Hanford City Council
June 20, 2023

City Council Meeting
Agenda
June 20, 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 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:

A. Update on the City’s efforts related to Homelessness including staff efforts to address the concerns of businesses and residents and efforts towards the development of a low barrier shelter
CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATION (GC 54956.8) APN: 012-062-012
Negotiating Party: Kings County Area Public Transit Agency Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez and Ty Mizote
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATION (GC 54956.8) APN: 014-230-030
Negotiation Party:Thomas G. Loogman, Robert A. Loogman, Colette M. Quinn, John M.

Loogman, Jr., Lisa M. Askins, and Trudy N. Simas
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez, Ty Mizote, and Brad Albert CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Johnny Escalera
FLAG SALUTE:

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. Administration: Approval of a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Great Valley Holdings, LLC and Authorization for the City Manager to execute the appropriate documents for the purpose of purchasing the property located at 330 N. Harris Street, more commonly known as the Social Security Building, for a purchase price of $4,450,000. And authorize a loan to the General Fund from the Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund for up to $4.6 million (to include closing costs) with terms and conditions as stated in this report.

C. City Attorney: Approval of the City's formal response to the 2022-23 Grand Jury Report on City of Hanford Parks
D. Community Development: Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23: a request to replace the canopy of the existing shoe shine stand within Civic Park. The property is designated as a contributing building within the Historic Overlay Zone. The project is located at 323 N. Irwin St. (APN 010-265-001)
E. Parks and Community Services: Approve appropriation of $2,452,065 in the General Fund for the newly established Hanford Boys and Girls Club to be fully funded by the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program and authorization for the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of the Sequoias to manage and operate the club.

F. Public Works: Request to Set July 18, 2023 as a public hearing and adoption of Resolution No. 23-12-R to establish a Rule 20A Underground Utility District on East Lacey Boulevard from Jessie Avenue to East of Wilson Lane.

G. Fire: Authorization for the City Manager to execute a Governing Body Authorization Letter, on behalf of the City Council, authorizing the City of Hanford to apply for grant funding, up to a maximum of $25,000, to fund the purchase of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) for the Hanford Fire Department.

PUBLIC HEARING:

A. Finance: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution 23-15-R to approve the comprehensive Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-24 which includes proposed new fees, deletion of fees and increases/adjustments to existing fees.

B. Finance: Public Hearing to adopt Resolution 2023-19-R for the City of Hanford Fiscal Years 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 two-year budget
GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Public Works: Approval of the Notice of Completion for the Police Department Parking Lot Expansion Project for a final project cost of $573,749.19, and Authorization for the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder Office.

B. Finance: Adoption of Resolution 23-16-R establishing the 2023/2024 appropriations limit of $88,428,441 for the City of Hanford's General Fund
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
B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:

June 21: Kings County Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics - Kings County Government Center Click here for more info
June 23: Dive In Theater at the Plunge, doors open at 7:30 p.m. The movie begins at dusk: Strange World
July 4: Holiday-Cancelled City Council meeting/City offices will be closed July 7: Dive In Theater at the Plunge, doors open at 7:30 p.m. The movie begins at dusk:

Rumble
July 14: Movies in the Park, Hidden Valley Park. The movie begins at dusk: Puss and Boots
July15: Walk with a Doc at Freedom Park 9:00 a.m.- 10:00 a.m.

July 18: 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 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}

4.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/20/2023 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION

SUBJECT:

Update on the City’s efforts related to Homelessness including staff efforts to address the concerns of businesses and residents and efforts towards the development of a low barrier shelter

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council receive the presentation from staff and provide direction as appropriate.

BACKGROUND:

At the March 7, 2023 Council Study Session, during the Council review and Discussion of the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Activity Funding for the 2023-2024 CDBG Cycle, Council directed staff to work towards the development of a low barrier shelter in the City of Hanford. Council had been receiving comments from businesses, especially those within the downtown, that it was becoming increasingly difficult to do business with the homeless population taking up positions within the public right of way.

The 2023 Point In Time Survey is due to be released soon. We have received some numbers that will show that the homeless population continues to grow. According to the survey, there are 417 sheltered and unsheltered individuals in Kings County, an increase of 33% from 2022 (313). Of those individuals, 383 are in the City of Hanford, and an increase of 26% from 2022 (260), 276 of those are on the street, an increase of 100% over 2022 (138).

The City has made it clear to the public that, absent low-barrier beds available within the City of Hanford for every homeless person, the City is precluded by the U.S. Constitution from criminally punishing a homeless individual for sitting, lying down, or sleeping on public property, including parks and public rights of way (e.g., sidewalks). The attached ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Martin v. City of Boise) makes it so. Additionally, per the statement below regarding another 9th Circuit opinion involving Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles v. Lavan) cities face significant restrictions on the ability to take possessions that have been left unattended and, if they are taken, there are many requirements to store and make efforts to return any possessions to their rightful owner.

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of nine homeless people living in Los Angeles were violated by City employees who seized and immediately destroyed their briefly unattended personal possessions. (Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied in City of Los Angeles v. Lavan, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4893 (U.S., June 24, 2013).) The City had seized and immediately destroyed the homeless persons’ personal possessions, temporarily left on public sidewalks while they attended to necessary tasks

such as eating, showering, and using restrooms. (Id. at 1024.) Los Angeles had argued that its seizure and disposal of items were authorized pursuant to its enforcement of a municipal code provision that forbids any merchandise, baggage or article of personal property to be left unattended upon any parkway or sidewalk. (Id. at 1026.) The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, concluding that ‘[b]ecause homeless persons' unabandoned possessions are ‘property’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the City must comport with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause if it wishes to take and destroy them.’ (Id. at 1032.)

“Under Lavan, if a city believes that property left in a public place is merely unattended, steps should be taken prior to any seizure and before any destruction. At a minimum, a city must provide the homeless with notice and a reasonable period of time in which to retrieve the property. While there is no ‘bright-line’ rule for how long persons should be given to retrieve their belongings, it should be noted that in cases where cities have entered into settlement agreements to change these practices, the time provided has ranged from 30 to 90 days. . . .”

In other words, due process under the U.S. Constitution requires that a person be given notice before the person's belongings are seized by a government agency and post-seizure notice and an opportunity to retrieve their possessions before destruction or disposal.

Separate and apart from the City's ongoing efforts to create a low-barrier shelter, the City of Hanford's HART team works daily to address the issue of homelessness and will update the Council on their efforts and also provide recommendations for addressing the growing problem of people experiencing homelessness within the City of Hanford.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Boise Case Ruling

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MARTIN; LAWRENCE LEE
SMITH; ROBERT ANDERSON; JANET
F. BELL; PAMELA S. HAWKES; and
BASIL E. HUMPHREY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.

CITY OF BOISE,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35845
D.C. No.
1:09-cv-00540-
REB

OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Ronald E. Bush, Chief Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017
Portland, Oregon
Filed September 4, 2018
Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Paul J. Watford,
and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Berzon;
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Owens

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE2
SUMMARY*
Civil Rights
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought by six current or formerly homeless City of Boise residents who alleged that their citations under the City’s Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Plaintiffs sought damages for the alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two plaintiffs also sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief precluding future
enforcement of the ordinances. In 2014, after this litigation began, the ordinances were amended to prohibit their
enforcement against any homeless person on public property on any night when no shelter had an available overnight space.

The panel first held that two plaintiffs had standing to pursue prospective relief because they demonstrated a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether they faced a credible risk of prosecution on a night when they had been denied access to the City’s shelters. The panel noted that although the 2014 amendment precluded the City from
enforcing the ordinances when shelters were full, individuals could still be turned away for reasons other than shelter capacity, such as for exceeding the shelter’s stay limits, or for * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 3
failing to take part in a shelter’s mandatory religious programs.

The panel held that although the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and its progeny precluded most — but not all — of the plaintiffs’ requests for
retrospective relief, the doctrine had no application to plaintiffs’ request for an injunction enjoining prospective enforcement of the ordinances.

Turning to the merits, the panel held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment
precluded the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to
alternative shelter. The panel held that, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Owens
disagreed with the majority’s opinion that Heck v. Humphrey did not bar plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. Judge Owens stated that a declaration that the city ordinances are unconstitutional and an injunction against their future enforcement would necessarily demonstrate the
invalidity of plaintiffs’ prior convictions. Judge Owens otherwise joined the majority in full.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE4

COUNSEL
Michael E. Bern (argued) and Kimberly Leefatt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; Howard A. Belodoff, Idaho Legal Aid Services Inc., Boise, Idaho; Eric Tars, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington, D.C.; Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Brady J. Hall (argued), Michael W. Moore, and Steven R.

Kraft, Moore Elia Kraft & Hall LLP, Boise, Idaho; Scott B.

Muir, Deputy City Attorney; Robert B. Luce, City Attorney; City Attorney’s Office, Boise, Idaho; for Defendant-
Appellee.

OPINION
BERZON, Circuit Judge:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich
and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg
in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
— Anatole France, The Red Lily
We consider whether the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars a city from prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on public property when those people have no home or other shelter to go to. We conclude that it does.

The plaintiffs-appellants are six current or former
residents of the City of Boise (“the City”), who are homeless or have recently been homeless. Each plaintiff alleges that,

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 5
between 2007 and 2009, he or she was cited by Boise police for violating one or both of two city ordinances. The first, Boise City Code § 9-10-02 (the “Camping Ordinance”),
makes it a misdemeanor to use “any of the streets, sidewalks, parks, or public places as a camping place at any time.” The Camping Ordinance defines “camping” as “the use of public property as a temporary or permanent place of dwelling, lodging, or residence.” Id. The second, Boise City Code § 6- 01-05 (the “Disorderly Conduct Ordinance”), bans
“[o]ccupying, lodging, or sleeping in any building, structure, or public place, whether public or private . . . without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession or in control thereof.”
All plaintiffs seek retrospective relief for their previous citations under the ordinances. Two of the plaintiffs, Robert Anderson and Robert Martin, allege that they expect to be cited under the ordinances again in the future and seek declaratory and injunctive relief against future prosecution.

In Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006), vacated, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007), a panel of this court concluded that “so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in Los Angeles than the number of available beds [in shelters]” for the homeless, Los Angeles could not enforce a similar ordinance against homeless
individuals “for involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public.” Jones is not binding on us, as there was an
underlying settlement between the parties and our opinion was vacated as a result. We agree with Jones’s reasoning and central conclusion, however, and so hold that an ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors, on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE6
them. Two of the plaintiffs, we further hold, may be entitled to retrospective and prospective relief for violation of that Eighth Amendment right.

I. Background
The district court granted summary judgment to the City on all claims. We therefore review the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014).

Boise has a significant and increasing homeless
population. According to the Point-in-Time Count (“PIT Count”) conducted by the Idaho Housing and Finance
Association, there were 753 homeless individuals in Ada County — the county of which Boise is the seat — in January 2014, 46 of whom were “unsheltered,” or living in places unsuited to human habitation such as parks or sidewalks. In 2016, the last year for which data is available, there were 867 homeless individuals counted in Ada County, 125 of
whom were unsheltered.1 The PIT Count likely
underestimates the number of homeless individuals in Ada 1 The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) requires local homeless assistance and prevention networks to conduct an annual count of homeless individuals on one night each January, known as the PIT Count, as a condition of receiving federal funds. State, local, and federal governmental entities, as well as private service providers, rely on the PIT Count as a “critical source of data” on homelessness in the United States. The parties acknowledge that the PIT Count is not always precise. The City’s Director of Community Partnerships, Diana Lachiondo, testified that the PIT Count is “not always the . . . best resource for numbers,” but also stated that “the point-in-time count is our best snapshot” for counting the number of homeless individuals in a particular region, and that she “cannot give . . . any other number with any kind of confidence.”

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 7
County. It is “widely recognized that a one-night point in time count will undercount the homeless population,” as many homeless individuals may have access to temporary
housing on a given night, and as weather conditions may affect the number of available volunteers and the number of homeless people staying at shelters or accessing services on the night of the count.

There are currently three homeless shelters in the City of Boise offering emergency shelter services, all run by private, nonprofit organizations. As far as the record reveals, these three shelters are the only shelters in Ada County.

One shelter — “Sanctuary” — is operated by Interfaith
Sanctuary Housing Services, Inc. The shelter is open to men, women, and children of all faiths, and does not impose any religious requirements on its residents. Sanctuary has 96 beds reserved for individual men and women, with several
additional beds reserved for families. The shelter uses floor mats when it reaches capacity with beds.

Because of its limited capacity, Sanctuary frequently has to turn away homeless people seeking shelter. In 2010, Sanctuary reached full capacity in the men’s area “at least half of every month,” and the women’s area reached capacity “almost every night of the week.” In 2014, the shelter reported that it was full for men, women, or both on 38% of nights. Sanctuary provides beds first to people who spent the previous night at Sanctuary. At 9:00 pm each night, it allots any remaining beds to those who added their names to the shelter’s waiting list.

The other two shelters in Boise are both operated by the Boise Rescue Mission (“BRM”), a Christian nonprofit

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE8
organization. One of those shelters, the River of Life Rescue Mission (“River of Life”), is open exclusively to men; the other, the City Light Home for Women and Children (“City Light”), shelters women and children only.

BRM’s facilities provide two primary “programs” for the homeless, the Emergency Services Program and the New Life Discipleship Program.2 The Emergency Services Program
provides temporary shelter, food, and clothing to anyone in need. Christian religious services are offered to those seeking shelter through the Emergency Services Program. The
shelters display messages and iconography on the walls, and the intake form for emergency shelter guests includes a religious message.3
Homeless individuals may check in to either BRM facility between 4:00 and 5:30 pm. Those who arrive at BRM
facilities between 5:30 and 8:00 pm may be denied shelter, depending on the reason for their late arrival; generally, anyone arriving after 8:00 pm is denied shelter.

Except in winter, male guests in the Emergency Services Program may stay at River of Life for up to 17 consecutive nights; women and children in the Emergency Services
Program may stay at City Light for up to 30 consecutive 2 The record suggests that BRM provides some limited additional non-emergency shelter programming which, like the Discipleship Program, has overtly religious components.
3 The intake form states in relevant part that “We are a Gospel Rescue Mission. Gospel means ‘Good News,’ and the Good News is that Jesus saves us from sin past, present, and future. We would like to share the Good News with you. Have you heard of Jesus? . . . Would you like to know more about him?”

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 9
nights. After the time limit is reached, homeless individuals who do not join the Discipleship Program may not return to a BRM shelter for at least 30 days.4 Participants in the Emergency Services Program must return to the shelter every night during the applicable 17-day or 30-day period; if a resident fails to check in to a BRM shelter each night, that resident is prohibited from staying overnight at that shelter for 30 days. BRM’s rules on the length of a person’s stay in the Emergency Services Program are suspended during the winter.

The Discipleship Program is an “intensive, Christ-based residential recovery program” of which “[r]eligious study is the very essence.” The record does not indicate any limit to how long a member of the Discipleship Program may stay at a BRM shelter.

The River of Life shelter contains 148 beds for
emergency use, along with 40 floor mats for overflow;
78 additional beds serve those in non-emergency shelter programs such as the Discipleship Program. The City Light shelter has 110 beds for emergency services, as well as 40 floor mats to handle overflow and 38 beds for women in non-emergency shelter programs. All told, Boise’s three homeless shelters contain 354 beds and 92 overflow mats for homeless individuals.

A. The Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Robert Martin, Robert Anderson, Lawrence Lee Smith, Basil E. Humphrey, Pamela S. Hawkes, and Janet F. 4 The parties dispute the extent to which BRM actually enforces the 17- and 30-day limits.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE10
Bell are all homeless individuals who have lived in or around Boise since at least 2007. Between 2007 and 2009, each plaintiff was convicted at least once of violating the Camping Ordinance, the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, or both. With one exception, all plaintiffs were sentenced to time served for all convictions; on two occasions, Hawkes was sentenced to one additional day in jail. During the same period, Hawkes was cited, but not convicted, under the Camping Ordinance, and Martin was cited, but not convicted, under the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance.

Plaintiff Robert Anderson currently lives in Boise; he is homeless and has often relied on Boise’s shelters for housing.

In the summer of 2007, Anderson stayed at River of Life as part of the Emergency Services Program until he reached the shelter’s 17-day limit for male guests. Anderson testified that during his 2007 stay at River of Life, he was required to attend chapel services before he was permitted to eat dinner.

At the conclusion of his 17-day stay, Anderson declined to enter the Discipleship Program because of his religious beliefs. As Anderson was barred by the shelter’s policies from returning to River of Life for 30 days, he slept outside for the next several weeks. On September 1, 2007, Anderson was cited under the Camping Ordinance. He pled guilty to violating the Camping Ordinance and paid a $25 fine; he did not appeal his conviction.

Plaintiff Robert Martin is a former resident of Boise who currently lives in Post Falls, Idaho. Martin returns frequently to Boise to visit his minor son. In March of 2009, Martin was cited under the Camping Ordinance for sleeping outside; he was cited again in 2012 under the same ordinance.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 11
B. Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in October of 2009. All plaintiffs alleged that their previous citations under the Camping Ordinance and the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance
violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and sought damages for those alleged
violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cf. Jones, 444 F.3d at 1138. Anderson and Martin also sought prospective
declaratory and injunctive relief precluding future
enforcement of the ordinances under the same statute and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202.

After this litigation began, the Boise Police Department promulgated a new “Special Order,” effective as of January 1, 2010, that prohibited enforcement of either the Camping Ordinance or the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance against any homeless person on public property on any night when no shelter had “an available overnight space.” City police implemented the Special Order through a two-step procedure known as the “Shelter Protocol.”
Under the Shelter Protocol, if any shelter in Boise reaches capacity on a given night, that shelter will so notify the police at roughly 11:00 pm. Each shelter has discretion to determine whether it is full, and Boise police have no other mechanism or criteria for gauging whether a shelter is full. Since the Shelter Protocol was adopted, Sanctuary has reported that it was full on almost 40% of nights. Although BRM agreed to the Shelter Protocol, its internal policy is never to turn any person away because of a lack of space, and neither BRM shelter has ever reported that it was full.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE12
If all shelters are full on the same night, police are to refrain from enforcing either ordinance. Presumably because the BRM shelters have not reported full, Boise police
continue to issue citations regularly under both ordinances.

In July 2011, the district court granted summary judgment to the City. It held that the plaintiffs’ claims for retrospective relief were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that their claims for prospective relief were mooted by the Special Order and the Shelter Protocol. Bell v. City of Boise, 834 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (D. Idaho 2011). On appeal, we
reversed and remanded. Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 901 (9th Cir. 2013). We held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 897. In so holding, we expressly declined to consider whether the favorable-termination requirement from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), applied to the
plaintiffs’ claims for retrospective relief. Instead, we left the issue for the district court on remand. Bell, 709 F.3d at 897 n.11.

Bell further held that the plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief were not moot. The City had not met its “heavy
burden” of demonstrating that the challenged conduct —
enforcement of the two ordinances against homeless
individuals with no access to shelter — “could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Id. at 898, 901 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)). We emphasized that the Special Order was a statement of administrative policy and so could be amended or reversed at any time by the Boise Chief of Police. Id. at 899–900.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 13
Finally, Bell rejected the City’s argument that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to seek prospective relief because they were no longer homeless. Id. at 901 & n.12. We noted that, on summary judgment, the plaintiffs “need not establish that they in fact have standing, but only that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the standing elements.” Id. (citation omitted).

On remand, the district court again granted summary
judgment to the City on the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. The court observed that Heck requires a § 1983 plaintiff seeking damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
would render a conviction or sentence invalid” to demonstrate that “the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal . . . or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. at 486–87.

According to the district court, “a judgment finding the Ordinances unconstitutional . . . necessarily would imply the invalidity of Plaintiffs’ [previous] convictions under those ordinances,” and the plaintiffs therefore were required to demonstrate that their convictions or sentences had already been invalidated. As none of the plaintiffs had raised an Eighth Amendment challenge as a defense to criminal
prosecution, nor had any plaintiff successfully appealed their conviction, the district court held that all of the plaintiffs’ claims for retrospective relief were barred by Heck. The district court also rejected as barred by Heck the plaintiffs’ claim for prospective injunctive relief under § 1983,
reasoning that “a ruling in favor of Plaintiffs on even a prospective § 1983 claim would demonstrate the invalidity of any confinement stemming from those convictions.”

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE14
Finally, the district court determined that, although Heck did not bar relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Martin and Anderson now lack standing to pursue such relief. The linchpin of this holding was that the Camping Ordinance and the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance were both amended in
2014 to codify the Special Order’s mandate that “[l]aw
enforcement officers shall not enforce [the ordinances] when the individual is on public property and there is no available overnight shelter.” Boise City Code §§ 6-01-05, 9-10-02.

Because the ordinances, as amended, permitted camping or sleeping in a public place when no shelter space was
available, the court held that there was no “credible threat” of future prosecution. “If the Ordinances are not to be enforced when the shelters are full, those Ordinances do not inflict a constitutional injury upon these particular plaintiffs . . . .” The court emphasized that the record “suggests there is no known citation of a homeless individual under the Ordinances for camping or sleeping on public property on any night or morning when he or she was unable to secure shelter due to a lack of shelter capacity” and that “there has not been a single night when all three shelters in Boise called in to report they were simultaneously full for men, women or families.” This appeal followed.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 15
II. Discussion
A. Standing
We first consider whether any of the plaintiffs has
standing to pursue prospective relief.5 We conclude that there are sufficient opposing facts in the record to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Martin and Anderson face a credible threat of prosecution under one or both ordinances in the future at a time when they are unable to stay at any Boise homeless shelter.6
“To establish Article III standing, an injury must be
concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147 (2013) (citation omitted). “Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be
stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes — that the injury is certainly impending.” Id. (citation omitted). A plaintiff need not, however, await an arrest or prosecution to have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute. “When the plaintiff has alleged an 5 Standing to pursue retrospective relief is not in doubt. The only threshold question affecting the availability of a claim for retrospective relief — a question we address in the next section — is whether such relief is barred by the doctrine established in Heck.
6 Although the SAC is somewhat ambiguous regarding which of the plaintiffs seeks prospective relief, counsel for the plaintiffs made clear at oral argument that only two of the plaintiffs, Martin and Anderson, seek such relief, and the district court considered the standing question with respect to Martin and Anderson only.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE16
intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he should not be required to await and undergo a criminal
prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.” Babbitt v.

United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To defeat a motion for summary judgment premised on an alleged lack of standing, plaintiffs “ need not establish that they in fact have standing, but only that there is a genuine question of material fact as to the standing elements.” Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002).

In dismissing Martin and Anderson’s claims for
declaratory relief for lack of standing, the district court emphasized that Boise’s ordinances, as amended in 2014, preclude the City from issuing a citation when there is no available space at a shelter, and there is consequently no risk that either Martin or Anderson will be cited under such circumstances in the future. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we cannot agree.

Although the 2014 amendments preclude the City from
enforcing the ordinances when there is no room available at any shelter, the record demonstrates that the City is wholly reliant on the shelters to self-report when they are full. It is undisputed that Sanctuary is full as to men on a substantial percentage of nights, perhaps as high as 50%. The City nevertheless emphasizes that since the adoption of the Shelter Protocol in 2010, the BRM facilities, River of Life and City Light, have never reported that they are full, and BRM states that it will never turn people away due to lack space.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 17
The plaintiffs have pointed to substantial evidence in the record, however, indicating that whether or not the BRM facilities are ever full or turn homeless individuals away for lack of space, they do refuse to shelter homeless people who exhaust the number of days allotted by the facilities.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege, and the City does not dispute, that it is BRM’s policy to limit men to
17 consecutive days in the Emergency Services Program,
after which they cannot return to River of Life for 30 days; City Light has a similar 30-day limit for women and children.

Anderson testified that BRM has enforced this policy against him in the past, forcing him to sleep outdoors.

The plaintiffs have adduced further evidence indicating that River of Life permits individuals to remain at the shelter after 17 days in the Emergency Services Program only on the condition that they become part of the New Life Discipleship program, which has a mandatory religious focus. For
example, there is evidence that participants in the New Life Program are not allowed to spend days at Corpus Christi, a local Catholic program, “because it’s . . . a different sect.” There are also facts in dispute concerning whether the
Emergency Services Program itself has a religious
component. Although the City argues strenuously that the Emergency Services Program is secular, Anderson testified to the contrary; he stated that he was once required to attend chapel before being permitted to eat dinner at the River of Life shelter. Both Martin and Anderson have objected to the overall religious atmosphere of the River of Life shelter, including the Christian messaging on the shelter’s intake form and the Christian iconography on the shelter walls. A city cannot, via the threat of prosecution, coerce an individual to attend religion-based treatment programs consistently with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Inouye v.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE18
Kemna, 504 F.3d 705, 712–13 (9th Cir. 2007). Yet at the conclusion of a 17-day stay at River of Life, or a 30-day stay at City Light, an individual may be forced to choose between sleeping outside on nights when Sanctuary is full (and risking arrest under the ordinances), or enrolling in BRM
programming that is antithetical to his or her religious beliefs.

The 17-day and 30-day limits are not the only BRM
policies which functionally limit access to BRM facilities even when space is nominally available. River of Life also turns individuals away if they voluntarily leave the shelter before the 17-day limit and then attempt to return within 30 days. An individual who voluntarily leaves a BRM
facility for any reason — perhaps because temporary shelter is available at Sanctuary, or with friends or family, or in a hotel — cannot immediately return to the shelter if
circumstances change. Moreover, BRM’s facilities may deny shelter to any individual who arrives after 5:30 pm, and generally will deny shelter to anyone arriving after 8:00 pm.

Sanctuary, however, does not assign beds to persons on its waiting list until 9:00 pm. Thus, by the time a homeless individual on the Sanctuary waiting list discovers that the shelter has no room available, it may be too late to seek shelter at either BRM facility.

So, even if we credit the City’s evidence that BRM’s
facilities have never been “full,” and that the City has never cited any person under the ordinances who could not obtain shelter “due to a lack of shelter capacity,” there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether homeless
individuals in Boise run a credible risk of being issued a citation on a night when Sanctuary is full and they have been denied entry to a BRM facility for reasons other than shelter capacity. If so, then as a practical matter, no shelter is

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 19
available. We note that despite the Shelter Protocol and the amendments to both ordinances, the City continues regularly to issue citations for violating both ordinances; during the first three months of 2015, the Boise Police Department issued over 175 such citations.

The City argues that Martin faces little risk of prosecution under either ordinance because he has not lived in Boise since 2013. Martin states, however, that he is still homeless and still visits Boise several times a year to visit his minor son, and that he has continued to seek shelter at Sanctuary and River of Life. Although Martin may no longer spend enough time in Boise to risk running afoul of BRM’s 17-day limit, he testified that he has unsuccessfully sought shelter at River of Life after being placed on Sanctuary’s waiting list, only to discover later in the evening that Sanctuary had no available beds. Should Martin return to Boise to visit his son, there is a reasonable possibility that he might again seek shelter at Sanctuary, only to discover (after BRM has closed for the night) that Sanctuary has no space for him. Anderson, for his part, continues to live in Boise and states that he remains homeless.

We conclude that both Martin and Anderson have
demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether they face a credible risk of prosecution under the ordinances in the future on a night when they have been denied access to Boise’s homeless shelters; both plaintiffs therefore have standing to seek prospective relief.

B. Heck v. Humphrey
We turn next to the impact of Heck v. Humphrey and its
progeny on this case. With regard to retrospective relief, the

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE20
plaintiffs maintain that Heck should not bar their claims because, with one exception, all of the plaintiffs were sentenced to time served.7 It would therefore have been impossible for the plaintiffs to obtain federal habeas relief, as any petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed while the petitioner is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 17–18 (1998). With regard to prospective relief, the plaintiffs emphasize that they seek only equitable protection against future enforcement of an allegedly
unconstitutional statute, and not to invalidate any prior conviction under the same statute. We hold that although the Heck line of cases precludes most — but not all — of the plaintiffs’ requests for retrospective relief, that doctrine has no application to the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction enjoining prospective enforcement of the ordinances.

1. The Heck Doctrine
A long line of Supreme Court case law, beginning with
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), holds that a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his or her confinement, but must instead seek federal habeas corpus relief or analogous state relief. Id. at 477, 500. Preiser considered whether a prison inmate could bring a § 1983 action seeking an
injunction to remedy an unconstitutional deprivation of good- time conduct credits. Observing that habeas corpus is the traditional instrument to obtain release from unlawful
7 Plaintiff Pamela Hawkes was convicted of violating the Camping Ordinance or Disorderly Conduct Ordinance on twelve occasions; although she was usually sentenced to time served, she was twice sentenced to one additional day in jail.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 21
confinement, Preiser recognized an implicit exception from § 1983’s broad scope for actions that lie “within the core of habeas corpus” — specifically, challenges to the “fact or duration” of confinement. Id. at 487, 500. The Supreme Court subsequently held, however, that although Preiser barred inmates from obtaining an injunction to restore good- time credits via a § 1983 action, Preiser did not “preclude a litigant with standing from obtaining by way of ancillary relief an otherwise proper injunction enjoining the
prospective enforcement of invalid prison regulations.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974) (emphasis added).

Heck addressed a § 1983 action brought by an inmate
seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The inmate
alleged that state and county officials had engaged in
unlawful investigations and knowing destruction of
exculpatory evidence. Heck, 512 U.S. at 479. The Court in Heck analogized a § 1983 action of this type, which called into question the validity of an underlying conviction, to a cause of action for malicious prosecution, id. at 483–84, and went on to hold that, as with a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff in such an action must demonstrate a favorable termination of the criminal proceedings before seeking tort relief, id. at 486–87. “[T]o recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE22
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) extended Heck’s holding to claims for declaratory relief. Id. at 648. The plaintiff in Edwards alleged that he had been deprived of earned good-time credits without due process of law, because the decisionmaker in disciplinary proceedings had concealed exculpatory evidence. Because the plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief was “based on allegations of deceit and bias on the part of the decisionmaker that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed,” Edwards held, it was “not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. Edwards went on to hold, however, that a requested injunction requiring prison officials to date-stamp witness statements was not Heck-barred,
reasoning that a “prayer for such prospective relief will not ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of a previous loss of good- time credits, and so may properly be brought under § 1983.” Id. (emphasis added).

Most recently, Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), stated that Heck bars § 1983 suits even when the relief sought is prospective injunctive or declaratory relief, “if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81–82 (emphasis
omitted). But Wilkinson held that the plaintiffs in that case could seek a prospective injunction compelling the state to comply with constitutional requirements in parole
proceedings in the future. The Court observed that the prisoners’ claims for future relief, “if successful, will not necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration.” Id. at 82.

The Supreme Court did not, in these cases or any other, conclusively determine whether Heck’s favorable-termination requirement applies to convicts who have no practical
opportunity to challenge their conviction or sentence via a

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 23
petition for habeas corpus. See Muhammad v. Close,
540 U.S. 749, 752 & n.2 (2004). But in Spencer, five Justices suggested that Heck may not apply in such circumstances.

Spencer, 523 U.S. at 3.

The petitioner in Spencer had filed a federal habeas
petition seeking to invalidate an order revoking his parole.

While the habeas petition was pending, the petitioner’s term of imprisonment expired, and his habeas petition was
consequently dismissed as moot. Justice Souter wrote a concurring opinion in which three other Justices joined, addressing the petitioner’s argument that if his habeas petition were mooted by his release, any § 1983 action would be barred under Heck, yet he would no longer have access to a federal habeas forum to challenge the validity of his parole revocation. Id. at 18–19 (Souter, J., concurring). Justice Souter stated that in his view “Heck has no such effect,” and that “a former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983 action establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or confinement without being bound to satisfy a favorable-termination requirement that it would be
impossible as a matter of law for him to satisfy.” Id. at 21.

Justice Stevens, dissenting, stated that he would have held the habeas petition in Spencer not moot, but agreed that “[g]iven the Court’s holding that petitioner does not have a remedy under the habeas statute, it is perfectly clear . . . that he may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Id. at 25 n.8 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

Relying on the concurring and dissenting opinions in
Spencer, we have held that the “unavailability of a remedy in habeas corpus because of mootness” permitted a plaintiff released from custody to maintain a § 1983 action for
damages, “even though success in that action would imply the

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE24
invalidity of the disciplinary proceeding that caused
revocation of his good-time credits.” Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2002). But we have limited Nonnette in recent years. Most notably, we held in Lyall v.

City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015), that even where a plaintiff had no practical opportunity to pursue federal habeas relief while detained because of the short duration of his confinement, Heck bars a § 1983 action that would imply the invalidity of a prior conviction if the plaintiff could have sought invalidation of the underlying conviction via direct appeal or state post-conviction relief, but did not do so. Id. at 1192 & n.12.

2. Retrospective Relief
Here, the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims for
retrospective relief are governed squarely by Lyall. It is undisputed that all the plaintiffs not only failed to challenge their convictions on direct appeal but expressly waived the right to do so as a condition of their guilty pleas. The plaintiffs have made no showing that any of their convictions were invalidated via state post-conviction relief. We
therefore hold that all but two of the plaintiffs’ claims for damages are foreclosed under Lyall.

Two of the plaintiffs, however, Robert Martin and Pamela Hawkes, also received citations under the ordinances that were dismissed before the state obtained a conviction.

Hawkes was cited for violating the Camping Ordinance on July 8, 2007; that violation was dismissed on August 28, 2007. Martin was cited for violating the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance on April 24, 2009; those charges were dismissed on September 9, 2009. With respect to these two incidents, the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs’ Eighth

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 25
Amendment challenge was barred by Heck. Where there is no “conviction or sentence” that may be undermined by a grant of relief to the plaintiffs, the Heck doctrine has no application. 512 U.S. at 486–87; see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007).

Relying on Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664
(1977), the City argues that the Eighth Amendment, and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause in particular, have no application where there has been no conviction. The City’s reliance on Ingraham is misplaced. As the Supreme Court observed in Ingraham, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause not only limits the types of punishment that may be imposed and prohibits the imposition of punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime, but also “imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.” Id. at 667. “This [latter] protection governs the criminal law process as a whole, not only the imposition of punishment postconviction.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1128.

Ingraham concerned only whether “impositions outside
the criminal process” — in that case, the paddling of
schoolchildren — “constituted cruel and unusual
punishment.” 430 U.S. at 667. Ingraham did not hold that a plaintiff challenging the state’s power to criminalize a particular status or conduct in the first instance, as the plaintiffs in this case do, must first be convicted. If conviction were a prerequisite for such a challenge, “the state could in effect punish individuals in the preconviction stages of the criminal law enforcement process for being or doing things that under the [Cruel and Unusual Punishments
Clause] cannot be subject to the criminal process.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1129. For those rare Eighth Amendment

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE26
challenges concerning the state’s very power to criminalize particular behavior or status, then, a plaintiff need
demonstrate only the initiation of the criminal process against him, not a conviction.

3. Prospective Relief
The district court also erred in concluding that the
plaintiffs’ requests for prospective injunctive relief were barred by Heck. The district court relied entirely on language in Wilkinson stating that “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) . . . no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief) . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of
confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81–82.

The district court concluded from this language in Wilkinson that a person convicted under an allegedly unconstitutional statute may never challenge the validity or application of that statute after the initial criminal proceeding is complete, even when the relief sought is prospective only and independent of the prior conviction. The logical extension of the district court’s interpretation is that an individual who does not successfully invalidate a first conviction under an
unconstitutional statute will have no opportunity to challenge that statute prospectively so as to avoid arrest and conviction for violating that same statute in the future.

Neither Wilkinson nor any other case in the Heck line
supports such a result. Rather, Wolff, Edwards, and
Wilkinson compel the opposite conclusion.

Wolff held that although Preiser barred a § 1983 action seeking restoration of good-time credits absent a successful challenge in federal habeas proceedings, Preiser did not

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 27
“preclude a litigant with standing from obtaining by way of ancillary relief an otherwise proper injunction enjoining the prospective enforcement of invalid . . . regulations.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 555. Although Wolff was decided before Heck, the Court subsequently made clear that Heck effected no change in the law in this regard, observing in Edwards that “[o]rdinarily, a prayer for . . . prospective [injunctive] relief will not ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of a previous loss of good-time credits, and so may properly be brought under § 1983.” Edwards, 520 U.S. at 648 (emphasis added).

Importantly, the Court held in Edwards that although the plaintiff could not, consistently with Heck, seek a declaratory judgment stating that the procedures employed by state
officials that deprived him of good-time credits were
unconstitutional, he could seek an injunction barring such allegedly unconstitutional procedures in the future. Id.

Finally, the Court noted in Wilkinson that the Heck line of cases “has focused on the need to ensure that state prisoners use only habeas corpus (or similar state) remedies when they seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement,”
Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81 (emphasis added), alluding to an existing confinement, not one yet to come.

The Heck doctrine, in other words, serves to ensure the finality and validity of previous convictions, not to insulate future prosecutions from challenge. In context, it is clear that Wilkinson’s holding that the Heck doctrine bars a § 1983 action “no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief) . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration” applies to equitable relief concerning an existing
confinement, not to suits seeking to preclude an
unconstitutional confinement in the future, arising from incidents occurring after any prior conviction and stemming

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE28
from a possible later prosecution and conviction. Id. at 81–82 (emphasis added). As Wilkinson held, “claims for future relief (which, if successful, will not necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration)” are distant from the “core” of habeas corpus with which the Heck line of cases is concerned, and are not precluded by the Heck
doctrine. Id. at 82.

In sum, we hold that the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims for retrospective relief are barred by Heck, but both Martin and Hawkes stated claims for damages to which Heck has no application. We further hold that Heck has no application to the plaintiffs’ requests for prospective injunctive relief.

C. The Eighth Amendment
At last, we turn to the merits — does the Cruel and
Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment
preclude the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to
alternative shelter? We hold that it does, for essentially the same reasons articulated in the now-vacated Jones opinion.

The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not
be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const., amend. VIII.

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “circumscribes the criminal process in three ways.” Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667. First, it limits the type of punishment the government may impose; second, it proscribes punishment “grossly
disproportionate” to the severity of the crime; and third, it places substantive limits on what the government may
criminalize. Id. It is the third limitation that is pertinent here.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 29
“Even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual
punishment for the ‘crime’ of having a common cold.”
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962). Cases construing substantive limits as to what the government may criminalize are rare, however, and for good reason — the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause’s third limitation is “one to be applied sparingly.” Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667.

Robinson, the seminal case in this branch of Eighth
Amendment jurisprudence, held a California statute that “ma[de] the ‘status’ of narcotic addiction a criminal offense” invalid under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. 370 U.S. at 666. The California law at issue in Robinson was “not one which punishe[d] a person for the use of narcotics, for their purchase, sale or possession, or for antisocial or disorderly behavior resulting from their administration”; it punished addiction itself. Id. Recognizing narcotics
addiction as an illness or disease — “apparently an illness which may be contracted innocently or involuntarily” — and observing that a “law which made a criminal offense of . . . a disease would doubtless be universally thought to be an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment,” Robinson held the challenged statute a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Id. at 666–67.

As Jones observed, Robinson did not explain at length the principles underpinning its holding. See Jones, 444 F.3d at 1133. In Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), however, the Court elaborated on the principle first articulated in Robinson.

Powell concerned the constitutionality of a Texas law
making public drunkenness a criminal offense. Justice
Marshall, writing for a plurality of the Court, distinguished the Texas statute from the law at issue in Robinson on the

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE30
ground that the Texas statute made criminal not alcoholism but conduct — appearing in public while intoxicated.
“[A]ppellant was convicted, not for being a chronic alcoholic, but for being in public while drunk on a particular occasion.

The State of Texas thus has not sought to punish a mere status, as California did in Robinson; nor has it attempted to regulate appellant’s behavior in the privacy of his own home.” Id. at 532 (plurality opinion).

The Powell plurality opinion went on to interpret
Robinson as precluding only the criminalization of “status,” not of “involuntary” conduct. “The entire thrust of
Robinson’s interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual
Punishment Clause is that criminal penalties may be inflicted only if the accused has committed some act, has engaged in some behavior, which society has an interest in preventing, or perhaps in historical common law terms, has committed some actus reus. It thus does not deal with the question of whether certain conduct cannot constitutionally be punished because it is, in some sense, ‘involuntary’ . . . .” Id. at 533.

Four Justices dissented from the Court’s holding in
Powell; Justice White concurred in the result alone. Notably, Justice White noted that many chronic alcoholics are also homeless, and that for those individuals, public drunkenness may be unavoidable as a practical matter. “For all practical purposes the public streets may be home for these
unfortunates, not because their disease compels them to be there, but because, drunk or sober, they have no place else to go and no place else to be when they are drinking. . . . For some of these alcoholics I would think a showing could be made that resisting drunkenness is impossible and that
avoiding public places when intoxicated is also impossible.

As applied to them this statute is in effect a law which bans

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 31
a single act for which they may not be convicted under the Eighth Amendment — the act of getting drunk.” Id. at 551 (White, J., concurring in the judgment).

The four dissenting Justices adopted a position consistent with that taken by Justice White: that under Robinson,
“criminal penalties may not be inflicted upon a person for being in a condition he is powerless to change,” and that the defendant, “once intoxicated, . . . could not prevent himself from appearing in public places.” Id. at 567 (Fortas, J., dissenting). Thus, five Justices gleaned from Robinson the principle that “that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1135; see also United States v. Roberston,
875 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2017).

This principle compels the conclusion that the Eighth
Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter. As Jones reasoned, “[w]hether sitting, lying, and sleeping are defined as acts or conditions, they are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1136.

Moreover, any “conduct at issue here is involuntary and inseparable from status — they are one and the same, given that human beings are biologically compelled to rest, whether by sitting, lying, or sleeping.” Id. As a result, just as the state may not criminalize the state of being “homeless in public places,” the state may not “criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely
sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets.” Id. at 1137.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE32
Our holding is a narrow one. Like the Jones panel, “we in no way dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets . . . at any time and at any place.” Id. at 1138. We hold only that “so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [a jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters],” the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless individuals for “involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public.” Id. That is, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.8
We are not alone in reaching this conclusion. As one
court has observed, “resisting the need to eat, sleep or engage in other life-sustaining activities is impossible. Avoiding public places when engaging in this otherwise innocent
conduct is also impossible. . . . As long as the homeless plaintiffs do not have a single place where they can lawfully be, the challenged ordinances, as applied to them, effectively 8 Naturally, our holding does not cover individuals who do have access to adequate temporary shelter, whether because they have the means to pay for it or because it is realistically available to them for free, but who choose not to use it. Nor do we suggest that a jurisdiction with insufficient shelter can never criminalize the act of sleeping outside. Even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible. See Jones, 444 F.3d at 1123. So, too, might an ordinance barring the obstruction of public rights of way or the erection of certain structures. Whether some other ordinance is consistent with the Eighth Amendment will depend, as here, on whether it punishes a person for lacking the means to live out the “universal and unavoidable consequences of being human” in the way the ordinance prescribes. Id. at 1136.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 33
punish them for something for which they may not be
convicted under the [E]ighth [A]mendment — sleeping,
eating and other innocent conduct.” Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1565 (S.D. Fla. 1992); see also Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F. Supp. 344, 350 (N.D. Tex. 1994) (holding that a “sleeping in public ordinance as applied against the homeless is unconstitutional”), rev’d on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 1995).9
Here, the two ordinances criminalize the simple act of
sleeping outside on public property, whether bare or with a blanket or other basic bedding. The Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, on its face, criminalizes “[o]ccupying, lodging, or sleeping in any building, structure or place, whether public or private” without permission. Boise City Code § 6-01-05. Its scope is just as sweeping as the Los Angeles ordinance at issue in Jones, which mandated that “[n]o person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or other public way.” 444 F.3d at 1123.

The Camping Ordinance criminalizes using “any of the
streets, sidewalks, parks or public places as a camping place 9 In Joel v. City of Orlando, 232 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2000), the Eleventh Circuit upheld an anti-camping ordinance similar to Boise’s against an Eighth Amendment challenge. In Joel, however, the defendants presented unrefuted evidence that the homeless shelters in the City of Orlando had never reached capacity and that the plaintiffs had always enjoyed access to shelter space. Id. Those unrefuted facts were critical to the court’s holding. Id. As discussed below, the plaintiffs here have demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether they have been denied access to shelter in the past or expect to be so denied in the future. Joel therefore does not provide persuasive guidance for this case.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE34
at any time.” Boise City Code § 9-10-02. The ordinance defines “camping” broadly:

The term “camp” or “camping” shall mean the
use of public property as a temporary or
permanent place of dwelling, lodging, or
residence, or as a living accommodation at
anytime between sunset and sunrise, or as a
sojourn. Indicia of camping may include, but
are not limited to, storage of personal
belongings, using tents or other temporary
structures for sleeping or storage of personal
belongings, carrying on cooking activities or
making any fire in an unauthorized area, or
any of these activities in combination with
one another or in combination with either
sleeping or making preparations to sleep
(including the laying down of bedding for the
purpose of sleeping).

Id. It appears from the record that the Camping Ordinance is frequently enforced against homeless individuals with some elementary bedding, whether or not any of the other listed indicia of “camping” — the erection of temporary structures, the activity of cooking or making fire, or the storage of personal property — are present. For example, a Boise police officer testified that he cited plaintiff Pamela Hawkes under the Camping Ordinance for sleeping outside “wrapped in a blanket with her sandals off and next to her,” for sleeping in a public restroom “with blankets,” and for sleeping in a park “on a blanket, wrapped in blankets on the ground.” The Camping Ordinance therefore can be, and allegedly is,
enforced against homeless individuals who take even the most rudimentary precautions to protect themselves from the

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 35
elements. We conclude that a municipality cannot
criminalize such behavior consistently with the Eighth
Amendment when no sleeping space is practically available in any shelter.

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of
the district court as to the plaintiffs’ requests for retrospective relief, except as such claims relate to Hawkes’s July 2007 citation under the Camping Ordinance and Martin’s April 2009 citation under the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance. We REVERSE and REMAND with respect to the plaintiffs’
requests for prospective relief, both declaratory and
injunctive, and to the plaintiffs’ claims for retrospective relief insofar as they relate to Hawkes’ July 2007 citation or Martin’s April 2009 citation.10
10 Costs shall be awarded to the plaintiffs.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE36
OWENS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that the doctrine of Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars the plaintiffs’
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for damages that are based on
convictions that have not been challenged on direct appeal or invalidated in state post-conviction relief. See Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1192 n.12 (9th Cir. 2015).

I also agree that Heck and its progeny have no application where there is no “conviction or sentence” that would be undermined by granting a plaintiff’s request for relief under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87; see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007). I therefore concur in the
majority’s conclusion that Heck does not bar plaintiffs Robert Martin and Pamela Hawkes from seeking retrospective relief for the two instances in which they received citations, but not convictions. I also concur in the majority’s Eighth
Amendment analysis as to those two claims for retrospective relief.

Where I part ways with the majority is in my
understanding of Heck’s application to the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. In Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), the Supreme Court explained where the Heck doctrine stands today:
[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred
(absent prior invalidation)—no matter the
relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no
matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state
conduct leading to conviction or internal
prison proceedings)—if success in that action

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 37
would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity
of confinement or its duration.

Id. at 81–82. Here, the majority acknowledges this language in Wilkinson, but concludes that Heck’s bar on any type of relief that “would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement” does not preclude the prospective claims at issue. The majority reasons that the purpose of Heck is “to ensure the finality and validity of previous convictions, not to insulate future prosecutions from challenge,” and so
concludes that the plaintiffs’ prospective claims may proceed.

I respectfully disagree.

A declaration that the city ordinances are unconstitutional and an injunction against their future enforcement necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the plaintiffs’ prior convictions.

Indeed, any time an individual challenges the
constitutionality of a substantive criminal statute under which he has been convicted, he asks for a judgment that would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction. And though neither the Supreme Court nor this court has squarely addressed Heck’s application to § 1983 claims challenging the constitutionality of a substantive criminal statute, I believe Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), makes clear that Heck prohibits such challenges. In Edwards, the
Supreme Court explained that although our court had
recognized that Heck barred § 1983 claims challenging the validity of a prisoner’s confinement “as a substantive matter,” it improperly distinguished as not Heck-barred all claims alleging only procedural violations. 520 U.S. at 645. In holding that Heck also barred those procedural claims that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, the Court did not question our conclusion that claims challenging a conviction “as a substantive matter” are barred by Heck.

MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE38
Id.; see also Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82 (holding that the plaintiffs’ claims could proceed because the relief requested would only “render invalid the state procedures” and “a favorable judgment [would] not ‘necessarily imply the
invalidity of [their] conviction[s] or sentence[s]’” (emphasis added) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487)).

Edwards thus leads me to conclude that an individual who was convicted under a criminal statute, but who did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute at the time of his conviction through direct appeal or post-conviction relief, cannot do so in the first instance by seeking declaratory or injunctive relief under § 1983. See Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 405 F.3d 1298, 1316 n.9 (11th Cir. 2005) (assuming that a §1983 claim challenging “the
constitutionality of the ordinance under which [the petitioner was convicted]” would be Heck-barred). I therefore would hold that Heck bars the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

We are not the first court to struggle applying Heck to “real life examples,” nor will we be the last. See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 21 (1998) (Ginsburg, J.,
concurring) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining that her thoughts on Heck had changed since she joined the majority opinion in that case). If the slate were blank, I would agree that the majority’s holding as to
prospective relief makes good sense. But because I read Heck and its progeny differently, I dissent as to that section of the majority’s opinion. I otherwise join the majority in full.

12.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/20/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Approval of a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Great Valley Holdings, LLC and Authorization for the City Manager to execute the appropriate documents for the purpose of purchasing the property located at 330 N. Harris Street, more commonly known as the Social Security Building, for a purchase price of $4,450,000. And authorize a loan to the General Fund from the Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund for up to $4.6 million (to include closing costs) with terms and conditions as stated in this report.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, approve a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with Great Valley Holdings, LLC and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and escrow documents required for the purchase of the property located at 330 N. Harris Street, more commonly known as the Social Security Building, for a purchase price of $4,450,000. And authorize a loan to the General Fund from the Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund for up to $4.6 million (to include closing costs) with terms and conditions as stated in this report.

Recommended Motion: I move to approve a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Great Valley Holdings, LLC and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and escrow documents required for the purchase of the property located at 330 N. Harris Street, more commonly known as the Social Security Building, for a purchase price of $4,450,000. And authorize a loan to the General Fund from the Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund for up to $4.6 million (to include closing costs) with terms and conditions as stated in this report.

BACKGROUND:

In early 2022, City staff was approached by the owner of the property located at 330 N. Harris Street, Great Valley Holdings, LLC, about the City's interest in purchasing the building. The property is located immediately east of the existing city hall and the two properties have adjacent parking areas.

At the time, Council provided direction to staff to pursue the purchase of the property as the additional square footage would provide for the long-term growth of the organization. In the interim, it will provide a steady income stream for the City's General Fund, which is the primary fund for the City's essential services. The building is currently leased to the Social Security Administration and WIC and those tenants provide a gross annual income of about $438,000 for the property.

Additionally, the tenants have built in lease rate adjustments, which would provide additional revenue for the City over time.

The attached Purchase and Sale Agreement identifies a purchase price of $4,450,000 for the property. If the City's General Fund was in a strong financial position, the property would be purchased with funds from the General Fund reserve. However, given the recent settlement and the City's reserve balance of only 7%, Council is being asked to approve a loan to the General Fund from

the Fleet Replacement Fund (0448).

The Fleet Replacement Fund (FRF) has over $14 million currently in cash reserve for replacement of vehicles across all departments/funds. This internal loan to the General Fund will decrease the available cash on hand in the FRF, which could delay vehicle replacements, however, with the fund also accruing interest from this loan, staff anticipates any impacts to be minimal. In addition, during the term of the note, Council could direct any General Fund surpluses towards prepayment of this loan to decrease potential impacts to any fleet replacements.

It is recommended the following terms and rate be approved for the internal loan with an interest rate set by using the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) earning rate plus 1%. LAIF is where the City may otherwise invest cash on hand, this loan will serve as an alternative to that investment.

Fleet Replacement Fund Loan Conditions/Terms

Term - up to 15 years
Interest - 3.74%, annual accrual
Annual Payment - $418,730 (final amount TBD, offset by $438,000+ in rent with tenant occupied areas)
Principle paid: up to $4,600,000.00 (final amount to be determined at close of escrow with closing costs)
Interest paid: $1,362,228.05 (final amount to be estimated at close of escrow) Potential year of payoff - 2036 (14 year term, if escrow closes in 2023)

The Planning Commission considered the City's purchase of the property on June 28, 2022 and determined that the purchase is consistent with the City's General Plan in accordance with Government Code Section 65402.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This would be a revenue-generating transaction for the City's General Fund. The amount of the annual internal loan payments would be offset by the rents received and provide a small balance of about $19,000 surplus to the General Fund. The purchase of this property will be funded through an internal loan from the Fleet Replacement Fund (0448) with terms and conditions as outlined in the body of this report. Some flexibility in the terms and conditions is stated above to make sure the payment stays below the rent received with an up to authorization of $4.6 million to include closing costs (3%) on the purchase price of $4,450,000.

For the FRF this loan provides a sound investment option for the fund's cash and for the General Fund this loan provides available cash for the payment of the property at a reasonable rate for the long-term City investment in this ideally situated property close to existing city facilities. As stated previously this could lead to possible deferrals of city fleet replacements, however, staff believes any deferrals will be minimal, and Council will be able to consider prepayments on the loan in the future with any potential General Fund budget surpluses.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2023.06.08 Agreement of Sale GVH-City of Hanford-330 N. Harris St Property - FINAL

2. Loan amortization schedule1

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
1 AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
(Great Valley Holdings, LLC –The City of Hanford, California) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 20 th day of June, 2023 (the “Effective Date”), by and between GREAT VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation (the “Seller”), and the City of Hanford, California, a municipal corporation (the “Buyer”).

R E C I T A L S:

A. Seller is the owner of certain real property (“Property”) located in the city of Hanford, Kings County, California, as more particularly described herein.

B. Buyer has threatened to immediately commence proceedings to condemn the Property if Seller and Buyer do not mutually and voluntarily arrive at an agreement for the purchase and sale of the Property as herein provided.

C. Seller therefore desires to sell and Buyer desires to purchase the Property on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

DEFINITIONS
Unless the context otherwise specifies or requires, for purposes of this Agreement the following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Article I:

1.01 Agreement. The “Agreement” is this instrument.

1.02 Building. The “Building” is the building located on the Property.

1.03 City. The “City” shall be the City of Hanford, California.

1.04 Close of Escrow or Closing. The “Close of Escrow” or “Closing” shall be the process of transfer or title to the Property to Buyer as described in Section 6.03.

1.05 Closing Date or Close of Escrow. The phrase “Closing Date” shall be the date of Close of Escrow.

1.06 Deposit. The term “Deposit” shall be One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) as provided in Section 2.03.

1.07 Disapproval Notice. The phrase “Disapproval Notice” shall mean the written notice given by Buyer to Seller on or before the last day of the Inspection Period in which Buyer indicates, based on its inspection, that Buyer disapproves of the condition of the Property as to any matter.

1.08 Escrow. The term “Escrow” shall mean the agency relationship described in Article VI below, established with Title Company for the purchase and sale of the Property as herein set forth.

1.09 Escrow Holder. The phrase “Escrow Holder” shall be Title Company.

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
2 1.10 Effective Date. The phrase “Effective Date” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement.

1.11 Grant Deed. The “Grant Deed” is defined in Section 3.01; the Grant Deed shall be prepared by the Title Company.

1.12 Improvements. “Improvements” shall be the Building, parking areas, landscaping and all other physical improvements to the Property.

1.13 Inspection Period. The phrase “Inspection Period” shall be defined as the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending 90 calendar days thereafter.

1.14 Party and Parties. The “Party” shall be individually the Seller or Buyer, and collectively the “Parties.”

1.15 PTR. The term “PTR” is defined in Section 3.02.

1.16 Property. The term “Property” shall be that certain real property located at 330 North Harris Street in the city of Hanford, Kings County, California, Kings County APN 010-270-021, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, including the Improvements and ingress and egress to the Property. The Property shall also include all rights, privileges and easements appurtenant to the land, including, without limitation, all minerals, oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances on and under the land (to the extent owned by Seller) as well as all development rights, air rights, water, water rights and any other easements, rights-of- way or appurtenances, used in connection with the beneficial use and enjoyment of the land and Building (to the extent owned by Seller), and including all Seller’s rights and obligations under the Tenant Leases.

1.17 Purchase Price. The phrase “Purchase Price” shall be the amount indicated in Section 2.02 hereof.

1.18 Seller Default. For purposes of this Agreement, in the case of termination of this Agreement without Close, or in the event of Closing for a violation by Seller of its representations and warranties under Section 7,01, the phrase “Seller Default” shall mean, and be limited only to, the occurrence of any of the following: a) the failure of Seller to deliver title to the Property at Close of Escrow subject only to the permitted exceptions to title as provided in Section 3.02; b) Seller’s failure to deliver a Grant Deed to the Property at Close of Escrow or to sign such other documents of transfer reasonably required by Escrow Holder consistent with this Agreement; c) the failure of Seller, by Close of Escrow, to cure the conditions to which Seller agreed to cure in the Seller’s Cure Notice as provided in Section 4.02; or e) Seller’s material breach of its representations and warranties, set forth in Section 7.01of this Agreement. In no event shall a Seller Default be considered to have occurred hereunder if after the last day of the Inspection Period the Buyer, its agents or employees, discover any matter concerning the condition of the Property, including any environmental condition, that Buyer could have reasonably discovered prior to such date.

1.19 Seller’s Cure Notice. The “Seller’s Cure Notice” is defined in Section 4.02.

1.20 Seller’s Knowledge or Knowledge. With regard to the Seller representations and warranties contained in Section 7.01, “Seller’s Knowledge” or “Knowledge” means solely

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
3 the actual knowledge of Stuart Clark at the time of making such representation without any duty of inquiry whatsoever.

1.21 Tenant Lease Assignment and Assumption Agreement. “Tenant Lease Assignment and Assumption Agreement” is defined in Section 4.03.

1.22 Tenant Estoppel Certificate. The “Tenant Estoppel Certificate is defined in Section 4.03.

1.23 Tenant Leases. The “Tenant Leases” are those listed in Section 4.03.

1.24 Title Approval Date” The phrase “Title Approval Date” is defined in Section

3.02. 1.25 Title Approval Period. The phase “Title Approval Period” shall be defined as the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending 30 calendar days thereafter.

1.26 Title Company. The phrase “Title Company” shall mean Stewart Title of California, Inc., 325 Mall Dr., Ste. #105, Hanford, California 93230. Escrow Officer: Cheryl Amos.

ARTICLE II

SALE OF PROPERTY

2.01 Purchase and Sale. Seller agrees to sell, grant, convey and deliver the Property to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase the Property from Seller, on the terms and subject to the conditions contained in this Agreement.

2.02 Purchase Price. As consideration for Seller’s conveyance of the Property to Buyer, Buyer shall pay the sum of Four Million Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($4,450,000.00) to Seller at Close of Escrow (the “Purchase Price”).

2.03 Deposit. Within five (5) days after the opening of Escrow, Buyer shall deposit with Escrow Holder the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) (the Deposit”).
a. Non-Refundability of Deposit and Application of Deposit to Purchase Price.

The Deposit shall become non-refundable to Buyer on the day after the last day of the Inspection Period. If Close of Escrow occurs, then the Deposit shall be applied to the Purchase Price.

Should the Close of Escrow fail to occur as a result of default of Buyer, then Seller shall be entitled to keep the Deposit as liquidated damages as provided in Article IX. If Closing fails to occur as a result of a Seller Default, then the Escrow Holder or Seller shall refund the Deposit to Buyer.
b. Termination of Agreement for Failure to Pay Deposit. Should Buyer fail to timely pay into Escrow the Deposit as provided in Section 2.03, this Agreement shall terminate.

2.04 Payment of Purchase Price. Buyer shall deposit the Purchase Price in cash or by wire transfer to Escrow Holder at Close of Escrow.

2.05 Condition of Title. Seller shall deliver title to the Property to Buyer as provided in Section 3.01 hereof.

2.06 Tax Deferred Exchange. Should Seller, in its sole discretion, desire to participate in a tax-deferred exchange, it shall notify Buyer in which case Buyer agrees to

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
4 cooperate with Seller to permit Seller to participate in one or more tax-deferred exchanges with respect to the Property. Such cooperation shall be at no cost or liability to Buyer.

2.07 Brokerage Commission (Finder’s Fee). Neither Buyer nor Seller has engaged a broker or finder in connection with the transaction contemplated herein. Accordingly, in the event of a claim for broker’s fee, finder’s fee, commission or other similar compensation against Buyer or Seller in connection herewith, each Party hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the other Party free and harmless against any and all liability, loss, cost, damage or expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) which either Party may sustain or incur by reason of such claim arising out of the actions of the other Party. The provisions of this Section shall survive Close of Escrow.

ARTICLE III
TITLE and CONDITION OF PROPERTY

3.01 Title to Property; Title Insurance. At Close of Escrow, Seller shall convey to Buyer fee-simple title to the Property by execution and delivery of a deed (“Grant Deed”) to the Property. Title Company shall issue an CLTA owner’s Policy of Title Insurance insuring title to the Property in Buyer with liability in the full amount of the Purchase Price; title to be subject only to the exceptions to title as approved by Buyer as hereinafter provided. Seller shall pay the premium for the CLTA policy of title insurance. Should Buyer desire an ALTA title insurance Policy, Buyer shall pay the cost of any survey and any additional cost necessary for Title Company to issue an ALTA Policy and the additional premium for the ALTA policy of title insurance.

3.02 Approval of Title. Within five (5) days of opening of Escrow, Title Company shall provide Seller and Buyer with a current preliminary title report for the Property (“PTR”) together with copies of all documents referenced therein as exceptions to title, and showing the locations of all the recorded easements, if any. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the PTR, Buyer shall notify Seller and Escrow Holder of all disapproved exceptions to title. All monetary liens, mortgages and loans are disapproved. Seller shall have ten (10) days thereafter to notify Buyer which disapproved exceptions to title Seller is unwilling or unable to remove. Monetary encumbrances and deeds of trust shall be removed by Seller on or before the Close of Escrow.

The date that Buyer and Seller agree in writing, with notice to each other and to Escrow Holder, as to which exceptions to title are approved shall be the “Title Approval Date.” Should Buyer and Seller fail to agree as to exceptions to title by the last day of the Title Approval Period, then this Agreement shall terminate and Escrow Holder shall return the Deposit to Buyer, provided that such period may be extended if agreed to in writing signed by the Parties before the last day of the Title Approval Period.. From the Title Approval Date to the date of Close of Escrow, Seller agrees to maintain the Property free and clear of all liens and encumbrances not reflected in the PTR, except for current real property taxes.

3.03 Sales Tax. The Parties are of the opinion that no sales or use tax will be due or payable in connection with the transfer of the Property to Buyer hereunder. In the event, however, that any taxing authority claims that such taxes are due, either Party may, at its sole cost and expense, and in its sole and absolute discretion, oppose by protest or other means, the imposition of such tax to the extent of such Party’s liability hereunder. In the ultimate event that such sales tax is found to be due and payable, Buyer shall pay all such taxes.

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
5 3.04 As Is Condition. Except as provided specifically herein to the contrary, at Close of Escrow and by the act of closing and taking physical possession of the Property by Buyer, Buyer agrees to accept the Property “AS IS” and with all faults and defects, as further provided in Subsection 7.02(d).

ARTICLE IV
DUE DILIGENCE, EARLY ENTRY and TENANT LEASES

4.01 Inspection of Property. During the Inspection Period, Seller hereby grants to Buyer and Buyer’s agents and employees the right of access to the Property to perform such surveys and inspections of the Property as Buyer shall deem appropriate, provided, however, that all such investigations shall be conducted so as not to damage the Property or any of the Improvements thereon. During the Inspection Period, Buyer shall, except as otherwise provided herein, maintain a general liability insurance policy to cover its investigation and due diligence activities in a combined single limit of at least $1,000,000.00, shall name Seller as an additional insured; within five (5) days of the Effective Date, Buyer shall provide Seller with written notice of such insurance coverage signed by Buyer’s insurance company or broker. Buyer may satisfy such insurance requirement through a combination of self-insurance and excess coverage. Seller confirms that Buyer’s current one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000.00) per occurrence self- insurance program, coupled with twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000.00) in excess liability coverage through PRISM Excess Insurance Authority, is acceptable to Seller. Buyer shall keep the Property free and clear of any liens, repair all damage to the Property caused by Buyer in such inspections and indemnify, defend with legal counsel approved by Seller, protect and hold harmless Seller and the Property from any liability, including from the use of any hazardous substances or violation of Environmental Laws, arising from or connected with such inspections.

Except as hereinafter provided, all of Buyer’s inspections, tests, and studies shall be performed at Buyer’s sole cost, risk and expense (including attorneys’ fees). In the event that the transaction contemplated by this Agreement does not close for any reason, Buyer agrees to furnish to Seller copies of the report and all such inspections, tests and studies at no cost to Seller. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the sale does not close as a result of a Seller Default, then Seller shall pay Buyer the cost Buyer incurred to obtain such inspections, tests, and studies.

Such materials shall be furnished by Buyer to Seller with no representation or warranty by Buyer as to their accuracy.

4.02 Approval/Disapproval of Inspections. Buyer's inspection and evaluation of the Property shall be conducted as authorized in this Agreement. Buyer may at any time during the Inspection Period and based on its inspection of the Property deliver to Seller a Disapproval Notice, and in such event on such date, except as hereinafter provided, this Agreement shall terminate without liability on Buyer's or Seller’s part and the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer; provided however, that if in such Disapproval Notice Buyer indicates, in its sole discretion, that Seller shall be permitted to cure any disapproved item, then this Agreement shall not terminate but instead Seller shall be given an opportunity to cure under the time frame set forth in the Disapproval Notice. Seller shall have ten (10) days from the date the Disapproval Notice is deemed delivered pursuant to Subsection 11.11 of this Agreement, to notify Buyer whether Seller will or will not cure by Close of Escrow the disapproved item. Seller’s response that it will cure the matters referred to in the Disapproval Notice shall be the “Seller’s Cure Notice.” If Seller does not respond to Buyer’s Disapproval Notice, then Seller shall be deemed to have indicated that it will not correct such disapproved item. If Seller elects not to correct, fails to

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
6 correct or is deemed not to correct all disapproved matters under the terms indicated in the Disapproval Notice, then Buyer shall have the election of either: (a) terminating this Agreement without any liability on the part of either Party, or (b) accepting the Property without offset or reduction of the Purchase Price for the uncorrected matter(s). If Buyer elects to terminate the Agreement under the preceding sentence, then the Deposit shall be refunded to Buyer.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Buyer shall be deemed to have approved all aspects including the physical and environmental condition of the Property, based on its due diligence inspection and evaluation of the Property, if Buyer fails to deliver the Disapproval Notice to Seller on or before 5:00 p.m. on the last day of such Inspection Period.

4.03 Tenant Leases. The Property is currently leased to two tenants. The Seller is the lessor and the General Services Administration, an agency of the United States of America, is the lessee under that certain Lease Amendment No 1 commencing September 15, 2015, for approximately 6,875 square feet of office space and office area located on the 1 st floor of the Building as well as a non-exclusive right to utilize the common area of the Building and parking; the said lease has been subsequently amended several times and the original lease and amendments thereto are collectively referred to herein as the “US Government Lease.” The predecessor of the Seller, Goerl Properties, as lessor, and the County of Kings (“Kings County”) as tenant, entered into that certain Lease of Property, with a commencement date of July 1, 2011, for the lease of suites 102, 103 and 104, comprising approximately 4374 square feet of rentable space of the Building, and a non-exclusive right to utilize common area and parking spaces. In 2012, Seller purchased the Property from Goerl and was also assigned the lease by Goerl; accordingly, in 2012, Seller became the successor lessor of the Property. The lease to Kings County has been amended several times including the Second Amendment to Lease dated January 1, 2018, between Seller as lessor and Kings County as tenant. The lease by Seller to Kings County, including all amendments, is collectively referred to herein as the “Kings County Lease.” The US Government Lease and the Kings County Lease shall be referred to herein collectively as the “Tenant Leases.” No later than five (5) days after the Effective Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer complete copies of the Tenant Leases. Seller will obtain from the from the tenant under the Kings County Lease a signed certificate (“Tenant Estoppel Certificate”), .reasonably acceptable to Buyer, certifying that as of the Closing Date: i) the Kings County lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been amendments, that the lease is in full force and effect as amended), ii) the amount of the monthly rent then being paid by the tenant and the last date to which the rent has been paid, iii) the tenant is not aware of any existing charges, offsets or defenses against the enforcement by the Seller as lessor under the lease, iv) the tenant is not aware of any existing defaults by the Seller as lessor in the performance under the lease, and v) the tenant is not claiming that it has paid a rent deposit with Seller as lessor, or if there is such a deposit, the amount of such deposit. Under the US Government Lease, when there is a sale of the Property and assignment of the lease, the Seller as lessor, the Government as Lessee and the Buyer as transferee and assignee, must sign a Novation Agreement which will constitute an amendment to the Government Lease. The Novation Agreement must conform with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulations 42.12.

Close of Escrow is conditioned on Seller obtaining a signed Estoppel Certificate from the tenant under the Kings County Lease and a Novation Agreement, reasonably acceptable to the City with respect to the Government Lease. If Seller is unable to obtain the Estoppel Certificate from the Lessee under the Kings County Lease or the Novation Agreement from the Lessee under the Government Lease, either of such events shall not constitute a Seller Default hereunder. With respect to the Kings County Lease, Seller and Buyer agree to sign an agreement (the “Tenant

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
7 Lease Assignment and Assumption Agreement”), effective as of the Closing Date, the terms of which are reasonably agreed to by Seller and Buyer, in which: i) Seller assigns to Buyer all Seller’s rights and obligations under the Kings County Lease, ii) Buyer assumes all post-closing lessor obligations under the Kings County Lease, iii) Buyer indemnifies and holds Seller free and harmless from any and all claims, damages, including legal fees, and costs accruing after Close of Escrow, which relate to or emanate from the Kings County Lease, and iv) Seller indemnifies, defends, and holds Buyer free and harmless from any and all claims, damages, including legal fees, and costs related to or emanating from the Kings County Lease accruing prior to Close of Escrow that could not be reasonably discoverable by the Buyer during the Inspection Period. The Tenant Lease Assignment and Assumption Agreement shall contain such other consistent terms and conditions as are agreed to by the Parties. If the tenant under the US Government Lease is not agreeable to including the above-described Tenant Lease Assignment and Assumption Agreement terms in the Novation Agreement, the Close of Escrow will be conditioned on Seller and Buyer executing a separate agreement that includes such terms.

ARTICLE V

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

5.01 Conditions Precedent to Buyer's Obligation to Perform. Buyer's obligation to perform hereunder is expressly made subject to meeting (whether or not action by Seller is required) each and every one of the following conditions (any or all of which Buyer can waive in its sole and absolute discretion):
a. Buyer's failure to give Seller the Disapproval Notice within the Inspection Period, Buyer’s written notice within the Inspection Period of its approval of the inspection conditions described in Article IV of this Agreement, or Seller’s cure of, or agreement to cure prior to Close of Escrow, any defect in the condition of the Property after receipt of Buyer’s Disapproval Notice with a right to cure;
b. The deposit into Escrow of the signed Tenant Estoppel Certificate and Novation Agreement duly signed as required under Section 4.03; c. The deposit into Escrow of the Tenant Lease Assignment and Assumption Agreement duly signed as required under Section 4.03;
d. Title Company's issuance of a policy of title insurance subject only to the conditions set forth in Sections 3.01 and 3.02 of this Agreement; e. Seller’s execution of the Grant Deed conveying title to the Property to Buyer; f. The Close of Escrow on or before the Closing Date, unless both Seller and Buyer agree in writing to an extension thereof; and
g. Seller’s covenants and conditions are performed by Seller.

5.02 Conditions Precedent to Seller’s Obligation to Perform. Seller’s obligation to perform hereunder is expressly made subject to Buyer meeting each and every one of the following conditions (any or all of which can be waived by Seller in its sole and absolute discretion):
a. The timely payment into Escrow of the Deposit as provided in Section 2.03; b. The deposit into Escrow by Buyer of the full Purchase Price, reduced by the Deposit as specified in Section 2.02 and Section 2.03.a. hereof;

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
8 c. The deposit into Escrow of the Tenant Lease Assignment and Assumption Agreement and Novation Agreement duly signed as required under Section 4.03; d. Buyer’s deposit into Escrow at least one (1) business day prior to Close of Buyer’s portion of prorations and Escrow closing costs; e. The Close of Escrow on or before the Closing Date, unless both Seller and Buyer agree in writing to an extension thereof; and
f. Buyer’s covenants and conditions to be performed by Buyer.

ARTICLE VI
ESCROW

6.01 Escrow. The sale of the Property from Seller to Buyer shall occur through an escrow established at Title Company, with Escrow Holder. Seller and Buyer agree within two (2) business days of the Effective Date, to open and establish an Escrow with Title Company.

6.02 Deposit with Escrow Holder and Escrow Instructions. Immediately upon opening of Escrow, the Parties hereto shall deposit a true and correct copy, of this Agreement that has been executed by the Parties with Escrow Holder and this instrument shall serve as the instructions to Escrow Holder for consummation of the purchase and sale contemplated hereby.

Seller and Buyer agree to execute such additional and supplementary escrow instructions as may be appropriate to enable the Escrow Holder to comply with the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, that in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any supplementary escrow instructions, the terms of this Agreement shall control. Within five (5) days after the opening of Escrow, Buyer shall pay the Deposit into Escrow.

6.03 Close of Escrow. The Close of Escrow and transfer of title to the Property shall occur on or before the date occurring Fifteen (15) days after the last day of the Inspection Period (“Closing Deadline”), provided all of the following conditions have been satisfied:
a. All of the documents referred to in Sections 5.01 and 5.02 have been fully executed and delivered into Escrow; Buyer or Seller, as appropriate, have deposited all funds into Escrow necessary to close Escrow;
b. Title Company is in a position to issue an CLTA (or ALTA Policy if required by Buyer) coverage owner's policy of title insurance to Buyer, with a policy limit as indicated in Section 3.01, showing only those exceptions to title permissible under Section 3.02 hereof.

If Close of Escrow fails to occur by the Closing Deadline, unless extended by written and signed agreement of the Parties, this Agreement shall terminate. If such failure to Close is the result of a Seller Default, then the Deposit shall be refunded to Buyer by Escrow Holder or Seller. If such failure to Close is the result of the default of Buyer, then the Deposit shall be liquidated damages to Seller as provided in Article IX.

6.04 Prorations.
a. All expenses of the Property shall be prorated and apportioned as of 12:01 a.m. on the Closing Date.
b. Expenses to be prorated shall include real property taxes and assessments, and personal property taxes if any.

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
9 c. Rents shall be prorated by Escrow Holder as of the Closing Date. Rents under the US Government Lease are paid in arrears; Escrow Holder to contact Seller for instructions how to properly prorate rent under this lease. Except as provided in Section 7.01 i, rental deposits (if any) and any other amount due under the Tenant Leases shall be prorated based on joint written instructions signed by both Seller and Buyer.

6.05 Costs of Escrow. Seller shall pay the cost of any documentary transfer tax charged in connection with recording the Grant Deed and the recording costs incurred in connection with the Grant Deed; Buyer shall pay all recording fees incurred with respect to any financing obtained by Buyer for the purchase of the Property, if any. Seller shall pay the basic premium for a CLTA policy of title insurance. Buyer shall pay any survey cost and additional premium for the ALTA policy of title insurance, if required. The escrow fee shall be divided equally between Seller and Buyer. All other costs and expenses of Escrow, including, but not limited to the cost of drawing deeds, recording costs and all other costs relating to the transfer of the Property to Buyer, shall be paid by Buyer and Seller in accordance with the custom in Kings County. Any additional cost incurred by reason of an exchange shall be paid by Seller.

ARTICLE VII

REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND INDEMNITY

7.01 Seller’s Representations and Warranties. Seller hereby represents and warrants that the following statements are true and correct and will remain true and correct as of the Close of Escrow:
a. Authority. Seller is and will be at the Close of Escrow the owner of, has the full legal right, power and authority to enter into and sign this Agreement and to sell, convey and transfer the Property to Buyer without the consent of any other person, and to Seller’s Knowledge to carry out the Seller’s duties and obligations under this Agreement without any further consents or approvals of any governmental agency, body or authority; the sale contemplated herein has been duly authorized. All documents, certificates and instruments executed or to be executed by Seller have been or will be duly authorized, executed and delivered, and each constitutes or shall constitute a legal, valid and binding agreement enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms; and no other consents, orders or approvals are required in connection therewith. Seller has not filed, nor to Seller’s Knowledge has Seller been the subject of, any filing of a petition under the Federal Bankruptcy Law or any insolvency laws, or any laws for composition of indebtedness or for the reorganization of debtors.
b. Eminent Domain; Other Proceedings. Other than the threat of imminent condemnation by the Buyer, to Seller’s Knowledge, there is no other notice of any pending or threatened proceeding in eminent domain or otherwise that would affect the Property or any portion thereof. To Seller’s Knowledge, there are no attachments, execution proceedings, assignments for the benefit of creditors, insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization or other proceedings are pending or threatened against Seller or Seller’s interest in the Property, nor are any such proceedings contemplated by Seller.
c. No Prospective Violations; Government Action. To Seller’s Knowledge, neither this Agreement nor anything provided to be done hereunder violates or shall violate any contract, agreement or instrument to which Seller is a party or bound or which affects the Property.

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
10 d. Citizenship. The Seller is not a “foreign person” as defined in section 1445(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
e. Brokerage Commission. There are no commissions or finder’s fees owed to any person in connection with the transaction contemplated herein due to any act of Seller f. Disclosure. To Seller’s Knowledge, all schedules, exhibits or other documents furnished by Seller to Buyer in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby contain or will contain no untrue statement of a material fact nor omit nor will omit to state any material facts necessary in order to make the statement made therein not misleading. g. Environmental. To Seller’s Knowledge, there is no violation of environmental laws with respect to the Property nor is there any hazardous contamination on the Property, all as defined in Section 7.02.
h. Maintenance of Property. During the Period between the Effective Date and the date of Close of Escrow, or earlier termination of this Agreement, Seller shall: a) maintain the Property in its present condition consistent with prior practices, b) not cause or permit any material changes in the Property inconsistent with Buyer’s intended commercial use of the Property, or c) enter into any service or maintenance contracts, leases (other than necessary amendments to the Tenant Leases approved by Buyer) or loans that could continue past the date of Close of Escrow.
i. Tenant Leases. i) Seller is not in default under either of the Tenant Leases, ii) to Seller’s knowledge, the Tenant Leases are enforceable in accordance with their terms and tenants under the Tenant Leases have made no claims or offsets to enforcement by Seller as landlord of the rent or any other obligation of the tenants under the respective Tenant Lease, iii) Seller is not aware of any existing defaults by the tenants in the performance or observance by them of any agreement, covenant, or condition of their respective Tenant Lease; and iv) if it is determined by the Parties that Seller is holding a tenant deposit under either of the Tenant Leases, and that the tenant has not claimed that deposit as rent, then Seller shall notify Buyer and Escrow Holder and Escrow Holder will credit Buyer with said amount at Close of Escrow.

7.02 Buyer's Representations and Warranties. Buyer hereby represents and warrants that the following statements are true and correct as of the date hereof and at Close:
a. Authority. Buyer has the authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform all covenants and obligations and make all representations and warranties herein contained. All documents, certificates and instruments executed or to be executed by Buyer in accordance with this Agreement have been or will be duly authorized, executed and delivered, and each constitutes or shall constitute a legal, valid and binding agreement enforceable against Buyer in accordance with its terms; and no other consents, orders or approvals are required in connection therewith.
b. No Violation. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement nor the consummation of the transactions called for or contemplated hereby, will violate any contract, agreement or instrument to which Buyer is a party or which will affect the Property. Buyer has the legal power, right and authority to enter into this Agreement and the instruments referenced herein, and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. c. Signing of Agreement. The City manager or other City officials signing this Agreement have the legal power and authority to do so and the actual authority to bind Buyer to the terms and conditions hereof.

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
11 d. “AS-IS, WHERE-IS” Sale. Should Buyer purchase the Property, then as of the Closing, Buyer accepts the Property in its present condition “AS –IS, WHERE-IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS AND DEFECTS” and subject to all matters relating to the Property or its use or development including value, feasibility, cost, governmental regulation, zoning, marketing, soil and geologic conditions, environmental laws, hazardous materials, any map conditions and development permit conditions and availability of utilities and municipal services and facilities.

Except in the case of a Seller Default, after Close, no patent or latent conditions affecting the Property in any way, whether known or discoverable or hereafter discovered, shall give rise to any right of damages, offset, recession or otherwise against Seller by Buyer. As of the Closing, Buyer accepts the Property in its then-existing condition. For the purposes of this Section 7.02, hazardous materials and environmental laws shall mean:
i. Definition of Hazardous Materials. "Hazardous materials" means (a) substances that now or in the future are defined or regulated by environmental laws as "contamination," "contaminants," "hazardous," "hazardous substances," "hazardous materials," "hazardous wastes," "pollutants," "pollution," "toxic," "toxic substances" "toxins," or "ultra-hazardous” or are otherwise listed or regulated under any environmental laws; (b) petroleum products, crude oil (or any fraction thereof), and their derivatives; (c) asbestos, explosives, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls, radioactive materials, and urea formaldehyde; and (d) noxious fumes, soot, or vapors. ii. Definition of Environmental Laws. "Environmental laws" means (a) any and all federal, state, and local laws relating to protection of human health or the environment (including air, surface water, groundwater, land surface, or subsurface), whether currently in force, previously enforced, or subsequently enacted, including the following laws: 15 United States Code §§2601–2697 (the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (TSCA)); 33 United States Code §§1251–1387 (the Clean Water Act); 42 United States Code §§6901–6992k (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)); 42 United States Code §§7401–7671q (the Clean Air Act); 42 USC §§9601– 9675 (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)); 49 United States Code §§5101–5128 (the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act); 33 United States Code §§2701–2761 (the Oil Pollution Act of 1990); California Health and Safety Code §§25100–25259 (the Hazardous Waste Control Law); California Health and Safety Code §§25270– (the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act); California Health and Safety Code §§25300–25395.45 (the Carpenter-Presley- Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act); California Health and Safety Code §§25404– 25404.9 (Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program); California Health and Safety Code §§25500–25547.8 (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory); California Health and Safety Code §§25249.5– 25249.14 (the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, or Proposition 65); California Health and Safety Code §§25280–25299.8 (Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances); California Health and Safety Code §§18901– 18949.31 (California Building Standards Law); California Water Code §§13000–16104 (which includes the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act); and California Fish and Game Code §§5650–5656; (b) all regulations that have been adopted or promulgated under such statutes or that are adopted under such statutes after the Effective Date of this Agreement and (c) all enforceable demands, directives, and orders of any court,

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
12 administrative body, or government entity relating to hazardous materials, whether currently in force, previously enforced, or enacted after the Effective Date. e. Release and Indemnification of Seller. To the extent resulting from the actions, or inactions, of the Buyer, its employees, agents, invitees and lessees, Buyer agrees to indemnify, protect, hold harmless and defend Seller, its members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all liability, including (a) all foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages, directly or indirectly arising from the use, generation, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials by Buyer, its employees, agents, invitees and lessees, and (b) the cost of any required or necessary repair, cleanup, or detoxification and the preparation of any closure or other required plans, to the full extent that such liability, damages or claims are attributable, directly or indirectly, to the presence or use, generation, storage, release, threatened release, or disposal of hazardous materials on the Property after the Close of Escrow. Buyer’s obligations under this indemnity shall survive the Closing. f. Environmental Release of Seller. As of the Closing Date, Buyer releases Seller from any and all claims Buyer may have against Seller of whatever kind or nature resulting from or in any way connected with the environmental condition of the Property, including any and all claims Buyer may have against Seller under any environmental laws pertaining to the release of hazardous materials into the environment from or at the Property. g. General Release. Buyer expressly waives the benefits of Civil Code §1542, which provides as follows:
“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or expect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.”

BUYER, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND WITH FULL

KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS ACTIONS, WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542.

Buyer initials:__________________
h. No Representations Regarding Property. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, Buyer acknowledges and agrees that Seller, its members, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and representatives have made no warranties, representations, guaranties, promises, statements, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for any use or purpose, with respect to or concerning the Property or any portion thereof, including:
(a) the physical condition and size of the Property and Improvements, any latent or patent defects, subsurface soil conditions or the existence of hazardous materials on or adjacent to the Property; (b) any governmental limitations, restrictions, permits, licenses, land use controls or entitlements, moratoriums, subdivision map act or other laws, rules or regulations or any governmental agency; and (c) the income, expenses, value, profitability or operation of the Property. Buyer has (or prior to the Close of Escrow shall have) made its own independent inspection, investigation and analyses of the Property and Improvements and is entering into this Agreement in reliance solely on Seller’s limited representations as contained in this Agreement and on Buyer’s independent knowledge and investigation of the Property. i. Buyer’s Examination. Buyer will examine and inspect (and by the Close of

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
13 Escrow, shall have examined and inspected) all things concerning the Property which it deems material to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, including the condition of the Property and Improvements, the Tenant Leases, all environmental laws, and the presence of hazardous materials within, under or on, or in the vicinity of the Property, topography and geology of the drainage, condition of the soil and groundwater of the Property, climate air, condition of title to the Property, compliance of the Property and its use with applicable law and governmental or quasi-governmental regulations of any type (including hazardous materials laws), suitability of the Property for its intended use, feasibility of use of the Property and zoning. Buyer’s examination shall include by (and, by the Close of Escrow, has included) such audits, evaluations, appraisals, inspections, investigations, studies and tests, as Buyer deems reasonably necessary.
j. Buyer’s Experience and Knowledge. Buyer has experience in this type of transaction and business and has engaged advisors/consultants who are experienced and knowledgeable in the type of transaction set forth herein. Buyer has had full opportunity to review the Property and Improvements, Tenant Leases and the like with its advisors and consultants. Buyer represents that Buyer, through its, officers, directors, members, managers, agents, attorneys and accountants, and employees, is a knowledgeable investor and is well aware of the Property’s value and condition.
k. No Liability for Seller. Except for Seller’s intentional fraud committed with actual knowledge thereof or Seller’s intentional misrepresentations committed with actual knowledge thereof of which Buyer has no knowledge prior to the Close of Escrow, Seller shall not have any liability or responsibility of any kind for any of the matters referenced in this Article VII , including but not limited to: (a) the content or accuracy of any appraisal, survey, financial statements, report, opinion or conclusion of any person with respect to the Property; (b) the content or accuracy of any material or correspondence given to Buyer by any person regarding the Property, including any survey, financial statements, contracts and intangible interests; (c) the condition of the Property and Improvements (including any matter relating to hazardous materials); (d) the condition of soils and groundwater; (e) the number, type or nature of any conditions or restrictions that may be placed on the Property by any governmental or quasi-governmental body or agency, including any entitlement or moratorium; (f) the past, current or future use or nonuse of the Property; and g) the enforceability of the Tenant Leases assigned to Buyer.
l. Debts, Liens and Encumbrance. Buyer shall pay, when due, any debts, liens or other encumbrances, and any consultant or other expense contracted for or incurred by Buyer incurred or arising before the Close of Escrow that relate in any manner to any of Buyer’s due diligence or other activities relating to the Property.

ARTICLE VIII

POSSESSION
Subject to the satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Sections 5.01. and 5.02, and except for the Tenant Leases, possession of the Property free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, easements and leases, except as permitted herein, shall be delivered to Buyer at Close.

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
14 ARTICLE IX
DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; REMEDIES

9.01. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. IN THE EVENT THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY

AS CONTEMPLATED HEREUNDER IS NOT CONSUMMATED BECAUSE OF A

DEFAULT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SOLELY ON THE PART OF BUYER, THE DEPOSIT (AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 1 OF THIS AGREEMENT) SHALL BE PAID TO AND RETAINED BY SELLER AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SELLER’S ACTUAL DAMAGES IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT

OF BUYER WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT OR IMPRACTICABLE TO DETERMINE. THEREFORE, BY PLACING THEIR SIGNATURES BELOW, THE PARTIES

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE DEPOSIT (PLUS INTEREST) HAS BEEN AGREED ON, AFTER NEGOTIATION AS THE PARTIES' REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF SELLER’S DAMAGES AND AS SELLER’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST BUYER IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT SOLELY ON THE PART OF BUYER.
__________________________ __________________________
Seller’s Initials Buyer's Initials

9.02. Buyer Remedies. In the event of a Seller Default, Buyer shall be entitled to pursue available remedies at law or equity, including specific performance of this Agreement.

ARTICLE X

CONDEMNATION
In the event that prior to the Closing Date a governmental entity other than the Buyer itself, shall commence any eminent domain proceeding to take any material portion of the Property, then Buyer shall, in its sole and absolute discretion, upon written notice to Seller, either (1) terminate this Agreement without liability on the part of either Buyer or Seller and with the return of the Deposit to Buyer; or (2) proceed to Close Escrow as scheduled notwithstanding such condemnation proceeding. If Buyer elects notwithstanding such condemnation to Close Escrow, the Purchase Price shall not be offset or reduced, Buyer shall be entitled to the net award paid to Seller for such taking, if any, and Seller shall assign and transfer to Buyer all right, title and interest in and to any awards, it being expressly agreed that in such event Seller shall have no interest in said awards.

ARTICLE XI

GENERAL PROVISIONS

11.01 Survival and Indemnity. Notwithstanding the Closing, delivery of instruments, conveyance of the Property and payment of consideration therefore, the Parties agree that the respective representations, warranties, covenants and agreements made by such Party pursuant to this Agreement or any document delivered pursuant hereto, shall survive the Closing, and each Party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, obligations, damages, liabilities, causes of action, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees) arising out of or in connection with a breach by the indemnifying Party of any such representation, warranty, covenant or agreement.

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
15 11.02 Assignment. Except as provided in Section 2.06 dealing with tax-deferred exchanges, neither Party may assign its interest hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party.

11.03 Attorneys' Fees. If any suit, action or proceeding of any kind (an “Action”) is brought by any Party to this Agreement to enforce, defend or interpret any of its provisions (including, without limitation, an Action for declaratory relief or any proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court in which any Party hereto is a debtor), the prevailing Party in such Action shall recover from the other Party to such Action all reasonable costs and expenses which the prevailing party may incur in bringing such Action (including, without limitation, any bankruptcy proceeding involving issues peculiar to bankruptcy law in which any Party takes any legal action to protect or enforce his/its rights) and/or enforcing any judgment granted therein, all of which shall be deemed to have accrued upon the commencement of such Action and shall be paid whether or not such Action is prosecuted to judgment. For purposes of this Section, the “prevailing party” means the Party entitled to recover costs of suit, whether or not any Action proceeds to final judgment. Any judgment or order entered in such Action shall specifically provide for the recovery of all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the prevailing party in connection therewith, including, without limitation, costs and expenses incurred in enforcing such judgment. For purposes of this Section, “costs and expenses” shall include all court costs and all attorneys', paralegals', and other professionals' fees and costs.

11.04 Inurement. Except as otherwise limited in Section 11.02 above, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto.

11.05 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

11.06 Counterparts. Separate counterparts of this Agreement may be signed and together shall constitute one agreement, even though all Parties may not have signed the same counterpart.

11.07 Headings and Definitions. The titles of the Articles and Sections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the reader only and no presumption or implication of the intent of the Parties as to the construction of this Agreement shall be drawn therefrom.

11.08 Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

11.09 Entire Agreement. The Parties expressly agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings of the Parties.

11.10 Attorneys For Parties; No Presumption. Each Party represents and warrants to the other that they have had their attorney review this Agreement and advise them of its terms and provisions. Should any provision of this Agreement require interpretation, it is agreed that the person or persons interpreting or construing the same shall not apply a presumption that the terms of this Agreement shall be more strictly construed against one Party by reason of the rule of construction that a document is to be construed more strictly against the Party who itself or through its agent or counsel prepared the same or caused the same to be prepared; it being agreed that the agents and counsel of all of the Parties have participated equally in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall be in all cases

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
16 construed simply, fairly, equitably and reasonably according to its plain meaning and not strictly for or against any of the Parties.

11.11 Notices. Any notices or communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given or transmitted when sent: a) by email, b) by certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party for whom it is intended at its address of record; c) by facsimile, which notice will be effective on computer confirmation of receipt; or d) by courier or messenger service. Such Notice shall be effective and deemed given on receipt by recipient, which in the case of email occurs then the sender receives “delivered” by the carrier. The record addresses of the parties are as follows:

Seller: Buyer:

Stuart Clark Mario Cifuentez, Manager
Great Valley Holdings, LLC The City of Hanford, California P.O. Box 221815 319 North Douty Street
Carmel, CA 93922 Hanford, CA 93230
831-622-8313 559-585-2516
[email protected] [email protected]
Any Party hereto may provide a different address by notice to the other Party as herein provided.

11.12 Exhibits. The following Exhibits are attached to this Agreement and shall be incorporated herein as if set out in full in the body of this Agreement:

Exhibit “A:” Legal Description of the Property.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date first hereinabove written.
“Seller”
GREAT VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC a
California Limited Liability Corporation
By: ___________________________ ________________________ Stuart A. Clark, President Date signed
By: ___________________________ ________________________ Lena E. Clark, Secretary Date signed
“Buyer”

THE CITY OF HANFORD, CALIFORNIA

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
17 a California Municipality
By: ___________________________ ________________________ Mario Cifuentez, City Manager Date signed
ACCEPTANCE BY ESCROW HOLDER:
_________________Title Company hereby acknowledges that it has received a copy of the foregoing signed Agreement of Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions (“Agreement”) by and between GREAT VALLEY HOLIDNGS, LLC a California limited liability corporation and THE CITY OF HANFORD a California municipality, for that certain real property in the City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California more fully described therein. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this acceptance shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. The undersigned agrees to act as Escrow Holder under the Agreement and to be bound by and perform the terms thereof as such terms apply to Escrow Holder. The Opening of Escrow, as defined in the Agreement, shall be this ___ day of __________________, 2023 STEWART TITLE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

Dated: _____________, 2023
By: ________________________________
Its: Authorized Representative

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
18 EXHIBIT A
The Property
Assessor’s parcel number 010-270-021
Legal Description (to be inserted by Title Company)

GVH-City of Hanford PL file #5586-13958 Doc436080**
**

AGREEMENT OF SALE

AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
19

Enter Values Loan  Summary
$4,500,000.00

3.74% (LAIF + 1%)
14 1
11/1/2023
$0.00
Base rent ‐ $438,192
Payment
Number
Payment
Date
Beginning
Balance
Scheduled
Payment
Extra
Payment
Total
Payment Principal Interest Ending
Balance
Cumulative
Interest
1 11/1/2023 $4,500,000.00 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $250,430.00 $168,300.00 $4,249,570.00 $168,300.00 2 11/1/2024 $4,249,570.00 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $259,796.08 $158,933.92 $3,989,773.92 $327,233.92 3 11/1/2025 $3,989,773.92 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $269,512.46 $149,217.54 $3,720,261.46 $476,451.46 4 11/1/2026 $3,720,261.46 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $279,592.22 $139,137.78 $3,440,669.24 $615,589.24 5 11/1/2027 $3,440,669.24 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $290,048.97 $128,681.03 $3,150,620.27 $744,270.27 6 11/1/2028 $3,150,620.27 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $300,896.80 $117,833.20 $2,849,723.47 $862,103.47 7 11/1/2029 $2,849,723.47 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $312,150.34 $106,579.66 $2,537,573.13 $968,683.13 8 11/1/2030 $2,537,573.13 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $323,824.77 $94,905.23 $2,213,748.36 $1,063,588.36 9 11/1/2031 $2,213,748.36 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $335,935.81 $82,794.19 $1,877,812.55 $1,146,382.55 10 11/1/2032 $1,877,812.55 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $348,499.81 $70,230.19 $1,529,312.74 $1,216,612.74 11 11/1/2033 $1,529,312.74 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $361,533.70 $57,196.30 $1,167,779.04 $1,273,809.04 12 11/1/2034 $1,167,779.04 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $375,055.06 $43,674.94 $792,723.97 $1,317,483.97 Start date of loan
Optional extra payments
Total interest $1,362,228.05
Lender name City of Hanford ‐ Fleet Replacement Fund
Loan period in years Actual  number of payments 1
Total early payments $0.00Number of payments per year
Scheduled payment $418,730.45
Scheduled number of payments 14
330 North Harris ‐ Loan Amortization Schedule
Loan amount
Annual interest rate

Payment
Number
Payment
Date
Beginning
Balance
Scheduled
Payment
Extra
Payment
Total
Payment Principal Interest Ending
Balance
Cumulative
Interest
13 11/1/2035 $792,723.97 $418,730.00 $0.00 $418,730. 00 $389,082.12 $29,647.88 $403,641.85 $1,347,131.85 14 11/1/2036 $403,641.85 $418,730.00 $0.00 $403,642. 00 $388,545.79 $15,096.21 $0.00 $1,362,228.05 11/1/2037

12.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/20/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Approval of the City's formal response to the 2022-23 Grand Jury Report on City of Hanford Parks

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve, by motion: (i) the attached response to the 2022-2023 Kings County Grand Jury Report regarding City parks; and (ii) the Mayor’s and Councilmembers’ signature of a transmittal letter under which the response will be sent to the Presiding Judge of the Kings County Superior Court.

Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council approve, by motion: (i) the attached response to the 2022-2023 Kings County Grand Jury Report regarding City parks; and (ii) the Mayor’s and Councilmembers’ signature of a transmittal letter under which the response will be sent to the Presiding Judge of the Kings County Superior Court.

BACKGROUND:

The 2022-2023 Kings County Grand Jury issued the attached report regarding City operated basketball courts and portable basketball hoops used by the public.

The California Penal Code establishes requirements for the City’s response to a Grand Jury Report, and the Parks & Community Services Department worked with the City Attorneys’ Office to write a response that covers those requirements.

Highlights of the Response:
• The City’s ten (10) basketball courts exceed the National Recreation and Parks Association’s median for jurisdictions of similar size.

• The City’s Capital Improvement Plan includes Earl F. Johnson Park improvements, including a new basketball court.

• The City encourages schools to open their outdoor recreation facilities for public use during off hours since those improvements are owned by the public.

• The City will consider a permit program that would allow portable basketball hoops to be used within rights-of-way. As part of the process, the City will evaluate public safety, accessibility, impact to City services, and potential liability issues. •
The California Penal Code requires the City Council and the Mayor to respond to all Grand Jury reports involving City matters. As a result, the City’s response will be sent to the Presiding Judge of the Kings County Superior Court under a cover letter signed by the Mayor and Councilmembers.

The Grand Jury also invited the City Manager and the Parks & Community Services Department to respond to the Grand Jury’s report. Accordingly, the cover letter says that the attached response also represents the response of the City Manager and the Parks & Community Services Director.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The response indicates that a new basketball court is planned for Earl F. Johnson Park. The FY24- 28 Capital Improvement Program reflects $252,200 budgeted for FY24 for Earl F. Johnson park renovation and proposes an additional $229,800 in FY25 and $430,500 for FY26 for additional renovation of that facility.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2023.06.12 Ltr to Judge Burns re City's Response to Parks GJ Report (1)

2. 2023.06.07 Response to GJ Report re Basketball Courts and Hoops (1)

3. Grand Jury Report - Deficiency in the CIty of Hanford Parks

Administration 559-585-2515  Personnel 559-585-2520  Facsimile: 559-585-2595 June 12, 2023
The Honorable Shane Burns
Presiding Judge
Kings County Superior Court
1640 Kings County Drive
Hanford, CA 93230
RE: City of Hanford Response to Grand Jury Report Regarding Hanford Parks Dear Judge Burns:

The City of Hanford (“City”) hereby responds to the Kings County Grand Jury’s 2022- 2023 Report regarding City of Hanford Parks. The enclosure represents the response of the Hanford City Council, Hanford’s Mayor, Hanford’s City Manager, and Hanford’s Parks & Community Services Director.

The City appreciates the Grand Jury’s diligence and trusts that the enclosure addresses the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations.

Sincerely,

HANFORD CITY COUNCIL
By: ______________________________

TRAVIS PADEN
Mayor
By: ______________________________

MARK KAIRIS
Vice Mayor
By: ______________________________

LOU MARTINEZ
By: ______________________________

KALISH MORROW
Council Member Council Member
By: ______________________________

DIANE SHARP
Council Member
cc: Grand Jury
City of H A N F O R D
CALIFORNIA 93230
CITY OFFICES 319 NORTH DOUTY STREET
MAYOR

TRAVIS PADEN

VICE-MAYOR

MARK KAIRIS

COUNCIL MEMBERS

KALISH MORROW

DIANE SHARP

LOU MARTINEZ

C I T Y M A N A G E R

MARIO CIFUENTEZ

1 CITY OF HANFORD’S RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT 2022-2023

CITY OF HANFORD PARKS
* * * * *
The following is the response of the Hanford City Council, Hanford’s Mayor, Hanford’s City Manager, and Hanford’s Parks & Community Services Director (collectively “the City”) to the Grand Jury Report for the 2022-2023 session (“the Report”) that relates to City of Hanford parks.

Grand Jury Finding 1: “The Grand Jury has found a need for more basketball courts in Hanford. Three of Hanford’s major parks, Freedom Park, Hidden Valley Park, and Earl F. Johnson Park do not contain basketball courts. The four major parks that do offer basketball courts are all on the south side of Grangeville Boulevard leaving the north side of Hanford in a deficit.” City’s Response to Finding 1:

The City agrees with Finding 1 to the extent that Freedom Park, Hidden Valley Park, and Earl F. Johnson Park do not contain basketball courts and that four parks that offer basketball courts are located south of Grangeville Boulevard.

The City disagrees with the statement that it needs more basketball courts due to a deficiency. Whether a deficiency exists should be determined utilizing an objective standard.

A comparison to other jurisdictions of similar size results in an objective conclusion that Hanford does not suffer from a basketball court deficiency. According to the National Recreation and Parks Association’s (NRPA) Agency Performance Review, which is available at:
https://www.nrpa.org/contentassets/f6baf1e9c3354aeca52dc548251bc4f4/2023-agency- performance-review.pdf, the median number of residents per basketball court in jurisdictions with populations between fifty thousand (50,000) and ninety-nine thousand (99,000) is eight thousand, seven hundred ninety (8,790). With a population of approximately sixty thousand (60,000) and eight (8) outdoor basketball courts, Hanford has a ratio of one (1) outdoor basketball court per seven thousand, five hundred (7,500) people, and, if Hanford’s two (2) indoor courts are considered, the ratio is one basketball court per six thousand (6,000) people, which greatly exceeds the NRPA median. NRPA is an industry-recognized organization that holds itself out as “the leading not-for-profit organization dedicated to building strong, vibrant and resilient communities through the power of parks and recreation.”
The City is not suffering from a basketball court deficiency because many residents prefer to play basketball at home regardless of the availability of public courts.

The City also takes exception to the Report’s title because the City does not suffer from a deficiency in its parks. The City operates numerous high-quality parks that offer a multitude of amenities to approximately sixty thousand (60,000) residents.

2 Recommendation 1: “The Grand Jury believes that the City of Hanford should make it a priority to invest in the development of quality parks and sports facilities in each quarter section of the City of Hanford. The Grand Jury concludes that there is a need for more basketball courts in the north side of Hanford. A full court is needed in Freedom Park, and Hidden Valley Park. The Grand Jury recommends that in the future, plans be made to add a basketball court to other parks that do not currently have one, such as Earl F. Johnson Park.”
City’s Response to Recommendation 1:

The City’s Capital Improvement Plan budget for fiscal year 2024 includes the addition of an outdoor basketball court at Earl F. Johnson Park.

The City may also consider the addition of one (1) or more basketball courts at Hidden Valley Park, depending on the current engagement efforts to identify the features and amenities that the public desires for a potential Hidden Valley Park expansion.

The City has not planned for the addition of a basketball court at Freedom Park, but the City may consider changing the Earl F. Johnson Park basketball court project so that the court is constructed at Freedom Park since Earl F. Johnson Park is located south of Grangeville Boulevard.

Funding of construction of new basketball courts at existing parks is a challenge. Impact fees collected from residential developers are legally limited to the creation of new park acreage, and, as a result, impact fees may not be utilized to improve existing parks, including Freedom Park. As a result, the construction of new basketball courts at existing parks must be funded with General Fund monies. Since the City’s General Fund monies are limited, the City is forced to prioritize parks projects that will be funded by that source. For example, priority is given to parks that require renovation, like Earl F. Johnson Park.

Grand Jury Finding 2: “While there are many basketball courts located in Hanford schools, they are unavailable for use to the public due to insurance and vandalism concerns. The lack of access to school basketball courts has contributed to the need for additional courts in the City of Hanford Parks.”
City’s Response to Finding 2:

With respect to Finding 2’s statement as to why school-controlled basketball courts are closed to the public, Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) previously informed the City that it is unwilling to open its outdoor basketball courts to the public due to concern over vandalism, graffiti, and theft.

The City concurs with Finding 2 to the extent that the lack of access to school-controlled basketball courts deprives the public of use of those facilities. If school-controlled outdoor basketball courts were open to the public during non-school hours, the public would have many more options to play basketball at locations closer to their homes and would allow the City to utilize public funds on other parks and recreation opportunities.

3 Recommendation 2: “The Grand Jury believes that a discussion should take place between the City of Hanford and its schools. An analysis should be done by the City of Hanford to see if it might be more cost effective to cover some of the insurance costs in lieu of adding basketball courts in multiple City parks. The City of Hanford should consider working with school districts to make the basketball courts that have been fenced off available to Hanford residents.” City’s Response to Recommendation 2:

The City concurs with the Grand Jury Report’s observation that Education Code Section 38131 announces the State Legislature’s intent that “there is a civic center at each and every public school facility and grounds. . . .”
The City has approached HESD on multiple occasions about allowing the public to utilize the district’s outdoor recreational facilities in the spirit of Education Code Section 38131, but the district has not been receptive.

Elementary schools should follow the lead of Hanford Joint Unition High School District, which allows the public to utilize outdoor sports facilities during off hours.

HESD voiced concerns over costs associated with vandalism, graffiti, and theft, but they are costs that the district should bear. Every public agency should pay its fair share of costs so residents may utilize publicly owned facilities. For such reasons, the City is not inclined to “cover” a portion of a school district’s insurance costs as the City is already paying its fair share of costs associated with City facilities that are available to the public. It is time for elementary schools to step up and bear their share of costs to allow the public to utilize outdoor recreational facilities that the public owns.

Grand Jury Finding 3: “The Grand Jury found that there are many portable basketball hoops in residential neighborhoods of Hanford. The City of Hanford is currently issuing warnings and citations to homeowners that have the portable courts on the street and sidewalks in front of their homes.”
City’s Response to Finding 3:

The City concurs with Finding 3 to the extent that there are basketball hoops in residential neighborhoods and that the City issues warnings and citations for right-of-way obstructions, including, but not limited to, basketball hoops.

Recommendation 3: “The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Hanford consider relaxing its enforcement of its encroachment code dealing with the City's Right of Way, specifically Title 12 of the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 12.04. The residents that have basketball hoops should move them on garbage days/street sweeping days but be allowed to keep them by their curb the rest of the week.”

4 City’s Response to Recommendation 3:

The City is considering options, including a permit system, that would allow residents to erect portable basketball hoops within public rights-of-way.

There are three possibilities with respect to basketball hoops in rights-of-way: (i) within roadways; (ii) on parking strips (area between the curb and sidewalk) in neighborhoods where parking strips exist; and (iii) on sidewalks in neighborhoods that do not have parking strips.

When considering a permit program, the City will consider numerous factors, including, without limitation:
•Public safety and convenience.
oChildren playing in a roadway give rise to a safety issue because it increases the risk that a child will be hit by a vehicle.
oBasketball hoops within rights-of-way and parties utilizing them will serve as additional obstacles that vehicles must avoid. The City will consider the safety of drivers of vehicles, including large delivery trucks, fire trucks, refuse collection trucks, and streetsweepers; pedestrians; bicyclists; and parties who will play basketball within roadways. A basketball hoop in the roadway may be difficult to see at night, resulting in a heighted collision risk.
oA basketball hoop located close to a street corner may create a hazard for drivers who turn onto a residential street and unexpectedly encounter basketball players in the road.
oA falling basketball hoop may create a hazard. A hoop could, during windy conditions, fall into a travel lane causing a vehicular collision, or it could fall on a passing vehicle or pedestrian.
oPortable basketball hoops are often found on cul-de-sacs. On-street parking in such areas is limited, and basketball hoops in the roadway will further reduce on-street parking opportunities.
•Accessibility.
oThe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will serve as a limiting factor with respect to the placement of portable basketball hoops. Per page 8 of the March 2018 edition of the California Department of Transportation’s Permanent Pedestrian Facilities ADA Compliance Handbook, a minimum clearance of forty-eight inches (48”) is required for sidewalks; provided however, clearance may be reduced to thirty-two inches (32”) for a length of twenty-four inches (24”) as long as reduced access segments are

5 separated by full-access segments that are forty-eight inches (48”) long and forty-eight inches (48”) wide. In many of the City’s residential subdivisions, no parking strip exists and the distance between curb face and back of sidewalk is only sixty inches (60”). Unless a basketball hoop can be placed within a sixty inch (60”) wide space that leaves sufficient clearance for pedestrian access, it cannot be placed on a sidewalk without violating the ADA.
•Impacts to City Services
oPortable basketball hoops found on cul-de-sacs affect the placement of refuse cans due to the limited street frontage of each residence. Refuse containers are often placed very close to basketball hoops without adequately accommodating the width of the backboard. Refuse truck drivers attempt to account for such circumstances, but, occasionally during the refuse collection process, a refuse container contacts a basketball hoop’s backboard causing damage to the backboard and/or the refuse truck’s arm. oPortable basketball hoops in rights-of-way also impact the City’s street sweeping efforts. Due to the height of the City’s street sweepers and portable basketball hoops, a street sweeper operator must swing wide around a hoop within a roadway to avoid contract. This practice leaves a wide section of the street un-swept and results in complaints by residents. oIf the City allows basketball hoops within rights-of-way, the City may require that hoops be temporarily moved on days that refuse is collected and streets are swept, but it is foreseeable that some residents will not observe the requirement, which may create a larger number of code violations than those existing today.
•Liability
oPotential liability to the City will be another important factor for the City to consider. The City could be exposed to liability, or at least additional claims, if it sanctions the use of its roadways for basketball activities and injuries arise from such activities.
oDefense of claims will result in the City’s use of public funds that may otherwise be dedicated to the enhancement of the City’s parks and recreational facilities.

In Opinion No. 92-1004, the California Attorney General (AG) rendered an opinion that:
“A city may authorize its residents to install basketball standards in the public right- of-way between the sidewalks and street curbs of residential neighborhoods so that

6 the backboards face the streets and extend beyond the curbs, provided that the safety and convenience of the traveling public are protected.” The AG evaluated a matter in which a city adopted a permit system for portable basketball hoops under which the city considered the following factors and implemented the following limitations and requirements:
•Location restrictions – cul-de-sacs and short residential streets. •Minimum specified distance from property lines.
•Adequate visibility for motorists.
•Adequate sidewalk and roadway clearances.
•Consent from residents of neighboring homes.
•Limitation on hours of use.
•Evidence that a permit recipient possesses public liability and property damage insurance.

The City will, per Penal Code Section 933.05(b)(3), further assess a basketball hoop permit program within six (6) months of the publication of the Report.

12.D.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/20/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23: a request to replace the canopy of the existing shoe shine stand within Civic Park. The property is designated as a contributing building within the Historic Overlay Zone. The project is located at 323 N. Irwin St. (APN 010-265-001)

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 23-17-R approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23.

BACKGROUND:

See staff report attached.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report

2. Resolution No. 23-17-R

3. Attachment 1 - Historic Overlay Zone and Properties

4. Attachment 2 - Shoe Shine Canopy

5. Notice of Exemption No. 2023-41

CITY OF HANFORD CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
Tuesday, June 20, 2023

PROJECT: Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23: a request to replace the canopy of the existing shoe shine stand within Civic Park . The property is designated as a contributing building within the Historic Overlay Zone.

LOCATION: The project is located at 323 N. Irwin St. (APN 010-265-001)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt Resolution 2 3-17-R approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23.

RECOMMENDED MOTION

1. I move to adopt Resolution 23-17-R approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The property is located within the Historic Overlay Zone, shown below – outlined in red.

The property is designated as a contributing building in the Historic Overlay Zone, as shown on the Historic Overlay Zone Map – Attachment 1.

“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 bu ilding 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 str ong historical tie to activities, events, or individuals important in the development of the City.

In accordance with the Municipal Code Section 17.48, improvements to a site identified as a historic site 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 i n the Historic Overlay District or identified as a his toric 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 resourc es 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.

Site Description

Civic Park is home to multiple prominent, historic structures in the City of Hanford, including the Civic Auditorium, the Veterans Memorial Building, the Bastille, and the County Courthouse, and hosts a multitude of events throughout the year. To support the pub lic’s use of the park are numerous accessory structures, including, but not limited to, benches, trash cans, a carousel, and a shoe shine stand. The applicant proposes to replace the existing canopy of the shoe shine stand with a new canopy to consist of a different primary background color, as well as includes text, as shown in Attachment 2.

The shade of blue selected as the primary background color for this canopy is not consistent with the Historic District’s color palette . Section 17.48.150(D)(5) states that “paint colors which were not produced or used during the early twentieth century should be discouraged in the historic district.” During the early twentieth century, muted colors and earth colors were favored. They included gray , dark brown, dark green, blue gray, beige, brick red, and terra cotta. A slightly grayish-white paint, was frequently used for major surface areas and for details.

However, this structure itself is not one of the prominent historic structures on site and would be unobtrusive to the historic nature of the site . There are other shades of blue found throughout Civic Park, as well as across the street around the Fox Theater. Per Section 17.48.080, City Council is granted the authority to approve deviations from the provisions of Section 17.48 if they find that the deviation is necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter and that the deviation will not adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Hanford.

This deviation will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Hanford, nor will it affect any of the existing prominent historic buildings on site. The proposed canopy would be small and unobtrusive to the site. The project shall comply with all other applicable standards set forth in Chapter 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

In accordance with Section 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code, staff recommends approval of Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23 and that the approval of the historic resources permit will allow private investment in the Downtown, and make the following findings:

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

2. That although the proposed structure varies in architectural style from typical historic structures, the structure can be considered unobtrusive and accessory in nature and will not detract from the cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural phase s presented in the Historic Downtown.

3. 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 23-17-R, approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the applicant adhere to the design criteria for the Historic Overlay Zone, set forth in Section 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code.

2. That the business may have a maximum of one (1) square foot of signage for each linear foot of business establishment on h is/her primary frontage (that portion of the building occupied by the business which faces a street and contains the main entrance), with a twenty-five (25) square foot minimum sign area.

3. That all signage conform to Section 17.56 of the Hanford Municipal Code.

4. 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.

5. 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.

Applicant
Correena Grizzofi
On behalf of Calvin Ross Shoe Shine
Hanford, CA 93230

Property Owner
City of Hanford
319 N. Douty St.

Hanford, CA 93230

RESOLUTION 23-17-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD APPROVING HISTORIC RESOURCES PERMIT HRA0001-23, A REQUEST TO

REPLACE THE CANOPY OF THE EXISTING SHOE SHINE STAND WITHIN CIVIC PARK. THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING WITHIN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONE. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 323 N. IRWIN ST. (APN 010-265-001).

At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on June 20, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambe rs 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 Correena Grizzofi for Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23, as shown in Exhibit A, was presented to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the proposed project is located at 323 N. Irwin St. (APN 010-265-001); and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford, at a regular me eting on June 20, 2023, reviewed the request for Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23; and

WHEREAS, Section 153 01 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 HRA0001-23 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, and make the following findings:

1. That the proposed structure is cons istent with the intent of development standards for contributing sites in the Historic Overlay Zone.

2. That although the proposed structure varies in architectural style from typical historic structures, the structure can be considered unobtrusive and accessory in nature and will not detract from the cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural phases presented in the Historic Downtown.

3. 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 HRA0001-23, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the applicant adhere to the design criteria for the Historic Overlay Zone, set forth in Section 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code.

2. That the business may have a maximum of one (1) square foot of signage for each linear foot of business establishment on his/her primary front age (that portion of the building occupied by the business which faces a street and contains the main entrance), with a twenty-five (25) square foot minimum sign area.

3. That all signage conform to Section 17.56 of the Hanford Municipal Code.

4. 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.

5. 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby approves Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on June 20, 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 20th day of June, 2023.

Date: _________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

Exhibit A
Approved Design

Historic Overlay Zone and Properties

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
C
C
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
C
C
C
N
N
N
N
C
C
C
C
N
N
C
C
N
N
N
N
N
C
C
C
N
N
N
N
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

Legend
- Historic Overlay Zone
- Historic Properties
C - Contributing Buildings
N - Noncontributing Buildings

Notice of Exemption 2023-41

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 HRA0001-23

Project Location – 323 N. Irwin St. (APN 010-265-001)

Project Location – City: Hanford Project Location – County: Kings County

Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: Historic Resources Permit HRA0001-23: a request to replace the canopy of the existing shoe shine stand within Civic Park. 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: _______Correena Grizzofi

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 Env ironmental 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 expansio n of the existing or former use.

Lead Agency
Contact Person: Mark Manha Area Code/ Telephone: (559) 585-2583

Signature: Date: June 20, 2023 Title: Associate Planner

Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:

Signed by Applicant

12.E.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/20/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Approve appropriation of $2,452,065 in the General Fund for the newly established Hanford Boys and Girls Club to be fully funded by the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program and authorization for the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of the Sequoias to manage and operate the club.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, approve the appropriation of $2,452,065 in the General Fund to fund the newly established Hanford Boys and Girls Club sponsored by the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of the Sequoias to manage and operate the Club.

Recommended Motion: I move to approve an appropriation of $2,452,065 in the General Fund to fund the newly established Hanford Boys and Girls Club sponsored by the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of the Sequoias to manage and operate the Club.

BACKGROUND:

On November 15, 2023, Council adopted Resolution 22-43-R authorizing the submittal of a grant proposal for the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program to fund a Boys and Girls Club in the City of Hanford. On April 13, 2023, the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) awarded the City of Hanford $2,452,065 (see attached Contract Agreement) to establish a Hanford Boys and Girls Club for five years (May 1, 2023, to October 31, 2028). The Club will serve grades 7-12 and operate during after-school and non-school hours. The Coe Park building is the location.

All program components and activities must link to the intent of Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Initiative - local impacts due to the legalization of adult use of recreational cannabis in California. The Hanford Boys and Girls Club will prioritize youth development, prevention, and intervention. The five priority outcomes are:
• Substance Abuse Prevention and Intervention - teach youth to make good choices • Academic success - graduating from high school and ready for college or trade school • Good character and citizenship - be an engaged citizen involved in the community and model strong character
• Healthy lifestyles -adopt a nutritious diet, practice healthy lifestyle choices, and commit to fitness

• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) - prepare young people for futures in technology-based careers

A partnership with Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) will provide youth transportation to and from their school to the Clu Hanford's School Resource Officers will also promote the Club at their school site and refer students as appropriate.

In addition, this grant opportunity requires the development of a Local Evaluation Plan (LEP) to ensure that the project can be evaluated according to specific project goals and objectives. The Hanford Boys and Girls Club will form a fundraising committee to ensure sustainability past the five- year grant cycle. This committee will create a long-range strategic fundraising plan and seek fundraising and business sponsorships.

Renovation of the Coe Park building will commence in July and include interior painting, floor restoration, and installation of a moveable wall. The target opening date is September 2023. Staff will partner with Hanford Elementary School District and the Hanford Unified High School District to market the Club to parents and students.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City will receive $2,452,065 of grant funding to be appropriated from the General Fund and reimbursed through the grant contract with the BSCC. There is a net zero impact on the General Fund, as there is no match requirement.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2022 Prop 64 Grant Agreement - City of Hanford 904-22 (5.11.23)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SCO ID: 5227-BSCC90422 STANDARD AGREEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER PURCHASING AUTHORITY NUMBER (If Applicable) STD 213 (Rev 03/2019) BSCC 904-22 BSCC-5227

1. This Agreement is entered into between the Contracting Agency and the Contractor named below:

CONTRACTING AGENCY NAME

BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

CONTRACTOR NAME

CITY OF HANFORD

2. The term of this Agreement is:

START DATE
MAY 1, 2023

THROUGH END DATE
OCTOBER 31, 2028

3. The maximum amount of this Agreement is:
$2,452,065.00

4. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits and attachments, which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement.

EXHIBITS TITLE PAGES
Exhibit A Scope of Work 4
Exhibit B Budget Detail and Payment Provisions 5
Exhibit C General Terms and Conditions (04/2017) 4
Exhibit D

Special Terms and Conditions 5
Attachment 1* Proposition 64 Public Health & Safety (Prop 64 PH&S) Grant Request for Proposals * Attachment 2 Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Application for Funding 19 Appendix A Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Scoring Panel Roster 1 Appendix B

Criteria for Non-Governmental Organizations Receiving BSCC Funds (attached separately)

2 * This item is hereby incorporated by reference and can be viewed at:
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/proposition-64-public-health-safety-grant-program/ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES HERETO.

CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR NAME (if other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.)

CITY OF HANFORD

CITY STATE ZIPCONTRACTOR BUSINESS ADDRESS
321 S. Douty Street, Ste B Hanford CA 93230

PRINTED NAME OF PERSON SIGNING TITLE
MARIO CIFUENTEZ City Manager

CONTRACTOR AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED


STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CONTRACTING AGENCY NAME

BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

CONTRACTING AGENCY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
2590 Venture Oaks Way, Ste 200 Sacramento CA 95833

PRINTED NAME OF PERSON SIGNING TITLE
RICARDO GOODRIDGE Deputy Director

CONTRACTING AGENCY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES APPROVAL: EXEMPT PER SCM, VOLUME 1, CH. 4.06 May 11, 2023

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK

1. G RANT AGREEMENT – Proposition 64 Public Health & Safety Grant This Grant Agreement is between the State of California, Board of State and Community Corrections (hereafter referred to as BSCC) and City of Hanford (hereafter referred to as the Grantee).

2. P

ROJECT SUMMARY AND ADMINISTRATION
A. The Prop 64 PH&S Grant Program is funded by a portion of tax revenue generated from the cultivation and retail sale of legal adult -use cannabis or cannabis products. $150,000,000 is available from the combination of the Fiscal Year 2023-24 State Budget appropriation and prior fiscal year Budget Act appropriations for local assistance grants for the Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety (Prop 64 PH&S) Cohort 3 Grant Program, administered by the BSCC.

T
he purpose of this grant program is to fund projects that assist with law enforcement efforts, fire protection efforts, or other local projects addressing public health and safety associated with the implementation of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA)
B. G
rantee agrees to administer the project in accordance with Attachment 1: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Request for Proposals (incorporated by reference) and Attachment 2: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Application for Funding which is attached and hereto and made part of this agreement.

3. P

ROJECT OFFICIALS
A. The BSCC's Executive Director or designee shall be the BSCC's representative for administration of the Grant Agreement and shall have authority to make determinations relating to any controversies that may arise under or regarding the interpretation, performance, or payment for work performed under this Grant Agreement.

B. The Grantee’s project officials shall be those identified as follows:

A
uthorized Officer with legal authority to sign:

Name: Mario Cifuentez
Title: City Manager
Address: 321 S. Douty Street, Ste B, Hanford, CA 93230
P
hone: 559- 585-2595
Email: [email protected]

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK
Designated Financial Officer a uthorized to receive warrants:

Name: Christopher Tavarez
Title: Finance Director
Address: 321 S. Douty Street, Ste B, Hanford, CA 93230
P
hone: 559- 585-2527
Email: [email protected]
P
roject Director authorized to administer the project:

Name: Brad Albert
Title: Parks and Community Services Director
Address: 321 S. Douty Street, Ste B, Hanford, CA 93230
P
hone: 559- 585-2527
Email: [email protected]
C. E
ither party may change its project representatives upon written notice to the other party.

D. B
y signing this Grant Agreement, the Authorized Officer listed above warrants that they have full legal authority to bind the entity for which they sign.

4. DAT

A COLLECTION
Grantees will be required to comply with all data collection and reporting requirements as described in Attachment 1: Prop 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Request for Proposals and Attachment 2: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Application for Funding.

5. RE

PORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Grantee will submit quarterly progress reports in a format prescribed by the BSCC. These reports, which will describe progress made on program objectives and include required data, shall be submitted according to the following schedule:

P
rogress Report Periods Due no later than:

1. May 1, 2023 to June 30, 2023 August 15, 2023

2. July 1, 2023 to September 30, 2023 November 15, 2023

3. October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 February 15, 2024

4. January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 May 15, 2024

5. April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 August 15, 2024

6. July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024 November 15, 2024

7. October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 February 15, 2025

8. January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 May 15, 2025

9. April 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025 August 15, 2025

10. July 1, 2025 to September 30, 2025 November 15, 2025

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK

11. October 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 February 15, 2026

12. January 1, 2026 to March 31, 2026 May 15, 2026

13. April 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026 August 15, 2026

14. July 1, 2026 to September 30, 2026 November 15, 2026

15. October 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026 February 15, 2027

16. January 1, 2027 to March 31, 2027 May 15, 2027

17. April 1, 2027 to June 30, 2027 August 15, 2027

18. July 1, 2027 to September 30, 2027 November 15, 2027

19. October 1, 2027 to December 31, 2027 February 15, 2028

20. January 1, 2028 to March 31, 2028 May 15, 2028

21. April 1, 2028 to April 30, 2028 June 15, 2028

Note: Service delivery period ends April 30 , 2028. The period of May 1, 2028 to October 31, 2028 is for completion of Local Evaluation Report and financial audit only.

B. Evaluation Documents Due no later than:

1. Local Evaluation Plan September 30, 2023

2. Final Local Evaluation Report October 31, 2028

C. Other Due no later than:

Financial Audit October 31, 2028

Grantees shall submit all other reports and data as required by the BSCC.

6. PROJECT RECORDS
A. The Grantee shall establish an official file for the project. The file shall contain adequate documentation of all actions taken with respect to the project, including copies of this Grant Agreement, approved program/budget modifications, financial records and required reports.

B. The Grantee shall establish separate accounting records and maintain documents and other evidence sufficient to properly reflect the amount, receipt, and disposition of all project funds, including grant funds and any matching funds by the Grantee and the total cost of the project. Source documentation includes copies of all awards, applications, approved modifications, financial records, and narrative reports.

C. Personnel and payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all individuals reimbursed under the grant, whether they are employed full-time or part-time.

Time and effort reports are also required for all subcontractors and consultants.

D. The grantee shall maintain documentation of donated goods and/or services, including the basis for valuation.

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK

E. Grantee agrees to protect records adequately from fire or other damage. When records are stored aw ay from the Grantee’s principal office, a written index of the location of records stored must be on hand and ready access must be assured.

F. All Grantee records relevant to the project must be preserved a minimum of three (3) years after closeout of the gr ant project and shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, examination, monitoring, copying, excerpting, transcribing, and auditing by the BSCC or designees. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, or other action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the three-year period, the records must be retained until the completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it or until the end of the regular three-year period, whichever is later.

7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. Existing law prohibits any grantee, subgrantee, partner or like party who participated on the Prop 64 PH&S Cohort 3 Scoring Panel (See Appendix A) from receiving funds awarded under the Prop 64 PH&S Cohort 3 RFP. Applicants who are awarded grants under this RFP are responsible for reviewing the Prop 64 PH&S Cohort 3 Scoring Panel membership roster (see Appendix A) and ensuring that no grant dollars are passed through to any entity represented by the members of the Prop 64 PH&S Cohort 3 Scoring Panel.

B. In cases of an actual conflict of interest with a Prop 64 PH&S Cohort 3 Scoring Panel member, the Board may revoke the grant award and legal consequences could exist for the parties involved, including, but not limited to, repayment of the grant award.

8. FINANCIAL AUDIT
Grantees are required to provide the BSCC with a financial audit no later than the end of the contract term, October 31, 2028. The financial audit shall be performed by a Certified Public Accountant or a participating county or city auditor that is organizationally independent from the participating county’s or city’s project financial management functions. Expenses for this final audit may be reimbursed for actual costs up to $25,000.

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT B

BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

1. INVOICING AND PAYMENTS
A. The Grantee shall be paid quarterly in arrears by submitting an invoice (Form 201) to the BSCC that outlines actual expenditures claimed for the invoicing period.

Quarterly Invoicing Periods: Due No Later Than:

1. May 1, 2023 to June 30, 2023 August 15, 2023

2. July 1, 2023 to September 30, 2023 November 15, 2023

3. October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 February 15, 2024

4. January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 May 15, 2024

5. April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 August 15, 2024

6. July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024 November 15, 2024

7. October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 February 15, 2025

8. January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 May 15, 2025

9. April 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025 August 15, 2025

10. July 1, 2025 to September 30, 2025 November 15, 2025

11. October 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 February 15, 2026

12. January 1, 2026 to March 31, 2026 May 15, 2026

13. April 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026 August 15, 2026

14. July 1, 2026 to September 30, 2026 November 15, 2026

15. October 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026 February 15, 2027

16. January 1, 2027 to March 31, 2027 May 15, 2027

17. April 1, 2027 to June 30, 2027 August 15, 2027

18. July 1, 2027 to September 30, 2027 November 15, 2027

19. October 1, 2027 to December 31, 2027 February 15, 2028

20. January 1, 2028 to March 31, 2028 May 15, 2028

21. April 1, 2028 to April 30, 2028 June 15, 2028

Final Invoicing Periods*: Due no later than:

1. May 1, 2028 to June 30, 2028 August 15, 2028

2. July 1, 2028 to October 31, 2028 December 15, 2028

*Note: Service delivery period ends April 30 , 2028. The period of May 1, 2028 to October 31, 2028 is for completion of Local Evaluation Report and financial audit only.

B. All grant project expenditures (excluding costs associated with the completion of the Final Local Evaluation Report and the financial audit) must be incurred by the end of the grant project service period, April 30, 2028, and included on the final invoice

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT B

BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

due no later than June 15, 2028. Project costs incurred after April 30, 2028 will not be reimbursed/eligible for contribution.

C. The Final Local Evaluation Report is due to BSCC by October 31, 2028 .

Expenditures incurred solely for the completion of the Final Local Evaluation Report during the period of May 1, 2028 to October 31, 2028 must be submitted during the Final Expenditure Periods, with the final invoice due no later than December 15, 2028. Supporting fiscal documentation will be required for all expenditures claimed during the Final Invoicing Periods and must be submitted with the final invoice.

D. The financial audit is due to BSCC by October 31, 2028. Expenditures incurred solely for the completion of the financial audit during the period of May 1, 2028 to October 31, 2028 must be submitted during the Final Expenditure Periods, with the final statement of expenditure due no later than December 15, 2028. Supporting fiscal documentation will be required for all expenditures claimed during the Final Invoicing Periods and must be submitted with the final invoice.

E. Grantee shall submit an invoice to the BSCC each invoicing period, even if grant funds are not expended or requested during the invoicing period.

F. Supporting documentation must be submitted for expenditures upon BSCC’s request. All supporting documentation must be maintained by the grantee on site and be readily available for review during BSCC site visits.

2. GRANT AMOUNT AND LIMITATION
A. In no event shall the BSCC be obligated to pay any amount in excess of the grant award. Grantee waives any and all claims against the BSCC, and the State of California on account of project costs that may exceed the sum of the grant award.

B. Under no circumstance will a budget item change be authorized that would cause the project to exceed the amount of the grant award identified in this Grant Agreement.

3. BUDGET CONTINGENCY CLAUSE
A. This grant agreement is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available through the Proposition 64 Initiative (the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act) via the State and Local Government Law Enforcement Account. On or before July 15th of each fiscal year, the State Controller shall deposit funds derived from Proposition 64 taxes into the State and Local Government Law Enforcement Account pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 34019, subdivision (f)(3). The grantee agrees that the BSCC’s obligation to pay any sum to the grantee under any provision of this agreement is contingent upon the availability

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT B

BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

of sufficient funding made available to the BSCC pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 34019, subdivision (f)(3)(C).

B. If Prop 64 PH&S funding is reduced or falls below estimates contained within the Prop 64 PH&S Request for Proposals Cohort 3, the BSCC shall have the option to either cancel this Grant Agreement with no liability occurring to the BSCC or offer an amendment to this agreement to the Grantee to reflect a reduced amount.

C. If BSCC cancels the agreement pursuant to Paragraph 3(B) or Grantee does not agree to an amendment in accordance with the option provided by Paragraph 3(B), it is mutually agreed that the Grant Agreement shall have no further force and effect.

In this event, the BSCC shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to Grantee or to furnish any other considerations under this Agreement and Grantee shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Grant Agreement except that Grantee shall be required to maintain all project records required by Paragraph 6 of Exhibit A for a period of three (3) years following the termination of this agreement.

4. PROJECT COSTS
A. Grantee is responsible for ensuring that actual expenditures are for eligible project costs. “Eligible” and “ineligible” project costs are set forth in the July 2020 BSCC Grant Administration Guide, which can be found under Quick Links here:
https://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_correctionsplanningandprograms/

The provisions of the BSCC Grant Administration Guide are incorporated by reference into this agreement and Grantee shall be responsible for adhering to the requirements set forth therein. To the extent any of the provisions of the BSCC Grant Administration Guide and this agreement conflict, the language in this agreement shall prevail.

B. Grantee is responsible for ensuring that statements of expenditures submitted to the BSCC claim actual expenditures for eligible project costs.

C. Grantee shall, upon demand, remit to the BSCC any grant funds not expended for eligible project costs or an amount equal to any grant funds expended by the Grantee in violation of the terms, provisions, conditions , or commitments of this Grant Agreement.

D. Grant funds must be used to support new program activities or to augment existing funds that expand current program activities. Grant funds shall not replace (supplant) any federal, state and/or local funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose. Violations can result in recoupment of monies provided under this grantor suspension of future program funding through BSCC grants.

5. PROMPT PAYMENT CLAUSE
Payment will be made in accordance with, and within the time specified in, Government Code Chapter 4.5, commencing with Section 927.

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT B

BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

6. WITHHOLDING OF GRANT DISBURSEMENTS
A. The BSCC may withhold all or any portion of the grant funds provided by this Grant Agreement in the event the Grantee has materially and substantially breached the terms and conditions of this Grant Agreement.

B. At such time as the balance of state funds allocated to the Grantee reaches five percent (5%), the BSCC may withhold that amount as security, to be released to the Grantee upon compliance with all grant provisions, including:
1) submittal and approval of the final invoice;
2) submittal and approval of the final progress report; and 3) submittal and approval of any additional required reports, including but not limited to the Final Local Evaluation Report and the financial audit.

C. The BSCC will not approve grantee expenditures for costs identified as ineligible for grant funding. If grant funds have been provided for costs subsequently deemed ineligible, the BSCC may either withhold an equal amount from future payments to the Grantee or require repayment of an equal amount to the State by the Grantee.

D. In the event that grant funds are withheld from the Grantee, the BSCC’s Executive Director or designee shall notify the Grantee of the reasons for withholding and advise the Grantee of the time within which the Grantee may remedy the failure or violation leading to the withholding.

7. EXECUTIVE ORDER N-6-22 – RUSSIA SANCTIONS

On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N -6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. “Economic Sanctions” refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs state agencies to terminate contracts with, and to refrain from entering any new contracts with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions. Accordingly, should the State determine Contractor is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited t ransactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for termination of this agreement. The State shall provide Contractor advance written notice of such termination, allowing Contractor at least 30 calendar days to provide a written response. Termination shall be at the sole discretion of the State.

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT B

BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

8. PROJECT BUDGET
Budget Line Items Grant Funds

1. Salaries and Benefits $174,509

2. Services and Supplies $128,700

3. Professional Services $118,875

4. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Subcontracts $1,656,557

5. Indirect Costs / Administrative Overhead
(may not exceed 10% of grant award) $223,521

6. Equipment / Fixed Assets $95,903

7. Data Collection / Enhancement $0

8. Program Evaluation $25,000

9. Sustainability Planning $0

10. Other (include travel & training costs) $4,000

11. Financial Audit $25,000
TOTALS $2,452,065

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT C

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

General Terms and Conditions – GTC 04/2017

1. APPROVAL: This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both parties and approved by the Department of General Services, if required. Contractor may not commence performance until such approval has been obtained.

2. AMENDMENT: No amendment or variation of t he terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties and approved as required. No oral understanding or Agreement not incorporated in the Agreement is binding on any of the parties.

3. ASSIGNMENT: This Agreement is not assi gnable by the Contractor, either in whole or in part, without the consent of the State in the form of a formal written amendment.

4. AUDIT: Contractor agrees that the awarding department, the Department of General Services, the Bureau of State Audits, or their designated representative shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated. Contractor agrees to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Further, Contractor agrees to include a similar right of the State to audit records and interview staff in any subcontract related to performance of this Agreement. (Gov. Code §8546.7, Pub. Contract Code §10115 et seq., CCR Title 2, Section 1896).

5. INDEMNIFICATION: Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement.

6. DISPUTES: Contractor shall continue with the responsibilities under this Agreement during any dispute.

7. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: The State may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of any payments should the Contractor fail to perform the requirements of this Agreement at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination the State may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the State. All costs to the State shall be deducted from any sum due the Contractor under this Agreement and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the Contractor upon demand.

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT C

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Contractor, and the agents and employees of Contractor, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of the State.

9. RECYCLING CERTIFICATION: The Contractor shall certify in writing under penalty of perjury, the minimum, if not exact, percentage of post -consumer material as defined in the Public Contract Code Section 12200, in products, materials, goods, or supplies offered or sold to the State regardless of whether the product meets the requirements of Public Contract Code Section 12209. With respect to printer or duplication cartridges that comply with the requirements of Section 12156(e), the certification required by this subdivision shall specify that the cartridges so comply (Pub. Contract Code §12205).

10. NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE: During the performance of this Agreement, Contractor and its subcontractor s shall not deny the contract’s benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. Contractor shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination.

Contractor and subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code §§11135-11139.5), and the regulations or standards adopted by the awarding state agency to implement such article. Contractor shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the awarding state agency upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than 24 hours’ notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or Agency shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause. Contractor and its subcontractor s shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11105.) Contractor shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under the Agreement.

11. CERTIFICATION CLAUSES: The CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION CLAUSES contained in the document CCC 04/2017 (
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-
Content/Office-of-Legal-Services-Resources-List-Folder/Standard-Contract-Language) are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement by this reference as if attached hereto.

12. TIMELINESS: Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT C

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

13. COMPENSATION: The consideration to be paid Contractor, as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of Contractor's expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel, per diem, and taxes, unless otherwise expressly so provided.

14. GOVERNING LAW: This contract is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

15. ANTITRUST CLAIMS: The Contractor by signing this agreement hereby certifies that if these services or goods are obtained by means of a competitive bid, the Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the Government Codes Sections set out below.

A. The Government Code Chapter on Antitrust claims contains the following definitions:
1) "Public purchase" means a purchase by means of competitive bids of goods, services, or materials by the State or any of its political subdivisions or public agencies on whose behalf the Attorney General may bring an action pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16750 of the Business and Professions Code.
2) "Public purchasing body" means the State or the s ubdivision or agency making a public purchase. Government Code Section 4550.

B. In submitting a bid to a public purchasing body, the bidder offers and agrees that if the bid is accepted, it will assign to the purchasing body all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, materials, or services by the bidder for sale to the purchasing body pursuant to the bid.

Such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing body tenders final payment to the bidder. Government Code Section 4552.

C. If an awarding body or public purchasing body receives, either through judgment or settlement, a monetary recovery for a cause of action assigned under this chapter, the assignor shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for actual legal costs incurred and may, upon demand, recover from the public body any portion of the recovery, including treble damages, attributable to overcharges that were paid by the assignor but were not paid by the public body as part of the bid price, less the expenses incurred in obtaining that portion of the recovery. Government Code Section 4553.

D. Upon demand in writing by the assignor, the assignee shall, within one year from such demand, reassign the cause of action assigned under this part if the assignor has been or may have been injured by the violation of law for which the cause of action arose and (a) the assignee has not been injured thereby, or (b) the assignee declines to file a court action for the cause of action. See Government Code Section 4554.

16. CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE ACT: For any Agreement in excess of $100,000, the contractor acknowledges in accordance with Public Contract Code 7110, that:

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT C

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

A. The contractor recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with section 5200) of Part 5 of Division 9 of the Family Code; and
B. The contractor, to the best of its knowledge is fully complying with the earnings assignment orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California Employment Devel opment Department.

17. UNENFORCEABLE PROVISION: In the event that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable or held to be unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of this Agreement have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby.

18. PRIORITY HIRING CONSIDERATIONS: If this Contract includes services in excess of $200,000, the Contractor shall give priority consideration in filling vacancies in positions funded by the Contract to qualified recipients of aid under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11200 in accordance with Pub. Contract Code §10353.

19. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND DVBE PARTICIPATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

A. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve small business participation, then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract) report to the awarding department the actual percentage of small business participation that was achieved. (Gov. Code § 14841.)
B. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve disabled veteran business enterprise (DVBE) participation, then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract) certify in a report to the awarding department: (1) the total amount the prime Contractor received under the Contract; (2) the name and address of the DVBE(s) that participated in the performance of the Contract; (3) the amount each DVBE received from the prime Contractor; (4) that all payments under the Contract have been made to the DVBE; and (5) the actual percentage of DVBE participation that was achieved. A person or entity that knowingly provides false information shall be subject to a civil penalty for each violation. (Mil. & Vets. Code § 999.5(d); Govt. Code § 14841.)

20. LOSS LEADER: If this contract involves the furnishing of equipment, materials, or supplies then the following statement is incorporated: It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this state to sell or use any article or product as a “loss leader” as defined in Section 17030 of the Business and Professions Code. (PCC 10344(e).)

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT D

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. GRANTEE’S GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY
A. Grantee agrees to comply with all terms and conditions of this Grant Agreement. Review and approval by the BSCC are solely for the purpose of proper administration of grant funds and shall not be deemed to relieve or restrict the Grantee’s responsibility.

B. Grantee is responsible for the performance of all project activities identified in Attachment 1: Proposition 64 PH&S Cohort 3 Grant Program Cohort 3 Request for Proposals and Attachment 2: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Application for Funding.

C. Grantee shall immediately advise the BSCC of any significant problems or changes that arise during the course of the project.

D. Grantee shall immediately notify the BSCC if there is change in circumstances so that grantee no longer meets the eligibility cri teria of the Proposition 64 PH&S Cohort 3 Program Request for Proposals. Grantee must immediately notify the BSCC if there is a change in grantee’s nonprofit status or loss of good standing in the State of California (e.g., suspension or rescission of leg al status by the Secretary of State for any reason, including but not limited to, failing to file forms, paying required fees, or making tax payments).

2. GRANTEE ASSURANCES AND COMMITMENTS
A. Compliance with Laws and Regulations
This Grant Agreement is gov erned by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Grantee shall at all times comply with all applicable State laws, rules and regulations, and all applicable local ordinances.

B. Fulfillment of Assurances and Declarations
Grantee shall fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations, and statements made by the Grantee in Attachment 1: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Request for Proposal and Attachment 2: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Application for Funding, documents, amendments, approved modifications, and communications filed in support of its request for grant funds.

C. Permits and Licenses
Grantee agrees to procure all permits and licenses necessary to complete the project, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary or incidental to the due and lawful proceeding of the project work.

3. POTENTIAL SUBCONTRACTORS

A. In accordance with the provisions of this Grant Agreement, the Grantee may subcontract for services needed to implement and/or support program activities. Grantee agrees that in the event of any inconsistency between this Grant Agreement and Grantee’s agreement with a subcontractor, the language of this Grant Agreement will prevail.

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT D

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

B. Nothing contained in this Grant Agreement or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation between the BSCC and any subcontractors, and no subcontract shall relieve the Grantee of his responsibilities and obligations hereunder. The Grantee agrees to be as fully responsible to the BSCC for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the Grantee. The Grantee's obligation to pay its subcontractors is an independent obligation from the BSCC's obligation to make payments to the Grantee. As a result, the BSCC shall have no obligation to pay or to enforce the payment of any moneys to any subcontractor.

C. Grantee shall ensure that all subcontractors comply with the eligibility requirements stated in the Prop 64 PH&S Grant Cohort 3 RFP and described in Appendix B.

D. Grantee assures that for any subcontract awarded by the Grantee, such insurance and fidelity bonds, as is customary and appropriate, will be obtained.

E. Grantee agrees to place appropriate language in all subcontracts for work on the project requiring the Grantee’s subcontractors to:
1) Books and Records
Maintain adequate fiscal and project books, records, documents, and other evidence pertinent to the subcontractor’s work on the project in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Adequate supporting documentation shall be maintained in such detail so as to permit tracing transactions from the invoices, to the accounting records, to the supporting documentation. These records shall be maintained for a minimum of three (3) years after the acceptance of the final grant project audit under the Grant Agreement, and shall be subject to examination and/or audit by the BSCC or designees, state government auditors or designees, or by federal government auditors or designees.
2) Access to Books and Records
Make such books, records, supporting documentations, and other evidence available to the BSCC or designee, the State Controller’s Office, the Department of General Services, the Department of Finance, California State Auditor, and their designated representatives during the course of the project and for a minimum of three (3) years after acceptance of the final grant project audit. The Subcontractor shall provide suitable facilities for access, monitoring, inspection, and copying of books and records related to the grant-funded project.

4. PROJECT ACCESS

Grantee shall ensure that the BSCC, or any authorized representative, will have suitable access to project activities, sites, staff and documents at all reasonable times during the grant period including those maintained by subcontractors. Access to program records will be made available by both the grantee and the subcontractors for a period of three (3) years following the end of the grant period.

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT D

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

5. ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS

A. Grantee agrees that accounting procedures for grant funds received pursuant to this Grant Agreement shall be in accordance with generally accepted government accounting principles and practices, and adequate supporting documentation shall be maintained in such detail as to provide an audit trail. Supporting documentation shall permit the tracing of transactions from such documents to relevant accounting records, financial reports and invoices.

B. Grantees are required to provide the BSCC with a financial audit within no later than the end of the contract term (October 31, 2028 ). The financial audit shall be performed by a Certified Public Accountant or a participating county or city auditor that is organizationally independent from the participating county’s or city’s project financial management functions. Expenses for this final audit may be reimbursed for actual costs up to $25,000.

C. The BSCC reserves the right to call for a program or financial audit at any time between the execution of this Grant Agreement and three years following the end of the grant period. At any time, the BSCC may disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action determined to not be in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Grant Agreement or take other remedies legally available.

6. DEBARMENT, FRAUD, THEFT OR EMBEZZLEMENT
It is the policy of the BSCC to protect grant funds from unreasonable risks of fraudulent, criminal, or other improper use. As such, the Board will not enter into contracts or provide reimbursement to grantees that have been:

1. debarred by any federal, state, or local government entities during the period of debarment; or

2. convicted of fraud, theft, or embezzlement of federal, state, or local government grant funds for a period of three years following conviction.

Furthermore, the BSCC requires grant recipients to provide an assurance that there has been no applicable debarment, disqualification, suspension, or removal from a federal, state, or local grant program on the part of the grantee at the time of application and that the grantee will immediately notify the BSCC should such debarment or conviction occur during the term of the Grant contract.

BSCC also requires that all grant recipients include, as a condition of award to a subgrantee or subcontractor, a requirement that the subgrantee or subcontractor will provide the same assurances to the grant recipient. If a grant recipient wishes to consider a subgrantee or subcontractor that has been debarred or convicted, the grant recipient must submit a written request for exception to the BSCC along with supporting documentation.

All Grantees must have on file with the BSCC a completed and signed Certification of Compliance with BSCC Policies on Debarment, Fraud, Theft and Embezzlement (Required as Appendix F of the original Proposal Package).

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT D

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

7. MODIFICATIONS
No change or modification in the project will be permitted without prior written approval from the BSCC. Changes may include modification to project scope, changes to performance measures, compliance with collection of data elements, and other significant changes in the budget or program components contained in the Attachment 1: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Request for Proposals and Attachment 2: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Application for Funding. Changes shall not be implemented by the project until authorized by the BSCC.

8. TERMINATION
A. This Grant Agreement may be terminated by the BSCC at any time after grant award and prior to completion of project upon action or inaction by the Grantee that constitutes a material and substantial breech of this Grant Agreement. Such action or inaction includes but is not limited to:
1) substantial alteration of the scope of the grant project without prior written approval of the BSCC;
2) refusal or inability to complete the grant project in a manner consistent with Attachment 1: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Request for Proposals and Attachment 2: Proposition 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 Application for Funding, or approved modifications;
3) failure to meet prescribed assurances, commitments, recording, accounting, auditing, and reporting requirements of the Grant Agreement; and
4) if grantee no longer meets the criteria of an eligible applicant. A grantee no longer meets the crit eria of an eligible applicant if grantee’s nonprofit status changes or grantee is no longer in good standing with the State of California. A loss of good standing may include suspension or rescission of legal status by the California Secretary of State for any reason, including but not limited to, failing to file forms, pay required fees, or making tax payments.

B. Prior to terminating the Grant Agreement under this provision, the BSCC shall provide the Grantee at least 30 calendar days written notice stating the reasons for termination and effective date thereof. The Grantee may appeal the termination decision in accordance with the instructions listed in Exhibit D: Special Terms and Conditions, Number 9.

Settlement of Disputes.

9. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
A. The parties shall deal in good faith and attempt to resolve potential disputes informally. If the dispute persists, the Grantee shall submit to the BSCC Corrections Planning and Grant Programs Division Deputy Director a written demand for a final decision regarding the disposition of any dispute between the parties arising under, related to, or involving this Grant Agreement. Grantee’s written demand shall be fully supported by factual

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

EXHIBIT D

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

information. The BSCC Corrections Planning and Grant Programs Division D eputy Director shall have 30 days after receipt of Grantee’s written demand invoking this Section “Disputes” to render a written decision. If a written decision is not rendered within 30 days after receipt of the Grantee’s demand, it shall be deemed a deci sion adverse to the Grantee’s contention. If the Grantee is not satisfied with the decision of the BSCC Corrections Planning and Grant Programs Division Deputy Director, the Grantee may appeal the decision, in writing, within 15 days of its issuance (or the expiration of the 30- day period in the event no decision is rendered), to the BSCC Executive Director, who shall have 45 days to render a final decision. If the Grantee does not appeal the decision of the BSCC Corrections Planning and Grant Programs Divi sion Deputy Director, the decision shall be conclusive and binding regarding the dispute and the Contractor shall be barred from commencing an action in court, or with the Victims Compensation Government Claims Board, for failure to exhaust Grantee’s administrative remedies.

B. Pending the final resolution of any dispute arising under, related to or involving this Grant Agreement, Grantee agrees to diligently proceed with the performance of this Grant Agreement, including the providing of services in accordance with the Grant Agreement.

Grantee’s failure to diligently proceed in accordance with the State’s instructions regarding this Grant Agreement shall be considered a material breach of this Grant Agreement.

C. Any final decision of the State shall be expressly identified as such, shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the Executive Director, if an appeal was made. If the Executive Director fails to render a final decision within 45 days after receipt of the Grantee’s appeal for a final decision, it shall b e deemed a final decision adverse to the Grantee’s contentions. The State’s final decision shall be conclusive and binding regarding the dispute unless the Grantee commences an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to contest such decision within 90 days following the date of the final decision or one (1) year following the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is later.

D. The dates of decision and appeal in this section may be modified by mutual consent, as applicable, excepting the time to commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

10. WAIVER
The parties hereto may waive any of their rights under this Grant Agreement unless such waiver is contrary to law, provided that any such waiver shall be in writing and signed by the party making such waiver.

SECTION I -

APPLICANT

INFORMATION
This section requires information about the applicant (County/City), grant funds being requested, proposed project synopsis and project officials.

Name of Applicant
('Name' County or
City of 'Name')
City of Hanford
Tax Identification
Number
94-6000345
Grant Funds
Requested - Whole
dollars only
2,452,065
Applicant's Physical
Address
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US
Applicant's Mailing
Address (if different
than physical
address)
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US
Mailing Address For
Reimbursement
Payments
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US
Project Title Hanford Boys & Girls Club
Project Summary The proposed project will create a Youth Program operated by the City of Hanford and the Boys and Girls Club of the Sequoias in coordination with the Hanford Joint High School District and the Hanford Elementary School District. The club, affiliated with the Boys and Girls Club of America (BGCA), will serve at least 150 youth grades 7th – 12th annually, will be open daily (3 pm – 7 pm) and be operated out of the Coe Park Building. The Coe Park Building is centrally located within the community and lies within Census Tract 11, a highly disadvantaged census tract that is one of four opportunity zones within Kings County.

Proposed Project
County/City Size for
Funding Distribution
Small-sized county or a city within a small-sized county

Project Purpose
Areas (PPAs)
PPA 1: Youth Development/Youth Prevention and Intervention Lead Public Agency
(LPA) Information
This sub-section requires information about the governmental agency with local authority of or within the county or city that will be acting as the LPA. Additionally, this section requires names and contact information for the individuals identified as the Project Director, Financial Officer, Day-to-Day Project Contact, Day-to-Day Fiscal Contact, and the Authorized Officer with signing authority.

Lead Public Agency
(LPA)
City of Hanford
Project Director
Brad
Albert
Project Director's
Title
Parks and Community Services Director
Project Director's
Physical Address
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US
Project Director's
Mailing Address (if
different than
physical address)
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US
Project Director's
Email Address
[email protected]
Project Director's
Phone Number
+15595852527
Financial Officer
Christopher
Tavarez
Financial Officer's
Title
Finance Director
Financial Officer's
Physical Address
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US

Financial Officer's
Mailing Address (if
different than
physical address)
n/a
Financial Officer's
Email Address
[email protected]
Financial Officer's
Phone Number
+15595852527
Day-To-Day Program
Contact
Brad
Albert
Day-To-Day Program
Contact's Title and
Agency/Department/Organization
Parks and Community Services Director
Day-To-Day Program
Contact's Physical
Address
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US
Day-To-Day Program
Contact's Email
Address
[email protected]
Day-To-Day Program
Contact's Phone
Number
+15595852527
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact
Brad
Albert
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact's Title with
Agency/Department/Organization
City of Hanford
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact's Physical
Address
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact's Email
Address
[email protected]
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact's Phone
Number
+15595852527

Name of Authorized
Officer*
Mario
Cifuentez
I hereby certify I am
vested by the
Applicant with the
authority to enter into
contract with the
BSCC, and the
grantee and any
subcontractors will
abide by the laws,
policies, and
procedures
governing this
funding.
checked
Date of Assurance
12/1/2022
Authorized Officer's
Title and
Agency/Department
City Manager - City of Hanford
Authorized Officer's
Physical Address
321 S. Douty Street, Ste. B
Ste. B
Hanford
CA
93230
US
Authorized Officer's
Email Address
[email protected]
Authorized Officer's
Phone Number
+15595852595

SECTION II -

PROPOSAL

ABSTRACT
The Proposal Abstract should provide a brief summary of the proposed project. This section will not be included in the rating of the proposal.

PROPOSAL

ABSTRACT
The proposed project will create a youth program operated by the City of Hanford and the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sequoias in coordination with the Hanford Joint High School District, Hanford Elementary School District, and the Hanford Police Department.

The club, affiliated with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA), will serve at least 150 youth grades 7th – 12th annually, will be open daily (3 pm – 7 pm), and be operated out of the Coe Park Building.

The Coe
Park Building is centrally located within Census Tract 11, a highly disadvantaged census tract that is one of four opportunity zones within Kings County.

All club programs will focus on four priority outcomes:

1. Evidence-based substance prevention and intervention – Focusing on strategies for preventing youth substance and marijuana use.

2. Academic success – Graduating high school and transitioning to college or trade school.

Tutoring and assistance with homework
assignments.

The educational emphasis will be on Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

It will provide
youth with mental challenges, strategic thinking skills, and inclusive experiences where young people can build self-confidence, and a thirst for lifelong learning, helping them build the foundation for a brighter future.

3. Healthy Lifestyles – Adopt a nutritious diet, practice healthy lifestyle choices, and commit to fitness.

4. Community service – Through the Youth Serve Program, youth will volunteer for the betterment of the community.

These outcomes will be achieved through various evidence-based curricula, mentoring, service-based learning, and experiential learning opportunities.

A strong emphasis on STEM will challenge
students, forces them to slow down, and develops critical thinking skills in an environment that fosters technology, creativity, and innovation.

To meet these outcomes, the City is partnering with the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sequoias, which will operate the club daily for a minimum of four hours and provide a mix of educational enrichment and evidence-based programming.

There is a great need for programs such as this in our community.

Currently, 7th – 12th graders are not served in school-based after- school programs.

SECTION III -

PROPOSAL

NARRATIVE
This section requires responses

Proposal Narrative
Instructions
The Proposal Narrative section must address the following Rating Factors- Project Need, the Project Description, and the Project Evaluation - as outlined in the Prop 64 Cohort 3 RFP Information Packet, beginning on page 18 of the Prop 64 Cohort 3 RFP Instruction Packet. Narrative in this section must clearly identify and delineate each Factor Section (i.e., Project Need, the Project Description, and the Project Evaluation) when responding. Sources cited must be included within Proposal Narrative or may be referenced within the optional RFP- Additional Information attachment .

It is up to the applicant to determine how best to use the total character limit in addressing each section (i.e., Project Need, the Project Description, and the Project Evaluation) . However, the Applicant may use the percent of total point value for each section as a guide. The Rating Factors and weighted value are provided in the Prop 64 Cohort 3 RFP Instruction Packet (Page 15). The Project Work Plan must also be uploaded to this Section as it is rated under the Project Description Rating Factor (2.6).

Proposal Narrative

PROJECT NEED
In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64 to legalize recreational cannabis use statewide for anyone over 21.

At
approximately $3 billion, California's legal cannabis industry is currently the world's largest.

Marijuana that is legally available for adults has multiple implications for adolescent substance use.

One potential effect that legalization
may have is increased teenage use due to increased availability, greater social acceptance, and possibly lower prices.

Legalization
may also facilitate the introduction of new formulations of marijuana (edible, vaporized) with potentially higher potencies.

While the long-range implications of legalized cannabis among youth are unknown, there is a strong correlation that as youth age, the use increases.

According to the 2017-2018 California Healthy Kids
Survey, marijuana use by Hanford youth steadily increased as youth progressed from adolescence to teenagers.

Grade Level 5th Grade 7th Grade 9th Grade 11th Grade
% of Use
2%
6%
9%
16%
The City of Hanford lacks youth development or drug prevention programs, and there are no organized after-school programs for grades 7th – 12th.

Therefore, there are limited resources to operate
youth programs despite the overwhelming need: Hanford's high poverty and historically low educational achievement present barriers for many youths.

The City needs programs that encourage youth to
strive toward higher aspirations and help alleviate these barriers.

The proposed location within Coe Park of the Hanford Boys & Girls Clubs is in Census Tract 11, with a population of 6,600 people and a low-income community opportunity zone that is economically

depressed.

According to the Opportunity Zones Database, the
median household income is $33,000, and the poverty rate is 29%, 17% higher than the State.

In addition,
a mere 51% of the population
has earned a high school diploma, which is 33% lower than the State's educational attainment rate.

The City of Hanford is located within Kings County.

According to the
Kids Count Data Center, 79% of 10th graders can pass the math portion of the California High School Exit Exam, compared to the State average of 88%.

Students who are ready or conditionally ready
for college-level math courses are 16%, compared to the State average of 32%.

In Hanford, programs that aid with homework and preparation for college are needed to help improve graduation rates.

Although the
Hanford Elementary School District offers after-school programs for grades K-6,
these programs are at capacity, and no after-school
programs are provided for grades 7th – 12th.

The proposed program
focuses explicitly on junior high and high school students and could help improve educational achievement and graduation rates.

According to the Kings Partnership for Prosperity, Progress, and Prevention's Health Assessment, 42.4% of Kings County 9th graders are overweight or obese, higher than the State and state average of

37.8%.

In addition, 51.6% of 7th graders are physically fit, compared to the State's average of 61%.

To create a program to address these needs, the City was able to reach out to the Hanford Police Department, Hanford Joint Union High School District, Hanford Elementary School District, and the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sequoias to identify additional vital needs in the community.

The Police Department indicated a need for after-school programs for middle and high-school-aged children to reduce the number of youth outside the home immediately after school.

The
Hanford Elementary and Hanford Joint High School Districts also support the proposed program because they do not currently offer after-school programming.

The elementary and high school districts also supported the need for supplemental STEM education focusing on hands-on learning with real-world applications that develop various skill sets, including creativity and 21st-century skill sets.

The Boys & Girls Clubs of America have highlighted several successful programs implemented in other cities that address youth's social needs, including evidence-based substance abuse prevention programs.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Hanford is proposing a Youth Development/Youth Prevention and Intervention program closely aligned with the goals of Program Purpose Area (PPA) 1.

The City and our partners are
offering to create a Hanford Boys & Girls Club that addresses many

of the concerns of the City, Hanford Joint High School District, Hanford Elementary School District, and the Hanford Police Department as a result of Proposition 64 and other longstanding problems.

Based on community needs, Census Data, and requests
made by our partners, the Hanford Boys & Girls Club will have four priority outcomes:

1. Evidence-based substance prevention and intervention – Focusing on strategies for preventing youth substance and marijuana use.

2. Academic success – Graduate from high school and ready for college or trade school.

The educational emphasis will be on Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

It will provide
youth with mental challenges, strategic thinking skills, and inclusive experiences where young people can build self-confidence, and a thirst for lifelong learning, helping them build and foundation for a brighter future.

3. Healthy Lifestyles – Adopt a nutritious diet, practice healthy lifestyle choices, and commit to fitness.

4. Community service – Through the Youth Serve Program, youth will volunteer for the betterment of the community.

To meet these outcomes, the City is partnering with the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sequoias, which will operate the club daily for a minimum of four hours and provide a mix of educational enrichment and evidence-based programming.

The programs include:

1. Evidence-based substance abuse prevention and intervention programs include:
• Botvin LifeSkills Training Middle and High School – A groundbreaking substance abuse prevention program based on 35 years of scientific research, delivered in 30 classes or online sessions.
• All Stars – A student-centered program to delay the onset of risky behaviors.

Group activities, games, art projects, video making, and small group discussions are included.
• Keepin' it Real – A substance abuse prevention and social and emotional competency enhancing program which provides practical refusal skills

2. Sports and recreational activities in the Longfield Center Gym and adjacent Coe
Park.

BGCA's Triple Play Health and Wellness programs
will be conducted.

This trio of programs is designed to improve the
overall health of members, ages 12-18, by increasing their daily physical activity, teaching them good nutrition, and helping them develop healthy relationships.

3. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) curriculum.

MyFuture is BGCA's mobile-friendly web platform with
access to over 325+ Boys & Girls Club program activities in 14

program areas, such as STEM, leadership, and the arts.

With
MyFuture, kids and teens learn new skills, connect with their friends, and earn recognition and rewards in a safe and fun online environment.

In addition, club members will learn VEX Robotics which encourages creativity, teamwork, leadership, passion, and problem- solving among groups.

4. Positive Actions and SMART Leaders evidence-based programs that include substance abuse prevention and leadership
components.

5. Serve Corps is a service-based program designed to work on service projects and encourage academic achievement and civic responsibility.

The Boys & Girls Club follows five research-based, vital elements to positive youth development that are practiced throughout the program.

These practices provide protective factors to youth as they deal with past and current trauma in their lives:

1. A safe, positive environment – Staff, facilities, programs, and age- appropriate settings create stability, consistency, and a sense of physical and emotional safety for members.

The club provides
structure and clearly defines acceptable behaviors.

2. Fun and a sense of belonging – The club generates fun for members.

Members develop a strong sense of belonging through
connections they establish with staff and peers.

Staff members make
the club feel at home, fostering a family atmosphere and creating a sense of ownership for members.

3. Supportive relationships – Club youth develop meaningful relationships with peers and adults.

Staff members actively cultivate
adult and peer mentoring such relationships to ensure that every member feels connected to one or more adults and peers.

Staff
members Mentors demonstrate warmth, caring, appreciation, acceptance, and proper guidance in their connections with members.

4. Opportunities and expectations – Club youth acquire physical, social, technological, artistic, and life skills.

Clubs encourage
members to develop a moral character and behave ethically.

Staff
members establish and reinforce high expectations and help young people do well in school and pursue post-secondary education.

5. Recognition – Clubs recognize and support young people's self- worth and accomplishments
The rationale for selecting these outcomes is based on the City's conversations with the Police Department and Hanford School Districts, as well as the most recent Census and California Department of Education data that shows a need for healthy educational opportunities and job opportunities skills, lifestyle education.

Currently, no youth programs provide the services that the proposed Hanford Boys & Girls Club will, and both the junior highs nor high schools now offer after-school programming.

The City also lacks experience operating these programs, which is why the Boys & Girls Club is being selected to perform the day-to-day operations.

The Boys & Girls Clubs staff assigned will have
significant training in youth development and trauma-informed work with youth.

They will be culturally experienced – bilingual in
Spanish/English, and most staff will share the cultural background of the youth they work with.

All staff will be selected with an emphasis
on education, good character traits, relational skills, maturity, and specific experiences such as technology, sports, and recreation.

Partnerships
The City of Hanford has many partners.

Here is a list of key partners
and their roles:
• Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sequoias-Staffing, program delivery, evidence-based prevention curriculum, sports and recreation, STEM- based learning, Positive Actions, SMART Leaders, and Serve Corps. • Hanford Joint Union High School District-Will refers students from Hanford High School, Hanford West High School, Sierra
Pacific High School, Earl F. Johnson High School.

Hanford Online
Charter School and the Community Day School.
• Hanford Elementary School District-Will refer students from John F Kennedy and Woodrow Wilson Junior High Schools.
• Hanford Police Department-School Resource Officers (SRO) will refer youth to the program that has demonstrated
• Kings Area Rural Transit (KART)- Has agreed to create a new bus route to transport students to and from school to the Coe Park building daily.
• InnovEd-Will provide STEM teacher training in project-based learning, Blended Learning and Technology, and STEM career pathway development
• Fundraising Committee-This committee will be made up of local businesses and influencers.

They aim to secure the resources
needed to sustain the Hanford Boys & Girls Club beyond the grant- funded timeframe.

PROJECT EVALUATION
The club will regularly be evaluated to ensure that programs meet several measurable and quantifiable objectives.

The City has
identified measurable goals to determine the program's effectiveness through data collected through the Boys & Girls Clubs National Youth Outcomes Initiative survey and the Member Tracking System.

1. Club Attendance - The City is proposing measuring the average attendance and enrollment quarterly to ensure the program reaches the intended populations.

The Member Tracking System is used to
gather relevant demographic information and tracks the attendance

of those attending the club.

The goal is to maintain an average
attendance of 25 youth per day each quarter and an average enrollment of 50 youth each quarter.

Each day the Boys & Girls Club
will take attendance to determine the number of youth attending the club.

Suppose the average quarterly attendance is less than 25 or the average quarterly enrollment is less than 50.

In that case, the City
will begin an outreach program, in coordination with both of the Hanford School Districts, to notify families of the availability of the program.

The City will also use its social media accounts to advertise the program's availability.

2. Service Hours - The City is proposing measuring service hours students performed in the club every quarter.

Each quarter the City
expects at least 100 person-hours of service to be completed in some capacity.

To monitor this, the Boys & Girls Club will track the
number of hours of service performed by each member of The Club and report to the City every quarter using the Member Tracking System.

The scope of the service will also be provided in this report.

If service hours are not met during the quarter, the City and the Boys & Girls Club will prepare a plan outlining and scheduling service opportunities to help meet the next quarter's goal.

3. Educational and Career Training - The City proposes measuring the number of hours that educational and job career programs are provided and monitoring student grade progress.

The City expects at
least 25% of The Club's operational time will be dedicated to educational programs and career training.

Each quarter the Boys &
Girls Clubs will provide a report showing the daily activities for the quarter and the time devoted to those activities.

If educational and
career training hours are not met, the City and the Boys & Girls Club will create a detailed schedule for the next quarter that dedicates enough time to educational and career training.

By the end of year 1, 60% of members of The Club will be receiving mainly A's and B's in school, and by the end of year 3, 85% of members will be receiving A's and B's.

This data will be collected
through the National Youth Outcome Initiative Survey, an anonymous online survey distributed to all Club members each year in March.

4. Health and Substance Abuse Prevention Education - The City is proposing to measure the number of hours that Health and Substance Abuse Prevention Education programs are provided.

The
City expects at least 25% of The Club's operational time will be dedicated to Health and Substance Abuse Prevention Education.

Each quarter the Boys & Girls Club will provide a report showing the daily activities for the quarter and the time dedicated to those activities.

Suppose health and substance abuse prevention
education hours are not met.

In that case, the City and the Boys &
Girls Club will create a detailed schedule for the next quarter that dedicates enough time to health and substance abuse prevention education.

5. Improve Educational Opportunities - The City believes that providing the club members with additional educational opportunities

outside the Boys & Girls Club will be critical. The City requires that the club provide at least one field trip each quarter to a local college to provide students with an opportunity to look at regional campuses and prepare for education after high school. The City will require that the Boys & Girls Club schedule campus visitation days at the beginning of the school semester to meet this goal, and the City will verify that a date has been planned before the end of the calendar year.

A monitoring plan will be provided quarterly to the City of Hanford and will contain the following components:

1. Average attendance and enrollment for the quarter

2. Number of service hours completed for the quarter

3. Percent of operational time dedicated to educational and career training

4. Percentage of operational time dedicated to health education and substance abuse prevention training

5. Field trips to nearby colleges, universities, museums, and technology-based businesses taken during the quarter
If, at any time, the monitoring plan shows an area where goals have not been met, the City and the Boys & Girls Club will create an action plan to address the deficiencies.

All data collected in the quarterly reports will be included in the project's LEP to measure progress and the program's success.

1 Applicants must complete a Project Work Plan. This Project Work Plan identifies measurable goals and objectives, activities and services, responsible parties for those activities and services, and estimated timelines. Completed plans should (1) identify the project’s top goals and objectives; (2) identify how the top goals will be achieved in terms of the activities, responsible staff/partners, and start and end dates; and (3) provide goals and objectives with a clear relationship to the need and intent of the grant. As this grant term is for five (5) years, the Project Work Plan must attempt to identify activities/services and estimate timelines for the entire grant term. Include data and sources that will be used to measure project outcomes.

Applicants must use the Project Work Plan provided below. You will be prompted to upload this document to the BSCC-Submittable Application. (1) Goal: > Preventing youth substance and marijuana use

Objectives
(A., B., etc.)
> A. Staff will be trained in the Botvin LifeSkill Training for junior high and high school students, All Stars Program, and Keepin' It REAL prevention programs.

B. Members will successfully complete the Botvin LifeSkills Program comprised of lessons, teaching personal self-management, general social skills, and drug resistance skills.

C. Members will complete the 10-lesson Keepin' It REAL program

Process &
Outcome
Measures:
> 1. Six staff persons will complete the Botvin LifeSkill Training, All Stars, and Keepin' It REAL cirricula.

2. 25% of the club's operational time will be dedicated to prevention education

2. 40 club membrs will successfully complete 30 lessons of the Botvin Lifeskill Training,

3. 40 members members will complete th 10-lesson Keepin' It REAL Program and coplete the pre and post survey.

Project activities/services that support the identified goal and objectives:
> 1. All staff will demonstrate mastery of the selected prevention cirricula.

2. A minimum of 40 members will successfully complete the 40 lessons of the three evidence-based prevention programs listed above.

3. A minimum of 40 members will complete the ten lesson Keepin' It REAL Program and be able to articulate refusal skills.

Responsible
staff/ partners
Timeline
Start Date End Date
> Boys and
Girls Club, City
of Hanford,
and the
Hanford Police
Department.
> 9/1/23 > 4/30/28
List data and sources to be used to measure outcomes: > Pre and post surveys
(2) Goal: > Academic success
Objectives
(A., B., etc.)
> A. By the end of the school year, 65% of the club members will be receiving Bs and Cs or higher, and by the end of th year, 75% of members will be receiving a As and Bs or higher.

B. Each year, members will participate in the My Future Program will develop an individualized plan to graduate from high school, attend post-secondary education, trade school, and a career pathway.

C. Club members will increase their involvement in educational activities during out-of-school time.

Process &
Outcome
Measures:
>
Project activities/services that support the identified goal and objectives:
> 1. Club staff will be trained in My Future, Career Launch, and Diplomas to Degrees curricula and be trained in the Key elements of Positive Youth Development.

Responsible
staff/ partners
Timeline
Start Date End Date
> Boys and
Girls Club and
the City of
Hanford
> 9/1/23 > 4/30/28
Prop 64 PH&S Grant Program
Project Work Plan

2 2. Develop referral relationships with the Hanford Police Department, Hanford Elementary School District, and the Hanford Joint Union High School District.

3. Plan and take one field trip per quarter with a minimum of 30 members to a colleges, universities, museums, and technology-based businesses.

List data and sources to be used to measure outcomes: > Monitored quarterly by official school transcripts (3) Goal: > Increase Healthy lifestyle choices of members Objectives
(A., B., etc.)
> A. The club will maintain a membership of at least 50 youth ages 12-18.

B. Staff will be trained in Triple Play and Positive Actions curricula C. Within one year, members will exercise daily.

D. Members will increase their knowledge of drugs and alcohol following the Positive Actions Program.

Process &
Outcome
Measures:
> A. Daily attendance will be closely monitored by staff. Absences will result in parent contact by staff.

B. Students will log their daily exercise for staff review quarterly.

C. Pre and post tests will be administered to confirm curriculum content is being learned.

Project activities/services that support the identified goal and objectives:
> A. Club members will participate in recreational activities at least three times per week during club hours.

B. At least 60% of all club members will complete the six units of the Positive Actions Program. Units include: self-concept, positive actions for your body, managing your responsibility, treating others as you would like to be treated, telling the truth, and improving yourself continually.

C
Responsible
staff/ partners
Timeline
Start Date End Date
> Boys and
Girls Club, and
the City of
Hanford
> 9/1/23 > 4/30/28
List data and sources to be used to measure outcomes: > (4) Goal: > Civic Engagement and Community Service
Objectives
(A., B., etc.)
> A. To teach club members to be informed and enaged in civic matters.

B.Club members will plan and implement volunteer community services projects within the community C. Club members will attend civic government meetings
Process &
Outcome
Measures:
> A. Club members will attend at least one City Council or Kings County Board of Supervisors meeting annually and write a one-page report on what they learned.

B. 75% of all club members will participate in 8 hours of community service per quarter.

C. Cummulatively, the club will generate 100 hours of volunteer community service pr quarter.

Project activities/services that support the identified goal and objectives:
> A. Club members will plan and implment community service projects throughout the community. Observations, pictures and reflection of impact will be presented on a quarterly basis.

B. Club members and staff will attend a civic public meeting. Members will compile a one-page report on observaions. Staff will facilitate group discussion on the civic processes.

Responsible
staff/ partners
Timeline
Start Date End Date
> Boys and
Girls Club and
City of Hanford
> 9/1/23 > 4/30/28
List data and sources to be used to measure outcomes: > One-page reports on public meeting obsrvations, club member volunter tracking data, entered by staff.

Grant Funds
$174,509
$128,700
$118,875
$1,656,557
$95,903
$0
$25,000
$0
$4,000
$25,000
$223,521
$2,452,065
Grant Funds
$26,352
$45,000
$96,989
$77,520
$174,509
Salaries and Benefits Narrative:

Grant Funds
$87,500
$128,700
TOTAL
Example: Supportive Services (bus passes, gas
cards, office supplies, uniforms)
Professional custodial services & supplies
This will cover City staff that are assigned to this project. It is expected that the City will manage a portion of the administrative duties of th grant administration, including preparation of progress reports, requests for payment, and data analysis.

Parks and Community Service Director - $75.82 hr
Will assist with preparing and reviewing reports, oversees program on behalf of he City, communicates with the Board of State Community Correctons.

Administrative Analyst II -$40.40 hr
Reposnisble for coordinating with the Boys and Girls Club, collecting data, preparing reports, and marketing materials.

2. Services and Supplies
Description of Services or Supplies Calculation for Expenditure $350 x 50 Participants for each of the 5 years
1,500 square feet of space x .11 cents per square foot =$165 x 156 days =$25,740/yr x 5 years 10% Parks and Community Services Director
15% Administrative Analyst II
$75.82/hour x 208 hours per year = $15,770 x 5 years = $78,853 + benefits @ 23% $40.40/hour x 312 hours = $12,605 per year x 5 years= $63,024 + benefits @ 23%

3. Professional Services

4. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Contracts

5. Equipment / Fixed Assets
Title
Example (Hourly): Fiscal Manager
Example (FTE): Counselor

1. Salaries and Benefits

6. Data Collection / Enhancement

7. Program Evaluaiton

11. Indirect Costs/Administrative Overhead (Costs may be charged at an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the actual total direct project costs.) TOTAL
(% FTE or Hourly Rate) & Benefits
$60/hour x 10 hours/month x 3 years = $21,600 + benefits @ 22% = $4,752 .25 FTE @ $60,000 x 3 years = $45,000

8. Sustainability Planning

9. Other (include any travel and/or training costs)

10. Financial Audit (Up to $25,000 may be allocated for an end of project financial audit.) Request for Proposals Section IV: Project Budget and Budget Narrative Proposition 64 Grant Program Cohort 3 Applicant:City of Hanford Project Budget: Enter estimated costs for reimbursement for the full five (5) year grant term.

Note: This top table will auto-populate based on the information entered in the sections below.

Budget Line Item

1. Salaries and Benefits

2. Services and Supplies

$128,700
Description of Professional Service(s) Grant Funds
$110,000
$56,250
$40,000
$17,000
$5,625
$118,875
Description of Subcontract Grant Funds
$18,000
$301,696
$104,794
$164,630
$164,230
$508,534
$196,600
$216,073
$1,656,557
Building renovation and painting
Wood flooring restoration
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Subcontracts Narrative:

Club Director - $301,696
100% FTE. Responsible for day-to-day operation of the club. Primary liaison with the City and school districts.

Area Director-$104,794
38% FTE will provide organizational oversight of the club. Assist with strategic planning and fundraising activities Lead Youth Development Coordinator - $164,230
73% FTE. Assitant to th Club Director. Lead in all technology-based curriculum Three Youth Development Coordinators - $508,534
3 FTEs. Youth development, supervision, homework assistance, mentoring, academic success Supportive sevices - $196,600
Communications, insurance, marketing, printing, program supplies, training, and transportation Indirect/Admin costs - $216,073
15% of program budget as providd by the NGO
73% Youth Development Corrdinator (three)
Supportive services (communications,
insurance,marketing, printing, program supplies, Indirect/Admin Costs $17.50 per hour x 1,518 hours =$26,565 x 5 years = $132,825 + FB @14.34% =$19,047, +$52,918 CPI for all positionsYear 1=$53,900, Year 2 $43,900, Year 3 $32,100, Year 4 $33,150, Year 5 $33,550 15% as provided by the NGO
TOTALS
38% Area Dircetor
73% Lead Youth Development Coordinator
73% Serve Corps Coordinator

4. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Subcontracts
Example: NGO Contract- To be identified
100% Club Director
Calculation for Expenditure
Cannabis Prevention Classes $150 x 24 classes per year (x 5 years) $22.00 per hour x 2080 hours = $45,760 x 5 years = $228,800 + FB @ 31.86% = $72,896 $24.00 per hour x 790 hours =$15,800 x 5 years =79,000 + FB @ 32.65$ =$25,794 $19.00 per hour x 1,518 hours =$28,842 x 5 years = $144,210 + FB @ 14.16% = $20,420 $19.00 per hour x 1,518 hours =$28,842 x 5 years = $144,210 + FB @ 14.16% = $20,420 Professional Services Narrative:

Transportation to and from school - $56,250
Kings Area Rapis Transit (KART) has agreed to create a special route to safely transport youth to and from thier school to the club on a daily basis. This is a critcal aspect of the proposed program, as many youth lack the availability of transportation, which is often a barrier to participation.

Transportation to educational field trips - $40,000
This component of the program is vital to the realization that opportunities exist that many youth are unaware of. These quaterly field trips will include visits to colleges, universities, museums, and technology-based bussinesses.

Buidling Renovation and painting - $17, 000
The Coe Park Buidling has been vacant for the past two years and is in need of new interior paint and minor renovations.

Wood flooring restoration -$5,625
The Coe Park Buidling has a natural wood floor that requires annual restoration every-other year. 1,500 square feet of flooring @ $1.25 per square foot = $1,875 x 3 = $5,625 TOTAL
Services and Supplies Narrative:

TOTAL
Transportation of youth to and from school
Transportation to educational field trips
Contracted custodial services is responsible for the cleaning, trash removal, and re-stocking of the facility Monday - Friday during club operations.

3. Professional Services
Example: Contract with Social Marketing Firm to
design content for website, social media channels
and support.

Calculation for Expenditure
Initial year $50,000 for design and implementation
Each subsequent year technical support and ongoing monitoring/maintenance for website. $15,000 per year for 4 years
25 youth per day x $2.50 round trip x 180 days annually x 5 years 4 field trips per year @ $2,000 per trip = $8,000 per year x 5 years 2,400 square feet of painting @ $5.00 per square foot = $12,000, $5,000 for renovation

Description of Equipment/Fixed Asset Grant Funds
$85,000
$40,478
$26,080
$1,889
$15,996
$6,900
1- 3d printer $600
1- Multi-function Printer $3,960
$95,903
Grant Funds
$10,329
$0
Grant Funds
$25,750
$25,000
$25,000
Grant Funds
$8,575

7. Program Evaluation
Description
Example: Contract with ABC Researchers to develop Evaluation Plan, Final Report, and assist with Quarterly Progress Reports Third-party professional evaluator @ 5,000 per year x 5 years TOTAL
Program Evaluation Narrative:

8. Sustainability Planning
Description
Example: Room rental for quarterly strategic planning meeting for community & gov't partners to continue services post-award.

Data Collection / Enhancement Narrative:

TOTAL
Club furniture (tables, chairs, storage) - $40,478
Contains (6) V5 Classroom Super Kits
Scalable programming software suite available with VEXcode Standards aligned STEM Labs help develop how students approach critical thinking & problem solving 20 Laptop computers - $26,080
Dell Latitude Laptops, 12th generation 15, 16 GB RAM, and 512 MB SSD 3 gaming consoles -$1,889
Gaming consoles will be used to teach youth basic programming skills, teambuilding, and enable them to complete regionally 2- VEX Robotics V5 Classroom bundles - $15,996
Contains (6) V5 Classroom Super Kits, scalable programming software suite available with VEXcode.

Standards aligned STEM Labs help develop how students approach critical thinking & problem solving. 3- 85" OLED TVs - $6,900
Sony 85" Class Bravia XR, 4K, HDR, Full Array LED. The three TVs will be used by students to design, code and practice for gaming competitions.

6. Data Collection / Enhancement
Equipment/Fixed Assets Narrative:

Description
Example: Data ad hoc reporting and upgrades for BSCC Quarterly Progress Report measures 1- 3d Creality Ender 5 Plus 3d printer with auto-bed leveling 1- HP M72SDN print, scan, auto duplex printing
TOTALS
3 gaming consoles
VEX Robotics V5 Classroom bundle
3-85" OLED TVs 3- 85" OLED TVs @ $2,300 ea.

Example: Purchase of Vehicle
Club furniture (tables, chairs, storage)
20 Laptop computers and charging cart
4x4 Truck and tow package as available (Market Value)
Calculation for Expense
School Outfitters flexible makersspace classroom furniture (36 chairs, tables, storage) 20 Dell Latitude laptop computers, 16 GB memory, 512 GB SSD @ $ ea. 2- Sony Playstation 5 @ $695 ea = $1,390, 1 - Mocrosoft X-Bax Series X @ $499 ea 2 VEX Robotics V5 classroom bundles @ $7,998

5. Equipment/Fixed Assets

$0
Grant Funds
$7,500
$4,000
$4,000
Grant Funds
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
Grant Funds
$223,521
TOTAL
Sustainability Planning Narrative:

Sustainability planning will be accomplished by a volunter fundrasing committee made up of local business owners, community influencers, and executive-level professionals.

The City will provide meeting space for quarterly meetings at no cost.

Example: Training Classes for Enforcement Officers
10% of actual total direct project costs
Description: Indirect costs may be charged at an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the actual total direct project costs.

9. Other (Travel, Training, etc.)
TOTAL
Financial Audit Narrative:

Required annual audit by a third-party independent auditor.

Indirect Costs Narrative:

Indirect costs includes the following: Accounting and leal expenses, administrative salaries, office expenses, lease, security expenses, telephone, and utilities.

Description
Costs associated with required training in
Other (Travel, Training, etc.) Narrative:

This cost will be incurrred for two staff persons to travel to Sacramento for the required grant administration workshop. Includes rental car, lodging , and per diem expenses.

TOTAL

11. Indirect Costs

10. Financial Audit
Description
Example: Contract with XYZ Certified Public Accountant to provide final fiscal audit Contract with independent auditors to provide final fiscal audit. $5,000 per year x 5 years Calculation for Expense
$2,500/partipant x 3 participants; includes training costs, travel, and per diem.

Rental car, lodging, and per diem for two staff persons

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

APPENDIX A
PROPOSITION 64 PH&S GRANT PROGRAM COHORT 3

SCORING PANEL ROSTER

Name Title Organization
1 Guillermo Viera Rosa
(Chair)
BSCC Board Member
Director, Div. of Adult
Parole
CA Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation
2 Devin Gray Policy Research Department of Cannabis Control – Policy and Research Division
3 Jim Keddy Director Youth Forward
4 Ata Khan Planning Manager City of Pomona – Development Services
5 Charles Smith Commander Department of Cannabis Control – Law Enforcement Division
6 America Velasco Pre-Trial Services
Coordinator Solano County Superior Court

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

APPENDIX B

CRITERIA FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING
PROPOSITION 64 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY GRANT FUNDS

The Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety (Prop 64 PH&S) Grant Program Cohort 3 Request for Proposals (RFP) includes requirements that apply to non- governmental, community-based organizations. Grantees are responsible for ensuring that all contracted third parties continually meet these requirements as a condition of receiving Prop 64 PH&S Cohort 3 funds. The RFP describes these requirements as follows:

The Prop 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 RFP includes requirements that apply to non-governmental organizations that receive funds under this grant. All grantees are responsible for ensuring that a ny contracted third parties continually meet these requirements as a condition of receiving Prop 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 f unds.

The RFP describes these requirements as follows.

Any non-governmental organization that receives Prop 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 funds (as either subgrantee or subcontractor) must:

• Have been duly organized, in existence, and in good standing for at least six months prior to the effective date of its fiscal agreement (i.e., December 1, 2022) with the BSCC or with the Prop 64 PH&S grantee. Non-governmental entities that have recently reorganized or have merged with other qualified non- governmental entities that were in existence prior to the six-month date are also eligible, provided all necessary agreements have been executed and filed with the California Secretary of State prior to the start date of the grant agreement with the BSCC or the start date of the grantee-subcontractor fiscal agreement. • Be registered with the California Secretary of State’s Office, if applicable; • Have a valid business license, Employer Identification Number (EIN), and/or Taxpayer ID (if sole proprietorship);
• Have any other state or local licenses or certifications necessary to provide the services requested (e.g., facility licensing by the Department of Health Care Services), if applicable; and
• Have a physical address.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) include: community -based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs), nonprofit organizations/501(c)(3)s, evaluators (except government institutions such as universities), grant management companies and any other non- governmental agency or individual. Note: These criteria do not apply to government organizations (e.g., counties, cities, school districts, etc.).

City of Hanford
BSCC 904-22

APPENDIX B

CRITERIA FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING
PROPOSITION 64 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY GRANT FUNDS

In the table below, provide the name of the Grantee and list all contracted parties.

Grantee: City of Hanford

Grantees are required to update this list and submit it to BSCC any time a new third-party contract is executed after the initial assurance date. Grantees shall retain (on- site) applicable source documentation for each contracted party that verifies compliance with the requirements listed in the Prop 64 PH&S Grant Program Cohort 3 RFP. These records will be subject to the records and retention language found in Appendices A and C of the Standard Agreement.

The BSCC will not disburse or reimbu rse for costs incurred by any third party that does not meet the requirements listed above and for which the BSCC does not have a signed grantee assurance on file.

A signature below is an assurance that all requirements listed above have been met.

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
(This document must be signed by the person who is authorized to sign the Grant Agreement.)

NAME OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER TITLE TELEPHONE

STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

EMAIL ADDRESS

SIGNATURE (Blue Ink Only or E-signature) DATE
x

Name of Contracted Party Address Email / Phone Meets All Requirements
Yes ☐ No ☐
Yes ☐ No ☐
Yes ☐ No ☐
Yes ☐ No ☐

12.F.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 6/20/2023 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Request to Set July 18, 2023 as a public hearing and adoption of Resolution No. 23-12-R to establish a Rule 20A Underground Utility District on East Lacey Boulevard from Jessie Avenue to East of Wilson Lane.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

That the City Council, by motion:

1. Set July 18, 2023, as the date of a public hearing to determine whether the public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of utility poles/appurtenances and undergrounding of said facilities.

2. Find that the proposed Underground Utility District is exempt from CEQA analysis under Class 2 Categorical exemptions, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Division Chapter 3, Section 15302.d:
and

3. Adopt Resolution No. 23-12-R establishing an Underground Utility District along East Lacey Boulevard from Jesse Avenue to east of Wilson Lane.

BACKGROUND:

This project will fund a portion of the utility relocation costs for the city's East Lacey Improvement project. The City receives an annual allocation of funding from Southern California Edison (SCE) to fund the "undergrounding" of utility lines. Staff is recommending that Council approve this item and allow the funding to offset already programmed funding for that project, which will all the first phase of the project to include more area.

Rule 20A Project Management has reviewed the proposed Rule 20A project in the City of Hanford on E. Lacey Blvd. The Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate for the project is $1,300,000 expressed in 2025 dollars. The estimated trench footage for the project is 1,434 feet and includes all mainline trenching as well as crossings, streetlights, and service laterals. The cost of the project was escalated to the year 2025, which is the earliest anticipated year that construction can be scheduled and includes an estimated accuracy variance of + 40%. Should the City and SCE agree to proceed with the Rule 20A project, the scope of work and estimated cost of the project can be updated with greater accuracy after the final design is completed.

Based on the municipality’s allocation balance and the ROM estimate of $1,300,000, this is a viable

project. SCE will review and update the estimate prior to the start of construction to ensure an adequate allocation balance exists before proceeding with construction. SCE’s ability to proceed with this project is dependent upon the annual CPUC approved budget. for the Rule 20A program, providing the availability of capital funding and resources for the Rule 20A projects. Funding levels for the Rule 20A program may directly impact future allocations and the anticipated year of construction for this project. The ROM estimate is based on the following assumptions:

￿ SCE has an available budget to proceed with the project. ￿ The City of Hanford has accumulated an adequate allocation balance from the Rule 20A program. ￿ The City of Hanford has established an underground utility district by resolution or ordinance for this project area.

Adoption of Resolution 23-12R will allow SCE to proceed with design and lock in the project funds available.

FISCAL IMPACT:

All costs associated with the undergrounding of the utilities within this district will be borne by the Rule 20A credits with Southern California Edison Company, including the re-connection of services to all existing properties located within the proposed underground district boundaries. Any additional cost associated with the Rule 20A Underground District will be borne by the East Lacey Pedestrian Improvement Project.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No 23-12-R

2. Exhibit A - Rule 20 Limits

RESOLUTION NO. 23-12-R

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD

ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
IN LACEY BOULEVARD FROM JESSIE AVENUE TO EAST OF WILSON LANE.

At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, duly called and held on July 18, 2023, a public hearing was held to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar or associated service in Lacey Boulevard from Jessie Avenue to east of Wilson Lane (See Exhibit "A" attached), and upon a motion by Council Member _________________ and seconded by Council Member __________________ and duly carried, the following resolution was adopted;
WHEREAS notice of such hearing was given to all affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and utilities concerned in the manner and for the time required under Chapter 13.24 of the Hanford Municipal Code ("HMC"); and WHEREAS such hearing has been duly and regularly held and all persons interested have been given opportunity to be heard.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby finds and determines that the public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar or associated service in Lacey Boulevard from Jessie Avenue to east of Wilson Lane.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford finds:
(A) That such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy

concentration of overhead facilities.
(B) The street or road right-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. (C) That such undergrounding is necessary to clear the street right -of-way for future street improvements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures shall be removed and underground installations made in said Underground Ut ility District with the following times and conditions:
(A) Installation of underground conduits and structures by utility companies not later than Dec 2026.
(B) Installation and reconnection of property owner services to underground facilities by utility companies not later than Dec 2026.
(C) Removal of poles, overhead wires, and other associated overhead structures not later than Dec 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk, within ten (10) days after the adoption of this resolution, shall mail a copy hereof to affected property owners as such are shown on the last equalized roll and to the affected utilities.

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the 18th day of July 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: _______________________________________________________________ NOES: _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: _______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: _______________________________________________________________

_____________________

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 ________________ day of _______________, 2023.

Date: _______________ __________________________
Natalie Corral, City Clerk