Total 2025 CDBG Funds Requested $121,072/ Total 2025 Funds Available $90,000
Public Service
Agency
Service 2025 CDBG
Request
Committee
Recommendation
2025 CDBG
2024
CDBG Award
Amounts
Committee
Recommendation
FY 24/25
Community Support
Funds
FY 23/24
Community Support
Funds Award
Amounts
Campus Life Connection Sayonara After-School Program 25,000 20,000 19,338 22,000 20,000 Meals on Wheels Senior Nutrition 16,000 16,000 15,338 70,000 82,000 Community Link Capital
Region & Project Sentinel*
Tenant/Landlord Education and
Fair Housing Services 24,272** 24,272 23,483 - -
Sunrise Christian Food
Ministry
Ongoing Emergency Food to
Low-Income & Homeless
Population
35,800 29,728 29,855 - -
Jake’s Journey Home Mobile Homeless Support
Program 20,000
0 - - -
TOTALS $121,072 $90,000 $88,014 $92,000 $102,000
*The Renters Helpline is operated by Community Link Capital Region, also known as Sacramento 2-1-1 and Project Sentinel to provide telephone and internet-based “Renters Helpline,” tenant/landlord, education, dispute resolution, as well as fair housing services, investigation, and advocacy. **The city is in a regional cost-sharing agreement with participating jurisdictions to provide the Renters Helpline Program. Therefore, the city will pay its share of the budget based on the number of rental units located in the city in relation to the total number of rental units in all participating jurisdictions.
ITEM 12
Agenda Packet Page 224
2025 CDBG Public Service Requests
Last Updated 8/30/2024
Agency Name
Executive Director
Service Description
Eligible CDBG Activity
2025 CDBG
Persons Served
Previous
Awards
(CDBG & CSF
Funds)
Staff Comments
Campus Life Connection
Executive Director:
Ed Kaczmarek
Sayonara Center is a
free, after-school center
that provides low-income
youth with sports
opportunities and
recreational activities;
mentoring; tutoring
services and educational
games; a technology
center for students to
complete school
assignments; daily
nutritious meals; cooking
and baking classes, and
opportunities to
participate in day.
CDBG activity benefits
low-and moderate-income
households.
$25,000 CDBG
105 youth
2024
$19,338 CDBG
$TBD CSF FY 24/25
2023
$10,917 CDBG
$20,000 CSF FY 23/24
• The Center was built in 2011, and Campus Life continues to operate the Center.
• The Center serves first through twelfth-grade students. • The Center is open five days a week during the school year and most weekdays during the summer months, offering many
opportunities to students including participation in flag football, mentoring, tutoring, Citrus Heights P.A.L, Upward Sports basketball league for elementary students, Crossover Basketball league for middle- and high school students, swim lessons, and summer camps.
• The Center is unique not only in its physical presence in the community, but by dedicated staff and volunteers.
• To highlight, In July 2024, 17 elementary students attended the Summer Blast day camp, 15 middle-school students attended a week-long camp in Santa Cruz, and the Sayonara Center held a family movie night. Over the past 5 years, 36 senior high school students of the Sayonara Center have graduated from high school and half are attending community college.
• This program gave middle- and high school Center students the opportunity to be exposed to opportunities they never thought of or knew of, which will help them dream big for their futures.
• CDBG funds will be use to cover staff time.
ITEM 12
Agenda Packet Page 225
2025 CDBG Public Service Requests
Last Updated 8/30/2024
Agency Name
Executive Director
Service Description
Eligible CDBG Activity
2025 CDBG
Persons Served
Previous
Awards
(CDBG & CSF
Funds)
Staff Comments
Meals on Wheels
Executive Director:
Linda Revilla
Meals on Wheels
provides a Senior
Nutrition Program that
serves adults age 60+ with
nutritionally sound meals
to enable them to maintain
independence and live in
their own homes and
communities.
CDBG activity benefits
seniors who are presumed
to be low- and moderate-
income.
$16,000 CDBG
209 Seniors
2024
$15,338 CDBG
$TBD CSF FY 24/25
2023
$11,677.80 CDBG
$82,000 CSF FY 23/24
• Meals on Wheels (MOW) has been operating the senior
nutrition program in Sacramento County since 2010.
• The purpose of this program is to provide seniors with wholesome, nutritionally sound meals that allow them to maintain their independence and live in their own homes and communities.
• By the services MOW offers they are addressing wellness, isolation, and loneliness as well as food insecurity and hunger among seniors.
• Meals are prepared in a USDA-certified and inspected food service plant.
• Meals are delivered by volunteers/paid staff who provide daily social contact, gate-keeping services, monthly nutrition information, and resources for community services.
• Congregate Nutrition
o Serves 39 Seniors - 500 meals
o MOW serves senior lunches on Tuesday, Thursday,
and Friday at 11:30 AM at Crosswoods Community
Center, 6742 Auburn Blvd. Citrus Heights.
o This is a partnership between MOW and Sunrise
Recreation & Park District that began Spring of 2024.
• Home Delivered Meals
o Serves 170 Seniors - 3,500 meals
o Homebound seniors are provided home-delivered
meals
o Frozen Meals: One box of five frozen meals weekly
o Hot Meals: One meal daily Monday-Friday
• Serves 209 unduplicated seniors – 4,000 meals
• CDBG funds will be used for meals. Cost per meal is $4.00.
ITEM 12
Agenda Packet Page 226
2025 CDBG Public Service Requests
Last Updated 8/30/2024
Agency Name
Executive Director
Service Description
Eligible CDBG Activity
2025 CDBG
Persons Served
Previous
Awards
(CDBG & CSF
Funds)
Staff Comments
Community Link Capital
Region (CLCR) –
Sacramento 2-1-1
Executive Director:
Gabriel Kendall
&
Project Sentinel
(PS)
Executive Director:
Carole Conn
Renters Helpline
provides landlord/tenant
education, dispute
resolution, fair housing
services, investigation,
and advocacy.
CDBG activity benefits
low- and moderate-
income households.
$15,202 CDBG (2-1-1)
$9,070 CDBG (PS)
425 Individuals
2024 CDBG
$14,568 (2-1-1)
$8,915 (PS)
$2,498 CSF FY 23/24 (2-1-1)
Home-delivered meals using an
existing partnership with
DoorDash to deliver food
pantry items from Sunrise
Christian Food Ministry
• The Goal of this program is to reduce housing discrimination, promote public awareness of fair housing laws and rights, and assist persons with disabilities.
• Renters Helpline is an ongoing regional fair share
collaboration based on the total number of rental units in each jurisdiction.
• Community Link Capital Region Services
Provide telephone and Internet-based resources, called the “Renters Helpline,” counseling, dispute resolution, and fair housing services to residents in a housing crisis or dispute to reduce housing discrimination, promote public awareness of fair housing laws and rights, and assist persons with
disabilities.
Project Sentinel Services
Accepts referrals from Sacramento 2-1-1 (via the Renters Helpline). Conducts a client intake for all calls related to fair housing and/or discrimination to determine the need for counseling and/or investigation. Investigate cases where allegations of housing discrimination have potential merit.
Resolve cases through education, counseling, and/or referral to the HUD.
• This activity satisfies the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• CDBG funds will be used for staff time and program costs.
ITEM 12
Agenda Packet Page 227
2025 CDBG Public Service Requests
Last Updated 8/30/2024
Sunrise Christian Food
Ministry (SCFM)
Executive Director:
April Jacek
Sunrise Christian Food
Ministry (SCFM)
provides ongoing
emergency food for low-
income and homeless
people in Citrus Heights.
CDBG activity benefits
low- and moderate-
income households.
$35,800 CDBG
2,500 Households
2024
$29,855 CDBG
$TBD CSF FY 24/25
2023
$28,512 CDBG
$0 CSF FY 23/24
• SCFM has been providing services to persons experiencing food insecurities for 40 years.
• SCFM aims to build a healthy community by enhancing
accessibility to food and resources for most the vulnerable populations.
• Open four days a week Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and
Friday from 11 AM – 2 PM. Closed Wednesday.
• This Fall they will be piloting a new distribution in the evening to service working adults and families in Citrus Heights, who are currently unable to visit during the daytime distribution. • Onsite Drive-Thru Food Distribution
o 150-180 households monthly
o 3 meals per day for 15 days
o HH less than 7 receive up to 100-150 lbs. of recovered food
o HH 8+ receive up to 300 lbs. of recovered food.
• Provides a variety of canned goods, frozen meats, eggs, cheese, milk, juice, fresh produce, fruits, hygiene products, pet food, and items for children/youth. The majority of which is recovered food that would have gone to the landfill.
• SCFM Receives Recovered Food Donations: Feeding
America, Sam’s Club, Costco, Safeway, Raley’s, Grocery
Outlet, Food Max, Walmart, and the US Department of
Agriculture.
• SCFM Provides Food to these Organizations (not limited to):
o San Juan Unified School District (SJUSD), Sayonara
Center, Vintage Oaks, Citrus Heights Homeless
Assistance Resource Team (HART), Living Water, and
The Glass Slipper.
• 2-1-1 received $2,498 CSF FY 23/24 Home-delivered meals using an existing partnership with DoorDash to deliver food pantry items from Sunrise Christian Food Ministry.
• Seniors, homeless, and disabled are served first.
• CDBG funds will be used for staff time.
ITEM 12
Agenda Packet Page 228
2025 CDBG Public Service Requests
Last Updated 8/30/2024
Agency Name
Executive Director
Service Description
Eligible CDBG Activity
2025 CDBG
Persons Served
Previous
Awards
(CDBG & CSF
Funds)
Staff Comments
Jake’s Journey Home
Executive Director:
Jeanne Shuman
Jake’s Journey Home
provides one-stop mobile
solutions services for the
homeless and at-risk of
becoming homeless
people in Citrus Heights.
CDBG activity benefits
low- and moderate-
income households.
$20,000 CDBG
40 Individuals
N/a
Proposing to provide a new
service
• Jake’s Journey Home has been providing services since 2020. • Providing wrap-around supportive services to homeless, at-risk of homelessness, and Veterans needing services to help get them to the next steps.
• Serving Folsom, Sacramento County & El Dorado Hills
(current caseload is about 150 clients).
• The Mobile Support Team comprises three case managers and a large community of volunteers.
• Services include, but are not limited to ID cards, DMV, SSI filings, Medical cards, VA filings, clothing, and food. • Program hours are Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 9 AM to 12 PM. Hours are flexible depending on the client's needs. • This program can operate with less funding, although physical hours would be reduced.
• CDBG funds will be used for staff time.
ITEM 12
Agenda Packet Page 229
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 2025 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND 2025-2029 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AND FILE ALL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), authorized under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (Act), requires that jurisdictions provide for the issuance of grants to attain the objective of providing decent housing, suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, for low- and moderate-income households;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, wishes to apply for federal CDBG funds that are administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a 2025 CDBG Annual Action Plan that allocates the City’s CDBG funds to activities that will be accomplished during the 2025 calendar year, including public service activities, public infrastructure improvements, as well as planning and administration of the CDBG program;
WHEREAS, the 2025 Annual Action Plan aligns with the goals and priorities outlined in the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan guides the spending of the City’s CDBG funding for the next five years;
WHEREAS, the 2025 Annual Action Plan and 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan were made available for a public review and comment period consistent with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan.
The City Council held a Public Hearing on October 9, 2024, and October 23, 2024, to receive comments on the draft plans. All comments received are incorporated into the plans;
WHEREAS, the City of Citrus Heights receives an annual allocation of approximately $600,000 in CDBG funds from HUD; which will be revised to accommodate the amount awarded by HUD. During the development of this plan, the federal allocation for 2025 funds has yet to be determined by the U.S. Congress;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved reallocating 2024 CDBG capital funds for the Residential Street Resurfacing Project to the 2025 Pavement Preservation Improvement Plan to make accessibility improvements to sidewalks such as installing ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps, installing missing or repairing damaged sidewalks as necessary at various locations in Neighborhood Associations 1, 2, 3, and 4; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the use of revolving loan funds and unexpended prior year CDBG funds, $200,645 to fund the City’s Critical Home Repair Grant Program to assist low- income mobile home homeowners with critical health and safety repairs.
ITEM 12
Agenda Packet Page 230
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS HEREBY:
1. Adopts the 2025 CDBG Annual Action Plan; and
2. Authorizes the City Manager or designee to execute contracts with outside agencies to administer and carry out the activities described in the 2025 CDBG Annual Action Plan; and
3. Authorizes the City Manager or designee to correct any errors in the adopted 2025 CDBG Annual Action Plan and 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, make minor adjustments to the individual allocations not to exceed 25% upon final Congressional appropriation, and make minor changes that may be requested by HUD and the City Council as provided with the final documentation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights on the 23rd day of October 2024 by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Members:
Noes: Council Members:
Abstain: Council Members:
Absent: Council Members:
________________________________________
Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Amy Van, City Clerk
Exhibit:
A. Final 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and 2025 Annual Action Plan ITEM 12
Agenda Packet Page 231
Printed on Recycled Paper
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FROM: Regina Cave, General Services Director
SUBJECT: Resolutions Approving the Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study and Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols
Summary and Recommendation
The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) Board adopted an updated nexus study for the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP). As required under the Measure A Ordinance, all recipient agencies of the Measure A program are required to adopt the SCMFP and subsequent actions in order to receive distributions of Measure A revenues.
Staff recommends the following:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-___ Approving the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study;
2) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-___ Approving the Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols for the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program; and
3) Introduce by title only and waive first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-___ An Ordinance Adding Article XXX to Chapter 18 of the Citrus Heights Code Relating to the Collection of Development Impact Fees for Measure A Transportation Improvements.
City Council Strategic Goal/Objective
This staff report aligns with the following Citrus Heights City Council Strategic Plan Goals:
• Maintain and Enhance Fiscal Stability
• Maintain Public Infrastructure and Enhance All Modes of Transportation
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 232
Subject: Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program – Approval of Nexus Study, Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols, and Ordinance Amendment Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Fiscal Impact
This recommendation has no fiscal impact. All fees collected under this program are remitted to the STA for distribution through the capital program. Additionally, amendments to the Measure A Program do not increase or reduce the City’s distribution of Measure A revenues. The Fee Program allows the City to charge a 2% administrative fee to cover administrative reporting and similar costs to administer the fee.
Background and Analysis
In 2004, Sacramento countywide voters supported the renewal of Measure A (new Measure A), which is a 1/2 cent Transportation Sales tax. The new Measure A, which went into effect in 2009, included an Expenditure Plan and extended the existing Measure A sales tax for 30 years.
Administered by the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA), the new Measure A sales tax also required implementation of the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Development Impact Fee Program (SCTMFP) for partial funding of the transportation improvements and projects identified in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. The program was created to generate a uniform transportation mitigation fee on certain new development in Sacramento County as a funding source for road and transit system improvements needed to accommodate projected growth.
Each jurisdiction was required to implement the SCTMFP as a condition of receiving the New Measure A sales tax revenues. These collected revenues are then remitted to the STA for reallocation to specific county-wide transportation projects included in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. Each local fee is required to be consistent with the SCTMFP, as adopted by the STA.
In 2022, the STA spearheaded efforts to conduct an updated nexus study supporting the SCTMFP to ensure current and forecasted land uses are consistent with the categories outlined in the program. Following extensive collaboration with the impacted agencies and various stakeholders, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board approved a resolution:
• Adopting the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study with additional land use categories • Setting the updated SCTMFP Fee Rates effective January 1, 2025 • Including a new residential fee structure to align with AB 602 requirements for fees to be proportional to square footage categories
• Amending the local arterial program to include smart growth arterials and corridors • Revising the SCTMFP overall program allocation.
On August 8, 2024, the STA Governing Board approved an Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols which incorporates the updated Fee Rates effective January 1, 2025, and includes fee reductions for infill and transit-oriented development projects, and additional exemptions for accessory dwelling units less than 750 square feet and development projects intended for use by the County or the City.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 233
Subject: Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program – Approval of Nexus Study, Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols, and Ordinance Amendment Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Updated Fee Amounts and New Residential Fee Structures. The fees for the various development types were updated using current trip generation rates consistent with state law. In addition, the residential fees were updated to align with AB 602 requirements for fees to be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed development. The Nexus Study consultant worked with local agency staff to find the most appropriate square footage categories. Based on the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study fee calculation and the Agreement on Operating Protocols (Amended – August 2024), the new fee rates effective January 1, 2025, are set as follows:
Category Prior Fee Imposed
(FY 2024/2025)
New Fee
Single Family Residential
Very Small (≤800 sq. ft.) $1,574 per unit $1,088 per unit Small (801-1,200 sq. ft.) $1,574 per unit $1,334 per unit Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq. ft.) $1,574 per unit $1,451 per unit Medium (1,601-2,400 sq. ft.) $1,574 per unit $1,574 per unit Large (>2,400 sq. ft.) $1,574 per unit $1,730 per unit
Single Family Residential, Senior
Very Small (≤800 sq. ft.) $1,260 per unit $497 per unit Small (801-1,200 sq. ft.) $1,260 per unit $609 per unit Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq. ft.) $1,260 per unit $663 per unit Medium (1,601-2,400 sq. ft.) $1,260 per unit $719 per unit Large (>2,400 sq. ft.) $1,260 per unit $790 per unit
Multi-Family Residential
Very Small (≤800 sq. ft.) $1,101 per unit $995 per unit Small (801-1,200 sq .ft.) $1,101 per unit $1,221 per unit Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq .ft.) $1,101 per unit $1,327 per unit Medium (1,601-2,400 sq. ft.) $1,101 per unit $1,440 per unit Large (>2,400 sq. ft.) $1,101 per unit $1,582 per unit
Multi-Family Residential, Senior
Very Small (≤800 sq .ft.) $943 per unit $440 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq .ft.) $943 per unit $540 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq .ft.) $943 per unit $587 per unit Medium (1,601-2,400 sq. ft.) $943 per unit $637 per unit Large (>2,400 sq. ft.) $943 per unit $700 per unit
Accessory Dwelling Units
Very Small (<750 sq. ft.) Exempt from fee Exempt from fee Otherwise (>750 sq. ft.) Fee is based on the ratio
of the floor area of the
ADU compared to the
primary unit, times the
fee that would be charged
on the primary unit, if the
primary unit was being
newly built.
Fee is based on the ratio of
the floor area of the ADU
compared to the primary
unit, times the fee that
would be charged on the
primary unit, if the primary
unit was being newly built.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 234
Subject: Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program – Approval of Nexus Study, Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols, and Ordinance Amendment Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Category Prior Fee Imposed New Fee
Office Uses $1,890 per 1,000 sf $1,807 per 1,000 sf
Retail Use $2,362 per 1,000 sf $2,361 per 1,000 sf
Industrial Use $1,260 per 1,000 sf $827 per 1,000 sf
Hotel/Motel $912 per sleeping room $854 per sleeping room Extended Stay Hotel/Motel $810 per sleeping room $559 per sleeping room Hospital $2,639 per 1,000 sf $1,796 per 1,000 sf
Service Station $2,047 per fuel pump $3,442 per fuel pump Supermarket $2,362 per 1,000 sf $1,078 per 1,000 sf
Warehouse/Self Storage $394 per 1,000 sf $238 per 1,000 sf Assisted Living Facility $454 per bed $434 per bed
Congregate Care $333 per unit $369 per unit
Child Day Care $725 per student $682 per student
Private School (K-12) $410 per student $414 per student Auto Repair/Body Shop $2,362 per 1,000 sf $2,361 per 1,000 sf Gym/Fitness Center $2,362 per 1,000 sf $2,361 per 1,000 sf Drive-thru Car Wash $2,362 per 1,000 sf $2,361 per 1,000 sf Normalized Cost Per Trip (All other uses) $167 per trip $167 per trip Measure A Administrative Fee 2% of the total Measure A Development Impact Fee
In addition to approval of the SCTMFP Nexus Study and Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols, the City is required to amend the City’s municipal code by ordinance to incorporate the Measure A SCTMFP as illustrated in Attachment 5.
Environmental Review
The Project is exempt from CEQA consistent with Statutory Exemption Section 15273(a)(4) which states establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies is not a project, and therefore not subject to the provisions of CEQA.
Attachments
1) Resolution No. 2024-___ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study (2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study)
2) Resolution No. 2024-___ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving the Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols for the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 3) 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study
4) Agreement on Operating Protocols
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 235
Subject: Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program – Approval of Nexus Study, Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols, and Ordinance Amendment Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
5) Ordinance No. 2024-___ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Adding Article XXX to Chapter 18 of the Citrus Heights Code Relating to the of Collection Development Impact Fees for Measure A Transportation Improvements
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 236
Printed on Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2024
SACRAMENTO COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION
FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2004, the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) adopted Ordinance No. 04-01, including the Sacramento County Transportation Expenditure Plan 2009-2039, codifying the allocation of the new Measure A sales taxes and Measure A development impact fees for specified public improvement projects;
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters in Sacramento County approved an extension of the one-half cent Measure A transportation sales tax, to become effective on April 1, 2009, and approved the Measure A Expenditure Plan;
WHEREAS, STA Ordinance No. 04-01 required each jurisdiction in the county to adopt the Measure A development impact fees as a condition of receiving the new Measure A sales tax proceeds consistent with the Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP);
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2006, STA adopted Resolution No. 06-0006, approving the SCTMFP Nexus Study, which identified the additional public facilities required by new development and determined the amount of the development impact fees to be imposed on a countywide basis, ensuring all new development paid its fair share of the costs of new public facilities needed to serve such development;
WHEREAS, the STA Resolution that adopted the Measure A Nexus Study and set for the SCTMFP rates effective April 1, 2009 provided that protocols related to SCTMFP Fee implementation issues, including but not limited to, required dates of Fee remittance to STA and documentation to be submitted by each participating Agency, shall be established by future resolution of the STA and contracts between the STA and the participating agencies; WHEREAS, on January 8, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-009 approving the Measure A Nexus Study and the rates set forth in the Measure A Nexus Study effective April 1, 2009;
WHEREAS, in an effort to ensure the SCTMFP reflects current and anticipated land uses and public infrastructure and transportation needs, the STA conducted an updated Nexus Study, working with various effected agencies and stakeholders to achieve consistency; WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 24-0005 approving the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study with an updated project list, includes a Smart Growth Arterials and Corridors program, and has an updated fee amounts and new residential fee structures to align with AB 602 requirements for fees to be proportional to square footage categories with the new updated rates to be effective January 1, 2025; ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 237
Printed on Recycled Paper
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) on this date of October 23, 2024 a public hearing was held on the adoption of the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study and the Operating Protocols Agreement, Amended August 2024, notice of said public hearing having been duly and properly given; and all written and oral presentations having been duly considered by the Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby approve the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study and proposed impact fees, and has determined this action meets Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Statutory Exemption Section 15273(a)(4) which states, establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies is not a project, and therefore not subject to the provisions of CEQA as the SCTMFP will fund non-expansion projects in the city limits of Citrus Heights.
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 October, 2024 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Van, City Clerk
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 238
Printed on Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE AMENDED AGREEMENT
ON OPERATING PROTOCOLS FOR THE SACRAMENTO COUNTYWIDE
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the New Measure A Transportation Sales Tax approved by the County voters in 2004, called for the implementation of a Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Development Impact Fee Program, so that new development paid its fair share of the costs of the transportation improvements included in the Measure A Expenditure plan;
WHEREAS, the City of Citrus Heights was required to implement the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program SCTMFP, also referred to as the Measure A Fee, as a condition of receiving New Measure A sales tax revenues, in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, and the fees went into effect on April 1, 2009;
WHEREAS, Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) staff developed an Agreement on Operating Protocols to apply to all jurisdictions in the County, regarding the obligation to impose, collect, account, and remit the Measure A development impact fees to STA which was approved by the STA Board on August 28, 2008;
WHEREAS, STA staff coordinated with local jurisdictions to prepare a technical amendment to the Agreement on Operating Protocols in order to update the fee rate schedule to accommodate specific types of land development;
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 24-0005 approving the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study with additional land use categories, updated fee amounts and new residential fee structures to align with AB 602 requirements, with the new updated rates to be effective January 1, 2025; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, the STA Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 24-0006 approving an amended Operating Protocols Agreement to utilize the updated SCTMFP fee rates and the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby approve the Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols for the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, and further Authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute said agreement.
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 October, 2024 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 239
Printed on Recycled Paper
ABSENT: Council Members:
Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Van, City Clerk
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 240
2024 Nexus Study
Update Report
Sacramento Transportation Authority
May 24, 2024
GHD Inc.
The Power of Commitment
ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 241
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report i
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present information that the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) may find useful in updating the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (SCTMF), pursuant to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The report updates previous work in several ways:
• It incorporates new land use forecasts for Sacramento County, prepared under a different contract.1 • The status of individual transportation projects was updated. This resulted in some projects no longer needing future SCTMF funding because the project has either been completed or is no longer planned.
• Project costs were updated, based on construction cost inflation and new estimates prepared by member agencies.
• The trip generation rates were updated to reflect the new data found in the 11th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. • The percentage of the need for new transportation projects attributable to new development was recalculated using a version of SACOG’s latest travel demand model. • Board policies since the last nexus study, such as those regarding fees for retail developments, are reflected in the calculation of future fees.
• Several new sections were added based on requirements mandated by AB 602, which went into effect in 2022.
These updates enable STA and the local jurisdictions to reaffirm the findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act, which are described in Chapter 5, and implement the fee program.
Most readers of this report will find the calculation of the impact fees to be the part of greatest interest. This is found in Chapter 4. The proposed fee for the average single-family home would adhere to the 2004 voter- approved Measure A Ordinance’s express requirement to adopt a fee consistent with State law. In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 602, which requires cities, counties, and special districts, inter alia, to “calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development.” (Cal. Government Code, § 66016.5(a)(5)(a)). AB 602 also allows for other systems beyond square footage-based proportionality but requires “…an explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric,” and “that an alternative basis […] bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by new development”, and “that other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments…” (Cal. Government Code, § 66016.5(a)(5)(b)).
Accordingly, the percentage increase or decrease in fees for different types of development varies due to changes in their trip generation rates and the new AB 602-mandated adjustment for floor area. For example, while the rate for the average single-family dwelling (SFD, medium size 1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) would not change, the fee for very small SFD (≤ 800 sq.ft.) would decrease by $486 (31%) and the fee for small SFD (801-1,200 sq.ft.) would decrease by $240 (15%). The fee for medium-small SFD (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) would increase by $123 (8%) and the fee for large SFD (>2,400 sq.ft.) would increase by $156 (10%). Rates for age-restricted senior housing would decrease. Rates for multi-family dwellings would generally increase for all development types except very small units due to revisions to their trip-generation rate. Per the Measure A Ordinance, non-SFD rates are set in proportion to the trip generation rate of a (medium) single-family dwelling unit.
1 Technical Memorandum: Sacramento Transportation Authority Development Forecasts, dated August 18, 2021 ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 242
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report ii
Please note that these are all “potential” changes to fees; the STA Board may, at its discretion, choose to set fee rates for any given development type at a level lower than that calculation in this report. It may not, however, set the fee rates higher than those supported by a nexus calculation.
The intent of this study is to validate the fee and allow the local jurisdictions to continue to implement the fee.
A local jurisdiction that fails to implement the fee would forfeit local street and road maintenance funds provided by Measure A. All such funds would be made immediately available on a pro rata basis to all other local jurisdictions that have this fee program in place.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 243
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report iii
Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of this report 1
1.2 Background on the SCTMF Program 1
1.3 Implementation History 2
2. Review of Previous Nexus Study 5
2.1 Methodology Used 5
2.2 Key Assumptions 7
3. Updates of Key Inputs 9
3.1 Development Growth Forecasts 9
3.2 Traffic and Ridership Growth Forecasts 10
3.3 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios 16
3.4 Project Cost Estimates 18
4. Updated Fee Calculation 22
4.1 Consideration of Residential Floor Area 22
4.1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 24
4.2 Computing the Maximum Allowable Fee 24
4.3 Recommended Fee by Land Use Category 25
4.4 Funding from Other Sources 28
4.4.1 Funding from Local Jurisdictions 28
5. Mitigation Fee Act Findings 32
5.1 Purpose of the Fee 32
5.2 Use of Fee Revenues 32
5.3 Use/Type-of-Development Relationship 32
5.4 Need/Type-of-Development Relationship 32
5.5 Proportionality Relationship 33
5.6 Residential Floor Area 33
Table index
Table 1: Revenues by Year and Jurisdiction 3
Table 2: Expenditure by Years and Jurisdiction 4
Table 3: Computation of Average Rate for Commercial/Retail Uses 14 Table 4: Computation of Average Rate for Industrial Uses 14 Table 5: Computation of Average Rate for Warehouse/Self Storage Uses 14 Table 6: Computation of Average Rate for Lodging Uses 14 Table 7: Trip-Generation Rates Used for Forecast of Traffic Growth 15 ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 244
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report iv
Table 8: Growth in Trips Generated in Sacramento County 15 Table 9: LOS Policies of Jurisdictions in Sacramento County 16 Table 10: Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Measure A Road Projects 17 Table 11: Updated Project Costs 19
Table 12: Construction Cost Inflator 21
Table 13: Computation of Average Trip Generation by Dwelling Size Category 23 Table 14: Computation of DUEs by Size and Dwelling Type 24 Table 15: Calculation of Fee per New Vehicle Trip (for Roads) and Per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (for Roads and Transit) 25
Table 16: Fees for Residential Developments 26
Table 17: Updated Fees by Non-Residential Development Type 27 Table 18: Grant Funding for Completed Measure A Projects 29 Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects 30
Figure index
Figure 1: Forecast Versus Actual Revenues 2
Figure 2: Steps Used in the 2006 Fee Calculation 6
Figure 3: Forecast Versus Actual Housing Starts in Sacramento County 7 Figure 4: Forecast for Development of Single-Family Dwellings 11 Figure 5: Forecast for Development of Multi-Family Dwellings 12 Figure 6: Forecast for Non-Residential Development 13
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 245
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this report
California’s Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025) requires agencies that impose impact fees to periodically review the assumptions and calculations used in computing the fee. It further requires them to revise the calculation if necessary to maintain a nexus, i.e. a logical connection between the developments that will be required to pay the fee and the impact being mitigated. The agency is then required to make certain specific findings certifying that the fee is in conformance with the Act. As STA does not impose impact fees, it would instead recommend that local agencies participating in the Measure A Program adopt the nexus study and revised fee schedule, with the local agencies then taking individual actions to formalize adoption.
The purpose of this report is to review the assumptions and methodology used in computing the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (SCTMF), update them as needed, and recommend changes to the fee schedule that will enable it to accomplish the Program’s goals. The report is also intended to document this work and fulfill the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, including new requirements pursuant to the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 602 in 2021.
1.2 Background on the SCTMF Program
In 1988 the voters of Sacramento County approved a half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements in Sacramento County. The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) was created as a countywide transportation agency to fiscally administer the program. Measure A, the 30-year extension of the 1988 sales tax, was approved by voters in 2004 and went into effect in April 2009 when the previous tax expired.
One component of Measure A was the introduction of a countywide transportation mitigation fee. This was enacted by the STA Board in Section VII of STA Ordinance 04-01. The stated goal was “to develop and implement a uniform transportation mitigation fee on all new development in Sacramento County that will assist in funding road and transit system improvements needed to accommodate projected growth and development.”
The expected proceeds of the fee were tentatively allocated as follows:
35% Local streets and roads for capital improvements and rehabilitation 20% Public transit for capital improvements and rehabilitation 20% Local interchange upgrades, safety projects, and congestion relief improvements on the local freeway system, including bus and carpool lane projects. 15% Smart Growth Incentive Program
10% Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation, including, but not limited to, habitat conservation, open space preservation, habitat replacement, and recreation, and overall environmental enhancement of transportation facilities to the benefit of local transit users and neighborhoods. Necessary open space preservation and natural habitat preservation programs shall be eligible uses of these funds.
A nexus study for the fee was completed in June 2006 which recommended the fee of $1,000 per single- family dwelling, with other developments to be charged based on their trip-generation rate relative to single- family dwellings. This study is described in detail in a later section of this report.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 246
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 2
1.3 Implementation History
SCTMF fees were imposed, and revenues are collected, by local jurisdictions in Sacramento County based on the SCTMF as part of their development approval process. The revenues are then remitted to STA, which then distributes the proceeds to various eligible projects in accordance with direction from the STA Board.
Each of the seven-member jurisdictions (the six incorporated cities plus the County) have projects included in the Expenditure Plan, as do three additional agencies. These are Caltrans, Sacramento Regional Transit, and the Capitol Southeast Connector JPA.
Fees started to be collected in 2009 when Measure A went into effect. More than $80.5 million in fees have been collected to date. Table 1 shows the program revenues by fiscal year and jurisdiction. Revenues have followed a general upward trajectory over time, as the development industry in the region has recovered from the Great Recession in (late 2007 to mid-2009).
Table 2 shows the program expenditures by fiscal year and implementing agency. As of June 30, 2023, the program has made more than $68 million available to six different agencies for Measure A projects.
Although the SCTMF Program has successfully brought in tens of millions of dollars for transportation projects needed to accommodate continued growth, the program has not achieved its revenue goals. Figure 1 compares the revenues that were forecast in the 2006 nexus study with the amounts actually received. For the 2008-2023 period, the program brought in only 16% of the expected revenue. This is due in large part to unfortunate timing, with the program kicking off during the Great Recession. Real estate development was among the hardest hit during the recession and among the slowest to recover. With little development activity taking place to generate revenue, impact fee programs across California failed to generate the revenues expected from pre-recession forecasts, when development was booming.
Figure 1: Forecast Versus Actual Revenues
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 247
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 3
Table 1: Revenues by Year and Jurisdiction
Fiscal
Year
City of
Sacramento
Sacramento
County Elk Grove Folsom Rancho
Cordova Galt Citrus
Heights Total
FY 2009 $140,644 $75,381 $51,729 $388,909 $92,800 $784 $1,452 $751,700 FY 2010 $774,416 $540,256 $539,123 $160,098 $259,378 $32,697 $15,989 $2,321,958 FY 2011 $549,987 $476,898 $860,663 $235,420 $204,379 $0 $7,091 $2,334,437 FY 2012 $587,824 $864,400 $990,421 $151,321 $302,467 $0 $60,930 $2,957,362 FY 2013 $871,942 $925,576 $588,839 $372,038 $378,345 $17,152 $22,491 $3,176,382 FY 2014 $601,826 $768,585 $665,916 $504,350 $360,591 $629,402 $9,872 $3,540,542 FY 2015 $1,628,337 $901,922 $835,144 $563,908 $352,981 $246,253 $95,594 $4,624,139 FY 2016 $1,330,694 $1,053,408 $920,723 $387,388 $428,758 $127,781 $114,898 $4,363,650 FY 2017 $4,433,942 $1,709,179 $408,227 $309,544 $708,906 $188,900 $89,477 $7,848,174 FY 2018 $3,871,298 $1,009,173 $1,434,011 $833,234 $400,807 $52,510 $20,720 $7,621,753 FY 2019 $2,707,448 $1,233,164 $1,338,725 $782,022 $471,078 $80,266 $71,335 $6,684,037 FY 2020 $3,198,236 $1,479,587 $964,492 $878,685 $916,239 $96,852 $17,465 $7,551,556 FY 2021 $1,712,959 $2,850,723 $1,658,050 $1,165,476 $934,092 $376,875 $258,817 $8,956,993 FY 2022 $2,660,711 $1,448,899 $1,014,918 $1,175,200 $179,181 $1,385,171 $373,344 $8,237,425 FY 2023 $2,526,006 $1,796,877 $1,223,435 $1,609,388 $152,326 $1,528,205 $20,006 $8,856,242 Interest $256,077 $158,994 $74,692 $130,288 $20,238 $89,506 $10,944 $740,739 Total $27,852,348 $17,293,022 $13,569,106 $9,647,269 $6,162,567 $4,852,353 $1,190,426 $80,567,090 % of Total 35% 21% 17% 12% 8% 6% 1% 100%
Source: STA
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 248
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 4
Table 2: Expenditure by Years and Jurisdiction
Notes: Some cell values are negative. This indicates cases where money from the General Fund was used to reimburse earlier expenditures from the SCTMF Program.
Expenditures for Caltrans, SacRT, and Capitol Southeast Connector have occurred within multiple jurisdictions.
Fiscal
Year
City of
Sacramento
Sacramento
County Elk Grove Folsom Rancho
Cordova Galt Citrus
Heights Caltrans SacRT
Capitol
Southeast
Connector
Total
FY 2009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2011 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2012 $371,690 $382,219 $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,275 $1,400,667 $3,940,833 $1,370,479 $7,525,163 FY 2013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,078 $0 $0 $20,078
FY 2014 $1,471,903 $1,084,917 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,556,820 FY 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2017 $8,578,391 $1,872,358 $0 $0 $666,782 $0 $0 $3,047,319 $106,607 $2,275,776 $16,547,233 FY 2018 $1,076,989 $614,425 $0 $0 $434,878 $0 $0 ($6,599,873) ($4,047,440) ($2,316,651) ($10,837,673) FY 2019 $716,073 $1,689,048 $0 $0 $1,322,520 $0 $0 $1,193,987 $0 $4,659,492 $9,581,120 FY 2020 $193,614 $1,867,750 $0 $0 $1,569,163 $0 $0 $937,911 $0 $7,144,332 $11,712,770 FY 2021 $483,507 $6,372,770 $0 $0 $2,756,887 $0 $0 $1,883,549 $0 $4,006,952 $15,503,666 FY 2022 $447,031 $4,334,452 $93,561 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $7,898,740 $13,373,785 FY 2023 $469,776 $24,244 $165,212 $1,966,518 $2,625,749 Total $13,808,974 $18,242,182 $258,773 $0 $6,750,230 $0 $659,275 $1,883,639 $0 $27,005,638 $68,608,711 ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 249
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 5
2. Review of Previous Nexus Study
Section 66016.5(a)(4) of AB 602, which went into effect on July 1, 2022, states that “If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.” This chapter is intended to fulfill this requirement by reviewing the methodology and assumptions used in the original nexus study by David Taussig & Associates, dated June 2006, entitled “Sacramento Transportation Authority Development Impact Fee Study”.
2.1 Methodology Used
The methodology used in the 2006 fee calculation is shown in Figure 2. The key steps were:
1) Estimates for the existing residential and non-residential land uses in Sacramento County were provided by SACOG.
The study purposefully excluded neighborhood and community retail uses from the fee calculation.
The rationale was that trips to and from these uses would be made on local streets and thus would not contribute to traffic on the regional roads funded by the fee program. 2) Trip generation rates were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. For the commercial retail land use category, a blended rate of 7 retail land use codes was used. The rates for retail uses were also adjusted to account for pass-by trips. 3) The number of units for each land use type, dwelling units for residential and square feet for non- residential, were multiplied by the ITE trip generation rates to estimate the daily number of vehicle trips generated in Sacramento County.
4) Forecasts for future growth were provided by SACOG and used to generate an estimate of the number of vehicle trips that would be generated in Sacramento County in the study’s horizon year (2039).
5) Future development’s fair share of the cost of roadway improvements was then calculated as its share of total trips generated in 2039, which was 31%.
6) A “Needs List” of projects was developed through consultation with Sacramento County, STA member cities, and Caltrans, and included in the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP).
No further elaboration of this process was provided in the nexus study. However, the fact that the project list was approved by the voters, who agreed to tax themselves to pay for the projects, is strongly indicative of a consensus that the facilities listed are in fact needed. 7) A cost was assigned to every project on the Needs List. The nexus study did not state where the cost estimates came from, but it is likely that they were provided by whichever agency was tasked with implementing the project.
8) The percentage share of costs attributable to new development from Step 5 was applied to the project costs in Step 7 to find the total project costs attributable to new development. 9) This was divided by the growth in trips to find the allowable fee per new trip ($1,005/single-family dwelling).
10) The STA Board of Directors made a policy decision to limit the fee on new development to $1,000 per single-family dwelling.
11) The permissible fee rates from Step 9 were duly factored down pro rata so that the fee on single- family dwellings was $1,000.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 250
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 6
12) Other sources of funding, including sales tax revenues, local agency fees, and State and federal programs, were identified as sources for the remaining funds required to implement the projects on the Needs List.
13) The final fee schedule was then submitted to the STA Board for approval.
Figure 2: Steps Used in the 2006 Fee Calculation
Key
Existing Land Uses Growth Forecast
Share of Future Deficiencies
Attributable to New
Development
Cost of Future
Projects
Project Costs Attributable to
New Development
Maximum Permissible Fee
per DUE
1 Input
Computation
Trip-Gen Rates
Recommended Fee
Board Policies
Other Sources of
Funds
Pro-Rate to
SFD = $1,000
Existing Daily Trips
4 Future Daily Trips
2 3
5 Needs List
6 7
8 910
11 1213
Measure A
Ordinance
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 251
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 7
2.2 Key Assumptions
As seen in Figure 2, the key assumptions in the 2006 study pertain to existing and proposed land uses, trip- generation rates, and project costs. These are discussed below.
Land Use Assumptions
The 2006 nexus study reported that its land use assumptions came directly from SACOG’s travel demand model; the origins of the data in the model were not discussed. Figure 3 compares the study’s assumed production of single-family housing (dark lines) and multi-family housing (amber lines). As shown in Figure 3, the 2006 study assumed that the average long-term monthly production of multi-family would approximately double the previous highest-ever single-month production. Contrary to this forecast, MFD production declined after 2006, resulting in a 4-or-5-fold overestimate of MFDs that would pay the fee. The 2006 study also assumed a reduction in single-family housing production, though the actual reduction was greater than the forecast reduction.
Figure 3: Forecast Versus Actual Housing Starts in Sacramento County
The discrepancy between the forecast and the actual housing production can mostly be attributed to the effects of the Great Recession on the local, state, and national real estate markets. Housing starts fell statewide by 68% between 2007 and 2009 and did not recover to pre-recession levels for 10 years.
Furthermore, SACOG’s belief at that time that residential development in the Sacramento region would focus on dense, infill development, including high levels of apartment development in Sacramento County, has not been fulfilled to the extent that had been hoped for in 2006.
Trip Generation Rates
The ITE Trip Generation Manual has been the standard industry source for vehicle trip data for generations.
The Trip Generation Manual contains data from field surveys of thousands of sites and is regularly updated to capture the effects of changes in travel behavior. The 2006 study’s use of this source was therefore in accordance with standard industry practice. The 2006 study used the 6th edition of the Trip Generation Manual; the current edition is the 11th.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 252
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 8
Project Cost Estimates
The 2006 study does not state the source of the project cost estimates, beyond saying that the Needs List, “… is a compilation of projects and costs identified by the local agency planning and engineering departments.” No further details are provided in the report.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 253
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 9
3. Updates of Key Inputs
The current nexus study offers an opportunity to update the key assumptions underpinning the nexus between new development and the fee. This process is described below.
3.1 Development Growth Forecasts
Land use forecasts are made for a variety of reasons, including preparation of a jurisdiction’s General Plan, air quality conformity forecasts, and planning for transportation and other infrastructure projects, to name just a few. STA therefore commissioned Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to develop growth forecasts specifically for use in the SCTMF nexus update study. The results were documented in a technical memorandum to STA.2
EPS’s development forecasts project short-term and longer-term land use changes for the total STA geography and by individual jurisdiction. The short-term projections focus on a 3-year period – fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024 – while the longer-term development projections identify anticipated development through the remainder of the program (i.e. through 2039).
EPS used several sources when developing their forecasts, including historical building permit data by land use; the development pipeline, including planned and proposed development projects, residential units, non- residential square footage, etc.; and population, household, and employment projections. This data was provided by the seven-member jurisdictions, SACOG, the California Department of Finance, the Construction Industry Research Board, the North State Building Industry Association, and several media outlets.
EPS grouped potential development into three categories:
1. Active Entitled Development. This category includes the remaining residential units and nonresidential square footage for projects that are delivering homes or building infrastructure, including only those residential units and nonresidential square footage where building permits have not yet been issued. Development projects in this category are either developing – with absorption anticipated to continue in the near term – or anticipated to start vertical construction within the next 3 to 5 years.
2. Planned Development. Planned development includes projects that have been approved and have tentative maps, but infrastructure has not yet been initiated. Development in this category is considered likely to develop within the next 5 to 20 years.
3. Conceptual Development. Development classified as conceptual for this analysis includes projects for which planning applications may have been submitted but not yet approved. This category also includes development concepts that may have been reported by the local jurisdiction, developers, or via third-party sources such as the Sacramento Business Journal or other news entities.
Development in this category may not occur within the next 20 years.
Growth forecasts at the county and city levels were used as control totals to limit the growth in the three categories described above to amounts reasonably foreseeable within the life of the SCTMF Program, considering past development performance.
Figure 4 charts the development of single-family dwellings since 2011 and the forecast going forward to the end of the SCTMF Program in 2039. Note the spike in construction in the City of Sacramento after a
2 Technical Memorandum: Sacramento Transportation Authority Development Forecasts, dated August 18, 2021 ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 254
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 10
moratorium on development in Natomas3 was lifted, allowing many projects already in the development pipeline to proceed.
Figure 5 shows data for the same period for the development of multi-family housing. There was a surge in units between 2015 and 2020, especially in the Natomas, Downtown, and Midtown areas. This is forecast to drop as the stock of relatively easily developed lots becomes exhausted.
Figure 6 shows the corresponding graphs for non-residential development. In 2016 there was a spike in construction, again due to lifting the moratorium on development in Natomas, but also encompassing major developments in other locations, like Delta Shores.
In each case, the period between 2015 and 2020 appears to represent one-off occurrences of the release of pent-up demand. The forecasts going forward represent a return to long-term average conditions.
3.2 Traffic and Ridership Growth Forecasts
The development forecasts from the previous section must be converted into forecasts for the growth in traffic associated with new development in Sacramento County. The conversion from dwelling units (for residential development) and thousands of square feet (for non-residential developments) to trips was done using the trip generation rates found in the eleventh edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
The Trip Generation Manual has dozens of land use categories that do not directly correspond to the land use categories used in the land use forecast. For example, the Trip Generation Manual has trip generation rates for 76 types of retail and service establishments aggregated into a single “Commercial, Retail” category in the land use forecasts. This reflects the reality that a commercial building may host a variety of tenants over its service life, so attempting to forecast individual uses, for example, “hair salons,” would be speculative at best. Instead, some representative use sub-categories were combined to generate averages to represent large categories of development. Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 7 show the derivation of the average trip generation rates for the commercial/retail, industrial, warehouse/self-storage, and lodging categories, respectively. Table 7 shows the resulting rates used to forecast the growth in traffic attributable to future development in Sacramento County.
The growth estimates for each category were then multiplied by their respective trip-generation rates to determine the growth in daily vehicle trips generated by new development (see Table 8). A similar calculation was done for the trips generated by existing land uses, with the existing land uses taken from SACOG’s SACSIM travel demand model. Table 8 shows that 5.6% of the trips generated in Sacramento County in 2039, when Measure A expires, would be attributable to new development.
Besides generating new vehicle trips, new development also generates new users for the transit system. This was computed as the percentage of dwelling units in the horizon year that would be built between 2022 and 2039. As seen in Table 8, 8.7% of transit riders in 2039 could be attributed to new development.
3 In the wake of the flooding of parts of New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina, the Federal government imposed a moratorium on development in the Natomas basin until the levees protecting it could be inspected and strengthened. The moratorium lasted 7 years. It was lifted in 2015.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 255
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 11
Figure 4: Forecast for Development of Single-Family Dwellings
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Single-Family Housing Units
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 256
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 12
Figure 5: Forecast for Development of Multi-Family Dwellings
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Multi-Family Housing Units
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 257
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 13
Figure 6: Forecast for Non-Residential Development
5.8 MSF
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 258
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 14
Table 3: Computation of Average Rate for Commercial/Retail Uses
Table 4: Computation of Average Rate for Industrial Uses
Table 5: Computation of Average Rate for Warehouse/Self Storage Uses
Table 6: Computation of Average Rate for Lodging Uses
Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Pass-by
Credit
Net Daily
Trip-Gen
Rate
Estimated
% Square
Footage
Weighted
Average
ADT's
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(1-B) (D) (E)=(C)*(D)
Shopping Center (>150k) 820 KSF 37.01 40% 22.21 40% 8.88 Convenience Store* 851 KSF 762.28 56% 335.40 11% 36.89
Fine Dining Restaurant 931 KSF 83.84 44% 46.95 15% 7.04 Fast-Food Restaurant 933 KSF 450.49 55% 202.72 5% 10.14 Automobile Sales (new
vehicles) 840 KSF 27.84 0% 27.84 6% 1.67
Home Improvement
Superstore 862 KSF 30.74 42% 17.83 15% 2.67
Drive-In Bank 912 KSF 100.35 35% 65.23 8% 5.22
Combined Rate 100.00% 72.52
* Pass-by rate taken from land use 945, Convenience Store/Gas Station The Estimated % Square Footage is from the 2006 Nexus Study, Appendix E.
ITE Description ITE
Code Unit
General Light Industrial 110 KSF 4.96
Industrial Park 130 KSF 3.37
Manufacturing 140 KSF 3.93
Average Rate 4.09
Daily Trip-
Gen RateUnitIndustrial Land Uses ITE
Code
Warehouse Uses ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
High-Cube Warehouse 154 KSF 1.40
Self Storage 151 KSF 1.45
Average Rate 1.43
Hotel 310 Room 7.99
Business Hotel 312 Room 4.02
Motel 320 Room 3.35
Average Rate 5.12
Lodging Land Uses ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 259
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 15
Table 7: Trip-Generation Rates Used for Forecast of Traffic Growth
Table 8: Growth in Trips Generated in Sacramento County
SCTMFP Land Use Code ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Residential, Single Family 210 DU 9.44
Residential, Multi-Family 220 DU 6.74
Commercial, Retail Mixed KSF 72.52
Commercial, Office 710 KSF 10.84
Industrial Mixed KSF 4.09
Hospital/Medical 610 KSF 10.77
Warehouse/Self Storage Mixed KSF 1.43
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 260
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 16
3.3 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
For an impact fee to be collected, there must be a need for capacity improvements that are triggered by new development. Capacity deficiencies are identified using level of service (LOS) thresholds that are established in a jurisdiction’s general plan. The LOS policies of the 7 jurisdictions in Sacramento County are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: LOS Policies of Jurisdictions in Sacramento County Jurisdiction LOS Policy
Sacramento County “D" on rural roadways, “E” on urban roadways City of Sacramento* See note below
Elk Grove Not explicitly stated, but target delay at signalized intersections corresponds to LOS “D”
Folsom LOS “D”, with some exceptions allowed
Rancho Cordova LOS “D”, with some exceptions allowed
Citrus Heights LOS “E”, with some exceptions allowed
Galt LOS “C”, except “D” within ¼ mile of SR-99 interchanges *The City of Sacramento has adopted Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, which identify roadway volume service thresholds that approximate an equivalent LOS C/D threshold for roadway sizing.
As can be seen in Table 9, the predominant approach among Sacramento County jurisdictions is to maintain LOS “D” in most situations. This balances a reasonable degree of mobility with the need to keep the cost of infrastructure at an affordable level.
Table 10 shows the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for the Measure A roadway projects that have not yet been constructed. The volumes assume that the forecast new growth occurs and the capacity assumes that no improvements are made to the roadway network. For context, a V/C ratio between 0.9 and 1.0 indicates LOS “E” and a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 indicates LOS “F.” For every project on the list, new growth worsens the V/C ratio. And in every case but one, the V/C ratio would be worse than the acceptable threshold of 0.90, which is the upper limit of LOS “D”. Based on these results, we determined that new development causes or contributes to the deficiencies triggering every project listed in Table 10 except for A25SC.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 261
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 17
Table 10: Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Measure A Road Projects
Existing Existing +
Growth
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County 1.31 1.32 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County 1.15 1.22 Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove 1.39 1.50 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County 1.40 1.53 Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove 1.11 1.30 Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County 1.01 1.04 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector A16JP1 CSCA JPA 1.09 1.26
Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County 1.01 1.03 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County 1.12 1.16 Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County 1.23 1.25 Madison Av enue: Phase 2 (Hazel Av e – Greenback Lane) A25SC Sac County 0.67 0.71 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County 1.44 1.48 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County 1.43 1.66 Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove 0.98 1.17 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County 0.85 0.99 Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County 1.17 1.22 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County 1.19 1.24 C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 1 from Elk Grov e to US 50 A45CT1 Caltrans 1.05 1.17 I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans 1.26 1.35 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans 1.06 1.10 I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans 1.05 1.11 Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac 0.95 1.02 E. SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP3 CSCA JPA 1.16 1.33 F. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP4 CSCA JPA 1.16 1.33 Volume/Capacity Ratio
Project Name STA
Project # Jurisdiction
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 262
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 18
3.4 Project Cost Estimates
As can be seen in the Measure A project list in Table 11, since its passage, 19 Measure A projects have been completed and will need no further funding from the SCTMF Program. Additionally, 7 projects have been dropped from the list for one reason or another, and will also not need SCTMF Program funding.
Member agencies were asked to provide their most recent cost estimates for the remaining projects. These estimates, shown in Column A of Table 11, were developed in different years and were adjusted to reflect current construction prices. Per STA policy, this adjustment used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) overall annual average. Table 12 shows how the construction cost inflator was developed from the price indices for all 20 cities reported in ENR’s survey of construction prices nationwide.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 263
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 19
Table 11: Updated Project Costs
STA
Project # Jurisdiction Most Recent
Cost Estimate
Year of Most
Recent Cost
Estimate
Cost
Inflation
Factor
Updated
Project Cost
(A) (B) (C) = (A)*(B)
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County $5,349,275 2019 1.18 $6,333,993 Antelope Road: Rosev ille Rd - I-80 A02CH Citrus Heights Completed Antelope Road: I-80 - Auburn Blv d A03CH Citrus Heights $26,000,000 2022 1.03 $26,702,045 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County $4,944,101 2009 1.56 $7,706,291 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Del Paso-Ethan Way A04CS City of Sac Not Planned Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove $27,765,597 2022 1.03 $28,515,317 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Florin A07SC Sac County Completed Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County $197,396,000 2009 1.56 $307,677,965 Brucev ille Road: Sheldon-Cosumnes Riv er Blv d A09CS City of Sac Not Planned Cosumnes Riv er Blv d: I-5-Franklin Blv d A10CS City of Sac Completed Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove $6,348,910 2022 1.03 $6,520,342 Folsom Blv d: 65th-Watt A12CS City of Sac Not Planned
Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County $40,698,159 2019 1.18 $48,190,055 Folsom Blv d Streetscape: Phase 1 (Bradshaw to Sunrise) A14RC1 Rancho Cordova Completed Folsom Blv d Streetscape: Phase 2 (Bradshaw to Sunrise) A14RC2 Rancho Cordova Completed Folsom Bridge Crossing A15FS Folsom Completed
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector A16JP1 CSCA JPA $504,000,000 2022 1.03 $517,608,881 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv eA16JP2 CSCA JPA Completed Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County $41,716,000 2022 1.03 $42,842,405 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County $68,500,035 2019 1.18 $81,109,823 Greenback Lane: I-80-Manzanita Av e A20SC Sac County $15,000,000 2009 1.56 $23,380,258 Greenback Lane: (West City Limit to Fair Oaks Blv d) A18CH Citrus Heights Completed Hazel Av enue: Phase 1 (US 50 – Madison Av e) A21SC Sac County Completed Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County $83,121,000 2019 1.18 $98,422,280 Hazel Av enue: (US Highway 50 – Folsom Blv d) A23SC Sac County $105,000,000 2022 1.03 $107,835,183 Madison Av enue: Phase 1 (Sunrise Blv d – Hazel Av e) A24SC Sac County $30,381,000 2022 1.03 $31,201,340 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County $90,411,746 2009 1.56 $140,923,332 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 1 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A27SC Sac County $53,000,000 2022 1.03 $54,431,093 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County $180,111,556 2009 1.56 $280,736,981 Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Rd - Elk Grov e Blv d) A29EG1 Elk Grove Not Planned Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Rd - Sheldon Rd) A29EG2 Elk Grove $2,495,550 2022 1.03 $1,617,116 Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Road – Old Placerv ille Road) A29EG3 Elk Grove Not Planned Sheldon Road: Brucev ille-Elk Grov e-Florin A30EG1 Elk Grove Not Planned Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove 8,551,924 2022 1.03 $8,782,841 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County $33,883,638 2019 1.18 $40,121,087 Sunrise Blv d: (Gold Country Road-Jackson Rd)** A32RC Rancho Cordova Completed Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County $43,518,800 2019 1.18 $51,529,932 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 2 (Greenback Lane – Oak Av e) A35CH Citrus Heights $8,300,000 2022 1.03 $8,524,115 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 1 (Oak Av e - Antelope Rd) A34CH Citrus Heights Completed Sunrise Blv d: Phase 3 (Antelope Rd – City Limit) A36CH Citrus Heights $6,400,000 2022 1.03 $6,572,811 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County $82,909,270 2019 1.18 $98,171,573 Project Name
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 264
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 20
Table 11: Updated Project Costs (continued)
STA
Project # Jurisdiction Most Recent
Cost Estimate
Year of Most
Recent Cost
Estimate
Cost
Inflation
Factor
Updated
Project Cost
(A) (B) (C) = (A)*(B)
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Downtown Intermodal Station A38CS City of Sac $400,000,000 2023 1.00 $400,000,000 LRT extension (Meadowv iew Rd. to Cosumnes Riv Blv d) A39RT SacRT Completed Regional Rail Commuter Serv ice A40RT SacRT Not Planned LRT extension to Airport (planning/env iro/design only) A41RT SacRT $7,195,809 2022 1.03 $7,390,108 LRT improv ements in I-80 Corridor A42RT SacRT Completed C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Bus/carpool ramp connection (SR-50E to SR-99S) A43CT Caltrans $300,000,000 2022 1.03 $308,100,524 I-80 Bus/carpool lanes (I-5 to Capital City Fwy) A44CT Caltrans Completed I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 1 from Elk Grov e to US 50 A45CT1 Caltrans Completed I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans $90,000,000 2022 1.03 $92,430,157 Ramp widenings for connectors between SR 50 and I-5 A46CT Caltrans $300,000,000 2022 1.03 $308,100,524 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 1 A47CT Caltrans Completed SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans $128,000,000 2022 1.03 $131,456,224 Central Galt/SR 99 interchange upgrade A48GT Galt Completed Consumnes Riv er Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A49CS City of Sac Completed GrantLine Road/SR 99 interchange upgrades A50EG Elk Grove Completed I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans $177,000,000 2022 1.03 $181,779,309 Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac $115,000,000 2022 1.03 $118,105,201 Sheldon Road/SR99 Interchange Upgrade A53EG Elk Grove Completed Watt Av e/SR50 interchange upgrade A54SC Caltrans Completed E. SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Promotion of transit oriented dev elopment
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP3 CSCA JPA $5,000,000 $5,000,000 F. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM Env ironmental mitigation for Measure A transportation projects Open Space Acquisition
Natural habitat preserv ation
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP4 CSCA JPA $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Total for All Projects > $3,582,819,108
Project Name
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 265
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 21
Table 12: Construction Cost Inflator
20-City Annual
Average
2009 8,570 1.56
2010 8,799 1.52
2011 9,070 1.47
2012 9,308 1.44
2013 9,547 1.40
2014 9,807 1.36
2015 10,035 1.33
2016 10,338 1.29
2017 10,737 1.24
2018 11,062 1.21
2019 11,281 1.18
2020 11,466 1.17
2021 12,133 1.10
2022 13,007 1.03
2023 13,358 1.00
Cost
InflatorYear
ENR Construction
Cost Index
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 266
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 22
4. Updated Fee Calculation
4.1 Consideration of Residential Floor Area
The State of California has instituted a new policy4 pertaining to fees on residential developments. California Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5), which is new with the enactment of AB 602, states that, “(A) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (B) A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees. (C) This paragraph does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.”
AB 602 applies to impact fee programs generally and was not tailored to fit circumstances specific to transportation impact fees. Web research revealed that there are currently no well-established sources for trip generation rates based on residential unit size. However, data on the number of persons per household can be obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey, and data on the number of trips by household size is available from NCHRP Report 716, Travel Demand Forecast: Parameters and Techniques. This data was combined, as shown in Table 13, to estimate trip generation rates by residential unit size. The residential unit size categories were determined in coordination with the working group including the local agencies that have adopted the SCTMF Program. The data is based on single-family homes; the average size for a single-family home in Sacramento County is 2,255 sq. ft.
As can be seen in Table 13, although the trip generation rate is related to the size of the residence, it is not directly proportionate to the floor area, as is assumed in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A). We recommend that STA therefore find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(i), that it would not be appropriate to use square footage directly as the metric of traffic impacts for the purposes of the SCTMF Program. It should instead find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(ii), that the data supports fees based on the relationships shown in the bottom row of Table 13 for new very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large-sized homes. It should further find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(iii), that these relationships would ensure that smaller units would not be charged disproportionate fees compared to larger units.
4 Assembly Bill 602, signed into law in September 2021.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 267
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 23
CGC Section 66016.5(a)(5)(C) allows agencies to establish different fees for different types of developments. As a matter of policy, STA determined that fees on multi-family housing should be set lower than those of single-family dwellings, in recognition of their low trip generation rates. The rates for multi-family and senior age-restricted housing were therefore calculated based on their respective daily trip-generation rates found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The average size for multifamily units in Sacramento County is less than 1,200 sq. ft., so the ITE rate for them, which represents the average unit, was used to compute the “Small” values for these dwelling types. The ratios between the trip-generation rates for the size categories are found in the bottom row of Table 13.
Table 13: Computation of Average Trip Generation by Dwelling Size Category
Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips
(A) (B) (C)=(B)*Σ(B) (D)=(A)*(C) (E) (F)=(E)*Σ(E) (G)=(A)*(F) (H) (I)=(H)*Σ(H) (J)=(A)*(I) (K) (L)=(K)*Σ(K) (M)=(A)*(L) (N) (O)=(N)*Σ(N) (P)=(A)*(O) 1 4.1 32,110 7,889 55% 2.26 8,648 36% 1.46 6,421 28% 1.15 6,264 20% 0.81 2,888 12% 0.50 2 8.2 40,531 3,737 26% 2.14 8,092 33% 2.74 8,027 35% 2.87 11,767 37% 3.04 8,908 38% 3.10 3 11.2 17,618 1,307 9% 1.02 3,449 14% 1.59 3,618 16% 1.77 5,546 17% 1.96 3,699 16% 1.76 4 16.1 15,389 834 6% 0.94 2,370 10% 1.57 2,837 12% 1.99 4,745 15% 2.41 4,602 20% 3.15 5 18.6 7,046 334 2% 0.43 1,078 4% 0.83 1,267 6% 1.03 2,205 7% 1.29 2,162 9% 1.71 6 18.6 2,625 106 1% 0.14 408 2% 0.31 485 2% 0.39 792 2% 0.46 834 4% 0.66 7+ 18.6 1,476 97 1% 0.13 214 1% 0.16 277 1% 0.22 443 1% 0.26 445 2% 0.35 Total 116,795 14,305 100% 7.06 24,258 100% 8.67 22,933 100% 9.42 31,760 100% 10.22 23,539 100% 11.23 Average
Persons
per
Household 2.07
Sources: Column (A) - NCHRP Report 716, Columns (B), (E), and (H) - American Housing Survey, 2021 National Household Demographics Notes: 1,601-2,400 sq.ft. is assumed to be the SFD Average unit size range, based on average size of single family homes in the United States from various sources including statisa.com Persons
per
Household
Trips per
Household Total
Very Small Small Medium-Small Medium Large
1.64 1.94 2.06 2.19 2.30
≤ 800 sq.ft 801 to 1,200 sq.ft 1,201 to 1,600 sq.ft 1,601 to 2,400 sq.ft > 2,400 sq.ft Trip-Gen Rate as a % of SFD
Average 69% 85% 92% 100% 110%
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 268
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 24
Table 13 was then used to compute the dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) for different sizes of single-family, multi-family, and senior age-restricted housing. As with single-family dwellings, the use of size categories accords with the intent of Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(iii) that smaller units are not charged disproportionate fees compared to larger units.
Table 14: Computation of DUEs by Size and Dwelling Type
4.1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
In addition to the considerations discussed above pursuant to AB 602, a separate piece of legislation, SB 13, passed in 2019, establishes a new system for assessing fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). It amended CGC Section 65852.2(3)(A)(f)(3) to read,
“A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
Based on this subsection, if an ADU is smaller than 750 square feet it is exempt from the SCTMF. Fees on ADUs larger than 750 square feet require a two-part calculation. First, the SCTMF that would be charged to the primary dwelling unit is calculated, then the fee on the ADU is computed based on the ratio of its floor area to the primary dwelling unit. For example, if the primary dwelling unit were 2,000 sq. ft. and would be charged a fee of $800, then an ADU 1,000 sq. ft. in size on that property would be charged a fee of $400 (50% of the size, so 50% of the fee).
4.2 Computing the Maximum Allowable Fee
The methodology used to update the fee schedule repeated the first nine steps in the previous nexus study as shown in Figure 2, except that all inputs were updated as described in Chapter 3 of this report.
Table 15 shows how the updated project costs from Table 11 were combined with the updated forecast for new growth from Table 8 to compute the maximum allowable project cost attributable to each vehicle trip generated by new development in Sacramento County. Additionally, Table 15 computes the maximum allowable cost per DUE, based on the Fee per New Vehicle Trip and the trip generation rate of a single- family home from Table 7. Table 15 also reflects that the SCTMF has already spent some funds for projects that are in development but are not yet complete. This reduces the amount of funding needed from future development.
Very
Small
(≤ 800
sq.ft.)
Small
(801-1200
sq.ft.)
Medium-
Small
(1,201-
1,600
sq.ft.)
Medium
(1,601-
2,400
sq.ft.)
Large
(>2,400
sq.ft.)
Single-Family Residential 9.44 100% 0.69 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.10 Single-Family Residential, Senior 4.31 46% 0.32 0.39 0.42 0.46 0.50 Multi-Family Residential 7.32 78% 0.63 0.78 0.84 0.91 1.01 Multi-Family Residential, Senior 3.24 34% 0.28 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.44 Dwelling Type
ITE 11th
Edition Trip-
Gen Rate
(Daily)
Average Unit
as % of
Average SFD
Trip-Gen Rate
Dwelling Unit Equivalents
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 269
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 25
Table 15: Calculation of Fee per New Vehicle Trip (for Roads) and Per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (for Roads and Transit)
4.3 Recommended Fee by Land Use Category
The next step is to compute the maximum allowable fee for each unit of new development. For residential uses, this is done by multiplying the DUE rates for each dwelling size shown in Table 14 by the fee per new DUE shown in Table 15.
Table 16 shows both the maximum allowable and proposed fee schedule for residential developments after the size adjustments shown in Table 14 were applied. Per the Measure A Ordinance, fees for uses that are not the average single-family unit (medium size) “shall be proportionate to the trip generation rate of the affected land use relative to the trip generation rate of a single family [sic] unit.” The DUEs presented in Table 14 take into account the trip generation rates proportionate to the average single-family unit. Therefore, the proposed road cost per DUE and proposed fee per unit shown in Table 16 is calculated based on the current fee for the medium size single-family unit (equal to 1.00 DUE).
One notable feature of the table that is worth explaining is that the fees for multi-family dwellings (MFDs) increased more than the rates for single-family dwellings (SFDs). The reason is that trip generation rates for SFDs have decreased since 2006 as the average household size and the average number of working adults have declined for this housing type. On the other hand, the trip generation rate for MFDs has risen over the same period as fewer growing families have been able to move into SFDs due to affordability issues. The result is that MFDs have a relatively greater impact on roadway congestion than in the past.
The fees for non-residential developments are shown in Table 17. The cost per new trip generated from Table 15 was multiplied by the trip generation rates from Table 7 to produce the maximum allowable fee for each land use type. As stated previously, one of the purposes of this nexus study is to ensure that proposed fees are defensible. In other words, that the proposed fees are less than the maximum allowable fees.
The proposed fees, to comply with Measure A, are based on the escalated cost of $1,000 per SFD originally established in 2006. Accordingly, the proposed SFD fee in 2023 dollars is $1,574 per average SFD, which falls in the medium SFD size category in the revised fee schedule. Using the proposed fee per SFD ($1,574 per unit) we can calculate the proposed cost per trip to be $167 based on the daily trip generation rate for a single-family home (9.44). The proposed fee per unit is then calculated by multiplying the proposed cost per trip by the trip generation rate (column A). One noticeable aspect of Table 17 is that the percentage change in fee differs substantially for different development types. This arises from the fact that the trip generation rates for different land use categories have changed over time as travel behaviors and markets evolve.
Maximum
Permissible
SCTMF
Funding
SCTMF
Funding
Already Spent
Maximum
Permissible
Future SCTMF
Funding
(A) (B) (C) = (A) - (B)
Total for Local Arterial Program $107,274,039 $34,738,980 $72,535,059 Total for Connectors and Carpool Lanes $57,224,537 $870,874 $56,353,663 Total for Local Freeway Interchange Projects $12,652,662 $696,441 $11,956,221 Total for All Roadway Projects > $177,151,238 $36,306,295 $140,844,943 Total Number of Vehicle Trips from Future Growth > 760,097 Fee per New Vehicle Trip > $185
Fee per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) > $1,749
Total for All Transit Projects > $35,550,125 $12,095,221 $23,454,904 Forecast Number of New Dwelling Units > 55,825
Fee per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) > $420
Project Class
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 270
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 26
Table 16: Fees for Residential Developments
Dwelling
Unit
Equivalent
(DUE)
Maximum
Allowable
Road Fee
per DUE*
Maximum
Allowable
Transit Fee
per DUE*
Total
Maximum
Allowable
Fee per
DUE*
Maximum
Allowable
Fee per
Unit
Proposed
Cost per
DUE**
Proposed
Fee per
Unit
FY 24/25
Fee per
Unit
Change in
Fee
% Change
in Fee
(A) (B) (C) (D)=(B)+(C) (E)=(A)*(D) (F) (G)=(A)*(F) (H) (I)=(G)-(H) (J)=(I)/(H) Single-Family Residential 210
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.69 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,499 $1,574 $1,088 $1,574 ($486) -31% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.85 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,839 $1,574 $1,334 $1,574 ($240) -15% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.92 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,000 $1,574 $1,451 $1,574 ($123) -8% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 1.00 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,169 $1,574 $1,574 $1,574 $0 0% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) 1.10 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,384 $1,574 $1,730 $1,574 $156 10% Single-Family Residential, Senior 251
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.32 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $685 $1,574 $497 $1,260 ($763) -61% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.39 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $840 $1,574 $609 $1,260 ($651) -52% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.42 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $913 $1,574 $663 $1,260 ($597) -47% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.46 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $990 $1,574 $719 $1,260 ($541) -43% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) 0.50 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,089 $1,574 $790 $1,260 ($470) -37% Multi-Family Residential 220
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.63 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,371 $1,574 $995 $1,101 ($106) -10% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.78 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,682 $1,574 $1,221 $1,101 $120 11% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.84 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,829 $1,574 $1,327 $1,101 $226 21% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.91 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,984 $1,574 $1,440 $1,101 $339 31% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.)*** 1.01 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,181 $1,574 $1,582 $1,101 $481 44% Multi-Family Residential, Senior 252
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.28 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $607 $1,574 $440 $943 ($503) -53% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.34 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $745 $1,574 $540 $943 ($403) -43% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.37 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $810 $1,574 $587 $943 ($356) -38% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.40 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $878 $1,574 $637 $943 ($306) -32% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.)*** 0.44 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $965 $1,574 $700 $943 ($243) -26% Accessory Dwelling Units
Very Small (<750 sq.ft.)
Otherwise (>750 sq.ft.)
* Maximum Allowable Cost and Fee Calcaluated for Nexus Study ** Proposed Road Cost per DUE is equal to the medium-sized single family dwelling unit fee for FY 24/25 to comply with Measure A. *** No multi-family units of this size have been built in Sacramento County in the last 5 years Note: For residential uses that are anticipated to have unique trip generation characteristics, such as those near transit or those with restricted parking, see Operating Protocols for fee calculation procedures.
Fee is based on the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to the primary unit, times the fee that would be charged on the primary unit, if the primary unit was being newly built.
Exempt from fee
Development Type ITE
Code
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 271
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 27
Table 17: Updated Fees by Non-Residential Development Type
Trip
Generation
Rate
Maximum
Allowed
Cost per
Trip
Maximum
Allowed
Fee per
Unit
Proposed
Cost per
Trip
Proposed
Fee per
Unit
FY 24/25
Fee per
Unit
Change in
Fee
% Change
in Fee
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E) (F) (G)=(E)-(F) (H)=(G)/(F) Office Use 710 KSF 10.84 $185 $2,009 $167 $1,807 $1,890 ($83) -4% Retail Use* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0%
Industrial Use 110 KSF 4.96 $185 $919 $167 $827 $1,260 ($433) -34% Hotel/Motel Mixed sleeping room 5.12 $185 $949 $167 $854 $912 ($58) -6% Extended Stay Hotel/Motel 320 sleeping room 3.35 $185 $621 $167 $559 $810 ($251) -31% Hospital 610 KSF 10.77 $185 $1,996 $167 $1,796 $2,639 ($843) -32% Service Station** 944 Fuel Pump 20.64 $185 $3,825 $167 $3,442 $2,047 $1,395 68% Supermarket* KSF NA $2,624 $1,078.0 $2,362 ($1,284) -54% Warehouse/Self-Storage Mixed KSF 1.43 $185 $264 $167 $238 $394 ($156) -40% Assisted Living Facility 254 bed 2.60 $185 $482 $167 $434 $454 ($20) -5% Congregate Care 253 unit 2.21 $185 $410 $167 $368 $333 $35 11% Child Day Care 565 Student 4.09 $185 $758 $167 $682 $725 ($43) -6% Private School (K-12) 532 Student 2.48 $185 $460 $167 $414 $410 $4 1% Auto Repair/Body Shop* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% Gym/Fitness Center* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% Drive-through Car Wash* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% All Other Trip $185 $167 $167 ($0) 0%
* Fee set by Board policy at 1.5 times the rate for Single-Family Dwellings for 1 KSF of retail ** Trip generation rate includes a reduction for pass-by trips, per ITE Development Type ITE Code Unit
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 272
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 28
4.4 Funding from Other Sources
As was discussed in the earlier sections, the SCTMF will provide only a portion of the funding required to implement the Measure A project list. The remainder must come from some other source. As is always the case with decades-long programs like the SCTMF, funding opportunities come and go with the passage of individual infrastructure funding acts, so there is always a degree of uncertainty regarding future funding.
That said, the amount of grant funding provided to the Measure A projects that have been completed provides a general idea of grant funding that may be available in the future.
Table 18 shows the amount of grant funding used for individual projects that have now been completed.
These have been grouped into four programs because the amount of grant funding often differs depending on the type of project. For example, Table 18 shows that local arterial projects have on average received 60% grant funding while transit capital improvements have received 80% grant funding.
Table 19 compares the amount of grant funding needed with the grant funding that has been historically available. In most cases, the amount needed and the amount received are roughly consistent. The sole exception is the Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades program, where STA may need to seek additional funding from local jurisdictions if sufficient grant funding does not materialize.
4.4.1 Funding from Local Jurisdictions
Local funding (jurisdiction funding) is all funding identified for a project that is not grant funding or SCTMF funding. However, this may include Measure A sales tax funding.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 273
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 29
Table 18: Grant Funding for Completed Measure A Projects
Primary Project Sub Project Total Project Cost Third Party Grant Expenditures
Antelope Road Watt Ave to Auburn Blvd. Roseville Rd. to I-80 Phase 1 12,397,000 6,200,000 Bradshaw Rd. Grantline Rd. to Folsom Blvd. Calvine Rd. to Florin Rd. Phase 1 19,547,000 - Folsom Blvd: 65th St. to Sunrise Blvd. Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 1 4,759,152 3,659,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 2 14,667,761 10,805,860 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 3 6,836,770 2,724,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 4 5,062,000 4,838,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 5 6,100,000 5,500,000 Folsom Bridge Crossing Folsom Bridge Crossing 145,851,098 100,152,288 Consumnes River Permanent Open Space Preserve Consumnes River Permanent Open Space Preserve 5,000,000 - Greenback Ln. I/80 to Auburn/Folsom Rd. West City Limit to Fair Oaks Blvd. 19,176,000 16,188,000 Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Folsom Blvd to White Rock Rd 7,735,000 - Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Oak Ave. to Antelope Rd. Phase 1 5,178,000 650,000 Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Greenback Ln. to Oak Ave Phase 2 2,250,000 840,800 254,559,781 151,557,948
Percent of Grant Funding 60%
South Sac LRT Extension South Sac LRT Extension 270,000,000 240,312,246 DNA LRT Extension DNA LRT Extension 49,000,000 14,711,845 LRT I-80 Corridor Improvements LRT I-80 Corridor Improvements 247,200 - 319,247,200 255,024,091
Percent of Grant Funding 80%
I-80 I-5 to Capital City Freeway I-80 I-5 to Capital City Freeway 63,259,688 62,537,000 Hwy 50 Bus/Carpool Lanes Surise Blvd. to Downtown Sunrise Blvd. to Downtown Phase 1 100,406,202 67,612,969 163,665,890 130,149,969
Percent of Grant Funding 80%
Cosumnes Blvd. I-5 Interchange Cosumnes Blvd. I-5 Interchange 85,315,164 31,009,376 Central Galt Interchange Central Galt Interchange 50,641,711 13,962,875 Grantline Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade Grantline Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade 77,400,000 - Sheldon Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade Sheldon Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade 73,470,838 20,801,000 Watt Ave. Hwy 50 Interchange Watt Ave. Hwy 50 Interchange 38,318,000 26,962,680 325,145,713 92,735,931
Percent of Grant Funding 29%
Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades Total Rail Transit Improvements Total
Regional Bus/Carpool Lane Connectors/Extensions Total
LOCAL FREEWAY INTERCHANGE CONGESTION RELIEF UPGRADES
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Local Arterial Program Total
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 274
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 30
Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects
STA Project # Jurisdiction Updated
Project Cost
% Attributable
to Regional
Growth
Maximum
Permissible Fee
Cost Based on %
Attributable
Funding from
Local
Jurisdiction
Funding
Needed from
Other Sources
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E)=(A)-(C)-(D)
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County $6,333,993 5.6% $354,704 $2,066,509 $3,912,780 Antelope Road: I-80 - Auburn Blv d A03CH Citrus Heights $26,702,045 5.6% $1,495,315 $0 $25,206,731 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County $7,706,291 5.6% $431,552 $2,000,000 $5,274,738 Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove $28,515,317 5.6% $1,596,858 $11,933,654 $14,984,805 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County $307,677,965 5.6% $17,229,966 $131,578,000 $158,869,999 Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove $6,520,342 5.6% $365,139 $4,886,659 $1,268,544 Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County $48,190,055 5.6% $2,698,643 $13,673,000 $31,818,412 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector* A16JP1 CSCA JPA $517,608,881 5.6% $28,986,097 $25,000,000 $463,622,783 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County $42,842,405 5.6% $2,399,175 $16,716,000 $23,727,230 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County $81,109,823 5.6% $4,542,150 $45,750,000 $30,817,673 Greenback Lane: I-80-Manzanita Av e A20SC Sac County $23,380,258 5.6% $1,309,294 $5,000,000 $17,070,964 Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County $98,422,280 5.6% $5,511,648 $58,121,000 $34,789,632 Madison Av enue: Phase 1 (Sunrise Blv d – Hazel Av e) A24SC Sac County $31,201,340 5.6% $1,747,275 $19,021,000 $10,433,065 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County $140,923,332 5.6% $7,891,707 $60,277,511 $72,754,114 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 1 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A27SC Sac County $54,431,093 5.6% $3,048,141 $29,723,000 $21,659,951 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County $280,736,981 5.6% $15,721,271 $144,000,000 $121,015,710 Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove $8,782,841 5.6% $491,839 $5,541,646 $2,749,356 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County $40,121,087 5.6% $2,246,781 $22,589,092 $15,285,214 Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County $51,529,932 5.6% $2,885,676 $29,027,039 $19,617,217 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 2 (Greenback Lane – Oak Av e) A35CH Citrus Heights $8,300,000 5.6% $464,800 $0 $7,835,200 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 3 (Antelope Rd – City Limit) A36CH Citrus Heights $6,400,000 5.6% $358,400 $0 $6,041,600 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County $98,171,573 5.6% $5,497,608 $55,550,000 $37,123,965 Total for Local Arterial Program $1,915,607,834 $107,274,039 $682,454,109 $1,125,879,686 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 59%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 60%
C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Bus/carpool ramp connection (SR-50E to SR-99S) A43CT Caltrans $308,100,524 5.6% $17,253,629 $290,846,895 I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans $92,430,157 5.6% $5,176,089 $8,500,000 $78,754,068 Ramp widenings for connectors between SR 50 and I-5 A46CT Caltrans $308,100,524 5.6% $17,253,629 $290,846,895 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans $131,456,224 5.6% $7,361,549 $124,094,675 I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans $181,779,309 5.6% $10,179,641 $0 $171,599,668 Total for Connectors and Carpool Lanes $1,021,866,739 $57,224,537 $8,500,000 $956,142,201 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 94%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 80%
Project Name
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 275
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 31
Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects (continued)
STA Project # Jurisdiction Updated
Project Cost
% Attributable
to Regional
Growth
Maximum
Permissible Fee
Cost Based on %
Attributable
Funding from
Local
Jurisdiction
Funding
Needed from
Other Sources
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E)=(A)-(C)-(D)
Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades
Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac $118,105,201 5.6% $6,613,891 $25,000,000 $86,491,310 Hazel Av enue: (US Highway 50 – Folsom Blv d) A23SC Sac County $107,835,183 5.6% $6,038,770 $71,456,000 $30,340,413 Total for Local Freeway Projects $225,940,384 $12,652,662 $96,456,000 $116,831,723 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 52%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 29%
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 80%
Downtown Intermodal Station A38CS City of Sac $400,000,000 8.7% $34,905,242 $12,000,000 $353,094,758 LRT extension to Airport (planning/env iro/design only) A41RT SacRT $7,390,108 8.7% $644,884 $0 $6,745,225 Total for All Transit Projects > $407,390,108 $35,550,125 $12,000,000 $359,839,983 * The project cost for this project includes projects A16JP3 and A16JP4, which are mitigation components for project A16JP1. Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 88% Historical Level of Grant Funding > 80%
Project Name
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 276
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1
5. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in the California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008, establishes the framework for mitigation fees in the State of California. The Act requires agencies to make five findings with respect to a proposed fee. These are described in the sections below.
5.1 Purpose of the Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee
The Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee is imposed on new development to ensure that it pays its fair share of roadway improvements, the need for which is triggered in whole or in part by new development.
5.2 Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified
The projects to be funded through the SCTMF were approved by the voters of Sacramento County through Measure A. The projects expected to receive SCTMF revenues in the future are listed in Table 19.
5.3 Use/Type-of-Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “use” relationship, the development being assessed an impact fee must be reasonably shown to derive some use or benefit from the facility being built using the fee. In the case of the SCTMF, the projects to be funded were selected because they performed a regional function and the need for the project was at least partially attributable to new development. The growth in vehicle trips and the increases in congestion at project sites (see Table 10) are evidence that new development contributes to the need for roadway improvements.
The fact that the projects that will be funded by the SCTMF are high-priority roads and transit means that all of the county’s new residents and businesses will benefit in important ways from the maintenance of a reasonable level of service. Most drivers in the new developments can be expected to use these roads regularly, and those that do not will nevertheless benefit because good traffic conditions on the SCTMF-funded roads will keep drivers from diverting to other roads and causing congestion in other parts of the county. Even residents or workers in the new developments who do not drive at all will benefit from access to goods and services made possible in part by the serviceability of the county road network.
5.4 Need/Type-of-Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “need” relationship, the facilities to be financed must be shown to be needed at least in part because of the new development. This was determined by analyzing the forecast traffic demand with the expected degree of new development and comparing that with the demand without ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 277
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1
new development. As is shown in Table 10, all of the projects that will receive SCTMF money are designed to address capacity deficiencies due at least in part to new development.
5.5 Proportionality Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed
The “proportionality” relationship requires rough proportionality between the fee charged to each type of development and the cost of the facility being financed. In the case of the SCTMF, the differences in the traffic generated by different types of development were factored into the fee to be charged for each type, as described in Table 17. Within each land use category, the size of the project, i.e. the number of dwelling units constructed or size of the building, is accounted for in assessing the fee. This ensures that projects that generate a lot of traffic and therefore have a greater traffic impact will pay more than other projects that have less impact.
5.6 Residential Floor Area
CGC§ 66016.5(a)(5)(B): A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
CGC§ 66016.5(a)(5) subparagraph (A), which is new as part of AB 602, requires fees on housing development to be proportionate to the square footage of proposed units of the development unless the agency chooses to make the three findings described above. During the course of this study, we found that while the traffic impacts from residential developments are related to the floor area of the unit, the relationship is not one of direct proportionality. We therefore recommend that STA make the following findings with respect to the SCTMF Program:
• That square footage, applied as a direct proportion, is not an appropriate metric for calculating traffic impact fees for residential developments, based on substantial evidence showing that the number of vehicle trips generated by residential units is not directly proportional to the floor area (see Table 13). • That an alternative basis of calculating traffic impact fees, based on the expected number of trips generated by very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large units, but not directly proportional to floor area, would bear a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. This alternative method is supported by substantial evidence from the American Housing Survey and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). • That the differences in trip generation characteristics between single-family residences, multi-family residences, mobile homes in mobile home parks, and age-restricted senior residences, as determined through surveys collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, justify using separate fee levels for these different types of units. • That differentiating between very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large units within each category of housing would ensure that smaller developments are not charged fees disproportionate to their traffic impacts.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 278
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1
ghd.com The Power of Commitment
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 279
ATTACHMENT 4
MEASURE A
SACRAMENTO COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM
AGREEMENT ON OPERATING PROTOCOLS
Amended – August 2024
This amended Agreement on Operating Protocols for the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (Agreement) is made by and between the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) and the Entity’s Name (Entity).
RECITALS
A. Sacramento Transportation Authority Ordinance No. STA -04-01 (Ordinance) imposes a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax that is statutorily dedicated for transportation planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance in Sacramento County.
B. The Ordinance establishes the 30- year Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (“SCTMFP”), to be implemented by the County and each incorporated city during the period April 1, 200 9 through March 31, 2039.
C. The Ordinance provides that the County and each incorporated city must, as a condition of receiving its allocation of local street and road maintenance formula funds from the retail transactions and use tax revenues, adopt the 30-year SCTMFP Fee (Fee) for the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2039 in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Sacramento Transportation (STA) Governing Board.
D. The SCTMFP Fee schedule shall be uniform throughout the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County.
E. The Entity has acknowledged its obligations imposed by the SCTMFP.
F. The Entity began implementing the SCTMFP Fee on April 1, 2009 and must remit the SCTMFP Fee revenues to the STA within 60 days of the end of each six-month period ending June 30 and December 31 of each year.
G. The STA shall reallocate the SCTMFP Fee revenues to local jurisdictions to be expended on Measure A capital projects in the impacted areas where the fees were generated in accordance with the SCTMFP and the Measure A Capital Allocation Plan.
H. STA Resolution STA -2006-006 adopting the Sacramento Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP) Nexus Study and Setting SCTMFP Fee Rates Effective April 1, 2009, provides that protocols related to SCTMFP Fee implementation issues, including but not limited to, required dates of Fee remittances to STA and documentation to be submitted by each participating agency, shall be established by future resolution of the STA and contracts between the STA and the participating agencies.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 280
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 2
STA & Entity
I. STA Resolution STA -2024-005 adopted the 2024 Sacramento Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP) Nexus Study and Set Updated SCTMFP Fee Rates Effective January 1, 2025.
J. This Agreement, as amended, when approved by resolution of the STA and executed by the Entity , shall constitute the current protocols related to SCTMFP Fee implementation.
K. This amended Agreement is uniform among the County and all incorporated cities.
L. This Amended Agreement replaces and supersedes the prior version of the Agreement in its entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1.0 DEFINITIONS
1.1 “AB 602” means the act to amend Sections 65940.1 and 66019 of, and to add Section 66016.5 to, the State of California Government Code (CGC) , and to add Section 50466.5 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to land use, development impact fees, and impact fee nexus studies.
1.2 “AB 1600” means the Mitigation Fee Act set forth in the CGC Sections 66001 – 60025.
1.3 “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means an attached or detached permanent dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities (permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation) for one or more persons and which is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary dwelling.
1.4 "Affordability requirement" means a requirement imposed as a condition of a development of residential units, that the development includes a certain percentage of the units affordable for rent or sale to households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate- income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code, or an alternative means of compliance with that requirement including, but not limited to, in -lieu fees, land dedication, off -site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units.
1.5 “Development Project” or “Project” shall have the same meaning as provided in CGC Section 66000(a), as such section may be amended from time to time.
1.6 “Executive Director” means the Executive Director of the Sacramento Transportation Authority.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 281
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 3
STA & Entity
1.7 “Expenditure Plan” means the Sacramento County Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan 2009-2039 that was adopted as part of the Ordinance.
1.8 “Governing Board” means the Governing Board of the Sacramento Transportation Authority.
1.9 “Housing Development” means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floorspace is for residential use.
1.10 “Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee” means the committee appointed by the STA Governing Board as required by the Ordinance to supervise Measure A fiscal and performance audits regarding the use of all sales tax funds and to provide independent review to ensure that all Measure A funds are spent in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.
1.11 “Industrial Use” means any Development Project that involves manufacturing, transportation, logistics, or similar uses.
1.12 “Measure A” or “the Ordinance” means Sacramento Transportation Authority Ordinance No. STA-04-01.
1.13 “Multi-Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for two or more dwelling units within one or more buildings, including duplexes, townhouses, condominiums, and apartment s, but excluding an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
1.14 “Normalized cost per trip” means the medium-sized single family residential fee rate per Section 2.1 divided by the average weekday trip generation rate for a single family residence (9. 44) per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11
th Ed.). The normalized cost per
trip is $167 and will be adjusted annually per Section 2.2.
1.15 “Office Use” means any Development Project that involves business activities, associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices, personal services, or similar uses.
1.16 “Participating Agencies” means the County of Sacramento, the City of Citrus Heights, the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Galt, the City of Isleton, the City of Rancho Cordova, and the City of Sacramento. Each may be referred to individually as “Participating Agency.”
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 282
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 4
STA & Entity
1.17 “Retail Use” means any Development Project that involves retailing of merchandise, generally without transformation, retail food services, and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise at a fixed point of sale.
1.18 “Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program” or “SCTMFP” means the 30 -year transportation mitigation fee program established by the Ordinance.
1.19 “SCTMFP Fee” or “Fee” means the fee imposed pursuant to the SCTMFP.
1.20 “Senior Residential Use” means any Development Project that qualifies as housing for older persons pursuant to CGC Section 12955.9.
1.21 “Single Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for only one residential dwelling unit. “Single Family Residential Use” also includes any Development Project that involves one primary dwelling and one Accessory Dwelling Unit on a single lot.
1.22 “Transit station” has the meaning set forth in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of CGC Section 65460.1. That definition reads as follows, “transit station" means a rail or light -rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub, or bus transfer station.” “Bus hub” and “bus transfer station” are defined as:
a) "Bus hub" means an intersection of three or more bus routes, with a minimum route headway of 10 minutes during peak hours.
b) "Bus transfer station" means an arrival, departure, or transfer point for the area's intercity, intraregional, or interregional bus service having permanent investment in multiple bus docking facilities, ticketing services, and passenger shelters.
"Transit station" includes planned transit stations otherwise meeting this definition whose construction is programmed to be completed prior to the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development.
1.23 “Weekday trip generation per ITE” means a technically supportable methodology based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual to calculate the expected average weekday trip generation based on the type(s) and size of new land use set forth in the development application.”
2.0 UNIFORM FEE
2.1 Uniform Fee. Effective January 1
st, 2025, the Entity shall collect the
applicable uniform SCTMFP Fee, as amended, for each Development Project occurring within the Entity’s jurisdiction. The applicable Fee for each use is as follows:
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 283
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 5
STA & Entity
Single-Family Residential
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $1,088 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $1,334 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $1,451 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $1,574 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $1,730 per unit
Single-Family Residential,
Senior
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $497 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $609 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $663 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $719 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $790 per unit
Multi-Family Residential
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $995 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $1,221 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $1,327 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $1,440 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $1,582 per unit
Multi-Family Residential, Senior
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $440 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $540 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $587 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $637 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $700 per unit
Accessory Dwelling Units
Very Small (<750 sq.ft.) Exempt from fee
Otherwise (>750 sq.ft.) Fee is based on the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to
the primary unit, times the fee that
would be charged on the primary
unit, if the primary unit was being
newly built.
Office Use $1,807 1,000 square feet
Retail Use $2,361 1,000 square feet
Industrial Use $827 1,000 square feet
Hotel/Motel $854 sleeping room
Extended Stay Hotel/Motel $559 sleeping room
Hospital $1,796 1,000 square feet
Service Station $3,442 Fuel Pump
Supermarket $1,078 1,000 square feet
Warehouse/Self-Storage $238 1,000 square feet
Assisted Living Facility $434 bed
Congregate Care $368 unit
Child Day Care $682 Student
Private School (K-12) $414 Student
Auto Repair/Body Shop $2,361 1,000 square feet
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 284
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 6
STA & Entity
Gym/Fitness Center $2,361 1,000 square feet
Drive-through Car Wash $2,361 1,000 square feet
Normalized Cost per Trip
(All Other Uses) $167 Per Weekday Trip
Notes:
1. For developments that do not fall into the land use categories above, the normalized cost per trip rate should be used to determine the fee based on the daily trips generated by the development.
2. For mixed-use developments, see Item 2.3 for fee calculation procedures.
3. For developments that are anticipated to have reduced trip generation characteristics, such as those in infill areas or those with restricted parking, see Item 2.4 for fee calculation procedures.
4. For developments in proximity to transit, see Item 2.5 for fee calculation procedures.
2.2 Annual Adjustment . The STA shall annually adjust the SCTMFP Fee schedule to reflect change in construction costs based on the McGraw -Hill Engineering News Record (ENR) 20- City Construction Cost Index. The adjustment will take effect Jul y 1, and STA shall notify the Entity of the required annual adjustment at least 60 days in advance of the effective date.
2.3 Calculation of Fee for Mixed Use Projects. For Projects that include two or more different types of uses, the amount of the fee imposed on the entire Development Project shall be proportionally determined based on the relative footprint associated with the various uses.
2.4 Reduced Fees for Reduced Trip Generation. Developments in infill areas or with reduced parking availability , as defined by the Entity, may be subject to reduced fees at the discretion of the Entity. The Entity shall provide the rationale for reduced fees based on a supporting Traffic Study stamped by a licensed Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer.
2.5 Fees for Transit Oriented Development. In accordance with the CGC Section 66005.1, the SCTMFP must provide for an adjustment of the fee for developments that meet certain characteristics typically associated with a Transit Orient Development (TOD). To qualify for the reduction, a development must have all of the following characteristics (see CGC Section 66005.1.(a)):
a) Be a housing development located within one- half mile of a transit station with direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier -free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length.
b) Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one-half mile of the housing development.
c) The housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 285
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 7
STA & Entity
Additionally, pursuant to CGC 66005.1(b), if a housing development does not satisfy the characteristics in subdivision (a) per above, the local agency may charge a fee that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development.
Residential units satisfying the requirements for this reduction shall have their fee lowered based on a Traffic Study, stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer, which demonstrates the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with a TOD and other similar types of development compared to developments without these characteristics. STA may provide a standard TOD reduction based on studies related to TODs. The applicant could then either use the standard reduction or provide a project -specific study for STA staff to review.
For example, within Sacramento County, a transit station could include, but is not limited to, the Zinfandel Station, Franklin Station, Consumnes River Light Rail Station, and Sacramento Valley Station which serves Amtrak, Bus, and Light Rail (Sacramento Regional Transit), and the future Valley Rail station in midtown Sacramento.
3.0 ENTITY OBLIGATIONS.
3.1 Obligations prior to January 1, 2025 . The Entity shall take all necessary steps required by applicable law, including but not limited to CGC 66000 et seq., to enable implementation of the SCTMFP Fee no later than January 1, 2025. This includes advance noticing requirements for and the adoption of such fees by the Entity via a public hearing, as described below:
CGC § 66016.5(a)(7): All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days' notice, and the Entity shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
CGC § 66016.6(a): Prior to levying a new fee or capacity charge, a local agency shall evaluate the amount of the fee or capacity charge. The evaluation shall include evidence to support that the fee or capacity charge does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing service, in accordance with Section 66013. (b) All information constituting the evaluation shall be made publicly available at least 14 days prior to a meeting held in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 66016.
Failure to meet such legal requirements shall not exempt the Entity from the requirement that SCTMFP Fees be collected as a prerequisite to the Entity’s receipt of Measure A local street and road maintenance formula funds.
3.2 Ongoing Obligations. The Entity shall take all necessary steps required by applicable law for p osting the fee schedule, annual fee reports, nexus ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 286
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 8
STA & Entity
studies, and total amount of fees collected, to its internet website, pursuant to CGC 65940.1, which states:
(1) A city, county, or special district that has an internet website shall make all of the following available on its internet website, as applicable:
(A)(i) A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by that city, county, or special district, including any dependent special districts, as defined in Section 56032.5, of the city or county applicable to a proposed housing development project.
(ii) The city, county, or special district shall present the information described in clause (i) in a manner that clearly identifies the fees, exactions, and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel. (iii) The city, county, or special district shall post a written fee schedule or a link directly to the written fee schedule on its internet website.
(B) All zoning ordinances and development standards adopted by the city or county presenting the information, which shall specify the zoning, design, and development standards that apply to each parcel.
(C) The list required to be compiled pursuant to Section 65940 by the city or county presenting the information.
(D) The current and five previous annual fee reports or the current and five previous annual financial reports, that were required pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 66006 and subdivision (d) of Section 66013.
(E) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent, conducted by that city, county, or special district on or after January 1, 2018. For purposes of this subparagraph, "cost of service study" means the data provided to the public pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 66016.
(2) A city, county, or special district shall update the information made available under this subdivision within 30 days of any changes.
(3) (A) A city or county shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate was issued. The ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 287
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 9
STA & Entity
city or county shall post this information on its internet website and update it at least twice per year.
(B) A city or county shall not be responsible for the accuracy for the information received and posted pursuant to subparagraph (A). A city or county may include a disclaimer regarding the accuracy of the information posted on its internet website under this paragraph.
4.0 COLLECTION OF SCTMFP FEES
4.1 Collection of Fees.
a. The Entity shall collect SCTMFP Fees at the time of issuance o f a final building permit for a Development Project , at the same time it collects its own fees, or as otherwise required or permitted pursuant to CGC Section 66007.
b. The amount of the SCTMFP Fees shall reflect the Fee schedule in effect at the time of assessment.
c. SCTMFP Fees shall not be waived or deferred except as provided herein.
4.2 Payment by all Development Projects. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Amended Agreement, the SCTMFP Fee shall be payable by all Development Projects within the jurisdiction of the Entity for which building permits are issued on or after April 1, 2009.
4.3 Fee Reduction Determinations. Determinations by the Entity to reduce the fee pursuant to S ections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 or 4.5 shall be subject to STA oversight and guidance as described herein. In semi -annual reports to the STA Executive Director, the Entity shall identify each project, if any, that has been granted a fee reduction and the amount of discounted fees. The decisions of the Entity as to fee reductions under this provision shall also be subject to audit by the STA.
The STA Executive Director reserves the right to review the grant of a fee reduction by a local jurisdiction under this provision in circumstances where the above requirements are not clearly met, although the STA Executive Director may not exercise any direct jurisdiction or action in a particular fee protest between Entity and payor pursuant to CGC Section 66020. In the event of a fee protest pursuant to CGC Section 66020, the local jurisdiction shall make the final determination with respect to application of the fee and any potential fee reductions. The Executive Director may subsequently review the fee reduction and, following consultation with Entity, determine, in the Executive Director’s reasonable discretion, that a fee reduction was not supported under the SCTMFP protocols or applicable law and that a ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 288
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 10
STA & Entity
corresponding amount of SCTMFP revenue shall be withheld from Entity. The Executive Director’s decision shall have no effect on the amount of the fee charged by Entity to the payor.
At the request of the Entity , the STA Executive Director may resolve questions of interpretation regarding this policy. At the time the fee reductions are assessed, the Entity may request guidance from the STA Executive Director.
4.4 Exemptions from the SCTMFP Fees. The following Development Projects shall not be subject to the SCTMFP Fee:
a. Accessory Dwelling Units less than 750 square feet.
b. The rehabilitation or reconstruction of any residential or non - residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage.
Any increase in square footage shall pay the established applicable fee rate for that portion of square footage that is new. c. New low- income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and very low -income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105.
d. Projects intended for public use where the applicant is one of the Participating Agencies.
e. Any development project that is subject of a valid development agreement entered into pursuant to CGC Section 65864 prior to April 1, 2009, that includes a provision exempting it from future fees or fee increases; provided, however, that if the term of such a development agreement is extended after April 1, 2009, the SCTMFP shall be imposed.
f. Any development project for which an application for a vesting tentative map authorization by CGC Section 66498.1 was deemed complete prior to April 1, 2009.
4.5 Re-purposing/Reuse of existing buildings . F ee applicable only to net increase in ADT’s compared to prior established use.
a. Determination of average daily trips (“ADT’s”) for the purpose of comparing previous and proposed uses shall be by reference to trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (“ITE”).
b. A building permit applicant may request a reduction in the otherwise applicable SCTMFP fee in accordance with the following policy:
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 289
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 11
STA & Entity
Where a new project changes the prior established use of an existing building, a reduction may be applied to the SCTMFP fee where the new use increases ADT’s compared to the prior use.
c. Where the Entity determines that a project qualifies for a reduction pursuant to this policy, it shall determine the fee reduction by comparing the rates applicable to the prior and new uses as designated in the SCTMFP Fee Schedule and calculating the resulting offset. In the alternative, where a proposed land use is not clearly listed in the Fee Schedule, the fee shall be calculated as follows: (1) calculate the difference between previous ADT’s and new ADT’s at the property; (2) multiply the result by the normalized cost per trip.
d. Requests for a fee reduction pursuant to this provision shall be made to the Entity. The Entity shall determine whether a project has made the required showing for a fee reduction. There shall be no right to an appeal.
At the time the fee reductions are assessed, the Entity may request guidance from the STA Executive Director.
5.0 REMITTANCE OF FEES
The Entity shall remit SCTMFP Fees collected to the Authority on a semi -annual basis, within 60 days after June 30 and December 31 of each calendar year. Each remittance shall be accompanied by a report specifying the fee-generating activity for the reporting period within the Entity ’s jurisdiction, including information as to all permits issued by use, square footage, any exemptions or reductions granted, and such other information as may be deemed appropriate by the Executive Director. The Entity collecting the SCTMFP Fees shall h old them in an interest- bearing account and any interest earned shall be remitted to the Authority with the semi-annual SCTMFP Fees. The Executive Director shall separately account for the Entity’s SCTMFP Fees as part of the aggregate SCTMFP account and will prepare annual reports for presentation to the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee and the STA Governing Board.
6.0 AUDIT OF SCTMFP REVENUES
The Executive Director, in coordination with the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, shall establish a program to audit the Entity’s implementation of the SCTMFP and STA’s expenditure of the SCTMFP Fees.
7.0 EXPENDITURE OF FEES
STA shall distribute SCTMFP Fees received, and any proceeds of Fee- based financing(s), to the local jurisdictions for expenditure in accordance with the Ordinance, a 5-year capital program annually updated and approved by the STA Governing Board, applicable resolutions of the STA, Measure A allocation and expenditure contracts between the STA and local jurisdictions, and AB 1600.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 290
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 12
STA & Entity
8.0 ADMINISTRATION COSTS
The STA and Entity each shall absorb their administrative costs associated with the implementation and administration of the SCTMFP Fee and this Agreement.
The Entity, at its discretion, may impose an additional fee on affected development to pay for administrative costs of implementing the SCTMFP.
9.0 REPORTS
STA shall prepare annual and five- year reports required by CGC Sections 66000 et seq. and AB 602 relating to the SCTMFP Fees. Entity shall provide any necessary assistance and data.
10.0 MISCELLANEOUS
10.1 If any one or more of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
10.2 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 291
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 13
STA & Entity
SACRAMENTO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
By
___________________________
Kevin Bewsey
Executive Director
Dated:
August 8, 2024
Entity Name
By: ___________________________
(Authorized Officer)
(Title)
Dated:____________
Approved as to Form: Attest:
___________________________ ___________________________
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 292
Printed on Recycled Paper
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-___
AN ORDI
NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA, ADDING ARTICLE XXX TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITRUS
HEIGHTS CODE RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES FOR MEASURE A TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
The
City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does ordain as follows:
SE
CTION 1. Purpose and Declarations
WH
EREAS, on June 7, 2006, by Resolution No. 06-0006, the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) adopted the Measure A Nexus Study, which identified the additional public facilities required by new development and determined the amount of revenue needed from development impact fees to be imposed on a countywide basis, so that all new development pays its fair share of the costs of new public facilities needed to serve such development. The Measure A development impact fee became become effective on April 1, 2009, and extends through March 31, 2039, in order to fund new development’s fair share of the costs of the transportation improvements included in the Measure A expenditure plan needed to serve such development in the future;
WH
EREAS, Implementation of the Measure A Mitigation Fee Program by each jurisdiction within the County of Sacramento was a condition of STA’s approval of the new Measure A sales tax and expenditure plan, which was approved by the voters in Sacramento County in November of 2004. STA’s Ordinance No. 04-01 provides that no revenues from the new Measure A sales tax shall be provided to a local jurisdiction unless it implements the Measure A Mitigation Fee Program;
WH
EREAS, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board adopted the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study (“2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study”), with an updated project list, includes a Smart Growth Arterials and Corridors program, and updated fee amounts and new residential fee structures to align with AB 602 requirements for fees to be proportional to square footage categories with the new updated rates to be effective January 1, 2025;
WH
EREAS, on August 8, 2024, the STA Governing Board approved a resolution amending the Operating Protocols Agreement to utilize the updated SCTMFP fee rates and the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study which now includes additional exemptions for ADUs less than 750 square feet, excludes development projects intended for public uses by the County or a City, and has fee reductions for developments in infill areas or with reduced parking availability and transit oriented development;
WH
EREAS, certain amendments to the Chapter 18 (Buildings and Building Regulations), Article XXX Development Impact Fees to for Measure A Transportation Improvements are necessary to reflect updates to the 2024 Nexus Study and Amended Operating Protocols Agreement;
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 293
Printed on Recycled Paper
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2024, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing for this Ordinance and considered all oral and written testimony.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council hereby finds:
CEQA Compliance. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Statutory Exemption Section 15273(a)(4) allow for the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The ordinance amendments are to reflect changes in the newly adopted 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study to include new land use categories and definitions and additional exemptions to the Measure A Fee. This action clearly meets the requirements of PRC Section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Statutory Exemption Section 15273(a)(4) because it will fund capital improvement projects within the existing service area of the Citrus Heights City Limits and would not result in the expansion of the transportation system or any other uses or activities.
Therefore, the proposed action is not subject to the provisions of CEQA.
SECTION 3. Amendments to Chapter 18 (Buildings and Building Regulations)
The City Council hereby adopts the amendments to Article XXX Chapter 18 Development Impact Fees to for Measure A Transportation Improvements, as shown and incorporated in Exhibit A to this ordinance.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 5. Effective Date and Notice. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption, provided it is published in full or in summary within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Citrus Heights.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights this _____ day of ______ 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa, Mayor
ATTEST:
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 294
Printed on Recycled Paper
Amy Van, City Clerk
Exhibit
A. Article XXX. – Development Impact Fees for Measure A Transportation Improvements ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 295
ARTICLE XXX. – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR MEASURE A
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Section 18-800 Purpose shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-800. – Purpose.
This chapter is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to cities by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution for the purpose of authorizing certain development impact fees, as described in public facility financing plans, expenditure plans and the nexus studies as referenced herein, to be assessed upon the owners of certain residential and nonresidential property as described in this chapter and which is located within the city. The fees herein adopted shall be assessed upon landowners developing property for any residential or non-residential use in order to provide all or a portion of the funds which will be necessary to design, construct, install or acquire public facilities required to meet the needs of, and address the transportation impacts caused by, such development activity. It is the intent and purpose of the city to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare by constructing, installing and acquiring public facilities necessitated by development in the city. Furthermore, it is the intent and purpose of the city to allow the development within its jurisdiction boundaries on the condition that landowners pay the applicable costs of such public facilities and that such costs shall not be or become a responsibility of any other city fund, including, without limitation, the city’s general fund.
Section 18-801 Definitions shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-801. – Definitions
Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context in which a term is used, the following definitions shall govern construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:
A. “Automatic annual adjustment” means the automatic annual adjustment of development impact fees based on the inflation factors described in section 18-811.
B. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means an attached or detached permanent dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities (permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating. cooking, and sanitation) for one or more persons and which is located on a lit with a proposed or existing primary dwelling.
C. “City code” means the City of Citrus Heights Municipal Code.
D. “Citywide benefit district area” means the real property located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and as said boundaries may be adjusted from time to time.
E. “Development” means the uses to which property will be put, the buildings and improvements to be constructed on it, and the construction activities incident thereto, together with the process of obtaining all required land use entitlements.
F. “Development project” shall have the same meaning as defined by subsection (a) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time.
G. “Dwelling unit” means any building or portion of a building used or designed for use as a residence by an individual or any group of individuals living together or as a family, ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 296
excepting therefrom any unit rented or leased for temporary residency, such as a motel and hotel room.
H. “Fee” and “impact fee” and “development impact fee” mean the monetary exaction as defined by subsection (b) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time, and shall include, but not be limited to, the fees established pursuant to this chapter.
I. “Fee resolution” means Resolution No. 2009-009, or any subsequent resolution adopted by the city council which implements the provisions of this chapter, including, without limitation, the setting of the amounts of the various fees established hereby and the adoption of provisions for credits, reimbursements and deferral relating to such fees.
J. “Government Code” means the Government Code of the state of California and any provision thereof cited in this chapter, as such provision exists as of the date of the enactment of this chapter, or as it may thereafter be amended or renumbered from time to time.
K. “Health and Safety Code” means the Health and Safety Code of the state of California and any provision thereof cited in this chapter, as such provision exists as of the date of the enactment of this chapter, or as it may thereafter be amended or renumbered from time to time.
L. “Housing Development” means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floorspace is for residential use.
M. “Industrial Use” any Development Project that involves manufacturing, transportation, logistics or similar uses.
N. “Low income” and “very low income” housing is defined in Sections 50079.5 and 50105, respectively, of the Health and Safety Code.
O. “Measure A” means Ordinance No. 04-01 adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority on July 29, 2004, which established the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to be implemented by the County of Sacramento and each city within the county by April 1, 2009.
P. “Measure A administration fee” means the fee imposed by the city for the cost of collection, deposit, investment, accounting, remittance and reporting of the Measure A development impact fee.
Q. “Measure A development impact fee” means a development impact fee established to provide funding for public facilities to benefit new development within the city.
R. “Measure A expenditure plan” means the Sacramento County Transportation Expenditure Plan 2009-2039 dated June 10, 2004, as adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority under Ordinance No. 04-01, which specifies the allocation of Measure A sales taxes and Measure A development impact fees for specified public facilities.
S. “Measure A nexus study” means the Development Impact Fee Study dated June 2, 2006, as originally adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority by Resolution No. 06-0006 and updated by the 2024 Nexus Study Update Report dated May 24, 2024 adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority by Resolution No.24-0005.
T. “Multi-Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for two (2) or more dwelling units within one (1) or more building(s) including, ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 297
without limitation, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums and apartments, but excluding an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
U. “Normalized cost per trip” means the medium-sized single family residential fee rate listed in Section 2.1 of the Protocols Agreement divided by the average weekday trip generation rate for a single family residence (9.44) per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Ed.). the normalized cost per trip is $167 and will be adjusted annually per section 18-811.
V. “Office Use” means any Development Project that involves business activities, associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices, personal services, or similar uses.
W. “Participating Agencies” means the County of Sacramento, the City of Citrus Heights, the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Galt, the City of Isleton, the City of Rancho Cordova, and the City of Sacramento. Each may be referred to individually as “Participating Agency.”
X. “Protocols Agreement” means the New Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Agreement on Operating Protocols, dated August 2024, with the Sacramento Transportation Authority, as approved by the Authority on August 8, 2024, by Resolution No 24-006 or as may be subsequently amended.
Y. “Public facilities” means the public improvements, public services and community amenities as defined by subsection (d) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time. The term “public facilities” only includes transportation improvements and infrastructure to be designed, constructed, installed and acquired to serve the specified benefit district area, as well as the transportation- related public service and community amenities to serve the specified benefit district area, which improvements and infrastructure are described in the applicable financing plan, expenditure plan, and/or nexus study (collectively “plan” or “study”). The costs of the design, construction, installation and acquisition of the specified public facilities, which are to be financed partially by the development impact fee program, is set forth within the plan or study. Where applicable under the plan or study, the term “public facilities” includes the acquisition of land relating to such improvements, infrastructure, public services and community amenities. The term “public facilities” also means a specific public improvement or infrastructure where the context requires a singular meaning.
Z. “Retail Use” means any Development Project that involves retailing of merchandise, generally without transformation, retail food services, and rendering of services incidental to the sale of merchandise at a fixed point of sale.
AA. “Reduced Parking Availability” means a development project where State law requires the City to approve the project with reduced parking, including without limitation, projects pursuant to Government Code Sections 65913.4 and 65915.
BB. “Senior Residential Use” means any Development Project that qualifies as housing for older persons pursuant to CGC Section 12955.9.
CC. “Single Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for only one residential dwelling unit. “Single Family Residential Use” also ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 298
includes any Development Project that involves one primary dwelling and one Accessory Dwelling Unit on a single lot.
DD. “STA” means the Sacramento Transportation Authority.
EE. “Transit Oriented Development” means a housing development that satisfies all the following characteristics: (a) the housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length; (b) convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, and located within one-half mile of the housing development; and (c) the housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than the onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.
FF. “Transit station” has the meaning set forth in Section 66005.1(d) of the Government Code.
Section 18-802 Adoption of new or amended reports shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-802. – Adoption of new or amended reports.
To implement the development impact fees established pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the city council may, by resolution, adopt new or amended versions of any of the studies, reports, plans, or projections on which the development impact fees are based, except in such cases where amendments to such studies, reports, plans, or projections must be made by ordinance.
Section 18-803 Establishment of development impact fees shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-803. – Establishment of development impact fees.
A. The following development impact fees are established pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to finance the cost of the following categories of public facilities required by development within the following specified benefit district areas:
1. Measure A Benefit District.
a. Measure A Development Impact Fee. A development impact fee is established to provide funding for public facilities to serve the city, which facilities are described in the Measure A expenditure plan and the Measure A nexus study. The Measure A benefit district is the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and as said boundaries may be adjusted from time to time.
b. Measure A Administration Fee. An administrative fee is established to fund the city’s cost to administer the Measure A development impact fee.
B. The city council, by resolution, shall establish the specific initial and subsequent amounts of the foregoing fees pursuant to section 18-805 and make the additional findings required under section 18-804 in establishing said amounts of each fee. In addition, the city council, by ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 299
resolution, may adopt additional provisions, procedures and policies to implement the fees established by this chapter. The amounts of fees, provisions, procedures, and policies adopted by resolution pursuant to this subsection shall be consistent with the applicable financing plan, expenditure plan and/or nexus study as referenced in subsection (A) of this section.
C. The city council, by resolution, may establish new or additional components of the fees identified in subsection (A) of this section as are necessary to accommodate phasing and stages of the development of the specified benefit district areas, or as may be contemplated by future amendments to the financing plan, expenditure plan and/or nexus study as referenced in subsection (A) of this section.
Section 18-804 Additional findings to be made when establishing the amount of development impact fees shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-804. – Additional findings to be made when establishing the amount of development impact fees.
At the time it considers the amount of the fees established pursuant to section 18-803 or at the time of amending such fees, other than in making an automatic annual adjustment to the fees as provided in section 18-811, the city council shall adopt the amount of such fees if it makes the following findings in support of such fees:
A. A finding that such fees have been determined and calculated in the manner consistent with the financing plan, expenditure plan and/or nexus study as referenced in section 18-803(A); and
B. The following additional findings required by Section 66001 of the Government Code, which demonstrate that there is a nexus between the public facilities for which such fees are imposed and the need for such public facilities created by the development of residential and nonresidential property within the specified benefit district areas upon which the fees are imposed:
1. Findings which identify the purpose of the fees;
2. Findings which identify the use to which the fees are to be put;
3. Findings which demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed;
4. Findings which demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities to be financed by the fees and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed; and
5. Findings which demonstrate how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the public facilities, or portion of such public facilities, attributable to the development project on which the fees are imposed.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 300
C. In making the findings pursuant to this section and any other findings, the city council may consider all matters, whether offered orally or in writing, presented at the hearing or hearings conducted for the purpose of establishing or amending the fee, and any and all oral and written material presented to the city council and planning commission in connection with the adoption, approval or amendment of the financing plan, expenditure plan and/or nexus study as referenced in section 18-803(A).
Section 18-805 Proceedings to establish the amount of development impact fees shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-805. – Proceedings to establish the amount of development impact fees.
A. At the time of setting the amount of the fees established pursuant to this chapter or at the time of amending such fees, other than in making an automatic annual adjustment to the fees as provided in section 18-811, the city council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed fees or proposed amendment of fees in the manner required by Section 66018 of the Government Code.
B. The effective date of any resolution adopted by the city council which establishes or amends, as the case may be, the amount of the fees established pursuant to section 18-803, shall be no sooner than 60 days following the final action on the adoption or amendment of the fee.
Section 18-806 Imposition of development impact fees shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-806. – Imposition of development impact fees.
A. The development impact fees established under this chapter shall be imposed on the following types of uses or development of real property located within the benefit district areas as referenced in section 18-803(A):
1. For nonresidential uses or development:
a. The construction on the property of a new building or structure;
b. The construction on the property of additions to an existing building or structure which results in the expansion in the size or use of such existing building or structure; or
c. The change in use of an existing building or structure on the property from a previous residential use to a nonresidential use, or from a previous nonresidential use to another nonresidential use; provided, that the landowner shall be entitled to a credit against fees paid pursuant to this chapter in the amount of fees which were actually paid for such previous residential or nonresidential use, which prior fees shall be adjusted for inflation consistent with section 18-811.
2. For residential uses or development:
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 301
a. The construction on the property of a new building or structure containing one or more dwelling units;
b. The construction on the property of alterations or additions to an existing building or structure which add one or more dwelling units to such existing building; or
c. The change in use of an existing building or structure on the property from a previous nonresidential use to a residential use; provided, that the landowner shall be entitled to a credit against fees paid pursuant to this chapter in the amount of fees which were actually paid for such previous nonresidential use, which prior fees shall be adjusted for inflation consistent with section 18-811.
3. For nonresidential and residential uses or development within the same building or structure, the computation of fees as set out in section 18-808 shall apply.
B. Except as may be expressly provided in this chapter, no building permits or extension of permits relating to the activities described in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) of this section shall be granted unless and until the appropriate development impact fee or fees have been paid to the city in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, except that for residential developments under a fee payment contract as specified in Section 66007 of the Government Code, building permits may be issued but no final inspection or certificate of occupancy shall be granted unless and until the appropriate development impact fee or fees have been paid to the city. As provided in subsection (a) of Section 66007 of the Government Code, for a residential development that contains more than one dwelling unit, the fees may be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling unit when it receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.
C. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in subsection (A) of this section or in any other provision in this chapter, the development impact fees established pursuant to this chapter shall apply to any development project that has heretofore either received a tentative map approval or other approval or permit, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, or is subject to a development agreement or other agreement between the landowner and city that provides for payment of one or more fees established under this chapter.
Section 18-807 Exemptions shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-807. – Exemptions.
A. Accessory Dwelling Units less than 750 square feet.
B. The rehabilitation or reconstruction of any residential or non-residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the established applicable fee rate for that portion of square footage that is new.
C. New low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and very low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 302
D. Projects intended for public use where the applicant is one of the Participating Agencies.
E. Any development project that is subject of a valid development agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 prior to April 1, 2009, that includes a provision exempting it from future fees or fee increases; provided, however, that if the term of such a development agreement is extended after April 1, 2009, the SCTMFP shall be imposed.
F. Any development project for which an application for a vesting tentative map authorization by CGC Section 66498.1 was deemed complete prior to April 1, 2009.
Section 18-808 Computation of fees shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-808. – Computation of fees.
The methodologies set forth in the financing plan, expenditure plan and/or nexus study referenced under section 18-803(A) shall be used as the basis to set the amount of fees pursuant to any resolution referenced under section 18-803(B). The amount of fees due from any landowner shall be calculated from the actual uses of land proposed by the landowner unless otherwise provided in any resolution referenced under section 18-803(B). Applicants for building or other development permits shall include plans and calculations prepared by the applicant or applicant’s agent, specifying data necessary to calculate development impact fees, including, without limitation, each proposed land use, the square footage of each use, and other relevant data as may be required by the city general services director, or his or her authorized designee.
All fees due under this chapter shall be determined and calculated by the city public works director, or his or her authorized designee.
Section 18-809 Time of payment of fees shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-809. – Time of payment of fees.
Except as otherwise provided in any resolution adopted by the city council as provided under section 18-806(B) and 18-810 relating to deferral of payment of fees, the fees established by this chapter shall be paid for the property on which a development project is proposed at the time of the issuance of any required building permit relating to such development. With respect to development projects completed or commenced prior to the effective date of this chapter and the effective date of any amendment, the city general services director, or his or her authorized designee, may enter into agreements with landowners regarding the amount, time, and manner of payment of fees under this chapter with respect to such development projects.
Section 18-810 Deferral of fees shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-810. – Deferral of fees.
The city council, by resolution, may establish and modify policies, guidelines and procedures regarding the deferral or other adjustment of the time of payment of the fees established under this chapter.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 303
Section 18-811 Automatic annual adjustment shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-811. – Automatic annual adjustment.
The fees established by this chapter shall be adjusted automatically to take into consideration construction cost inflation on July 1st of each fiscal year. The first fiscal year for which an adjustment shall occur shall be the fiscal year that includes July 1, 2025. The adjustment shall be made by a factor equal to the percentage increase, if any, of the index which the city council adopts by resolution at the time of establishment or amendment of the fees as provided under this chapter, which may include the following: The Construction Cost Index as published by Engineer News Record/McGraw-Hill Construction Weekly for either (i) the San Francisco area (based on 1913 U.S. average = 100) during the 12 months ending on the preceding March 1st, or (ii) the 20-City Construction Cost Index during the 12 months ending on the preceding March 1st. This automatic annual adjustment shall not apply to those fees which are based on variable factors which themselves result in an automatic inflation adjustment, those which specifically indicate otherwise, or those which are governed by provisions of an agreement with the city expressly exempting such fees from the adjustment set forth under this section.
Section 18-812 Adjustment of fees by resolution shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-812. – Adjustment of fees by resolution.
In addition to any automatic annual adjustment, the amount of the fees established by this chapter may be revised periodically, including, without limitation, upon the report and review provided for in section 18-817, by resolution of the city council. Any action by the city council to increase fees shall comply with the provisions of this chapter and Government Code Section 66018.
Section 18-813 Adjustment of fees shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-813. – Adjustment of fees.
A. Calculation of Fee for ADUs.
ADUs greater than 750 square feet shall be subject to a fee hereunder that is equal to the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to the primary unit, multiplied by the fee that would be charged on the primary unit, if the primary unit was being newly built.
B. Calculation of Fee for Mixed Use Projects.
For Projects that include two or more different types of uses, the amount of the fee imposed on the entire Development Project shall be proportionally determined based on the relative footprint associated with the various uses, as determined by the General Services Director.
C. Reduced Fees for Areas with Reduced Parking Availability.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 304
Developments in areas with Reduced Parking Availability may be subject to reduced fees, at the sole discretion of the General Services Director, if the development project results in reduced trip generation. Any such fee reduction must be supported by a Traffic Study submitted by the Applicant and prepared and stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer and which has been accepted by the City Engineer.
D. Fees for Housing Developments.
1. Generally. The fee imposed pursuant to this Chapter for a Transit Oriented Development shall be set at a rate that reflects a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with that Transit Oriented Development in comparison with non-Transit Oriented Development, unless the City adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that the Transit Oriented Development would not generate fewer automobile trips than a non-Transit Oriented Development. If a housing development does not satisfy the characteristics of a Transit Oriented Development, the City will charge a fee pursuant to this Chapter that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development.
2. Traffic Study.
2.1. Project-Specific Traffic Study. Housing developments seeking a fee adjustment pursuant to this section shall submit a traffic study, stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer (and which has been accepted by the City Engineer), which demonstrates the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with the applicable housing development compared to the Nexus Study.
2.2. Alternative Traffic Study. A Transit Oriented Development may submit to City a traffic study, stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer (and which has been accepted by the City Engineer), which demonstrates the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with Transit Oriented Developments and other similar types of development compared to non-Transit Oriented Developments. In the event a Transit Oriented Development submits the Alternative Study pursuant to this section, the Finance Director, in consultation with STA, may apply a standard Transit Oriented Development fee reduction based on studies related to Transit Oriented Developments unless the applicable Transit Oriented Development elects to provide City with a Project-Specific Traffic Study, as described in section 18-813(D)(2.1), for the General Services Director to use in calculating the appropriate fee hereunder.
E. Re-purposing/Reuse of Existing Buildings.
A. The fee imposed pursuant to this Chapter for any re-purposing or change in use of existing buildings shall only apply to the net increase in average daily trips attributable to the new purpose or use, as compared to the prior established use.
B. Fees shall be calculated hereunder by comparing the rates applicable to the prior and new uses as designated in the City’s Fee Schedule and calculating the resulting offset. In the alternative, where a proposed land use is not clearly listed in the Fee Schedule, the fee shall be calculated as follows:
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 305
1. Calculate the difference between previous average daily trips and new average daily trips at the property. The determination of average daily trips for the purpose of comparing previous and proposed uses shall be by reference to trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Traffic Engineers.
2. Multiply the result by the normalized cost per trip.
C. Requests for a fee adjustment pursuant to this provision shall be made to the City in writing. The Finance Director shall determine whether a development project has made the required showing for a fee adjustment.
Section 18-814 Use of funds shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-814. – Use of funds.
A. Funds collected from the fees established by this chapter and deposited in their respective special funds shall be used by the city or by the Sacramento Transportation Authority or other entity, if funds have been transferred to that entity, for the following purposes:
1. Payment of the actual costs of designing and constructing public facilities for which the fees may be expended, as described in the resolution or resolutions adopted pursuant to section 18-803(B);
2. Providing refunds as described in section 18-815;
3. Funding the city’s administration of the fee program implemented by the provisions of this chapter; and
4. Using the same as may be permitted under Section 66006 of the Government Code.
B. Unless used or refunded as otherwise permitted under this section, moneys, including any accrued interest, not assigned in any fiscal year shall be retained in the same fund or account until the next fiscal year.
C. The city council, by resolution, may authorize the city manager to transfer funds, including any accrued interest, to (1) another public entity with the authority to manage the fund pursuant to Section 66006 of the Government Code, or (2) another public entity with the authority to undertake construction of the public facility funded by the fee.
Section 18-815 Disposition of unexpended or unappropriated fee revenues shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-815. – Disposition of unexpended or unappropriated fee revenues.
A. Commencing with the fifth fiscal year following the first fiscal year of receipt of any revenues from the fees established, assessed and levied pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, and in each fiscal year thereafter, the city treasurer, or his or her designee, shall provide the city council ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 306
with a report which sets forth the total amount of all such fee revenues that were received and deposited in the appropriate special funds and accounts in each fiscal year prior to the date of such report, but which remain unexpended or unappropriated by the city or another public entity as referenced in section 18-814 as of the date of the report; provided, however, that no report shall be required in any year in which there were no unspent or unappropriated fee revenues in such fund which were received and deposited in the fund more than five years prior to the date of the report.
B. Upon review of each report described in subsection (A) of this section, the city council shall take one of the following actions required by Section 66001 of the Government Code with respect to any unexpended or unappropriated fee revenue in the appropriate special fund which was received and deposited in such fund five or more years prior to the date of such report:
1. Appropriate all or any part of such unexpended or unappropriated fee revenue for the construction, installation, acquisition or provision of the public facilities for which the fee was imposed;
2. Make findings with respect to all or any part of such unexpended or unappropriated fee revenue which identify the purposes to which the revenue is to be put and which demonstrate a reasonable relationship between such fee revenue and the purpose for which it was imposed; and/or
3. Provide for the 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 subsection (e) of Section 66001 of the Government Code, to the current record owner of any property for which a fee was paid; provided, that if the administrative costs of refunding such fee revenue exceed the amount to be refunded, the city council, after considering the matter at a public hearing, notice of which is given in the manner provided for in subsection (f) of Section 66001 of the Government Code, may appropriate such revenue for any other public facility in the benefit district area for which development fees are charged or otherwise imposed pursuant to this chapter and which the city council determines will benefit the properties for which such development impact fee was charged or otherwise imposed; and further provided, that the portion of any fee revenue received by the city as reimbursement of its costs in administering the provisions of this chapter shall not be refunded, but shall be applied to reduce the amount of the fee charged for administrative purposes.
4. The provisions of subsections (d), (e), and (f) of Government Code Section 66001 shall apply fully to any refund of fees remaining unexpended or uncommitted in the appropriate special fund for five or more years after deposit, and the provisions of this section shall be subordinate to the said state statute and shall be applied consistently therewith.
Section 18-816 Other fee and dedication requirements shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-816. – Other fee and dedication requirements.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 307
The provisions of this chapter shall not release any owner of residential or nonresidential property located within the benefit district area from the following obligations:
A. Paying other applicable fees relating to development of property, including, without limitation, the application fees, processing fees, mitigation fees, and other development fees within the control of the city.
B. Complying with any public facility requirements which are imposed pursuant to applicable law, including, without limitation, the provisions of the city code.
C. Complying with any requirement to dedicate property for public use pursuant to applicable law, including without limitation, the provisions of the city code and the Government Code, at the time of approval of a tentative subdivision map, tentative master parcel map, certificate of compliance, building permit or other land use entitlement.
D. Complying with any obligation to pay fees or exactions, or to comply with mitigation requirements for identified project-related environmental effects.
Section 18-817 Annual reports and review fee shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-817. – Annual reports and review fee.
A. No later than 180 days following the end of each fiscal year, the city manager or his or her designee shall prepare a report for the city council identifying the following:
1. The beginning and ending balances of the public facilities fee funds, and related accounts, for the fiscal year;
2. The fee, interest, and other income collected in said funds during the fiscal year;
3. The amount of expenditures from said funds categorized by the public facilities to which such expenditures relate;
4. An accounting of all refunds and reimbursements which the city is obligated to make or has made pursuant to this chapter;
5. The reallocation, if any, of unexpended or unappropriated fee revenue made pursuant to section 18-815(B)(3) and subsection (f) of Government Code Section 66001;
6. The public facilities constructed and to be constructed utilizing the revenues collected from the fee established by this chapter, the continued need for such public facilities, and the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of development for which the fee is charged;
7. The estimated costs of the public facilities described in the report;
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 308
8. The amount of any automatic annual adjustment made pursuant to section 18-811, including the basis of the calculation therefor; and
9. Any additional information required by the Sacramento Transportation Authority for the fees imposed pursuant to section 18-803(A)(1)(a). The city manager may submit the report prepared by the Sacramento Transportation Authority for the fees imposed pursuant to section 18-803(A)(1)(a) if said report includes all of the foregoing information set out in this subsection (A).
B. In addition to the report matters set forth in subsection (A) of this section, at least once each fiscal year the city manager shall present to the city council a proposed capital improvement program prepared by the city general services director for the various public facilities referenced in the resolution or resolutions adopted pursuant to section 18-803(B), assigning moneys (including any accrued interest) from the appropriate special fund to specific improvement projects, acquisitions, and related expenses. The adoption of such capital improvement program shall comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66002.
C. In preparing the report pursuant to this section, the city manager shall adjust the estimated costs of the public facilities in accordance with the index specified in the resolution adopted pursuant to section 18-803(B) and 18-811, or other reasonable standard, for the elapsed time period from the first day of the previous July or the date that the cost estimate was developed.
D. The report prepared pursuant to subsection (A) of this section shall be made available to the general public pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of Government Code Section 66006.
The city council shall review the information contained in said report at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not sooner than 15 days after the report is made available to the public. The scheduling of the hearing and notice thereof shall comply with the provisions of subsection (b) of Government Code Section 66006.
E. The city council, by resolution, may revise the fees established by this chapter to reflect the findings made from its consideration of the annual report and to include additional public facility projects previously not foreseen as being needed; provided, that all such revisions shall be consistent with the applicable financing plan, expenditure plan and/or nexus study referenced in section 18-803(A).
F. The report prepared by the city manager and its review by the city council, as well as any findings thereon, shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (d) of Government Code Section 66001, to the extent applicable.
Section 18-818 California state law shall be added as follows:
Sec. 18-818. – California state law.
The provisions of this chapter, and any resolution adopted pursuant hereto, shall at all times be subject and subordinate to the provisions of Title 5 (commencing with Section 66000), Division 1, of Title 7 of the Government Code, as the same presently exists or may hereafter be amended ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 309
or renumbered from time to time, to the extent the same are applicable. In the event of any applicable conflict between the provisions of this chapter and the state law, the latter shall control.
ITEM 13
Agenda Packet Page 310
Printed on Recycled Paper
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding – Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project
Summary and Recommendation
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding provides for roles and responsibilities amongst three entities related to the potential construction of an 80% scale replica wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2024____ a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, to enter a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), between Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization (“CHVMP”), Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services of the Diocese of Sacramento, Inc. (“CFCS”), and the City of Citrus Heights, a municipal corporation ("Citrus Heights") for the purpose of constructing a Veterans Memorial.
City Council Strategic Goal/Objective
This staff report aligns with the following Citrus Heights City Council Three Year Goal:
• Enhance Community Vibrancy and Engagement
This item also addresses the Strategic Plan Objective to:
• Explore partnerships to support opportunities to bring a permanent Vietnam Veterans Memorial into the city
Fiscal Impact
Entering into the Memorandum of Understanding will have no immediate fiscal impact upon the City’s General Fund.
ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 311
Subject: Memorandum of Understanding – Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
A History and Arts Grant application has been applied for by CHVMP which will be considered by the City Council as a separate action.
Background and Analysis
In 2023, the City of Citrus Heights was selected to host The Wall That Heals, a three-quarter scale replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial along with a mobile Education Center. The Wall That Heals honors the more than three million Americans who served in the U.S. Armed forces in the Vietnam War and it bears the names of the 58,281 men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam. The success of The Wall That Heals exhibit inspired local veterans to find a Citrus Heights location that could support the construction of a replica wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The City of Citrus Heights City Council have been supportive of this effort and adopting a strategic objective at their March 2024 retreat to “explore partnerships to support opportunities to bring a permanent Vietnam Veterans Memorial into the city.”
The Citrus Heights City Manager approached Calvary Cemetery about the possibility of locating the monument on the grounds at the cemetery given the large number of veterans that are laid to rest there and their support of veterans causes. CFCS’s leadership team expressed interest in the concept, and after learning more from the project proponents, they brought the proposal to the CFCS Board of Directors and the Most Reverend Jaime Soto, Bishop of Sacramento. CFCS leadership received full support to move forward with the construction of an approximately 80% scale replica wall on the grounds of Calvary Cemetery. CHVMP was created to raise funds to build a permanent wall in Citrus Heights and CFCS has graciously agreed to provide the location for the project to be constructed. The City of Citrus Heights desires to support the project and will facilitate approvals and fee waivers.
A CHVMP Board Member, the Chief Operating Officer of CFCS and the City Manager visited Perryville, Missouri where the Missouri Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall had been constructed.
The visit included a meeting with one of the founders of the memorial who also spearheaded the design and construction of the project. The meeting included a discussion of their effort, a thorough review of construction details, constructability matters, maintenance considerations and a tour of the memorial. The founder who was charged with design and construction graciously offered CHVMP their architectural and construction drawings for use. The well thought out construction details and methods resulted in a first-rate memorial and the use of these drawings will save considerable time and money for the Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project.
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding provides the framework for which the three parties involved in working to bring this vision to a reality would operate. The footprint for the proposed memorial is considerable, CFCS dedicating the land is a major milestone for this project. The provision of the construction drawings from the Perryville site help accelerate the work of local design teams in developing plans for the Citrus Heights Calvary Cemetery site.
CHVMP board members have developed a webpage, have begun fundraising efforts, and are engaging with professional support to help bring in major financial contributions to get this project constructed. CFCS and members of CHVMP have relationships with vendors who have also voiced wishing to support the effort through reduced fees on work they would be providing.
ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 312
Subject: Memorandum of Understanding – Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
The City of Citrus Heights participation would include waiving of fees and accelerated processing of plans and inspections, as well as making formal requests to partner agencies to do the same. CFCS has extensive experience in constructing memorials and their partnership in this project will help achieve a first-rate memorial that can help bring peace and healing to visitors across the western United States who otherwise may not have the ability to visit the memorial in Washington D.C. CHVMP will be responsible for fund raising related to initial construction costs and the endowment for future maintenance. The anticipated construction costs are estimated to exceed $3,000,0000.
Attachments
1. Resolution No. 2024 -____ a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, to enter a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), between Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization (“CHVMP”), Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services of the Diocese of Sacramento, Inc. (“CFCS”), and the City of Citrus Heights, a municipal corporation ("Citrus Heights") for the purpose of constructing a Veterans Memorial.
2. Draft Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project Memorandum of Understanding
ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 313
Printed on Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION NO. 2024- ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA, TO ENTER A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”), BETWEEN CITRUS HEIGHTS VETERANS MEMORIAL PROJECT, A 501(c)(3) VETERANS ORGANIZATION (“CHVMP”), CATHOLIC FUNERAL & CEMETERY SERVICES OF THE DIOCESE OF SACRAMENTO, INC. (“CFCS”), AND THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (“CITRUS HEIGHTS”) FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A VETERANS MEMORIAL
WHEREAS, in 2023, the City of Citrus Heights was selected to host The Wall That Heals, a three-quarter scale replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial along with a mobile Education Center.
The Wall That Heals honors the more than three million Americans who served in the U.S. Armed forces in the Vietnam War and it bears the names of the 58,281 men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam;
WHEREAS, the success of The Wall That Heals exhibit inspired local veterans to find a Citrus Heights location that could support the construction of such a replica wall. The City of Citrus Heights City Council adopted a strategic objective at their March 2024 retreat to “explore partnerships to support opportunities to bring a permanent Vietnam Veterans Memorial into the city”;
WHEREAS, the City approached Calvary Cemetery (CFCS) about the possibility of locating the monument on the grounds at the cemetery given the large number of veterans that are laid to rest there and their support of veterans causes;
WHEREAS, CFCS has agreed to support moving forward with the construction of an approximately 80% scale replica wall on the grounds of Calvary Cemetery; and
WHEREAS, the City of Citrus Heights desires to support the project and the proposed Memorandum of Understanding provides the framework for which the three parties involved in working to bring this vision to a reality would operate.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), between Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization (“CHVMP”), Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services of the Diocese of Sacramento, Inc. (“CFCS”), and the City of Citrus Heights, a municipal corporation ("Citrus Heights") for the purpose of constructing a Veterans Memorial.
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 October 2024 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 314
ABSENT: Council Members:
Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Van, City Clerk
ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 315
Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization, Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services of the Diocese of Sacramento and the City of Citrus Heights:
Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project Memorandum of Understanding
This is a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), dated as of September__, 2024, between Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization (“CHVMP”), Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services of the Diocese of Sacramento, Inc. (“CFCS”), and the City of Citrus Heights, a municipal corporation ("Citrus Heights") and reflects the mutual understanding and agreement of the parties involved, to guide their collaboration.
Background / Recitals
1. In 2023, the City of Citrus Heights was selected to host The Wall That Heals, a three-quarter scale replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial along with a mobile Education Center. The Wall That Heals honors the more than three million Americans who served in the U.S. Armed forces in the Vietnam War and it bears the names of the 58,281 men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam.
2. The success of The Wall That Heals exhibit inspired local veterans to find a Citrus Heights location that could support a the construction of such a replica wall.
The City of Citrus Heights City Council adopted a strategic objective at their March 2024 retreat to “explore partnerships to support opportunities to bring a permanent Vietnam Veterans Memorial into the city.” The Citrus Heights City Manager approached Calvary Cemetery (title for which is held in trust by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento and operated by CFCS) about the possibility of locating the monument on the grounds at the cemetery given the large number of veterans that are laid to rest there and their support of veterans causes.
3. CFCS’s leadership team expressed interest in the concept, and after learning more from the project proponents, they brought the proposal to the CFCS Board of Directors and the Most Reverend Jaime Soto, Bishop of Sacramento. CFCS leadership received full support to move forward with the construction of an approximately 80% scale replica wall (the “Project”) on the grounds of Calvary Cemetery. The Diocese also provided authorization, as property owner, for CFCS to proceed with the Project at that location.
4. CHVMP was created to raise funds to build a permanent wall in Citrus Heights and CFCS has graciously
agreed to provide the location for the Project to be
constructed. The City of Citrus Heights desires to support the project and will facilitate approvals and fee waivers.
5. Desiring to memorialize their mutual intent and understanding regarding the project, the parties now
enter into this MOU, on the following terms:
Memorandum of Understanding
ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 316
1. Roles and Responsibilities
1.1 Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization
CHVMP will be responsible for raising funds to support the design, construction documents, construction of, and a maintenance endowment for the Project.
1.2 Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services of the Diocese of Sacramento CFCS agrees to make available a suitable location at Calvary Cemetery for construction of the Project, and provide project management and construction oversight. The parties agree that upon completion of the Project, CFCS will own the memorial, which will be open to the public during cemetery visiting hours. CFCS will also prospectively maintain the endowment fund and provide for future maintenance and care of the memorial.
1.3 City of Citrus Heights
Citrus Heights will provide for expeditious Project approvals, provide fee waivers for any and all fees that are within Citrus Heights purview, and will make formal requests to other agencies that collect fees seeking their support in providing waivers for the Project.
1.4 Project Objectives
The Project will s erve as the Northern California replica memorial of The Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial Wall, providing an opportunity for veterans, their families and visitors to experience the healing associated with this memorial. It will also provide opportunities to further celebrate veterans, service and sacrifice through special events.
The Project will also contribute to economic development activity in the region by attracting more visitors to Citrus Heights.
1.5 Site Safety
CFCS will take all reasonable steps to ensure that all activities which take place at the Property are safe, adequate, and appropriate based on Cal-OSHA and local jurisdiction expectations and requirements.
2. Insurance
CFCS will provide its minimum insurance requirements for the Project. CHVMP will secure and pay premiums for the required coverage and provide CFCS and Citrus Heights with a
Certificate of Insurance naming both parties as additional insureds.
CHVMP will ensure that the specified insurance coverage remains in force through the completion of the construction of the Project.
3. Term and Termination
3.1 Term
The parties agree that this MOU is contingent upon the successful raising of funds necessary for the Project by December 1, 2027, and that if the necessary funds are not raised, then the MOU will terminate as of that date unless otherwise mutually ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 317
agreed upon by CHVMP, CFCS and Citrus Heights in writing. The parties understand, however, that CHVMP anticipates fundraising for the Project from multiple funding sources, and if it can demonstrate reasonable ongoing efforts to raise the necessary funds for the Project, then written agreement to extend the term of this MOU shall not be unreasonably withheld. The parties understand and agree, however, that construction on the Project shall not commence until full funding for the Project and the endowment care is secured. CFCS shall then manage the Project and provide vendor and contractor payment authorizations to CHVMP, who will be solely responsible for making required payments to vendors and contractors.
3.2 Mutual Agreement
Prior to the beginning of construction on the Project, this MOU may be terminated in a writing signed by CHVMP, CFCS and Citrus Heights that states their intent to terminate this MOU and the date upon which such termination will take effect. The parties agree that this MOU will not be subject to termination once construction of the Project begins.
3.3 Termination for Breach
If any party breaches any of its obligations under this MOU, the non-breaching party may provide the breaching party with written notice of the breach. If the breaching party fails to cure the breach within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, the non-breaching party may terminate this MOU upon delivery to the breaching party of a written notice to that effect, with the termination effective upon receipt of such notice by the breaching party. The non-breaching party may in its reasonable discretion determine whether the breach has been cured. If a dispute arises as to whether a breach occurred and/or whether it was adequately cured, the parties will engage a third-party mediator before resorting to litigation. The parties shall select a mediator mutually agreeable to them. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator within 30 days, the parties shall jointly select a mediation organization to appoint the mediator. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by the parties.
4. General Provisions
4.1 Entire Agreement
This MOU expresses CHVMP, CFCS and Citrus Heights's final, complete, and exclusive agreement, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous written and oral agreements, negotiations, communications, or course of dealing between CHVMP, CFCS and Citrus Heights relating to its subject matter.
4.2 Amendment
This MOU may be amended only as stated and by a writing signed by CHVMP, CFCS and Citrus Heights which recites that it is an amendment to this MOU.
4.3 Severability and Waiver
If any provision of this MOU is held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, all other provisions of this MOU will nevertheless be effective, and the illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision will be considered modified such that it is valid to the maximum extent permitted by law. Any waiver of the provisions of this MOU must be ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 318
in writing and signed by the party granting the waiver. Waiver of any breach or provision of this MOU will not be considered a waiver of any later breach or of the right to enforce any provision of this MOU.
4.4 Assignment
The parties to the MOU may not, directly or indirectly, assign their rights or delegate their duties under this MOU to anyone else without the prior written consent of the other parties.
4.5 Third-Party Beneficiaries
This MOU is for the exclusive benefit of CHVMP, CFCS and Citrus Heights and not for the benefit of any third party, including, without limitation, any employee, affiliate, subcontractor, member, or vendor of CHVMP, CFCS and Citrus Heights.
4.6 Independence
CHVMP, CFCS and Citrus Heights are and will remain independent contracting parties. The arrangements contemplated by this MOU do not create a formal business partnership, joint venture, employment, fiduciary, or similar relationship for any purpose. Neither CHVMP, CFCS nor Citrus Heights has the power or authority to bind or obligate the other parties to a third party or commitment in any manner. Any use of the term "Partner" or comparable term in any communication is solely for convenience.
4.7 Reservation of Religious Freedom Rights
Notwithstanding anything contained in this MOU, CHVMP and Citrus Heights acknowledge that CFCS has not waived, either expressly or by implication, any rights, protections, or guarantees afforded to it under the religious freedom clauses of the California and United States Constitutions, any statutory exemptions based on being a religious organization, nor any other state or federal statutes pertaining to the protection or guarantee of religious freedom rights, in connection with its participation in this MOU expressly including, but not limited to, its employment policies and practices.
4.8 Attorneys' Fees
In the event any proceeding or action is brought in connection with the enforcement of this MOU, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including those on appeal.
4.9 Compliance with Applicable Laws
CFCS and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of work.
ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 319
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above, which date shall be considered by the Parties to be the effective date of this Agreement.
Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization
_________________________
Need Name and Title for Authorized Signatory
Date: _____________________
Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services of the Diocese of Sacramento, Inc.
_________________________
Need Name and Title for Authorized Signatory
Date: _____________________
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS:
________________________
Ashley J. Feeney
City Manager
Date: ____________________
ITEM 14
Agenda Packet Page 320
Printed on Recycled Paper
DATE: October 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FROM: Courtney Riddle, Economic Development and Community Engagement Management Analyst II
SUBJECT: History and Arts Grant – Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project
Summary and Recommendation
The City of Citrus Heights provides funding through the History and Arts Grant Program to support community projects and activities focused on historic preservation and arts promotion.
The History and Arts Grant program aims to enhance community engagement by financially supporting non- profits. This initiative aligns with the City Council’s Strategic Plan Goal of enhancing community vibrancy and engagement by strengthening community engagement programming.
The History and Arts Grant Program has $20,000 available for FY 2024-2025. The funding is approved on a first-come, first-served basis, and one request was received on October 4, 2024.
FY 2024-2025 History and Arts Grant Application Received
Organization Program Overview Request ($) Rubric
Score
Citrus Heights Veterans
Memorial Project
Create a permanent exhibit
featuring a scaled replica of the
Vietnam Memorial Wall.
$20,000 25
The Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project request for funding will cover architectural and engineering costs for the project, which is expected to be completed by Memorial Day 2026 and has an estimated total cost of up to $3.5 million.
The Quality of Life Committee reviewed the History and Arts Grant Program application on October 14, 2024, and recommended funding the Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project for $10,000.
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 321
Subject: History and Arts Grant: Vietnam Memorial Project Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Staff recommends the approval of the application for History and Arts Funding in the amount of $20,000 for the Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project. This initiative will significantly benefit our community by honoring the sacrifices of our veterans and enhancing public spaces with meaningful art that fosters pride and remembrance.
The Quality of Life Committee has recommended funding $10,000 now and the remaining $10,000 at the end of FY 2024-2025. The Committee expressed concerns that approving the total request could leave inadequate funds in the budget to support additional requests . This recommendation aims to balance the needs of various community groups while still providing substantial support for the Veterans Memorial Project.
It is important to note that funding their request of $20,000 will not eliminate funding opportunities for other community groups interested in History and Arts grant funding. The approved FY 2024- 2025 Economic Development and Community Engagement budget has sufficient resources to accommodate multiple requests.
We encourage the Council to consider the Quality of Life Committee's recommendation while recognizing the opportunity to support this valuable project fully. Sufficient funds are available to accommodate other grant requests without undermining support for this initiative.
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution 2024- ____ a Resolution of the City of Citrus Heights approving the History and Arts Grant Program Award in the amount of $20,000 to the Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project.
City Council Strategic Goal/Objective
This staff report aligns with the following Citrus Heights City Council Three Year Goal:
• Enhance Community Vibrancy and Engagement.
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this item. The History and Arts Grant for FY 2024- 2025 is budgeted for $20,000. Approving the Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project for the permanent placement of the scaled replica of the Vietnam Memorial Wall will have no additional fiscal impact on the C ity’s General Fund. These funds come from the approved Economic Development & Community Engagement budget, which supports the History and Arts Program and other grant programs.
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 322
Subject: History and Arts Grant: Vietnam Memorial Project Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
FY 2024-2025 Economic Development & Community Engagement Budget *The History and Arts Grant will be considered at the October 23, 2024, City Council meeting. This total reflects staff recommendations and is dependent on the City Council's final vote.
Allocations will be distributed on a first- come, first-served basis. However, funding balances are not fixed to specific budget line items and will be adjusted based on departmental demand forecasts. This approach allows for flexibility in funding based on program participation levels.
Background and Analysis
The History & Arts Grant Program was created in 2017 and offers financial support to individuals and organizations for projects focused on historic preservation, cultural events, and arts promotion within the City.
History and Arts Grant Program Guidelines
Eligibility
Eligible Projects
• Historical Preservation
• Historical Awareness
• Promotion of the arts
• Beautification of the City
• Create or enhance a sense of place through the
use of history and/or arts
• Engagement of existing arts and/or history
groups operating within the City
• Partnerships with existing non-profits,
residents, service clubs, etc.
• Expansion of existing qualified
projects
• Start-up artistic or historic endeavors
• School art shows
• Public art creation
• Theater production
• Historical documentaries
• Public art shows
• Historical preservation needs
Projects are eligible for funding based on their alignment with the program’s goals. In March 2023, the Veterans Memorial Project brought "The Wall That Heals," a traveling replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial from Washington, D.C., to Citrus Heights. This project was made possible with a $10,000 grant from the History and Arts Grant p rogram. This project exemplifies the program's mission by fostering community engagement and honoring local veterans.
Program Budget Allocated Remaining
Budget
History and Arts Grant $20,000 $20,000* $0
Economic Development Support Fund $121,500 $62,162 $59,338 Neighborhood Improvement Partnership $10,000 $0 $10,000 Non-Profit Community Support Fund $150,000 $150,000 $0
REACH/NA Administrative Fee $9,500 $9,500 $0
Total $311,000 241,662 $69,338
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 323
Subject: History and Arts Grant: Vietnam Memorial Project Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Given the Citrus Heights Memorial Project’s proven impact on community engagement and cultural enrichment, funding for this program is highly recommended.
Staff supports adding a requirement that the grant award recipient acknowledge the City of Citrus Heights' financial support on their website and consideration of other potential sponsorship acknowledge to be finalized with the grant agreement. Additionally, upon completion of the permanent structure, this acknowledgment would be prominently displayed to highlight the City’s contribution to the project. This approach ensures transparency and reinforces the City's commitment to supporting community initiatives.
Attachments
1. Resolution No. 2024-____ of the City of Citrus Heights approving the History and Arts Grant Program Award to the Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project
2. History & Arts Grant Program Application
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 324
Printed on Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___
A RES
OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE HISTORY & ARTS GRANT PROGRAM AWARD TO
THE CITRUS HEIGHTS VETERANS MEMORIAL PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights created the History & Arts Grant Program in October 2017;
WHEREAS, for the fiscal year 2024-2025 the History & Arts Grant Program has a total budget of $20,000 which is to be awarded on a first come first served competitive basis; WHEREAS, t he purpose of the History & Arts Grant Program is to promote historical preservation and arts programs within the Citrus Heights community; and WH
EREAS, the City has received a grant application in the amount of $20,000 to bring a scaled version of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall as a permanent exhibit.
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby approve the grant in the amount of $20,000 from the History & Arts Grant Program to Citrus Heights Veterans Memorial Project.
The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into t
he book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, this 23r
d day of October 2024 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa, Mayor
ATTES
T:
Amy Van, City Clerk
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 325
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 326
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 327
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 328
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 329
ITEM 15
Agenda Packet Page 330
Printed on Recycled Paper
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FROM: Regina Cave, General Services Director
Leslie Blomquist, City Engineer
Matthew Ma, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Private Lighting Program - Update
Summary and Recommendation
At the March 28, 2024 Strategic Planning Meeting, the City Council established an objective to create a program that provides a selection of lamp post options to support private streetlighting to improve public safety and community identity. This objective is in response to neighborhood feedback and following regular requests to expand the City’s streetlight program.
Staff recommend Council review the staff presentation and provide feedback and direction.
City Council Strategic Goal
This staff report aligns with the following Citrus Heights City Council Strategic Goal:
• Preserve & Enhance Public Safety
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact related to this action. The proposed lighting options would be purchased and installed by the residents. However, should Council provide further direction for procurement of limited materials for a pilot project, a funding source will need to be identified and approved.
Background and Analysis
The City owns and maintains over 4500 streetlights, safety lights and specialty light fixtures, all intended to luminate public rights of way for users’ safety. Most of the City’s lighting system pre-dates the City’s incorporation. The revenues to fund maintenance of the lighting system comes from a lighting district established by the County of Sacramento in 1986 as County Agenda Packet Page 331
Subject: Private Lighting Program - Update
Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Service Area 1 (CSA-1). In 2006, the City’s lighting district (CHLD) formed as a result of separating lighting maintenance services from the County of Sacramento. However, the formation of CHLD did not increase revenues to the lighting district as any changes or increases in rates would require a Proposition 218 vote. Over the years, the City has received numerous requests to install additional lighting throughout residential neighborhoods, and in some cases, the City has been able to deliver with the assistance of various grant funds in conjunction with larger capital projects. However, the cost of installing hardwired commercial streetlighting has more than doubled in the past 15 years, reaching as high as $20,000 per light for areas lacking existing electrical conduit. The industry continues to improve upon solar powered options, however, solar streetlights meeting similar specifications to hardwired options are still upwards of $15,000 per pole/light.
At the March 2024 Strategic Planning Meeting, City Council established a goal for staff to create a program that provides options for residents to improve safety as well as provide a sense of community identity. Staff have evaluated several lamppost style options, both hardwired and solar, and have also evaluated options for building-mounted lighting. The evaluation looked at various elements of lighting, such as lumens for brightness, color temperature, energy efficiency, compliance with Dark Sky and Title 24, and overall costs. It was also important to evaluate fixtures that could be readily available and procured through local vendors for both simplicity as well as supporting local businesses.
As mentioned above, staff evaluated options for both solar and hardwired lighting as electrical connections and property layouts vary parcel to parcel. While solar options provide convenience and reduced costs, many of the hardwired options provide increased brightness. However, not all properties or situations are conducive to installing hardwired lighting, based upon existing electrical panels, capacity, affordability, and owner versus renter. In an effort to streamline the process for residents interested in hardwired options, an element of the program could include staff developing a preferred list of licensed electricians by way of soliciting a Request for Proposals. Residents or their licensed installer may be required to obtain a building permit for hardwired light installations if new connections are required.
During the October 23
rd meeting, staff will present options for City Council discussion, and as a result of Council’s feedback on this item, staff will complete the efforts on this proposed program and will report back to Council prior to official launch.
Agenda Packet Page 332
Printed on Recycled Paper
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM
DATE
: October 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
FR
OM: Casey Kempenaar, Community Development Director
Nicole Piva, Housing and Human Services Program Coordinator SU
BJECT: Housing Rehabilitation Program Update
Summary and Recommendation
The
City of Citrus Heights has operated a Housing Rehabilitation Program since 2000. The program uses Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, CalHome funds, and loan repayments to correct health and safety hazards in deteriorated housing and extend the useful life of affordable housing units for lower-income residents.
The
City of Citrus Heights Housing Rehabilitation Program is intended to:
• Preserve and enhance the existing housing stock;
• Further neighborhood conservation efforts; and
• Provide a method by which very low-, low-, and moderate-income homeowners can improve their homes.
St
aff Recommendation
1. Consider a s taff update on the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program and provide direction on using CalHome Reuse funds to assist owner-occupied low-income households with health and safety home repairs.
City Council Strategic Goal/Objective
Th
is staff report aligns with the following Citrus Heights City Council Strategic Plan Objectives:
Go
al: Enhance Community Vibrancy and Engagement
Ob
jective: Provide an update on the City’s various Rehabilitation Programs and seek direction from the City Council as necessary.
ITEM 17
Agenda Packet Page 333
Subject: City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program Update
Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct impact on the City’s General Fund. Funds used for the Housing Repair Program allow the City to be reimbursed for all direct costs, including employing an outside consultant to manage the program.
Background and Analysis
One of the City’s most significant resources is its housing stock. As a largely built-out community, the preservation of this resource is a critical strategic goal. Of the City’s nearly 35,000 units, nearly 40 percent of the City’s housing stock was built between 1970 and 1979.
Another 22 percent was constructed between 1980 and 1989 resulting in over 60 percent being at least 35 years old. The age of the housing stock is now trending towards increasing maintenance costs including critical home components such as roofs and HVAC.
Recognizing the importance of preserving the City’s housing stock and supporting residents of need, the City created a suite of Housing Repair Programs, starting in 2000. These Programs, described in detail below, are funded by a variety of funding sources and provide funding for critical repairs of single-family and mobile homes.
Existing Housing Repair Programs
The Housing and Grants Division within the Community Development Department is responsible for the administration, monitoring, and implementation of the City’s Federal, State, and local housing and community development funds. While the City oversees the administration of the program, the City contracts with a consultant to perform the delivery of the housing repair programs. These duties include applicant intake, income verification, underwriting, and construction oversight functions.
There are a variety of funding sources that have been used to assist housing repairs for eligible homeowners, including.
• Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; • Federal HOME funds;
• State CalHome funds;
• Special grants from the federal government and the State of California; • Local housing redevelopment set-aside funds (RDA). The RDA has since dissolved, these funds are no longer available; and
• Loan Repayments.
Summary of Housing Repair Program (2000-2024)
Since 2000, the City has issued 264 housing rehabilitation loans and 51 grants. As of 2024, City staff monitors 52 housing rehabilitation loans annually due to funding requirements. Loans are paid in full if the property is transferred, is no longer the principal place of residence, and/or does not meet the loan terms of the agreement. Also, occasionally, homeowners will refinance, and the loan will be paid in full.
ITEM 17
Agenda Packet Page 334
Subject: City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program Update
Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
When a loan is repaid the repayment is deposited into a reuse account. City staff reports reuse funds to the appropriate agency and the City has these funds on hand for an eligible housing activity. The Housing Repair Program is primarily funded with CDBG, CalHome, and loan repayment funds.
The table below shows the number of loans/grants issued from 2000 to 2024.
Single-Family Mobile home Accessibility
Total Loans/Grants 116 148 51
The City has two types of Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Programs. These programs follow the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program Guidelines dated February 2021.
1. Single-Family Home Repair Loan Program
• Provides up to a $60,000 loan for essential home repairs • 30-year deferred loan
• 3% simple annual interest rate
• Very low-income seniors (65 years old) and permanently disabled households will qualify for a 0% interest rate
• Principal and accrued interest will be deferred for 30 years • The loan becomes due upon the sale of the home, title transfer, or if the home is not owner-occupied.
• The City may elect to provide accessibility, relocation, and lead assessment grants to eligible participants (using CDBG funds).
• The City most recently contracted with Michael Baker International to administer the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program and completed 4 households that received loans for health and safety repairs. CDBG funds were used to fund these loans.
• The City’s waitlist has about 70 households interested in a single-family housing rehabilitation loan.
2. Critical Home Repair Grant Program
• This program is intended to make health and safety repairs, replace major systems, accessibility improvements, and provide weatherization and energy-efficient improvements to mobile home homeowners.
• Grants, not to exceed $20,000 (using CDBG funds)
• Since 2021, the City has been working with Rebuilding Together Sacramento to administer critical home repairs to mobile home homeowners using CDBG funds.
The City has issued 32 grants.
• The City’s waitlist has about 30 households interested in a critical home repair grant.
ITEM 17
Agenda Packet Page 335
Subject: City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program Update
Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Wait List Processing
As funding becomes available, loans are processed on a first-come, first-served basis for this program. The City maintains a waitlist for the program and will process applicants first from the existing list. Any applicants who do not wish to pursue a loan but would like to wait for any possible grant-funded programs will remain on the waitlist. The City’s current wait has an estimated 70 single-family homeowners, and 30 mobile home homeowners interested in applying for health and safety repairs.
Proposed CalHome Single-Family Home Repair Program
CalHome funds are State of California grant funds issued by Housing and Community Development (HCD). In 2003, 2008, and 2015, the City applied for and received CalHome grant funding for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation or downpayment assistance programs. City staff has recently reconciled its CalHome Reuse account, the balance for this account is $673,003. Per the CalHome Program Guidelines, these funds are to be used in the form of a deferred loan, and funds may not be as a grant.
CalHome Program Guidelines Implemented December 2022
CalHome funds are governed by CalHome Program Guidelines, Guidelines establish terms, conditions, and procedures for the disbursement of funds allocated to the CalHome program.
The goal is to improve the safety of the home, correct substandard conditions, provide improvements for households with disabilities, and extend the useful life of the property. All improvements must be physically attached to the property and permanent. Within this context, improvements that improve energy efficiency are encouraged when in conjunction with a required repair, energy efficiency items are not allowed as standalone items.
The Guidelines outline repairs and improvements are limited to those necessary to correct any condition causing the home to be substandard. Examples of eligible items (not limited to) include electrical repair or rewiring, plumbing repair, roof repair or replacement, heating and air conditioning, window and door replacement and repair, lead-based paint abatement, accessibility improvements, repair of structurally significant damaged wood, and floor covering replacement.
Below, are the Guideline parameters for homeowners applying for assistance. • Eligible households at or below 80 percent Area Medium Income (AMI). • Deferred loans
• Up to 30-year loan term (single-family)
• Up to 20-year loan term (mobile home)
• 0-3% simple annual interest rate
• Borrowers must occupy the home as their principal place of residence for the term of the loan
• The loan becomes due upon the sale of the home, title transfer, or if the home is not owner-occupied.
ITEM 17
Agenda Packet Page 336
Subject: City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program Update
Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
• In 1976 Congress passed legislation adopting HUD mobile home manufacturing standards nationwide. Since pre-1976 mobile homes are not built to any building code standards and would require several repairs, mobile homes built before 1976 are ineligible for the City’s repair program.
Council Direction
The City has $673,003 in CalHome funding available. While the CalHOME guidelines stipulate much of how the program can operate, the Council does have some discretion to add criteria to the program moving forward. A summary of the areas where the Council has discretion and the Staff recommendation is provided below:
Single Family or Mobile Home
CalHome can fund loans for both Single Family and Mobile Home projects.
Staff Recommendation: CalHome requires securing the loan through a loan agreement, promissory note, and deed of trust which protects the City’s interest in the project. This acts as a “second” on the primary loan. Since Mobile Homes are not secured by land like a single-family home, the security approach requires the City to obtain an ownership interest in the mobile home which presents several challenges related to liability and change of title in the event of a death, sale, etc.
The City has had more success with Mobile Homes using grant programs that do not require similar challenges. As a result, the Staff recommendation is to focus the CalHome program on single-family homes and focus the CDBG Rehab Program on Mobile Homes (CDBG allows grants).
Term of Loan
CalHome Guidelines allow the City to establish a loan term of up to 30 years. It is within the Council’s discretion to set a shorter term.
Staff Recommendation: It is rare for a loan to reach maturity in programs of this nature.
Oftentimes homes are resold when residents move, pass away, or refinance. As a deferred loan, the City does not receive payment until a 30-year term that allows maximum flexibility for the participant and aligns with most common terms within the mortgage industry. Staff recommends a 30-year term for this program.
Interest Rate
CalHome Guidelines allow the City to establish a simple interest rate between zero and three percent.
Staff Recommendation: This program intends to assist residents in need to stay in their homes by providing funding for essential repairs. As a deferred loan, interest is not due until the home is sold, transferred, refinanced, or no longer eligible. This typically results in the loan being paid off by equity earned during the term of the loan. By charging interest, the City would see the ITEM 17
Agenda Packet Page 337
Subject: City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program Update
Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
program grow incrementally as loans are paid, eventually leading to increased capacity of the program. As a result, staff recommends a two-percent interest rate for the program.
Next Steps
Upon direction by the Citrus Heights City Council to allocate CalHome Reuse funds staff will update the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program Guidelines as necessary and present them as a Consent Item at a future City Council meeting for adoption. City staff will release a Request for Proposals for a rehabilitation consultant to assist City staff in administering the Housing Rehabilitation Program and work off the City’s existing wait list.
Future Rehabilitation Funding Program Options
As discussed in this staff report, preserving the City’s housing stock is critically important and supports several of the City’s Strategic Goals. The Housing Division will continue to review and respond to grant opportunities that support this endeavor.
Similar to CalHome and CDBG, each funding source has its criteria that stipulate how the funding may be used. The Housing Division will continue to review opportunities to match funding sources to these urgent needs.
As of the date of this staff report, the Housing Division and Economic Development and Community Engagement Department are preparing a grant application for the Older Adults Home Modification Grant Program through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Staff intends to apply for a $1M grant with a $100,000 (Affordable Housing Program) match.
If successful, the funding would allow grants, up to $5,000 per applicant intended to ensure low- income elderly persons remain in their homes through low-cost, low-barrier, high-impact home modifications to reduce older seniors’ risk of falling, improve general safety, increase accessibility, and to improve their functional abilities in their home. If successful, staff will bring any required guidelines to the City Council for review and consideration.
ITEM 17
Agenda Packet Page 338
Printed on Recycled Paper
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
Ashley J. Feeney, City Manager
F
ROM: Susan Talwar, Administrative Services Director
Regina Cave, General Services Director
S
UBJECT: Capital Replacement Fund – Expenditure Plan 2024/2025 Summary and Recommendation
T
he City maintains a Capital Replacement Fund reserve to fund facilities, fleet and information technology (IT) needs. The funds are retained separate from the General Fund reserves. As required by the City’s current purchasing policy, expending these funds requires authorization by the City Council.
S
taff recommend the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-___, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving the Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Capital Replacement Fund Expenditure Plan.
C
ity Council Strategic Goal/Objective
This staff report aligns with the following Citrus Heights City Council Strategic Goal:
• Maintain Public Infrastructure and Enhance All Modes of Transportation by addressing deferred maintenance of facilities and technology that serve the public.
Fiscal Impact
Thi
s proposed action results in no fiscal impact to the General Fund. The General Capital Replacement Fund is maintained separate from the General Fund Reserves. As part of the annual budget process, the General Fund allocates funds towards the General Capital Replacement Fund. The proposed expenditure plan proposes expending funds within the existing capital replacement balance.
B
ackground and Analysis
T
he City presently maintains 6 buildings, which include City Hall, Utility Building, Police Department, Citrus Heights Community Center, Sylvan Community Center, and the Sayonara Center. Each of the buildings require extensive maintenance, replacement and renovation Revised Item 10
Subject: Capital Replacement Fund – FY 2024/2025 Expenditure Plan Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
projects beyond the annual operating budget. Such projects include HVAC replacements, lighting replacements, exterior and interior painting, and renovations to support changing operations.
The City also maintains a relatively large fleet to support the Police Department, General Services Department, and Building Division. Industry standards and vehicle replacement needs differ from department to department, and in an effort to maintain fiscal prudence and extend the useful life of the City’s fleet, many of the City’s vehicles have been retained longer than industry standards suggest. In the past two years, the City has made extensive progress in replacing the Police Department’s older fleet, utilizing $1.4 million in ARPA funds, approved by Council in 2022. It is necessary to strategize vehicle replacement and ensure a safe and sustainable City fleet by maintaining an annual replacement cycle to avoid extensive vehicle expiration in any given year.
In addition to the City’s facilities and fleet replacement and repair needs, the City’s daily operations place a high demand on the City’s IT infrastructure. Throughout all City departments, much of the existing hardware – computers, monitors, and laptops – far exceed their useful life.
In an effort to reduce costs, the City has historically stretched the replacement cycle on much of its technology, however, the costs for ongoing support and adverse impacts on operations can cause inefficiencies, thus negating any true cost savings. Through the City’s biennial budget process, General Fund dollars are also allocated to the IT Replacement Program to support incremental investments in newer technology as needed to support the City’s daily operations.
The table below outlines the current Capital Replacement Fund balances by category, along with anticipated expenditures for Fiscal Year 2024/2025:
Category Balance
(as of 7/1/2024)
Planned
Expenditure
Planned
Improvement
Facilities – Buildings &
Equipment
$1,850,318 $55,000.00 Exterior painting of Citrus
Heights Community Center and
Sylvan Community Center
$328,000.00 PD Dispatch Critical Needs
Project – Including HVAC
replacement
$137,060.00 Community Center LED retrofit
project
$85,000.00 Community Center
HVAC/condenser replacement
$90,000.00 PD ISD HVAC replacement
Ending Balance $1,155,258
Fleet – Vehicles &
Equipment
$1,308,052 $71,000.00 Procurement of two replacement
motorcycles for Traffic Unit
$540,000.00 Procurement and upfitting of 6
patrol vehicles
$65,000.00 Procurement of two code
enforcement and admin pool
vehicles
Ending Balance $632,052
Revised Item 10
Subject: Capital Replacement Fund – FY 2024/2025 Expenditure Plan Date: October 23, 2024
Printed on Recycled Paper
Information Technology –
Components, Hardware &
Software
$623,382 $252,659.00 Computers, laptops and monitors
Ending Balance $370,723
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 2024-___, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights, California, Approving the Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Capital Replacement Fund Expenditure Plan.
A. 2024/2025 Capital Replacement Fund Expenditure Plan
Revised Item 10
Printed on Recycled Paper
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025
CAPITAL REPLACEMENT FUND EXPENDITURE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City retains a Capital Replacement Fund to support various replacement and investment projects to support City operations;
WHEREAS, the Capital Replacement Fund is funded by General Fund revenues allocated through the City’s biennial budget process;
WHEREAS, the City has identified various critical needs in the areas of facilities, fleet and information technology to ensure safe and operational buildings, equipment , vehicles, and amenities to support City staff and the general public;
WHEREAS, staff have prepared an expenditure plan for Fiscal Year 2024/2025 for the procurement of various services, equipment and vehicles utilizing existing funds allocated to the Capital Replacement fund.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Citrus Heights does hereby approve the 2024/2025 Capital Replacement Fund Expenditure Plan.
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 October, 2024 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
Dr. Jayna Karpinski-Costa, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Van, City Clerk
Exhibit
A. 2024/2025 Capital Replacement Fund Expenditure Plan
Revised Item 10
Exhibit A
2024/2025 Capital Replacement Fund Expenditure Plan
Category Balance
(as of 7/1/2024)
Planned
Expenditure
Planned
Improvement
Facilities – Buildings &
Equipment
$1,850,318 $55,000.00 Exterior painting of Citrus Heights Community Center and Sylvan
Community Center
$328,000.00 PD Dispatch Critical Needs Project
– Including HVAC replacement
$137,060.00 Community Center LED retrofit
project
$85,000.00 Community Center
HVAC/condenser replacement
$90,000.00 PD ISD HVAC replacement
Ending Balance $1,155,258
Fleet – Vehicles & Equipment $1,308,052 $71,000.00 Procurement of two replacement motorcycles for Traffic Unit
$540,000.00 Procurement and upfitting of 6
patrol vehicles
$65,000.00 Procurement of two code
enforcement and admin pool
vehicles
Ending Balance $632,052
Information Technology –
Components, Hardware &
Software
$623,382 $252,659.00 Computers, laptops and monitors
Ending Balance $370,723
Revised Item 10