Thousand Oaks* City of Perris* City of Brawley* City of La Verne* City of Goleta City of Hawthorne City of Lawndale* City of Live Oak* City of Menifee City of Aliso Viejo City of Fontana* Mr. Shea served as the Interim Finance Director for the City of Grand Terrace form April 2021 thru December 2022. He currently serves as the Contract Finance Director for a County of Riverside city.

Continuing professional education
Mr. Shea has completed over 195 hours of continuing professional education courses in the past three years, of which, the following select courses are relevant to this engagement:
i GASB Update
i Governmental Entities and Cyberfraud
i Governmental Auditing Skills
i Government Accounting
Professional affiliations
Mr. Shea is a member of the following professional organizations:
i American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) i California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA) i Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
i California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)

Page 59 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-11-
Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience (continued) Brianna Schultz, CPA, CGMA
Quality Control Partner
Professional Experience
Ms. Schultz began her career with Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP in July 2014, and had over three years’ experience with another public accounting firm serving the same industry. During her time with the firm, she has worked primarily on audits of municipalities, special districts and redevelopment agencies, as well as various non-profit organizations.

Education
Bachelor of Science – California State University, San Bernardino Certified Public Accountant – State of California
Chartered Global Management Accountant – American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Related Professional Experience
Partial listing of relevant governmental agencies served (*includes enterprise fund accounting):

City of Menifee City of Aliso Viejo City of Claremont* City of Chino* City of Glendora* City of Rolling Hills Est. City of San Bernardino City of Sierra Madre* City of La Verne* City of Loma Linda* City of South Pasadena* City of West Covina* City of La Mesa* City of Baldwin Park City of El Cajon* City of Hawthorne* Ms. Schultz obtained the AICPA’s Advanced Single Audit Certificate in 2019 and the Intermediate Single Audit Certificate in 2017. She served as the contract Interim Accounting Manager for the City of Glendora in 2016 and the Senior Accountant for the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2015. Additionally, she is a reviewer for the GFOA ACFR Program.

Continuing Professional Education
Ms. Schultz has completed over 160 hours of continuing professional education courses over the past three years of which the following select courses are relevant to this engagement:
i Governmental Accounting and Auditing Conference
i 2022 Single Audit Update
i How to Implement GASBS 87 and Maintain Compliance
Professional Affiliations
Ms. Schultz is a member of the following organizations:
i American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) i California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA) i Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
i California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)

Page 60 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-12-
Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience (continued) Veronica Hernandez, CPA
Audit Manager
Professional Experience
Ms. Hernandez is an audit manager with the firm. She has over 7 years’ experience in providing accounting and auditing services for municipalities, special districts and various nonprofit organizations. Currently, Ms. Hernandez serves as a technical reviewer for the GFOA ACFR Award Program
Education
Bachelor of Science – California State University, San Bernardino Certified Public Accountant – State of California
Related professional experience
Partial listing of relevant governmental agencies served (*includes enterprise fund accounting):

City of Santa Paula* City of Santee City of Beaumont* City of Moreno Valley* City of San Marcos* City of La Verne* City of Loma Linda* City of Fillmore* City of El Cajon* City of West Covina* City of Redondo Beach* Town of Yucca Valley City of Aliso Viejo City of Moorpark* City of San Jacinto* City of La Mesa* City of Claremont City of Hawthorne City of Poway*
Continuing Professional Education
Ms. Hernandez has completed over 100 hours of continuing professional education courses over the past two years of which the following select courses are relevant to this engagement:
i Governmental Accounting and Auditing Update: GASB 87 Leases i Promises and Pitfalls of American Rescue Plan Grants & Others i A 360 view of OPEB Trust
i Critical Concepts of Accounting for Capital Assets
i Discover GFOA Best Practices
Professional affiliations
Ms. Hernandez is a member of the following professional organizations:
i American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) i California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA) i California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)

Page 61 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-13-
Partner, supervisory, and staff qualifications and experience (continued) Jeffrey McKennan, CPA
Audit Senior
Professional Experience
Mr. McKennan joined Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott, LLP in May 2021, primarily providing accounting and auditing services for municipalities, special districts, and various nonprofit organizations.

Education
Master of Science in Accountancy – California State University, San Bernardino Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration – California State University, San Bernardino Certified Public Accountant – State of California
Related professional experience
Partial listing of relevant governmental agencies served (*includes enterprise fund accounting):

City of San Marcos* City of Menifee
City of Hawthorne* City of Thousand Oaks*
City of Calabasas* City of Moreno Valley*
City of Loma Linda City of San Jacinto
Continuing Professional Education
Mr. McKennan has completed the following select courses that are relevant to this engagement:
i Intermediate Governmental Accounting
i 2022 Single Audit Update
i Audits of State and Local Governments
Professional affiliations
Mr. McKennan is a member of the following professional organizations:
i American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) i California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA) i California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)

Page 62 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-14-
Client references
Entity: City of El Cajon
Scope of Work: Financial Audit/ACFR*/Single Audit
Date: Years ending June 30, 2007 - present
Engagement partner: Mr. Scott Manno
Total hours: Approximately 375 hours each year
Contact Person: Mr. Luca Gonzales, Financial Operations Manager, (619) 441-1543 Address: 200 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, CA 92020
Entity: Town of Yucca Valley
Scope of work: Financial Audit/ACFR*/Successor Agency
Date: Years ending June 30, 2008 - present
Engagement partner: Mr. Scott Manno/Mr. Brad Welebir
Total hours: Approximately 350 hours each year
Contact person: Mr. Curtis Yakimow, Town Manager (760) 369-7207 Address: 57090 Twentynine Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, CA 92284 Entity: City of San Jacinto
Scope of work: Financial Audit/ Single Audit/Successor Agency Date: Years ending June 30, 2011 - present
Engagement partner: Mr. Scott Manno/Mr. Terry Shea
Total hours: Approximately 300 hours each year
Contact Person: Mr. Tom Prill, Deputy City Manager, (951) 487-7330 Address: 595 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, CA 92583 Entity: City of San Marcos
Scope of work: Financial Audit/ACFR*/Successor Agency/Single Audit Date: Years ending June 30, 2014 - present
Engagement partner: Mr. Terry Shea/Scott Manno
Total hours: Approximately 400 hours each year
Contact person: Ms. Lisa Fowler, Finance Director, (760) 744-1050 Address: 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069
Entity: City of Rolling Hills Estates
Scope of work: Financial Audit/ACFR*
Date: Years ending June 30, 2019 - present
Engagement partner: Mr. Scott Manno
Total hours: Approximately 250 hours each year
Contact person: Mr. Mike Whitehead, Admin. Services Director, (310) 377-1577, ext.112 Address: 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Entity: City of Imperial Beach
Scope of work: Financial Audit
Date: Years ending June 30, 2021 - present
Engagement partner: Mr. Terry Shea
Total hours: Approximately 350 hours each year
Contact person: Mrs. Joann Gitmed, Finance Director, (619) 628-1361 Address: 8025 Imperial Beach Blvd., Imperial Beach, CA 91932 * = received GFOA award.

See Attachment A for a listing of current government clients served.

Page 63 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-15-
Specific audit approach
Services to be provided
The City desires the auditor to express an opinion(s) on the fair presentation of the financial statements for the following: the City of Hanford in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

In addition, we shall:
x Prepare the financial statements.
x Apply certain limited procedures related to Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Required Supplementary Information and provide an “in-relation-to” report on the combining and individual fund financial statements and supporting schedules, if applicable. x Provide opinions as to the compliance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (OMB Uniform Guidance). RAMS is to provide an “inrelation-to” report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards based on the auditing procedures applied during the audit of the financial statements. x Test compliance with Article XIIIB pertaining to the City’s appropriation limit and prepare an AgreedUpon Procedures report to the City Council regarding compliance. x Prepare the Annual Financial Transaction and Streets Reports (currently we utilize a sub-contractor for this), if requested.
x Provide reasonable consultation throughout the year.

Our audit(s) will be in accordance with:
x Generally Accepted Auditing Standards as promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, including requirements found in the most recent AICPA audit guide Audits of State and Local Governments.
x Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller of the United States of America. x Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (OMB Uniform Guidance).
x Any other applicable standards for other items outlined in the Scope of Work to be performed and/or reports to be issued.

Reports to be issued:
x A report on the fair presentation of the financial statements in conformity with GAAP. x A report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards (material weaknesses or significant deficiencies).
x A report in compliance with requirements applicable to each major federal program and internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. x Prepare Management Letter that includes significant and less significant (i.e., reportable and nonreportable) recommendations for improvements to internal control. x We will issue reports to those charged with governance (SAS 114 letters) as required by auditing standards.

RAMS will also perform the following:
x Make an immediate, written notification of all irregularities and illegal acts or indication of illegal acts of which we become aware to the following: City Manager and City Attorney.

Page 64 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-16-
Specific audit approach (continued)
Engagement approach
Our engagement approach for your audit will be developed, in part, by using established goals which will enable measurement of the audits progress by the engagement partner and lead auditor. This involves frequent communication between the partner and the engagement team to ensure that all audit objectives are achieved and that any issues which may arise are communicated and dealt with on a timely basis. In addition, our in-depth knowledge and expertise in governmental accounting and auditing has allowed us to identify key audit and accounting risks in the government environment. More importantly, the approach provides for a complete reassessment of the control environment in each year’s audit and thus enables us to respond to any needed risk assessment changes.

Our engagement approach has been developed and refined over many years. The foundation of our approach revolves around the following:
x Knowledge and experience. We have been auditing governmental entities like the City, both large and small, for over 75 years. This experience has allowed us to gain in-depth knowledge of the governmental environment which in turn allows us to perform a more efficient and effective audit. It also enables us to perform detailed risk assessment procedures allowing us to identify significant audit risk areas within the City and its control environment.
x Intelligent design: As discussed later in our proposal, all our audits are designed using our powerful, intelligent audit software/data analytic tools (Engagement and Teammate Analytics). This allows us to analyze substantial amounts of data in seconds increasing both the efficiency and, more importantly, the effectiveness of all our audit engagements.
x Oversight. Professional judgment is not developed overnight. Our partners, managers and supervisors have been deeply involved in governmental audits on a continuous basis for most of their professional careers. By having direct partner and manager oversight, we can design audit strategies that result in effective and efficient audits.
x Timeliness. Deadlines are not just “dates” to us, they are professional commitments. All required, agreed upon deadlines will be met.
x Open communication. Open lines of communication with all parties (the engagement team members and City Management and staff) throughout the audit process helps to eliminate “surprises.” Proper planning and proper use of experienced engagement personnel tend to provide for an effective and efficient audit process. Consequently, inefficiencies, disruptions, and lack of understanding are kept to a minimum.
x Availability. All engagement team members are available throughout the year for any questions or additional consultation. City staff will have direct access to the partner, manager, and other supervisory staff at all times during the engagement, as well as after. x Cost effectiveness. Our customized audit approach and procedures and our experienced auditors help to reduce your overall audit costs while still providing an effective audit and high-quality reports. x Risk based approach. Our detailed risk assessment procedures will consist of activities performed to obtain an understanding of the City and its environment, including its internal control. Evidence from these activities will provide the basis for our assessment of risks of material misstatement at the ¿nancial statement and relevant assertion levels. While performing our risk assessment procedures and we may choose to perform further audit procedures concurrently with risk assessment procedures as deemed necessary. In addition, risk assessment procedures will provide some of the necessary evidence about the relevant assertions related to classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures and about the operating eႇectiveness of controls.

Page 65 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-17-
Specific audit approach (continued)
As indicated in the previous section of the proposal, the overall objective of the engagement with the City is to conduct an audit of the financial statements in accordance with required auditing standards and the expression of an opinion(s) on those financial statements. Beyond that initial objective, we believe that our engagement approach provides certain other value-added characteristics, at no additional cost, which will benefit the City over the long-term:
x All our audits are designed to be performed in an efficient and effective way to minimize disruption to the office operations.
x We offer practical observations and recommendations relating to internal control issues, implementation of accounting standards and the policies and procedures regarding both. x We identify opportunities for operating efficiencies which can be used to decrease operating costs of the City.

Audit approach and proposed audit segmentation
The following is a summary of the audit team’s audit approach for the engagement. The audit will be divided into the following segments:

Segment 1 – Interim testing – planning, pre-audit administration, and internal control testing During this phase of the audit, our principal objectives will be to gather information about the City and its environment, including its internal control over financial reporting.

In order to achieve the desired objectives of this phase of the audit, we will:
x Meet with the City’s staff in order to determine convenient dates in which we can begin our audit and to discuss the assistance to be provided by the City’s staff. x Hold brainstorming sessions with engagement team members to discuss the susceptibility of the City’s financial statements to material misstatement and fraud. x Review and evaluate the City’s accounting and reporting processes by reviewing the prior year’s audit workpapers, any City-prepared documents such as budgets, in-house financial reports, policies and procedures manuals, minutes of governance meetings, etc., and by using various analytical procedures. Analytical procedures will enhance our understanding of the City and will help us identify areas that may need further assessment and additional testing. x Review and retain copies of any pertinent local, state and federal statutes, regulations, or charters that apply to the City.
x Evaluate the design of controls that are relevant to the audit by obtaining a thorough understanding of the City’s internal controls over financial reporting and compliance by documenting key internal control components, utilizing questionnaires, walkthroughs, inquiring of the City’s personnel, and observing and reviewing key supporting documentation (a more thorough explanation of this process is discussed later in the technical proposal).
x Test controls, if control risk is to be assessed below maximum, by selecting a sample of transactions within the audit area being tested and reviewing supporting documentation to determine whether the relevant controls are in place and functioning properly. x Document and review with management, any findings noted during the testing of internal controls and provide a preliminary management letter that will include our recommendations for improving any weaknesses in operations. The letter will also include suggestions for improving the efficiency of the City’s operations.

Page 66 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-18-
Specific audit approach (continued)
x Utilize our powerful audit data analytic software allowing us to analyze large amounts of data in seconds and focusing on areas/transactions that are red flagged.

In addition, we will perform the following procedures related to IT General Controls that “touch” financial data:
x Security access (including physical) controls: evaluate the general system security settings and password parameters; evaluate the process for adding, deleting, and changing security access; evaluate the access capabilities of various types of users; evaluate access controls to networks and financial applications; evaluate access controls related to data files; and evaluate physical access to networks, servers, etc.
x Computer operations: Evaluate backup and recovery processes and review processes of identifying and handling operational problems.
x System development and system changes: Evaluate processes related to system development and system changes (if applicable).
x Application testing: We will determine if the testing of application controls is deemed necessary based on our professional judgment in the planning stages of the engagement.

This phase of the engagement for the audit will be performed by the audit senior and two/three staff accountants with direct supervision by the audit manager and partner.

Segment 2 – Year-end testing – substantive testing
During this phase of the audit, our principal objectives will be to assess the risk of material misstatement at the financial statement level and specific assertions, design overall responses to assessed risks and further audit procedures, perform substantive tests, and complete the audit and evaluate audit findings, if applicable.

In order to achieve the desired objectives of this phase of the audit, we will:
x Identify significant risks and develop a detailed audit plan using the results in Segment 1. x Design substantive tests of account balances designed and modified specifically for the City’s operations and assessed level of risk. Substantive procedures will consist of testing material balance sheet accounts, material revenue and expenditure/expense accounts along with various analytical procedures as deemed necessary. In addition, various accounts may be confirmed with outside parties (cash, investments, etc.).
x Determine whether our testing supports the assessed level of risk initially assigned at the financial statement level and at the assertion level.

This phase of the engagement for the audit will be performed by the audit senior and two/three staff accountants with direct supervision by the audit manager and partner.

If any proposed audit adjustments are noted during this phase, we will discuss and explain them, in detail, with the appropriate level of management prior to posting.

Page 67 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-19-
Specific audit approach (continued)
Segment 3 – Reporting – report preparation/audit conclusion (workpaper review) During this phase of the audit, our principal objectives will be to evaluate whether the financial statements, taken as a whole, are free from material misstatement and form an opinion(s) and issue our report.

In order to achieve the desired objectives of this phase of the audit, we will:
x Determine whether, based on our substantive testing and other procedures, the financial statements, taken as a whole, are free of material misstatement. This will provide the basis for our opinion(s). x Review all audit workpapers to ensure that the audit was performed in accordance with the required standards (GAAS, GAGAS, etc.) and prepare drafts of all required reports by the agreed-upon dates. x Conduct an independent review of the financial statement draft by the engagement’s quality control partner and issue all reports by the agreed-upon dates.

This phase of the engagement will be performed by the audit senior and one staff accountant with direct supervision by the audit manager and partner. In addition, the engagement’s quality control partner will perform a detailed quality control review of the financial statements.

The above procedures are a general list of procedures to be performed. After our initial review of the City and our detailed risk assessment, we will customize the engagement and gear it towards the specifics of the City and the audit itself. In doing so, we will determine which procedures to perform relative to our risk assessment.

All our audits are customized to each entity, helping to ensure a complete, effective, and efficient audit. The foundation of the above approach is based on open communication coupled with a strong knowledge of the City’s operations and detailed planning at the initial stages of the audit.

Our firm is dedicated to performing a timely audit engagement. Prior to the start of the audit, we will meet with City staff and decide on adequate timeframes, agreed upon by both the City and us, for the performance of the audit and the release of the financial statements. We will dedicate the necessary resources to meet any agreed upon time frames.

Level of staff and approximate number of hours assigned to each segment Segment Partner Manager Senior Staff Total
Segment 1 8 6 30 74 118
Segment 2 12 11 48 96 167
Segment 3 11 14 42 23 90
Totals* 31 31 120 193 375
* = Financial audit hours only
Sample sizes (including for compliance testing)
Our sample sizes will be determined in accordance with the AICPA’s Audit and Accounting Guide, Audit Sampling, and will be selected using professional judgment or our TeamMate Analytics software, depending upon circumstance, as permitted by Statement on Auditing Standards. Our methods are designed to provide the most audit coverage without expending excess time. Our sample sizes will depend upon our preliminary assessment of control risk, our planned substantive testing and analytical procedures as well as our professional judgement.

Page 68 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-20-
Specific audit approach (continued)
We utilize our Computer Aided Audit Tools (CAAT) software, Teammate Analytics, to draw our audit samples.

The software allows us to generate random samples, systematic samples, stratified samples, attributes samples as well as monetary unit samples (also called probability-proportional-to-size or dollar unit sampling).

Intelligent audit technology
Our audits are designed to be intelligent using our powerful audit software tools (Engagement and Teammate Analytics). In addition, all audit team members are linked to each other using wireless connections which enables them to share information at an almost real-time speed. Below are some of the benefits of our audit technologies:
x We utilize Teammate Analytics, a suite of more than 200 dynamic Computer Aided Audit Tools (CAATs). This allows us to analyze large amounts of data in seconds. Using data received directly from the City, we can perform the following: search for duplicate checks, detect transactions occurring on holidays/weekends or during unusual hours, perform Benford’s Law analysis, and identify instances when a vendor has issued multiple invoices with sequential references along with many other tests. The software empowers our audit teams with the ability to perform powerful, meaningful data analysis which will build upon our other value-added services.
x We can create our own analytical schedules allowing for easy analysis of current balances to prior year balance, current vs budget balance, thus reducing significant City staff time. x Once your trial balances and financial statements are entered into our software, we can observe your financial statements in the field allowing us to notice any variances and address them immediately. x We link the financial statement schedules directly to our audit software trial balances, and as a result, we can provide the City with fund financial statements almost immediately after importing the trial balances.
x We can provide the City with our audited trial balances which show the coding of the financial statement schedules for ease of review for City staff. These reports show each account coded to a specific financial statement line item/function as well as journal entries posted during the audit.

Analytical procedures
In order to properly utilize analytical procedures, industry background and knowledge are needed. With our firm’s long history and qualified staff, we believe we have the necessary knowledge and experience to effectively apply analytical procedures. We will utilize analytical review procedures throughout our audit of the City.
x During the interim phase of our audit, we will compare current and prior year unadjusted balances to determine which areas may need additional analysis; we will also compare current year actual amounts to the City’s annual budget (both original and adopted). x During the final phase of our audit, we will perform procedures like those mentioned above, as well as compare certain financial ratios for current and prior years. We will also conduct certain “reasonableness” tests. Any significant variances are investigated further through inquiry and other substantive testing as deemed necessary until resolved to our satisfaction. x Finally, after we have completed our fieldwork, we will compare current and prior year audited balances, keeping in mind expected relationships obtained from our knowledge of the City, similar entities and the general economic environment. In addition, we may choose to use various other analytical techniques such as trend analysis, etc.

Unlike other audit firms, we use analytical procedures to supplement our substantive testing, not supplant them.

Page 69 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-21-
Specific audit approach (continued)
Understanding of internal control over financial reporting Our approach to obtaining an understanding of the City’s internal control over financial reporting will be performed in accordance with professional standards as promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants – our understanding will include the Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. We will use customized procedures which we have developed internally to evaluate your internal control systems. By combining our customized procedures and our detailed knowledge of the City and its environment, we will be able to provide constructive feedback in areas we feel need improvement. In addition to our customized procedures, we will also perform the following:

Control Environment. Through inquiry of the City’s personnel, prompted by questionnaires, personal knowledge, and review of the minutes of the governing body meetings, we will obtain an understanding of managements and the governing body’s attitudes, awareness, and actions concerning the control environment, focusing on the substance of the controls rather than their form.

Risk Assessment. Through inquiry of the City’s personnel and the use of questionnaires, we will obtain sufficient knowledge of the City’s risk assessment process to understand how management considers risks relevant to financial reporting objectives and decides upon actions to address those risks. This will include understanding how management identifies risks, estimates the significance of these risks, assesses the likelihood of their occurrence, and relates them to financial reporting.

Control Activities. Certain control procedures will be documented during our analysis of the control environment and the accounting system. However, many specific control procedures will still need to be documented that will focus primarily on the City’s major transaction cycles. As mentioned above, we will test the City’s control procedures on which we intend to rely on for safeguarding assets from unauthorized use or disposition and detecting/preventing unauthorized transactions. Any flow charts, organizational charts and any other manuals, programs, and financial and management information systems will be analyzed during this process.

Information and Communication. Through inquiry of the City’s personnel, we will identify the major types of transactions engaged in by the City. We will become familiar with the treatment of those transactions, including how the transactions are initiated, the related accounting records, and the manner of processing the transactions. Finally, we will obtain an understanding of the City’s financial reporting process used to prepare financial reports, including the approaches used in making accounting estimates and disclosures.

Monitoring. Through inquiry of the City’s personnel and the use of questionnaires, we will obtain sufficient knowledge of the major types of activities the City uses to monitor internal control over financial reporting. We will also determine how those activities are used to initiate corrective actions.

Page 70 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-22-
Specific audit approach (continued)
Approach in determining applicable laws and regulations We understand the importance of laws and regulations in planning an audit of a local governmental entity and design all our audits to ensure we test transactions for compliance. As part of our audit process, our audit team will obtain an understanding of the laws and regulations that will have a direct and material effect on the City’s financial statements. In determining which laws and regulations are applicable to the City’s financial statement audit, we will consult the following sources:
x AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide, Audits of State and Local Governments x California Government Code (investments, GANN limit requirements, etc.) x Applicable State of California laws
x U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (The Yellow Book), latest revision
x Applicable contracts/grants of the City
x Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (OMB Uniform Guidance)
After consulting the applicable sources, we will design our audit to provide reasonable assurance of detecting material instances of noncompliance while continuing to refer to the applicable compliance guideline to ensure changes in compliance are not missed.

Auditing in a remote environment
The availability and use of technology has had a significant impact on the accounting and auditing profession, allowing us to provide professional services across longer distances and timelier than ever before. We have continued to evolve our ability to serve our clients remotely since the COVID-19 pandemic and have experienced new efficiencies for both auditor and auditee. We anticipate continuing to perform substantially all our audit work remotely and will work with the City to maximize the remote efficiencies using technology.

If the City would like members of the audit team on-site, we will work with City management on determining an acceptable staffing level.

In the remote environment, we maintain regular and routine contact with our clients throughout the audit planning, fieldwork, and conclusion phases with the use of email, phone calls, secure portals, video conferencing, project tracking schedules, and any other means necessary to ensure the timely completion of the audit by any agreed-upon deadlines. Our audit team is very responsive to our clients and we encourage our clients to connect with us throughout the year for any matters that may affect the audit or of a general accounting nature. We have found this to be mutually beneficial for both our clients and the annual audit work.

Remote auditing has many benefits some tangible, as listed above, others intangible. In performing remote audits, we are bettering our employee’s quality of life by reducing unnecessary travel time, reducing traffic congestion on our local freeways while also helping to improve Southern California’s air quality.

Page 71 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-23-
Specific audit approach (continued)
Proposed audit timing
x Auditor
transition:

Meet with
prior auditor
to review
workpapers.
x Entrance
conference
to meet with
management
for pre-audit
planning.
x Preliminary
risk
assessment
procedures.

Anticipated timing of each segment
May/June October/November December/January
x Obtain an understanding of
systems, internal controls,
and current-year issues.
x Assess and evaluate design
and implementation of key
internal controls (including
IT related).
x Perform tests of internal
controls as needed.
x Identify control deficiencies
x Perform detailed risk
assessment procedures.
x Draft internal control
comment letter.
x Develop detailed audit plan
– provide management with
a detailed listing of items
needed to perform the audit,
including the timing of when
items are needed.
x Perform substantive audit
fieldwork, including
substantive analytical
procedures.
x Consider whether audit
evidence is sufficient to
form an opinion.
x Conduct exit conference
with management to
discuss proposed entries,
internal control issues, etc.
x Determine whether, based
on our substantive testing
and other procedures, the
financial statements, taken
as a whole, are free of
material misstatement.
x Review all workpapers.
x Evaluate financial
statements and note
disclosures.
x Perform final analytical
procedures.
x Draft required reports.
x Issue final required reports
by or before agreed upon
date.
x Present to governing body
as needed.

Proof of insurance
We currently carry sufficient insurance and if we are selected as auditor, we will provide our standard proof of insurance.

Contract terminations
Our firm has not had a contract terminated in the last five years.

Segment 1 -
Planning/internal
control
Segment 2 -
Substantive
testing/analysis
Segment 3 -
Report
preparation/work
paper review
Audit planning

Page 72 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD

PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES
-24-
Other
Proposed contract revisions
We propose the following changes to Section 8 of the City’s Sample Agreement for Services:

8. Ownership of Documents. All plans, studies, documents and other writings and electronic disks containing drawings prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, except those items defined as audit documentation under professional standards promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), which will be the property of Consultant, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of City, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon written request.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements (GASBS) implementation One potential problem could be the implementation of any future GASBS. With our deep understanding of governmental accounting and auditing, constant training, and broad resources, we do not anticipate any issues during a GASB implementation. Our approach to any GASB statement implementation would be as follows: gain a thorough understanding of the pronouncement; determine applicability to the City; if applicable, discuss the statement and how it will affect the City with City staff; and provide guidance to City staff on the accounting and financial reporting implications.

Condition of records
Our proposed fee assumes the following: the City will be adequately prepared for the audit and the City’s financial operations and working trial balance will be consistent from year to year. If, after we receive the working trial balances, we notice there are excessive new accounts over the prior year; or if there are excessive subsequent journal entries; prepared by client workpapers do not agree to the working trial balances, there are new funds/functions within the City, etc., or other changes that necessitate a significant amount of time to address, we will need to come to an agreed upon change order to address any possible additional costs incurred by the firm. If the need for additional work comes to our attention, we will immediately notify City staff. If you choose to have us perform the additional work, then such work will be performed at the same hourly rates applicable to the audit and set forth in an addendum to the contract between the City and our firm.

Management is also responsible for the implementation of new standards issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. We will provide reasonable assistance in the preparation of the items, but any significant time needed to complete the financial statements will be billed separately.

Our proposed fee is also dependent on all items requested being completed in the format requested or in a mutually agreed upon format and uploaded to the Engagement Organizer hosted by our firm in a timely manner in accordance with the agree-upon audit timeline.

First year ACFR preparation
Since the City has not prepared an ACFR in the past and due to the complexity of preparing an ACFR, our firm would need to charge an additional agreed upon fee in the first year of the engagement. If awarded the contract, we can discuss this further.

Page 73 of 228 ends

Attachment A

GOVERNMENT CLIENTS SERVED
CSMFO/
GFOA Successor Housing
Government Client Awards Agency Authority
City of Aliso Viejo 6/30/2016 to 6/30/2022 Yes
City of Beaumont 6/30/2020 to 6/30/2022 Yes
City of Brawley 6/30/2022
City of Calabasas 6/30/2020 to 6/30/2022 Yes
City of Claremont 6/30/2016 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes
City of El Cajon 6/30/2007 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes
City of Exeter 6/30/2017 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes
City of Hawthorne 6/30/2016 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes
City of Imperial Beach 6/30/2022
City of La Mesa 6/30/2011 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes
City of La Verne 6/30/2011 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes
City of Lawndale 6/30/2020 to 6/30/2022
City of Live Oak 6/30/2022
City of Loma Linda 6/30/2013 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes
City of Menifee 6/30/2014 to 6/30/2022 Yes
City of Moreno Valley 6/30/2020 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes City of Ojai 6/30/2020 to 6/30/2022
City of Perris 6/30/2022 Yes Yes
City of Rolling Hills Estates 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2022 Yes City of San Bernardino 6/30/2020 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes
City of San Dimas 6/30/2021 to 6/30/2022 Yes
City of San Jacinto 6/30/2011 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes
City of San Marcos 6/30/2014 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes
City of Santa Paula 6/30/2021 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes
City of Santee 6/30/2022 Yes
City of Sierra Madre 6/30/2012 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes City of South Pasadena 6/30/2018 to 6/30/2021 Yes Yes
City of Thousand Oaks 6/30/2018 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes City of Twentynine Palms 6/30/2011 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes City of Wildomar 6/30/2022
City of Woodlake 6/30/2017 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes
City of Yorba Linda 6/30/2022 Yes
Town of Windsor 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2021
Town of Yucca Valley 6/30/2008 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yes Yes City of Canyon Lake
City of Yucaipa
City of Grand Terrace
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District 12/31/2017 to 12/31/2021 Yes Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2022 Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency 6/30/2012 to 6/30/2022 Yes Capistrano Bay Community Services District 6/30/2013 to 6/30/2022 Chino Basin Desalter Authority 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2022 Yes Conejo Recreation and Park District 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2022 Consolidated Fire Agencies 6/30/2014 to 6/30/2022
Crestline Village Water District 4/30/1996 to 6/30/2022 Years Served
Accounting support
Accounting support
Accounting support

Page 74 of 228 ends

Attachment A
(Continued)
GOVERNMENT CLIENTS SERVED (continued)
CSMFO/
GFOA Successor Housing
Government Client Awards Agency Authority
Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency 6/30/1998 to 6/30/2022 East Valley Water District 6/30/2022 Yes
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 6/30/2015 to 6/30/2022 Yes Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District - WESA 6/30/2015 to 6/30/2022 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District FA 6/30/2015 to 6/30/2022 Heartlands Communications Fac Auth 6/30/2007 to 6/30/2022 Heartlands Fire Training Authority 6/30/2007 to 6/30/2022 Idyllwild Water District 6/30/2011 to 6/30/2022
Inland Valley Development Agency 6/30/2022
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District 6/30/2022 Yes
Leucadia Wastewater District 6/30/2022 Yes
March Joint Powers Authority 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2022
Mission Springs Water District 6/30/2021 to 6/30/2022
Mojave Water Agency 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2021 Yes
Montalvo Community Services District 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2020 Mountain Communities Fire Safe Council 12/31/2013 to 12/31/2021 Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2021 Nipomo Community Services District 6/30/2016 to 6/30/2021 Yes Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2021 Pine Cove Water District 6/30/2010 to 6/30/2021
Pomona Valley Transportation Authority 6/30/2022
Resource Con. Dist. of the Santa Monica Mountains 6/30/2015 to 6/30/2022 Rim of the World Park & Rec. District 6/30/2006 to 6/30/2021 Riverside County Citrus Pest Control District No. 2 to 6/30/2022 Riverside County Citrus Pest Control District No. 3 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2022 Rosamond Community Services District 6/30/2015 to 6/30/2022 Rossmoor Community Services District 6/30/2005 to 6/30/2022 Rubidoux Community Services District 6/30/2016 to 6/30/2022 San Bernardino County Special Districts 6/30/2022
San Bernardino Valley Muni Water District 6/30/2004 to 6/30/2022 Yes San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District 6/30/2013 to 6/30/2022 San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission 6/30/2022
San Luis Rey Municipal Water District 6/30/2021 to 6/30/2022 SBIAA 6/30/2017 to 6/30/2021
Southern California Coastal Water 6/30/2022
Successor Agency to the County of SB RDA 6/30/2014 to 6/30/2022 Thousand Oaks Alliance for the Arts 6/30/2018 to 6/30/2022 Triunfo Sanitation District 6/30/2020 to 6/30/2022 Yes
Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD 6/30/2019 to 6/30/2022 Yes Valley of Enchantment Municipal Water Company 7/31/2013 to 7/31/2022 Valley Water Company 6/30/2013 to 6/30/2022
Ventura County Public Fin Authority 6/30/2012 to 6/30/2022 West Basin Municipal Water District 6/30/2020 to 6/30/2022 Yes Yucca Valley Airport District 6/30/2020
North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority
Crestline Sanitation District
Running Springs Water District
Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District Accounting support Years Served
Accounting support
Accounting support
Accounting support

Page 75 of 228 ends

14.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/18/2023 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS SUBJECT:

Historic Resources Permit 2022-02, a request to replace the porch and balcony of the Kings Hand Laundry building. The property is designated as a contributing building within the Historic Overlay Zone. The project is located at 214 N. Green St. (APN 010-274-020) RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 23-06-R approving Historic Resources Permit 2022-02.

BACKGROUND:

See staff report attached.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report - 214 N Green St

2. Resolution No. 23-06-R

3. Attachment 1 - Building Plans

4. Notice of Exemption No. 2023-20

Page 76 of 228 ends

CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
PROJECT: Historic Resources Permit 2022-02, a request to replace the porch and balcony of the Kings Hand Laundry building. The property is designated as a contributing building within the Historic Overlay Zone.

LOCATION: The project is located at 214 N. Green St. (APN 010-274-020)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt Resolution 23-06-R approving Historic Resources Permit 2022-02.

RECOMMENDED MOTION

1. I move to adopt Resolution 23-06-R approving Historic Resources Permit 2022-02.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property is a contributing building located in the Historic District, shown below – circled in black.

Page 77 of 228 ends

“Contributing building” means a structure within a historic district which structure retains scale, mass and other architectural characteristics to the degree that it contributes to the sense of time and place of the immediate area and the district. The building may have individual architectural significance or may be one of a grouping of background buildings that jointly contribute to the character of the immediate area and the district. Contributing buildings may reflect interim modifications if those modifications do not irreparably detract from the character of the building or if the modifications reflect an architectural style or particular era important to the development of the City. Contributing buildings shall also include structures that have a strong historical tie to activities, events, or individuals important in the development of the City.

In accordance with the Municipal Code Section 17.48, alterations to the exterior of a building located within the Historic Overlay Zone are required to be approved through a Historic Resources Permit, which must be approved by the City Council.

Section 17.48.040
No improvement or exterior architectural feature of any improvement shall be constructed or altered or enlarged which is located in the Historic Overlay District or identified as a historic site outside the District, unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter. The section shall not apply to any interior alteration which has no effect on the condition or appearance of any exterior architectural feature of an improvement. No structure listed on a State or National Register shall be moved or demolished, unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter.

Section 17.48.070
A. A historic resource permit shall be required for any alteration of the exterior features of a building within a designated historic district, or a designated historic building or site, or to construct a new building or improvements upon property within a designated historic district except as otherwise provided in this Chapter 17.48, the City Council shall determine whether a historic resources permit shall be issued. A permit shall not be required for ordinary maintenance and repairs as defined in this section.

B. Permit Procedures. An application for a historic resource permit shall be made on a form prescribed by the Community Development Department and shall be accompanied by the fees established by resolution of the City Council. The application shall include the information required by Section 17.60.020 for site plan review, complete elevation drawings of the proposed alterations, samples of proposed colors and materials, color photographs of all sides of any existing improvement, building or structure on the site, and such other information as may be required by the Community Development Department.

If applicable, the application shall include the information required by Chapter 17.58 (permit for conditional uses) and Chapter 17.62 (planned unit development).

Applications for permits requiring City Council approval shall be placed on the next regular meeting of the City Council. The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit.

Page 78 of 228 ends

Building Description
The building was originally constructed in the early 1900’s and occupied by the Kings Hand Laundry business, operated by the Tagawa family until its closure in 2015. Much of the building’s original architectural style remains to this day, with minor modifications performed over the years.

The removal of the deteriorated porch and balcony along the front of the building and the installation of a new foundation are the most recent prominent alterations to the building.

The applicant proposes to replace the porch and balcony with a new structure similar in appearance to the original, shown in Attachment 1. Site modifications will also include a new concrete walkway and ramp leading to an existing door on the northern side of the building, along with the potential installation of a steel handrail along the front of the porch.

According to Section 17.48.150(B)(6), “deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired, rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities.

The repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence, rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.” Since the former porch and balcony were removed, repair is infeasible, and a replacement porch and balcony will be constructed in order to match the historic appearance of the structure as closely as possible. Shown below is a photograph of the previous porch and balcony that the new construction will replicate. The location of the new structure will be identical to the original, and the new structure will resemble the original composition, design, color, and texture as closely as possible.

In addition, as stated in Section 17.48.150(C)(5)(b), “where the replacement of wooden exterior features or portions of such features is necessary, the new structure should be constructed to resemble, as closely as possible, the original structure.” Likewise, per Section 17.48.150(C)(1)(f), “wooden balconies, canopies and porches are traditional to some buildings within the historic

Page 79 of 228 ends

district and are an acceptable element of store fronts where such features can be appropriately documented. The recreation of such elements should be carefully considered to ensure that they are a faithful reproduction of original features, based on photographic and documentary evidence.

Interim building modifications which in themselves represent an important historic era or architectural style in the development of the area should not, however, be obscured or destroyed in the rebuilding of such features.” As shown in the photo above, the wooden porch and balcony are documented as being a historic feature of the building. The recreation of the porch and balcony shall resemble, as closely as possible, the original structure.

A minor modification will be the inclusion of three steps on the northern side of the porch in order to provide adequate accessibility for any future visitors who may have difficulty with the height of the porch. The new steps will be wooden to match the rest of the porch. According to Section

17.48.150(B)(9), “contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing buildings, structures or site shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, materials and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.” The new steps will not destroy any significant material and their design will be compatible with the rest of the structure. In addition, a new ramp, with a flat walkway connected to the public sidewalk, on the northern side of the building will provide ADA access to an existing doorway on that side of the building.

Staff is supportive of the request to provide safety handrailing on the front of the porch, should the applicant proceed with that option, along with the handrails proposed for the stairs and the ramp. The railing would not intrude on the historic aspects of the building, and could be removed if needed. Per Section 17.48.150(B)(10), “wherever possible, new additions or alterations to buildings, structures or sites shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the building, structure or site would be unimpaired.” In addition, as stated in Section 17.48.150(B)(9), “contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing buildings, structures or site shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, materials and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.” To ensure compatibility with the building, staff recommends that either the steel railing is painted to match the wood exterior of the structure, or replaced with a wooden railing similar in composition to the building.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code, staff recommends approval of Historic Resources Permit 2022-02 and that the approval of the historic resources permit will allow private investment in the Downtown area, enhance property values, preserve to the extent possible historic elements of the site, and make the following findings:

1. That the structure will help promote the general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement, preservation, and use of structures which represent past eras, events, and

Page 80 of 228 ends

persons important in history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past or are landmarks in the history of architecture, or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods, or which provide for this and future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

2. That the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of development standards for contributing sites within the Historic Overlay Zone.

3. That the proposed project will provide a complementary setting and environment in the Historic District.

4. That the project will preserve and encourage a city of varied architectural styles reflecting the cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural phases of its history.

5. That the request will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Hanford.

RECOMMENDATION – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 23-06-R, approving Historic Resources Permit No. 2022-02, subject to the following conditions:

1. That approval of this project does not exempt compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, Public Works Improvement Standards, fees, or other City Ordinances.

2. That the alterations to the site be completed in accordance with the proposed changes. Future changes may be approved by the Community Development Director or forwarded to the City Council for review.

3. That staff recommends either the steel railing is painted to match the wood exterior of the structure, or replaced with a wooden railing similar in composition to the building.

Applicant:

Steve Banister
402 E. Seventh St.

Hanford, CA 93230
Property Owner:

China Alley Preservation Society
PO Box 728
Hanford, CA 93232

Page 81 of 228 ends

RESOLUTION 23-06-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD APPROVING HISTORIC RESOURCES PERMIT NO. 2022-02, A REQUEST TO

REPLACE THE PORCH AND BALCONY OF THE KINGS HAND LAUNDRY BUILDING. THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS A CONTRIBUTING
BUILDING WITHIN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONE. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 214 N. GREEN STREET (APN 010-274-020).

At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on April 18, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium, it was moved by Council Member ____________, and seconded by Council Member ____________, and duly carried, that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS, an application, filed by the China Alley Preservation Society for Historic Resources Permit No. 2022-02, as shown in Exhibit A, was presented to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is located at 214 N. Green St. (APN 010-274-020); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford, at a regular meeting on April 18, 2023, reviewed the request for Historic Resources Permit No. 2022-02; and WHEREAS, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines categorically exempts “Existing Facilities” from Environmental Review; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford reviewed the application for the Historic Resources Permit No. 2022-02 and found that the application is consistent with Section

17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code that the approval of the historic resources permit will allow private investment in the Downtown area, enhance property values, preserve to the extent possible historic elements of the site, and make the following findings:

1. That the structure will help promote the general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement, preservation, and use of structures which represent past eras, events, and persons important in history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past or are landmarks in the history of architecture, or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods, or which provide for this and future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

2. That the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of development standards for contributing sites within of the Historic Overlay Zone.

3. That the proposed project will provide a complementary setting and environment in the Historic District.

Page 82 of 228 ends

4. That the project will preserve and encourage a city of varied architectural styles reflecting the cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural phases of its history.

5. That the request will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Hanford.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby approves Historic Resources Permit No. 2022-02, subject to the following conditions:

1. That approval of this project does not exempt compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, Public Works Improvement Standards, fees, or other City Ordinances.

2. That the alterations to the site be completed in accordance with the proposed changes.

Future changes may be approved by the Community Development Director or forwarded to the City Council for review.

3. That staff recommends either the steel railing is painted to match the wood exterior of the structure, or replaced with a wooden railing similar in composition to the building.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby approves Historic Resources Permit No. 2022-02. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on April 18, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: _______________________________________________________________________ NOES: _______________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: _____________________________________________________________________ APPROVED: __________________________

TRAVIS PADEN
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
ATTEST:

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 18th day of April, 2023.

Page 83 of 228 ends

Date: _________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

Page 84 of 228 ends

Exhibit A
Approved Design

Page 85 of 228 ends

Page 86 of 228 ends

Page 87 of 228 ends

Page 88 of 228 ends

Page 89 of 228 ends

Page 90 of 228 ends

Notice of Exemption 2023-20
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 212
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
County of Kings
Kings County Government Center
Hanford, CA 93230
From: City of Hanford
317 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Project Title: Historic Resources Permit No. 2022-02
Project Location – 214 N. Green St. (APN 010-274-020)
Project Location – City: Hanford Project Location – County: Kings County Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: Historic Resources Permit 2022-02: a request to replace the porch and balcony of the Kings Hand Laundry building. The property is designated as a contributing building within the Historic Overlay Zone.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Hanford______________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: _______China Alley Preservation Society Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 152698);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269 (a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption: State type and section number: 15301 Existing Facilities Statutory Exemption. State code number:

Reasons why project is exempt:

The City of Hanford determined the project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Section 15301 states that Class 1 exemptions consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

This project involves the minor alteration of an existing private structure, involving negligible or no expansion of the existing or former use.

Lead Agency
Contact Person: Mark Manha Area Code/ Telephone: (559) 585-2583 Signature: Date: April 18, 2023 Title: Associate Planner Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:

Signed by Applicant

Page 91 of 228 ends

Project:

Hanford Area Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Recommendation:

1. Adopt Resolution 21-15-R, directing staff to file an application with Kings County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for a request to expand the City’s Sphere of Influence, as identified within the 2035 Hanford General Plan Update.

Background:

A Sphere of Influence (SOI) is a boundary adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County (LAFCo) that serves as a plan for the probable future service area boundary of a local agency, such as a city or community district. Within the Sphere of Influence, a city or community district may apply to LAFCo to annex contiguous territory which is a logical an orderly expansion. LAFCo retains the authority to approve annexations to cities and community districts, and must make certain findings to ensure the orderly expansion and adequacy of service provisions, while protecting prime agricultural lands.

On January 1, 2008, a comprehensive Sphere of Influence Update was completed by LAFCO, which adopted new Sphere of Influence boundaries for the City of Hanford. A Sphere of Influence update has not been conducted since.

The City of Hanford adopted the 2035 General Plan Update on April 24, 2017. The City’s General Plan identified the 2035 Growth Boundary to serve as the limits of the area to be developed with urban uses during the 2015 to 2035 planning period. The Planned Area boundary proposed in the General Plan is proposed to serve as the boundary for the primary Sphere of Influence, excepting the portion east of Highway 43, since land uses have not been identified for this area.

Hanford’s Sphere of Influence delineates the City’s probable physical boundary and service area.

The Primary Sphere of Influence determines the areas to be annexed, and the Secondary Sphere of Influence identifies areas where LAFCo recommends land use coordination between the City of Hanford and Kings County. LAFCo makes the final determination of the location of both the Primary and Secondary Spheres of Influence.

In accordance with the General Plan Policy L7, the City shall support and pursue an amendment of the City of Hanford’s Primary Sphere of Influence to be coterminous to the Planned Area Boundary.

The current Sphere of Influence, adopted by LAFCo in 2008 is attached, as Attachment

1. The proposed Primary Sphere of Influence is attached as Attachment 2.

The Planned Area Boundary, as identified in the General Plan, is attached as Attachment

3. Sphere of Influence Review Criteria
As part of any Sphere of Influence review, LAFCo is required to consider the information presented in the Municipal Service Review. Additionally, LAFCo must also make written statement of its determinations for that agency regarding the following:

1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands;

Page 92 of 228 ends

2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;

3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide;

4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency; and

5. The present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing Sphere of Influence.

After a written determination has been made with respect to the aforementioned areas of review, LAFCo may adopt a Sphere of Influence (SOI) that is appropriate for the agency’s provision of service.

Municipal Service Review (MSR)
A Municipal Service Review (MSR) is a comprehensive assessment of the ability of existing local government agencies to effectively and efficiently provide municipal services to residents and users. The form and content of an MSR is specified by requirements in the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) and in the State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) MSR Guidelines, published in August 2003.

The CKH Act requires all LAFCos, including the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County (Kings LAFCo), to prepare an MSR for each of its incorporated cities and its special districts. The fundamental role of LAFCo is to implement the CKH Act, which was adopted into State law to encourage the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local municipalities, service areas, and special districts. MSRs must be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, an update of a city or special district Sphere of Influence (SOI).

An MSR was initiated by Kings LAFCo in the beginning of 2020, intended to provide Kings LAFCo with the necessary and relevant information related to the operations and management of the municipal service providers within the City of Hanford’s proposed SOI update.

The MSR contains analysis and conclusions, referred to as Determinations, regarding six topic areas, as set forth in the CKH Act. These areas of analysis focus on the essential operational and management aspect of the City of Hanford, and together constitute a complete review of Hanford’s ability to meet the service demands of its residents and businesses. The six topic areas used for analysis in the MSR are:

1. Growth and Population Projections – Service efficiency is linked to a service provider’s ability to plan for the future needs of a city, while also meeting existing service demands.

This section reviews projected service demands and needs based upon existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections.

Determinations:

Determination 2-1 - U.S. Census data indicates that the City had a 2010 population of 53,967, a 2023 population (five-year increment from last Community Survey prediction) of 63,140, and a population projection of 87,429 by 2047, according to population projections from the General Plan.

Page 93 of 228 ends

Determination 2-2 - Based upon recent historical population trends from 2010 to 2015, the average annual growth rate was 0.3 percent for the City of Hanford. Therefore, the current population is trending below the projections of the General Plan.

Determination 2-3 - The City plans for future growth through the implementation of policies and standards set forth in its General Plan. The City’s General Plan was updated in 2017 and is a long-range guide for attaining the City’s goals within its ultimate service area and accommodating its population growth. The City’s General Plan provides a policy base to guide future growth within the City.

Determination 2-4 - The City contains policies in their General Plan that regulate future annexations.

2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities – Unincorporated disadvantaged communities, as defined by Water code Section 79505.5, may lack basic infrastructure, such as water, sewer, or fire protection, because they may have been overlooked due to their socioeconomic status. To promote equality and environmental justice, in accordance with adopted local policy and Senate Bill 244, adopted in 2011, the proximity of any disadvantaged community to existing service providers in analyzed and discussed, in order to determine if the community should be included in the SOI of the City.

Determinations:

Determination 3-1 - There are Census Block Groups within the City of Hanford that have a median household income below $60,181(80 percent of the statewide median household income).

Determination 3-2 - There are areas currently within the City’s SOI that can be considered unincorporated disadvantaged communities due to median household income being below 80 percent of the statewide average.

Determination 3-3 – The community of Home Garden is within the City of Hanford’s SOI and currently provides potable water service. Wastewater service is provided by the City and fire and emergency protection services from Kings County. These areas would only be considered disadvantaged based on income, not from a service delivery standpoint.

Determination 3-4 – There are areas within the SOI that currently receive water and/or sewer through private facilities, such as wells and septic tanks, while receiving fire and emergency protection services from Kings County and are below the 80 percent threshold of medium household income. These areas would be considered disadvantaged from a service delivery and an income standpoint and should be evaluated on a case by case basis when there is a neighborhood of 12 or more registered voters that could be included in a future annexation, per State law.

Determination 3-5 – Areas designated as having potential to become a DUC should be monitored and reviewed during the next municipal service review for the City.

Page 94 of 228 ends

improvement, and finance planning. This section of the MSR assesses the adequacy and quality of the service providers’ physical infrastructure and analyzes whether or not sufficient infrastructure and capital are in place, or planned for, to accommodate planned future growth and expansions.

Determinations:

Capital Improvement Plan
Determination 4.1.1-1 – The City annually adopts a Capital Improvement Plan that identifies key capital projects that are needed to enhance services to residents.

Determination 4.1.1-2 – The Capital Improvement Plan could include milestones, performance indicators and/or specific goals consistent with the visioning principles of the General Plan to benchmark its progress in achieving specific levels of service for its residents.

Water
Determination 4.1.2-1 – The City operates a municipal water enterprise that services its residents.

Determination 4.1.2-2 – The City has completed and adopted a Water System Master Plan in September 2017 to better identify and improve operations of the water system and plan for future needs of the City in accordance with population projects.

Determination 4.1.2-3 – The City should monitor the well efficiencies on a frequent basis to adequately manage the groundwater supply.

Wastewater
Determination 4.1.3-1 – The City operates a municipal sewer enterprise that services its residents.

Determination 4.1.3-2 – The City has completed and adopted a Sewer System Master Plan in September 2017 to better identify and improve operations of the water system and plan for future needs of the City in accordance with population projects.

Fire
Determination 4.1.4-1 – The Hanford Fire Department provides emergency and fire protection services for residents and buildings within the city limits. Emergency services provided by the Fire Department include technical rescue, hazardous materials response, emergency medical services, and emergency disaster management.

Determination 4.1.4-2 – The City provides fire services through the use of General Fund, service fees, and other miscellaneous funds.

Determination 4.1.4-3 – The City did not have any facility upgrade projects listed in the most recently CIP.

Page 95 of 228 ends

Determination 4.1.4-4 – The City should continue to program repairs to existing facilities and continue plans for the construction of a fourth and fifth fire station in order to meet the needs of staff in order to provide a level of service acceptable to residents.

Determination 4.1.4-5 – The City should establish, maintain, and monitor a set of level-ofservice criteria for fire protection services as a tool to assess the ability of the City to service growth.

Police
Determination 4.1.5-1 – The City utilizes a variety of financing sources in order to offset the expenditures utilized by law enforcement.

Determination 4.1.5-2 – The Police Department has identified upgrades to its police station and making additions as funding becomes available.

Determination 4.1.5-3 – The City should monitor crime statistics in years immediately following 2018 to determine if there is a need for additional patrol personnel to curtail the increase in crimes.

Parks and Community Services
Determination 4.1.6-1 – The City actively maintains parks and provides recreational services to the residents of Hanford.

Determination 4.1.6-2 – Parks and recreational facilities within the City amount to approximately 309.9 acres of land. This amounts to a ratio of roughly 5.4 acres per 1,000 persons (based on 2020 population estimate of 56,910), which meets the standard identified in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Determination 4.1.6-3 – The City utilizes the Capital Improvement Plan to maintain and repair its numerous recreational facilities within the city limits to promote an active lifestyle to its residents.

Determination 4.1.6-4 – The City’s General Plan and Parks Master Plan both identified a need for additional park and recreation space to serve residents of the City.

Determination 4.1.6-5 – The City’s current parkland ratio of acres per 1,000 population is below the NRPA’s guidelines and will be even more so with the addition of the population of the eight County islands.

Determination 4.1.6-6 - The City may need to employ strategies such identification of new parks in the Capital Improvement Program or obtaining grant funds for additional facilities to achieve adopted levels of service in conjunction with an expansion of its service area with the annexation of the eight County islands in order to reach the goals of the General Plan.

Determination 4.1.6-7 – The City should strive to improve proximity and distribution of parks and open space throughout the City so that all areas of the City meet the General Plan goal of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents.

Page 96 of 228 ends

Road Maintenance
Determination 4.1.7-1 – The City actively maintains the existing road systems and provides street sweeping within the city limits.

Determination 4.1.7-2 – The City utilizes a Capital Improvement Plan and reimbursements from the Gas Tax to aid in the repair and maintenance of existing roadways within the city limits.

Storm Drainage
Determination 4.1.8-1 – The City provides municipal storm drainage services for its residents.

Determination 4.1.8-2 – The City has completed and adopted a Storm Drainage Master Plan in 2017 to better identify and improve operations of the storm drainage system and plan for future needs of the City in accordance with population projections.

Public Transportation
Determination 4.1.9-1 – The City, in conjunction with other cities and Kings County, provides fixed route and dial-a-ride service to its residents within the city limits and urban area boundary through the Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) system.

Determination 4.1.9-3 – The City’s transit capital and service goals and policies are identified in the City of Hanford General Plan.

Refuse
Determination 4.1.10-1 – The City provides residents and commercial properties with solid waste collection and disposal through a JPA with Kings Waste and Recycling Authority.

Determination 4.1.10-2 – The City’s Refuse Operations revenues and expenditures have been balanced.

Determination 4.1.10-3 – The City should continue to participate in the joint powers authority and review the rates established to ensure they provide equal levels of service to throughout the service area.

Plans for Future Services
Determination 4.1.11-1 – The City’s General Plan and subsequent Water, Sewer, and Storm Master Plans have calculated and planned for service accommodation for the future population of the City.

Determination 4.1.11-2 - Present needs for public facilities and services are currently being met. Probable needs for public facilities and services are not currently anticipated to vary from present needs, as future demands are expected to remain relatively the same.

Population increases are not currently anticipated to affect the City’s ability to provide of services as growth is anticipated within the General Plan.

Page 97 of 228 ends

Determination 4.1.11-3 – Implementation of Master Plans would properly provide the adequate extension of services to the County islands, were they to be annexed.

4. Financial Ability to Provide Services- This section of the MSR analyzes the financial structure and health of the City with respect to the provisions of services. Included in this analysis is the consideration of rates, service operations, and the link, as well as other factors affecting the City’s financial health and stability, including factors affecting the financing of needed infrastructure improvements and services. Compliance with existing State requirements relative to financial reporting and management is also discussed.

Determinations:

Determination 4.2-1 – The City annually conducts an open, transparent budgeting process aimed at balancing the needs of the City with the financial resources available.

Determination 4.2-2 – The City attempts to utilize other forms of revenue available besides sales/property taxes and fees, such as grants, to supplement its revenue stream.

Determination 4.2-3 – The City levies a series of fees and rates to offset the operations, maintenance, and infrastructure costs of the services it provides.

Determination 4.2-4 – The services provided by the City are subject to Proposition 218.

5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities – practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs are examined in this section of the MSR.

Occurrences of facility sharing are listed and assessed for efficiency, and potential sharing opportunities that would serve to better deliver services are discussed.

Determinations:

Determination 4.3-1 – The City participates in a mutual aid agreement with the Kings County Fire Department for additional fire protection service.

Determination 4.3-2 – The City participates in the Kings County Area Public Transit Authority to provide public transportation to its residents.

Determination 4.3-3 – The City is a member of the Kings Waste and Recycling Authority to provide refuse disposal to its residents.

Determination 4.3-4 – The City should annually review the agreements of which the City participates to establish if further cost savings could be realized beyond the current economies of scale.

6. Accountability of Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies – This section of the MSR addresses the adequacy and appropriateness of the agency’s existing boundaries and sphere of influence and evaluates the ability of the City to meet their service demands under their existing government structure. Also included in this section is an evaluation of compliance by the agency with public meeting and records law.

Determinations:

Page 98 of 228 ends

Determination 4.4-1 – The City operates under the City Manager/City Council form of government. Each year the Council members select a Mayor and Vice-Mayor from amongst themselves.

Determination 4.4-2 – The City conducts open meetings in compliance with the Brown Act that allows for complaints and comments regarding services and potential conflicts or inefficiencies to be identified to the City Council by residents.

Determination 4.4-3 – The City utilizes an organizational structure that obtains efficiency through departments heads who oversee multiple divisions.

Determination 4.4-4 – The City makes Council agendas and other information that details operations and services provided by the City available to the public at City Hall and on its website (Council agendas).

Determination 4.4-5 – The current City structure is efficient, transparent, and meets expectation of its residents with the resources available.

The full Municipal Service Review prepared by QK, which will be forwarded to LAFCo, is attached – Attachment 4.

Statement of Determinations

1. Present and Planned Land Uses
The City has adopted the 2035 General Plan, that dictates present and future land use policy for City growth. The City’s General Plan includes areas for immediate development, as well as reserve areas to accommodate growth of the periods of the document, at least 20 years and possibly beyond.

The General Plan Land Use Map, which also reflects the 2035 Growth Boundary and Planned Area, is attached – Attachment 2.

2. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The City provides a wide range of services to its residents, while being supplemented by other agencies within its city limits. The City also coordinates through secondary agreements to collaborate with neighboring agencies, such as the County or special districts, to provide services in a comprehensive manner.

The City will continue to utilize its agreements with the County for public transportation and solid waste collection and disposal. The City has undertaken significant efforts to implement the Master Plan infrastructure in areas within the city. The current public facilities serving the City limits and SOI will continue as is, with no need for a change of services.

3. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities – The City provides water, wastewater, and fire and emergency services within its city limits and within several of the County islands.

However, the majority of area within the SOI (outside the city limits), does not have a service provider, with the exception of the Home Garden Community Service District (CSD). The areas depicted as a disadvantages unincorporated community (Attachment

Page 99 of 228 ends

5) are below the 80% of California’s median household income and do not receive water, wastewater, and fire and emergency services from the City of Hanford or another service provider. However, given the fact that the City has extended services beyond its limits within some of these areas, future annexations should be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if there is a neighborhood needing services that would warrant a subsequent annexation.

4. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services – The City currently provides a level of service which appears satisfactory to meet the needs of its current residents. The City will determine the ability to provide public services to any areas to be annexed into the City from the Sphere of Influence.

5. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest – There are currently areas of social or economic interest within the existing SOI, denoted as disadvantaged unincorporated communities of potential disadvantaged unincorporated communities, most notability – the community of Home Garden. These areas have been identified and will need subsequent review for inclusion on future annexations. Areas which already receive water, wastewater, and fire and emergency service may still need to be included in follow-up annexations to the City in order to provide equitable police, fire and emergency services. Police service levels should be reviewed as part of annexation proposals that are in proximity to disadvantaged unincorporated communities.

Additionally, other municipal services that would be extended to an annexation proposal should be compared with the adjacent disadvantaged unincorporated community area to determine if there would be a benefit or improvement in service levels to the neighborhood with a follow-up annexation. If the proposal would be cost prohibitive, the disadvantaged unincorporated community area should be forwarded to the County to attempt to bring the services through available funding sources, such as grants or loan interest loan programs, in order to facilitate transition to the City.

Next Steps
Following direction from the Council to submit the necessary application, fees, and document to LAFCo, LAFCo staff and Counsel will review the MSR and SOI proposal. From there, a hearing will be scheduled by LAFCo where comments from the public will be heard and the MSR adopted by LAFCo.

The City intends to include the area located within the Planned Area boundary east of Highway 43 into the Primary Sphere of Influence, however, that portion cannot be included in the Sphere of Influence until land uses have been identified for the area shown as Area of Interest. The City is actively seeking grants to begin comprehensive land use planning in the Area of Interest, which includes the future High Speed Rail Station.

A request to expand the Sphere of Influence to include the area east of Highway 43 will be presented in the future once land uses have been identified.

Environmental Review
Municipal Service Review
The municipal service review (MSR) study is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The municipal service review is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant with Section 15306 of the Guidelines which exempts basic data collection, research, experimental

Page 100 of 228 ends

management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

Sphere Expansion
City Staff is affirming the City of Hanford’s general Plan EIR certified on April 24, 2017. The footprint for development will not change from that contemplated in the City’s General Plan. NO land use designations are being changed. No new construction activity will result from adopting of the Sphere of Influence expansion. Individual projects will be properly reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Recommendation:

Page 101 of 228 ends

RESOLUTION 23-07-R

A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF HANFORD REQUESTING THE

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION AND APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hanford, that, WHEREAS, the City of Hanford desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 5600 of the California Government Code, an affected City, as defined therein, may by resolution adopted by its legislative body make a proposal for a change of organization and request initiation of proceedings thereon; and WHEREAS, the City of Hanford proposes to initiate a Sphere of Influence expansion, as shown in Exhibit A, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Draft Municipal Service Review, to be forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of Kings County and concurs with the determinations made and as follows:

1. Growth and Population Projections – Service efficiency is linked to a service provider’s ability to plan for the future needs of a city, while also meeting existing service demands. This section reviews projected service demands and needs based upon existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections.

Determinations:

Page 102 of 228 ends

Determination 2-3 - The City plans for future growth through the implementation of policies and standards set forth in its General Plan. The City’s General Plan was updated in 2017 and is a longrange guide for attaining the City’s goals within its ultimate service area and accommodating its population growth. The City’s General Plan provides a policy base to guide future growth within the City.

Determination 2-4 - The City contains policies in their General Plan that regulate future annexations.

Determinations:

Determination 3-1 - There are Census Block Groups within the City of Hanford that have a median household income below $60,181(80 percent of the statewide median household income).

Page 103 of 228 ends

household income. These areas would be considered disadvantaged from a service delivery and an income standpoint and should be evaluated on a case by case basis when there is a neighborhood of 12 or more registered voters that could be included in a future annexation, per State law.

Determination 3-5 – Areas designated as having potential to become a DUC should be monitored and reviewed during the next municipal service review for the City.

3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies – Infrastructure can be evaluated in terms of condition, capacity, availability, quality and relationship to operational, capital improvement, and finance planning. This section of the MSR assesses the adequacy and quality of the service providers’ physical infrastructure and analyzes whether or not sufficient infrastructure and capital are in place, or planned for, to accommodate planned future growth and expansions.

Determinations:

Capital Improvement Plan
Determination 4.1.1-1 – The City annually adopts a Capital Improvement Plan that identifies key capital projects that are needed to enhance services to residents.

Water
Determination 4.1.2-1 – The City operates a municipal water enterprise that services its residents.

Page 104 of 228 ends

Determination 4.1.2-3 – The City should monitor the well efficiencies on a frequent basis to adequately manage the groundwater supply.

Wastewater
Determination 4.1.3-1 – The City operates a municipal sewer enterprise that services its residents.

Determination 4.1.4-2 – The City provides fire services through the use of General Fund, service fees, and other miscellaneous funds.

Determination 4.1.4-3 – The City did not have any facility upgrade projects listed in the most recently CIP.

Determination 4.1.4-5 – The City should establish, maintain, and monitor a set of level-of-service criteria for fire protection services as a tool to assess the ability of the City to service growth.

Police

Page 105 of 228 ends

Determination 4.1.5-1 – The City utilizes a variety of financing sources in order to offset the expenditures utilized by law enforcement.

Determination 4.1.5-2 – The Police Department has identified upgrades to its police station and making additions as funding becomes available.

Parks and Community Services
Determination 4.1.6-1 – The City actively maintains parks and provides recreational services to the residents of Hanford.

Determination 4.1.6-4 – The City’s General Plan and Parks Master Plan both identified a need for additional park and recreation space to serve residents of the City.

Page 106 of 228 ends

Road Maintenance
Determination 4.1.7-1 – The City actively maintains the existing road systems and provides street sweeping within the city limits.

Determination 4.1.7-2 – The City utilizes a Capital Improvement Plan and reimbursements from the Gas Tax to aid in the repair and maintenance of existing roadways within the city limits.

Storm Drainage
Determination 4.1.8-1 – The City provides municipal storm drainage services for its residents.

Determination 4.1.9-3 – The City’s transit capital and service goals and policies are identified in the City of Hanford General Plan.

Refuse
Determination 4.1.10-1 – The City provides residents and commercial properties with solid waste collection and disposal through a JPA with Kings Waste and Recycling Authority.

Page 107 of 228 ends

Determination 4.1.10-2 – The City’s Refuse Operations revenues and expenditures have been balanced.

Determination 4.1.11-2 - Present needs for public facilities and services are currently being met.

Probable needs for public facilities and services are not currently anticipated to vary from present needs, as future demands are expected to remain relatively the same. Population increases are not currently anticipated to affect the City’s ability to provide of services as growth is anticipated within the General Plan.

Determination 4.1.11-3 – Implementation of Master Plans would properly provide the adequate extension of services to the County islands, were they to be annexed.

Determinations:

Determination 4.2-1 – The City annually conducts an open, transparent budgeting process aimed at balancing the needs of the City with the financial resources available.

Page 108 of 228 ends

Determination 4.2-2 – The City attempts to utilize other forms of revenue available besides sales/property taxes and fees, such as grants, to supplement its revenue stream.

Determination 4.2-3 – The City levies a series of fees and rates to offset the operations, maintenance, and infrastructure costs of the services it provides.

Determination 4.2-4 – The services provided by the City are subject to Proposition 218.

5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities – practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs are examined in this section of the MSR. Occurrences of facility sharing are listed and assessed for efficiency, and potential sharing opportunities that would serve to better deliver services are discussed.

Determinations:

Determination 4.3-1 – The City participates in a mutual aid agreement with the Kings County Fire Department for additional fire protection service.

Determination 4.3-2 – The City participates in the Kings County Area Public Transit Authority to provide public transportation to its residents.

Determination 4.3-3 – The City is a member of the Kings Waste and Recycling Authority to provide refuse disposal to its residents.

Determination 4.3-4 – The City should annually review the agreements of which the City participates to establish if further cost savings could be realized beyond the current economies of scale.

Determinations:

Page 109 of 228 ends

Determination 4.4-1 – The City operates under the City Manager/City Council form of government.

Each year the Council members select a Mayor and Vice-Mayor from amongst themselves.

Determination 4.4-3 – The City utilizes an organizational structure that obtains efficiency through departments heads who oversee multiple divisions.

Determination 4.4-5 – The current City structure is efficient, transparent, and meets expectation of its residents with the resources available.

WHEREAS, the City Council affirms the following statement of determinations, pertaining to the request to expand the Sphere of Influence:

Page 110 of 228 ends

3. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities – The City provides water, wastewater, and fire and emergency services within its city limits and within several of the County islands. However, the majority of area within the SOI (outside the city limits), does not have a service provider, with the exception of the Home Garden Community Service District (CSD). The areas depicted as a disadvantages unincorporated community are below the 80% of California’s median household income and do not receive water, wastewater, and fire and emergency services from the City of Hanford or another service provider. However, given the fact that the City has extended services beyond its limits within some of these areas, future annexations should be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if there is a neighborhood needing services that would warrant a subsequent annexation.

Page 111 of 228 ends

community area should be forwarded to the County to attempt to bring the services through available funding sources, such as grants or loan interest loan programs, in order to facilitate transition to the City.

WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Hanford; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Service Review is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15306 of the Guidelines, which exempts basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in serious or major disturbances to an environmental resource; and
WHEREAS, the request to expand the Sphere of Influence is affirmed by the General Plan EIR, certified on April 24, 2017, and the footprint for development will not change from that contemplated in the City’s General Plan, and no land use designations are being changed, and no new construction activity will result from adopting the Sphere of Influence Expansion.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Hanford and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County is hereby requested to take proceedings of Sphere of Influence expansion of certification of the Municipal Service Review, as authorized in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 18th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member ________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
NOES: Council Member ________________________
ABSTAIN: Council Member ________________________
ABSENT: Council Member ________________________

Page 112 of 228 ends

__________________________________________
Travis Paden
MAYOR

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF KINGS )

CITY OF HANFORD ) SS
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of April, 2023.

Dated: ______________________
__________________________________
City Clerk

Page 113 of 228 ends

Exhibit A
Proposed Sphere of Influence

Page 114 of 228 ends

Page 115 of 228 ends

Page 116 of 228 ends

Chapter 3 – Land Use & Community Design
General Plan Update 23
Figure 3-1: General Plan Land Use Map

Page 117 of 228 ends

HANFORD

ARMONA RD

TERRACE DR
KAY
LN
DOUTY
ST
11 1/2
AVE
9 1/8
AVE
GREEN
ST
HUME

AVE ECHO LN
ST
C

FLORINDA
ST
FARGO
PL

GRANGEVILLE
BLVD
MUSCAT
PL
CLING
CIR
ENCORE
DR
LELAND
WAY
POLAR
AVE

GLACIER
WAY
LACEY

BLVD CAROLYN
AVE

ELLA ST
MEADOW

VIEW RD
LILLY
WAY

GREENFIELD
AVE
DALI
WAY

RODGERS
RD
DAN
DR
WAY
ERIN

SAFFRON
ST
ASPEN

ST JONES ST
9 1/4
AVE
13TH AVE
PIMO
ST

DOUTY ST

CORTNER
ST
IRWIN
ST
LOCUST
ST
EAST
ST
FORUM
DR

FRONT ST

ORCHARD
DR
EMMA
LEE LN
HOOD
AVE

SEVENTH
ST

LACEY BLVD
MANOR
AVE

PHILLIPS
ST

FRANCISCO
DR
EASY
ST
ZION
WAY
ENERGY
ST

BERKSHIRE
LN
FIFTH ST 10TH
AVE
DAVID
ST
2ND
PL
1ST
PL
THIRD
ST
11TH AVE
KINGS
RD

MYRTLE ST
IVY
ST
ELM
ST

JACKSON AVE
DAVIS
ST
PEGGY
DR
LASSEN
DR

CHIANTI
WAY
10 1/2
AVE
9 1/4
AVE
10 1/2
AVE
12 1/2
14 1/2
AVE
AVE
13 1/4
AVE
13 1/2
AVE

CENTENNIAL
DR

GLENDALE AVE
HUME
AVE
7 1/2 AVE
CROWN
AVE
6TH AVE
10TH
AVE
15TH AVE
12TH AVE
8 1/2 AVE
14TH AVE
GENEVA
AVE
GENEVA
AVE

FARGO AVE

HOUSTON AVE

HIGHWAY
198 15TH AVE
12TH AVE
13TH
AVE
9TH AVE

HIGHWAY
198
8TH AVE
10TH AVE
9 1/2 AVE
7TH RD

CENTRAL
VALLEY
HWY

IDAHO AVE

IONA AVE

HANFORD

ARMONA RD
GRANGEVILLE BLVD 7TH AVE

FLINT AVE
HIGHWAY 43
13TH
AVE
7TH AVE
8 1/2 AVE

Page 118 of 228 ends

DRAFT

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF

KINGS COUNTY

HANFORD AREA

MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE

MARCH 2021

Page 119 of 228 ends

DRAFT

HANFORD AREA

MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
Prepared for:

Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County
1400 West Lacy Boulevard
Hanford, CA 93230
Contact Person: Greg Gatzka, Executive Officer
Phone: (559) 675-7821

Consultant:

901 East Main Street
Visalia, CA 93292
Contact: Steve Brandt, Project Manager
Phone: (559) 733-0440
March 2021
Cover Photo Credit: Main Street Hanford’s Website
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.

Unauthorized use prohibited.
200047

Page 120 of 228 ends

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF KINGS COUNTY

Commissioners
Joe Neves, Chair, Kings County
Doug Verboon, Vice Chair, Kings County
Sid Palmerin, City of Corcoran
Francisco Ramirez, City of Hanford
Dan Chin, Public Member at Large
Richard Valle, County Alternate
vacant -Public Member Alternative
Alvaro Preciado - City Alternate
Staff
Greg Gatzka, Executive Officer
Chuck Kinney, Assistant Executive Officer

Legal Counsel
Diane Freeman, LAFCo Counsel

Page 121 of 228 ends

Draft

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 - Municipal Service Review Purpose..................................................................................................1-1

1.2 - MSR Preparation, Review and Adoption Process .......................................................................1-5

1.3 - Required Topic Areas of Analysis .....................................................................................................1-5

1.4 - LAFCo Powers ..........................................................................................................................................1-7

1.5 - Key Considerations and Goals............................................................................................................1-7

1.6 - Services Provided....................................................................................................................................1-8 SECTION 2 - Growth and Population Projections .......................................................................... 2-11

2.1 - Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................2-11

2.2 - History of Hanford...............................................................................................................................2-11

2.3 - Planning and Growth Projections..................................................................................................2-12

2.3.1 - County Islands.....................................................................................................................2-14

2.4 - Anticipated Service Needs................................................................................................................2-17

2.5 - Determinations .....................................................................................................................................2-18 SECTION 3 - Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ......................................................... 3-1

3.1 - Overview ....................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 - Determinations ........................................................................................................................................3-3 SECTION 4 - City of Hanford Service Review..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 - Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies ....................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 - Capital Improvement Plan (Fiscal Years 2020 to 2024) .......................................4-1

4.1.2 - Water..........................................................................................................................................4-3

4.1.3 - Wastewater...........................................................................................................................4-10

4.1.4 - Fire Protection.....................................................................................................................4-17

4.1.5 - Law Enforcement...............................................................................................................4-20

4.1.6 - Parks and Community Services ....................................................................................4-24

4.1.7 - Road Maintenance .............................................................................................................4-30

4.1.8 - Flood Control/Drainage ..................................................................................................4-34

4.1.9 - Public Transportation ......................................................................................................4-41

4.1.10 - Solid Waste Disposal ......................................................................................................4-44

4.1.11 - Plans for Future Services..............................................................................................4-47

4.2 - Financial Ability to Provide Services............................................................................................4-48

4.2.1 - City Budget............................................................................................................................4-48

4.2.2 - Rates and Fees.....................................................................................................................4-49

4.2.3 - Proposition 218 ..................................................................................................................4-49

4.2.4 - Opportunities for Rate/Fee Restructuring...............................................................4-50

4.3 - Status of, and Opportunities for, Cost Avoidance and Shared Facilities.........................4-51

Page 122 of 228 ends

Draft

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page ii

4.3.1 - Determinations ...................................................................................................................4-51

4.4 - Accountability for Community Service Needs, including Governmental Structure and Operation Efficiencies ..................................................................................................................................4-53

4.4.1 - Organizational Structure.................................................................................................4-53

4.4.2 - Practices and Performance.............................................................................................4-56

4.4.3 - Determinations ...................................................................................................................4-57 SECTION 5 - Sphere of Influence Review ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 - Sphere of Influence Overview............................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 - Present and Planned Land Uses ......................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 - Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services ............................5-7

5.1.3 - Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ..........................................................5-7

5.1.4 - Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services............5-7

5.1.5 - Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest...........................5-7

5.1.6 - Sphere of Influence Recommendations........................................................................5-8 SECTION 6 - Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Regional Location .......................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2 2035 Growth Boundary and Island Annexations ...........................................................1-3 Figure 2-1 General Plan Map.....................................................................................................................2-13 Figure 2-2 Zoning Map.................................................................................................................................2-16 Figure 3-1 Median Household Income (2018) ......................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Areas.......................................................3-4 Figure 4-1 Hanford Existing Water System ............................................................................................4-4 Figure 4-2 Hanford Proposed Buildout of Water System..................................................................4-5 Figure 4-3 Hanford Existing Wastewater System .............................................................................4-12 Figure 4-4 Hanford Proposed Wastewater System ..........................................................................4-13 Figure 4-5 Hanford Existing Storm Drainage System......................................................................4-35 Figure 4-6 Hanford Proposed Storm Drainage System...................................................................4-36 Figure 5-1 Proposed Sphere of Influence City of Hanford................................................................5-2 Figure 5-2 Williamson Act Lands................................................................................................................5-4 Figure 5-3 California High-Speed Rail Authority Kings/Tulare Station ......................................5-6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Current, Authorized and Latent Powers Matrix ...............................................................1-9 Table 1-2 Island Annexation Service Providers.................................................................................1-10 Table 2-1 City of Hanford Growth Estimates ......................................................................................2-12 Table 4-1 Capital Improvement Plan Funding Breakdown by Category.....................................4-1 Table 4-2 Number of Crimes Known by Hanford Police Department.......................................4-21

Page 123 of 228 ends

Draft

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page iii
Table 4-3 Comparison of Crimes per 1,000 Residents (2018).....................................................4-22 Table 4-4 Parkland within Hanford by Type (City of Hanford, 2020) ......................................4-25

LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4-1 Water Department Revenues and Expenditures
(Maintenance and Operations)....................................................................................................................4-8 Chart 4-2 Sewer Department Revenues and Expenditures...........................................................4-15 Chart 4-3 Fire Department Revenues and Expenditures ...............................................................4-18 Chart 4-4 Police Department Revenues and Expenditures ...........................................................4-22 Chart 4-5 Parks and Recreation Department Revenues and Expenditures ............................4-28 Chart 4-6 Street Division Revenues and Expenditures ...................................................................4-32 Chart 4-7 Storm Drainage Operations Revenues and Expenditures..........................................4-39 Chart 4-8 Refuse Operations Revenues and Expenditures............................................................4-45

Page 124 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Municipal Service Review Purpose
The Municipal Service Review (MSR) is a comprehensive assessment of the ability of existing local government agencies to effectively and efficiently provide municipal services to residents and users. The form and content of an MSR is specified by requirements in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) and in the State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) MSR Guidelines, published in August 2003.

The CKH Act requires all LAFCos, including the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kings County (Kings LAFCo), to prepare an MSR for each of its incorporated cities and its special districts. The fundamental role of LAFCo is to implement the CKH Act, which was adopted into State law to encourage the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local municipalities, service areas, and special districts. MSRs are to be completed every five years, and must be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, an update of a city or special district Sphere of Influence (SOI).

This MSR was initiated by Kings LAFCo in the beginning of 2020 and is intended to provide Kings LAFCo with the necessary and relevant information related to the operations and management of the municipal service providers within the City of Hanford’s (the City or Hanford) proposed SOI update. The City of Hanford is the County seat of Kings County located in the San Joaquin Valley of California (Figure 1-1).

Kings LAFCo desires to review the local governing landscape of Hanford for service delivery and make recommendations that promote orderly growth and development while preserving surrounding agricultural and open space lands. In addition, the report will review the City of Hanford’s request to amend its SOI and determine the feasibility of annexing eight County islands (Figure 1-2).

The City of Hanford last had a Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update conducted by Kings LAFCo in 2007. Since that time, the City has adopted a new General Plan. Given that there have been land use policy changes in its new General Plan, the City is requesting that Kings LAFCo adopt a new MSR and amend the SOI consistent with its new General Plan, specifically so that the SOI is coterminous with the City’s 2035 Growth Boundary (Figure 1-2).

The City is also looking to annex neighborhood communities located within the unincorporated County areas that are completely surrounded by the City. The premise and guidance given by State law and local rules are that county islands should generally be annexed into a city so they may receive more efficient delivery of services, as a city is usually more equipped to provide urban level services than the county or other entity.

Page 125 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-2
Figure 1-1
Regional Location

Page 126 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-3

Figure 1-2
2035 Growth Boundary and Island Annexations

Page 127 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-4
To facilitate the annexation of county islands to contiguous cities, the State legislature has adopted specific provisions in the Government Code that require LAFCo annexation approval and waiver of protest proceedings if LAFCo makes certain findings and determinations.

Those determination are as follows:

Government Code Section 56375
(a)(4) A commission shall not disapprove an annexation to a city, initiated by resolution, of contiguous territory that the commission finds any of the following:
(A) Surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which the annexation is proposed or by that city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean if the territory to be annexed is substantially developed or developing, is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064, is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city, and is not within the sphere of influence of another city. (B) Located within an urban service area that has been delineated and adopted by a commission, which is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064, and is designated for urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city. (C) An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated islands meeting the requirements of Section 56375.3.

Government Code Section 56375.3
(a) In addition to those powers enumerated in Section 56375, a commission shall approve, after notice and hearing, the change of organization or reorganization of a city, and waive protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 57000) entirely, if all of the following are true:
(1) The change of organization or reorganization is initiated on or after January 1, 2000.
(2) The change of organization or reorganization is proposed by resolution adopted by the affected city.
(3) The commission finds that the territory contained in the change of organization or reorganization proposal meets all the requirements set forth in subdivision (b). (b) Subdivision (a) applies to territory that meets all the following requirements:
(1) It does not exceed 150 acres in area, and that area constitutes the entire island. (2) The territory constitutes an entire unincorporated island located within the limits of a city, or constitutes a reorganization containing several individual unincorporated islands.

Page 128 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-5
(3) It is surrounded in either of the following ways:
(A) Surrounded, or substantially surrounded, by the city to which annexation is proposed or by the city and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean. (B) Surrounded by the city to which annexation is proposed and adjacent cities.
(4) It is substantially developed or developing. The finding required by this paragraph shall be based upon one or more factors, including, but not limited to, any of the following factors:
(A) The availability of public utility services.
(B) The presence of public improvements.
(C) The presence of physical improvements upon the parcel or parcels within the area.
(5) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined by Section 56064. (6) It will benefit from the change of organization or reorganization or is receiving benefits from the annexing city.
(7) This subdivision does not apply to any unincorporated island within a city that is a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district.

1.2 - MSR Preparation, Review and Adoption Process
The process of developing the MSR began with the collection of planning documents, budgetary documents, and other records by QK, a consulting firm hired by the City of Hanford. QK also assisted the City in the preparation of its General Plan Update.

After review by the City, an administrative draft was presented to LAFCo staff for their review. Edits required by LAFCo staff and Counsel were made to LAFCo staff’s satisfaction prior to public release of the draft MSR.

A hearing was scheduled by Kings LAFCo on ______________, 2021, where comments from the public were heard and adoption of the MSR, including its Determinations and Recommendations, could be considered. After input and comment from the public, the Commission approved the MSR on ___________, 2021.

1.3 - Required Topic Areas of Analysis
This MSR contains analysis and conclusions, referred to as Determinations, regarding six topic areas, as set forth in the CKH Act. These areas of analysis focus on the essential

Page 129 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-6
operational and management aspects of the City of Hanford, and together constitute a complete review of Hanford’s ability of to meet the service demands of its residents and businesses. The six topic areas used for analysis in this MSR are:

1. Growth and Population Projections

2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies

4. Financial Ability to Provide Services

5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities

6. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies
An explanation of the specific operational and management aspects considered in each of these topic areas is provided below.

1. Growth and Population Projections
Service efficiency is linked to a service provider’s ability to plan for the future needs of a city while also meeting existing service demands. This section reviews projected service demands and needs based upon existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. This is found in Section 2 – Growth and Population Projections.

2. The Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence
Unincorporated disadvantaged communities, as defined by Water Code Section 79505.5, may lack basic infrastructure, such as water, sewer, or fire protection, because they may have been overlooked due to their socioeconomic status. To promote equality and environmental justice in accordance with adopted local policy and Senate Bill 244, adopted in 2011, the proximity of any disadvantaged community to existing service providers is analyzed and discussed in order to determine if the community should be included in the SOI of the City. This is found in Section 3 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.

3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies
Infrastructure can be evaluated in terms of condition, capacity, availability, quality and relationship to operational, capital improvement, and finance planning. This section assesses the adequacy and quality of the service providers’ physical infrastructure and analyzes whether or not sufficient infrastructure and capital are in place (or planned for) to accommodate planned future growth and expansions. This is found in Section 4.

Page 130 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-7

4. Financial Ability to Provide Services
This section analyzes the financial structure and health of the City with respect to the provision of services. Included in this analysis is the consideration of rates, service operations, and the like, as well as other factors affecting the City’s financial health and stability, including factors affecting the financing of needed infrastructure improvements and services. Compliance with existing State requirements relative to financial reporting and management is also discussed. This is found in Section 4.

5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
Practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs are examined in this section. Occurrences of facility sharing are listed and assessed for efficiency, and potential sharing opportunities that would serve to better deliver services are discussed. This is found in Section 4.

6. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies
This section addresses the adequacy and appropriateness of the agency’s existing boundaries and sphere of influence and evaluates the ability of the City to meet their service demands under their existing government structure. Also included in this section is an evaluation of compliance by the agency with public meeting and records laws. This is found in Section 4.

1.4 - LAFCo Powers
LAFCo has the power to determine the SOI for the City of Hanford. An SOI is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. It is represented by a boundary line on a map. The boundary line shows the territory that is expected to eventually be within the agency’s boundary, as determined by LAFCo. It is by this method that LAFCo makes policy statements about its intent for the future probable boundaries of a city. If LAFCo chooses to not adopt an SOI for a city or district, meaning that it chooses to adopt a "zero" sphere, then it is making the policy statement that its plan is for that agency to eventually be consolidated into the city or another district. The preparation of an MSR is required prior to the amendment of a city or district's SOI.

1.5 - Key Considerations and Goals
The MSR will use the following goals to evaluate the potential government structure options for the Hanford area:

1. Efficient provision of municipal services. The ultimate goal of the preferred governance structure should be an efficient operating structure and stable fiscal basis required to effectively provide municipal services to the City of Hanford.

Page 131 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-8

2. Adequate revenue sources. The ability to provide municipal services at adequate levels hinges upon stable revenue streams linked to the services for which the revenues are being collected.

3. Proactive approach to governance structure. Government agency reorganization proposals (e.g., municipal incorporations, major annexations, etc.) are necessarily complex procedures requiring substantial effort on the part of proponents, LAFCo and the affected agencies. These reorganizations are often more complex when contemplated on a reactive basis rather than a proactive basis. An understanding of a long-range approach to reorganization will assist in evaluating specific proposals to determine if they will bring the community closer to the desired result.

4. Avoidance of intergovernmental conflicts, competition, or issues. Conflicts between local jurisdictions over control and other impacts across jurisdictions and competition for resources (e.g., fiscal revenue generators) often consume resources and weaken incentives to cooperate on important regional issues like transit service, water quantity and quality, air quality, and habitat conservation.

5. Local preference. There is often more than one feasible government structure that can potentially provide local municipal services. The residents and businesses of the community must have the opportunity to participate in choosing the method, especially since a governmental structure change will likely require some sort of election process for it to be implemented. Local preference also may include agreements made between local agencies regarding where and how growth and development may occur within a region. These agreements have been identified within CKH as important for consideration during the MSR and SOI update process. The Commission “shall give great weight to the agreement to the extent that it is consistent with [LAFCO} commission policies… (emphasis added)” (Government Code §56425(b)).

1.6 - Services Provided
The City of Hanford is empowered as a general law city, governed by State law and local ordinances, to provide specific municipal services within its boundaries. The City of Hanford has several divisions, covering many municipal services, including Police, Fire, Emergency Response, Water, Wastewater, Flood Control/Drainage, Solid Waste, Street Maintenance, Street Lighting, and Parks and Recreation Maintenance.Some of the aforementioned services are provided to communities outside of the City’s jurisdiction.

There are three communities within a one-mile buffer of the City of Hanford’s Sphere of Influence. Armona Census Designated Place (Armona) is located approximately 0.95 miles west of the City of Hanford’s SOI and contains approximately 3,795 residents. The Armona Community Service District (CSD) provides water, wastewater, solid waste collection, limited flood control services, limited street maintenance, and street lighting services.

Armona also receives law enforcement, fire, and emergency services from Kings County (Kings County). Home Garden Census Designated Place (Home Garden) is located approximately 0.35 miles southeast of the City and contains approximately 1,643 residents.

Page 132 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-9
Home Garden CSD only provides water supply and distribution services. Home Garden CSD also receives law enforcement, fire and emergency service, flood control, street maintenance, and street lighting from Kings County. In addition, wastewater collection and disposal services are provided by the City of Hanford (Kings County). According to the Kings County Planning Department, the Census Designated Place of Grangeville (Grangeville) does not have a community service district or a public utilities district to provide municipal services.

It is located approximately 0.85 miles west of the City and contains about 586 residents. The majority of services are provided by Kings County and water and wastewater services are provided by private wells and septic systems.

The 2018 American Community Survey estimated approximately 56,910 residents in the City of Hanford. The nearby communities’ population is approximately is Home Garden with 1,643 residents, Grangeville with 586 residents, and Armona with 3,795 residents. The total population of these unincorporated residential communities is approximately 5,438 residents (American Community Servey, 2018).

The matrix in Table 1-1 specifies the services that the City provides. The matrix also includes two nearby community service districts that also provide some of the same services.

Table 1-1
Current, Authorized and Latent Powers Matrix
Municipal Service Type City of
Hanford
Armona
Community
Service District
Home Garden
Community
Service District
Law Enforcement City County County
Fire and Emergency Service City County County
Water Supply City District District
Water Distribution City District District
Wastewater Collection City District City
Wastewater Disposal City District City
Solid Waste Collection City District District
Flood Control/Drainage City District (limited) County
Street Maintenance City District (limited) County
Street Lighting City District County
Parks and Recreation
Maintenance City District N/A
Source: City of Hanford 2035 General Plan, Armona 2035 Community Plan, Home Garden Community Plan

Page 133 of 228 ends

Draft Introduction

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 1-10
Table 1-2
Island Annexation Service Providers
Municipal Service Type Island Annexation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Law Enforcement County County County County County County County County Fire and Emergency
Service County County County County County County County County Water Supply Private City City City City City City Private Water Distribution Private City City City City City City Private Wastewater Collection Private City City City City City City Private Wastewater Disposal Private City City City City City City Private Solid Waste Collection* County County County County County County County County Flood
Control/Drainage County County County County County County County County Street Maintenance County County County County County County County County Street Lighting County County County County County County County County Parks and Recreation
Maintenance County County County County County County County County Source: 2017 Water System Master Plan, 2017 Sewer System Master Plan, 2017 Storm Drain Master Plan City of Hanford, and 2035 City of Hanford General Plan
* Solid waste collection in the County islands is currently optional.

Page 134 of 228 ends

Draft Growth and Population Projections

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-11
SECTION 2 - GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS

2.1 - Introduction
The purpose of this section is to evaluate service demand based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. The MSR Guidelines call for LAFCo to determine historic and projected growth and absorption patterns in relationship to a service provider’s boundaries and SOI. In addition, LAFCo is tasked with evaluating the impact and compatibility of such growth on and with land use plans, services, local government structures and growth patterns.

2.2 - History of Hanford
The City of Hanford started as a Chinese sheepherder’s simple camp along the Southern Pacific Railway line from Goshen to Coalinga. The settlement was named for James Madison Hanford, auditor of the railroad, who also took lively interest in the sale of town lots. The sale of lots began on January 17, 1877. The settlement grew to a town and eventually the trading center of the area.

Through the early years, a series of devastating fires hampered the growth of the town. In 1887, the fire that destroyed most of the downtown spurred talk of incorporation, but the idea of additional taxes prevented any action. Then in June 1891, another fire destroyed the downtown business district once again. An election was held to determine whether the town should incorporate. The vote was 127 to 47, in favor of incorporation. On August 12, 1891, the City of Hanford was born. When Kings County was formed in 1893, Hanford became the County seat.

After the incorporation, Hanford continued to grow into a thriving town. For many years Hanford had the only opera house between the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. In 1945, the first paid Fire Department was established, and the City Planning Commission was created. In 1950 the City Manager/City Council form of government was established.

Many of the historic buildings in the downtown area came to become underutilized. To combat that, the City Council established a Historic District. As a result of many activities in downtown Hanford, the restoration and rehabilitation program, and the cooperation between private citizens and City officials, in 1985 Hanford won the Helen Putnam Award for Excellence awarded by the League of California Cities. In 1986, American City and County Magazine chose Hanford as one of ten cities in the United States to receive its Award of Merit.

Most recently, Rohm and Haas Paint Quality Institute of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania named the City as one of the country’s “Prettiest Painted Places in America” (City of Hanford, 2009).

The last Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Hanford was conducted in 2007. Per the Review, the Sphere of Influence was updated. The Sphere of Influence was reduced in three areas and expanded in one area. The current Sphere of Influence is shown in Figure 1-2 above.

Page 135 of 228 ends

Draft Growth and Population Projections

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-12

2.3 - Planning and Growth Projections
The City of Hanford General Plan was adopted in 2017 by the Hanford City Council to provide land use development decision-making guidance and to provide a planning framework for the development of more detailed implementation plans and measures. A map depicting these planned land use patterns is shown in Figure 2-1.

After reviewing historical growth rates and projected growth trends available in 2014, a Citizens Advisory Committee determined that the General Plan Update would assume Hanford’s average annual population growth rate would be 2.1 percent, which would result in an assumed population of 90,000 persons in the year 2035.

Despite the General Plan’s projected growth rate of 2.1 percent, the actual annual growth rates from 2010 to 2019 have not been 2.1 percent. This can be seen below in Table 2-1. If the City starts to grow according to the General Plan, at a rate of 2.1 percent, starting in 2019, the estimated population of 2035 will be approximately 80,000.

The population estimates in the General Plan were generated utilizing historic growth rates and projected growth trends. There is currently available information that would allow for these estimates to be updated accordingly. In Table 2-1, population estimates have been updated to account for the more recent population information available.

Based on these updated figures, it is apparent that the infrastructure planning for the City would be able to support population growth beyond the 2035 horizon if current trends remain constant. The infrastructure plans described in the City’s Master Plans accounted for a 2.1 percent population increase, per the General Plan. However, anomalies or unforeseen events may occur between now and 2035 that may spike growth in the City. To prepare for this, the population estimates utilized by the City in their Infrastructure Master Plans should be monitored to ensure that they are not being outpaced by the City’s population growth.

Table 2-1
City of Hanford Growth Estimates
Forecast
Year
Population
Estimate
% Annual
Growth
Forecast
Year
Population
Estimate
% Annual
Growth
2010 Census 53,967 2019 57,703 1.4%
2011 (ACS) 53,891 -.14% 2020 58,915 2.1%
2012 (ACS) 54,205 .58% 2021 60,152 2.1%
2013 (ACS) 54,461 .47% 2022 61,415 2.1%
2014(ACS) 54,523 .11% 2023 62,705 2.1%
2015 (ACS) 54,790 .49% 2024 64,022 2.1%
2016 (ACS) 54,912 .22% 2025 65,366 2.1%
2017 (ACS) 55,599 1.25% 2026 66,739 2.1%
2018 (ACS) 56,910 2.3% 2027 68,140 2.1%
2035 80,465 2.1%

Page 136 of 228 ends

Draft Growth and Population Projections

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-13

Figure 2-1
General Plan Map

Page 137 of 228 ends

Draft Growth and Population Projections

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-14
Based on the actual data currently available and supplemented using the 2.1 percent annual growth rate, the population in 2035 would be approximately 80,000 residents, which is about 10,000 less than the population forecast within the General Plan. For infrastructure planning purposes, the estimates would be acceptable as the infrastructure would be able to accommodate growth beyond the planning horizon date of 2035.

2.3.1 - COUNTY ISLANDS
As shown in Figure 1-2, there are eight County islands within the bounds of city limits. It is in within the best interest of the City to consider annexation of these island to reduce inefficiencies and deficiencies of services provided. Population estimates were derived for each County island to estimate the demand for service. To calculate the estimated population, an aerial interpretation of residential structures was conducted. Then the amount of residential structures was multiplied by the City of Hanford’s estimated person per household (3.04 persons) to produce an estimated population.

County Island #1
This island consists of 12 large residential properties. 11 out of 12 parcels are developed with residential structures. The existing land use for this island is rural residential, with parcels ranging in size from approximately 1.7 to 2.7 acres. The planned land use for these properties is Low Density Residential. The estimated population is 33 people.

County Island #2
The island consists of 48 parcels, one of which has a commercial use and one is vacant. There are 49 residential structures within this island area. The existing land uses are commercial and urban residential. The parcels sizes range from 0.07 to 0.87 acres, with an average size of 0.26 acres. The planned land use for these properties is Medium Density Residential. The estimated population is 149 people.

County Island #3
The island consists of 119 parcels. There are 102 residential structures within the island area. County island #3 is one of the larger annexation areas being proposed at over 100 acres.

Parcel size consists of parcels within the range 0.09 to 5.85 acres, with an average of 0.75- acres. The existing land use is primarily urban residential and rural residential. In addition, there are some commercial uses and school facilities. The planned land uses are Low Density Residential, Mixed-Use Corridor, Open Space, and Educational Facilities. The estimated population is 310 people.

County Island #4
This island is one of the three larger islands totaling approximately 90 acres. This island consists of 172 parcels, 122 residential parcels, and 125 residential structures. The approximate average parcel size for this island is 0.46 acres. There are a few large parcels that are several acres large. The largest being 14 acres. The large parcels are primarily

Page 138 of 228 ends

Draft Growth and Population Projections

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-15
vacant. The existing land use is urban residential with rural residential, commercial, and vacant land. The island is mainly urban with dense development and towards the southeast the parcels are larger with more vacant land. The planned land uses are Low Density, Medium Density Residential, Open Space, and Mixed-Use Corridor. The estimated population is 380 people.

County Island #5
The island is unique for the fact that the City’s General Plan designated the entire island as Mixed-Use Corridor. The island consists of 45 parcels, 20 residential parcels, and 22 residential structures. The estimated average parcel size is 1.21 acres. The parcel size ranges from 0.09 to 16.85 acres. There are two vacant parcels that are larger than 10 acres. The existing land use is primarily urban residential, in addition to commercial and vacant parcels.

As mentioned previously the entire island is designated as Mixed Use. The estimated population is 69 people.

County Island #6
The island consists of 77 total parcels, 63 residential parcels and 72 residential structures.

The estimated average parcel size 0.38 acres. The parcel sizes range from 0.11 to 5.12 acres.

The annexation area is split fairly evenly between Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential. The annexation area is primarily urban with a few parcels that are vacant. The estimated population is 219 people.

County Island #7
This County island is unique in the sense that it only incorporates a single neighborhood. The island is approximately 350 feet wide and 2,650 feet long or roughly 21 acres. The island consists of 36 parcels that are all residential, which contain 36 residential structures. The average estimated parcel size is 0.45 acres; with ranges from 0.20 to 0.72 acres. The entire island has planned land use of Low Density Residential. The estimated population is 109 people.

County Island #8
Similar to County island #7, this island only incorporates one neighborhood. This island consists of eight parcels that consist of eight residential parcels with eight residential structures. The average estimated parcel size is 2.36 acres and ranges from 1.77 to 2.74 acres. The entire island has a planned land use of Low Density Residential. The estimated population is 24 people.

The total population for all the island annexations is approximately 1,293 people.

Page 139 of 228 ends

Draft Growth and Population Projections

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-16

Figure 2-2
Zoning Map

Page 140 of 228 ends

Draft Growth and Population Projections

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-17

2.4 - Anticipated Service Needs
The Hanford area requires typical local municipal services, such as water service, sewer service, police and fire protection, storm drainage, street maintenance, parks and recreation, schools, communication infrastructure, and solid waste collection. The City has adopted an updated General Plan and corresponding Master Plans to accommodate future growth in an orderly manner until the year 2035.

This Municipal Service Review will review water service, wastewater service, fire protection, police protection, street maintenance, parks and recreation, public transportation, and solid waste. It will review the level of service in each area and analyze whether the City would have the ability to provide services to the County islands discussed in Section 1. The City conducts infrastructure master planning in the areas of water, sewer, and storm drainage.

The County islands were not taken into consideration in those Master Plans, as there does not appear to be discussion about providing service in addition to no planned infrastructure shown on any of the buildout maps of the correspond systems. This MSR will take the level of service needed in those County islands into consideration, along with the predicted growth projections of the City, to conclude ability for the City to annex the islands.

The Water, Sewer, and Storm Drainage Master Plans have evaluated the ability for the City to accommodate both current and future populations. The population projections in these Master Plans is the same as is described in the General Plan. Recommendations in the Master Plans include but are not limited to:
• Addressing drainage basin capacity deficiencies with either the construction of a new drainage basin or an expansion of an existing basin;
• Pipeline improvements within a series of trunk sewer service areas; • Replace existing pumps in two lift stations in the City; • Replace one force main that is currently 12 inches in diameter with one that is 18 inches in diameter;
• Development of three new water storage facilities (Northeast, Southeast, and Industrial Park Storage Expansion);
• Development of two new water pump stations and an upgrade of one existing pump station; or
• Monitoring of well efficiencies on a frequent basis to adequately manage the groundwater supply.

The City’s General Plan has three policies regarding annexations. Policy L15 describes the criteria that must be met when considering an initiation of an annexation. Policy L16 states that the City should “Initiate annexation of County islands when it is found that urban services are needed and can be provided or made available in the near future”. Policy L17 states that future proposal must “Prepare and make publicly available a written Plan for Services that describes how urban services will be provided prior to initiating an annexation”.

Page 141 of 228 ends

Draft Growth and Population Projections

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 2-18

2.5 - Determinations
Determination 2-1 - U.S. Census data indicates that the City had a 2010 population of 53,967, a 2023 population (five-year increment from last Community Survey prediction) of 63,140, and a population projection of 87,429 by 2047, according to population projections from the General Plan.

Determination 2-4 - The City contains policies in their General Plan that regulate future annexations.

Page 142 of 228 ends

Draft Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 3-1
SECTION 3 - DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES

3.1 - Overview
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) are defined as inhabited territory (12 or more registered voters) that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income of or below $60,181 which is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income of $75,227 in 2018 (California Department of Finance, 2018). Communities meeting this financial threshold were specifically identified as an area of concern by Senate Bill 244, adopted into State law in 2011. These communities may also lack essential municipal services such as water, wastewater, or stormwater drainage as they may have been developed prior to infrastructure being installed in proximity to them.

Furthermore, structural fire protection may be inconsistent in these areas due to lack of agreements or memorandums of understanding that provide mutual aid from adjacent jurisdictions if there is a need. Kings LAFCo has not adopted a policy or more specific definition of DUCs, therefore, the criteria within State law will be utilized.

Pursuant to State law, LAFCo is required to identify any adjacent DUCs and determine if they should be included within any SOI amendment of an existing city or special district or potentially included during the consideration of any special district formation in the future (California Legislative Information, 2011).

The City of Hanford provides its own potable water service, wastewater, storm drain, and fire and emergency services within its jurisdiction. As it pertains to the previously mentioned services, the County islands primarily rely on the City for those services, with a few exceptions as detailed in Table 1-2. All of the County islands receive services pertaining to water, wastewater, storm drain and fire and emergency services from either private source, the City, or the County.

Outside the city limits, fire protection and emergency service are provided by Kings County.

The City of Hanford provides water service to County islands 2 through 7, provides wastewater collection to Islands 2 and 3 through 7. Hanford provides wastewater disposal services to County islands 1 through 6 and 8. Storm drain/Flood Control is provided by the County to all County islands. Furthermore, Home Garden is the only established community receives water and wastewater services from Hanford.

As shown in Figure 3-1, the majority of the area within the bounds of the city limits and SOI has a median household income that is less than 80 percent of the California’s median household income or near that threshold. Although these areas are below the median income level, the appropriate services are currently being provided. However, there are several areas outside of the city limits that are below the 80 percent threshold for median household income, including several County islands. All of the County islands are considered inhabited because they have more than 12 registered voters. As identified in Table 1-2, the County islands that do not receive services, shall be determined a disadvantaged unincorporated community. This is one of the reasons why the County islands are proposed for annexation.

Page 143 of 228 ends

Draft Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 3-2

Figure 3-1
Median Household Income (2018)

Page 144 of 228 ends

Draft Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 3-3
As shown in Figure 3-2, Home Garden CSD is the only CSD within the City’s SOI. The CSD provides its own potable water services to its residents. Home Garden relies on the City of Hanford for wastewater services and Kings County for police and fire and emergency services.

Therefore, most of the land within the SOI, excluding Home Garden, can be considered as a DUC as their median income is below 80 percent of the statewide average. Furthermore, as some of these neighborhoods receive private water services or maintain their own private wastewater system, they are considered disadvantaged as they do not receive the benefit of having municipal level services. Lastly, fire protection is provided to these areas by the County currently, so they are not disadvantaged with respect to lacking structural fire protection. The Kings County Fire Department serves the unincorporated areas of the County including the four communities of Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford (Kings County General Plan, 2010).

In addition, there are several parcels outside the western extent of the city limits (within the City’s SOI) which may become a DUC as shown in Figure 3-2. This area is near the level of income that can establish them as a DUC, outside of the water, wastewater, and fire and emergency service boundary of the City, and is not within a service provider’s boundary.

3.2 - Determinations
Determination 3-1 - There are Census Block Groups within the City of Hanford that have a median household income below $60,181(80 percent of the statewide median household income).

Determination 3-5 – Areas designated as having potential to become a DUC should be monitored and reviewed during the next municipal service review for the City.

Page 145 of 228 ends

Draft Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 3-4

Figure 3-2
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Areas

Page 146 of 228 ends

Draft City of Hanford Service Review

City of Hanford Municipal Service Review and SOI Update March 2021 Kings LAFCo Page 4-1
SECTION 4 - CITY OF HANFORD SERVICE REVIEW

4.1 - Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies The purpose of this section is to evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies of the City of Hanford in terms of availability of resources, capacity to deliver services, condition of facilities, planned improvements, service quality, and levels of service.

LAFCo is responsible for determining that an agency requesting an SOI amendment is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within the City and its SOI. It is important that these findings of infrastructure and resource availability are made when revisions to the SOI and annexations occur. LAFCo accomplishes this by evaluating whether resources and services are being expanded in line with increasing demands.

4.1.1 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (FISCAL YEARS 2020 TO 2024) The City’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) involved collaboration by the Engineering and Community Development Departments to evaluate the City’s capital improvement needs to accommodate the community both now and in the future. The fiveyear CIP is reviewed annually and includes projects from nine categories: Airport, Industrial Park, Facilities and General Projects, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Storm Drainage, Wastewater, Water, and Downtown Projects. The largest contribution of funds for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 goes to water projects (approximately $3.48 million or 34 percent of total CIP budget)(City of Hanford, 2020).

Table 4-1
Capital Improvement Plan Funding Breakdown by Category
Project Category Project Funding Overall Percentage
Facilities and General Projects $972,500 9%
Parks & Recreation Projects $662,000 6%
Transportation Projects $2,965,000 29%
Storm Drainage Projects $560,950 6%
Wastewater Projects $220,000 2%
Water Projects $3,480,000 34%
Downtown Projects $140,000 1%
Airport Projects $1,160,000 11%
Industrial Park Projects $175,000 2%
Total $10,335,450 100%
Source: City of Hanford - Capital Improvement Plan - Fiscal Years 2020 to 2024

Page 147 of 228 ends

Hanford City CouncilApril 18, 2023

Hanford City Council
April 18, 2023