10.222.010 Title.
This chapter may be cited as the “Farmland Mitigation Ordinance” of the City of Tulare.
10.222.020 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the specific criteria and guidelines, consistent with the City of Tulare (Tulare) General Plan policies for the mitigation of agricultural land converted to non agricultural uses, within the city's urban development boundary (UDB) and outside the city limits. The intent of this chapter is to protect the City of Tulare's agricultural lands from conversion to non agricultural uses.
10.222.030 Objectives.
The objectives of this chapter are as follows:
(A) Protect agriculture as a crucial component of Tulare's economy and cultural heritage; (B) Protect and preserve agricultural lands from the effects of urban encroachment; (C) Balance the need for agricultural land conservation with other public goals in Tulare, including the need for housing, commercial, industrial, and infrastructure development; and
(D) Foster coordination and cooperation by the City of Tulare with the County of Tulare, Local Agency Formation Commission, and neighboring cities, including the City of Visalia, to facilitate an integrated and comprehensive regional approach to agricultural land conservation.
10.222.040 Definitions.
Except where the context of this chapter otherwise expressly requires, the following definitions shall govern the construction of this chapter. Furthermore, the definition of a word or phrase applies to any of that word's or phrase's variants. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply.
ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION. For costs other than the purchase price of agricultural conservation easements, adjustment for inflation refers to adjustments to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index applicable to Tulare. For the purchase price of agricultural conservation easements, adjustment for inflation refers to adjustment to reflect increases in the House Price Index applicable to Tulare, as compiled by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. That amount paid to a Qualified Entity as an administrative fee sufficient to satisfy the requirements as set forth in § 10.222.050(C) of this chapter.
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT. A perpetual easement or servitude, comparable to a conservation easement, as provided for in §§ 815 to 816 of the Cal. Civil Code, or an open space easement, provided for in §§ 51070 to 51097 of the Cal. Gov't Code, limiting the use of the encumbered land to agricultural and accessory uses, which easement or servitude is used to satisfy the mitigation obligation imposed by this chapter.
AGRICULTURAL DESIGNATION. Land that is within the City of Tulare or within the City of Tulare's Urban Development Boundary and is labeled as Open Space/Agriculture per the latest City of Tulare General Plan Land Use Map, or land within the County of Tulare designated for agricultural use in the latest Tulare County General Plan Land Use Map.
ORDINANCE 2025-XX
AGRICULTURAL LAND. Land, residing within the UDB of the City of Tulare, but outside the city's incorporated limits, which is either currently in agricultural use or substantially undeveloped and capable of agricultural use.
AGRICULTURAL LAND APPRAISAL. The evaluation of rural Agricultural Land obtained from a licensed appraiser with substantial experience in Agricultural Land Appraisals.
AGRICULTURAL USE. Use of land to produce food, fiber, or livestock for commercial purposes.
AGRICULTURAL ZONE. Land that is within the City of Tulare and is labeled as Open Space/Agriculture per the latest City of Tulare Zoning Map, or land within the County of Tulare zoned for agricultural use in the latest Tulare County Zoning Map.
APPLICANT. Any natural person, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, club, company, corporation, business, trust, or organization seeking approval or authorization from the City of Tulare on an application or permit for property which is outside the Tulare city limits at the time the ordinance codified in this chapter becomes effective.
CHAPTER. Chapter includes all sections and provision within this Farmland Mitigation Ordinance.
CITY. The City of Tulare, State of California.
CITY COUNCIL. The City Council of the City of Tulare.
CONVERSION. Those conversions of land requiring mitigation as identified in § 10.222.040 of this chapter. To develop land through construction or improvement of land associated with approval of a project such that land may be converted back to agricultural use.
CONVERTED LAND. The area of land that would be converted as a result of a project approval as set forth in this Ordinance.
CRITICAL FARMLAND. Land designated "Prime," "Farmland of Statewide Importance," "Unique Farmland," or "Grazing Land" by the California Department of Conservation as shown on their latest Important Farmland Map.
EASEMENT VALUE. The fair market value of the agricultural conservation easement equal to (1) the fair market value of the mitigation land unencumbered by the easement less (2) the fair market value of the mitigation land as encumbered by the easement, each as determined on or about the date of acquisition by an appraisal report prepared by a licensed appraiser with experience in agricultural land appraisals.
EASEMENT VALUE OF CITY PROPERTY. The Easement Value as defined herein obtained on or about the date of acquisition utilizing an Agricultural Land Appraisal or an Updated City Appraisal.
ENDOWMENT COST. An amount sufficient to endow the cost of monitoring, administering and enforcing the agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity.
FALLOW. Removal of land from agricultural production regardless of whether the fallowing or removal from agricultural production is temporary or long term or fallowed under a voluntary ORDINANCE 2025-XX
removal program.
LEGAL PARCEL. A parcel of land lawfully subdivided in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, whether or not a Certificate of Compliance has been issued for the parcel. The existence of a distinct Assessor's Parcel Number for a parcel does not, by itself, demonstrate that it is a legal parcel.
LEGISLATIVE BODY. A jurisdiction's decision-making body.
MITIGATION CREDIT. The difference between the larger area of land proposed for conversion to an agricultural conservation easement and a smaller area required for mitigation as set forth in § 10.222.050 of this chapter.
MITIGATION LAND. Land encumbered by an agricultural conservation easement or under an alternative mitigation option approved by the Community Development Director or designee pursuant to § 10.222.060 of this chapter to satisfy the mitigation obligation imposed by this chapter.
QUALIFIED ENTITY. An entity qualified and approved to hold agricultural conservation easements in compliance with § 10.222.080 of this chapter.
SMALL PROJECT. A development project that is less than twenty acres in size. A small project does not include one phase or portion of a larger project greater than twenty acres that is subject to a master, specific or overall development plan.
SOUTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. That area located in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera and Tulare Counties.
UPDATED CITY APPRAISAL. An update of an Agricultural Land Appraisal commissioned by the City establishing Easement Value which is obtained within five (5) years of the original Easement Value Appraisal.
10.222.050 Mitigation obligation.
This chapter and the following mitigation obligations shall apply to the conversion to a nonagricultural use of one or more acres of Critical Farmland, as defined in this chapter, regardless of the General Plan land use designation or zoning applicable to the land. (A) As mitigation for the conversion of Critical Farmland, the applicant shall arrange for the imposition of an agricultural conservation easement on no less than one acre of mitigation land for each acre of land proposed for conversion. The applicant shall convey, or arrange for the conveyance of, such agricultural conservation easement to a qualified entity. The mitigation land shall be comparable to the land proposed for conversion, as provided in § 10.222.070 of this chapter. (B) For the purposes of calculating the mitigation obligation under § 10.222.050(A), the area requiring mitigation shall be the full area of the legal parcel affected by conversion and not merely any lesser portion of the parcel that may be sought to be developed or converted to another use at the time conversion is proposed. (C) The applicant shall pay to the qualified entity an administrative fee sufficient to compensate for all administrative costs reasonably necessary for the qualified entity to ORDINANCE 2025-XX
acquire and hold the agricultural conservation easement and implement this chapter, including all of the following:
(1) Establishment of an endowment to provide for monitoring, administration, enforcement, and all other services necessary to ensure that the conservation purposes of the agricultural conservation easement are maintained in perpetuity; and
(2) The qualified entity's administrative costs in evaluating the mitigation land and reviewing and accepting the agricultural conservation easement. (D) It is the applicant's responsibility to identify, propose for approval mitigation land, and arrange for imposition of an agricultural conservation easement that satisfies the requirements in § 10.222.070 of this chapter.
(E) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to compel an applicant for conversion to convey to the City of Tulare or to a qualified entity an agricultural conservation easement in property owned by the applicant.
(F) The mitigation obligation set forth in this chapter shall not apply to a legal parcel that is less than one acre in area. However, this exemption shall not apply to a parcel that is one phase or portion of a larger project. The City of Tulare may disallow the use of this exemption if it finds that the subject property has been subdivided into one-acre or smaller parcels in whole or in part to avoid the mitigation obligation. (G) The following public uses are exempt from the mitigation obligation imposed by this chapter: public parks or public recreational facilities, permanent natural open space, and trails and developed open space that are open to the public. (H) Projects designed solely to preserve, create, or enhance wildlife habitat on agricultural land shall be exempt from the mitigation obligation in this chapter. (I) At its sole option, an applicant may choose to arrange for the imposition of an agricultural conservation easement on a larger area of land than the area of land proposed for conversion and thereby generate a mitigation credit equal to the excess net acreage encumbered with the easement.
(J) Any excess area encumbered with the agricultural conservation easement shall fully comply with all requirements of this chapter and shall be comparable to the land proposed for conversion to the same degree as the portion of the land offered to satisfy the mitigation obligation in this chapter, including, but not limited to, the requirements for mitigation land in § 10.222.070 and the review and approval process in § 10.222.090. (K) The administrative fee paid by an applicant choosing to create mitigation credits shall include the acreage covered by the mitigation credits. The applicant may pass that fee through to a later purchaser of the credits.
(L) Mitigation credits created under this chapter may be conveyed and used as provided in § 10.222.060.
(M) The Qualified Entity shall maintain a ledger indicating:
(1) The amount of mitigation credits created under this section; (2) The holder of those mitigation credits;
ORDINANCE 2025-XX
(3) The administrative fees paid by the creator of the mitigation credits attributable to the mitigation land covered by the mitigation credits; and (4) Any subsequent transactions involving those credits. (N) Exemptions. The following land uses are exempt from the mitigation requirements of this article:
(1) The following projects: permanently affordable housing, public schools, community farms & gardens, land conserved in a natural state and habitat for native plants or wildlife, and public trails or parks.
10.222.060 Optional mitigation alternatives.
As an alternative to providing the mitigation required by this chapter, the applicant may choose to seek approval to implement one of the following alternative mitigation options. (A) As authorized by the City of Tulare, an applicant for conversion of Critical Farmland may satisfy the mitigation obligation set forth in this chapter by paying to a qualified entity a fee in lieu ("in-lieu fee") of conveying an agricultural conservation easement. (B) Payment of an in-lieu fee is available only for conversion of legal parcels that are smaller than 20 acres.
(C) Any in-lieu fee shall include each of the following components:
(1) The purchase price of an agricultural conservation easement in mitigation land that complies with all of the requirements in § 10.222.070. This component shall be adjusted for inflation based on an estimate of the time required to acquire mitigation land following payment of the fee or the Easement Value set by the City of Tulare for property owned by the City in which an Agricultural Conservation Easement is granted as defined in § 10.222.040 of this chapter. (2) All transaction costs associated with acquisition of the agricultural conservation easement.
(3) An amount equal to the Endowment Cost of monitoring, administering, and enforcing the agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity as defined in §
10.222.040 of this chapter.
(4) The applicant's pro rata share of the qualified entity's administrative costs in implementing the in-lieu fee program.
(5) A reasonable amount to cover additional contingencies. (D) In no event shall the in-lieu fee established pursuant to this section exceed a reasonable estimate of the total of:
(1) The cost of acquiring and managing the agricultural conservation easement that the applicant would otherwise be required to create to satisfy its mitigation obligation under this chapter; and
(2) The cost of administering the in-lieu fee.
(E) In-lieu fees received by the qualified entity shall be expended solely for the purpose of acquiring and managing agricultural conservation easements in mitigation land that meets the criteria set forth in § 10.222.070 and funding the qualified entity's cost of implementing the in-lieu fee program.
(F) If authorized by the City of Tulare, an applicant for conversion of Critical Farmland may satisfy the mitigation obligation set forth in this chapter by acquiring mitigation credits ORDINANCE 2025-XX
created under§ 10.222.050(1), (J) and (K), which are permitted to be passed through to another purchaser.
(G) The city, in conjunction with a qualified entity, shall make available to any applicant who requests it, the ledger of mitigation credits provided for in § 10.222.050(M). The City of Tulare shall have no further responsibility for facilitating any private transaction involving mitigation credits.
(H) Mitigation credits may be used to satisfy the mitigation obligation created by this chapter only after the Community Development Director or designee has made the findings required by § 10.222.070 with respect to the land proposed for conversion and the mitigation land covered by the mitigation credits.
(I) An applicant choosing to use mitigation credits to comply with this chapter shall pay the qualified entity administering the credits a fee in the amount equivalent to the inflation adjustment on the administrative fee that the creator of the mitigation credits originally paid pursuant to § 10.222.050(K), if in fact the creator of the mitigation credits passed through the administrative fee for the creation of the credits to a future purchaser of those credits.
(J) An applicant proposing conversion of Critical Farmland may propose an alternative method of mitigation for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee subject to satisfying all of the following criteria:
(1) The proposed mitigation must result in permanent protection of mitigation land; (2) The applicant must bear all costs of reviewing, approving, managing, and enforcing the mitigation;
(3) The proposed mitigation must be in substantial compliance with the requirements for mitigation land and agricultural conservation easements set forth in §
10.222.070; and
(4) The proposed mitigation must be in all respects at least as protective of agricultural land as the mitigation required by this chapter. (K) The mitigation obligation imposed by this chapter is that set forth in § 10.222.050. Each alternative mitigation option in this section (§ 10.222.060) is wholly optional and made available solely for the applicant's convenience. Under no circumstances shall the City of Tulare require any applicant to implement any such alternative mitigation option, if applicant is willing to implement the mitigation obligations imposed in § 10.222.050.
10.222.070 Requirements for mitigation land and agricultural conservation easements. (A) Agricultural conservation easements in mitigation land shall be held in perpetuity by a qualified entity as defined in § 10.222.080.
(B) Mitigation land shall be comparable in nature to the agricultural land proposed for conversion. A mitigation land is deemed comparable in nature if it complies with the below requirement under§ 10.222.070(C).
(C) The Community Development Director or designee shall not approve proposed mitigation for conversion of Critical Farmland unless it finds that the mitigation land complies with each of the following requirements:
(1) The mitigation land is located in the Southern San Joaquin Valley as defined herein, outside of any city's limits or sphere of influence, with preference given ORDINANCE 2025-XX
to mitigation land within ten miles of the City of Tulare limits. (2) The mitigation land is subject to an agricultural designation in the General Plan and zoned for agricultural use. Any legal nonconforming use of the mitigation land has been or will be abandoned prior to execution of the agricultural conservation easement, or if maintained, will not interfere with agricultural use of the mitigation land.
(3) The mitigation land consists of one or more legal parcels of at least ten net acres in size, exclusive of the area occupied by any existing home and the area of any road or right-of-way easement, unless the land proposed for conversion is smaller than ten acres.
(4) The soil quality of the mitigation land has the agricultural productive capacity at least equal to that of the Critical Farmland proposed for conversion. (5) The available water supply for the mitigation land is at least equal to that of the land proposed for conversion in terms of quantity, quality, and security. (6) The mitigation land is not already subject to an encumbrance or interest that would legally or practicably prevent converting the land, in whole or in part, to a nonagricultural use, such as a conservation easement, open space easement, flowage easement, avigation easement, long term agricultural lease, profit, or an interest in the subsurface estate that would preclude development of the surface estate. A contract entered pursuant to the Land Conservation Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 51200 et seq. (Williamson Act) shall not constitute an encumbrance for purposes of this section. However, this is not to prevent the stacking of an agricultural conservation easement, with other encumbrances, easements, or interests in the property, so long as the multiple encumbrances do not contradict or prevent the effectiveness of each independent encumbrance for which the land is conserved in perpetuity.
(7) There are no physical conditions or contamination on the mitigation land that would legally or practicably prevent converting the land, in whole or in part, to a nonagricultural use.
(8) The mitigation land has no existing home, unless the land proposed for conversion includes an existing home.
(9) The mitigation land is not owned by any public agency. (D) The Community Development Director or designee shall not approve proposed mitigation land unless it finds that the agricultural conservation easement complies with each of the following requirements:
(1) The type of agricultural related activity allowed on the mitigation land is specified in the easement and is at least as restrictive as the requirements of the City of Tulare's Open Space/Agriculture (A) Zoning District.
(2) The agricultural conservation easement prohibits all residential, commercial, or industrial development and any other land uses or activities that substantially impair or diminish the agricultural productive capacity of the mitigation land or that are otherwise inconsistent with the conservation purposes of this chapter. (3) The agricultural conservation easement prohibits the landowner from entering into any additional easement, servitude, or other encumbrance that could prevent or impair the potential agricultural use of the mitigation land. (4) The agricultural conservation easement limits the construction of structures to those designed to facilitate agricultural use of the property, except that this division shall not prohibit replacement of an existing home allowed by §
10.222.070(C)(10).
ORDINANCE 2025-XX
(5) The easement provides that the mitigation land will retain water rights at least equal to that of the land proposed for conversion in terms of quantity, quality, and security.
(6) The agricultural conservation easement will be either obtained from a willing seller, voluntarily conveyed by the applicant, or conveyed by a public entity. (7) Any deed of trust or other servitude or encumbrance on the mitigation land shall be subordinated to the agricultural conservation easement except as set forth in § 10.222.070(C)(6).
(8) The agricultural conservation easement shall be approved by the qualified entity that will hold the easement and executed by all parties with an interest in the mitigation land.
(9) The agricultural conservation easement is in recordable form and contains an accurate legal description of the mitigation land.
(10) The agricultural conservation easement names the qualified entity as an intended beneficiary and authorizes it to enforce all terms of the easement. (11) The agricultural conservation easement recites that it is intended to satisfy the mitigation obligation imposed by this chapter and that it is subject to the requirements set forth in this chapter.
(12) If the agricultural conservation easement is an instrument other than a conservation easement created under §§ 815 to 816 of the Cal. Civil Code or an open space easement created under §§ 51070 to 51097 of the Cal. Gov't Code, both the qualified entity and the City of Tulare have certified that the easement will run with the land and bind successor owners of the mitigation land in perpetuity.
(13) The agricultural conservation easement provides that if the qualified entity holding the easement ceases to exist, ownership of the easement shall pass to another qualified entity.
(14) The agricultural conservation easement has been approved as to form by the City of Tulare.
(E) Division (D) does not prevent inclusion in an agricultural conservation easement of requirements that are more protective of agricultural use than the requirements set forth in that division.
(F) Before approving any alternative mitigation option, the Community Development Director or designee shall determine that such option is consistent with the requirements in § 10.222.070(C) and § 10.222.070(D).
(G) After the Community Development Director or designee has approved an agricultural conservation easement, the easement shall not be amended without further approval by the City Council, approval as to form by the City Attorney, and compliance with any approval requirements imposed by the Attorney General of the State of California for the amendment.
(H) If a court issues a judgement declaring that the purposes of this chapter and of an agricultural conservation easement can no longer be fulfilled by enforcement of that easement, the qualified entity holding that easement may extinguish the easement by selling it to the fee owner of the mitigation land, if the following requirements are met:
(1) Either the action was contested and the judgement was not entered pursuant to stipulation, or the City of Tulare was a party to the action and stipulated to the judgement; and
ORDINANCE 2025-XX
(2) The qualified entity shall use the proceeds of sale to acquire an agricultural conservation easement in other mitigation land in compliance with this chapter. (I) In the event the agricultural conservation easement is conveyed by the City of Tulare on its real property as mitigation land, it shall do so subject to the payment by the applicant of the following components:
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the City Councill, the Easement Value to be paid for by the applicant for the Mitigation Land shall be as defined above as determined by the City as confirmed pursuant to an Agricultural Land Appraisal or Updated City Appraisal prepared by a licensed appraiser with substantial experience in Agricultural Land Appraisals;
(2) All transaction costs associated with acquisition of the agricultural conservation easement;
(3) As determined by the City of Tulare, an amount sufficient to endow the cost of monitoring, administering and enforcing the agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity;
(4) As determined by the City, the applicant’s pro rata share of the qualified entities administrative costs in implementing the program; and
(5) As determined by the City, a reasonable amount to cover additional contingencies
(J) In no event shall the Easement Value as defined herein on Mitigation Land conveyed by the City of Tulare for an agricultural conservation easement be for a value that is less than twenty percent (20%) of the appraised value of the Mitigation Land unencumbered by said agricultural conservation easement. This minimum amount shall be known as the Minimum City Easement Value.
(1) As it determines what is in the best interest of the City, the City Council reserves the power to amend, modify or waive the Minimum City Easement Value for economic development incentive purposes in the City of Tulare. (K) Prior to conveyance by the City of Tulare of an agricultural conservation easement on its real property as Mitigation Land, the Community Development Director or designee shall approve the various components described in § 10.222.070(I).
10.222.080 Requirements for Qualified Entities.
(A) To be considered a qualified entity, an entity must be a nonprofit public benefit corporation, operating within the state of California, the state or any city, county, city and county, district, or other state or local governmental entity, if otherwise authorized to acquire and hold title to real property and if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed, a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission to protect a California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place, if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed, and that is qualified to hold conservation easements under § 815.3 of the Cal. Civil Code and in compliance with the requirements of§ 65965 et seq. of the Cal. Gov't Code, and be approved by the City Council for the purpose of holding and managing agricultural conservation easements. (B) In considering whether to approve an entity as a qualified entity, the Community Development Director or designee shall consider the following criteria:
(1) Whether the entity's principal purpose includes holding and administering ORDINANCE 2025-XX
easements for the purposes of conserving and maintaining lands in agricultural production;
(2) Whether the entity has an established record of holding and administering easements for the purposes of conserving and maintaining lands in agricultural production;
(3) The extent and duration of the entity's involvement in agricultural land conservation within the San Joaquin Valley, specifically Tulare County; (4) Whether the entity has been accredited by the Land Trust Accreditation Commission;
(5) Whether the entity is a member in good standing of an established and widely recognized California statewide association of land trusts; and (6) Any other information or requirements the city finds relevant under given circumstances.
(C) No qualified entity shall sell, lease, hypothecate, or encumber any interest in any mitigation land without the prior approval of the Community Development Director or designee.
(D) A qualified entity shall use fees provided by an applicant solely for purposes of acquiring, administering, monitoring, and enforcing agricultural conservation easements acquired pursuant to this chapter.
(E) If a qualified entity intends or reasonably expects to cease operations, it shall assign any agricultural conservation easements it holds to another qualified entity. (F) The qualified entity shall monitor the use of all mitigation land subject to agricultural conservation easements held by the entity and enforce compliance with the terms of those agricultural conservation easements.
(G) On or before February 15 of each year after a qualified entity is approved by the Community Development Director, the entity shall provide to the City of Tulare Planning Division an annual report for a period of time equal to the previous calendar year describing the activities undertaken by the entity under this chapter. That report shall describe the status of the mitigation land and/or agricultural conservation easements held by the entity, including a summary of all action taken to enforce its agricultural conservation easements, and an accounting of the use of administrative and in-lieu fees remitted to it by applicants.
(H) In March of each year at a general meeting of the City of Tulare, and after receipt of all reports from the qualified entities, the Community Development Director or designee shall provide the City Council with an informational report regarding all farmland mitigation activity pursuant to this Chapter.
10.222.090 Approval and completion.
(A) All mitigation proposed by an applicant to comply with this chapter, including any alternative mitigation option proposed by the applicant, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the terms and purposes of this chapter. The Planning Commission shall recommend approval, conditional approval, or disapproval to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall not recommend approval of the proposed mitigation unless it finds that mitigation to be consistent with the requirements for mitigation land and agricultural conservation easements set forth in § 10.222.070.
ORDINANCE 2025-XX
(B) The City Council shall consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and shall either approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the proposed mitigation. (C) The City of Tulare shall not issue any permit or other approval for any project involving a conversion subject to the mitigation obligation under this chapter unless the City Council has previously approved proposed mitigation in compliance with this chapter.
Issuance of any such permit or approval shall be conditioned on the applicant's completion of mitigation in compliance with § 10.222.090(D) and (E). (D) The applicant for conversion must complete all required mitigation prior to the earliest of either:
(1) Issuance of any building, grading, or encroachment permit allowing for installation of underground utilities; or
(2) Where changes are made that are irreversible and prohibitive of the converted farmland to be returned to agriculturally productive use. (E) Mitigation shall be deemed complete when the approved agricultural conservation easement has been recorded and the applicant has paid the required administrative fee.
However, if the applicant elects to seek approval of an alternative mitigation option, mitigation shall be deemed complete when the City of Tulare provides the applicant with a letter indicating that mitigation is complete.
10.222.100 Right to appeal.
(A) A Code interpretation by the Community Development Director or designee may be appealed to the City Council. The following procedures shall apply:
(1) The applicant or any interested person adversely affected may upon payment of an appeal fee, as may be established by resolution of the Tulare City Council, appeal any interpretation of the Community Development Director or designee by filing a notice thereof, in writing, with the City Clerk, setting forth in detail the interpretation and the grounds upon which the appeal is based within ten (10) days after the interpretation that is subject to the appeal. Such notice shall state specifically where it is claimed that there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Director.
(2) Upon filing of an appeal, the City Council shall set the matter for hearing. Such hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days after the date of filing the appeal. (3) In holding the hearing on the matter, the City Council may receive any and all information pertinent to the matter. Upon the close of the hearing, the City Council shall vote to either confirm the decision of the Community Development Director or designee, overturn the interpretation or confirm the interpretation with modifications.
(4) The City Council may continue the item to the next meeting if necessary to direct staff to prepare a conforming resolution with findings, which shall be considered by the Council at the next scheduled City Council meeting. (5) In the case of a tie vote, the interpretation of the Community Development Director or designee shall stand and shall be considered final as of the date of the Council vote.
10.222.110 Miscellaneous.
(A) The provisions of this chapter shall only apply to the extent that their application would not violate the constitution or laws of the United States, or of the State of California. The ORDINANCE 2025-XX
City Council shall apply the chapter to avoid such unconstitutionality or illegality. (B) If any portion of this chapter is held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have enacted this chapter and each section, division, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof even if a portion of the chapter were declared unconstitutional. (C) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to abridge or narrow the City of Tulare's police powers. The City Council retains its full power and discretion its ability to deny a proposed conversion on the basis that the proposed conversion is inconsistent with the public health, safety, or welfare because of the loss of agricultural land or otherwise, which the City Council is tasked with safeguarding.
SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the other remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 15 of the Charter of the City of Tulare, it is ordered that a summary of this ordinance be issued in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the City of Tulare for one day and that the ordinance be available in at least one public place at the City offices. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days from and after the date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tulare this XX day of XXXX 202X.
Patrick Isherwood, President of the Council
and Ex-Officio Mayor
ATTEST:
Marc Mondell, City Clerk
By Melissa Hermann, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Staff Report
Meeting: City Council
Date: April 1, 2025
Department: Engineering Services - Engineering
Submitted by: Michael Miller, City Engineer
Agenda Title: Fulton Estates Caltrans Improvements
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Consider request by Developer of the Fulton Estates Subdivision for City assistance with required improvements to the intersection of State Route 137 (Tulare Avenue) and Oakmore Street.
SUMMARY
On October 24, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 5435 approving the tentative subdivision map for Fulton Estates. As part of the entitlement process, a traffic impact study (TIS) was prepared to analyze certain intersections and roadway segments anticipated to be directly impacted by the development. This included the intersection of State Route 137 (Tulare Avenue) and Oakmore Street.
The TIS identified that under existing (pre-project) conditions, the intersection failed to meet minimum level of service requirements and met warrants for installation of a traffic signal. With the additional traffic resulting from full build-out of the project, intersection operation was projected to further deteriorate. To mitigate the project impacts, the TIS recommended that the project pay its fair share of the cost to install a traffic signal at the intersection through the payment of development impact fees; however, the intersection is not a fee generating component of the City’s current development impact fee program.
Based on concerns of the City Engineer regarding operations and safety at the intersection that were echoed by Caltrans staff in discussions regarding the project, the payment of a fair share cost was deemed inadequate. Intersection improvements were determined to be necessary in conjunction with any project phase that constructed a roadway connection to Oakmore Street, thereby resulting in a direct impact to the intersection. Accordingly, the Engineering Department’s conditions of approval for the Fulton Estates subdivision required the following:
“a) No certificates of occupancy shall be issued for either Phase 2 or Phase 3 of the proposed project prior to completion of intersection improvements at Tulare Avenue and Oakmore Street.
An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) study subject to the review and approval of Caltrans is required to determine what those improvements will be.”
The ICE process was developed by Caltrans as a standard means of identifying and evaluating potential alternatives for improving state highway intersections. The process has since been replaced by the “Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process” (ISOAP). The Developer is concerned that the time required to complete an ISOAP will impact their ability to move forward with Phase 2 of the Fulton Estates subdivision, which would create a roadway connection to Oakmore Street. When questioned about the process, the Branch Chief of Caltrans District 6 Office of Multimodal Transportation Planning informed staff that their standard review process for an ISOAP takes 2-3 weeks but cautioned that the timing to complete the process is largely dependent upon the qualifications and responsiveness of the Developer’s transportation consultant.
Developer Request
Based on concerns regarding their ability to move forward with Phase 2 of the Fulton Estates subdivision in a timely manner, the Developer has submitted a request that the City consider the following:
• “Fulton Estates offers the following improvements to be completed as part of its Phase 2 project.
These improvements would be in-lieu of the ICE Study (ISOAP):
Item #: 15.1
General Business
o Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the subdivision’s full State Route 137 frontage to Oakmore Street,
o Re-stripe eastbound State Route 137 to provide for a right-turn lane at Oakmore Street, o Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the subdivision’s full Oakmore Street frontage, o Re-stripe Oakmore Street to provide for a southbound thru lane, a northbound left-turn lane, and a northbound right-turn lane at State Route 137, and o Temporarily limit Fulton Estate traffic to right turns in and right turns out on Oakmore Street. This limitation would be removed once the existing intersection of State Route 137 and Oakmore Street is improved.
• Contribution of $25,000 to the ICE Study (ISOAP).” (Based on inquiries made with local transportation engineering firms, the estimated cost for hiring a consultant to complete an ISOAP should fall between $20,000 and $25,000.)
Potential Realignment of Oakmore Street
On January 21, 2025, staff made a presentation to City Council regarding planned transportation improvements in southeast Tulare. Included in this presentation was a discussion regarding the alignment of Oakmore Street. Currently, Oakmore Street is designated as a major arterial roadway in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. South of State Route 137, there are no substantial constraints preventing Oakmore Street from being built out to a major arterial standard. However, existing development north of State Route 137 significantly constrains the ability to extend Oakmore Street northward as a major arterial roadway. Staff identified an alternative to realign the Oakmore Street major arterial corridor eastward to intersect State Route 137 at the Road 126 alignment. In this scenario, the existing intersection of State Route 137 and Oakmore Street would likely be a minor intersection with turning movements controlled by a raised median. In recent discussions with Caltrans regarding the Fulton Estates ISOAP, they agreed in principle that this was an option they would consider. They further agreed that knowing that such a realignment was planned could impact the scale of the improvements they would analyze in the ISOAP. It’s possible that the improvements suggested by the Developer would be sufficient for the existing intersection of State Route 137 and Oakmore Street as an interim solution, but Caltrans was clear that an ISOAP would still be required to determine what the permissible improvements would be.
Considerations
When evaluating the Developer’s request as outlined above, staff has identified potential risks and impacts that should be considered. These include:
• Jurisdictional Boundaries – While the City can elect to support the intersection improvements proposed by the Developer, it does not have the jurisdictional authority to make the determination that they adequately address needed improvements to State facilities. That authority rests solely with Caltrans. Agreeing to the Developer’s request to limit required improvements to State highway facilities without their approval would effectively usurp Caltrans authority and could negatively impact the cooperative nature of the relationship between our agencies. • Uncertainty Regarding ISOAP Findings – As previously stated, it is anticipated that Caltrans will insist upon completion of an ISOAP to identify what improvements they would require to the intersection of State Route 137 and Oakmore Street. Initial discussions with Caltrans have indicated that they are open to analyzing the improvements suggested by the Developer, but they would have to be vetted through an ISOAP before being allowed to move forward through their approval process. It may be that the required improvements resulting from the ISOAP are more substantial, such as a temporary roundabout or traffic signal. In the face of this uncertainty, the City may want to refrain from making any assertions about what improvements will be required of the project.
• Shifting Developer Responsibility to the City - The Developer’s request would shift responsibility for completing the ISOAP to the City, resulting in additional workload and Developer expectations that staff meets their desired timelines.
It is uncertain what would happen if the ISOAP identified improvements that differed from what the Developer is asking the City to agree to. If the improvements identified are more substantial, will the City assume responsibility for completing them? The process of adding new projects to the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) does not lend itself to the rapid implementation of improvements. In such instance, would the City still require improvements to be completed prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy as specified in the Fulton Estates conditions of approval? If undertaken as a City CIP project, it could take the City more than a year to design, permit and construct depending on the scope of improvements.
If the City assumes responsibility for constructing the improvements identified in the ISOAP, what would be the mechanism to pay for them? Since no improvements to this intersection are included in the City’s current DIF program, would the City require the Developer to enter into an agreement with the City to fully reimburse its costs in completing the improvements? • Liability – In deciding whether to agree to the Developer’s request, the City should be mindful of the potential liability it may assume by taking any action that could result in unmitigated project impacts to the intersection of State Route 137 and Oakmore Street. The conditions of approval placed on the project serve to minimize risk to the City by acknowledging State jurisdiction, and requiring completion of improvements identified through an ISOAP approved by Caltrans.
Alternative Action
Council could elect to advocate on behalf of the Developer by submitting a letter to Caltrans asking that they forego requirements to complete an ISOAP, and approve the improvements identified by the Developer as sufficient mitigation for project impacts. A draft of such a letter is attached for Council’s consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCE(S)
Fiscal impact has yet to be determined.
LEGAL REVIEW
This item does not require legal review.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes – Minor changes would not likely impact the development.
2. Deny – Should Council deny the Developer’s request, the existing Engineering Department conditions of approval would continue to apply. The Developer would be responsible for completing an ISOAP to identify improvements to the intersection of State Route 137 and Oakmore Street and would be responsible for constructing them per Caltrans requirements.
3. Table – Tabling this item would delay the Developer’s ability to proceed with future phases of the Fulton Estates subdivision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fulton Estates Exhibit
2. Draft Letter to Caltrans
Reviewed/Approved:
Office of the City Council
411 East Kern, Tulare, CA 93274
559.684.4200 | www.tulare.ca.gov
April 1, 2025
California Department of Transportation
District 6
P.O. Box 12616
Fresno, CA 93778-2616
Attention: Michael Navarro, District 6 Director
Subject: Intersection of State Route 137 (Tulare Avenue) and Oakmore Street Dear Mr. Navarro,
The Fulton Estates subdivision is a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 183 lots located at the southwest corner of State Route 137 (Tulare Avenue) and Oakmore Street. Traffic studies performed as part of the project entitlement process included analysis of the subject intersection. The findings indicated that traffic signal warrants were met under existing conditions, and that the northbound approach experienced a PM-Peak Hour level of service of “D”. Under Plus Project conditions, the traffic signal warrants continued to be met, and the northbound approach dropped to a PM-Peak Hour level of service of “E”. Intersection improvements were determined to be necessary in conjunction with any project phase that constructed a roadway connection to Oakmore Street, thereby resulting in a direct impact to the intersection. Accordingly, the Engineering Department’s conditions of approval for the Fulton Estates subdivision required the following:
“a) No certificates of occupancy shall be issued for either Phase 2 or Phase 3 of the proposed project prior to completion of intersection improvements at Tulare Avenue and Oakmore Street.
An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) study subject to the review and approval of Caltrans is required to determine what those improvements will be.” It is my understanding that City staff recently participated in a meeting between the Developer’s transportation consultant and Caltrans staff to discuss requirements to identify intersection improvements. The direction received from Caltrans staff was that the Developer should complete the Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) to identify and evaluate alternatives to improve the intersection. During the discussion, City staff broached the subject of realigning Oakmore Street south of SR-137 eastward to align with Road 126. The City sees this as necessary to allow the extension of Oakmore Street as a major arterial roadway without having to significantly impact developed properties north of SR-137. With the major arterial realignment to Road 126, substantial intersection improvements consisting of a roundabout are anticipated at that location on SR-137. The existing intersection of Oakmore Street is expected to be retained as a local street connection to SR-137.
Understanding that the City intends to pursue the Oakmore Street realignment as associated properties develop, it is our hope that any improvements to the existing intersection required of the Fulton Estates subdivision be viewed as interim in nature. It is the City’s intention that the development be responsible for constructing improvements that adequately address safety and operational needs at the intersection, but we hope to avoid any unnecessary costs associated with throw-away improvements that are contrary to the planned realignment. During the meeting, Caltrans indicated a willingness to be mindful of these concerns throughout completion of the ISOAP.
On April 1, 2025, the Developer of the Fulton Estates subdivision appeared before City Council. They requested that Council engage with Caltrans to see if it were possible to bypass the ISOAP process, and to expedite permitting and construction of the following improvements as sufficient mitigation of their impacts to State facilities:
• Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the subdivision’s full State Route 137 frontage to Oakmore Street,
• Re-stripe eastbound State Route 137 to provide for a right-turn lane at Oakmore Street, • Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the subdivision’s full Oakmore Street frontage, • Re-stripe Oakmore Street to provide for a southbound thru lane, a northbound left-turn lane, and a northbound right-turn lane at State Route 137, and
• Temporarily limit Fulton Estate traffic to right turns in and right turns out on Oakmore Street. This limitation would be removed once the existing intersection of State Route 137 and Oakmore Street is improved.
The Tulare City Council is sympathetic to the Developer’s concerns regarding the cost, impact to project schedule, and uncertain outcome associated with the requirement to complete an ISOAP and recognizes the constraints it places on their ability to complete their project. Accordingly, we wish to voice our support for the approach presented by the Developer and respectfully request that Caltrans consider proceeding in that manner.
Sincerely,
Patrick Isherwood
Mayor
cc: Marc Mondell, City Manager
Mario Anaya, Community Development Director
Michael Miller, City Engineer
Staff Report
Meeting: City Council
Date: April 1, 2025
Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Mario Anaya, Community Development Director Agenda Title: Food Giveaway Events Downtown
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide direction to staff regarding policy and procedures regarding food giveaway events in Downtown Tulare.
SUMMARY
Staff has been made aware of concerns in the community regarding food giveaway events sponsored by local businesses or churches that are having an impact on shared parking lots, sidewalks, and public streets, particularly in the city’s downtown. These events are carried out on private property by private parties and are not permitted through the city.
Even though churches and local businesses mean well with food giveaways, these events draw so many people that the impacts spill over onto other properties and the public right-of-way. Examples of these unintended consequences include obstruction of public sidewalks, traffic backing up onto streets and intersections, creating potential safety hazards, and lack of access and availability for parking spaces that are shared with neighboring businesses. In some cases, there is added debris and garbage that remains in the vicinity of these events. These consequences are especially concerning in the city’s Downtown District, since more businesses share parking, and there is higher vehicular and pedestrian activity on the city’s streets and sidewalks, and increasingly so.
Staff is asking for Council direction on policy or procedural changes it may wish to make to address these issues. Some examples staff has thought of are the following, though other ideas from Council are welcomed:
1) The City of Tulare uses Site Plan Review (Tulare Municipal Code §10.72) to review applications for special events and parades that propose street closures or can have other citywide impacts to be reviewed by the various city departments (Fire, Police, Streets, Engineering, Planning, etc.).
Perhaps all events, including food giveaways that have the potential to result in impacts on neighboring businesses and properties need to meet with staff and obtain approved layout, dates, and times for these events?
2) Require churches, civic groups, nonprofit organizations, or local business that want to hold an event to giveaway food, can do so at designated location/s in the city that can accommodate the amount of people and traffic the event may generate.
3) Coordinate food giveaway in conjunction with the city’s temporary encampment and permanent homeless shelter campus, to support the sustainable operation and budget of the facility.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCE(S)
There is no expected fiscal impact at this time, until staff has confirmed Council direction. Potential fiscal impacts could include additional expenditures related to staff time or minor revenues for any application fees required ($31.00 special event application).
Item #: 15.2
General Business
LEGAL REVIEW
Legal review is currently not required for this informational item; however, Counsel will need to provide input if there are any legal implications to review regarding policy or procedures resulting from Council direction.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Deny any changes to the city’s policies and procedures for food giveaway events.
2. Table this item until a future date, as determined by Council.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Reviewed/Approved:
Staff Report
Meeting: City Council
Date: April 1, 2025
Department: Finance
Submitted by: Mark Roberts, Chief Financial Officer
Agenda Title: Mid-Year Budget Review and Approval of Supplemental Appropriation Requests
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution approving adjustments to the City of Tulare Fiscal Year 2025 Budget.
SUMMARY
This report provides the mid-year status of the combined operating and capital budgets of General Fund, the City’s primary operating fund. The purpose of this report is to review the financial results of the activities of the first half of the current fiscal year, provide projections of revenues and expenditures through the end of the fiscal year, and recommend various budget adjustments. In addition, estimated revenues and expenditures are presented for the ensuing fiscal year, in accordance with Freeholders’ Charter of the City of Tulare Section 26.
First Half of Fiscal Year 2025
The adopted fiscal year 2025 budget is balanced with financing sources (revenues, transfers from other funds, and available fund balance) sufficient to meet approved financing uses (expenditures and transfers to other funds). At adoption of the budget, General Fund revenues and transfers in were estimated to exceed General Fund expenditures and transfers out by approximately $4,000. Based on year-to-date actual revenues and expenditures through December 31, 2024, and expected activities through yearend, however, expenditures are expected to slightly exceed revenues, resulting in a reduction in fund balances. The following sections of this report will discuss the fiscal operating results expected to lead to the (net) variance.
Revenues
For fiscal year 2025, General Fund revenues are estimated to be lower than amounts budgeted by $1.0 million. The projected variances in each revenue category resulting in the overall variance are shown in the “Fiscal Year-End Revenue Projections” table. The “Mid-Year Revenue Comparison” table below compares revenues realized through the mid-point of this fiscal year to the mid-point of last fiscal year.
Mid-Year Revenue Comparison
GENERAL FUND REVENUES AS OF DECEMBER 31
Revenue Category 1 FY 25 FY 24 Difference
Sales & Use Tax $ 7,154,919 $ 7,425,562 ($ 270,643)
Transactions & Use Tax (Meas. I) 4,200,567 4,281,119 (80,552) Property Taxes 4,633,658 4,131,444 502,214
Utility Users Tax 2 - - -
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 3 4,001,706 3,664,823 336,883 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,079,732 939,131 140,601
Cannabis/Dispensary Tax (Meas. Y) 436,976 458,255 (21,279) Franchise Taxes 65,606 74,804 (9,198)
Other Revenues 5,503,591 6,446,962 (943,371)
Total $ 27,076,755 $ 27,422,100 ($ 345,345)
Item #: 15.3
General Business
1 Transfer(s) in not included. 2 Utility Users Tax revenues not included due to apparent posting error. 3 VLF – vehicle license fees
The table above does not include utility users tax (UUT) revenues, which are being reviewed by staff for an apparent posting error and/or a significant delay in the timing of posting, resulting in a considerable year-to-year variance. However, it is assumed, upon completion of review, these revenues will be found to be slightly lower compared to the previous year as the City’s UUT consultant has projected a modest decline in them.
The General Fund’s primary sources of revenue are the sales & use tax, district transactions & use tax, property taxes, utility users tax, and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (or “VLF”). During the first six months of the current fiscal year, these revenues (excluding UUT) were approximately $20.0 million combined, $500,000 below fiscal year 2024’s total at the same point, while overall General Fund revenues, excluding UUT, totaled $27.0 million, approximately $400,000 lower than last year. The largest single driver constraining overall revenue growth was in the “Other Revenues” category, a $1.0 million reduction due to a Fire Apparatus grant in that amount received in the first half of fiscal year 2024 but not during the current fiscal year.
Fiscal Year-End Revenue Projections
Anticipated revenues for the current fiscal year in comparison to the budget are reflected in the table below.
GENERAL FUND REVENUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025
Revenue Category 1
Projected
Actual
Adjusted
Budget 2
Projecte
d % Variance
Sales & Use Tax $14,100,000 $ 14,975,000 ($ 875,000) -5.9% Transactions & Use Tax (Meas. I) $8,250,000 8,450,000 (200,000) -2.4% Property Taxes $8,600,000 8,569,600 30,400 0.4%
Utility Users Tax $8,000,000 8,450,000 (450,000) -5.3%
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $8,030,000 7,900,000 130,000 1.7% Transient Occupancy Tax $2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0.0%
Cannabis/Dispensary Tax (Meas. $1,100,000 1,100,000 - 0.0% Franchise Taxes $1,862,000 1,740,000 122,000 7.0%
Other Revenues $10,182,411 9,974,292 208,119 2.0%
Total $ 62,124,411 $ 63,158,892 ($1,034,481) -1.6%
1 Transfer(s) in not included.
2 Adopted budget total, plus budget amendments, encumbrances, & capital projects appropriations carried forward from previous fiscal year(s)
The above table provides updated estimates of fiscal year 2025 General Fund revenues and compares them to their adjusted budgets. As noted above, General Fund revenues are expected to fall short of the budget by approximately $1.0 million overall. This negative variance is largely attributed to projections of declining revenues in sales & use tax, transactions & use tax, and utility users tax.
Expenditures
General Fund expenditure totals at year-end are expected to be $400,000 over budget. The projected variances in each expenditure category resulting in the overall variance are shown in the “Fiscal YearEnd Expenditure Projections” table. The “Mid-Year Expenditure Comparison” below compares expenditures through the mid-point of this fiscal year to the mid-point of last fiscal year.
Mid-Year Expenditure Comparison
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AS OF DECEMBER 31
Expenditure Category 1 FY 25 FY 24 Difference
Salaries & Benefits $ 20,545,194 $ 18,880,195 $ 1,664,533 Maintenance & Operations 9,507,355 8,234,160 1,248,798
Capital Improvements - - -
Capital Outlay - - -
Debt Service - - -
Total $ 30,052,529 $ 27,114,355 $ 2,913,331
1 Transfer(s) in not included.
As of December 31, 2024, expenditures totaled $30.0 million, $2.9 million higher in comparison to the previous fiscal year. The year-to-year increase of $1.7 million in personnel costs was primarily due to negotiated compensation increases and newly added positions. The variance in the “Maintenance & Operations” category is largely driven by an increase of $300,000 in professional & technical services Citywide, $200,000 in unplanned expenses for Zumwalt Park operations, $75,000 for ladder truck maintenance, and an unexpected $73,000 bill for Motorola equipment maintenance.
Fiscal Year-End Expenditure Projections
The following table reflects projected expenditures through the remainder of fiscal year 2025 in comparison to the budget.
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2025
Expenditure Category
Projected
Actual
Adjusted
Budget 1
Projected
Balance % Variance
Salaries & Benefits $ 39,179,566 $ 38,891,650 $ 287,450 0.7% Maintenance & Operations 16,559,878 17,050,633 (550,633) -3.2% Special M&O Projects 2 - - - -
Capital Improvements - - - -
Capital Outlay 233,000 862,620 (629,620) -73.0%
Debt Service 1,015,091 571,790 443,310 77.5%
Total $ 56,987,544 $ 57,376,639 $ (389,149) 0.7%
1 Adopted budget total, plus budget amendments, encumbrances, & capital projects appropriations carried forward from previous fiscal year(s)
2 Studies, maintenance, & non-tangible
As noted above, General Fund expenditures are expected to be slightly higher than the adjusted budget by approximately $400,000 overall. This variance is due to a $400,000 dollar increase in debt service payments due to reclassification of a transfer from the General Fund to the Financing Authority Debt Service Fund for payment of 2023 energy project debt service and workers' compensation costs’ exceeding initial budget expectations, offset by lower-than-budgeted costs in various maintenance & operations accounts.
Transfers In/Out
While technically not revenues and expenditures (and, hence, not shown above), transfers in and out of the General Fund contribute to fund balance increases and decreases, respectively. Due to the aforementioned reclassification of the transfer for payment of 2023 energy project debt service, transfers out will be $703,536 less than budgeted.
Net Impact on Unassigned Fund Balance
As discussed above, the General Fund is expected to realize less revenues than budgeted while also spending slightly less overall than budgeted, resulting in a $134,000 reduction in fund balance.
Combining current revenue and expenditure projections, along with planned transfers, results in a $60,000 anticipated increase in the outlook for fund balance impact from the $200,000 decrease reflected in the adjusted budget. (See the “Balance” column in the table below.) GENERAL FUND IMPACT OF FUND BALANCE RESERVICES FY 2025
Projected
Adjusted
x Budget x Balance
Revenues $ 62,124,411 $ 63,158,892 ($1,034,481)
Transfer(s) In 58,370 58,370
Total Revenues & Transfer(s) In $ 62,182,781 $ 63,217,262 ($1,034,481) Expenditures * $ 56,987,544 $ 57,376,693 ($ 389,149)
Transfer(s) Out 5,329,000 6,032,536 (703,536)
Total Expenditures & Transfer(s)
Out $ 62,316,544 $ 63,409,229 ($1,092,685)
Use of Fund Balance / Reserves $ (133,763) ($ 191,967) $58,204 * For purpose of estimating fund balance impact, all capital improvement project-related transfers assumed to be expended.
Budget Adjustments
During the mid-year budget review process, Department of Finance staff worked with staff of other departments to afford them the opportunity to submit supplemental appropriation (i.e., budget adjustment) requests based upon actual or projected budgetary requirements not anticipated during the annual budgeting process. Exhibit A to this staff report reflects the recommended and requested adjustments.
Although the table above reflects a projected use of fund balance of $134,000, staff is not recommending a supplemental General Fund appropriation for the amount at this time. As activities through the remainder of the year may reduce this amount to $0, an increased appropriation may not be necessary.
In addition, the projected excess of Workers’ Compensation benefit expenditures over their budgeted amount is greater than the currently projected overall shortfall (i.e., $134,000); therefore, this amount can be assumed to be attributable to the Workers’ Compensation deficit and, therefore, may be absorbed by Workers’ Compensation Fund balance if needed.
Staff will continue to monitor expenses and provide revised projections if/as needed.
In addition to the fiscal year 2025 adjustments, an adjustment is also necessary to reclassify the $1.9 million fiscal year 2024 General Fund transfer to the Financing Authority Debt Service Fund for payment of 2023 energy project debt service as an expenditure. This reclassification is simply an adjustment to the manner in which the amount is reflected in the budget and on the City’s general ledger and will have no net impact to the General Fund.
FISCAL IMPACT & FUNDING SOURCES
See attached Exhibit “A” for detail of recommended and requested budget adjustments and totals by fund.
LEGAL REVIEW
This item does not require legal review.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Approve with changes
2. Deny
3. Table
Adopting the proposed mid-year adjustments will authorize expenditures deemed necessary by staff to effectively carry out its responsibilities. If City Council does not approve the proposed changes, the budget may be exceeded, and/or staff may be unable to perform its work effectively as possible.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A – Supplemental Appropriation Request FY 2025 Reviewed/Approved:
RESOLUTION 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2024, the City Council adopted the City of Tulare’s Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Budget following a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, as part of the mid-year budget review process, the Department of Finance reviewed actual revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year and projected the same through the remainder of the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, City staff delivered a mid-year budget review to Council, which included a request to amend the budget for Council’s review and consideration; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Administrative Policy CM-10 Budget Policies and Practices, the City Council may amend or supplement the budget any time after its adoption; and WHEREAS, City staff has proposed specific amendments to the Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tulare, as follows:
Section 1. The City Council authorizes amendments to the Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Budget up to the amounts presented in Exhibit A; and
Section 2. The City Council authorizes reclassification of $1,886,667 million fiscal year 2024 General Fund transfer to the Financing Authority Debt Service Fund for payment of 2023 energy project debt service as an expenditure.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tulare this 1st day of April 2025, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Patrick Isherwood, President of the Council
and Ex-Officio Mayor
ATTEST:
Marc Mondell, City Clerk
By Melissa Hermann, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A
Fund
Department Expenditure Account
Appropn/Trfr
Amount Revenue Account if Applicable
Rev./Trfr
Amount
Net Use of
Fund Balance
General Fund (001)
1 Fire Salaries & Benefits ($686,700) ($686,700) $0
(686,700) 2025 FEMA SAFER Grant
(001-3317-048)
(686,700)
2 Non-Departmental Debt Service $443,301 $443,301
10,317
432,984
3 Non-Departmental Transfers Out ($703,536) ($703,536)
(703,536)
General Fund - Unassigned Fund Balance ($946,935) ($686,700) ($260,235) General Fund Total ($946,935) ($686,700) ($260,235)
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
Fiscal Year 2025
Various accounts (001-4230-1***)
Move (12) grant-fund firefighter positions to new Fire Department Grants Fund.
Energy Debt - Interest (001-4110-8304)
Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service interest payment to expenditure.
Energy Debt - Principal (001-4110-8204)
Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service principal payment to expenditure.
Transfer to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund (001-4110-9017) Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service payments to expenditure.
1 of 7
Exhibit A
Fund
Department Expenditure Account
Appropn/Trfr
Amount Revenue Account if Applicable
Rev./Trfr
Amount
Net Use of
Fund Balance
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
Fiscal Year 2025
Senior Services Fund (007)
1 Senior Services Maintenance & Operations $25,000 $25,000 Professional & Technical Services (007-4450-2017) 25,000 Meal service has exceeded projections by 1,000 meals per month, necessitating resource adjustments.
2 of 7
Exhibit A
Fund
Department Expenditure Account
Appropn/Trfr
Amount Revenue Account if Applicable
Rev./Trfr
Amount
Net Use of
Fund Balance
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
Fiscal Year 2025
Water Fund (010) (INFORMATIONAL. SUBJECT TO BPU APPROVAL.) 1 Administration/Sales/Collections Maintenance & Operations $271,858 $271,858 271,858
2 Non-Departmental Debt Service $3,964 $3,964
92 3,872
3 Non-Departmental Transfers Out ($16,756) ($16,756)
(16,756)
Water Fund Total $259,066 $0 $259,066
Taxes (010-4610-2046)
Payment of for arbitrage rebate, yield reduction, & penalty rebate related to the 2020 Water Revenue Bond.
Energy Debt - Principal (010-4110-8204)
Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service principal payment to expenditure.
Energy Debt - Interest (010-4110-8304)
Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service interest payment to expenditure.
Transfer to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund (010-4110-9017) Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service payments to expenditure.
3 of 7
Exhibit A
Fund
Department Expenditure Account
Appropn/Trfr
Amount Revenue Account if Applicable
Rev./Trfr
Amount
Net Use of
Fund Balance
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
Fiscal Year 2025
Wastewater Fund (015) (INFORMATIONAL. SUBJECT TO BPU APPROVAL.) 1 Non-Departmental Debt Service $9,790 $9,790
228
9,562
2 Non-Departmental Transfers Out ($41,375) ($41,375)
(41,375)
Wastewater Fund Total ($31,585) $0 ($31,585)
Energy Debt - Principal (015-4110-8204)
Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service principal payment to expenditure.
Energy Debt - Interest (015-4110-8304)
Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service interest payment to expenditure.
Transfer to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund (010-4110-9017) Reclassify transfer (to Financing Authority Debt Service Fund [017]) for energy debt service payments to expenditure.
4 of 7
Exhibit A
Fund
Department Expenditure Account
Appropn/Trfr
Amount Revenue Account if Applicable
Rev./Trfr
Amount
Net Use of
Fund Balance
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
Fiscal Year 2025
Financing Authority Debt Service Fund (017)
1 Non-Departmental Debt Service ($1,886,667) ($761,667) ($1,125,000) (1,386,855) Transfer from General Fund
(017-3990-001)
(703,536)
(499,812) Transfer from Water Fund
(017-3990-010)
(16,756)
Transfer from Wastewater Fund
(017-3990-015)
(41,375)
Fire Department Grants Fund (TbD)
1 Fire Salaries & Benefits $686,700 $686,700 $0
675,000 2025 FEMA SAFER Grant
(TbD-3317-048)
686,700
General Insurance Fund (062)
1 General Insurance Maintenance & Operations $3,902,193 $3,902,193 3,902,193
Property Management Fund (048)
1 Facilities Maintenance Maintenance & Operations $15,000 $15,000 15,000
Liability & Fire Insurance (062-4956-2041)
Unbudgeted premium payment(s).
Department charges & corresponding revenues budgeted.
General Supplies (048-4530-2032)
Purchase cleaning supplies & equipment for courthouse maintenance.
Various accounts (***-4230-1***)
Establish Fire Department Grants Fund & move (12) grant-fund firefighter positions from General Fund.
Energy Debt - Principal (017-4115-8204)
Remove energy debt service principal payment. (Reclassifed to General Fund, Water Fund, & Wastewater Fund expenditure.)
Energy Debt - Interest (017-4115-8304)
Remove energy debt service interest payment. (Reclassifed to General Fund, Water Fund, & Wastewater Fund expenditure.)
5 of 7
Exhibit A
Fund
Department Expenditure Account
Appropn/Trfr
Amount Revenue Account if Applicable
Rev./Trfr
Amount
Net Use of
Fund Balance
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
Fiscal Year 2025
Surface Water Management Fund (067)
1 Surface Water Management Salaries & Benefits $14,000 $14,000 14,000
2 Surface Water Management Maintenance & Operations $8,000 $8,000 8,000 8,000
Surface Water Management Fund Total $22,000 $0 $22,000
Regular Salaries (067-4967-1021)
Repairs & Maintenance (067-4967-2014)
Higher-than-expected repair & maintenance costs.
6 of 7
Exhibit A
Fund
Department Expenditure Account
Appropn/Trfr
Amount Revenue Account if Applicable
Rev./Trfr
Amount
Net Use of
Fund Balance
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
Fiscal Year 2025
Fleet Replacement Fund (604)
1 Solid Waste, Residential Capital Outlay $386,852 $386,852 $0 386,852 Lease Vehicle, Solid Waste
(604-3210-012)
Fleet Vehicles (604-4710-7500) 386,852
Appropriation for previously-approved (8/15/24) side-loader purchases. 7 of 7