Visalia City Council
June 20, 2022

Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Visalia City Council
City Council
Meeting Agenda - Final
Mayor Steve Nelsen
Vice Mayor Brian Poochigian
Council Member Greg Collins
Council Member Brett Taylor
Council Member Liz Wynn
City Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, June 20, 2022

ROLL CALL
CALL TO ORDER WORK SESSION - 4:00 PM

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Citizens are now invited to comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The Council asks that you keep your comments concise and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.

Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

WORK SESSION AND ACTION ITEMS (as described)

1. Presentation of the Short Range Transit Plan by consultant Moore & Associates on behalf of Visalia Transit for consideration of adoption by the Visalia City Council.
22-0040

2. Review and accept the 2021 Annual Report from the City of Visalia Historic Preservation Advisory Committee.
22-0194

3. Presentation on pro-active efforts being undertaken to deter the use of illegal fireworks.
22-0245
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 PM (Or, immediately following Work Session)
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION - 7:00 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

ITEMS OF INTEREST

1 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 20, 2022

PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters that are not on the agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The Council asks that you keep your comments brief and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.

This is also the time for citizens to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes. Public comments related to all pulled Consent Calendar items and Regular or Public Hearing items listed on the agenda will be heard at the time that item is discussed or when the Public Hearing is opened.

Each speaker will be allowed three minutes, and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling 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.

1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only. 22-0151

2. Authorize the City Manager to award a sole-source professional design services contract to CWE for design of the East Side Regional Park’s (ESRP) Basin D for an amount not to exceed $275,265.18, and approve an appropriation of $324,070 from the various funds outlined within this report. (3010-72000/CP0396-999) 22-0166

3. Adopt resolutions 2022-39 and 2022-40, designating a portion of City owned property located within 2 parcels of two different subdivisions; Lot “A” of Highland Park Estates subdivision and Lot “A” of Highland Park, Unit No. 2 subdivision as part of the public City Street System respectively.
22-0199

4. Authorization for the City Manager to approve an agreement with Workforce Investment Board of Tulare County to continue the Environmental Clean-Up Opportunities (ECO) Transitional Jobs Program through FY2022/2023 in the amount of $ 221,847 from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.
22-0212

5. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41 to designate various road projects for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) 2022/23 funding from the State of California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill SB1) as outlined within this report. 22-0215

2 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 20, 2022

6. Authorization for staff to appropriate $100,000 from the Airport Enterprise Fund to pay expenses generated by the recently approved lease between the Federal Express Corporation and the City of Visalia.
22-0225

7. Authorization to execute annual service agreement with Visalia Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) for $60,000 and appropriate $40,000 ($20,000 for FY 22/23 and $20,000 for FY 23/24) from the General Fund to fund the increase in requested services.
22-0228

8. Accept the City of Visalia Cash and Investment report for the third quarter of the fiscal year which consists of months January, February, and March 2022.
22-0229

9. Approve annual membership in the Tulare County Economic Development Corporation (TCEDC) for FY 22/23 in the amount of $50,000.
22-0230

10. Authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract to Bush Engineering, Inc. for two locations; Enhanced Crosswalk at Denton Street and Ferguson Avenue and the Linwood Street Pedestrian Pathway Projects, in the amount of $282,322 (CIP 3010-72000/CP0297-999 & CIP 3010-72000/CP0476-999) and
appropriate $50,200 from the Measure R Local Fund.
22-0234

11. Approve Resolution Number 2022-37 adopting the City of Visalia’s annually updated Investment Policy and delegating authority to invest funds for the City to the Finance Director/Treasurer for fiscal year 2022/23.
22-0235

12. Consideration of a Mural Application request from Habitat for Humanity of Tulare / Kings Counties for one mural proposed on the east and north-facing facades of the commercial building located at 637 S. Lovers Lane.
22-0240

13. Appoint Walter Deissler and Jay Hohlbauch to a second one-year term, appoint Tyler Davis to a second two-year term, and appoint Patricia Kane and Michael Kreps to a third two-year term on the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee.
22-0243

14. Selection of Visalia’s recommendation to represent the Council of Cities as the Transit Representative on the Tulare County Association of Governments.
22-0244

15. Authorize the City Manager to extend the emergency contract for Engineering Plan Review and Related Services to lnterwest Consulting Group, not to exceed $200,000, for one year ending June 30, 2023.
22-0248

16. Adopt the revised salary schedule for full-time employees, City Manager, and City Council members of the City of Visalia
22-0250

3 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 20, 2022

17. City Council approval of Resolution 2022-42 adopting the 2022-23 appropriations limit for the City of Visalia’s General Fund. 22-0253

18. Reappointment of Lisa Walsh to a two-year term and authorization to open recruitment for one vacant position on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
22-0254

REGULAR ITEMS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
Comments related to regular Items and Public Hearing Items are limited to three minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item. The Mayor may reasonably limit or extend the public comment period to preserve the Council's interest in conducting efficient, orderly meetings.

1. Conduct the second public hearing and approve the proposed Fiscal Years 2022/23 & 2023/24 Measure N budget.
22-0251

2. Annual Recertification of the Measure T (Sales Tax) Plan for FY 2022/23.
22-0252

3. Public Hearing on, and adoption of, the City of Visalia 2022/23 and 2023/24 multi-year budget. Resolution 2022-43.
22-0255

4. Authorization to allow the City of Visalia to place the item contested during the June 6, 2022 public hearing on the Miscellaneous Special Assessments on the Tulare County secured property tax roll. 22-0246

5. Public Hearing and adoption of resolution 2022-30 to authorize proposed new fees, increases, and adjustments to the City’s Rates and Fees schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
22-0075

6. Introduce and conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 2022-09 an ordinance to approve the adoption of Visalia Police Department Military Equipment Policy #708 per California Assembly Bill (AB) 481.
22-0257

7. Public Hearing and consideration of the following actions related to the project site located on the southeast corner of East Cherry Avenue and South Lovers Lane (APN: 127-030-018):

1. Certification of Initial Study / Negative Declaration No. 2021-49 for Annexation No. 2021-03, Higgins Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5585, and Tentative Parcel Map No . 2022-01 (Resolution No. 2022-38 required); and2. Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2021-03 a request by Quest Equity, LLC to annex a 32.35-acre parcel into the City Limits of Visalia; and3. Authorize the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements; and4. Authorize the City Manager to sign and enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement (Resolution No. 2022-35 required) 22-0214

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

4 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 20, 2022

1. For the purposes of reporting out, for the record, transactions that occurred as a result of Closed Session Real Property Negotiations:

Buyer: City of Visalia
Seller: Buhl Properties, LLC a California limited liability company APN: 119-340-012 (portion)
Purpose: Caldwell Widening Project - Akers to Shady
Brief Description: Temporary Construction Easement
Price: $3,100.00
Closing Date: 6/13/2022
Project Manager: Fred Lampe
***************************************************************** Buyer: City of Visalia
Seller: Buhl Properties, LLC a California limited liability company APN: 119-340-012 (portion)
Purpose: Caldwell Widening Project - Akers to Shady
Brief Description: Temporary Construction Easement
Price: $3,100.00
Closing Date: 6/13/2022
Project Manager: Fred Lampe
22-0249

ADJOURNMENT

1. Upcoming Visalia City Council Meetings:

Monday, July 18, 2022 at 7:00 PM: Regular Meeting, City Hall, 707 W. Acequia
Monday, August 1, 2022 at 7:00 PM; Regular Meeting, City Hall, 707 W. Acequia
22-0261

5 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0040 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Presentation of the Short Range Transit Plan by consultant Moore & Associates on behalf of Visalia Transit for consideration of adoption by the Visalia City Council.

Deadline for Action: 06/30/2022
Submitting Department: Administration - Transit
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Jim Moore, Moore & Associates (Presenter) [email protected] Angelina Soper, Transit Manager [email protected] (559) 713-4591 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that City Council receive a presentation on the Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and adopt the SRTP as proposed by Moore & Associates.

Background Discussion:

The Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a five (5) year document created by a consultant following an evaluation period. This document is updated every five years as a funding requirement by the Federal Transit Authority (FTA). The SRTP is a planning document for Transit and is used to guide the Transit agency through goals, and objectives over the next five years. The Consultant evaluates the current state of Visalia Transit and makes recommendations based on the needs of the region and industry standards in conformance with the standards and procedures of the FTA.

Recommendations can include route changes, expansions, reductions, and improvements to name a few. The current SRTP was adopted in 2016 and will be replaced with this current version once adopted. The consultant, Moore & Associates, was hired by The Tulare County Association of Governments through their own purchasing process to perform the SRTP update on behalf of Visalia Transit. Visalia Transit did participate in scoring proposals for the RFP along with TCAG staff. TCAG is also handling the invoicing and payments for this SRTP directly.

The final SRTP report consists of the following:
· Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards
o This section discusses the Mission and Vision of Visalia Transit, the current Program goals and objectives and the current performance measures and standards. · A summary of community surveys
o The consultant performed passenger surveys for both Fixed Route and Dial A Ride surveys and also a general community survey.
· System performance analysis
o The existing fare structure, organizational structure, and system and performance Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
6 File #: 22-0040 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 1.
o The existing fare structure, organizational structure, and system and performance standards were evaluated within this process.
· Facilities and Equipment Analysis
o All Transit equipment, and property was evaluated within this process. · Needs Assessment
o Within this part of the process the current service levels were evaluated to determine if Visalia Transit is meeting the current Transit needs of our community. · Services recommendations
o These are the final SRTP recommendations made by the consultant as a result of this process.
· Operations Plan
o This is an overall description of how Visalia Transit operates as it relates to Administration, Operations, Capital, Technology, and Marketing and Outreach. · Financial and Capital Plans
o This aspect of the process evaluates the Transit Funding Sources, the current Financial plan and finally the Transit Capital Improvement Plan.

During the presentation the Consultant will explain how recommendations were created given the current state of Visalia Transit as it relates to both the pandemic environment and also the collaboration with the Tulare County Regional Transit Authority (TCRTA) which is the local Transit JPA involving the other agencies in Tulare County. Many of the recommendations will have to be individually considered while heavily weighing the impact of both factors. Furthermore each recommendation needs to be discussed and analyzed prior to implementation. In fact, many of the proposed recommendations have already been considered and are currently being planned by Staff.

While these are just recommendations, Visalia Transit will have to make good faith effort to evaluate and implement the recommendations within reason. An adopted Short Range Transit Plan is a federal funding requirement. While evaluating each of these recommendations, Visalia Transit staff will consider all aspects that might be impactful including, but not limited to, current ridership data, local demand, status of the pandemic, and funding opportunities. Monitoring certain trends such as remote learning verses on-campus learning at College of the Sequoias will be especially important.

Visalia Transit staff also fully recognize that the environment is ever evolving as society continues to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to this current environment, it is likely that this 5 year plan will need to be reevaluated within the next one to two years. Many Transit agencies have begun to implement vast changes prematurely and have found that continuous adjustments are become necessary.

Fiscal Impact:

Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) has funded the update to the Visalia Transit SRTP at no cost to the City. Although the SRTP identifies objectives and needs over the next five years for Visalia Transit, no financial estimates are provided within the document and any recommendations identified will be evaluated by Visalia Transit staff before implantation. Staff will utilize existing operational funding or seek out additional funds from partnering agencies or grant opportunities to meet those identified goals and recommendations within the SRTP the city wishes to pursue.

Prior Council Action:

January 16th, 2017 - City Council adopted the current version of the SRTP.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
7 File #: 22-0040 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Other: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to adopt the Short-Range Transit Plan.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments:

1. Draft SRTP

2. SRTP Slideshow Presentation
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
8 Visalia Transit
9 Short Range Transit Plan
Recommendations
Recommendation Status

3. Syncromatics Training for Staff (p.62) Ongoing

13. Transit Ops Facility Repairs and
Rehab (p.69)
Ongoing

14. Expand Travel Training Program
(p.69)
Ongoing

16. Enhance Visalia Transit Website
(p.70)
Ongoing

11. Incrementally Add Transit to New
Developments (p.67)
Ongoing

2. Replace Fareboxes (p.62) Ongoing

4. Bus Stop Improvements (p. 63) Ongoing

15. Ensure GTFS Info kept up to date
(p.70)
Ongoing
10 Short Range Transit Plan
Recommendations Continued
Recommendation Status

9. Work with COS to establish an inter-
campus shuttle (p.66)
Needs to be discussed

1. Increase Transit Staffing (61) Needs to be discussed

6. Implement 15-20 min Service
Frequency during AM and PM peak
periods (p.64)
Needs discussion and analysis

6. Extend Route 1 and 2 Service until 10
p.m. on weekdays (p.64)
Needs discussion and analysis

7. Introduce trial “first and last mile”
service (p.65)
Has been discussed, needs analysis

10. Increase awareness of the bus-bike
connection (p.67)
Needs to be discussed
11 Short Range Transit Plan
Recommendations Continued
Recommendation Status

5. Implement neighborhood circulators
as feeders to trunk lines (p.64)
Needs discussion and analysis

17. Consider utilizing smaller vehicles
especially for lower productivity routes
and/or neighborhood circulators (p.70)
Has been discussed, needs analysis

18. Introduce service along Ben Maddox
between Walnut and Caldwell (p.71)
Needs discussion and analysis

8. Evaluate return of Route 7 (p.66) Needs discussion and analysis

12. Install Drivers name plates on DAR
vehicles (p. 68)
Needs to be discussed
12 Questions or Comments?
13 moore& associates
14 15

i
Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1: Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ..................... 3

1.1 Mission and Vision ....................................................................................... 4

1.2 Program Goals and Objectives ..................................................................... 4

1.3 Performance Measures and Standards ........................................................ 6 Chapter 2: Summary of Surveys ............................................................ 13

2.1 Dial-A-Ride Survey ...................................................................................... 13

2.2 Fixed-Route Survey .................................................................................... 14

2.3 Community Survey .................................................................................... 14 Chapter 3: System Performance Analysis .............................................. 17

3.1 Fare Structure Review ................................................................................ 17

3.2 Evaluation of System Performance ............................................................ 23

3.3 Progress in Achieving Service Standards .................................................... 44

3.4 Evaluation of Organizational Structure....................................................... 45 Chapter 4: Facilities and Equipment Analysis ........................................ 47

4.1 Operations and Maintenance Facility ......................................................... 47

4.2 Downtown Transit Center .......................................................................... 48

4.3 Transit Fleet ............................................................................................... 48

4.4 Non-Revenue Fleet .................................................................................... 49

4.5 Bus Stops.................................................................................................... 49

4.6 Technology ................................................................................................. 50 Chapter 5: Needs Assessment ............................................................... 51 16 ii

5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 51

5.2 Background ................................................................................................ 52

5.3 Demographic Analysis ................................................................................ 53

5.4 Community Workshops .............................................................................. 54

5.5 Community Survey ..................................................................................... 55

5.6 Dial-A-Ride Survey ...................................................................................... 55

5.7 Fixed-Route Survey .................................................................................... 56 Chapter 6: Service Recommendations .................................................. 61 Chapter 7: Operations Plan ................................................................... 73

7.1 Administrative ............................................................................................ 75

7.2 Operations ................................................................................................. 76

7.3 Capital/Technology .................................................................................... 84

7.4 Marketing/Outreach .................................................................................. 87 Chapter 8: Financial and Capital Plans .................................................. 89

8.1 Transit Funding Sources ............................................................................. 89

8.2 Baseline Financial Plan ............................................................................... 91

8.3 Impact of Recommendations on Financial Plan ........................................ 103

8.4 Capital Improvement Plan ........................................................................ 109

8.5 Impact of Recommendations on Capital Improvement Plan .................... 111 Appendix A | Rider Survey .................................................................. 113 Appendix B | Community Survey ........................................................ 133 Appendix C | Dial-A-Ride Survey ......................................................... 153 Appendix D | Community Workshops ................................................. 167 Appendix E | Vehicle Inventory and Fleet Replacement Plan ............. 179 17 iii
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 3.1.1 Fixed-route fare structure local service ............................................................................. 17 Exhibit 3.1.2 Fixed-route fare structure external services ...................................................................... 18 Exhibit 3.1.3 Demand-response fare structure .......................................................................................... 18 Exhibit 3.1.4 Peer fares .............................................................................................................................. 21 Exhibit 3.2.1 Fixed-route Performance Metrics ......................................................................................... 24 Exhibit 3.2.2 Fixed-route vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour .................................................... 25 Exhibit 3.2.3 Fixed-route passengers/vehicle revenue hour ..................................................................... 25 Exhibit 3.2.4 Fixed-route passengers/vehicle revenue mile ...................................................................... 25 Exhibit 3.2.5 Fixed-route average fare/passenger ..................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 3.2.6 Fixed-route operating cost/vehicle revenue hour ................................................................ 25 Exhibit 3.2.7 Fixed-route operating cost/passenger .................................................................................. 25 Exhibit 3.2.8 Fixed-route system map........................................................................................................ 26 Exhibit 3.2.9 Route 1 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 3.2.10 Route 2 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................. 27 Exhibit 3.2.11 Route 4 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................. 28 Exhibit 3.2.12 Route 5 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................. 28 Exhibit 3.2.13 Route 6 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................. 29 Exhibit 3.2.14 Route 7 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................. 29 Exhibit 3.2.15 Route 8 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................. 30 Exhibit 3.2.16 Route 9 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................. 30 Exhibit 3.2.17 Route 11X Performance Metrics ......................................................................................... 31 Exhibit 3.2.18 Route 12 Performance Metrics ........................................................................................... 31 Exhibit 3.2.19 Route 15 Performance Metrics ........................................................................................... 32 Exhibit 3.2.20 Route 16 Performance Metrics ........................................................................................... 32 Exhibit 3.2.21 Fixed-route vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour by route .................................... 34 Exhibit 3.2.22 Fixed-route passengers/vehicle revenue hour by route ..................................................... 34 Exhibit 3.2.23 Fixed-route passengers/vehicle revenue mile by route ..................................................... 35 Exhibit 3.2.24 Fixed-route operating cost/vehicle revenue hour by route ............................................... 35 Exhibit 3.2.25 Fixed-route operating cost/passenger by route ................................................................. 36 Exhibit 3.2.26 Fixed-route average fare/passenger by route .................................................................... 36 Exhibit 3.2.27 Dial-A-Ride Performance Metrics ....................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 3.2.28 Dial-A-Ride vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour ................................................... 38 Exhibit 3.2.29 Dial-A-Ride passengers/vehicle revenue hour .................................................................... 38 Exhibit 3.2.30 Dial-A-Ride passengers/vehicle revenue mile ..................................................................... 38 Exhibit 3.2.31 Dial-A-Ride average fare/passenger ................................................................................... 38 18 iv
Exhibit 3.2.32 Dial-A-Ride operating cost/vehicle revenue hour ............................................................... 38 Exhibit 3.2.33 Dial-A-Ride operating cost/passenger ................................................................................ 38 Exhibit 3.2.34 V-Line Performance Metrics ............................................................................................... 39 Exhibit 3.2.35 V-Line vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour ............................................................ 40 Exhibit 3.2.36 V-Line passengers/vehicle revenue hour ............................................................................ 40 Exhibit 3.2.37 V-Line passengers/vehicle revenue mile............................................................................. 40 Exhibit 3.2.38 V-Line average fare/passenger ........................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 3.2.39 V-Line operating cost/vehicle revenue hour ....................................................................... 40 Exhibit 3.2.40 V-Line operating cost/passenger ........................................................................................ 40 Exhibit 3.2.41 Sequoia Shuttle
External Shuttle Performance Metrics ................................................... 41 Exhibit 3.2.42 Sequoia Shuttle Internal Shuttle Performance Metrics ................................................... 41 Exhibit 3.2.43 External shuttle vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour .......................................... 42 Exhibit 3.2.44 External shuttle passengers/vehicle revenue hour ............................................................ 42 Exhibit 3.2.45 External shuttle passengers/vehicle revenue mile ............................................................. 42 Exhibit 3.2.46 External shuttle operating cost/vehicle revenue hour ....................................................... 42 Exhibit 3.2.47 External shuttle operating cost/passenger ......................................................................... 42 Exhibit 3.2.48 Internal shuttle vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour ............................................ 42 Exhibit 3.2.49 Internal shuttle passengers/vehicle revenue hour ............................................................. 43 Exhibit 3.2.50 Internal shuttle passengers/vehicle revenue mile .............................................................. 43 Exhibit 3.2.51 Internal shuttle operating cost/vehicle revenue hour ........................................................ 43 Exhibit 3.2.52 Internal shuttle operating cost/passenger.......................................................................... 43 Exhibit 3.3.1 Status of performance standards .......................................................................................... 44 Exhibit 3.4.1 City of Visalia Transit organizational chart ............................................................................ 45 Exhibit 3.4.2 First Transit organizational chart .......................................................................................... 46 Exhibit 5.3.1 Lower-income neighborhoods .............................................................................................. 54 Exhibit 7.0.1 Prioritized recommendations ............................................................................................... 74 Exhibit 7.1.1 Cost of additional staff and training ...................................................................................... 75 Exhibit 7.2.1 Potential Route 1 - -last mile service area ................................................... 79 - -last mile service area ................................................... 80 Exhibit 7.2.3 Potential Ben Maddox neighborhood circulator service area .............................................. 83 Exhibit 8.2.1 Combined Visalia Transit Baseline Financial Plan ................................................................. 92 Exhibit 8.2.2 Transit Operations Baseline Financial Plan (Account 4551) ................................................. 93 Exhibit 8.2.3 Sequoia Shuttle Baseline Financial Plan (Account 4553) ...................................................... 97 Exhibit 8.2.4 Transit Call Center Baseline Financial Plan (Account 4554) .................................................. 99 Exhibit 8.2.5 V-Line Baseline Financial Plan (Account 4555) ................................................................... 101 Exhibit 8.3.1 Recommendation 1 financial impact .................................................................................. 103 Exhibit 8.3.2 Combined Visalia Transit Financial Plan with Recommendations ...................................... 108 Exhibit 8.4.1 Baseline Capital improvement Plan .................................................................................... 110 Exhibit 8.5.1 Capital Improvement Plan with Recommendations ........................................................... 112 Exhibit A.1 Rider survey participation by route ....................................................................................... 114 19 v
Exhibit A.2 Use of transfer/connection to another bus ........................................................................... 115 Exhibit A.3 Fare payment method ........................................................................................................... 115 Exhibit A.4 Reduced fare usage................................................................................................................ 116 Exhibit A.5 Trip purpose ........................................................................................................................... 116 Exhibit A.6 Duration of patronage ........................................................................................................... 117 Exhibit A.7 Frequency of use .................................................................................................................... 117 Exhibit A.8 Use of other travel options .................................................................................................... 118 Exhibit A.9 Alternatives to transit ............................................................................................................ 118 Exhibit A.10 On-time performance .......................................................................................................... 119 Exhibit A.11 Service frequency................................................................................................................. 119 Exhibit A.12 Hours of operation ............................................................................................................... 120 Exhibit A.13 Availability of service information ....................................................................................... 120 Exhibit A.14 Driver courtesy ..................................................................................................................... 120 Exhibit A.15 Safe operation of vehicle ..................................................................................................... 120 Exhibit A.16 Onboard cleanliness............................................................................................................. 121 Exhibit A.17 Overall service ...................................................................................................................... 121 Exhibit A.18 Preferred service change ..................................................................................................... 122 Exhibit A.19 Impact of preferred improvement....................................................................................... 122 Exhibit A.20 Age ....................................................................................................................................... 123 Exhibit A.21 Employment status .............................................................................................................. 123 Exhibit A.22 Availability of access to a personal vehicle ........................................................................... 124 Exhibit A.23 Number of vehicles in household ........................................................................................ 124 Exhibit A.24 Race/ethnicity ...................................................................................................................... 125 Exhibit A.25 Identification as Hispanic/Latino ......................................................................................... 125 Exhibit A.26 Language(s) spoken at home ............................................................................................... 125 Exhibit A.27 English proficiency ............................................................................................................... 126 Exhibit A.28 Annual household income ................................................................................................... 126 Exhibit A.29 Household size ..................................................................................................................... 126 Exhibit A.30 Rider survey instrument (English) ........................................................................................ 127 Exhibit A.31 Rider survey instrument (Spanish) ....................................................................................... 129 Exhibit A.32 Rider survey car card ........................................................................................................... 131 Exhibit A.33 Rider survey take-one card .................................................................................................. 131 Exhibit B.1 Transit usage within prior 90 days ......................................................................................... 134 Exhibit B.2 Transit service used within prior 90 days .............................................................................. 134 Exhibit B.3 Reason for riding transit ........................................................................................................ 135 Exhibit B.4 Travel to bus stop ................................................................................................................... 135 Exhibit B.5 Frequency of use .................................................................................................................... 136 Exhibit B.6 Preferred method for receiving information ......................................................................... 136 Exhibit B.7 Reason for not riding ............................................................................................................. 137 Exhibit B.8 Transit use by other household members ............................................................................. 138 20 vi
Exhibit B.9 Access to a personal vehicle .................................................................................................. 138 Exhibit B.10 Awareness of Visalia Transit ................................................................................................ 139 Exhibit B.11 Motivator to begin/increase transit usage .......................................................................... 140 Exhibit B.12 Primary transportation mode .............................................................................................. 140 Exhibit B.13 Consideration of transit as alternative to primary transportation mode ............................ 141 Exhibit B.14 Age ....................................................................................................................................... 141 Exhibit B.15 Employment status .............................................................................................................. 142 Exhibit B.16 Race/ethnicity ...................................................................................................................... 142 Exhibit B.17 Identification as Hispanic/Latino ......................................................................................... 142 Exhibit B.18 Language(s) spoken at home ............................................................................................... 143 Exhibit B.19 English proficiency ............................................................................................................... 143 .......................................................................... 143 .................................................................... 144 ........................................... 144
................................................................................. 144 ............................................................................... 145 ............................................................................................... 145 ................................................................................. 145 .................................... 146
Exhibit B.28 Community survey instrument (English).............................................................................. 147 Exhibit B.29 Community survey instrument (Spanish) ............................................................................ 149 Exhibit B.30 Community survey take-one card ........................................................................................ 151 Exhibit B.31 Community survey direct mail postcard .............................................................................. 152 Exhibit C.1 Frequency of use .................................................................................................................... 154 Exhibit C.2 Frequency of use .................................................................................................................... 154 Exhibit C.3 Length of advance reservation............................................................................................... 155 Exhibit C.4 Reason for riding .................................................................................................................... 155 Exhibit C.5 Trip purpose ........................................................................................................................... 155 Exhibit C.6 Ease of reservation-making .................................................................................................... 156 Exhibit C.7 Ability to obtain ride at desired time ..................................................................................... 156 Exhibit C.8 On-time performance ............................................................................................................ 156 Exhibit C.9 Affordability/reasonableness of price ................................................................................... 157 Exhibit C.10 Courtesy of customer service/reservation staff .................................................................. 157 Exhibit C.11 Information provided to customers ..................................................................................... 157 Exhibit C.12 Service hours ........................................................................................................................ 158 Exhibit C.13 Driver courtesy ..................................................................................................................... 158 Exhibit C.14 Vehicle cleanliness (interior) ................................................................................................ 158 Exhibit C.15 Safety onboard vehicle ........................................................................................................ 159 Exhibit C.16 Overall service ...................................................................................................................... 159 Exhibit C.17 Fare payment ....................................................................................................................... 159 21 vii
Exhibit C.18 Fare category ....................................................................................................................... 160 Exhibit C.19 Access to technology............................................................................................................ 160 Exhibit C.20 Travel companion................................................................................................................. 161 Exhibit C.21 Age ....................................................................................................................................... 161 Exhibit C.22 Race/ethnicity ...................................................................................................................... 161 Exhibit C.23 Identification as Hispanic/Latino ......................................................................................... 162 Exhibit C.24 Language spoken at home ................................................................................................... 162 Exhibit C.25 English proficiency ............................................................................................................... 162 Exhibit C.26 Home community................................................................................................................. 163 Exhibit C.27 Use of other transportation modes ..................................................................................... 163 Exhibit C.28 Dial-A-Ride survey instrument ............................................................................................. 164 Exhibit D.1 Community workshop flyer (English) ..................................................................................... 169 Exhibit D.2 Community workshop flyer (Spanish) ................................................................................... 170 Exhibit D.3 Community workshop newspaper advertisement (Visalia Times-Delta) .............................. 171 Exhibit D.4 Community workshop social media ...................................................................................... 172 Exhibit D.5 Community workshop comment card ................................................................................... 175 Exhibit D.6 Community workshop photos ............................................................................................... 176 Exhibit D.1 Fleet inventory ....................................................................................................................... 181 Exhibit D.2 Fleet replacement module, Transit Asset Management Plan (2018) .................................... 182

22 viii
This page intentionally blank.

23 1
T (SRTP) is intended to achieve two goals. First, an
objective evaluation of both current and recent program performance employing quantitative (measurable) performance criteria as well as subjectively utilizing performance criteria adopted by the City of Visalia as well as -plus year public transit consulting experience. Second, a five- road map

The resulting Operations Plan (Chapter 7) presents sixteen recommendations intended to enhance the day-to-day performance of Visalia Transit, enhance the transit customer experience thereby supporting customer retention, advance new and innovative service alternatives thereby responding to the mobility needs and priorities voiced by the Visalia community (including potential transit riders), and guide the , thereby supporting the continued viability of its
transit program.

As the Short Range Transit Plan project approached completion, the nation began its third year confronting the challenges and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact which the pandemic has had on the lives of Visalia residents cannot be understated. Two particular aspects stand out. First, the and are likely to
remain this way for many years to come. Historically, the majority of public transit trips could be attributed to 1) accessing work or employment, 2) accessing education/training, 3) accessing healthcare services, and 4) accessing shopping. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have materially changed the historic travel behavior resulting in significant declines in transit ridership (in Visalia as well as nationally).

The number of Americans working remotely has increased exponentially and full return to traditional (large population) employment settings is not anticipated. Educational institutions (including College of the Sequoias) have successfully implemented distance-learning options, thereby eliminating a long-time source of Visalia Transit weekday ridership. To address the impacts of the pandemic, hospitals and medical clinics (including doctor offices) have changed the very way they operate, in many instances restricting access to facilities for large portions of the population. Utilization of tele-care services has become an increasingly common substitute to the traditional (in- development -a-ride ridership. Lastly, the pandemic has accelerated the development and availability of home delivery services. Today Visalia residents can choose to have ready-to-eat meals, their weekly groceries, and even new vehicles delivered directly to more.

So what does this mean for long-time transit providers such as the City of Visalia? Three words:

Adaptation. Diversification. Innovation.

As a long-time public transit-focused consulting firm, Moore & Associates does not subscribe to the belief that the days of traditional public transit are over. Rather we believe the pandemic serves as an opportunity (an accelerant?) for the overall re-imagining of how public transit can respond to the needs 24 2
of its existing customers, while also implementing innovative and cost-effective services designed to address the mobility needs and priorities of the larger community. While many Visalia residents continue to rely on Visalia Transit for their day-to-day travel needs, an emerging market segment has expressed a desire for something beyond the 40-foot bus which is typically limited for travel along key arterials.

nt
performance; give voice to the mobility needs and priorities of transit riders as well as the community at- large; and advance a series of Administrative, Operations, Capital/Technology, and Marketing/Outreach recommendations intended to support the continued development of Visalia Transit; while also providing Financial and Capital Plans outlining how the proposed recommendations can be realized.

In closing, it is our fond hope both the Visalia city council and its staff come to view the Short Range Transit -
transit service
across the next five years.

25 3

This chapter advances performance measures governing the public transit programs provided by the City of Visalia. Performance measures are also included for the role of public transit in the community, including land-use, planning, and regional connectivity. Establishment of performance measures allows progress toward goals to be tracked and achieved.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of any transit program, it must be measured against specific goals and standards appropriate to the services it provides and the environment in which it operates. These performance measures are composed of goals, objectives, tactics, and performance standards.

Goals are statements that qualify the desired results. They are the end toward which efforts are directed. They are general and timeless, yet theoretically attainable.

Objectives provide quantifiable measures of the goals. They are more precise and capable of both attainment and measurement.

Once goals and objectives are identified, performance measures can be defined, as well as performance standards against which to measure success.

Performance measures indicate how the objective will be quantified (i.e., Operating Cost per Passenger, completion of a marketing plan, or compliance with ADA standards).

Performance standards set quantifiable targets for achieving the adopted goals (i.e., minimum annual ridership growth, bus stop amenity thresholds, or maintenance guidelines).

adopted mission and vision statements (as developed in the prior Short Range Transit Plan), identify and refine program goals, and provide measures and standards with which to evaluate progress toward those goals.

26 4

An organization defines its overall purpose and vision for the future through mission and vision statements. A mission statement describes what the organization does, for whom, and to what benefit.

A vision statement is a forward-thinking statement that provides guidance and inspiration across the next five to ten years. Mission and vision statements for Visalia Transit are provided below.

Mission: The overriding purpose of Visalia Transit is to provide a safe, efficient, effective, reliable, and accessible public transportation network that provides economic, social, and environmental value to the community and serves all segments of the population in the City of Visalia, Goshen, Farmersville, Exeter, and surrounding areas.

Vision: Visalia Transit is a leader in applying new technology and innovative solutions toward future progress in improving the value, efficiency, and effectiveness of its services p pace with growth in
populations and incorporate new areas, while maintaining efficiency and effectiveness throughout the system. VT provides leadership for public transportation services in City of Visalia and partnering communities.

As stated above, goals are broad statements providing direction for Visalia Transit. They are supported by measurable objectives. The prior Short Range Transit Plan (completed in 2017) carried forward the four goals included in the prior SRTP. They were:

Goal 1: Operate a high-quality public transportation system (safe, reliable, effective, efficient, and accessible).

Goal 2: Address the growing demand for new services and implement efficient and cost- effective solutions to meet the increasing public transportation needs of the community.

Goal 3: Provide leadership in public transportation for the City, nearby communities, and the industry.

Goal 4: Educate the public about transit services in the area and the benefits of public transportation to the Visalia community.

Despite recent challenges as well as the resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, Moore & Associates believes these four goals continue to provide an appropriate and relevant framework for Visalia Transit. However, Moore & Associates has restructured the objectives, measures, and standards to more closely reflect the current transit program
operating environment as well as governance and funding considerations. We also added goals to address technology and sustainability.

Goal 5: Enhance the transit customer experience and service productivity through the use of technology.
27 5
Goal 6: Support environmental responsibility through sustainable practices.

The primary difference between goals and objectives is that objectives can be measured. There may not be a clear way to determine -
however, the City can measure whether the service is reliable (objective). To that end, we have identified supporting objectives for each goal.

Goal 1: Operate a high-quality public transportation system (safe, reliable, effective, efficient, and accessible).
o Objective 1: Improve operational efficiency.
o Objective 2: Improve operational performance.
o Objective 3: Maintain a high degree of reliability.
o Objective 4: Maintain a high degree of safety.
o Objective 5: Identify cost-effective service alternatives for low-performing/low- productivity routes.
o Objective 6: Maintain full staffing and improve driver recruitment and retention. o Objective 7: Increase Dial-A-Ride service productivity.

Goal 2: Address the growing demand for new services and implement efficient and cost- effective solutions to meet the increasing public transportation needs of the community. o Objective 1:
o Objective 2: Introduce transit service to new commercial development through financial partnerships with developers, employers, and tenants. o Objective 3: Continue to function as a key link within the regional transit network. o Objective 4: Identify new modes or services to balance increased demand for service with cost.

Goal 3: Provide leadership in public transportation for the City, nearby communities, and the industry.
o Objective 1: Identify alternate operational funding sources to reduce reliance on passenger fares.
o Objective 2: Earn transit industry recognition.
o Objective 3: Continue to position Visalia Transit as a quality public transit operator within the region.

Goal 4: Educate the public about transit services in the area and the benefits of public transportation to the Visalia community.
o Objective 1: -
dependent riders.
o Objective 2: Enhance Visalia Transi image within the Visalia community at- large.
o Objective 3: Improve customer satisfaction.

28 6
Goal 5: Enhance the transit customer experience and service productivity through the use of technology.
o Objective 1: Continue to provide and enhance mobile access to trip planning and real-time vehicle tracking.
o Objective 2: Enhance accessibility to non-cash fare media options. o Objective 3: Reduce the average revenue vehicle age and mileage.

Goal 6: Support environmental responsibility through sustainable practices. o Objective 1:
replacement.

Performance measures were developed based on historic system performance and planning activities as well as individual service performance and operations management. The following tables link the objectives to adopted performance measures whenever possible. Actual performance is then compared with recommended performance standards where available. Recommended performance measures and standards are included herein to support the Short Range Transit Plan implementation. Actual performance is discussed further in Chapter 3, System Performance Analysis.

In crafting this chapter, Moore & Associates concluded some of the performance standards included in prior SRTP appeared to be quite ambitious, even before the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. While aspirational goals can have a role within a performance measurement and standards framework, they must be realistic. For example, we believe inclusion of a productivity standard (e.g., passengers/VRH) that is nearly ten times greater than recent (pre-COVID) actual productivity performance is of little value. Therefore, some (prior) quantitative standards and/or measures have been revised accordingly. Finally, should a performance or productivity goal be met consistently, then it will need to be adjusted to encourage increased performance or productivity.

29 7
Goal Objective Performance Measure(s) Prior SRTP Performance Standard
Recommended Performance
Standard

1. Operate a high-quality
public transportation system
(safe, reliable, effective,
efficient, and accessible).

Improve operational
efficiency.

Cost/VRH by mode
(year-over-year
comparison)
Base year + CPI

Base year + CPI

Improve fixed-route
operational
performance.

Passengers/VRH by
individual route (year-
over-year comparison,
assessed quarterly)
15 passengers/VRH
(10 passengers/VRH for new
services in operation for less
than 2 years)
10% improvement over prior
year (8 passengers/VRH for
first 2 years of operation)
Maintain a high
degree of reliability.

On-time performance Fixed-route: greater than 95%
DAR: greater than 90%
Fixed-route: greater than
95%
DAR: greater than 90%
Missed trips Fixed-route: less than 1.0%
DAR: less than 2.0%
Fixed-route: less than 1.0%
DAR: less than 2.0%
Miles between road calls Fixed-route: 14,000 miles
DAR: 10,000
Fixed-route: 14,000 miles
DAR: 10,000
Maintain a high
degree of safety.

Preventable accidents
per 100,000 miles
Less than 1.5 Less than 1.5
Passenger injuries per
100,000 miles
Less than 1.0 Less than 1.0
Identify cost-
effective service
alternatives for low-
performing/low-
productivity routes.

Identify routes with high
Cost/VRH and low
Passengers/VRH
Not measured Low-performing/low-
productivity routes identified
and alternatives considered
Implementation of
alternatives
Not measured Alternatives implemented
Maintain full staffing
and improve driver
recruitment and
retention.

Open staff positions Not measured Lower turnover and higher retention rate from baseline

30 8
Goal Objective Performance Measure(s) Prior SRTP Performance Standard
Recommended
Performance Standard

1. Operate a high-quality
public transportation system
(safe, reliable, effective,
efficient, and accessible).

Increase Dial-A-Ride
service productivity.

Passengers/VRH (year-
over-year comparison,
assessed quarterly)
Greater than 3.0
passengers/VRH
Greater than 2.0
passengers/VRH

2. Address the growing
demand for new services and
implement efficient and cost-
effective solutions to meet
the increasing public
transportation needs of the
community.
throughout the city
of Visalia.

Percentage of households
within reasonable walking
distance of a transit stop
Fixed-route: 90% of residents
within ¾ mile of a bus stop
Fixed-route: 90% of
residents within ¾ mile of a
bus stop
Introduce transit
service to new
commercial
development
through financial
partnerships with
developers,
employers, and
tenants.

Number of partnerships Not measured Number of partnerships Implementation of service
extension/expansion
Not measured Number of new
locations/new employers
served
Continue to function
as a key link within
the regional transit
network.

Number of transfers to
other transit operators
Not measured At least 2,000 annually
Average wait time for
inter-agency transfers
Not measured Less than 20 minutes

31 9
Goal Objective Performance Measure(s) Prior SRTP Performance Standard
Recommended
Performance Standard

2. Address the growing
demand for new services and
implement efficient and cost-
effective solutions to meet
the increasing public
transportation needs of the
community.

Identify new modes
or services to balance
increased demand
for service with cost.

Implementation of new
modes/services
Not measured Number of new
modes/services launched or
piloted
Performance/productivity
of new modes/services
Not measured Cost/VRH
Passengers/VRH

3. Provide leadership in public
transportation for the City,
nearby communities, and the
industry.

Identify alternate
operational funding
sources to reduce
reliance on
passenger fares.

Amount of locally-
generated supplemental
revenues
Not measured Greater than or equal to
prior year
Earn transit industry
recognition.

Inclusion in industry
publications
Not measured One or more
horizon
Selection for industry
awards
Not measured One or more
horizon
Continue to position
Visalia Transit as a
quality public transit
operator within the
region.

Number of community
outreach and engagement
activities
Not measured Greater than or equal to the
number of activities pre-
pandemic

32 10
Goal Objective Performance Measure(s) Prior SRTP Performance Standard
Recommended
Performance Standard

4. Educate the public about
transit services in the area and
the benefits of public
transportation to the Visalia
community.

Expand Visalia
base beyond the
historic transit-
dependent.

Bi-annual customer survey
alternatives to transit
Not measured Percentage of respondents
indicating both possession
of a driver license and
access to a personal vehicle
or those indicating a viable
alternative to transit
greater than baseline.

Enhance Visalia
image
within the Visalia
community at-large.

Bi-annual customer survey
perception of transit

Not measured Rating of 3.0 or better (on a
4-point scale) with respect
to approval of/support for
transit.

Community survey
perception of transit
Not measured Rating of 3.0 or better (on a
4-point scale) with respect
to approval of/support for
transit.

Improve customer
satisfaction.

Bi-annual customer survey
satisfaction
Rating of 3.0 or better Rating of 3.0 or better (on a
4-point scale) with respect
to overall satisfaction.

Complaints per 100,000
customer boardings
Fixed-route: Less than 100 Fixed-route: Less than 100

33 11
Goal Objective Performance Measure(s) Prior SRTP Performance Standard
Recommended
Performance Standard

5. Enhance the customer
experience and service
productivity through the use
of technology.

Continue to provide
and enhance mobile
access to trip
planning and real-
time vehicle
tracking.

Mobile app downloads Not measured Number of downloads
increases over previous
year
Reduction in call center
volume
Not measured Number of calls less than
previous year
Enhance
accessibility to non-
cash fare media
options.

Pass sales Not measured Overall pass sales greater
than previous year
Introduction of mobile
ticketing
Not measured Increased usage year-over-
year once introduced
Reduce the average
revenue vehicle age
and mileage.

Average vehicle age Not measured Lower than previous year Average vehicle mileage Not measured Lower than previous year

6. Support environmental
responsibility through
sustainable practices.
environmental
impact through
strategic fleet
replacement.

Fleet mix of Zero-Emission
Buses (ZEBs).

Compliance with ICT
legislation.

Not measured Greater than 8.1% of
Visalia Transit fixed-route
fleet (baseline)

34 12

This page intentionally blank.

35 13

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief summary of the key data arising from the projects three survey activities: 1) dial-a-ride customer survey, 2) fixed-route (local bus service) customer survey, and 3) community survey.

To assess dial-a-ride customer satisfaction as well as program performance, Moore & Associates conducted a self-administered survey of recent dial-a-ride customers. A bilingual questionnaire was distributed via first class mail to 465 individuals listed w -a-ride user database. The
survey mailer included a postage-paid reply envelope to facilitate survey return. To encourage participation, each person responding in advance of the stipulated response deadline was entered into a random drawing for one of three 50-dollar VISA gift cards.

-
actual sample size was 445. Seventy valid responses were received translating to a participation rate of approximately 16 percent.

-a-ride
user. Key characteristic include:

Is age 62 years or above (65 percent).

Ride three or more times weekly (38 percent).

Resides within Visalia (83 percent).

Most common trip purpose is to access healthcare services (56 percent).

Has access to the internet (52 percent), uses text messaging (52 percent), and owns a smart phone (56 percent).

service (90 percent).

Based on the customer profile along with the overall survey data, we conclude 1) there is very high overall customer satisfaction, 2) there is little potential for possible mode- -route bus service, and 3) the program policies and procedures appear to be effective.

36 14

In early September 2021, a team of bilingual surveyors conducted an intercept survey across all Visalia -Line service linking Visalia and Fresno,
nor the SEKI service linking Visalia and Sequoia National Park. Persons not wishing to complete the survey while onboard the bus had the option of completing the survey online. To encourage participation, each person responding in advance of the stipulated response deadline was entered into a random drawing for a series of VISA gift cards.

Despite a ridership decline of approximately 40 percent (due chiefly to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, a sample size of nearly 400 was achieved. This translates to a data confidence level of 95 percent and a margin of error of five percent.

service rider. Key characteristics include:

Is age 18-44 (48 percent).

Is currently employed (32 percent).

Most common trip purpose is to access
Lacks access to a personal vehicle (79 percent).

Lives in a household with an annual income of less than $25,000 (38 percent).

Rides three or more times weekly (50 percent).

Most preferred services enhancements:
o
)
local bus service (93.2 percent).

Based on the customer profile along with the overall survey data, we conclude 1) there is very high customer satisfaction, 2) there is a high degree of transit-dependency exhibited by the core customer group, and 3) introduction of the preferred service improvement would result in ridership growth (that is, additional weekly rides by the core customer group).

The community survey had several objectives including: 1) assess awareness as well as recent use of regarding current as well as future/potential use of Visalia Transit, 3) collect basic demographic data specific to survey participants, and 4) identify opportunities for potential Visalia Transit service enhancements.

37 15
Survey fielding was conducted in September 2021 at locations of significant public activity throughout the Visalia Transit local service area as well as online. Printed survey questionnaires were also available at each of the Community workshops.

Three community workshops were conducted in September 2021 to findings, and as an opportunity for Visalia residents to discuss their mobility needs and priorities. The sessions were held at the Visalia Convention Center as well as the College of the Sequoias main campus.

Real-time Spanish interpretation was available at each session.

The online survey was promoted via 1) City of Visalia social media messaging, 2) display advert in the Visalia Times-Delta, and 3) a direct mailer (postcard) to nearly 29,000 households throughout Visalia. A response or participation incentive was included (i.e., random drawing for a selection of VISA gift cards).

At the conclusion of the survey participation period, nearly 250 valid responses were received (nearly 2.5

Based on respondent profile.

Ready access to a personal vehicle (84 percent).

percent).

Propensity to use public transit in the future (86 percent).

Believes public transit provides a valuable community service (88 percent).

Believes public transit supports the local economy (85 percent).

Believes public transit is an important service for seniors and persons with disabilities (93 percent).

Based on the respondent profile as well as the overall survey data, we conclude:

1) Visalia Transit is perceived as a valuable community service (by both riders and non-riders alike). 2) The personal vehicle remains the greatest competition to public transit. 3) Visalia Transit is positively positioned as a future mobility option within a significant portion of current non-riders.
4) Targeted marketing (e.g., single-vehicle households, households within close proximity of a Visalia Visalia Transit marketing.
5) -à-vis attracting non-transit riders) are convenience, ease-of-use, and savings.

The full survey narrative with data exhibits is

38 16

This page intentionally blank.

39 17

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an assessment of current and past system performance. This chapter includes a fare structure review (including peer review), service performance analysis by mode, evaluation of progress toward existing service standards, and evaluation of organizational structure.

The current fare structure has been in effect since February 1, 2021. The local and demand-response fare structure is relatively simple. The local fixed-route service offers a base cash fare as well as one-day, seven-day, and 31-day passes at two different fare levels (general public and discounted).

All discounted fare categories are eligible for the same discounted fare. A separate promotional pass (Half-off Pass) has limited availability to new riders. Monthly and mid-monthly regional T-Passes are also honored on Visalia T

Exhibit 3.1.1 Fixed-route fare structure local service General
Public Discounted* Children+
Visalia Transit
Cash fare (one-way) $1.75 $0.85 Free
Day pass $3.50 $2.50 N/A
7-day pass $14.00 $7.50 N/A
31-day pass $50.00 $30.00 N/A
Half-off Pass (HOP)^ $25.00 N/A N/A
Monthly Regional T-Pass $55.00 N/A N/A
Mid-month Regional T-Pass $30.00 N/A N/A

*Discounted fares available to seniors (age 65+), persons with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, and active military (and families). +Up to two children age 6 or younger ride free with a fare-paying passenger.

Additional children must pay the full cash fare.
^The Half-off Pass is available to new riders only.

Purchase of any monthly pass (or reloadable fare card) makes the user eligible for the Rider Rewards program, which offers discounts or special offers at affiliated merchants throughout Visalia. Riders simply present their bus pass to participating businesses to receive the rewards.

Visalia Transit does not currently offer a transfer but does offer a day pass. The general public day pass is priced equal to two one-way fares, while the discounted day pass is nearly the same as three one-way 40 18
fares. Federal Transit Administration guidance regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)1 does not address reduced fares on fixed-route service, only providing guidance specific to fare pricing for ADA complementary paratransit service. However, this inconsistency between the value provided by the day pass could be viewed as discriminatory. Similar issues are noted for the seven-day and 31-day passes.

Visalia Transit also operates two external services: V-Line and Sequoia Shuttle. V-Line offers a general public and discounted fare, although the requirements for the discounted fare are slightly different than the local service routes (For example, students are eligible for the V-Line discounted fare). Four fare products are available the one-way base fare as well as 10-, 20-, and 40-ride punch passes. Sequoia Shuttle offers a single fare for all riders a $20 round-trip fare between Visalia and Sequoia National Park.

Bus service inside the park is free.

Exhibit 3.1.2 Fixed-route fare structure external services General
Public Discounted*
V-Line
One-way/single ride $10.00 $9.00
10-ride punch pass $90.00 $80.00
20-ride punch pass $160.00 $140.00
40-ride punch pass $280.00 $240.00
Sequoia Shuttle
External shuttle (round-trip) $20.00 N/A
Internal shuttle Free Free

*V-Line discounted fares available to students, seniors, persons with disabilities, and veterans.

-response service offers just three fare products: cash fare, monthly Fast Pass, and 10-ride punch pass. There are two fare levels (general public and discounted) for the cash fare and punch pass. The monthly Fast Pass is available to ADA-certified riders only.

Exhibit 3.1.3 Demand-response fare structure
Discounted* General
Public Children+
Cash fare (one-way) $2.25 $4.00 Free
Monthly fast pass (ADA only) $75.00 N/A N/A
10-ride punch pass $22.50 $40.00 N/A

*Discounted fares available to seniors (age 65+), persons with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, and active military.
+Up to two children age 6 or younger ride free with a fare-paying passenger.

Additional children must pay the full cash fare.

1 Transportation, 4 November 2015.
41 19
During the first eight months of FY 20202,3 (July 2019 through February 2020), only 36.6 percent of fixed- route riders paid full-fare (either cash or by purchasing a full-fare pass). Nearly 30 percent (29.5 percent) of riders traveled on a reduced fare (senior, disabled, military, or free). Regional T-Pass users comprised 14 percent of riders, while another 13.3 percent traveled using a College of the Sequoias transit sticker.

Less than two percent of all riders used a Half-Off Pass (HOP), while less than one percent transferred from the former Tulare County Transit service.

Day passes were the most popular pass type, and were used on 28.9 percent of rides. Monthly passes (including the ADA Fast Pass and Rider Rewards pass) were used on 16.8 percent of rides. Weekly passes were the least used, comprising just 7.1 percent of rides. Together, use of these three passes far outweighed cash fares, which were used on just 13.9 percent of rides.

Overall, more than two-thirds of the rides made during this period (68.7 percent) reflect a purchased pass of some kind. If the College of the Sequoias pass is added to this, that figure rises to 81.9 percent. It is apparent multi-ride passes are very appealing to Visalia Transit customers. This should be taken into account as fare adjustments are considered in the future.

Fare collection was suspended between April 8, 2020 and January 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Fare collection resumed on February 1, 2021. During the last five months of FY 2021, there was a higher incidence in the use of cash fares. This is likely due to the uncertain nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, which undoubtedly influenced decisions about whether or not to invest in a multi-ride pass, as well as the near total elimination of College of the Sequoia rides from the mix of fare payment options.

During those months, 22.2 percent of rides were paid using cash, while 71.7 percent were paid with a pass. Day passes were the most frequently used, followed by monthly passes.

For the peer fare review, we identified four peers operating within central California, each in an environment similar to Visalia. The peers are Golden Empire Transit (GET) (Bakersfield), Fresno Area Express (Fresno), The Bus (Merced County), and Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) (Kings County). Tulare

It should be noted Tulare has joined with other transit operators in Tulare county to form Tulare County Regional Transit. At , it was unclear what the consolidated fare structure would be.

Visalia has the highest fixed-route base fare at $1.75, followed by GET ($1.65), Merced and TIME ($1.50), KART ($1.25), and Fresno ($1.00). Fresno and TIME offer a free transfer; all other peers, as well as Visalia, offer a day pass instead. Visalia and Merced offer the best value general public day pass (equal to two one-
to 3.2 times the base one-way fare.

2 It should be noted the data shown here was recorded prior to the fare change in February 2021. 3 -19 pandemic in March
2020.
42 20
All peers offer a variety of non-cash fare media as well as cash fares. Four of the five peers offer reduced or discounted fixed-route fares for seniors, persons with disabilities, and Medicare cardholders. The fifth (Merced) implemented a program that allows it to provide rides to those groups for free. All offer some form of free rides for young children, although Fresno allows all children up to age 12 to ride for free.

Most offer free or reduced fares for active military and/or veterans as well. Merced, TIME, and KART offer discounted student monthly passes.

-lowest of the peers. The lowest is Fresno, which at $1.25 is just 25 cents higher than the fixed-route fare. At
TIME ($2.00), with GET and Merced both priced at $3.00. Only Visalia and TIME offer a general public fare for Dial-A-Ride. Visalia is one of just two peers that provides an unlimited monthly pass for ADA -
ride pass for paratransit.

Given Visalia
current fare structure (pricing), there is likely to be little customer tolerance for a fare increase. The exception may be if Visalia Transit can provide a significant benefit to customers that will accompany the fare change. In other words, it is unlikely a fare increase would be tolerated for simply continuation of the current service level.
43 21
Exhibit 3.1.4 Peer fares
Visalia Transit Tulare (TIME) Bakersfield
(GET) Fresno (FAX) Merced (The
Bus) Kings County (KART)
Fixed-Route
Base one-way
fare (general
public)
$1.75 $1.50 $1.65 $1.00
Local: $1.50;
Intercity:
$3.00
Local: $1.25
Out of town: $1.75
Discounted/
reduced one-
way fare
Senior (65+):
$0.85
Medicare: $0.85
Disabled: $0.85
Children: Free (6
and under; up
to 2)
Active military:
$0.85

Senior (65+):
$0.75
Medicare: $0.75
ADA: $0.75
Active military:
$0.75
Children: Free (5
and under; up to
2)
ADA PCA: Free
Senior (65+):
$0.80
Medicare: $0.80
Disabled: $0.80
Children: Free
(under age 6; up
to 3)
Senior (65+):
$0.50
Medicare: $0.50
Disabled: $0.50
Children: Free for
age 12 and under
Active military:

Free
Veteran: Free
Senior: Free
Disabled: Free
Children: Free
(under 46
inches)
Active
military: Free
Veteran: Free
Senior: $0.60 local/
$0.85 out of town
Disabled: $0.60 local/
$0.85 out of town
Children: Free (6 years
and under)
Active military: $0.60
local/ $0.85 out of town
Veteran: $0.60 local/
$0.85 out of town
Transfers None Free None
Free; up to 2
transfers in a
single direction
within 90
minutes
None None
Day pass Regular: $3.50
Reduced: $2.50 None Regular: $3.55
Reduced: $1.70 None
Local: $3.00
Intercity:
$6.00
Local: $4.00
Out of town: $5.50
7-day pass Regular: $14.00
Reduced: $7.50 None None None Local: $20.00 None
15-day pass None None
Regular: $30.00
Reduced:
$13.75
None None None
44 22
Visalia Transit Tulare (TIME) Bakersfield
(GET) Fresno (FAX) Merced (The
Bus) Kings County (KART)
31-
day/monthly
pass
Regular: $50.00
Reduced:
$30.00
Regular: $40.00
Reduced: $20.00
Student: $33.00
Regular: $45.00
Reduced:
$22.00
Regular: $36.00
Reduced: $18.00
Local: $60.00
Local
(student):
$45.00
Local (regular): $50.00
Out of town (regular):
$60.00
Local (reduced): $40.00
Out of town (reduced):
$50.00
10-ride pass None None None Regular: $9.00
Reduced: $4.50 None Local: $10.00
Out of town: $14.00
Dial-A-Ride/ADA Paratransit
Base one-way
fare (general
public)
$4.00 $3.25 None None None None
Discounted/
reduced one-
way fare
ADA: $2.25
Senior (65+):
$2.25
Disabled: $2.25
Medicare: $2.25
Active military:
$2.25
ADA: $2.00
PCA: Free
Children (7 and
under with fare-
paying adult):
$1.25
Children without
fare-paying
adult: $2.50
ADA: $3.00
ADA: $1.25
Companion:
$1.25
PCA: Free
Local: $3.00
Intercity:
$6.00
ADA: $2.50 ($5.00 if
outside service area)
Companion: $2.50
Children: $2.50
PCA: Free
Monthly pass ADA: $75.00 None None ADA: $36.00 None None 10-ride pass
Regular: $40.00
Reduced:
$22.50
General public:
$32.50
ADA: $20.00
ADA: $30.00 None None $25.00
45 23

In reviewing fixed-route performance, Moore & Associates sought to use metrics that would look at pre- COVID and later-COVID performance; the former for historic comparison and the latter for current performance. Therefore, we elected to utilize the following time periods in the system analysis:

Year 1: March 2018 February 2019
Year 2: March 2019 February 2020
Year 3: January 2021 June 2021

Although data for Year 3 does not represent a full year, extrapolation to a full 12 months is provided, and calculation of performance indicators based on the actual data allows for an accurate comparison.

The City of Visalia does not track operating cost by route. Therefore, in order to calculate this metric, Moore & Associates used the total operating cost for each period above divided by the total number of vehicle revenue hours operated during that period. That cost per hour was then applied to the number of vehicle revenue hours operated by each route to get operating cost by route.

Visalia Transit currently operates 13 local routes. Route 3 service ended in January 2020. As such, no route-specific analysis was provided within this section since it is no longer operating. Route 17 service was launched on October 10, 2021. Given this route operated outside of the dates used within this section, no route-specific analysis is provided in this section. As a result, only 12 routes are profiled herein.

In the years immediately prior to onset of the COVID pandemic, Visalia -route service operated approximately 1.8 million vehicle revenue miles and between 125,000 and 150,000 vehicle revenue hours annually. Ridership was strongest in Year 1, decreasing 10 percent in Year 2. Fare revenues decreased accordingly in the second year, though operating cost also decreased slightly. Following the upheaval of the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Year 3 shows significant decreases in all metrics, with ridership being the most significantly impacted (down nearly 70 percent).

Exhibit 3.2.1 presents system performance metrics for the three years discussed previously. Two sets of metrics are shown for Year 3. The first represents actual performance for the specified eight-month period. The second extrapolates the data for 12 months based on the first eight months of the year. This -to-

46 24
Exhibit 3.2.1 Fixed-route Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 129,575.03 125,304.32 54,859.68 109,807.82 Vehicle revenue miles 1,793,781.03 1,761,113.83 819,683.00 1,639,366 Ridership 1,302,051 1,169,871 248,422 496,844
Fare revenue $583,204.81 $553,137.05 $152,964 $305,927
Operating cost $10,058,243.80 $10,735,600.90 $5,267,101.37 $10,534,202.76

47 25
Exhibit 3.2.2 Fixed-route vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.3 Fixed-route passengers/vehicle revenue hour

Exhibit 3.2.4 Fixed-route passengers/vehicle revenue mile Exhibit 3.2.5 Fixed-route average fare/passenger

Exhibit 3.2.6 Fixed-route operating cost/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.7 Fixed-route operating cost/passenger

13.84 14.05

14.94 13.00

13.50 14.00

14.50 15.00

15.50 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

10.05 9.34

4.53 0.00

2.00 4.00

6.00 8.00

10.00 12.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

0.73 0.66

0.30 0.00

0.20 0.40

0.60 0.80
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$0.45 $0.47
$1.59
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$77.62 $85.68 $96.01
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$7.72 $9.18
$21.20
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
48 26
Exhibit 3.2.8 Fixed-route system map
1 2
4 5
6 7
8 9
12 11x
15 16
17 To Tulare
49 27
Route 1 travels between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and Government Plaza via Mooney Blvd. The route also serves Recreation Park, College of the Sequoias, Visalia Mall, and Sequoia Mall.

Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 9:48 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Weekday frequency is 15 minutes throughout most of the day, increasing to 30 minutes after 7:00 p.m. Frequency on Saturday and Sunday is 20 minutes.

Exhibit 3.2.9 Route 1 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 19,430.19 19,215.70 9,523.99 19,047.98 Vehicle revenue miles 203,121.53 202,528.00 101,342.00 202,684.00 Ridership 377,419.00 340,857.00 71,471.00 142,936
Fare revenue $113,048.10 $109,656.18 $34,651.68 $69,303.36 Operating cost $1,508,265.81 $1,646,328.60 $814,402.36 $1,828,804.72

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 1 has consistently ranked as the most productive. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic stood at 19.42 in Year 1 and 17.74 in Year 2. While this indicator dropped to 7.50 in Year 3, Route 1 still outperforms all other routes.

Route 2 travels between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and the Visalia Medical Clinic primarily via Court, Caldwell, and Akers. The route also serves Kaweah Delta Urgent Care. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 9:46 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:46 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is 30 minutes across all service days.

Exhibit 3.2.10 Route 2 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 14,806.16 30,242.13 6,989.55 13,979.10 Vehicle revenue miles 171,235.60 187,023.38 84,305.00 168,610.00 Ridership 151,621.00 136,421.00 36,238.00 72,476.00 Fare revenue 73,112.66 $70,130.40 $34,651.68 $69,303.36 Operating cost $1,351,263.38 $1,364,126.03 $671,069.69 $1,342,139.38

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 2 has been somewhat inconsistent. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic at 10.24 (sixth of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 4.51 (tenth of 13 routes) in Year 2. This indicator rebounded to

5.18 in Year 3, placing Route 2 as third out of 12 routes. 50 28
Route 4 travels between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and the Visalia Medical Clinic primarily via Court, Tulare, and Akers. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 9:51 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:51 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is generally 30 minutes on all service days, dropping to 60 minutes during later evening hours on weekdays.

Exhibit 3.2.11 Route 4 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 9,940.23 9,805.02 4,695.80 9,391.60 Vehicle revenue miles 114,803.00 114,323.00 57,410.00 114,820.00 Ridership 114,523.00 98,642.00 22,673.00 45,346.00 Fare revenue $57,240.39 $50,511.11 $14,221.18 $28,442.36 Operating cost $925,451.63 $937,524.83 $450,845.7 $901,691.54

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 4 has been consistently in the top half with respect to ranking. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic passengers/revenue hour stood at 11.52 (fourth of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 10.06 (fifth of 13 routes) in Year 2. This indicator stood at 4.83 in Year 3, placing Route 4 as sixth out of 12 routes.

Route 5 travels between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and the Visalia Medical Clinic primarily via Ben Maddox, Walnut, and Akers. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 9:55 p.m.

Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:55 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is 30 to 45 minutes throughout the day on weekdays and 30 minutes on Saturday and Sunday.

Exhibit 3.2.12 Route 5 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 10,381.91 10,192.53 4,927.72 9,855.44 Vehicle revenue miles 141,440.00 140,539.00 70,120.00 140,240.00 Ridership 75,236.00 73,087.00 20,494.00 40,988.00 Fare revenue $36,944.71 $36,885.27 $13,612.84 $27,225.68 Operating cost $940,063.25 $968,492.68 $473,112.51 $946,225.02

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 5 has been consistently in the lower half with respect to ranking. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic passengers/revenue hour stood at 7.25 (ninth of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 7.17 (eighth of 13 routes) in Year

2. This indicator stood at 4.16 in Year 3, placing Route 5 as seventh out of 12 routes.

51 29
Route 6 travels between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and the Visalia Medical Clinic primarily via Second and Third, Houston, Goshen, and Akers. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 9:55 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:55 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.

Frequency is 60 minutes across all service days.

Exhibit 3.2.13 Route 6 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 10,179.74 8,959.75 2,646.27 5,292.54 Vehicle revenue miles 173,859.00 208,218.22 29,434.00 58,686.00 Ridership 61,965.00 54,915.00 16,559.00 33,118.00 Fare revenue $37,247.43 $34,366.65 $9,523.84 $19,047.68 Operating cost $927,771.25 $1,815,587.44 $254,069.52 $508,139.04

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 6 toward the bottom with respect to ranking prior to onset of the COVID pandemic at 6.09 (tenth of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 6.13 (ninth of 13 routes) in Year 2. However, this indicator stood at 6.26 in Year 3, placing Route 6 as second out of 12 routes.

Route 7 travels between the Visalia Medical Clinic and the Target Shopping Center primarily via Akers, Riggin, Ferguson, and Dinuba Rd. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 9:48 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:48 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is 60 minutes across all service days.

Exhibit 3.2.14 Route 7 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 17,821.97 15,496.15 2,519.08 5,038.16 Vehicle revenue miles 230,047.90 207,958.00 37,627.00 75,254.00 Ridership 158,534.00 131,726.00 4,089.00 8,178.00 Fare revenue $74,048.70 $63,171.44 $2,350.31 $4,700.62 Operating cost $1,579,765.25 $923,326.20 $241,867.95 $483,735.90

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 7 stood in the middle with respect to ranking prior to onset of the COVID pandemic at 8.90 (seventh of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 8.50 (sixth of 13 routes) in Year 2. However, this indicator dropped to 1.62 in Year 3, placing Route 7 as eleventh out of 12 routes.

52 30
Route 8 travels between the Target Shopping Center and the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia p
6:00 a.m. and 10:07 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 7:45 a.m. and 6:52 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is 30 to 45 minutes throughout the day across all service days.

Exhibit 3.2.15 Route 8 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 8,934.59 9,180.94 4,916.05 9,832.10 Vehicle revenue miles 111,587.00 117,842.23 73,796.00 147,592.00 Ridership 75,636.00 68,937.00 19,830.00 9,660.00
Fare revenue $32,711.54 $32,892.06 $11,593.38 $23,186.76 Operating cost $818,940.50 $877,094.29 $471,992.07 $943,984.14

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 8 has been consistently in the lower half with respect to ranking. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic passengers/revenue hour stood at 8.47 (eighth of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 7.51 (seventh of 13 routes) in Year 2. In Year 3, this indicator stood at 4.03, placing Route 8 as eighth out of 12 routes.

Route 9 travels between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and Exeter via Farmersville. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 8:47 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:17 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is 45 minutes on weekdays and 90 minutes on Saturday and Sunday.

Exhibit 3.2.16 Route 9 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 8,266.03 8,050.50 3,995.10 7,910.20 Vehicle revenue miles 151,302.00 149,600.00 77,973.00 155,946.00 Ridership 87,253.00 85,099.00 20,438.00 40,876.00 Fare revenue $62,998.35 $66,281.21 $18,302.49 $36,604.98 Operating cost $748,360.38 $770,281.61 $379,730.84 $759,461.68

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 9 has been consistently in the top half with respect to ranking. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic passengers/revenue hour stood at 10.56 (fifth of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 10.57 (fourth of 13 routes) in Year 2. This indicator stood at 5.17 in Year 3, placing Route 9 as fourth out of 12 routes.

53 31
Route 11X is an express route traveling between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and the Tulare Transit Center in downtown Tulare, with additional stops at the County Civic Center and College of the Sequoias. Service is provided between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is generally 30 minutes across all service days.

Exhibit 3.2.17 Route 11X Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 4,885.47 4,840.26 2,398.74 4,797.48 Vehicle revenue miles 154,196.00 157,755.00 77,844.00 155,688.00 Ridership 60,161.00 57,364.00 11,908.00 23,816.00 Fare revenue $30,827.44 $31,164.10 $8,910.18 $17,820.36 Operating cost $483,176.75 $458,307.42 $230,304.05 $460,608.10

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 11X has been consistently in the top half with respect to ranking. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic passengers/revenue hour stood at 12.31 (third of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 11.85 (third of 13 routes) in Year 2. This indicator stood at 4.96 in Year 3, placing Route 11X as fifth out of 12 routes.

Route 12 travels between Sequoia Mall in Visalia and Farmersville primarily via Caldwell/Visalia Rd. and Mooney Blvd. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 9:37 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 7:57 a.m. and 6:37 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is 60 minutes across all service days.

Exhibit 3.2.18 Route 12 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 4,979.48 5,033.15 2,508.56 5,017.12 Vehicle revenue miles 89,062.00 72,856.00 36,722.00 73,444.00 Ridership 28,926.00 19,971.00 5,306.00 10,612.00
Fare revenue $22,811.24 $14,951.00 $4,366.08 $8,732.16 Operating cost $463,294.13 $490,328.78 $240,847.92 $481,695.84

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 12 has been consistently in the lower half with respect to ranking. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic passengers/revenue hour stood at 5.81 (eleventh of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 3.97 (eleventh of 13 routes) in Year 2. In Year 3, this indicator stood at 2.12, placing Route 12 as tenth out of 12 routes.

54 32
Route 15 travels between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and Goshen via Mineral King/Noble, Shirk, Doe, and Goshen. The route also serves the Visalia Medical Clinic, Visalia Airport, Plaza Park, and Industrial Park. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. 10:20 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 7:30 a.m. and 6:35 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Frequency is 45 minutes on all service days.

Exhibit 3.2.19 Route 15 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 4,537.04 5,500.26 4,913.10 9,826.20 Vehicle revenue miles 74,569.00 89,240.00 94,337.00 188,674.00 Ridership 13,982.00 18,084.00 12,429.00 24,858.00 Fare revenue $6,609.31 $9,493.73 $9,716.39 $19,432.78 Operating cost $439,187.00 $520,514.28 $471,708.83 $943,417.66

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 15 has been consistently in the lower half with respect to ranking. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic passengers/revenue hour stood at 3.08 (twelfth of 13 routes) in Year 1 and 3.29 (twelfth of 13 routes) in Year 2. In Year 3, this indicator stood at 2.53, placing Route 15 as ninth out of 12 routes.

Route 16 travels between Sequoia Mall and the Target Shopping Center via Caldwell, Demaree, and Riggin.

The route also serves the Riverway Sports Park on request. Service is provided between 6:00 a.m. and 9:51 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:51 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Service frequency is 30 minutes on weekdays and 60 minutes on Saturday and Sunday.

Exhibit 3.2.20 Route 16 Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 9,833.01 9,763.90 4,865.72 9,731.44 Vehicle revenue miles 116,881.00 124,763.00 78,773.00 157,546.00 Ridership 17,824.00 18,358.00 6,987.00 13,974.00
Fare revenue $10,069.22 $10,939.99 $5,086.33 $10,172.66 Operating cost $904,163.75 $955,921.95 $467,159.86 $934,319.72

With respect to productivity (defined as passengers per vehicle revenue hour), Route 16 has been consistently last with respect to ranking. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic passengers/revenue hour stood at 1.81 in Year 1 and 1.88 in Year 2. In Year 3, this indicator stood at 1.44.

55 33
Route 11 is the most productive in terms of revenue miles per revenue hour (Exhibit 3.2.21). This is due to the intercity nature of the route, which travels between Visalia and Tulare and has very limited stops.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Route 6 saw good performance with this metric. Since COVID, Routes 9 and 15 are the next highest performers after Route 11.

Route 1 is consistently the most productive in terms of passengers per revenue hour (Exhibit 3.2.22), and is the only route to meet the standard of 15 passengers per hour. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic, Routes 11 and 4 were the next-highest performing. However, since COVID, Route 6 has become the second-highest performer, followed by Routes 2 and 9.

Not surprisingly, Route 1 is also the most productive route with respect to passengers per revenue mile (Exhibit 3.2.23). It is one of just two routes (the other is Route 4) that have been above one passenger per mile within the three years analyzed. Route 1 continued to be the highest performer after COVID (0.71), followed by Route 6 (0.56).

While higher performance- and passenger-related metrics indicate higher productivity, lower cost-related metrics indicate better cost efficiency.

Operating cost per revenue hour (Exhibit 3.2.24) is consistent across all routes for each year, as it was used as the basis for determining operating cost by route.

Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic, Route 1 had the lowest cost per passenger (Exhibit 3.2.25), followed by Route 11. Route 16 had the highest cost, followed by Route 15. Since COVID, Route 1 has continued to be the most efficient route, followed by Route 6. Routes 16 and 7 have the highest costs.

Average fare per passenger (Exhibit 3.2.26) is based on fare revenues by route and does not include pass purchases from other locations. Prior to onset of the COVID pandemic, Routes 12 and 9 had the highest average fare per passenger. Routes 1 and 2 had the lowest. Since COVID, Routes 2 and 9 have had the highest fare per passenger, while Routes 1 and 7 had the lowest. This metric is likely to be greatly impacted by reduced fare cash riders and free riders, which are applied to each route. As noted in the fare review, the incidence of pass usage is relatively high, and since those purchases are not applied to individual routes, the average fare is somewhat artificially lower. The significant increase in average fare per passenger since COVID is likely due to the increase in the percentage of passengers paying a cash fare.

Key performance indicators for all routes are presented in Exhibits 3.2.21 through 3.2.26. Only Years 1 and 3 are labeled to enhance readability.
56 34
Exhibit 3.2.21 Fixed-route vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour by route

Exhibit 3.2.22 Fixed-route passengers/vehicle revenue hour by route

10.45 10.24 11.55

13.62 17.08

12.91 12.49

18.30 31.56

17.89 16.44

11.8910.64

5.18 12.23

14.23 11.12

14.94 15.01

19.71 32.45

14.64 19.20

16.19 0.00

5.00 10.00

15.00 20.00

25.00 30.00

35.00 Route 1 Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 11 Route 12 Route 15 Route 16 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

19.42 10.24

11.52 7.25 6.09

8.90 8.47

10.56 12.31

5.81 3.08

1.81 7.50

5.18 4.83 4.16

6.26 1.62

4.03 5.17 4.96

2.12 2.53 1.44

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00
Route 1 Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 11 Route 12 Route 15 Route 16 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
57 35
Exhibit 3.2.23 Fixed-route passengers/vehicle revenue mile by route

Exhibit 3.2.24 Fixed-route operating cost/vehicle revenue hour by route

1.86 0.89 1.00

0.53 0.36

0.69 0.68 0.58

0.39 0.32

0.19 0.15

0.71 0.43 0.39 0.29

0.56 0.11

0.27 0.26 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.09

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 1.40

1.60 1.80

2.00 Route 1 Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 11 Route 12 Route 15 Route 16 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $77.62 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $96.01 $0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
Route 1 Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 11 Route 12 Route 15 Route 16 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
58 36
Exhibit 3.2.25 Fixed-route operating cost/passenger by route

Exhibit 3.2.26 Fixed-route average fare/passenger by route $4.00 $7.58 $6.74 $10.71 $12.75 $8.73 $9.17 $7.35 $6.30 $13.36
$25.19
$42.82
$12.79
$18.52 $19.88 $23.09
$15.34
$59.15
$23.80
$18.58 $19.34
$45.39
$37.95
$66.86
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
$80.00
Route 1 Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 11 Route 12 Route 15 Route 16 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$0.30
$0.23
$0.50 $0.49
$0.60
$0.47 $0.43
$0.72
$0.51
$0.79
$0.47
$0.56
$0.48
$0.96
$0.63 $0.66
$0.58 $0.57 $0.58
$0.90
$0.75
$0.82 $0.78 $0.73
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
Route 1 Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 11 Route 12 Route 15 Route 16 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
59 37
-A-Ride service is a curb-to-curb service primarily for persons with disabilities who are ADA- certified. The service also accepts same-day reservations from the general public on a space-available basis. Dial-A-Ride operates from 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.

Exhibit 3.2.27 Dial-A-Ride Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 12,903.04 12,609.33 3,498.75 6,997.49 Vehicle revenue miles 178,615.00 185,006.00 50,199.00 100,398.00 Ridership 38,918.00 39,908.00 6,444.00 12,888.00
Fare revenue $72,473.36 $81,096.74 $26,709.29* $64,102.30 Operating cost $1,026,128.68 $1,103,316.38 $341,267.59 $682,535.17

*January through May 2021 only.

As a demand-response service, Dial-A-Ride revenue hours, revenue miles, and operating cost is directly dependent on demand. As such, lower ridership translates to lower operating cost (unlike fixed-route service, where the service operates largely the same regardless of ridership). 60 38
Exhibit 3.2.28 Dial-A-Ride vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.29 Dial-A-Ride passengers/vehicle revenue hour

Exhibit 3.2.30 Dial-A-Ride passengers/vehicle revenue mile Exhibit 3.2.31 Dial-A-Ride average fare/passenger

Exhibit 3.2.32 Dial-A-Ride operating cost/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.33 Dial-A-Ride operating cost/passenger

13.84 14.59

14.35 13.40

13.60 13.80

14.00 14.20

14.40 14.60

14.80 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

3.02 3.16

1.84 0.00

0.50 1.00

1.50 2.00

2.50 3.00

3.50 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

0.22 0.22

0.13 0.00

0.05 0.10

0.15 0.20

0.25 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$1.86 $2.03
$4.14
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$79.53 $87.50 $97.54
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$26.37 $27.65
$52.96
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
61 39
The V-Line travels between the Visalia Transit Center in downtown Visalia and Courthouse Park in Fresno, with additional stops at the Visalia Municipal Airport, Fresno Yosemite International Airport, and California State University-Fresno. Northbound service is operated six times each day, with departures from the Visalia Transit Center at 4:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., and 6:30 p.m.

Southbound service departs the Fresno Airport at 5:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m., and 7:30 p.m. The service operates on the same schedule seven days per week.

Exhibit 3.2.34 V-Line Performance Metrics
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
(6 months)
Year 3
(12 months est.)
Vehicle revenue hours 7,046.87 6,856.44 2,915.40 5,830.80 Vehicle revenue miles 271,155.80 251,281.00 113,736.00 227,472.00 Ridership 28,820.00 28,167.00 3,287.00 6,574.00
Fare revenue $226,019.70 $231,594.37 $17,230.55* $41,353.32 Operating cost $404,735.97 $599,938.65 $284,369.09 $568,738.18

*January through May 2021 only.

62 40
Exhibit 3.2.35 V-Line vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.36 V-Line passengers/vehicle revenue hour

Exhibit 3.2.37 V-Line passengers/vehicle revenue mile Exhibit 3.2.38 V-Line average fare/passenger

Exhibit 3.2.39 V-Line operating cost/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.40 V-Line operating cost/passenger

38.48 36.65

39.01 35.00

36.00 37.00

38.00 39.00

40.00 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

4.09 4.11

1.13 0.00

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

0.11 0.11

0.03 0.00

0.02 0.04

0.06 0.08

0.10 0.12
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$7.84 $8.22
$5.24
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$57.43
$87.50 $97.54
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$14.04 $21.30
$86.51
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
63 41
The Sequoia Shuttle is a seasonal service operated by the City through a partnership with the National Park Service. The service includes both internal and external components. Internally, larger vehicles operate on four routes within the park to transport visitors at no charge. Externally, smaller vehicles are used to transport visitors from Visalia to the Park. Reservations and round-trip tickets are required for the external service.

Time periods are shown differently for the Sequoia Shuttle than for other routes. Season 11 represents operations in 2017, Season 12 in 2018, and Season 13 in 2019. The Sequoia Shuttle did not operate in 2020 or 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is expected to resume operations for the 2022 season.

Exhibit 3.2.41 Sequoia Shuttle
External Shuttle Performance Metrics
Season 11 Season 12 Season 13
Vehicle revenue hours 6,268.09 7,203.24 3,241.31
Vehicle revenue miles 99,052.00 112,487.00 73,980.00 Ridership 12,326.00 13,488.00 6,175.00
Operating cost $438,766.30 $504,226.80 $227,811.89

Exhibit 3.2.42 Sequoia Shuttle Internal Shuttle Performance Metrics Season 11 Season 12 Season 13
Vehicle revenue hours 12,450.74 11,810.53 13,046.13 Vehicle revenue miles 174,266.00 168,290.00 212,913.00 Ridership 794,603.00 867,646.00 940,164.00
Operating cost $935,914.96 $956,874.16 $955,987.97

64 42
Exhibit 3.2.43 External shuttle vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.44 External shuttle passengers/vehicle revenue hour

Exhibit 3.2.45 External shuttle passengers/vehicle revenue mile Exhibit 3.2.46 External shuttle operating cost/vehicle revenue hour

Exhibit 3.2.47 External shuttle operating cost/passenger Exhibit 3.2.48 Internal shuttle vehicle revenue miles/vehicle revenue hour

15.80 15.62

22.82 0.00

5.00 10.00

15.00 20.00

25.00 Season 11 Season 12 Season 13

1.97 1.87

1.91 1.80

1.85 1.90

1.95 2.00
Season 11 Season 12 Season 13

0.12 0.12

0.08 0.00

0.05 0.10

0.15 Season 11 Season 12 Season 13
$70.00 $70.00
$70.28

69.80 69.90

70.00 70.10

70.20 70.30

70.40 Season 11 Season 12 Season 13
$35.60
$37.38
$36.89

34.50 35.00

35.50 36.00

36.50 37.00

37.50 38.00
Season 11 Season 12 Season 13

14.00 14.25

16.32 12.00

13.00 14.00

15.00 16.00

17.00 Season 11 Season 12 Season 13
65 43

Exhibit 3.2.49 Internal shuttle passengers/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.50 Internal shuttle passengers/vehicle revenue mile

Exhibit 3.2.51 Internal shuttle operating cost/vehicle revenue hour Exhibit 3.2.52 Internal shuttle operating cost/passenger

63.82 73.46 72.06

55.00 60.00

65.00 70.00

75.00 Season 11 Season 12 Season 13

4.56 5.16

4.42 4.00

4.20 4.40

4.60 4.80

5.00 5.20

5.40 Season 11 Season 12 Season 13
$75.17
$81.02
$73.28
$65.00
$70.00
$75.00
$80.00
$85.00
Season 11 Season 12 Season 13
$1.18
$1.10
$1.02
$0.90
$1.00
$1.10
$1.20
Season 11 Season 12 Season 13
66 44
Data regarding two key performance measures is assessed herein. The first, operating cost per vehicle revenue hour, reflects a performance standard of base year plus Consumer Price Index (CPI). This means a modest increase (typically between one and three percent) is expected year-over-year. The fixed-route service saw an increase of 10.4 percent between Year 1 and Year 2, and a 12.1 percent increase between Year 2 and Year 3. Dial-A-Ride saw a similar increase in cost per vehicle revenue hour.

With respect to passengers per vehicle revenue hour, fixed-route had a standard of 15 or more passengers per hour, while the standard for Dial-A-Ride was three passengers per hour. The fixed-route service was not meeting this standard either before or after the start of the pandemic. Route 1 was the only route to meet the standard prior to the pandemic, though the former Route 3 came close (14.15 and 14.74 in Years 1 and 2, respectively). The Dial-A-Ride service was meeting the standard prior to the pandemic, but not subsequently.

Exhibit 3.3.1 Status of performance standards
Performance
Measure
Prior
Performance
Standard
Performance by Mode Status
Cost/vehicle
revenue hour
Base year +
CPI
Fixed-route:

Year 1: $77.62
Year 2: $85.68
Year 3: $96.01
DAR:

Year 1: $79.53
Year 2: $87.50
Year 3: $97.54
Fixed-route: 10.4%
change in Year 2 was
much higher than CPI.

Higher 12.1% change in
Year 3.

DAR: 10% change in Year
2 was much higher than
CPI. Higher 11.5% change
in Year 3.

Passengers/vehicle
revenue hour
Fixed-route:
15 DAR: >3.0
Fixed-route:

Year 1: 10.05
Year 2: 9.34
Year 3: 4.53
DAR:

Year 1: 3.02
Year 2: 3.16
Year 3: 1.84
Fixed-route: Standard
was not being met prior
to COVID-19 pandemic.

DAR: Standard was being
met prior to COVID-19
pandemic.

67 45

Administration Department. A full-time Transit
Manager oversees the Transit Division, reporting to the Assistant City Manager. Two analyst positions report directly to the Transit Manager: Financial Analyst and Management Analyst. The Financial Analyst manages a Senior Accounting Assistant and two Office Assistants. The Management Analyst manages a Senior Office Assistant and Community Outreach Coordinator. The Transit Manager also provides oversight to Building Technicians and Maintenance staff.

Exhibit 3.4.1 City of Visalia Transit organizational chart

The Transit Manager has been in place for approximately three years. This is her first position within the Transit industry.

The Management Analyst has been employed with the City for approximately two years. While he has prior experience working with a larger transit operator, this position was chiefly fleet maintenance oriented. At Visalia, his primary responsibility is day-to-day oversight of the Transit Operations and Maintenance contractor.

The Financial Analyst recently celebrated her twenty-first anniversary with the City; nearly all of which has been transit finance related. As such, the Financial Analyst brings a significant and valuable body of

In addition to managing the various functions typically associated with a mid-size public transit program, the City is responsible for customer service functions supporting the full slate of transit operators within Tulare County. This function includes both a call center as well as staffing a custo

68 46
for both the Transit Manger and the Management Analyst. Management of a public transit program has become increasingly complex across the past decade. The level and complexity of local, state, and federal compliance requirements has increased steadily. The requirements and demands of transit-related technology (i.e., service monitoring, ITS, customer-facing information, etc.) has grown increasingly complex and specialized.

Given the preceding, Moore & Associates offers three near-term recommendations: 1) consider recruitment of second Management Analyst, preferably a mid-career professional; 2) consider enrolling Management Analyst(s) in the Transit and Paratransit Management Certificate program offered by the University of the Pacific 4; and 3) arrange Syncromatics software (vendor) training for the Management Analyst.

Exhibit 3.4.2 First Transit organizational chart

Staffing levels for First Transit are dictated by the terms and conditions of a contract in-effect between the City of Visalia and First Transit.

4 The incumbent Transit Manager completed this course in 2019. 69 47
The purpose of this chapter is threefold: 1) summarize existing City of Visalia transit infrastructure, 2) provide an objective evaluation of said infrastructure, and 3) present recommendations for enhancing the infrastructure to ensure its capacity to support the Cit

1) Transit operations and maintenance facility,
2) Downtown Visalia Transit Center,
3) Transit revenue fleet,
4) Non-revenue (or supporting) fleet,
5) Technology (hardware as well as software), and
6) Network of bus stops.

Preparation of this chapter included consultant field observations; discussions with TCAG, City staff, and Range Transit Plan.

In 2007, the City took occupancy of a purpose-built transit and maintenance operations facility located near the cross-streets of North Ben Maddox Way and East Goshen Avenue. The cost of design and construction was approximately $11 million, funded chiefly via federal transportation dollars. The facility maintenance facility inclusive of nine bays, 3) adjoining compressed natural gas fueling facility, and 4) combination open-air and covered parking for the various transit vehicles.

The maintenance facility includes nine enclosed stalls as well as a wash rack. Of these, seven are used as service bays with mobile lifts. An additional service bay features a four-post lift and a nineth bay is utilized as a fire bay.

The compressed natural gas fueling facility was initially constructed in 2007 at a cost of $1.7 million. A CNG fueling expansion project was completed in 2017 at a cost of $2 million. The facility is believed to be 30 percent over capacity, and a $2 million upgrade is planned. The current fuel island features half-inch fueling nozzles (instead of the desired ¾-inch nozzles). In close proximity (outside security fencing) to the transit fueling island is a publicly-accessible compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station.

nance Facility
has begun to show its age. The facility roof often leaks during rainy weather, the bus washer is beyond its useful life, and the fleet shop is at capacity. Other areas warranting attention include installation of an 70 48
updated fall protection system, upgrade of the (CNG fuel) vapor detection system, resurfacing of the employee parking lot, and repair or replacement of the gates surrounding the employee parking lot.

Within the fenced transit parking area there are numerous examples of deteriorating concrete, poor/inoperative drainage, and various landscaping issues (i.e., new tree wells, damaged planters, etc.).

The transit center has four contributing elements:

1) Original transit facility (constructed in 2003, cost: $4.7 million), 2) Phase II expansion (2012, cost $2.2 million),
3) Adjoining administration building (2012, cost: $1.1 million), and 4) A quartet of City-owned parking facilities located in proximity to the downtown transit center.

A slate of multi-

In addition to Visalia Transit, the transit center is served by the recently formed Tulare Regional Transit Agency (including elements of the former Tulare County and Tulare City services), the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park shuttle (Sequoia Shuttle), the V Line (linking Visalia and Fresno), Kings Area Regional Transit (Visalia-Hanford service), and Greyhound.

The initial phase of the transit center included 5 bus bays, while the second phase added a further 2 bays.

The adjacent three-story administration building includes public restrooms, public lobby with seating, and a transit/transportation information counter. Now approaching the ten-year mark, the admin building is slated for exterior and interior rehab as well as full exterior painting in 2023.

fixed-route buses, 11 paratransit vehicles, and five commuter coaches. A detailed fleet listing is included within Appendix E along with the proposed fleet replacement schedule.

With respect to the fixed-route fleet, future purchases will focus on battery-electric vehicles. Phase I vehicle charging infrastructure is in place at the Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility.

71 49
Minimum service-life categories for buses and vans
Category
Typical Characteristics Minimum Life
(Whichever comes first)
Length Approx.

GVW Seats Average Cost Years Miles
Heavy-duty large bus 35-48 ft and
60 ft artic
33,000 to
40,000
27 to
40 $325,000 to
over $600,000 12 500,000
Heavy-duty small bus 30 ft 16,000 to
33,000
26 to
35 $200,000 to
$325,000 10 350,000
Medium-duty and
purpose-built bus 30 ft 16,000 to
26,000
22 to
30 $75,000 to
$175,000 7 200,000
Light-duty mid-sized bus 25 to 35 ft 10,000 to
16,000
16 to
25 $50,000 to
$65,000 5 150,000
Light-duty small bus,
cutaway, and modified
van
16 to 28 ft 6,000 to
14,000
10 to
22 $30,000 to
$40,000 4 100,000

The City adheres to FTA guidance as it pertains to vehicle useful life. The non-revenue fleet includes a combination of Chevrolet Tahoes (chiefly field supervisory vehicles) and various utility trucks (to support fleet maintenance). As vehicles near the end of their forecast useful life, the City budgets for replacement.

Expansion of the non-revenue fleet is not anticipated at this time.

131 bus shelters. Bus stop maintenance
is performed through a combination of City and contractor staff.

An increase in the number of bus stops during the next five years would be attributed chiefly to service extension to new residential and commercial development within stop amenities will be repaired/replaced as needed.

72 50
Upgrade or replace fareboxes.

The current GFI fareboxes were purchased in 2013. Since that time there have been many advances in farebox technology

The overall reliability has declined while support costs for the current fareboxes has increased. These fareboxes appear to have reached the end of their practical service life and their respective age limits for

Given the complexity and cost associated with total farebox replacement, City staff has identified an opportunity to participa
the anticipated benefits are reduced unit cost, improved technical support, and increased support for regional transit fare initiatives.

Syncromatics training for staff.

Syncromatics is a powerful web-based dispatch and vehicle tracking software. It includes a variety of software elements offering enhanced transit operations reporting, real-time customer/passenger information, information interface with customer digital sign announcements to support ADA compliance, passenger counting (i.e., boarding and alighting activity), onboard WiFi capability, and paratransit dispatch support software.

During the course of preparation of t
instances where the consultant team attempted to acquire a variety of performance data through Visalia -up. In some cases, we were advised the City does not own the related software module, in others there was an absence of module-specific staff training.

73 51

The primary goal of this chapter is to identify specific opportunities for continued Visalia Transit service development. In doing so, the objective is to help define how public transit throughout the Visalia g horizon). Simply put,
anticipated changes
professional insight.

current as well as recent transit ridership activity. , and an important comment regarding how this is calculated is warranted.

Many transit planning studies approach latent demand chiefly by quantifying the number of persons residing within a given area or neighborhood. In other words, five thousand individuals reside within a given geographic area. Therefore, annual latent demand would be derived by multiplying 5,000 by an estimated number of unlinked trips/capita. We believe this often results in a faulty demand forecast that is typically more optimistic than likely to actually develop. By contrast, Moore & Associates employs an persons residing within a given area, the number of work-age adults is 2,000. And among these 2,000 work-age adults, vehicle ownership/access is 0.75 vehicles/person. Therefore, latent demand (that is, the likelihood to actually use public transit) is considerably less than the number of persons residing within the sample area.

When discussing transit demand analysis, we suggest our clients envision a spectrum composed of three sections. At one end of the spectrum are persons who are dedicated transit users, regardless of annual household income, number of vehicles in their household, etc. We often refer to this market segment as there is a bus stop within a block of their residence and th

In preparing the demand forecast Moore & Associates employed a multi-prong approach. First, the consultant reviewed overall population growth trends derived chiefly from data and estimates available from the federal decennial census as well as the American Community Survey. Second, demographic analysis specific to historically ride-dependent populations including seniors, persons with disabilities, low-income individuals, zero- and/or one-vehicle households, and youth was completed. Third, input received from TCAG and City staff including recent TDA Article 8 public testimony was reviewed. Fourth, input received through a variety of bilingual surveys from transit users as well as the community at-large, as well as workshops was analyzed. Fifth, the consultan

74 52
In preparing the Needs Assessment, Moore & Associates also considered land-use or development patterns inclusive of near-term (i.e., five years) residential as well as commercial development throughout the Visalia urbanized area.

service offerings vis-à-vis actual as well as latent and future demand.

Public transit service was initiated by the City of Visalia in 1981. For the first several years the service operated chiefly within city limits. However, over the years transit service has been extended into neighboring communities (e.g., Exeter, Farmersville, Goshen) through various cooperative funding agreement
-square mile local
service area.

route network (consisting of 13 routes) has remained largely unchanged for several years, and transit service is provided within reasonable walking distance of approximately 65 percent of Visalia households.

It is unlikely the local service area will expand significantly within the next five years, and given recent land-use patterns much of the near-

-and-
nta Fe Street), thereby facilitating convenient bus-
to-bus connections.

Historically, school-age youth represent a significant ridership component. As such Visalia Transit provides scheduled service within close proximity of nearly all local schools including College of the Sequoias, San Joaquin Valley College, Fresno Pacific, Visalia Adult School, and Brandman University.

Similar to almost every public transit provider in America, Visalia Transit has been impacted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The four key impacts are significant reduction in annual ridership, ongoing challenges recruiting and retaining qualified drivers, significant decline in annual fare revenue, and suspension of the Sequoia Shuttle service. While the City has received a variety of one-time federal transportation funding to help offset the loss of fare revenues, it is currently unclear how post-pandemic transit funding in California will be addressed. Further, based on transit market research nationally, it is unlikely Visalia Transit ridership activity will return to pre-pandemic levels for several years if ever.

Therefore, the overall goal of this current SRTP is to optimize current Visalia Transit operational performance, while identifying cost-effective solutions to address d to be quantitatively significant as well as sustainable.

75 53

Prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in California, Tulare County was one of the faster-growing population increased between 4.0 and 5.25 percent annually. Much of the residential growth was associated with new residential developments, many of which are located beyond

Interestingly, residential real estate prices have continued to increase across the past 18 months, suggesting Californians are investing in their primary residences versus external (often discretionary) expenditures such as travel. While the true impact of the pandemic on population growth is unknown at present, for purposes of this analysis, Moore & Associates has forecast near-term year-to-year growth at four percent.

Similar to other medium-
Visalia will continue as before, attributable in part to the relative affordability of housing as well as the state, many within this demographic will continue to own and operate personal vehicles into their 70s; eventually transitioning to mobility options such as dial-a-ride.

Based on the 2019 American Community Survey, the three primary communities (Visalia, Farmersville, and Exeter) which compose the Visalia urbanized area reported similar numbers of zero- and single- vehicle households. The absence of vehicle ownership and/or access often translates to transit- dependency.

In Exeter and Farmersville this demographic attribute is present throughout both cities. By contrast, in Visalia the incidence of zero- or single-vehicle households is more clearly defined/chiefly noted in three neighborhoods (cited below). Visalia has the lowest number of zero-vehicle households of the three cities a. Visalia is at least 40 percent lower than Exeter and Farmersville.

There are three Visalia neighborhoods which also coincide with areas of lower annual household income.

They are 1) Oval Park (bounded by Houston Avenue, Santa Fe Street, Goshen Avenue, and Mooney Boulevard); 2) the area/neighborhood bounded by Noble Avenue, Demaree Street, Tulare Avenue, and Akers Street; and 3) the area/neighborhood bounded by Noble Avenue, Edison Street/Cotta Street, Walnut Avenue, and Court Street/Locust Street. The first is served by Visalia Transit Route 6; the second by Visalia Transit Routes 2, 4, and 5; while the third is served by Visalia Transit Route 3.

76 54
Exhibit 5.3.1 Lower-income neighborhoods

In September 2021, the consultant team hosted three community workshops: one at the College of Sequoias main campus, and two at the Visalia Convention Center. Spanish-language interpretation was available at each session. Here are what we believe to be the key takeaways from the three sessions:

Desire for service to the Global Learning Charter School (former Fairview Elementary School). School site was served formerly via a stop at Giddings and Robin, which was less than a quarter-mile from the school.

Now children must use Route 7 and alight at Giddings and Ferguson, which is more than a half-mile from the school and requires crossing a main thoroughfare.

1) Preference for smaller vehicles operating throughout Visalia neighborhoods. Less noise and visual .

2) Request for more/larger bike racks on buses, as well as increased promotion of the transit-cycling connection.

3) Preference to focus service (including more service frequency) on higher ridership routes.

Anything less than 30-minute service frequency is not attractive.

1 3
2 77

55 4) Use smaller vehicles (as circulators) to travel throughout neighborhoods. To connect (feed) with larger buses operating on trunk lines/higher ridership routes.

5) Revise the V Line service to include a stop at Fresno Airport.

Survey fielding was conducted in September 2021 at locations of significant public activity (e.g., public buildings, shopping centers, etc.) throughout the Visalia Transit local service area. The bilingual survey was also available online as well as at each of the community workshop sessions. At the conclusion of the survey participation period nearly 250 valid responses had been received (nearly 2.5 times that achieved 2017 Short Range Transit Plan project).

access to a personal vehicle. Eighty-six percent of all survey respondents indicated a propensity to use public transit sometime in the future. Taken collectively, these findings positively position Visalia Transit as a likely future mobility option.

Survey responses included requests for several potential service enhancements which, if implemented, could result in increased (local service) ridership. These include (not in hierarchal order): 1) a preference for smaller vehicles such as the 15-passenger vans, 2) installation of a bus stop on McAuliff between Mills Creek and Mineral Way, 3) travel training (i.e., how to use the service, plan a trip, etc.), 4) bus stop improvements (e.g., benches, shelters, signage, lighting, etc.), 5) re-introduction of Visalia Transi Routes 7a and 7b (including stops near Town Meadows, Oak Meadows, and Target), 6) return to fare-free installation of a bus stop on Ben Maddox and Santa Fe Avenue (between Walnut and Caldwell), 9) service to Plaza Drive, 10) reduced distance between bus stops, and 11) service to the Fresno Airport.

A full discussion of the survey results is included in Chapter 2. Among the key takeaways are:

65 percent of respondents were age 62 and older.

Little potential for mode- -route service.

Despite the perception of limited mode-shift potential, technological advances in paratransit ride- matching and dispatching suggests an opportunity for continued increases in service productivity and efficiency. That is, providing the same number of requested trips using fewer vehicles and/or fewer total Vehicle revenue hours.
78 56
A full discussion of the survey results is included in Chapter 2. Among the key takeaways are:

52 percent of respondents are age 45 and older.

Most common

High degree of transit-dependency (79 percent lack access to a personal vehicle).

Introduction of the preferred service improvement would likely result in additional ridership.

The majority of surveyed riders can be considered work-age adults, and 32 percent indicated being employed. We believe this is particularly significant given the timing of the survey and the perceived impact which the pandemic has had on many retail and service businesses within Visalia. Based on reported annual income, we conclude many Visalia Transit riders are employed within the retail and service sectors. Suc
-

Given the significant reduction in historic transit demand attributable to the pandemic combined with transit service on an incremental as
well as trial basis. That is, we do not believe it would be fiscally responsible to introduce such service across all Visalia Transit local service routes.

Historic ridership data reveals two or three local service routes transport the majority of transit riders.

One approach could be to focus on extending the weekday service span of Route 1 until 10:00 p.m. on a trial basis for, say, 60 to 90 days. To maximize mobility options for this target market segment (i.e., persons working until 9:00 p.m.), the additional fixed-route service could be supplemented by either a trial (short-term) agreement with a local Transportation Network Company (e.g., taxi or shuttle) or utilize a couple of Visalia Transit dial-a-
defined service area.

Visalia Transit enjoys a high customer service satisfaction rating based on input from actual recent customers. This is true for both the fixed-route and dial-a-ride services, and is particularly noteworthy given some of the service delivery challenges which transit providers such as Visalia Transit have experienced due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Further, based on the community survey (the respondents of which were largely not recent Visalia Transit users), Visalia Transit enjoys a positive perception within the community at-large and is perceived as a valuable community service (even by non- riders).

79 57
percent of Visalia households
are within reasonable walking distance of a Visalia Transit route. Transit service coverage in Exeter, Farmersville, and Goshen is considerably less than Visalia, chiefly attributable to the amount of transit service each community is willing to purchase.

To increase the percentage of Visalia households within reasonable walking distance of transit would require a change in service delivery. We believe the most-effective means of accomplishing this would be through incremental introduction of neighborhood circulators operating within defined geographic parameters. For example, a single vehicle would operate within a defined neighborhood/area providing on-demand service. Once or twice hourly (determined chiefly by the size of the service area), the providing seamless connections for down-line travel. While this service approach would likely increase the number of two-seat trips, it would bring transit service closer to a larger share of Visalia Transit households.

mmend the
transfer or connection should be provided at no-cost. At first blush it may appear the City would be sacrificing a potentially large number of transit fares. However, if the ridership pattern for the proposed e overall Visalia Transit system, the majority of (ongoing) transit riders would likely enhance the multi-ride fare options.

approached on a trial or demonstration project basis, and that realistic service performance targets be agreed upon in advance of service initiation.

hort Range Transit Plan was the significant redesign of then Routes 7a and 7b. Yet despite the passage of nearly five years, there is still a desire among transit riders and former riders to reinstate the former route alignment.

While the City is still planning to create a satellite transit center off South Mooney Boulevard, how such a development will impact the overall local service network is unknow to the consultant. (Note: We believe to the downtown transit center in order to make certain bus-to-bus transfers.) Despite the above, we believe introduction of the satellite transit center provides an opportunity to reinstate at least portions of the former Route 7.

80 58
As part of the SRTP service planning process Moore & Associates reviewed 23 near-term residential or commercial development sites within Visalia to determine how each could potentially be served by Visalia Transit. Collectively, these 23 projects are expected to be completed within the next five years; a period

Seven Visalia Transit routes travel within relative proximity of the various emerging developments: Routes 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 17. Except for Route 9 (current recovery time: 13 minutes), each of the remaining with layover time (i.e., the time available before the start of the next run. As background, ten minutes is the minimum standard for transit recovery time. Therefore, in order to provide transit service that is within reasonable walking distance of (any of) the proposed developments we believe the City has three options: 1) increase the number of buses operating on a given route, thereby increasing both recovery time as well as service frequency; 2) delete low-productivity portions of existing routes (essentially sacrificing existing riders in order to attract potential riders); or 3) create a new route with appropriate run-
operating costs.

In October 2021 the City introduced Route 17 which offers 30-minute frequency (with zero recovery time).

This newest route provides service on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.; and on weekends from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Ridership activity on Route 17 was approximately 200 rides within the first two weeks.

According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) research most people are willing to walk for five to ten minutes (or approximately 1/4- to 1/2-mile) to a transit stop. Therefore, in order to encourage transit usage, safe and convenient pedestrian facilities should be provided within 1/4- to 1/2-mile of transit stops. (Note: Bicyclists are often willing to ride significantly further than 1/2-mile to access transit stops/facilities depending on local topography.)

Route 17 travels within reasonable walking distance of four of the 23 new developments: Iron Ridge subdivision, Crowley Park, Hilton Homes, and Seefried Properties. A fifth development (Marcin Properties) is approximately 3/4-mile from the Route 17 alignment.

In assessing the 23 new developments, Moore & Associates opted to place each property into one of three categories: Category 1 (within reasonable walking distance of an existing Visalia Transit route), Category 2 (more than 1/2-mile from an existing transit route, yet having an opportunity for a relatively minor route adjustment or modification), and Category 3 (not near an existing transit route, and would require a new route or significant route modification).

Category 1
Reserve at Ritchie Ranch
Iron Ridge subdivision
Crowley Park (depending on building/site location)
Hilton Homes 2 Suite
81 59
Carleton Acres
Future high school
San Joaquin Valley Homes (Greystone subdivision, Phase 3) Seefried Properties
Parkwood
Myrtle Avenue Senior Apartments
Country Club Plaza
Untitled (Ben Maddox and Caldwell)
Untitled (SEC: Visalia Parkway and Mooney)
Orchard Walk West (Phase 2)
The Commons

Category 2
Crandell subdivision
Pratt Family Ranch
Crowley Park (depending on building/site location)
Cap Rock: Phase 2
Ritchie land annexations
Sequoia Bend Estates
Marchin Place
Brackenwood II (The Grove)

Category 3
Barn and Wood TSM
As a recipient of State Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding, the City is required to conduct an .

Chapter 5: Needs Assessment, the consultant reviewed a TCAG summary of the most recent public comments from the TDA Article 8 public hearings. Inclusion of this information within the Needs r the
Tulare County Association of Governments. These include:

Prepare an inventory of bus stops.

Extend weekday evening service by three hours.

Reinstate the former Route 7. Several requests.

Introduce service along Ben Maddox between Walnut and Caldwell. Create a bus stop at Monte Verde.
-a-ride vehicle.

Introduce bus service to Fresno State. Multiple requests.

Introduce service along Houston.
82 60
Introduce service to Fresno Airport.

Use smaller buses/vehicles.

Non-specific requests for increased service frequency.

Introduce service on or near Golden West.

83 61

The objective of this chapter is to present a selection of potential service and program enhancement herein reflect input received through the various public and community engagement activities, input from City and TCAG staff, demographic and fin
and insights.

The recommendations cover five broad categories: 1) administrative and policy, 2) operations, 3) marketing and public communications, 4) funding and coordination, and 5) capital and infrastructure.

Administrative and policy recommendations focus on regional partnerships and planning efforts.

Operational recommendations include service optimization, route realignments, selective expansions, and improvements to service frequency. Marketing and public communications recommendations focus on the communication of service information. Funding and coordination consider opportunities for partnerships between various public and private entities (chiefly within the Visalia Urbanized Area).

Finally, capital and infrastructure recommendations address vehicle/fleet, transit maintenance facilities, bus stop improvements, and the Active Transportation Network.

1. Increase staffing.

Administration Department. A full-time Transit
Manager oversees the Transit Division, reporting to the Assistant City Manager. Two analyst positions report directly to the Transit Manager: Financial Analyst and Management Analyst. The Financial Analyst manages a Senior Accounting Assistant and two Office Assistants. The Management Analyst manages a Senior Office Assistant and Community Outreach Coordinator. The Transit Manager also provides oversight to Building Technicians and Maintenance staff.

The Transit Manager has been in place for approximately three years. The Management Analyst has been employed with the City for approximately two years. While he has prior experience working with a larger transit operator, his position was chiefly fleet maintenance oriented. At Visalia, his primary responsibility is day-to-day oversight of the Transit Operations and Maintenance contractor.

The Financial Analyst recently celebrated her twenty-first anniversary with the City; nearly all of which has been transit finance-related. As such, the Financial Analyst brings a significant and valuable body of

84 62
In addition to managing the various functions typically associated with a mid-size public transit program, the City is responsible for customer service functions supporting the full slate of transit operators within Tulare County. This function includes a call center as well as staffing a customer service counter at the

for both the Transit Manger and the Management Analyst. Management of public transit programs has become increasingly complex across the past decade. The level and complexity of local, state, and federal compliance requirements has increased steadily. The requirements and demands of transit-related technology (i.e., service monitoring, ITS, customer-facing information, etc.) has grown increasingly complex and specialized.

Given the preceding, Moore & Associates offers three near-term recommendations: 1) consider recruitment of second Management Analyst, preferably a mid-career professional; 2) consider enrolling Management Analyst(s) in the Transit and Paratransit Management Certificate program offered by the University of the Pacific; and 3) arrange Syncromatics software (vendor) training for the Management Analyst and other staff as warranted by respective responsibilities (discussed further in Recommendation 3).

2. Upgrade or replace fareboxes.

The current GFI fareboxes were purchased in 2013. Since that time there have been many advances in farebox technology

The overall reliability has declined while support costs for the current fareboxes has increased. These fareboxes appear to have reached the end of their practical service life, and their respective age limits for

Given the complexity and cost associated with total farebox replacement, City staff has identified an the anticipated benefits are reduced unit cost, increased technical support, and increased support for regional transit fare initiatives.

3. Syncromatics training for staff.

Syncromatics is a powerful web-based dispatch and vehicle tracking software. It includes a variety of software elements offering enhanced transit operations reporting, real-time customer/passenger information, information interface with customer digital si announcements to support ADA compliance, passenger counting (i.e., boarding and alighting activity), onboard WiFi capability, and paratransit dispatch support software.

85 63
During the course of preparation of
instances where the consultant team has attempted to acquire a variety of performance data through -up. In some cases, we were advised the City does not own the related software module, in others there was an absence of module-specific staff training.

Simply put, good decisions start with good information (data). Having ready access to quality performance data such as accurate boarding and alighting counts, on-time performance by individual bus stops, and vehicle tracking information support quality and effective transit service planning.

We recommend the City retain a qualified professional to objectively evaluate the continued usefulness of the current Syncromatics software, identify options for software upgrade and/or replacement, evaluate cost options for obtaining the desired (future) software, and research the cost and availability of Syncromatics training for Visalia Transit staff.

4. Bus stop amenities improvements.

etc.

A system-wide Bus Stop Improvement Plan should include a comprehensive inventory of all bus stops within the Visalia Transit service area, including a description and condition of the amenities at each location (i.e., bench, shelter, lighting, trash receptacle, transit service information, etc.), as well as which route(s) serve the stop.

Once the inventory has been compiled, improvements should be prioritized based on daily activity level, ADA compliance, and overall condition. Amenities which are damaged or worn should be prioritized for replacement, and high-activity stops should be prioritized for the addition/installation of amenities. New stops added as a result of a service change or expansion should be prioritized for the installation of amenities.

At a minimum every stop should feature a pole and appropriate signage. A unique numeric identifier should also be included. Further every stop should include either a customer service phone number or a link (QR code) to the Visalia Transit website.

86 64

5. Implement neighborhood circulators as feeders to trunk routes.

Public requests for smaller vehicles which could go deeper into neighborhoods was revealed through both the community survey and the community workshops.

At present, approximately 65 percent of the households
within a half mile) of a Visalia Transit bus stop. Time and time again transit market -riders evaluating the
viability of transit patronage). The availability (and awareness) of a bus stop within close proximity of the -making process.

The current Visalia Transit route network covers approximately 70 percent of the city of Visalia. While minor routing adjustments will continue to be made to address operational issues as well as the completion of new residential and commercial development, Visalia Transit is essentially a mature transit system with an overall effective route network. Historically transit alignments have been located along key arterials throughout Visalia.

Increasing the percentage of Visalia households within reasonable walking distance of transit would require a significant change in service delivery. We believe the most cost-effective means of accomplishing this would be through incremental introduction of neighborhood circulators operating within defined geographic parameters. For example, a single vehicle would operate within a defined neighborhood/area providing on-demand service. Once or twice hourly (determined chiefly by the size of the service area), seamless connections for down-line travel. While this service approach would likely increase the number of two-seat trips, it would bring transit service closer to a larger share of Visalia Transit households.

vice concept we recommend the
transfer or connection be provided at no-cost. At first blush it may appear the City would be sacrificing a potentially large number of transit fares. However, if the ridership pattern for the proposed transit riders would likely embrace multi-ride fare options (i.e., passes).

approached on a trial or demonstration project basis, and that realistic service performance targets be agreed upon in advance of service initiation.

6. Maintain minimum 30-minute service frequency throughout service day on Routes 1 and 2.

Implement 15- to 20-minute service frequency during AM and PM peak service.

Transit market research conducted across the years reveals service frequency is among the top three decision factors (among non-riders) when evaluating the potential for transit use. This research also confirms 30-minute service frequency is the minimum desired service standard. 87 65

Across the past several years Visalia Transit has made significant inroads enhancing service frequency on its highest productivity (i.e., highest ridership) routes: Routes 1 and 2. Collectively, these two routes account for approximately 43 percent of total system ridership in an average month.

At the time of the 2022 SRTP update, the service frequency on Route 1 was 15 minutes from 600 a.m. to 700 p.m. (weekdays), and 30 minutes from 700 p.m. to 900 p.m. (weekdays). Weekend service has a 20- minute frequency between 800 am to 600 p.m.

The current service frequency on Route 2 is 30 minutes for both weekday and weekend service. The service span for Route 2 is 600 a.m. to 830 p.m. on weekdays, and 800 a.m. to 530 p.m. on weekends.

We recommend the City maintain the current service frequency on Route 1, and consider implementing increased service frequency (weekdays only) on Route 2 on a trial or demonstration project basis. The 600 a.m. to 700 p.m. (weekdays only). If this is
not possible, we recommend 15-minute service frequency be offered from 700 a.m. to 1000 a.m., and again from 300 p.m. to 700 p.m. (weekdays only).

Moore & Associates does not recommend any change to service frequency for Routes 1 and 2 specific to weekend service.

7. Consider utilizing dial-a-

The majority of participants in the fixed-route/transit rider survey were deemed to be work-age adults, with 32 percent indicating being employed. The consultant believes this to be particularly significant given the timing of the survey as well as the perceived impact which the pandemic has had on many retail and service businesses throughout Visalia.

Based on reported annual income, we conclude many Visalia Transit riders are employed within the local retail and service sectors. Such employment typically includes wo business day. As such, the availability of transit service into the late evening/night has historically been a

Given the significant reduction in transit demand attributable to the pandemic combined with the basis. That is, we do not believe it would be fiscally responsible to introduce such service across all Visalia Transit local service routes given the significant differences in individual route productivity (i.e., ridership).

While Routes 1 and 2 offer both extensive coverage as well as good service frequency, there are still many segment (i.e., persons working until 900 p.m. at local businesses), we recommend either utilization of a 88 66
couple of City dial-a- -
term) agreement with Uber, Lyft, or a local taxi company. Upon fare payment, riders would be offered a 800 p.m. to 1000 p.m. on weekdays), only on the day of issue, and only within the defined service area.

Given the trial nature of the recommended service we recommend the City define a relatively limited (initial) service area (for example, within two miles of the route alignments of Routes 1 and 2.) Alternatively, the trial service area could be defined further so as to focus on a specific quadrant within the city of Visalia.

8. Evaluate return of Route 7 to prior alignment.

despite the passage of nearly five years, there is still a desire among both transit riders as well as former riders to reinstate the former route alignment.

While the City is planning to create a satellite transit center off Mooney Boulevard, how such a development will impact the overall local service network is unknown to the consultant. (We believe the the downtown transit center in order to make certain bus-to-bus transfers.)

Despite the above, we believe introduction of the satellite transit center provides an opportunity to re- evaluate the current Route 7 routing and to identify cost-effective options for addressing requests for increased service. For example, destinations which are now unserved due to the modification of Route 7 include Town Meadows senior housing and Oak Meadows senior housing, linking to Target and other nearby shopping establishments.

9. Work with COS to establish an inter-campus shuttle. School days only.

Obviously, this has changed during the last couple of y classes have transitioned to virtual formats. The desire for an inter-campus shuttle was revealed through the community survey and the onboard (transit rider) survey.

While introduction of a single-seat exp
Tulare satellite campus would be the ideal, a few public transit options currently exist. For example, Visalia Transit Route 11x links the downtown Visalia Transit Center with the Tulare Transit Center via Mooney Boulevard. This route offers 30-minute service frequency on weekdays between 630 a.m. and 900 p.m.

89 67
The former Tulare Transit Route 7 (now operated by Tulare County Regional Transit Agency) links College -seat ride with a free
transfer.

Visalia Transit Route 1 links the downtown Visalia Transit Center with Government Plaza on Mooney Boulevard. Here, transit
Tulare campus.

While the consultant believes this request from the public warrants further review, we believe further consideration should be contingent on three factors: 1) resumption of in-person classes at both the main demand (usage), and 3) identification of a sustainable funding arrangement between the City and College of the Sequoias.

10. Support and increase awareness of the bus-bike connection.

Providing an effective interface between public transit and bicycling typically results in an expanded omising given the relatively level
topography present throughout the Visalia Transit local service area. The catalyst for this community workshops as well as the
community survey.

At the time of the 2022 SRTP update, all Visalia Transit fixed-route buses were equipped with easy-to-use bike racks capable of holding two bikes. There is currently a two-position bike rack on the front of each bus. While some large metropolitan area transit operators have installed three-position bike racks, doing so has raised concerns regarding (allowable) overall vehicle length.

promotion of the marketing/public communications regarding the availability of bike racks, production of a and the potential importance of the bus-bike connection. Second, increase in bicycle infrastructure (e.g., racks, storage pods) at transit centers as well as at high transit purchase, installation, maintenance, and promotion of bus-bike infrastructure.

11. Introduce fixed-route service to new developments.

As part of the SRTP service planning process, Moore & Associates reviewed 23 near-term residential or commercial development sites within Visalia to determine how each could potentially be served by Visalia Transit. Collectively, these 23 projects are expected to be completed within the next five years; a period

90 68
Seven Visalia Transit routes travel within relative proximity of the various emerging developments: Routes 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 17. Except for Route 9 (current recovery time: 13 minutes), each of the remaining with layover time (i.e., the time available before the start of the next run.

As background, ten minutes is the minimum standard for transit recovery time. Therefore, in order to provide transit service that is within reasonable walking distance of (any of) the proposed developments we believe the City has three options: 1) increase the number of buses operating on a given route, thereby increasing both recovery time and service frequency; 2) delete low-productivity portions of existing routes (essentially sacrificing existing riders in order to attract potential riders); or 3) create a new route with appropriate run-time and recovery time. Selection of any of these options is likely to increase Visalia

In October 2021 the City introduced Route 17, which offers 30-minute frequency (with zero recovery time) between Visalia Medical Clinic and Kelsey/Hillsdale. This newest route provides service on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.; and on weekends from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Ridership activity on Route 17 was approximately 200 rides within the first two weeks.

According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) research, most people are willing to walk for five to ten minutes (or approximately one-quarter to one-half mile) to a transit stop. Therefore, in order to encourage transit usage, safe and convenient pedestrian facilities should be provided within one-quarter to one-half mile of transit stops. (Note: Bicyclists are often willing to ride significantly further than one- half mile to access transit stops/facilities depending on local topography.)

Route 17 travels within reasonable walking distance of four of the 23 developments: Iron Ridge subdivision, Crowley Park, Hilton Homes, and Seefried Properties. A fifth development (Marcin Properties) is approximately three-quarters of a mile from the Route 17 alignment.

The Needs Assessment (Chapter 5) identifies the 23 developments; segregates them into one of three

12. Install driver name placards inside the front of DAR vehicles.

The catalyst for this recommendation was the Dial-A-Ride customer survey conducted in August 2021.

The performance of the dial-a-ride driver team is a key contributor to actual as well as perceived customer satisfaction. Given the highly customized nature of the dial-a-ride service, the relationship between the support this, we recommend installation of driver name placards on the front interior panel of each dial- a-ride vehicle. This is a low-
some instances, both first and last names are displayed; in others, simply the dr

91 69

13. Repair to maintenance facility (yard) concrete.

Transit Operations and Maintenance Center was constructed in 2007. Since that time, the size changed, and fleet
technological needs have changed.

yard warrant repair and/or rehabilitation. Based on a cursory review of the facility, the consultant noted many areas of cracking/broken concrete, cracking curbs and gutters, ineffective drainage, and ineffective fleet parking space allocation. The area around the fuel island is cracking due to settling of adjacent pavement. The growth/maturation of on-site trees and vegetation warrant repair/expansion of tree wells as well as planters throughout the property.

We also recommend a comprehensive review of the entire property/facility to ensure current security requirements and protocols are being addressed.

14. Institute travel training program.

Travel training, as a mobility-enhancing strategy, has become increasingly commonplace, especially for medium to large transit programs. This is especially true for transit programs which serve significant numbers of seniors and/or persons with disabilities. Effective travel training serves to mitigate the barrier that of their family members and/or caregivers).

Travel training programs serve a dual purpose. First, they raise awareness about what transit options are available; and second, they teach the skills needed to effectively use public transit. Travel training can be provided on an individual or group basis. This would enable social service organizations and other programs to host travel training sessions for their clients. Initial activities should focus on historically ride- dependent populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals. Some areas of emphasis should include how to use the demand-response (dial-a-ride) service as well as how to navigate the fixed-route bus network.

Moore & Associates believes many social service organization clientele warrant an additional educational step: on-site mobility or travel training. This would involve a qualified Visalia Transit representative visiting social service locations throughout the local service area to conduct short informational presentations, questio
-
mobility devices, how to pay for a transit ride, rider behavior protocol, etc.).

In conducting successful travel training activities across the past 20 years, our approach has included a -ride tickets, a short (large font) presentation/discussion guide, and question/comment cards (for attendees too shy to verbally ask questions). We recommend limiting the group size to 12 and capping the session duration at 75 minutes. Given the likely target of the 92 70
proposed travel training sessions would be mobility-limited/disadvantaged individuals, having an actual dial-a-ride vehicle and a driver also attend has helped break through the unfamiliarity or hesitancy barrier.

as there is a rhythm which will emerge following completion of the first few sessions.

15. Ensure transit website and GTFS information is kept up-to-date.

Assign monitoring and updating Visalia Transit information to a dedicated staff member. Ensuring accurate and up-to-date transit information plays a critical role for the selection of transit by potential riders and non-riders. We recommend a monthly review of both the transit website content and the GTFS feed be completed. Perhaps the most likely person to complete this would be the Transit Community Outreach Coordinator.

16. Enhance Transit website.

important to support existing customers and attract potential customers, it is important to stay abreast of the latest technology. Potential website enhancements could include providing all content in Spanish and building a new transit-specific website that remains part of the overall City of Visalia website but can also be accessed directly through www.VisaliaTransit.com, which is already owned by the City.

Another potential enhancement is offering transit fare media sales via the transit website.

17. Consider utilizing smaller vehicles, especially for lower productivity routes and/or neighborhood circulators.

The catalyst for this recommendation was the community workshops as well as the community survey (chiefly non-transit riders).

One of the more common criticisms of public transit voiced by (chiefly) non-transit users is the perception .
heightened given the overall decline in transit ridership attributable to the pandemic. Critics often also consideration.

As noted elsewhere in this chapter
share of the total ridership. It is unlikely this situation will change absent a full-scale service redesign.

93 71
While the pandemic has certainly presented numerous challenges to public transit providers, we believe overall review of service delivery.

Several Visalia Transit routes have relatively low ridership (productivity), and are very likely to remain so. is these low-ridership routes that often lead to the p
the observation is made during off-peak periods (i.e., outside AM and PM commute times).

Moore & Associates envisions two opportunities here. First, substitution of smaller vehicles for larger buses on historically low-productivity routes. Given pre-pandemic as well as recent passengers/revenue hour data, utilization of a smaller vehicle (say, 12 to 15 seats) would adequately/effectively match current as well as forecast demand. While the City pays a fixed-hourly fee to its operations contractor, there is potential for cost savings based on fuel (miles per gallon), vehicle cost (smaller vehicle = lower purchase cost), and potentially lower labor cost (lower vehicle capacity, lower GVW, and no need for air brake certification).

18. Introduce service along Ben Maddox between Walnut and Caldwell.

Requests for the introduction of fixed-route transit service along Ben Maddox between Caldwell Avenue and Walnut Avenue were revealed via the community survey. The distance between Caldwell and Walnut Avenues is approximately 1.2 miles.

At present, three Visalia Transit routes travel through the area: 1) Route 5 has a stop at Walnut Avenue and Ben Maddox, then continues north on Ben Maddox; 2) Route 9 also has a stop on Walnut Avenue and Ben Maddox, then continues north on Ben Maddox; and 3) Route 12 travels east/west on Caldwell Avenue, with stops (southwest corner and northeast corner) at Caldwell and Ben Maddox.

The areas adjacent to Ben Maddox are chiefly residential, with some commercial along Ben Maddox itself.

None of the three Visalia Transit routes serving this area have sufficient additional run-time to allow/support a route modification. Therefore, we conclude the most cost-effective means of responding to this public request would be via a trial neighborhood circulator serving both sides of Ben Maddox between Caldwell Avenue on the south and Walnut Avenue on the north. Such an arrangement could provide timed connections with one of more of the current routes traveling through the area.

94 72

This page intentionally blank.

95 73

Chapter 7: Operations Plan is intended to provide further details regarding the recommendations presented in Chapter 6: Service Recommendations. Prior to its inclusion herein, the slate of 18 recommendations was discussed with City of Visalia Transit Staff From
specific to transit security, 2) include additional discussion specific to ITS/technology opportunities, and 3) include a recommendation specific to the fielding of an on- local service area.

In addition to providing implementation details, Chapter 7 also includes a recommended (relative) prioritization of the individual recommendations (e.g., short-term, medium-term, or long-term), and the identification of potential funding source(s) (where appropriate). Short-term is defined as within the next 18 months, medium-term as within 18 months to three years, and long-term as within three to five years.

In preparing Short Range Transit Plans for numerous clients throughout California and the West, the Operations (or Implementation) Plan chapter of the project report has been likened to a five-year program. We hope the City of Visalia will come to view its SRTP in a similar manner.

Lastly, to enhance the utility of Chapter 7, the recommendations included herein have been segregated into four broad categories: 1) Administrative (including policies), 2) Operations, 3) Capital/Technology, and 4) Marketing and Community Outreach.

A summary of the recommendations is provided in Exhibit 7.0.1.

96 74
Exhibit 7.0.1 Prioritized recommendations
# Recommendation Category
Short, medium,
long-term
1 Increase staffing. Administrative Short
2 Increase security. Administrative Short
3 Install driver name placards inside the
front of DAR vehicles.

Administrative Short
4 Implement neighborhood circulators as
feeders to trunk routes.

Operations Medium
5 Maintain minimum 30-minute service
frequency throughout service day on
Routes 1 and 2. Implement 15- to 20-
minute service frequency during AM and
PM peak service.

Operations Short
6 Consider utilizing dial-a-ride vehicles to

Operations Short
7 Work with COS to establish an inter-
campus shuttle. School days only.

Operations Long
8 Introduce transit service to new
developments.

Operations Medium
9 Consider utilizing smaller vehicles,
especially for lower productivity routes
and/or neighborhood circulators.

Operations Medium
10 Introduce service along Ben Maddox
between Walnut and Caldwell.

Operations Medium
11 Upgrade or replace fareboxes. Capital Medium
12 Syncromatics training for staff. Capital Short
13 Bus stop amenities improvements. Capital Medium
14 Transit Operations and Maintenance
Facility.

Capital Short/Medium
15 Support and increase awareness of the
bus-bike connection.

Marketing Short
16 Institute travel training program. Marketing Short
17 Enhance transit website/Ensure transit
website and GTFS information is kept up-
to-date.

Marketing Short

97 75

1. Increase staffing.

As cited in Section 3.4, Visalia Transit would benefit from additional 1.0 FTE to assist with increasingly complex oversight and reporting requirements. Moore & Associates recommends recruitment of an additional Management Analyst, preferably a mid-career professional with public transit experience especially project management and preferably technology oriented. Among the responsibilities which could be delegated to such a person would be: 1) heading up the farebox replacement project, 2) increasing in-house knowledge/capabilities regarding the Syncromatics platform, and 3) oversight of the proposed Bus Stop Improvement initiative. The total compensation range for this position would likely be between $75,000 and $100,000 annually.

We also recommend the Ci
Transit and Paratransit Management Certificate program offered by the University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA). Since Fall 2020, this formerly in-person professional development opportunity has one-day class includes four hours of asynchronous (prep) work and three hours of synchronous (virtual class) work. The fee for each class is $425, and an eight-class tuition of $2,695 is also available. Caltrans awards two scholarships annually covering 50 percent of the class registration fees.

Lastly, Moore & Associates recommends the City negotiate with Syncromatics for staff training specific to the hardware and software currently in use by Visalia Transit. Further details are included within Recommendation 5.

Exhibit 7.1.1 Cost of additional staff and training
FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27
Additional salary & benefits $87,500 $87,500 $87,500 $87,500 $87,500 Training/certificate program $5,390 $2,695 $2,695 $500 $500 Total $92,890 $90,195 $90,195 $88,000 $88,000

2. Install driver name placards inside the front of dial-a-ride vehicles.

The catalyst for this recommendation was the Dial-A-Ride customer survey conducted in August 2021.

The performance of the dial-a-ride driver team is a key contributor to actual as well as perceived customer satisfaction. Given the highly personalized nature of the dial-a-ride service, the relationship between the . To
support this, we recommend installation of driver name placards on the front interior panel of each dial- a-ride vehicle. This is a low-
some instances, both first and last names are

98 76

3. Implement neighborhood circulators as feeders to trunk routes.

The Texas A&M Transportation Institute defines circulator bus transit as a short-distance, circular, fixed- route transit mode linking riders within an area (neighborhood) with major destinations. Across the past couple of decades, two forms of circulator bus transit have emerged: downtown circulators (think the former Visalia Towne Trolley) and neighborhood circulators.

A neighborhood circulator typically provides service within low-density suburban communities. In doing so it provides access to popular local destinations such as schools, grocery stores, and shopping centers.

Neighborhood circulators help residents get to their favorite local destinations without the need to use a personal vehicle (car). This service mode typically results in many benefits including decreasing single- occupant vehicle trips, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and fostering the development (or redevelopment of) suburban spaces, all the while enhancing community (neighborhood) mobility.

(defined as within a half mile) of a Visalia Transit bus stop. Time and time again transit market research public transit. The availability (and awareness) of a bus stop within close proximity of the potent residence weighs heavily in the decision-making process.

Increasing the percentage of Visalia households within reasonable walking distance of transit service could entail a significant change in service delivery. We believe the most cost-effective means of accomplishing this would be through incremental introduction of neighborhood circulators operating within defined geographic parameters. For example, a single vehicle would operate within a defined neighborhood/area providing on-demand service. Once or twice hourly (determined chiefly by the size of the service area), seamless connections for down-line travel. While this service approach would likely increase the number of two-seat trips, it would bring transit service closer to a larger share of Visalia Transit households.

transfer or connection be provided at no-cost. At first blush it may appear the City would be sacrificing a potentially large number of transit fares. However, if the ridership pattern for the proposed , the majority of (ongoing)
transit riders would likely embrace multi-ride fare options (i.e., monthly passes).

concept be approached on a trial or demonstration project basis, and that quantifiable service performance targets be agreed upon in advance of service initiation.

99 77

4. Maintain minimum 30-minute service frequency throughout service day on Routes 1 and 2.

Implement 15 20-minute service frequency during AM and PM peak service.

Transit market research conducted across the years reveals service frequency is among the top three decision factors (among non-riders) when evaluating the potential for transit use. This research also indicates 30-minute service frequency is the minimum desired service standard.

Across the past several years Visalia Transit has made significant inroads enhancing service frequency on its highest productivity (i.e., highest ridership) lines: Routes 1 and 2. Collectively, these two routes account for approximately 43 percent of total system ridership in an average month.

At the time of the 2022 SRTP update, the service frequency on Route 1 was 15 minutes from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (weekdays), and 30 minutes from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (weekdays). Weekend service has a 20-minute frequency between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

The current service frequency on Route 2 is 30 minutes for both weekday and weekend service. The service span for Route 2 is 6:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

We recommend the City maintain the current service frequency on Route 1, and consider implementing increased service frequency (weekdays only) on Route 2 on a trial or demonstration project basis. The 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (weekdays only). If this
is not possible, we recommend 15-minute service frequency be offered from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and again from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (weekdays only).

Moore & Associates does not recommend any change to service frequency for Routes 1 and 2 specific to weekend service.

5. The majority of respondents to the Fall 2021 customer/transit rider survey were deemed to be work-age adults, with 32 percent indicating being currently employed. Further, based on reported annual income, we conclude many Visalia Transit riders are employed within the local retail and service sectors. Such employment typically includes work hours and days outside the tradition

Coincidentally, public requests for extension of transit service into late evening/night hours has been a le 8

Visalia Transit Routes 1 and 2 collectively account for approximately 43 percent of total system ridership during an average month. At the time of the 2022 SRTP update, Route 1 operated until 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, while Route 2 operated until 8:30 p.m. on weekdays. 100

78 To address the mobility needs of persons holding late evening/night employment, we recommend the City extend weekday service on Route 1 and 2 until 10:00 p.m. on a trial or demonstration project basis.

While Routes 1 and 2 provide considerable coverage, there are still many portions of the City that would not be accessible via transit. Therefore, to maximize mobility options for Visalia residents working until 9:00 p.m. at local businesses, we r
connections from/to Routes 1 and 2 from 8:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. To accomplish this, we recommend the City either provide said service itself using a pair of City-owned dial-a-ride vehicles or enter into a short-term agreement with Uber, Lyft, or a local taxi company.

The following exhibits illustrate potential coverage areas for connecting or feeder services with Route 1 and Route 2.

101

79 Exhibit 7.2.1 - -last mile service area

102

80 Exhibit 7.2.2 - -last mile service area

id for a connecting ride. This
be valid for a specified period of time (from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays), only on the day of issue, and only within the defined service area. Given the trial nature of the recommended service enhancement we recommend the City define (using geo-fencing software) a relatively limited (initial) the trial service area could be defined further so as to focus on a specific quadrant within the city of Visalia.

-demand service between a Route 1 or 2 bus stop
and a single destination within the designated service area. Prospective riders would be responsible for reserving the desir
is assumed this service would operate on a -

103

81 6. Work with COS to establish an inter-campus shuttle (school days only).

Obviously, this has changed during the last couple of years as the majority of College of the Sequoias classes have transitioned to virtual formats. The desire for an inter-campus shuttle was revealed through the community survey and the onboard (transit rider) survey.

While introduction of a single-seat expres
its Tulare satellite campus would be the ideal, a few public transit options currently exist. For example, Visalia Transit Route 11x links the downtown Visalia Transit Center with the Tulare Transit Center via Mooney Boulevard. This route offers 30-minute service frequency on weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.0630 and 2100 hours.

While the consultant believes this request from the public warrants consideration, we believe doing so should be contingent on three factors: 1) resumption of in-person classes at both the main College of the Sequoias campus and the Tulare satellite campus, 2) objective quantification of likely demand (usage), and 3) identification of a sustainable funding arrangement between the City and College of the Sequoias.

7. Introduce transit service to new developments.

As part of the 2022 SRTP update process, Moore & Associates reviewed 23 near-term residential or commercial development sites within Visalia to determine how each could potentially be served by Visalia Transit. Collectively these 23 projects are expected to be completed within the next five years; a period

The Needs Assessment (Chapter 5) identifies the 23 developments; segregates them into one of three odification options. In each instance an additional
vehicle would be needed to provide adequate run-time to serve one or more of the new developments.

Alternatively, the City could consider implementing a flexible route, on-demand service to provide enhanced mobility for persons residing or employed at one or more of the new residential or commercial development locations.

The think-tank Eno Center for Transportation defines on-demand service as utilization of shared vehicles through a tech-enabled application such as TripShot, Via, or TripSpark. Here the vehicle will deviate from its route to a pick-up point within walking distance of the requester. Routes can be fully dynamic and adjusted in real-time based on traffic and demand or can change over the span of a few days.

104

82 8. Consider utilizing smaller vehicles, especially for lower productivity routes and/or neighborhood circulators.

The catalyst for this recommendation was the community workshops as well as the community survey (chiefly non-transit riders).

One of the more common criticisms of public transit voiced by (chiefly) non-transit users is the perception the overall decline in transit rid
t consideration.

share of the total ridership. It is unlikely this situation will change absent a full-scale service redesign.

While the pandemic has certainly presented numerous challenges to public transit providers, we believe overall review of service delivery.

Several Visalia Transit routes have relatively low ridership (productivity), and are likely to remain so. is these low-ridership routes that often lead to the percept the observation is made during off-peak periods (i.e., outside morning and afternoon peak travel times).

Moore & Associates envisions two opportunities here. First, substitution of smaller vehicles for larger buses on historically low-productivity routes. Given pre-pandemic as well as recent rides/revenue hour data, utilization of a smaller vehicle (say, 12 to 15 seats) would effectively accommodate current as well as forecast demand. While the City pays a fixed-hourly fee to its operations contractor, there is potential for cost savings based on fuel (miles per gallon), vehicle cost (smaller vehicle = lower purchase price), and potentially lower labor cost (lower vehicle capacity, lower GVW, and no need for air brake certification).

9. Introduce service along Ben Maddox between Walnut and Caldwell.

Requests for the introduction of transit service along Ben Maddox between Caldwell Avenue and Walnut The distance between Caldwell and Walnut Avenues is approximately 1.2 miles.

At present, three Visalia Transit routes travel through the area: 1) Route 5 has a stop at Walnut Avenue and Ben Maddox, then continues north on Ben Maddox; 2) Route 9 also has a stop on Walnut Avenue and Ben Maddox, then continues north on Ben Maddox; and 3) Route 12 travels east/west on Caldwell Avenue, with stops (southwest corner and northeast corner) at Caldwell and Ben Maddox.

105

83 The areas adjacent to Ben Maddox are chiefly residential, with some commercial along Ben Maddox itself.

None of the three Visalia Transit routes serving this area has sufficient additional run-time to support a route modification. Therefore, we conclude the most cost-effective means of responding to this public request would be via a trial neighborhood circulator serving both sides of Ben Maddox between Caldwell Avenue on the south and Walnut Avenue on the north. Such an arrangement could provide timed connections with one of more of the current routes traveling through the area. See the map below for depiction of the proposed coverage area.

Exhibit 7.2.3 Potential Ben Maddox neighborhood circulator service area 106

84 10. Upgrade or replace fareboxes.

Odyssey fareboxes have reached the end of their
useful life, having declined in reliability while incurring increased maintenance costs.

Moore & Associates believes purchase and installation of r contrary viewpoint
would be if the City anticipates near-term adoption of a fare-free policy.

Given the complexity and cost associated with full-fleet farebox replacement, City staff has identified an the anticipated benefits are reduced unit cost, improved technical support, and the potential for participation in regional transit fare initiatives.

As noted within the increased staffing recommendations, we recommend one of the core responsibilities assigned to the proposed additional Management Analyst be procurement of the planned fareboxes.

Once the specifics of the new farebox have been agreed upon, we also recommend all Transit staff attend Management Analysts complete advanced training specific to farebox software data collection and reporting capabilities.

operations contractor.

11. Syncromatics training for staff.

As noted in Section 4.6, the Syncromatics platform is a valuable resource for operations- and fleet-related data. However, the ability to effectively use this data requires training in report generation and other database activities.

transit staff to obtain comprehensive training regarding the Syncromatics platform and its individual software components. We believe the best means of accomplishing this is via vendor-provided training conducted at the transit administration center. In addition, determining what information the City ultimately wants or needs from the Syncromatics system can help tailor training and report development

We also recommend the City hire a qualified consultant to objectively evaluate the continued usefulness of the current Syncromatics software, identify options for software upgrade and replacement, evaluate cost options for purchase of future Syncromatics software modules, and assist the Transit Manager with securing Syncromatics onsite training for City staff.

107

85 12. Bus stop amenities improvements.

vice. As such the siting (location),
condition, and amenities found therein play a considerable role in the safety and satisfaction of current riders (customers) as well as the attraction of future customers. Well-designed bus stops also play a role in ADA compliance.

A successful system-wide Bus Stop Improvement Plan requires commitment to an ongoing process typically requiring many years and often significant capital investment to accomplish. (Note use of the

An effective Bus Stop Improvement Plan begins with a comprehensive inventory of all bus stops including a description and condition evaluation of all amenities (i.e., benches, shelters, lighting, signage/info-posts, trash receptacles, etc.) located at the individual stop. The inventory should also identify which route(s) serve the individual bus stop.

Fortunately, the City already has a recent inventory of Visalia Transit bus stops which could serve as the foundation for a broader Bus Stop Improvement Plan initiative. The next step would be to complete a more in-depth evaluation of each stop 1) noting the condition of the respective amenities, 2) the linkage between the individual stop and the surrounding pedestrian network (i.e., adjoining sidewalks, nearby crosswalks, etc.), and 3) an evaluation of ADA accessibility (e.g., inclusion of curb cuts, concrete pad to include Project Access and National Aging and Disability Center websites.)

Improvements should be prioritized based on average daily activity, ADA compliance, and overall condition. Larger transit providers often include staffing responsible for bus stop cleaning, maintenance, and repair. Smaller operators often approach this task through a combination of in-house staffing (cleaning) as well as outsourcing (maintenance and repair).

Moore & Associates believes every bus stop should include a pole, appropriate signage, and either a customer service phone number or a link (QR code) to the Visalia Transit website. We also recommend a unique numeric identifier be assigned to each stop.

As noted above, successful Bus Stop Improvement Plans involve an ongoing, multi-year effort. Therefore, capital effort. Many transit operators within California have been successful in securing grant funding to supplement (or accelerate) their respective Bus Stop Improvement Plan initiative. Some transit providers have also developed partnership initiatives with local businesses and community organizations to

108

86 13. Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility

progra

As a recipient of federal transportation funding the City is required to prepare and adopt a Transit Asset Management plan every four years. The most recent Plan (2018) was prepared in-house and included both an inventory and condition evaluation of the broad array of Visalia Transit facilities. The TAM Plan also identified a list of out-
Intermediate inventory updates are prepared annually as pa reporting.

maintenance facility) warrant repair and/or rehabilitation. An in-depth facility condition analysis is beyond the scope of the SRTP update. However, among the deficiencies noted are a leaky roof, ineffective drainage throughout the bus yard, numerous areas of broken or cracked concrete, and ineffective fleet parking/space allocation. Given the scope of this matter as well as the potential cost, we recommend the City consider retaining a consultant specializing in transit facilities to conduct a thorough analysis and prepare a multi-year improvement plan.

With respect to security, the Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility features perimeter fencing along with controlled access. There are numerous security cameras placed throughout the property (although their operational condition was not evaluated). A controlled-access employee parking lot is located at the front of the facility, although there are concerns as to the operational condition of the entry gates.

Visalia Transit is currently transitioning to a zero-emission fleet (battery-electric buses). To support this effort, numerous vehicle chargers and supporting infrastructure have been (and will continue to be) installed at the Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility. However, there will still be a need to maintain both the transit and community access compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facilities. Visalia activities will be addressed across multiple years, although funding for the initial phase has been identified.

109

87 14. Support and increase awareness of the bus-bike connection.

Recommended Practice: Bicycle and
Transit
and transit customers. The combination helps form a connected network of transportation options that fosters affordable mobility, equity, health, and sustainable communities.

Providing an effective interface between Visalia Transit and the local cycling community has potential for given the relatively level topography present throughout the local service area. At the time of the 2022 SRTP update, all Visalia Transit fixed-route buses were equipped with easy-to-use bike racks capable of holding two bicycles. The racks are installed on the front of each bus.

We envision two activities to support implementation of this recommendation. First, increased targeted on the Visalia Transit website, and periodic outreach with local cycling organizations. Second, enhancing activity centers.

from Caltrans to support the purchase,
installation, maintenance, and promotion of their transit-cycling initiatives.

15. Institute travel training program.

Travel training, as a mobility-enhancing strategy, has become increasingly commonplace, especially for transit providers whose customer base includes a significant number of seniors and/or persons with disabilities. Effective travel training can often miti
infrequent transit riders by increasing their comfort levels (and often those of their respective family members and/or caregivers).

Travel training serves a dual purpose. First, its raises awareness about what transit options are available; and second, it teaches the skills needed to effectively use public transit. Travel training can be provided on an individual or group basis. This would enable social service organizations and other entities to host travel training sessions for their respective clienteles, members, etc. Initial activities should focus on historically ride-dependent populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals. Areas of emphasis should include how to use the demand-response (dial-a-ride) service as well as how to navigate the fixed-route bus network.

-
clients as well as administrated and conducted such activities on their behalf. Our recommended -ride tickets,
110

88 presentation and/or discussion guide, and question/comment cards (for attendees too shy to verbally ask questions).

We recommend identifying a staffer within your organization as the primary travel trainer. In the case of Visalia Transit, the most likely candidate could be the newly hired Community Outreach Specialist. We have found the most successful travel training sessions are limited to 10 or 12 participants and are capped at 75 minutes. Sessions typically include a short information presentation, question-and-answer session, - eelchair lift works, securing
mobility devices, transit rider behavior protocol, etc.).

travel training program. Finally, we offer three recommendations: 1) Identify and assign the same a second person (preferably bilingual) who can assist with greeting attendees, session set-up, and in-field demonstrations; and 3) conduct participant follow-up four weeks after the presentation to assess the impact of the travel training.

16. Enhance transit website/ensure transit website and GTFS information are kept up-to-date.

Ensuring accurate and up-to-date transit information is readily available to current riders and prospective riders alike should be a cornerstone goal of any transit provider. Transit market research continues to underscore the important role that information accessibility plays in the decision by potential riders to use transit.

preferably by City staff on a rotating basis. The objective here is to evaluate the site and feed from the perspectiv -to-
understand, logical manner? Is key service information presented such that it supports easy decision- making by prospective riders? Does the site support easy trip planning? To ensure the monthly review is conducted in an effective manner, we recommend creation of a one- by the assigned reviewer. Such a document would also likely be useful in communicating requested changes to the staff tasked with site maintenance.

At the time of the SRTP update, the Visalia Transit website included many of the components deemed important to benefit both existing transit riders as well as attract prospective riders.

Potential site enhancements could include a full parallel site/content in Spanish as well as online sales of transit fare media (especially monthly passes and other multi-ride media).

111

89 The purpose of this chapter is to develop status quo Financial and Capital Plans that will serve as a baseline for assessing the impact of recommendations introduced as part of the Operations Plan. The Financial and Capital Plans provided herein are based largely on budget and planning documents provided by the City of Visalia. Assumptions used in calculating revenues and expenses for future years of the five-year planning horizon are detailed in Section 8.2. The Financial and Capital Plans inclusive of the cost of the recommendations are presented in Sections 8.3 and 8.5.

The primary funding sources for transit operations are local, state, and federal transportation programs.

Specifically, these include:

FTA Section 5307 This is FTA formula funding for transit operators serving urbanized areas. For urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000, the formula is based on a combination of bus revenue vehicle miles, bus passenger miles, fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles, and fixed- guideway route miles as well as population and population density. Federal funding under this program covers up to 50 percent of the net project cost of transit operations.

FTA Section 5310 Federal funding under this section is currently used to fund the Transit Call Center and travel training activities.

Local Transportation Fund The Local Transportation Fund (LTF) provides funding under the State -Alquist-Deddeh Act
(SB 325). LTF funds are derived from a quarter-cent of the state-wide general sales tax. These tax revenues are returned to each county in which they are collected, and the counties then apportion LTF funds within the county based on population.

State Transit Assistance Fund The State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund also provides funding under the TDA. STA funds are derived from a sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. The State Controller allocates half of the funds based on population and the other half based on transit operator revenues for the prior fiscal year. In 2017, Senate Bill 1 provided a separate category of funding for State of Good Repair projects under the STA.

Measure R Measure R is a local half-cent sales tax for transportation approved by Tulare County voters in 2006. Half of all Measure R funds are dedicated to regional transportation projects, while an additional 35 percent are allocated to local projects. The remaining funds are intended for transit, bike, and environmental uses to support air quality.

National Park Service Funding through the National Park Service comprises much of the funding for the Sequoia Shuttle program.

FTA Section 5311(f) funds have previously been used for operation of the external Sequoia Shuttle services. However, the service no longer qualifies for these funds.

112

90 Additional funding sources include state and local programs and locally generated revenues. These include:

Fare revenues and ticket sales These revenues are generated from user fares and pass/ticket sales.

Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program The Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) was established in 2014 to provide operating and capital assistance to transit operators to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility, especially among disadvantaged communities.

LCTOP is administered by Caltrans in coordination with the California Air Resources Board (ARB)

CNG sales In addition to using compressed natural gas (CNG) to fuel its transit fleet, the City also collects revenues from the sale of CNG at a public fueling facility.

Cap-and-Trade Program The Cap-and-Trade Program, administered by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), provides incentives for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through the use of carbon credits. Carbon credits represent the reduction or removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The City earns carbon credits through the sale and use of compressed natural gas (CNG).

Advertising The City realizes revenues by selling advertising space on its transit vehicles.

Lease/rental revenues Additional revenues are earned through lease agreements for space at

Other operating revenue sources may include interest earnings, the sale of equipment or vehicles, rebates, and gains on investments.

The primary funding sources for transit capital projects are state and federal programs. Specifically, these include the following, many of which are the same sources used to fund operations:

FTA Section 5307 Federal funding under this formula grant program covers up to 80 percent of the net project cost of capital projects or purchases.

FTA Section 5339 Federal funding under this program can be used for bus and bus facility purchase, replacement, and rehabilitation. The City currently receives an annual (non- competitive) apportionment that partially funds its Capital Improvement Plan.

Local Transportation Fund LTF funds can be used for capital as well as operating purposes.

State Transit Assistance Fund STA funds used by the City for capital purposes are primarily those received through the State of Good Repair program under Senate Bill 1.

National Park Service Funding through the National Park Service comprises much of the funding for the purchase of vehicles for the Sequoia Shuttle program.

Other federal grant programs, such as FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities, are competitive grants which can be used to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase transit vehicles; construct bus-related facilities; and improve technology to result in low- or no-emission vehicles or facilities.

113

91 The baseline Financial Plans (Exhibits 8.2.1 through 8.2.5) include operating expenses and revenues for -Line service, and the Green Line call
center. Financial Plans for individual transit accounts are provided, as well an aggregated Financial Plan for the transit program as a whole. The following assumptions were used:

A two-percent increase per annum for farebox sales and ticket sales (except for the Sequoia Shuttle, which assumes a five-percent increase beginning in FY 2023/24).

A conservative 1.5-percent increase per annum for LTF, STA, and other state grant programs.

A five-percent increase per annum for CNG sales revenues.

A two-percent increase per annum for federal funding sources.

A two-percent increase per annum for salary- and wage-related expenses.

A four-percent increase per annum for contracted transit operations.

A two-percent increase per annum for utilities.

114

92 Exhibit 8.2.1 Combined Visalia Transit Baseline Financial Plan

115

93 Exhibit 8.2.2 Transit Operations Baseline Financial Plan (Account 4551)

116

94 117

95 118

96 119

97 Exhibit 8.2.3 Sequoia Shuttle Baseline Financial Plan (Account 4553)

120

98 121

99 Exhibit 8.2.4 Transit Call Center Baseline Financial Plan (Account 4554)

122

100

123

101
Exhibit 8.2.5 V-Line Baseline Financial Plan (Account 4555)

124

102

125

103

This section presents cost estimates for the individual recommendations presented in Chapters 6 and 7 and identifies the year of implementation. For ease of review, we have utilized the Combined Financial Plan, which clearly identifies the costs of each recommendation. The specific account to which the cost applies is noted in the narrative discussion.

For operating costs projected beyond the FY 2022/23 contracted operating rates, we have assumed a five percent annual increase. All operations recommendations were calculated using FY 2022/23 rates and escalated according to year of implementation.

Recommendation 1
Increase staffing.

This would add one additional staffer at an annual compensation level (salary plus benefits) of approximately $110,000 beginning in FY 2022/23. There would also be training costs for this staffer as well as existing staff for a total of approximately $12,780 across the next five years (beginning in FY 2022/23). Training costs beyond FY 2026/27 are not estimated at this time. These additional costs are included in Account 4551 (Transit Operations).

Exhibit 8.3.1 Recommendation 1 financial impact
FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27
Additional salary & benefits $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 Training/certificate program $5,390 $2,695 $2,695 $1,000 $1,000 Total $115,390 $112,695 $112,695 $111,000 $111,000

Recommendation 2 Install driver name placards inside the front of dial-a-ride vehicles.

At the time of this report, the cost for removeable nameplates and mounted brackets was approximately ten dollars per nameplate and ten dollars per bracket. Assuming a fleet of 11 dial-a-ride vehicles and 20 drivers, the cost to implement this would be approximately $350. As this one-time expense could be covered under the existing budget for supplies or equipment, no additional funds have been budgeted for this recommendation. Nameplates for new dial-a-ride drivers may be included in onboarding costs.

Alternatively, paper nameplates could be printed on cardstock in-house as needed, which would limit the expenditure to the cost of the 11 mounting brackets (or approximately $110).

Recommendation 3
Implement neighborhood circulators as feeders to trunk routes.

While specific neighborhood circulators have yet to be designed, we have budgeted for a six-month demonstration project for FY 2022/23 which would include 1,872 vehicle revenue hours. This provides 12 hours of service per day, five days per week, for 26 weeks. Using the dial-a-ride cost per vehicle revenue hour of $38.887 for FY 2022/23, this translates to a total hour cost of $72,796 for the demonstration er vehicle revenue mile of $0.405.
-route performance of 14.88
vehicle service miles per vehicle revenue hour. For 1,872 vehicle revenue hours, this translates to 30,008 vehicle service miles, for a total mileage cost of $11,281. This would result in a total cost for the result in an annual cost of $168,154, assuming FY 2022/23 rates.) The cost of the demonstration project is included in Account 4551 (Transit Operations) for FY 2022/23 only. 126

104

Recommendation 4 Maintain minimum 30-minute service frequency throughout service day on Routes 1 and 2. Implement 15 20-minute service frequency during AM and PM peak service.

Adding frequency to Route 2 for a six-month demonstration period would result in the addition of 1,690 additional vehicle revenue hours. For all-day service, using the fixed-route cost per vehicle revenue hour of $39.547 for FY 2022/23, this translates to a total hour cost of $66,834 for the demonstration project. alculated an average performance of 12.10 vehicle service miles per vehicle revenue hour for Route 2. For 1,690 vehicle revenue hours, this translates to 20,449 vehicle service miles, for a total mileage cost of $21,635. This would result in a total cost for the result in an annual cost of $176,938, assuming FY 2022/23 rates.)

For peak-hour only service, which would add only 910 vehicle revenue hours during the demonstration period, this translates to a total hour cost of $36,988. Using the average performance of 12.10 vehicle service miles per vehicle revenue hour for 910 vehicle revenue hours, this translates to 11,011 vehicle service miles, for a total mileage cost of $11,650. This would result in a total cost for the demonstration result in an
annual cost of $97,276, assuming FY 2022/23 rates.)

The cost of the all-day demonstration project is included in Account 4551 (Transit Operations) for FY 2022/23 only.

Recommendation 5
Consider providing extended weekday evening service on Routes 1 and 2.

This recommendation has two separate strategies to be considered. The first is the extension of weekday evening service on Routes 1 and 2 until 10:00 p.m. on a six-month trial basis. This would add 130 vehicle revenue hours and an estimated 1,368 vehicle service miles to Route 1, resulting in a cost of $6,588 for the demonstration period. It would add 195 vehicle service miles and an estimated 2,360 vehicle service miles for Route 2, resulting in a cost of $10,209 for the demonstration period. The total cost to implement this strategy for the six-month demonstration period would be $16,797. Annual cost of implementation would be $33,594 (using FY 2022/23 rates). The cost of the demonstration project is included in Account 4551 (Transit Operations) for FY 2022/23 only.

This assumes the FY 2022/23 fixed-route cost per vehicle revenue hour of $39.547 and cost per vehicle service mile of $1.058. The average vehicle service miles per vehicle revenue hour (FY 2021) is 10.52 for Route 1 and 12.10 for Route 2.

-end portions of
Routes 1 and 2 with rider destinations. The cost estimates provided here assume the service would be provided using City-owned dial-a-ride vehicles rather than contracting with Uber, Lyft, or a local taxi company. This assumes four hours of service per day, five days per week, for 26 weeks, using two vehicles.

This translates to 1,040 vehicle revenue hours and 15,475 vehicle service miles, for a total cost of $46,709 for the demonstration period. Annual cost of implementation would be $93,418 (using FY 2022/23 rates).

127

105
This assumes the FY 2022/23 dial-a-ride cost per vehicle revenue hour of $38.887 and cost per vehicle service mile of $0.405. The average vehicle service miles per vehicle revenue hour (FY 2021) for the fixed- route service is 14.88. The cost of the demonstration project is included in Account 4551 (Transit Operations) for FY 2022/23 only.

Recommendation 6
Work with COS to establish an inter-campus shuttle (school days only).

The cost of Recommendation 7 is dependent on a variety of factors including routing (which will determine vehicle revenue hours and miles), frequency, service span, and days of operation. With this many unknowns, it is impossible to calculate a proposed cost. As such, no cost estimate is provided for this recommendation.

Recommendation 7 - Introduce transit service to new developments.

While specific routes have yet to be designed, we have budgeted for a six-month demonstration project for FY 2022/23 which would include 1,560 vehicle revenue hours. Per vehicle, this provides 12 hours of service per day, five days per week, for 26 weeks. Using the dial-a-ride cost per vehicle revenue hour of $38.887 for FY 2022/23, this translates to a total hour cost of $60,664 for the demonstration project. cost per vehicle revenue mile of $0.405. Using
-route performance of 14.88
vehicle service miles per vehicle revenue hour. For 1,560 vehicle revenue hours, this translates to 23,213 vehicle service miles, for a total mileage cost of $9,401. This would result in a total cost for the regular service, it would result in an annual cost of $140,130 per vehicle deployed, assuming FY 2022/23 rates.) The cost of the demonstration project is included in Account 4551 (Transit Operations) for FY 2022/23 only.

Recommendation 8
Consider utilizing smaller vehicles, especially for lower productivity routes and/or neighborhood circulators.

The financial impact of Recommendation 9 is difficult to quantify. It is tied primarily to fuel usage and long-term vehicle replacement costs, which cannot be effectively estimated at this time. As such, no cost estimate is provided for this recommendation.

Recommendation 9
Introduce service along Ben Maddox between Walnut and Caldwell.

While a specific route has yet to be designed, we have budgeted for a six-month demonstration project for FY 2022/23 which would include 1,560 vehicle revenue hours. This provides 12 hours of service per day, five days per week, for 26 weeks. Using the dial-a-ride cost per vehicle revenue hour of $38.887 for FY 2022/23, this translates to a total hour cost of $60,664 for the demo 2020/21 performance data, we calculated an average fixed-route performance of 14.88 vehicle service miles per vehicle revenue hour. For 1,560 vehicle revenue hours, this translates to 23,213 vehicle service miles, for a total mileage cost of $9,401. This would result in a total cost for the demonstration project of $70,065. (If this service were added to Visalia Transi of $140,130, assuming FY 2022/23 rates.) The cost of the demonstration project is included in Account 4551 (Transit Operations) for FY 2022/23 only.

128

106
Recommendation 10 Upgrade or replace fareboxes.

The capital cost to upgrade or replace fareboxes for the fleet is yet to be determined.

Recommendation 11
Syncromatics training for staff.

There is likely to be an additional fee (over and above existing costs) for the additional training. As such, we have budgeted a one-time cost of $3,000 for this recommendation. This cost is included in Account 4551 (Transit Operations) for FY 2022/23 only.

Recommendation 12
Bus stop amenities improvements.

Actual costs to implement this recommendation will be largely dependent on repairs and maintenance needed, the current status of bus stop amenities, and what types of amenities are to be added. Therefore, we are recommending a placeholder budget of $35,000 per year (for a five-year total of $175,000). It would be up to the City to determine an annual workplan for bus stop improvements. This recommendation will be addressed within the Capital Plan.

Recommendation 13 Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility.

The capital cost to repair and/or rehabilitate the Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility is yet to be determined. Costs under this recommendation include development of an analysis and multi-year improvement plan as well as the improvements themselves. Improvements would be budgeted in the Capital Plan.

Recommendation 14
Support and increase awareness of the bus-bike connection.

There are two strategies identified under this recommendation. The first is to raise awareness of the bike- bus connection, which would be undertaken largely through marketing. We have budgeted a one-time cost of $7,500 for marketing activities and the development of collateral in support of this recommendation.

other high-activity transit locations. We believe development of these capital improvements should be tied to grant funding from Caltrans or other sources, which will also determine the project budget. This strategy would be budgeted in the Capital Plan.

Recommendation 15 Institute travel training program.

We recommend budgeting up to $25,000 annually to implement a travel training program. This is another recommendation that would be eligible for grant funding, which could cover trainer and driver staff hours, use of a vehicle, marketing and outreach, free-ride coupons, etc. For example, travel training is an eligible - under FTA Section 5310. The expenses would be budgeted under Account 4554 (Transit Call Center).

129

107
Recommendation 16 Enhance transit website/ensure transit website and GTFS information are kept up to date.

Such enhancements and the maintenance of GTFS information should be covered under existing budgets for marketing and website maintenance.

130

108
Exhibit 8.3.2 Combined Visalia Transit Financial Plan with Recommendations

131

109

The baseline Capital Improvement Plan (Exhibit 8.4.1) reflects existing capital projects and vehicle purchases already identified by the City. Recurring annual expenses are shown through a planning horizon of FY 2026/27.

132

110
Exhibit 8.4.1 Baseline Capital improvement Plan

133

111

Improvement Plan. This is
Recommendation 13, which calls for a bus stop improvement program. These costs are programmed

rvice, there may be a future need for additional cutaway buses. However, we do -a-ride fleet before a need has been
identified.

134

112
Exhibit 8.5.1 Capital Improvement Plan with Recommendations

135

113

Multiple approaches to community engagement were employed throughout the Short Range Transit Plan to ensure broad representation from persons residing and/or employed throughout the Visalia Transit service area. This included surveys specific to fixed-route riders and demand-response patrons, a survey of the community at-large, and community workshops.

In early September 2021, a team of trained bilingual surveyors conducted a transit rider survey across all -Line service linking
Visalia and Fresno, nor the SEKI service linking Visalia and Sequoia National Park.

Despite a ridership decline of approximately 40 percent, a sample size of nearly 400 was achieved. This translates to a confidence level of 95-percent and margin of error of five percent.

While the bilingual survey team was prepared to assist Visalia Transit customers complete the survey onboard the bus if so requested, riders were also offered the option of completing the survey online after completing their ride. Business cards with a QR code linking to the online survey were provided. -route (local bus) service is:

Age 18-44 (48 percent)
Employed (32 percent)
Rides the bus to travel to/from work (26 percent)
Lacks access to a personal vehicle (79 percent)
Lives in a household with an annual income of less than $25,000 (38 percent) Rides 3-4 day/week (26 percent)
Pays cash for their bus ride (47 percent)

At the time of the survey, scheduled service was provided on 12 distinct route alignments. All routes operated Monday through Sunday. Service is provided in Visalia, Farmersville, Exeter, and Goshen.

Interline time-transfers are available at the downtown Visalia Transit Center (Oak and Santa Fe), Tulare City transit center, and at an informal transfer center on Mooney Blvd.

Q1: Which route are you riding?
The three routes which generated the highest survey participation were Routes 1 (28.3 percent), Route 6 (12.7 percent), and Route 9 (11.3 percent). On an aggregate basis these three routes accounted for more than half (52.3 percent) of all valid surveys realized.

While the survey fielding plan did not employ a stratified sampling methodology (given the impacts which the pandemic has had on historic Visalia Transit ridership patterns), these three routes happen to be the routes of greater ridership activity.

During FY2020/21, the top three ridership routes were Route 1 (159,000), Route 2 (81,000) and Route 4 (53,000). By contrast, Route 9 ranked fifth and Route 6 ranked seventh.

136

114
Exhibit A.1 Rider survey participation by route

Q2: Where did you board the bus for this trip?
Survey participants were asked to identify the location of their bus ride origin or starting point using either cross-streets or a local landmark. Not surprisingly, the two transit centers were identified as the most common trip starting points: Visalia (21.5 percent) and Tulare (5.1 percent). These were followed by five

Mooney Blvd (12 boarding points) (6.9 percent),
Farmersville (8 boarding points) (2.4 percent),
Ben Maddox (7 boarding points) (2.1 percent),
Houston (7 boarding points) (2.1 percent), and
College of Sequoias (1.5 percent).

Q3. Where do you plan to get off this bus?
Here again, survey participants were asked to identify the location of where they ended their bus ride using either cross-streets or a local landmark. Not surprisingly, the two transit centers were identified as the most common trip end-points: Visalia (26.4 percent) and Tulare (3.6 percent). These were followed by Mooney Blvd (5.4 percent), Farmersville (3.0 percent), Walmart (3750 S. Mooney Blvd) (2.1 percent); and downtown Visalia, Goshen, and Orchard/Mooney.

Q4. Does this one-way trip include a transfer or connection to another bus route? Forty percent of the survey participants indicated making one or more bus-to-bus connections in order to complete the surveyed trip.

Based on recent similar transit market research conducted in other medium-size California public transit settings, this incidence of transfer is higher than average. While Visalia Transit does not offer a free or reduced local service transfer option, pricing of its day pass (which allows unlimited rides on the day of issuance) is only twice that of the cash fare, one-way ride. Therefore, for the price of a round-trip, a transit rider could purchase a day-pass and enjoy unlimited rides. This is a very attractive alternative to the traditional free or reduced bus-to-bus transfer.

28.3%

9.2% 8.9% 7.0%

12.7%

1.9%

3.5%

11.3%

9.4%

1.3%

3.0% 2.7%

0.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
n = 371
137

115
Exhibit A.2 Use of transfer/connection to another bus

While the scope of the Short Range Transit Plan did not include a formal transfer analysis, the transit rider survey revealed five of the 12 Visalia Transit routes accounted for the greatest incidence of inter-route transfer activity: Routes 1,2,4,9, and 11X.

Also of interest was the incidence of transfer between Visalia Transit and Tulare County Area Transit. Two routes were cited most frequently: Route 10 (to Dinuba), which originates at the Visalia Transit Center; and Route 40 (to Lindsay/Porterville), which originates at Government Plaza on South Mooney Blvd.

Q5. How did you pay for this ride?
In addition to the cash fare, Visalia Transit offers a variety of pass or multi- percent) was by far the most common method of fare payment. Three other fare payment options garnered

Exhibit A.3 Fare payment method

Yes

40.0%
No

60.0%
n = 355

46.8%

21.3%

15.8%

10.8%

1.9% 3.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Cash General public
pass
Student pass Senior or Disabled
pass
I did not pay Other
n = 361
138

116
, 77.1 percent cited th
.

Exhibit A.4 Reduced fare usage

Q6. What is the main reason you are riding the bus today? of

Exhibit A.5 Trip purpose

Q7. How long have you been riding Visalia Transit?
While survey participants were offered five response options from which to choose, the majority of (42.6 percent).

The rate of rider retention (within the population surveyed) declined approximately 75 percent (for the behavior arising from the pandemic.

General fare ,

77.1%
Reduced
fare , 22.9%
n = 153

26.0%

16.4%

19.9% 19.0%

13.2%

5.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Work School Medical/Healthcare Shopping Recreation/Social Other n = 342
139

117
Exhibit A.6 Duration of patronage

Q8. How many times per week do you ride Visalia Transit? - -6
unt for nearly half of
the total respondent pool. This suggests a dedicated/high-use customer base.

Exhibit A.7 Frequency of use

Q9. Do you currently use any of the following travel options in a typical month? Selection of multiple responses was allowed, so the survey response tallies exceed one hundred percent.

income of less than $25,000. However, usage of Transportation Network Companies could be tied to weekend evening and/or late-night weekday mobility needs.

22.6%

5.6%

14.5% 14.8%

42.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 years or longer n = 359

13.5%

18.2%

26.2% 24.3%

17.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Less than 1 day per week 1-2 days per week 3-4 days per week 5-6 days per week Every day n = 362
140

118
Given Greyhound serves the downtown Visalia Transit Center, connectivity -south long distance travel option (within the San Joaquin Valley) is Amtrak, which is located in Hanford some 20 miles distant.

Exhibit A.8 Use of other travel options

Q10. If Visalia Transit had NOT been available today how would you have made this trip? -a-
household income.

Exhibit A.9 Alternatives to transit

10.2%

4.3%

22.6%

9.7%

10.8%

6.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Taxi Private
shuttle
Uber/Lyft Ridesharing Long distance
bus (i.e.,
Greyhound)
Other
n = 371

26.5%

2.3% 3.7%

10.3%

29.1%

6.6%

21.1%

0.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
n = 351
141

119
Q11. Survey participants were invited to indicate their satisfaction regarding a variety of Visalia Transit service attributes using four evaluation criteria: excellent, good, fair, and poor. compared
with other recent similar transit market research conducted in California.

Four areas for potential improvem
of these would require the expenditure of additional transit operating dollars. However, two other likely require
significant expenditures.

Exhibit A.10 On-time performance

Exhibit A.11 Service frequency

44.2% 41.8%

12.2%

1.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 335

41.5%

44.7%

10.9%

2.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 313
142

120
Exhibit A.12 Hours of operation

Exhibit A.13 Availability of service information

Exhibit A.14 Driver courtesy

Exhibit A.15 Safe operation of vehicle

40.5% 40.5%

13.3%

5.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 309

45.1%

39.7%

12.1%

3.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 315

52.1%

36.6%

8.2%

3.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 317

58.8%

34.8%

5.8% 0.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 313
143

121
Exhibit A.16 Onboard cleanliness

Exhibit A.17 Overall service

Q12. Which of the following potential changes would be most significant for you? Survey participants were invited to select up to three responses. Therefore, the response totals exceed 100 percent.

realized
This destination is not currently served (directly) by Visalia Transit, the nearest service point being Route orth Pointe shopping center is located on Ben Maddox north of Houston.

45.9% 43.3%

8.0%

2.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 314

50.6%

42.6%

6.1%

0.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 310
144

122
Exhibit A.18 Preferred service change

Q13. If the improvements you selected in Question 12 were introduced, how would it affect your use of public transit?
Nearly 70 percent of those survey participants identifying a preferred service improvement indicated implementing same would cause them to ride more often. This is quite favorable when compared with other recent transit market research conducted in California. We estimate this could result in an additional 25,000 unlinked trips annually.

Somewhat surprising is that an additional 26.6 percent indicated implementation of the desired improvement would have no impact on their transit travel behavior.

Exhibit A.19 Impact of preferred improvement

4.9%

15.4%

11.9%

14.3%

34.5%

37.5%

23.7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Other
Nothing
New destination(s)
Improved on-time performance
More weekend service
Later service hours
Increased service frequency n = 371

68.9%

4.6%

26.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Ride more often Ride less often No change
n = 305
145

123
Q14. How old are you?
Based on 2019 census data, the average resident age in Visalia was 32 years. Nearly 30 percent of all residents were under 18 years of age; while approximately 12 percent were 65 years and older.

Exhibit A.20 Age

Q15. Which of the following best describes your employment status?

Based on 2019 census data for Visalia, 61 percent of persons age 16 and above were employed.

declined to nine percent for persons 65 years and older.

Exhibit A.21 Employment status

6.7%

22.9% 25.1%

19.9%

9.7%

15.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Under 18 18 - 24 25 - 44 45 61 62 and older Decline to
state
n = 371

32.3%

15.4%

18.3%

11.3%

18.1%

4.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Employed Unemployed Student Retired Decline to
state
Other
n = 371
146

124
Q16. Do you have access to a personal vehicle?

Exhibit A.22 Availability of access to a personal vehicle

Q17. How many vehicles/cars are in your household?
According to 2019 census data, 5.1 percent Visalia households indicated no vehicle ownership, while

32.4 percent reported having one vehicle.

Exhibit A.23 Number of vehicles in household

Q18. With which of the following do your most closely identify? Survey participants were permitted to make multiple selections from amongst the various demographic response options. As such, the response tallies exceed 100 percent.

census data.

Yes ,

20.7%
No , 79.3% n = 338

44.3%

22.0%

19.2%

14.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
None 1 2 3 or more
n = 323
147

125
Exhibit A.24 Race/ethnicity

Q19. Do you identify as Hispanic or Latino (of any race)?

Exhibit A.25 Identification as Hispanic/Latino

Q20. Which of the following language(s) is spoken in your home? Survey participants were permitted to make multiple selections from among the various language options.

Therefore, the response tallies exceed 100 percent. According to 2019 census data, 35.3 percent of Visalia households reported speaking a language other than English at home.

Exhibit A.26 Language(s) spoken at home

23.2%

30.7%

40.2%

3.0%

3.8%

3.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Other
Decline to state
White/Caucasian
Native American/Alaska Native
Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander n = 371
Yes , 61.3%
No , 38.8%
n = 320

75.2%

32.3%

2.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
English Spanish Other
n = 371
148

126
Q21. How well do you speak English?

Exhibit A.27 English proficiency

Q22. What is your annual household income?
the average Visalia annual household income was $62,263.

Exhibit A.28 Annual household income

Q23. How many individuals (including yourself) live in your household? According to 2019 census data, the average Visalia household included 3.02 persons.

Exhibit A.29 Household size

90.5%

5.7% 3.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very well or native
speaker
Less than very well Not at all
n = 316

38.3%

13.5%

4.9% 2.7% 1.1%

39.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999
Decline to state
n = 371

25.1%

17.3% 16.6% 16.0%

11.7% 13.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
n = 307
149

127
Exhibit A.30 Rider survey instrument (English)

150

128

151

129
Exhibit A.31 Rider survey instrument (Spanish)

152

130

153

131
Exhibit A.32 Rider survey car card

Exhibit A.33 Rider survey take-one card

154

132

This page intentionally blank.

155

133

Transit Plan was the community survey.

The survey has several objectives including 1) assess awareness as well as recent use of Visalia Transit, 2) identify motivators as well as barriers (perceived as well as actual) regarding current and future use of Visalia Transit (and its associated services), 3) collect basic demographic data specific to survey participants, and 4) identify opportunities for potential Visalia Transit service enhancements.

Survey fielding occurred during September 2021. Data collection was via intercept surveying at locations of significant activity throughout the Visalia Transit local service area as well as online. Printed surveys were also available at each of the community workshops (Visalia Convention Center and College of the Sequoias).

The online survey was promoted via 1) City of Visalia social media messaging, 2) display advert in Visalia Times-Delta, and 3) a direct mailer (four-color postcard) to nearly 29,000 households throughout the city of Visalia. A response or participation incentive was included (e.g., random drawings for a selection of VISA gift cards).

At the conclusion of the agreed upon survey fielding period, nearly 250 valid responses were received, Plan.

Based on the survey data, Moore
participant:

Most common barrier to use of public transit: Prefer to drive own vehicle (53.4 vehicle).

Ready access to a personal vehicle (83.6 percent).

Greatest motivator to potential future use of public transit: Change in personal circumstance (44.8 percent).

Primarily drives alone (75 percent).

Propensity to use public transit in the future (86.3 percent).

Most common motivators for transit usage is lack of access to a personal vehicle/car (33.3 percent).

Preferred method of receiving public transportation information: website/internet (45.7 percent).

Has not used Visalia Transit or dial-a-ride within the 90 days prior to survey contact (68.7 percent).

Is employed (44 percent).

Speaks English at home (86.5 percent).

Believes public transit offers a valuable community service (87.6 percent).

Believes public transit supports the local economy (85.2 percent).

Believes public transit is an important service for seniors and persons with disabilities (93.3 percent).
156

134
Q1. Have you ridden Visalia Transit or the Visalia dial-a-ride service within the last 90 days? Slightly more than 30 percent of the respondents indicated some use of Visalia Transit services within the 90 days prior to the survey contact. This is neither surprising nor disappointing given the primary target of the community survey was residents without recent use of Visalia Transit.

Exhibit B.1 Transit usage within prior 90 days

Q2. Which public transportation services have you used within the last 90 days? Of those survey participants indicating some patronage of local public transportation within the 90 days prior to the survey contact, nearly 86 percent indicated -route).

Again, not surprising given
transit programs operating within Tulare county.

-Line.

Exhibit B.2 Transit service used within prior 90 days

Q3. Why do you typically use public transportation?
-ranked reason for using public transit/Visalia Transit. Interestingly, -
- 60 percent of all
responses.

Yes

31.3%
No

68.7% n = 259

85.9%

3.8% 10.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Visalia Transit Visalia dial-a-ride (DAR) Other
n = 78
157

135
Response totals exceed 100 percent as survey participants were permitted to select up to three response options.

Exhibit B.3 Reason for riding transit

Q4. How do you typically travel to the bus stop?
The vast majority (80 percent -
origin bus stop.

The topography of the Visalia Transit service area is flat, and many of the local service bus stops are within a quarter-mile of each other. Further, every Visalia Transit bus features front-loading bicycle racks, thereby supporting the bike-to-

Exhibit B.4 Travel to bus stop

Q5. In a typical week, how often do you use public transportation? , -
Nearly eight percent indicated riding every day, while 11.7 percent cited once weekly

12.3%

25.9%

22.2%

19.8%

33.3%

24.7%

27.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Other
Good for the environment
Easy-to-use/convenient
Less expensive than driving
Live in a single-car household n = 81

80.5%

9.1% 5.2% 5.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Walk Get dropped off Bike or skate Other
n = 77
158

136
Exhibit B.5 Frequency of use

Q6. What is your preferred method of receiving information about public transportation? Survey participants were asked to identify their preferred methods of receiving information regarding public transportation (specifically Visalia Transit). Given respondents were invited to select up to two options, the response tallies exceed 100 percent.

The two top-
Fortunately, at the time of the survey fielding, Visalia Transit had a website reflective of the program and service information one would typically find on many similar-sized public transit operation throughout California.

Further, the interior of Visalia Transit buses featured numerous service information postings/displays.

Exhibit B.6 Preferred method for receiving information

7.8%

19.5%

31.2%

11.7%

29.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Every day 4-6 days per
week
2-3 days per
week
Once a week Less than once a
week
n = 77

45.7%

33.3%

19.8%

23.5%

18.5%

7.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Website Onboard the
bus
Email Social media
(Facebook,
etc.)
Text
message
Other
n = 81
159

137
Q7. What is the main reason you do not use public transportation? In conducting similar community (non-rider) surveys throughout California, seeking to identify barriers (perceived as well as actual) contributing to non-use of public transit very often comes down to two reasons. And the Visalia community survey
.4

4.8 percent).

Exhibit B.7 Reason for not riding

Many Californians have a long-
.
atives are
measured.

remained at/near its work site for most, if not all, of the work period/hours. Obvious exceptions include persons employed in outside sales or various fieldwork. Therefore, it becomes important for transit erceived need for access to a personal
vehicle during (normal) work hours.

Q8. Do any other persons in your household use public transportation? Few of the respondents identified another member of their household as a transit user. This suggests a l

7.4%

6.8%

14.8%

53.4%

7.4%

4.5%

5.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Concerns about safety onboard bus.

Need my car during the day.

Prefer to drive own vehicle.

Takes too long.

Service is not available when I need to travel.

Do not know how to use it. n = 176
160

138
Exhibit B.8 Transit use by other household members

Q9. Do you have ready access to a car/personal vehicle? Nearly eighty-five percent of total
vehicle. This stands in stark contrast to the 20 percent of current Visalia Transit customers who indicated access to a personal vehicle.

Exhibit B.9 Access to a personal vehicle

Access to a personal vehicle, especially in a suburban or low-density communities such as Visalia, is often an indication of household income. In other words, there is a positive relationship between vehicle ownership (and by extension, number of vehicles per household) and total annual household income.

This widespread vehicle ownership also ties in with the suburban, largely single-family dwelling development found throughout Visalia. By contrast, a community featuring higher density, and a greater percentage of multi-

ions, refocusing Visalia Transit so as to offer more frequent service (i.e., 20 minute headways) along higher productivity corridors would likely capture more transit trips from many of these suburban dwellers.

14.7% 5.6% 2.8%

76.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes other adults Yes
children/youth
Yes both other
adults and
children/youth
No
n = 251
Yes

83.6%
No

16.4%
n = 250
161

139
Q10. Which statements best describes your awareness of Visalia Transit? With respect to brand awareness, nearly forty percent of all of Visalia Transit as a valuable community service (87.6 percent) ly wrong (or perceived wrong) with the current public transit program.

Further, nearly 40 percent of those surveyed indicated an (unaided) awareness of Visalia Transit, but no recent patronage of same. This suggest there is a realistic opportunity to recapture some of the former

Exhibit B.10 Awareness of Visalia Transit

Q11. What change, if any, would cause you to either begin riding Visalia Transit or increase your use of Visalia Transit?
requency
barriers typically has a lower cost.

13.9%

39.4%

31.5%

13.1%

2.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Am a current rider.

Know about it and have ridden in the past.

Know about it, but have never ridden.

Aware of it, but do not know much about it.

Was not aware of it before today. n = 251
162

140
Exhibit B.11 Motivator to begin/increase transit usage

Q12. What is your primary means of transportation?
By contrast, 21 percent of persons participating in the recent Visalia Transit onboard (transit rider) survey reported access to a personal vehicle.

Exhibit B.12 Primary transportation mode

Q13. If the means of transportation you selected in Question 12 was no longer available, would you consider riding public transit?
This is a significant forecaster of potential future ridership growth. As discussed throughout this analysis, Visalia Transit is perceived positively by rider and non-rider al

Like many other California communities, Visalia has experienced (and will likely continue to experience)

13.5%

44.8%

18.9%

12.0% 9.7%

15.4%

10.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Easier access
to transit
service
information
Change in my
personal
circumstances
More
frequent
service
Later
operating
times
Additional
destinations
Nothing
would cause
me to begin
riding or ride
more often.

Other
n = 259

75.0%

7.5% 9.1% 6.3% 2.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Drive myself Ride with family
or friend
Public
transportation
(i.e., the bus)
Walk/bicycle Other
n = 252
163

141
To broaden the historic transit customer base, Moore & Associates recommends the City focus on 1) increased service frequency (especially along key arterials), 2) service delivery options (e.g., neighborhood circulators) which bring transit service closer to a greater percentage of Visalia households, and 3)

Exhibit B.13 Consideration of transit as alternative to primary transportation mode

Q14. Which of the following includes your age?

Exhibit B.14 Age

Yes

86.3%
No

13.8%
n = 240

0.4%

5.8%

31.7%

25.5%

31.7%

5.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Under 18 18-24 25-44 45-61 62 and older Decline to
state
n = 259
164

142
Q15. Which of the following best describes your current employment status?

Exhibit B.15 Employment status

Q16. With which of the following do you most closely identify?

Exhibit B.16 Race/ethnicity

Q17. Do you identify as Hispanic or Latino?

Exhibit B.17 Identification as Hispanic/Latino

44.0%

10.4%

3.5%

26.3%

6.2%

9.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Employed Unemployed Student Retired Other Decline to
state
n = 259

12.7%

21.6%

60.6%

3.9%

0.4%

3.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
Decline to state
White/Caucasian
Native American/Alaska Native
Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander n = 259
Yes

36.4%
No

63.6% n = 231
165

143
Q18. Which language(s) is spoken in your home?

Exhibit B.18 Language(s) spoken at home

Q19. How well do you speak English?

Exhibit B.19 English proficiency

Q20. Please indicate your opinion regarding the following statements about public transit in Visalia.

Exhibit B.20

86.5%

15.1%

1.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
English Spanish Other
n = 259

94.9%

5.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very well or native speaker Less than very well
n = 236

9.9% 7.7% 9.4%

73.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree n = 233
166

144
Exhibit B.21 Transit a valuable community service

Exhibit B.22 Transit is good for the community but not important to me

71.8%

15.8%

7.7% 4.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree n = 234

30.6%

33.6%

17.9% 17.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree n = 235

55.5%

29.7%

10.2%

4.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree n = 236
167

145

51.5%

31.2%

13.4%

3.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree n = 231

48.7%

35.0%

9.8% 6.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree n = 234

54.0%

31.5%

8.5% 6.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree n = 235
168

146

72.6%

20.7%

4.6% 2.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree n = 237
169

147
Exhibit B.28 Community survey instrument (English)

170

148

171

149
Exhibit B.29 Community survey instrument (Spanish)

172

150

173

151
Exhibit B.30 Community survey take-one card

174

152
Exhibit B.31 Community survey direct mail postcard

175

153

The City of Visalia provides curb-to-curb transportation for ADA-certified individuals (regardless of age) as well as non-ADA certified individuals (on a same-day, space-available basis).

The service is provided on a reservation-based, shared ride service. Persons with disabilities wishing to use the demand-response service must meet the qualifying criteria and obtain certification in advance of their first usage.

Visitors to Visalia who possess a valid ADA certification card from another public transit provider may use the Visalia Transit demand-response service while visiting the city.

Trip reservations can be made up to 14 days in advance. All Visalia Transit demand-response vehicles are equipped with lifts and/or access ramps, and can accommodate most types of wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices.

One personal care attendant (PCA) may accompany one ADA fare-paying passenger free of charge, provided the PCA is picked up and dropped off at the same locations as the ADA rider. A PCA is someone who is essential to the ADA rider for their mobility as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A passenger may also request a rider for a qualifying companion. The companion must also be picked up and dropped off at the same locations as the qualifying rider. The companion must pay the same fare as the person they are accompanying.

-response service is provided throughout Visalia, Exeter, Farmersville, and Goshen (an unincorporated community in Tulare County). The service operates weekdays (6:00 am 9:30 pm), and Saturday and Sunday (8:00 am 6:30 pm). The demand-response service adheres to the same service holidays as the overall Visalia Transit program.

To assess demand-response customer satisfaction as well as program performance, Moore & Associates conducted a self-administered survey of recent demand-response patrons. A bilingual (Spanish/English), large-font survey questionnaire was mailed to nearly 500 Visalia Transit demand-response customers.

The survey mailer included a bilingual questionnaire and prepaid reply envelope. To encourage survey participation each person responding in advance of the stipulated response deadline was entered into a random drawing for one of a series of 50-dollar VISA gift cards.

-response customer
received. This translated to a response rate of nearly 15 percent. Presented herein are a series of exhibits summarizing the survey results.

176

154
Key Takeaways

Transit demand-response rider.

Is age 62 years or older (65.1 percent).

Rides no more than once weekly (37.1 percent), but has ridden within the past month.

Resides within Visalia (83.1 percent).

Uses the service most often to access healthcare services (56.3 percent).

Typically rides alone (66.1 percent).

percent).

-response (dial-a-ride) service?

Exhibit C.1 Frequency of use

-
response service? (Choose only one.)

Exhibit C.2 Frequency of use

36.2%

26.1%

17.4%

20.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than one trip
every week
1-2 times per week 3-4 times per week 5 or more times per week
n = 69

5.6%

2.8%

5.6%

5.6%

25.4%

54.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Recreation/social activities
School
Work
Shopping/errands
Healthcare/medical
n = 71
177

155
Q3. How many days in advance do you typically make your ride reservation?

Exhibit C.3 Length of advance reservation

-response service instead of another form
of transportation?

Exhibit C.4 Reason for riding

-response service? (select up to
three)

Exhibit C.5 Trip purpose

34.8%

19.7% 22.7%

18.2%

4.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1-2 days 3-4 days 5-9 days 10 days or more Standing
reservation
n = 66

6.9%

4.2%

15.3%

15.3%

58.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
Other options too expensive (i.e., taxis, Uber/Lyft)
Unable to ride the big bus (Visalia Transit).

No or limited access to a personal vehicle.
n = 72

90.4%

9.6%

1.4% 5.5%

12.3%

1.4% 4.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Within Visalia Within Exeter Within
Farmersville
Between Visalia
and
Farmersville
Between Visalia
and Exeter
Between Visalia
and Goshen
To Tulare
n = 73
178

156
Q6. Please indicate your satisfaction with respect to the follow Visalia Transit demand-response service characteristics.

Survey participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with various Visalia Transit service characteristic utilizing a four-

Exhibit C.6 Ease of reservation-making

Exhibit C.7 Ability to obtain ride at desired time

Exhibit C.8 On-time performance

58.6%

31.4%

8.6%

1.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 70

35.7%

52.9%

10.0%

1.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 70

44.3%

37.1%

15.7%

2.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 70
179

157
Exhibit C.9 Affordability/reasonableness of price

Exhibit C.10 Courtesy of customer service/reservation staff

Exhibit C.11 Information provided to customers

62.9%

27.1%

10.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Excellent Good Fair
n = 70

67.1%

25.7%

7.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Excellent Good Fair
n = 70

55.1%

29.0%

11.6%

4.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 69
180

158
Exhibit C.12 Service hours

Exhibit C.13 Driver courtesy

Exhibit C.14 Vehicle cleanliness (interior)

55.9%

32.4%

10.3%

1.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 68

63.8%

21.7%

14.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Excellent Good Fair
n = 69

62.3%

29.0%

8.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Excellent Good Fair
n = 69
181

159
Exhibit C.15 Safety onboard vehicle

Exhibit C.16 Overall service

Q7. -response service?
The most common response was .

Exhibit C.17 Fare payment

68.1%

24.6%

5.8% 1.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
n = 69

60.9%

29.0%

10.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Excellent Good Fair
n = 69

33.3%

55.1%

11.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Monthly pass Cash Other
n = 69
182

160
Q8. Which fare category typically applies to you?

Exhibit C.18 Fare category

Q9. To which of the follow technology items do you have access? (Select all which apply.)

Exhibit C.19 Access to technology

70.8%

29.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Reduced fare Full fare
n = 65

52.1%

56.2%

47.9%

52.1%

23.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Internet Smartphone Email Text messaging None of the above n = 73
183

161
-

Exhibit C.20 Travel companion

Q11. Which of the following include your age?

Exhibit C.21 Age

Q12. With which of the following do you most closely identify? (Select all that apply.)

Exhibit C.22 Race/ethnicity

67.1%

11.4%

21.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Alone With a companion or friend With an attendant/caregiver n = 70

1.4%

11.0%

20.5%

63.0%

4.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
18-24 25-44 45-61 62 and older Decline to state
n = 73

13.7%

5.5%

8.2%

4.1%

64.4%

4.1%

4.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Decline to state
Other
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
White/Caucasian
Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander n = 73
184

162
Q13. Do you identify as Hispanic or Latino (of any race)?

Exhibit C.23 Identification as Hispanic/Latino

Q14. What is the primary language spoken in your home?

Exhibit C.24 Language spoken at home

Q15. How well do you speak English?

Exhibit C.25 English proficiency

Yes

27.1%
No

72.9%
n = 70
English

93.1%
Spanish

5.6%
Other

1.4%
n = 72
Very well or
native
speaker

89.0%
Less than
very well

11.0%
n = 73
185

163
Q16. In which community do you live?
County.

Exhibit C.26 Home community

Q17. In a typical month do you use any of the following transportation services (other than dial-a-ride)?

Exhibit C.27 Use of other transportation modes

84.9%

6.8%

1.4% 1.4%

5.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Visalia Exeter Farmersville Goshen Other
n = 73

43.8%

8.3%

4.2% 4.2%

16.7%

2.1%

20.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Visalia Transit Private shuttle Taxi Lyft/Uber Family or friends V-Line Other n = 48
186

164
Exhibit C.28 Dial-A-Ride survey instrument

187

165

188

166

189

167

190

168
This page intentionally blank.

191

169
Exhibit D.1 Community workshop flyer (English)

192

170
Exhibit D.2 Community workshop flyer (Spanish)

193

171
Exhibit D.3 Community workshop newspaper advertisement (Visalia Times-Delta)

194

172
Exhibit D.4 Community workshop social media

195

173

196

174

197

175
Exhibit D.5 Community workshop comment card

198

176
Exhibit D.6 Community workshop photos

199

177

200

178
This page intentionally blank.

201

179

202

180
This page intentionally blank.

203

181
Exhibit D.1 Fleet inventory
Qty Year Make Make/Model Fuel PAX Service Status
5 2006 Orion S50 CNG 33 Fixed Route Active
2 2008 Orion S50 CNG 32 Fixed Route Active
7 2008 Orion S50 CNG 34 Fixed Route Active
4 2010 Orion S50 CNG 41 Fixed Route Active
3 2010 Orion S50 CNG 34 Fixed Route Active
4 2013 Gillig BRT CNG 39 Fixed Route Active
2 2016 Gillig CNG 33 Fixed Route Active
2 2009 Orion VII CNG 33 Fixed Route Active
5 2016 Gillig CNG 33 Fixed Route Active
3 2018 Proterra Proterra Electric 40 Fixed Route Active 1 2008 E450 Starcraft Allstar CNG 18 DAR Active
6 2011 Elkhart Coach EC II CNG 18 DAR Active
4 2019 E450 Starcraft Allstar CNG 19 DAR Active
3 2008 Freightliner Startrans CNG 32 Trolley Active
2 2013 Supreme Classic CNG 22 Trolley Active
7 2007 Ford Starcraft Allstar Gasoline 16 SEKI Active
2 2008 Ford Starcraft Allstar Gasoline 16 SEKI Active
2 2009 Ford Starcraft Allstar Gasoline 16 SEKI
4 2012 Gillig Hybrid Diesel Hybrid Diesel 31 SEKI
2 2012 Gillig Hybrid Diesel Hybrid Diesel 26 SEKI
2 2013 A-Z Buses Cutaway Gasoline 16 SEKI
1 2015 Ford Starcraft Allstar Gasoline 20 SEKI
3 2004 Gillig S50 Diesel 31 SEKI Active
3 2007 Ford Glaval Cutaway Gasoline 16 SEKI
2 2018 Gillig Hybrid Diesel Hybrid-Diesel 26 SEKI Active

204

182
Qty Year Make Make/Model Fuel PAX Service Status
3 2016 Ford Starcraft Allstar CNG 20 V-Line Active
2 2019 Gillig BRT CNG 39 V-Line Active
1 2008 E450 Starcraft Allstar CNG 18 LOOP Buses Active

Exhibit D.2 Fleet replacement module, Transit Asset Management Plan (2018)

205
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0194 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Review and accept the 2021 Annual Report from the City of Visalia Historic Preservation Advisory Committee.

Deadline for Action: 6/20/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Walter Deissler, Chairperson, Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner, (559) 713-4443, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Paul Bernal, Community Development Director, (559) 713-4025 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council review and accept the annual report from the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC). The annual report provides the City Council with a detailed overview of all activities conducted and projects reviewed by the HPAC during the 2021 calendar year. The report also provides responses to directives initiated by the City Council Sub- Committee on Committees/Commissions.

Background:

As one of the oldest cities in the Central Valley, Visalia hosts an impressive collection of historic sites and structures. Numerous structures with distinctive architectural styles are present in Visalia, concentrated in the city’shistoric core. The Historic Preservation Ordinance, adopted in 1979 and updated in 2001, established the HPAC to act as a steward for historic preservation causes. The Committee is primarily responsible for periodically updating the Local Register of Historic Structures, nominating properties to Local, State, and Federal Historic Registers, and reviewing building/planning actions related to historically designated structures within the Historic District and/or on the Local Register. Review of building and planning actions is the most frequent task undertaken by the Committee, consisting of review of exterior alterations to historically designated structures, and review of zoning actions on sites within the Historic District (ex. Change of Zones, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, and Planned Unit Developments). HPAC reviews are conducted with a focus on preserving the integrity of historic structures and maintaining the unified architectural character of historic neighborhoods. Committee actions are appealable directly to the City Council. The Committee consists of seven members with a wide variety of knowledge relevant to historic preservation. Current members of the HPAC have worked in construction, architecture, real estate, and landscaping, and many of the members are active in community groups. The Committee meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month so as to provide expedient review of development requests. In 2021, the HPAC held a total of 30 meetings, which included 22 regular public meetings, 7 special called public meetings (including a work session with the Building Advisory Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
206
File #: 22-0194 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.
public meetings, 7 special called public meetings (including a work session with the Building Advisory Committee), and 1 work session with the Visalia City Council. This is likely the most of any City committee/commission operating today, and second only to the City Council itself.

Discussion:

In 2021, the HPAC took a number of actions to administer the goals and policies of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Element. This consisted of reviews of applicable construction and planning projects, initiatives to update the Local Register of Historic Structures and the Historic Preservation District Ordinance, and advocacy for the placement of signage denoting the locations of the Historic District. The actions of the Committee are described below. Directives from the Visalia City Council’s 2021 Committees/Commissions Work Sessions will also be addressed.

Project Reviews
In 2021, the HPAC conducted a total of 19 project reviews. Items reviewed by the HPAC consisted of a wide range of residential and commercial projects, including proposals for new residences and accessory dwelling units, the renovation of an existing building for an outpatient surgery center, and rooftop shade structures for the Darling Hotel. All projects, as well as decisions rendered by the HPAC, are described in Attachment No. 1.

Long Range Projects
As the result of demolition of the Odell-Mor Building (209 N. Encina Street), the HPAC embarked on two projects to strengthen its ability to preserve historic buildings. The two projects are an update to Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District Ordinance) and an update to the Local Register of Historic Structures. The projects are described below.

Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
In early 2021, the Visalia City Council directed the HPAC to provide recommendations for revision of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance. As a result, the HPAC began to devise recommendations to address various deficiencies of the Ordinance. Work sessions were held with the City Council on October 4, 2021, and February 22, 2022, and Building Advisory Committee on November 17, 2021, to discuss and refine the recommendations. At the completion of the sessions, six areas were identified as requiring revision. The proposed revisions are as follows:

1. Update the Ordinance so that “Background”Local Register structures located outside the Historic District are subject to HPAC review. Currently these structures are exempt from HPAC review unless proposed for demolition.

2. Grant HPAC the ability to deny demolition requests for properties within the Historic District or Local Register. Currently the HPAC is compelled to approve demolitions requests. The HPAC can only deny a demolition request when the structure is listed as “Exceptional”on the Local Register.

3. Add definitions for Local Register classifications to the Ordinance. As present Local Register classification definitions are only found within the Historic Preservation Element of the Visalia General Plan.

4. Add specific criteria for the evaluation of fencing proposals. At present language within the Ordinance is vague. Language will be added to be inclusive of a larger range of fencing types, Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
207
File #: 22-0194 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Ordinance is vague. Language will be added to be inclusive of a larger range of fencing types, while preserving historic integrity.

5. Limit the percentage of paved surfaces allowed within front yard areas. The intent is to preserve landscaping in front yard areas, with an eye towards preserving historic aesthetics.

6. Change the frequency of Local Register reviews. This would change the requirement to conduct Local Register reviews from an annual basis to every five years.

Local Register of Historic Structures Update
In conjunction with the above, the HPAC also embarked on an update to the Local Register of Historic Structures, a task which had not been undertaken in any capacity since 2013.

Each structure on the Local Register has been previously assigned a “classification”based on physical attributes and historical significance. With this project the HPAC reviewed each structure on the Local Register to determine whether the appropriate classification was applied. The three classification types are as follows:
· Exceptional: Sites with preeminent historical significance, considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
· Focus: Sites having significant value, of good to excellent quality, considered for local recognition.
· Background: Properties that may not be historically significant or unique, but which contribute positively to the City’s “visual fabric”.

Site visits by all members of the HPAC, staff, and volunteers were conducted for all 368 sites on the Local Register. This involved photographing each structure, noting any physical changes, cross- referencing with previous surveys, speaking to members of the public, and providing a recommendation on what classification should be applied. Public notices were sent to all owners and occupants of Local Register sites to ensure public knowledge of HPAC activities. Surveys were completed in late 2021, with evaluations of the sites by the HPAC completed in 2022.

Public Outreach Meeting
At the request of the City Council, the HPAC also conducted a public outreach meeting on March 30, 2022, to answer questions and solicit comment on the Historic Preservation District Ordinance update and Local Register of Historic Structures update. Notice of the meeting was sent to all property owners and occupants of sites within the Historic District and Local Register, resulting in a meeting that was well attended. Comments received consisted of a recommendation to not alter the frequency of Local Register reviews and clarifying questions regarding fencing and landscaping changes. All comments were collected by staff for possible incorporation into the two projects. Note that additional public notification will occur as part of the public hearing processes for the Historic Preservation District Ordinance update and Local Register of Historic Structures update.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
208
File #: 22-0194 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Next Steps
Both projects require review by the HPAC, and a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Visalia City Council. HPAC review was completed at a specially called meeting held May 26, 2022. At that meeting, the Committee recommended approval of both projects to the Visalia Planning Commission. The Visalia Planning Commission is scheduled to hear both items at its July 11, 2022, meeting. Final authority to approve the ordinance changes and certify the Local Register changes resides with the Visalia City Council. City Council review of the two projects is expected to occur between August and September 2022.

Historic Street Signage Project
In 2021, the City and HPAC took multiple actions to promote wider knowledge of historic preservation and its applicability to certain areas of the city. This included the annual mailing of an HPAC informational guide to property owners and occupants of historically designated properties and coordination with local media for the dissemination of stories highlighting historic preservation topics.

In support of these efforts, HPAC members recommended to the City Council during the October 4, 2021, Work Session that signage be placed identifying the location of the Historic District. The idea was roundly supported by members of the City Council.

Subsequently on November 15, 2021, the City Council allocated funds for the placement of “Historic District”street blade signage. Installation of street blades was completed in early 2022 and included placement on approximately 100 existing street name sign or utility poles throughout the Historic District by Public Works Department staff. The overall public response to the placement of historic wayfinding signage has been positive.
2021 Committees/Commissions Work Sessions
On May 3, 2021, the City Council Sub-Committee on Committees/Commissions shared its recommendations for the overhaul of City committees and commissions. The Sub-Committee issued 10 directives for committees/commissions to consider or specifically integrate into their operations.

The applicable directives, and HPAC’s efforts for incorporation, are described below.

1. Geographical Diversity
The Sub-Committee recommended that when committees/commissions recruit or evaluate new members for service, that consideration be given to increasing geographical diversity, meaning that membership reside throughout all City quadrants.

For the HPAC, given its limited jurisdiction, it is recommended that when possible, preference be given to committee applicants who reside in the Historic District or on a site on the Local Register. At present, two of the seven members currently on the HPAC reside within the Historic District. When interviewing potential members to fill a recent vacancy, the HPAC did take into account that a candidate lived within the Historic District. That candidate was ultimately nominated to serve on the HPAC..

2. Mission Statements
The Sub-Committee requested that committees/commissions present mission statements to guide Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
209
File #: 22-0194 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.
their work plan for each year.

The HPAC is one of the few committees/commissions that has an Ordinance within the Visalia Municipal Code, providing guidance on HPAC activities. Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 (Historic Preservation District Ordinance) is included as Attachment No. 2.

3. Work Program and Report
The Sub-Committee requested that committees/commissions develop a work program for the upcoming fiscal year and prepare an annual report describing the work conducted in the previous year.

The annual report before the City Council today describes all activities conducted by the HPAC in 2021. For 2022, the HPAC has identified the following objectives to pursue:
· Completion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update. · Completion of the Local Register of Historic Structures Update. · Research the benefits and feasibility of applying to become a Certified Local Government (CLG). The CLG program is a national program administered by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) designed to encourage best planning practices in local government for the identification, registration, and preservation of historic properties.

Potential benefits include grant funding for preservation activities and technical assistance from experienced professionals.
· Continuance of project reviews for sites within the Historic District and on the Local Register.
· Begin research and processes to add sites to the Local Register of Historic Structures. · Obtain approval of a proclamation denoting May 2022 as “National Historic Preservation Month” (Item completed as of May 2, 2022). · Send historic preservation information to all owners/occupants of sites within the City of Visalia listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

4. Technical Advice to the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee The Sub-Committee requested that the HPAC and the Building Advisory Committee (BAC) develop a streamlined process for the BAC to provide timely input on construction proposals slated to go before the HPAC.

The HPAC held a joint meeting with the BAC on November 17, 2021, to discuss the above directive.

BAC members noted that the missions of each committee where not in sync, as the HPAC is tasked with matters of architectural design, while the BAC works with interpretation of the Building Code.

The Committees agreed that cooperation between the two groups would be best utilized for the evaluation of significant demolition proposals, with the option for reviews of other proposals if deemed necessary by the HPAC. A process was defined and agreed to in which staff would convene a sub-committee from each group to solicit comment to be shared with the HPAC whenever a significant demolition request was received. Members for each group were assigned to serve on the subcommittee (Michael Kreps and Jay Hohlbauch with the HPAC, and Dennis Whistler and Stuart Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
210
File #: 22-0194 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.
subcommittee (Michael Kreps and Jay Hohlbauch with the HPAC, and Dennis Whistler and Stuart Hendricks for the BAC, with Martin Hale acting as an Alternate). This process was chosen as it provides for greater meeting flexibility, as the full membership of the BAC only meets on a quarterly basis. It also ensures that project reviews continue to be conducted in a timely manner, removing the need for applicants to undergo two public hearings (HPAC and BAC) instead of one.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Prior Council Action:

1. At the February 16, 2021, meeting of the City Council, during presentation of the 2020 HPAC Annual Report, members of the Council directed the HPAC to provide recommendations for the revision of the Historic Preservation District Ordinance.

2. At the March 1, 2021, City Council Committee/Commission Work Session, the HPAC was encouraged to undertake projects related to their mission. A request was made by members of the City Council for the HPAC to consider reviewing the Historic Preservation District Ordinance for potential changes.

3. At the October 4, 2021, City Council and Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Work Session, direction was provided by the Council regarding proposed revisions to the Historic Preservation District Ordinance. The Council directed the Committee to meet with the Building Advisory Committee, solicit comment, and return to the Council for a follow-up work session

4. At the February 22, 2022, City Council and Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Work Session, the HPAC presented comments provided by the Building Advisory Committee on proposed revisions to the Historic Preservation District Ordinance. The Council provided additional comment and directed the HPAC to pursue a Zone Text Amendment to revise the Historic Preservation District Ordinance.

Committee/Commission Review and Action:

The Historic Preservation Advisory Committee discussed the preparation and content of this annual report at their April 27, 2022, meeting.

Alternatives: None.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to accept the 2021 Annual Report from the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee.

CEQA Review: Not applicable.

Attachments:

1. Historic Preservation Advisory Committee - Project Reviews 2021

2. Historic Preservation District Ordinance

3. Historic District & Local Register Map

4. Committee Member List
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
211
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
City of Visalia
Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
Project Reviews – 2021

PROJECT
NUMBER

MEETING

DATE(S)

LOCATION PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

DECISION
HPAC No.
2021-01
2/10/2021,
5/26/2021
708 South
Church
Street
A request to
construct a new
single-family
residence with a
second-story
accessory
dwelling unit on a
vacant lot.
2/10/2021 – Item continued to solicit additional
architectural elements for the structure.
5/26/2021 – Revised proposal with additional
architectural amenities approved.

HPAC No.
2021-02
3/10/2021,
3/18/2021
719 North
Highland
Street
A request to
replace windows
and fencing for
an existing
single-family
residence.
3/10/2021 – Item continued to provide applicant
time to redesign the fence and provide an alternate
method to maintain the window muntin feature on
the front exterior windows.
3/18/2021 – HPAC approved the revised fence
proposal and replacement of eighteen rear and side
windows. For the ten windows with muntin features,
the HPAC approved repair of the existing windows
and use of compression/storm windows to improve
energy efficiency.

HPAC No.
2021-03
3/10/2021 810 North
Highland
Street
A request to
construct a new
wrought iron
fence for an
existing single -
family residence.

Approved with a condition requiring additional
ornamentation on the fence.

HPAC No.
2021-04
4/28/2021 801 West
Noble
Avenue
A request to
construct a new
wood fence for
an existing
single-family
residence.

Item approved.

212
HPAC No.
2021-05
5/12/2021,
5/26/2021
810 South
Stevenson
Street
A request to
construct a new
wood fence for
an existing
single-family
residence.
5/12/2021 – HPAC had questions about the design
of the fencing. Since the applicant did not attend the
meeting, the item was continued to provide the
applicant with an opportunity to provide comment.
5/26/2021 – The applicant attended the meeting
and provided multiple fencing samples for review.

The i tem was subsequently continued a second
time to give the applicant an opportunity to choose
a specific style of fencing for review.
3/1/2022 – Staff contacted the applicant for an
update on the project. The applicant stated that they
were still cons idering how to proceed. No other
contact has been received since that time.

HPAC No.
2021-06
5/12/2021 415 West
Race
Avenue
A request to
conduct a reroof
for an existing
single-family
residence,
replacing wood
shake roofing
material with
composition
shingles.

Item approved.

HPAC No.
2021-07
5/12/2021 622 South
Church
Street
A request to
convert an
existing carport
into an
accessory
dwelling unit on a
site with a
duplex.

Item approved with conditions for additional
architectural elements and the remo val of a ramp
and storage building.

213
HPAC No. 2021-08,
HPAC No. 2021-14
5/26/2021
8/11/2021,
8/25/2021,
10/13/2021
511 West
Goshen
Avenue
HPAC No. 2021-08 – A
request to construct a
five-foot-tall chain link
fence for an existing
single-family residence.

HPAC No. 2021-14 – A
request to construct a
five-foot tall chain link
fence, with a Variance
to fence height
standards, for an
existing single -family
residence.

HPAC No. 2021-08
5/26/2021 – Proposal denied due to
incompatibility with the Histori c
District and residence, and non -
compliance with development
standards for height.

HPAC No. 2021-14
8/11/2021 – The initial submittal was
for consideration of a four -foot-tall
wood fence. During the meeting the
applicant requested a continuance to
revise the application for
reconsideration of the five -foot tall
chain link fence. The item was
subsequently continued to the
meeting of 8/25/2021.
8/25/2021 – The item was continued
for a second time in order for the
HPAC to receive guidance from the
Visalia Ci ty Council on fencing
during a work session scheduled for
10/4/2021.
10/13/2021 – Based on guidance
from the Visalia City Council, the
HPAC approved the chain link fence
design, and recommended denial of
the fence height Variance request to
the Visalia Planning Commission.
11/29/2021 – Following the HPAC
public hearings, the applicant
worked with staff and obtained
approval of an Administrative
Adjustment, allowing for placement
of the chain link fence to a height of
4 feet, 8 inches.

214
HPAC No. 2021-09 5/26/2021 111 East
Noble
Avenue
A request for a
Conditional Use Permit
and Variance to
remodel an existing
building and establish
an outpatient surgery
center, with a six -foot-
tall wrought iron fence
within the front yard
setback.

The HPAC recommended appr oval
of the Conditional Use Permit and
Variance requests to the Visalia
Planning Commission. The proposal
was subsequently approved by the
Planning Commission on 3/14/2022.

HPAC No. 2021-10 7/14/2021 714 West
Goshen
Avenue
A request to construct a
new chain link fence for
an existing single -
family residence.

A motion by the HPAC to deny the
request resulted in a tied 3-3 vote, as
one member was absent. As a
result, the motion to deny the
proposal failed, and the project was
approved automatically.

HPAC No. 2021-11 7/14/2021 210 North
Court Street
A request to develop
rooftop shade pergola s
for the Darling Hotel
building.

Item approved.

HPAC No. 2021-12 7/28/2021 801 West
Myrtle
Avenue
A request to demolish
and rebuild a patio
cover for an existing
single-family residence.

Item approved with a condition to
comply with side yard setback
standards.

HPAC No. 2021-13 8/11/2021 632 N.

Encina
Street
A request to replace an
exterior door for an
existing single -family
residence.

Item approved with a condition that
the door lockset maintain an antique
aesthetic.

HPAC No. 2021-15 8/11/2021 1120 West
Main Street
A request to demolish a
fence for an existing
office.

Item approved with a condition to
remove the remaining foundation
areas of the fence.

HPAC No. 2021-16 9/22/2021 315 West
Race
Avenue
A request to construct a
new wrought iron fence
for an existing single -
family residence.

Item approved.
215
HPAC No. 2021-17 10/13/2021 120 West
School
Avenue
A request to remove
and replace wall siding
with stucco on a
storage building.

Item approved with a condition that
the new vent be similar in
appearance to the original vent.

HPAC No. 2021-18 10/13/2021 1304 West
Center
Avenue
A request for the
addition of
approximately 500 sq.
ft. of
office/reception/storage
space to an existing
office building.

Proposal was removed from
consideration because it was not
subject to HPAC review. Site is a
“Background” Local Register
structure located outside the Historic
District. As such it is only sub ject to
HPAC review when proposed for
demolition.

HPAC No. 2021-19 10/27/2021 724 South
Court Street
A request to construct
new wrought iron and
wood fencing for an
existing church.

Item approved with conditions
requiring the fence to match existing
fencing onsite, and that the height be
reduced to meet development
standards.

HPAC No. 2021-20 12/8/2021 310 West
Murray
Avenue
A request for the
approval of stone caps
on an existing
monument sign.

The proposal was denied based on
incompatibility with the existing
monument sign and office building
onsite, and inconsistency with
conditions previously applied to the
approval of the original monument
sign on 9/9/2020 via HPAC No.
2020-06.

The applicant consulted with staff
and obtained stone caps that were
approved by staff on 2/24/2022.

216
Chapter 17.56

HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT
Sections:

17.56.010 Purposes and intent.

17.56.020 Components of the chapter.

17.56.030 Definitions.

17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

17.56.050 Creation of historic preservation advisory committee.

17.56.060 Appeal.

17.56.070 Demolition or moving of historic structures.

17.56.080 Ordinary maintenance and repair.

17.56.090 Exceptions to Visalia Municipal Code requirements.

17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.

17.56.110 Local register structures.

17.56.120 Role of building official.

17.56.130 Separability.

17.56.010 Purposes and intent.

A. There is created a historic district, the boundaries of which are shown on the two maps entitled, "Historic District Overlay," which accompany the ordinance codified in this chapter and which are on file in the office of the city clerk, on the 19th day of November, 1979 and dated 19th day of November, 1979. Said maps are adopted and made a part of this chapter.

B. This chapter is enacted to preserve and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city, and to express the commitment of the city to assure that the city's cultural heritage, as reflected in its historic structures, sites, and features is not destroyed, through:

1. The protection and preservation of historic structures;

2. The preservation and maintenance of historic residential areas as cohesive neighborhood units;

3. The enhancement of property values in the older areas of the city;

4. The assurance that the community's cultural heritage, as reflected in the environment, is not lost;

5. The encouragement of the development of vacant and incompatibly developed properties in accordance with the character of the historic district;

6. The involvement of residents of the older areas in planning their own neighborhoods. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7700)

17.56.020 Components of the chapter.

This chapter shall include:

1. The ordinance, which specifies the historic district overlay designation, design evaluation criteria, and the formation, powers and duties of a historic preservation advisory committee;

2. Creation of a local register of historic structures, sites and features that may be modified from time to time by resolution of the city council.

3. Two maps that designate the historic district overlay. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7701)

17.56.030 Definitions.

A. All definitions, general and specific, set forth in Section 17.04.030 shall be applicable to this chapter.

B. Definitions.
"Construction" means any building activity requiring the issuance of a building permit, except for any activity that does not affect the exterior appearance of the structure.
217
"Enlargement" means construction that results in the expansion of the gross floor area of a structure. "Historic structure" means a structure listed on the Local Register. "Local register" means the listing of local historic structures, sites and features adopted by the city council and maintained by the historic preservation advisory committee, and incorporated herein by reference. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7702)

17.56.040 Regulation of structures.

No structure shall be constructed, altered or enlarged that is located in the historic district or that is listed as an "exceptional" or "focus" structure on the local register and is located outside the historic district, unless such a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter. No structure listed on the local register shall be moved or demolished unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7703)

17.56.050 Creation of historic preservation advisory committee.

In order to execute the purposes declared in this chapter, there is created a historic preservation advisory committee.

A. Committee Membership.

1. The historic preservation advisory committee shall consist of seven members appointed by the city council to serve without compensation. All committee members shall be residents of the city at the time of their appointment and will lose their position if they move outside the city limits during their term of office. Members shall be appointed on the basis of:
a. Relevant professional or business qualifications;
b. Ownership of property within the historic district; c. Practical experience in restoration or preservation; d. Exceptional civic interest.
e. Terms of office shall be for two years.

2. Vacancies that may occur on the committee shall be filled by appointment of a new member of the city council for the duration of the unexpired term of office. The Council has the option of appointing up to two Historic Preservation Advisory Committee alternates. Should a mid-term vacancy occur, an alternate may automatically fill the unexpired term. The council shall also have the power to remove any member from the committee by an affirmative vote of three council members.

3. Four members of the committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

B. Procedures for the Review of Applications. The operating procedures of the historic preservation advisory committee shall be prescribed from time to time by resolution of the city council, for the purpose of carrying into effect the standards and specifications of this chapter. The committee may adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations governing the conduct of its meetings, as long as said rules do not violate the procedures established by the city council or the terms of this chapter.

C. Duties and Responsibilities. The historic preservation advisory committee shall review applications only as specified in this chapter, consistent with the rules and regulations adopted from time to time by resolution of the city council (as referred to in Section 17.56.050(B)). Applications shall be approved or disapproved based solely on the considerations set forth in this chapter. It is the intent of this chapter that the historic preservation advisory committee shall encourage applicants to make alterations and repairs to structures in the spirit of the architectural style of the structure. The duties and responsibilities of the historic preservation advisory committee shall include the following:

1. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all proposed zoning actions (zone changes, conditional use permits, special zoning exceptions, planned unit developments and variances) within the historic district. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval, modification or disapproval of an application based upon the expected impact of the proposed zoning action on the historic or architectural significance of the affected structure(s), neighborhood, or the entire historic district. The committee's recommendation shall be forwarded to the planning commission for its consideration.

2. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for site plan review permits within the historic district for compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Items that shall be subject to review by the committee include but are not limited to vehicular access, location and screening of parking, setbacks, location of service use areas, walls and landscaping. The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval, disapproval or resubmittal of the site plan review permit application. The committee's recommendation shall be forwarded to the site plan review committee for its consideration.

3. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the construction or exterior alteration or enlargement of structures within the historic district or for structures located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" structures on the local register. The committee shall have the power to approve, modify or disapprove such applications before a building permit can be issued, subject to the provisions of Sections

17.56.100 and 17.56.110.
218

4. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for sign permits within the historic district or for properties located outside the historic district and listed as "exceptional" or "focus" on the local register.

The committee may recommend approval, conditional approval or denial of the sign permit application based upon the proposed design and/or materials, but not upon the proposed size or location. The application shall then be presented to the proper issuing authority for sign permits, pursuant to Chapter 17.48. Sign permits shall be issued only in compliance with the recommendation of the committee. Approval by the committee in no way implies approval by the issuing authority for sign permits, whose approval must also be secured pursuant to Chapter 17.48.

5. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to review all applications for the moving or demolition of structures listed on the local register. The committee shall have the power to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove such applications, subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.130.

6. It shall be the duty of the historic preservation advisory committee to compile and update the historic survey and inventory, and to nominate properties to the local register and the National Register of Historic Places. In selecting properties for nomination to the local register, the board shall consider:
a. Architectural significance and style;
b. Historic significance, including age of structure, original owners, and events related to the structure, site or original owners.

The committee shall review the local register annually, make recommendations for the addition or deletion of structures or sites, and submit said recommendations to the planning commission and city council for certification.

7. Permits may be issued for air conditioners, electrical work and plumbing work that is visible from a public right-of-way when the chief building official determines that the work insignificantly affects the exterior of a structure, or that reasonable alternatives as to location or screening have been employed. The building official may forward to the historic preservation advisory committee applications for permits for this type of work when it appears that the appearance of a structure may be significantly altered. This subsection shall not apply to the following types of permit applications:

1. Reroofing with like materials;

2. Residing with like materials;

3. Swimming pools;

4. Masonry repairs with like materials;

5. Chimney repair with like materials. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2008-11 § 1, 2008: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001:
prior code § 7704)

17.56.060 Appeal.

Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision of the historic preservation advisory committee may make an appeal in writing therefrom to the city council within ten days of said action. The city council, after proceeding in the manner as provided therein and with the same power and authority there invested in passing upon appeals before it under the provisions of law and this chapter and in the exercise thereof, may reverse, affirm or modify or affirm as modified the action of the historic preservation advisory committee. Appeals of a decision of the site plan review committee shall be filed with the planning commission in the manner prescribed in Section 17.28.050. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7705)

17.56.070 Demolition or moving of historic structures.

A. The demolition of structures listed on the local register, and the moving of local register structures from their sites, shall be discouraged. The historic preservation advisory committee shall review all applications for demolition or moving permits for structures on the local register and for any structures within the historic district boundaries.

B. After due consideration, the committee shall exercise one of the options listed below:

1. The committee may approve the demolition permit if it finds that the structure is a hazard to public health or safety, as determined by the building official or his designee, in consultation with the historic preservation advisory committee.

2. The committee may decide that up to a six-month moratorium be placed upon the processing of the demolition or moving permit, in order to allow time for the applicant and the committee to find alternative uses for the structure and to seek alternative solutions to the demolition or moving of the structure. If no alternatives are found, after the six-month moratorium has expired, the committee must approve the application.

3. In the case of local register structures that have been classified as "exceptional," the committee may deny an application for demolition, after the six-month moratorium has expired. Denial of a demolition permit by the committee is subject to appeal to the city council pursuant to Section 17.56.060.

4. The committee may approve the application.

C. When an application is acted upon, the committee shall notify the building official of the approval, conditional approval or denial. Upon receipt of said notification, the building official shall process the application accordingly. If, after six months 219
from the date of filing of the application, the building official has not received such notification, a permit may be issued.

Approval of a permit application by the committee in no way implies approval by the building official, whose approval must also be secured. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7706)

17.56.080 Ordinary maintenance and repair.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair of any structure within the historic district; provided such work involves no change that requires issuance of a building permit. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition of any feature that, in the view of the proper authority acting lawfully, is required for the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7708)

17.56.090 Exceptions to Visalia Municipal Code requirements.

Due to the peculiar conditions of design and construction in historic neighborhoods where structures were sometimes built close to lot lines, and where ownership patterns have changed over the years, it is sometimes in the public interest to retain the historic appearance of a neighborhood by making an exception to normal setback, parking, landscaping, fencing and screening requirements of the Visalia Municipal Code, where such an exception does not interfere with the public health or safety. Within the historic district, where it is deemed that such an exception is warranted and will not adversely affect neighboring properties, the historic preservation advisory committee may initiate and/or recommend to the planning commission that such exception to Visalia Municipal Code requirements be made. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7709)

17.56.100 Building design compatibility criteria.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for new construction and sign permits within the historic district, and for any rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargement affecting the exterior appearance of any structure within the historic district that is not listed on the local register, which requires the issuance of a building permit.

Each application shall be considered in terms of its compatibility or complementariness with a majority of structures in the immediately surrounding area. In reviewing an application, the historic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general design standards and principles:

A. Height and Scale. New buildings should be constructed to a height within a reasonable average height of existing adjacent buildings.

B. Spacing of Buildings on Street. A rhythm of recurrent building masses to separations should be retained.

C. Relationship of Materials and Textures. Choice of building materials and texture (smooth and rough) should enhance the desired neighborhood qualities such as compatibility, similarity and continuity.

D. Relationship of Architectural Details and Roof Shapes. Choice of architectural details and roof shape should insure compatible appearance with surrounding structures.

E. Walls of Continuity. Physical ingredients such as brick walls, wrought iron fences, and evergreen landscape masses should be used to form continuous cohesive walls of enclosure along the street.

F. Landscaping. Landscaping should reflect the predominant quality and quantity of landscaping within the surrounding area. The concern here is more with mass and continuity.

G. Directional Expression of Front Elevations. Structural shape, placement of openings, and architectural details should be used to give a compatible appearance with adjacent structures that may be horizontal, vertical or nondirectional in nature. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7710)

17.56.110 Local register structures.

This section contains criteria for reviewing all applications for building permits for exterior rehabilitation, renovation, alteration, reconstruction, or enlargement of any local register structure within the historic district, or any "exceptional" or "focus" local register structure outside the historic district, and for any interior modification that requires the issuance of a building permit for a publicly owned and publicly accessible local register structure. In reviewing an application, the historic preservation advisory committee shall consider the following general standards and principles:

A. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal alteration of the building structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose.

B. 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 features should be avoided when possible.

C. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historic basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.

D. Changes, which may have taken place in the course of time, are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected.
220
E. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure or site, shall be treated with sensitivity.

F. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.

G. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken, without prior approval of the historic preservation advisory committee.

H. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction project. (Ord. 2710 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7711)

17.56.120 Role of building official.

A. The building official shall refuse to issue all building or sign permits based upon an application disapproved by the historic preservation advisory committee, unless such application is later approved by the city council. The building official may approve any application approved or conditionally approved by the committee at such time as any conditions specified in such conditional approval are clearly indicated by the applicant on the plans presented to the building official for approval.

If an appeal to the city council is filed within ten days from the date of committee approval of an application, no permit shall be issued until the outcome of said appeal is finally determined by the city council.

B. After a building permit has been issued, the building official or his/her designee shall from time to time inspect the construction, alteration or enlargement approved by the committee and shall take such action as is necessary to assure compliance with the approved plans. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7712)

17.56.130 Separability.

The provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be severable, and if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of the court shall not impair any of the remaining provisions. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 2001-13 § 4 (part), 2001: prior code § 7707) 221
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!( !(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!( !(!(!(
!( !(!(!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!( !(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(!( !( !(!(!(
!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(
!( !( !(!( !(
!(!(
Hwy 198
W Myrtle Ave
W Murray Ave
W Kaweah Ave
W Center Ave
W Mineral King Ave
W Tulare Ave
S Giddings St
N Court St
N Floral St
E Main St
N Bridge St
S Mooney Blvd
N Santa Fe St
N Locust St
S Bridge StS Locust St
W Burrel Ave
N Encina St
S Conyer St
E Race Ave
N Garden St
W Laurel Ave
S Church St
W Grove Ave
E Noble Ave
S Sowell St
S Watson St
E Tulare Ave
S Encina St
E Center Ave
E School Ave
E Murray Ave
W Beverly Dr
N Church St
S Garden St
E Oak Ave
E Acequia Ave
N Jacob St
W Acequia Ave
NE 1st Ave
S Divisadero St
W Goshen Ave
N Tipton St
S Santa Fe St
W School Ave
W Race Ave
N Park St
NW 1st Ave
N Leslie St
W Meadow Ave
S Oak Park St
Alley
E Mineral King Ave
NE 2nd Ave
N Turner St
W College Ave
NW 2nd Ave
Pearl St
N Fairway St
N Johnson St
W Main St
W Green Acres Dr
S West St
E Cypress Ave
N West St
N Rinaldi St
N Willis St
S Willis St
Granite St
E Laurel Ave
N Mooney Blvd
E Myrtle AveS Jacob St
S Court St
W Noble Ave
N Giddings St
N Conyer St
E Douglas Ave
E Kaweah Ave
S Liberty St
W Pershing Ave
W Sunset Dr
N Midland St
W Hyde Ave
S Dollner St
S Central St
N Highland St
W Club Dr
S Johnson St
NE 3rd Ave
N Hall St
NW 3rd Ave
W Sady Ave
E Grove Ave
W Westcott Ave
S Stevenson St
N Todd St
S Elm St
S Floral St
W Switzer Ave
S Tipton St
Ash St
S Shady St
W Linden Ave
S Bonnie St
S Clark St
N Stevenson St
W Olive Ave
Pine St
W Sierra Ave
E Sequoia Ave
W Manor Dr
Grape St
W Oak Ave
N Dudley St
N Divisadero St
S Martin St
W Sanders Ave
N Liberty St
E Willow Ave
S Edwards Ct
Private St
W Willow Ave
N Highland St
Alley
W Laurel Ave
Alley
Alley
S Tipton St
Alley
Alley
Alley
N Conyer St
Alley
E Cypress Ave
Alley
Alley
S Stevenson St
Alley
S Court St
W Goshen Ave
Alley
W Mineral King Ave
N Dudley St
S Conyer St
Alley
W Grove Ave
Alley
N Divisadero St
S Central St
S Church St
N Liberty St
W Oak Ave
E Myrtle Ave
Alley
S Bridge St
S Willis St
N Willis St
S Johnson St
E Laurel Ave
N Turner St
N Stevenson St
Alley
Alley
Alley
E Myrtle Ave
W School Ave
N Divisadero St
W Oak Ave
W Laurel Ave
N West St
S Martin St
N Rinaldi St
W Myrtle Ave
W School Ave
W Tulare Ave
N Conyer St
N Hall St
Alley
Alley
E Sequoia Ave
S Locust St
S Clark St
N Stevenson StAlley
Alley
W Noble Ave
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
W Kaweah Ave
Alley
Alley
N Hall St
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
S Dollner St
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
N Giddings St
N Jacob St
E Douglas Ave
N Stevenson St

MILL CREEK
H i s t o r i c
D i s t r i c t &
L o c a l
R e g i s t e r
M a p
City Limits
Streets
Railroad
Waterways
Parcels
!( Local Registry
Historical District
0 600 1200300
Feet
¨
222

CITY OF VISALIA

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TERMS

1. Kreps, Michael
a. 1st term: 3/2019 – 6/2020
b. 2nd term: 7/2020 – 6/2022

2. Kane, Pat
a. 1st term: 4/2018 – 6/2020
b. 2nd term: 7/2020 – 6/2022

3. Davis, Tyler
a. 1st term: 6/2021 – 6/2022

4. Mitchell, Marilynn
a. 1st term: 7/2019 – 6/2021
b. 2nd term: 8/2021 – 6/2023

5. Jay Hohlbauch
a. 1st term: 7/2020 – 6/2022

6. Walter Deissler
a. 1st term: 8/2020 – 6/2022

7. Jordan Mulrooney
a. Partial Term: 5/2022 – 6/2022 (Completing existing term of member who resigned). b. 1st term: 7/2022 – 6/2024

Late updated 5/3/2022.

223
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0245 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

Presentation on pro-active efforts being undertaken to deter the use of illegal fireworks.

Deadline for Action: 6/20/2022
Submitting Department: Fire Department
Contact Name and Phone Number: Corbin Reed, Fire Marshal 559-713-4272 Department Recommendation:

Accept presentation on pre-4th of July efforts to deter the use of illegal fireworks in the community.

Background Discussion:

As Independence Day draws closer and celebrations begin, the Visalia Fire Department is coordinating pro-active City staff efforts to implement Council policy and deter the use of illegal fireworks.

In 2021, Council substantially increased the fines issued for the use of illegal fireworks in the City of Visalia. The fee structure now begins at $2,000 for the first violation, escalates to $3,000 for the second violation, and to $4,000 for the third violation and each additional violation. Violations are tracked over a three-year period meaning, if a resident received a citation last year for $2,000, and is cited again this year, this year’s citation will be for $3,000.

For the 2022 fireworks season, the Fire Department is again focusing on preventing the use of illegal fireworks within the City of Visalia. Multiple social media messages are designed and will be shared across all City of Visalia social media platforms. Banners with information pertaining to fines for the use of illegal fireworks will be hung at all Visalia fire stations, and posters with fine information and how to report the use of illegal fireworks will be hung at all City facilities with public access. The website, www.visalia.city/celebratesafely, has been updated and provides a map showing the locations of all permitted Safe and Sane fireworks booths in the City of Visalia. Additionally, the website provides safety tips for safe and sane fireworks use and pet safety. The website also provides the address of each fire station to encourage citizens to anonymously drop off illegal fireworks at Visalia fire stations for safe disposal.

During the week of June 20th, fire department personnel will be hanging door hangers in the neighborhoods of the community impacted by illegal fireworks use. Approximately 2,500 door hangers will be placed in areas with high reports of use this year and in areas with high numbers of citations last year. The purpose of the door hangers is to provide community members with statistics on illegal fireworks use, information on the fines for the use of illegal fireworks, and the phone number to report the use of illegal fireworks.

A call center will again be established the evenings of July 3rd and 4th. The call center consists of 10 Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
224
File #: 22-0245 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 3.
dedicated call-takers inputting the reports of illegal fireworks into a mapping system that feeds the information directly to patrol units in the field. The call center serves two purposes. First, the call center lowers the illegal fireworks burden on Dispatch during this exceptionally busy holiday and allows dispatchers to focus on standard operations and calls for service. Second, the call center provides a robust system for citizens to report their concern to a City employee.

In addition, the City has partnered with the Visalia Rawhide to enhance a Fourth of July fireworks show that will be displayed after dusk, at the conclusion of the baseball game. The public will be able to gather in Recreation Park to view the show and enjoy the sense of community. The public is encouraged to bring their own chairs or blankets and gather on the lawn in Recreation Park on Jacob Street to enjoy the show.

Although staff is currently seeing a downward trend in reports once again this year, there will be dedicated patrols throughout the month of June with a significant unit increase around the Independence Day holiday. Staff is partnering with the Visalia Police Department for both preventive efforts and enforcement during patrol details. Each dedicated patrol unit will consist of a Visalia Police Officer and Visalia Fire Department member.

Enforcement, prevention, and education efforts will again be a joint effort across the county with neighboring departments working together to combat illegal fireworks use throughout the valley.

In 2021, Council directed Fire Department staff to implement a rewards system as an incentive for citizens to assist with enforcement efforts. This rewards system provides a $500 reward for information leading to the citation of individuals selling illegal fireworks within the community. This rewards system helps catch individuals who are selling illegal fireworks in our community and potentially reduces the amount of illegal fireworks used within the community.

Fiscal Impact:

The City Council authorized $10,000 to enhance the fireworks show adjacent to Recreation Park, and will cover the cost of overtime incurred by having additional staff on duty to patrol on and near the 4th of July.

Prior Council Action: N/A
Other: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

No motion required.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Powerpoint presentation
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0151 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorization to read ordinances by title only.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
234
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0166 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorize the City Manager to award a sole-source professional design services contract to CWE for design of the East Side Regional Park’s(ESRP) Basin D for an amount not to exceed $275,265.18, and approve an appropriation of $324,070 from the various funds outlined within this report. (3010- 72000/CP0396-999)
Deadline for Action: 6/20/2022 to maintain the project schedule to meet the grant deadline of 8/1/2024
Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:

Rebecca Keenan, Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected], 713-4541 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], 713-4331 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to award a sole-source Professional Design Services contract to CWE for design of the ESRP’sBasin D for an amount not to exceed $275,265.18, and approve an appropriation of $324,070 from the various funds outlined within this report.

Summary:

As previously reported to the City Council at the May 2, 2022, meeting, staff has been working with CWE to design the recharge basins at the East Side Regional Park. CWE is the hydraulic modeler and designer for Basin G & F and staff now recommends that the City award the design of Basin D to CWE as well. The City obtained a $1.9 million Green Infrastructure Grant for the construction of Basin D and because of the grant’sdeadline of August 1, 2024, design needs to start as soon as possible, and for this reason, staff requests that Council act on this item today. The project will construct Recharge Basin D, pipes, structures, dry wells, trails, and grade a small portion of the park’scirculation road and lots. According to preliminary budget estimates, there are sufficient funds in this CIP to award this contract for professional design services. Construction of Basin D will go towards the goal of completing the seven (7) groundwater recharge basins located at this site.

Background Discussion:

Approximately 282 acres of property in the general area of Mineral King and Road 152 have been acquired since 2001 for a future East Side Regional Park, the future Tower Street (Road 148) Interchange with SR-198, and groundwater recharge facilities. Approximately 248 acres will be used for a regional park and groundwater recharge facilities. In 2014, the City entered into agreements with Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group and The HLA Group to create a master plan (Attachment 3) and prepare the final EIR with associated technical studies for the park and recharge portions of the property. Although the EIR process for the entire 248-acre park is still ongoing, staff Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
235
File #: 22-0166 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.
portions of the property. Although the EIR process for the entire 248-acre park is still ongoing, staff prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2019-73 to evaluate environmental impacts for the Green Infrastructure Grant, Basins D and E. This environmental document was prepared in support of a competitive grant application that was submitted to the Proposition 68 Green Infrastructure Program through the State of California Natural Resources Agency.

The City of Visalia requested $3M to fund the construction of Basins D and E, which would develop approximately 25 acres of land for public open space and ground water recharge. However, the program was not able to fund the full amount and so the Agency extended a grant award of $1,907,244 for the construction of Basin D, which the City accepted. Basin D is the smallest of the basins, at 2.5 AC, but it will serve as a settling basin for water that may eventually come directly from the nearby Mill Creek. The Basin D project will develop approximately 6.5 acres of open space around the basin, approximately 3 acres of landscaping and vegetated swales, approximately 0.3 mile of nature trail, and two dry well recharge systems. The Basin D project will also provide the pipe connection stubs to the future Basin E and to Mill Creek (Mill Creek will be realigned to a more meandering path in the future as a separate CIP). The Basin D project will provide public access from the west side of Road 152, along a new gravel paved road and parking lots which will be constructed with the project.

Sole-Source Justification:

Staff is recommending to sole-source the professional design services to CWE because of the following benefits:1) taking advantage of area topographic survey previously collected by CWE; previous hydraulic modeling; and engineering work already commenced for the area by the consultant, in terms of Basin F & G; 2) promoting efficiencies by minimizing the level of effort to bring a new consultant up to speed and avoiding overlapping work; and 3) reducing staff time and costs involved in a request for proposal process.

The consultant, CWE, is currently designing recharge Basins G and F of the master planned park.

They have the needed topographic survey information and geotechnical information to continue the design effort on Basin D. They also have worked through issues that emerged through the design of the first two basins, and can apply that learned knowledge to Basin D. For example, they have identified the processes needed for permitting of the dry wells, the basins, and for possible adjustments to the area’sditches and creeks. They have also gained valuable information regarding the City’sobjective of not only growing our groundwater recharge facilities, but also to prepare the area for the concurrent land use of a beautiful riparian area and park. This knowledge is important because it will help the team to expedite the preparation of the construction bid package.

In addition, although the original recharge basin and park master plan identify the proposed locations of the groundwater recharge basin system, this consultant has performed the actual modeling of Basins F & G, and the related pipe network system. As part of the scope of work under this contract, the consultant will expand their initial modeling to include the remaining basins, A through E.

Modeling the basins will help to ensure that each basin in the system is designed to efficiently deliver and recharge the allotted surface water. This will help the City to maximize the effectiveness of groundwater recharge and to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Act.

Finally, staff recommends the sole-source award of this professional design services contract to CWE in order to reduce staff time and costs involved in going through the City’sstandard procurement process. That process typically requires significant staff effort to prepare the request for proposals, Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
236
File #: 22-0166 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.
process. That process typically requires significant staff effort to prepare the request for proposals, issue the request, hold pre-proposal meetings, answer questions, issue addendums, go through the proposal review process, hold interviews, and formally award the professional services contract.

CWE is a design firm located in Fullerton, California that specializes in civil infrastructure, water resources, and environmental engineering services. They have successfully provided similar services on over 3,100 acres of groundwater recharge basins and have provided those communities with over 27,100 acre-feet of ground water recharge. Those projects make CWE highly qualified in groundwater recharge basin and recreational amenity design. CWE has been responsive and knowledgeable in working on the design of Basins F&G. In addition, they are working with Staff to finalize the Citywide Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP is being developed to comply with the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), General Order No. 2013-001-DWQ.

As a federal designated Phase II MS4, the City of Visalia is required to obtain coverage under an NPDES storm water permit. As part of the permit application, the City worked with CWE to develop a SWMP that addresses the six (6) minimal control measures outlined in the order. CWE is also currently working as a subconsultant to prepare updates to the existing City of Visalia Public Facility Master Plans for Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Collection. Staff reports that CWE has performed satisfactorily on these two projects.

Fiscal Impact:

Award of the Professional Design Services Agreement to CWE will fall within the currently allocated project budget and only local funds will be utilized to pay for these design services. The design phase can be used as a portion of the match for the Green Infrastructure Grant. The construction phase of the project will be paid for using Green Infrastructure Grant, and local funds will also be used to meet the match.

Staff has updated the overall project budget to reflect more current construction costs and now includes a 30% construction contingency in consideration of the volatile economy, as shown in Table 1 in the attachments.

The updated project estimate includes a 30% construction contingency, rather than the standard 10% and is a contingency based on the total of the civil and landscape construction amount. As previously noted in the May 2, 2022, staff report, the higher contingency is being applied due to increasing inflation and rising gas prices related to global geopolitical events. Therefore, this report requests an additional appropriation in anticipation of escalating costs and is discussed in further detail below.

Though this project is currently at the preliminary engineering phase; staff will update the project budget again at bid time and return any unused funds to their appropriate fund.

As a part of the grant, this project includes some ancillary recreation elements, including riparian habitat, trails, seating, gravel parking lots and gravel access road that will contribute to the overall park’s infrastructure. Staff recommends that the following funds be used for the needed appropriation of funds: Measure R Trails - 132, Rec Facilities Park Impact Fund - 211, Groundwater Recharge Fund - 224, and the Waterways Capital Fund - 261.

Following is a summary of the anticipated fund split: See table 2 in the attachments.

Table 2 shows that there is currently $422,090 allocated to this project from the Groundwater Recharge Fund 224 plus a grant amount of $1,907,244 for a total project budget of $2,329,334. Staff Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
237
File #: 22-0166 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Recharge Fund 224 plus a grant amount of $1,907,244 for a total project budget of $2,329,334. Staff recommends that an additional $324,070 be allocated from the funds shown in Table 2. This updated project budget reflects an increase due to a 30% construction contingency. If the economy stabilizes by the time this project bids, this amount may be decreased. Any unused funds will be returned to the respective fund at the end of the project, at the percentages shown above.

Prior Council Action:
· May 2, 2022 - The Council received an update of Groundwater Recharge Basins G & F and appropriated approximately $3,350,000 for Basin G; authorized the City Manager to decline a grant offer from the National Park Service (NPS) Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the amount of approximately $2.4M; authorized staff to complete design of Basin F and release any remaining City match funds back to the funds; and to pursue appropriate grant funding for the construction of groundwater recharge Basin F. · April 4, 2020 - The Council authorized the City Manager to accept and execute a grant for $1,907,244 from the Proposition 68 Green Infrastructure Program through the State of California Natural Resources Agency to construct a groundwater recharge basin with habitat improvements, create a new CIP, and appropriate associated funds.

Alternatives: None Recommended
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to award a sole-source professional design services contract to CWE for design of the ESRP Basin D, for an amount not to exceed $275,265.18, and approve the appropriation of $324,070 from the various funds outlined within this report.

Environmental Assessment Status:

CEQA Review: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2019-73 were prepared for the Green Infrastructure Grant.

Attachments:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Location Map

3. Site Master Plan B1

4. Ownership Disclosure
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
238
239
240
241
1-1 OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FOR CONTRACTORS & CONSULTANS

CITY OF VISALIA
Ownership Disclosure for Contractors and
Consultants
NAMES OF PRINCIPALS, PARTNERS, AND/OR TRUSTEES:

F
irm Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Firm Address: _______________________________________________________________________ L
ist the names of all principals, partners, and/or trustees. For corporations provide names of of ficers, directors and all stockholders owning more than 10% equity interest in corporation:
_____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ S
ubmitted by: Name __________________________________________________________ Date __________________________________________________________ CWE
1561 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 240, Fullerton, CA 92831 Vik Bapna, Chief Executive Officer
Jason Pereira, Secretary
Farooq Qureshi
June 8, 2022
242

TABLE 1
Design: Estimated Cost
State & Federal Permitting $12,010
COV Project Management + Legal/Administrative $34,850
COV Survey + Drafting $7,230
UTF Consultant Design $14,420
CIVIL Consultant Design $287,280
Design Subtotal: $355,790
Construction Estimated Cost
Civil Construction: $1,200,900
Landscape Construction: $332,600
Construction Contingency 30% $460,050
Construction Management $192,160
UTF Construction Management $15,624
Geotechnical Testing $16,820
Construction Surveying $20,420
Environmental Adherence (cultural observation) $18,020
Construction Inspection $18,020
Construction Subtotal $2,274,614
Community Access $23,000
Total Project Costs $2,653,404
BASIN D - CIP 0396

PROJECT ESTIMATE
243

TABLE 2
Basin D CP0396 Funding
% Amount Needed Current Budget
Additional
Appropriation
Needed
Match Funding: 28%
132 Measure R Trails 4% 28,010$ -$ 28,010$ 211 Rec Facilities Park Impact Fund 5% 39,630$ -$ 39,630$ 224 Groundwater Recharge Fund 89% 667,480$ 422,090$ 245,390$ 261 Waterways Capital Fund 1% 11,040$ -$ 11,040$ Total 100% 746,160$ 422,090$ 324,070$ State Proposition 68
Green Infrastructure Grant 72% 1,907,244$ 1,907,244$ -$ Totals 100% 2,653,404$ 2,329,334$ 324,070$ Total Appropriation Requested 324,070$
244
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0199 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Agenda Item Wording:

Adopt resolutions 2022-39 and 2022-40, designating a portion of City owned property located within 2 parcels of two different subdivisions; Lot “A”of Highland Park Estates subdivision and Lot “A”of Highland Park, Unit No. 2 subdivision as part of the public City Street System respectively.

Deadline for Action: 6/20/2022 - Federal funding obligation deadline. Need to complete ROW certification requiring coordination with SCE and Caltrans to complete certification and meet funding deadline of July 1, 2022.

Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:

Diego Corvera, Civil Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4209 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4331 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolutions 2022-39 and 2022-40, designating a portion of City owned property located within 2 parcels of two different subdivisions; Lot “A”of Highland Park Estates subdivision and Lot “A”of Highland Park, Unit No. 2 subdivision as part of the public City street system respectively in order to meet the federal requirements to utilize federal funding.

Background Discussion:

The Council, at their June 21st, 2021, meeting directed staff to award the design contract to 4Creeks Inc. and accepted and appropriated $2.4 million from the Federal High Improvement Program (HIP) funds for the construction of the “RigginAvenue Widening Project”from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street.

The purpose of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” is to increase vehicle capacity on Riggin Avenue by adding additional east/west lanes and to provide for an efficient flow of traffic in support of the increase in development within the surrounding area. In addition, the City Council identified this segment of Riggin Avenue from Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street as a priority transportation corridor as it was part of the “Ring-Road” concept previously identified in various City reports.

The City of Visalia acceptance of the $2.4 million from Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) federal funding for the construction of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” is contingent on finalizing the environmental phase, right-of-way certification, and construction design package which is currently on scheduled for submission in June 2022 ahead of the July 1st deadline.

Before any roadway construction can begin, the SCE transmission poles will need to be relocated to their ultimate location on the future north edge of the roadway.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
245
File #: 22-0199 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 3.

In order to relocate the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission poles, a granting of an easement to SCE is typically required to establish for the “swing and rise” and pole anchor space needed for the new transmission pole locations. As such, an easement would need to be granted to SCE to complete the Right of Way (ROW) certification ahead the July 1st deadline. However, a grant of easement is a lengthy process that requires two ordinance readings followed by a 30-day waiting period to be effective.

Because of the grant funding deadline, time is of the essence for establishing the means for relocation. Therefore, an alternative and faster approach is recommended, which is to convert the pole relocation area necessary into public ROW or in other words, the City Street System. The specific pole relocation locations were developed by SCE and based on their infrastructure requirements and coordinated with the City for mutual acceptance. Both of these parcels as shown in the attached exhibits are within the subdivision’sL&L’slandscape boundary. These parcels have been dedicated in fee to the City to be used for landscaping, public utilities, sidewalks, block walls, or for other public purposes but it is not within the public ROW. The proposed process will transfer these parcels into the public ROW, which is a public purpose that this property can be used for under the stated dedication terms. This will allow the poles to be relocated under the City’sfranchise agreement, no easements would be necessary, and would significantly streamline the ROW certification timeline for the funding to construct our project.

Please refer to the “Rightof Way Conversion Map”for the subdivision locations and areas that will be converted to ROW.

City staff has reached out to the other parcel owners, as they are privately owned, to coordinate ROW dedication or grant of easements for SCE use to facilitate the power relocation.

Fiscal Impact:

The approval of this agenda item has no fiscal impact at this time. Below is the project budget breakdown for informational purposes.

CIP 0473: Riggin Avenue Widening (Mooney to
Conyer)
Approximate Budget Breakdown
Project Budget Amount
Measure R Regional Funds (133) $1,300,000
Traffic Impact Fee (241) $1,800,000
Highway Improvement Program (HIP) Funding $2,400,000
Developer Reimbursement (Frontage Improvements): $500,000 Total Estimated Budget $6,000,000
Project Costs Amount
Project Management $100,000
Design Services $175,000
Utility Relocation (City Share of SCE Relocation) $300,000 Roadway Construction $5,300,000
Construction Management $200,000
Soft Cost Contingency $100,000
Total Estimated Project Costs $6,175,000
Surplus (Deficit) ($175,000)
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
246
File #: 22-0199 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 3.

CIP 0473: Riggin Avenue Widening (Mooney to
Conyer)
Approximate Budget Breakdown
Project Budget Amount
Measure R Regional Funds (133) $1,300,000
Traffic Impact Fee (241) $1,800,000
Highway Improvement Program (HIP) Funding $2,400,000
Developer Reimbursement (Frontage Improvements): $500,000 Total Estimated Budget $6,000,000
Project Costs Amount
Project Management $100,000
Design Services $175,000
Utility Relocation (City Share of SCE Relocation) $300,000 Roadway Construction $5,300,000
Construction Management $200,000
Soft Cost Contingency $100,000
Total Estimated Project Costs $6,175,000
Surplus (Deficit) ($175,000)
The projected deficit will be resolved at the time of award of the construction contract.

Prior Council Action:

May 16, 2022
Adopt Resolution 2022-33 authorizing the City Manager to execute Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility Agreement No. CP0473-SCE2592 for the Riggin Widening project between Mooney Blvd to Conyer Street.

April 18, 2022
Adoption Resolution No. 2022-27 certifying Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-16 prepared for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance as part of the Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funding for the construction of the “Riggin Avenue Widening Project” from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street (State Clearing house No. 2022030456) (Resolution No. 2022-xx required).

June 21, 2021
Authorize the City Manager to award a sole source professional design services contract to 4Creeks, Inc., for the design of the “RigginAvenue Widening Project”from North Mooney Boulevard to North Conyer Street, and appropriation of funds to establish a preliminary project budget.

Other:

None
Alternatives:

None Recommended
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to adopt resolutions 2022-39 and 2022-40, designating a portion of City owned property located within 2 Parcels, Lot “A”of Highland Park Estates subdivision and Lot “A”of Highland Park, Unit No. 2 subdivision as part of the public City Street System respectively. .

Environmental Assessment Status:

Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-16
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
247
File #: 22-0199 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Attachments:

1. Right of Way Conversion Map

2. Resolution No. 2022-39 Converting City Owned Property to ROW - Highland Park Estates Subdivision

3. Exhibit “A” (Legal Description) & Exhibit “B” (plat)

4. Resolution No. 2022-40 Converting City Owned Property to ROW - Highland Park, Unit No. 2 Subdivision

5. Exhibit “A” (Legal Description) & Exhibit “B” (plat) Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
248
W Sedona Ave
N E
lm
St
N
CentralCt
N Fa
irway
St
W Oriole Ave
N Central
Ct
N Elm Ct
W Flagstaff Ave
N Elm
St
Modoc Ditch
W Robin Ave
N
El
m
St
WShannon
Pkwy
WPorterAve
W Riggin Ave
N Da
yton St
W Lark Ave
N D
ivisade
ro S
t
N
Rinald
i S
t
NCanary
Dr
N D
ayt
on
Ct
W Oriole Ave
WCorvinaAve
WSedona Ave
N
Dollne
rSt
W Porter Ave
NHallSt
N Div
isade
ro St W Robin Ave N
Canary
Dr
N Wren Dr
N
FairwaySt
W Shannon Pkwy
N Giddings St
W Shannon Pkwy
W Riggin Ave
W Sedona Ave
N C
onye
r St
N Tu
rner
St
W Lark Ave W Lark Ct
NQuail Dr
W
Dove Ave
W Porter Ave
W Prescott Ave
W Payson Ave
N Jacob St
N C
on
yer
St
N
ConyerSt
W Dove Ave
WRobin Ave
N Qu
ailDr
W Shannon Pkwy
W Riggin Ave
W Sedona Ave
W Lark Ct
W Lark Ave
N H
ighl
and
Ct
W Dove Ct
W Ro
bin Dr
N
W
illis St
Right of Way Conversion Map
© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
Road Centerlines
6/7/2022, 8:48:40 AM
0 0.09 0.170.04 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,514
See web site for license constraints. | Nearmap US |
249

Resolution No. 2022-39

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-39

DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT “A” OF HIGHLAND PARK ESTATES

WHEREAS, Section 1806(b) of the California Streets and Highways Code states that no public or private street or road shall become a city street or road until the governing body, by resolution, has caused the street or road to be accepted into the city street system; and

WHEREAS, the City of Visalia owns the following parcels of real property in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State of California:

Lot “A” of Highland Park Estates, recorded December 21 st, 2021, in volume 44 of maps, at page 79 Tulare County Records.

WHEREAS, the City of Visalia desires to designate a portion of this parcel of real property as part of the existing public street, Riggin Avenue, and to accept this designated area into the City Street System, said portion is more particularly described as follows, see Exhibit “A” (legal description) and Exhibit “B” (plat of the area).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Visalia does hereby designate the above-described public street segments over said parcels of real property as a public street and accepts this public street into the City Street System.

250
251
252
253
254
Resolution No. 2022-xx

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-40

DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT “A” OF HIGHLAND PARK UNIT NO. 2

WHEREAS, Section 1806(b) of the California Streets and Highways Code states that no public or private street or road shall become a city street or road until the governing body, by resolution, has caused the street or road to be accepted into the city street system; and

WHEREAS, the City of Visalia owns the following parcels of real property in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State of California:

Lot “A” of Highland Park Unit No. 2, recorded May xx, 2022, in volume xx of maps, at page xx Tulare County Records.

WHEREAS, the City of Visalia desires to designate a portion of this parcel of real property as part of the existing public street, Riggin Avenue, and to accept this designated area into the City Street System, said portion is more particularly described as follows, see Exhibit “A” (legal description) and Exhibit “B” (plat of the area).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Visalia does hereby designate the above-described public street segments over said parcels of real property as a public street and accepts this public street into the City Street System.

255
256
257
258
259
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0212 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorization for the City Manager to approve an agreement with Workforce Investment Board of Tulare County to continue the Environmental Clean-Up Opportunities (ECO) Transitional Jobs Program through FY2022/2023 in the amount of $221,847 from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.

Deadline for Action: 6/30/2022
Submitting Department: Public Works
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Jason Serpa, Public Works Manager, [email protected], 713-4533 Wyndi Ferguson, Interim Public Works Director, [email protected], 713-4186 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Workforce Investment Board of Tulare County (WIB) to continue a Transitional Jobs Program benefitting Visalia’s homeless population in the amount of $221,847, funded by the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (441), to pay the City’sshare of the Environmental Clean-up Opportunities (ECO) program costs.

Background Discussion:

In 2017, the City of Visalia and the Workforce Investment Board of Tulare County (WIB) established a program that would allow members of Visalia's homeless and low-income population to acquire the work skills necessary to obtain gainful employment while simultaneously addressing a community need, cleaning up illegally dumped material. Program participants are vetted and referred to the program by community partners, such as the Rescue Mission.

Upon entry to the program, participants spend up to three months working as part of a Community Services and Employment Training, Inc. (CSET) work crew, and are guided by a crew supervisor who helps prepare the participants for their transition to regular employment. Work assignments focus on picking up trash or illegally dumped material in the City right-of-way and other public areas. During this time, participants learn basic job skills such as arriving to work on time, working with others, accepting, and executing instructions, etc.

After successful completion of the initial Level I work-skills training portion of the program, participants begin working alongside City employees in the solid waste division as a CSET level II participant under general Solid Waste Department supervision. Here, they learn to work with less direct supervision and more accountability. Work includes assembling residential trash cans, helping with deliveries, and other related duties. After acquiring skills and experience, the goal is for the participant to obtain outside employment. Since the start of the program, the City has hired 7 level II participants as hourly employees. Of those 7, 4 are still employed with the City, 2 have moved on to Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
260
File #: 22-0212 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 4.
participants as hourly employees. Of those 7, 4 are still employed with the City, 2 have moved on to better opportunities, and 1 participant is currently going through the hiring process.

Current Fiscal Year Outcomes
From July 2021 through March 2022, the ECO Program has had the following results:

Homeless Individuals:
· Referred to ECO: 200
· Attended Orientation: 78
· Completed Job Readiness: 42
Level I Crew Members:
· Hours Worked: 4,446
· Total Wages Earned: $73,384
· Avg Wage Earned: $2,347
Level II Crew Members:
· Hours Worked: 1,398
· Total Wages Earned: $22,919
· Avg Wage Earned: $2,291
Level I ECO Material Count (Litter Abatement)
· Total pounds of trash and misc. debris removed: 143,720 · Average month pounds of trash/misc. removed: 15,969
Goal versus Actual number of participants
Goal Actual FY20/21 Actual FY21/22 (July -
March)
Level I 40 48 42
Level II 20 16 13
Employment 24 28 28
ECO participants are obtaining employment at a higher rate as compared to FY20/21. While it is excellent that these individuals are obtaining employment sooner, the ECO Program experienced a challenge in transitioning Level I individuals to Level II this year, especially through the winter months of the COVID pandemic. It appears that all is starting to normalize, and individuals are once again transitioning at a rate that ensures the program will be able to use all the available hours in the budget.

Fiscal Impact:

Funding for this program is partially offset from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (441) Bottle Bill Revenues (Approximately $30,000) and savings from the four Solid Waste hourly positions that are held vacant since the work is performed through the ECO program. In addition, the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund realizes savings from the illegal dumping that is picked up throughout the City. Not only does this bring down the total tonnage cost of pickups, but it also decreases the number of times Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
261
File #: 22-0212 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 4.
only does this bring down the total tonnage cost of pickups, but it also decreases the number of times the City uses the contractor for illegal dumping.

The City of Visalia’sportion of the program is $221,847. This is $18,000 less than the previous year and primarily pays for operational costs of the program including vehicles, supplies, the crew supervisor, and program coordinator. The total budget reduction is due to the reduced need in hours for participants from 12,000 total program hours to 10,400 hours as proposed by the Workforce Investment Board.

The proposed budget is as follows:

Project Costs
City of Visalia $221,847
Workforce Investment Board $221,847
Total Cost $443,694
Operational Costs Budget
1 WIB Program Analyst (salary, fringe, indirect costs) $18,024 2 Personnel/Benefits: Crew Supervisor & Program Coordinator $146,318 3 Administrative Oversight (Staff & ICR) $35,875
4 Vehicle, Fuel & Trailer Operating Costs $22,074
5 Facilities (building space, maintenance & repair, security, janitorial, utilities, & staff cell phones) $6,056
6 Supplies, PPE safety equipment, & other operating costs $19,527 7 Subtotal - Operational Costs $247,874
Participant & Other Costs
8 Transitional Jobs (Participant Wages 40 Level I, & 20 Level II) $190,320 9 Support Services (Boots, shirts, pants, bus passes, interview clothes, etc.) $5,500
10 Subtotal - Participants Costs $195,820
11 Total Budget (Line 7+10) $443,694
Budget Summary
Prior Council Action:

March 6, 2017 - Initial Program authorization
June 18, 2018 - Program reauthorization for FY 18/19
June 3, 2019 - Program reauthorization for FY 19/20
June 5, 2020 - Program reauthorization for FY 20/21
June 7, 2021 - Program reauthorization for FY 21/22
Other:

N/A
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
262
File #: 22-0212 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Alternatives:

Decline reauthorization and discontinue program. This alternative is not recommended as the program provides tangible benefit to the City at a reasonable cost.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Workforce Investment Board of Tulare County to continue a Transitional Jobs Program (ECO) in the amount of $221,847.

Environmental Assessment Status:

N/A
CEQA Review:

N/A
Attachments:

FY22-23 Draft MOU
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
263

- 1 -

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between the

CITY OF VISALIA
And the

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD OF TULARE COUNTY
“Regarding the Implementation of a Transitional Jobs Program”

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into between the City of Visalia, a California Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and the Workforce Investment Board of Tulare County, a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “WIB,” as of July 1, 2022.

This MOU is made with reference to the following recitals:

1. City and the WIB are partnering to implement a Transitional Jobs Program within the community of Visalia.

2. City will allocate two hundred thirty-nine thousand eight hundred forty-seven dollars ($221,847) to the WIB to operate the Transitional Jobs Program outlined in Exhibits A and B of this MOU (the “Program”).

3. The WIB has received Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding to fund a portion of the Transitional Jobs Program.

4. WIB will allocate two hundred thirty-nine thousand eight hundred forty-seven dollars ($221,847) in City funds and two hundred three thousand eight hundred forty-seven dollars ($221,847) in WIOA funds for participant transitional jobs (subsidized employment) and program operation costs to its service provider to operate the program.

5. CITY and the WIB mutually agree that the responsibilities outlined in this MOU foster healthy collaboration for the purpose of implementing the Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and agreements therein contained, the Parties agree as follows:

I. TERM
The term of this MOU is from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, or until such earlier time as all obligations have been met, or unless earlier terminated or extended according to the provisions contained herein. Upon mutual written agreement, the Parties may extend the term of this Agreement for such period of time and upon such terms as they may agree.

II. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
To request reimbursement for Program services provided hereunder, WIB shall submit a monthly invoice to City with back-up documentation by the 15th of the month.

Both Parties have funds set aside to fund the Program. CITY and the WIB have agreed to pay the costs of the Program as outlined in Exhibit B to this MOU.

III. COOPERATIVE OBLIGATIONS
The roles and responsibilities of CITY and WIB for the Program are outlined in the attached Exhibit A “Statement of Work”, Exhibit B “Budget Detail”, and Exhibit C “Work Program Definitions”:
264

- 2 -

1. The WIB shall perform the services described in Exhibit “A” to meet the objectives of the Program.

2. The WIB shall not exceed the salary and benefits costs in Exhibit B “Budget Details”.

3. CITY shall not exceed the program cost outlined in Exhibit B “Budget Details”.

IV. WIB CONTRIBUTION
After receipt of grant funds, and in accordance with the provisions of the WIOA requirements and related regulations directives, WIB will pay for Participant salary and fringe benefits and other participant training costs, as they relate to the Exhibit B.

V. CITY CONTRIBUTION
CITY will contribute $221,847 to pay for operational costs and supportive services as they relate to the Exhibit B.

VI. REVISION, ADDENDUM
Revisions to the basic framework of this MOU shall be by the mutual written agreement of the Parties. Supplements to this MOU may be by numeric addendums executed by each Party and attached to the original of this MOU.

VII. TERMINATION
Either Party may terminate this MOU at any time without cause upon not less than forty- five (45) days’ prior written notice. In the event of such termination, the Parties shall consult prior to the date of termination to ensure termination occurs on the most equitable terms; however, such consultation shall not prohibit or restrict either Party from exercising its right to terminate this MOU.

VIII. NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE

1. The Parties agree that no person participating in under the terms of this MOU shall, because of ethnic group identification, age, sex, color, disability, medical condition, national origin, race, ancestry, marital status, religion, religious creed, political belief or sexual orientation, be excluded from participation, be denied benefits of, or be subject to discrimination.

2. The Parties shall comply with all state, federal and local laws that forbid discrimination against any person on the grounds of ethnic group identification, age, sex, color, disability, medical condition, national origin, race, ancestry, marital status, religion, religious creed, political belief or sexual orientation in employment practices. Such practices include retirement, recruitment advertising, hiring, layoff, termination, upgrading, demotion, transfer, rates for pay or other forms of compensation, use of facilities, and other terms and conditions of employment. 265

- 3 -

3. The Parties agree that they will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA.

IX. INDEPENDENT CONTRACT STATUS
It is agreed that the WIB, including any and all of their officers, agents, contractors, sub- contractors, and employees, will be at all times during the performance of the work, duties and obligations of pursuant to this MOU be acting and performing as an independent contractor and shall act in an independent capacity and not as an officer, agent, servant, employee, joint venture, partner, or associate of the City.

X. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
WIB shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officers, council members, employees, volunteers and agents, from any and all costs and expenses, damages, liabilities, demands, causes of action, suits, charges, or legal or administrative proceedings, claims and losses, including, without limitation, attorney’s fees and costs, caused by or arising out of any act or omission of WIB relating to the terms of this MOU.

City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the WIB and its officers, council members, employees, volunteers and agents, from any and all costs and expenses, damages, liabilities, demands, causes of action, suits, charges, or legal or administrative proceedings, claims and losses, including, without limitation, attorney’s fees and costs, caused by or arising out of any act or omission of City relating to the terms of this MOU.

WIB agrees that at all time while working on City property it shall require its agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractors, to maintain general liability insurance, automobile liability, and worker’s compensation insurance at levels approved by the City.

Prior to entry on City of Visalia proof of such insurance shall be provided to City.

XI. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
The parties have worked cooperatively to prepare their framework for this MOU, and the language herein should not be construed against any of the parties. If a dispute arises out of or relating to this MOU, or the breach thereof, and if said dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, the Parties agree first to try in good faith to settle the dispute by non-binding mediation before resorting to litigation or some other dispute resolution procedure, unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise. The mediator shall be mutually selected by the Parties, but in case of disagreement, the mediator shall be selected by lot from among two nominations provided by each Party. All costs and fees required by the mediator shall be split equally by the Parties, otherwise each Party shall bear its own costs of mediation. If mediation fails to resolve the dispute within 30 days, then either Party may pursue litigation to resolve the dispute.

266

- 4 -
XII. LOSS OF FUNDING
It is understood and agreed that if the funding is either discontinued or reduced for the Program, then WIB or City shall have the right to terminate this MOU. In such event, the affected Party shall provide the other Party with at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of such termination.

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD OF TULARE COUNTY

____________________________ Date _____________________ Adam Peck, Executive Director

CITY OF VISALIA

____________________________ Date______________________ City of Visalia Project Manager

____________________________ Date ______________________ City of Visalia City Manager

____________________________ Date: ____________________ City Attorney
(PELTZER & RICHARDSON, LC)

____________________________ Date: ____________________ City of Visalia Risk Manager
267

- 5 -

EXHIBIT A
Statement of Work
Transitional Jobs Program

Work to Be Performed - The WIB shall implement a Transitional Jobs program (the “Program”) for 40 individuals, referred by agencies designated by the City, who meet the following criteria:
a) Are homeless (See Definitions, Exhibit C) or
b) have been homeless within the past 12 months; and
c) WIOA Adult Eligible (See Definition, Exhibit C); and d) Reside in Visalia.

Participants shall be supported through the Program by a full-time crew supervisor assigned to supervise the crews and serve as a job coach and mentor. Participants will be provided with the following services:
a) Transportation to and from worksites.
b) A workplace orientation that includes work expectations and safety training. c) Career coaching.
d) Pre-employment skills training.
e) Supportive services.

Pre-Employment Seminars
The Program will provide pre-employment skills that are essential to job seeking and retention for 40 participants, these seminars include:

 Finance and budgeting
 Interviewing skills
 Career Exploration
 Create Resume
 How to apply for jobs online and in person

Job Coaching
The Program will provide job coaching, including:
 Workplace orientation, work expectations and safety.
 On-site crew supervisor to provide supervision, job coaching, and teach work skills.  Provide clear instructions and feedback.

General Transitional Job Description
The City will designate worksites, tasks, and skills to be acquired during the transitional job. Participants will be expected to be able to:
 Arrive to work on time
 Able to take instructions from a crew supervisor
 Work 20 hours per week Monday–Friday
 Able to lift 30 lbs.
 Able to stoop, pick up debris
 Able to use basic hand tools and equipment (shovels, rakes, hoes, litter grabbers, etc.)  Able to use due care while working in the public right-of-way being aware of cars, watching traffic, avoiding walking in streets when appropriate
 Receive bi-weekly performance evaluations
 Expectation to complete training plan (task and skills to be attained)  May receive additional hours of training, if he/she is having difficultly attaining skills outlined in the training plan
 Expectation to complete training plan (task and skills to be attained)

268

- 6 -
Transitional Jobs - Completion
Upon completion of a transitional job, individuals may continue to access WIOA Basic and Individualized Services and Training that lead to employment, services include:
 Staff assisted job search and job referrals
 Supportive services
 On-the-job training
 Occupational skills training
 Follow-up

Subcontracting
The WIB may subcontract portions of this contract with prior written approval from the City. All subcontracts must be formalized through written contracts that specify services to be provided and include itemized budgets, as well as any appropriate performance expectations. A complete copy of all subcontracts with appropriate signatures must be on file with the City. The WIB shall monitor all subcontractors to ensure compliance.

Matching Funds
The WIB shall provide matching funds in the form of participant wages to the 40 homeless individuals that are WIOA eligible and assigned to City designated worksites and projects within the City limits.

269

- 7 -

EXHIBIT B
Budget Summary

Project Costs
City of Visalia $221,847
Workforce Investment Board of Tulare County $221,847
Total Cost: $443,694

July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023
Budget Summary
Operational Costs Budget
1 WIB Program Analyst (salary, fringe, indirect costs) $18,024 2 Personnel/Benefits: Crew Supervisor & Program Coordinator $146,318 3 Administrative Oversight (Staff & ICR) $35,875
4 Vehicle, Fuel & Trailer Operating Costs $22,074
5 Facilities (building space, maintenance & repair, security, janitorial, utilities, & staff cell phones) $6,056
6 Supplies, PPE safety equipment, & other operating costs $19,527 7 Subtotal - Operational Costs $247,874
Participant
& Other
Costs
8 Transitional Jobs (Participant Wages 40 Level I, & 20 Level II) $190,320 9 Support Services (Boots, shirts, pants, bus passes, interview clothes, etc.) $5,500
10 Subtotal - Participants Costs $195,820
11 Total Budget $443,694

270

- 8 -
Participant Wages and Enrollment Plan

Transitional Jobs
Levels I & II Level I - II Crews
Time
Frame Individuals
Hours
Worked
Hourly
Rate
Fringe
Benefits
Total
Wages
Total
Fringe Cost Per
Level I
40 participants -
work crews

Level II
20 participants -
City job site

Level I Crew Work
(2 crew) July -
Aug
10 1,700

15.00 3.00

25,500

5,100

30,600
Level II City/Partner
Work 5

900

15.00 3.00

13,500

2,700

16,200
Level I Crew Work
(2 crews) Sept -
Dec
10 1,700 15.00 3.00

25,500

5,100

30,600
Level II City/Partner
Work 5

900 15.00 3.00

13,500

2,700

16,200
Level I Crew Work
(2 crews) Jan -
Mar
10 1,700 15.00 3.00

26,350

5,270

31,620
Level II City/Partner
Work 5

900 15.00 3.00

13,950

2,790

16,740
Level I Crew Work
(2 crews) Apr -
June
10 1,700 15.00 3.00

26,350

5,270

31,620
Level II City/Partner
Work 5

900 15.00 3.00

13,950

2,790

16,740
Total Participants Level I 40
Total

$190,320 Total Participants Level II 20

Participant Costs
Support Services 5,500
Transitional Jobs 190,320
Participant Costs $195,820

271

- 9 -

EXHIBIT C
Work Program Definitions

DEFINITIONS

Homeless individual means an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and includes an individual who:
(1) Is sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or similar reason;
(2) Is living in a motel, hotel, trailer park, or campground due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations;
(3) Is living in an emergency or transitional shelter;
(4) Is abandoned in a hospital, or is awaiting foster care placement; (5) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

Source: 56462 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations, p. 392

WIOA Eligibility Registration Requirements
In order for an individual to participate in WIOA services, he/she must complete the registration process and meet Priority of Service which includes a homeless individual, low income, or veterans and eligible spouses. The following criteria will be verified and documented in the participant file:
 Must be at least 18 years old
 Possess right-to-work documents
 Registered with Selective Service
o Males born on or after January 1, 1960

Transitional Job - A time limited wage paid work experience for individuals who have barriers to employment, who are chronically unemployed or have inconsistent work history.

Basic Skills Deficient – An individual that is unable to compute or solve problems, or read, write, or speak English, at a level necessary to function on the job, in the individual’s family, or in society (WIOA Section 3[5]). Criteria used to determine whether an individual is basic skills deficient includes the following:
• Lacks a high school diploma or high school equivalency and is not enrolled in postsecondary education.
• Enrolled in a Title II Adult Education/Literacy program. • English, reading, writing, or computing skills at an 8.9 or below grade level. • Determined to be Limited English Skills proficient through staff-documented observations.
• A standardized test may be used to assess basic skills that includes reading, writing, or computing skills.

Low-Income – An individual that meets one of the four criteria below:

1. Receives, or in the past six months has received, or is a member of a family that is receiving, or in the past six months has received, assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance For Needy Families 272

- 10 -
(TANF), program supplemental security income program, or state or local income-based public assistance.

2. In a family with total family income that does not exceed the higher of the following:
a. The poverty line.
b. 70 percent of the Lower Living Standard Income Level.

3. A homeless individual.

4. An individual with a disability whose own income does not exceed the income requirement, but is a member of a family whose total income does.

Public Assistance Recipient – An individual that receives federal, state, or local government cash payments for which eligibility is determined by a needs or income test (WIOA Section 3[50]).

Self-Attestation – When a participant states his or her status for a particular data element, such as low income, and then signs and dates a form acknowledging this status. The key elements for self-attestation are
1) the participant identifying his or her status for permitted elements, and 2) signing and dating a form attesting to this self-identification.

273
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0215 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Agenda Item Wording:

Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41 to designate various road projects for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) 2022/23 funding from the State of California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill SB1) as outlined within this report.

Deadline for Action: 7/1/2022 Deadline for CTC acceptance Submitting Department: Administration - CIP Engineering Contact Name and Phone Number:

Dolores Verduzco, Financial Analyst, [email protected], (559) 713-4540 Frank Senteno, City Engineer, [email protected], (559) 713-4331 Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, [email protected], (559) 713-4323 Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-41 to designate various road projects for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) 2022/23 funding from the State of California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill SB1) to the following Capital Improvement Project’s (CIP’s):

1. $750,450 -Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation

2. $1,719,550 -Caldwell Avenue Improvements from Akers to Shady

3. $613,000 -Center & Acequia Rehabilitation
This agenda item is being brought forth because the SB1 Program requires a resolution that details the projects that will be funded with that fiscal year allotment of SB1 funds. This money is being appropriated with the FY 22/23 Budget adoption in the SB1 Fund (113).

Background Discussion:

In April 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1, known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 to address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs in the State.

This bill established a new funding source for road repairs through revenue established from per- gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and vehicle registration fees. The Act provides inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future rates. Funding from this Act is forecasted to disburse approximately $3,086,000 in Fiscal Year 2022/23 to the City of Visalia.

SB1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s transportation programs. Therefore, cities and counties receiving the funding will be required to provide annual RMRA project information to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). This includes action by City Council at a regular public meeting to adopt a list of projects proposed to be funded with RMRA funds for each fiscal year. The project list must be submitted to the CTC by July 1 st in order to receive and not delay the apportionment of RMRA funds for the upcoming fiscal year.

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
274
File #: 22-0215 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 5.
st in order to receive and not delay the apportionment of RMRA funds for the upcoming fiscal year.

The report of the anticipated use of funding shall include a description of the project including location, estimated project schedule and expected useful life.

In addition, for each fiscal year in which the City spends RMRA funds, the City must submit a report to the CTC that details the RMRA funds expended to include a description and location of each completed project and/or in-progress project, the amount of funds expended on the project and the completion date. The CTC posts reported project information on the Commission’s website and through other reporting mechanisms that are accessible by the public.

In order to receive funding for fiscal year 2022/23, Council must adopt by resolution a list of projects intended to utilize the fiscal year 2022/23 SB1 RMRA funding and submit to the California Transportation (CTC) by July 1, 2022.

Staff recommends Council designate the projects listed below, as listed on the attached resolution, for RMRA 2022/23 funding. It is important to note that these projects were previously approved by Council to receive SB1 RMRA funding. But due to forecasted increases in the cost of construction, staff recommends that these funds be designated as additional appropriation(s) towards these projects:

Project 1) Project Title: Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project Description/Scope: This project will rehabilitate Main Street and will include construction of pavement rehabilitation, limited sidewalk repairs and curb ramps, and ADA-compliant parking stalls.

SB1 funds from prior fiscal years were approved to fund engineering and construction of the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project. At the Council meeting held on April 4, 2022, Council approved additional SB1 funds from the future fiscal year 2022-23 in the amount of $750,450 be designated to the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation project to address a construction budget shortfall for a total amount of $3,520,800 using SB1 funds. Although, Council previously approved the use of fiscal year 2022-23 funds, adoption of the attached resolution that lists this project to utilize fiscal year 2022-23 SB1 funds is required by the CTC.

Project Location:

Street Segment From To
Main Street Willis Street Garden Steet
Estimated Project Schedule:

Pre-Construction:

Start: October 2019
End: May 2022
Construction:

Start: June 2022
End: April 2023
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
275
File #: 22-0215 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Estimated Project Useful Life: 15 Years to 20 Years
Project 2) Project Title: Caldwell Avenue Improvements from Akers to Shady Project Description/Scope: This project will reconstruct existing pavement; add median islands, sidewalk, curb, gutter, bicycle lane striping, fiberoptic conduit, and streetlights.

SB1 funds will be utilized to fund the construction phase. This project was previously approved by Council at the meeting on April 15, 2019 to receive SB1 RMRA funds from the fiscal year 2019/21 allotment in the amount of $2.2 million. The additional appropriation of SB1 RMRA funds of $1,719,550 will bring the total of SB1 RMRA funds budgeted toward this project to $3,919,550.

Project Location:

Street Segment From To
Caldwell Avenue Akers Street Shady Steet
Estimated Project Schedule:

Construction:

Start: October 2022
End: October 2023
Estimated Project Useful Life: 15 to 20 Years
Project 3) Project Title: SB1 Street Rehabilitation - Center & Acequia Project Description/Scope: The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the pavement surface of segments along both Center Avenue and Acequia Avenue. In addition to rehabilitation work, the project will include limited concrete repairs to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drain inlets, and ramps.

Impacted ramps will be upgraded to ADA compliance. The project will also include installation of video detection cameras.

SB1 funds will be utilized to fund engineering and construction for both street segments. This project was previously approved by Council at the meeting on June 21, 2021 to receive SB1 RMRA funds from the fiscal year 2021-22 allotment in the amount of $2.6 million. This additional appropriation of SB1 RMRA funds of $613,000 will bring the total of SB1 RMRA funds allocated toward this project to $3,213,000.

Project Location:

Street Segment From To
Center Avenue Willis Street Santa Fe Street
Acequia Avenue Willis Street Santa Fe Street
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
276
File #: 22-0215 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Estimated Project Schedule:

Pre-Construction:

Start: January 2022
End: April 2023
Construction:

Start: July 2023
End: December 2023
Estimated Project Useful Life: 15 Years to 20 Years
Fiscal Impact:

SB1 RMRA funding in fiscal year 2022/23 of approximately $3,083,000 is projected to be distributed to the City of Visalia based on the State Department of Finance projections of RMRA revenues as of May 2022.

Revenues received for RMRA funds are appropriated to CP0290 Pavement Rehabilitation within the SB1 RMRA Fund (113); however, CP0290 does not specify a project location. Therefore, upon approval of the list of projects to utilize FY 2022/23 RMRA funds, funds will be transferred from CP0290 Pavement Rehabilitation to the following projects:

1. $750,450 -Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation

2. $1,719,550 -Caldwell Avenue Improvements from Akers to Shady

3. $613,000 -Center & Acequia Rehabilitation
If funding is received in excess of the current projected estimated amount, staff will return to Council at a future date to request an appropriation of funds to a specific project as necessary.

Prior Council Action:

April 15, 2019
Adopted Resolution 2019-21 to designate 2019/20 SB1 RMRA funding to the Caldwell Avenue Improvements - Akers to Shady Project.

April 20, 2020
Adopted Resolution 2020-19 to designate 2020/21 SB1 RMRA funding to the Street Rehabilitation - Akers to Shady project and to the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project.

June 21, 2021
Adopted Resolution 2021-34 to designate 2021/22 SB1 RMRA funding to the FY 2021-22 SB1 Street Rehabilitation - Center & Acequia Project.

April 4, 2022
Approved additional SB1 funds be appropriated to the Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CP0373).

Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
277
File #: 22-0215 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Alternatives:

Do not accept SB1 RMRA funds and use Measure N funds to perform the work.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-41 to designate the road rehabilitation project(s) identified within this report for Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation (RMRA) 2022-23 funding from the State of California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill SB 1) .

Environmental Assessment Status:

N/A
CEQA Review:

Environmental review will be completed prior to construction as required.

Attachments:

Resolution 2022-xx

1. Location Map - Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation

2. Location Map - Caldwell Avenue Improvements - Akers to Shady

3. Location Map - SB1 Street Rehabilitation - Center & Acequia Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
278
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-41

RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

CITY OF VISALIA

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and

WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and

WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $3,083,000 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2022-23 from SB 1; and

WHEREAS, this is the sixth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and

WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and

WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate 3.42 miles of roadway, add active transportation infrastructure throughout the City this year and hundreds of similar projects into the future; and

WHEREAS, the 2020 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City streets and roads are in an at-risk condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a good condition; and

WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets 279
infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, which will lead to reduced vehicle emissions and increase responsiveness to the needs to the users of the road system.

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Visalia, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following previously proposed and adopted projects will utilize Fiscal Year 2022-23 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues in their delivery. With the relisting of these projects in the adopted fiscal year resolution, the City is reaffirming to the public and the State our intent to fund these projects with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project 1)
Project Title: Downtown Pavement Rehabilitation
Project Description: This project will rehabilitate/reconstruct Main Street and will include bicycle safety features, traffic control features, drainage features, ADA parking installation, ADA pedestrian ramps, and installation of underground conduit.

Project Location: Main Street from Willis Street to Garden Street Estimated Project Schedule:

Pre-Construction: Start October 2019– Completion May 2022 Construction: Start June 2022– Completion April 2023
Estimated Project Useful Life: 15 to 20 years

Project 2)
Project Title: Caldwell Avenue Improvements from Akers to Shady Project Description: This project will reconstruction existing pavement; add median islands, sidewalk, curb, gutter, bicycle lane striping, fiber optic conduit, and streetlights.

Project Location: Caldwell Avenue from Akers Street to Shady Street Estimated Project Schedule:

Construction: Start October 2022– Completion October 2023 Estimated Project Useful Life: 15 to 20 years

Project 3)
Project Title: SB1 Steet Rehabilitation – Center & Acequia Project Description: This project will rehabilitate the pavement surface of segments along Center Avenue and Acequia Avenue. In addition to the rehabilitation work, the project will consist of repairing miscellaneous damage concrete structures such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drain inlets, and ramps. Impacted ramps will be upgraded to ADA compliance an existing manholes and valve boxes will be adjusted to grade. This project will also include installation of video detection cameras.
280
Project Location:
 Center Avenue from Willis Street to Santa Fe Street
 Acequia Avenue from Willis Street to Santa Fe Street
Estimated Project Schedule:

Pre-Construction: Start January 2022– Completion April 2023 Construction: Start July 2023– Completion December 2023 Estimated Project Useful Life: 15 to 20 years

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Visalia, State of California this _______ day of _______, 2022, by the following vote:

281

CENTER AVENUEMAIN STREETACEQUIA AVENUE

WILLIS STREET

WEST STREET

FLORAL STREET

ENCINA STREET

LOCUST STREET

COURT STREET

CHURCH STREET

GARDEN STREET

BRIDGE STREET

SANTA FE STREET

OAK AVENUE
Know what'sbelow.before you dig.Call
R N

DOWNTOWN STREETLIGHT AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
Ó
90% PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
282
Shady St.

Ave 272
S Akers St
S M
ooney Blvd
W Walnut Ave
S Dem
aree St
S Linwood St
W Whitendale Ave
S Chinowth St
W Visalia Pkwy
S County Center Dr
Rd 108
Rd 100
S Dans St
S University St
W Nellis Ave
Alley
W Cameron Ave
W La Vida Ave
W Coppola Ave
W Ashland Ave
W Mid Valley Ave
W Cambridge Ave
W Cutler Ave
W Harter Ave
W Beech Ave
W Elkhorn Ave
W Cherry Ave
S Crenshaw St S Terrace St
W Dorothea Ave
S Sallee St
W Judy Ave
W Mary Ave
Ave 276
W Wagner Ave
W Victor Ave
W Laura Ave
W Princeton Ave
S M
em
ory St
S Valley St
W Vassar Ave
W Redding Ave
S Heritage Dr
W Reese Ct
S Verde Vista St
W Rialto Ct
W Monte Vista Ave
W Russell Ave
S Jackie St
W Rialto Ave W Packwood Ave
S Woodland St
W Reese Ave
S Noyes St
W Sunnyside Ave
S Linda Vista St
W Concord Ave
S Yale St
W James Ave
W Evergreen Ave
S Kent St
W Cornell Ave
W Russell Ct
Good Ave
S M
endonca St
W Country Ave
S Chatham
St
S Fontana St
W Orchard Ave
Private St
W Monte Vista Ct
S Cindy Ct
W Nellis Ct
W Pryor Ct
W Chestnut Ave
S M
aselli St
W Hemlock Ct
S Avocado St
S Julieann St
W Mission Ct
W La Vida Ct
W Mary Ct
S Redwood St
W Sunnyside Ct
S Parkwood St
W Hemlock Ave
S Tam
arack St
W Orchard Ct
W Colonial Ave
S Ernest St
W Good Ave
S Silvervale St
W Elkhorn Ct
W Dorothea Ct
S Vickie St
W Venice Ave
W Mission Ave
S Linda Vista St
S Redwood St
S Kent St
W Orchard Ct
W Victor Ave
S University St
S Tam
arack St
W Monte Vista Ave
S W
oodland St
W Victor Ave
W Judy Ave
W Packwood Ave
W Laura Ave
S M
aselli St
S M
aselli St
W Elkhorn Ave
W Sunnyside Ct
S Chinowth St
W La Vida Ave
S University St
W Ashland Ave
S M
aselli St
W Reese Ave
W Nellis Ave
W Concord Ave
W Vassar Ave
W Rialto Ave
W Redding Ave
W Beech Ave
W Hemlock Ct
EVANS

PACKWOOD

CALDWELL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS FROM

AKERS STREET TO SHADY STREET
¨
1,500 0 1,500750 Feet= Project Limits
283
Hwy 198
Alley
N W
illis St
N Court St
N Floral St
W Main St N Bridge St
N Locust St
N Encina St
W Oak Ave
N Garden St
N Church St
E Main St
W Noble Ave
E Oak Ave
N Santa Fe St
N Tipton St
W Center Ave
N W
est St
W Murray Ave
W Race Ave E Race Ave
W Acequia Ave
E Noble Ave
E Center Ave
E School Ave
E Murray Ave
E Acequia Ave
N Johnson St
S W
est St
W Mineral King Ave
W School Ave
S Bridge St
S Locust St
S W
illis St
E Mineral King Ave
S Court St
W Myrtle Ave
W Goshen Ave
S W
atson St
S Johnson St
W Kaweah Ave
S Encina St
S Church St
S Floral St
S Garden St
S Tipton St
S Santa Fe St
W Olive Ave
NE 1st AveNW 1st Ave
E Myrtle Ave
N Highland St
E Kaweah Ave
Willow Plaza
E Willow AveW Willow Ave
Alley Alley
Alley
Alley
W Willow Ave
S Court St
W School Ave
W Willow Ave
Alley
Alley
S Santa Fe St
Alley
Alley
Alley
W Myrtle Ave
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
Alley
S Bridge St
Alley
Alley
S Locust St
Alley
Alley
S Johnson St
Alley
E Myrtle Ave

MILL CREEK
= Project Limits

CENTER & ACEQUIA AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS FROM

WILLIS STREET TO SANTA FE STREET
6 0 006 0 0300 Feet
¨
284
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0225 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 6.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorization for staff to appropriate $100,000 from the Airport Enterprise Fund to pay expenses generated by the recently approved lease between the Federal Express Corporation and the City of Visalia.

Deadline for Action: None
Submitting Department: Administration - Airport
Contact Name and Phone Number:

Jody Miller, Airport Manager, 713-4282, [email protected] Nick Mascia, Assistant City Manager, 713-4323, [email protected] Department Recommendation:

Staff recommends that Council authorize Staff to appropriate $100,000 from the Airport Enterprise Fund to pay expenses associated with the recently agreed upon lease between the Federal Express Corporation and the City of Visalia. The total amount agreed upon was $98,655.41. This amount will cover $85,000 in required renovations and repairs to the Federal Express location at the Airport and $13,655.41 to be paid to Fischer Company, a consultant hired by the Federal Express Company for handling all negotiations of the lease. The $98,655.41 will be reimbursed to the city by the Federal Express corporation over the first 36 months of the newly agreed upon lease as described herein.

Background Discussion:

The current lease agreement between the City of Visalia and the Federal Express Corporation was signed into agreement after the second reading and adoption of its accompanying ordinance on June 6th 2022. In the negotiation of that lease, the Federal Express Corporation had required improvements/renovations to be done to their facility at the airport to include:
*Replace damaged acyovin and touch up paint on the other walls in the Customer Service Area *New interior paint throughout the office portions of the facility. *Replace carpet and wall base throughout the office portion of the facility *Reseal all windows and replace blinds in the office portion of the facility *Replace vinyl flooring in all four (4) restrooms
*Replace or repair/refinish countertops and cabinets in the breakroom *Install ten (10) exhaust fans in the warehouse sort area *Replace the two (2) evaporative coolers
*Replace or seal metal exterior and trim where necessary due to rusting and holes. *Paint the exterior of the stucco portion of the building once the necessary repairs are complete *All paved areas should be sealed and restriped after fixing any cracking/potholes.

In the preparation of the lease, Visalia Airport personnel obtained quotes for the requested Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
285
File #: 22-0225 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 6.

In the preparation of the lease, Visalia Airport personnel obtained quotes for the requested improvements which totaled to $55,319, during the negotiation process City staff and the Federal Express Corporation agreed upon the lessee paying $85,000 towards these improvements in the event of raising costs pushing the work past the expected $55,319 total, with the understanding that the $85,000 amount would be the total paid whether the costs came in higher or lower. Additionally, the Federal Express Corporation hired consultants (Fischer Company) to handle their side of the lease amendment negotiation, for an additional cost of $13,655.41 which the City agreed to pay upfront but would be reimbursed by the Federal Express Corporation. This led to a total owed to the City of Visalia in the amount of $98,655.41. This amount owed is to be split into even payments of $2,740.43 to be paid over the first 36 months of the new agreement on top of the standard monthly lease rate. In the event of either lessee or lessor terminating the agreement within the initial thirty-six months all remaining due of the $98,655.41 would be due in full at that time.

The Airport has agreed to have all requested improvements completed within one year of the signing of the lease and plans to stagger the work to allow the monthly payment of $2,740.43 from the Federal Express Corporation to accumulate throughout the year to offset the expense of each improvement. The $13,655.41 for Fischer Company consulting fees will be due upon signing and therefore will be the first expense to be followed thereafter by the renovations/improvements.

Fiscal Impact:

Visalia Municipal Airport will receive $2,740.43 monthly for the initial 36 months of the newly agreed upon lease term to recoup the $98,655.41. This amount is on top of the agreed upon monthly lease rate of $11,379.51 plus annual CPI adjustments that will be paid by the Federal Express Corporation.

Prior Council Action:

May 2nd 2022: Council introduced Ordinance 2022-08 and conducted its first reading authorizing an amended lease between the City of Visalia and the Federal Express Corporation.

June 6th 2022: Council conducted the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2022-08.

Authorizing an amended lease between the City of Visalia and the Federal Express Corporation.

Alternatives: City Council could not authorize the appropriation of funds to pay for the associated costs of the lease and Airport Staff would have to find a different way, returning to City Council, to fulfill the lease.

Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to authorize the appropriation of $100,000 from the Airport Fund to pay expenses generated by the recently approved lease with Federal Express Corporation.

Environmental Assessment Status: NA.

CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: .

1. Ordinance 2022-08

2. Federal Express Lease

3. Exhibit Showing FedEx Airport Location
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
286
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-08

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE CURRENT LEASE

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF VISALIA AND THE FEDERAL EXPRESS

CORPORATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS AS WELL AS TO MAKE ALL

REQUESTED LESSEE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION WILL REIMBURSE THE CITY OF VISALIA

WHEREAS, the City of Visalia owns and operates certain real property commonly referred to as the Visalia Municipal Airport and,

WHEREAS, the City of Visalia owns and leases a structure as well as ramp space at the Visalia Municipal Airport to the Federal Express Corporation for use in their cargo delivery business,

WHEREAS, the City of Visalia and Visalia Municipal Airport wis h amend the current lease between the City of Visalia and the Federal Express Corporation for an additi onal five years while also authorizing the completion of improvements to said premises which the LESSEE has requested as well as stipulating the terms of the reimbursement for said improvements.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA,

Section 1. The City Manager of the City of Visalia is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Visalia, the amendment of the current lease agre ement between the City of Visalia and the Federal Express Corporation for their facility and ramp space at the Visalia Municipal Airport for an additional five (5) years . This amended agreement would also authorize the City of Visalia to complete all LESSEE requested improvements to said facility as well as guaranteeing the terms of reimbursement for the improvements.

Section 2. This ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after its passage.

287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 22-0228 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 7.

Agenda Item Wording:

Authorization to execute annual service agreement with Visalia Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) for $60,000 and appropriate $40,000 ($20,000 for FY 22/23 and $20,000 for FY 23/24) from the General Fund to fund the increase in requested services.

Deadline for Action: 6/20/2022
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number: Devon Jones, 4190
Department Recommendation:

Authorize staff to execute the annual service agreement with Visalia Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) for $60,000 for FY 2022/23 services. This contract includes a one year extension. The agreement for service includes a $20,000 annual increase due to increased service deliverables requested by the City of the VEDC, outlined in more detail below, in addition to service expectations that may impact VEDC’s ability to generate private memberships. It has been more than a decade since the City has increased it’s payment to the VEDC.

Background Discussion:

The City has partnered with the Visalia Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) for economic development services since its inception in 1996. The VEDC was instrumental in the development of the industrial park and services today focus more on marketing of the industrial park, coordination with key stakeholders, and outreach assistance to local existing industrial employers to help retain and expand jobs in the industrial park. The VEDC is currently in a period of transition as they are going to bring on a new Executive Director with the upcoming retirement of Nancy Lockwood from this post. The VEDChas selected Bruce Nicotero, former General Manager of JoAnn’s Distribution Center in the Visalia Industrial Park (VIP), as the new Executive Director. Staff has worked with Mr. Nicotero for many years and is confident that he will effectively lead the VEDC and deliver requested services in this city service agreement. In addition to Mr.

Nicotero, who will functionally fill a part time position, the VEDC is also likely to contract certain services to the Tulare County Workforce Investment Board (WIB) to assist in conducting all of the VEDC’s activities. Staff is supportive of this approach as the most critical need for the VIP at this time is workforce development and employee recruitment and retention, particularly given the rapid increase in development activity that does not appear to be slowing down. Contracting services to the WIB will secure dedicated time and staff resources to the VIP and greatly enhance the VEDC’s capacity to develop long term workforce development solutions and ongoing recruitment coordination. In addition, this multi-pronged approach fits within the VEDC’s existing annual budget.

Below is an outline of the major proposed changes to the service agreement for the coming FY:

1. Industrial Roundtable format - Staff is proposing a change in format of the existing monthly industrial park roundtable meetings. While they are currently well attended and beneficial networking opportunities for attendees, staff believes that the industrial park leaders could benefit from more time Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
296
File #: 22-0228 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 7.
to discuss their current issues, needs or generally provide information to economic development and workforce development partners of the VEDC. As the VEDC is a membership supported organization and the industrial roundtable is a good opportunity for service providing members to have access to industrial park companies, the focus on the issues of the industrial park companies themselves has been diminished. The service agreement now formalizes format expectations of these meetings and therefore could potentially negatively impact the VEDC’s short term membership drives. Additionally, staff would expect that VIP employers could attend these roundtables without being paying members of the VEDC.

2. Workforce development - The anticipated role of the VEDC, as it pertains to workforce development, is enhanced with this service agreement, again, given the current growth expectations in the VIP and the ongoing need for additional workers in the VIP. There are numerous existing efforts as it pertains to industrial occupation workforce development and talent pipeline development, many of which city staff are directly involved in, and there are a number of high-quality resources and partners available to VIP employers to develop and maintain long term solutions. The VEDC should now increase its direct involvement in these matters.

3. Business visitations and data collection - While VIP employer visits have always been conducted in partnership with VEDC, this service agreement formalizes metrics associated with this activity. Further, it requires the VEDC to convert visit information (such as expressed needs, particular input regarding workforce development issues, utility or other infrastructure issues, resource requests, etc.) into a customer relationship management (CRM) program so as to better compile trend data and convert feedback to intelligence that can inform the various partner stakeholders. Company specific information will be kept confidential where appropriate.

4. Follow up on Applied Development Economics (ADE) Study - Not only did the ADE study provide a prospect list for potential new companies to attract to Visalia, but it provided local analysis of industries impacted by COVID, local economic conditions, and export/trade exposure and local purchasing demand. This analysis should inform local business outreach efforts and potentially lead to business retention and expansion activity. Staff will work closely with VEDC contracted staff to implement follow up activities in partnership.

5. Maintenance of an industrial park directory - Staff is recommending the VEDC keep an up-to-date industrial park directory (current directory can be downloaded via VEDC website homepage:
www.visaliaedc.com <http://www.visaliaedc.com>). The directory can passively generate business-to- business activity, assist local job seekers to familiarize themselves with employment opportunities in the VIP, help to foster a community feel in the VIP, as well as inform prospective new industry of who is in the industrial park and provide contacts for inquiries into Visalia.

6. Create a VEDC Board seat for City - While the City has always been an active partner of the VEDC, this service agreement formally requires that city representation have a voting board member position.

Further, this city representative board member will be allowed to attend the VEDC Executive Committee meetings in addition to the City’s Economic Development Manager.

7. Increase of agreement to $60,000 from $40,000 - As detailed above, there are several additions to service expectations of the VEDC. As such and given the potential impacts to membership generation (at least in short term) due to required changes in industrial roundtable format, staff believes the additional funding is justified. Staff is confident in the VEDC’s proposed staffing decisions and in the VEDC’s ability to deliver on these service expectations.

Other edits include changing the payment schedule from a membership match to biannually. This is being changed to both reflect typical service agreements of this nature and also because the membership match requirement seems to encourage a membership driven focus at the VEDC, which based on services Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
297
File #: 22-0228 Agenda Date: 6/20/2022 Agenda #: 7.
requested by the city, does not reflect city priorities. While the VEDC, as a nonprofit, must generate memberships in order to sustain itself, staff believes the city should not make its own investment into the organization dependent on the VEDC’s ability to generate memberships.

The VEDC has been a strategic economic development partner of the City’s since its inception in 1996. The formation of the VEDC was originally in response to a need for economic development services for the city specifically and was driven by support from the private sector. The partnership helps with ongoing business retention, expansion and attraction efforts and most importantly, helps to maintain an open line of communication with local economic development stakeholders and private sector leaders in the VIP. The organization continues to focus on the industrial sector primarily and is an essential partner for the continued vitality of the VIP. One of the most essential roles the organization plays is in working with local industrial park employers as a community’s ability to attract new industry is dependent on what local industry may say about doing business in the local community. The current contract expires at the end of June and was approved by Council in 2018. The current contract amount is $40,000/year.

Fiscal Impact:

The current contract amount is $40,000 per a year. The new contract will require additional funding of $20,000 per year, bringing the total contract to $60,000. The budget for FY 22/23 and 23/24 is being approved tonight with $40,000 annually for this contract. Staff is recommending an additional appropriation of $20,000 for each year from the General Fund.

Prior Council Action: 3.19.18 - approved existing service agreement retroactively for FY 2017/18 services as a formal service agreement was not in place prior.

Other: N/A
Alternatives: Do not approve additional appropriation and authorize historical service contract amount of $40,000
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):

I move to execute annual service agreement with Visalia Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) for $60,000 and appropriate $40,000 ($20,000 for FY 22/23 and $20,000 for FY 23/24) from the General Fund.

Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: Service agreement
Visalia City Council Printed on 6/17/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
298

VEDC - VISALIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT