Agenda packet, regular meeting, third session — Citrus Heights City Council Meetings, June 23, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

JUNE 23, 2022 AGENDA

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
7;00 PM REGULAR MEETING
City Hall Council Chambers
6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA
HOW TO PARTICIPATE:

The City of Citrus Heights welcomes your interest and involvement in the City’s legislative process.

The City of Citrus Heights is allowing for remote and in person participation. The City Council has established a procedure for addressing the Council. Speaker Identification Sheets are provided on the table inside the Council Chambers. If you wish to address the Council during the meeting, please either complete a Speaker Identification Sheet and give it to the City Clerk, if participating via webcast you may use the Zoom hand raise function (or *9 if you join the webinar via telephone) and the host will unmute you when it is time to speak. Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes each.

Alternatively, you may submit your comment via email to [email protected] or by completion of an online Speaker Card at https://www.citrusheights.net/FormCenter/City -Council- Meetings-Speaker-Card-30. Written public comments shall be limited to 250 words or less. Each comment will be read aloud by the City Clerk. Public Comments should be submitted to the City Clerk by 4:00 p.m. prior to the start of the City Council meeting. Each comment will be read aloud by the City Clerk.

Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Zoom Meeting –Webinar
link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81254821465
PLEASE NOTE: In order to minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus, this meeting is being held pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e). Please be advised that the some, or all, Council Members may attend City Council meetings telephonically or otherwise electronically.

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk ’s Office 916-725-2448, [email protected], or City Hall 6360 Fountain Square Drive at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. TDD: California Relay Service 7-1-1.

June 23, 2022 City Council Agenda Packet
JUNE 23 2022 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET.PDF

CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER

1. Flag Salute

2. Roll Call: Council Members: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton

3. Video Statement

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REGIONAL BOARD UPDATES

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR
It is recommended that all consent items be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action are requested by a Council Member.

4. SUBJECT: Approval Of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of the Special/Regular Meeting of June 9, 2022

5. SUBJECT: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Award Of Construction Contract – City PN 15-21-010
STAFF: R. Cave/ L. Blomquist/ H. Young
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with All Phase Construction, Inc. for Construction of the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project

6. SUBJECT: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Award Of Construction Management, Inspection And Materials Testing Services Agreement – City PN 15-21- 010
STAFF: R. Cave/ L. Blomquist/ H. Young
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Quincy Engineering, Inc. to Provide Construction Management, Inspection, and Materials Testing Services for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project

7. SUBJECT: Resolution Of Intention To Record Delinquent Solid Waste Service Charges To The Tax Roll
STAFF: R. Cave/ M. Poole
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, To Record Delinquent Solid Waste Service Charges to the Property Tax Roll

8. SUBJECT: Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance And Rehabilitation Account Funding And Project Expenditure Plan For FY 2022/2023
STAFF: R. Cave/ L. Blomquist
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Project List to be Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017

PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. SUBJECT: City Impact Fee Update
STAFF: B. Zenoni/ C. Kempenaar/ R. Cave
RECOMMENDATION: The following is recommended;
a. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study and Updating the Affordable Housing Impact Fee
b. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting the Multimodal Impact Fee Study, Renaming the Roadway and Transit Impact Fee to the Multimodal Impact Fee and Updating the Fee
c. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study and Updating the Park Impact Fee
d. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting a Nexus Study for a Fire Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee
e. Move to Introduce for First Reading, Read by Title Only and Waive the Full Reading of Ordinance 2022-____, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights Adding Article XXIX to Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code Related to Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee

REGULAR CALENDAR

10. SUBJECT: Consideration Of Economic Development Support Fund Grant Request By Royal Stage
STAFF: M. Huber
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving a $25,000 Economic Development Grant to Royal Stage from the Economic Development Support Fund – Part I

11. SUBJECT: Allocation Of Fiscal Year 22/23 Community Support Funding STAFF: M. Huber
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving Community Support Funding Award Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

12. SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2021-22 And 2022-23 Mid-Cycle Budget Review, Financial Forecast Update And Appropriations Limit For Fiscal Year 2022-23 STAFF: B. Zenoni/ T. Nossardi/ R. Prasad
RECOMMENDATION: The following is recommended;
a. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget; and
b. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-__, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Establishing an Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-

23. 13. SUBJECT: Replacement Of Police Department Equipment Critical Needs And Utilization Of American Rescue Plan Act Funds
STAFF: A. Turcotte/ K. Frey/ C. Burnett
RECOMMENDATION: The following is recommended;
a. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the Acquisition of Police Fleet Vehicles and Fleet Equipment; and
b. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the Acquisition of Public Safety Communications Center Critical Needs

14. SUBJECT: Proposal For Beautification Crew Pilot Program STAFF: R. Cave/ A. Velasquez
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the Implementation of a Beautification Crew Pilot Program to be Funded by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds through Fiscal Year 2025/2026

15. SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Amended Salary Table
STAFF: B. Zenoni/ M. Dippert/ M. Bushey
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting the Amended Salary Table, Exhibit A

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

16. SUBJECT: Fireworks Enforcement And Operation Plan
DEPARTMENT: Police Department

CITY MANAGER ITEMS

ITEMS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS / FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

17. SUBJECT: Provide Direction On School Safety Committee Discussion

ADJOURNMENT
Documents:

JUNE 23, 2022 AGENDA

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
7;00 PM REGULAR MEETING
City Hall Council Chambers
6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA
HOW TO PARTICIPATE:

The City of Citrus Heights welcomes your interest and involvement in the City’s legislative process.

June 23, 2022 City Council Agenda Packet
JUNE 23 2022 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET.PDF

CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER

1. Flag Salute

2. Roll Call: Council Members: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton

3. Video Statement

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REGIONAL BOARD UPDATES

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR
It is recommended that all consent items be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action are requested by a Council Member.

4. SUBJECT: Approval Of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of the Special/Regular Meeting of June 9, 2022

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REGULAR CALENDAR

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

16. SUBJECT: Fireworks Enforcement And Operation Plan
DEPARTMENT: Police Department

CITY MANAGER ITEMS

ITEMS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS / FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

17. SUBJECT: Provide Direction On School Safety Committee Discussion

ADJOURNMENT
Documents:

JUNE 23, 2022 AGENDA

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
7;00 PM REGULAR MEETING
City Hall Council Chambers
6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA
HOW TO PARTICIPATE:

The City of Citrus Heights welcomes your interest and involvement in the City’s legislative process.

June 23, 2022 City Council Agenda Packet
JUNE 23 2022 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET.PDF

CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER

1. Flag Salute

2. Roll Call: Council Members: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton

3. Video Statement

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REGIONAL BOARD UPDATES

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR
It is recommended that all consent items be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action are requested by a Council Member.

4. SUBJECT: Approval Of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of the Special/Regular Meeting of June 9, 2022

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REGULAR CALENDAR

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

16. SUBJECT: Fireworks Enforcement And Operation Plan
DEPARTMENT: Police Department

CITY MANAGER ITEMS

ITEMS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS / FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

17. SUBJECT: Provide Direction On School Safety Committee Discussion

ADJOURNMENT
Documents:

JUNE 23, 2022 AGENDA

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
7;00 PM REGULAR MEETING
City Hall Council Chambers
6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA
HOW TO PARTICIPATE:

The City of Citrus Heights welcomes your interest and involvement in the City’s legislative process.

June 23, 2022 City Council Agenda Packet
JUNE 23 2022 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET.PDF

CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER

1. Flag Salute

2. Roll Call: Council Members: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton

3. Video Statement

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REGIONAL BOARD UPDATES

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR
It is recommended that all consent items be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action are requested by a Council Member.

4. SUBJECT: Approval Of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of the Special/Regular Meeting of June 9, 2022

PUBLIC HEARINGS

REGULAR CALENDAR

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

16. SUBJECT: Fireworks Enforcement And Operation Plan
DEPARTMENT: Police Department

CITY MANAGER ITEMS

ITEMS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS / FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

17. SUBJECT: Provide Direction On School Safety Committee Discussion

ADJOURNMENT
Documents:

Printed on Recycled Paper
City Council meetings take place in
the City Hall Council Chambers.

Porsche Middleton, Mayor
Tim Schaefer, Vice Mayor
Jeannie Bruins, Council Member
Bret Daniels, Council Member
Steve Miller, Council Member

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting of Thursday, June 23, 2022
City Hall Council Chambers
6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE:

The City of Citrus Heights welcomes your interest and involvement in the City’s legislative process. The City of Citrus Heights is allowing for remote and in person participation. The City Council has established a procedure for addressing the Council. Speaker Identification Sheets are provided on the table inside the Council Chambers. If you wish to address the Council during the meeting, please either complete a Speaker Identification Sheet and give it to the City Clerk, if participating via webcast you may use the Zoom hand raise function (or *9 if you join the webinar via telephone) and the host will unmute you when it is time to speak. Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes each. Alternatively, you may submit your comment via email to [email protected]
or by completion of an online Speaker Card at
https://www.citrusheights.net/FormCenter/City-Council-Meetings-Speaker-Card-30. Written public comments shall be limited to 250 words or less. Public Comments should be submitted to the City Clerk by 4:00 p.m. prior to the start of the City Council meeting. Each comment will be read aloud by the City Clerk.

Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Zoom Meeting –Webinar link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81254821465

The City provides three ways to watch a City Council meeting.

IN PERSON ONLINE ON TELEVISION

PLEASE NOTE: In order to minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus, this meeting is being held pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e). Please be advised that some, or all, Council Members may attend City Council meetings telephonically or otherwise electronically.

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office 916-725-2448, [email protected], or City Hall 6360 Fountain Square Drive at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. TDD: California Relay Service 7-1-1.

June 17, 2022
_______________________
Amy Van, City Clerk

Watch the livestream and replay past
meetings on the City website.

Watch live and replays of meetings
on Sac Metro Cable, Channel 14.

Agenda Packet Page 1
Citrus Heights City Council Thursday, June 23, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 PM

CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER

1. Flag Salute

2. Roll Call: Council Members: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton

3. Video Statement

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REGIONAL BOARD UPDATES

PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR
It is recommended that all consent items be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action are requested by a Council Member.

4. SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of the Special/Regular Meeting of June 9, 2022

5. SUBJECT: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Award of Construction Contract – City PN 15-21-010
STAFF: R. Cave/ L. Blomquist/ H. Young
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with All Phase Construction, Inc. for Construction of the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project

6. SUBJECT: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Award of Construction Management, Inspection and Materials Testing Services Agreement – City PN 15-21-010 STAFF: R. Cave/ L. Blomquist/ H. Young
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Quincy Engineering, Inc. to Provide Construction Management, Inspection, and Materials Testing Services for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project

7. SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Record Delinquent Solid Waste Service Charges to the Tax Roll
STAFF: R. Cave/ M. Poole
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, To Record Delinquent Solid Waste Service Charges to the Property Tax Roll

Agenda Packet Page 2
Citrus Heights City Council Thursday, June 23, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper

8. SUBJECT: Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funding and Project Expenditure Plan for FY 2022/2023
STAFF: R. Cave/ L. Blomquist
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Project List to be Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017

PUBLIC HEARING

9. SUBJECT: City Impact Fee Update
STAFF: B. Zenoni/ C. Kempenaar/ R. Cave
RECOMMENDATION: The following is recommended;

a. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study and Updating the Affordable Housing Impact Fee

b. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting the Multimodal Impact Fee Study, Renaming the Roadway and Transit Impact Fee to the Multimodal Impact Fee and Updating the Fee

c. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study and Updating the Park Impact Fee

d. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting a Nexus Study for a Fire Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee

e. Move to Introduce for First Reading, Read by Title Only and Waive the Full Reading of Ordinance 2022-____, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights Adding Article XXIX to Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code Related to Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee

REGULAR CALENDAR

10. SUBJECT: Consideration of Economic Development Support Fund Grant Request by Royal Stage
STAFF: M. Huber
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving a $25,000 Economic Development Grant to Royal Stage from the Economic Development Support Fund – Part I

11. SUBJECT: Allocation of Fiscal Year 22/23 Community Support Funding STAFF: M. Huber
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving Community Support Funding Award Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Agenda Packet Page 3
Citrus Heights City Council Thursday, June 23, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper

12. SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 Mid-Cycle Budget Review, Financial Forecast Update and Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23 STAFF: B. Zenoni/ T. Nossardi/ R. Prasad
RECOMMENDATION: The following is recommended;

a. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget; and

b. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-__, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Establishing an Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

13. SUBJECT: Replacement of Police Department Equipment Critical Needs and Utilization of American Rescue Plan Act Funds
STAFF: A. Turcotte/ K. Frey/ C. Burnett
RECOMMENDATION: The following is recommended;

a. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the Acquisition of Police Fleet Vehicles and Fleet Equipment; and

b. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the Acquisition of Public Safety Communications Center Critical Needs

14. SUBJECT: Proposal for Beautification Crew Pilot Program STAFF: R. Cave/ A. Velasquez
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Authorizing the Implementation of a Beautification Crew Pilot Program to be Funded by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds through Fiscal Year 2025/2026

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

16. SUBJECT: Fireworks Enforcement and Operation Plan
DEPARTMENT: Police Department

Agenda Packet Page 4
Citrus Heights City Council Thursday, June 23, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper

CITY MANAGER ITEMS

ITEMS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS/ FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

17. SUBJECT: Provide Direction on School Safety Committee Discussion

ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Packet Page 5

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Special/ Regular Meeting of Thursday, June 9, 2022
City Hall Council Chambers and Virtually
6360 Fountain Square Drive
Citrus Heights, CA 95621

CALL SPECIAL MEETING TO ORDER
The s
pecial council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Middleton

1. Roll Ca
ll: Council Members present: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton Council Members absent: None
Staff present: Cave, Feeney, Herman, Jones, Reid, Smith, Spencer, Van

PUBLIC COMMENT
None

CLOSED SESSION

2. TH

REAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES OR FACILITIES
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 – this is routine training conducted annually with the City Council in the event a threatening situation occurs at a Council Meeting Consultation with: Citrus Heights Police Department and City Attorney Ryan Jones

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Ther
e was no reportable action from closed session.

ADJOURNMENT
May
or Middleton adjourned the special meeting at 6:48 p.m.

CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER
The r
egular council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Middleton.

1. The
Flag Salute was led by Council Member Bruins.

2. Roll Ca
ll: Council Members present: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton Council Members absent: None
Staff present: Bermudez, Blomquist, Cave, Feeney, Jones, Kempenaar, Poole, Reid, Turcotte, Van, and Zenoni.

3. The v
ideo statement was read by City Clerk Van.

Item 4
Agenda Packet Page 6
Citrus Heights City Council Minutes Thursday, June 9, 2022

Page 2 ends

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

ACTION: On a motion by Council Member Miller, seconded by Vice Mayor Schaefer, the City Council approved the agenda.

AYES: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REGIONAL BOARD UPDATES

Council Member Daniels shared information on cooling centers in Citrus Heights that will be open on June 10th.

Council Member Bruins provided an update from the Police Activities League meeting. She shared information on upcoming PAL events. She thanked the Kiwanis Club for a $500 donation to PAL to cover activities for children. Council Member Bruins shared information for a “Work Day” at San Juan Park on June 18 hosted by the Area 7, 8 and 9 (CHASEN) Neighborhood Association. She also shared information for National Night Out on August 2.

Council Member Miller attended the Memorial Day observation at Sylvan Cemetery and the Capital Pops concert at the Veterans Center.

Vice Mayor Schaefer had no updates at this time.

Mayor Middleton had no updates at this time.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Michael Nishimura, the new REACH President, addressed the Council regarding the Community Park Clean- up day at San Juan Park on June 18. This event is open to all community members and will provide volunteers with lunch and refreshments.

CONSENT CALENDAR

4. SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 26, 2022

5. SUBJECT: Approve Resolution for Continued Remote Meetings in Accordance with AB 361 STAFF: A. Van / R. Jones
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-038, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Making the Legally Required Findings to Continue to Authorize the Conduct of Remote “Telephonic” Meetings During the State of Emergency

6. SUBJECT: November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election STAFF: A. Van
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-039, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Calling a General Municipal Election and Requesting the Board of Agenda Packet Page 7
Citrus Heights City Council Minutes Thursday, June 9, 2022

Page 3 ends

Supervisors of Sacramento County to Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held on November 8, 2022 Pursuant to Section §10403 of the Elections Code

7. SUBJECT: Approval of a Resolution Acknowledging that the City of Citrus Heights will be Included in the Article 34 Affordable Housing Ballot Measure Proposed by the County of Sacramento for the November 2022 Election
STAFF: C. Kempenaar/ N. Piva
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-040, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Acknowledging the City of Citrus Heights will be Included in the Article 34 Affordable Housing Ballot Measure Proposed by the County of Sacramento for the November 2022 Election

ACTION: On a motion by Council Member Bruins, seconded by Vice Mayor Schaefer, the City Council adopted Consent Calendar Items 4, 5, 6, and 7.

AYES: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

PUBLIC HEARING

8. SUBJECT: PLN-22-07 – Draft Amendment to the General Plan Safety Element STAFF: C. Kempenaar/ E. Singer
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-041, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Finding the Project is Exempt from CEQA per Section 15061(b)(3) and Approving the Proposed General Plan Amendment to Include the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into the Community Health Section of the General Plan as Presented

Senior Planner Bermudez presented the amendment to the General Plan to include the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The LHMP is updated every five years. The City Council adopted the Sacramento County Local Hazard Mitigation plan in February 2022. The City will need to amend the Community Safety Element chapter of the General Plan to include the LHMP to remain eligible for federal hazard mitigation funding.

Mayor Middleton opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. hearing no public comments, she closed the public hearing.

ACTION: On a motion by Council Member Bruins, seconded by Council Member Miller, the City Council adopted a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Finding the Project is Exempt from CEQA per Section 15061(b)(3) and Approving the Proposed General Plan Amendment to Include the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into the Community Health Section of the General Plan as Presented

AYES: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

Agenda Packet Page 8
Citrus Heights City Council Minutes Thursday, June 9, 2022

Page 4 ends

REGULAR CALENDAR

9. SUBJECT: Changing the Time of Regular City Council Meetings STAFF: A. Van
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-042, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Changing the Time for Regular Meetings of the City Council

City Clerk Van shared a presentation with Council on changing the time of regular City Council meetings. The City Council has been meeting on the 2nd and 4th of each month at 7:00 p.m. The meeting time was adopted by the City Council in 2005 in order to broadcast City Council meetings live on Metro Cable 14. At the May 10 Strategic Planning session, Council Members discussed the potential change in the meeting time in hopes of promoting public participation. Occasionally, the City Council has met prior to the 7:00 p.m. meeting time for closed session and study sessions. The Sacramento Metro Cable Commission will be able to continue broadcasting City Council meetings live with an earlier start time. Van shared that surrounding municipalities are currently holding earlier council meetings. If approved, the new City Council meeting time would begin on July 14 and will be communicated through the City’s various communications channels.

City Manager Feeney shared that this item came forward in an effort to encourage resident participation with an earlier start time for City Council meetings.

Council Member Daniels stated his support for the earlier City Council meeting time. He expressed his support for the 6:00 p.m. start time.

Council Member Miller expressed he did not support an earlier start time.

Council Member Bruins supported either 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. as an earlier start time.

Vice Mayor Schaefer supported the 6:00 p.m. start time.

Mayor Middleton supported the 6:00 p.m. start time.

ACTION: On a motion by Council Member Daniels, seconded by Council Member Bruins, the City Council adopted a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Changing the Time for Regular Meetings of the City Council to 6:00 p.m.

AYES: Bruins, Daniels, Schaefer, Middleton
NOES: Miller
ABSENT: None

10. SUBJECT: “California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Enforcement Act” Initiative 19- 0029A1
STAFF: A. Feeney/ R. Jones
RECOMMENDATION: Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 2022-043, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Opposing the “California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Enforcement Act” Initiative 19-0029A1

City Manager Feeney presented the item before Council regarding opposition to the “California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Enforcement Act”. The ballot initiative would amend the California Agenda Packet Page 9
Citrus Heights City Council Minutes Thursday, June 9, 2022

Page 5 ends

Constitution to allow tribal casinos to offer additional gaming. In addition, the proposed amendment would allow any person or entity to bring civil suits for violation of gaming laws. Stone’s Gambling Hall is a local Citrus Heights business who expressed concern for the proposed amendment and requested the City oppose the item. Opposition for the amendment stems from the provision that could potentially result in frivolous lawsuits against gaming halls. City Manager Feeney informed the Council that five other jurisdictions have passed resolutions opposing the amendment and the League of California Cities is discussing the item at an upcoming meeting.

Council Member Miller requested more information on how this is different from existing law and how this amendment could affect businesses.

City Attorney Jones stated that the Attorney General’s Office typically files lawsuits related to gaming. This legislation would give private law firms the ability to file lawsuits as if they are the Attorney General, they would have to make a request to the Attorney General’s Office.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Kermit Schultz, with Stone’s Gambling Hall, addressed the Council regarding opposition to the “California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Enforcement Act”. He stated this initiative is a great concern to Stone’s Gambling Hall. Stone’s Gambling Hall has over 300 employees in Citrus Heights and this initiative poses a threat to the gaming industry.

ACTION: On a motion by Council Member Daniels, seconded by Council Member Bruins, the City Council adopted a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Opposing the “California Sports Wagering Regulation and Unlawful Enforcement Act” Initiative 19-0029A1.

AYES: Bruins, Daniels, Miller, Schaefer, Middleton
NOES: None
ABSENT: N one

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

11. SUBJECT: Projects and Programs Update
DEPARTMENT: General Services Department

City Engineer Blomquist and Operations Manager Poole provided a department report highlighting public works projects and programs. Blomquist discussed capital projects such as the Arcade Cripple Creek Trail, Auburn Boulevard Complete Streets Phase 2, Greenback Lane Complete Streets, Mariposa Safe Routes to School, Old Auburn Road Complete Streets, San Juan Complete Streets, and 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing. Blomquist provided an overview of the development project process and the major projects currently underway such as Mitchell Village, Wyatt Ranch, Auburn Heights, and the Fair Oaks Senior Housing development. Engineering and General Services are also responsible for the encroachment permit process, which is necessary to protect public infrastructure and ensures utility coordination for major projects.

Poole discussed the General Services waste management programs, education, and outreach to ensure residents are in compliance with state standards.

Agenda Packet Page 10
Citrus Heights City Council Minutes Thursday, June 9, 2022

Page 6 ends

Blomquist highlighted the system utilized to regulate urban storm water discharge. The General Services Department is working towards implementation of the trash capture amendment and being in compliance by 2030.

Poole discussed the Multi Modal Transportation Safety Program (MMTSP) that utilizes SeeClickFix, which allows residents to report public right of way issues easily. She also discussed the numerous grants and funding opportunities the department applies for in order to keep these projects and programs in operation.

Council comments followed.

CITY MANAGER ITEMS

City Manager Feeney shared with the Council information on a Cooling Center being open at the Citrus Heights Community Center on June 9 from 9 a.m. – 6 p.m. and on Friday, June 10 from 9 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

ITEMS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS/ FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Middleton adjourned the regular meeting at 8:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________
Amy Van, City Clerk
Agenda Packet Page 11
Printed on Recycled Paper

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 23, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FRO
M: Regina Cave, General Services Director
Leslie Blomquist, City Engineer
Hunter Young, Principal Civil Engineer
SU
BJECT: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project
Award of Construction Contract – City PN 15-21-010
Summary and Recommendation
On May 26, 2022, the City opened bids for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project (Project). After evaluating the bids, staff determined that All Phase Construction, Inc., submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid.

St
aff recommends the City Council:

1. Wai
ve all minor bid irregularities as immaterial; and

2. Approve Resolution No. 2022-___, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with All Phase Construction, Inc. for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project.

Fiscal Impact
Al
l Phase Construction’s base bid for the project is $2,387,012.00. This bid is based upon estimated quantities, which may vary due to actual field conditions. Ultimately, the Contractor is paid for actual work completed based upon the unit price bid, which may require the approval of a change order. Change orders for amounts less than 15% of the total contract price shall require prior written approval of the City Manager. Change orders for amounts equal to or greater than 15% of the total contract price shall require prior written approval of the City Council.

Hi
storically, the city has had an annual ADA accessibility and drainage improvements project as a predecessor to the annual street resurfacing project. Beginning with the current 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project, staff combined the two projects to streamline delivery of these roadway improvements. As such, the corresponding CIP budgets have been combined to fund the joint project.

Item 5
Agenda Packet Page 12
Subject: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project – Award of Construction Contract Date: June 23, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper

This recommended action results in no fiscal impact to the current or Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/2023 budget, nor the 2021/2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The full funding for the project is outlined in the tables below:

Table No 1. – Estimated Project Costs
Project Component Estimated Cost
Recommended Contract Award $2,387,012.00
Additive Alternate Item #1 – Kersten Street $133,355.00 Additive Alternate Item #2 – Paco Court $147,410.00
Additive Alternate Item #3 – Sprig Oak Court $89,100.00 Deductive Change Order, estimated (Wild Oak Drive)* -$200,000.00 15% Contingency $383,531.00

Grand Total $2,940,408.00
*due to planned PG&E gas main work on Wild Oak Dr, removal of this street from the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project is recommended.

Table No 2. – Project Funding
Source Fund Fund No. FY’s 2021/2022 and
2022/2023
Sacramento County Contribution (estimated) - $211,501.00 Stormwater Utility Fund 209 $184,000.00
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(Revenues from SB-1)
206 $2,100,000.00
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 234 $390,000.00 Gas Tax 205 $54,907.00
FY Totals $2,940,408.00

In addition to the construction advertisement for this project, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a consulting firm for Construction Management services. A professional services agreement for this service is included in a separate staff report prepared for the June 23, 2022 City Council meeting. Construction management expenses will be in addition to those listed in the table above.

Wachtel Way, which serves as the city limit with unincorporated Sacramento County, is included as part of the project for roadway maintenance. Staff confirmed that Sacramento County will contribute their financial fair share to support this contract. Final details associated with the County’s financial commitment will be formalized in a cooperative funding agreement to be brought before the City Council at a future date.

On October 28, 2021, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the 2021 CDBG Action Plan, which included allocating an estimated $390,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the construction of eligible improvements associated with the Project.

Agenda Packet Page 13
Subject: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project – Award of Construction Contract Date: June 23, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Background and Analysis

Streets are selected for resurfacing on a priority basis using the city’s computerized pavement management system and staff’s inspection of streets. The program coordinates and prioritizes various elements of pavement maintenance and types of resurfacing based on various factors including surface and structural condition, traffic volume, costs, and historic repairs. The streets in this project were selected for resurfacing due to the level of deterioration in the existing pavement.

The bid proposal documents identified the total Base Bid price as the basis for comparison and award of a contract. However, the bid package included four additive alternate (AA) bid items, which provide for resurfacing of Kersten Street (AA#1), Paco Court (AA#2), and Sprig Oak Court (AA#3) as well as improvements to storm drain facilities on Lesser Way (AA#4). After reviewing the proposed bids, staff recommends the City Council award Additive Alternate bid items 1-3 in addition to the base contract.

The Project will perform localized pavement repair and overlays on 19 streets. Installation of necessary curb ramps to comply with ADA requirements, miscellaneous concrete, and drainage repairs are included in the Project. The streets scheduled for resurfacing include:

1. Begonia Court (Shadycrest Way to End)

2. Beta Court (Summerplace Dr to End)

3. Gobi Court (Summerplace Dr to End)

4. Kersten Street (Grenola Way to Noreen Way)

5. Ketch Court (Birchglade Way to End)

6. Mel Court (Rinconada Drive to End)

7. Noreen Way (Grenola Way to Baranga Drive)

8. North Colony Way (Holly Drive to End)

9. Paco Court (Summerplace Drive to End)

10. Reglie Woods Court (Whyte Avenue to End)

11. Ridgeview Court (Parkview Way to End)

12. Rigging Court (Birchglade Way to End)

13. Shady Springs Way (Sunmist Way to Sunburst Way)

14. Shadycrest Way (Sandalwood Drive to End)

15. Sloop Court (Birchglade Way to End)

16. Sprig Oak Court (Lesser Way to End)

17. Verbena Court (Florabella Avenue to End)

18. Wachtel Way (Kenneth Drive to Old Auburn Road)

19. Whaler Court (Windjammer Way to End)

20. WildOak Drive (From Tupelo Drive to Mar Vista Way)

Previously, the City Council approved a list of streets to be resurfaced as part of the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project, which included the above 20 streets. After construction bids were opened, staff was contacted by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) regarding a planned gas main project on Wild Oak Drive scheduled for summer 2023. As such, staff Agenda Packet Page 14
Subject: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project – Award of Construction Contract Date: June 23, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
recommends postponing resurfacing of Wild Oak Drive until PG&E completes their gas main upgrades.

The base bid contract amount includes funding for Wild Oak Drive. Upon execution of the contract, staff will issue a deductive change order reducing the contract by an estimated $200,000, which will be reallocated to a future year’s resurfacing project for Wild Oak Drive.

The complete bid results are shown in the following table:

Bidder Base Bid Sum of Additive
Alternates 1-4 Total Bid
All Phase Construction $2,387,012.00 $461,365.00 $2,848,377.00 B&M Builders $2,418,429.50 $506,980.00 $2,925,409.50
Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt $2,503,105.75 $393,677.00 $2,896,782.75 McGuire & Hester $2,608,615.00 $502,060.00 $3,110,675.00 Vintage Paving Company $2,687,695.00 $415,717.50 $3,103,412.50 Martin Brothers Construction $2,763,653.00 $399,322.50 $3,162,975.50 The engineer’s estimate for the base bid of this project is $2,200,000.

On May 26, 2022, and following completion of the bid opening, staff immediately reviewed contractor bids to ensure they were fully responsive to the city’s solicitation requirements. Since the project includes CDBG funding, two forms associated with this fund type were required as part of contractor bids. The apparent low bid by All Phase Construction did not include these forms, which were subsequently submitted to the city. Per the Project Special Provisions Page SP-15, the City reserves the right to “waive any minor informality or irregularity in any bid.” Upon review by the City Attorney, the failure to submit these forms at the time of bid is a minor irregularity that the City Council can waive.

Staff recommends the City Council consider t his bid irregularity as immaterial and waive the irregularity as it does not impact cost or scope of the services being provided to the city.

This project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301, as the repair, maintenance or modification of existing facilities involving no or negligible expansion of use beyond that which currently exists.

This item aligns with the City Council’s three-year strategic planning goal to “maintain public infrastructure and enhance alternative modes of transportation”.

Attachments

1. Resolution 2022-____ a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with All Phase Construction, Inc. for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Agenda Packet Page 15
Printed on Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ALL PHASE CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
2022 RESIDENTIAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, desires to proceed with construction of the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project (Project);

WHEREAS, the Project will resurface deteriorating pavement along residential streets;

WHEREAS, bids for the project were received, opened and read aloud on May 26, 2022, and All Phase Construction, Inc. (All Phase) was determined to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for the Project;

WHEREAS, sufficient Road Maintenance and Re habilitation Account (Fund 206), Gas Tax (Fund 205), Community Development Block Grant (Fund 234), and Stormwater Utility (Fund 209) funds have been budgeted in Fiscal Year 21/22 and 22/23 to fund the Project; and

WHEREAS, Sacramento County will contribute proportionate funding for this project for the improvements within their jurisdictional boundary on Wachtel Way.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights as follows,

1. The City Council waives the bid irregularity and awards the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project to All Phase Construction, who is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with All Phase Construction in the total amount of $2,756,877.00 for the Project, and that a copy of the Agreement is available and on file in the City Clerk’s office and is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Resolution.

The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23rd day of June, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Porsche Middleton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Amy Van, City Clerk

Agenda Packet Page 16
Printed on Recycled Paper

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 23, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FRO
M: Regina Cave, General Services Director
Leslie Blomquist, City Engineer
Hunter Young, Principal Civil Engineer
SU
BJECT: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project
Award of Construction Management, Inspection and Materials Testing Services Agreement – City PN 15-21-010
Summary and Recommendation
On February 18, 2022, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms to provide Construction Management, Inspection, and Materials Testing Services for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project (Project). A total of five proposals were received on March 9, 2022.

Th
e City’s selection team utilized a process consistent with standard industry practice governing consultant selection. Team members independently reviewed and ranked each proposal in accordance with rating criteria set forth in the RFP. After the initial review, team members met to discuss their results and weigh the pros and cons of the top ranking consultant team.

Thr
ough this evaluation process, Quincy Engineering, Inc. (Quincy) was determined to be the most qualified consultant to provide the desired services for the Project. Staff opened the budget proposal and completed negotiations to agree upon the final scope of work and budget.

St
aff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 2022-___, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc. to provide construction management, inspection, and materials testing services for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project.

Fiscal Impact
Appr
oval of this agreement represents no additional fiscal impact to the approved Fiscal Years (FY’s) 21/22 and 22/23 budget. Funding for project construction, construction management, Item 6
Agenda Packet Page 17
Subject: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project – Award of Construction Management and Inspection Services Contract
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
inspection, and materials testing services is included in the adopted Capital Improvement Program.

The contract with Quincy is for an amount not to exceed $285,000.00 and will be funded from the budgeted sources as follows:

Source Fund
Fund No. FY’s 2021/2022
and 2022/2023
(Adopted Budget)
Sacramento County Contribution - $19,900
Measure A Maintenance 310 $200,000
Gas Tax 205 $49,100
Stormwater Utility Fund 209 $16,000
Totals $285,000

The above table does not include construction costs. The construction contract is included in a separate staff report prepared for the June 23, 2022 City Council meeting.

Wachtel Way, which serves as the city limit with unincorporated Sacramento County, is included as part of the project for roadway maintenance. Staff have received confirmation that Sacramento County will contribute their financial fair share to support this contract. Final details associated with the County’s financial commitment will be formalized in a cooperative funding agreement to be brought before the City Council at a future date.

Background and Analysis

The 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project will rehabilitate the asphalt pavement on 19 streets. In addition to pavement repairs, the Project will replace deteriorating storm drain pipe and install necessary curb ramps to comply with ADA requirements.

Design was completed in February allowing for the solicitation of construction bids in May 2022. A professional services agreement is needed to provide construction management, inspection and materials testing services that are necessary during construction of the Project.

This item aligns with the City Council’s three-year strategic planning goal to “maintain public infrastructure and enhance alternative modes of transportation”.

Attachments

1. Resolution 2022-____ a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc. to provide construction management, inspection, and materials testing services for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project.

Agenda Packet Page 18
Subject: 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project – Award of Construction Management and Inspection Services Contract
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper

2. Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project.

Agenda Packet Page 19
Printed on Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS,

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION AND MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES FOR THE 2022 RESIDENTIAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, wishes to construct the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project (Project);

WHEREAS, the Project will rehabilitate the asphalt pavement on 19 residential streets throughout the city in addition to improvements to pedestrian facilities and storm drain systems;

WHEREAS, the City circulated a request for proposals for construction management, inspection, and materials testing services, and in accordance with standard industry practice for consultant selection, identified Quincy Engineering as the most qualified to provide the required services;

WHEREAS, the City now desires to enter into a Professional Services Contract with Quincy Engineering in an amount not to exceed $285,000.00; and

WHEREAS, the proposed professional services will be paid for with Stormwater Utility (Fund 209), Gas Tax (Fund 205), Measure A Maintenance (Fund 210), and Sacramento County contributions to the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with Quincy Engineering to provide construction management, inspection, and materials testing services for the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23rd day of June, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Porsche Middleton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Amy Van, City Clerk

Agenda Packet Page 20

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 1 of 12

CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS AND
QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.

FOR

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INSPECTION, AND MATERIALS TESTING

THIS Agreement (“Agreement”) for consulting services is made by and between the City of CITRUS HEIGHTS (“City”) and QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC. (“Consultant”) (together referred to as the “Parties”) as of June 23, 2022 (the “Effective Date”).

Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein.

1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on July 31, 2023 or the date the Consultant completes the services specified in Exhibit A, whichever occurs first, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as referenced herein.

1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged.

1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, requests in writing the reassignment of any such persons to ensure Consultant performs services in accordance with the Standard of Performance, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving City’s request, reassign such persons.

1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided herein above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.

Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed two hundred eighty five thousand dollars ($285,000.00), as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein for services to be performed and reimbursable expenses incurred under this Agreement. This dollar amount is not a guarantee that the City will pay that full amount to the Consultant, but is merely a limit of potential City expenditures under this Agreement.

Agenda Packet Page 21

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 2 of 12

Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant.

Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.

2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information, unless waived by the City Manager, or his or her designee:

 Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.;
 The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;  A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion;
 At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense;  The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder;
 The Consultant’s signature.

2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall pay undisputed invoices that comply with the above requirements within 30 days from the receipt of the invoice.

2.3 Final Payment. Consultant shall submit its final invoice within 60 days of completing its services. Consultant’s failure to submit its final invoice within this 60 day period shall constitute Consultant’s waiver of any further billings to, or payments from, City.

2.4 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses, if any, are specified in Exhibit B and included in the total compensation referenced in Section 2.

Expenses not listed in Exhibit B are not chargeable to, or reimbursable by, City.

Agenda Packet Page 22

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 3 of 12

2.5 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of all federal, state and local taxes, including employment taxes, incurred under this Agreement.

2.6 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of a written authorization from the City Manager, or his or her designee.

Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement

Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any services under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance specified herein and maintain that insurance throughout the term of this Agreement.

The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant’s bid or proposal. Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors or other agents.

4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant in the amount required by applicable law. The requirement to maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance may be waived by the City upon written verification that Consultant is a sole proprietor and does not have any employees and will not have any employees during the term of this Agreement.

4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.

4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 aggregate, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement.

4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 (most recent edition) covering comprehensive General Liability on an “occurrence” basis. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (most recent edition) covering any auto (Code 1), or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired (code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.

Agenda Packet Page 23

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 4 of 12

4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:

a. The Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance shall cover on an occurrence basis.

b. City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds for liability arising out of work or operations on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant. Coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as CG 20 10 11 85, or both CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01.

c. For any claims related to this Agreement or the work hereunder, the Consultant’s insurance covered shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and non-contributing.

d. The policy shall cover inter-insured suits and include a “separation of Insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately.

e. Consultant agrees to give at least 30 days prior written notice to City before coverage is canceled or modified as to scope or amount.

4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.

4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim covering the Consultant’s errors and omissions.

4.3.2 Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:

a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement.

Agenda Packet Page 24

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 5 of 12

b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work.

c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work under this Agreement.

d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.

4.4 All Policies Requirements.

4.4.1 Submittal Requirements. Consultant shall submit the following to City prior to beginning services:

a. Certificate of Liability Insurance in the amounts specified in this Agreement; and

b. Additional Insured Endorsement as required for the General Commercial and Automobile Liability Polices.

4.4.2 Acceptability of Insurers. All insurance required by this Agreement is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.

4.4.3 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Insurance obtained by the Consultant shall have a self-insured retention or deductible of no more than $100,000.

4.4.4 Wasting Policies. No policy required herein shall include a “wasting” policy limit (i.e. limit that is eroded by the cost of defense).

4.4.5 Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer or contractor may require from Consultant by virtue of the payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsements that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Agenda Packet Page 25

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 6 of 12

The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.

4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are covered as additional insured on all coverages.

4.4.7 Excess Insurance. If Consultant maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums specified herein, City shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant.

4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option: 1) obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; 2) order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or 3) terminate this Agreement.

Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES.

5.1 General Requirement. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel acceptable to City, and hold harmless City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses, and costs, including without limitation, attorney’s fees, costs and fees of litigation, (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant in performance of the services under this Agreement, except such Liability caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City.

Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damage or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall be been determined to apply.

5.2 PERS Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is Agenda Packet Page 26

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 7 of 12

determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.

6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City.

6.2 Consultant Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.

7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.

Consultant shall also, to the extent required by the California Labor Code, pay not less than the latest prevailing wage rates as determined by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

7.3 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have, and will maintain at their sole cost and expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid business licenses from City.

7.4 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Agenda Packet Page 27

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 8 of 12

Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby.

Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.

8.1 Termination. Upon ten days’ prior written notice, City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon such written notification to Consultant. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement.

8.2 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by the parties hereto.

8.3 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the City Manager, or his or her designee. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the City Manager, or his or her designee.

8.4 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant, including but not limited to the provisions of Section 5, shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

8.5 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

8.5.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;
Agenda Packet Page 28

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 9 of 12

8.5.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement;

8.5.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or

8.5.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work.

8.5.5 T he remedies mentioned in this Agreement are not exclusive of any other right, power or remedy permitted by law. The City’s failure or delay in exercising any remedy shall not constitute a waiver of such remedy or preclude the further exercise of City’s rights.

Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.

9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All final versions of reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement, and the City may use, reuse or otherwise dispose of the documents without Consultant’s permission. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential drafts and will not be released to third parties by Consultant without prior written approval of City.

9.2 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of 3 years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Pursuant to Agenda Packet Page 29

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 10 of 12

Government Code Section 8546.7, the Agreement may be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor for a period of 3 years after final payment under the Agreement.

Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.

10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in Sacramento County or in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.

10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.

10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.

10.6 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.

Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.

10.7 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.

Agenda Packet Page 30

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 11 of 12

10.8 Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent or approval that either party is required to give the other pursuant to this Agreement, shall be in writing and may be given by either (i) personal service, or (ii) certified United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested,. Notice shall be effective upon personal delivery or delivery to the addresses specified below, as reflected on the receipt of delivery or return receipt, as applicable.

Consultant: Quincy Engineering, Inc.
11017 Cobblerock Drive, Suite 100
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
ATTN: Leland Mason, Project Manager

City: City of Citrus Heights
6360 Fountain Square Drive
Citrus Heights, CA 95621
ATTN: General Services Director

10.9 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the City Manager, or his or her designee, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled “Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility.”

10.10 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits A and B represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. To the extent there are any inconsistences between this Agreement, the Exhibits, and Consultant’s Proposal, the Agreement shall control. To the extent there are any inconsistences between the Exhibits and the Consultant’s Proposal, the Exhibits shall control.

Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B Compensation Schedule

10.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.

10.12 Construction of Agreement. Each party hereto has had an equivalent opportunity to participate in the drafting of the agreement and/or to consult with legal counsel. Therefore, the usual construction of an agreement against the drafting party shall not apply hereto.

Agenda Packet Page 31

Consulting Services Agreement between June 23, 2022
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc. Page 12 of 12

10.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the parties hereto, with no intent to benefit any third parties.

SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.

By:

Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
Title: ________________________

Attest:

Amy Van, City Clerk

Approved as to Form:

Ryan R. Jones, City Attorney

Agenda Packet Page 32
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc.

June 23, 2022

EXHIBIT A
SC

OPE OF SERVICES
Agenda Packet Page 33
www.quincyeng.com | 11017 Cobblerock Drive, Suite 100 | Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 | P: 916.368.9181 | F: 916.368.1308

SCOPE OF WORK
The following Scope of Work identifies the items of work, the order in which they may occur, and how they will be addressed during the construction of the 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project .

Upon negotiation with the City, Quincy will finalize this Scope of Work for this project for approval by the City.

This Work Plan is based on Quincy’s current understanding of the project and the following assumptions:
 The CONTRACTOR will take no more than 109 working days (90 WD’s base bid + up to 19 WD’s Add. Alt. if awarded) to complete the project. Construction of the proposed project would last approximately 5 1/2 months from May 2022 to October 2022.
 The CONTRACTOR will generally be working normal shifts throughout the project. However, due to the nature of paving and resurfacing work, we have assumed up to 2 hours per week of overtime for our Construction Inspector.
 The CONTRACTOR will provide all construction staking and layout for the project.

Our level of effort depends on the Contractor’s operation and ability to meet the anticipated schedule and contract requirements.
 Task 1 - Quincy’s level of effort for pre-construction activities is estimated at up to 32 hours.  Task 2 - Quincy’s level of effort for construction administration and inspection activities is estimated at up to 1,356 hours.
 Task 3 - As subconsultant to Quincy, Geocon Consultants (Geocon) will provide materials sampling and testing services. Geocon’s initial budget for these activities is established at up to $19,814.72.  Task 4 - Quincy’s level of effort for post-construction activities is estimated at up to 36 hours.

The following are the activities we will employ by task:

Task 1: Pre-Construction Services
Quincy staff will perform the following, as required:
 Thoroughly review the plans, specifications, RE pending file, PLACs, and other applicable documents. It is important to identify potential or anticipated problem areas early in the contract.  Prepare and conduct a coordination meeting with the City and City’s Engineering Designer of Record (EOR) to review project information.
 Prepare and conduct a pre-construction conference with the Contractor, subcontractors, City officials, and other involved parties. Topics of discussion will include labor compliance, equal employment opportunity, record keeping, State and Federal safety laws, DBE involvement, use of local businesses and subcontractors, environmental requirements including Storm Water Pollution Prevention, utility issues, traffic control issues, safety problems, etc. A major goal at this meeting, besides dissemination of data, is to establish a cooperative attitude between the Construction Management (CM) field staff, City staff, and the Contractor. It is critical that all parties work as a Team.
 Create project records files based on the 63-Category Filing System in the Caltrans Construction Manual that will be passed onto the City once the project is completed. Maintain the project records on a regular basis such that the records are organized and complete.
 Establish a photo and video record for the project site to document pre-construction conditions.

Task 2: Construction Field Inspection and Management
Quincy staff will perform the following, as required:
 Establish and maintain project control including:

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
2022 RESIDENTIAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
Agenda Packet Page 34

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
2022 RESIDENTIAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT

SCOPE OF WORK
P a g e | 2
o On-site organization;
o Internal and external lines of communication and authority; and o Procedures for coordinating with the City, EOR, Contractor, subconsultants, local businesses and residents, and other stakeholders.
 Verify Contractor enforcement of safety and health standards for construction activities. Regularly attend Contractor tailgate safety meetings. Perform periodic construction site safety reviews. Report accidents to appropriate authorities promptly. It is understood that City’s Contractor is responsible for the project’s safety at all times throughout the contract.
 Prepare and conduct regular (weekly or semi-weekly) progress meetings with the Contractor and City staff to discuss ongoing construction activities, job progress, scheduling, and other important issues. Prepare minutes and distribute to attendees promptly.
 Perform periodic reviews of the Contractor payroll records for labor compliance including:
o Monitor and spot audit contractor certified payrolls for prevailing wages, o Review field labor compliance posters,
o Perform field EEO interviews.
 Coordinate with local businesses and residents, as needed, throughout the project.  Coordinate with utility companies and monitor Contractor coordination with utility companies, as needed, throughout the project. Observe utility work by utility companies, if needed, for compliance with project documents.
 Review for authorization of Contractor-developed submittals such as: staging, Traffic Handling Plan, project shop drawings, demolition plans, and material submittals. Verify that material submittals comply with the Buy America, as needed. Contractor-developed submittals requiring review and approval by others, i.e. the EOR, will be forwarded as appropriate.
 Process Contractor-developed Requests for Information (RFI) internally, to the City, or to the EOR, as appropriate.

Copies of RFI correspondence that may result in a Change Order, including initial requests and subsequent responses, will be flagged.
 Develop and maintain logs for transmittals, submittals, RFI’s, change orders, survey requests, and disputes for tracking timely and efficient processing and responses.  Review, monitor, and document changes to the Contractor’s schedule. Review and coordinate with the Contractor monthly schedule updates for critical path activities.
 Prepare and send Weekly Statement of Working Days to the Contractor. Prepare other daily, weekly, and monthly reports as requested by the City.
 Provide daily observation of the Contractor’s work with appropriately trained and qualified field staff to verify that the work substantially complies with the contract documents and accept or reject the Contractor’s work as applicable. Field staff to be comprised of the Resident Engineer, Construction Inspector, material inspectors/ testers, and other appropriate staff as needed.
 Prepare daily inspection reports. Daily records will contain progress of the project, weather history, Contractor’s activities, the number of workers on site, problems encountered, and other relevant information.  Take photographs daily during the construction to document Contractor activities, barricade placement, disputed work items, rejected, replaced, or removed items, completed work, and extra work.  With the assistance of the City and the EOR, interpret plans and specifications. If further design work or modifications to the contract documents are required, assist in directing the modifications and provide an appropriate contract change order for authorization by the City.  Notify the City immediately of any errors or omissions in the contract documents and coordinate corrections with the EOR.
 Prepare Contractor progress payment applications including computing and field verifying pay quantities pursuant to the Caltrans process.

Agenda Packet Page 35

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
2022 RESIDENTIAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT

SCOPE OF WORK
P a g e | 3
 Prepare change orders for authorization by the City. Negotiate extra work with the Contractor while always keeping the City involved. Prepare estimates for extra work to support change order costs.  Maintain daily extra work bills, quantity measurements, or such other information as is necessary to document the payment to the Contractor for the extra work completed as unit cost, lump sum, or force account.  If the Contractor submits a potential claim or other dispute, Quincy will immediately notify the City. In cooperation with the City, Quincy will evaluate and work to resolve the issue in the field and prior to post-construction.  Maintain a set of red-line plans to be provided to the City for “As-built” plans. Note all changes to this set as they occur.
 Attend a project walk through with City and Contractor personnel to establish a “punch list” of items of work that are not satisfactory.
 Attend a final project walk-through with City and Contractor personnel to determine that all “punch list” items of work have been completed.

Task 3: Materials Sampling and Testing
Materials sampling and testing will be performed by subconsultant, Geocon Consultants (Geocon).  Geocon will perform sampling and materials testing per the project specifications and the City’s Quality Assurance Program. Typical tests include:
o Soil compaction testing
o Soil gradation, Cleanness Value, and Sand Equivalent for soils and aggregate base o Concrete and HMA field sampling and testing
o Concrete Compressive Strength
o Aggregate gradation, Cleanness Value, Sand Equivalent, and LA Rattler for concrete and HMA  Quincy staff will coordinate timely testing and determination of correct testing methods and procedures for bridge and roadway work. Quincy will also accept or reject materials based on test results.

Task 4: Post-Construction Services
Quincy staff will perform the following as required during this task:
 Perform final observation of the project upon completion to confirm substantial conformity with contract documents.
 Compute the final quantities and prepare the final estimate of cost.  Determine quantity over-runs and under-runs and provide explanation of each, as needed.  Prepare the Proposed Final Estimate for Contractor agreement.  Finalize black-line as-built plans for use by the Design Engineer to develop “Final As-built” drawings.  Resolution of Contract Claims: Assist the City to resolve claims and disputes to minimize impacts to the project. If a potential claim cannot be resolved during the construction phase, it becomes a claim. If the claim cannot be immediately resolved, Quincy will recommend alternative actions to the City for consideration.

Due to the nature of Contract Claims and Dispute Resolution and the difficulty in estimating the scope and effort required (before construction activities have begun), and if possible, within the allocated administration and inspection budget, we will assist the City in resolving the claims and disputes. In the event that additional effort, beyond the scope of day-to-day administration and inspection operations is required, a contract amendment for this additional budget will be requested.

Optional Task: Apprentice Inspectors
Due to apprenticeship requirements by the California Department of Industrial Relations (CA DIR), prevailing wage eligible projects must notify and register with CA DIR and solicit apprentice inspectors from training programs. Response by apprentices for inclusion on projects has been historically low, however, if an apprentice responds to the solicitation, they must be hired on the spot and provided training as part of the project.

Due to the difficulty in estimating the probability and effort required, we will incorporate the apprentice inspector, if possible, within the allocated administration and inspection budget. However, if additional budget is required, a contract amendment for additional budget will be requested.

Agenda Packet Page 36
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc.

June 23, 2022

EXHIBIT B
CO

MPENSATION SCHEDULE
Agenda Packet Page 37
Cost Proposal
Construction Management and Inspection
Date: 4/1/2022
Quincy Engineering, Inc.

Direct Labor: $91,650.60
Estimated Salary Increases for Multi-Year Project $0.00 Subtotal $91,650.60
Overhead (1.430): $131,014.53
A. Labor Subtotal $222,665.13
Subconsultant Costs:

Geocon Consultants $19,814.72
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
B. Subconsultant Subtotal $19,814.72
Other Direct Costs:

CM Per Diem 0.0 Days @ $120 per day -$
CM Vehicle Included in Overhead
RE Per Diem 0.0 Days @ $120 per day -$
RE Vehicle Included in Overhead
SR Per Diem 0.0 Days @ $120 per day -$
SR Vehicle Included in Overhead
Inspector Per Diem 0.0 Days @ $120 per day -$
Inspector Vehicle Included in Overhead
Miscellaneous Field Supplies 53.63$
Construction Office 0.0 Months @ $1,250 per month -$
Mileage 0.0 Miles @ $0.585 per mile -$
Prevailing Wage Differential 20,200.00$
C. Other Direct Cost Subtotal: $20,253.63
Labor Subtotal A. = $222,665.13
Fixed Fee (10.0%): $22,266.51
Subconsultant Subtotal B. = $19,814.72
Fixed Fee (0.0%): $0.00
Other Direct Cost Subtotal: C. = $20,253.63
Fixed Fee (0.0%): $0.00
TOTAL = $285,000.00
Note: Invoices will be based upon actual QEI hourly rates plus overhead at 142.95% plus prorated portion of fixed fee. Subconsultant and Direct Costs will be billed at actual cost.

The overhead rate (ICR) shall remain fixed for the contract duration or until both parties agree to modify the rate in writing.

City of Citrus Heights - 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Quincy Eng_10-H1_Citrus Heights_2022 Resurfacing Project_04012022 (002)Project 1 Budget Agenda Packet Page 38
Cost Proposal
Project Number: BD-4488
TASKS
Principal Engineer
Construction Manager
Office Engineer / Asst.

RE
Const. Insp. Gp 2 **
Const. Insp. Gp 2 **
(1.5x OT)
blank
Quincy Total Hours
Quincy Total Labor
Dollars
Quincy Labor
Quincy Profit
Quincy NLF Budget
Geocon Consultants
Subconsultant Subtotal
MBH NLM JG JD CIG2OT blank Direct Labor
Labor+OH
Multiplier Fee Multiplier
Actual Labor
Multiplier
No. Initial Hourly Rate $98.00 $85.00 $57.40 $56.50 $84.75 $0.00

2.4295 10% 2.6725
1 Pre Construction 24 8 32 $2,499.20 $6,071.81 $607.18 $6,678.99 $0.00 2 Construction Administration & Inspection 300 140 872 44 1356 $86,533.00 $210,231.92 $21,023.19 $231,255.12 $0.00 3 Materials Sampling and Testing 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19,814.72 $19,814.72 4 Post Construction 20 16 36 $2,618.40 $6,361.40 $636.14 $6,997.54 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
Subtotal- Hours 0 344 164 872 44 0 1424 $91,650.60 $222,665.13 $22,266.51 $244,931.65 $0.00 Estimated Salary Increases for Multi-Year Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Other Direct Costs $20,253.63 $0.00
Total Cost $0.00 $29,240.00 $9,413.60 $49,268.00 $3,729.00 $0.00 $91,650.60 $91,650.60 $222,665.13 $22,266.51 $265,185.28 $19,814.72 $19,814.72 Construction Management and Inspection
Project Name: City of Citrus Heights - 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Quincy Eng_10-H1_Citrus Heights_2022 Resurfacing Project_04012022 (002) Project 1 Hrs 4/4/2022 Agenda Packet Page 39
Labor by Classification
Principal Engineer $80 - $120
Construction Manager $65 - $100
Resident Engineer ** $60 - $100
Structure Representative ** $60 - $100
Construction Inspector (Group 1) */** $50 - $100
Construction Inspector (Group 2) */** $48 - $98
Construction Inspector (Group 3) */** $40 - $90
Construction Inspector (Group 4) */** $34 - $84
Senior Engineer $60 - $100
Associate Engineer $40 - $80
Engineering Designer I $30 - $50
Engineering Designer II $36 - $66
Project Manager Assistant/Office Engineer $40 - $65
Surveying
Survey Manager $60 - $90
Project Surveyor */** $40 - $70
Overhead Rate 142.95%
Other Direct Costs
Staff Computers and Cell Phones Included in Overhead
Staff Assigned Vehicles Included in Overhead
Home Office Included in Overhead
Project Specific Construction Office Cost
Construction Office Expenses (internet, utilities, etc.) Cost Mileage (when not Staff Assigned Vehicles) Current Federal Rate ($0.585/mi.) Other Travel and Rental Vehicles Cost
Subconsultants Cost
Short Term Per Diem up to $200 per day
Long Term Per Diem (DIR Daily Rate) $120 per day (no reciepts required) Prevailing Wage Differential** Cost
Miscellaneous (field supplies, delivery, copying, etc.) Cost Fee
Labor + Overhead 10%
Other Direct Costs 0%
Notes:
*Overtime rates apply to these classifications and will typically be charged at 1.5 times the hourly rate. **Prevailing Wage may apply for field duties related to construction inspection and survey services.

Labor Costs to be invoiced based on actual hourly rate plus overhead plus fee.

Other Direct Costs to be invoiced at actual cost plus fee.

The Client and Quincy agree that the Indirect Cost Rate shall remain unchanged for a multi-year contract All rates subject to an annual escalation of up to 5% per year City of Citrus Heights - 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Year 2022 Hourly Rates
Hourly Rate
Rates are effective January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 Agenda Packet Page 40
Proposal 2022 RSR Project
CONSULTANT: Geocon Consultants, Inc. Date: 4/1/2022
Task: Materials Testing Services

DIRECT LABOR
Classification Name Range Hours
Initial Hourly
Rate Total
-$
Principal Engineer Zorne $60 - $80 2 65.00$ 130.00$ Senior Engineer Loutzenhiser, Staff $41 - $70 4 57.50$ 230.00$ Project Engineer/Geologist Guardado, Church, Staff $35 - $40 8 45.00$ 360.00$ Sr. Staff Engineer/Geologist Staff $25 - $35 6 35.00$ 210.00$ Field Technician (PW Group 4, Reg.) Staff Published PW* 4 38.84$ 155.36$ Field Technician (PW Group 3, Reg) Staff Published PW* 68 44.81$ 3,047.08$ Field Technician (PW Group 3, OT) Staff Published PW* 4 67.22$ 268.88$ Administrative Assistant Staff $15 - $30 2 30.00$ 60.00$ 98 *Prevailing Wage Determination: NC-63-3-9-2021-1; issue date: 8/22/21 Subtotal Direct Labor Costs 4,461.32$
Anticipated Salary Increases -$
TOTAL - Direct Labor 4,461.32$
Rate
Fringe Benefit 51.65% 2,304.27$
TOTAL - Fringe Benefits 2,304.27$
Indirect Costs Rate Total
Overhead Rate (General and Administrative) 130.67% 5,829.61$ TOTAL - Indirect Costs 5,829.61$
FEE ( 10.00% ) TOTAL - Fee 1,259.52$
OTHER COSTS (ACTUAL COSTS) Quantity Unit Rate Total
• Soil, Agg Lab Tests 1 est 2,420.00$ 2,420.00$
• Concrete Agg Lab Tests 1 est $785 785.00$
• Concrete Cyls 1 est 150.00$ 150.00$
• HMA Lab Tests 1 est 2,605.00$ 2,605.00$
TOTAL - Other Costs 5,960.00$
Total - Geocon Consultants, Inc. 19,814.72$

SUBCONSULTANT COSTS
• n/a -$
TOTAL - Subconsultants -$
TOTAL COST - NOT TO EXCEED 19,814.72$

GEOCON COST PROPOSAL
2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project (RSR)
Citrus Heights, California

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Packet Page 41
Project Name 2022 Residential Street Resurfacing Project Geocon Proposal No. LS-22-77
Fed Aid Proj. No. n/a
Project Scope
Storm Drain, Subgrade, AB, Minor Concrete, HMA
Engineer's Estimate: n/a
Schedule:

Assumptions:

Geocon Fee Schedule Geocon 2020 ICR
Labor/Service Activity No. of
Visits
Units per
Visit UNITS QTY RATE AMOUNT
Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist QAP Review / Materials Testing Plan Prep hrs 0 108.69$ -$ Project Engineer QAP Review / Materials Testing Plan Prep hrs 0 139.75$ -$ Principal Engineer QA Review/Consultation/Contract Management hrs 0 201.86$ -$ Word Processing / Technical Editor hrs 0 93.17$ -$ Subtotal: -$
Field Technician (PW - Group 3) Field Testing and Observation - Storm Drain 4 4 hrs 16 139.16$ 2,226.53$ Field Technician (PW - Group 3) Field Testing and Observation - Microsurfacing 1 4 hrs 4 139.16$ 556.63$ Field Technician (PW - Group 3) Field Testing and Observation - Subgrade 4 4 hrs 16 139.16$ 2,226.53$ Field Technician (PW - Group 3) Field Testing and Observation - AB 4 4 hrs 16 139.16$ 2,226.53$ Field Technician (PW - Group 3) - OT OT allowance hrs 0 208.75$ -$ Laboratory Subgrade/AB Lab Testing (see attached detail) Est 1 2,420.00$ 2,420.00$ Subtotal: 9,656.23$
Field Technician (PW - Group 4) Concrete Sampling 1 4 hrs 4 120.62$ 482.47$ Laboratory Concrete Cylinder Compressive Strength (ASTM C39) each 5 30.00$ 150.00$ Laboratory Concrete Aggregate Compliance Tests (See attached detail) Est 1 785.00$ 785.00$ Subtotal: 1,417.47$
HMA Paving
Field Technician (PW - Group 3) Field Testing and Observation - Paving 2 8 hrs 16 139.16$ 2,226.53$ Field Technician (PW - Group 3, OT) Field Testing and Observation - Paving 2 2 hrs 4 208.75$ 835.01$ Laboratory HMA Lab Testing (see attached detail) Est 1 2,605.00$ 2,605.00$ Subtotal: 5,666.55$
Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist Field Report Review, Coordination hrs 6 108.69$ 652.16$ Project Engineer Field Report Review, Coordination hrs 8 139.75$ 1,117.99$ Senior Engineer Geotechnical Consultation hrs 4 178.57$ 714.27$ Principal Engineer QA Review/Consultation/Contract Management hrs 2 201.86$ 403.72$ Word Processing / Technical Editor hrs 2 93.17$ 186.33$ Subtotal: 3,074.46$
ESTIMATED TOTAL: 19,814.72$
Approx. Percentage of Construction Cost: n/a
Proj. Mgmt. / Coordination / Admin / Meetings / Reporting

FEE ESTIMATE WORKSHEET
Provide QA Materials Testing Services during Construction 60 Working Days
Normal working hours Monday through Friday, prevailing wage Caltrans Test Methods for Earthwork, Subgrade, AB, HMA, Concrete Preconstruction Services / QAP Review / Materials Testing Plan Minor Concrete
Earthwork / Grading / Utilities / Subgrade / AB
4/1/2022 Page 2 of 3
Agenda Packet Page 42
Project Name 2022 RSR Project
Citrus Heights, CA
Geocon Proposal No. LS-22-77
Fed Aid Proj. No. n/a
Subgrade Soil, Class 2 AB, Microsurfacing Aggregate
Test Material Tested Test Name Test Frequency Number of Tests Unit Cost Total
CT 216 Subgrade Soil/Backfill Cal Impact Curve As needed, per Test Procedure 4 $225 $900 CT 216 3/4" Class 2 AB Cal Impact Curve As needed, per Test Procedure 2 $225 $450 CAL 202 3/4" Class 2 AB/Micro Agg Gradation Per QAP 2 $120 $240 CAL 301 3/4" Class 2 AB R-Value Per QAP 1 $300 $300
CAL 217 3/4" Class 2 AB/Micro Agg Sand Equivalent Per QAP 2 $100 $200 CAL 229 3/4" Class 2 AB/Micro Agg Durability Index Per QAP 2 $165 $330 Subtotal $2,420
Concrete Aggregate (Testing per mix design)
Test Material Tested Test Name Test Frequency Number of Tests Unit Cost Total
CAL 217 Concrete Aggregate Sand Equivalent Per QAP 1 $100 $100 CAL 202 Concrete Aggregate Gradation Per QAP 1 $120 $120 CT 216 Concrete Aggregate Cleanness Value Per QAP 1 $265 $265 CAL 202 Concrete Aggregate LA Abrasion Per QAP 1 $200 $200 CAL 301 Concrete Aggregate Organic Impurities Per QAP 1 $100 $100 Subtotal $785
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 3/4" Type A - Assume 10,000 Tons
Test Material Tested Test Name Test Frequency Number of Tests Unit Cost Total
CT 202 HMA (Field Sample) Extraction/Gradation 1 each 1,000 tons 3 $325 $975 CT 382 Aggregate + Oil Ignition Oven Calibration 1 per Mix or Project 1 $400 $400 CT 382 HMA (Field Sample) Oil Content 1 each 1,000 tons 3 $125 $375 T324 HMA (Field Sample) Hamburg Wheel Track 1 per Mix or Project 0 $1,000 $0 T283 HMA (Field Sample) Tensile Strength Ratio/Moisture Sus1 per Mix or Project 0 $1,000 $0 CT 309 HMA (Field Sample) Theo. Max. Density (Rice) 1 each day HMA paving 3 $175 $525 CT 202 HMA Aggregate Gradation (Combined) 1 set of 4 per Mix or Project 0 $120 $0 CT 211 HMA Aggregate Los Angeles Rattler (100, 500 revs)1 per Mix or Project 0 $200 $0 CT 205 HMA Aggregate % Crushed Particles (Coarse) 1 per Mix or Project 0 $150 $0 CT 205 HMA Aggregate % Crushed Particles (Fine) 1 per Mix or Project 0 $150 $0 CT 234 HMA Aggregate Fine Aggregate Angularity 1 per Mix or Project 0 $125 $0 CT 235 HMA Aggregate Flat/Elongated Particles 1 per Mix or Project 0 $150 $0 CT 229 HMA Aggregate Durability Index 1 per Mix or Project 0 $165 $0 CT 217 HMA Aggregate Sand Equivalent 1 per Mix or Project 3 $110 $330 CT 308 HMA Cores Core Density 1 per 250 Tons 0 $100 $0
Subtotal $2,605

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM DETAIL

Page 3 of 3 ends

Agenda Packet Page 43
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Citrus Heights and Quincy Engineering, Inc.

June 23, 2022
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR CODE § 3700
I am
aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.

CONSU
LTANT
By:

Title:
2699899.5
Agenda Packet Page 44

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 23, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FRO
M: Regina Cave, General Services Director
Mary Poole, Operations Manager
SU
BJECT: Resolution of Intention to Record Delinquent Solid Waste Service Charges on the Tax Roll
Summary and Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-___, A Resolution of the City Council’s Intention to Record Delinquent Solid Waste Charges, Penalties and Interest on the Tax Roll. These charges will be collected with the general tax levy collected by Sacramento County.

Delinquent charges are recorded on the tax roll once each year.

Fiscal Impact
There is no impact to the FY 21/22 budget. This item is included in the annual solid waste budget. The County charges an annual fee of $35.00 plus 62 cents per levy to record delinquent accounts on the tax roll. The actual number of delinquent accounts will be determined on July 15, 2022.

Background and Analysis
Per Government Code Sections 38790.1, 25831, and the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 74 Section 169, the City can record delinquent solid waste charges, penalties, and interest on the annual tax roll. The Government Code and Municipal Code also provide for a public hearing before the City Council for hearing objections to the proposed action or amount of charges, or both. The public hearing is proposed to be set for July 14, 2022.

As
of May 17, 2022, there were 1,264 delinquent accounts, with a past due balance of $440,909.38 and penalties of $44,090.94 for a total of $485,000.32. The list of delinquent accounts will be updated on July 15, 2022, and recorded on the tax roll in August 2022. The County will collect one-half of the amount due on December 10, 2022 and one-half on April 10, 2023. The County will forward the payments to the City in January and May 2023.

Item 7
Agenda Packet Page 45
Subject: Resolution of Intention to Record Delinquent Solid Waste Charges on Tax Roll Date: June 23, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

Attachments
1) Resolution 2022-____, a Resolution of the City Council’s Intention to Record Delinquent Solid Waste Charges, Penalties and Interest on the Tax Roll

Agenda Packet Page 46

Agenda Packet Page 47
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS TO RECORD DELINQUENT

SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES TO THE PROPERTY TAX ROLL

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights has determined that charges for solid waste collection services will be paid by the owner of record of the parcel receiving such services;

WHEREAS, Sacramento County will collect from the owner of record via the annual general tax levy any delinquent charges, penalties, and interest submitted to the County by the City of Citrus Heights;

WHEREAS, City Council sets July 14, 2022 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, 6360 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights as the time and place where any and all persons having objections to the proposed collection of delinquent solid waste charges, penalties, and interest can show cause as to why the proposed actions should not be carried out in accordance with the Resolution of Intention.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby gives notice that any owner of property liable to be assessed for a delinquent solid waste charge may, at any time not later than the hour set for hearing objections to the proposed collection of such delinquent charges on the tax roll, make and file with the City Clerk a written protest against the proposed action herein described or against the amount of charges, or both.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23
rd day of June, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Porsche Middleton, Mayor

ATTEST:

Amy Van, City Clerk

Agenda Packet Page 48

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 23, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FRO
M: Regina Cave, General Services Director
Leslie Blomquist, City Engineer
SU
BJECT: Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funding and Project Expenditure Plan for FY 2022-2023
Summary and Recommendation
Pursuant to Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), all California counties and cities receiving enhanced transportation funding through the enacted gas tax increase are required to submit on an annual basis an expenditure plan for the respective agency’s allocation of funds for the subsequent fiscal year.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, approving the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Project Expenditure Plan to be Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

Fiscal Impact
In accordance with the formulaic distribution of the existing gas tax funds, Citrus Heights is expected to receive an estimated $1,944,498 in Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funds for fiscal year 2022-2023. These funds will come to the city in the same manner as the existing gas tax funds, which is a monthly distribution based on actual revenues collected.

The city’s RMRA funds are programmed in the 2022-2023 budget, as well as the 5-year Capital Improvement Program adopted in 2021.

Background and Analysis
On April 28, 2017, SB 1 was enacted into law, which established the RMRA to address deferred maintenance on state highway, and local streets and road systems. The bill stipulates the RMRA funds shall be used for projects that include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Road maintenance and rehabilitation;
• Safety Projects;
• Railroad grade separations;
Item 8
Agenda Packet Page 49
Subject: Senate Bill 1 (SB1) Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funding and Project List for FY 2022-2023
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

• Complete streets components, including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and storm water capture projects in conjunction with any other allowable project;
• Traffic control devices; and
• Matching funds for State and/or Federal grants for eligible projects.

In order to receive SB 1 funds, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) requires all local agencies submit an annual expenditure plan identifying the proposed projects to be funded with the RMRA funds, along with an adopted resolution containing the proposed projects.

However, in recognizing the need for agencies to have greater flexibility in trying to address priorities and bridge funding gaps on existing projects, the CTC does permit acceptance of more broad form expenditure plans, indicating precise locations to be determined during the design phase. As outlined in Council’s May 2022 Strategic Objectives, staff intends to return to Council in the fall to seek direction on options regarding pavement restoration strategies. Based on that direction, staff will then proceed with developing a street list for the 2023 Resurfacing Project.

The proposed improvement projects staff have identified for SB1 funding for FY 2022-2023 are as follows:

Projects
Completion Estimated Useful Life
October 2023 20 Year life
• 2023 Street Resurfacing Project – pavement restoration; sidewalk, curb/gutter repairs; curb ramp upgrades; drainage enhancements; and pavement markings at various locations throughout the city. Locations to be determined during design phase.

Approved expenditures plans are required to be submitted to the CTC annually by July 1 to avoid delay in distribution of funds. Receipt of RMRA funds for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 will commence October 2022.

Attachments
1) Resolution 2022-____, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, approving the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Project List to be Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
Agenda Packet Page 50
RESOLUTION NO. 2022- ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 PROJECT LIST TO BE FUNDED BY
SENATE BILL 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by California Legislature and signed into law in April 2017 to help address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide;

WHEREAS, SB 1 includes provisions for transparency and accountability to help ensure taxpayers are informed of the projects being proposed with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funding, and that recipients are expending the funds on eligible proje cts that meet the objectives of SB 1;

WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the 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 improvements;

WHEREAS, the City of Citrus Heights will receive an estimated $1,944,498 in RMRA funding from SB 1 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023;

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, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public may not have otherwise been possible without SB 1;

WHEREAS, the City conducted a thorough pavement analysis in 2019 which evaluated all city-owned streets and segments in order to obtain accurate data on the existing pavement conditions;

WHEREAS, the data from the city’s pavem ent analysis is maintained in an up -to-date Pavement Management Program, and presently reflects an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 51 for the city’s overall network;

WHEREAS, the updated 2021 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the overall network of streets throughout the greater Sacramento County region are in the “at-risk” category (50-70 PCI) with an average PCI of 58;

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 infrastructure, and using cutting -edge technology, materials and practices where applicable will have significant positive impacts throughout our community and the region; and

Agenda Packet Page 51
WHEREAS, the city proposes to apply its 2022-2023 SB1 funds towards the 2023 Street Resurfacing Project, with specific locations to be finalized during the design phase.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights that the proposed list of projects to be funded in FY 2022- 2023 by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act is hereby approved.

The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23rd day of June, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Porsche Middleton, Mayor

ATTEST:

Amy Van, City Clerk

Agenda Packet Page 52
Printed on Recycled Paper

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

MEMORANDUM

DATE: June 23, 2022

TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley Feeney, City Manager

FROM: Bill Zenoni, Interim Administrative Services Director Casey Kempenaar, Community Development Director
Regina Cave, General Services Director

SUBJECT: City Impact Fee Update

Summary and Recommendation

At the May 10, 2022 Council Strategic Retreat, the City Council adopted numerous goals including:

At the June 23, 2022 City Council Meeting, present to City Council for consideration, an analysis and proposed update of the city’s development impact fees.

Impact Fees are fees assessed on new development to help mitigate the impact new development imposes on the City. This includes the Housing Linkage Fee (Affordable Housing Impact Fee), Roadway and Transit Impact Fee, Parks Impact Fee, and Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee. With the exception of the Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee, these fees have been in place prior to incorporation, or shortly after incorporation and have not been updated to reflect inflation or changing regulations.

At the August 8, 2019 City Council meeting, a contract was approved for Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to analyze existing City fees and consider updates to fees as appropriate. An Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study (Attachment 1A) and Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study (Attachment 2A) were developed to evaluate existing fees and establish the framework for consideration of new fees as required by AB1600 (Mitigation Fee Act).

In addition to the two City administered fees, the City also collects fees and remits fees for Parks and for Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fees. As special districts, neither Sunrise Recreation and Park District (SRPD) nor Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (SMFD) are legally able to levy impact fees. As a result, the City has historically collected impact fees on behalf of the districts. This is common for local governments in California to support the Special Districts that provide services within their jurisdiction.

Item 9
Agenda Packet Page 53
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 2 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
In order to evaluate their respective Impact Fees SRPD prepared a Park Impact Fee Nexus Study (Attachment 3A) and Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District prepared a Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study (Attachment 4A).

Based on these Nexus Studies, the existing Impact Fees are insufficient to offset the impacts of new development within Citrus Heights. As a result, the following motions are recommended:

Motion 1: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-___ a resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, adopting an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study and updating the Affordable Housing Impact Fee.

Motion 2: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-___ a resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, adopting a Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study and updating the Multimodal Impact Fee.

Motion 3: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-___ a resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, adopting a Park Impact Fee Nexus Study and updating the Park Impact Fee.

Motion 4: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-___ a resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, adopting the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Capital Facilities (Impact) Fee Study.

Motion 5: Move to introduce for first reading, read by title only and waive the full reading of Ordinance 2022- , an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights related to Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee

Fiscal Impact

Revenue from the proposed Impact Fees will vary based on timing and type of new development that will occur in the City. While Impact fees do not fully offset the impact of new development on the City; they serve as an important funding source for grant matches for City and/or partner agency projects and help contribute towards capital investments.

Approximately $98,000 has been expended to prepare the necessary Nexus Studies to support the Impact Fee Update. Similarly, both SRPD and SMFD have expended significant resources to prepare Nexus Studies. After initiation of the study process, the state passed AB 602 changing the requirements for impact fee studies effective July 1, 2022. Should the Nexus Studies presented to Council, not be approved by this date, significant modifications will be required to comply with AB602, resulting in additional costs to the City and the Districts.

In the case of the Affordable Housing, Multimodal, and Park Impact Fees, funds collected may only be spent within Citrus Heights. The Fire Capital Facilities Fee may be spent elsewhere within SMFD; however, given SMFD’s service model and the City’s central location within SMFD’s jurisdictional boundaries, it is anticipated that necessary investments in Citrus Heights will exceed revenues generated by development in Citrus Heights.

Agenda Packet Page 54
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 3 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Background and Analysis

Development Impact Fees Overview
Development Impact Fees (DIF) are one-time fees paid by new development to fund the cost of providing municipal facilities to serve that development. This authorization exists through the enactment of California Government Code sections 66001 through 66025 (also known as the “Mitigation Fee Act” and sometimes referred to as “AB1600”).

The Mitigation Fee Act is premised on the concept that new development pays its own way, or, put another way, new development has to mitigate its own impacts on the system. The Mitigation Fee Act requires a rational nexus and rough proportionality between the type and scale of development and the fee imposed. This is what makes a DIF a “fee” and not a tax; DIF cannot be used for general purposes, such as maintenance. Development Impact Fees are paid to ensure that new growth pays its fair share and that existing residents and businesses do not shoulder the burden associated with the incremental need for new infrastructure and facilities presented by increasing population or service demands.

This process includes making a determination that there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the fee, the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. In order for DIF to be legally enforceable, a community must conduct an analysis that identifies anticipated growth that is related to infrastructure costs and apportion those costs to project development. This is distributed by type of development, square foot, dwelling unit, or per trip basis - with the intent that this impact fee type distribution equitably mitigates the impact of development on City resources, amenities and infrastructure.

A key principal of the fee studies is to establish a maximum (ceiling) for development fees the city may consider charging. The subsequent staff recommendations reflect a developer contribution towards the local gap amount rather than the full mitigation cost. This is intended to recognize that the full mitigation cost could be a barrier to development and that typically these types of projects (affordable housing, roadway infrastructure, parks and fire facilities) obtain a variety of subsidies or grants in order to be built over time.

Existing City Fee Context
Shortly after incorporation the City Council adopted various regulations, fees, and associated actions from Sacramento County. Both the Housing Linkage Fee (Affordable Housing Fee) and the Roadway/Transit Fee were adopted in the 1990s and have never been updated or increased.

Although development in the city is relatively limited, these fees are an important tool for the city to offset the impacts of development by providing affordable housing and roadway/transit improvements.

Since neither fee was indexed to inflation, the relative buying power of these fees has diminished considerably since incorporation. In order to ensure the impact fees are providing resources to offset development impacts, the city commissioned a Nexus Study for both the Housing Linkage Fee (Attachment 1a) and the Roadway/Transit Fee, rebranded as the Multi-Modal Impact Fee (Attachment 2a).

Agenda Packet Page 55
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 4 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Housing Linkage Fee (Affordable Housing Impact Fee)
The Housing Linkage Fee (formerly Sacramento County Housing Trust Fund) was adopted in 1990 to increase and improve the supply of affordable housing units to very-low income households. The ordinance established square footage fees on non-residential developments based on an economic nexus analysis.

New commercial buildings create new jobs, a share of which are lower paying, resulting in new lower income households which in turn create additional demand for affordable housing. The Housing Linkage Fee specifically provides funding to help address the affordability gap or the difference between the cost of developing affordable units and the rent charged based on the income of the tenant for those in the workforce.

The analysis determined a nexus between the construction of various commercial and industrial buildings or land use types and the number of very-low income employee households. The fee amounts have not been updated since 1992 and are not indexed to inflation. Currently, the fees are assessed at the point of building permit issuance with fees ranging from $0.26 per square foot to $0.97 per square foot depending on the use.

As detailed in the Nexus Study, the analysis links the development of six types of workplace buildings to the estimated number of lower income housing units required in each of three income categories. Then, the cost of providing affordable housing to the worker households is determined and expressed per square foot of building area. Findings represent the full mitigation cost for the affordable housing impacts of new development and the ceiling for any affordable housing fee that may be imposed.

The Nexus Study also points out that many of the assumptions made err on the conservative side and may be considerably understated. The subsequent recommendations then reflect a contribution towards the local gap amount rather than the full mitigation cost recognizing that the full mitigation cost could be a barrier to development and that affordable housing projects obtain a variety of subsidies in order to be built and remain affordable over time.

The results of the Nexus Study are heavily driven by two factors: the density of employees within buildings and the occupational make-up of the workforce. Retail has both high employment density and a high proportion of lower paying jobs, factors that in combination result in the highest affordable housing impacts and maximum fee level conclusions among the various types.

Warehouse and residential care facilities have a high proportion of lower paying jobs, but a low density of employment, resulting in lower maximum fee level conclusions compared to other land uses.

Table 1 provides the existing fees; maximum fees established by the Nexus Analysis; and the Indexed fees, if the ordinance had provided for the annual indexing of the fee.

Agenda Packet Page 56
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 5 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Table 1

Regional Context
As part of the analysis, staff compared proposed fees to surrounding local agencies. These fees vary across the region, and a number of these fees are currently being studied. Fees of nearby agencies are depicted in Table 2.

Table 2

* Office includes Medical Services and Assisted living
** Industrial includes Flex and Research & Development

On January 11, 2022, Sacramento County adopted updated Housing Trust Fund Impact fees for the first time since 1992. The adopted fees are well below the maximum fee levels identified by the County Nexus Study. County staff indicated they attempted to strike a balance between supporting affordable housing and minimizing development costs as feasible.

Affordable Housing Impact Fee Options

Council has the discretion to establish Impact Fees any point below the maximum fee identified in Table 1. Staff has evaluated three potential options for the Council’s Consideration. The following identifies the options for consideration and a brief discussion of each option:

1. Adopt the impact fee indexed to inflation – As discussed, the original impact fee adopted in 1992 was not indexed to inflation. As a result, the fee has lost is buying power. Adjusting the original fee to inflation (3% annually) would increase the buying power of fees moving forward and still be among the lower fees within the region.

Agenda Packet Page 57
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 6 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper

2. Adopt an average of all the other regional fees – This option would increase the impact fee, however would be based on the average of regional fees.

3. Match the Impact Fees adopted by Sacramento County – Setting this fee to match Sacramento County would help create regional consistency for the development community. Staff is aware of at least one other local agency considering this approach.

Table 3

* Office includes Medical Services and Assisted living
** Industrial includes Flex and Research & Development

Multimodal Impact Fee (Roadway/Transit Impact Fee)
The Roadway and Transit Impact Fee was adopted by Sacramento County in 1988 to offset the impact of new development on the City’s Transportation Network. The initial Roadway/Transit Impact Fees were adopted by Sacramento County as a condition for receiving Measure A funds.

The fees were adopted by Citrus Heights as part of the incorporation but the fee amounts have not been updated since 1988 and are not indexed to inflation.

The study identified a nexus between the construction of new development and the impact on the City’s Transportation network. The Impact Fee is intended to fund construction of roadway and transit improvements to accommodate traffic and transit ridership generated by new land development allowed by the General Plan and land use zoning.

The fee amounts have not been updated since 1988 and are not indexed to inflation. Currently, the fees are assessed at the point of building permit issuance with fees ranging from $3.64 - $4.45 per square foot for non-residential uses, and $1,313-$1,434 per unit for residential uses.

In 2021, the City contracted with EPS to develop the Nexus Study, rebranding the study as a Multi- Modal Impact Fee Study to reflect the City’s complete streets approach to the transportation network. As detailed in the Nexus Study, the analysis attempts to reduce the impact of new development on the City’s transportation network. The study evaluated projected land use growth in Citrus Heights from 2016-2040, utilizing data from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments SACSIM travel demand model. Additionally, the city evaluated its long term capital improvement project list to understand the relationship between projected land use development, existing conditions and potential impacts on the city’s infrastructure and transportation system.

Agenda Packet Page 58
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 7 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Land Use Category Citrus Heights (existing)
Citrus Heights (indexed
@ 3% since 89)
Citrus Heights (indexed
@ 3% since 98) Citrus Heights (proposed)
Single-Family $1,434 per unit $3,804 per unit $3,002 per unit $2,614 per unit Multi-Family $1,313 per unit $3,482 per unit $2,749 per unit $1,418 per unit Commercial/Retail $4.45 per. sf. $11.80 per sf $9.32 per sf $3.87-$6.26 per sf.

Employment / Business $3.64 per sf. $9.65 per sf $7.62 per sf $2.83-$7.88 per sf.

Roadway Impact Fees - Existing, Indexed, and Proposed
Table 4 provides the existing fees; and the Indexed fees, if the ordinance had provided for the annual indexing of the fee.

Table 4

Table 5

It is important to n ote that for the Citrus Heights existing fees referenced above, specifically for Single-Family and Multi-Family units, an administration fee is required in the amount of $28.12 and $25.74 per unit, respectively. This fee equates to a 2% charge in addition to the existing Roadway and Transit fees. The Multimodal Nexus Study references (Page 17) the ability to include an Administration fee to implement and administer the program, however, the proposed fees do not include an Administration Fee, nor is that the recommendation of staff at this time.

Park Impact Fee

Existing Park Impact Fee Context

In 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-56, adopting the Citrus Heights Park Facility Impact Fee Study and established the Park Facility Impact Fee for all new development in Citrus Heights.

Agenda Packet Page 59
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 8 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Shortly after the adoption of the fee, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the District which outlines the collection and use of the fee as well as the process for requesting the fee. The District must obtain prior approval from the City Council before expending the fee.

The City/District Park 2x2 committee, which consists of two District Board Members and two City Council Members, serves as the reviewing committee for Park Facilities Impact Fee funding requests. This committee then sends their recommendation to the full City Council for a vote.

The fee can be used for the following:

• The cost of new or expanded parks and recreational facilities in the City limits • The cost of new recreational facilities in existing parks that expand service capacity in the City limits
• Park and recreational facility costs already incurred that provide growth related capacity in the City limits
• The proportional cost of park and recreational facility renovation projects that expand service capacity in the City limits

Recently, the Council authorized the use of $90,000 in Park Facility Impact Fees to replace/modernize and expand playground equipment and install security cameras in Rusch Park.

These fees have not been updated on an annual basis for inflation. As a result, the District has been unable to keep pace with demand from increasing population growth.

Proposed Park Impact Fee
Park Impact Fees are needed to ensure that the District can build new parks and develop park and recreation facilities and improvements needed for the resident and nonresident employee growth created by new development in the City. In order to reflect changing demographics, facility needs, and anticipated growth, the District in coordination with City staff contracted with SCI to prepare the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study.

The purpose of the Park Impact Fee is to fund the one-time cost of building new parks and expanding the District’s park and recreational facilities in order to meet the impact of new development within the District’s City service area. The study is based upon the cost components are based on the District’s level of service (“LOS”) standards and defined on a per capita basis.

For the residential Park Impact Fee, the total per capita costs are applied to five residential land use categories according to their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor to establish a cost/fee per new dwelling unit.

For the nonresidential Park Impact Fee, an equivalent cost per employee is determined and applied to three nonresidential land uses according to their respective employment density factors to establish a cost/fee per square foot of new nonresidential building area. Table 6 depicts the existing and proposed Park Impact Fees:

Agenda Packet Page 60
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 9 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Table 6

It is projected the Park Impact Fee may generate approximately $16.7 million (in 2021 dollars) by 2036 from within the City service area.

Nearby Agency Comparison
The current park impact fee was established in 1999 and has not increased. The proposed fee is a significant increase from the existing Park Impact Fee mainly due to construction costs increases that have occurred over the past 20 years; however, as compared to nearby Park District’s, the fees proposed are among the lowest. On June 7, 2022, Sacramento County adopted a similar Nexus Study for the SRPD Parks located outside Citrus Heights.

Table 7

Agency Single Family 2-4 Unit 5+ Unit Mobile Homes Retail/Commercial Office Industrial SRPD/Citrus Heights (Existing) 1,078.50$ 800.65$ 665.38$ 577.64$ 0.18$ 0.37$ 0.09$ SRPD/Citrus Heights(Proposed) 6,089.00$ 4,722.00 $ 4,453.00 $ 3,459.00$ 0.36$ 0.56$ 0.24$ Arcade Creek 6,741.00$ 6,467.00$ 5,347.00$ 4,936.00$ 0.39$ 0.61$ 0.26$ Carmichael 6,791.00$ 6,178.00$ 5,592.00$ 5,752.00$ 0.45$ 0.70$ 0.30$ Fair Oaks 7,124.00$ 6,456.00$ 4,926.00$ 6,011.00$ 0.49$ 0.76$ 0.32$ Mission Oaks 6,540.00$ 5,939.00$ 5,232.00$ 5,651.00$ 0.44$ 0.69$ 0.29$ North Highlands 9,377.00$ 5,983.00$ 6,235.00$ 5,430.00$ 0.41$ 0.64$ 0.27$ Orangevale 6,993.00$ 5,987.00$ 4,628.00$ 4,377.00$ 0.44$ 0.68$ 0.29$ Rio Linda/Elverta 8,131.00$ 8,208.00$ 5,335.00$ 5,540.00$ 0.45$ 0.70$ 0.30$ Existing /Proposed Fee/SF
Per Unit Per SF
Agenda Packet Page 61
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 10 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Park Impact Fee Conclusion
The District has an extensive need to improve facilities and equipment to keep up with the growing population within Citrus Heights providing for community vibrancy and quality of life. The Impact Fee is anticipated to generate about $16M in revenue by 2036.

Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee

Existing Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee Context
In 2004, the City began collecting Fire Impact Fees on behalf of the District. These fees have been updated on an annual basis for inflation; however, a comprehensive update has not been completed.

In order to reflect changing demographics, calls for service, facility needs, and anticipated growth, the District contracted with NBS to prepare the Study.

The Study includes the anticipated costs for existing facilities and planned facilities with estimated building construction cost for future buildings, depreciated replacement cost for existing buildings, and estimated land cost (for future facilities) or land value (for existing facilities).

The Study also includes the replacement cost and depreciated replacement cost for the District’s existing firefighting apparatus and vehicles. The report identifies a cost of nearly $600M in today’s dollars.

This fee is distributed to new development to cover the costs of serving new development. The fee is based upon 2040 projections of development throughout the District’s territory. The fee is proportionally assigned to varying land uses based upon average calls for service. As illustrated below, the proposed fee increase ranges between 7% for Single Family homes to 68% increase for commercial development. Updated costs and level of service as previously described results in the following proposed Fire Fees.

Table 8

Administrative Fee

1 As discussed in the Outreach portion of this report, the District considered this issue and agreed to remove such land values from the fee calculation. The fees presented here reflect this removal (approximately 7% reduction) Land Use Category Existing Fire Fee
[per unit]
Proposed Fire Fee
[per unit or 1,000 SF]1
Increase and
Percent Change
Single-Family
Residential $1,478 $1,582 $104/7%
Multi-Family
Residential $1,154 $1,239 $85/7%
Commercial $779 $1,310 $531/68%
Office $1,293 $1,664 $371/29%
Industrial $701 $890 $189/27%
Institutional/Other $1,237 $1,585 $348/28%
Agenda Packet Page 62
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 11 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
The Nexus Study recognizes each agency administrating the Fire Fee will incur overhead costs.

Administration of the proposed Fire Fee will involve several administrative tasks including annual adjustment as described below, legal review, fee collection, accounting, reconciliation, and preparation of annual reports. The City currently applies and proposes to continue to apply an administrative fee of three percent (3%) of the Fire Fee to recover these costs.

Inflationary Adjustment
As discussed previously, three of the four Impact Fees were established either prior to incorporation or shortly thereafter. When adopted, these fees did not include provisions to increase the fees to keep pace with inflation. This has resulted in reduced buying power and inability to keep pace with the impacts caused by growth.

As a result, each of the proposed fees includes an annual adjustment on January 1, by averaging the net percentage change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco and the 20 U.S, Cities Index for the preceding year

Outreach

As part of the fee update process, staff conducted outreach to the Land Development industry and Affordable Housing Advocates. The outreach effort also includes a dedicated webpage with information on the Nexus Study.

Notice of today’s hearing for Affordable Housing Impact Fee, Multimodal Impact Fee, and Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee was published in the Citrus Heights Messenger on May 20 and May 27, 2022. Notice of today’s hearing for Park Impact Fees was published in the Sacramento Bee on May 23 and May 31, 2022.

Staff worked in close coordination with the SMFD to conduct outreach with the North State Building Industry Association (BIA) and the Land Development industry at large.

The BIA challenged the inclusion of land values for certain existing facilities in the inventory in cases where actual acquisition costs could not be substantiated. The District considered this issue and agreed to remove such land values from the fee calculation. The rates set forth above reflect the final rates, including a 7% reduction to reflect the implications of acquisition costs raised by the BIA.

Conclusion

Based on the Nexus Fee Studies prepared for the City and Districts, fees currently collected are insufficient to offset the impacts of new development on City facilities within Citrus Heights. The motions contained in the Staff Report would update the Impact Fees collected by the City and allow for an annual inflationary adjustment to ensure the collected fees keep pace with inflation. This action will ensure that new growth pays its fair share and that existing residents and businesses do not shoulder the burden associated with the incremental need for new infrastructure and facilities presented by increasing population or service demands.

Agenda Packet Page 63
Subject: Impact Fee Update
Date: June 23, 2022

Page 12 of 12 ends

Printed on Recycled Paper
Assembly Bill 602, signed by the Governor in October 2021, requires changes to nexus studies approved after July 1, 2022 (often including assessing impact fees based on square footage). The City and the District’s effort to update the four nexus studies began about two years ago, and the significant cost would be incurred to revise the four nexus studies if not approved by July 1, 2022.

Attachments

1. Resolution No. 2022-_____ a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study and updating the Affordable Housing Impact Fee
A. Affordable Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study
B. Affordable Housing Impact Fee

2. Resolution No. 2022-_____ a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adopting the Multimodal Impact Fee Study, Renaming the Roadway and Transit Impact Fee to the Multimodal Impact Fee and Updating the Multimodal Impact Fee
A. Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
B. Multimodal Impact Fee

3. Resolution No. 2022-_____ a
resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus
Heights, adopting a Park Impact Fee Nexus Study and updating the Park Impact Fee.

A. Park Impact Fee Nexus Study

4. Resolution No. 2022-___ a resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, adopting the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Capital Facilities (Impact) Fee Study
A. Capital Facilities Impact Fee Study

5. Ordinance 2022- , an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights related to Fire Capital Facilities Impact Fee

Agenda Packet Page 64

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE NEXUS

STUDY AND UPDATING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE

WHEREAS the City of Citrus Heights has, since the date of its incorporation January 1, 1997, assessed a fee on non-residential construction (Chapter 16.89 Municipal Code) to be used to increase the supply of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS in November 2003, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights adopted an updated Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.89 relating to Housing Impact Fees on non-residential construction to fund specified low and very low income housing; WHEREAS in November 2003, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights adopted Resolution 2003- 123, specifying the purpose, intent, exceptions, and procedures for calculation of the Housing Impact Fees for non-residential development in Citrus Heights; WHEREAS on May 27, 2021, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights Adopted Resolution 2021-037, adopting an updated General Plan Housing Element Update required by State law, which includes numerous goals, policies, and objectives to support the development of affordable housing in Citrus Heights.

WHEREAS on June 23, 2022, the City Council considered and adopted the technical study prepared by Economic Planning Systems, Inc., entitled “Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study” (“Nexus Study”), dated February 2022, which, in accordance with the provisions of State law, has identified the purpose of the impact fee, identified the intended use of the fee, determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the intended use of the fee and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, and determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost attributable to the development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, ; and

WHEREAS consistent with the requirements of Government Code 66016.5, the Nexus Study identified the current level of service for the applicable public facilities, the proposed new level of service, and an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt this resolution, adopting Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study;
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing to adopt the Nexus Study was published as required by Government Code 66016.5; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council also intends to hold a duly noticed public hearing on June 23, 2022, at which data and findings related to the Nexus Study will be further considered; and, WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the maximum impact fees identified in the Nexus Study could impact feasibility of new development and redevelopment, therefore the City Council has identified the Impact Fees in Exhibit B as appropriate; WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, data was made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including general fund revenues in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and,
Agenda Packet Page 65

WHEREAS, based upon all written and oral reports received, the City Council finds and determines that the proposed modifications to the City’s Housing Impact Fee as set forth herein are necessary to offset the impacts of new commercial development on affordable housing and that these fees do not exceed the proportional cost of the service or benefit attributable to the fee payer.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby declare, find, determine and order as follows:

A) The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

B) The Affordable Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study attached hereto as “Exhibit A” complies with the requirements of Government Code 66016.5 and is hereby adopted and approved as presented.

C) The Impact Fees attached hereto as “Exhibit B” hereby adopted and approved as presented and may be updated annually on January 1, based upon the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, all items, San Francisco Area as of October of the previous calendar year, with adjustments, as recommended by the City Manager, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

(D) The adoption of this Resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is the creation of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project. (CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(4).

(E) This Resolution shall go into full force and effect 60 days following adoption.

(F) The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23
rd day of June 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Porsche Middleton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Agenda Packet Page 66

Amy Van, City Clerk

Exhibits

A. Affordable Housing Nexus Fee Study
B. Proposed Affordable Housing Fee

Agenda Packet Page 67
Exhibit A- Affordable Housing Nexus Fee Study
Agenda Packet Page 68
Affordable Housing Fee
Nexus Study
Prepared fo
r:

City of Citrus Heights
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
EPS #192045
February 2022
Agenda Packet Page 69

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Executive Summary ........................................................ 1 Background .................................................................................................. 1 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1 Authority ..................................................................................................... 1 Summary ..................................................................................................... 2 Sources ....................................................................................................... 3 Organization of Report ................................................................................... 3

2. Required Nexus Findings for Fee Program .................................................. 4 Purpose of Fee .............................................................................................. 4 Use of Fee ................................................................................................... 4 Relationship between Use of Fee and Type of Development ................................. 4 Relationship between Demand for Affordable Housing and Type of Project ............. 4 Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Public Benefit Attributed to New Development ......................................................................................... 5

3. Methodology and Fee Calculation .............................................................. 6 Affordable Housing Demand ........................................................................... 6 Housing Development Costs and Affordability Gap ........................................... 15 Fee Calculation ........................................................................................... 18

Appendices
Appendix A: General Assumptions and Sources and Occupation Distribution by Employment Category
Appendix B: Multifamily Residential Pro Forma Assumptions and Sources

Agenda Packet Page 70

List of Tables and Figure
Table 1 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees ...................................................... 3 Table 2 Sacramento County Annual Household Income Limits ................................. 7 Table 3 Land Use and Employment Categories ...................................................... 8 Table 4 Annual Wages by Occupation ................................................................ 10 Table 5 Illustration of Employees' Household Income Calculation .......................... 11 Table 6 Income Distribution of Worker Households by Land Use Category .............. 12 Table 7 Household Generation Rates by Employment Category ............................. 13 Table 8 Affordability Gap Analysis—Rental Product Type ...................................... 16 Table 9 Fee Calculation—Office ........................................................................ 19 Table 10 Fee Calculation—Hotel ......................................................................... 20 Table 11 Fee Calculation—Comm ercial Retail ....................................................... 21 Table 12 Fee Calculation—Indu strial/R&D/Flex ..................................................... 22 Table 13 Fee Calculation—Medical Services .......................................................... 23 Table 14 Fee Calculation—Assi sted Living ............................................................ 24

Figure 1 Illustration of Affordable Housing Fee Methodology .................................... 6

Agenda Packet Page 71
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 1 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

1. Introduction and Executive Summary
Background
The City of Citrus Heights (City or Citrus Heights) currently collects an Affordable Housing Fee on new nonresidential construction that provides a trust fund for low-income housing projects.

The City originally adopted its Affordable Housing Fee in 2003.1 Based on several changes in local housing supply, regional housing needs, and broader economic and housing trends, the City retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to re-affirm the need for and update the Affordable Housing Fee for new commercial (i.e., nonresidential) development.

Purpose
EPS was retained by the City to conduct a nexus study that quantifies the relationship between the growth in nonresidential land uses and the demand for and cost of affordable housing for the local workforce. As a development impact fee, the Affordable Housing Fee (fee) can only be charged to new development and must be based on the impact of new development on the need for resources to subsidize the provision of affordable housing. The purpose of this report is to provide the nexus (or reasonable relationship) between new nonresidential development that occurs in the City and the need for additional affordable housing as a result of this new development.

Fee revenue may be collected by the City and used to subsidize the production or retention of affordable units for lower-income households. 2 Authority
This study serves as the basis for requiring development impact fees under Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code sections 66000 et seq.). This section of the Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that a reasonable relationship, or nexus, must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.

1 Resolution No. 2003-123.
2 In this report, the term “lower-income” refers to the general group of households that cannot afford market-rate housing. The terms “low-income” or “very low-income” refer to specific income levels within the general “lower-income” group.

Agenda Packet Page 72
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 2 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) In 1991, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the City of Sacramento’s nonresidential linkage fee.3 In that case, the court found that the City of Sacramento’s fee program “substantially advanced a legitimate interest.” EPS is using a similar methodology to the nexus study reviewed in that case to develop the City’s fee program.

Required Nexus Findings
 Identify the purpose of the fee.
 Identify how the fee is to be used.
 Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
 Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the demand for the affordable housing and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
 Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public benefit attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Summary
As new employment-generating development continues to occur in the City, additional affordable housing will be required to house a portion of the new lower wage workforce.

The cost to construct new housing units is higher than can be supported by the rents or home prices that many workers will be able to pay. The difference between costs and affordable rent levels is considered an “affordability gap.” The costs allocated to new nonresidential development through this fee reflect this affordability gap that would need to be filled to provide housing for additional workforce demanded by nonresidential development. Currently the City charges a fee ranging from $0.26 per square foot for warehouse uses to $0.97 per square foot for office uses.

Table 1 summarizes the maximum justifiable fee established by this Nexus Study by land use category. The methodology used to establish maximum justifiable fees is described in the subsequent chapters of this report. The City may determine that a lower fee level, below the maximum fee, is appropriate, given a range of development feasibility and economic development considerations. The lower fee may also be appropriate because affordable housing development is not the sole responsibility of nonresidential developers, as the City, State, and federal government have other programs and resources that can offset some affordable housing production costs.

3 Commercial Builders of Northern California v. City of Sacramento, 941 F2d 872 (1991).

Agenda Packet Page 73
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 3 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 1 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees

Sources
To estimate the fee, EPS relied on numerous sources of data, including:
 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) “National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates” May 2018 and May 2020.
 State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) annual income limits for 2021.
 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS).
 Input from Citrus Heights staff regarding affordability levels, recently developed affordable housing projects, market assumptions, and nexus study methodology.

These and other data sources are identified on the tables provided throughout this report.

In addition, EPS established development and operating cost assumptions by reviewing pro forma materials and development applications for recently developed affordable housing projects throughout the Sacramento Region.

Organization of Report
After this Introduction and Executive Summary, this study includes the following chapters:
 Chapter 2 presents the nexus findings based on the methodology.  Chapter 3 describes the methodology used to calculate the fee.

Maximum Fee
Land Use Category per Sq. Ft.

Office Table 9 $13.04
Hotel Table 10 $61.47
Commercial Retail Table 11 $75.75
Industrial/R&D/Flex Table 12 $8.07
Medical Services Table 13 $21.11
Assisted Living Table 14 $51.54
fee summ
Source: EPS.

Table
Reference
Agenda Packet Page 74
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 4 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

2. Required Nexus Findings for Fee Program
Purpose of Fee
The fee program updated through this Nexus Study will fund the development and preservation of affordable housing in the City as required by the increase in local, lower- wage workers employed by new nonresidential development. The businesses that occupy new nonresidential buildings will hire employees, many of whom will have difficulty finding suitable local housing they can afford.

Use of Fee
The fee will be collected by the City. The funds are used to provide assistance for production, acquisition of at-risk units, rehabilitation of affordable housing, or other programs that assist lower-income households to acquire housing at affordable prices.

The fee also may fund the studies and administration to support the fee program.

Relationship between Use of Fee and Type
of Development
The development of new nonresidential land uses in the City will generate need for additional workers. The wages of a significant portion of the new employees will be inadequate to support sufficient housing prices to attract residential developers to provide housing opportunities without further subsidy. The fee will be used to help fill the affordability gap for housing and increase the number of homes available for the local workforce.

Relationship between Demand for
Affordable Housing an d Type of Project
The City and EPS have identified six land use categories for which a separate fee has been calculated. The proportion of lower-wage workers and the number of square feet per employee for each land use category has been assessed based on associated employment categories occupying those land uses to ensure a proper nexus is established.

Agenda Packet Page 75
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 5 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Relationship between Amount of Fee and
Cost of Public Benefit Attributed to New
Development
EPS estimated the gap between the cost of developing new rental housing and the achievable value of the new rental units based on prices affordable at different income levels for households below certain income levels. The affordable rents yielded unit values below the cost of construction, indicating an affordability gap. To estimate the maximum fee for each nonresidential development category, this gap was then multiplied by the number of lower-wage workers anticipated by the new development projects and the number of households of various income categories those workers are likely to form.

As the fee is one of several mechanisms for generating resources for or reducing the cost of housing development, a fee level below the maximum calculated fee may be appropriate.

Agenda Packet Page 76
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 6 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

3. Methodology and Fee Calculation
This chapter offers an overview of the methodology used to derive the maximum justified fees. Figure 1 offers an initial overview of the fee methodology according to the following discrete analytical steps:

1. Determine affordable housing demand generated by nonresidential uses.

2. Calculate affordability gap—the subsidy required to construct affordable units.

3. Compute maximum justified fee per commercial square foot.

Figure 1 Illustration of Affordable Housing Fee Methodology

Each step of the analysis is described in further detail in the sections to follow.

Affordable Housing Demand
This section calculates total affordable housing demand generated by new nonresidential uses. New nonresidential uses will employ new workers and to the extent that wage levels at those new establishments are insufficient to fund housing costs for some workers, those new workers may need to be housed in affordable units. The methodology described below establishes an estimate of how many affordable housing units are needed for every 100,000 square foot increment of new nonresidential development.

Affordable housing demand is then calculated based on the number of worker households falling within the income categories defined by HCD and summarized in Table 2 below.

Based on the average household size in the City, this study uses a 3-person household as less equals
Distribution of Worker
Households by Income
and Land Use
Household
Generation per
100,000 Sq. Ft. and
by Land Use and
Income Level
Total Demand for
Affordable Units by
Land Use
(100,000 Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Supportable
Commercial
Linkage Fee
(per square foot)
Step #2
Affordability Gap Analysis
(Subsidy Required to Construct
Affordable U nits)
Affordable
Unit Value
by Income
Level
Development
Costs
Affordability
Gap
Subsidy
Required
No Subsidy
Required
If negative
If positive
minus equals
Step #1
Affordable Housing Demand
(Generated by Employment Uses)
Total W orkers
per 100,000
Sq. Ft. by
Land Use
Total W orker
Households
per 100,000
Sq. Ft.

Step #3
Compute Impact Fee
per Commercial
Square Foot
Affordability
Gap per
Household
(Subsidy Required)
multiplied
by
Total Worker Households
(Per 100,000 square feet) equals
Total Financing
Gap
(Subsidy Required)
divided by
100,000 q. ft.

Agenda Packet Page 77
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 7 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) the representation of a typical household requiring affordable housing units. Consistent with the existing fee program, this study focuses on demand for very low- and low- income units, conservatively estimating demand for subsidized affordable units by estimating household generation only for those lower-income categories.

Table 2 Sacramento County Annual Household Income Limits (2021)

Land Use and Employment Categories
Land use and associated employment categories used in this analysis are presented in Table 3, along with a description of the types of businesses that are included in each category. In general, each employment category is intended to be associated with a particular type of building or land use, to which the fees can be applied. The City asked EPS to evaluate six distinct categories to better match potential land uses and nexus linkages to employment categories. While most employment categories are discretely associated with a particular type of building, others may be interchangeable as tenants may shift between building types (e.g., commercial space locating in retail space). This analysis bases its employment projections on North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes considered the most typical tenants for each land use category.

Maximum
Percentage of
Area Median 3-Person
Affordability Category Acronym Income Household
Very Low Income VLI 0 - 50% $40,800
Low Income LI 50 - 80% $65,250
Median Income Median 80 - 100% $82,000
Moderate Income Moderate 100 - 120% $98,350
income limit
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits for 2021.

Maximum Income
Threshold
Agenda Packet Page 78
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 3 Land Use and Employment Categories

Sq. Ft. per
Employment Category Description and Examples NAICS Sectors Employee Office Employers engaged in business activity with limited direct access from the general public; businesses focused on professional and financial services. Examples include finance, insurance, real estate, law, engineering, and science and technology.
51 - Information;
52 - Finance and Insurance;
53 - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (excluding 532 - Rental and Leasing Services);
54 - Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services;
55 - Management of Companies and Enterprises;
561 - Admin. and Support Services; and
61 - Educational Services (excluding 6111 - Elementary and Secondary Schools)
250
Hotel Lodging or short-term accommodations for travelers, vacationers, and others and comprises establishments primarily engaged I providing short- term lodging in facilities known as hotels, motor hotels, resort hotels, and motels.
721 - Accommodation 500
Commercial Retail Businesses selling food, merchandise, entertainment, and personal services to the general public. Examples include eating and drinking establishments, grocery stores, drug stores, clothing stores, general merchandise stores, beauty salons, movie theaters, and gas stations. 44 and 45 - Retail Trade;
722 - Food Services and Drinking Places; and
812 - Personal Care Services
400
Industrial/R&D/Flex Employers engaged in business activity with limited direct access from the general public; businesses focused on assembling, distributing, or repairing products, and businesses focused on the testing and invention of new materials, products, or processes. Examples include warehouses, auto repair, and self-storage facilities.
31-33 Manufacturing;
22 - Utilities;
23 - Construction;
42 - Wholesale Trade;
493 - Warehousing & Storage; and
811 - Repair and Maintenance.
600
Medical Services Healthcare-based facilities and offices. 621 - Ambulatory Health Care Services 500 Assisted Living Industries in the Nursing and Residential Care Facilities subsector provide residential care combined with either nursing, supervisory, or other types of care as required by the residents. In this subsector, the facilities are a significant part of the production process and the care provided is the mix of health and social services with the health services being largely some level of nursing services.
623 - Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 475
categories
Sour c e: EPS.
[1] Based on typical industry employment densities.

Agenda Packet Page 79
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 9 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Occupational Category and Wage Distribution
EPS used U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates to estimate the wages earned by employees in industry sectors related to the land use categories. The 2018 data were the most current data available at the time EPS initially completed the analysis. EPS applied an escalation factor to the annual wage estimates based on the most current data (May 2020) to ensure that wage data reflect the most recent wage levels reported.

In addition, EPS included an adjustment to calibrate national wage levels to the more local Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) geography. The BLS data set includes wage data at both the national and MSA levels, within the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade MSA.

Wage data for the MSA are provided for occupations for all industries in aggregate, while national-level wage data are provided by industry sector (e.g., “management” workers in retail industries versus in healthcare services). To account for regional wage disparities, EPS calculated wage adjustment factors to show where Sacramento County wages fall below or exceed national averages for different occupation categories. EPS applied these adjustment factors to the nationwide income level data by industry sector to estimate the wages for Sacramento County. Table 4 displays the results of this adjustment, as well as the aforementioned escalation to 2020 wage levels.

EPS used this BLS nationwide data regarding industries, occupation categories, and wage levels to estimate the proportion of occupations likely to be represented under each land use category. For example, EPS evaluated the occupation categories for the lodging industry to determine the proportional distribution of occupations for the employment category “Lodging.” NAICS sector 721000 (“Accommodation”) shows that nationwide

4.31 percent of the jobs in the lodging industry are taken by managers, while

28.17 percent are in the category of buildings and grounds cleaning and maintenance (see Table A-3 in Appendix A). The occupational distribution for all designated land use categories is provided in Appendix A.

The wages within each occupation were multiplied by 1.63, the average number of workers per working household in the City, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data. The resulting figure is assumed to represent the annual household income assuming workers form households with those of similar earning potential. While there will be some variation in wages per employee within a household, in the absence of more specific data, this analysis assumes comparable levels of education and training among all workers in a household. This household income is then compared to the Sacramento County household income limits (Table 2) to determine the applicable affordability category (Very Low-Income, Low-Income, Median Income, Moderate Income). Table 5 presents an example of this calculation for an individual hotel worker, and Appendix A presents this analysis aggregated for each land use category, according to the land use categories and NAICS sectors identified in Table 2.

Agenda Packet Page 80
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 10 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 4 Annual Wages by Occupation

Sacramento--
Roseville--
Arden-Arcade MSA as a
U.S. Average MSA Average Percentage of
Occupation Category 2018 2020 Adjustment Annual Wage Annual Wage U.S. Average Management 11-0000 $121,560 $126,480 104.0% $126,480 $124,830 98.7% Business and Financial Operations 13-0000 $76,910 $80,680 104.9% $80,680 $79,380 98.4% Computer and Mathematical Science 15-0000 $91,530 $96,770 105.7% $96,770 $98,560 101.8% Architecture and Engineering 17-0000 $87,370 $90,300 103.4% $90,300 $105,640 117.0% Life, Physical, and Social Science 19-0000 $76,160 $79,360 104.2% $79,360 $82,080 103.4% Community and Social Services 21-0000 $49,280 $52,180 105.9% $52,180 $62,730 120.2% Legal Occupations 23-0000 $108,690 $112,320 103.3% $112,320 $127,520 113.5% Education, Training and Library 25-0000 $56,620 $59,810 105.6% $59,810 $64,300 107.5% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 27-0000 $59,780 $64,400 107.7% $64,400 $67,580 104.9% Healthcare Practitioner and Technical 29-0000 $82,000 $85,900 104.8% $85,900 $117,680 137.0% Healthcare Support 31-0000 $32,380 $32,250 99.6% $32,250 $35,710 110.7% Protective Services 33-0000 $48,580 $52,220 107.5% $52,220 $63,610 121.8% Food Preparation and Serving 35-0000 $25,580 $27,650 108.1% $27,650 $31,740 114.8% Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 37-0000 $30,020 $32,760 109.1% $32,760 $40,210 122.7% Personal Care and Service 39-0000 $28,090 $32,610 116.1% $32,610 $36,210 111.0% Sales and Related Occupations 41-0000 $41,790 $45,750 109.5% $45,750 $47,890 104.7% Office and Administrative Support 43-0000 $38,990 $42,390 108.7% $42,390 $46,760 110.3% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 45-0000 $30,140 $33,310 110.5% $33,310 $33,670 101.1% Construction and Extraction 47-0000 $51,220 $53,940 105.3% $53,940 $59,770 110.8% Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 49-0000 $48,960 $52,360 106.9% $52,360 $57,610 110.0% Production 51-0000 $39,190 $41,760 106.6% $41,760 $44,790 107.3% Transportation and Material Moving 53-0000 $38,290 $39,680 103.6% $39,680 $40,590 102.3% bls wage
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2018, May 2020. [1] The U.S. Average Wage by Occupation in Industry data is based on 2018 estimates. EPS adjusted the 2018 data by the percentage change in annual w ages by occupation betw een 2018 to 2020.
[2] BLS provides occupation employment and w age data by separate NAICS categories only at the national level and not by MSA. Therefore, EPS adjusts the annual w ages based on the percentage difference betw een Sacramento MSA and national w ages by occupation to estimate occupation w ages specific to the Sacramento MSA.

U.S. 2018 to 2020
Occupation
Code
Annual Wage Adjustment (2020) [2]
U.S. to Sacramento MSA
Annual Wage Adjustment [1]
Agenda Packet Page 81
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 11 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 5 Illustration of Employees' Household Income Calculation

Item Source Example
Employment Category City of Citrus Heights and EPS Hotel Industry Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Accommodation (NAICS Code 721000) Occupation Category BLS Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Nationwide Average Income for Occupation BLS $26,800
May 2018 to May 2020 Escalation BLS and EPS 109.1%
Regional Wage Adjustment Factor for Occupation BLS and EPS 122.7% Average Wage Estimate for the Sacramento MSA BLS and EPS $35,897 Workers per Household U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2016-2019 1.63 Median Income per Household Workers per Household Multiplied by Median Annual Wage $58,512 Income Category for 3-person Family HCD Low Income
hh income
Source: City of Citrus Heights; Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surv ey; HCD; EPS.

Agenda Packet Page 82
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 12 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Distribution of Worker Households by Income Classification and Land Use Type
After identifying income ranges for each occupation and employment category, EPS summed the percentages of occupations by income bracket. These proportions of anticipated household income brackets by employment category are presented in Table 6.

As shown, Hotel and Commercial Retail uses are expected to generate significant numbers of households at the low-income level as defined by the income levels in Table 2, while more jobs in the Industrial/R&D/Flex and Office uses are expected to yield household incomes at or above moderate income levels.

Household Generation by Income Level
Using the income distribution derived in Table 6, EPS estimated the total number of households generated by 100,000 square feet of development in each land use category differentiated by income level. This calculation relies on assumptions regarding employment densities and household formation rates and is shown in Table 7.

Table 6 Income Distribution of Worker Households by Land Use Category [1]

Land Use Category
Very Low
Income
Low
Income Median Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Office Table A-5 0.00% 8.67% 27.70% 3.33% 60.30% 100.00% Hotel Table A-6 0.00% 82.22% 11.16% 2.19% 4.43% 100.00% Commercial Retail Table A-7 0.00% 90.62% 3.93% 0.13% 5.32% 100.00% Industrial/R&D/Flex Table A-8 0.00% 12.61% 37.88% 25.35% 24.17% 100.00% Medical Services Table A-9 0.00% 28.65% 23.45% 0.42% 47.47% 100.00% Assisted Living Table A-10 0.00% 65.03% 12.68% 1.32% 20.97% 100.00% inc dist
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2018, May 2020; EPS. [1] Assumes households comprise 1.63 workers per household based on U.S. Census data. See Table A-1 in Appendix A for details.

Income Category
Table
Reference
Agenda Packet Page 83
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 13 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 7 Household Generation Rates by Employment Category

Percentage Total
Total Workers of Workers Households
Sq. Ft. per per 100k Forming per 100k Very Above
Item Worker Sq. Ft. [1] Households [2] Sq. Ft. [1] Low Low Median Moderate Moderate Average Work ers per Household [3] 1.63
Employment Category
Office 250 400 98.1% 241 0 21 67 8 145
Hotel 500 200 98.1% 120 0 99 13 3 5
Commercial Retail 400 250 87.5% 134 0 122 5 0 7
Industrial/R&D/Flex 600 167 98.1% 101 0 13 38 26 24
Medical Services 500 200 98.1% 120 0 34 28 1 57
Assisted Living 475 211 98.1% 127 0 83 16 2 27
hh gen
[1] Figures rounded to the nearest w hole number.
[2] National Retail Federation data indicates that 12.5-percent of retail and restaurant w orkers are age 16 to 19, w hereas this age range comprises only 1.9-percent of w orkers in all other industries. EPS assumes that w orkers of age 16 to 19 do not form their ow n households. [3] Assumes 1.63 w orkers per household based on U.S. Census data. See Table A-1 in Appendix A for details.

Household Generation by Income Level [1]
Agenda Packet Page 84
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 14 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Employment Densities
Certain land use categories operate with varying levels of employment requirements.

Industrial uses, for example, often do not require a significant number of employees but do require a significant amount of building square footage. Office space, on the other hand, may not require a significant amount of square footage, but often requires a significant number of employees. The number of building square feet anticipated for an employee is termed the “employment density” of each employment category.

Based on prior nexus studies, input from City staff, independent research, and experience with other comparable cities, EPS estimated the employment density (square feet per employee) for each of the employment categories as shown in Table 3. Using those employment-density assumptions, EPS estimated the number of employees that would occupy a 100,000-square-foot building for each employment category.

Household Formation
EPS then estimated the number of households at each income level represented by those employees. First, EPS adjusted for the fact that younger workers may not be at the age to form their own households. Data from BLS indicate that young workers aged 16 to 19 represent only about 1.9 percent of the overall workforce. However, the majority of these young workers are in the retail/restaurant industries, where they represent 12.5 percent of the overall industry employment. EPS has assumed that these young workers aged 16 to 19 would not form their own households. Second, EPS has assumed that, on average, new households formed in response to growing employment opportunities would have

1.63 wage-earning workers. This assumption is based on the Census Bureau’s ACS 2015-2019 data regarding the number of Citrus Heights residents who are “workers” in households that have workers. The combination of these adjustments results in the assumption that approximately 6 households are formed for every 10 new employees.

This analysis assumes that the fees on nonresidential development will fund required affordable housing for all new workers generated. In practice, only a portion of Citrus Heights workers reside in the City, as many workers commute in to the City from other areas for a variety of reasons, one of which is the relative cost of housing among different communities. However, if every jurisdiction were to adopt a policy that it would only fund housing for the fraction of its locally generated workers that choose to live in the City, in aggregate the region’s affordable housing demand would be grossly underrepresented and underfunded.

Agenda Packet Page 85
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 15 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Housing Development Costs and
Affordability Gap
EPS has assumed that the average type of housing for Citrus Heights lower-income workers would be a 2-bedroom apartment unit in a 2- to 3-story building. The assumed prototype reflects multifamily construction at 24.0 dwelling units to the acre with surface parking. City staff has confirmed that this example is typical of what would be constructed with funds from the linkage fee.

For residential developments that receive federal funding assistance, household size may be set by multiplying 1.5 by the number of bedrooms in the unit. Therefore, this fee analysis is based on the assumption that a 3-person household occupies a 2-bedroom unit. Consistent with input from the City, EPS assumes that the typical gross square footage of a 2-bedroom rental unit in Citrus Heights will be approximately 1,180 square feet. Applying an efficiency ratio of 85 percent to account for shared lobbies, hallways, etc., results in net square footage of 1,000 square feet.

Development Cost Assumptions
Affordable housing development costs include land costs, direct costs (e.g., labor and materials), building permit and development impact fees and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture, entitlement, marketing, etc.). For rental projects, operating costs also must be incorporated into the analysis. Data from recent Sacramento Region developments and land transactions have been combined with EPS’s information from various market-rate and affordable housing developers to estimate appropriate development cost assumptions. These assumptions are shown in Table 8.

Agenda Packet Page 86
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 16 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 8 Affordability Gap Analysis—Rental Product Type

Very Low Low
Income Income
Item (50% AMI) (80% AMI)
Development Program As s umptions
Site Area (Acres) 2.0 2.0
Site Area (Sq. Ft.) 87,120 87,120
Density (Units/Acre) 24.0 24.0
Total No. of Units 48 48
Gross Unit Sq. Ft. [1] 1,180 1,180
Net/Leasable Unit Sq. Ft. 1,000 1,000
Number of Bedrooms per Unit 2 2
Number of Persons per 2-Bedroom Unit 3 3
Parking Spaces per Unit 1.0 1.0
Cost Assumptions
Land per Acre [2] $190,000 $190,000
Land per Unit $7,917 $7,917
Direct Costs
Site Work Costs per Land Sq. Ft. $10 $10
Total Site Work Costs $871,200 $871,200
Site Work Costs per Unit $18,150 $18,150
Direct Construction Costs per Gross Sq. Ft. [3] $175 $175 Direct Construction Costs per Unit $206,500 $206,500
Parking Construction Costs per Space [4] $6,500 $6,500
Parking Construction Costs per Unit $6,500 $6,500
Subtotal Direct Costs per Unit $213,000 $213,000
Est. Building Permit & Development Impact Fees per Unit [5] $19,006 $19,006 Other Soft/Indirect Costs [6]
As a % of Direct Costs 20.0% 20.0%
Total Other Soft/Indirect Costs $42,600 $42,600
Financing
Interest (5.0%, 70% LTC, 50% Outstanding) $4,944 $4,944 Fees (2.0% of Loan Amount) $3,955 $3,955
Total Financing Costs $8,899 $8,899
Builder Fee
As a % of All Costs 12.0% 12.0%
Total Builder Fee $34,021 $34,021
Total Costs per Unit (Rounded $1,000) $318,000 $318,000 Maximum Supported Home Price
Household Income [7] $40,800 $65,250
Revenue to Property Owner per Year [8] $12,240 $19,575
(Less) Operating Expenses per Unit per Year [9] ($5,500) ($5,500) Net Operating Income $6,740 $14,075
Capitalization Rate [10] 5.5% 5.5%
Total Supportable Unit Value [11] $122,545 $255,909
Affordability Gap ($195,455) ($62,091)
gap analysis
Sources: CA HCD; RS Means; CoStar; National Apartment Association; EPS.

See next page for footnotes.
2-3 Stories Multifamily Building
with Surface/Carport Parking
Agenda Packet Page 87
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 17 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

Revenue Assumptions
To calculate the values of the affordable units, assumptions must be made regarding the applicable income level and the percentage of household income spent on housing costs.

In addition, translating these assumptions into unit prices and values requires estimates of operating expenses and capitalization rates. The following assumptions were used in these calculations:
 Income Levels— This analysis estimates the subsidy required to produce units for households at very low and low income for a 3-person household. The income levels are established by HCD for Sacramento County and presented in Table 2.  Percentage of Gross Household Income Available for Housing Costs— HCD standards on affordability indicate that households should pay no more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs. For this analysis, EPS conservatively assumes that a total of 30 percent of the household income is available to pay rent.  Operating Costs for Rental Units— This analysis assumes that apartment operators incur annual operating costs of $5,500 per unit, which include the cost of utilities, for units affordable to very low- and low-income households. EPS has assumed that units for low- and very low-income households would be built by nonprofits and thus would be exempt from property taxes.

[1] Assumes gross-to-net factor of 0.85, rounded to the nearest 10 sq. ft. [2] Based on a survey of residential land sales in Citrus Heights and peer communities. See Table B-1 for details. [3] Direct construction costs reflect vertical construction cost estimates for a 3-story w ood-frame apartment building assuming union labor rates.
[4] Typical surface lot parking costs are $5,000 per space. This analysis assumes $6,500 per space to include costs for carport structures.
[6] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; and contingency. [8] Assumes housing costs (e.g., rent and utilities) to be 30-percent of gross household income. [9] Operating expenses are based on the 2020 Multifamily Rental Housing Operating Expense Report:

Survey and Analysis of LIHTC Properties, prepared by Novogradac. [10] The capitalization rate is used to determine the current value of a property based on estimated future operating income, and is typically a measure of estimated operating risk. The capitalization rate used in this analysis is a conservative assumption based CoStar data for the Carmichael/Citrus Heights and North Sacramento/ Natomas/North Highlands mulitfamily submarket areas as of 2021 Q1. [11] The total supportable unit value is determined by dividing the net operating income by the capitalization rate. [5] Includes City building permit and development impact fees, and county or other regional agency development impact fees. See Table B-2 for details.
[7] Based on 2021 income limits for a three-person household in Sacramento County.

See Table 2 for details.

Agenda Packet Page 88
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Affordability Gap Results
Table 8 shows the subsidies for construction of rental apartments for very low- and low- income households. Across both categories, the cost of constructing the unit is higher than the value of the unit. This is considered the affordability gap and serves as the basis for calculating the subsidies required to provide housing for the employees who will be working in new nonresidential development in Citrus Heights. In other words, this analysis suggests that rents affordable to very low- and low-income households cannot support the costs of new construction without subsidy.

Fee Calculation
Tables 9 through 14 provide the maximum fee calculations for each of the six employment categories. Assuming a 100,000-square-foot nonresidential building prototype for each employment category, the number of new households by income category is multiplied by the per-unit affordability gap to determine the level of subsidy required to provide housing for the new worker households. The adjusted affordability gap is then divided by the size of the assumed building to determine a maximum fee per building square foot.

While the City has the option of adopting fees up to the maximum levels calculated, EPS does not recommend the City adopt the entire maximum fee. There are several factors compounding the issue of housing affordability; insufficient wages relative to housing costs constitutes just one factor. Market forces, land use regulations, construction costs, and entitlement costs also affect housing affordability. In addition, revenue generated through this fee program is just one source of potential subsidy funds to help finance affordable housing projects. Finally, adoption of the maximum fees for certain employment categories would represent a very large addition to the costs of development and could hamper the City’s economic development and competitiveness objectives.

As the fee is one of several mechanisms for generating resources for or reducing the cost of housing development, the fee level below the maximum calculated fee may be appropriate. Other California communities—i ncluding Sacramento and Walnut Creek, among others—have made reductions to the maximum allowable fee when adopting their fee program, for reasons such as those cited above.

This report concludes with the maximum fee that can be supported by a nexus analysis.

Under separate cover, EPS will provide the results of a survey of fees charged by several proximate jurisdictions and other analyses that the City can use as a benchmark to determine the levels at which the fees should be set.

Agenda Packet Page 89
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 19 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 9 Fee Calculation—Office

Worker
Households Affordability Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household Total Gap
Table References: Table 7 Table 8
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $195,455 $0
Low Income 21 $62,091 $1,303,909
Total 21 $1,303,909
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $1,303,909
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $13.04
fee office
Source: EPS.

Agenda Packet Page 90
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 20 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 10 Fee Calculation—Hotel

Worker
Households Affordability Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household Total Gap
Table References: Table 7 Table 8
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $195,455 $0
Low Income 99 $62,091 $6,147,000
Total 99 $6,147,000
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $6,147,000
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $61.47
fee hotel
Source: EPS.

Agenda Packet Page 91
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 21 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 11 Fee Calculation—Commercial Retail

Worker
Households Affordability Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household Total Gap
Table References: Table 7 Table 8
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $195,455 $0
Low Income 122 $62,091 $7,575,091
Total 122 $7,575,091
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $7,575,091
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $75.75
fee retail
Source: EPS.

Agenda Packet Page 92
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 22 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 12 Fee Calculation—Industrial/R&D/Flex

Worker
Households Affordability Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household Total Gap
Table References: Table 7 Table 8
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $195,455 $0
Low Income 13 $62,091 $807,182
Total 13 $807,182
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $807,182
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $8.07
fee ind
Source: EPS.

Agenda Packet Page 93
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 23 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 13 Fee Calculation—Medical Services

Worker
Households Affordability Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household Total Gap
Table References: Table 7 Table 8
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $195,455 $0
Low Income 34 $62,091 $2,111,091
Total 34 $2,111,091
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $2,111,091
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $21.11
fee med
Source: EPS.

Agenda Packet Page 94
Report: Citrus Heights Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study February 2022
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Reports\192045 Affordable Housing Fee r03.docx 24 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) Table 14 Fee Calculation—Assisted Living

Worker
Households Affordability Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household Total Gap
Table References: Table 7 Table 8
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $195,455 $0
Low Income 83 $62,091 $5,153,545
Total 83 $5,153,545
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $5,153,545
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $51.54
fee asst liv
Source: EPS.

Agenda Packet Page 95

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: General Assumptions and
Sources and Occupation
Distribution by Employment
Category
Appendix B: Multifamily Residential Pro Forma
Assumptions and Sources

Agenda Packet Page 96

APPENDIX A:

General Assumptions and Sources and
Occupation Distribution by
Employment Category

Table A-1 Assumptions and Sources ..................................... A-1 Table A-2 Occupation and Wage Distribution—
Office ................................................................ A-2 Table A-3 Occupation and Wage Distribution—
Hotel ................................................................. A-3 Table A-4 Occupation and Wage Distribution—
Commercial Retail ............................................... A-4 Table A-5 Occupation and Wage Distribution—
Industrial/R&D/Flex ............................................. A-5 Table A-6 Occupation and Wage Distribution—
Medical Services ................................................. A-6 Table A-7 Occupation and Wage Distribution—
Assisted Living .................................................... A-7

Agenda Packet Page 97
DRAFT
Table A-1
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Update
Assumptions and Sources
Item Estimate Unit Source
Demographic Assumptions
Total Employed Residents 43,077 persons U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2015-2019) Households with Earnings 26,467 households U.S. Cens us Bureau, American Community Survey (2015-2019) Workers per Household with Workers 1.63 persons U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2015-2019) Persons per Family 3.15 persons U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2015-2019) Persons per Household 2.54 persons U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2015-2019) Employment Density Assumptions
Office 250 sq. ft. per employee EPS; based on typical industry employment densities Hotel 500 sq. ft. per employee EPS; based on typical industry employment densities Commercial Retail 400 sq. ft. per employee EPS; bas ed on typical industry employment densities Industrial/R&D/Flex 600 sq. ft. per employee EPS; based on typical industry employment densities Medical Services 500 sq. ft. per employee EPS; bas ed on typical industry employment densities Assisted Living 475 sq. ft. per employee EPS; derived from Keyser Marston Associates 2016 Nexus Study assumps
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey Estimate 2015-2019; EPS.

Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 A-1
Agenda Packet Page 98
DRAFT
Table A-2
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Updat
e
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Office
Occupation Category
Occupation
Code
US Total Jobs
by Occupation
in Industry
U.S. Average Wage
by Occupation
in Industry
2018 to 2020
U.S. Wage
Adjustment [2]
Sacramento
MSA Wage
Adjustment [3]
Sacramento MSA
Estimated Wage
Percentage
of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
Household
Income at 1.63
Workers per
Household [4]
Income
Category
3-Person HH
Management 11-0000 3,268,890 $136,787 104.0% 98.7% $140,467 7.46% $228,961 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations 13-0000 4,510,270 $80,909 104.9% 98.4% $83,507 10.29% $136,116 Above Moderate Computer and Mathematical Science 15-0000 3,321,580 $92,878 105.7% 101.8% $100,012 7.58% $163,020 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering 17-0000 1,154,380 $87,503 103.4% 117.0% $105,801 2.63% $172,456 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science 19-0000 558,790 $76,041 104.2% 103.4% $81,952 1.27% $133,582 Above Moderate Community and Social Services 21-0000 409,300 $58,713 105.9% 120.2% $74,738 0.93% $121,823 Above Moderate Legal Occupations 23-0000 816,070 $112,210 103.3% 113.5% $131,650 1.86% $214,590 Above Moderate Education, Training and Library 25-0000 7,855,310 $58,639 105.6% 107.5% $66,593 17.92% $108,547 Above Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 27-0000 1,201,250 $63,446 107.7% 104.9% $71,724 2.74% $116,910 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioner and Technical 29-0000 759,770 $69,035 104.8% 137.0% $99,074 1.73% $161,491 Above Moderate Healthcare Support 31-0000 246,280 $31,962 99.6% 110.7% $35,249 0.56% $57,456 Low Protective Services 33-0000 1,058,890 $33,901 107.5% 121.8% $44,390 2.42% $72,356 Median Food Preparation and Serving 35-0000 615,480 $27,408 108.1% 114.8% $34,008 1.40% $55,433 Low Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 37-0000 2,596,780 $30,628 109.1% 122.7% $41,024 5.92% $66,869 Median Personal Care and Service 39-0000 471,120 $28,984 116.1% 111.0% $37,362 1.07% $60,900 Low Sales and Related Occupations 41-0000 2,576,340 $66,821 109.5% 104.7% $76,575 5.88% $124,817 Above Moderate Office and Administrative Support 43-0000 8,484,480 $40,355 108.7% 110.3% $48,397 19.36% $78,887 Median Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 45-0000 28,500 $32,315 110.5% 101.1% $36,100 0.07% $58,843 Low Construction and Extraction 47-0000 331,530 $49,764 105.3% 110.8% $58,071 0.76% $94,656 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 49-0000 1,126,450 $48,742 106.9% 110.0% $57,353 2.57% $93,485 Moderate Production 51-0000 988,390 $34,087 106.6% 107.3% $38,958 2.25% $63,502 Low Transportation and Material Moving 53-0000 1,452,140 $30,873 103.6% 102.3% $32,727 3.31% $53,345 Low Total or Weighted Averag
e 43,831,990 $63,611 $71,593 100.00% $116,697
Percentage of Households by Income Category
Very Low Income 0.00%
Low Income 8.67%
Median 27.70%
Moderate Income 3.33%
Above Moderate 60.30%
Total 100.00%
office wage
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2018, May 2020; EPS. [1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 51 - Information; 52 - Finance and Insurance; 53 - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (excluding 532000 - Rental and Leasing Services); 54 - Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; 55 - Management of Companies and Enterprises; 561 - Administrative and Support Services; 61 - Educational Services (Excluding 6111 - Elementary and Secondary Schools). [3] See Table 4.
[4] See Table A-1.

OFFICE [1]
Office
[2] The U.S. Average Wage by Occupation in Industry data is based on 2018 estimates. EPS adjusted the 2018 data by the percentage change in annual wages by occupation between 2018 to 2020.

See Table 4 for details.

Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 A-2
Agenda Packet Page 99
DRAFT
Table A-3
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Updat
e
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Hotel
Occupation Category
Occupation
Code
US Total Jobs
by Occupation
in Industry
U.S. Average Wage
by Occupation
in Industry
2018 to 2020
U.S. Wage
Adjustment [2]
Sacramento
MSA Wage
Adjustment [3]
Sacramento MSA
Estimated Wage
Percentage
of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
Household
Income at 1.63
Workers per
Household [4]
Income
Category
3-Person HH
Management 11-0000 86,620 $80,740 104.0% 98.7% $82,912 4.18% $135,147 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations 13-0000 32,550 $55,500 104.9% 98.4% $57,282 1.57% $93,370 Moderate Computer and Mathematical Science 15-0000 3,590 $62,690 105.7% 101.8% $67,505 0.17% $110,033 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering 17-0000 560 $71,300 103.4% 117.0% $86,210 0.03% $140,522 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science 19-0000 120 $37,340 104.2% 103.4% $40,242 0.01% $65,594 Median Community and Social Services 21-0000 190 $45,410 105.9% 120.2% $57,804 0.01% $94,221 Moderate Legal Occupations 23-0000 150 $110,670 103.3% 113.5% $129,843 0.01% $211,644 Above Moderate Education, Training and Library 25-0000 1,560 $36,740 105.6% 107.5% $41,723 0.08% $68,008 Median Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 27-0000 7,480 $47,650 107.7% 104.9% $53,867 0.36% $87,803 Moderate Healthcare Practitioner and Technical 29-0000 730 $49,660 104.8% 137.0% $71,268 0.04% $116,167 Above Moderate Healthcare Support 31-0000 9,990 $44,020 99.6% 110.7% $48,547 0.48% $79,132 Median Protective Services 33-0000 46,540 $32,280 107.5% 121.8% $42,267 2.25% $68,895 Median Food Preparation and Serving 35-0000 521,330 $30,540 108.1% 114.8% $37,894 25.18% $61,767 Low Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 37-0000 572,970 $26,800 109.1% 122.7% $35,897 27.68% $58,512 Low Personal Care and Service 39-0000 160,000 $29,820 116.1% 111.0% $38,440 7.73% $62,657 Low Sales and Related Occupations 41-0000 60,650 $40,960 109.5% 104.7% $46,939 2.93% $76,511 Median Office and Administrative Support 43-0000 378,230 $29,310 108.7% 110.3% $35,151 18.27% $57,296 Low Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 45-0000 1,170 $29,780 110.5% 101.1% $33,268 0.06% $54,227 Low Construction and Extraction 47-0000 5,090 $50,230 105.3% 110.8% $58,615 0.25% $95,542 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 49-0000 112,250 $37,280 106.9% 110.0% $43,866 5.42% $71,502 Median Production 51-0000 44,080 $27,390 106.6% 107.3% $31,304 2.13% $51,026 Low Transportation and Material Moving 53-0000 24,380 $27,390 103.6% 102.3% $29,035 1.18% $47,327 Low Total or Weighted Averag
e 2,070,230 $32,584 $39,758 100.00% $64,806
Percentage of Households by Income Category
Very Low Income 0.00%
Low Income 82.22%
Median 11.16%
Moderate Income 2.19%
Above Moderate 4.43%
Total 100.00%
hotel wage
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2018, May 2020; EPS. [1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 721000 - Accommodation.
[3] See Table 4.
[4] See Table A-1.

HOTEL [1]
Hotel
[2] The U.S. Average Wage by Occupation in Industry data is based on 2018 estimates. EPS adjusted the 2018 data by the percentage change in annual wages by occupation between 2018 to 2020.

See Table 4 for details.

Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 A-3
Agenda Packet Page 100
DRAFT
Table A-4
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Update
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Commercial Retail
Occupation Category
Occupation
Code
US Total Jobs
by Occupation
in Industry
U.S. Average Wage
by Occupation
in Industry
2018 to 2020
U.S. Wage
Adjustment [2]
Sacramento
MSA Wage
Adjustment [3]
Sacramento MSA
Estimated Wage
Percentage
of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
Household
Income at 1.63
Workers per
Household [3]
Income
Category
Management 11-0000 723,150 $85,557 104.0% 98.7% $87,859 2.50% $143,210 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations 13-0000 208,810 $62,843 104.9% 98.4% $64,861 0.72% $105,723 Above Moderate Computer and Mathematical Science 15-0000 53,900 $75,971 105.7% 101.8% $81,806 0.19% $133,344 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering 17-0000 3,600 $72,254 103.4% 117.0% $87,363 0.01% $142,402 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science 19-0000 820 $61,420 104.2% 103.4% $66,194 0.00% $107,896 Above Moderate Community and Social Services 21-0000 3,420 $36,305 105.9% 120.2% $46,214 0.01% $75,329 Median Legal Occupations 23-0000 2,830 $72,713 103.3% 113.5% $85,310 0.01% $139,055 Above Moderate Education, Training and Library 25-0000 12,050 $36,305 105.6% 107.5% $41,229 0.04% $67,203 Median Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 27-0000 139,160 $38,237 107.7% 104.9% $43,226 0.48% $70,458 Median Healthcare Practitioner and Technical 29-0000 545,680 $65,651 104.8% 137.0% $94,217 1.88% $153,574 Above Moderate Healthcare Support 31-0000 90,660 $37,783 99.6% 110.7% $41,669 0.31% $67,920 Median Protective Services 33-0000 99,360 $32,975 107.5% 121.8% $43,177 0.34% $70,379 Median Food Preparation and Serving 35-0000 11,115,810 $25,072 108.1% 114.8% $31,110 38.40% $50,709 Low Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 37-0000 186,410 $27,138 109.1% 122.7% $36,350 0.64% $59,251 Low Personal Care and Service 39-0000 827,330 $30,351 116.1% 111.0% $39,125 2.86% $63,774 Low Sales and Related Occupations 41-0000 9,290,890 $29,187 109.5% 104.7% $33,447 32.09% $54,519 Low Office and Administrative Support 43-0000 3,061,180 $30,544 108.7% 110.3% $36,631 10.57% $59,709 Low Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 45-0000 23,060 $29,057 110.5% 101.1% $32,460 0.08% $52,910 Low Construction and Extraction 47-0000 38,800 $43,839 105.3% 110.8% $51,157 0.13% $83,386 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 49-0000 793,180 $41,829 106.9% 110.0% $49,219 2.74% $80,227 Median Production 51-0000 421,070 $32,644 106.6% 107.3% $37,309 1.45% $60,814 Low Transportation and Material Moving 53-0000 1,308,270 $27,994 103.6% 102.3% $29,676 4.52% $48,372 Low Total or Weighted Average 28,949,440 $30,656 $36,353 100.00% $59,255 Percentage of Households by Income Category
Very Low Income 0.00%
Low Income 90.62%
Median 3.93%
Moderate Income 0.13%
Above Moderate 5.32%
Total 100.00%
retail wage
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2018, May 2020; EPS. [1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 44-45 - Retail Trade; 722 - Food Services and Drinking Places; 812 - Personal Care Services. See Table C-2 for details.

Commercial Retail
COMMERCIAL RETAIL [1]
[2] The U.S. Average Wage by Occupation in Industry data is based on 2018 estimates. EPS adjusted the 2018 data by the percentage change in annual wages by occupation between 2018 to 2020.

See Table 4 for details.

Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 A-4
Agenda Packet Page 101
DRAFT
Table A-5
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Update
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Industrial/R&D/Flex
Occupation Category
Occupation
Code
US Total Jobs
by Occupation
in Industry
U.S. Average Wage
by Occupation
in Industry
2018 to 2020
U.S. Wage
Adjustment [2]
Sacramento
MSA Wage
Adjustment [3]
Sacramento MSA
Estimated Wage
Percentage
of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
Household
Income at 1.63
Workers per
Household [4]
Income
Category
3-Person HH
Management 11-0000 1,730,750 $126,933 104.0% 98.7% $130,348 6.07% $212,467 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations 13-0000 1,131,260 $73,541 104.9% 98.4% $75,903 3.97% $123,722 Above Moderate Computer and Mathematical Science 15-0000 526,110 $93,615 105.7% 101.8% $100,805 1.85% $164,312 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering 17-0000 1,038,680 $86,168 103.4% 117.0% $104,187 3.64% $169,825 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science 19-0000 151,740 $74,853 104.2% 103.4% $80,671 0.53% $131,494 Above Moderate Community and Social Services 21-0000 1,230 $64,129 105.9% 120.2% $81,632 0.00% $133,060 Above Moderate Legal Occupations 23-0000 14,430 $146,305 103.3% 113.5% $171,652 0.05% $279,793 Above Moderate Education, Training and Library 25-0000 1,750 $60,136 105.6% 107.5% $68,293 0.01% $111,318 Above Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 27-0000 183,300 $54,142 107.7% 104.9% $61,206 0.64% $99,766 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioner and Technical 29-0000 75,960 $71,427 104.8% 137.0% $102,506 0.27% $167,085 Above Moderate Healthcare Support 31-0000 2,760 $39,285 99.6% 110.7% $43,325 0.01% $70,620 Median Protective Services 33-0000 38,850 $42,337 107.5% 121.8% $55,435 0.14% $90,359 Moderate Food Preparation and Serving 35-0000 83,440 $26,838 108.1% 114.8% $33,301 0.29% $54,281 Low Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 37-0000 147,470 $31,517 109.1% 122.7% $42,215 0.52% $68,810 Median Personal Care and Service 39-0000 5,220 $30,177 116.1% 111.0% $38,900 0.02% $63,407 Low Sales and Related Occupations 41-0000 2,034,220 $67,900 109.5% 104.7% $77,811 7.14% $126,832 Above Moderate Office and Administrative Support 43-0000 3,567,150 $40,619 108.7% 110.3% $48,714 12.51% $79,404 Median Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 45-0000 80,590 $30,881 110.5% 101.1% $34,498 0.28% $56,232 Low Construction and Extraction 47-0000 4,743,220 $51,359 105.3% 110.8% $59,932 16.64% $97,689 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 49-0000 2,443,980 $50,746 106.9% 110.0% $59,712 8.57% $97,331 Moderate Production 51-0000 7,079,960 $40,153 106.6% 107.3% $45,891 24.84% $74,802 Median Transportation and Material Moving 53-0000 3,424,830 $36,424 103.6% 102.3% $38,612 12.01% $62,938 Low Total or Weighted Averag
e 28,506,900 $54,078 $61,049 100.00% $99,510
Percentage of Households by Income Category
Very Low Income 0.00%
Low Income 12.61%
Median 37.88%
Moderate Income 25.35%
Above Moderate 24.17%
Total 100.00%
ind wage
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2018, May 2020; EPS. [1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 31-33 Manufacturing; 22 - Utilities; 23 - Construction; 42 - Wholesale Trade; 493 - Warehousing and Storage; 811 - Repair and Maintenance. See Table C-3 for details. [3] See Table 4.
[4] See Table A-1.

Industrial/R&D/Flex
INDUSTRIAL/R&D/FLEX [1]
[2] The U.S. Average Wage by Occupation in Industry data is based on 2018 estimates. EPS adjusted the 2018 data by the percentage change in annual wages by occupation between 2018 to 2020.

See Table 4 for details.

Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 A-5
Agenda Packet Page 102
DRAFT
Table A-6
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Updat
e
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Medical Services
Occupation Category
Occupation
Code
US Total Jobs
by Occupation
in Industry
U.S. Average Wage
by Occupation
in Industry
2018 to 2020
U.S. Wage
Adjustment [2]
Sacramento
MSA Wage
Adjustment [3]
Sacramento MSA
Estimated Wage
Percentage
of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
Household
Income at 1.63
Workers per
Household [4]
Income
Category
3-Person HH
Management 11-0000 220,750 $110,440 104.0% 98.7% $113,411 2.98% $184,860 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations 13-0000 111,520 $63,710 104.9% 98.4% $65,756 1.51% $107,182 Above Moderate Computer and Mathematical Science 15-0000 45,930 $74,980 105.7% 101.8% $80,739 0.62% $131,605 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering 17-0000 1,080 $82,440 103.4% 117.0% $99,679 0.01% $162,477 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science 19-0000 51,960 $92,130 104.2% 103.4% $99,291 0.70% $161,844 Above Moderate Community and Social Services 21-0000 283,440 $48,680 105.9% 120.2% $61,966 3.83% $101,005 Above Moderate Legal Occupations 23-0000 1,090 $129,320 103.3% 113.5% $151,724 0.01% $247,310 Above Moderate Education, Training and Library 25-0000 8,880 $76,690 105.6% 107.5% $87,092 0.12% $141,960 Above Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 27-0000 9,730 $52,520 107.7% 104.9% $59,373 0.13% $96,778 Moderate Healthcare Practitioner and Technical 29-0000 2,758,350 $99,780 104.8% 137.0% $143,196 37.28% $233,409 Above Moderate Healthcare Support 31-0000 1,688,210 $34,030 99.6% 110.7% $37,530 22.82% $61,174 Low Protective Services 33-0000 3,900 $36,610 107.5% 121.8% $47,937 0.05% $78,137 Median Food Preparation and Serving 35-0000 7,200 $28,630 108.1% 114.8% $35,524 0.10% $57,904 Low Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 37-0000 32,430 $28,610 109.1% 122.7% $38,321 0.44% $62,463 Low Personal Care and Service 39-0000 392,120 $23,800 116.1% 111.0% $30,680 5.30% $50,008 Low Sales and Related Occupations 41-0000 28,670 $58,210 109.5% 104.7% $66,707 0.39% $108,732 Above Moderate Office and Administrative Support 43-0000 1,686,330 $37,730 108.7% 110.3% $45,249 22.79% $73,756 Median Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 45-0000 0 $33,570 110.5% 101.1% $37,502 0.00% $61,128 Low Construction and Extraction 47-0000 600 $56,780 105.3% 110.8% $66,258 0.01% $108,001 Above Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 49-0000 21,310 $45,760 106.9% 110.0% $53,845 0.29% $87,767 Moderate Production 51-0000 15,660 $41,440 106.6% 107.3% $47,362 0.21% $77,200 Median Transportation and Material Moving 53-0000 29,140 $38,090 103.6% 102.3% $40,378 0.39% $65,816 Median Total or Weighted Averag
e 7,398,300 $63,026 $82,966 100.00% $135,234
Percentage of Households by Income Category
Very Low Income 0.00%
Low Income 28.65%
Median 23.45%
Moderate Income 0.42%
Above Moderate 47.47%
Total 100.00%
medical wage
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2018, May 2020; EPS. [1] Includes 621 - Ambulatory Health Care Services NAICS code. [3] See Table 4.
[4] See Table A-1.

Medical Services
MEDICAL SERVICES [1]
[2] The U.S. Average Wage by Occupation in Industry data is based on 2018 estimates. EPS adjusted the 2018 data by the percentage change in annual wages by occupation between 2018 to 2020.

See Table 4 for details.

Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 A-6
Agenda Packet Page 103
DRAFT
Table A-7
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Updat
e
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Assisted Living
Occupation Category
Occupation
Code
US Total Jobs
by Occupation
in Industry
U.S. Average Wage
by Occupation
in Industry
2018 to 2020
Adjustment [2]
Sacramento
MSA Wage
Adjustment [3]
Sacramento MSA
Estimated Wage
Percentage
of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
Household
Income at 1.63
Workers per
Household [4]
Income
Category
3-Person HH
Management 11-0000 106,680 $88,480 104.0% 98.7% $90,860 3.19% $148,102 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations 13-0000 37,080 $57,580 104.9% 98.4% $59,429 1.11% $96,869 Moderate Computer and Mathematical Science 15-0000 3,380 $58,440 105.7% 101.8% $62,929 0.10% $102,574 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering 17-0000 0 $0 103.4% 117.0% $0 0.00% $0 Very Low Life, Physical, and Social Science 19-0000 2,380 $78,150 104.2% 103.4% $84,225 0.07% $137,287 Above Moderate Community and Social Services 21-0000 188,140 $39,340 105.9% 120.2% $50,077 5.63% $81,626 Median Legal Occupations 23-0000 80 $105,360 103.3% 113.5% $123,613 0.00% $201,489 Above Moderate Education, Training and Library 25-0000 13,580 $39,510 105.6% 107.5% $44,869 0.41% $73,136 Median Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 27-0000 3,100 $58,110 107.7% 104.9% $65,692 0.09% $107,078 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioner and Technical 29-0000 585,260 $57,460 104.8% 137.0% $82,462 17.51% $134,413 Above Moderate Healthcare Support 31-0000 986,310 $28,720 99.6% 110.7% $31,674 29.50% $51,629 Low Protective Services 33-0000 12,210 $30,080 107.5% 121.8% $39,386 0.37% $64,199 Low Food Preparation and Serving 35-0000 330,670 $26,120 108.1% 114.8% $32,410 9.89% $52,828 Low Buildings and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 37-0000 153,290 $25,800 109.1% 122.7% $34,558 4.59% $56,330 Low Personal Care and Service 39-0000 643,280 $26,980 116.1% 111.0% $34,779 19.24% $56,690 Low Sales and Related Occupations 41-0000 7,200 $49,900 109.5% 104.7% $57,184 0.22% $93,210 Moderate Office and Administrative Support 43-0000 163,480 $36,420 108.7% 110.3% $43,678 4.89% $71,195 Median Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 45-0000 0 $0 110.5% 101.1% $0 0.00% $0 Very Low Construction and Extraction 47-0000 1,210 $43,090 105.3% 110.8% $50,283 0.04% $81,961 Median Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 49-0000 57,570 $39,160 106.9% 110.0% $46,079 1.72% $75,109 Median Production 51-0000 28,930 $24,890 106.6% 107.3% $28,447 0.87% $46,369 Low Transportation and Material Moving 53-0000 19,140 $28,920 103.6% 102.3% $30,657 0.57% $49,971 Low Total or Weighted Averag
e 3,342,970 $36,569 $45,648 100.00% $74,406
Percentage of Households by Income Category
Very Low Income 0.00%
Low Income 65.03%
Median 12.68%
Moderate Income 1.32%
Above Moderate 20.97%
Total 100.00%
ast living wage
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2018, May 2020; EPS. [1] Includes 623 - Nursing and Residential Care Facilities NAICS code. [3] See Table 4.
[4] See Table A-1.

Assisted Living
ASSISTED LIVING [1]
[2] The U.S. Average Wage by Occupation in Industry data is based on 2018 estimates. EPS adjusted the 2018 data by the percentage change in annual wages by occupation between 2018 to 2020.

See Table 4 for details.

Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 A-7
Agenda Packet Page 104

APPENDIX B:

Multifamily Residential Pro Forma
Assumptions and Sources

Table B-1 Land Sales Comps ............................................... B-1 Table B-2 Building Permit and Development Impact
Fee Calculation ................................................... B-2 Table B-3 Development Impact Fee Prototype Assumptions ..... B-3 Table B-4 Apartment Survey ............................................... B-4

Agenda Packet Page 105
DRAFT
Table B-1
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Update
Land Sales Comps
Location Sale Date Use Condition Total Per Acre
Wyatt Ranch Subdivision, Citrus Heights November-20 Residential Raw 4.36 $1,490,000 $341,743 6251 Hillsdale Boulevard, Antelope November-20 Residential Raw 2.44 $820,000 $336,066 5837 Palm Avenue, Carmichael January-20 Residential Raw 2.20 $785,000 $356,818 8229 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Carmichael November-19 Residential Raw 1.48 $249,440 $168,541 7249-7309 Sunrise Blvd., Citrus Heights October-19 Residential Raw 3.47 $405,000 $116,715 4552 Palm Ave., North Highlands October-19 Residential Raw 2.75 $420,000 $152,727 10122 Ellenwood Ave., Rancho Cordova October-19 Residential Raw 2.00 $240,000 $120,000 7932 Patton Ave., Citrus Heights September-19 Residential Raw 3.14 $370,000 $117,834 Roseville Rd., North Highlands August-19 Residential Raw 9.96 $1,500,000 $150,602 6434 Beech Ave., Orangevale August-18 Residential Raw 5.00 $725,000 $145,000 Weighted Average 36.80 $7,004,440 $190,338
Weighted Average (Rounded) $190,000
sales comp
Source: CoStar, data obtained May 28, 2021.

Sales PriceSite
Acres
Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 B-1
Agenda Packet Page 106
DRAFT
Table B-2
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Update
Building Permit and Development Impact Fee Calculation
Item Assumption Per Unit Per Building Comment
Current as of
Assumptions [1]
Acres per Building 1.00
Units per Building 24 - -
Gross Sq. Ft. per Building 28,320 - -
Gross Sq. Ft. per Unit 1,180 - -
Leasable Sq. Ft. per Unit 1,000 - -
Total Building Valuation $3,411,710 - -
Building Permit Fees [2]
Building Permit Fee $721 $17,305 Based on valuation
Plan Review / Plan Check $469 $11,248 65% of Building Permit Fee Zone Check Fee TBD TBD
Records Fee TBD TBD
Sacramento County IT Recovery $15 $350
Fire Sprinkler Permit [3] $27 $655 SPB - 100-199 Sprinklers Sac Metro Fire Plan Check Fee $69 $1,663 NBPR3 - Bldg. 20,000-50,000 Sq. Ft.

Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $40 $955 Valuation * 0.00028 California Building Standards Commission Fee $6 $136 Valuation / 25,000 Subtotal Building Permit Fees per Unit $1,346 $32,313
City Development Impact Fees
Roadway Fee $931 $22,344 $931 per MFR unit
Transit Fee $356 $8,544 $356 per MFR unit
Roadway and Transit Administration $26 $618 $25.74 per MFR unit Park Impact Fee $665 $15,969 $665.38 per MFR unit
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $1,978 $47,475
Other Agency Development Impact Fees per Unit
Drainage - Sacramento County Zone 11B $620 $14,888 $14,888 per acre (RD 20 to RD 30) SASD Sewer Fee (Relief Area) $187 $4,489 $4,489 per net acre Regional San Sewer Fee (Infill Area) $2,701 $64,824 $2701 per MFR unit Citrus Heights Water District Plan Check Fee $50 $1,206 $1,156 + $25.22 per connection (2 connections) Citrus Heights Water District Inspection Fee $69 $1,651 $1,211 + $220 per connection (2 connections) Citrus Heights Water District Connection (2" Domestic; 1" Irrigation) $1,270 $30,477 $23,220.25 for 2"; $7,256.33 for 1" Citrus Heights Water District Meter Set (2" Domestic; 1" Irrigation) $79 $1,902 $1,271 for 2"; $631 for 1" San Juan Water District Fees (2" Domestic; 1" Irrigation) $2,968 $71,225 $54,266 for 2"; $16,959 for 1" San Juan Unified School District Fee $4,080 $97,920 $4.08 per living area sq. ft.

Quimby Fee [4] $1,653 $39,672 See Footnote 4
Fire Fee - Sac Metro Fire District $1,059 $25,416 $1,059 per MFR unit Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) Fee $945 $22,680 $945 per MFR unit Subtotal Other Agency Development Impact Fees per Unit $15,681 $376,350 Total Building Permit and Development Impact Fees $19,006 $456,138 fee calc
Source: City of Citrus Heights; County of Sacramento; Sacramento Metro Fire Department; SASD; Regional SAN; Citrus Heights Water District; San Juan Unified School District; EPS.
[1] See Table B-3 for additional assumptions.
[2]
Estimate may not include all charges applied by the City's building department, including fees for mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. [3] Assumes 1 sprinkler head per 200 building square feet. [4]
Per Sacramento County Code Section 22.40.045, the amount of land dedicated or fees paid in-lieu for parkland dedication for Sunrise Recreation and Park District is based on a per-unit acreage dedication factor, multiplied by the total number of units, multiplied by a fair market value of the property to be subdivided. These assumptions are provided below.

Multifamily Residential Per-Unit Dedication Factor: 0.0087.

Estimated Land Value: $190,000, see Table B-1.

Estimated Fee
May-21
Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 B-2
Agenda Packet Page 107
DRAFT
Table B-3
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Update
Development Impact Fee Prototype Assumptions
Item Amount
Project Acreage 2.00
Density (Units/Acre) 24.0
Total No. of Units 48
No. of Buildings 2
No. of Units per Building 24
Avg. Leasable Sq. Ft. per Unit 1,000
Avg. Gross Sq. Ft. per Unit [1] 1,180
Total Gross Sq. Ft. per Building 28,320
Valuation per Sq. Ft. [2] $120.47
Total Valuation per Building $3,411,710
prototype assump
Source: CoStar; International Code Council (ICC);
EPS.
[1] Assumes a gross-to-net ratio of 0.85.
[2]
Based on ICC February 2021 building valuation
for R-2 Residential Multifamily, Type VB.

Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 B-3
Agenda Packet Page 108
DRAFT
Table B-4
City of Citrus Heights
Affordable Housing Fee Update
Apartment Surve
y
Year No. of Avg. No. of
Property Location Built Buildings 1 Bdrm 2 Bdrm 3 Bdrm Total Units/Bldg. 1 Bdrm 2 Bdrm 3 Bdrm Avg.

Vineyard Gate Apartments Roseville 2000 22 112 136 32 280 13 809 1,183 1,405 1,059 Stoneridge Apartments Roseville 2004 32 73 139 18 230 7 750 1,051 1,276 973 Pearl Creek Apartments Roseville 2014 13 60 152 12 224 17 795 1,160 1,363 1,073 Pinnacle at Galleria Roseville 2001 15 96 124 16 236 16 765 1,103 1,256 976 Villages of the Galleria Roseville 2001 8 117 56 8 181 23 783 1,026 1,247 879 Harvest at Fiddyment Ranch Roseville 2019 6 75 165 60 300 50 790 1,091 1,258 1,049 Antelope Ranch Antelope 2007 9 32 56 28 116 13 624 820 950 797 Arlington Creek Antelope 2003 8 32 68 48 148 19 720 990 1,270 1,022 Sierra Creek Antelope 2006 10 72 72 0 144 14 687 984 - 836 Normandy Park Citrus Heights 2001 9 64 52 0 116 13 705 958 - 818 The Oaks at Hackberry Carmichael 2014 6 36 20 0 56 9 670 966 - 776 The Crest at Fair Oaks Fair Oaks 2004 8 42 28 6 76 10 711 1,069 1,350 893 Anton Arcade Arden-Arcade 2017 3 40 96 12 148 49 630 934 1,175 871 Oak Brook Rancho Cordova 2001 14 148 148 8 304 22 756 1,198 1,390 988 Forestwood at Folsom Folsom 2012 3 18 20 17 55 18 670 892 1,061 872 Granite City Apartments Folsom 2013 4 30 33 18 81 20 783 1,034 1,283 996 Bidwell Pointe Folsom 2019 7 67 65 8 140 20 709 1,077 1,200 908 Vintage Willow Creek Folsom 2003 10 104 80 0 184 18 580 720 - 641 The Falls at Willow Creek Folsom 2004 28 164 220 42 426 15 768 1,023 1,153 938 Total/Weighted Average 215 1,382 1,730 333 3,445 16 735 1,048 1,231 940 Amount Used for Analysis 24 1,000
apt survey
Source: CoStar; EPS.

Average Unit Sq. Ft.Number of Units
Prepared by EPS 6/17/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Models\192045 Linkage Fee m01 06-15-21 B-4
Agenda Packet Page 109
E
xhibit B – Affordable Housing Impact Fee
F
ee to be set as Determined by City Council at June 23rd Council Meeting Agenda Packet Page 110

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MULTIMODAL IMPACT FEE STUDY, RENAMING

THE ROADWAY AND TRANSIT IMPACT FEE TO THE MULTIMODAL IMPACT FEE

AND UPDATING THE FEE

WHEREAS the City of Citrus Heights has, since the date of its incorporation January 1, 1997, assessed a fee on new development to be used to improve the City’s transportation network known as the Roadway and Transit Impact Fees;
WHEREAS in August 2011, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights adopted an updated General Plan focused on sustainability and transportation via Resolution 2011-105; WHEREAS the General Plan includes Goal 29.2, which states, “Plan, design, construct, and manage a Complete Streets transportation network that accommodates the needs of all mobility types, users, and ability levels”;
WHEREAS the General Plan includes Policy Action 29.2.A which states, “Modify the existing traffic impact fee program to include a mitigation fee designed to reduce vehicular trips and vehicle miles traveled within the City to avoid or minimize the need to expand existing roadway capacity. This should include a multi-modal (Complete Streets) capital improvement program (CIP) and, in conjunction with public funding, provide full funding for the City’s circulation element improvements”;
WHEREAS on June 23, 2022, the City Council considered and is adopting the technical study prepared by Economic Planning Systems, Inc., entitled “Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study” (“Nexus Study”), (Exhibit A), which, in accordance with the provisions of State law, has identified the purpose of the impact fee, identified the intended use of the fee, determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the intended use of the fee and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, and determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost attributable to the development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, ;

WHEREAS consistent with the requirements of Government Code 66016.5, the Nexus Study identified the current level of service for the applicable public facilities, the proposed new level of service, and an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt this resolution, adopting Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study and renaming the Roadway and Transit Fee to the Multimodal Impact Fee; WHEREAS, following the adoption of the Nexus Study, the City Council intends to hold a duly noticed public hearing on June 23, 2022, at which data and findings related to the Nexus Study will be further considered and the City Council; a WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the maximum impact fees identified in the Nexus Study could impact feasibility of new development and redevelopment, therefore the City Council has identified the Impact Fees in Exhibit B as appropriate; WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, data was made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including general fund revenues in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; Agenda Packet Page 111

WHEREAS, at least fourteen days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, notice was provided to those persons or organizations who had requested notice of these fees, in accordance with Government Code Section 66019;
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed fees was published twice in the manner set forth in Government Code 6062a and as required by Government Code Section 66018; WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the City Council on June 23, 2022;and WHEREAS, based upon all written and oral reports received, the City Council finds and determines that the proposed modifications to the City’s Multimodal Impact Fee as set forth herein are necessary to offset the impacts of new development on the City’s multimodal roadway network and that these fees do not exceed the proportional cost of the service or benefit attributable to the fee payer.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby declare, find, determine and order as follows:

A) The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

B) The Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study attached hereto as “Exhibit A” complies with the requirements of Government Code 66016.5 and is hereby adopted and approved as presented.

(E) This Resolution shall go into full force and effect 60 days following adoption.

(F) The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23
rd day of June 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Porsche Middleton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Agenda Packet Page 112

Amy Van, City Clerk

Exhibits

A. Multimodal Nexus Fee Study
B. Multimodal Fee

Agenda Packet Page 113

Exhibit A: Multimodal Impact Fee Study

Agenda Packet Page 114

Administrative Draft
Multimodal Impact Fee
Nexus Study

Prepared for:

City of Citrus Heights

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

February 10, 2022

EPS #192045
Agenda Packet Page 115

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Summary ............................................................ 1 Background ....................................................................................... 1 Purpose ............................................................................................. 1 Authority ........................................................................................... 1 Summary .......................................................................................... 2 Organization of Report ......................................................................... 5

2. Fee Methodology, Land Use, and Growth Assumptions ....................... 7 Plan-Based Fee Method ........................................................................ 7 Land Use Assumptions ......................................................................... 8 Fee Program Land Use Categories ....................................................... 10

3. Fee-Eligible Projects, Project Cost Estimates, and
New Growth Share of Costs ........................................................... 11 Fee-Eligible Facilities ......................................................................... 11 New Growth Share of Fee Projects Costs .............................................. 12 Other Funding Sources ...................................................................... 12 Net Future Development Share of Costs ............................................... 12

4. Fee Calculation and Cost Allocation Methodology .............................. 13 Fee Calculation ................................................................................. 13 Cost Allocation Methodology ............................................................... 14 Fee Calculation ................................................................................. 17 Fee Administration Charge ................................................................. 17

5. Nexus Findings ............................................................................ 19 Authority ......................................................................................... 19 Summary of Nexus Findings ............................................................... 19

6. Fee Program Implementation and Administration ............................. 23 Administration Fee Component ........................................................... 23 Fee Amount ..................................................................................... 23 Fee Program Updates ........................................................................ 24

Appendix A: Master Capital Projects Listing
Agenda Packet Page 116

List of Tables
Table 1. Maximum Justified Fee by Land Use Category ..................................... 3 Table 2. Land Use Assumptions .................................................................... 9 Table 3. Calculation of Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors.................................. 15 Table 4. DUEs by Land Use Category ........................................................... 16 Table 5. Multimodal Impact Fee Calculation by Land Use ................................ 18

Agenda Packet Page 117
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 1

1. Introduction and Summary
Background
The City of Citrus Heights (City or Citrus Heights) has initiated the process to update certain development impact fees, including the Roadway and Transit Impact Fees. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) has teamed with Fehr & Peers and Bennett Engineering (BEN|EN) (collectively, the EPS Team) to comprehensively address all the fee categories and related technical issues regarding the update to Roadway and Transit Fees. The City collects a Roadway Impact Fee and a Transit Impact Fee and is considering combining the Roadway and Transit Impact Fees into a single Multimodal Impact Fee to avoid or minimize the need to expand existing roadway capacity.

This Nexus Study (study) provides the analysis and basis for the justification and imposition of a Multimodal Impact Fee (fee).

Purpose
The EPS Team was retained by the City to conduct a nexus study that quantifies the relationship between the growth in residential and nonresidential land uses and the demand for and cost of multimodal transit facilities in the City. As a development impact fee, the fee can only be charged to new development and must be based on the impact of new development on the need for funding for new transportation facilities authorized under this study. The purpose of this report is to provide the nexus (or reasonable relationship) between new residential and nonresidential development that occurs in the City and the need for additional transportation improvements as a result of this new development.

This study includes selected roadway improvements critical to increase citywide roadway system capacity to accommodate future development and does not address roadway structural damage and the requisite maintenance or reconstruction of those roadways resulting from development or other activity.

Fee revenue may be collected by the City and used to fund the construction of new transportation-related facilities.

Authority
This study serves as the basis for requiring development impact fees under Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code sections 66000 et seq.). This section of the Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and Agenda Packet Page 118
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
2 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that a reasonable relationship, or nexus, must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.

Required Nexus Findings
 Identify the purpose of the fee.
 Identify how the fee is to be used.
 Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the demand for the affordable housing and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
 Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public benefit attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Summary
As new development continues to occur in Citrus Heights, additional transportation facilities will be required to serve future residents and employees.

The transportation facility costs allocated to new development reflect transportation facility improvements that are needed to accommodate future development, while maintaining desired level-of-service (LOS) and mobility standards. This study computes future development’s share of future transportation facility improvement costs based on planned transportation facilities or LOS standards as determined by the City. The fee will not fund the construction of transportation facility improvements required to cure existing LOS deficiencies. This study comprises the following transportation improvements benefiting new development in Citrus Heights:
 Roadway improvements, including all “Complete Streets” elements (e.g., signals, street lighting, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities).  Alternative mode facilities, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements.

Table 1 summarizes the maximum justifiable fee established by this study by land use category. The methodology used to establish maximum justifiable fees is described in the subsequent chapters of this report. Citrus Heights may determine that a lower fee level, below the maximum fee, is appropriate, given a range of development feasibility and economic development considerations.

Agenda Packet Page 119
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3
Table 1. Maximum Justified Fee by Land Use Category

Nexus Methodology
Development impact fees must be related to the demand for facilities generated by new development. Several findings regarding the demand and need for new facilities generated by new land uses are required to levy a fee on future development. The fee imposed must demonstrate rough proportionality to the demand generated, or benefit received, by each land use category on which the fee is imposed.

Transportation facility requirements used in this study are determined using a plan-based methodology, whereby costs of planned future roadway facilities are allocated to future development anticipated to benefit from those facilities.

Citrus Heights is a mostly built-out city of 88,000 persons. It is also relatively compact, measuring just 4 miles from north to south, and a maximum of

4.4 miles when measured east to west. Its relatively compact size suggests that multimodal improvements made in one part of the City may benefit a large proportion of the City, particularly those improvements focusing on bicycling and transit use (because of the ability to travel greater distances than walking in the same amount of time). Citrus Heights became an incorporated city in 1997.

In doing so, it inherited a roadway system from Sacramento County that was developed in the mid/late 1900s. Many of the streets are very auto-oriented.

Land Use Category
Maximum
Justified Fee
(per Unit or
KSF) [1]
Residential per unit
Single-Family Residential $6,251.92
Multifamily Residential $3,393.98
Nonresidential
Retail per KSF
Food $9.26
General Retail $14.97
Service $14.98
Employment
Professional Office $6.78
Medical $18.87
Government Office $8.23
justified_fee
[1] From Table 5.

Agenda Packet Page 120
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
4 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Recognizing this, the City has been steadily implementing complete streets projects on arterials such as Greenback Lane and Auburn Boulevard. Many more streets are planned for these types of improvements. It is important to recognize that the improvements shown in Appendix A will benefit both current and future City residents, employees, and visitors.

AB 1600 requirements do not allow fee programs to charge new development to pay for existing deficiencies. And it can be fairly argued that certain improvements in Appendix A are intended to fix deficient conditions. However, because the program primarily consists of multimodal improvements, it is not possible to fully include/exclude certain projects from the list. Accordingly, individual projects may be assigned varying levels of inclusion in the program, based on their specific circumstances.

Land Use Assumptions
The base year (2016) and future land uses used in this study represent the growth the City was derived by Fehr & Peers from the latest version of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG’s) SACSIM travel demand model that was used for SACOG’s 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). This study is based on the assumption minimal new growth has occurred in Citrus Heights since 2016, and thereby the growth projections are accepted as reasonable estimates.

Fee Facilities and Facilities Costs
Appendix A lists 31 specific projects that would be included in the fee program.

As shown, these projects sum to approximately $137.3 million in total costs.

These consist primarily of complete streets projects, which include enhancements to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.

Fee Calculation and Cost Allocation
The fee calculation is determined using dwelling unit equivalencies (DUEs) for each land use included in the fee program. This study multiplies PM Peak Hour trip data by the “average trip length” for different land uses to derive the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per unit. The VMT per unit may be reduced to account for the average number of “pass-by” trips assigned to each land use. Pass-by trips Agenda Packet Page 121
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
are a subset of trips traveling on a road that stops by a nearby commercial development. They are not new trips. Pass-by trip reduction applies only to commercial/retail developments. VMTs are directly related to LOS and the need for capacity enhancements.

VMTs per unit are applied to development projections to allocate improvement costs by land use type. The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based on the Trip Generation Manual, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (ITE, 2021). VMTs per unit incorporate daily trip generation rates, relative shares of pass-by and diverted trips, and relative trip length by land use.

VMTs per unit are calculated based on the following formula:

VMT per Unit = PM Peak Hour Trip Rate * Total Trip Share Excluding Pass-by * Relative Trip Length
The net transportation facility costs were allocated proportionately to future development based on VMTs per unit for each land use category. DUEs are derived from the calculated VMTs.

Organization of Report
After this Introduction and Executive Summary chapter, this study includes the following chapters:
 Chapter 2 describes the fee methodology used to calculate the fee, land use, and growth assumptions.
 Chapter 3 describes fee-eligible projects, project cost estimates, and new growth share of costs.
 Chapter 4 describes the fee calculation and cost allocation methodology.  Chapter 5 presents the nexus findings.
 Chapter 6 discusses the fee program implementation and administration.

Agenda Packet Page 122
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
6 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Agenda Packet Page 123
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7

2. F ee Methodology, Land Use, and
Growth Assumptions
This Nexus Study presents a methodology that allocates the required transportation facilities capital costs to land uses based on relative benefit received from such improvements. This chapter provides an overview of the nexus methodology and land use and growth assumptions used to derive the proposed fee, which funds transportation facility improvements needed to serve new development and establishes a nexus between the facilities to be funded and the benefit received by new development.

Plan-Based Fee Method
This study evaluates and allocates the costs of the roadway facilities required to s
erve future development in the City. The study uses a plan-based fee methodology whereby the costs of planned future transportation facilities are allocated to future development anticipated to benefit from those facilities.

Transportation improvements included in the fee are those improvements identified in the City’s “15-Year Capital Improvement Program 2021-2036” (CIP).

Fehr & Peers has taken 31 projects identified in the CIP and summarized them in Appendix A.

The list of transportation improvements included for funding through the fee focuses on those facilities that directly address projected new development, support economic development opportunities, provide a citywide benefit, increase capacity, and could impede opportunities for future growth if not constructed.

This study provides a methodology to allocate the costs of future transportation facilities on a basis proportionate to each future land use category’s relative benefit received from such transportation facilities. The study estimates future development and evaluates the requisite improvements to serve the projected development. BEN|EN estimated the total future facility costs associated with these improvements, net of existing infrastructure deficiencies and applicable other funding sources. These net costs then were proportionately allocated to future development based on relative demand for transportation facilities as informed by the trip-generating characteristics of each land use category.

Agenda Packet Page 124
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
8 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Land Use Assumptions
Table 2 displays the expected land use growth in Citrus Heights between 2016 and 2040 conditions. Table 2 shows the base year (2016) and 2040 growth assumptions. These data are derived by Fehr & Peers from the latest version of SACOG’s SACSIM travel demand model that was used for SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS. As stated previously, the 2016 base year assumptions are used for the base year for growth projections in this study, assuming minimal new growth has occurred since these base values were established. The totals in Table 2 include the approved Mitchell Farms Development1 and the redevelopment of Sunrise Mall.2
As shown, the City is projected to add approximately 2,650 new dwelling units, 765,000 square feet of new retail, and 1,417,100 square feet of employment uses.

Residential and retail growth would increase by modest amounts of 8 percent and 15 percent, respectively. In contrast, employment-related growth would increase by 92 percent, driven primarily by the large amount of professional and medical- office space anticipated on the redeveloped Sunrise Mall property.

1 This approved project is located east of Sunrise Boulevard and north of Arcadia Drive. It consists of 260 dwelling units, according to the Mitchell Farms Final TIS (Fehr & Peers, 2018). 2 The “Projected Development Scenario” is considered the most likely set of land uses for the Sunrise Tomorrow Specific Plan. These uses consist of 1,200 dwelling units, 700 KSF of professional office, 176 KSF of medical-office, 417 KSF of retail, and 45 KSF of government office.

Agenda Packet Page 125
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9
Table 2. Land Use Assumptions

Land Use Category Unit
Base
Year
(2016)
Cumulative
Growth
(2040)
New
Growth
Residential
Single-Family Residential [2] DU 468
Multifamily Residential DU 2,181
Nonresidential
Retail
Food KSF 1,028 1,078 50
General Retail [3] KSF 2,552 3,153 601
Service KSF 1,392 1,506 114
Employment
Professional Office KSF 783 1,602 819
Medical KSF 24 508 484
Government Office KSF 418 532 114
growth
DU = Dwelling Unit. KSF = thousand square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
34,397 37,046
[1] Assumes the following ratios to convert employees (from SACSIM model) into KSF:1 employee per KSF for industrial, 2 employees per KSF for general and service retail, 3 employees per KSF for medical, government office and retail food, and 4 employees per KSF for professional office.
[2] Single-family consists of 260 units in Mitchell Farms, 93 units at Sylvan Corners, and 5 percent of remaining units (115) assumed to be single-family. Balance (2,181) are multifamily units.
[3] Consists of 417 KSF of retail added on Sunrise Mall property and 184 KSF of retail added elsewhere in City. It is also acknowledged that there would be a net decrease in retail space on Sunrise Mall property. However, ultimate focus of fee program is on the amount of new development that would be subject to the DIF program. That development is shown in this table.

Agenda Packet Page 126
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
10 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Fee Program Land Use Categories
Land use categories in this study have been defined to distinguish between various transportation facilities and demand characteristics of different development types. Based on data available and the methodology used, projected development and facility requirements for future land uses are based on a limited set of land use categories and the associated travel demand for new development. Using the DUEs described in Chapter 4, this study establishes impact fees for a more expansive list of residential and nonresidential land use categories:
 Residential Land Uses (per Unit):
— Single-Family Residential
— Multifamily Residential
 Nonresidential Land Uses (per KSF):
— Retail:
» Food
» General Retail
» Service
— Employment:
» Professional Office
» Medical
» Government Office
Agenda Packet Page 127
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11

3. Fee-Eligible Projects, Project Cost
Estimates, and New Growth Share of
Costs
This chapter summarizes the transportation projects included in the fee program and evaluates new development’s proportional share of costs. In addition to identifying included transportation improvements, this chapter identifies and summarizes outside funding sources and other adjustments to the facilities costs.

The net transportation improvement cost estimates, adjusted for other funding sources and other adjustments, are the basis of the fee calculations presented in Chapter 4.

Fee-Eligible Facilities
The use of fee funds is either project-specific or programmatic. Project-specific facilities include roadway improvements, as identified and described in Appendix A. Funds allocated to roadway improvements will be prioritized by the City as it plans for growth. Programmatic facilities to serve future growth needs include the ongoing support for the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan goals.

Roadway Improvements
Roadway improvement projects comprise the following types of improvements:
 New major roadways
 Roadway extensions
 Interchanges
 Bridges/overpasses
 Widening of existing roadways
The City’s Complete Streets policy dictates that roadway improvements incorporate all travel modes. Elements of many of the candidate roadway projects contain sidewalk, crosswalk, and signal features promoting transportation safety and travel; bike lane and signal features promoting cyclist safety and travel; transit access, curb, and lane improvements to accommodate bus stops; and intersection improvements that may include signalization. These improvements are related to vehicle trips from new development either because they are a necessary component of any roadway project for public health and safety (e.g., sidewalks) or because they provide an alternative transportation option to reduce VMT and provide for additional vehicle capacity.

Agenda Packet Page 128
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
12 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
New Growth Share of Fee Projects Costs
This study evaluates and allocates the costs of the improvements required to serve future development in the City. In addition to accommodating future development, some of the selected roadway improvements for the fee program also would help improve some existing deficiencies or provide mobility benefits to existing development. Therefore, the nexus for new development’s share of the cost of roadway improvements in the fee program will be based on the estimated percentage of the total future traffic volume using each roadway improvement that stems from vehicle trips generated by future development in the City.

Appendix A shows 31 projects included in the CIP with total costs of approximately $137.3 million. The share of costs for new development in the City is approximately $36.2 million. Fehr & Peers evaluated each project in Appendix A to determine their professional estimate of benefit derived by existing and new growth. As such, the percentage of project costs allocated to new growth may differ from one project to another. The share of the costs from other traffic (i.e., traffic generated by existing development or non-City growth) will need to be funded by sources other than the fee program.

Other Funding Sources
The fee program is based on the assumption that other transportation funding sources will be used to support transportation improvements. The City has previously received funding for complete streets improvements through the state’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, and Congested Corridors funding program, as well as others.

Net Future Development Share of Costs
After taking account of all additional costs and other adjustments, as specified in Appendix A, the net transportation improvement projects cost assigned to new development is estimated to be $36.2 million.

Agenda Packet Page 129
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 13

4. Fee Calculation and Cost Allocation
Methodology
This study presents a methodology that allocates the required transportation facility costs to all new land uses based on relative benefit received from such improvements. The previous chapter provided a detailed overview of the costs included in the fee program. This chapter provides an overview of the nexus methodology used to allocate those costs and a summary of the proposed fee program.

The methodology that follows results in a fee schedule with a maximum justifiable fee per unit for residential land uses or per 1,000 building square feet for nonresidential land uses.

Fee Calculation
As described in detail below, future transportation facility costs are allocated to future development via EDUs assigned to each land use type, based on PM Peak Hour Trip Rates and Average Trip Lengths, as adjusted by Pass-by Reductions.

This calculation provides the relative demand for roadway facilities by each land use. Fee program costs are allocated on a DUEs basis according to the following steps:

1. Determine the projected amount of new development (discussed in Chapter 2).

2. Determine the transportation improvements needed to serve the new development (identified by the City and discussed in Chapter 3).

3. Determine the net cost of the transportation improvements to be funded by the fee after accounting for adjustments such as existing infrastructure deficiencies and other funding sources, if applicable (identified by the City and their traffic consultants and discussed in Chapter 3).

4. Determine the proportionate impact and the appropriate share of costs attributable to each land use category (discussed in this chapter):
a. Determine the appropriate allocation factors (VMT per unit) to allocate the cost of required transportation improvements.
b. Determine the DUEs created by new development by assuming a single- family residential unit is 1.0 EDU, then comparing other land uses and the calculated VMT per unit to derive EDUs by land use category.

Agenda Packet Page 130
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
14 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
c. Divide DUEs assigned to each land use category by the total DUEs created by new development to determine the share of costs allocable to each land use category.
d. Determine the fee for all land use categories by dividing the fee costs by the DUEs allocated to each land use category.
e. Add a fee administration cost to the allocated costs for each land use category.

Cost Allocation Methodology
The purpose of allocating certain improvement costs among the various land uses is to provide an equitable method of funding required infrastructure. The apportionment methodology reflects these requirements:
 Demands placed on public facilities are related to each land use paying the fee.
 Such demands are stated in relative terms for all affected land uses.

It is by relating demand for facilities to land use types that a reasonable nexus, or relationship, can be established to apportion the proportionate share of costs to given land uses. This study uses a common use factor, called DUEs, which relates the average trip demand for each land use in common terms.

For purposes of this study, DUEs are determined based on vehicle trips generated by each land use category and the typical lengths for these trips, as adjusted by a pass-by factor. The need for transportation improvements is based on a peak- hour analysis because peak-hour travel times create the greatest need for infrastructure capacity. PM peak hour trip data provide a reasonable systemwide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility. Vehicle trips are directly related to LOS and the need for capacity enhancements.

The trip generation rates discussed above were adjusted to fully account for each land use category’s comparative benefit from roadway facilities. These adjustments are discussed in further detail below.

Trip Demand Factor Adjustments
Trip generation rates used in this study include the following trip adjustments:
 Pass-by trips
 Trip length
Agenda Packet Page 131
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15
These adjustments, which are described in further detail below, are applied to the trip generation rates to derive DUEs summarized in Table 3. Table 4 applies the DUEs to projected new development to derive total DUEs by land use category.

Table 3. Calculation of Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors

Land Use Category Unit
PM Peak
Hour
Trip Rate
[1]
Average
Trip
Length
[2]
Pass-by
Reductions
[3]
VMT per
Unit
DUE per
Unit [4]
Residential
Single-Family Residential DU 0.9 8.8 0% 8.272 1.000
Multifamily Residential DU 0.5 8.8 0% 4.488 0.543
Nonresidential
Retail
Food KSF 8.0 3.0 49% 12.240 1.480
General Retail KSF 6.6 5.0 40% 19.800 2.394
Service KSF 6.6 5.0 40% 19.800 2.394
Employment
Professional Office KSF 1.4 6.4 0% 8.960 1.083
Medical KSF 3.9 6.4 0% 24.960 3.017
Government Office KSF 1.7 6.4 0% 10.880 1.315
DUEs
[1] Trip rates based on data from the Trip Generation Manual (ITE, 2021).

DU = Dwelling Unit. KSF = thousand square feet. VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
[2] Average trip lengths inferred from “big data” provided by Streetlight, Inc. (developed for City’s SB 743 Implementation Plan).
[3] Pass-by reduction to retail uses based on published percentages in Trip Generation Manual (ITE, 2021).
[4] Calculated by dividing each land use’s VMT per unit by the VMT per unit for single-family (8.27).

Agenda Packet Page 132
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
16 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 4. DUEs by Land Use Category

Pass-By Trips
Typically, retail-based trips often involve multiple stops. To recognize this traffic pattern, a pass-by adjustment, or percentage of new trip adjustment, considers vehicle trips using the adjacent roadway that enters a site as an intermediate stop on the way to another destination.

For example, some drivers will stop for fuel on their way home from work. The pass-by adjustment reduces total number of vehicle trips to account for the sharing of the one trip for two destinations (fuel and then home). The adjustment often ranges by land use type and by local development and traffic patterns and ranges from 14 percent to 55 percent. For some retail land uses, such as retail and hotels/motel, traffic patterns indicate significantly greater pass-by traffic. For instance, 49 percent of trips made to food-related uses are incidental to the primary purpose of the trip and require adjustment.

Pass-by adjustments are included before calculating the relative DUEs, as shown in Table 4, which also summarizes the PM peak hour trip assumptions prepared by Fehr & Peers.

Land Use Category Unit
New
Growth [1]
DUE per
Unit [2]
Total
DUEs
Residential
Single-Family Residential [2] DU 468 1.000 468
Multifamily Residential DU 2,181 0.543 1,184
Nonresidential
Retail
Food KSF 50 1.480 74
General Retail [3] KSF 601 2.394 1,439
Service KSF 114 2.394 273
Employment
Professional Office KSF 819 1.083 888
Medical KSF 484 3.017 1,461
Government Office KSF 114 1.315 150
Total DUEs 5,937
DUE_alloc
[1] From Table 1.
[2] From Table 2.

DU = Dwelling Unit. KSF = thousand square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.

Agenda Packet Page 133
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 17
Trip Length Adjustment
Trip length adjustment factors account for the average distance traveled per trip for a particular land use. The trip generation used in this analysis is weighted by the relative length of trips for a specific land use category, compared to the average length of all trips.

Trip length adjustments are included before calculating DUEs, as shown in Table 4.

Fee Calculation
The fee is a citywide fee program—all future development in the City will pay the fee based on the citywide facilities required to serve future development.

The fee calculation is shown in Table 5. Fees calculated in Table 5 include a

2.5 percent administration fee. The sum of the fee calculation and the administration fee represents the maximum justified fee by land use category.

Fee Administration Charge
Development impact fee programs may include the cost of administering the program that funds the construction of public facilities necessary to serve new development, including these:
 The administrative costs of assessing, collecting, cost-accounting, and public reporting of the fee.
 The cost of justification analyses, legal support, and other costs of annual, periodic, and 5-year updates to the fee.
 Costs of capital planning and programming, including project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the impact fee.  Costs associated with any GIS provided as an input to the fee.

Administration charges typically range from 1.0 percent up to 5.0 percent. This study applies a 2.5 percent allowance to fund administration costs. The methodology described above results in a fee schedule, which includes an administration charge of 2.5 percent, as shown in Table 4.

Agenda Packet Page 134
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
18 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Table 5. Multimodal Impact Fee Calculation by Land Use

Land Use Category Unit
New
Growth [1]
Total
DUEs [1]
Percent of
DUEs [2]
Allocation of
Fee Costs [3]
Fee Cost
Allocation
(per Unit or
KSF)
Fee Program
Administration
Cost [4]
Maximum
Justified Fee
(per Unit or
KSF)
Residential 2.5% per unit
Single-Family Residential [2] DU 468 468 7.9% $2,854,532 $6,099.43 $152.49 $6,251.92 Multifamily Residential DU 2,181 1,184 19.9% $7,221,722 $3,311.20 $82.78 $3,393.98 Nonresidential
Retail per KSF
Food KSF 50 74 1.2% $451,358 $9.03 $0.23 $9.26
General Retail KSF 601 1,439 24.2% $8,777,076 $14.60 $0.37 $14.97 Service KSF 114 273 4.6% $1,665,144 $14.61 $0.37 $14.98 Employment
Professional Office KSF 819 888 15.0% $5,416,291 $6.61 $0.17 $6.78 Medical KSF 484 1,461 24.6% $8,911,263 $18.41 $0.46 $18.87 Government Office KSF 114 150 2.5% $914,914 $8.03 $0.20 $8.23 Totals 4,831 5,937 100.0% $36,212,300
fee
[1] From Table 3.
[2] May not sum because of rounding.
[3] Total fee cost allocation detail shown in Appendix A. [4] A percentage of 2.5% is added to the fee cost to fund the administration of the fee program.

Agenda Packet Page 135
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 19

5. Nexus Findings
Authority
This study has been prepared to establish the fee in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in AB 1600, which is codified in California Government Section 66000 et seq. These code sections set forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that a “reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.” 3 Specifically, each local
agency imposing a fee must:
 Identify the purpose of the fee.
 Identify how the fee is to be used.
 Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
 Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Summary of Nexus Findings
The fee to be collected for each land use is calculated based on the proportionate share of the total facility use that each land use represents. With this approach, the following findings are made concerning the City’s fee.

Purpose of Fee
The fee will fund the construction of new roadways and other transportation improvements, including alternative transportation modes facilities needed to accommodate new citywide development.

3 William Abbott, Marian E. Moe, and Marilee Hanson, Public Needs & Private Dollars; (July 1993), page 109.

Agenda Packet Page 136
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
20 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Use of Fee
The fee will fund improvements to the citywide transportation system to provide additional travel capacity accommodating new development. Fee-funded improvements include roadway improvement projects such as new major roadways, roadway extensions, and widening of existing roadways; and alternative modes facilities, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements.

Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development New residential and nonresidential development in the City will generate new residents, employees, and patrons that will in turn generate new vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian trips and demand for expanded citywide roadway capacity and improved connectivity. Each residential and nonresidential development project will add to the incremental need for roadway capacity and alternative modes facilities, and each new residential and nonresidential development project will benefit from the new roadway capacity and alternative modes facilities. The fee will be used to fund the transportation improvements identified in Chapter 3, providing this increased capacity to the benefit of both residential and nonresidential development.

Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Project New residents and commercial users will generate additional vehicle and alternative modes trips, requiring expanded roadway capacity and improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities to accommodate increased vehicular and non-vehicular traffic, while maintaining desired LOS. The fee includes roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements needed to accommodate additional trips generated by new residents and commercial enterprises, as discussed in Chapter 3. Completion of these improvements will mitigate the impact of greater traffic on roadways caused by new development, minimizing adverse impacts to service levels or public safety.

Relationship Between Amount of Fee and Cost of or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on Which Fee is Imposed
The total costs of transportation improvements funded by the fee are allocated amongst the projected new citywide residential and nonresidential land uses based on the proportional benefit each land use is anticipated to receive from the transportation improvements funded by the fee. The cost allocation methodology applies DUEs to each land use category that is used to weight the level of demand for additional roadway capacity generated by each land use category, based on each land use’s average trip demand, as discussed in Chapter 4.

Agenda Packet Page 137
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 21
DUEs for the fee were derived using PM peak hour trip demand by land use, adjusted for the percentage of trips that are primary trips4 and a trip length factor.5 The DUE analysis therefore defines the relative benefit conferred to each land use category, based on trip usage, and apportions the cost to each land use accordingly.

4 Primary trips are trips with no midway stops, or links. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than 1 mile to the total trip.
5 The trip length factor represents the average trip length by land use relative to the systemwide average trip length.

Agenda Packet Page 138
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
22 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Agenda Packet Page 139
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 23

6. Fee Program Implementation and
Administration
The fee program presented in this study is based on the best facility improvement cost estimates, existing facility cost or value estimates, funding source information, administrative cost estimates, and land use information available at this time. If costs change significantly, if the type or amount of new development changes, if other assumptions significantly change, or if other funding becomes available (as a result of legislative action on state and local government finance, for example), the fee should be updated accordingly.

After the fee presented in this study is established, the City should conduct periodic reviews of facility improvement costs and other assumptions used as the basis of this study. Based on these reviews, the City may make necessary adjustments to the fee program through subsequent fee program updates.

The cost estimates presented in this report are in constant 2021 dollars. The City automatically may adjust the costs and fees for inflation each year as outlined in this chapter.

The fee will be implemented in accordance with Government Code Section 66000.

City ordinances and resolutions required for implementation of this study are an integral and controlling part of the policies and procedures authorized for this study. If there are any inconsistencies or contradictions between the implementing ordinance and resolution(s) and the study, the ordinance/resolution(s) shall prevail.

Administration Fee Component
An administrative fee will be collected to fund the administration, oversight, implementation, and updates of the fee, including administration of any credit and reimbursement agreements. The administration fee will include adequate funding to cover all City costs.

Fee Amount
This Nexus Study identifies fee rates for the major land use categories, which are detailed in Table 4. The fee rates have been calculated for single-family and multi-unit dwellings and several nonresidential land use categories. For projects that do not fit the land use categories identified in Table 4, the City Manager or designee may compute the required fee based on the cost per DUE and the trip demand generated by the specific development project.

Agenda Packet Page 140
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
24 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
The fee rates for a development project are those fees in effect as of the date of acceptance of a complete building permit application. Any adjustments to the fees that occur after that time (e.g., automatic inflation adjustment) would not apply.

The City Manager or designee shall determine and calculate the required fee for each development project in accordance with this study. The fee shall be computed based on the primary use or uses of the development project, defined as the principal functions of a building or structure, based on the rates specified for that primary use by this study. In some cases, a development project may include ancillary uses that are different from the primary use, but which exist only to support the primary activities or operation of the primary use such as office space for management or accounting functions in a retail enterprise. These ancillary uses would not exist absent the operations associated with the primary use. In these cases, the ancillary use would not be charged a different fee rate, and the area associated with ancillary uses would be included in the commercial building area of the primary use.

For projects with multiple primary uses that are operationally separate (i.e., mixed-use projects such as office over retail), the fee shall be computed based on applying the applicable fee rate to the total residential units or total commercial building area for each primary use.

Fee Program Updates
The fee presented in this report is based on the best available cost estimates and land use information at this time. If costs or land uses change significantly in either direction, or if other funding becomes available, the fee will need to be updated accordingly. Updates to the fee, other than the automatic annual adjustments described below, must be adopted by a City Council Resolution.

Annual Inflation Adjustment
The fee may be escalated annually. The annual adjustments, effective July 1 of each year, consider the potential for inflation of public facility design, construction, installation, and acquisition costs. The proposed adjustment procedure is described below.

The fee will be escalated annually using the percentage change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) for San Francisco as published by ENR/McGraw-Hill Construction Weekly. The percentage change in the ENR-CCI is the year-over-year change as of each March. The City shall carry out the percentage change calculation to 3 decimal places.

Agenda Packet Page 141
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 25
Periodic Fee Updates
The fee is subject to periodic update based on changes in developable land, cost estimates, or outside funding sources. The City will review the costs and fee periodically to determine if any updates to the fee are warranted. During the periodic reviews, the City will analyze these items:
 Changes to the required facilities listed in this study.  Changes in the cost to update or administer the fee.
 Changes in costs greater than inflation.
 Changes in assumed land uses.
 Changes in other funding sources.
 Other issues as warranted.

Any changes to the fee based on the periodic update will be presented to the City Council for approval before an increase or decrease in the fee.

The City Council also may specify during a periodic update which improvements should receive funding from the fee before other improvements. Based on facility LOS evaluations, the location of approved new development that will add significant housing or jobs, or other considerations, the City has the ability to spend the fee revenues on any of the projects identified in the fee, regardless of project location and the location of collected fees.

Agenda Packet Page 142
Report: Multimodal Impact Fee Nexus Study
February 10, 2022
26 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Agenda Packet Page 143

APPENDIX A:

Master Capital Projects Listing

Agenda Packet Page 144
Appendix A CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

MASTER CAPITAL PROJECTS LISTING
REV 10/14/19

PROGRAM
NO.

Included
in DPS TITLE
FROM
(Location) TO (Location) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Completion
Timing
MTP Cost
(2017) F&P Evaluation Context
Percent
Existing
Deficiency
Percent
Development
Impact
Fee Program
Contribution
Unique
Consideration
s
Master Plan
Referenences Assumptions
1 Yes
Antelope Road Complete Streets
- Phase 2 G
arden Gate Auburn Blvd
Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Antelope Road between Garden Gate and Auburn Blvd. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $5,520,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 85% 15% $828,000 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
2 Yes
Antelope Road Complete Streets
- Phase 3 Auburn Blvd Sunrise Blvd
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Antelope Road between Auburn Blvd and Sunrise Bvld. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $10,380,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 85% 15% $1,557,000 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
3 Antelope Road Complete Streets
- Phase 4 Sunrise Blvd
Old Auburn
Road
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Antelope Road between Sunrise Bvld and Old Auburn Road. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. $3,220,000 Some new development
opportunities present 50% 50% $1,610,000 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
4 Yes
Auburn Blvd Complete Streets -
Phase 3
Greenback
Lane
Sylvan
Corners
Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, separated sidewalks, close sidewalk gaps, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Auburn Blvd between Greenback Lane and Sylvan Road / Old Auburn Road. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $10,190,000
Primary redevelopment
corridor, but also clear
deficiencies present 50% 50% $5,095,000 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
5 Yes
Greenback Lane Complete
Streets Birdcage Lane
Fair Oaks
Blvd.

Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Greenback Lane between Birdcage Lanes and Fair Oaks Blvd. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $4,830,000 Runs along frontage of
Sunrise Mall 10% 90% $4,347,000 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
6 Yes
Old Auburn Road Complete
Streets Phase 1 Tiara Garry Oak
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Old Auburn Road between Tiara Way and Garry Oaks Drive. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $4,550,000 Would support both new
development and
existing residents on
important local artery 75% 25% $1,137,500 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
7 Yes
Antelope/I-80 Overcrossing
Pedestrian/Bicycle Upgrades (old
name; Saybrook/Misty Creek I-80
Pedestrian/bicycle overpass)
Includeds Van Maren from
Navion to Antelope Lichen Garden Gate
Project to improve pedestrian and bicycle access through the I-80 interchange at Antelope Road. Will include ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. Complete streets project on Van Maren from Antelope to Navion. 2021-2036 $5,240,000 Limited new
development near
interchange 88% 12% $628,800 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
8 Yes
Sunrise Blvd Complete Streets -
Phase 3B
Antelope
Road
North City
Limits (north
of Twin Oaks
Avenue)
Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to the east side of Sunrise Blvd between Antelope Road and the northern City limits. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $4,210,000
Limited new
development along
corridor 75% 25% $1,052,500 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
9 No
Sunrise Blvd Complete Streets -
Phase 4
Sayonara
Drive
Madison
Ave.

Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Sunrise Bvld between Sayonara Drive and Madison Ave. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $6,760,000 Runs along frontage of
Sunrise Mall
(redevelopment site) 10% 90% $6,084,000 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
10 No
Annual Intelegent
Transportation (ITS) Upgrades Various On-going project to update traffic signals and support the City's ITS Master Plan goals. 2021-2036 leslie to send master plan cost estimate. Divide over number of years. 100% 0 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
11 Yes
Fair Oaks Blvd Complete Streets
Phase 1
Stacey Hills
Drive
Old Auburn
Road
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, close sidewalk gaps, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Fair Oaks Blvd between Stacey Hills Drive and Old Auburn Road. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $4,290,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $514,800 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
12 Yes
Oak Avenue Complete Streets
Phase 1 Sunrise Blvd
Fair Oaks
Blvd.

Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Oak Ave between Sunrise Blvd and Fair Oaks Blvd. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $2,920,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $350,400 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
13 Yes
Oak Avenue Complete Streets
Phase 2
Fair Oaks
Blvd
Wachtel
Way
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Oak Ave between Fair Oaks Blvd and Wachtel Way. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $4,170,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $500,400 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
14 100% unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
15 Yes
San Juan Ave Complete Streets
Phase 1 Madison Ave Chessline
Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to San Juan Ave between Madison Ave and Greenback Lane. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $6,350,000
Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $762,000 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.

San Juan Ave Complete Streets
Phase 2 Chessline
Greenback
Lane 100%
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
16 No Sylvan Road Complete Streets Sylvan Corners
Greenback
Lane
Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Sylvan Road between Old Auburn Road / Auburb Blvd and Greenback Lane. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $7,620,000
Moderate amount of
new development and
redevelopment in
corridor 75% 25% $1,905,000 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
17 No
Madison Ave. Complete Streets
Phase 1 Bartig Way
Mariposa
Avenue
Jurisdiction for Madison Ave in the project area is shared with Sacramento County.Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Madison Ave between Bartig Way and Mariposa Ave. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $5,030,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $603,600
Coordination with Sacramento County. Centerline of Madison is City limit.master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.

Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Data\Appendix A DIF Project List 10 1 21 1 of 2 Agenda Packet Page 145
Appendix A CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

MASTER CAPITAL PROJECTS LISTING
REV 10/14/19
18 No
Madison Ave. Complete Streets
Phase 2
Mariposa
Avenue Sunrise Blvd
Jurisdiction for Madison Ave in the project area is shared with Sacramento County.Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Madison Ave between Mariposa Ave and Sunrise Blvd. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $4,040,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $484,800
Coordination with Sacramento County. Centerline of Madison is City limit.master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
19 No
Madison Ave. Complete Streets
Phase 3 Sunrise Blvd
Fair Oaks
Blvd.

Jurisdiction for Madison Ave in the project area is shared with Sacramento County.Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Madison Ave between Sunrise Blvd and Fair Oaks Blvd. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $2,830,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $339,600
Coordination with Sacramento County. Centerline of Madison is City limit.master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
20 Yes
Auburn Blvd Complete Streets -
Phase 4
S/W of
Devecchi Ave
Greenback
Lane
Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Auburn Blvd between Devecchi Ave and Greenback Lane. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $2,660,000 Some redevelopment
opportunities present 75% 25% $665,000 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
21 Yes
Fair Oaks Blvd Complete Streets
Phase 2
Greenback
Lane Stacey Hills
Complete Streets project that will connect to Electric Greenway Multi-use Trail and will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Fair Oaks Blvd between Greenback Lane and Stacey Hills Drive. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $6,490,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $778,800 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
22 Yes
Fair Oaks Blvd Complete Streets
Phase 3 Madison Ave
Greenback
Lane
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Fair Oaks Blvd between Madison Ave and Greenback Lane. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $5,590,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $670,800 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
23 Yes
Sunrise Blvd Complete Streets -
Phase 2B
Sayonara
Drive Oak Avenue
Complete Streets project that will implement transit stop improvements, ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, separated sidewalks, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to the east side of Sunrise Blvd between Sayonara Drive and Oak Avenue. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $4,800,000
Some development
opportunities present 75% 25% $1,200,000 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
24 No
Arcade Creek Multi-Purpose Trail
- Phase 1 Sayonara Drive Sylvan Road
Multi-purpose trail project that will connect to existing parks and trails between Sayonara Drive to Sylvan Road along the Arcade Creek corridor.
2021-2036 $620,000
has benefit to both new
development and
existing residents alike 50% 50% $310,000 unique master plan Asummed two feet of
shoulder backing on
each side of the trail.
25 No
Arcade Creek Multi-Purpose Trail
- Phase 2 Sylvan Road
Van Maren
Lane
Multi-purpose trail project that will connect to the Sacramento County Library on Van Maren Lane, existing parks and trails between Sylvan Road and Var Maren Lane along the Arcade Creek corridor. 2021-2036 $1,510,000
has benefit to both new
development and
existing residents alike 50% 50% $755,000 unique master plan Asummed two feet of
shoulder backing on
each side of the trail.
26 No
Carriage Dr./Lauppe Ln. Safe
School Corridor Auburn Blvd
Antelope
Road
Safe Routes to School project connecting to Carriage Lane Elementary School that will implement ADA updates, improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Carriage Drive / Lauppe Lane between Antelope Road and Auburn Blvd. Project will also convert to LED street lights 2021-2036 $6,790,000 Localized improvement
primarily supporting
existing residents 88% 12% $814,800 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
27 No
Van Maren/Purselane/
Gardengate Complete Streets Navion Auburn Blvd
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Van Maren Lane / Purselane Way / Garden Gate between Navion Road and Auburn Blvd. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $7,250,000 Limited new
development along
corridor 88% 12% $870,000 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
28 No
Annual Accessibility
Improvements Project Various Various On-going project to support the City's ADA Transition Plan goals. 2021-2036 $2,000,000 has benefit to both new
development and
existing residents alike 75% 25% $500,000 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
30 No Cripple Creek Zeeland Drive Lauppe Lane
Multi-purpose trail project that will connect Lauppe Lane, Mesa Verde High School and Zeeland Drive.

Localized improvement
primarily supporting
existing residents 88% 12% $0 unique master plan
Asummed two feet of
shoulder backing on
each side of the trail.
31 No
Old Auburn Road Complete
Streets Phase 2 Sylvan Tiara
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Old Auburn Road between Sylvan Road and Tiara Way. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement.

Would support both new
development and
existing residents on
important local artery 75% 25% $0 unique master plan
Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.
29 Yes
Old Auburn Road / Watchel
Complete Streets Phase 3
Garry Oak /
Pitalo
NE City Limits
/ Old Auburn
Complete Streets project that will implement ADA updates, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, close sidewalk gaps, traffic signal improvements, replace rolled curb with vertical curb, and add landscaping and hardscaping to Old Auburn Road between Garry Oaks/Pitalo and the northern City limit. Project will also convert to LED street lights and rehabilitate pavement. 2021-2036 $7,390,000 Would support both new
development and
existing residents on
important local artery 75% 25% $1,847,500 unique master plan Assumed drainage
inlets every 500' of
roadway.

TOTAL COST $137,250,000 $36,212,300
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\192000\192045 Citrus Heights DIF Update\Data\Appendix A DIF Project List 10 1 21 2 of 2 Agenda Packet Page 146

Exhibit B: Multimodal Impact Fee

Multimodal Impact Fee
Land Use Category Fee
Single-Family $2,614 per unit
Multi-Family $1,418 per unit
Commercial/Retail
Food $3.87 per SF
General Retail $6.26 per SF
Service $6.26 per SF
Employment / Business
Professional Office $2.83 per SF
Medical $7.88 per SF
Government Office $3.44 per SF
Agenda Packet Page 147

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND UPDATING

THE PARK IMPACT FEE

WHEREAS the City of Citrus Heights has, since 1999, assessed a fee on new development to be used to finance parks and recreation facilities in Citrus Heights; WHEREAS in 2000, via Resolution 2000-46, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sunrise Recreation and Park District related to the collection and use of Park Facilities Impact Fees; WHEREAS the MOU specifies the process for expending the fees and requires the fees are only utilized for parks located within the City of Citrus Heights; WHEREAS the City and Sunrise Recreation and Park District have a longstanding partnership to improve the quality of life in Citrus Heights; WHEREAS on June 23, 2022, the City Council considered and adopted the technical study prepared by SCI Consulting Group., entitled “Sunrise Recreation and Park District Park Impact Fee Nexus Study” (“Nexus Study”), dated April 2021, which, in accordance with the provisions of State law, has identified the purpose of the impact fee, identified the intended use of the fee, determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the intended use of the fee and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the types of development projects on which the fee is to be imposed, and determined how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost attributable to the development projects on which the fee is to be imposed;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt this resolution, adopting the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study;
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the Nexus Study, the City Council intends to hold a duly noticed public hearing on June 23, 2022, at which data and findings related to the Nexus Study will be further considered by the City Council;
WHEREAS, the City Council has identified the Impact Fees in “Exhibit B” as appropriate; WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, data was made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including general fund revenues in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; WHEREAS, at least fourteen days prior to the date this resolution is being heard, notice was provided to those persons or organizations who had requested notice of these fees, in accordance with Government Code Section 66019;
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed fees was published twice in the manner set forth in Government Code 6062a and as required by Government Code Section 66018; WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the City Council on June 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, based upon all written and oral reports received, the City Council finds and determines that the proposed modifications to the Park Impact Fee as set forth herein are necessary to offset the impacts of new development on Parks and that these fees do not exceed the proportional cost of the service or benefit attributable to the fee payer.

Agenda Packet Page 148

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby declare, find, determine and order as follows:

A) The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

B) The Park Impact Fee Nexus Study attached hereto as “Exhibit A” complies with the requirements of Government Code 66016.5 and is hereby adopted and approved as presented.

C) The Impact Fees attached hereto as “Exhibit B” are hereby adopted and approved as presented and may be updated annually on January 1, based upon the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, all items, San Francisco Area as of October of the previous calendar year, with adjustments, as recommended by the City Manager, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

(E) This Resolution shall go into full force and effect 60 days following adoption.

(F) The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23
rd day of June 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Porsche Middleton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Amy Van, City Clerk

Exhibits

A. Park Impact Fee Nexus Study
B. Proposed Park Impact Fee

Agenda Packet Page 149

Exhibit A- Parks Impact Fee Nexus Study

Agenda Packet Page 150

SUNRISE RECREATION AND

PARK DISTRICT

PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY

ITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

APRIL 2021

FINAL REPORT

P
REPARED FOR:

ADVISORY BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT

P
REPARED BY:

4745

MANGLES BOULEVARD
FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA 94534
PHONE 707.430.4300
www.sci-cg.com
Agenda Packet Page 151

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY UPDATE, 2021
PAGE ii

(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

Agenda Packet Page 152

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE iii

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT

ADVISORY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mark Shahan, Chair
Rita Lingwood, Vice-Chair
Shannon Brown, Director
David Huber, Director
Michelle Rivas, Director

ISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
Dave Mitchell

FINANCE MANAGER
Margaret Hatton

IMPACT FEE CONSULTANT
Blair Aas, SCI Consulting Group

Agenda Packet Page 153

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Park Impact Fee Nexus Study Update was prepared by SCI Consulting Group (“SCI”) under contract with the Sunrise Recreation and Park District. The work was accomplished under the general direction of Dave Mitchell, District Administrator.

We would like to acknowledge the special efforts made by individuals and organizations to this project:

Margaret Hatton, Sunrise Recreation and Park District

Agenda Packet Page 154

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION……. ........................................................................................................ 1 METHODOLOGY / APPROACH ............................................................................................ 2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 5 PER CAPITA COST COMPONENTS ........................................................................................... 6 POPULATION PROJECTION ................................................................................................ 6 DEVELOPED PARKS ......................................................................................................... 6 PARK DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA ............................................................................ 7 DETERMINATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ......................................................... 8 PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS ............................................................................. 8 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES ............................................................................... 9 DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTOR ............................................................................ 10 RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION ............................................................. 11 PROJECTED PARK IMPACT FEE REVENUE ........................................................................ 12 NEXUS FINDINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ..................................................... 13 DETERMINATION OF THE NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ................................................. 15 RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT FACTOR ................................................................................. 15 NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE FACTOR ................................................................................. 16 COST PER EMPLOYEE .................................................................................................... 16 NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES ....................................................................... 17 NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION ...................................................... 17 NEXUS FINDINGS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ............................................... 18 COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND MAXIMUM PARK IMPACT FEES ............................................... 20 FEE PROGRAM ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 21 SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ..................................................................... 21 CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS .............................................................................................. 21 FEE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 23 ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 23 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... 23 ANNUAL INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT .............................................................................. 25 FEE EXEMPTIONS…. ...................................................................................................... 25 FEE CREDITS…….. ....................................................................................................... 25

Agenda Packet Page 155

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX A – COST ESTIMATES FOR PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES .......................... 27 APPENDIX B – CITY PARK INVENTORY ............................................................................. 29

Agenda Packet Page 156

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE vii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 – CURRENT PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ................................................................. 3 FIGURE 2 – MAXIMUM PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ................................................................. 4 FIGURE 3 – CURRENT AND PROJECTED CITY POPULATION ........................................................ 6 FIGURE 4 – PARK DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA ................................................................. 7 FIGURE 7 – PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS .................................................................. 8 FIGURE 8 – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTOR.................................................................. 10 FIGURE 9 – MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ........................................................... 11 FIGURE 10 – PROJECTED PARK IMPACT FEE REVENUE ........................................................... 12 FIGURE 11 – SUMMARY OF ALLOWABLE AND PROHIBITED USES OF FEE REVENUE .................... 13 FIGURE 12 – RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT FACTOR .................................................................... 15 FIGURE 13 – NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE FACTOR .................................................................... 16 FIGURE 14 – COST PER EMPLOYEE ....................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 15 – MAXIMUM NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE ................................................... 18 FIGURE 16 – COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND MAXIMUM PARK IMPACT FEES ............................ 20 FIGURE 17 – TYPICAL 5-ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONSTRUCTION COSTS .......................... 27 FIGURE 18 – TYPICAL 20-ACRE COMMUNITY PARK CONSTRUCTION COSTS .............................. 28 FIGURE 20 – CITY PARK INVENTORY ...................................................................................... 29

Agenda Packet Page 157

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE viii

HIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Agenda Packet Page 158

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
Since December 1, 2010, the City of Citrus Heights (“City”), on behalf of the Sunrise Recreation and Park District (“District”), has imposed a park impact fee on new residential and nonresidential development. The purpose of the park impact fee is to fund the one-time cost of expanding the District’s park and recreational facilities in order to meet the impact of new development within the District’s City service area.

This Park Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) was prepared pursuant to the “Mitigation Fee Act,” as found in Government Code § 66000 et seq. and City Municipal Code Chapter

58. The purpose of this Nexus Study is to establish the legal and policy basis for a new park impact fee for the District’s City service area. For purposes of this Nexus Study, “parks” shall mean neighborhood parks and community parks. The term “recreational facilities” shall mean, but not be limited to, pl ayground equipment, fields, c ourts, shade structures, and restroom buildings.

In order to impose such fees, this Nexus Study will demonstrate that a reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development and the need for additional park and recreational facilities with t he City as a result of new dev elopment. More specifically, this Nexus Study will present fi ndings in order to meet the s ubstantive requirements of the Act, also known as AB 1600, which are as follows:
 Identify the purpose of the fee.
 Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.
 Determine how there is a reasonable re lationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (“benefit relationship”).  Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the park and recreational facilities and the type of de velopment project on which the fee is imposed (“impact relationship”).
 Determine how there is a reasonable re lationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (“proportional relationship”).

Agenda Packet Page 159

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 2
Additionally, the Act specifies that the fee shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities but may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of serv ice or achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.

METHODOLOGY / APPROACH
To update the District’s City park impac t fee program consistent with the substantive requirements of the Act, this Nexus Study ut ilizes a per capita standard-based methodology. Under this method, the cost co mponents are based on the District’s level of service (“LOS”) standards and defined on a per capita basis. For the residential park impact fee, the total per capita costs are applied to five residential land use categories according to their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor to establish a cost/fee per new dwelling unit.

For the nonresidential park impact fee, an equivalent cost per employee is determined and applied to three nonresidential land uses according to their respective employment density factors to establish a cost/fee per square foot of new nonresidential building area.

It is important to note that the maximum park impact fee determined by this Nexus Study is not directly influenced by the level of devel opment in the City. The park impact fee is determined with an open-end approach based on the Di strict’s level of service standards rather than a definite facility pl an and a definite level of future development. Therefore, if the actual level of development is significantly higher or lower rate than projected, no revision of the park impact fee program would be necessary.

The Nexus Study also details the procedural requirements for the adoption of the Nexus Study and new park impact fee program (“fee progr am”). Also, the Act contains specific requirements for the annual administration of the fee program. These statutory requirements and other important information regarding the imposition and collection of the fee are provided in the last two sections of the Nexus Study.

Agenda Packet Page 160

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 3

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
The following key findings are presented:

1. Park impact fees are needed to ensure t hat the District can develop park and recreation facilities and improvements needed for the resident and nonresident employee growth created by new development in the City.

2. The City, on behalf of the District, currently imposes the following park impact fees:

Figure 1 – Current Park Impact Fee Schedule
Construction Type Rate
New Commercial Construction (totaling LESS THAN 5,000 sf) Exempt New Commercial Construction (totaling BETWEEN 5,000 and 10,000 sf) Retail Use 9¢ per sf
Office Use 18.5¢ per sf
Industrial Use 4.5¢ per sf
New Commercial Construction (totaling GREATER than 10,000 sf) Retail Use 18¢ per sf
Office Use 37¢ per sf
Industrial Use 9¢ per sf
Residential Construction Types
Single-family, detached $1,078.50 per unit
Single-family, attached $800.65 per unit
Multi-family $665.38 per unit
Mobile Homes $577.64 per unit

3. According to the District’s adopted 2014 Master Plan Update, the District’s goal is to provide 4.5 acres of neighborho od parks and community for every 1,000 residents.

4. Based on the current population and existing park acres in the District’s City service area, the existing level of service is 2. 59 acres of developed parks for every 1,000 residents.

5. Consistent with the Act's nexus requirem ents, this Nexus Study demonstrates a reasonable relationship between new development, the amount of the proposed fee, and park and recreational facilities funded by the fee.

Agenda Packet Page 161

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 4

6. The District may approve, and the City may adopt the fees in Figure 2 at or below the maximum levels determined by this Nexu s Study. If the District and the City choose to adopt lower fees, each land use category's adopted fee must be reduced by the same percentage.

FIGURE 2 – MAXIMUM PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
Land Use Category Unit 1
Maximum
Park Impact
Fee 2
Single-Family Detached Housing DU $6,089
2 to 4 Unit Attached Housing DU $4,722
5 + Unit Attached Housing DU $4,453
Mobile Homes DU $3,459
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Retail / Commercial BSQFT $0.36
Office BSQFT $0.56
Industrial BSQFT $0.24
Notes:
1 DU means dwelling unit; BSQFT means building square feet.

See Note 3
2 See Figures 7 and 8.
3 Accessory dwelling units less than 750 square feet of living area are exempt. Accessory dwelling units 750 square feet or greater shall be imposed 50% of the effective fee of the existing land use category.

Agenda Packet Page 162

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 5

SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings presented in the Nexus Study, the following key recommendations are presented:

1. The park impact fee should be adopted in accordance with Government Code Sections 66016, 66017, and 66018.

2. The District and the City should comply with the annual r eporting requirements under Government Code § 66006(b).

3. Following the fifth fiscal year after the first deposit of fee revenue and every five years thereafter, District and the City should comply with the reporting requirements under Government Code § 66001(d).

4. The cost estimates presented in this Nexus Study are in January 2021 dollars. The adopted park impact fee should be adjust ed annually by averaging the net percentage change in the Engineering News-R ecord Construction Cost Index for San Francisco and the Engineering News-Record 20 U.S. Cities Construction Cost Index for the preceding year.

5. In order to comply with the Act and recent court decisions, a fee credit must be given for demolished existing dw elling units or existing no nresidential building square footage as part of a new development project.

Agenda Packet Page 163

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 6

PER CAPITA COST COMPONENTS
The Act requires that development impact fees be determined in a way that ensures a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the park and recreational facilities attributable to the new development on which the fee is imposed. This section presents the calculation of the total cost per capita for developed parks based on the District’s master plan level of service for such facilities.

POPULATION PROJECTION
Figure 3 presents the City’s current and projected population thru 2036. The City’s population was determined using figures from the California Department of Finance. The 2036 population projection is based on the City’s historical annual growth rate of 0.55%, or roughly 155 housing units per year. As shown below, it is estimated that the City’s household population, as of January 2021, is 87,805. It is projected that the City will grow by 8,054 residents to a household population of 95,859 by 2036.

F
IGURE 3 – CURRENT AND PROJECTED CITY POPULATION
Population
Projection 2021 2025 2030 2036
Growth
2021
thru 2036
Citrus Heights 87,805 90,247 92,756 95,859 8,054
Source: California Department of Finance and Sacramento Area Council of Governments

DEVELOPED PARKS
According to the District’s Master Plan, neighborhood parks are typicall y a combination of playground and park designed prim arily for non-supervised, non-organized recreational activities. They are typically 2 – 10 acres in size. Community parks, ranging from 10 acres to 100 acres in size, are designed for organized groups or team sports while also providing facilities for individual and family activities.

For the City service area, the District has nine developed neig hborhood parks and five developed community parks totaling 227.36 acres or 2.59 acres for every 1,000 residents.

This is in addition to seven other natural park sites. However, the District’s adopted Master Plan standard for developed parks is 4.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, to accommodate the anticipated population growth of 8,054 new residents by 2036, an additional 36.24 acres of developed parks will be required.

Agenda Packet Page 164

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 7
To achieve their adopted Master Plan goal , the District will need to fund existing development share of needed parks and any other improvements not identified with other funding sources. Other potential sources of funds include, but are not limited to, a general obligation bond measure, state and federal grants, the Di strict’s general fund, and existing or new special tax and assessment proceeds, if allowable.

PARK DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA
Figure 4 below calculates the per capita cost of developing new parks in the District. As presented, the 4.5 acres per 1,000 population Ma ster Plan standard is multiplied by the estimated average per acre cost for park developm ent to arrive at a per capita cost. The average park development cost per acre shown represents the weighted average construction cost per acre (in 2021 doll ars) for neighborhood and community parks per recent cost estimates.

FIGURE 4 – PARK DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA
Cost Component
Acres per
1,000
Population 1
Acres per
Capita 1
Average
Development
Cost per Acre 2 Cost per Capita
Calc a b = a / 1,000 c d = b * c
Developed Parks 4.50 0.00450 $442,600 $1,991.70
Source: Sunrise Recreation and Park District, Master Plan Update 2014 Notes:
1 Based on District's Master Plan Level of Service.
2 See Appendix A. The average development cost per acre is weighted 2.5 acres for neighborhood parks and 2.0 acres for community parks.

Agenda Packet Page 165

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 8

DETERMINATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE
This section presents the calcul ation of the total cost per capita for parks and recreational facilities. The total cost per capita for each is then applied to five residential land use categories in proportion to the demand they create as measured by their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor.

PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS
The figure below summarizes the per capita cost components from the previous section and includes an additional four per cent for administration of t he park impact fee program. The fee program administrative cost component is designed to recover the cost of fee collection, documentation, annual reporting requirements, five-year report requirements, periodic Nexus Study updates, and other costs reasonably related to compliance with the Act. As shown, the total per capita cost is $2,071.37.

F
IGURE 5 – PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS
Cost Component
Per Capita
Cost
Park Development $1,991.70
Fee Program Administration (4% )1 $79.67
Total Cost per Capita $2,071.37
No t e s:
1 C ollection, accounting, documentation, annual reporting requirements, fiv e-y ear report requirements, periodic N ex us Study updates and other costs reasonably related to
compliance w ith the Act.

Agenda Packet Page 166

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 9

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that development impact fees be determined in a way that ensures a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. Since the demand for / need for park and recreational services is inherently driven by service population and since different residential land uses have varying household occupancies, the residential park impact fee is expressed on a per dwelling unit basis based on their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor for four residential land use.

This Nexus Study also incorporates the addition of another residential unit to a single-family parcel as a fifth category labeled as “Accessory Dwelling Unit.”

For the purpose of this fee program, a “dwelling unit” means one or more rooms in a building or structure or portion thereof designed exclusively for residential occupancy by one or more persons for living or sleeping purposes and having kitchen and bath facilities.

The five residential land use categories are as follows:
 “Single-family detached housing” means detached one-family dwelling units.  “2 to 4 unit attached housing” means buildings or structures designed for two through four families for living or sl eeping purposes and having kitchen and bath facilities for each family, including two-family, group, and row dwelling units.  “5 + unit attached housing” means buildings or struct ures designed for five or more families for living or sleeping purposes and having kitchen and bath facilities for each family, including condominiums and cluster developments.  “Mobile home” means a development area for residential occupancy in vehicles that require a permit to be moved on a highway, other than a motor vehicle designed or used for human habitation and for being drawn by another vehicle.  “Accessory dwelling unit” means a dwelling unit, or “granny flat,” either a detached or attached dwelling unit, which provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons with provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residence.

Agenda Packet Page 167

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 10

DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTOR
Figure 6 below presents the calcul ation of the dwelling unit occupancy factor for the four residential land uses. The calculation is based on information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate from the 2010 U.S. Census for the City.

FIGURE 6 – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTOR
Land Use Categories
Occupied
Dwelling Units
Total Number
of Occupants
Dwelling Unit
Occupancy
Factor
Calc a b c = b / a
Single-Family Detached Housing 19,816 58,259 2.94
2 to 4 Unit Attached Housing 6,166 14,058 2.28
5 + Unit Attached Housing 6,318 13,560 2.15
Mobile Homes 1 1,023 1,708 1.67
Total/Average (2010 Census) 34,346 89,293 2.60
Source: 2010 U.S. Census for the City of Citrus Heights

Agenda Packet Page 168

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 11

RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
Figure 7 below presents the calculation of the maximum park impact fee. As shown, the per dwelling unit fees for four residential land us es are determined by multiplying the total cost per capita by their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor. The park impact fee for an ADUs of 750 square feet or greater in size shall be imposed 50% of the effective fee imposed for the existing land use category.

The District may approve, and t he City may adopt fees lower than the maximum, justified amounts shown below, provided that they ar e reduced by the same percentage for each land use category.

F
IGURE 7 – MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE
Land Use Category Unit
Total Cost
Per Capita 1
Dwelling Unit
Occupancy
Factor 2
Maximum
Park Impact
Fee 3
Calc a b c = a * b
Single-Family Detached Housing DU $2,071.37 2.94 $6,089 2 to 4 Unit Attached Housing DU $2,071.37 2.28 $4,722
5 + Unit Attached Housing DU $2,071.37 2.15 $4,453
Mobile Homes DU $2,071.37 1.67 $3,459
Accessory Dwelling Unit See Note 4
Notes:
1 See Figure 5.
2 See Figure 6.
3 Maximum park impact fee is rounded down to the nearest dollar. 4 Accessory dwelling units less than 750 square feet of living area are exempt. Accessory dwelling units 750 square feet or greater shall be imposed 50% of the effective fee of the existing land use category.

Agenda Packet Page 169

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 12

PROJECTED PARK IMPACT FEE REVENUE
Figure 8 projects park impact fee revenue through 2036. Total fee residential revenue (in 2021 dollars) is estimated by multiplying the tota l cost per capita by the projected resident population growth in the fee program area for the period. As shown, it is projected the District may generate approximately $16.7 m illion (in 2021 dollars) by 2036 from the City service area. Certainly, arguments can be made for higher or lower population growth. However, the projected population growth and fee re venue are merely estimates for planning purposes. The maximum fee amounts do not depend upon the timing and level of development.

F
IGURE 8 – PROJECTED PARK IMPACT FEE REVENUE
Land Use Category
Total Cost per
Capita 1
Projected
Population
Growth (2036) 2
Projected Park
Impact Fee
Revenue (2021$)
Calc a b c = a * b
Residential Development $2,071.37 8,054 $16,682,814
Notes:
1 See Figure 7.
2 See Figure 3.

The fee revenue must be deposited into a separ ate park impact fee account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the City.

The fee revenue will be restricted to the funding of new or expanded parks and recreational facilities in the City limits that add to the park and recreational service capacity. Additionally, the use of fee proceeds for rehabilitation of existing parks and recreational facilities is limited in that they may only cover the portion of an improvement that ex pands service capacity.

For example, if the District planned to replace a shade structure with an existing park with a significantly larger shade structure, park impact fee proceeds could fund the portion equal to the percentage increase in the square footage of the larger shade structure, or by another reasonable measurement of capacity. (See Figure 9 for more information.)

Fee revenue will also be used to cover fee program administration costs such as collection, documentation, annual reporting requirements, five-year report requirements, periodic Nexus Study updates, and other costs reasonably related to compliance with the Act.

Fee revenue may not be used to fund 1) the renov ation or replacement of existing facilities and 2) operational, maintenance or repair costs.

Agenda Packet Page 170

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 13

NEXUS FINDINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE
This section summarizes the nexus findings r equired to demonstrate the legal justification of the residential park impact fee.

URPOSE OF THE FEE
The purpose of the residential park impac t fee is to fund new or expanded park and recreational facilities to meet the needs of the new resident population generated by new residential development in the District.

SE OF FEE REVENUE
Park impact fee revenue will be used to fund t he development and/or acquisition of new or expanded park and recreational facilities to serve new development within the City limits. A summary of the allowable and prohibited uses of the fee revenue is provided in Figure 9 below.

F
IGURE 9 – SUMMARY OF ALLOWABLE AND PROHIBITED USES OF FEE REVENUE Allowable Uses Prohibited Uses
 The cost of new or expanded parks
and recreational facilities in the City
limits (100%)

 The cost of new recreational facilities
in existing parks that that expand
service capacity in the City limits
(100%)

 Park and recreational facility costs
already incurred that provide growth-
related capacity in the City limits
(100%)

 The proportional cost of park and
recreational facility renovation
projects that expand service capacity
in the City limits

 Collection, accounting,
documentation, annual reporting
requirements, five-year report
requirements, periodic Nexus Study
updates, and other costs reasonably
related to compliance with the Act.
 Existing deficiencies, such as
renovation or replacement of existing
recreational facilities that do not
expand service capacity

 Parkland acquisition, construction of
swimming pools, community use
facilities, and purchase or lease of
vehicles.

 Operational, maintenance, or repair
costs

 Any District improvements outside the
City limits

Agenda Packet Page 171

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 14

BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP
The fee will be collected as development occurs. Fee revenue will be used to fund new and expanded park and recreational facilities to m eet the additional demand generated by the new residents created by new development projects. Fee revenue will be deposited into a separate park impact fee account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds. The fee revenue wi ll be restricted to t he uses described in the “Use of Fee Revenue” finding. These actions ensure that a development project paying the park impact fee will benefit from its use.

IMPACT RELATIONSHIP
Since the need for park and recreational serv ices is inherently population-driven, new residential development in the District will generate the need for additional park and recreational services and the corresponding need for various facilities. The need is measured in proportion to the dw elling unit occupancy factor fo r five residential land use categories. The District’s Master Plan park standard is 4.50 improved park acres for every 1,000 residents. The fees’ use (funding new or expanded park and recreational facilities) is therefore reasonably related to the type of project (new residential development) upon which it is imposed.

ROPORTIONALITY
The amount of park and recreational facilities needed to serve a unit of development is based on the District’s level of service standards for such facilities. The cost of new and expanded park and recreational facilities and fee program administrative costs are defined on a cost per capita basis. These per capita cost s are then applied to five residential land use categories based on their respective dwelling unit occupancy factor.

The use of average dwelling unit occupancy fo r five residential land use categories to determine the park impact fee schedule achi eves proportionality across the types of development on which the fee is imposed. In general, a single-family home will generate a higher number of persons than a multi-family unit, and as a result, will pay a higher fee.

Thus, the application of the park impact fee schedule to a specific project ensures a reasonable relationship between the fee and the cost of park and recreational facilities attributable to that residential development project.

Agenda Packet Page 172

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 15

DETERMINATION OF THE NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE
In addition to the residents of the District, employees who work in the District also use and place demands upon the District’s park facilities. Just as futu re growth in the residential population will impact park facilities, future growth in the District’s employee population will also impact park facilities, and additional park and recreational facilities are required for the future growth in employees within the Distri ct. Therefore, this section determines a park impact fee for nonresidential land uses.

ESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT FACTOR
Employees use park and recreational facilities in a variety of ways. They participate in lunchtime activities, gym use, community center functions, before-work and after-work group functions, weekend company functions, company-sponsored sports leagues, lunchtime trail use, etc. However, one employee is generally not considered to have the same demand for or impact upon park facilities as one resident. Therefore, this Nexus Study utilizes a residential equivalent factor which is determined by the number of hours an employee is within the District divided by the number of hours in a year available to a full-time employee to use the District’s park and recreation facilitie s while in the District as the ratio of the demand one employee will have on park facilities, as compared to one resident.

In general, residents of the District can use t he District’s park and recreation facilities year- round. Conversely, park and recreation facility use by employees in the District is generally limited to shorter periods before and after work and during lunch or break times. This time available for park usage within the District is estimated to be two hours per day, five days per week. In order to establish an employee park usage factor of equivalence with residents, each resident is assumed to be able to use parks 16 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Thus, for purposes of this Nexus Study, one employee is considered to have the equivalent park facilities demand of 0.09 residents, as shown in Figure 10 below.

F
IGURE 10 – RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT FACTOR

Total Park Hours Available per Year 1 5,840
Hours Available to Employees per Year for Park Use 2 520 Residential Equivalent Factor 0.09
No t e s:
2 52 w eeks per y ear, 5 day s per w eek, 2 hours per day out of a 10 hour day . 1 365 day s per y ear, 16 hours per day .

Agenda Packet Page 173

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 16

NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE FACTOR
In order to measure the impact of new employees that do not live in the District, a nonresident employee factor is determined using figures from the 2000 U.S. Census. (Unfortunately, the 2010 Census does not provide similar data and 2000 U.S. Census data is no longer accessible.) However, it is known that 48 ,393 employees that worked in the City and the Foothill Farm Census-Designated Place (“CDP )” in 2000, and 41,791 were not residents.

For purposes of this Nexus Study, it is assumed that 86 percent of employees generated by new nonresidential development with the Dist rict will reside outside the District. 2000 Census figures for the City and the Foot hill Farm CDP are found to be reasonably representative of the same ratio today.

F
IGURE 11 – NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE FACTOR
Calc
Work In Place of Residence a 6,602
Work Outside Place of Residence b 41,791
Total Workers in Place c = a + b 48,393
Nonresident Employee Factor d = b / c 0.86
Source: 2000 U .S. C ensus

COST PER EMPLOYEE
Figure 12 below presents the calculation of the cost per nonresident employee based on the per capita cost multiplied by the resident ial equivalent factor and nonresident employee factor for nonresidential land us es. As shown, the cost per employee is $159.28, or the equivalent of 7.7% of the per capita cost for a District resident.

FIGURE 12 – COST PER EMPLOYEE
Land Use
Per Capita
Costs 1
Residential
Equivalent
Factor 2
Nonresident
Employee
Factor 3
Cost per
Employee
Calc a b c d = a * b * c
Nonresidential $2,071.37 0.09 0.86 $159.28
No t e s:
1 See Figure 7.
2 See Figure 10.
3 See Figure 11.

Agenda Packet Page 174

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 17

NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES
As mentioned earlier, the Act requires that development impact fees be determined in a way that ensures a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. Since nonresidentia l land uses have varying em ployment densities, the nonresidential park impact fee is expressed on a per square footage basis based on their respective employment density for three nonresidential land use categories.

Nonresidential development means a permit for the original cons truction or installation of three categories of structures, including retail and commercial, office, and industrial or similar nonresidential occupancy. These categories are defined below.  “Retail / Commercial” means buildings to be used for retail, general commercial, hotel/motel, private school, and similar nonresidential occupancy.  “Office” means a building to be used for general business services, professional office, medical office, and similar nonresidential occupancy.  “Industrial” means a building to be used for manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, storage, distribution, and similar nonresidential purposes.

The nonresidential fee shall be charged for “covered and enclosed space” within the perimeter of a nonresidential structure. Any storage areas incidental to the principal use of the development, garages, parking structures, unenc losed walkways, or utility or disposal areas shall not be subject to the fee.

ONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
In order to determine the nonresidential park impact fees, the cost per employee is applied to the three nonresidential land uses by their employment density to arrive at nonresidential park impact fees per square foot. The nonresidential park impact fees for retail/commercial, office, and industrial land uses are shown in Figure 13 on the followi ng page. The District may approve, and the City may adopt fees lo wer than the maximum amounts justified by this Nexus Study provided that they are reduced by the same percentage for each land use category.

Agenda Packet Page 175

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 18
FIGURE 13 – MAXIMUM NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE
Nonresidential Land
Use Category
Cost per
Employee 1
Employees per
1,000 Sq. Ft. 2
Maximum
Nonresidential
Park Impact Fee 3
Calc a b c = a / (1,000 / b)
Retail / Commercial $159.28 2.25 $0.36
Office $159.28 3.50 $0.56
Industrial $159.28 1.50 $0.24
No t e s:
1 See Figure 12.
2 Employ ment density figures based on the SC AG "Employ ment Density Study " dated October 31, 2001 prepared by The N atelson C ompany , Inc. 3 Fee is rounded to the nearest cent.

The employment density figures are based on the commonly cited Southern California Association of Government (“SCAG”) “Employment Density Study” dated October 31, 2001, prepared by The Natelson Company, Inc. All density figures are expressed in terms of the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of building area. For the purpose of this Nexus Study, these figures are found to be representative of the em ployment density of future nonresidential development.

NEXUS FINDINGS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARK IMPACT FEE
This section summarizes the nexus findings r equired to demonstrate the legal justification of the nonresidential park impact fee.

PURPOSE OF THE FEE
The purpose of the nonresident ial park impact fee is to fund new or expanded park and recreational facilities within the City limits to meet the needs of new employees created by new nonresidential development.

SE OF FEE REVENUE
Park impact fee revenue will be used to fund t he development and/or acquisition of new or expanded park and recreational facilities to se rve new development with City limits. A summary of the allowable and prohibited uses of the fee revenue is provided in Figure 9.

Agenda Packet Page 176

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 19

BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP
The fee will be collected as new nonresident ial development occurs. Fee revenue will be used to fund new and expanded park and recreati onal facilities to meet the additional demand generated by the employees created by new development projects. Fee revenue will be deposited into a separate park impact f ee account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds. The fee revenue will be restricted to the uses described in the “Use of Fee Re venue” finding. These actions ensure that a nonresident development project paying the park impact fee will benefit from its use.

MPACT RELATIONSHIP
Since the need for park and recreational servic es is inherently service population-driven, new nonresidential development will generate additional demand for park services and the associated need for new or expanded park and re creational facilities. The demand is measured in proportion to the residential equivalent factor, the nonresident employee factor, and the average employment densit y for retail/other commercial, office, and industrial land use categories. The fees’ use (funding new or expanded park and recreational facilities) is therefore reasonably related to the type of project (new nonresidential development) upon which it is imposed.

ROPORTIONALITY
The amount of park and recreational facilitie s needed to serve a unit of nonresidential development is determined by dividing the cost per employee by the employment density for retail/other commercial, office, and industrial land uses.

The use of employment density to determi ne the nonresidential park impact fee schedule achieves proportionality across the types of nonresidential development on which the fee is imposed. In general, an office will generate a higher number of employees than an industrial facility on a square footage basis, and as a result, will pay a higher fee. Thus, the application of the park impact fee schedule to a specific nonresidential project ensures a reasonable relationship between the fee and the cost of t he park and recreational facilities attributable to that nonresidential development project.

Agenda Packet Page 177

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 20

COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND MAXIMUM PARK IMPACT FEES
The figure below compares the current par k impact fee schedule with the maximum park impact fee schedule justified by this Nexus Study.

FIGURE 14 – COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND MAXIMUM PARK IMPACT FEES Land Use Category Unit 1
Current Park
Impact Fee
Maximum
Park Impact
Fee $ Change % Change
Calc a b c = a - b d = c / a -1
Single-Family Detached Housing DU $1,079 $6,089 $5,010.50 464.6% 2 to 4 Unit Attached Housing DU $801 $4,722 $3,921.35 489.8% 5 + Unit Attached Housing DU $665 $4,453 $3,787.62 569.2% Mobile Homes DU $578 $3,459 $2,881.36 498.8%
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Retail / Commercial BSQFT $0.09; $0.18 $0.36 $0.09; $0.27 26%; 74% Office BSQFT $0.185; $0.37 $0.56 $0.185; $0.375 34%; 66% Industrial BSQFT $0.045; $0.09 $0.24 $0.045; $0.195 20%; 80% 3 Accessory dwelling units less than 750 square feet of living area are exempt. Accessory dwelling units 750 square feet or greater shall be imposed 50% of the effective fee of the existing land use category.

Notes:
1 DU means dwelling unit; BSQFT means building square feet. 2 Established by Citrus Heights City Council on July 28, 1999 by Ordinance No. 99-12 ---------- See Note 3 ----------

Agenda Packet Page 178

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 21

FEE PROGRAM ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS
The following is a summary of the statutory procedural requirements for approval of the Nexus Study and proposed park impact fee program (“fee program”) by the District Advisory Board of Directors and adoption by the City Council on behalf of the District. The specific statutory procedural requirements for the adoption of the f ee program may be found in the California Government Code Sections 66016, 66017 and 66018, and City Municipal Code

58. It is recommended that the notice and hearing requirements be satisfied by the District and the City.

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT

1. The District Advisory Board of Director s shall conduct at least “one open and public meeting” as part of a regularly scheduled meeting on the proposed fee program.

2. At least 14 days before the meeting, the District shall mail out a notice of the meeting to any interested party who filed a written request for notice of t he adoption of new or increased fees.

3. At least ten days before the meeting, the Dist rict shall make available to the public the Nexus Study for review.

4. At least ten days before the public hearing, a notice of the time and place of the meeting shall be published twice in a newspaper of general circulation with at least five days intervening between the dates of first and last publication, not counting such publication dates.

5. After the public hearing, the District Adviso ry Board shall adopt a resolution approving the Nexus Study and proposed fee program with a recommendation that the City Council adopt the proposed fee program on behalf of the District.

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

1. The City Council shall conduct at least “one open and public meeting” as part of a regularly scheduled meeting on the requested fee program.

2. At least 14 days before the meet ing, the City shall mail out a notice of the meeting to any interested party who filed a written request for notice of t he adoption of new or increased fees.

3. At least ten days before the meeting, the Ci ty shall make available to the public the Nexus Study for review.

4. At least ten days before the public hearing, a notice of the time and place of the meeting shall be published twice in a newspaper of general circulation with at least five days Agenda Packet Page 179

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 22
intervening between the dates of first and last publication, not counting such publication dates.

5. After the public hearing, the City Council s hall adopt a resolution establishing the new fee program on behalf of the District.

6. The fee shall become effective 60 days after the adoption of the resolution or longer as specified by the resolution.

Agenda Packet Page 180

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 23

FEE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
This section summarizes the statutory re quirements and general recommendations for the annual administration of the park impact fee program. The spec ific statutory requirements for the administration of the fee program may be found in California Govt. Code § 66000 et seq.

ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS
Proceeds from the new park impact fee should be deposited into separate funds or accounts so that there will be no commingling of fees with other revenue or unexpended balances of the existing fee program funds. Once the old existing fee program funds have been spent, the old accounts should be closed.

The park impact fees should be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected. Any interest earned by such acc ount should be deposited in that account and expended solely for the purpose for which originally collected.

EPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The following information, entitled “Annual Report,” must be made available to the public within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year:
 a brief description of the type of fee in the account;  the amount of the fee;
 the beginning and ending balance of the account;
 the fees collected that year and the interest earned;  an identification of each public improvement for which the fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures for each improvement;
 an identification of an approximate date by which development of the improvement will commence if the local agency determ ines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;  a description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improv ement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, the date on which any loan will be repai d, and the rate of interest to be returned to the account; and
 the amount of money refunded under section Govt. Code § 66001.

Agenda Packet Page 181

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 24
The District and City shall review the Annual Report at the next r egularly scheduled public meeting, not less than 15 days after the Annual Report is m ade available to the public.

Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including the address where this information may be reviewed, shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request with the District or City for mailed not ice of the meeting.

Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The Dist rict Board and City Council may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service.

For the fifth fiscal year following the first receipt of any park impact fee proceeds, and every five years thereafter, the District must comply with Government Code Section 66001(d)(1) by affirmatively demonstrating that the District still needs the unexpended park impact fees to achieve the purpose for which it was originally imposed and that the District has a plan on how to use the unexpended balance to achieve that purpose. Specifically, the District shall make the following findings, entitled “Five-Year Findings Report,” concerning that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
 Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put;
 Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
 Identify all sources and amount s of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and
 Designate the approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

The District and the City shall provide for t he refund of all or any part of such unexpended or unappropriated fee revenue, together with any actual interest accrued thereon, in the manner described in Government Code § 66001 (e) of the, to the current record owner of any property for which a fee was paid; provided that if the administrativ e costs of refunding such fee revenue exceed the amount to be refunded.

Agenda Packet Page 182

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 25

ANNUAL INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT
All costs and the associated park impact fees determined by this Nexus Study are in January 2021 dollars. The park impact fee shall be adjusted automatically without any further action of the District Advisory Board or the City Council on March 1 by averaging the net percentage change Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco and the 20 U.S. Cities Index for the preceding year.

FEE EXEMPTIONS
The following are exempted from payment of the fee.
 Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing dwelling unit.  Additions to single-family residential stru ctures provided no change in use occurs, and a second full kitchen is not added.
 Additions to multi-family residential structures that do not create additional units.  Supporting use square footage in multi-fam ily projects, such as the office and recreation areas required to directly serve the multi-family project.  Nonhabitable residential structures such as decks, pools, pool cabanas, sheds, garages, etc.
 Construction of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet or that does not have a full kitchen.
 Mobile or manufactured homes with no permanent foundation.  New nonresidential construction less than 5,000 square feet.

FEE CREDITS
Pursuant to City Municipal Code 58, the Ac t, and recent court cases, the following circumstances must receive a fee credit:
 Nonresidential building square footage as part of a development project.  If a developer dedicates land or builds specific park facilities under a turn-key agreement, the fee imposed on that development project may be adjusted to reflect a credit for the parks and recreational facilities constructed.

Agenda Packet Page 183

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 26

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Cost Estimates for Parks and Recreational Facilities Appendix B – Inventory of District Park Facilities within the City

Agenda Packet Page 184

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 27
APPENDIX A – COST ESTIMATES FOR PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FIGURE 15 – TYPICAL 5-ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONSTRUCTION COSTS Item Unit Cost 1 2021 $ 1
Calc b c = a * b
Basic Park Development 5 acre $283,000 $1,415,000
Parking Lots 20 stall $4,000 $80,000
Soccer Field 1 each $16,000 $16,000
Restroom Building 1 each $310,300 $310,300
Playground Equipment - Large 1 each $374,500 $374,500
Basketball Court (1/2 Court) 1 each $48,100 $48,100
Shade Structure - Large (50 people) 1 each $96,600 $96,600 Total Pro
ject Cost $2,340,500
Average Cost Per Acre (rounded) $468,000
Notes:

Units
a
Sources: County of Sacramento and SCI Consulting Group 1 Based on park and recreation capital improvement estimates for the Florin Vineyard Community Plan as of January 1, 2019 and adjusted 5.9% for cost inflation based on the average change in ENR CCI SF from January 2019 (12114.87) to January 2021 (13097.91) and the ENR CCI 20-Cities from January 2019 (11206) to January 2021 (11628).

Agenda Packet Page 185

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 28
FIGURE 16 – TYPICAL 20-ACRE COMMUNITY PARK CONSTRUCTION COSTS Item Unit Cost 1 2021 $ 1
Calc b c = a * b
Basic Park Development 20 acre $224,600 $4,492,000
Playground Equipment - Small 2 each $187,200 $374,400
Playground Equipment - Large 1 each $374,500 $374,500
Soccer Field 2 each $16,000 $32,000
Youth Baseball / Softball Fields 3 each $64,200 $192,600 Tennis Court with Fence (Set of 2) 4 each $107,000 $428,000 Sports Lighting 1 each $41,700 $41,700
Basketball Court (1/2 Court) 3 each $48,100 $144,300
Shade Structure - Large (50 people) 2 each $96,600 $193,200 Shade Structure - Smaill (25 people) 2 each $49,400 $98,800 Restroom Building 4 each $310,300 $1,241,200
Parking Lots 150 stall $4,000 $600,000
Total Project Cost $8,212,700
Average Cost Per Acre (rounded) $411,000
No t e s:

Units
a
Sources: C ounty of Sacramento and SC I C onsulting Group 1 Based on park and recreation capital improv ement estimates for the Florin Viney ard C ommunity Plan as of January 1, 2019 and adjusted 5.9% for cost inflation based on the av erage change in EN R C C I SF from January 2019 (12114.87) to January 2021 (13097.91) and the EN R C C I 20-C ities from January 2019 (11206) to January 2021 (11628).

Agenda Packet Page 186

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 29
APPENDIX B – CITY PARK INVENTORY
FIGURE 17 – CITY PARK INVENTORY

NAME OF PARK

DEVELOPED
(ACRES)

UNDEVELOPED
(ACRES) TOTAL (ACRES)
C-BAR-C COMMUNITY PARK 25.30 25.30
CROSSWOODS COMMUNITY PARK 15.91 15.91
RUSCH PARK COMMUNITY PARK 48.36 48.36
TEMPO COMMUNITY PARK 23.92 23.92
FOOTHILL GOLF CENTER 15.27
CHERRY CREEK MANOR PARK SITE 6.97 6.97 EDGECLIFF CT./CRIPPLE CREEK PARK SITE 8.63 8.63 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE PARK SITE 10.13 10.13 STOCK RANCH NATURE PRESERVE 39.10 39.10 SUNRISE OAKS PARK SITE 9.08 9.08
TWIN CREEK PARK 7.35 7.35
WOODSIDE OAKS/OLIVEINE DR. PARK SITE 4.71 4.71 ARCADE CREEK PARK PRESERVE 10.36 10.36
BROOKTREE PARK 14.79 14.79
GREENBACK WOODS PARK 3.90 3.90
MADERA PARK 15.71 15.71
MCDONALD FIELD PARK 2.27 2.27
NORTHWOODS PARK 8.87 8.87
SAN JUAN PARK 15.00 15.00
VAN MAREN PARK 4.37 4.37
WESTWOOD PARK 11.67 11.67
SHADOWCREEK PARK 11.66 11.66
TOTAL 227.36 85.97 298.06

Agenda Packet Page 187

SUNRISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2021
PAGE 30

HIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

Agenda Packet Page 188

Exhibit B – Parks Impact Fee

Citrus Heights Park Impact Fee by Land Use
Per Unit Per SF
Land Use Single Family 2-4 Unit 5+ Unit Mobile Homes Retail/Commercial Office Industrial Fee
$
6,089.00
$
4,722.00 $ 4,453.00
$
3,459.00
$

0.36 $

0.56 $ 0.24

Agenda Packet Page 189

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEXUS STUDY FOR A FIRE CAPITAL FACILITIES

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (“SMFD”) provides fire protection and medical emergency services in the City of Citrus Heights; WHEREAS, the City currently collects from developers within the City, on behalf of SMFD, an impact fee that has been adopted by SMFD;
WHEREAS, SMFD uses the proceeds of this impact fee to fund its capital costs necessary to provide services to new development;
WHEREAS, SMFD desires to update the impact fee and has requested the City’s assistance towards that end;
WHEREAS, the City Council intends, to have the City itself impose the fee, including a complementary three percent fee to cover the City’s costs of administering the fee program; WHEREAS, SMFD caused the preparation of a nexus study for the proposed fee; WHEREAS, SMFD has approved that nexus study and transmitted it to the City; WHEREAS, the nexus study is intended to meet the criteria set forth in Government Code Section 66016.5;
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the nexus study and the proposed fee;
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published twice, with the first publication occurring not less than 30 days prior to the hearing and the second publication occurring not less than five days after the first publication;
WHEREAS, notice was also mailed, concurrent with the first publication, to any person who had requested such notice;
WHEREAS, the District and the City conducted outreach to interested parties in early 2022 and the City made the nexus study available for public inspection beginning on May 20, 2022; WHEREAS, at the public hearing the City Council accepted oral and written testimony from all persons desiring to provide comment on the nexus study or the fee; WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to approve the nexus study; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council that the City will subsequently adopt (i) an ordinance imposing the fee; (ii) a resolution setting the rates for the fee; and (iii) direct the City Attorney to execute an updated agreement with SMFD governing the terms under which the City will pay fee proceeds to SMFD.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby declare, find, determine and order as follows:

A) The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

B) The Nexus Study attached hereto as “Exhibit A” complies with the requirements of Government Code 66016.5 and is hereby adopted and approved as presented.

C) The City Council adopts the findings set forth on Page 3.6 of the Nexus Study.

Agenda Packet Page 190

(E) The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23
rd day of June 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

Porsche Middleton, Mayor
ATTEST:

Amy Van, City Clerk

Exhibits

A. Capital Facilities Nexus Fee Study

Agenda Packet Page 191

Exhibit A- SMFD Capital Facilities Impact Fee Study

Agenda Packet Page 192
Final Report
Capital Facilities (Impact) Fee Study
April 9, 2021
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 193
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................ ................................ ................................ .............1-1 Organization of the Report....................................................................................................... 1-1 Development Projections......................................................................................................... 1-1 Impact Fee Analysis.................................................................................................................. 1-1 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................... 1-2 Introduction................................ ................................ ................................ .......1-1 Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Background...............................................................................................................................1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees ............................................................................................ 1-1 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ...................................................................................... 1-6 Terminology.............................................................................................................................. 1-7 Development Data ................................ ................................ ............................. 2-1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................2-1 Time Frame...............................................................................................................................2-1 Development Types.................................................................................................................. 2-1 Demand Variable – Service Population.................................................................................... 2-2 Demand Factors ....................................................................................................................... 2-3 Existing and Forecasted Development..................................................................................... 2-4 Fire Protection Impact Fees ................................ ................................ ................3-1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 Level of Service......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Existing and Future Facilities.................................................................................................... 3-2 Cost per Capita of Service Population...................................................................................... 3-3 Impact Fees per Unit of Development ..................................................................................... 3-3 Customizing Impact Fees.......................................................................................................... 3-4 Projected Revenue ................................................................................................................... 3-5 Updating the Fees .................................................................................................................... 3-5 Nexus Summary........................................................................................................................ 3-5 Implementation ................................ ................................ ................................ .4-1 Adoption................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Administration.......................................................................................................................... 4-2 Training and Public Information...............................................................................................4-7

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 194
Attachments
Existing Stations Attachment A
Future Stations Attachment B
Existing Apparatus, Vehicles & Equipment Attachment C
Future Apparatus, Vehicles & Equipment Attachment D
Comparative Fee Survey Attachment E
District Boundary Map Attachment F

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 195
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-1 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Executive Summary
The Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (District) retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on the District’s facility and equipment needs and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are intended to satis fy all legal requirements of the U. S.

Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirem ents for establishing and imposing such fees, and the methods used to calculate impact fees.

Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future developmentand the demand factors used to allocate costs in the impact fee analysis.

Chapter 3 presents the imp act fee calculations and explains the data and methodology used in the calculations. Chapter 3 also projects the potential future revenue from impact fees calculated in this report.

Chapter 4 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact f ees, including suggested findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Development Projections
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development and projections of future development out to 2040 for the area served by the District. Because the District encompasses two cities and only part of unincorporated areas of two counties, there is no single source of information about existing and future development for the District as a whole. Sources of data used in each of thetables in Chapter 2 are indicated in footnotes to those tables.

Impact Fee Analysis
Chapter 3 of this report calculatesimpact fees for fire protection facilities. The calculation of this fee allocates the cost of both existing and future fire protection facilities to all existing and future development within the existing boundaries of the District at buildout, so that costs are shared equitably by all development in the District.

Impact fees per unit calculated in this report are summarized in Table S.1 , below. The Proposed Fee per Unit column shows the calculated fee outcome from this Study , which is compared to the District’s Current Fee per Unit.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 196
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-2 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
The current and proposed fees in Table S-1 are also compared to the existing impact fees of other agencies in Attachment E to this report. The list of survey ed agencies was provided by the District to stay in line with agencies that the Board of Directors typically utilizes for comparisons.

Impact fee programs across Cali fornia often assess an administrative fee on top of the impact fee to recover the operational costs of complying with Mitigation Fee Act’s accounting and reporting requirements. Because the District’s impact fees are adopted, collected and administered by the respective city and County agencies served by the District, those agencies can charge an administrative fee to recover their costs accordingly. The administrative fee should not exceed the estimated and reasonable costs of impact fee program administration and require adoption by the local City Council and/or County Board of Supervisors.

Based on discussions with District staff, the fire impact fees are also recommended to be adjusted annually by averaging the net percentage change in the Engineering News- Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco and the 20 U.S, Cities Index for the preceding year. The District will coordinate with the respective cities and counties served to ensure the escalation occurs according to their established procedures for updating fees.

Projected Revenue
Table 3.4 in Chapter 3 projects the total revenue from the impact fees calculated in this report. That projection assumes that future development to 2040 occurs as forecasted in this study. The projected revenue of $90.7 million is about 24% of the estimated cost of constructing and equipping the future fire stations planned by the District.

Table S.1 Summary of Impact Fees Calculated in this Study Development Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase / (Decrease) Increase / (Decrease) Type Units 1 per Unit 2 per Unit 3 per Unit ($) 4 per Unit (%) 4 Residential - Single-Family DU 1,356$ 1,521$ 165$ 12%
Residential - Multi-Family DU 1,059$ 1,192$ 133$ 13%
Accessory Dwelling Unit 5
Commercial KSF 715$ 1,260$ 545$ 76%
Office KSF 1,186$ 1,599$ 413$ 35%
Industrial KSF 643$ 856$ 213$ 33%
Institutional/Other KSF 1,135$ 1,524$ 389$ 34%
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Source: Current Master Fee Schedule for SMFD; includes 2% admin fee 3 See Table 3.3; Figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar 4 Increase/(decrease) between current fee and proposed fee per unit 5 Recent legislation requires special fee considerations for ADUs; see further discussion in report

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 197
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-1 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact s of development on the need for fire protection facilities and other capital assets provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (District) and to calculate impact fees that apply throughout the District.

The methods used to cal culate impact fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025.)
Background
The Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District services a population of over 745,000 in a 358 square mile service area.The District is a combination of 16 smaller firedepartments that, over the years, merged to create this California Special District. The impact fees calculated in this study are intended to apply districtwide. A map of the District’s boundaries and service area is provided as Attachment F to this report.

Legal Framework for Impact Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for d evelopment fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as a legal opinion.

Fire Protection District Law of 1987. California Health and Safety Code Section 13916, which is part of the Fire Protectio n District Law of 1987, states: “A (fire protection) district board shall not charge a fee on new construction or development for the construction of public improvements or facilities or the acquisition of equipment.” However, although the District itsel f may not charge such fees, it is quite common in California for cities and counties to impose fire impact fees for fire protection districts that provide services within their jurisdiction. The fees calculated in this report are intended to be adopted by the incorporated cities of Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova, part of the unincorporated area of Sacramento County, and less than two square miles of West Placer County. Current agreements between the District, Sacramento County, and cities of Rancho Cord ova and Citrus Heights, allow the District’s Board to set the fee amounts and provide for cooperation between the agencies in administering the fees and funds accordingly. After accepting and considering public input, the Sacramento County Board of Supervi sors approves the findings and resolution of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District and sets the appropriate fees. The fees are imposed, collected and dispersed by Sacramento County pursuant to the County’s development Police Powers under Art. XI, Secti on 7 of the California Constitution and administered by Sacramento County under the Mitigation Fee Act of Government Code 66000, et. seq.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 198
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-2 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions including impact fees are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution.

In two landmark cases dealing withexactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval, or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development projec t that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an ”individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994).

Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management Distric t (2013), state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue.

In light of that uncertainty, any agency enacting or imposing impact fees would be wise to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calculation of those fees.

Defining the “Nexus.” While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to jus tify exactions and impact fees, that term can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees.

Need or Impact . Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the exte nt that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.

The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and t he demand for

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 199
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-3 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus.

Benefit. Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.

Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended expeditiously or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus.

Proportionality. Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.

California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for localgovernments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees c harged to a project exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve the project. In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act.

Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by P roposition 218 in 1996 require voter approval for some “property -related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development,” which includes impact fees.That exemption also applies with respect to Proposition 26 wh ich amended Article XIIIC to reclassify some fees as taxes.

The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time, the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 200
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-4 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenit ies." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title.

Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely -accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and p eriodic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report.

Required Findings . Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify the use of the fee; and,

3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project.) Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.

Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund constructi on of certain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on District facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the District grows.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 201
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-5 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facil ities to serve additional development.

Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement pl an may be used for that purposebut is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. In this case, we recommend that the Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova City Councils and the Sacramento and West Placer County Board of Supervisors adopt this report as the public document that identifies the facilities to be funded by the fees.

Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:

1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;

2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and,

3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statute, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in court decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “duality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees.

Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus.

Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).

Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shal l not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v.

City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 202
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-6 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely understood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies.

However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.”
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some ex tent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.

Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by some attribute of development such as added population or added v ehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development.

The method used to calculate impact fees in this study is called the Plan-Based Method.

Plan-based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development . The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan or plans, while the development is identified in a land use plan or set of plans that forecasts potential development by type and quantity.

Using this method, f acility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the service demand created by each type of development . To calculate plan-based impact fees, it is necessary todetermine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of new development.

With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by the total 2040 service population to calculate a cost per unit of demand . As discussed in d etail in Chapter 2, service population is used in this study as the indicator of demand for fire protection and emergency response services. So, in this study, the cost per capita of service population is multiplied by the service population per unit of development to arrive at a cost per unit of development for each type of development . Details regarding the data and methodology used to calculate impact fees in this study are presented in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 203
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 1-7 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
As discussed in Chapter 3, the resources of a single fire station do not serve a particular area in isolation from the other resources of the District. The District’s fire protection and emergency response capabilities are organized as an integrated system. Whenever an emergency response is required, whether for a fire or other emergency, the response may involve resources from multiple fire stations.

The method used to calculate impact fees in this study reflects that fact by allocating costs for both existing and future capital facilities to bo th existing and future development Districtwide. The method used to calculate impact fees in this report ensures that the impact fees will recover only future development’s share of the cost of all capital assets needed to serve the District in 2040. The projected revenue from impact fees calculated in this report will not be adequate to fund all of the new facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment needed to serve the District in 2040.

Funding from other sources will be needed to pay for a portion of those assets.

Terminology
Where the terms “impact fees” and “capital facilities fees” are used interchangeably, both terms are a reference to fees that are established in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Where “fire protection facilities” or a si milar term is used in this report, it is intended to mean fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 204
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 2-1 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Development Data
This chapter presents data on existing and future development in the area served by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (District). The information in this chapter is used to allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new developmentin the calculation of the District’s Capital Facilities Fees (impact fees).

Study Area
The study area for this impact fee study is the area within the boundaries of the District, which covers 358 square miles, and serves the incorporated cities of Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova, part of t he unincorporated area of Sacramento County , and less than two square miles of West Placer County. The following is a list of the variouscommunities served by the District:
 Anatolia
 Antelope
 Arcade
 Arden
 Carmichael
 Citrus Heights
 Dry Creek
 Elverta
 Fair Oaks
 Florin
 Foothill Farms
 Gold River
 Mather
 McClellan
 Michigan Bar
 Mills Station
 North Highlands
 Orangevale
 Rancho Cordova
 Rancho Murrieta
 Rio Linda
 Rosemont
 Sloughhouse
Time Frame
For consistency, 2040 is used as the target date for forecas ts of future development in this chapter. However, it is the amount of future development rather than the rate and timing of that development that matters in the impact fee calculations. Costs used in the impact fee calculations are current costs. Impact f ees calculated in this study should be adjusted over time to reflect changes in costs for land, construction and equipment.1 Development Types
The development types defined in this study are intended to reflect actual land uses rather than zoning or gene ral plan land use designations. The following breakdown of development types is used throughout this study.
1 The District currently applies the ENR Building Cost Index for this purpose

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 205
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 2-2 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
 Residential – Single-Family
 Residential – Multi-Family
 Accessory Dwelling Unit
 Commercial
 Office
 Industrial
 Institutional/Other
It should be noted that Senate Bill13 prohibits the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet and provides that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to t he square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case -by-case basis during the approval pro- cess. The District’s approach to implementation of this law will be to honor the policies and procedures set by the cities and counties within District service boundaries.

Demand Variable – Service Population
To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Some measurable attribute of development must be used as a “demand variable” in those formulas. The demand variable used to calculate fire protection impact fees in this study is service population.

Service population is commonly used to represent the demand created by development for fire protection and emergency response services. Resident population alone represents only residential development and does not reflect the service demandcreated by non-residential development. Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the District and employees of businesses in the District. Residents are included to represent the impacts of residential development while em ployees are included to represent the impacts of non-residential development.

Because the impact of one new resident is not necessarily the same as the impact of one new employee, employee numbers are typically weighted to reflect the difference. In estimating those weights, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0. The weight assigned to employees is relative to the residential weight of 1.0.

In this study, the employee component of the service population is assigned a weight of

1.03, meaning that employees are weighted at approximately 103% of the service demand of residents. That weighting results in a service population where the residential and non -residential components are in balance with the relative shares of emergency response incidents generated in the last year by residential and non -residential development in the District.

In this study, the number of calls for service per year is used to represent the demand for fire services for various types of development. The calls for service data used inthis study is based on analysis by NBS of a random sample of all 2019 calls for service received by the District. In 2019, the district logged 97,365 calls. A random sample of 934 calls was classified by development type based on address of location. Based on that sample size, the results of the analysis have a 3.2% margin of error at a 95% confidence level.As shown

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 206
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 2-3 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
in Exhibit 1A, below, that analysis found that 73. 8% of incidents logged were generated by residential development.

Figures for existing de velopment in Table 2.2 later in this chapter show that with employees weighted at 1.0 3 of residents in the service population, 74% of the estimated 2019 service population is residential. So, the weighting of service population components in this study is consistent with actual demand for service by residential and non-residential development in the District. Projections of 2040development in Table 2.4 show that the residential share of service population is at 73%.

Demand Factors
Each type of de velopment defined in this study has a specific value for population, employees and service population per unit as shown in Table 2.1. Those values affect how the capital costs of the District’s facilities and equipment are allocated to various types of development in this study.

The demand factors shown in Table 2.1 for population per unit and employees per unit are intended to approximate District -wide averages and may differ from any factors calculated individually for incorporated cities or census desig nated places (CDP’s) within the unincorporated county area.

Exhibit 1A: Sample Distribution of Incidents
Development Type Count of
Type
Reallocate
Unknowns TOTAL Percent
Single Family Residential 416 67 483 51.7%
Multi-Family Residential 178 29 207 22.1%
Subtotal Residential 594 690 73.8%
Commercial/Retail 98 16 114 12.2%
Office 16 3 19 2.0%
Industrial 12 2 14 1.5%
Institutional/Other 64 10 98 10.5%
P: Public 20 3
U: Unknown 130
Subtotal Non-Residential 340 245 26.2%
Total 934 130 935 100%
see Inst./Other

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 207
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 2-4 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Existing and Forecasted Development
Summaries of existing and forecasted development in the District are presented in Tables 2.2 through 2.4 below. Because the District encompasses two cities and only part of unincorporated areas of two counties, there is no single source of information about existing and future development for the District as a whole. Sources of data used in each of the following tables are indicated in footnotes to those tables.

Table 2.2 shows estimated existing development in the District as of January 1, 2020 in terms of population, employees and service population. In the following tables, SFDU stands for single-family dwelling unit, and MFDU stands for multi-family dwelling unit.

The data used in constructing this table was sourced from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) . SACOG provides transportation planning and funding for the region and serves as a forum for the study and resolution of regional issues. SACOG maintains growth forecasts of local population, housing, and employment statistics. This study relied on current forecast data provided by SACOG for 2016, 2035, and 2040. 2 The average growth rate provided by the 2016 and 2035 benchmark years was u tilized to establish the 2020 starting values shown below.
2 Data organized by Traffic Analysis District was utilized as the closest statistical information available that matches the service boundary of the District.

Table 2.1: Demand Factors
Land Use
Category
Unit
Type 1
Population
per Unit 2
Employees
per Unit 3
Service Pop
per Unit 4
Residential - Single-Family DU 2.91 2.91
Residential - Multi-Family DU 2.28 2.28
Commercial KSF 2.34 2.41
Office KSF 2.97 3.06
Industrial KSF 1.59 1.64
Institutional/Other KSF 2.83 2.91
1 DU = dwelling units; KSF = 1,000 square feet of gross building area 2 Average population per unit for single-family, multi-family based on analysis of data from 2018 U. S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Yr Estimate.

Population per dwelling unit calculated based on the average across all communities served. 3 Derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. 4 Service population per unit for residential categories = population per unit; service population per unit for non-residential categories = weighted employees per unit (see discussion in text)

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 208
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 2-5 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Table 2.3 shows added dwelling units, population and employees in the District from 2020 to 2040. The numbers in that table represent the difference between 2020 development in Table 2.2 and 2040 development in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 shows projected dwelling units, population, employees, and service population for the District in 2040.

Table 2.2: SMFD 2020 Dwelling Units, Population and Employees 2020 SFDU 1 2020 MFDU 1 2020
Population 2
2020
Employees 3
2020 Service
Population 4
196,309 85,962 718,796 245,184 971,336
1 Source: SACOG 2016 Forecast Series for Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (MTP/SCS); increased by 3.8% to 2020 2 Source: SACOG 2016 Forecast Series for Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (MTP/SCS); increased by 3.6% to 2020 3 Source: SACOG 2016 Forecast Series for Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (MTP/SCS); increased by 4.4% to 2020 4 Service population = population + (1.03 * employees); see report text for details Table 2.3: SMFD Added DU, Population and Employees 2020-2040 Added SFDU Added MFDU
Added
Population
Added
Employees
Added Svc
Population
33,950 14,867 120,054 51,876 173,486
Note: All figures in this table represent the difference between the 2040 numbers in Table 2.4 and the 2020 numbers in Table 2.2
Table 2.4: SMFD 2040 Dwelling Units, Population and Employees 2040 SFDU 1 2040 MFDU 1
2040
Population 2
2040
Employees 3
2040 Service
Population 4
230,259 100,829 838,850 297,060 1,144,822
1 Source: SACOG 2016 Forecast Series for Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (MTP/SCS)
2 Source: SACOG 2016 Forecast Series for Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (MTP/SCS)
3 Source: SACOG 2016 Forecast Series for Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (MTP/SCS)
4 Service population = population + (1.03 * employees); see report text for details

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 209
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 2-6 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
For reference, Table 2.5 shows the percentage change in dwelling units, population and employees in the District from 2020 to 2040 based on data in the previous three tables.

The information in the foregoing tables is used in the next chapter in the calc ulation of fire protection impact fees for the District.

Table 2.5: SMFD 2020 - 2040 % Change in DU, Pop and Employees % Change
SFDU
% Change

MFDU/MH
% Change
Population
% Change
Employees
% Change
Service Pop

17.29% 17.29% 16.70% 21.16% 17.86%

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 210
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 3-1 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Fire Protection Impact Fees
This chapter calculates impact fees for fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment for the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

The District currently operates 41 fire stations, 39 of which are owned by the District, and two are owned by the County of Sacramento. To support its operations, the District also owns an administrative building, and several logistics facilities.

The District plans to relocate and/or expand several of its existing fire stations and add 15 new stations to meet its projected service demands at buildout. 3 The District also plans for construction of a centralized training facility and communications center.

Methodology
Impact fees may be used to pay only for capital assets, not for staffing or operating costs.

Impact fee calculation methodology for this study was discussed generally in Chapter 1.

Chapter 2 discussed the use of service population to represent servi ce demand created by various types of development. This chapter walks step -by-step through the calculation of impact fees for the District’s fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment.

As discussed in Chapter 1, development in any part of the District is served by all of the District’s facilities, apparatus, and equipment, not just by the nearest fire station. When an emergency call is received, the fire company based in the nearest fire station may not be available so the initial response would be handled from a different station. And in the case of a fire, even a residential fire can require a response by at least five fire engines with a minimum of 15 firefighters and one or more battalion chiefs.

Because the emergency services provided by the District depend on an integrated system of facilities and staff, the method used to calculate impact fees in this report allocates costs for all existing and planned facilities in the District to all existing and future development in the District, so that capital costs are shared equitably. In effect, by paying the impact fees, new development is paying for its proportionate share of all of the District’s existing and future capital assets.

The share of cost to be recove red by impact fees calculated in this study is equal to new development’s share of the total service population projected for 2040. Specifically, future development’s share of 2040 service population as shown in Table 2.4 in Chapter 2 is 15.2% of projected2040 buildout population. The revenue projected from impact fees calculated in this study also equals 15.2% of the total cost of existing and future District assets shown in Table 3. 1. That assumes the projections of future development used in this study are correct.
3 Buildout is a hypothetical condition that assumes all undeveloped land is built to its capacity.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 211
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 3-2 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Level of Service
The critical measure of level of service for fire protection and emergency medical services is emergency response time. The number of fire stations needed to serve a particular area with acceptable response times is determined by specific conditions within the area. In this case, the number and general location of existing and future fire stations needed to provide an acceptable level of service within the District were identified by the District. The Metro Fire Board adopted the Level of Service in May 2010.

The basis for the master plan was complete in 2013 and adjusted as master plans and growth patterns change. Those fire stations and their associated apparatus, vehicles and equipment are discussed in the next section.

Each new development project will pay impact fees according to the added service population it generates.Revenue from impact fees will not cover the cost of all of the new fire stations, apparatus and equipment that will be needed by the Distri ct out to 2040.

The District will need to raise the additional revenue needed for its planned facilities from other sources.

Existing and Future Facilities
Attachments A and Cto this reportlist the District’s existing facilities and planned facilities with estimated building construction cost for future buildings, depreciated replacement cost for existing buildings, and estimated land cost (for future facilities) or land value (for existing facilities).

Attachment C shows the replacement cost and depreci ated replacement cost for the District’s existing firefighting apparatus and vehicles. Some items shown in that table are fully depreciated so their cost will not be reflected in the impact fee calculations.

Attachment D provides the planned number and cost of future apparatus, vehicles and equipment estimated as needed to serve the District’s needs.

Table 3.1 summarizes the impact fee cost basis figures from the exhibits. The total cost from Table 3.1 will be used to calculate impact fees in the next section.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 212
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 3-3 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Cost per Capita of Service Population
As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is used as the demand variable for the impact fee calculations in this report. Table 3. 2 calculates an average cost per capit a of service population by dividing the total impact fee cost basis from Table 3. 1 by the total 2040 projected service population of the District, as shown in Table 2.4 in Chapter 2.

Impact Fees per Unit of Development
Table 3.3 calculates the impact fee per unit by development type based on the cost per capita from Table 3.2 and a population per unit from Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. The Capital Facilities Fee program identifies fees for the major land use categories. Specia lized land uses may have unique demand characteristics and in these cases the District may calculate the appropriate fee based on project -specific information. For specialized development projects, the District will review public facility demand generated by the specialized development and decide on an applicable fee.

Table 3.1: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing and Future Assets Impact Fee
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Fire Stations 175,446,633$
Future Fire Stations 346,104,164$
Existing - Fire Apparatus and Vehicles 42,856,031$
Future - Fire Apparatus and Vehicles 33,969,049$
Total 598,375,878$
1 See Attachments A-D
Table 3.2: Cost per Capita of Service Population
Total Impact Fee 2040 Cost
Cost Basis 1 Service Population 2 per Capita 3
$598,375,878 1,144,822 $522.68
1 See Table 3.5
2 Projected 2040 service population for the District; see Table 2.4 3 Cost per capita of service population = total impact fee cost basis / 2040 service population

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 213
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 3-4 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Impact fee programs across California also often assess an administrative fee on top of the impact fee to recover the operational costs of complying with Mitigation Fee Act’s accounting and reporting requirements. Because the District’s impact fees are adopted, collected and administered by the respective city and County agencies served by the District, those agencies can charge an administrative fee to recover their costs accordingly. The administrative fee should not exceed the estimated and reasonable costs of impact fee program administration and require adoption by the local City Council and/or County Board of Supervisors.

Customizing Impact Fees
The non-residential development types defined in this study and shown in Table 3. 3 are rather broad, and some proposed development projects may not fit neatly into a particular category. In such cases, the agency imposing impact fees may wish to adjust the fee to the particular characteristics of the project. That can be done quite simply by multiplying the cost per capita shown in Table 3. 2 by the added service population associated with the project. Since each employee equates to 1.03 added units of service population, the added service popu lation equals the number of employees to be added by the project multiplied by 1 .03. Using the example of a 100 -room hotel with 0.5 employees per room, the impact fee would be calculated as 50 employees X 1.03 X $522.68 for an impact fee of $26,918.

Table 3.3 Impact Fee per Unit
Development Cost Svc Pop Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential - Single-Family DU $522.68 2.91 1,521.00$
Residential - Multi-Family DU $522.68 2.28 1,191.71$
Accessoy Dwelling Unit5
Commercial KSF $522.68 2.41 1,259.76$
Office KSF $522.68 3.06 1,598.93$
Industrial KSF $522.68 1.64 855.99$
Institutional/Other KSF $522.68 2.91 1,523.56$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Cost per capita of service population; see Table 3.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit; Note all figures in the table show as rounded figures
5 Senate Bill 13 recently amended Section 65852.2 of the Government Code.

See discussion in Chapter 2. Development Data, Development Types for implementation guidelines pertaining to ADUs

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 214
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 3-5 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Projected Revenue
Table 3.4 projects the total revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. That projection assumes that future development to 2040 occurs as forecasted in this study.

Revenue is projected by applying the impact fee per capita to add ed service population from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.

Although this analysis accounts for the cost of serving public institutions and facilities such as schools, the District either may not have authority, or may not be likely to charge im- pact fees to other governmental agencies. Consequently, slightly less r evenue will be re- ceived to offset the capital costs attributed to public facilities if they are not able to collect impact fees from these institutions. We estimate the portion of Projected Revenue asso- ciated with these facilities to be approximately $3. 95 million dollars, or 4.4% of the total shown in Table 3.4.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on current cost estimates. Between impact fee update studies, we recommend that the District review those costs annually and adjust the fees as needed to keep pace with percentage changes in construction and equipment costs. Use of Engineering News Record (ENR) Building Cost Index or the California Construction Cost Index (CCI) published by the California Department of General Se rvices are considered industry standard inflationary factors applicable to impact fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:

Table 3.4 Projected Revenue
Added Service Revenue Projected
Population 1 per Capita 2 Revenue 3
173,486 $522.68 $90,677,872
1 See Table 2.3
2 See Table 3.2
3 Projected Revenue - added service population x revenue per capita

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 215
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 3-6 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensu res that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.)
The following paragr aphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is topay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providing fire protection facilities to serve future development in area s served by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for future fire protection facilities needed to serve the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

Reasonable Relationship between t he Use of the Fee and the Development Type o n Which It Is Imposed . The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of fire protection facilities needed to serve the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type o f Development on Which t he Fee Is Im posed. All new development in the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District increases the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services provided by the District. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for additional fire pro tection facilities needed serve the additional demand that will be created by anticipated development in the District.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire protection impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the estimated service population to be added by that project. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of facilities needed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District to provide an acceptable level of service. The Metro Fire Board adopted the Level of Service in May 2010. The basis for the master plan was complete in 2013 and adjusted as master plans and growth patterns change.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 216
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 4-1 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Implementation
This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of impact fees, and for the interpretation and application of the development impact fees calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.

Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Adoption
As discussed in Chapter 1, California Health and Safety Code Section 13916, which is part of the Fire Protection District Law of 1987, does not allow the board of a fire protection district to charge a fee on new construction or development for the construction of public improvements or facilities or the acquisition of equipment.

Consequently, the fire protection impact fees calculated in this report must be adopted by the agencies having authority to approve development projects in the areas served by the District, namely the cities of Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova and portions of Sac- ramento and West Placer County.

The form in which development impact fees are enacted should be determined by the attorneys for those agencies. Procedures for adoption of fees s ubject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a, which requires that the public h earing notice be published at least twice during the required 10-day notice period. Government Code Sec- tion 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.

Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report.

Establishment of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act , Section 66001(a), when an agency establishes fees to be imposed as a condition of development approval, it must make findings to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; and,

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 217
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 4-2 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study areshown below. The specific language of such findings should be reviewed and approved b y the Attorney for the agency adopting the fees . A more complete discussion of the nexus for the impact fees can be found in Chapter 3 of this report.

Sample Finding: Purpose of the Fee . The [City Council or Board of Supervisors] finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to protect the public health, safety and welfare byrequiring new development to contribute to the cost of fire protection facilities needed to mitigate the impacts created by that devel- opment.

Sample Finding: Use of the Fee. The [City Council or Board of Supervisors] finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted w ill be used to provide public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Those facilities are identified in the 2021 Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Impact Fee Study by NBS. 4
Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship: Based on analysis presented in the 2021 Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Impact Fee Study by NBS, the [City Council or Board of Supervisors] finds that there is a reasonable relationship be- tween:
a. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and,
b. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed.

Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, incl uding collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.

Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Section 66001(a), when an agency imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make essentially the same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to:
4 According to Gov’t Code Section 66001 (a) (2), the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged.

The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that information.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 218
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 4-3 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
Per Section 66001 (b), at the time when an impact fe e is imposed on a specific development project, the agency is also required to make a finding to determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which it is imposed.

In addition, Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public im- provement that the fee will be used to finance." The required notification could refer to the improvements identified in this study.

Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, pro- vide the applicant with a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90 -day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested.

Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge.

Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.

Collection of Fees. Section 66007 (a), provides that a local agency shall not require pay- ment of fees by developers of residential projec ts prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of mor e than one dwelling unit, Section 66007 (a) allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed.

Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (1) when the local agency determines that the fees “will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final in- spection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy” or (2) the fees are “to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made.”

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 219
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 4-4 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
These statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-residential development.

In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits , Subsections 66007 (c) (1) and (2) provide that the agency may require the prope rty owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid.

Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected.” Section 66006 (a) also requires that i nterest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same pur- pose.

The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements).

We are not aware of any agency that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. A nd, a s a pr actical matte r, that approach would be unworkable because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be con- structed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to main- tain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (e.g., fire pro- tection or park improvements), but not for individual projects.

Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers . In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.

If a project h as characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reducedaccordingly. Per Section 66001 (b), there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the develop- ment on relevant public facilities.

In some cases, the agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promotin g goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction may not result in increased costs to other development projects, so the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from other fund sources.

Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If an agency requires a developer, as a condition of project approval to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged, the agency should ensure that the impact fees are

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 220
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 4-5 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
adjusted so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development.

In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the agency may accept or reject such offers and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted . Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements.

Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant facilities, applying the demand factors used in this study to calculate that particular impact fee.

Annual Reports. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency mus t make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:

1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;

2. The amount of the fee;

3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;

4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;

5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;

6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the agency determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;

7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;

8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).

The annual report must be reviewed by thegoverning body at its next regularly scheduled public m eeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public , per Section 66006 (b) (2).

Fifth Year Reports on Unexpended Funds . Prior to 1996, the Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to ex pend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 , adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement in material ways.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 221
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 4-6 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of th e following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:

1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;

2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;

3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete fi- nancing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;

4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local a gency could be re- quired to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d).

Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvement s for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which con- struction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)).

Note: Because impact fees for Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District must be adopted by other agencies as discussed above, the District and those agencies should agree on which agency will be responsible for annual reporting and the fifth-year review required by the Mitigation Fee Act , and should develop procedures to ensure that the requirements of the Act are satisfied.

Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan . Section 66002 (b) of the Mitigation Fee Act provides that if a local agencycites a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and ann ually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative , per Section 66001 (a) (2) is to identify improvements by applicable general or specific plans or in other public docu- ments.

In most cases, the CIP identifie s projects for a limited number of years and may not include all improvements needed to serve future development covered by the impact fee study. We recommend that this impact fee study be cited as the public document identifying the use of the fees.

Indexing of Impact Fee s. Where i mpact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs, those costs should, if possible, be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by the impact

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 222
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Page 4-7 Capital Facilities Fee Study
April 9, 2021
fees. That adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets.

Based on discussions with District staff, t he fire impact fees are recommended to be adjusted annually by averaging the net percentage change in the Engineering News - Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco and the 20 U.S, Cities Index for the preceding year. The District will coordinate with the respective cities and counties served to ensure the escalation occurs according to the ir established procedures for updating fees.

Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that tho se responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale.

Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a hand- ful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees.

It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of impact fees should be made clear.

Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the ex- penditure of impact fee revenues and should refer to this report for a list of the facilities and on which the impact fee calculations are based.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 223
Facilities, Apparatus', Vehicles & Equipment
Prepared by NBS for Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Attachments A-D

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 224
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment A: Existing Fire Facilities
Building Bldg Cost/ Contents Site Est Land Impact Fee
Facility Sq Ft 1 Repl Cost 2 Repl Cost2 Acres 3 Cost 4 Cost Basis 5 Fire Stations
Station 21 28,004 5,441,361$ 321,292$ 3.97 3,176,000$ 8,938,653$ Station 22 3,263 1,014,640$ 27,057$ 0.90 720,000$ 1,761,697$ Station 23 4,858 1,361,669$ 37,566$ 0.99 792,000$ 2,191,235$ Station 24 5,944 1,615,274$ 27,057$ 1.02 816,000$ 2,458,331$ Station 25 5,400 1,879,527$ 40,194$ n/a -$ 1,919,721$ Station 26 6,830 2,521,810$ 59,899$ 0.95 760,000$ 3,341,709$ Station 27 3,610 999,352$ 27,057$ 0.31 248,000$ 1,274,409$ Station 28 2,592 801,362$ 27,057$ 1.14 912,000$ 1,740,419$ Station 29 12,825 6,147,942$ 259,550$ 4.92 3,936,000$ 10,343,492$ Station 31 4,648 1,315,817$ 40,194$ 0.22 176,000$ 1,532,011$ Station 32 13,000 6,253,853$ 80,980$ 1.43 1,144,000$ 7,478,833$ Station 41 5,200 1,487,693$ 27,057$ 0.49 392,000$ 1,906,750$ Station 42 (Relocated/replaced) 2,150 851,879$ 27,057$ 0.11 88,000$ 966,936$ Station 50 21,505 9,023,606$ 452,250$ 1.80 1,440,000$ 10,915,856$ Station 51 8,906 2,633,071$ 27,670$ 0.45 360,000$ 3,020,741$ Station 52 (active training site) 3,800 1,002,297$ 83,830$ 1.83 1,464,000$ 2,550,127$ Station 53 3,500 982,137$ 97,968$ 0.31 248,000$ 1,328,105$ Station 54 2,400 943,672$ 94,514$ 0.32 256,000$ 1,294,186$ Station 55 5,245 1,554,895$ 102,052$ 4.37 3,496,000$ 5,152,947$ Station 58 3,290 996,861$ 14,739$ 2.00 1,600,000$ 2,611,600$ Station 59 5,926 1,687,979$ 14,739$ 0.74 592,000$ 2,294,718$ Station 61 6,744 1,973,109$ 40,194$ 0.70 560,000$ 2,573,303$ Station 62 (Relocated/replaced) 7,036 2,024,654$ 47,546$ 1.43 1,144,000$ 3,216,200$ Station 63 3,090 904,049$ 27,057$ 0.62 496,000$ 1,427,106$ Station 64 1,900 349,588$ 27,057$ 0.18 144,000$ 520,645$ Station 65 8,427 2,458,004$ 27,057$ 1.00 800,000$ 3,285,061$ Station 66 10,000 2,520,734$ 54,114$ 0.99 792,000$ 3,366,848$ Station 101 19,886 4,267,007$ 569,583$ 0.68 544,000$ 5,380,590$ Station 102 3,097 801,514$ 78,246$ 0.74 592,000$ 1,471,760$ Station 103 3,250 837,945$ 28,430$ 0.30 240,000$ 1,106,375$ Station 105 7,747 1,960,039$ 44,295$ 0.64 512,000$ 2,516,334$ Station 106 12,780 2,758,026$ 118,179$ 0.47 376,000$ 3,252,205$ Station 108 3,710 939,409$ 36,904$ 0.51 408,000$ 1,384,313$ Station 109 11,481 3,340,863$ 140,267$ 1.38 1,104,000$ 4,585,130$ Station 110 9,175 3,293,177$ 145,545$ 0.87 696,000$ 4,134,722$ Station 111 12,800 6,143,345$ 226,181$ 5.00 4,000,000$ 10,369,526$ Station 111 Outbuilding 1,723 209,240$ -$ n/a -$ 209,240$ Station 112 3,609 779,918$ 44,295$ 0.88 704,000$ 1,528,213$ Station 114 (County owned facility)
Station 115 (County owned facility)
Station 116 6,952 1,214,663$ 46,531$ 0.46 368,000$ 1,629,194$ Station 117 (relocated/replaced) 3,650 576,391$ 42,618$ 0.66 528,000$ 1,147,009$ Administrative Facilities:

Armstrong Admin Building6
85,000 -$ -$ 0.00 -$ 16,187,462$ Hurley Admin Building (leased)
Gold Canal Finance Office (leased)
Gold Canal Logistics 27,000 6,066,361$ 138,717$ 2.01 1,608,000$ 7,813,078$ Building 444 Shop (Dudley) 33,914 10,107,103$ 2,533,610$ 7.12 5,696,000$ 18,336,713$ Building 445 Shop (Dudley) 10,710 3,005,392$ 1,977,738$ 0.00 -$ 4,983,130$ Total 107,047,228$ 8,283,943$ 54.91 43,928,000$ 175,446,633$ 1 Building square feet provided by SMFD

2. SDRMA Property Inventory FY 19-20; Replacement values take into account the age and condition of each facility 3 Site acres provided by SMFD

4. Estimated Land Value per acre of $800,000 unless otherwise specified 5 Impact fee cost basis = sum of building, FF&E and site cost or value 6 Per Lease Revenue Bond Closing Memorandum, November 30, 2011: Total Cost Basis excludes 50.069% for UC Davis Medical's leasable square footage
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 1 of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 225
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment B: Future Fire Facilities
Building Bldg Cost/ Bldg Cost/ Contents Site Est Land Est Site Impr. Impact Fee Facility Sq Ft 1 Station 1 Storage&Wash 1 FF&E1 Acres 1 Cost 2 Cost 1 Cost Basis3 Station 68 (under construction) 9,217 6,436,800$ 403,200$ 320,000$ 2.63 2,104,000$ 2,160,000$ 11,424,000$ Battalion 5
112 Expansion 14,594 7,369,970$ 403,200$ 218,910$ n/a -$ -$ 7,992,080$ 117 Expansion/Relocation 9,138 4,614,690$ 403,200$ 137,070$ 2.50 2,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 10,154,960$ Future EA - 1 13,638 6,887,190$ -$ 204,570$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 13,091,760$ Battalion 6
Future CH-01 18,203 9,192,515$ -$ 273,045$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 15,465,560$ Future CH-05 13,638 6,887,190$ -$ 204,570$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 13,091,760$ Future 41 13,638 6,887,190$ 403,200$ 204,570$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 13,494,960$ Future 45 13,638 6,887,190$ -$ 204,570$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 13,091,760$ Battalion 7
106 Expansion 5,586 2,820,930$ -$ 83,790$ n/a -$ -$ 2,904,720$ 42 Expansion/Relocation 11,478 5,796,390$ -$ 172,170$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 11,968,560$ Battalion 8
Future 38 18,203 9,192,454$ 403,200$ 273,043$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 15,868,698$ Future 9 16,763 8,465,254$ 403,200$ 251,443$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 15,119,898$ Future 16 13,638 6,887,094$ -$ 204,567$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 13,091,661$ Future 3 13,638 6,887,094$ -$ 204,567$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 13,091,661$ Future 4 13,638 6,887,094$ -$ 204,567$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 13,091,661$ SHOP 9,000 4,545,000$ -$ 135,000$ 1.00 800,000$ 1,200,000$ 6,680,000$ Battalion 9
Future 18 13,638 6,887,094$ -$ 204,567$ 4.50 3,600,000$ 5,400,000$ 16,091,661$ Future 11 16,763 8,465,254$ -$ 251,443$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 14,716,698$ 53 Expansion 7,618 3,847,090$ -$ 114,270$ n/a -$ -$ 3,961,360$ Battalion 12 -$
23 Expansion 13,508 6,821,540$ -$ 202,620$ n/a -$ -$ 7,024,160$ 21 Expansion 7,973 4,026,365$ -$ 119,595$ n/a -$ -$ 4,145,960$ 24 Expansion 13,510 6,822,550$ -$ 202,650$ n/a -$ -$ 7,025,200$ 25 Expansion 8,110 4,095,550$ -$ 121,650$ n/a -$ -$ 4,217,200$ Battalion 14 -$
Future 33 13,638 6,887,094$ -$ 204,567$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 13,091,661$ Future ES-03 16,763 8,465,254$ 403,200$ 251,443$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 15,119,898$ 61 Expansion 9,366 4,729,830$ -$ 140,490$ n/a -$ -$ 4,870,320$ 62 Expansion/Relocation 9,047 4,568,735$ -$ 135,705$ 3.00 2,400,000$ 3,600,000$ 10,704,440$ Administrative Facilities
Zinfandel Training Facility (80% District portion) 28,291,625$ -$ -$ 42.40 8,115,446$ 7,164,314$ 43,571,385$ Comm Center (46% District portion) 11,940,523$ -$ -$ n/a -$ -$ 11,940,523$ Total 212,492,551$ 2,822,400$ 5,245,454$ 98.03 52,619,446$ 72,924,314$ 346,104,164$

1. Provided by Sac Metro Fire

2. Estimated Land Value per acre of $800,000 unless otherwise specified 3 Impact fee cost basis = sum of building, FF&E and site cost or value NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 2 of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 226
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment C: Existing Fire Apparatus, Vehicles, and Equipment Unit Model Type Useful Replacement Equipment Total Repl Depr Repl Impact Fee # Year Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost Basis 3 24110 1998 Air Unit 15 575,000$ -$ 575,000$ 86,250$ 86,250$ 24161 2001 Air Unit 15 575,000$ -$ 575,000$ 86,250$ 86,250$ 24136 2001 Aircraft Rescue Fire Unit 17 NA NA NA NA NA
24141 1977 Aircraft Rescue Fire Unit 17 750,000$ 189,731$ 939,731$ 112,500$ 112,500$ 24229 1996 Aircraft Rescue Fire Unit 17 NA NA NA NA NA
00224 1934 Antique NA NA NA NA NA NA
02308 1955 Antique NA NA NA NA NA NA
02499 1900 Antique NA NA NA NA NA NA
02735 1952 Antique NA NA NA NA NA NA
03307 1956 Antique NA NA NA NA NA NA
04722 1923 Antique NA NA NA NA NA NA
24113 1999 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24320 2008 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24338 2008 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24340 2008 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24393 2012 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 12,151$ 12,151$ 24421 2015 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 30,377$ 30,377$ 24422 2015 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 30,377$ 30,377$ 24435 2016 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 36,453$ 36,453$ 24493 2018 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 48,603$ 48,603$ 24494 2018 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 48,603$ 48,603$ 24495 2019 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 54,679$ 54,679$ 24502 2020 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 60,754$ 60,754$ 24503 2020 Battalion Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 60,754$ 60,754$ 24254 2005 Decontamination Unit - Grant 20 500,000$ -$ 500,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 24302 2006 Dozer 10 650,000$ -$ 650,000$ 97,500$ 97,500$ 24407 1995 Dozer 10 650,000$ -$ 650,000$ 97,500$ 97,500$ 24191 2003 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24193 2003 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24242 2004 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24261 2005 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24282 2006 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24283 2006 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24284 2006 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24285 2006 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24286 2006 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24287 2006 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24288 2006 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24339 2008 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24408 2014 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 24,302$ 24,302$ 24409 2014 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 24,302$ 24,302$ 24410 2014 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 24,302$ 24,302$ 24411 2014 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 24,302$ 24,302$ 24412 2014 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 24,302$ 24,302$ 24436 2016 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 36,453$ 36,453$ 24437 2016 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 36,453$ 36,453$ 24438 2016 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 36,453$ 36,453$ 24439 2016 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 36,453$ 36,453$ 24450 2017 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 42,528$ 42,528$ 24451 2017 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 42,528$ 42,528$ 24452 2017 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 42,528$ 42,528$ 24453 2017 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 42,528$ 42,528$ 24465 2019 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 54,679$ 54,679$ 24488 2018 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 48,603$ 48,603$ 24489 2018 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 48,603$ 48,603$ 24496 2019 Duty Chief Vehicle 10 50,000$ 10,754$ 60,754$ 54,679$ 54,679$ 00313 1999 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 00314 1999 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 00315 1999 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 00316 1999 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 00317 1999 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 00318 1999 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 00319 2000 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 00320 2000 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 24121 2000 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 24210 2003 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 120,723$ 120,723$ 24211 2003 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 120,723$ 120,723$ 24212 2003 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 120,723$ 120,723$ 24224 2003 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 120,723$ 120,723$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 3of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 227
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment C: Existing Fire Apparatus, Vehicles, and Equipment Unit Model Type Useful Replacement Equipment Total Repl Depr Repl Impact Fee # Year Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost Basis 3 24225 2003 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 120,723$ 120,723$ 24226 2003 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 120,723$ 120,723$ 24251 2004 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 160,963$ 160,963$ 24252 2004 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 160,963$ 160,963$ 24266 2006 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 241,445$ 241,445$ 24267 2006 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 241,445$ 241,445$ 24268 2006 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 241,445$ 241,445$ 24269 2006 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 241,445$ 241,445$ 24270 2006 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 241,445$ 241,445$ 24271 2006 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 241,445$ 241,445$ 24324 2008 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 321,927$ 321,927$ 24334 2008 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 321,927$ 321,927$ 24356 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24357 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24364 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24397 2012 Engine - Type I 20 NA NA NA NA NA
24506 2020 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 24512 2020 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 24299 2007 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 281,686$ 281,686$ 24323 2008 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 321,927$ 321,927$ 24325 2008 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 321,927$ 321,927$ 24335 2008 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 321,927$ 321,927$ 24336 2008 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 321,927$ 321,927$ 24358 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24359 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24360 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24361 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24362 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24363 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24365 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24366 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24367 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24368 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24369 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24370 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24371 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24372 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24373 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24374 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24375 2011 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 442,650$ 442,650$ 24442 2014 Engine - Type I 20 NA NA NA NA NA
24507 2020 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 24513 2020 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 24514 2020 Engine - Type I 20 720,000$ 84,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 804,817$ 00600 1991 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 02475 1995 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 02495 1997 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24109 1998 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24127 2000 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24128 2000 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24129 2000 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24130 2000 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24131 2000 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24132 2001 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24133 2001 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24398 2014 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 233,927$ 233,927$ 24399 2014 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 233,927$ 233,927$ 24427 2014 Engine - Type III 10 NA NA NA NA NA
24480 2019 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 526,336$ 526,336$ 24482 2019 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 526,336$ 526,336$ 24306 2007 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24307 2007 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24308 2007 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24322 2007 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24481 2019 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 526,336$ 526,336$ 24483 2019 Engine - Type III 10 500,000$ 84,817$ 584,817$ 526,336$ 526,336$ 02453 1990 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 02454 1990 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 02459 1991 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 4of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 228
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment C: Existing Fire Apparatus, Vehicles, and Equipment Unit Model Type Useful Replacement Equipment Total Repl Depr Repl Impact Fee # Year Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost Basis 3 02460 1991 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 02469 1992 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 02470 1992 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 02473 1994 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 02474 1994 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 02482 1995 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 24228 2001 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 24294 2006 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 24404 2014 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 108,800$ 108,800$ 24472 2018 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 217,600$ 217,600$ 24473 2018 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 217,600$ 217,600$ 24295 2006 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 33,750$ 33,750$ 24405 2014 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 108,800$ 108,800$ 24474 2018 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 217,600$ 217,600$ 24484 2018 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 217,600$ 217,600$ 24485 2018 Engine - Type V 10 225,000$ 47,000$ 272,000$ 217,600$ 217,600$ 02493 1997 Flatbed 10 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 22,500$ 22,500$ 24345 2008 Flatbed 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ 24479 2018 Flatbed 10 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ 24508 2020 Flatbed 10 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 24423 2014 Fleet Repair 10 120,000$ -$ 120,000$ 48,000$ 48,000$ 24500 2019 Fleet Repair 10 120,000$ -$ 120,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 24296 2006 Forklift 10 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24316 1998 Forklift 10 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24317 1995 Forklift 10 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24318 1995 Forklift 10 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24331 1980 Forklift 10 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24305 1995 Forklift - Used 10 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24232 1988 Fuel Truck 10 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 24230 2004 Hazmat 20 1,000,000$ 189,731$ 1,189,731$ 237,946$ 237,946$ 24470 2019 Hazmat 20 1,000,000$ 189,731$ 1,189,731$ 1,130,245$ 1,130,245$ 24214 1972 Helicopter 20 2,500,000$ -$ 2,500,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 24355 1970 Helicopter 20 2,500,000$ -$ 2,500,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 24134 2000 Helicopter Tender 10 300,000$ -$ 300,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 18-001 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-002 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-003 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-004 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-005 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-006 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-007 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-008 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-009 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-010 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-011 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-012 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-013 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-014 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-015 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-016 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-017 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-018 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-019 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
18-020 2018 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
20-001 2020 Lease Vehicle NA NA NA NA NA NA
24401 2013 Medic - Type II 6 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24402 2013 Medic - Type II 6 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24403 2013 Medic - Type II 6 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24415 2014 Medic - Type II 6 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24416 2014 Medic - Type II 6 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24417 2014 Medic - Type II 6 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24418 2014 Medic - Type II 6 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24349 2008 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24383 2010 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24384 2010 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24385 2010 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24386 2010 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24388 2010 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24389 2010 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 5of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 229
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment C: Existing Fire Apparatus, Vehicles, and Equipment Unit Model Type Useful Replacement Equipment Total Repl Depr Repl Impact Fee # Year Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost Basis 3 24390 2010 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 24440 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24441 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24444 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24445 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24446 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24447 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24448 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24449 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24456 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24457 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24458 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24459 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24460 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24461 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24462 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24463 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24464 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24475 2018 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 239,951$ 239,951$ 24476 2018 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 239,951$ 239,951$ 24477 2018 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 239,951$ 239,951$ 24497 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24498 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24499 2016 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 171,393$ 171,393$ 24504 2017 Medic - Type III 9 220,000$ 88,508$ 308,508$ 205,672$ 205,672$ 24333 2002 Pallet Jack 10 7,500$ -$ 7,500$ 1,125$ 1,125$ 24126 2001 Ramp Unit 10 500,000$ -$ 500,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 24455 2017 Rescue 20 1,000,000$ 189,731$ 1,189,731$ 1,011,271$ 1,011,271$ 24231 2004 Rescue 20 1,000,000$ 189,731$ 1,189,731$ 237,946$ 237,946$ 24253 2005 Rescue Boat 10 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 24424 2014 Rescue Boat 10 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 24433 2015 Rescue Boat 10 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 24120 1999 Rescue Boat Trailer 10 NA NA NA NA NA
24396 2004 Rescue Boat Trailer 10 NA NA NA NA NA
24425 2014 Rescue Boat Trailer 10 NA NA NA NA NA
24434 2015 Rescue Boat Trailer 10 NA NA NA NA NA
24304 2000 Scissor Lift 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24337 2008 Scissor Lift 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 00818 1992 Support Vehicle 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ 02483 1995 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 02492 1996 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24106 1998 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24119 1999 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24135 2001 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24162 2002 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24166 2002 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24168 2002 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24170 2002 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24171 2002 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24173 2002 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24175 2002 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24176 2002 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24195 2003 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24200 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24201 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24202 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24203 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24204 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24205 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24206 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24208 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24209 2003 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24233 2004 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24234 2004 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24235 2004 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24236 2004 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24238 2004 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24239 2004 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24240 2004 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 6of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 230
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment C: Existing Fire Apparatus, Vehicles, and Equipment Unit Model Type Useful Replacement Equipment Total Repl Depr Repl Impact Fee # Year Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost Basis 3 24245 2004 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24246 2004 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24258 2005 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24259 2005 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24260 2005 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24262 2005 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24280 2006 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24289 2006 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24309 2008 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24310 2008 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24311 2008 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24312 2008 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24314 2008 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24354 2010 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24419 2014 Support Vehicle 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 24,000$ 24,000$ 24420 2014 Support Vehicle 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 24,000$ 24,000$ 24428 2015 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 24429 2015 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 24430 2015 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 24431 2015 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 24432 2015 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 24466 2017 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 24467 2017 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 24468 2017 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 24469 2017 Support Vehicle 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 24478 2018 Support Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 24505 2019 Support Vehicle 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 54,000$ 54,000$ 24511 2019 Support Vehicle 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 54,000$ 54,000$ 24515 2020 Support Vehicle 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 24516 2020 Support Vehicle 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 00607 1994 Tow Vehicle 10 60,000$ -$ 60,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ 24192 2003 Tow Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24256 2005 Tow Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24264 2005 Tow Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24341 2008 Tow Vehicle 10 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 24300 2006 Tractor - Dozer Transport 10 175,000$ -$ 175,000$ 26,250$ 26,250$ 24454 2017 Tractor - Dozer Transport 10 175,000$ -$ 175,000$ 122,500$ 122,500$ 00833 1994 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 02444 1989 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 04723 1985 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24153 2001 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24178 2002 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24237 2004 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24293 2006 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24315 2007 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24342 2007 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24376 2011 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24391 2011 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24392 2011 Trailer 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 24501 2020 Trailer 10 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 00841 1998 Trailer - Foam 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24351 1997 Trailer - Foam 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 4,500$ 4,500$ 24491 2017 Trailer - Foam 10 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 24227 1985 Trailer - Fuel 10 75,000$ -$ 75,000$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 24301 2007 Trailer - Lowbed 10 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 24414 1985 Trailer - Lowbed 10 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 24487 2018 Trailer - Lowbed 10 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 24492 2018 Trailer - Pump Pod 10 120,000$ -$ 120,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 00061 1986 Training Tower 10 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 00507 2000 Truck - Aerial Ladder 20 1,000,000$ 146,493$ 1,146,493$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 24426 2015 Truck - Aerial Ladder 20 1,000,000$ 146,493$ 1,146,493$ 859,870$ 859,870$ 24486 2018 Truck - Aerial Ladder 20 1,000,000$ 146,493$ 1,146,493$ 1,031,844$ 1,031,844$ 24265 2005 Truck - Aerial Platform 25 1,100,000$ 146,493$ 1,246,493$ 498,597$ 498,597$ 24297 2007 Truck - Tiller 20 1,100,000$ 146,493$ 1,246,493$ 436,273$ 436,273$ 24298 2007 Truck - Tiller 20 1,100,000$ 146,493$ 1,246,493$ 436,273$ 436,273$ 24377 2011 Truck - Tiller 20 1,100,000$ 146,493$ 1,246,493$ 685,571$ 685,571$ 24378 2011 Truck - Tiller 20 1,100,000$ 146,493$ 1,246,493$ 685,571$ 685,571$ 24186 1995 Tug 10 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 00628 1998 Utility/Rehab 10 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 22,500$ 22,500$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 7of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 231
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment C: Existing Fire Apparatus, Vehicles, and Equipment Unit Model Type Useful Replacement Equipment Total Repl Depr Repl Impact Fee # Year Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost Basis 3 24275 2006 Utility/Rehab 10 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 22,500$ 22,500$ 24329 2007 Utility/Rehab 10 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 22,500$ 22,500$ 24400 2013 Utility/Rehab 10 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 00072 1989 Water Tender 17 600,000$ -$ 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 02479 1995 Water Tender 17 600,000$ -$ 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 02496 1998 Water Tender 17 600,000$ -$ 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 04721 1987 Water Tender 17 600,000$ -$ 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 24139 1993 Water Tender 17 600,000$ -$ 600,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 24222 2004 Water Tender 17 600,000$ -$ 600,000$ 35,294$ 35,294$ 24509 2020 Water Tender 17 600,000$ -$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 24510 2020 Water Tender 17 600,000$ -$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ Total 98,312,500$ 13,363,221$ 42,856,031$ 42,856,031$ 1 Replacement and Equpment cost provided by SMFD
2 Depreciated replacement cost using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the asset. Assumes 15% minimum 3 Impact fee cost basis equals the depreciated replacement cost NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 8of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 232
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2020 Attachment D: Future Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment No. of Cost Impact Fee
Description Units 1 per Unit 2 Cost Basis 2
Type 1 Engine 20 804,817$ 16,096,349$ Type 3 Engine 9 584,817$ 5,263,357$ Truck 5 1,146,493$ 5,732,466$ Water Tender 2 600,000$ 1,200,000$ Air Rig 1 560,000$ 560,000$ Medic 16 308,508$ 4,936,128$ Battalion Chief Vehicle 3 60,250$ 180,750$ Total 33,969,049$
1 Planned number of future units provided by SMFD
2 Cost per Unit provided by SMFD, assumes fully equipped vehicle/apparatus 3 Impact fee cost basis equals the cost per unit multiplied by number of future units needed NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Page 9 of 9

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 233
Prepared by NBS for Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Attachment E
Fee Comparison

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 234
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Capital Facilities Fee Study, 2021 Attachment E: Fee Comparison
Land Use Units Current Fee Proposed Fee City of Long Beach City of Oakland [1] City of San Diego Contra Costa
County Fire
Protection District
County of Los
Angeles [2]
Cosumnes CSD Fire
Department
City of South San
Francisco
East Contra Costa
Fire Protection
District
Single Family Residential DU 1,356$ 1,521$ 496$ Zone 1: $4,000
Zone 2: $3,000
Zone 3: $1,000
970$
Area 1: $2,426
Area 2: $3,089
Area 3: $2,295
Zone 1: $2,085
Zone 6: $1,771 1,285$ 1,318$
Multi-Family Residential DU 1,059$ 1,192$ 378$ Multi-Family:

Zone 1: $1,250
Zone 2: $750
Zone 3: $0
Townhome:

Zone 1: $3,000
Zone 2: $2,000
Zone 3: $1,000
460$
Area 1: $971
Area 2: $1,236
Area 3: $918
Zone 1: $1,373
Zone 6: $1,170

8.1 - 18 DU: $810
18+ DU: $563
$ 935
Commercial / Retail KSF 715$ 1,260$ 267$ Free Standing
Retail - $250
Ground Floor
Retail - $0
662$ Zone 1: $1,760
Zone 6: $1,360 440$ 893$
Office KSF 1,186$ 1,599$ 325$ 1,000$ 579$ Zone 1: $1,760 Zone 6: $1,360 440$ 1,190$
Industrial KSF 643$ 856$ 132$ 750$ 387$ Zone 1: $570 Zone 6: $790 180$ 595$
Institutional / Other KSF 1,135$ 1,524$ no comparison available 350$ no comparison
available
no comparison
available
no comparison
available
no comparison
available
Notes:
[1] Per the City of Oakland Impact Fee Annual Report, fire impact fees are included within the Capital Improvements Impact Fee. Cost basis may include more than Fire facilities and apparatus [2] Fees are per s.f. regardless of land use type. Fees for comparison purposes assume SFR at 2,500 s.f., MFR @ 1,000 s.f., Non-res per 1,000 s.f.

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District
$0 - $1,244
depending on
neighborhood
$0 - $2,862
depending on
neighborhood
Area 1: $971
Area 2: $1,236
Area 3: $918
Comparison Agencies
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Comparison, A-1

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 235
Prepared by NBS for Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Attachment F
District Boundary Map

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 236
RANCHO

CORDOVA
GALT
GALT

SACRAMENTO
CITRUS

HEIGHTS
FOLSOM

ELK GROVE

ISLETON
Sacramento Metropolitan
Fire District
3/1/2022 I:\Master_Data_Model\Jeffs Maps\Metro_Fire_Dist_Boundry_Feb2022.mxd Legend

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO BOUNDARY

INCORPORATED CITIES
SAC METRO FIRE DIST. BOUNDARY

HIGHWAYS
¥80
¥80
¥50
¥I-5
¥I-5
£¤99
£¤99
£¤16
£¤104

ATTACHMENT F

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Packet Page 237
1 ORD NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS
HEIGHTS ADDING ARTICLE XXIX TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL

CODE RELATED TO FIRE CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (“SMFD ”) provides fire protection and medical emergency services in the City of Citrus Heights; and

WHEREAS, the City currently collects from developers within the City, on behalf of SMFD, an impact fee that has been adopted by SMFD; and

WHEREAS, SMFD uses the proceeds of this impact fee to fund its capital costs necessary to provide services to new development; and

WHEREAS, SMFD desires to revise the impact fee; and

WHEREAS, the City now needs to impose the impact fee, and an associated fee for administration of the fee, in order to collect that fee; and

WHEREAS, the City and SMF D will enter into an updated agreement pursuant to which the City will agree to pay the proceeds of the fee to Sac Metro and Sac Metro will agree to spend these proceeds on eligible costs, make certain reports to the City and indemnify the City from certain liabilities; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt an ordinance governing the fee.

The City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California , ordains as follows:

SECTION 1: Article XXIX is added to Chapter 18 of the Citrus Heights Municipal Code to read as follows:

ARTICLE XXIX FIRE CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE

Section 18.700. Purpose.

A. The Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District provides fire protection and medical emergency services to residential units and non- residential buildings within its service area, including portions located within the City.

B. New development within SMFD’s service area will generate a need to expand existing facilities, construct new fire facilities, and purchase fire and safety equipment to serve the increased population.

C. The purpose of this Article is to use the authority in Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and in the Mitigation Fee Act Agenda Packet Page 238
2 (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) to impose development impact fees to fund the cost of certain facilities and equipment necessary for SMFD to serve new development.

Section 18.701. Definitions.

A. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit occupying the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit, which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons as further defined and subject to the requirements of the M unicipal Code and applicable State Law. This includes efficiency units and junior accessory dwelling units.

B. “Additional Dwelling Units” mean the net increase in the number of dwelling units on a parcel of real property for residential development.

C. “Additional Floor Area of Buildings” means the net increase in the floor area of buildings as both terms are defined in the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City (and as described in the building permit) on a parcel of real property for non-residential development.

D. “Administration Costs” mean amounts spent, or authorized to be spent, in connection with the collection, calculation, processing, p rogram development and other management of development impact fees.

E. “Administrator” means the Community Development Director or designee.

F. “Building Permit” means the permit issued o r required for the construction or improvement of additional square footage for any structure pursuant to and as defined by the Building Code.

G. “Development Impact Fee” means the fees levied pursuant to Section 18.703 of this Article.

G. “Developer” means the owner of land that is to be developed as part of a development project.

H. “Development Project” or “Project”. A construction or reconstruction project that requires a zoning permit or building permit under this code.

I. “Development Unit” means (i) dwelling unit for residential development and (ii) square foot for non-residential development.

J. “Fire Chief” means the Fire Chief of the SMFD or designee.

K. “Fire Costs” mean amounts spent, or authorized to be spent, in connection with the planning, financing, acquisition and development of facilities consistent with the Impact Fee Study including, without limitation, the costs of fire protection and emergency response equipment, apparatus, vehicles, and facility site improvements, construction, engineering, design, consulting fees, permit fees, and administration.

L. “Facilities” mean those fire protection facilities and equipment specified in the Impact Fee Study.

M. “Impact Fee Study” means the analysis establishing the legal and policy basis for the imposition of fire protection impact fees for the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act as most recently approved by the City Council.

Agenda Packet Page 239
3 N. “Community Development Director” means the Community Development Director or designee.

O. “Program Rate” means the Development Impact Fee per
Development Unit.

P. “SMFD” means the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

Q. “SMFD Capital Facilities Impact Fee City Administration Fund” means the fund of that name established pursuant to Section 18.704 R. “SMFD Capital Facilities Impact Fee Fund” means the fund of that name established pursuant to Section 18.704
S. “SMFD Capital Facilities Impact Fee Program” means the funding mechanism for Facilities identified in the Impact Fee Study.

Section 18.702. Adoption of Study and Annual Reporting
A. The City Council shall by resolution approve the Impact Fee Study.

B. The City Council shall annually receive a report pursuant to Government Code Section 66006 on the SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Impact Fee Program
C. The City Council ma y periodically amend the SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Impact Fee Program by resolution at its discretion.

Section 18.703. Imposition of Development Impact Fees.

Except as otherwise provided in this article, the following fees are hereby imposed upon the developer of each development project in the city as a condition of development : (i) SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Fee and (ii) SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Impact Fee City Administration Fee.

Section 18.704. Establishment of Administration Fund.

A. The SMFD Capital Facilities Impact Fee City Administration Fund is hereby established.

B. All SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Impact Fee City Administration Fees shall be deposited in such fund.

C. Moneys such fund, and the interest earned thereon, shall be used solely to pay the City’s costs associated with administering the SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Impact Fee Program.

Section 18.705 Establishment of Impact Fee Fund.

A. The SMFD Capital Facilities Impact Fee Fund is hereby established.

B. All SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Fees shall be deposited in such fund.

C. Moneys such fund, and the interest earned thereon, shall be used solely to fund Fire Costs.

D. The City may enter into an agreement with SMFD pursuant to which the City pays money in the fund to SMFD and SMFD agrees to use such money only for authorized purposes and to account for such money to the City as required by law.

Agenda Packet Page 240
4 Section 18.706. Payment of Development Impact Fees.

A. T he Development Impact Fees for a development project shall be paid to the City prior to the approval of any building permit for that project.

B. The fees for a development project shall be calculated at the time of payment based on the rate then in effect, unless the use of a lower rate has vested for the project under applicable law.

C. The fee shall be calculated separately for each building permit, so if a development project will require multiple building permits, only the fee associated with the development units associated with a building permit need be paid with that permit.

D. If applicable state law does not permit the city to require payment of the fees for a development project on the schedule set forth in Subdivision A of this section, then the fees for that development project shall be paid on the earliest possible schedule that the city is permitted to require such payment under state law. If payment is to be delayed pursuant to this subsection (c), the city shall not issue a building permit to the developer until:
(1) the developer and the city enter into a contract for delayed payment as authorized by Section 66007(c) of the California Government Code; (2) such contract is recorded in the manner set forth in that section; and (3) unless the developer is specifically exempt from such requirement under state law, the developer posts a performance bond or a letter of credit from a federally insured, recognized depository institution to guarantee payment of the fees.

Section 18.707. Calculation of Development Impact Fees.

A. For Residential Development, the SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Fee and the SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Impact Fee City Administration Fee shall be calculated pursuant to the following formula:

F = D x P
Where:

F = the amount to be paid by the developer; and
D = the number of Additional D welling Units to be constructed or relocated; and
P = the applicable Program Rate per dwelling unit most recently adopted by the Council, as annually subject to indexed adjustment pursuant to Section 12 for the residential use type as shown in the Impact Fee Study.

B. For Non-residential Development within the Program Boundaries, the SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Fee and the SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Impact Agenda Packet Page 241
5 Fee City Administration Fee shall be calculated pursuant to the following formula:

F = S x P
Where:

F = the amount to be paid by the developer; and
S = the floor area in additional square feet to be constructed, improved, or relocated; and
P = the applicable Program Rate per square foot most recently adopted by the Council, as annually subject to indexed adjustment pursuant to Section 12 for the non-residential use type as shown in the Impact Fee Study.

D. For the purpose of calculating Development Impact Fees pursuant to subsection B of this section for non -residential structures to be used for self-storage or mini-storage regardless of the underlying land use designation, the Development Impact Fees shall be calculated using the Program Fee for Commercial Structures for those areas used for customer sales and office purposes and the Program Fee for Multi-family Residential Structures for any residential unit for the manager/night watch staff.

E. For the purpose of calculating Development Impact Fees pursuant to subsection B of this section for fuel service stations, the floor area in additional square feet of the buildings proposed to be constructed, improved, or relocated from outside of the Program Boundaries, shall include the square footage underneath fueling station canopies or the typical canopy area for a service station if the service station has no canopy.

F. For the purpose of calculating Development Impact Fees pursuant to subsection A of this section a primary reside nce mobile homes not in a mobile home park shall be treated as single family dwelling unit (if the only dwelling unit on the parcel) or an accessory dwelling unit (if there is a primary dwelling unit on the parcel).

G. For mixed-use projects, the amount of the Development Impact Fees shall be separately calculated for each use.

Section 18.708. Exemption from Development Impact Fees.

A. Any replacement or reconstruction (no change in use) of any residential unit that is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity, or act of God shall be exempt from the Development Impact Fees.

B. Additions to S ingle-family Residential Structures provided no change in use occurs and a second full kitchen is not added shall be exempt from the Development Impact Fees.

C. Additions to Multi-family Residential Structures that do not create additional units shall be exempt from the Development Impact Fees.

Agenda Packet Page 242
6 D. Supporting use square footage in multi -family projects, such as the office and recreation areas required to directly serve the multi -family project shall be exempt from the Development Impact Fees.

E. Non-habitable residential structures such as decks, pools, pool cabanas, sheds, garages, etc., shall be exempt from the Development Impact Fees.

F. Mobile or manufactured homes with no permanent foundation shall be exempt from the Development Impact Fees.

G. The Development Impact Fee shall not be applied to Accessory Dwelling Units that are 749 square feet or less. For all other A ccessory Dwelling Units, the Development Impact Fee shall be charged a rate of 50 - percent in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit based upon the SMFD Capital Fire Facilities Impact Fee that the primary dwelling unit would pay.

Section 18.709. Refunds.

In the event a Building Permit expires or is canceled for any reason, a claim for refund of the Development Impact Fees paid in connection with the expired or canceled Building Permit may be filed with the Administrator by the applicant or designee who paid the Development Impact Fees. Such refund shall be made from available funds in the applicable fee fund, until such refund is completed.

Section 18.710. Building Permit Expiration and Renewal.

In the event a Building Permit, whether issued before or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Article , expires, then before such work may be commenced or recommenced, a new Building Permit sha ll be obtained and such Building Permit may be issued only if any increase in the Development Impact Fees imposed pursuant to this Article and in effect on the date of issuance are paid. If refunds were granted pursuant to Section 10, such Building Permit may be issued only if all Development Impact Fees imposed pursuant to this Article in effect on the date of issuance are paid, including the administration fee.

Section 18.711. Annual Program Fee Adjustment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, and subsequently each year on January 1, or as soon as possible thereafter ; the Administrator with notice to the Fire Chief, shall authorize the adjustment of the P rogram Fee for each type of development as follows:

A. A “mean” index will be computed by averaging the index for twenty (20) U.S. Cities with the index for San Francisco by resort to the January issue of the Engineering News Record magazine Construction Cost Index of the year in which the calculation is being made.

B. An adjustment factor shall be computed by dividing the “mean” index as calculated in subsection A of this section by the “mean” index for the previous January, and, if a new Program Fee has been adopted after January of the previous year, the adjustment factor shall use the “mean” index from the month that the fee was adopted.

Agenda Packet Page 243
7 C. The adjusted Program F ee per Development Unit shall be calculated by multiplying the adjustment factor, as calculated in subsection B of this section, by the Program Fee per Development Unit in place prior to the annual adjustment.

Section 18.712. Interaction with Other Fees, Requirements and Exactions.

Except as specifically provided in this code, payment of any fee pursuant to this article shall not be interpreted to exempt any developer or other person from any requirement otherwise imposed upon that person by or pursuant to this code or other applicable law.

Section 18.713. Regulations. The administrator may promulgate such interpretive regulations for the application of this article as he or she finds necessary or useful.

SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the sixtieth day following its adoption. However, the actual rates of the fees imposed by this Ordinance will be set by separate resolution, which will make certain findings required by law. Therefore the effective date of the fees will be set by that resolution.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Citrus Heights hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

INTRODUCED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON June 23, 2022 AND PASSED,

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS this ______ day of ____________________ 2022 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.

Ayes:

Nays:

Present

_____________________________________
____________, Mayor

Agenda Packet Page 244
8 ATTEST:

_________________________________
____________, City Clerk

Agenda Packet Page 245
Printed on Recycled Paper

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

MEMORANDUM
DATE
: June 23, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FRO
M: Meghan Huber, Economic Development & Communications Manager SU
BJECT: Consideration of Economic Development Support Fund grant request by Royal Stage
Summary and Recommendation
The City’s Economic Development Support Fund – Part I provides grants to businesses and economic development-related organizations for events, marketing and promotions, studies to further economic development, and other economic development-related activities that promote the program goals. Royal Stage, a performing arts nonprofit, has submitted an application request in the amount of $25,000 to establish a performing arts venue inside Sunrise Mall.

Eco
nomic Development staff reviewed the application to confirm program eligibility and presented to the City Council Finance Committee for recommendation. The Finance Committee recommended full approval of the request.

Fin
ance Committee recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 2022____, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, approving a $25,000 economic development grant for Royal Stage from the Economic Development Support Fund – Part I FY 2021/2022 budget.

Fiscal Impact
Th
e City Council allocated $154,500 for FY 2021-2022 to the Economic Development Support Fund (100-51-140-53450). A total of $50,086 has been distributed with the remaining balance of $104,414 remaining in the Fund for FY 2021-2022.

Background and Analysis
Th
e City created the Economic Development Support Fund Part I and II to improve economic development in the City by providing funding for special events, marketing activities, sign and design assistance, and other related activities and investments that provide a public benefit to the Item 10
Agenda Packet Page 246
Subject: Economic Development Support Fund grant request by Royal Stage Date: June 23, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

Citrus Heights City Council MeetingsJune 23, 2022

Citrus Heights City Council Meetings
June 23, 2022