City Council Meeting
Agenda
September 1, 2026
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
Council Members will meet in-person in the Council Chambers. Members of the Public may participate either in-person in the Council Chambers or remotely through the City’s Public Input Platform. Any member of the public may address the City Council on matters within the Council’s jurisdiction during the applicable public comment periods. Comments are limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes per speaker.
Speakers participating in person will be recognized first. Remote speakers will be recognized in the order they complete the registration process through the Public Input platform.
To participate remotely, review the instructions and register at:
https://publiccomment.hanfordca.gov/
To watch the meeting live (view only), visit:
http://livestream.hanford.city/
Members of the public may also submit written comments through the Public Input platform.
All written comments received before the close of the meeting will be included in the record.
4:00 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 AND ACTION ITEMS:
A. Direction Regarding Expansion of Zones Eligible for Wall Murals
B. Discussion About Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use in Local Government and Consideration
of Future City Guidelines or Policies
CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (GC 54956.9)(d)(1))
City of Hanford v. Puga, et al.
Kings County Superior Court Case No. 26CU0342
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8)
APN: 012-041-007
Negotiating Party: Craig Johnson
Agency Negotiators: Chris Tavarez, Jason Waters, and Ty Mizote
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8)
APN: 012-046-005
Negotiating Party: Solis Martin Vieyra & Araujo Fanny Castro Agency Negotiators: Chris Tavarez, Jason Waters, and Nick Matoian CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:
ROLL CALL:
INVOCATION:
Pastor Stan Plooy
FLAG SALUTE:
CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:
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. Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading the title only.
B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the August 4, 2026 Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the August 18, 2026 Meeting D. Administration: Approval of Agreement with Retail Strategies, LLC, for three years of retail recruitment services at annual cost of $45,000.
E. Community Development: Adopt Resolution 26-62-R, Approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0023-26 for 240 N. Irwin Street (APN 012-052-004) – Sensory Rock F. Community Development: Adopt Resolution 26-60-R, Approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26 for 104 N. Douty Street (APN 012-054-011) - STIIZY G. Public Works: Approval of Resolution 26-59-R establishing WeatherWeld Roofing Product as the City standard for roofing applications on City-owned buildings.
H. Police: Authorization to apply for the FY26/27 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control/Office of Traffic Safety (ABC/OTS) Local Law Enforcement Grant in the amount of $22,000 to be used for alcohol enforcement operation overtime costs; and if awarded, approve Resolution 26-57-R for the acceptance of the grant, amend the budget to recognize the grant, appropriate the total amount in the General Fund for the Police Department, and authorize the City Manager or Police Chief to execute the grant agreement.
I. Finance: Authorization for the City Manager to execute a five-year continuing professional services agreement with NHA Advisors, LLC for Municipal Financial Consulting on debt-related services, with costs based on services provided, with total approximate reporting costs of $55,000 over five years plus project-specific costs as agreed upon, primarily funded by the applicable enterprise funds PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Utilities and Engineering: Public Hearing and consideration of approval of Resolution 26- 61-R for City of Hanford Wastewater Fee Rate Increase effective September 2, 2026.
B. Community Development: Municipal Code Amendment 13-26, a request by the City of Hanford to introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 26-05, amending Title 15 of the Hanford Municipal Code adding Section 15.57, in order to implement a new Expedited Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Ordinance and create a streamlined EV charging station permitting process, in accordance with Assembly Bills 1236 and 970
GENERAL BUSINESS:
A. Finance: Adoption of Resolution No 26-58-R approving a joint exercise of powers agreement forming the Hanford Financing Authority
B. Community Development: Adopt Resolution No. 26-63-R initiating a long-range strategic planning process, including authorizing staff to return for the formation of a "Blue Ribbon Recreation Advisory Committee" to evaluate potential recreation projects and funding options and appropriate $20,000 from the General Fund (Reserve) for long-range strategic planning services.
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).
ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS:
At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification or may request a matter, which is not otherwise scheduled on a City Council agenda, to be placed on a future agenda. The Council Member referring the item shall provide sufficient information as to the nature of the item. The City Council, by concurrence of a majority, may direct the City Manager to put the item on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2)
A. Council Future Agenda Items
B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:
September 5: Free e-waste recycling event at the City Corporation Yard, 900 S. 10th Avenue, 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon.
September 7: City offices closed in observance of Labor Day September 15: Regular City Council Meeting
October 6: Regular City Council Meeting
October 20: 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: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION AND
ACTION ITEMS
SUBJECT:
Direction Regarding Expansion of Zones Eligible for Wall Murals
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Receive the staff report and provide direction regarding whether staff should prepare a Zone Text Amendment to expand the zoning districts in which wall murals are allowed beyond the MX-D Downtown Mixed Use Zone, including whether murals should also be allowed in the PF Public Facilities Zone and one or more commercial zones.
BACKGROUND:
Hanford Municipal Code Section 17.56.230 and the City's adopted mural policy establish the requirements for wall murals. Under the current regulations, murals are limited to properties within the MX-D Downtown Mixed Use Zone. Murals must be noncommercial, may not contain advertising copy or function as an advertisement, and require written authorization from the property owner.
Applications are reviewed by the Community Development Department for compliance with the City's mural requirements. Other permits or approvals may also be required when a mural affects a historic resource or requires work within the public right-of-way.
The existing regulations support murals as a placemaking and public art tool within Downtown Hanford. However, interest in murals may also arise at public facilities, parks, community buildings, schools, shopping centers, and other commercial properties located outside the MX-D Zone.
Because the current regulations are tied to zoning, an otherwise acceptable mural cannot be approved outside the MX-D Zone without an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and corresponding revisions to the City's mural policy.
Possible Expansion of Mural Locations
The PF Public Facilities Zone is one potential area for expansion. Properties in the PF Zone may include civic, educational, recreational, and other public or institutional facilities that can serve as appropriate locations for murals with a community, cultural, or educational purpose. Any mural would continue to require authorization from the property owner. For City-owned property, separate City approval as the property owner would also be required before a mural could be installed.
Council may also wish to consider allowing murals in one or more commercial zones. Commercial properties often contain large, visible wall areas that could accommodate murals and enhance major corridors or shopping areas. At the same time, commercial zones may be located near residential
neighborhoods or along heavily traveled streets. If commercial zones are included, Council may wish to determine whether murals should be allowed in all commercial zones or only in selected zones and whether additional location standards are appropriate.
Any amendment should continue to distinguish a mural from a commercial sign. The City's existing requirements prohibit advertising copy and murals that function as advertisements. A business logo, product promotion, pricing, or other commercial message would remain subject to the City's sign regulations rather than the mural provisions. Maintaining this distinction will allow additional public art without creating a separate means of obtaining commercial signage.
Unless Council directs otherwise, staff would retain the existing mural application and review criteria and limit the amendment to the eligible zoning districts and any location standards identified by Council. Staff would also coordinate with the City Attorney to ensure that the revised regulations remain content-neutral and are applied consistently.
Policy Options
Council may provide direction based on one of the following options:
1. Retain the current regulations. Continue to allow murals only within the MX-D Downtown Mixed Use Zone.
2. Add the PF Zone. Allow murals within the MX-D and PF zones, subject to the existing mural requirements and property-owner authorization.
3. Add the PF Zone and selected commercial zones. Direct staff to return with a Zone Text Amendment identifying the specific commercial zones in which murals would be appropriate.
4. Provide alternative direction. Identify other zones or standards for staff to evaluate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No impact
ATTACHMENTS:
None
4.B.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION AND
ACTION ITEMS
SUBJECT:
Discussion About Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use in Local Government and Consideration of Future City Guidelines or Policies
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: That City Council discuss Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use in Local Government and Consideration of Future City Guidelines or Policies
Recommended Motion: Feedback is requested. No formal action is required.
BACKGROUND:
At the request of City Council, staff has begun the process of a comprehensive examination of the City's use of artificial intelligence (AI), with the ultimate goal of establishing guidelines and/or policies related to responsible AI governance.
It is important to acknowledge that City staff members are already using various AI systems to help them do their jobs more efficiently, and in turn, better serve the City's 60,000 residents. The City currently has a ChatGPT Business Subscription with more than 30 users and also uses or subscribes to many products that have AI integrations, such as Canva, Microsoft Copilot, and multiple CivicPlus products. There are also several CivicPlus AI products the City does not currently use but may be interested in purchasing in the future, such as CivicPlus Agent, a resident-facing AI assistant that connects to your website to answer common resident questions in real time.
As a first step towards the development of AI governance standards, staff has signed up to join the GovAI Coalition, an agency whose mission is to enable public sector AI to serve the public good through resource sharing, standards, and advocacy. Founded by the City of San Jose in 2023, the Coalition is made up of more than 900 agencies from around the world (mostly the United States) and offers a "suite" of policy templates and knowledge-sharing tools that any public agency can use to jump-start their own AI governance program. Two of those templates are attached here: an Artificial Intelligence Policy and a corresponding AI Governance Handbook.
Additionally, the Coalition has multiple committees focused on a specific aspect of the agency's mission.
Readiness & Adoption Committee
Mission: Support agencies to adopt responsible AI governance and train staff to leverage AI
effectively. We build trainings for government and provide 1:1 AI governance support.
Procurement Committee
Mission: Develop best-in-class public procurement practices around AI systems. Explore cooperative purchasing opportunities among Coalition agencies.
Use Cases Committee
Mission: Facilitate knowledge-sharing and collaboration among agencies around AI use cases, including data sharing. Host demos co-presented by public agencies and private sector partners.
Industry Relations Committee
Mission: Promote and support engagement with the vendor community. Provide opportunities for vendors to document and share their offerings in alignment with Coalition values. Support agencies in identifying AI solutions that meet their needs and values.
Data Governance Committee
Mission: Share best practices for data governance and data sharing. Develop governance frameworks for AI integration, and enable interagency data collaboration.
Each of these committees has regular (virtual) meetings, and City staff plans to attend as many meetings as possible in the months to come. Additionally, staff recently attended a webinar through the California Association of Public Information Officials titled Developing an AI Policy: A Communications-First Approach and has registered for another titled Basic AI Upskilling: What to Consider When Creating Your Custom GPT Using OpenAI ChatGPT, featuring guest speakers from the City of San Jose.
Prior to the adoption of an official AI policy or guidelines, staff believes it is important to dive deeper into how AI is already being utilized by City staff through a well-designed survey that can answer key questions such as:
• How many employees are currently using AI for work?
• Which AI tools, platforms, or systems are being used? • What types of tasks or use cases are employees applying AI to? • What previous training, guidance, or education related to AI (formal or informal) have employees already received?
• What concerns or hesitations do employees have about using AI in their roles?
As GovAI states in another publication, "Taking time to survey staff on current AI use, concerns, and training needs helps agencies ground training, policy development, and future decisions in real-world use rather than assumptions." Once the surveying process is complete, staff can begin offering foundational training for staff and work towards adopting an AI policy that reflects the City's needs, values and priorities. While this policy will be developed by City staff and ultimately live within the City's Administrative Regulations (not subject to City Council review or approval), staff welcomes input from Council on broader policy principles such as public transparency of the City's AI tools and applications of AI that do not align with Council-adopted goals (such as red-lines the City should not cross). Council may also wish to amend the Hanford City Council Handbook of Rules and Procedures if it wishes to set some AI-usage standards specific to Council members (similar to when social media language was added to the handbook).
As a final note, staff will also evaluate whether it is worth attending the annual GovAI Coalition Summit, held from December 9-11, 2026 in San Jose. The Summit brings together leaders in government, industry, and civil society to develop the future of AI in the public sector. Attendees will discover cutting-edge AI trends, ethical practices, data management, hands-on workshops, share real examples of AI solutions and use cases in government. Sessions will also explore inclusive
adoption and innovative policy development.
FISCAL IMPACT
No immediate fiscal impact but potential for future impacts as the City continues to explore new AI tools or invests in AI training for staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. AI Policy Template GovAI Coalition 2025 (PDF)
2. AI Governance Handbook GovAI Coalition 2025 (PDF)
3. Starter Guide GovAI Coalition 2025 (PDF)
4. CivicPlus AI OnePager (PDF)
1 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy
[Agency]
I. Purpose
This policy establishes a comprehensive, yet flexible, governance structure for AI systems used by, or on behalf of, the [Agency]. This policy enables the [Agency] to use AI systems for the benefit of the community while safeguarding against potential harms.
The key objectives of the AI Policy are to:
• Provide guidance that is clear, easy to follow, and supports decision-making for the staff (full-time, part-time), interns, consultants, contractors, partners, and volunteers who may be purchasing, configuring, developing, operating, or maintaining the [Agency’s] AI systems or leveraging AI systems to provide services to the [Agency].
• Ensure that when using AI systems, the [Agency] or those operating on its behalf, adhere to the Guiding Principles that represent values with regards to how AI systems are purchased, configured, developed, operated, or maintained. • Define roles and responsibilities related to the [Agency’s] usage of AI systems. • Establish and maintain processes to assess and manage risks and values presented by AI systems used by the [Agency];
• Align the governance of AI systems with existing data governance, security, and privacy measures in accordance with the [Agency’s Information Security Policy] and [Agency’s Data Governance Policy].
• Define prohibited uses of AI systems;
• Establish “sunset” procedures to safely retire AI systems that no longer meet the needs of the [Agency];
• Define how AI systems may be used for legitimate [Agency] purposes in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws, and existing agency policies.
The [Agency] defines “artificial intelligence” or “AI” to be a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.1 AI systems use machine- and human- based inputs to perceive real and virtual environments; abstract such perceptions into models through analysis in an automated manner; and use model inference to formulate
1 Definition from 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).
2 options for information or action.
The [Agency] defines an “AI system” to be any data system, software, hardware, application, tool, or utility that operates in whole or in part using AI.
The [Agency’s] AI systems and the data contained therein will be purchased, configured, developed, operated, and maintained using the [Agency’s] [AI Governance Manual, or applicable handbook].
II. Scope
This policy applies to:
1. All AI systems deployed by the [Agency] or on the [Agency’s] behalf; and
2. Staff (full-time, part-time), interns, consultants, contractors, partners, and volunteers who may be purchasing, configuring, developing, operating, or maintaining the [Agency’s] AI systems or who may be leveraging AI systems to provide services to the [Agency].
III. Guiding Principles for Responsible AI Systems
These principles describe the [Agency’s] values with regards to how AI systems are purchased, configured, developed, operated, or maintained.
1. Human-Centered Design: AI systems are developed and deployed with a human- centered approach that evaluates AI powered services for their impact on the public.
2. Security & Safety: AI systems maintain confidentiality, integrity, and availability through safeguards that prevent unauthorized access and use. Implementation of AI systems is reliable and safe, and minimizes risks to individuals, society, and the environment.
3. Privacy: Privacy is preserved in all AI systems by safeguarding personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive data from unauthorized access, disclosure, and manipulation.
4. Transparency: The purpose and use of AI systems is proactively communicated and disclosed to the public. An AI system, its data sources, operational model, and policies that govern its use are understandable and documented.
5. Equity: AI systems support equitable outcomes for everyone. Bias in AI systems is effectively managed with the intention of reducing harm for anyone impacted by its use.
6. Accountability: Roles and responsibilities govern the deployment and maintenance of AI systems, and human oversight ensures adherence to relevant laws and
3 regulations.
7. Effectiveness: AI systems are reliable, meet their objectives, and deliver precise and dependable outcomes for the utility and contexts in which they are deployed.
8. Workforce Empowerment: Staff are empowered to use AI in their roles through education, training, and collaborations that promote participation and opportunity.
IV. Roles & Responsibilities
Several roles are responsible for enforcing this policy, outlined below. • The [Chief Information Officer (CIO), or equivalent] is responsible for directing [Agency] technology resources, policies, projects, services, and coordinating the same with other [Agency] departments. The [CIO, or equivalent] shall designate the [Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), or equivalent] to actively ensure AI systems are used in accordance with the [Agency Information and System Security Policy, or applicable policy]. The [CIO, or equivalent] shall also designate the [Chief AI Officer (CAIO), or equivalent].
• The [CAIO, or equivalent] is responsible for ensuring that the [Agency’s] use of AI systems is done so in accordance with this policy and the [other related Agency policy].
• The [CISO, or equivalent] is responsible for overseeing the enterprise security infrastructure, cybersecurity operations, updating security policies, procedures, standards, guidelines, and monitoring policy compliance. • The [Chief Privacy Officer (CPO), or equivalent] is responsible for overseeing the enterprise digital privacy practices, data processing practices, and responsible usage of technology in compliance with the [Agency Privacy Policy, or applicable policy].
• [Agency] departments are responsible for following this policy and following updates to this policy and the [AI Governance Manual, or applicable policy], and shall check compliance with these documents at least annually. • The [CIO or designee, or equivalent] shall notify [Agency] departments when an update to this policy or the [AI Governance Manual, or applicable policy] is released.
• The [Attorney’s Office, or equivalent] is responsible for advising of any legal issues or risks associated with AI systems usage by or on behalf of [Agency] departments.
• The [Executive Office or designee, or equivalent] may, at its discretion, inspect the usage of AI systems and require a department to alter or cease its usage of AI
4 systems or a partner’s usage of AI systems on behalf of the department. • The [Finance Department – Purchasing Office, or equivalent] is responsible for overseeing the procurement of AI systems in alignment with existing IT procurement and governance processes and requiring vendors to comply with [Agency] policy standards through contractual agreements.
V. Policy
When purchasing, configuring, developing, operating, or maintaining AI systems, the [Agency] will:
1. Uphold the Guiding Principles for Responsible AI Systems;
2. Conduct an AI Review to assess the potential risk of AI systems. The [CAIO, or equivalent] is responsible for coordinating review of AI systems used by the [Agency] as detailed in the [AI Governance Manual, or applicable policy];
3. Obtain technical documentation about AI systems using the AI FactSheet or create equivalent documentation if internally developing the AI system. The [Finance Department, Purchasing Office, or equivalent] is responsible for requiring vendors to complete the AI FactSheet;
4. Require contractors to comply with the [Requirements for AI Systems, or applicable legal addendum] overseen by the [Finance Department, Purchasing Office or equivalent]; and
5. In the event of an incident involving the use of the AI system, the [Agency] will follow an Incident Response Plan as detailed in the [AI Incident Response Plan, or equivalent]. The [CISO, or equivalent] is responsible for overseeing the security practices of AI systems used by or on behalf of [Agency] departments.
Prohibited Uses
The use of certain AI systems is prohibited due to the sensitive nature of the information processed and severe potential risk. This includes the following prohibited purposes:
• [Real-time and covert biometric identification.]
• Classification of human facial or body movements into certain emotions or sentiment with the use of computer vision techniques or emotion analysis. (e.g., positive, negative, neutral, happy, angry, nervous).]
• [Fully automated decisions that do not require any meaningful human oversight but substantially impact individuals.]
• [Social scoring, or the use of AI systems to track and classify individuals based on
5 their behaviors, socioeconomic status, or personal characteristics.] • [Cognitive behavioral manipulation of people or specific vulnerable groups.] • [Autonomous weapons systems.]
If [Agency] staff become aware of an instance where an AI system has caused harm, staff must report the instance to their supervisor and the [CAIO, or equivalent].
Sunset Procedures
If an AI system operated by the [Agency] or on its behalf ceases to provide a positive utility to the [Agency’s] residents as determined by the [CAIO, or equivalent], then the use of that AI system must be halted unless express exception is provided by the [City Manager or City Council, or equivalents]. If the abrupt cessation of the use of that AI system would significantly disrupt the delivery of [Agency] services, usage of the AI system shall be gradually phased out over time.
Public Records
The [Agency] is subject to the [applicable public records act policy]. [Agency] staff must follow all current procedures for records retention and disclosure.
Policy Enforcement
All employees and agents of the [Agency], whether permanent or temporary, interns, volunteers, contractors, consultants, vendors, and other third parties operating AI systems on behalf of the [Agency] are required to abide by this Policy and the associated [AI Governance Manual, or applicable policy].
VI. Violations of the AI Policy
Violations of any section of the AI Policy, including failure to comply with the [Agency’s] [AI Governance Manual, or applicable handbook], may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Violations made by a third party while operating an AI system on behalf of the [Agency] may result in a breach of contract and/or pursuit of damages. Infractions that violate local, state, federal or international law may be remanded to the proper authorities.
VII. Exceptions (optional)
Staff, as described in the scope of this policy, must adhere to all controls outlined in this policy document unless a specific documented exception is explicitly granted by [CAIO, or equivalent]. Policy violations that have not been formally documented as an exception will be treated as a security incident in accordance with [Agency] policy. [Agency] staff or Departments may encounter emergency situations that necessitate the immediate use of AI tools or technologies. In these circumstances, each incident use case must obtain documented approval via the [Department Director, or equivalent] prior to use. In such situations, the [Department, staff or equivalent] must submit the [Department] approved use case to the [CAIO, or equivalent] for review within [30 days, or other duration] of the
6 incident.
Restricted Platform Alternatives (optional)
In the event that the [Agency] restricts access to certain AI platforms, whenever practicable, the [Agency] will provide a URL redirect to a [Agency intranet website] that will provide the employee with alternative AI platforms which have been vetted and approved by the [Agency] for use.
The purpose of this policy is to help prevent the exfiltration of [Agency] data to personal devices which would violate [Agency Acceptable Use Policies, Privacy Policy, Information Security Policy]. This approach allows employees to choose amongst various platforms which meet applicable privacy and security standards established by the [Agency] to facilitate productivity.
The [CISO, or equivalent] will designate a department to perform regular assessments of AI platforms and to regularly monitor such platforms so that the [Agency] can restrict and remove access in the event of a security or privacy incident.
VIII. Terms & Definitions
Artificial Intelligence: “Artificial intelligence” or “AI” to be a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. Artificial intelligence systems use machine- and human-based inputs to perceive real and virtual environments; abstract such perceptions into models through analysis in an automated manner; and use model inference to formulate options for information or action.
Algorithm: A series of logical steps through which an agent (typically a computer or software program) turns particular inputs into particular outputs.
AI system: Any system, software, sensor, or process that automatically generates outputs including, but not limited to, predictions, recommendations, or decisions that augment or replace human decision-making. This extends to software, hardware, algorithms, and data generated by these systems, used to automate large-scale processes or analyze large data sets.
Additional terms and definitions are provided in the AI Governance Manual.
IX. Acknowledgement
This policy was developed through the coordinated efforts of thousands in the GovAI Coalition who empower governments to leverage AI for the public good.
Approved:
7 [Chief Information Officer or
equivalent]
Date
Approved for posting:
[Director of Employee Relations
Director of Human Resources, or
equivalents]
Date
1 AI Governance Handbook
[Agency]
Maintained and updated by:
[Agency’s] [AI Office, or equivalent]
[Email address]
Last updated:
[Month Day, Year]
2 Purpose
The [Agency] AI Governance Handbook provides guidance on how to comply with the [Agency] AI Policy. Refer to this manual for all matters relating to [Agency] AI usage, including purchasing, procurement, governance, incident response, and education.
This document covers the following topics:
1. AI Policy: The foundational document for the [Agency’s] approach to AI; refer to the “Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy”
2. AI Review: Required for all new technology procurements and data initiatives that involve an AI system; see “AI Review”
3. AI Governance: The framework for managing and monitoring the full lifecycle of all [Agency] AI systems; see “Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance”
4. Domain-Specific Guidelines: Guidance for [Agency] staff in using specific types of AI. This manual includes guidance for:
a. [Include GenAI guidelines if you would like]
b. [Include AI meeting tools guidelines if you would like] c. …
This document will continue to be updated to provide the latest information on the [Agency’s] AI Policy and practices.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Artificial Intelligence in [Agency] ................................................................................................................................... 4 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Identifying AI ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 AI Governance ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Governance Structure ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 AI Policy Roles & Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................ 6 AI Review................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 What needs an AI Review? ............................................................................................................................................ 8 AI Review Framework: At a Glance........................................................................................................................... 9 AI Review Framework: Step-by-Step .................................................................................................................... 12 Protocol for a Request for Proposals ......................................................................................................................... 23 Use of the RFP Protocol ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................................................. 29
4 Artificial Intelligence in [Agency]
Background
[Insert relevant information about Agency’s use of and regulation of AI.] This handbook provides detail into the [Agency’s] AI governance established by the [Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy, or equivalent]. As the [Agency’s] AI governance practices and the AI industry mature, the [Agency’s] relevant policies and this manual will continue to evolve.
Identifying AI
“AI” and “AI system” are defined in the [“Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy”, or equivalent].
In practice, the [Agency] uses a checklist of questions to identify AI systems.1 Procurement officers who process technology proposals may make particular use of this checklist. A technology may be considered an “AI system” if it elicits positive answers to any of the following questions:
• Does the technology use data to provide predictions, recommendations, insights, or decisions?
• Does the technology augment or replace human decision-making? • Does the company use words such as “personalized”, “tailored”, and “adaptive” in its marketing?
Although the [Agency] may identify a technology as an AI system, not all AI systems require a full AI Review. Learn more about the medium and high-risk AI systems that require full review in the section “AI Review Process: Step by Step, Step 2: Risk Analysis”.
The figure below illustrates the relationship between an algorithm and an AI system.
Consider the example of an AI system designed to change traffic lights based on the presence of a bicyclist. While the algorithm’s sole function is to identify a bicyclist, the AI system changes the traffic light to accommodate the bicyclist identified by the algorithm.
1 This checklist is inspired by The EdTech Equity Project’s school procurement guide.
5 Figure 1: Example of an algorithm and an AI system. In this example the algorithm identifies if a bicyclist exists in the photo. That algorithm is then used in an AI system to turn a bike light green at an intersection.
6 AI Governance
Governance Structure
The governance of AI systems in the [Agency] involves several actors, policies, and practices that work in coordination to ensure that the [Agency] uses AI tools in a responsible manner. The diagram below explains the roles and responsibilities of actors in the [Agency] who frequently participate in AI governance activities.
AI Policy Roles & Responsibilities
Members of the public that your agency serves
• The [Agency] is ultimately accountable to the members of the public that it serves.
For AI uses cases that present a high potential risk, the [Agency] aims to involve the public in the process of reviewing and deploying the AI system. In general, the [Agency] aims to be transparent about how it uses AI with the broader public.
Final Authority
• [Greatest authority of agency that may need to be involved in certain high-risk applications of AI (e.g., City Council, Board of Supervisors, etc.)] Escalated Authority
• The [Chief Information Officer (CIO), or equivalent] approves AI-related policies set forth by the [Chief AI Officer (CAIO), or equivalent] and, if applicable, sends them to [Final agency authority] for final approval.
• The [Attorney Office, or equivalent] reviews AI-related policies from a legal perspective.
• The [Purchasing & Risk Management Office, or equivalent] reviews procurement requests. They may refer procurement requests to the [CAIO, or equivalent] if the procurement seems to involve some technology or AI system. • Reviewing Authority
• The [CAIO, or equivalent] is the main actor in AI governance activities and responsible for creating AI-related policies and guidance for the [Agency]. The [CAIO, or equivalent] is responsible for ensuring all procurement requests that involve an AI system are given an AI review.
• The [Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), or equivalent] is responsible for ensuring technology procurement requests are reviewed from a cybersecurity perspective.
Department Stakeholders
• Any [Agency] department may submit a procurement request for an AI system. • Departments can propose pilots, ideas, or potential use cases of AI. • Departments have a designated AI lead, responsible for interfacing with the [CAIO, or equivalent] to ensure department is following [Agency] practices. The AI lead also raises concerns from the department around AI to the [CAIO, or equivalent]. • [Pending capacity of organization, if departments have their own CAIOs or equivalents] Department’s [CAIO, or equivalent] serves as a first line for reviewing
7 all technology. They may conduct a threshold analysis, or a deeper AI impact assessment depending on their assessed risk level of the project.
AI Working Group (AIWG)
Led by [CAIO, or equivalent], employees from various departments in the AIWG discuss AI - related issues and projects in the [Agency]. The AIWG is composed of department AI leads and potentially other department representatives.
AI Advisory Group
Led by [CAIO, or equivalent], external stakeholders advise the [CAIO, or equivalent] and the [CIO, or equivalent] on the policies and activities related to the [Agency’s] AI governance.
The Advisory Group consists of external stakeholders, including AI experts from industry, academia, civil rights, and members of the public. The Advisory Group meets [quarterly, or other regular basis] to discuss AI topics with the [CAIO, or equivalent]. While the Advisory Group plays a critical role in informing the [Agency]’s decisions, decision-making power remains within the [Agency].
8 AI Review
Introduction
In addition to the [Agency’s] privacy, cyber, infrastructure, and data review protocols, the [CAIO, or equivalent] conducts an AI Review to ensure that the proposed AI system complies with the [Agency’s] Guiding Principles for Responsible AI, and relevant privacy policies (in consultation with the [Attorney’s Office, or equivalent]). While not all steps of the [Agency’s] AI Review protocols may be necessary or appropriate for every project, the protocol provides the general review framework for any project.
It is important to note that throughout the product lifecycle of all AI systems, there should be a consistent and continuous review of the technology through a human-centric lens.
Consistent review allows the [Agency] to ensure that the AI system continues to provide value and protects against potential harms going undetected.
What needs an AI Review?
Not all AI systems, whether out-of-the-box or customized, require a full-fledged AI Review.2 Simple rule-based systems, which rely on a series of hard-coded conditional rules to produce one of multiple pre-defined outputs, may not be subject to the AI Review process.
In contrast, algorithm-based systems, which rely on complex logic to make predictions based on patterns in a set of training data, are more frequently subject to the AI Review process. As a general rule, AI systems should be reviewed on a regular basis (e.g., annually, quarterly, etc.).
Whether an AI system is subject to an AI Review also depends on the potential risk of the AI system in question. To classify the risk of an AI system, the [CAIO, or equivalent] conducts a risk threshold assessment before initiating an AI review of a given proposal (see the subsection “Step 2: Risk Analysis” within the section “AI Review Process: Step by Step” for more information on the risk threshold assessment).
2 It is important to note that vendors contracted under professional, personal, or general consulting agreements may be using AI based tools on the [Agency’s] behalf. When evaluating professional services agreements, determine if the vendor may be using AI systems to generate reports, analyze data, or provide insights and request information about such systems. Depending on the circumstances, the [Agency] may wish to also review such third-party AI systems in accordance with the same rules and policies described below.
9 See the chart below for examples of AI systems that do and do not require an AI Review.
These examples are not exhaustive, but rather are meant to guide and reinforce concepts.
AI Review is always required AI Review may be required [optional]
1. Predictive policing system that impacts
the deployment of agency resources
2. Identity recognition based on one-to-
many matching (e.g., license plate
reader, facial recognition)
3. AI system that meets organizational
thresholds that require an RFP
according to [procurement or contracts
team]
4. Automated decision-making system
that automates a decision which
traditionally requires human review
5. AI systems that impact or integrate
with infrastructure systems consistent
with [Agency] services (e.g., translation
service for 311)
1. General website recommendations (e.g.,
recommended videos on the [Agency’s]
YouTube channel)
2. Personalized notification system for
[Agency] events
3. Strictly rule-based logic (e.g., an
accounting software to calculate taxes
owed, a motion-detection based alarm
system)
Figure 2: An example list of AI systems that do and do not require an AI Review.
AI Review Framework: At-a-Glance
The AI Review Framework guides the [Agency] in reviewing AI systems during the procurement process. The Framework outlines the actions that AI governance practitioners should take from the early project proposal stage to final approval and ongoing monitoring of the AI system.
To understand how the AI Review process is adapted for Request for Proposals (RFP), refer to the section “Request for Proposals (RFP) AI Review Protocol”.
10 Figure 3: AI Review Framework.
1. Procurement Request or Existing Application Update:
Departments seeking to procure an AI system first engage the [CAIO, or equivalent] to discuss their technology proposal. Departments should provide existing material related to the project, including details on project purpose, data collected and specific uses and benefits of automating a process, recommendation, or decision.
2. Risk Analysis:
The [CAIO, or equivalent] conducts an “AI Risk Threshold Analysis” to assess the risk of the proposed AI system and to determine if the project necessitates a full- fledged assessment. Step 2 below provides further guidance and examples of risk on a gradient scale from low-risk to high-risk.3
3. Assessment:
The [CAIO, or equivalent] facilitates the following steps to evaluate the potential risks and benefits of the proposed AI system.
3 It is important for the [Agency] to understand and document its risk tolerance for AI systems. Key considerations that may be helpful for assessing an institution’s risk tolerance include:
- What experience does [Agency] have with AI?
- What are [Agency’s] existing risk management frameworks and practices? - Who are the key stakeholders involved in [Agency’s] AI strategy? - Are there any specific regulations or policies that will influence [Agency’s] use of AI?
11 The following steps should be adhered to in accordance with the [Agency’s] risk tolerance:
a. Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) Form: The business-owning department(s) completes the required AIA Form, or equivalent. b. AI FactSheet: The vendor completes the required AI FactSheet. The [CAIO, or equivalent] may work with the vendor to obtain more details about the AI system. Equivalent information should be provided if the AI system is developed internally.
i. If request involves a Request for Proposals (RFP): The vendor may not be determined at this time. Require potential vendor(s) to complete the AI FactSheet. See “Request for Proposals (RFP) AI Review Protocol” for guidance on RFP questions.
4. Public Engagement:
If the proposed AI system is considered of particular public interest, the [CAIO, or equivalent] conducts in-person outreach, targeting communities with limited access to online comments (either due to language or internet access issues). Community feedback is then incorporated into the [Data Usage Protocol or equivalent].
The [Agency] should prioritize reducing barriers for public participation, particularly for those directly impacted by the AI system, especially historically marginalized or disadvantaged communities.
5. Final Review:
Projects are reviewed by the [CAIO and Cybersecurity Office, or equivalents]. The [CAIO, or equivalent] provides assessment, approval/denial, and/or recommendations.
At [CIO’s, or equivalent] discretion, a review may rise to a relevant [Council Committee, or equivalent].
6. Pre-Launch Preparation:
a. Data Usage Protocol: Medium-risk and high-risk AI systems may necessitate the creation of a Data Usage Protocol or data governance process to govern the collection, access, processing, and sharing of data around the AI system to ensure that the project complies with the [Agency’s] [Privacy Policy, or equivalent].
b. AI Inventory: The approved project proposal is added to a publicly viewable online inventory of the AI systems deployed by the [Agency]. 5 The AIA Form and AI FactSheet are made publicly available online. The [CAIO, or equivalent] regularly updates the AI Inventory as new AI systems are adopted and archives old systems as they are phased out of use. c. Training: Users of the approved AI system are given training to properly deploy, operate, and maintain the technology. Training is often provided by the vendor or other third party.
12 7. Ongoing Monitoring: Departments report annual metrics defined in the [Data Usage Protocol or equivalent]. Reports usually require metrics on data usage and project effectiveness. Annual reports are added to the AI system’s entry in the AI Inventory. Public can comment on data usage and annual updates online at [website link].
AI Review Framework: Step-by-Step
The previous section provided a high-level summary of the AI Review Framework. In this section, each of the seven steps that comprise the AI Review Framework are explained in greater detail.
Step 1: Proposal
An AI Review is triggered when a business-owning department in the [Agency] department submits a procurement request for a technology involving an AI system. An AI Review can also be initiated when a vendor has made updates to a product’s functionality or released a new version of the AI system.
In cases where a solicitation does not explicitly ask for an AI system, add requirements language asking vendors to report any proposed use of AI as part of their proposal submissions.
An AI Review can be formally initiated through the [Agency’s helpdesk site, or equivalent].
For a consultation on potential projects, to initiate an informal “AI Risk Threshold Analysis”, or to ask any questions, contact the [AI Office, or equivalent] directly at [email address]. To see a list of AI systems currently used by the [Agency], refer to the online AI Inventory here [insert link].
Step 2: Risk Analysis
The [Agency] will conduct a risk analysis on the proposal to determine if a full-fledged review is required for the system. The review will be overseen by [CAIO, or equivalent person responsible for managing AI reviews].
[There are many different approaches to evaluating AI risk. Prevailing approaches include tiered risk systems4 (e.g., red light, yellow light, green light method) and principle-based risk analysis5 (e.g., AI ethics nutrition label).]
The [Agency] aligns its approach to risk with the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF). While the NIST AI RMF does not necessarily describe exactly how to evaluate AI risk, the AI RMF defines characteristics of trustworthy AI and provides important guidance for organizations that seek to build governance and risk management processes for AI
4 https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/a-framework-assessing-ai-risk 5https://www.bertelsmann-
stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/WKIO_2020_final.pdf
13 systems.6 The AI RMF recognizes privacy as a fundamental characteristic of responsible AI systems and aligns with privacy principles for data minimization, purpose limitation, transparency and individual rights to data. Risk analysis should include considerations for alignment with these principles.
While there are many methods to evaluating AI risk, the approach outlined below is designed to be easily implemented by public sector practitioners. Those working in the public sector are often constrained by scarce resources and limited personnel capacity. The AI Risk Threshold Analysis is intended to be a practical tool that balances real-world constraints with the need to adequately ascertain the risk of an AI system.
In the AI Risk Threshold Analysis model, the impacted individual’s inability to opt-out of the use of the AI system and the severity of potential harm of the AI system are the two main factors for evaluating AI risk (see Figure 4).7
Figure 4: The risk of an AI system can be estimated by identifying the impacted individual’s inability to opt - out of the use of the AI system and the severity of potential harm posed by the system.
The components of potential harm consist of the type of output, the level of oversight, the area of impact, the duration of impact, and the reversibility of the impact.
Although the AI Risk Threshold Analysis provides a systematic method for evaluating AI risk, estimating the risk of an AI system will vary for each context. For example, the
6 NIST AI Risk Management Framework: https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework and example applications: https://airc.nist.gov/Usecases.
7 The AI Risk Threshold Analysis model is partly inspired by the risk matrix found in AI Ethics Impact Group’s “From Principles to Practice: An interdisciplinary framework to operationalise AI ethics”. https://www.bertelsmann-
stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/WKIO_2020_final.pdf
14 distinction between a short-term and mid-term impact can be unclear and context- dependent; should a duration of one month be considered a short-term or a mid-term impact? The answer will depend on the unique context in which the AI system is being deployed and on the values of the community (see “Step 4: Public Engagement”). Is an AI- powered chatbot that leverages ChatGPT to provide residents information about applying to social welfare programs a mid-risk or a high-risk system? Again, the answer is highly context-dependent and requires the contextual and subject matter expertise of the [CAIO, department-specific authorized individual, or equivalent].
It is possible for an AI system to simultaneously possess characteristics typically associated with both mid-risk AI systems and characteristics typically associated with high-risk AI systems. Categorizing these complex sociotechnical manifestations of risk is not always straightforward and requires the discretion of the practitioner conducting the risk analysis.
When the risk level of an AI system is unclear, a good rule of thumb is to default to the higher risk categorization and conduct a full-fledged AI Review.
While estimating AI risk is not clearcut and requires the discretion of the [CAIO, department-specific authorized individual, or equivalent], it can nevertheless be helpful when triaging risk to reference characteristics typically associated with low-, mid-, or high- risk AI systems. The tables below feature characteristics that tend to be associated with low-, mid-, and high-risk AI systems, along with examples of each risk archetype commonly found in the public sector. The tables below are non-exhaustive and are intended to aid practitioners in thinking about AI risk.
Low-risk AI Systems
Description Low-risk: AI system that involves an opt-in approach to a person being subject to the system. The system
generates predictions but does not automate decision-
making and involves anonymized information used to
provide general improvements to the [Agency]. Notice is provided upon collection if any personal information is involved. The effects or impacts of the system are
reversible, and typically short-term.
Characteristics • Data Collection: Notice is provided upon collection if any personal information is
involved, as well as documentation to support
the safe storage and handling of data.
• Inferential: AI System provides analysis,
insights, or predictions but these are for
informational purposes only and are not tied to
automated decision-making.
• Negligible impact on humans: The AI system is
used for non-critical tasks with no negative
material impact for humans.
• Mundane applications: The AI assists with
routine tasks like text completion.
• Accuracy and Validity: Accuracy and validity
metrics for the AI system are known.
15 • Transparency: Access to appropriate levels of
information based on the stage of the AI
system’s lifecycle is provided and tailored to the
role or knowledge of individuals interacting
with the AI system.
• Explainable and interpretable: The meaning
of the AI system’s output(s) is understood in the
context of its designed functional purpose.
Examples of low-risk AI systems • Software that generates a comprehensive profile of a client by aggregating inputted data.
• A process that matches users to a basic
administrative outcome such as time slots for
appointments or next available client services
specialist.
• A system or tool that permits the operations of
basic computer processes such as opening
programs, sending electronic communications,
autocorrecting, or using a calculator.
• The use of generative AI for general research
purposes, where the outputs are not included in
public documents, policies, or decision-making
frameworks.
Medium-risk AI Systems
Description Medium-risk: AI system that involves identifiable information to provide targeted government services
desired by the data owner with periodic oversight.
Notice is provided at time of collection and often
requires written consent. The system may have a short-
to medium-term impact on quality of life factors.
Characteristics • Data Collection: Notice is provided upon collection of sensitive personal information, but
it is unknown how data is stored and handled.
• Opt-out consent: Users are automatically
enrolled unless they actively choose to opt out.
• Accuracy and Validity: Accuracy and validity
metrics for the AI system are mostly known.
• Transparency: Access to appropriate levels of
information based on the stage of the AI Systems
lifecycle is somewhat provided and tailored to
general roles of individuals interacting with the
AI system.
• Explainable and interpretable: To a limited
extent, the output(s) can be related back to
inputs and model assumptions.
• Human Oversight: The AI system offers
suggestions, insights or predictions, but humans
retain final decision-making power.
• Economic impact: Has minor impact on
workforce and economic opportunity.
16 • Periodic oversight: Human monitoring occurs
at intervals, not continuously.
• Moderate impact: The AI system may
temporarily impact quality of life, but has
minimal long-term risks, such as economic, legal,
or reputational consequences.
Examples of mid-risk AI systems • Recruiting software that recommends relevant job openings to candidates based on their skills
and experience, and final hiring decisions
remain with human recruiters.
• An AI model that evaluates loan applications
based on financial data, but human loan officers
make the final approval or denial decisions.
• Marketing and advertising software that tailors
ads to users' interests based on online behavior,
while users retain control over their data and
opt-out options.
• A tutoring software that tailors learning based
on student data, however the student or the
student’s parents can choose the learning
pathway and material difficulty.
High-risk AI Systems
Description High-risk: AI system that is potentially rights-impacting or safety-impacting within areas such as: critical
infrastructure, biometrics, legal representation, and
highly sensitive personal information traditionally kept hidden, like Social Security Numbers, credit card
numbers, etc. The high-risk system may automate
decision-making, have significant material impact on
quality of life, and be subject to minimal or no human
oversight.
Characteristics • Compulsory: Users have no opt-out option and are automatically subjected to the AI system.
• Data Collection: No notice or documentation is
provided regarding collection, storage, and
handling of personal data.
• Automated Decisions: The AI directly drives
decisions with minimal or no human
involvement.
• Minimal Oversight: Human monitoring is
either absent or very infrequent.
• Significant Impact: Decisions made by the AI
system can profoundly affect quality of life,
including:
o Employment: Job opportunities, hiring
or firing decisions, salary
recommendations.
o Healthcare: Diagnosis, treatment plans,
eligibility for care.
o Criminal Justice: Risk assessment, bail
17 determinations, sentencing
recommendations.
o Public Safety: Conflict resolution,
suspect selection, ticketing and fines,
resource allocation.
o Economic: Automated social services
benefit distribution, audits.
o Sensitive Data: The AI system likely
processes highly sensitive personal data
with significant consequences for
misuse.
o Financial: Automated spending which
has the potential to violate liquidity and
use-of-funds requirements, automated
loan acceptance/denial.
o Infrastructure: The reduction of
internet bandwidth or power being
inconsistent with the needs of the
public.
Examples of high-risk AI systems • Generative AI that creates realistic, yet fabricated, videos or audio recordings, posing
risks for misinformation and reputational harm.
• A system that estimates individual risk factors
for insurance, credit, employment, or healthcare
without human oversight in decision-making,
potentially leading to bias and discrimination.
• An autonomous weapons system that can
choose and engage targets without human
intervention.
• A biometric and facial recognition software that
identifies individuals in real-time based on facial
features, raising privacy and potential bias
concerns.
• A system that recommends criminal sentences
based on offender data and prior sentencing
outcomes from historical case data.
Step 3: Assessment
During the assessment stage, the business-owning department(s) fills out the required Algorithmic Impact Assessment Form for the [CAIO, or equivalent] and the vendor completes the AI FactSheet. Higher-risk projects require a Data Usage Protocol to guide how the project complies with the [Agency’s] [Privacy Policy, or equivalent]. Lower-risk projects do not need to undergo a full-fledged review.
Algorithmic Impact Assessment Form
The Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) Form is completed by staff from the business- owning department procuring the system.8 The AIA Form consists of questions that are
8 See an example of a completed AIA Form from the City of San Jose here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/94187/638107653163800000.
18 intended to capture information about the business needs of the procuring department and the intended use of the AI system. The AIA Form requires staff to consider potential opportunities and risks presented by the AI system. Responses to the AIA Form allow the [CAIO, or equivalent] to determine if the proposed AI system can meet the procuring department’s stated needs and identify associated risks. The AIA Form should consist of questions including, but not limited to:
• Project objective:
o Please clearly describe the project use case, the current process, and the desired outcome.
o Which [Agency and Department] is owning this system?
o Who in the [Agency and Department] is responsible for this system? o Why does your department choose automation as an approach to this problem? What other approaches to solving this problem were considered (if any) and what led to choosing automation?
• Vendor details:
o Will the AI system be designed, developed, deployed, or maintained by vendors or third parties?
o How can the agency test the AI system before it is put into use? • Privacy
o How will the AI system be used in accordance with privacy principles, including data minimization, purpose limitation, data security, transparency, and individual rights to their data?
o How closely does the AI system align with [Agency and Department] privacy [Policy, Regulations or Guiding Principles]?
• Transparency:
o How do individuals receive a notice in advance of interacting with the AI system? (For example, if a user is interacting with a chatbot, the system may provide notice by informing the user they are talking to a chatbot instead of a human.)
o How can third-party auditors easily view the AI system’s data to perform evaluations?
o How could AI system operators or residents know if the system outputs an error? What ability will they have to correct or appeal an error? • Equity:
o What individuals and communities will interact with the AI system? For example, is the algorithm used on the general population (technology used in many public areas) or a specific group (e.g., children in a school program, a single neighborhood)?
o What is the communication plan for relevant stakeholders? o How likely is it that the AI system impacts protected classes (e.g., children under the age of 18, senior citizens, people with disabilities, etc.)? o Does this use case, and the information/decisions generated by the AI system, impact an individual’s right or freedoms (e.g., if the AI system helps determine if a suspect can be put on bail or must remain in jail)?
19 o Does this use case, and the information/decisions generated by the AI system, impact an individual’s economic status (e.g., if the AI system helps determine if an individual can apply to affordable housing)? o Does this use case, and the information/decisions generated by the AI system, impact an individual’s health, healthcare, well-being (e.g., if the AI system helps determine an individual’s likeliness for colon cancer)? o Do decisions from the AI system impact the environment? (e.g., potential impact to carbon emissions, high tech waste)?
o What issues could arise if the AI system is inaccurate? o What issues could arise if the AI system is misused or abused? o Have constituents raised objections, issues, complaints about the adoption of this technology with regard to impacts on their rights and/or discrimination? • Human oversight
o Please describe the level of autonomy of the AI system. ▪ System operates automatically with no human intervention ▪ System operates automatically with occasional retrospective reviews by humans
▪ System operates automatically with opportunity for human to override any individual action
▪ System produces recommendations but cannot act without human intervention
o If there is human intervention in the AI system, is it by the vendor, department, or both?
o Please list the roles/divisions that will be utilizing the system, or managing the deployment and use of the AI system.
o How does the department or vendor provide training and resources to personnel to help them develop the skills they need to effectively operate the AI system?
o In the event that the AI system does not work or is deemed to be inaccurate, what back-up measures are in place to continue providing services? In other words, can the [Agency] continue to provide the service without the AI system, and how would it do that?
• Accessibility
o How does the AI system integrate and interact with commonly used assistive technologies (e.g., screen readers, voice recognition software, etc.)? o How will individuals with accessibility needs be able to interact with the user interface?
o How will feedback regarding the system be collected from individuals with accessibility needs?
o How will feedback from individuals with accessibility needs be implemented into the system?
o Where will accessibility features and resources be documented and readily available?
o Will there be specialized training for individuals with accessibility needs? • Liability
20 o Who in the [Agency] will ultimately be accountable and responsible if the system fails to operate as intended?
o Who in the [Agency] has the authority to stop or limit the AI system’s use? o If the AI system fails or temporarily stops working, what are the alternative options to ensure there is no loss of service?
AI FactSheet
The AI FactSheet is completed by the vendor of the AI system and captures basic facts about the AI system. The AI FactSheet enables the [CAIO, or equivalent] to better understand the technical details of the AI system and ultimately assess the risks and benefits it presents. The AI FactSheet is intended to capture information including, but not limited to:
• Training data
• Testing data
• Input and outputs
• Performance metrics
• Optimal conditions
• Poor conditions
• Bias
The [CAIO, or equivalent] will work with the vendor as needed to obtain necessary technical details about the AI system.
Step 4: Public Engagement
If the proposed AI system presents a significant potential risk or is of particular public interest, the [CAIO, or equivalent] conducts in-person outreach, targeting communities with limited access to online comments (either due to language or internet access issues).
Community feedback is then incorporated into the [Data Usage Protocol or equivalent].
The [Agency] should prioritize reducing barriers for public participation, particularly for those directly impacted by the AI system, especially historically marginalized or disadvantaged communities.
Public engagement can occur online, in-person, and in the built environment. Below are examples of formats for public engagement:
• Online
o Interactive website portal: Create a dedicated website where citizens can submit feedback on specific AI initiatives, participate in surveys, and engage in discussions.
o Social media town halls: Host live Q&A sessions on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or X where experts discuss AI and answer public questions.
o Online forums and communities: Create dedicated online forums or communities, possibly on sites like LinkedIn or Reddit, focused on AI policy and development.
• In-person
21 o Public workshops and town halls: Organize in-person events where citizens can learn about AI, hear from experts, and discuss their concerns and suggestions. In addition, create interactive activities like brainstorming sessions to gain feedback.
o Community outreach programs: Partner with local organizations, libraries, and community centers to host AI education and feedback sessions. o Citizen advisory boards: Establish a diverse advisory board of citizens to provide ongoing feedback on AI development and policy.
o Focus groups and interviews: Conduct targeted focus groups and interviews with specific demographics or stakeholders to gather in-depth feedback on specific AI applications or concerns.
• Built environment
o Interactive kiosks and installations: Install interactive kiosks in public spaces like libraries, parks, or government buildings where citizens can learn about AI and provide feedback through surveys, polls, or open-ended questions. o "Living labs" for testing AI applications: Designate specific areas or neighborhoods as "living labs" where citizens can experience and provide feedback on prototype AI applications in real-world settings. • Additional considerations
o Accessibility and inclusivity: Ensure all feedback channels are accessible to people with disabilities and diverse backgrounds. Use multiple languages, alternative formats, and assistive technologies.
o Transparency and communication: Clearly communicate the purpose of collecting feedback, how it will be used, and how citizens can stay informed about the process.
o Data privacy and security: Implement data security measures to protect citizen privacy and ensure feedback is handled ethically and responsibly.
Step 5: Review
After the necessary documentation and public engagement has been completed, the [CAIO and other IT divisions] reviews the proposal and provides final approval or rejection of the proposal.
Depending on the level of risk presented by the proposal, this step may involve gaining approval from [City Council, or equivalent]. The review may require input from the [Attorney’s Office, or equivalent] or other relevant departments on a case-by-case basis.
Based on the review by [CAIO or Council, or equivalents], in some instances, the proposal may need to be revised before being approved.
Step 6: Pre-Launch Preparation
Following approval, relevant documentation will be published on webpage, including:
• Data Usage Protocol: An electronic copy of the Data Usage Protocol is added to the [digital privacy webpage, or equivalent].
• AI Inventory: If the project features an AI system, the approved project proposal is added to a publicly viewable online register of the AI systems deployed by the [Agency].8 The [AIA Form and AI FactSheet, or equivalents] are also made published
22 online. The [CAIO, or equivalent] regularly updates the AI Inventory as new AI systems are adopted and archives old systems as they are phased out of use.
Prior to implementation, relevant parties (e.g., staff in business-owning department) are given training to properly deploy, operate, and maintain the technology. Training is often provided by the vendor or other third party.
Step 7: Ongoing Monitoring
The AI FactSheet should be maintained by the vendor and a new version should be submitted to the [Agency] when updates are made to the AI system that result in a material change in the information reported in the AI FactSheet. The Data Usage Protocol for a given technology proposal may require that the business-owning department of the AI system submits an [Annual, or other frequency] Usage Report. The report is drafted by the applicable department(s) and may detail:
1. Project summary
2. Required performance metrics as defined in the Data Usage Protocol (e.g., accuracy, effectiveness, cost)
3. Future plans for the technology initiative (e.g., project expansion, shift in usage)
4. Feedback on the AI system performance
23 Protocol for a Request for Proposals
Prior to issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) or similar procurement process, departments should review the proposed solution to discern if it includes an AI component.
Contact the [CAIO, or equivalent] directly at [email address], file a procurement request, or reach out to your department's [AI representative, or equivalents] to trigger an AI Review.
RFPs should incorporate questions that demand transparency around how the AI model works, clarify what protocols for human oversight are in place, and confirm that there are mechanisms for user review.
In consideration of the [Agency’s] public records obligations and transparency commitments, all vendors subject to the use of the protocols outlined in this document through the RFP process should be preemptively informed of [Agency’s] intended or required disclosure practices around bid documentation.
Use of the RFP Protocol
This document should be used in conjunction with the AI FactSheet, AI Review, and Vendor Agreement during the public procurement process. This document assumes the following RFP process:
1) Establish minimum requirements AI vendors must meet to be considered for [Agency]/Project bid and local procurement laws.
2) Publish AI FactSheet as part of the Agency’s RFP solicitation documentation. Require vendors to provide a completed AI FactSheet as part of their formal bid or proposal. 3) Subject Matter Expert (SME) will ask vendor additional questions provided in this document.
Below is an illustrative example of assessment questions and a scoring model of how to evaluate answers to these questions for an AI system. Recommended point values on a scale of zero to five are also provided for each category. Each section of assessment questions includes a “non-technical” question that asks the vendor to provide an answer in plain language that can be easily understood by a non-technical audience.
Any scoring methodology associated with evaluation of RFP bids is determined independently by [Agency] in alignment of [Agency’s] stated principles and priorities.
Please use this as a guide or rubric for best practices. It is the vendor’s responsibility to be responsive to these questions, and it is the SME’s responsibility to ensure that the vendor provides meaningful answers to the assessment questions.
Assessment Questions
1. System Overview
• Brief summary of the AI system.
• Purpose of the AI system, the intended use case, and users. • Relevant context to the technology and maturity of the vendor. • What is the [Agency or Department] policy on data collection, storage, and distribution?
24 • Training materials and implementation plan.
• Non-technical: Can you provide a non-technical overview of how your AI system operates and its key functionalities?
2. Data Training and Model Description
• How was the AI system trained, and what data was used? • How often is data added to the training set?
• What data was used to test system performance?
• What conditions has the system been tested under?
• Provide a general description of the model(s) used.
• Non-technical: In layman's terms, can you explain how your AI system learns information and what kind of data it has been trained on?
3. System Operations
• How often are the models updated for users?
• Will the user have a choice in moving to the updated model or staying on the current model?
• Where is prompt and output data stored? Is this information used for future model versions?
• Do operators require specific education or certification to use the system? • Non-technical: From a user's perspective, can you clarify where data is stored, as well as the process is for receiving updates or choosing to stay with a current model version?
4. Performance Evaluation
• How was the accuracy and effectiveness of the system measured? • What metrics were used, and why?
• What is the range of accuracy of the AI system, and how does it vary depending on the data?
• What is the system optimizing for and under what constraints? • Non-technical: In simple terms, how well does your AI system perform, and what aspects do its performance metrics prioritize?
5. Ethical Considerations
• What biases does the tool exhibit, and how does it handle that bias? • Does the vendor report bias or justify why no bias would be present? • How does the tool prevent or reduce harm to the end user? • Non-technical: How do you ensure that your AI system treats all individuals and groups fairly, without any unintended biases?
6. System Reliability
• How does the AI system handle outliers?
• Do overwritten decisions feed back into the system to help calibrate it in the future? • What conditions does the model perform best under?
25 • What conditions does the model perform poorly under? • What are the limitations of the AI system?
• What expertise does this AI system require for operation, debugging, modification, and troubleshooting.
• Non-technical: Can you explain, in non-technical terms, how your AI system deals with unusual cases or incorrect predictions?
7. Interpretability and Explanation
• How does the AI system explain its predictions?
• Are the outcomes of the AI system understandable by subject matter experts, users, impacted individuals, and others?
• Non-technical: Can you share examples or scenarios illustrating how the AI system communicates its predictions in a way that is easy to understand for non-experts?
8. Monitoring and Correction
• How is the AI tool monitored to identify any problems in usage? • Can outputs (recommendations, predictions, etc.) be overwritten by a human? • Do overwritten outputs help calibrate the system in the future? • Non-technical: For end-users, how can they be involved in monitoring and correcting any issues with the AI system?
9. Studies and Transparency
• Have the vendors or an independent party conducted a study on the bias, accuracy, or disparate impact of the system?
• If yes, can the [Agency] review the study?
• Include methodology and results.
• Is the data used to train the system representative of the communities it covers? • Non-technical: Can you provide examples of studies conducted to ensure fairness and accuracy, and how transparent are these studies?
10. User Interaction and Feedback
• How can the [Agency] and its partners flag issues related to bias, discrimination, or poor performance of the AI system?
• How is the AI tool made accessible to people with disabilities? • Has it been assessed against any usability standards, and if so, what was the result? • What other human factors, if any, were considered for usability and accessibility of the system?
• Non-technical: How can users easily provide feedback on any issues they encounter with the AI system, and what measures have been taken to ensure accessibility for all users?
Scoring Model
1. System Overview
26 • 5 (Excellent): A comprehensive, non-technical overview that effectively communicates the AI system's purpose and functionality. • 4 (Good): A clear and concise summary, providing a basic understanding of the AI system.
• 3 (Average): A brief overview but lacks clarity in conveying the system's purpose. • 2 (Below Average): Limited information that does not effectively convey the system's purpose.
• 1 (Poor): No overview or insufficient information to understand the context.
2. Data Training and Model Description
• 5 (Excellent): Detailed information on training data, model architecture, and transparency on model usage.
• 4 (Good): Clear explanation of the training process and model description. • 3 (Average): Basic information on training data and model without much detail. • 2 (Below Average): Limited information on training data and model description. • 1 (Poor): No information or inadequate details regarding training data and model.
3. System Operations
• 5 (Excellent): Regular model updates with clear communication and user-friendly options.
• 4 (Good): Frequent updates with communication on changes, providing user choice. • 3 (Average): Regular updates but lacking clear communication or user choice. • 2 (Below Average): Infrequent updates with unclear communication and no user choice.
• 1 (Poor): No updates or communication about the system's status.
4. Performance Evaluation
• 5 (Excellent): Comprehensive metrics, clear justifications, and superior performance compared to other vendors.
• 4 (Good): Well-explained metrics with justified performance in line with industry standards.
• 3 (Average): Basic metrics explanation with average performance. • 2 (Below Average): Limited metric explanation with subpar performance. • 1 (Poor): No metric explanation or poor performance without justification.
5. Ethical Considerations
• 5 (Excellent): Thorough identification and handling of biases with transparent reporting.
• 4 (Good): Clear recognition and handling of biases with transparency. • 3 (Average): Basic acknowledgment of biases without much transparency. • 2 (Below Average): Limited recognition or handling of biases. • 1 (Poor): No acknowledgment or handling of biases.
6. System Reliability
27 • 5 (Excellent): Robust handling of outliers, effective calibration, and adaptability to corrections.
• 4 (Good): Efficient handling of outliers and adaptability to corrections. • 3 (Average): Adequate handling of outliers with some adaptability to corrections. • 2 (Below Average): Limited handling of outliers and minimal adaptability to corrections.
• 1 (Poor): No handling of outliers or adaptability to corrections.
7. Interpretability and Explanation
• 5 (Excellent): Clear and understandable explanations that cater to both experts and general users.
• 4 (Good): Comprehensible explanations for predictions. • 3 (Average): Basic explanations that may lack clarity. • 2 (Below Average): Limited explanations that are often unclear. • 1 (Poor): No explanations provided or entirely incomprehensible.
8. Monitoring and Correction
• 5 (Excellent): Robust monitoring, efficient correction mechanisms, and clear user involvement.
• 4 (Good): Efficient monitoring and correction mechanisms with user involvement. • 3 (Average): Adequate monitoring with basic correction mechanisms and user involvement.
• 2 (Below Average): Limited monitoring and correction mechanisms with minimal user involvement.
• 1 (Poor): No monitoring or correction mechanisms, and no user involvement.
9. Studies and Transparency
• 5 (Excellent): Independent studies, transparent methodologies, and representative training data.
• 4 (Good): Third-party studies with transparent methodologies. • 3 (Average): Some transparency in studies and methodologies. • 2 (Below Average): Limited transparency in studies and methodologies. • 1 (Poor): No studies or transparency in methodologies.
10. User Interaction and Feedback
• 5 (Excellent): User-friendly feedback mechanisms, high accessibility, and positive usability assessment.
• 4 (Good): Effective feedback mechanisms with good accessibility. • 3 (Average): Adequate feedback mechanisms and accessibility features. • 2 (Below Average): Limited feedback mechanisms and basic accessibility. • 1 (Poor): No feedback mechanisms or accessibility features.
28 Use-case specific questions
Practitioners may want to include additional questions based on the specific use case for the AI system. Below are a few examples of use-case specific questions. The lists below should be used as a starting point for ideating questions that would be helpful to ask a vendor.
Use Case: Translation-Based AI Systems
• Please provide a list of all languages your solution supports for live speech translation, beyond the mandatory languages specified in Attachment A.
Additionally, describe how often you introduce new languages to your platform and outline the process for these additions.
• Does your solution offer text-to-speech functionality or other methods to accommodate American Sign Language speakers in both in-person and virtual meetings? If so, please describe the features and functionalities that enable this accommodation, including any limitations or requirements for optimal performance. • How do you measure the performance of your solution in terms of translation, speech-to-text, and text-to-speech for English, Spanish, Tagalog, Mandarin, and Vietnamese? Please specify the metrics used (e.g., BLEU score, human ratings, etc.) and the conditions under which these measurements were taken. Based on these metrics, what is the performance of your solution for the specified languages? • Please provide/describe any third-party evaluations or benchmarks that have been conducted on your solution’s translation capabilities. Include details on the evaluation process, criteria, results, and any subsequent improvements made to the solution based on these evaluations.
• What is your solution’s average time delay between speech input and translation output?
• How does the solution handle rapid speech or overlapping conversations? • How can the solution adapt to idiomatic expressions, cultural references, or local slang?
Use Case: ADA Compliance and Accessibility Considerations • How well does your solution adapt to blurring, obstruction, poor lighting or any conditions that may lead to misclassification?
• Does your product offer built-in accessibility features for users with visual, auditory, motor, or cognitive disabilities? Please describe these features in detail. • Has your product been tested for compatibility with common assistive technologies like screen readers, voice recognition software, and alternative input devices? • Has your product undergone accessibility testing with users who have disabilities? If so, please share the testing methodology and key findings. • How can users with disabilities provide feedback about the product's accessibility? Are there dedicated channels or support options for such concerns?
29 Appendix
[Insert Agency-specific documents (e.g., GenAI Guidelines)]
AI Governance
Starter Guide
Review the 0-to-90 AI Governance framework
The GovAI Coalition’s plug-and-play resources can help you take your AI governance program from 0 to 90. The framework provides a high-level overview of the Coalition's governance resources and how they can be used in conjunction with one another.
Identify the people that fit the following roles:
someone who handles cybersecurity, someone who
handles legal issues, someone who handles
purchasing, someone who oversees technology, and
someone willing to be the organization’s AI expert.
The AI expert doesn’t need to be an expert on AI
today, but can gain the necessary skills through the
Coalition.
Discuss the AI Policy with relevant
stakeholders. Align with your
executive sponsor and broader
leadership on your agency’s
responsible AI principles and overall
approach to AI governance.
Note on AI expert:
The AI expert will typically be
someone in the agency who is close
to data and/or privacy initiatives. For
example, a data manager, privacy
officer, tech policy lead, or other
person willing to learn would suit the
AI expert role.
Note on AI Policy:
Consider what your organization’s AI “red-lines” should be. Are there any applications of AI that do not align with your organization’s values? If so, confirm with your
departments that your organizations is not currently
implementing those use cases, and add them to the
Prohibited Uses section of the AI Policy. You can reach out to relevant departments, particularly Public Safety, using our template.
• Vendor Agreement
• Guide to Measuring AI
Performance
How do I ensure
vendors follow my
expectations?
Step 2
Step 1
Governance Framework
Step 3
Identify the AI-related roles in your organization.
Align on the AI Policy within your organization
How do I prepare my
agency to use and
govern AI?
• AI Policy
• AI Governance Handbook
• AI Upskilling Course
1 • Public Procurement Government
AI Applications
• Quick AI Assistants for Government
Agencies
• Use Cases Repository
What can I do with AI
that adds value?2
• AI Registry
• AI Contract Hub
Who can I work with
for good, responsible
AI solutions?
3 4
• AI Incident Response Plan
Template
How do I prepare for
when things go
wrong?
5
Share the AI governance resources with their
respective experts
Ensure that the experts in your organizations are familiar with their respective AI governance role and related resources. To access the below resources, visit the GovAI Coalition Templates as Resources webpage.
Explore the Coalition’s list of common AI applications and the Use Case Guide examples to identify potential helpful AI application for your organization. Use the Use Case Guide template and the Coalition’s shared data hub to plan and execute AI projects. The Coalition also offers guidance and resources for specific use cases, including AI translation (see: model and data), road safety detection, and training your own AI model.
Staff with no prior AI experience can build their
own AI assistants through the AI Upskilling
Course created by SJSU and the City of San José.
Update your cybersecurity training with a new
module on AI-powered cyberthreats, including
deepfakes. For public safety staff, share the AI
for Fire Department training.
Once your organization had adopted an AI
Policy, upload it to the AI Policy Repository so
other members can learn from your
organization.
Step 5
Step 4
Step 6
Stay Updated!
Step 7
Work with your departments to explore AI
applications
Begin training your
organization’s staff on
how to use AI
Share your AI governances
experience with the
Coalition
Follow the GovAI Coalition on LinkedIn and YouTube!
Leadership • AI Policy
• Key Questions for Government Leaders to Ask When Considering the Use of AI Systems
AI Expert(s) • AI Governance Handbook
Procurement & Legal • AI FactSheet (Examples, Introductory video) • Vendor Agreement
• AI Registry
• AI Contract Hub
• Buyer’s Guide to Enterprise GenAI Tools
• Guide to Measuring AI Performance
Cybersecurity • AI Incident Response Plan
This resource was developed by GovAI Coalition Facilitation team at the City of San José.
CivicPlus
AI Already at Work in Your CivicPlus Products
A quick reference for Council on capabilities already included in your current products AI is already helping behind the scenes across several products your organization uses today — no new spending or vendor required. It's helping staff draft content faster, making documents and the website more accessible, and helping route resident requests to the right department the first time.
Website (CivicEngage Central)
An AI Editing Assistant helps staff quickly draft, improve, and summarize web content.
Agenda & Meeting Management
An AI Editing Assistant helps clerks draft, polish, and format agenda items and meeting minutes in real time.
DocAccess
AI-trained models convert inaccessible PDFs into WCAG-
compliant HTML, including AI-generated alt text for images and charts.
AudioEye
AI-driven automation detects and fixes accessibility issues on the live website in real time, backed by human expert review for complex cases.
Acquia Web Governance
Automated AI scans surface accessibility, performance, and content-quality issues sitewide, with an AI-assisted policy generator.
SeeClickFix 311 CRM
AI analyzes photos submitted by residents to automatically suggest the correct service-request category.
Also Available — Not Yet Part of Your Product Mix
CivicPlus Agent
A resident-facing AI assistant that connects to
your website to answer common resident
questions in real time.
CivicPlus Athena
A staff-facing AI hub that helps employees find
answers and complete tasks across CivicPlus
products.
AI Content Advisor
Automatically audits website content for
SEO/AEO performance and content-quality
issues.
A Note on Responsible AI Use
These capabilities are part of CivicPlus Intelligence, the vendor's AI framework built with human-in-the-loop safeguards and explainable AI — meaning a person remains in control of final decisions and published content. Customer data is also not sent back to the vendor for AI model training.
Prepared by Jake Andrade | Senior Enterprise Account Manager, CivicPlus | [email protected] · 858-762-3733 Prepared August 25, 2026. Feature availability may vary by contract and configuration — contact your Customer Success Manager to confirm activation.
12.B.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Approval of the Minutes of the August 4, 2026 Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the August 4, 2026, meeting.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. August 4, 2026 Minutes
12.C.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Approval of the Minutes of the August 18, 2026 Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the August 18, 2026, meeting.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Minutes of the August 18, 2026 meeting
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (GC 54956.9(d)(2):
Significant exposure to litigation: One potential case.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (GC 54956.9(d)(4)) One potential case.
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (GC 54956.9)(d)(1)) City of Hanford v. Puga, et al.
Kings County Superior Court Case No. 26CU0342
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8) APNs: 012-045-006 and 012-045-007
Negotiating Party: ALANIS, RICHARD & LINDA TRUST
Agency Negotiators: Chris Tavarez, Jason Waters, and Nick Matoian E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8) APN: 012-041-007
Negotiating Party: Craig Johnson
Agency Negotiators: Chris Tavarez, Jason Waters, and Ty Mizote CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:
Mayor Kairis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Absent:
Council Member Mark Kairis
Council Member Travis Paden
Council Member Lou Martinez
Council Member Kimber Regan
Council Member Nancy Howze
INVOCATION:
The invocation was led by Pastor Lori Niles.
FLAG SALUTE:
The flag salute was led by Bob Ramos.
CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:
12.D.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Approval of Agreement with Retail Strategies, LLC, for three years of retail recruitment services at annual cost of $45,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Approval of Agreement with Retail Strategies, LLC, for three years of retail recruitment services at annual cost of $45,000.
Recommended Motion: I move to approve an agreement with Retail Strategies, LLC, for three years of retail recruitment services at an annual cost of $45,000.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several months, City staff has engaged in conversations with Retail Strategies, an Alabama-based retail and real estate consulting firm, about the possibility of entering a new partnership focused on retail recruitment for the City. The firm has offices in California and has a strong awareness of the Hanford region and established relationships with major retail developers.
The City previously contracted with Retail Strategies in December of 2022 for two separate services:
retail recruitment (Retail Academy) and downtown revitalization (Downtown Hanford Strategic Plan).
At that time, Retail Strategies was unable to offer Hanford its full recruitment and retail advisory partnership because it was providing those services to the City of Lemoore. However, the company is now in a position to provide the more robust retail recruitment package to Hanford, which includes the following deliverables:
• Market Analysis
• Retail Site Assessment
• Retail Strategy
• Business Attraction and Community Representation (targeted outreach and influence campaign, site due diligence with retailers, transparent reporting and real time updates, quarterly business reviews, retail conference representation and success promotion). • Retail/event visitation data
• Ongoing Support
While there are other consultants who provide similar services, staff believes Retail Strategies is best-suited to help the City recruit more retail and capture additional sales tax revenues, primarily
because of their knowledge and experience working for the City and throughout California.
Following Council approval, staff will move forward with a sole-source procurement and purchase order with Retail Strategies, LLC. In addition, staff will establish a presentation from Retail Strategies to City Council in the coming months.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total contract amount is $135,000 ($45,000 per year for three years). Annual payments will be largely offset by City's decision to not renew subscription to Placer.ai (approximately $30,000 annual subscription) as well as savings obtained by no longer sending staff to retail conferences (such as ICSC Las Vegas).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Retail Strategies Contract
2. Retail Recruitment Proposal
retail strategies
Recruitment
& Retail
Advisory Partnership
Hanford, California
Jessica Bohlen
Director, Community Partnerships
May 2026
retailstrategies.com
205.314.0386
[email protected]
Investment and Timeline
A Proven Path to ROI
Market Analysis
Use mobile data to uncover where visitors come from and their buying power.
Real Estate Assessment
Catalog shopping centers, land, and under-utilized spaces with licensed real estate expertise.
Retail Strategy
Match community input and retail trends with the right prospects in dining, grocery, entertainment, hospitality and more.
Business Attraction & Community Representation
Dedicated team markets your community through pitches, conferences, and retailer relationships.
Deals Closed, Doors Open, Dollars Flowing
New stores, sales tax revenue, and visible growth fueling community pride. “Retail site selection is a long game. From initial market awareness to final store opening, the process often takes 18 to 36 months — and that’s with consistent engagement. Communities that commit to retail recruitment for just one year often fall off our radar before we’ve even had a chance to evaluate the opportunity.
The cities that win are the ones who show up year after year, with a clear message, accurate data, and a genuine commitment to long-term partnership.”
- Chris Reese
Senior Real Estate Manager, Zaxby’s
Pricing and Deliverables
(continued on next page)
$45,000
Annual Investment
2
Deliverables
retail strategies
3 Our deliverables are designed to cover every stage of retail recruitment, from market analysis and site assessment to strategy and community representation. By bringing these elements together, we give your community a clear path to attracting and retaining businesses.
Market Analysis
• Community Intake Form
• Industry Leading Data & Insights
• Mobility Data Intelligence
• Consumer Trade Area Identification
• Peer Market & Void Analysis
• Retail Leakage & Demand Analysis
• Consumer Expenditure Profiles
• Spatial A.I Psychographic Segmentation
Analysis
Retail Site Assessment
• Market Visit
• Retail 101 Session
• Stakeholders Meeting
• Fam Tour
• Site & Data Analysis
• Catalog of Retail Sites
Retail Strategy
• SWOT Analysis of Retail Corridors
• SWOT Analysis of Real Estate
Opportunities
• Retail Prospects Matched to Sites
• Custom Marketing Guide
• Regional & Local Trend Analysis
• Retailer Engagement Plan
Business Attraction & Community
Representation
• Targeted Outreach & Influence
Campaign
• Site Due Diligence with Retailers
• Transparent Reporting & Real Time
Updates
• Quarterly Business Reviews
• Retail Conference Representation
• Success PromotionOngoing Support
• Monthly Feedback from Team
• Recurring Market Visits
• Unlimited Access to RS Team
• Unlimited On Demand Reports as needed
• Access to Award Winning Training Platform
• Basecamp used to Streamline
Communications
Ribbon Cuttings
Not Reports
retail strategies
Accurate and Industry Leading
Data
Site selection is driven by data and real
estate. While others start with data, our
analysis sets us apart. Retail Strategies
uses the same trusted data relied on by
hundreds of retail brands.
Retails Preferred Consultant
Retail is relational. Founded by site selectors,
Retail Strategies is viewed as a peer, not an
outsider. When we call on your behalf, retailers
answer.
Site Specific Retail Strategies, Not
Unqualified Cold Calls
We analyze all potential sites in your market and
match retailers to locations based on selection
criteria. Results are delivered in
a clear Retail Strategy document for full
transparency.
Full-Cycle Retail Recruitment
From prospect to press release, we’re your turnkey
retail partner. We guide you through site analysis,
incentives, and deal promotion, providing
unmatched support at every step.
Consulting Firms Data Firms Retail Strategies
Retailer Contact Data
Industry Leading
Mobile Data
Retailer Outreach
Retailers Matched to
Specific Sites
Site Readiness and Due
Diligence
Territory Recruitment
Teams
Incentives Consulting
4
Market Analysis
retail strategies
Mobile Data
Collection
A report using cell phone data
to show where shoppers in
your trade area live and work.
Trade Area
Identification
Using mobile data and real
estate expertise, we uncover
shopping patterns that guide
retailer decisions.
Peer and
Void Analysis
We analyze demographics to
deliver a list of businesses and
opportunities that can elevate
your community.
The cycle begins with market analysis. Your team will take a deep dive into the data, advanced analytics, and proprietary tools developed in house to uncover and define the potential in your community.
Community Request For Information
We rely on your local expertise to drive results. Our RFI questions gather the key insights retailers, developers, and brokers need for due diligence. Providing this information up front brings us closer to success by aligning to your specific goals.
Industry Leading Data
Data analysis and presentation often determine retail success. Retail Strategies is the only recruitment firm with exclusive access to Kalibrate, the same industry-leading data trusted by hundreds of retail brands.
Data trusted by these major retail brands
Retail Leakage
Analysis
We assess supply and
demand to reveal retail
categories most needed in
your community.
Consumer
Expenditures
We examine each retail
segment to understand consumer
spending patterns.
Psychographic
Analysis
We define your market’s
consumers through
demographics, preferences,
spending, and culture.
5
Retail Site Assessment
REcon Day
retail strategies
6 Market Tour
Your team completes a
full market tour to
identify and catalog
viable retail sites and
key vacancies in the
market.
Stakeholders
Meeting While
in your
market, your team will
meet with key
stakeholders in the
market (property
owners, business
owners, elected
officials) to discuss the
partnership, their pain
points, and uncover
community
opportunities.
Retail 101
Your Retail Strategies
team will host an open
meeting in your
community
to discuss the retail
development timeline
and how retailers see
your market.
Fam Tour
We want to see
the intangibles of
a community that
don’t show
up on a map. We
take time to tour
your community
and understand it’s
unique assets
beyond our desktop.
Within the first 60 days of our partnership, your team will be in your community to perform their first annual REcon day. Retailers want to minimize their risk and Retail Strategies provides a higher value to our clients by performing due diligence and matching the right retailers to the right sites.
Site and Data Analysis
Your team returns from REcon Day and performs the human analysis of the market tour, market data, and identifies retail prospects for the market. These prospects are matched to specific sites in the market.
Annual REcon Day
Your market is not static. Your team will return to your market annually to continually analyze real estate and community opportunities while performing face to face relationships in your community.
RC1
Retail Strategy
retail strategies
7 At the end of our discovery process - we combine your data, analytics, real estate, and community vision to create your Retail Recruitment Plan and Strategy.
This 50+ page document highlights our research on the community, demographic information, retail analysis and our REcon day including:
SWOT Analysis of Retail Sites
Retail Strategies will account for every potential
national retail site in your market no matter if it
is “on the market” or not.
Through our Retail Strategy Process, we will
perform corridor and site-specific SWOT
analysis to determine your highest impact
opportunities for retail recruitment success.
Retail Prospects
Your team will analyze both your market needs
and your real estate inventory to create an array
of viable prospects for your market. We will
connect those retailers directly to current and
future opportunities in your market.
Retail Strategies will have a minimum of 30
retailers or developers perform due diligence on
your market annually.
Marketing Guide
Marketing flyers are a condensed version of the Retail Strategy that can be shared in your community.
Marketing Guides showcase critical market data and real estate information to illustrate the top facts industry professionals need to know about your community. Client cities can upload these documents to their website, keep printed versions in their office, and distribute them to interested parties.
Next Steps
45-day follow-up
meeting is scheduled.
Business Attraction and
Community Representation
retail strategies
Targeted Outreach and Influence
Retail Strategies team identifies the proper point
of contact for prospective retailers (retailer directly, broker, developer, etc.). Your Retail Strategies team
discusses and understands the retailer’s territory/
geographic dynamics and expansion plans. Retail
Strategies team discusses and understands potential
franchisees and/or the need to develop franchisees for
the given market.
This is often done using a combination of phone calls,
text messages, emails, Zoom meetings, and in-person
meetings
(in-market when possible, and at various tradeshows
around the country).
Site Due Diligence with Retailers
Retail Strategies team analyzes sites in the market based on specific retailer’s site criteria. Your team creates an initial due diligence package for specific sites and presents that information to retailers and their representatives. Retail Strategies team works towards connecting the retailer/their representatives with property owners/their representatives for approved sites in the market. The Retail Strategies team also assists with potential incentive consulting during recruitment, on an as needed basis.
The Retail Strategies team nurtures these leads throughout the lifecycle of a potential deal Retail Strategies team keeps
partnership points of contact
“in the loop” with ongoing
recruitment efforts.
As needed, the Retail
Strategies team can provide
clear updates (redacted and
unredacted) for private or
public consumption.
Updates will always be
delivered on Basecamp,
but can also be delivered
via email depending on the
client’s preferences.
Transparency in reporting
8
9 Quarterly Business Reviews
30 days after the conclusion of each quarter, client
will receive a full recap of the recruitment Efforts in their market.
These reports will act as a natural cadence that
allows our points of contact to remain educated on
the process, and deliver updates on the work being
done in their community by the Retail Strategies
team.
Tradeshow Representation
Retail Strategies team will represent your
communities at ICSC (national and regional)
shows as well as strategically chosen Retail Live!
shows.
Retail Strategies will host a Client Only Conference
Workshop and Coaching prior to ICSC Las Vegas.
Success Promotion
The Retail Strategies team will help craft press
releases for successful recruitment projects in
their client communities.
The Retail Strategies team has helped communities
coordinate “Grand Opening” events with the
retailers who are successfully recruited to the
market.
This will include retailer specific notes, and site-specific notes.
By request, the Retail Strategies team can also include overall retail real estate industry highlights.
Team and Communication
retail strategies
Your Portfolio Team
With over 250 years of combined experience in retail real estate, Retail Strategies confidently operates with a 5 to 1 client-to-staff ratio. Each Portfolio Team is a specialist in their community’s region, ensuring unparalleled expertise. When one Portfolio Team encounters a retailer with expansion plans in another team’s territory, we seamlessly connect the dots, facilitating swift and informed decision-making.
Matt Jaeger
Director of
Recruitment Services
Project Team
12 Brooke Hill
Senior Portfolio
Director
John Mark Boozer
Retail Development
Coordinator
Madison Bush
Recruitment
Associate
Clay Craft
Vice President,
Client Services
Ashton Rosen
Data Architect
Jessica Bohlen
Community
Partnerships
Robert Jolly
Co-Founder,
Principal
Drew Franklin
Director of Marketing
Mead Silsbee
Co-Founder,
Principal
Sam Hudson
Sr. Graphic Designer
Scott VonCanon
Chief Operating
Officer
Ruthie Jolly
Marketing Associate
Lacy Beasley
President
Why Partner
With Retail Strategies?
I’ve told every city leader that has called to
ask about Retail Strategies, “You’d be foolish
not to try.”
– John Feary, City Manager, Claremore, OK
retail strategies
Firm Qualifications
Retail Strategies bring over 250 collective
years of retail and real estate experience.
Retail Strategies is the only retail consulting
firm with the following qualifications:
• 40+ team members with an active real
estate license
• USDA technical assistance provider for
rural communities
• Lacy Beasley, President of Retail Strategies,
serves on the board of ICSC, the nation’s
largest retail real estate association
Industry Involvement
Capacity/Team
Retail Strategies brings both scale and
specialization to every project. With 65+
full-time professionals, we leverage
advanced data analysis and long-standing
retailer relationships to recruit the right brands.
Our team’s capacity ensures that communities
connect directly with the decision-makers who
matter most.
Experience
Retail Strategies has helped improve quality of
place in more than 1,000 communities by
measurably increasing retail and restaurant
offerings, sales tax collections, and jobs. Since our
inception in 2013, Retail Strategies has
recruited nearly 1,400 retailers into client
communities ranging from big box grocery stores
to hyper- regional restaurants.
13
12.E.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Adopt Resolution 26-62-R, Approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0023-26 for 240 N. Irwin Street (APN 012-052-004) – Sensory Rock
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt Resolution 26-62-R conditionally approving Historic Resources Permit 0023-26.
Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Resolution 26-62-R conditionally approving Historic Resources Permit 0023-26.
BACKGROUND:
The property is a noncontributing building located in the Historic District, shown below in Figure 1– circled in black.
Figure 1
“Noncontributing building” means a structure within a historic district which, in its present condition, does not contribute to the sense of time and place of the immediate area and the district. "Noncontributing building" may include those buildings constructed after the time period featured in a historic district or buildings in which the historical characteristics have been irreparably modified.
"Noncontributing building" may also include buildings which, while noncontributing at present, may become contributing through the application of appropriate design criteria.
In accordance with the Municipal Code Section 17.48, alterations to the exterior of a building located within the Historic Overlay Zone are required to be approved through a Historic Resources Permit, which must be approved by the City Council.
Section 17.48.040
No improvement or exterior architectural feature of any improvement shall be constructed or altered or enlarged which is located in the Historic Overlay District or identified as a historic site outside the District, unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter. The section shall not apply to any interior alteration which has no effect on the condition or appearance of any exterior architectural feature of an improvement. No structure listed on a State or National Register shall be moved or demolished, unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter.
Section 17.48.070
A. A historic resource permit shall be required for any alteration of the exterior features of a building within a designated historic district, or a designated historic building or site, or to construct a new building or improvements upon property within a designated historic district except as otherwise provided in this Chapter 17.48, the City Council shall determine whether a historic resources permit shall be issued. A permit shall not be required for ordinary maintenance and repairs as defined in this section.
B. Permit Procedures. An application for a historic resource permit shall be made on a form prescribed by the Community Development Department and shall be accompanied by the fees established by resolution of the City Council. The application shall include the information required by Section 17.60.020 for site plan review, complete elevation drawings of the proposed alterations, samples of proposed colors and materials, color photographs of all sides of any existing improvement, building or structure on the site, and such other information as may be required by the Community Development Department. If applicable, the application shall include the information required by Chapter 17.58 (permit for conditional uses) and Chapter 17.62 (planned unit development).
Applications for permits requiring City Council approval shall be placed on the next regular meeting of the City Council. The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit.
Building Description
According to historic records, maintained by the Community Development Department, it is documented that the building was constructed in 1972. Historic photographs included in the file for 240 N. Irwin St. depict the Eighth St. frontage, however, there are no historical photographs of the 20-foot driveway along the interior side property line. See Figure 2.
In 1982, Historic Resources Permit 82-24 was approved, which proposed a window remodel in the rear of the building.
Presently, there is an existing 20-foot driveway along the interior side property line, a bike rake, a storefront screen, and a west-facing window, all of which are proposed to be modified, moved, or demoed and replaced as a part of this project. See Figure 3.
Figure 2: Historic Photograph of Eighth St. Frontage
Figure 3: Current Streetview from Eighth St. of 240 N. Irwin Street
Proposal
Sensory Rock, located at 240 N. Irwin Street, located on the Southwest corner of Irwin St. and Eighth St., proposes to modify existing parking in order to construct a new gated outdoor play area within the existing 20-foot driveway along the interior side property line, as shown in Attachment 1. Site alterations will include the demo and replacement of a west-facing window with a new in-swing glass door, the demolition of existing storefront screen and installation of new 8’ high rod iron fencing, the installation of artificial turf, and the relocation of ADA parking sign and bike rack. See Figures 4 & 5.
Figure 4: Proposed Alterations to West-facing Façade of 240 N. Irwin Street
Figure 5: Proposed Alterations to Interior Side Driveway as seen from N. Irwin St
Evaluation
17.48.150 Design criteria
B. Design Guidelines. The following design guidelines are to be used to formulate plans for the rehabilitation, preservation, and continued use of old buildings consistent with the intent of this chapter. The guidelines apply to buildings of all occupancy and construction types, sizes and materials and to all permanent and temporary construction on the exterior of historic buildings as well as new attached or adjacent construction.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural feature should be avoided when possible.
Analysis: Analysis: That no part of this project proposed to be altered or removed is identified as significant historical, architectural or cultural material. The original qualities and character of the building, site, and its environment are being preserved. Both Irwin Street and Eighth Streets-fronting façades of the building are to remain unaltered.
B. Design Guidelines. The following design guidelines are to be used to formulate plans for the rehabilitation, preservation, and continued use of old buildings consistent with the intent of this chapter. The guidelines apply to buildings of all occupancy and construction types, sizes and materials and to all permanent and temporary construction on the exterior of historic buildings as well as new attached or adjacent construction.
9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing buildings, structures or sites shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, materials and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.
Analysis: This project proposes the continuation of an existing use within the building. Since the proposed site alterations, including the demo and replacement of west-facing window with a new in- swing glass door, the demolition of existing storefront screen and installation of new 8’ high rod iron fencing, the installation of artificial turf, and the relocation of ADA parking sign and bike rack, do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, the contemporary design of the alterations shall not be discouraged. The rod iron fencing shall be compatible with the rod iron fencing existing at the N. Irwin Street entrance to Sensory Rock.
C. Rehabilitation Standards. The provisions of this subsection are intended to provide reasonable design for the rehabilitation of historic buildings so that the basic historic and architectural presentation of the buildings is retained and enhanced.
1. Storefronts.
a. Where original old store fronts remain, their appearance should not be altered. Such store fronts should be repaired and preserved. Where store fronts have been altered, the original design should be determined by examining photographs from the period and by investigating any original architectural fabric which remains beneath the changes. As much original material and detail should be retained in the rehabilitation as possible. Retention of cast iron elements is particularly important for structural and waterproofing reasons. Wood or stone steps, stone sills, and other elements which contribute to the character of store front entries should be preserved.
Analysis: The storefront of this building is not being altered as a part of this project. All proposed alterations are to be located within the interior driveway and on the west-facing façade of the building.
E. General Building Standards. The standards set forth in this subsection should be applied to all alterations or new construction in the historic district.
1. Color.
a. Exterior colors should harmonize with other colors on the same building and on the streetscape. Exterior colors should complement the colors of neighboring buildings and should be selected to be mutually supportive and beneficial to the overall historic character of the streetscape.
b. Where wood or metal surfaces of windows, doors, porches and details, other than cornices, are to be painted, the following colors shall be used: 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. This grayish-white is an appropriate choice for window sash and frames and for other details. In some instances, black or dark gray may be appropriate for the fixed window or door frame. If the original color of a cornice cannot be determined, grayish-white, buff or sandstone color are preferred choices.
Analysis: All colors proposed as a part of this project are colors existing on site. No new colors or repainting are proposed as a part of this project.
E. General Building Standards. The standards set forth in this subsection should be applied to all alterations or new construction in the historic district.
5. Building Materials.
c. Metals. Architectural metals are utilized as an exterior structural element in several buildings within the historic district. They constitute an important architectural feature and should be preserved. Cast iron store front frames should be treated sensitively and covered with a protective paint or sealer. Pressed metal cornice and trim elements should likewise be protected.
Analysis: The proposed addition of rod iron fencing is consistent with existing fencing at this site, and with other buildings within the historic district.
Conclusion:
Since the proposal complies with the requirements of the Historic Resource Overlay District standard, as described above, staff recommends approval of the Historic Resource Permit as proposed.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code, staff recommends conditional approval of Historic Resources Permit HRA0023-26, and that the conditional approval of the historic resources permit will allow private investment in the Downtown area, enhance property values, allow the increase of economic and financial benefits to the City and its property owners and inhabitants, and make the following findings:
1. That the proposed alterations will not impact the Historic Overlay Zone since the façade improvements will be consistent with the Historic Overlay Zone Design Guidelines for a noncontributing building built after 1935 in the Historic Overlay Zone District.
2. That the proposed project will provide a complementary setting and environment in the Historic District.
4. That the proposed project will promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of structures so that the objectives set forth in this section can be attained under this policy.
5. That the request will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Hanford
RECOMMENDATION – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 26-62-R conditionally approving Historic Resources Permit No. 0023-26, with the following conditions:
1. That approval of this project does not exempt compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, Public Works Improvement Standards, fees, or other City Ordinances.
2. That the alterations to the site be completed in accordance with the proposed changes. Future changes may be approved by the Community Development Director or forwarded to the City Council for review.
3. Signage will be reviewed at the time of sign permit submittal. Signage shall meet size requirements as stated in Sections 17.48 and 17.56 of the Municipal Code. If required standards are not met, proposed signage shall be reviewed by City Council through a new historic resources permit.
4. That approval of Site Plan Review No. 0192-26 and Conditional Use Permit No. 0070-26 are required.
Applicant:
Kevin Nickell
22841 Grangeville Blvd.
Lemoore, CA 93245
Owner:
Sheri Tos
240 N. Irwin St.
Hanford, CA 93230
FISCAL IMPACT:
No Impact
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Site Plan
2. Res No. 26-62-R
3. Notice of Exemption No. 2026-39
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-62-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD APPROVING HISTORIC RESOURCES PERMIT HRA0023-26, A REQUEST BY SENSORY ROCK TO ADD AN OUTDOOR PLAY AREA AT 240 N. IRWIN STREET. THE PROPERTY IS NOT
DESIGNATED AS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING WITHIN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONE.THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 240 N. IRWIN ST. (APN 012-052-004).
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on September 1, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium, it was moved by Council Member ____________, and seconded by Council Member ____________, and duly carried, that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, an application, filed by Kevin Nickell for Historic Resources Permit HRA0023-26, as shown in Exhibit A, was presented to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is located at 240 N. Irwin St. (APN 012-052-004); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford, at a regular meeting on September 1, 2026, reviewed the request for Historic Resources Permit HRA0023-26; and
WHEREAS, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines categorically exempts “Existing Facilities” from Environmental Review; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford reviewed the application for the Historic Resources Permit HRA0023-26 and found that the application is consistent with Section 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code, that the approval of the historic resources permit will allow private investment in the Downtown area, allow the increase of economic and financial benefits to the City and its property owners and inhabitants, and make the following findings:
1. That the proposed alterations will not impact the Historic Overlay Zone since the façade improvements will be consistent with the Historic Overlay Zone Design Guidelines for a noncontributing building built after 1935 in the Historic Overlay Zone District.
2. That the proposed project will provide a complementary setting and environment in the Historic District.
3. That the proposed project will promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of structures so that the objectives set forth in this section can be attained under this policy.
4. 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 HRA0023-26, subject to the following conditions:
1. That approval of this project does not exempt compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, Public Works Improvement Standards, fees, or other City Ordinances.
2. That the alterations to the site be completed in accordance with the proposed changes. Future changes may be approved by the Community Development Director or forwarded to the City Council for review.
3. Signage will be reviewed at the time of sign permit submittal. Signage shall meet size requirements as stated in Sections 17.48 and 17.56 of the Municipal Code. If required standards are not met, proposed signage shall be reviewed by City Council through a new historic resources permit.
4. That approval of Site Plan Review No. 0192-26 and Conditional Use Permit No. 0070-26 are required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby approves Historic Resources Permit HRA0023-26. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on September 1, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: _______________________________________________________________________ NOES: _______________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: _____________________________________________________________________
APPROVED: __________________________
Mark Kairis
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 1st day of September, 2026.
Date: _________________
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
Exhibit A
Plans
Notice of Exemption 2026-39
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 Resource No. 0023-26
Project Location – 240 N. Irwin Street (APN 012-052-004)
Project Location – City: Hanford Project Location – County: Kings County
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: HRA0023-26, a request by Sensory Rock to construct an outdoor play area at 240 N. Irwin Street. at 240 N. Irwin Street in the MX-D Downtown Mixed Use zone district.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Hanford, Planning Division
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Kevin Nickell Address: 22841 Grangeville Blvd. Lemoore, CA 93245
Phone Number: (559)469-5131
Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269 (a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption: State type and section number: 15301 Existing Facilities.
Statutory Exemption. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt:
The City of Hanford determined the project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Section 15301 states that Class 1 exemptions consist of 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 leasing of a private structure.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Maddison Faria Area Code/ Telephone: (559) 415-7183
Signature: Date: September 1, 2026 Title: Assistant Planner
Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:
Signed by Applicant
12.F.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Adopt Resolution 26-60-R, Approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26 for 104 N. Douty Street (APN 012-054-011) - STIIZY
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the City Council, by motion, adopt Resolution 26-60-R conditionally approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
1. I move to adopt Resolution 26-60-R conditionally approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26.
BACKGROUND:
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 building may have individual architectural significance or may be one of a grouping of background buildings that jointly contribute to the character of the immediate area and the district. Contributing buildings may reflect interim modifications if those modifications do not irreparably detract from the character of the building or if the modifications reflect an architectural style or particular era important to the development of the City. Contributing buildings shall also include structures that have a strong historical tie to activities, events, or individuals important in the development of the City.
In accordance with the Municipal Code Section 17.48, alterations to the exterior of a building located within the Historic Overlay Zone are required to be approved through a Historic Resources Permit, which must be approved by the City Council.
Section 17.48.040
No improvement or exterior architectural feature of any improvement shall be constructed or altered or enlarged which is located in the Historic Overlay District or identified as a historic site outside the District, unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter. The section shall not apply to any interior alteration which has no effect on the condition or appearance of any exterior architectural feature of an improvement. No structure listed on a State or National Register shall be moved or demolished, unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter.
Section 17.48.070
1. A historic resource permit shall be required for any alteration of the exterior features of a building within a designated historic district, or a designated historic building or site, or to construct a new building or improvements upon property within a designated historic district except as otherwise provided in this Chapter 17.48, the City Council shall determine whether a historic resources permit shall be issued. A permit shall not be required for ordinary maintenance and repairs as defined in this section.
2. 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 17.70.040 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 17.80 (permit for conditional uses) and Chapter 17.82 (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.
Building Description
The building is a single-story structure originally constructed in 1891, with building revisions taking place in 1947 and 1964. The building was modified from its original form to add stucco, ceramic tiles, a flat roofed marquee and full plate glass windows with aluminum frames in the 1940’s or 50’s.
Ceramic tiles were replaced with bricks in 1992. Past uses of the location have included several furniture stores, a restaurant, offices, and a tobacco shop. Most recently, the building has been permitted as a cannabis storefront dispensary, first as Caliva, and now as STIIIZY.
Proposed Modifications
The applicant proposes to frost the glass door and windows along their Douty Street building frontage as shown in Exhibit A of the resolution. The process will include the application of frosted vinyl film to the storefront glazing panels and entry doors.
A request to frost the glass doors and windows along both the Douty and Sixth Street building façades was approved under Historic Resources Permit 2021-03, shown in Attachment 2. Frosted vinyl film was applied to all glass doors and windows along the building façades, except for three windows and two doors along the Douty Street façade. This proposal completes the frosting of the
remaining windows and doors.
As requested by Caliva under Historic Resources Permit 2021-03, the glass is proposed to be frosted to limit visibility into the store. According to the historic design criteria, the glass in the window should be clear, except where evidence indicates the original use of colored glass. However, given the use of the business as a cannabis dispensary, eliminating visibility into the storefront is necessary to comply with local and State law. Per Section 5.56.280 of the Hanford Municipal Code:
“No cannabis or cannabis products or graphics depicting cannabis or cannabis products shall be visible from the exterior of any property issued a commercial cannabis business permit, or on any of the vehicles owned or used as part of the commercial cannabis business. No outdoor storage of cannabis or cannabis products is permitted at any time.” Due to the layout of the interior as approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 0066-26 for STIIIZY, cannabis products will be visible to passersby from the exterior of the property without frosted glass, shown in Attachment 3.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code, staff recommends approval of Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26 and finds that the approval of the historic resources permit will allow private investment in the Downtown, enhance the property values, and preserve to the extent possible historic elements of the site; and make the following findings:
1. That the proposed façade improvements are consistent with the intent of development standards for contributing buildings within the Historic Overlay Zone.
2. That the proposed project will provide a complementary setting and environment in the Historic District.
3. That the project will preserve and encourage a city of varied architectural styles reflecting the cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural phases of its history.
4. That the proposal will promote and encourage the continued private ownership and utilization of structures so that the objectives set forth in Section 17.48 can be attained.
5. That the request will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Hanford.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit.
Staff recommends that the City Council: adopt Resolution 26-60-R, approving Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26, 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 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.
3. 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.
4. That the owner, occupant or other person in actual charge of a designated historic building or site, structure or building in an historic district shall keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of such site, improvement, building or structure, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent the deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature.
Applicant
STIIIZY Inc.
2001 S. Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90058
FISCAL IMPACT:
No Impact
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 26-60-R
2. Historic Overlay Zone and Properties
3. Resolution 21-34-R
4. Floor Plan
5. Notice of Exemption No. 2026-55
RESOLUTION 26-60-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD APPROVING HISTORIC RESOURCES PERMIT HRA0024-26, A REQUEST BY
STIIIZY TO FROST GLASS DOORS AND WINDOWS ALONG THEIR DOUTY STREET BUILDING FACADE. THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING WITHIN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONE.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 104 N. DOUTY STREET (APN 012-054-011).
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on September 1, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium, it was moved by Council Member ____________, and seconded by Council Member ____________, and duly carried, that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, an application, filed by STIIIZY Inc. for Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26, as shown in Exhibit A, was presented to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is located at 104 N. Douty St. (APN 012-054-011); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford, at a regular meeting on September 1, 2026, reviewed the request for Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26; and
WHEREAS, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines categorically exempts “Existing Facilities” from Environmental Review; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hanford reviewed the application for the Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26 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, enhance the property values, and preserve to the extent possible historic elements of the site; and make the following findings:
1. That the proposed façade improvements are consistent with the intent of development standards for contributing buildings within the Historic Overlay Zone.
2. That the proposed project will provide a complementary setting and environment in the Historic District.
3. That the project will preserve and encourage a city of varied architectural styles reflecting the cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural phases of its history.
4. That the proposal will promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of structures so that the objectives set forth in Section 17.48 can be attained.
5. That the request will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Hanford.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby approves Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26, 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 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.
3. 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.
4. That the owner, occupant or other person in actual charge of a designated historic building or site, structure or building in an historic district shall keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of such site, improvement, building or structure, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent the deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of Hanford hereby approves Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on September 1, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: _______________________________________________________________________ NOES: _______________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: _____________________________________________________________________
APPROVED: __________________________
MARK KAIRIS
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 1st day of September, 2026.
Date: _________________
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
Exhibit A
Plans
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
22'-3"
22'-3"8'-6"
8'-6"7'-9"16'-9"13'-9"
9'-8"2'-0"
3D
B3
3C
3A
59'-4"
POS56"x24"POS56"x24"ADA
56"x24"DELI
20'-11"
43'-4"2'-0"
4'-3"7'-3"
11'-6 1/2"16'-3"13'-3 1/2"14'-11 1/2"19.5"1'-4" 20" 2'-6" 13'-7"
5'-4"
20"10.5"
56"x24"56"x24" 56"x24"POS 56"x24"
POS
56"x24"56"x24"POS
20'-0"
MAIN ENTRANCE /EMERGENCY EXIT
UNISEXRESTROOM68 SQFTBOH
3'-0"
36'-10" 19'-9" ELECTRICAL ROOM79 SQFT
5'-7"16'-9"
15'-8"21'-7"
14'-8"14'-3"
14'-8"13'-2"
14'-8"11'-1"9'-1"15'-1"
5'-0"
15'-2"
13'-3" 16'-2"32'-3"16'-0"11'-5"
11'-6"
31'-5"
12'-1"
MOPSINK
14.5"
RESTROOM115 SQFT
SAFEROOM150 SQFTSECURE INVENTORY(LIMITED ACCESS)428 SQFT SERVER /NVR ROOM38 SQFT
COUNTER
CORRIDOR584 SQFT
CLOSET34 SQFT
1,586 SQFTRETAIL SALES AREA
EMERGENCY EXIT /LOADING ANDUNLOADING AREACORRIDOR894 SQFT MANAGER'SOFFICE212 SQFT INVENTORY ROOM(LIMITED ACCESS)214 SQFTCANNABIS WASTESTORAGE(LIMITED ACCESS)208 SQFT OFFICE338 SQFTOFFICE209 SQFTOFFICE193 SQFTOFFICE162 SQFT
EMERGENCY EXIT
BREAKROOM942 SQFT
3.1F
3.1E
GUARDPODIUM
IN OUT
OVERALL FOOTPRINT: 6,796 SQ.FT.SALES FLOOR: 1,586 SQ.FT.INVENTORY ROOM: 642 SQ.FT.56" DISPLAY CASES: 8POS: 536" ADA DISPLAY CASES: 172" DELI: 124" CORNER UNIT: 0
PROJECT TOTALS
EDDIE CA2.2SHEET--JOB No
ENGINEER
3/16 = 1'-00"DATEDESIGNERSCALEJOB LOCATIONREVISION
321-- EABYEAEA OWNERFLOOR PLAN
4 EA 104 N DOUTY ST.STIIIZY Hanford7/24/26104 N DOUTY ST.HANFORD, CA 93230
Notice of Exemption 2026-55
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 HRA0024-26
Project Location – 104 N. Douty Street (APN 012-054-011)
Project Location – City: Hanford Project Location – County: Kings County
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: Approval of Historic Resources Permit HRA0024-26, a request by STIIIZY to frost glass doors and windows along their Douty Street building facade. The property is designated as a contributing building within the Historic Overlay Zone.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Hanford, Planning Division
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project/Project Applicant: Andrew De La Garza, STIIIZY Inc.
Address: 2001 S. Alameda St., Los Angeles, CA 90058
Phone Number: (626) 862-0233
Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
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 1530 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Section 15301 states that Class 1 exemptions consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.
This project involves the minor alteration of an existing private structure, involving negligible or no expansion.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Mark Manha Area Code/ Telephone: (559) 585-2583
Signature: Date: September 1, 2026 Title: Associate Planner
Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:
Signed by Applicant
12.G.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Approval of Resolution 26-59-R establishing WeatherWeld Roofing Product as the City standard for roofing applications on City-owned buildings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation:
That the City Council, by motion, approve Resolution 26-59-R, establishing WeatherWeld Roofing Product as the established standard for all City-owned buildings.
Recommended Motion:
I motion to authorize the City Council to approve Resolution 26-59-R, establishing WeatherWeld Roofing Product as the established standard for all City-owned buildings.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Hanford maintains 14 rooftops on City-owned buildings throughout the City. Standardizing the roofing system and associated components will provide consistency across City facilities while streamlining installation, maintenance, and future repairs performed by City staff.
City staff researched multiple roofing products and consulted with several vendors regarding product performance, application methods, warranties, and long-term maintenance requirements. Based on this research, staff determined that the WeatherWeld Roofing System best meets the City's operational and facility maintenance needs.
As part of its evaluation, staff contacted several public agencies currently utilizing the WeatherWeld Roofing System to obtain references regarding product performance, service, and warranty support. The following agencies were contacted, and each provided positive feedback regarding their experience with the product and manufacturer:
• Jon Anderson – Pacific Grove Unified School District
• Rafael Torres – Riverside County Office of Education
• Eric Chiu – New Haven Unified School District
• Robyn Wilson – Upland Unified School District
• Dennis Klein – Yucaipa Joint Unified School District
• Steve Fusi – Selma Unified School District
The WeatherWeld Roofing System provides several benefits that make it well suited for use on City facilities,
including:
• 40-year, no-dollar-limit warranty
• California Title 24 compliant
• Seamless roofing membrane, reducing potential points of water intrusion • Low-odor installation, allowing work to be performed with minimal disruption to City operations and reducing the potential need to close occupied facilities during installation • Standardized roofing system, allowing City maintenance staff to become familiar with one system and maintain consistency in materials, repair procedures, and preventative maintenance across City-owned facilities
Based on staff's research, reference checks, warranty considerations, and the operational benefits associated with standardizing the City's roofing systems, WeatherWeld provides a roofing solution that meets the City's long-term facility maintenance needs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 26-59-R Resolution Weatherweld
2. WetherWeld Info
1 RESOLUTION NO. 26-59-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD AUTHORIZING
STANDARDIZATION OF PROPRIETARY ROOFING PRODUCTS WITH WEATHERWELD, A DIVISION OF LIQUIFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
WHEREAS, the City Council is the highest decision-making authority for the City of Hanford; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City of Hanford to utilize standardized roofing products/systems in order to maintain conformity in maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the WeatherWeld Roofing Product, a division of Liquiform Technologies, Inc. has significant benefits, including but not limited to, limited odor emission, zero volatile organic compounds, a forty (40) year product warranty; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Contracts Code section 3400, the City Council or its designee may accept any “equal” material, product, thing, or service similar to that of WeatherWeld Roofing Product.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hanford declares, finds, and resolves as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and, by this reference, incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Section 2. It is in the best interest of the City of Hanford to authorize the standardization of the WeatherWeld Roofing Product, a division of Liquiform Technologies, Inc., or equal, shall be the citywide standard.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hanford this 1st day of September 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: _________________________________________________________________ NOES: _________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: ______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: _______________________________________________________________
2 ______________________________
MARK KAIRIS
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
Attest:
_______________________________________
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
12.H.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Authorization to apply for the FY26/27 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control/Office of Traffic Safety (ABC/OTS) Local Law Enforcement Grant in the amount of $22,000 to be used for alcohol enforcement operation overtime costs; and if awarded, approve Resolution 26-57-R for the acceptance of the grant, amend the budget to recognize the grant, appropriate the total amount in the General Fund for the Police Department, and authorize the City Manager or Police Chief to execute the grant agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, authorize the Police Department to apply for the FY26/27 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control/Office of Traffic Safety (ABC/OTS) Local Law Enforcement Grant in the amount of $22,000 to be used for alcohol enforcement operation overtime costs; and if awarded, approve Resolution 26-57-R for the acceptance of the grant, amend the budget to recognize the grant, appropriate the total amount in the General Fund for the Police Department, and authorize the City Manager or Police Chief to execute the grant agreement.
Recommended Motion: I move to authorize the Police Department to apply for the FY26/27 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control/Office of Traffic Safety (ABC/OTS) Local Law Enforcement Grant in the amount of $22,000 to be used for alcohol enforcement operation overtime costs; and if awarded, approve Resolution 26-57-R for the acceptance of the grant, amend the budget to recognize the grant, appropriate the total amount in the General Fund for the Police Department, and authorize the City Manager or Police Chief to execute the grant agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is offering funding to law enforcement agencies through the ABC/OTS Local Law Enforcement Grant Program. The purpose of the grant is to address alcohol-related crime in California, specifically by keeping alcohol away from minors and penalizing businesses that violate the law.
Staff is requesting to apply for the upcoming FY26/27 ABC/OTS grant to conduct alcohol enforcement operations within the City. The requested amount is $22,000, which will be used for overtime salary costs associated with the operations. The department plans to conduct nineteen (19) operations during the grant period from October 1, 2026 through August 31, 2027. The operations will consist of Minor Decoy, Shoulder Tap, IMPACT, and Holiday Enforcement operations.
Additionally, the grant requires that awarded agencies participate in an in-person training in Sacramento. The grant will reimburse $500 for staff travel costs.
The application period closed on August 14, 2026. Due to the deadline, staff submitted the application prior to receiving City Council approval. Should Council choose not to approve the application, staff can withdraw from consideration.
If the Police Department is awarded the grant, staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the City Manager or Police Chief to execute the grant agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If awarded, the fiscal impact will total $22,000, which will be reimbursed by the ABC/OTS grant on a quarterly basis. Staff is requesting a budget amendment to recognize the grant funds and an appropriation in the amount of $22,000 to the General Fund of the Police Department. There are no matching funds associated with this grant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. FY 26/27 ABC/OTS Grant Handbook
2. ABC/OTS Budget Detail
3. 26-57-R
ABC-OTS GRANT
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
GRANTEE HANDBOOK
2026 – 2027
Gavin Newsom, Governor
State of California
Paul Tupy, Director
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
2 INTRODUCTION
This handbook outlines requirements for agencies that apply for and/or receive an ABC-OTS Grant for conducting Minor Decoy operations, Shoulder Tap operations, IMPACT inspections, and Holiday Enforcement operations from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
Funding agencies (grantees) must administer their grants according to these requirements. Failure to do so may result in the withholding or disallowance of grant payments, the reduction or termination of the grant award, and/or the denial of future grant awards. All grantees must also comply with the terms and conditions of the Standard State Contract (Form STD 213).
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
HOW TO APPLY ........................................................................................................................... 4 FUNDING DURATION ................................................................................................................. 4
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE CERTIFICATION AND NONDISCRIMINATION COMPLIANCE STATEMENT ...................................................................................................... 4 RESOLUTION FROM GOVERNING BODY .............................................................................. 4 FUNDING PRIORITES.................................................................................................................. 5 Other Funding Criteria ................................................................................................................ 5 PROCESSING GRANT AWARDS ............................................................................................... 5 Notification of Grant Award ....................................................................................................... 5 ALLOWABLE COSTS .................................................................................................................. 6 UNALLOWABLE COSTS ............................................................................................................. 7 BUDGET ESTIMATE .................................................................................................................... 7 Sample Budget Estimate Detail .................................................................................................. 7 CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT .............................................................................................. 8 RECORDS ...................................................................................................................................... 8 IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTROL OF APPROVED PROJECTS ....................................... 9 Effective Date .............................................................................................................................. 9 Project Director Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 9 ABC Responsibility .................................................................................................................. 10 Revision of Projects .................................................................................................................. 10 Cancellation of Projects ............................................................................................................ 10 PROJECT REPORTS ................................................................................................................... 10 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Submission ................................................................................................................................ 10 Progress Reports and Evaluation Measures .............................................................................. 10
4 HOW TO APPLY
To apply for a multi-program ABC-OTS Grant, applicants must submit a letter of interest, a maximum of two pages, signed by the Chief of Police or Sheriff or his/her designee, along with the required attachments.
Letters must be received on or before 5 p.m., Friday, August 14, 2026.
Mail or email letters of interest to:
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Attn: Grant Unit
3927 Lennane Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95834
All letters of interest are date stamped upon receipt at ABC. Letters received after the deadline date will not be eligible for consideration. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the letter is received by ABC prior to the deadline. ABC will not be responsible for late letters due to mistakes or delays of the applicant or the carrier.
ABC will accept emailed proposals with an electronic signature to [email protected]
Letters of interest must address the issues listed in the Funding Priorities listed below.
FUNDING DURATION
Grantees will be funded for the period of October 1, 2026, or upon federal spending authority (whichever is later) through August 31, 2027.
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE CERTIFICATION AND NONDISCRIMINATION
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
Applicants selected for funding will be required to sign the Drug-Free Workplace Certification (Form STD 21) and the Nondiscrimination Compliance Statement (Form STD 19) forms as part of the contract with the state.
RESOLUTION FROM GOVERNING BODY
A resolution will be required from the governing body to authorize the applicant to enter into a contract with the state.
5 FUNDING PRIORITES
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) will take the following factors into consideration in awarding its ABC-OTS Grants. Therefore, the applicant’s letter of interest should respond to the following issues:
A. Office of Traffic Safety’s (OTS) Traffic Safety Ranking. A printout from OTS’s website depicting your City/County Fatality and Injury Ranking. This information can be found on OTS’ Crash Rankings page. Select the most recent year and enter your jurisdiction (City/County). If your city is not listed, please contact OTS.
B. The number of licensed retail outlets within applicant’s jurisdiction. This information can be found at ABC’s website on their Licenses by City and Licenses by County pages for cities and counties, respectively.
C. A completed Budget Estimate (see Sample Budget Estimate Detail below for information).
D. Be willing to do Minor Decoy operations during the term of the agreement.
E. Be willing to do Shoulder Tap operations during the term of the agreement.
F. Be willing to do IMPACT inspections during the term of the agreement.
G. Be willing to work Holiday Enforcement operations.
H. Ensure that the Minor Decoy and/or Shoulder Tap operations have the support of the local prosecutor.
I. Issue press releases as follows:
a. To announce the start of the program.
b. At the conclusion of each Minor Decoy operation and/or Shoulder Tap operation.
Other Funding Criteria
The department will also take the following criteria into consideration when awarding its ABC-OTS Grants:
1. Need for funding, based on previously awarded grants.
2. ABC will work to ensure Grant funds are spread throughout the State.
PROCESSING GRANT AWARDS
Notification of Grant Award
The following are the sequential steps the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control will take in processing grant awards:
6 1. Applicants submit a letter of interest to ABC.
2. ABC review and ranking.
3. ABC Director makes the final funding decision.
4. ABC sends proposed contract documents to the Office of Traffic Safety for approval.
5. ABC sends a selection notification letter to all applicants, whether successful or unsuccessful.
6. ABC sends a contract to the grant applicant for signature.
7. ABC signs the contract and sends a fully executed copy to the applicant.
ALLOWABLE COSTS
Grantees shall be reimbursed for direct costs expended in support of this project as indicated below:
A. Overtime
This grant is intended to be worked solely on paid overtime. Authorized overtime shall be reimbursed for the time worked on the project at the overtime rate paid to the employee by the local agency as long as the overtime rate is the same as that paid to other employees in the same classification performing comparable duties. Personnel assigned to the project shall include a minimum of one sworn officer. Overtime for additional, non-sworn personnel may also be reimbursed.
B. Employee Overtime Benefits
Social Security and Medicare (payroll) taxes only apply.
C. Travel
The grant requires a mandatory training session for the operations office. The training will cover operational requirements and the completion of grant reporting documents. Selected agencies operations officers will be required to attend the one-day training session on October 8, 2026, from 10:00 a.m-3:00 p.m. ABC will reimburse one person to attend the training. The fiscal officer will be contacted via/email or telephone to receive training regarding the requirements for submitting claims for reimbursement.
7 UNALLOWABLE COSTS
All costs not mentioned above are the responsibility of the local agency and are not reimbursable. This includes administrative overhead/indirect costs, supplies, evidence purchases, equipment (e.g., body wire equipment), and operating expenses (e.g., buy money), etc. Grantees are responsible for their operating expenses, which will include such items as cameras and "buy" money. Buy money would be the funds used by the decoy (Minor Decoy Operation) to purchase alcoholic beverages or that the decoy provides to the adult who purchases alcoholic beverages for the decoy (Shoulder Tap Operation).
BUDGET ESTIMATE
The budget estimate is the basis for management, fiscal review, and audit. Project costs must be directly related to the objectives and activities of the project. The budget estimate must be detailed and cover the entire grant period. Include only those items specifically authorized, i.e., salaries, overtime, and employee benefits.
Grant funds shall not be used to supplant any existing positions or expenditures.
Grantees must submit a proposed budget estimate for this project, not to exceed $25,000. Budget estimate proposals must reflect anticipated funds to be used between October 1, 2026, and August 31, 2027.
Sample Budget Estimate Detail
The budget estimate must detail the number of positions by classification, salary rate, and percentage of time to be assigned to the project, and total salary costs for the grant period.
Overtime costs shall include an estimated number of hours by classification, overtime salary rate, and total overtime costs for the grant period.
A. PERSONNEL SERVICES (OVERTIME AND BENEFITS)
Overtime
Classification/Position Computation Cost
1 Officers 50 hours @ $85/hour $4,250.00
2 Sergeant 25 hours @ $95/hour $2,375.00
3 SUBTOTAL $6,625.00
8 Benefits
Classification/Position Computation Cost
1 Officers & Sergeant 1.45% $96.00
2 SUBTOTAL $6,721.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSES*
For one person to attend the one-day training**
Description Cost
1 Mileage, hotel, per diem $500.00
2 TOTAL TRAVEL EXPENSES COST $500.00
Note: This is a sample budget estimate display only. Applicant agency is to specify the position classification titles used in their agency. Check dollar amount for accuracy and round the TOTAL BUDGET ESTIMATE up to the nearest $100 (not to exceed $25,000).
CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT
Grantees shall submit invoices on a monthly basis to receive payments from the State.
The invoices shall be in the format specified by the state.
RECORDS
Grantees shall maintain detailed records to substantiate the amounts claimed for reimbursement. These records (timesheets, payroll records, accounting reports, daily activity reports, etc.) must be maintained for a period of three years from the date of receipt of the final payment for the grant period and must be made available for review by the State upon request.
Grantees shall refund to the State any amounts claimed for reimbursement and paid to grantees disallowed by the State after an audit of the records maintained by grantees.
9 IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTROL OF APPROVED PROJECTS
Effective Date
The contract will show an effective date. Claims for reimbursement may be made only for costs incurred subsequent to that date. No reimbursement will be provided for expenses incurred prior to the effective date or after the project period ending date.
Project Director Responsibilities
The Project Director is responsible for establishing operating procedures and controls which will ensure adequate administration of the project in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Project Director shall:
A. Attempt to expend all awarded funds
B. Ensure all Grant Goals and Objectives are met before the conclusion of the Grant
C. Notify ABC Grant Unit immediately if any of the awarded funds will not be utilized
D. Monitor time frames as outlined in the contract
E. Maintain costs
F. Maintain adequate records for validation of project progress and accountability for all funds expended on the project
G. Ensure Submission of required project reports, billing and final report H. Conduct project evaluation
I. Ensure that the program has the support of the local prosecutor. Experience has shown that the Minor Decoy/Shoulder Tap Programs work best when they have the strong support of the local prosecutor.
J. Issue press releases as follows:
a. To announce the start of the program;
b. At the conclusion of each Minor Decoy operation to announce the number of licensed premises which sold to the minor decoy:
c. At the conclusion of each Shoulder Tap operation to announce the number of adults arrested for purchasing alcoholic beverages to the minor decoy.
d. Agencies can elect to issue one press release per month with information pertaining to all combined operations.
Note: ABC can assist in preparing a press release to each of the agencies with the resources of our Public Information Officer.
10 ABC Responsibility
ABC has the responsibility and authority to review and evaluate each project as deemed necessary. Such review and evaluation will be made to assist the grantee in understanding and complying with the required procedures and in gaining the maximum benefits from the funds expended. Grantees should promptly notify their ABC Project Coordinator concerning any changes or problems that arise.
Revision of Projects
Any revision requires prior approval of ABC. Documentation pertaining to requested project revisions must be submitted in writing to and received by the ABC prior to the effective date of the requested changes.
Cancellation of Projects
The ABC Project Coordinator has the responsibility to notify the ABC Director or his/her designee of any project which is not being implemented in accordance with applicable State laws or the terms of the contract. At this time, the ABC Director or his/her designee may choose to cancel the contract.
PROJECT REPORTS
Purpose
Funded agencies are required to participate in data collection and submit progress reports on a timely basis. The purpose of the progress report is to provide the grantee and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control with an evaluation of project progress in achieving the objectives.
Submission
ABC requires all agencies to submit one copy of the progress report to ABC's Grant Project Unit on a monthly basis. Failure to submit reports on time can delay payment of claims for reimbursement.
Progress Reports and Evaluation Measures
Agency reports, to include but not limited to:
A. Minor Decoy Operation
Quantitative measures: Number of premises visited, number of clerks that requested identification and still sold, number of clerks that did not request
11 identification and sold, number of premises that refused to sell to the minor decoy, and license type/owner/licensee name and address.
B. Shoulder Tap
Quantitative measures: Number of persons contacted, number of persons who furnished, number of persons arrested for other offenses, ratio of approaches versus furnishings, bookings versus citations, number of persons who would charge extra for the alcohol, prior arrest record of furnishers (excluding minor offenses), number of adults under the influence, license type/owner/licensee name and address.
C. IMPACT Inspections
Quantitative measures: Number of on-sale and off-sale premises inspections conducted at, total number of violations, number of premises to be re- inspected. Upon re-inspection, number of on-sale and off-sale premises re- inspected, number not in compliance, number of premises recommended for accusations, number of criminal actions, arrests/citations issued.
D. Holiday Enforcement
Quantitative measures: Specific holiday worked, city/county conducted in, number of on-sale and off-sale premises worked, arrests/citations including section violated.
Overtime
1 2
3 4
5 Benefits
1 2
3 4
5 1
2 3
4 5
*
** Training will be held on October 8, 2026, in Sacramento, CA between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.
Travel reimbursements must comply with the current State of CA travel rules and policy.
TOTAL TRAVEL EXPENSES COST
TOTAL BUDGET ESTIMATE (All categories – not to exceed $30,000) https://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/travel-reimbursements.aspx
SUBTOTAL
B. TRAVEL EXPENSES*
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES COST
SUBTOTAL
Computation Cost
Round all budget amounts to the nearest $100
Classification/Position Computation Cost
A. PERSONNEL SERVICES (OVERTIME AND BENEFITS)
ABC-OTS GRANT
For one person to attend the one-day training**
Description Cost
BUDGET ESTIMATE FORM
Classification/Position
Officer
Sergeant
212 hours @ $73/hour
60 hours @ $96/hour
$15,500
$5,600
$21,100
Officer & Sergeant
1.45%
$400
$400
Hotel, rental car, per diem
$500
$500
$22,000
$21,500
RESOLUTION 26-57-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD
APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) GRANT
WHEREAS, The City of Hanford Police Department desires to undertake a certain project designated as The Alcohol Policing Partnership Grant to be funded in part from funds made available through the Alcohol Policing Partnership Program (APP) administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (hereafter referred to as ABC), and; IT IS AGREED, that any liability arising out of the performance of this contract, including civil court actions for damages, shall be the responsibility of the grant recipient and the authorizing agency. The State of California and ABC disclaim responsibility for any such liability.
IT IS ALSO AGREED, that this award is not subject to local hiring freezes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the Chief of Police of the City of Hanford to authorize and execute the attached contract , including any extensions or amendments thereof and any subsequent agreement with the State in relation thereto.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on September 1, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: _______________________________________________________________ NOES:_______________________________________________________________ ABSENT:_____________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN:_____________________________________________________________
__________________________
MARK KAIRIS
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 ______, 20___.
Date: ____________________
_________________________________
City Clerk
12.I.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT:
Authorization for the City Manager to execute a five-year continuing professional services agreement with NHA Advisors, LLC for Municipal Financial Consulting on debt-related services, with costs based on services provided, with total approximate reporting costs of $55,000 over five years plus project- specific costs as agreed upon, primarily funded by the applicable enterprise funds
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation:Staff recommends, by motion, the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year continuing professional services agreement with NHA Advisors, LLC for Municipal Financial Consulting on debt-related services, with costs based on services provided, with total approximate reporting costs of $55,000 over five years plus project-specific costs as agreed upon, primarily funded by the applicable enterprise funds
Recommended Motion: I move to authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year continuing professional services agreement with NHA Advisors, LLC for Municipal Financial Consulting on debt- related services, with costs based on services provided, with total approximate reporting costs of $55,000 over five years plus project-specific costs as agreed upon, primarily funded by the applicable enterprise funds
BACKGROUND:
On September 7, 2021, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with NHA Advisors, LLC ("NHA") for municipal financial consulting services following a competitive Request for Proposals process. The agreement was executed on September 20, 2021, for a five-year term and includes municipal financial consulting, financing and annual continuing disclosure compliance services.
Since that time, NHA has served as the City's municipal advisor on several significant financial initiatives, including the issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds to restructure the City's unfunded pension liability and recently financing for the Wastewater Solar Project through a private placement equipment lease. NHA assisted the City in evaluating proposals, structuring the financing, and coordinating the transaction through closing.
The current agreement expires in September 2026. Staff is requesting approval of a new five-year agreement with substantially the same scope of services to ensure continuity of municipal consulting services. This is particularly important as the City is currently undertaking approximately $60 million
in wastewater financing through a public offering and competitive sale. NHA has been actively involved in developing this complex and significant financing plan and has extensive institutional knowledge of the City's financial position, debt portfolio, and financing objectives. Maintaining the existing advisory relationship will help ensure an efficient and successful completion of this financing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Compensation under the proposed agreement will be based on the services provided. General financial consulting and advisory services will be charged in accordance with the hourly rates established in the agreement. Financing-related services may be charged as a fixed or contingent fee based on the type, size, and complexity of the transaction and are generally payable from financing proceeds upon closing.
NHA has provided a disclosure letter establishing a fixed fee of $64,500 for its municipal advisory services associated with the approximately $60 million wastewater financing. The proposed fee is based on the compensation terms contained in the City’s existing 2021 agreement and is anticipated to be paid from bond proceeds at the closing of the transaction.
Costs for continuing disclosure services and other miscellaneous consulting assignments will be charged in accordance with the proposed agreement and paid from the applicable approved departmental, enterprise, or financing project budget. Any services requiring additional appropriations will be brought to the City Council for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. NHA Advisors Agreement
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 1 of 27
MUNICIPAL ADVISOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF HANFORD
AND
NHA ADVISORS, LLC
THIS MUNICIPAL ADVISOR AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) for consulting services is made by and between the City of Hanford, (the “City”) and NHA Advisors, LLC (“ Consultant”) (together referred to as the “Parties”) as of September __, 2026 (the “Effective Date”).
SECTION 1 – SERVICES
As the City’s registered municipal advisor, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to the City the services described in the Scope of Services attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, th e Agreement shall prevail.
If acting in the capacity of an Independent Registered Municipal Advisor (“IRMA”) regarding the “IRMA exemption” of the SEC Rule, Consultant will review all third-party recommendations submitted to the City in writing, if requested.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on June 30, 2031, or upon completion of the Scope of Services described in Exhibit A, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as referenced in Section 8.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event the City , in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from the City of such desire of the City, reassign such person or persons.
1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.
If the City elects a course of action that is independent of or contrary to the advice provided by Consultant, Consultant is not required on that basis to disengage from the City.
SECTION 2 - COMPENSATION
The City hereby agrees to pay Consultant compensation for services outlined in the Scope of Services (Exhibit A) under the Compensation Schedule (Exhibit B).
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 2 of 27
The City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from the City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to the City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by the City in writing, Consultant shall not bill the City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.
Consultant and the City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by the City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the Parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. The City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
The beginning and ending dates of the billing period. At the City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense.
For work performed on an hourly Compensation Schedule, the total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder.
2.2 Monthly Payment. The City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. The City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant.
2.3 Final Payment. The City shall pay the final sum due pursuant to this Agreement within 60 days after completion of the services and submittal to the City of a final invoice if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.
2.4 Total Payment. The City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 3 of 27
2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the compensation schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B.
2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are specified in Exhibit B. Expenses will typically include third -party data collection or services not provided by the City .
Reimbursable expenses are in addition to the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded.
2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.
2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets to verify costs incurred to that date.
2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.
SECTION 3 - FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. The City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
The City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with the City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of the City. In no event shall the City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
SECTION 4 - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the wor k hereunder by Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors.
Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide proof satisfactory to the City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects, and that such insurance is in effect prior to beginning work to the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in Consultant’s bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence that such insurance is in effect to the City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. Consultant shall maintain all required insurance listed herein for the duration of this Agreement.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 4 of 27
4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all people employed directly or indirectly by Consultant . The Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self- insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement.
4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.
4.2.1 General Requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than $ 2,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the gen eral aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles.
4.2.2 Minimum Scope of Coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 (most recent edition) covering comprehensive General Liability on an “occurrence” basis. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (most recent edition), Code 1 (any auto). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.
4.2.3 Additional Requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:
a) The Insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis.
b) The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured as respects: liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by Consultant.
c) For any claims related to this Agreement or the work hereunder, Consultant’s insurance covered shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 5 of 27
self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
d) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after 30 days’ prior written notice has been provided to the City.
4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.
4.3.1 General Requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than $ 2,000,000 covering the licensed professionals’ errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $250,000 per claim.
4.3.2 Claims-Made Limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:
a) The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement.
b) Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates.
c) If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five years after completion of work under this Agreement.
d) A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.
4.4 All Policies Requirements.
4.4.1 Acceptability of I nsurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Best’s rating of no less than A: VII.
4.4.2 Verification of C overage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish the City with complete copies of all policies delivered to Consultant by the insurer, including complete copies of all endorsements attached to those policies. All copies of policies and endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. If the City does not receive the required insurance documents prior to Consultant beginning work, it shall not waive Consultant ’s obligation to provide them. The
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 6 of 27
City reserves the right to make complete copies of all required insurance policies at any time.
4.4.3 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the written approval of the City for the self -insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the City , its officers, employees, and volunteers; or Consultant shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
4.4.4 Wasting Policies. No policy required by this Section 4 shall include a “wasting” policy limit (i.e., limit that is eroded by the cost of defense).
4.4.5 Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer or contractor may require from vendor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsements that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation.
The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the entity for all work performed by the contractor, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.
4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all the requirements stated herein.
4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies the City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, the City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies the City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant’s breach:
obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;
order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or
terminate this Agreement.
SECTION 5 – CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES AND INDEMNIFICATION Consultant is registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”). As such, Consultant has a fiduciary duty to the City and must provide both a Duty of Care and a Duty of Loyalty that entail the following.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 7 of 27
Duty of Care:
a) exercise due care in performing its municipal advisory activities; b) possess the degree of knowledge and expertise needed to provide the City with informed advice; c) make a reasonable inquiry as to the facts that are relevant to the City ’s determination as to whether to proceed with a course of action or that form the basis for any advice provided to the City; and
d) undertake a reasonable investigation to determine that Consultant is not forming any recommendation on materially inaccurate or incomplete information; Consultant must have a reasonable basis for:
i. any advice provided to or on behalf of the City;
ii. any representations made in a certificate that it signs that will be reasonably foreseeably relied upon by the City , any other party involved in the municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product, or investors in the City securities; and iii. any information provided to the City or other parties involved in the municipal securities transaction in connection with the preparation of an official statement.
Duty of Loyalty:
Consultant must deal honestly and with the utmost good faith with the City and act in the City ’s best interests without regard to the financial or other interests of Consultant . Consultant will eliminate or provide full and fair disclosure (included herein) to the City about each material conflict of interest (as applicable). Consultant will not engage in municipal advisory activities with the City as a municipal entity, if it cannot manage or mitigate its conflicts in a manner that will permit it to act in the City’s best interests.
Conflicts of Interest and Other Matters Requiring Disclosures As of the commencement date of the Project, there are no actual or potential material conflicts of interest, other than those potential conflicts noted below, that Consultant is aware of that might impair its ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty. If Consultant becomes aware of any material potential conflict of interest that arises after this disclosure, Consultant will disclose the detailed information in writing to the City in a timely manner.
Pursuant to MSRB Rule G -42, on Duties of Non -Solicitor Municipal Advisors, Municipal Advisors are required to make certain written disclosures to clients which include, amongst other things, Conflicts of Interest and any Legal or Disciplinary events of Consultant and its associated persons.
The following are potential conflicts of interest to be considered. • Consultant represents that in connection with the issuance of municipal securities, Consultant may receive compensation from the City for services rendered, which compensation is contingent upon the successful closing of a transaction and/or is based on the size of a transaction. Consistent with the requirements of MSRB Rule G -42, Consultant hereby discloses that such contingent and/or transactional compensation may present a potential conflict of interest regarding Consultant’s ability to provide unbiased advice to enter into such transaction. The contingent fee arrangement creates an incentive for Consultant to recommend unnecessary financings or financings that are disadvantageous to the City , or to advise the City to increase the size of the issue. This potential conflict of interest will not impair Consultant’s ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the City.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 8 of 27
• Consultant’s fees under this potential agreement may be based on hourly fees of Consultant ’s personnel, with the aggregate amount equaling the number of hours worked by such personnel times an agreed-upon hourly billing rate. This form of compensation presents a potential conflict of interest because it could create an incentive for Consultant to recommend alternatives that would result in more hours worked. This conflict of interest will not impair Consultant’s ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the City. • Consultant’s fees under this potential agreement may be a fixed amount established at the outset of this potential agreement. The amount is usually based upon an analysis by the City and Consultant of, among other things, the expected duration and complexity of the transaction and the scope of services to be performed by Consultant . This form of compensation presents a potential conflict of interest because, if the transaction requires more work than originally contemplated, Consultant may suffer a loss. Thus, Consultant may recommend less time- consuming alternatives, or fail to do a thorough analysis of alternatives. This conflict of interest will not impair Consultant ’s ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty to the City.
• The fee paid to Consultant increases the cost of investment to the City. The increased cost occurs from compensating Consultant for municipal advisory services provided. • Consultant serves a wide variety of other clients that may, from time to time, have interests that could have a direct or indirect impact on the interests of another Consultant client. For example, Consultant serves as municipal advisor to other municipal advisory clients and, in such cases, owes a regulatory duty to such other clients just as it does to the City . These other clients may, from time to time and depending on the specific circumstances, have competing interests. In acting in the interests of its various clients, Consultant could potentially face a conflict of interest arising from these competing client interests. Consultant fulfills its regulatory duty and mitigates such conflicts through dealing honestly and with the utmost good faith with the City. • Gerald Craig Hill, the Managing Principal of NHA Advisors is currently serving as an outside director for the HdL Companies based in Diamond Bar, CA. HdL Companies is a software and professional services consulting company providing revenue data and collections information to local governments, potentially including NHA Advisors’ clients. HdL Companies have affiliates including, but not limited to, HdL Coren & Cone. From time to time, NHA Advisors utilizes the services of HdL Coren & Cone for its clients. NHA Advisors is mindful of this conflict of interest and fulfills its regulatory duty and mitigates such conflicts through dealing honestly and with the utmost good faith when this situation arises.
• Consultant does not have any affiliate that provides any advice, service, or product to or on behalf of the City that is directly or indirectly related to the municipal advisory activities to be performed by Consultant.
• Consultant has not made any payments directly or indirectly to obtain or retain Consultant ’s municipal advisory business.
• Consultant has not received any payments from third parties to enlist Consultant ’s recommendation to the City of its services, any municipal securities transaction, or any municipal finance product.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 9 of 27
• Consultant has not engaged in any fee -splitting arrangements involving Consultant and any provider of investments or services to the City.
• Consultant does not have any legal or disciplinary event that is material to the City’s evaluation of the municipal advisory or the integrity of its management or advisory personnel. • Consultant does not function as principal in any of the transaction(s) related to this potential agreement.
Recommendations
If Consultant makes a recommendation of a municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product or if the review of a recommendation of another party is requested in writing by the City and is within the scope of the engagement, Consultant will determine, based on the information obtained through reasonable diligence of Consultant whether a municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product is suitable for the City. In addition, Consultant will inform the City of:
• the evaluation of the material risks, potential benefits, structure, and other characteristics of the recommendation;
• the basis upon which Consultant reasonably believes that the recommended municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product is, or is not, suitable for the City; and • whether Consultant has investigated or considered other reasonably feasible alternatives to the recommendation that might also or alternatively serve the City’s objectives.
If the City elects a course of action that is independent of or contrary to the advice provided by Consultant, Consultant is not required on that basis to disengage from the City.
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G-10 Disclosure Pursuant to MSRB Rule G -10, on Investor and Municipal Advisory Client Education and Protection, Municipal Advisors are required to provide certain written information to their municipal entity and obligated person clients which include the following:
• Consultant is currently registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and MSRB. • Within the MSRB website at www.msrb.org, the City may obtain the Municipal Advisory client brochure that is posted on the MSRB website. The brochure describes the protections that may be provided by the MSRB Rules along with how to file a complaint with financial regulatory authorities.
Record Retention
Pursuant to the SEC record retention regulations, Consultant is required to maintain, in writing, all communication and created documents between Consultant and the City for five (5) years.
Indemnification
Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel acceptable to the City, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage,
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 10 of 27
claims, expenses, and costs (including without limitation, attorney’s fees and costs and fees of litigation) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant’s performance of the Services or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such Liability caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
Consultant’s obligation to defend and indemnify shall not be excused because of Consultant’s inability to evaluate Liability or because Consultant evaluates Liability and determines that Consultant is not liable to the claimant. Consultant must respond within 30 days, to the tender of any claim for defense and indemnity by the City, unless this time has been extended by the City. If Consultant fails to accept or reject a tender of defense and indemnity within 30 days, in addition to any other remedy authorized by law, so much of the money due Consultant under and by virtue of this Agreement as shall reasonably be considered necessary by the City, may be retained by the City until disposition has been made of the claim or suit for damages, or until Consultant accepts or rejects the tender of defense, whichever occurs first.
With respect to third party claims against Consultant, Consultant waives any and all rights of any type to express or implied indemnity against the Indemnitees.
Notwithstanding the forgoing, to the extent this Agreement is a “construction contract” as defined by California Civil Code Section 2782, as may be amended from time to time, such duties of Consultant to indemnify shall not apply when to do so would be prohibited by California Civil Code Section 2782.
In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City , Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of the City.
SECTION 6 - STATUS OF CONSULTANT
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of the City . The City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant ’s services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise the City shall not have the right to control how Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by the City , including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of the City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by the City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
6.2 Consultant Not an Agent. Except as the City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of the City in any capacity of the City whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind the City to any obligation whatsoever.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 11 of 27
6.3 Public Officials Who Manage Public Investments . Government Code section 87200 et seq. requires that public officials, which include every member, officer, employee or consultant of a state or local government agency, who manages public investments, must file a statement of economic interest. Consultant acknowledges that it may be deemed to be a public official pursuant to this Government Code section and, if so, is obligated to complete a statement of economic interest (Form 700) and file it with the Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”).
SECTION 7 - LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.
7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which the City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to the City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to the City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses.
7.5 Legal Events and Disciplinary History. Consultant does not have any legal events and disciplinary history on its Form MA and Form MA-I, which includes information about any criminal actions, regulatory actions, investigations, terminations, judgments, liens, civil judicial actions, customer complaints, arbitrations, and civil litigation. The City may electronically access Consultant’s most recent Form MA and each most recent Form MA- I filed with the Commission at the following website:
www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
There have been no material changes to a legal or disciplinary event disclosure on any Form MA or Form MA-I filed with the SEC.
7.6 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, based on a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 12 of 27
the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby.
Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
SECTION 8 - TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION
8.1 Termination. The City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant.
Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 45 days’ written notice to the City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; the City , however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to the City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement.
8.2 Extension. The City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if the City grants such an extension, the City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, the City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period.
8.3 Amendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties.
8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. The City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to the City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant .
Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.
8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between the City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, the City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 13 of 27
8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement
8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement
8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant
8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that the City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work
SECTION 9 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
9.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the P arties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the county in which the City is located.
9.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
9.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.
9.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties.
9.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies, and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.
9.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of the City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.
Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 14 of 27
Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous 12 months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code § 1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.
As of the date of the Agreement, there are no actual or potential conflicts of interest that Consultant is aware of that might impair its ability to render unbiased and competent advice or to fulfill its fiduciary duty. If Consultant becomes aware of any potential conflict of interest that arise after this disclosure, Consultant will disclose the detailed information in writing to the City in a timely manner.
The fee paid to Consultant increases the cost of investment to the City. The increased cost occurs from compensating Consultant for municipal advisory services provided.
Consultant does not function as principal in any of the transaction(s) related to this Agreement.
During the term of the municipal advisory relationship, this agreement will be promptly amended or supplemented to reflect any material changes in or additions to the terms or information within this agreement and the revised writing will be promptly deliv ered to the City.
9.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.
9.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the City General Manager (“Contract Administrator”). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee.
9.10 Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to:
Eric Scriven, Principal
NHA Advisors, LLC
4040 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903
Any written notice to the City shall be sent to:
City Manager
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 15 of 27
10.11 Integration. This Agreement, including the Scope of Services attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits A, B and C represents the entire and integrated agreement between the City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral.
Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Compensation Schedule
Exhibit C: Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest and Legal or Disciplinary Events
10.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY OF HANFORD NHA ADVISORS, LLC
____________________________ ______________________________ Chris Tavarez, City Manager Eric Scriven, Principal
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 16 of 27
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
“ON-CALL” GENERAL / FINANCIAL CONSULTING & MUNICIPAL ADVISORY / FUNDING STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT—IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES /
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE SERVICES /
A) “ON-CALL” GENERAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES: Consultant may serve City on an as - needed, “on-call” basis in different roles such as “extension of staff” projects, providing research, ideas, advice, education and presentation of relevant topics to City stakeholders (elected officials, staff, citizens, etc.) and lead or assist City in developing and implementing programs, policies and/or practices that enhance City’s financial and operational outcomes.
This scope of work may pertain to general areas of Consultant’s expertise in the following practice areas.
A sample of recent, successfully delivered assignments include, but are not limited to, the following types of projects and/or deliverables:
• Financial risk or Fiscal
Sustainability
Assessment,
• CalPERS education,
review and forecasting,
• Utility enterprise capital
and operations financial
forecasting,
• Financial and risk
management policies
review,
• OPEB modeling and
analysis,
• Strategic capital
planning,
• “Green” energy project
financial review,
• Public-private
partnership design,
review and analysis,
• New development
financial analysis and
planning,
• Community facilities /
assessment district
formation,
• Subsidized loan / grant
project management,
• Voter approved
revenue measure pre-
election financial and
project management
assistance,
• Post-issuance
compliance including
continuing disclosure,
and credit rating
surveillance services.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 17 of 27
B) MUNICIPAL ADVISORY / FUNDING STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES:
Consultant, as fiduciary, agent and “quarterback” for City achieving its funding goals will work in a two-phase process to develop and execute the City’s directed/preferred approach to a Project funding strategy.
This scope of work will usually entail the following approach and process:
Task 1: Plan of Finance Development
♦ Due Diligence (Listening & Investigating to Understand ”Internal” and “External” Existing Conditions)
• Interview City to develop understanding of the goals and desired outcomes from development/acquisition/construction of project to be funded • Understand potential cost range for potential projects, schedule for project implementation, from planning through construction, and operational costs for potential projects
• Identify existing City resources (i.e., liquid or illiquid assets, dedicated pay-as-you-go and/or grant funding) already committed for the potential projects • Review reports or studies of other City consultants related to the potential projects and funding options
• If appropriate, review existing debt covenants, including rate covenants (for utilities) and additional bonds tests
• If appropriate, review other existing contractual constraints / covenants ♦ Determine Debt Financing Capacity and Evaluate Financing Options / Scenarios • As required, develop revenue and expense projections for the specific fund(s) using a combination of audited financials, budget materials, other consultant projections (rate studies, if applicable), and discussions with City staff TASK 1 – PLAN OF FINANCE DEVELOPMENT TASK 2
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 18 of 27
• Using revenue and expense projections, develop a financial forecasting model to ascertain coverage based on identified financing options and research including:
o Financed capital expenditures
o Pay-as-you-go capital expenditures
o Restructuring of existing obligations (if any)
o Potential future rate increases (high level analysis only, NHA is not a rate consultant) and/or other identified, approved new tax or revenue sources • Evaluate pros and cons of financing options available to fund capital projects including a combination of:
o Reserves, Internal (i.e., interfund) loans, pay-as-you-go funding sources, utilization of other existing assets
o State or federal subsidized loan and/or grant funding sources (e.g., USDA, SRF, WIFIA, I-Bank, etc.)
o Revenue bonds and/or certificates of participation
• Other unique opportunities uncovered during due diligence (Federal or State earmarks, local fundraising opportunities, etc.)
• Determine magnitude of potential financial impacts (i.e., expenditure modifications / tradeoffs) to support debt service under a variety of financing alternatives / scenarios (i.e., “stress testing”)
♦ Communication / Presentation of Options for City Review and Decision-Making • Develop and deliver comprehensive, understandable PowerPoint presentation(s) outlining background, objectives, analysis, and options. Also, provide education, as required/requested regarding background on various funding alternatives.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 19 of 27
Task 2: Plan of Finance Execution / Implementation
♦ Project Management
• Manage the financing process, including assembly of the financing team, as requested / required and assignment of tasks for all parties involved in the financing. o As needed and upon request, undertake qualification / solicitation of such other team members and, in some instances, funding sources. This effort may include registered broker- dealer, bond/disclosure counsel, trustee, grant writers, revenue measure (i.e., election and polling) consultants, service and impact fee consultants, cost of service rate study consultants, lobbyists.
Additionally, certain funding sources ( i.e., I-Bank) require an upfront evaluation with respect to rates/terms/timeline in initial stages of funding plan formulation.
o As requested / directed by City , provide recommendation(s) and negotiate preferred terms and fees for said consultant(s).
• Provide information and advice on the timing of the financing process and develop a timeline (schedule) of tasks.
o If applicable, work with grant writer(s) or lobbyist(s), identify grant application deadlines and cycles for all potential grant programs that the project may be eligible for
o If applicable, for each potential project, delineate the phase of project development that is suitable for each type of grant, i.e., planning, engineering design, permitting and construction
• Provide assistance and advice, as needed, with respect to assembling the necessary due diligence data requirements that will be requested from the various funding sources, as well as other third -party participants ( i.e., credit rating agencies, bond insurance providers, grant writers, tax attorneys, etc.). ♦ Quantitative Analysis, Comparisons and Financial Structuring • Continue to advise the City on available funding sources/programs (including loans, bonds, grants, subsidized state and federal programs) with respect to their rates, terms and timing.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 20 of 27
• Analyze / evaluate availability and suitability of funding sources in conjunction with City’s objectives, constraints and requirements
o As needed, continue to engage in discussions with key market participants (i.e., state/federal loan program representatives, banks, bond insurers, bond lawyers, rating agencies, broker-dealers) to quantify and qualify the various options
• As applicable, continue to develop / evaluate various full Project funding “capital stack” options for City’s review and consideration
o If applicable, determine likely increases (at a high level) in utility rates to support debt service required for each Capital Stack scenario ♦ Project Implementation
• Coordinate the efforts of all assembled team members for due diligence data collection and curation for legal, disclosure (if applicable) and credit documentation. • Coordinate bond counsel, disclosure counsel, and/or any other legal counsel to prepare the financing documents for approval by the City Council. o Review and provide comments to financing documents to ensure consistency with the overall funding plan and goals of City.
• As required and/or upon request, make presentations or attend meetings with the City Council or stakeholders to answer questions about the funding plan/strategy, its objectives and process.
• Work with selected financing partner(s) or funding source(s) to determine optimal structure, including serial/term bonds, premium/discount bonds, redemption provisions and repayment “shape.”
• If a private placement method of sale is utilized:
o Assist with the preparation of a credit package for potential institutional / sophisticated investors (i.e., banks).
o Ensure required annual disclosures/reporting requirements to successful financial institution is feasible within City ’s existing capabilities and processes.
o If a placement agent has been engaged, oversee placement agent’s solicitation process, assist with the selection of the financing provider, and assist with the negotiation of terms, as necessary.
o Manage / negotiate loan pricing and final financing structure (debt service and bond terms).
• If a public offering method of sale is utilized:
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 21 of 27
o Coordinate preparation of a comprehensive credit presentation to the rating services and bond insurance companies, if applicable.
o Work with disclosure counsel to prepare, review, provide comments, and print the preliminary and final official statements.
o If completed as a negotiated sale, monitor the underwriter's sales effort and assist the City with the negotiation of underwriting spreads and interest rates for the proposed financing.
o If completed as a competitive sale, engage a nationally recognized firm to widely distribute the offering documents to potential investors, establish a bidding platform, coordinate the required noticing for and conduct the execution of the competitive sale on the prescribed advertised date. • If grants or state/federal legislative earmarks are identified and feasible:
o Coordinate with City ’s grant writer(s) and lobbyist to evaluate and plan for integration of these zero cost funds into the overall funding plan. • If state/federal subsidized loans and grant programs are identified as appropriate, eligible/available and feasible:
o Depending upon Consultant ’s role, serve either as 1) project manager and lead/coordinator for full Program Package submissions or 2) work closely with designated project manager and serve as municipal advisor for the specific sections of the Program Package relating to credit and financial matters.
For most programs, a “preliminary” package must be submitted for initial review whereupon, if deemed acceptable by the state/federal funding program, there then will be an “invitation to submit” a formal/full package requesting funds. USDA, WIFIA, I-Bank utilize this 2-step process.
Processing from preliminary evaluation to Program delivery of funds can take anywhere from 4 months up to 18-24 months (or more). • As requested, assist with the solicitation of an investment advisor to coordinate investment of bond proceeds and/or accounts, as necessary. • Work with bond counsel, disclosure counsel (or other counsel), and all other financing team members to finalize documents for execution by the City. • As requested / required prepare or coordinate preparation of a closing memorandum outlining a secure and detailed flow of funds at the time of closing. • As requested, prepare and deliver presentations to executive staff, elected officials or other stakeholders with respect to the funding process and results.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 22 of 27
C) CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE SERVICES: The City of Hanford and its related entities (the “City”) are required to file periodic disclosure reporting with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”), California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (“CDIAC”), and in some cases, with the underwriter, bond insurer, trustee, or other parties fo r the City’s debt obligations. The City desires to appoint NHA Advisors, LLC (“Consultant”) to assist with the compliance of these obligations and other related tasks. The scope of work may include the following services:
Task 1: MSRB Continuing Disclosure Compliance (Rule 15c2-12):
The City has publicly offered bond transactions requiring annual continuing disclosure reports (“Annual Reports”) to be filed on the Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) system. Each obligation has distinct disclosure requirements. The primary reporting req uirements generally include the filing of:
• Audited financial statements
• Other financial information and operating data
• Other material information
• Notices of Significant Events
Consultant will provide the following services:
• Prepare Annual Reports
• Advise the City on issues related to its disclosure obligations • Notify the City of pending due dates
• Assist in the tracking of rating changes and other Significant Events • Prepare Significant Event notices, as necessary
• Post Annual Reports, notices, and other required documentation to EMMA • File a report with the City certifying that each Annual Report has been provided pursuant to this Continuing Disclosure Certificate
• Review continuing disclosure requirements in preliminary official statements and draft bond documents
Consultant will make its best efforts to monitor rating changes for both the issuer and bond insurer, if applicable, for each outstanding obligation as well as the other Significant Events listed below. To best meet this objective, open lines of communication between the City and Consultant are vital.
The City must notify Consultant immediately upon the occurrence of a Significant Event.
Significant Events generally include:
1) Principal and interest payment delinquencies
2) Non-payment related defaults
3) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties 4) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties 5) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform 6) Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the security 7) Modifications to rights of security holders
8) Bond calls and tender offers
9) Defeasances
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 23 of 27
10) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities 11) Rating changes
12) Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the obligated person 13) Consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition 14) Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee 15) Incurrence of a financial obligation affecting security holders 16) Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or similar event Task 2: CDIAC Annual Debt Transparency Reporting (SB 1029):
Effective January 1, 2017, state and local issuers are required to submit an annual debt transparency report for any issue of debt for which they have submitted a Report of Final Sale to CDIAC during the reporting period. The annual debt transparency report is due to CDIAC no later than January 31st of each year (beginning January 31, 2018) for any debt outstanding during the prior fiscal year.
Consultant will work with the City to complete and file these reports with CDIAC prior to January 31st each year.
Task 3: CDIAC Yearly Fiscal Status Reporting (“YFSR”):
(i) Marks-Roos
Any joint powers authority (“Authority”) selling bonds on or after January 1, 1996 that uses the proceeds to acquire one or more local obligations is required to report annually on the fiscal status of the Authority bonds and the local obligations acquired . Reports must be submitted to CDIAC no later than October 30
th each year.
(ii) Mello-Roos
Issuers of community facilities district (“CFD”) bonds after January 1, 1993 are required to report annually on certain information about the bonds. All issuers, regardless of when bonds are sold, are required to report any draw on reserve or default that occurs throughout the calendar year. Reports must be submitted to CDIAC no later than October 30 th each year.
Consultant will work with the City to ensure that all reports are completed and filed with CDIAC prior to October 30th each year.
Task 4: Private Placement Debt and Other Loan Reporting:
If the City issues or has issued privately placed debt or other loans that require reporting to the purchaser or other parties, Consultant will assist the City with the disclosure obligations as outlined in the governing document (continuing disclosure agreement, indenture, term sheet, lease agreement, etc.).
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 24 of 27
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
A) “ON-CALL” GENERAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES:
This is NOT a retainer form of contract. As
such, the City controls whether Consultant
services are utilized. If no services are
requested by City and performed by
Consultant, no compensation will be due.
Consultant’s on -call general and financial
consulting compensation shall be based upon
the hourly rate schedule provided in the table
to the right. Upon Consultant’s understanding
of the required scope of services / deliverables
for a specific consulting project, an estimated
not-to-exceed budget for services will be
provided, but in no instance shall total
compensation paid to Consultant during each
fiscal year of the term of this agreement
exceed Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars
($50,000.00) without the City Council’s
approval of an amendment to this Agreement.
B) MUNICIPAL ADVISORY / FUNDING STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES:
Task 1: Plan of Finance Development:
Consultant will always provide objective advice when
delivering funding strategies. This work then must not
conflict with the ultimate compensation structure to the Consultant. Therefore, Consultant believes that an
agnostic, research -based work product requires
compensation on a non -contingent fee basis. Further,
Consultant believes that compensation for strategic
funding advice should not ever be based upon the size of a transaction. In our experience, sometimes information
comes to light during our diligence that necessitates a different funding approach (or even recommending termination of the effort). Consultant is convinced that it is incumbent upon us, as a fiduciary, to provide those options and that related advice.
Therefore, Consultant prefers a two -phase compensation structure that separates general planning/advisory and initial work on a potential transaction into a “Task 1” approach, which includes hourly compensation (subject to rate table shown above) to ensure that there is no perceived conflict through recommendations or development of funding alternatives. Upon Consultant’s understanding of the required scope of services / deliverables for plan of finance development, an estimated not-to- exceed budget for Task 1 services will be provided.
Professional Services (Hourly) 2026
Rates(1)(2)
Principal $370
Director / Senior Vice President $345
Vice President $320
Assist. Vice President / Sr. Associate $295
Associate $270
Senior Analyst $235
Analyst $210
Administrative $135
1) Hourly rates will escalate by 3% annually each January 1st (rounded to the nearest five dollars based on the
prior year’s rounded amount).
2) Effective hourly rates shown in invoices may be reduced to incorporate non-billable time.
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 25 of 27
Task 2: Plan of Finance Development:
Once City staff or elected officials commit to, and direct Consultant to implement, a financing plan, the Project will pivot from Task 1 services (“Plan of Finance Development”) to Task 2 services (“Plan of Finance Implementation”). Once Task 2 phase commences, compensation will be dependent upon the identified funding met hod(s) which may include various grants, negotiated partnerships, advantaged, privately arranged, or market rate loan programs, publicly offered bonds or a combination thereof. The fee for these services is based on a number of factors, including the number of sources of funds pursued, the role and responsibilities that Consultant will undertake, the financing method of sale, structure, and complexity. Ultimately, compensation depends upon the time expected to be required to manage the process for all aspects of the financing plan to a successful outcome for the City . Consultant will provide a more detailed and definitive cost proposal for a specific Task 2 project if/when clear (or assumed) parameters on existing conditions, timelines, deliverables and expected Consultant contributions are provided.
C) CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE SERVICES:
For the tasks outlined in the Scope of Services, Consultant will be compensated as follows.
Fixed Fees Fee
Engagement/Administrative Setup (Contract, Insurance, etc.) (included on first invoice after engagement) $500
New Project Setup (Reports, Models, Tables, etc.)
(One-time fee included on first invoice after new issuance or engagement) $500 Task 1: MSRB Continuing Disclosure Compliance (Rule 15c2-12):
For this task, Consultant shall be paid a fixed annual fee payable upon successful submission of the Annual Report. The following table provides a snapshot of the initial fees associated with the City ’s current obligations:
Existing
MSRB Continuing Disclosure Reporting Annual Fee(1)
2015 Wastewater Refunding Revenue Bonds $3,300
2012 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds(2) $1,250
2013 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds $3,300
Total Annual Fee $7,850
1) In the event that the City ’s audited financial statements are not available prior to the reporting due date and filing of an unaudited report is required, Consultant will invoice for the full fee above after submission of the unaudited report. An additional $500 refiling fee will be charged for each obligation that requires filing of both unaudited and audited reports. 2) Reflects discount for additional series of bonds with substantially similar reporting requirements ($3,300 for first bond issue, $1,250 for each additional bond issue).
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 26 of 27
As additional debt is issued, new continuing disclosure obligations will be billed at the flat fees shown below, on a case-by-case basis, based on the amount of work required for each obligation:
Future
MSRB Continuing Disclosure Reporting Annual Fee
General Obligation Bonds $1,750-$2,750
Certificates of Participation/Lease $2,000-$3,000
Utility Revenue Bonds (Water, Sewer, etc.) $2,500-$3,500 Land Secured Bonds $3,000-$5,000
Tax Allocation Bonds $3,000-$4,000
Other $1,750-$5,000
Task 2: CDIAC Annual Debt Transparency Reporting (SB 1029):
For this task, Consultant shall be paid an annual fee of $500 per report (unless stated otherwise below). The table below shows the current obligations of the City that require CDIAC Annual Debt Transparency Reporting (subject to change based on CDIAC’s determination of reporting obligations).
CDIAC Annual Debt Transparency Reporting Annual Fee
2022 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond $500
2026 Solar Equipment Lease $500
Total Annual Fee $1,000
Task 3: CDIAC Yearly Fiscal Status Reporting:
a. Marks-Roos
For this task, Consultant shall be paid an annual fee of $400 per report (unless stated otherwise below) . The table below shows the current obligations of the City that require Marks-Roos CDIAC Yearly Fiscal Status Reporting (subject to change based on CDIAC’s determination of reporting obligations).
Marks-Roos CDIAC
Yearly Fiscal Status Reporting Annual Fee
None N/A
Total Annual Fee $ 0
b. Mello-Roos
For this task, Consultant shall be paid an annual fee of $900 per report (unless stated otherwise below) . The table below shows the current obligations of the City that require Mello-Roos CDIAC Yearly Fiscal Status Reporting (subject to change based on CDIAC’s determination of reporting obligations).
Mello-Roos CDIAC
Yearly Fiscal Status Reporting Annual Fee
None N/A
Total Annual Fee $ 0
Municipal Advisor Agreement between September __, 2026 City of Hanford and NHA Advisors, LLC Page 27 of 27
Task 4: Private Placement Debt and Other Loan Reporting:
For this task, Consultant shall be paid an annual fee as detailed in the following table.
Private Placement Debt
and Other Loan Reporting Annual Fee(1)
2022 Taxable Pension Obligation Bond $1,000
2026 Solar Equipment Lease $1,000
Total Annual Fee $2,000
1) In the event that the purchasing bank requests additional information beyond what is outlined in the scope of work, this fee will increase commensurate with the additional work required to provide such information.
Future Obligations
In the event that the City issues additional privately placed debt or other loans that require periodic reporting, the annual fee will be commensurate with the amount of work required based on the fee schedule provided in Task 1 (Future MSRB Continuing Disclosure Reporting).
Section C: Continuing Disclosure Compliance Services - Grand Total One-Time Fees
Projected
Annual Fee(1)
Fixed Fee: Engagement/Administrative Setup $500 $0
Fixed Fee: New Project Setup-Fee ($500 x 1 debt obligations) $500 $0 Task 1: MSRB Continuing Disclosure Compliance $0 $7,850 Task 2: CDIAC Annual Debt Transparency Reporting $0 $1,000 Task 3a: Marks-Roos CDIAC Yearly Fiscal Status Reporting $0 $0 Task 3b: Mello-Roos CDIAC Yearly Fiscal Status Reporting $0 $0 Task 4: Private Placement Debt and Other Loan Reporting $0 $2,000 Continuing Disclosure Compliance Services - Grand Total $1,000 $10,850 1) As prior obligations mature or new debt is issued, the Scope of Services and annual budget for services will change in accordance with the fees outlined above.
Expenses – Out-of-pocket expenses for Sections A (“On-Call” General and Financial Consulting Services) and B (Municipal Advisory / Funding Strategy Development & Implementation Services) above will be limited to those necessary for completion of the project and will be billed at cost plus a 15% markup for payment and processing (including sub-consultants invoices).
Out-of-pocket expense reimbursements for Section C (Continuing Disclosure Compliance Services) a re capped at $1,500 annually without prior approval from the City and will be limited to those necessary for completion of the project and will be billed at cost plus a 15% markup for payment and processing.
13.A.
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2026 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and consideration of approval of Resolution 26-61-R for City of Hanford Wastewater Fee Rate Increase effective September 2, 2026.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing and consider approval of Resolution 26-61-R for a City of Hanford Wastewater Fee Rate Increase effective September 2, 2026.
Recommended Motion:
I move to adopt Resolution 26-61-R for a City of Hanford Wastewater Fee Rate Increase effective September 2, 2026.
BACKGROUND:
On May 19, 2026, the City Council approved award of a Design-Build Contract to Opterra Energy Services in the amount of $59,987,749 for the combined Solar Photovoltaic and Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) Energy-Related Improvement Project. That agenda item included a presentation on the WWTF Project, Key Contract Provisions, and recommendation to return back to Council for approval of a Prop 218 wastewater fee rate increase study; a prerequisite needed to acquire funding for the WWTF Project and to sustain the City’s Wastewater Fund.
On June 16, 2026, the City Council received a presentation by LT Municipal Consultants (LT) for a Wastewater Rate Study and authorized Staff to initiate the Proposition 218 noticing process for a proposed Wastewater Rate increase, with a public hearing scheduled for August 18, 2026.
On July 7, 2026 the City Council approved a revised Prop 218 Public Hearing Date from August 18, 2026 to September 1, 2026 for consideration of a Wastewater Rate Increase. The change in date was for the time needed to prepare the notices and accomplish the required 45-day public noticing period. To ensure compliance with Proposition 218 and California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6, public hearing notices were mailed to ratepayers/property owners of affected parcels beginning July 16, 2026 to meet the 45-day noticing requirement for a September 1, 2026 hearing date.
The Wastewater Fund is a self-supporting Enterprise Fund, which provides services for a fee.
Charges for service through rates are the primary source of funding for operations, maintenance, and also Wastewater-related capital improvement program (CIP) projects. These CIP’s are typically restricted to maintenance, replacement, normal wear and tear improvements of the existing in-use
infrastructure. This Fund is different than Wastewater Impact Fees, which are development-driven fees that are legally restricted to mitigating wastewater impacts caused by new development.
Wastewater Rates were last adjusted in March 2024 through adoption of Resolution 24-03-R. Prior to that, the last sewer rate increase was July 1, 2011 (adopted under Resolution No. 09-77-R on November 17, 2009) almost 15 years prior.
The current 2026-proposed fee study reflects updated operational and infrastructure needs that are significantly greater than what was represented in 2023-2024. In addition to the needed improvements at the WWTF covered through the Opterra Contract, the current Wastewater’s CIP reflects a significant amount of infrastructure maintenance that’s been deferred throughout the years.
It was also previously reported that the City has lacked a basic citywide proactive pipeline and lift station maintenance program (cured in place lining, spot repairs, replacement, lift station rehabilitation, etc) including video inspection. A routine video inspection program is a “must” to assess pipe condition and to determine an appropriate repair strategy if needed. There are other one-time project expenses, but the ongoing pipeline and lift station maintenance program is a much essential and recurring project.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Asset Management Guidance for Sanitary Sewers, “Proactive rehabilitation and replacement planning provides the best opportunity for capital cost savings. By rehabilitating or replacing sewers and other components before they fail, the utility automatically avoids costs such as emergency contractor fees, staff overtime, unplanned repairs, and Sanitary Sewer Overflows ( SSO) cleanup costs. Additional savings can be achieved through coordination of sewer construction with other construction projects, replacing longer segments, and phasing construction over a period of years. Proactive planning also allows the utility to assess the relative economic costs and benefits of rehabilitation vs. replacement” https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/assetmanagement.pdf
The proposed CIP, that includes these programs, within the Prop 218 fee structure represents a step in the right direction but will likely require additional financial resources in the future to catch up on pipeline maintenance as that infrastructure continues to age. Municipal sanitary sewer conveyance pipelines generally have an expected service-life range of 50 to 100 years. This range is not intended to establish replacement based solely on age; rather, it recognizes that pipe condition and remaining service life are influenced by many factors, including maintenance history. Rehabilitation or replacement must be solely based on documented pipe conditions. To help visualize the approximate age of the City’s sewer pipe network, the attached exhibit color codes the pipe age by neighborhood:
0 to 10 years old, 10 to 30 years old, 30 to 50 years old, and over 50 years old. The amount of pipeline (in miles) in those age segments has also been estimated and included in the same exhibit.
The pipeline age exhibit is an approximation because it’s equated to the age of the parcel map or the time of development (1970’s or earlier). It follows a concentric path of development and, therefore, it’s reasonable to assume the older core downtown area is likely to have a greater need for repair and maintenance.
City Council has the authority to approve rate changes when necessary to ensure the continued recovery of costs for services and to secure reinvestment into the system infrastructure for long-term sustainability. Proposition 218 (Prop 218), approved in 1996, added Article XIII D (Voter Approval for Local Tax Levies) to the California Constitution. All property-related fees, such as water, wastewater and storm drain fees and charges, must meet Prop 218’s requirements. It applies to most utility charges and fees. However, electric and gas utility charges were specifically exempted from the
definition of property-related charges in the statute. The City is required to provide notice of proposed increases to the sewer, stormwater, water and refuse collection service fees and charges to all affected ratepayers and record receipt of all written protests during a public hearing. Prop 218 prohibits increases to fees and charges if a majority of the affected ratepayers submit written opposition to proposed increases.
LT has provided the attached technical memorandum that provides the necessary background financial information that contributed to the fee update that also includes CIP and Operating Expense details. The wastewater cost allocation or rate design has not changed and can be found in the 2023 ”Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Utility Rate Study” from which the current wastewater fees went into effect March 1, 2024.
A summary of the proposed monthly wastewater fee rates included in the memorandum are as follows:
The proposed fees are based on the “No Capitalized Interest” Funding Scenario # 2 that has higher upfront rate increases but total overall lower cost as was discussed and selected by City Council at the June 16th meeting. A presentation on Wastewater Capital Improvement Needs was also included at the same June 16th Meeting. Following direction provided by Council and authorization to proceed with the Prop 218 process, Staff in conjunction with LT, including review by the City Attorney, sent out notification to all landowners and utility rate payers as required by the Proposition 218 process (a sample notice is included).
In conclusion, Staff recommends that the City monitor the needs for any wastewater rate adjustments (up or down), at a minimum, every five years in order to mitigate the need for large increases as much as possible.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed five-year wastewater utility rate plan will fund future operating and capital costs, maintain reserve levels, bond financing, and financial metrics that comply with approved fiscal and reserve policies, plus maintain current bond ratings to keep current and potential borrowing costs for capital investments low.
Barring a majority protest and if rates are adopted, Staff will return to the City Council at a future meeting for consideration of a separate financing action authorizing the issuance and sale of wastewater revenue bonds. That future action will include the proposed financing documents, bond sizing, repayment terms, and use of bond proceeds. Approval of the rates establishes the revenue structure needed to support the proposed financing but does not, by itself, authorize the sale of bonds.
Prior Council Items:
July 7, 2026 – Revision to Prop 218 Public Hearing Date June 16, 2026 – Wastewater Rate Fee Increase Presentation/Authorization to proceed with Prop 218 Process; Award of professional services agreement to Carollo Engineers May 19, 2026 – Award of WWTF/Solar Contract to Opterra, Issuance of a Limited Notice to Proceed to Opterra and Carollo
December 16, 2025 - Award of Solar-Only contract to Opterra November 18, 2025 – Issuance of a Limited Notice to Proceed #2 to Opterra (Solar Project) September 16, 2025 – Adoption of necessary findings per Government Code 4217, Wastewater Fee Rate Increase Presentation, Authorization to negotiate a WWTF/Solar Contract with Opterra, Limited Notice to Proceed #1 to Opterra (Solar Project)
June 3, 2025 – Rescind prior award to OneSource and approve new contract with Wesco for the Electrical Switchgear
April 1, 2025 – Purchase of Electrical Switchgear from OneSource Distributors October 1, 2024 – Authorization to advance purchase Electrical Switchgear, Authorization to engage Engie Energy Services (Opterra)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 26-61-R
2. Hanford Sewer Rate Tech Memo
3. Prop 218 Public Hearing Notice
4. City of Hanford Sewer Pipeline Aproximate Age
RESOLUTION NO. 26-61-R
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD UPDATING
WASTEWATER RATES
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on the 1 st day of September 2026, it was moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and carried that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, Chapter 13 of the Hanford Municipal Code provides for the fixing of wastewater rates by resolution for residential and commercial services; and WHEREAS, the consulting firm LT Municipal Consultants prepared a technical memorandum to update the report entitled “Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Utility Rate Study 2023”, dated November 7, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a study session reviewing the potential rates on September 16, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a study session reviewing the proposed rates on June 16, 2026; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed wastewater rates was mailed to all property owners and customers in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218 and Government Code section 53750 et seq; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider the proposed rates and any protests to such rates was held on this date, September 1, 2026 which is more than 45 days after the notices were mailed; and
WHEREAS, written protests to the proposed rates were not presented by a majority of the customers; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rates are required to cover the cost of providing the various services, including but not limited to, providing funds for operations, capital improvements, debt service and vehicle replacement costs; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rates are non- discriminatory and do not exceed the cost of providing services for which the rates are imposed; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to adjust the wastewater rates as set forth in the attached “Technical Memorandum” updating the 2023 City of Hanford Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Utility Rate Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the rates in the Technical Memorandum are approved, effective September 2nd, 2026; and thereafter as specified, on July 1, 2027; July 1, 2028; July 1, 2029; and July 1, 2030.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1st day of September 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Mark Kairis
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 1st day of September 2026.
Date:
City Clerk
1 DATE: August 27, 2026
TO: City of Hanford
FROM: LT Municipal Consultants
SUBJECT: Revised Sewer Rates
DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Background
The City provides wastewater services to over 17,000 accounts including homes, businesses, schools, and industrial facilities. The most recent utility rate study was completed in 2023, and at that time the City Council approved a schedule of sewer rate increases through 2027, the most recent of which went into effect July 1, 2026. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an updated schedule of proposed annual wastewater rate increases for the five-year period beginning September 2, 2026 and continuing each July 1 from 2027 through 2030. The reevaluation of the City’s wastewater rates reflects updated operational and infrastructure needs that are significantly greater than what was funded through the rates proposed in the 2023 rate study.
In 2023, the Wastewater Fund was in poor financial shape and was not covering operating and debt service costs. Further, the City did not have a detailed capital improvement plan. The 2023 wastewater rate study included funding for $7.4 million in projects over the five-year study period. Of that amount, $2 million was a set-aside for eventual upgrades to the City’s wastewater treatment facility (WWTF).
Otherwise, the study forecasted minimal improvements to the WWTF.
With this rate study update, the City proposes to invest more significantly in critical infrastructure repairs by financing an expanded CIP as well as a large-scale energy efficiency upgrade project at the City’s WWTF. The WWTF is owned and operated by the City and serves the purpose of treating and disposing of wastewater discharge that is conveyed to the City through an extensive network of over 200 miles of pipelines and other related infrastructure that comprises the City’s wastewater collection system. The wastewater service charges calculated in the 2023 rate study did not include revenues to fund major WWTF upgrades.
For the past several years, the City has been analyzing potential energy efficiency improvements at the WWTF. The WWTF is the City’s single largest energy user, in part, because it currently relies on aging technology that is past its useful service life. The City spent over $780,000 on electricity costs at the facility during the most recent fiscal year alone. In 2025, the City Council entered into a contract with Opterra Energy Services (Opterra) for the design and construction of a large-scale solar photovoltaic project (i.e., installing solar panels) and additional energy-related improvements at the WWTF. The 909 Marina Village Parkway #135
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 545-3182
LTmuniconsultants.com
2 contract with Opterra is in the amount of approximately $60 million and allows the City to sole-source the design and construction of the WWTF upgrades in accordance with Government Code 4217. It is anticipated that these improvements will offset the WWTF’s electrical demands and provide long-term utility cost savings in addition to upgrading the facility’s treatment processes and restoring the WWTF's treatment capacity.
Aside from the WWTF upgrades, infrastructure repairs and improvements for other portions of the system are required over the next five years to ensure that the City can continue to deliver safe and reliable wastewater service. For many years, the City has deferred projects to keep costs down for ratepayers. For example, the City has lacked a proactive pipeline maintenance program in the past.
However, the City’s proposed CIP represents a significant investment in infrastructure to catch up on maintenance and replacements of existing infrastructure that has aged and is in need of improvement due to normal wear and tear. The proposed wastewater rates will allow the City to complete over $25 million of critical CIP projects over the next five years.
Requirements of Proposition 218
The implementation of public agency utility rates in California is governed by the substantive and procedural requirements of Proposition 218 the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act” which is codified as Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. The City must follow the procedural requirements of Proposition 218 for all utility rate increases. These requirements include:
1. Noticing Requirement – The City must mail a notice of the proposed rate increases to all affected property owners. The notice must specify the amount of the fees, the basis upon which they were calculated, the reason for the fees, and the date/time/location of a public rate hearing at which the proposed rates will be considered/adopted.
2. Public Hearing – The City must hold a public hearing prior to adopting the proposed rate increases. The public hearing must be held not less than 45 days after the required notices are mailed.
3. Rate Increases Subject to Majority Protest – At the public hearing, the proposed rate increases are subject to majority protest. If more than 50% of affected property owners submit written protests against the proposed rate increases, the increases cannot be adopted.
Proposition 218 also established substantive requirements that apply to wastewater rates and charges, including:
1. Cost of Service – Revenues derived from the fee or charge cannot exceed the funds required to provide the service. In essence, fees cannot exceed the “cost of service”.
2. Intended Purpose – Revenues derived from the fee or charge can only be used for the purpose for which the fee was imposed.
3 3. Proportional Cost Recovery – The amount of the fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to that parcel.
4. Availability of Service – No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property.
5. General Government Services – No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services where the service is available to the public at large.
Charges for wastewater service are exempt from additional voting requirements of Proposition 218, provided the charges do not exceed the cost of providing service and are adopted pursuant to the procedural requirements of Proposition 218.
Summary of Proposed Wastewater Rates
The monthly wastewater service rates proposed in this memorandum are designed to fund the Wastewater Fund’s operating costs, debt service costs, and comprehensive capital improvement plan for fiscal years (FY) 2026/27 to 2030/31.
Monthly wastewater rates are determined based on customer service costs as well as the amount of wastewater flow and pollutants flushed into the sewer system. Residential customers are billed a flat charge per dwelling unit. Commercial customers are billed a uniform volume rate per 100 cubic feet (CCF) of metered water use. One CCF equates to 748 gallons. Industrial customers are billed based on metered pollutant loadings (BOD and SS) and flows released into the wastewater system. Schools are billed annually based on a flat charge per student (measured using average daily attendance).
Current and proposed wastewater rates are provided in Table 1. The first rate change is proposed to take effect on September 2, 2026. Rate changes thereafter are proposed to be implemented July 1 of each year from 2027 through 2030.
4 Table 1: Current and Proposed Monthly Wastewater Rates
Current PROPOSED
Customer Class Rates 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 Effective Date July 1, 2026 Sept 2, 2026 July 1, 2027 July 1, 2028 July 1, 2029 July 1, 2030 RESIDENTIAL (Per dwelling unit)
Single Family $32.50 $39.00 $46.80 $53.82 $57.59 $60.47 Multi-Family/Duplex $24.38 $29.26 $35.11 $40.38 $43.21 $45.37
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Metered Water (Per CCF)
Group A: Domestic $4.05 $4.86 $5.83 $6.70 $7.17 $7.53
Group B: Low Strength $3.71 $4.45 $5.34 $6.14 $6.57 $6.90 Group C: Medium Strength $5.20 $6.24 $7.49 $8.61 $9.21 $9.67 Group D: High Strength $7.04 $8.45 $10.14 $11.66 $12.48 $13.10
Schools (per student ADA) $0.98 $1.18 $1.42 $1.63 $1.74 $1.83 Septage (per 1,000 gallons) $46.14 $55.37 $66.44 $76.41 $81.76 $85.85 Industrial
Flow (per mg) $3,289.07 $3,946.88 $4,736.26 $5,446.70 $5,827.97 $6,119.37 BOD (per lb) $0.733 $0.880 $1.056 $1.214 $1.299 $1.364
SS (per lb) $0.735 $0.882 $1.058 $1.217 $1.302 $1.367
ADA - average daily attendance
BOD - biological oxygen demand
CCF - hundred cubic feet; one CCF = 748 gallons
SS – suspended solids
Non-residential Sewer Customer Groups are defined as:
Group A: Mobile home parks, motels, public buildings, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, fraternal lodges, service stations and automotive centers Group B: Car washes, laundromats, retail, commercial and professional establishments Group C: Mixed use commercial centers including food services with single water service Group D: Restaurants, supermarkets, grocery stores, mortuaries
Figure 1 on the following page provides a bill survey comparing the City’s current and proposed single family residential rate with the rates of other local sewer systems. September 2, 2026, it is proposed that the single family residential monthly sewer rate will increase from $32.50 to $39.00, an increase of $6.50. The City’s sewer rate is currently in the middle of all agencies surveyed and will remain in the middle following the proposed increase.