Folsom City Council
July 11, 2023

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
The following Table 3-7 is informational only and calculates the total cost of improvements by 2040 to improve the existing system and to mitigate the impacts of new growth.

Table 3'7. 2O4O Estimated Capital Requirements
Reference Costs
Total Fundinq uirement
Formula
Improvements to Accommodate New Growth
Improvements to the Existing System
Master Planning Costs
Total Funding Required d=a+b+c
$26,346,863
$86,490,363
$6,850,000
$1L9,687,225
a
b
c
Table 3.3
Table 3.3
Table 3.5
Fund
Development Impact Fee
New Growth ESDS
Cost per ESD
Development Impact Fee Revenue
Non-Fee Revenue Requirement
Total Funding Required
Non-Fee Revenue Requirement
e
fg=e{'f
d
h=d-g
Table 3.2
Table 3.5
7,BTB
$3,461
$27,O58,3O1
$Ltg,687,225
$92,628,924
Sources: DOU and EPS Separated_7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc' (EPS) 42Page 178
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
Comparison with Surrounding
Communities
The comparison of the Separated Sewer fee with surrounding jurisdictions is shown on Table 3-8. The table includes a single-family land use and office and retail uses on a per 1,000 square foot basis and the same land uses on a per acre basis. Complete comparative information in chart form is presented as Appendix C-4, and high-level summaries are in Chapter 1, the Executive Summary.

Table 3-8. Fee Comparisons
Site Area Per Acre
Jurisdiction [1]
Single
Family Retail Office
Single
Family [2] Retail Office
Sacramento
Sacramento County - Uninc.

Folsom
Roseville
West Sacramento
Woodland
Average Excluding Sacramento
Sacramento +/- Percent [3]
per 1.000 so, ft, f3l
$1,889 $r,L76
$2,0s3 $L,467
$316 $226
$149 $149
$2.078 $2,078
$2,908 $r,744
$1,s01 $1,133
260/o 4o/o
per unit
$3,56s
$3,194
$1,073
$447
$7,0 11
i7,L25
$3,77O
-5o/o
s24,954
$22,360
$7,stL
$3,129
$49,077
$49,875
$26,390
-5o/o
$20,575
$22,360
$3.438
$t,623
$22,629
$3 1,668
$16,344
260/o
$17,935
$22,360
$3,438
$2,272
$3 1,68 1
$26,s89
9t7,26A
4o/o
Source: EPs
Note:

Sepanted_8
[1] Does not include regional sewer fees. See table sets 1.5 and 1.6 in the Executive Summary and Appendix A-2 for comparative details that include regional sewer fees.
[2] Based on 7 units per acre.
[3] Comparisons for Retail and Office land uses are based on the assumption of a 1-acre parcel with a structure covering 25 percent of the parcel (i.e., a F.A.R of.25) for Retail, and 35 percent for Office. This construct is for comparative purposes only.

The proposed fee in Sacramento appears high for retail because of very low fees in Roseville and Folsom.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 43Page 179
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
Nexus Findings
For the Separated Sewer System Utility, this section addresses the following requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code section 66000 et seq.).

Per California Government Code Section 6600I

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify how the fee is to be used.

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

4. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

5. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility or portion of the facility attributable to the development on which the fee is impose.

The Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee applies to all development in the service area in proportion to the measured expectation of sanitary sewer flow by land use type.

1. Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of the Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee is to fund capacity improvements to accommodate projected new residential and non- residential development as detailed in Chapter 3.

2. Use of Fee
The Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee will be used to fund sewer facilities needed to convey sanitary sewage generated by development in the service area to trunk lines for the regional treatment facility owned and operated by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District.

3. Reasonable Relationship between Use of Fee and Tvpe of Development on Which the Fee is Imposed
The Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee varies by development type based on measured expectation of sanitary sewer flows by development type. This proportional fee will be used to fund sanitary sewer facilities identified in Chapter 3, Appendix C and as set forth in the Dynamic Model (included by reference herein), which are designed to accommodate expected sanitary flows from new residential and nonresidential development in all basins with projected growth.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 44Page 180
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
A reasonable relationship therefore exists between the use of the Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.

4. Reasonable Relationshio between Need for Facilitv and Type of Project on Which the Fee is Imposed
New residential and nonresidential projects in the service area are required to connect to the City's sewer system, New residents, employees, and patrons of the new developments will generate increased sewer flows. Sewer facilities needed to accommodate this demand were determined based on the modelling of sewage generated by projected residential and nonresidential development by basin as set forth in Chapter 3, Appendix C and the Dynamic Model.

A reasonable relationship therefore exists between the need for sanitary sewer facilities and new residential and nonresidential development projects on which the Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee is imposed because the portion of sewer facilities funded by the Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee is based on the amount of sewage generated by projected residential and non-residential development.

5. Reasonable Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facilities or Portion of Facilities Attributed to Develooment on Which Fee is Imposed The total cost of sanitary sewer facilities funded by the Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee is allocated amongst the projected new residential and nonresidential land uses in the service area based on the proportional demand each land use is anticipated to generate for the sanitary sewer facilities, The cost of sanitary sewer facilities is allocated to residential and nonresidential land uses based on the estimated proportionate demand each land use is anticipated to generate for the facilities. Demand for sewer facilities is measured by sewage generation rates for each land use category.

A reasonable relationship therefore exists between the amount of the Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee and the cost of the sanitary sewer facilities attributed to the residential and nonresidential development on which the fee is imposed because the costs are allocated based on the demand generated by new development for sanitary sewer facilities as measured by the sewage generated by each development type.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 45Page 181
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
Per California Government Code Section 66073

1. Subsection (a): Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes fees for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee or charge imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.

Findinq on the Base Fee: The Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee for capital improvements (Base Fee) does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed. Costs are estimated for new facilities necessary to accommodate the demand created by modelled sewer flows from new residential and non-residential development by location and land use type.

Finding on the Administrative Component: The administrative cost portion of Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee (Administration Fee) does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed. The Administration Fee funds City costs associated with fee program administration and implementation including collection and accounting, annual reporting, capital planning, periodic updates to the Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee, and other related costs.

2. Subsection (c): A localagency receiving payment of a charge as specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) shall deposit it in a separate capital facilities fund with other charges received, and account for the charges in a manner to avoid any commingling with other moneys of the local agency, except for investments, and shall expend those charges solely for the purposes for which the charges were collected. Any interest income earned from the investment of moneys in the capital facilities fund shall be deposited in that fund.

Finding: The City of Sacramento and the Department of Utilities has the systems in place to ensure compliance with Subsection c in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the Government Accounting Standards Board best practices and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 46Page 182
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023

3. Subsection (d): For a fund established pursuant to subdivision (c), a local agency shatl make avaitable to the public, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the following information for that fiscal year:
(1) A description of the charges deposited in the fund. (2) The beginning and ending balance of the fund and the interest earned from investment of moneys in the fund.
(3) The amount of charges collected in that fiscal year. (4) An identification of all of the following:
(A) Each pubtic improvement on which charges were expended and the amount of the expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost of the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one source of funding was used.
(B) Each pubtic improvement on which charges were expended that was comPleted during that fiscal Year.
(C) Each pubtic improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the following fiscal Year.
(S) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the capital facilities fund. The information provided, in the case of an interfund transfer, shall identify the public improvements on which the transferred moneys aret or witl be, expended. The information, in the case of an interfund loan, shall include the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the fund will receive on the loan' Finding: The requirements of Subsection d are acknowledged and consistent with existing systems and Practices.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 47Page 183
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
4 The Combined Sewer System Utility
Introduction and Description
The Combined Sewer System Utility (CSS) provides wastewater and drainage services to approximately 34,000 commercial and residential properties located in the City. The CSS includes approximately 443 miles of pipe and 15 wastewater pump stations in 14 combined sewer basins. There are also 4 storage facilities, 2 of which also function as pump stations, and are included in the 15 pump stations noted above. The CSS includes treatment facilities that are used during significant wet-weather events. This system is administered by DOU to provide safe and reliable collection and conveyance of wastewater and to ensure the wastewater systems comply with all state and federal regulations.

The residential and commercial customers that receive service from the CSS constitute approximately 23 percent of the total residential and commercial customers in the City. The balance is served by the City's Separated Sewer System (discussed in Chapter 3) or the SASD, a separate entity not under control of the City. All of the effluent from the City systems and SASD are delivered to a regional treatment facility owned and operated by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District.

On the Map below (Figure 4-1), the boundaries of the CSS are within the red line, labeled "Combined".

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 48Page 184
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
Figure 4-1. Combined Sewer System Utility Boundaries and Key System and Geographic Cha racteristics
G b-&-d-F
It
tt
.l-:,- ^ *..*. -
.. t
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 49Page 185
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023
Growth and Demand
Because the CSS mixes storm runoff and wastewater, the primary concern is to protect public health. In a storm event, the capacity of the system may be exceeded, causing outflows to the streets and overflows to the Sacramento River Storage allows the mix of drainage and wastewater to be held for later release when the system has the capacity to deliver the flow to the regional treatment facility.

To manage the CSS, the City uses a variety of methods to increase storage capacity to minimize the frequency and severity of outflows. As growth occurs, the primary means to increase storage capacity is to enlarge pipes for in-line storage. Funding is secured through development impact fees for that purpose, or if a larger, areawide storage project is desired, the capacity required is secured through agreements.

For new growth, because the CSS manages a mix of wastewater and drainage runoff, both impacts of sewer flow and drainage must be measured to calculate the storage requirements for each new development. For in-line storage and the supporting fees, the demand for capacity is per project and is calculated on the following two demand indicators and associated demand factors:
r For wastewater, the demand indicator is ESD, where an ESD of 1 is the expectation of average sanitary flow from a single-family detached home using average daily winter water-use data. This data is used to factor the ESD expectation for any land use.
o For drainage runoff, the demand indicator is new impermeable surface acres/ or square feet. The factor is the total in a new development.

As will be discussed in more detail below, there is an interaction between the two impacts of wastewater flow and drainage runoff. This is to ensure that a standard forrunoff storage of 7,600 cubicfeetperacreismetbyadevelopmentregardless of the development's configuration of ESDs and new impermeable surface.

In effect, the storage required for wastewater mitigates a portion of the storage required for drainage, and vice-versa. Depending on a development's configuration, a development subject to a wastewater impact fee may not also require a drainage fee, or both fees may be necessary to meet the storage requirement.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 50Page 186
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
Incremental Methodology and Cost per
Equivalent Standard Dwelling and
Impermeable Square Foot
The capital improvements required by the demands are incremental enlargements of piping to provide the storage capacity required on a per project basis. The calculation to determine the storage requirement and the cost per ESD and per impermeable square foot is shown on Table 4-1'
Table 4-1, Equivalent Standard Dwelling and New Impermeable Surface Storage Requirements and Costs
A, Sewerage
Ca Per ESD
City Sanitary Sewage Standard (Gal./ESD) [2]
Maximum Sewer Generation Ratio [3]
Maximum Sewer Flow
Average Dilution Ratio [4]
Gallons per ESD of Storage Capacity Needed
a
b
c=a*b
d
e=c/d
310

0.401
L24

0.067
1,851
Storaoe Cost Per ESD
Per Foot of Pipe
Required 48" New In-Line Storage Cost per Foot
Existing 18" In-Line Storage Replacement Cost per Foot
Net Cost of Required PiPe Per Foot
Per Cubic Foot of Pipe
48" Pipe
18" Pipe
Net Cubic Feet of Required Pipe per Foot
Cost per Cubic Foot
Required Storage Capacity and Cost per ESD
Gallons of Storage Capacity Needed per ESD
Cubic Feet per Gallon
Cubic Feet of Storage Capacity Needed per ESD
Cost per Cubic Foot
Storage Capacity Cost Per ESD
f
s
h=f-g
ij
k=i-jl=h/k
m=e
n
o=m*n
I
p=o*l
$s80
$2s7
$323
L2.56
t.76

10.80 $29.93
1,851

0.133681
247.41
$29.93
$7,406
B. Drainage
New Surface Requirement and Cost Per Square Foot
Storage Requirement per Acre (cu. ft.) [5]
Cost per Cubic Foot
Cost Per Impervious Acre
Cost Per Impervious Square Foot
q
h
r=h*Q
s=r/43,56O
7,600
$29.93
$227,496
$s.22
Source: DOU
Notes:
[1] The Infoworks ICM Model determines maximum percentage of daily sanitary sewage generation expected during the height of a 1o-year, 6-hour storm event. [2] The current City of Sacramento Design and Procedures Manual, Section 9.4'7' [3] The Infoworks ICM Model estimates that the average flooding duration at areas with the worst outflows is approximately 7.2 hours. Based on the diurnal curve created from wastewater flow data in the combined sewer system, the maximum sewer generation during a 7.2 hour period is 4O.lo/o of the total daily flow.
[4] Source files: City of Sacramento, Infoworks ICM Model. [5] The current Onsite Design Manual, Figure 10 storage requirement for detention in a 1oo-year storm event.

Combined 7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 51Page 187
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
As can be seen in Table 4-1, each ESD requires the creation of 1,855 gallons for storage. With a full pipe, and after applying the dilution ratio (the letter "d" in the formula), that storage will be composed of t24.3 gallons of wastewater, and 1,731 gallons of drainage. The drainage mitigated of 1,731gallons, or 231.4 cubic feet, can be used for the required drainage mitigation that comes from increasing the impervious area of the site being developed. This requirement is 7,600 cubic feet per acre of new impermeable surface. In square foot terms, L,326.3 square feet of new impermeable surface is mitigated by one ESD Ii.e., 1,326. J= (231.4/ 43,560)x7,600].

It is possible for a development with enough ESDs relative to its parcel size to satisfy the drainage storage requirement from the drainage storage created by mitigating for ESDs. Examples of a range of developments are shown on Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. Capacity Requirements Examples
Examples
Formula I 2 3 4
ESDs
New Impermeable Acreage
Required Mitigation in Cu. Ft.

Required Mitigation in Sq. Ft.
a
b
c=b*7,600cu,fr./acre
d=(c /7,600)x43,560)
1 0, 125
950
5,445
6 0.5
3,800
2t,7AO
250
4 30,400
174,240
60 2
,200
,r20
15 87
Drain
ra M
e
n e=a*237.4
DrainageMitigated in Sq. Ft. f=(e /7,600)x43,560)
Remaining Required Mitigation and Fee
L,326.3 7,957.7 79,577.2 331,571.8
In Cubic Feet
In Square Feet
Sewer Fee
Drainage Fee
9=c-ecu'ft,
h = d - f sq.ft.
718.6
4,rtg,7
2,41r.6
13,822.3 7
,316.0 (27,45O.0)
,542.8 (157,331.8)
none
yes
yes
yes
yes
yesyes
yes
Sources: DOU and EPS. combined_2
Example number 4, with 250 ESDs on 4 acres, would satisfy the drainage requirement through ESDs alone. The drainage fee would be fully credited. The other examples would pay reduced drainage fees based on the drainage mitigated through the ESDs. These same examples are presented in dollar terms on Table 4-6 later in this chapter, below the discussion of the fees.

Planning costs are being employed to help defray the cost of capacity improvements. These costs are being shared on a proportional basis between new growth and existing customers in accordance with the existing customer base by land use and the projected growth by land use in 2040. The calculation of proportional shares is shown on Table 4-3.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 52Page 188
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
Table 4-3. New and Existing ESDs
Resldential
lJnits ESDs
20L7
Units
2022
Units
a
2040
Units
b
Unit
Growth
ESD
Factors
d
ESD
Growth
Existing
ESDsUnits
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Totals
formula:
72,327
4,4t7
23,648
40,392
t2,357
4,724
28,244
45,325
12,646
10,981
53,1 18
76,745
289
6,257
24,874
3L,42O
12,357
2,362
74,722
2a,a4L
289
3,729
L2,437
15,855
1 0.5

0.5 Non-Residential
Units ESDs
Square
Feet per
Employee
zlJt7
Unlts
2l)22
LJnits
2040
Units
Unit
Growth
ESD
Factors
ESD
Growth
Existing
ESDs
Retail/Food
Office
Manufaciuring/Other
a
23,373
L99,822
38,2L1
26L,346
23,494 28,329
200,023 2L7,489
39,188 57,670
262,705 303,488
4,835
L7,466
18,482

40.783Totals
souare Feet (in 1.OOOS)
formula: b
c = (a*b) e= (d*b) s =(t*b )
/1000 /1000 /1000 i=9-e k=e*j t_r*j
Retail/Food [1]
Office
Manufacturing/Other [2]
Totals
ESD Totals
200
500
500
7r,657
39,964
19,105
7O,726
L7,747
40,005
19,594
7r,346
t4,t65
43,498
28,835
a6,498
2,4t4
3,493
9,24r
15,LSz

0.25 0.5

0.25 2,937
20,003
4,899
27,434
605
t,747
2,310
4,56L
56,679 20,516
and EPS
Notes:
[1] Weighted average of Retail and Food land uses.
[2] Weighted average of Educational, Medical. Services and Industrial land uses.

The allocation of planning costs to existing and new growth and the cost per ESD is shown on Table 4-4.

Table 4-4. Cost per ESD with Planning Gosts
Reference Formula Factors
2022 Existing ESD5
2040 New ESDs
2040 Total ESDS
Master Planning Cost
Master Planning Cost per ESD
Storage Capacity Cost per ESD
Total Cost per ESD
Table 4.3
Table 4.3
Table 4.1
a
b
c=a+b
d
e=d/cfg=e+f
56,679
20,5L6
77,t95
$5 1 1,000
$7
$7,406
i7,4t3
Sources: DOU and EPS Combined 4
Planning costs of $511.000 are shared by existing and new development at a cost of $7 per ESD. The base and planning fee per ESD for new growth is $7,4t3' The schedule of the fee by land use is shown on Table 4-5 on the following page.

A further detailed schedule is included as Appendix D-1.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 53Page 189
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
Table 4-5. Development Impact Fee Schedule-Sewerage and Drainage Cost per
ESD
Cost by Land Use
and Factor
Administrative
Land Use
Seweraoe
Residential
Single Family Detached
Apartment
Hotel/Motel
Single Famity Attached, Duplex,
Triplex, Quadplex and Similar
College Dorm or Boarding House
Nonresidential
Retail
Dine-in Restaurant
Office (single story)
Hospital
K-12 Schools
Heavy Industrial
Colleges & Universities
Church
Other Non-Residential
Factor
per dwelling
per dwelling
per room
per dwelling
per bed or resident
per 1,000 sq, ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per bed
per 100 students
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 square feet
per 12,000 gal. (water/user/mo,)
ESD
a L-A
Fee olo
=c
Fee
e=c+
$7,635
$5,O39
$3,283
$6,337
$3,O54
+4tO47
$13,515
$2t52O
$12,369
$30,236
i2t29L
$5,8O3
$1,68O
$7t635

1.00 0,66

0.43 #7,4L3
$7,4!3
$7,4r3
$7,413
$7,473
$7,473
$7,4t3
$7,473
$7,473
$7,4L3
$7,4\3
$7,4t3
$7,413
$7,4L3
$7,4L3
$4,893
$3,188
$6,153
$2,965
$3,929
$ 13,121
$2,446
$12,009
$29,355
$2,224
$5,634
$ 1,631
$7,4r3
$s.22
$222
$147
$e6
$18s
$8e
$1 18
$3s4
$73
$360
$881
$67
$169
$4s
$222

0.83 0.4

0.53 7.77

0.33 r.62

3.96 0.30
o.76

0.22 1.00
Drainaoe-
New Impervious Surface Cost per Square Foot - All Land Uses Sources: DOU and EPS
Note:
[1] See the report text for an explanation of the interaction between the sewer fee and the drainage fee $0.16 $s.38
Combined_5
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 54

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
If the sewer fee is charged first on a project, the drainage fee is reduced or is not applied, depending on a project's configuration. A few examples are shown on Table 4-6.

Table 4-6. Fee Examples
Exam les
Formula 3 4
ESDs
New Impermeable Acres
New Impermeable Sq. Ft,
Sewer Fee per ESD
Drainage fee per Sq. Ft.

Sewer Fee
Drainage Fee
Drainage Credit
Total Fee
a
b
c=b*a
f=axd
g=c*e
h = See Note [1]
i=e+f-g
1 0,125
5,445
$7,63s
$s.38
$7,635
$29,290
($7,134)
$29,79L
6 0.5
2L,780
$7,635
$s.38
$45,812
$ 1 17,16 1
($42,807)
$120,166
60 2
87,L20
$7,635
$s.38
$458,123
$468,642
($428,068)
$498,698
250
4 174,240
$7,635
$s.38
$ 1,908,848
$937,284
($937,284)
$1,9O8,848
d
e
Sources: DOU and EPS, Combined_6
Note:
[1] This is the value in drainage fees of the drainage mitigated by the sewerfee. The percent of the 7,600/acre standard for storage mitigated by ESDs (23L.4 cu.ft./ESD) is converted to the land square feet mitigated (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2) and multiplied by the drainage fee per square foot. Credit is applied up to the full value of the drainage fee' Drainage fees could be charged first, in which case, the relationships are reversed with the same cost outcome.

Table 4-7 is informational only and calculates the total cost of improvements by 2040 to mitigate the sewer impacts of new growth'
Table 4-7, 2O4O Sewer Improvement Costs and Revenue at Buildout reference formula Factors
Total Cost per ESD Tabte 4.4
Total New 2040 ESDs rable 4.3
Improvement Costs and Revenue with Buildout
a
b
c=axb
$7,413
20,516
$152,083,255
Sources: DOU and EPS Combined 7
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 55Page 191
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
Also for informational purposes, Table 4-8 shows a forecast of the typical method to determine new impermeable surfaces.

Table 4-8. Vacant Acres and Impervious Surface
Maximum Imperviou s Surface
Parcels
formula
Acres
a
Impervious Impervious Impervious
surface Surface Surface
Coeffient Buildout Buildout
(ISC) Acres Square Feet
d=c*
b c=a*b 43,560
Land Use
Industrial
Irregular/Waste
Office
Public [1]
Recreation [2]
Residential
Retail/Commercial
Totals
L74
207
94 43
4 557
L76
L,255
180
39 73
1B
9 L77
tL2
609
B5o/o
90o/o
9Oo/o
9Oo/o
5o/o
50o/o
9Oo/o
153
35 66
16 0
89 101
460
6,672,O07
1,523,t53
2,862,779
697,562
19,639
3,860,476
4,409,O6L
20,044,678
Sources: DOU and EPS
Notes:

Combined_8
[1] The Number of Parcels, and Area values for the "Public" landuse are left unchanged from the 2015 update.
[2] Recreation has liad one parcel removed from the calculations, a 109 acre parcel in the railyards area. This area has had its area distributed to the office, residential, public, and retail land use calculations.

A standard expectation would be construction costs and revenue to approximate $105 million at $5.22 per square foot in the CSS service area. But as shown above, the drainage mitigation provided by the development of ESDs reduces or eliminates a drainage mitigation requirement.

Comparison with Surrounding
Communities
The comparison of the CSS with surrounding jurisdictions is shown on Table 4-9' The table is for the sewer fee only and includes a single-family land use and office and retail uses on a per 1,000 square foot basis and the same land uses on a per acre basis. Complete comparative information in chart form is presented as Appendix D-2, and high-level summaries are in Chapter 1, the Executive Summary.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 56Page 192
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
Table 4-9. Fee Comparisons
lurisdiction [1]
single
Family
Site Area Per Acre
5rnqre
Retail Office Family [2] Retail Office
Sacramento
Sacramento County - Uninc.

Folsom
Roseville
West Sacramento
Woodland
Average Excluding Sacramento
Sacramento +/- Percent [3]
oer 1,000 so. ft. t3l
i4,o47 $2,520
$2,053 $L,467
$316 $226
$149 $149
$2,078 $2,074
$2,908 $L,744
$1,501 $1,133
LTOolo L22o/o
per unit
$7,63s
$3,194
$1.073
$447
$7.01 1
$7,rzs
13,77O
1O3o/o
$s3,448
$22,360
$7.5 1 1
$3,129
$49,O77
$49,87s
$25,39O
1O3o/o
$44,069
$22,360
$3,438
$ 1,623
$22,629
$31,668
$L6,344
tTOo/o
$38,41s
$22,360
$3,438
$2,272
$31,681
$26,s89
4L7,254
L22o/o
Source: EPS
Note:
combined_g
[1] Does not include regional sewer fees. See table sets 1,5 and 1.6 in the Executive Summary and Appendix A-2 for comparative details that include regional sewer fees. [2] Based on 7 units per acre.
[3] Comparisons for Retail and Office land uses are based on the assumption of a 1-acre parcel with a structure covering 25 percent of the parcel (i.e., a F.A,R of .25) for Retail, and 35 percent for Office. This construct is for comparative purposes only.

Importantly, a comparative table for the drainage element of the fee cannot be made because of the credit system in Sacramento. Typically, drainage fees are for all new impermeable surface, including buildings. In Sacramento, direct credits are given for drainage mitigation as a result of the sewer mitigation required for new ESD5. No jurisdiction in the area has a comparable system of any magnitude' The proposed fees are the highest in the region because of the realities of a combined system: a high storage requirement to mitigate the health risks of the combined wastewater and drainage flows from the system' Nexus Findings
For the Combined Sewer System Utility (CSS), this section addresses the following requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code section 66000 et seq.) as it relates to the Combined Sewer System Utility and as discussed in Chapter 4, which is incorporated here by reference' Per California Government Code Section 66007

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify how the fee is to be used.

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 57Page 193
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023

4. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

5. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility or portion of the facility attributable to the development on which the fee is impose.

The Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee includes two fees, one for sewer and one for runoff, and applies to all development in the service area. The sewer fee is in proportion to the measured expectation of sanitary sewer flow by land use type. The drainage portion is in proportion to new impermeable square footage and applies only if drainage is not mitigated by the sewer fee as explained below and in Chapter 4.

1. Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee is to fund capacity improvements to accommodate projected new residential and non- residential development as detailed in Chapter 4.

2. Use of Fee
The Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee will be used to fund sewer pipe capacity or equivalent improvements to convey and store sanitary sewage and drainage runoff generated by development in the service area to mitigate the risk of river, roadway and property contamination during storm events. Release of this combined storage is timed to coincide with available capacity for discharge to trunk lines connected to the regional treatment facility, which is owned and operated by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District.

3. Reasonable Relationship between Use of Fee and Type of Develooment on Which the Fee is Imposed
The Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee varies by development type and parcel size. Development in the CSS typically creates net-new sewer flows and net-new impermeable surfaces, both of which impact the CSS. Because sewer and runoff mix in the CSS and require the same storage medium (48" in- line pipes), mitigated sewer flows also mitigate a measured volume of storm- event runoff. Please see Table 4-1 in Chapter 4 for detailed calculations and discussion of these interactions, The Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee takes these interactions into account by development type and parcel size in the calculation of the fee.

Sewer generation rates by land-use type are measured for typical flows by way of an index termed Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) where the typical single-family home has a EDU of one. The sewer portion of the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee is a per EDU fee and is the cost to mitigate the impact of each EDU. A proposed development in the CSS will include the land-use type(s) and the required sewer EDUs and a measure of new impermeable surfaces on the Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5BPage 194
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
parcel(s) involved. If the mitigation required for runoff is less than the runoff mitigation provided by the required EDUs, only the sewer portion of the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee applies. If drainage remains to be mitigated, the drainage portion of the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee is applied to the unmitigated portion on a per square foot basis' The fee is the cost of storage, using the same storage medium, to satisfy the established standard for runoff mitigation in the CSS to minimize the risks of contamination from storm events.

A reasonable relationship therefore exists between the use of the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.

4. Reasonable Relationship between Need for Facility and Tvpe of Proiect on Which the Fee is Imposed
New residential and nonresidential projects in the service area are required to connect to the CSS system. New residents, employees, and patrons of the new developments will generate increased sewer and drainage flows. Storage needed to accommodate this demand were determined based on the modelling of sewage and storm water runoff generated by existing and projected residential and nonresidential develoPment.

A reasonable relationship therefore exists between the need for CSS storage facilities and new residential and nonresidential development projects on which the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee is imposed because the poftion of storage facilities funded by the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee is based on the amount of sewage and runoff generated by projected residential and non-residential development.

5. Reasonable Relationship between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facilities or Portion of Facilities Attributed to Develooment on Which Fee is Imoosed The Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee is the cost of storage capacity. The cost is allocated amongst the projected new residential and nonresidential land uses in the service area based on the proportional demand each development is anticipated to generate for storage capacity' A reasonable relationship therefore exists between the amount of the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee and the cost of the sanitary sewer facilities attributed to the residential and nonresidential development on which the fee is imposed because the costs are allocated based on the demand generated by new development for storage capacity as measured by the new impermeable surface of development parcels and by the sewage generated by each development type.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 59Page 195
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
Per California Government Code Section 66076,5 (AB 602) The section is included to address the drainage element of the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee. Most requirements of the legislation are met in the findings under 66001. Those that are not yet addressed are as follows'

1. Exceotion requirement to the housing souare footaoe basis:
a) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project' b) 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.
c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

The findings for the exception are as follows:
a) An explanation as to whv souare footage is not an aopropriate metric to calculate fees imoosed on a housing development project.

New imperious surfaces drive the demand for drainage facilities' In housing developments, new impervious surfaces incorporate the footprint on a parcel, capturing ground floor living spaces as well as driveways, sidewalks, patios and other such surfaces. A square footage of proposed units basis would introduce inequities. For example, a two-story home with the same footprint as a single- story home would pay twice the fee while causing an identical impact on the drainage system. This inequity would be amplified in multistory apartment and condominium buildings or towers,
b) An exolanation that an alternative basis of calculatinq the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charoed and the burden oosed bv the develooment.

For storm water runoff, the standard, customary and equitable method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged, the facilities required, and the type of development on which the fee is imposed is with a direct measure of new impermeable surfaces. New runoff as a result of development establishes the demand for new or improved capacity, the cost of which is the basis of the fee.
c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller develooments, or otherwise ensure that smaller develooments are not charqed disorooortionate fees.

A fee basis of impermeable square footage ensures equity for the allocation of the cost of the impact from development. The fee is proportional to the impact caused by new impermeable surfaces. Smaller developments with identical unit footprints Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 60Page 196
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
will have the same fees. Smaller footprints will have proportionately lower fees.

Similarly, multifamily apartment building and towers will have lower impacts and fees on a per unit basis as the size of the units decline and/or the number of floors increase.

2. Capital improvement olan reouirement as part of a nexus studv:

Capital improvements funded by the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee are limited to pipe enlargements on a per project basis or to periodic areawide storage facilities. Areawide improvements involve separate agreements with developers and may include a proportionate share funded by fee revenue.

Project master planning and programming are carried out as part of the annual budget process.

3. Blanket statement on the remaininq requirements of 66013:

The remaining requirements of 66013 are either addressed in the findings under 66001, 66013 below and in Chapter 4, all of which are incorporated herein by reference, or will be through the public outreach, public hearing and adoption process, implementation process and the accounting and reporting process, all of which are acknowledged.

Per California Government Code Section 66073

1. Subsection (a): Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency impOses feeS for water cOnnectiOns or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee or charge imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a poputar vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.

Findinq on the Base Fee: The Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee for capital improvements (Base Fee) does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed. Costs are estimated for new facilities necessary to accommodate the demand created by modelled sewer flows from new residential and non-residential development by land-use type.

Finding on the Administrative Component: The administrative cost portion of Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee (Administration Fee) does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed. The Administration Fee funds City costs associated with fee program administration and implementation including collection and accounting, annual reporting, capital planning, periodic updates to the Combined Sewer System Development Impact Fee, and other related costs.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc' (EPS) 61Page 197
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023

2. Subsection (c): A tocat agency receiving payment of a charge as specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) shall deposit it in a separate capital facilities fund with other charges received, and account for the charges in a manner to avoid any commingling with other moneys of the local agency, except for investments, and shatl expend those charges solely for the purposes for which the charges were collected. Any interest income earned from the investment of moneys in the capitat facitities fund shall be deposited in that fund' Findino: The City of Sacramento and the Department of Utilities has the systems in ptace to ensure compliance with Subsection c in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the Government Accounting Standards Board best practices and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.

3. Subsection (d): For a fund established pursuant to subdivision (c), a local agency shall make avaitable to the public, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscat year, the following information for that fiscal year:
(1) A description of the charges deposited in the fund. (2) The beginning and ending balance of the fund and the interest earned from investment of moneYs in the fund.
(3) The amount of charges collected in that fiscal year. (4) An identification of all of the following:
(A) Each public improvement on which charges were expended and the amount of the expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost of the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one source of funding was used.
(B) Each pubtic improvement on which charges were expended that was completed during that fiscal year'
(C) Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the following fiscal Year.
(5) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the capital facitities fund. The information provided, in the case of an interfund transfer, shatl identify the public improvements on which the transferred moneys are, or will be, expended. The information, in the case of an interfund loan, shall include the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the fund will receive on the loan.

Finding: The requirements of Subsection d are acknowledged and consistent with existing systems and Practices.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 62Page 198
07/11/2023 Item No.14.
a
a
I
a
a
Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023

5. The Storm Drainage System Utility
Introduction and DescriPtion
The city Dou storm Drainage system Utility (storm Drainage system) is responsible for managing creeks, streams, and stormwater runoff to prevent flooding of streets and properties and to mitigate contamination from pollution and pathogens. Specifically, the Storm Drainage System is required to design improvements that:

Meet the needs of a growing community.

Provide a minimum 100-Year Event protection to structures Provide a minimum lO-Year Event protection to streets'
Control urban runoff Pollutants.

Avoid public safety hazards.

Effective stormwater management is complicated in Sacramento by the City's mostly flat topography and location on a low-lying flood plain. More than all other cities in California, less reliance can be placed on gravity to manage runoff.

A system of primary and secondary levees largely surrounds the City and is managed by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) loint Powers Authority, which includes the city as a member. The city's separate storm Drainage System must often pump all runoff up through the levees to discharge to the rivers. Within the system itself, design considerations are focused on the capacity for temporary storage, as well as the normal considerations for conveyance. As a result, the system consists of local storm drains, in-line flow controls, levees, pumpS/ and pipes tO colleCt, store, filter, and clean stOrmwater in 134 separate drainage basins serving approximately 155,000 parcels.

For land use, every parcel has an allowable runoff, as determined by the size and capacity of a basin. If a new development proposes to exceed that allowance, either onsite storage must be provided or an agreement must be entered into that provides for another mitigation measure. All of the above attributes of the Storm Drainage System are necessary to mitigate the risk of flooding and of polluting rivers and water sources. Adequate maintenance and capacity improvements are required for both existing and new development'
A map of the area affected by the storm drainage impact fee is shown on Figure 5-1.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 63Page 199
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
Figure 5-1. Storm Drainage System Utility Boundaries and Key System and Geographic Gharacteristics
iacMI4INTQ Drainage lmpact Fees
Fees
I PumpedBasin
a Gravlty Bash
il DrsinagelmpactFos
NotApplicau€
Combin6d Sewer
syst€m (css)
N
A
1 H+l+Fl
Miles
0 2
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc, (EPS) 64Page 200
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
The areas labelled as "Pumped" or "Gravity" Basins denote baSins with two different asset characteristics. Each basin type includes assets that are used in common, such as pump stations in Pumped Basins, and in all basins, main drainage lines, storage basins, or canals servicing a large area' Not included are smaller lines serving individual properties or large, master planned communities, where the drainage infrastructure has been installed and is maintained by separate agreements. Most of the North Natomas area and the Delta Shores development in the southern part of the City are examples of these excluded areas.

Growth, D€mand' and Allocations
The key measure of demand for stormwater services is impermeable (or impervious) surface. New impermeable surface is driven primarily by the development of "greenfields" or the redevelopment of existing development to new or more intensives uses. Projected new growth in the service area by residential and nonresidential land uses through 2040 is displayed on Table 5-1.

Table 5-1, New Growth by Acreage, Residential Units, and Nonresidential Square Feet
Residential Acres I11 lJnits
Single Fam Residential (6 - B DU/acre)
Multifamily MDR (<30 DU/acre)
Multifamily HDR (30+ DU/acre)
Total 25,3OO
Square Feet in
121 (1OOO's)
905
261
548
5,891
3,601
1,714
Retail/Food
Office/Services
Medical
Educational
I nd ustri a I
Total
155
450
264
46 908
2,46L
4,604
2,746
L,438
7LO
1,823 14t959
Total Acreage 3,536
Sources: City of Sacramento Department of Community Development, EPS' Storm_1 All new growth data is specific by parcel for land use type, for numbers of units or employees, for parcel size, and for other factors' As shown, Table 5-1 summarizes acreage by land use and units of housing. Nonresidential land uses include estimated building square footage based on expectations of the space required per projected future employees. The factors, or "coefficients," used are provided in APPendix A-1.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 65Page 201
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023
Buy-In Methodology, Fee Calculation'
and Credits
To accommodate the growth, an impact fee is proposed to participate in capital capacity improvements benefitting new growth or to create new capacity solely attributable to new growth. For these purposes, a buy-in approach to a development impact fee is being employed. As mentioned above, every parcel is assigned an allowable runoff, which is defined in the City's On-Site Design Manual. This allowable runoff is an allocation of available capacity in a basin to each parcel based on parcel size. Use of this allocation is also a use of a share of existing assets that has been paid for by current rate payers. Future customers will "buy in" to a proportional share of these assets by way of a buy-in development impact fee.

To determine an appropriate fee, this analysis includes only the key assets of the Storm Drainage System that could be efficiently valued (large diameter pipe mains and pump stations). Canals, ditches, drainage basins, and other assets for which replacement values or costs could not reasonably be obtained are not included. The assets used to establish value were classed into two types of basins, Zones, because of their similar assets: pumped or gravity basins. Figure 5-1 above shows the location of these two Zones. City staff employed a two-step process to determine the estimated value of existing storm drainage assets.

First, the estimated replacement cost in 2022 dollars was determined by City staff. Second, the existing values were depreciated based on their anticipated remaining useful life, so only the value of the remaining useful life is included as part of the fee calculation. Table 5-2 shows the estimated total replacement value of system assets, the accumulated depreciation of those assets, and the current value by basin type.

Table 5-2. Existing Assets
Summary [1]
PumDed Basins Zone
Replacement Cost Depreciation
Current System
Value
Pump Stations
Drainage Mains
Total Pumped Basins
$323,t2O,6LL
$272,920,396
$596,041,OO7
$265,r52,773
$166,48t,442
i43tt534,2t5
$57,967,838
$106,438,954
iL64,406,792
Gravitv Basins zone
Drainage Mains
Total Storm Drainage System
$62,740,618
$658,781,625
138,27t,777
$459,9O5f992
$24,468,84L
$188,875,633
Source: DOU
[1] Details of the asset values by basin are included in Appendix E-1 Storm_2
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 66Page 202
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023
The depreciated value of existing Storm Drainage System assets is calculated by dividing the depreciated value of improvements by the total acreage in each respective basin Zone (gravity and pumped), as shown in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3. System Value per Acre by Basin Type [1]
Factor
Pumped Basins Zone
Current System Value
Total Acreage
Value per Acre
$164,406,792
32,789
$5,O14
GraviW Basins Zone
Current System Value
Total Acreage
Value per Acre
$24,468,84r
8,135
$3,O08
Source: DOU
Note:
[1] Gross developable acres.

Storm 3
Given the value per acre of the capacity, a second step is necessary to allocate the value of the capacity equitably across all configurations of properties that affect runoff. The measure used for this purpose is impermeable surface.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 67Page 203
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023
To determine the current value of the Storm Drainage System on an impermeable surface basis, the entire system was evaluated to determine the weighted average impermeable surface for all land uses. The summary of that analysis is presented in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4. Weighted Average Impermeable Surface Goefficient [1] Customer Class Parcels Gross Acres ISC
Impermeable
Acres
Agriculture
Airport
Cemetery
Churches & Welfare
Common Area
Golf
Industrial
MFRl
MFRZ
MFR3
Miscellaneous
Office
Park
Personal Care & Health
Public & Utilities
Recreational
Retail / Commercial
SFRl
SFR2
SFR3
Vacant
Totals
L4
3 19
s56
910
9 2,065
2,360
ro,736
3,837
7,062
r,792
780
118
1,093
2t
3,202
18,085
94,051
7,452
5,754
L54r879
310.5
179.5

76.3 L,322.0
632.9
817.9
4,0rt.2
227.6
2,745.7
r,373.5
215.8
2,017.L
2,476.5
228.t
2,9L9.6
t22.7
2,436.6
1,195.0
L4,425.4
3,202.2
5,763.9
46,699.8
0,04
0,30

0.10 0.80

0.30 0.10

0.86 0,84

0.70 0.52

0.10 0,80

0.10 0.80

0.44 0,80

0.86 0.66

0.54 0,35

0.10 o.5032

12.4 53.9

7.6 L,057.6
189.9

81.8 3,449.6
tgL.2
r,922.O
714.2
2L.6
1,613.6
247.6
182.5
L,284.6

98.2 2,095.5
788.7
7,789.7
1,120.8
576.4
23,499.3
Sources: DOU, NBS [2] and EPS
Note:
l1l The ISC is the proportion of land that is impermeable' [2] The table is a compilation from data included in the NBS study for a Storm Drainage System maintenance fee: City of Sacramento Storm Drain Utility Property Related Fee Studv, NBS, December 202L' Storm_4
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 68Page 204
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
The average impermeable surface for all lands in the Storm Drainage System is

50.32 percent, or an Impervious Surface Coefficient (ISC) of 0.5032. The value of the capacity of the system on a per impermeable acre and square foot basis is as shown in Table 5-5 for each basin Zones.

Table 5-5. System Value per Impervious Acre and Square Foot by Basin Type Factor
Pumped Basins Zone formula
Value per Gross Developable Acre [1]
Average ISC
Value per Impermeable Acre
Value per Impermeable Square Foot
a
b
c=a/b
d=c/43.560
$5,014

0.5032
$9,964
$o.22A7
Gravity Basins Zone
Value per Gross Developable Acre [1]
Average ISC
Value per Impermeable Acre
Value per Impermeable Square Foot
e
f=d/e
g=f/43.560
$3,008

0.5032
$5,978
$o.1372
Source: DOU
Note:
[1] Table 5.3
Storm 5
The entitlement process in DOU requires the identification of new impermeable surface square feet for all new development. This is determined by City staff and the applicant either through a drainage study or other means such as an existing study in a master planned area. The values per impermeable square foot in Table 5-5 are, therefore, also the base fees by basin type. To support planning for capacity improvements, the impact fee includes an additional $329 fee per acre, and the proposed fees will include a 3 percent administrative charge. These calculations and the final fee per square foot by Zone are shown in Table 5-6' Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 69Page 205
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023
Table 5-6. Fee per Impervious Square Foot by Basin Type Factor
Pumped Basins Zone formula
Base Fee per Impervious Acre (Table 5)
Master Planning Fee
Subtotal
Administrative Fee
Fee per Impervious Acre
Fee per Impervious Square Foot
a
b
c=a+b
d
a=(Q+1)xc
f=e/43,560
$9,964
$329
$10,293
3o/o
$10,602
$o.2434
Gravitv Basins Zone
Base Fee per Impervious Acre (Table 5)
Master Planning Fee
Subtotal
Administrative Fee
Fee per Impervious Acre
Fee per Impervious Square Foot
l
k=(j+1)*i
l=k/43,56O
$5,978
$32e
$6,307
3o/o
$6,496
$o.1491
I
h
i=g+h
Source: DOU and EPS Storm_6
As mentioned above, the identification of new impermeable surfaces would occur during the entitlement process. Full credits are applied to existing impermeable su rfaces.

Fee per Developable Acre and Square
Foot
The fee would apply on a per impermeable square foot basis. For informational purposes, the expected cost for a greenfield development is calculated below.

These calculations are on a developable acre and square foot basis and are also used for comparative purposes with other jurisdictions.

For context, most new growth in Sacramento will not be greenfield development, The majority of new growth in sacramento is projected to be reuse or the intensification of development. A 100 percent credit is applied to existing impermeable surfaces. Most properties will be levied lower fees, or even no fees, as a result.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 70Page 206
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February L3,2023
The expected cost on a gross, greenfield developable acre and square foot basis requires a reasonable standard with which to project new impermeable suffaces by land use. That standard cannot be the actual, measured ISC for existing development in Table 5-4 because new development is generally denser than has historically been the case.

The standard to be used is the ISC, but as standardized statewide through research by, and adopted by, the California Environmental Protection Agency.3 Although similar in some respects to some of the actual, measured ISCs, the State of California standard specifies the expected impervious surface of all major land use types for future development.

The tables that follow apply the standard to projected development by land use type and calculate the base fee per developable acre and square foot. Table 5-7 calculates the fee for the Pumped Basins Zone. Table 5-B calculates the fee for the Gravity Basins Zone.

Table 5-7. Pumped Basins zone Fee Calculation by Land Use per Gross Developable Acre and Square Foot
Pumped Basins Zone
Land Use
formula:

Residentlal:

Single Fam Residential (6 - I Du/acre)
Multifamily HDR (30+ Du/acre)
Multifamily MDR (<30 Du/acre)
Non Residential:

Retail
Hotel/Motel [2]
Office
Hospital
Schools
Church
Industrial
Parking lot [3]
$0.2434
$0.2434
$o.2434
$o.2434
$o.2434
$o.2434
$o.2434
$0.2434
$0.2093
$0.1947
$0.1947
$0.L947
$0.1071
$0.1947
$0.2093
$0.2093
ISC Standard
By Land Use
Impervious
Square Feet
Per Gross
Developable
Acre
c= b*43,560
Fee Per
Impervious
Square Foot
tu
d
Fee Per
Gross
Developable
Acre
e=c*d
Fee Per Gross
Developable
Square Foot
f=e/43,560
As
Percent
a
AS
Ratlo
b

0.54 0.84

0.66 54o/o
84o/o
66o/o
86o/o
80%
80o/o
80o/o
44o/o
800/o
860/o
860/o
23,522
36,590
24,750
37,462
34,848
34,848

34.848
19,166
34,844
37,462
37,462
$0.2434
$0.2434
$o.2434
$s,725
$8,906
$6,9s7
$9,1 18
$8,482
$8,482
$8,482
$4,66s
$8,482
$9,1 18
$9,118
$0.1314
$0.2044
$0.1606

0.86 0.80

0.80 0.80
o.44

0.80 0.86

0.86 Sources: DOU, EPS
Notes:
[1] Table 5.6
[1] Uses the Office rate.
[2] Uses the Retail rate.

Storm 7
3 Ur"r'r Guide for the California Impervious Surface Coefficients, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, December 2010.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7tPage 207
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February !3,2023
Table 5-8. Gravity Basins Zone Fee Calculation by Land Use per Gross Developable Acre and Square Foot
Gravity Basins Zone IsC Standard
By Land Use
Percent Ratio
Impervious
Square Feet
Per Gross
Developable
Acre
c= b*43,560
AsAs
Fee Per
Impervious
Square Foot
t1l
d
Fee Per
Gross
Developable
Acre
e=c*d
Fee Per Gross
Developable
Square Foot
t=e/43,560
Land Use
Residentlal:
formula: a
single Fam Residential (6 - I Du/acre)
Multifamily HDR (30+ Du/acre)
Multifamily MDR (<30 Du/acre)
Non Residential:

Retail
Hotel/Motel [2]
Office
Hospital
Schools
Church
Industrial
Parking lot [3]

0.86 0.80

0.80 0.80
o.44

0.80 0.86

0.86 37,462
34,848
34,848
34,848
19,166
34,848
37,462
37,462
$0.1491
$0,1491
$0.149 1
$0.149 1
$0.149 1
$0.1491
$0.1491
$0.149 1
$s,s86
$s,197
$s,197
$s,197
$2,8s8
$s,197
$s,s86
$s,s86
$0.1282
$0.1 193
$0.1 193
$0.1 193
$0.06s6
$0.1 193
$0.1282
$0.1282
b
54o/o
84o/o
660/o
860/o
80o/o
80o/o
80o/o
44o/o
800/o
860/o
860/o
o.54

0.84 0.66
23,522
36,590
24,750
$0.1491
$0.1491
$0.1491
$3,s08
$s,4s7
$4,287
$0.080s
$0.12s3
$0.0984
a
a
Sourc6: DOU, EPS
Notes:
[1] Table 5.6
[1] Uses the Office rate.
[2] Uses the Retail rate.

The effective cost per square foot will be lower in most cases because of the application of credit for existing impermeable surfaces.

Use of Fees
Revenue from the proposed fees will be used to:

Support storm drainage master planning.

Participate in capital capacity improvements benefitting new growth and existing customers.

Create new capacity solely benefitting to new growth.

Improvements to common facilities that primarily include:

New pipes 36" or greater
Pipe upsizing
New detention basins
Capacity improvements at pump stations
New pump stations.

Storm_8
a
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 72Page 208
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023
Funding for capacity improvements that benefit existing and new development must be shared in proportion to the impact new growth and existing parcels have on the system. Master Planning for those capital activities must also be shared.

With two classes of basins, a proportional share must be defined for each basin type. The proportional share by basin class is shown on Table 5-9.

Table 5-9. Proportional Shares by Basin Type for Shared Projects Acres
Proportionate
SharesBasin Class
Pumoed Basins Zone formula
New Development
Existing Development
Totals
Gravitv Basins Zone
b 2,49t 7,600/o

92.4Oo/oa
c=a+b
30 299
32,/89 100.00o/o
New Development
Existing Acres
Totals
s
h
i=g+h
r,046 L2.85o/o

87.L5o/o0897
8,1 35
Source: DOU and EPS Storm 9
Capital projects and Master Planning that benefit new growth exclusively can be funded entirely with fee revenue withing the related Zone.

Comparison with Surrounding
Communities
The comparison of the Storm Drainage System fee with surrounding jurisdictions is shown on Table 5-1O. The table includes a single-family land use and office and retail uses on a per 1,000 square foot basis and all of these land uses on a per acre basis. All comparisons assume greenfield development. Complete comparative information in chart form is presented as Appendix E-1, and high- level summaries are in Chapter 1, the Executive Summary. 100.00o/o
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 73Page 209
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023
Table 5-1O. Fee Comparisons
creen Field Development only
lurisdiction
Site Area Fee Acre
Retail Office Family [1] Retail Office
Single
Family
Sacramento - Pumped
Sacramento - Gravity
Sacramento County - Uninc.

Folsom
Roseville
West Sacramento
Woodland
Average Excl, Sacramento
per unit
$818
$s01
$2,994
$ 1,037
$279
$6,185
$1,362
$2,37L
oer 1.000 so. ft. t2l
$837 $ss6
$513 $341
$2,465 $1,761
$s79 $413
$303 $216
$5,446 $3,611
$1,400 $1,000
$2,039 $1,400
$5,725
$3,s08
$20,959
$7,2s9
$1,9s3
$43,294
$s,s31
$16,s99
$9,1 18
$5,s86
$26,844
$6,302
$3,298
$59.309
$15,248
i22,2OO
$8,482
$5,197
i26,844
$6,302
$3.298
$55,061
$15.248
$21,35r
Sacramento
Pumped +/- Percent of Average
Gravity +/- Percent of Average
-660/o
-79o/o
-59o/o
-75o/o
-6Oo/o
-760/o
-660/o
-79o/o
-59o/o
-75o/o
-6Oo/o
-760/o
Source: EPS
Notes:
t1l
I2l
Based on 7 units per acre.

Comparisons for Aetail and Office land uses are based on the assumption of a 1-acre parcel with a structure covering 25 percent of the parcel (i.e., a F.A.R of ,25) for Retail, and 35 percent for Office. This construct is for comparative purposes only.

The proposed fees in Sacramento are exceptionally low compared with neighboring jurisdictions. This is due to the high level of asset depreciation, to the limited scope of assets that can be reasonably valued at this time, and to the exclusive use of the Buy-In approach, which is also the only feasible approach at this time.

Nexus Findings
For the Storm Drainage Utility, this section addresses the following requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code section 66000 et seq.) as it relates to the Storm Drainage System Utility and as discussed in Chapter 5, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Per California Government Code Section 66007

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify how the fee is to be used.

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

Storm_10
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 74Page 210
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February !3,2023

4. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

5. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility or portion of the facility attributable to the development on which the fee is impose.

The Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee differs by two zones (Zones), or subcomponents: one for gravity-dependent basins and one for pump-dependent basins. The fee Zones are legally, financially, and functionally independent of, and shielded from each other in the administration of the fee, to include the collection, accounting and use of funds.

1. Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of the Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee for each Zone is to fund storm drainage infrastructure and facilities within the respective Zone that are needed to maintain or improve the level of service as growth occurs to convey, contain, and discharge to the public drainage system stormwater generated by new residential and commercial development within the respective Zone of the Storm Drainage Utility Service Area (Area).

2. Use of Fee
The Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee for each Zone will be used to fund capital improvements within the respective zones to the storm drainage system consisting of master planning and the improvement or construction of new storm drainage facilities needed to collect, contain, and discharge to the public drainage system stormwater generated within the respective Zone'

3. Reasonable Relationship between Use of Fee and Type of Develooment on Which the Fee is Imposed
The Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee for each Zone will be used exclusively for the benefit of the Zone in which it is collected to fund the storm drainage facilities as described in this chapter, Chapter 5, in each respective Zone. New residential and nonresidential development in the Zones will generate more stormwater runoff by creating additional impervious surface area, generating the need for facilities that collect, contain, and discharge stormwater.

A reasonable relationship therefore exists between the use of the Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed because the fee will be used to construct new or improved storm drainage facilities that collect, contain, and discharge to the public storm drainage system stormwater runoff generated by the residential and nonresidential development.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 75Page 211
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February 13,2023

4. Reasonable Relationshio between Need for Facility and Tvpe of Proiect on Which the Fee is Imoosed
Development of residential and nonresidential properties will increase impervious surface area and associated storm water runoff, unless these properties have no new impervious surface, in which case the fee is waived. Storm drainage facility needs are established pursuant to the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities Capital Project and Master Planning process that establishes the drainage facilities needed to collect, contain, and discharge storm water based on the land uses anticipated to develop in the respective Zones. Specific requirements, or standards, are established by the Design and Procedures Manual which requires that City drainage improvements shall be designed to:
o Meet the needs of a growing community.
r Provide a minimum 100 Year Event protection to structures r Provide a minimum 10 Year Event protection to streets. r Control urban runoff pollutants.
. Avoid public safety hazards.

A reasonable relationship therefore exists between the need for storm drainage facilities and new residential and nonresidential projects with net new impervious surfaces on which the Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee is imposed on a square foot basis. This is because each project that creates new impervious surface area will generate additional storm water runoff, and the storm drainage facilities are necessary to collect, contain, and discharge this level of increased storm water runoff in compliance with established standards of service.

5. Reasonable Relationshio between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facilities or Portion of Facilities Attributed to Development on Which Fee is Imoosed As a Buy-In fee, the total current value of storm drainage facilities is divided by the total estimated impervious surface in the entire City of Sacramento to derive the current value per impervious square foot of each type of drainage system (pumped or gravity). The fee applies to any new, measured impervious square foot, as determined through the plan review process, that is not mitigated on site.

Collected fees will be used for improvements on a proportional match basis as specified in Chapter 5 or used to construct new facilities that exclusively benefit new growth.

The Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee in each Zone does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed. Future, periodic updates to the Storm Drainage Development Impact Fee will re-evaluate the costs expended and future needs and costs to ensure that the fee has not and does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing appropriate capital improvement services.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 76Page 212
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023
Findino on the Administrative Component: The administrative cost portion of the Storm Drainage System Development Impact Fee (Administration Fee) does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed. The Administration Fee funds City costs associated with fee program administration and implementation including collection and accounting, annual reporting, capital planning, periodic updates to the Separated Sewer System Development Impact Fee, and other related costs.

Per California Government Code Section 66076.5 (AB 602) Most requirements of the legislation are met in the findings for 66001. Those that are not yet addressed are as follows:

1. Exception requirement to the housino square footage basis:
d) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project. e) 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.
f) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

The findings for the exception are as follows:
f,) An explanation as to whv square footage is not an aporopriate metric to calculate fees imoosed on a housino development project' New imperious surfaces drive the demand for drainage facilities. In housing developments, new impervious surfaces incorporate the footprint on a parcel, capturing ground floor living spaces as well as driveways, sidewalks, patios and other such surfaces. A square footage of proposed-units basis would introduce inequities. For example, a two-story home with the same footprint as a single- story home would pay twice the fee while causing an identical impact on the drainage system. This inequity would be amplified in multistory apartment and condominium buildings or towers.
[) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculatinq the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charoed and the burden posed bv the develooment.

For storm water runoff, the standard, customary and equitable method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged, the facilities required, and the type of development on which the fee is imposed is with a direct Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 77Page 213
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Sacramento DOU Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study February t3,2023
measure of new impermeable surfaces. The current plan review process requires the identification of new impermeable square feet. New runoff as a result of development establishes the demand for new or improved capacity, the cost of which is the basis of the fee.
c) That other oolicies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

A fee basis of impermeable square footage ensures equity for the allocation of the cost of the impact from development. The fee is proportional to the impact caused by new impermeable sufaces. Smaller developments with identical unit footprints will have the same fees. Smaller footprints will have proportionately lower fees.

Similarly, multifamily apartment buildings and towers will have lower impacts and fees on a per unit basis as the size of the units decline and/or the number of floors increase.

2. Capital improvement plan reouirement as part of a nexus studv:

Capital improvements funded by the Storm Drainage System Development Impact Fee are limited to the amounts and purposes as described in the 66001 findings and Chapter 5. Project master planning and programming are carried out as part of the annual budget process.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 78Page 214
07/11/2023 Item No.14.

ApprruoIcES

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix A-1:

Appendix A-2:

Apperuox A:

Executive Summary
Square Feet per Employee Coefficients
Companion Charts to Tables 1-5 and 1-6

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix A-1
Square Feet per Employee Coefficients
Table A-1a Coefficients for Square Feet per Employee-All Nonresidential Land Uses Land Use
Education
Food
Government
Office
Retail
Services
Medical
Industrial
Square Feet per
Employee
700
600
500
200
450
500
350
1,000
Source: BAE ApPendix-A'l
Note:
[1] Sacramento General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum: Market Demand Study, Bay
Area Economics July, 2019.

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart 1-5a
Single Family Development lmpact Fees
per Dwelling Unit
I Water r Combined sq rer System I Drainage r local Setiter a Rqional Sen er o
o
o
{!,
E
o
ts
Igr
o
!E
fs
=o3o
oaoo4
s40,o@
s35,0m
s30,000
s25,000
s20,000
s15,000
s10,000
ss,m0
So
oo
tto
J
6'
f)
g>
F}ttott*o
{Ao=gx
3'?gN
o
F
Igl
o
o
FI
o
I
"-*
^*"
d'd
$a'
cI
"c
^€
-t""
-"c€
*td
""t

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart 1-5b
Retail Development lmpact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
o
o
o
{o
E
o
tsI
lJr
C'
s2s,000
s20,000
s15,000
Slo,ooo
stmo
oou
Eo5(t6
b!
E
=ro
ooo
oIL
ooB
So
I
"""*.o"""t
u$a
I
.""" c
I Water r Combined S$rer System r Drainage r Local Seurer r Regional seu,et

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart 1-5c
Office Development lmpact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
o
o
o
{og
o
tsIgr
fl
oor
o
ottri^
E
s
=E6ooo
o
CL
oo4
s18,000
s15,000
s14,000
S12,ooo
s10,000
s&oo0
56,ooo
s4,m0
S2,ooo
s0
,o.,*' C C "-""-.rld'
I
""t"
""""
-cd
aQ
9F'
**"'
.o("*-
,'fo
.""-
+-
I Water r combaned server system r Drainage r Local San €r r Regional sewer

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart 1-5a
Single Family Development lmpact Fees
per Acre
o
o
o
{
0,
g
o
ts
Igl
0,
5300,000
$2sgmo
s2oqmo
s150,000
Sloo,ooo
5s0,000
c
b0
E
o
3cl
o
CL
oo
So I
*tt"
I
a""" c ".c
$d?
_c
,fo
-""""
I Water r Combined san er system r Drainage r Local Sewer r Regional ss/er

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart 1-6b
Retail Development lmpact Fees
per Acre
.}
o
o
{
0,
g
o
F
Igl
E
5300,000
52s0,000
s20q000
s1s0,000
Sloo,mo
ss0,000
oog
o
GIttg
o0
E
=toocto
o
CL
oou
S0
.-/".*
I
-t""
I
""*
a"t*
I water r combined sewersYstem r Drainage r Local se$r€r I Regional selvet

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart 1-6c
Office Development lmpact Fees
per Acre
att'" c
o
o
o
{og
o
F
T
gi
o
s300 000
s2s0,000
s200,000
s150"000
s 100,000
ss0,000
ooL
o
at
E
a^
u
=6ooo
o
CL
oor
s0 I
"'"""""""
usd
I
-t-"
lWater rCombined Seur€rSystem r Drainage I Local Seurer r R€gional S€Mter

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix B-1:

Appendix B-2:

Appendix B-3:

ApprruolX B:

Water System Utility
Water System Asset Analyses
Capital Improvement Program
Companion Charts to Tables 2-10 and 2-11

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix B-1
Water System Asset AnalYses
Treatment Plants

6. Car+tlq'

DI F SUPPORT PROJ ECT - WATER TREATMENT PLANTS

CITY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES
Basis of Estimate
lntroductlon
To support the Cit/s efforts in determining the value of their drinking water system, Carollo Engineers prepared an estimate of probable cost to construct and remaining useful life for existing facilities at the Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and the E,A. Fairbairn WTP, Estimates were prepared based on historical and engineering data available along with parametric cost parameters and professional engineeringjudgement. The purpose ofthis document isto dessribe in sufficient detail the methodologyand assumptions used to prepare the eetimates.

This memorandum describes:
r. WTP Value Estimates
a. Methodology

3. ClassofEstimates
4, Reference Documents

5. EvaluationAssumptions

6. lndirectandSoft Costs
Attachments:
. Value Estimate Tablefor each watertreatment plant
WTP Value Estlmates
The estimated current WTP values are:
. Sacramento River WTP - l75q3oo,ooo
. E.A. Fairbairn WTP - t482,ooo,ooo
Tables with major estimated facility values for each plant are attached.

Methodology
All known major facilities in use atthe two watertreatment plants were includ€d in the effort. For each majorfacilitythe following information was developed to arrive at a current estimate of value; r Facility Name
o ApProxlmateYearof Construction
r Expected Useful Life
r Estimated Costto Construct Facility in Januaryofzou z JUNE 2022 PAGE aof3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

The estimated cost to construct is to re-constructthe named facility (i.e. replace with a similsr structure.) This cost does not include effortsto bring the facility uP to curent code requircments, performance criteria, or City planning and policy standards. With this information developed, as directed bythe City, a straight llne depreciation method was used to dlscount the costto construct the facility ifbuilt in January zozz bythe ratio of remaining useful life to totalexpected useful life to anive ateach estimated current facility value.

Class of Estlmate
This estimate was prepared in general accordance with the guidance established by the Association for the Advancem€nt of Cost Engineering (AACE) and as such could be described as a Class 5 estimate. This level of estimate may have an accuracy range of -5o%to +10096. For most costs parametric estimating was used, evaluatingthefacilltles bytheirslze muhiplied bya unitcort. ln some instances, recently d€veloped cost estimates forthe Cit/s Water+ Program were used asthe basis and modified accordingly to account for minor dlfferences between the planned new Water+ facilities and the existing fncilities.

Any previous cost estimates used as a basis were escalated to January rozz dollars using a standardized approach utilized bythe Department of Utilities, based on national and local ENR cost indices, and do not include escalation to mid-point of futurc construction. ln early zozothe construction community and vendor netwo*that supportsthe wat€r/wastewater industryexperienced signlficant disruptions due to COVID-r9 restrictions adding new and significant complexityto their operations, labor force management, and material supply chain. This has created a bidding environmemthat has b€en and remainsvery difficuhto predict. Throughout the second half of zoro and all of zo21therc have been extraordinary cost increases in key materials commonly required by plant and pipeline projects and increased pressures on attracting and retaining quality craft labor.

Additionally, increasing fuel costs and massive congestion at the nation's ports and railyards combined with near record low warehouse and trucking capacity have raised shiPPing Prices to levelsthat far exceed historical norms. lt is clear by reviewing bid resuhs for projects procured during this period that prices have increased at a rate that far exceeds long-term escalation trends and the variability between bidders has increased making the prlcing process more dffficuh to predict.

The construction outlook for 2022 retains many of the same concerns as the prcvious two years while also incorporating new ones. Even though the primary risks regarding the heahh and safety ofthe population due tothe threat ofCOV|D-:.9 and its variants appearto be diminishlng and the conesponding restrictions on businesses are slowly being lifted, many ofthe challenges created bythese past actions remain unresolved. Political events, economic policies, global trade disruptions, suPply chain delays, fferce comp€tition for labor, consumer inflation, rising fuel prlces, and war have all created uncertainties that have impacted cortractor pricing.

Consumers ofconstruction cort estimate data should be advised that Pricing accuracy is time sensitive and will degrade over relatively brief periods of time. Pricing updates should be made regularly to increase overall reliabillty.

JUNE 2022 PAGE 2of3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Re-hrence Documeds
The following data comprise the design basis forthe estimate:
r Sacramento RiverWaterTreatment Plant Design Drawings from all major histodcal projects r E.A, Fairbaim WaterTreatment Plant Design Drawings from all major historical projects o Water+ Program Planning Levelcost Estimates
r DOU Excel Spreadsheettitled, "SMF ENR lndiceilanzz'
EYaluatlon Assu mptlons
The evaluations were performed with the following assumPtions:
r. Civillsiteandelectricalandl&CworkwereeEtimatedasapercentageofthesumofthefacility cosG and discounted by a composite estimate ofage ofthe major work.

2. Someparametriccostsweredevelopedbyscalingfromsimilarfacillties.Scalingfactorcincluded size (footprint), volume (gallons), capacity (million gallons perday), and estimated complexity.

3. Facilities not in serviceable condition were not included in the evaluation. lndlrccl and Soft Crlsts
lndirect costs have been included in the parametric cost estimate values for each majorfacility. lndirect corts arethose costs added to the direct burdened labor, materials, subcontract, construction equiPmenq and otherdirect coststo better represent a general contracto/s Price. Indirect costs can include:
. Local SalesTax
. Stete Sales Tax
o General SubcontnctorGeneral Conditions, Overhead and Profit . Specialty Subcontrector General Conditions, Overhead and Proftt r Self-PerformManaEement
. Builder's Risk & General Liability lnsurance Premiums r General ContractorOverhead & Profit
. Paymentand Performance Bond Premium
Consistent with typical Level 5 cort estimates, we have included a contingency of35% to account for those ltems not speciffcally csptured in such a highJevel estimate. The contingency reflects an amount added to the cost estimate to accommodate costs that may resuh from design changes, items not fully Itemized in the ertlmate, enors or omissions in the estimate, or unpredictable conditions or risl(s that experience shows ar€ likelyto occur during the design or bidding phase ofthe project. The contingency does not encompass increases in scope ofthe project, unforeseen market condftions, or changes during conStruction.

Soft costs, including €ngineering, legal, and admin have been estimat€d at 2596 ofthe construction (direct and indlrect) cost. This cost is calculated from each plant subtotal. luNE 2022 PAGE 3of3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

IACRAflElrTO RNERWTP
hldlfiqto
ffi dtCffi
tuw
dt&
ttr
.50 sd t.te,@ lg ff 75
cdlrdofi3ffimffiHgh86bR4sffi t t,1o0,ms7frslao,o,FLAl1o,oqm,1 ?'70.ms7ual&s,mLg$,sqmh**ffh5
aqe,mm7x5|q7[0,@ulqru,o
rilffiff m4M
hfl6
Y- l-odqdhber&rlF-ntlb,
ld b ft lhl e$r&l dhlt U,hm
|.,1@,m&ta4i G,0,m F4n r,aoqm Nt5 FbhHdt4d 18,6

65.17 bt4,@,6It8S4.l-qgrtc F4n 9300,m Ns,m {i
enqTficldEr |1qo,m als t0,s.@s7L8lto,m,m16
oa,36dts?tI,,S,mDrdiltrgrlfiSt0 B ao,e,tr frs
ffiht lairq&aa&gllo.ml.5s,1@,6u
FKM(Xo14 aato,m75IELA$444,@ ler00,0 N
|?s,s,mEfLatt4{00,mFl6o€d bh 0r4 g)11 $a4o,m Na
tu(hia) l2!.7!q675Its!9,16,m GO.tO,ffi N
Flh (t{o. +lO Gq56,mt57LA3!lroqs |a8,tmd ,'lA

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
6mt&2
ru.C* il4!0
ffi dydffi* w
ffiY.g
EareMz
. 3? 4o a13o'm
AOo0
AO
a1g
lE@ F-4tt 47!D,@ ffi 17 765l Fnr{b g1O 1ZU 4n
AO130,srEit2sGnl-ilia htlhUgh
i
7 W E4,W tpqilrrrwatg,&wlsf/mma-- lffinn
F4fr lalo'm ?A6 lZ--
aI !0 tlalo'o g*dffiffihid
^fr--t{,o,slsl1€,4@
ft QrdhEF.liltltt hSatOCo L-oCdlar0rth
ffi6F.rlUXc
til &. *.u* oodrdd Gdlta cdht3l
bh
5o
llru
l$n
qn
g,m.dt
ta,to.0
$,ao,a
$,a.m
Falt
F4n
480,fio
lal7100.m
t5 Lffilffit$Ocll2 L,0
It Sttde.lrm{b,1.eB)

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Reservoirs
(- Cer+tl'l,'
DIF SUPPORT PROJECT _ RESERVOIRS

CITY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES
Basis of Estimate
lntroduction
To support the City's efforts in determining the value of their drinking water system, Carollo Engineers prepared an estimate ofprobable costto construct and remaining u5eful life forthe existing potable water distribution system reservoirs. Estimates were prepared based on historical and engineering data available along with parametric cost parameters and professional engineeringjudgement. The purpose of this document is to describe in sufficient detail the methodology and assumptions used to prepare the estimates.

This memorandum describes:

1. Reservoir Estimates
z. Methodology

3. Class of Estimates

4. Reference Documents
S. EvaluationAssumptions

6. lndirectand Soft Costs
Attachments:

Reservoir Value Estimate Table
Reservolr Value Estlmates
The estimated current value ofthe potable water distribution system reservoirs is estimated at $127,1oqooo. Additional cost estimate development information for each reservoir is provided in the attached table.

Methodology
For each distribution system reservoir the following informaUon was developed to arrive at a current estimate of value:
. Facility Name
. ApproximateYearof Construction
. Expected Useful Life
. Estlmated Costto Construqt Facility in January ofzozz The estimated cost to construct ls to re-construct the reservoir and pump station, if applica ble (i.e. replace with a similar facility.) This cost does not include efforts to bring the facility up to current code requirements. performance criteria, or City planning and policy standards. With this information developed, as directed by the City, a straight line depreciation method was used to discount th€ cost to lr.lNE 2022 PAGE 1 ofl

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
construct each reservoir if built in January 2022 by the ratio of remaining useful life to total expected useful life to arrive at each estimated current reservoir value.

Class of Estimate
This estimate was prepared in general accordance with the guidance established bythe Association for the Advancement ofCost Engineering (AACE) and as such could be described as a Class 5 estimate. This level of estimate may have an accuracy range of-5o9zoto +1oo9/0. For most costs parametric estimating was used, evaluating the facilities by their size multiplied by a unit co5t. Any previous cost estimates used as a basis were escalated to January zozz dollars using a standardized approach utilized by the Department ofUtilities, based on national and local ENR cost indices, and do not include escalation to mid-point offuture construction. The one exception is the Shasta Reservoir, which the City estimated its current construction cost in zozz dollars through the E N R 20-City Cost I ndex' ln early zozo the construction community and vendor network that supports the water/wastewater industry experienced significant disruptions due to COVID-19 restrictions adding new and significant complexity to their operationsr labor force management, and material supply chain. This has created a bidding environmentthat has been and remains very difficultto predict. Throughout the second halfof zozo and all ofzo21 there have been exlraordinary cost increases in key materials commonly required by plant and pipeline projects and increased pressures on attracting and retaining quality craft labor.

Additionally, increasing fuel costs and massive congestion at the nation's ports and rail yards combined with near record low warehouse and trucking capacity have raised shipPing prices to levels thatfar exceed historical norms. lt is clear by reviewing bid results for projects procured during this period that prices have increased at a rate that far exceeds long-term escalation trends and the variability between bidders has increased making the pricing process more difficult to predict.

The construction outlook for 2o22 retains many ofthe same concerns as the previous two years while also incorporating new ones. Even though the primary risks regarding the health and safety ofthe population due to the threat of COVID-r9 and its variants appear to be diminishing and the corresponding restrictions on businesses are slowly being lifted, many ofthe challenges created by these past actions remain unresolved. Political events, economic policies, global trade disruptions, supply chain delays, fierce competition for labor, consumer inflation, rising fuel prices, and war have all created uncertainties that have impacted contractor pricing.

Consumers of construction cost estimate data should be advised that pricing accuracy is time sensitive and will degrade over relatively brief periods of time. Pricing updates should be made regularly to increase overall reliability.

Reference Documents
Reservoir information was gathered from the following electronic files, provided by DoU:
r City ofSacramentq Water Master Plan, July zor3, Chapter 5, West Yost' . condition Assessment water storage Facilities, condition Assessment Recommendations Report, July 9, 2018, Stantec.
o Excel spreadsheettitled "shasta cost Analysis_zozz-o5-o6 updates for DIF **.xlsx. o Reservoirs.kmz Google Earth file indicating reservoir names and locations' luNE 2022 PAGE 2of3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

DOU Excel Spreadsheet titled, "SMF ENR lndices-Janzz"
Evaluation Assumptions
The evaluations were performed with the following assumptions:

1. 2.

3. 4.

For ground storage reservoirs and buried reservoirs, associated pumP stations were included in the reservoir cost as appropriate.

Some parametric costs were developed by scaling from similarfacilities. Additionalfactors were applied in some cases to accountfor variation in project estimated complexity' Life expectancy was estimated based on industry average. Actual condition and any maintenance Programs were not accounted for.

El&C costs have been included in the value ofthe reservoirs and is not shown separately as a percentage of the subtotal.
lndirect and Soft Costs
lndirect costs have been included in the parametric cost estimate values for each reservoir. lndirect costs are those costs added to the direct burdened labor, materials, subcontract, construction equipment, and other direct costs to better represent a general contractofs price. Indirect costs can include:
. Local SalesTax
. State Sales Tax
o General Subcontractor General Conditions, Overhead and Profit . Specialty Subcontractor General Conditions, Overhead and Profit . Self-PerformManagem€nt
o Builder's Risk & General Liability lnsurance Premiums o General Contractor Overhead & Profit
. Payment and Performance Bond Premium
Consistent with typical Level 5 cost estimates, we have included a contingency of 359/0 to account for those items not specifically captured in such a high-level estimate. The contingency reflects an amount added to the cost estimate to accommodate costs that may resultfrom design changes, items not fully itemized in the estimate, errors or omissions in the estimate, or unpredictable conditions or risks that experience shows are likely to occur during the design or bidding phase ofthe prqect. The contingency does not encompass increases in scope ofthe project, unforeseen market conditions, or changes during construction.

Soft costs, including engineering, legal, and admin have been estimated at 25010 ofthe construction (direct and indirect) cost. This cost is calculated from the reservoir subtotal. ruNE 2022 PAGE g of:

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

RESERI'OIRS
118tu.10
?qn
6n7f2p2
$5 00 p€rsd $15.000.000 20U 18 75 s1 1,400 aco?250San lai Auid Cond€b 160 Ue,a41 ucMedrcal cenler Elsabdconcrde 14 121,481 100 E6 00 pergd $18.000,000 1962 60 75 $3 60C.0003125 $ro.
6@dty
(nG! i",i e*l5lwbtrctlon - -- -. &&dm6n
6dhdz coslunt rn @ brh NdEondElavdm
G)o)FE$mlrilmc SES Tpt 62Dd6tBhihdSl&ftr Ebdm
Daso.m) G)
Unlt LilW Orilld
$6.00 pergar $ra 00!,000 1961 6D 15121,C81 $3,600,0003124 $3.100,0003140n120.rlj 5A1991s8.20000t15143 3 $8,?oo.ooo ts Cry Col ege Eldated Con.r4e 1M 121,A9 100 125 $6 O0 aatqd $18.000.000 1962 60 75 tcrcast+Plam lankwth
$3 60i 0003
$4.600.000222010ElCento 3
'e.200,000
Ls $8,200 000cround geel 150 122,192 2Z
$3.00 F€roal $9.000.!0! 2008 14 7a Sh6iaunt cost !lus prgm um lotvolume$7.300.00016 48Elkhom Gr0md concrele 160 98.538 95 o0 getgd $75.000,000 1970 52 15errd aonrqta 923.000 000153.5 32 124Eev€ted ste.l $0LS$14.000 00090 $14 t00.000 106c 82 50 co$fiom M66hall8 Ssitcost Gui*,
fiom zMG Low-Stssi Aea elsvattd SLesl Tank ]rr
2010$;40% premiumaddrd rorefenr 6bo.and
$2400.0001529 94 o0 p1tgd $1?,ooo,oo0 1962 60PsdErlyBuded 1* 137,710 2.2 $r,r!0 0u0132.142 $2,600,0005!s.200!00LS3n?37150

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Wells

WEST YOST
Woter. Engineered.
8950 Cal Center Drive
Bldg. 1, Suite 363
Sac.amento CA 95ti26
DATE: June L7,2422 Project No.: 038-80-21-60
SENTVIA: EMAIL
Michelle Grrey, PE, CitV of Sacramento
Brett Ewart, PE, City of Sacramento
FROM Roberto Vera, PE, RCE f83500
Angie Yan, ElT rll72428
REVIEWED BY: Elizabeth Drayer, PE, RCE #46872
SUBJECI: Groundwater Well Facilities Valuation for 2022 Development lmpact Fee This technical memorandum (TM) presents West Yost's findings and conclusions for the valuation of the City of Sacramento's (City) existing groundwater facility assets. This valuation will subsequently be used to support the City's ongoing Development lmpact Fee (DlF) update. This TM is organized as follows:

Background
Valuation Methodology
Valuation of Existing Groundwater Wells
Findings and Conclusions

BACKGROUND
The City,s Department of Utilities (DOU) has been requested to estimate the current value of the City's existing utility system assets for purposes of updatinB the city's DlF. For the city's 2022 DIF update, the City requested West Yost to develop an estimated valuation for the City's existing groundwater facility assets. These existing groundwater facility assets include the Ciiy's existing active municipal production wells and recently completed municipal production wells which are not yet active, Older inactive wells and non-potable irrigation wells are not included in the valuation.

The valuation considered current replacement costs, current condition/useful life of existing facilities, and recently completed facility improvements that have extended the useful life of the existing facilities. The subsequent sections of this TM describe the methodology used to establish the valuation of the City's groundwater facility assets.

The valuation of other water system facilities, including transmissionldistribution system facilities, reservoirs and pump stations, and water treatment plants, are concurrently being developed by others. 916.306.2250 phone
530.756.5991 fax
westyost,com
TO:
a

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Erp. l-31

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

TM - City ofSacramento
June L7,2022
PaBe 2

VATUATION METHODOLOGY
The value of the City's groundwater facility assets was based on their remaining useful life, along with the typical replacement value (or actual value of the facility, if infiormation was available), and recently completed facility improvements that have extended the useful lifie of some existing Sroundwater facilities. ln general, the overall useful life fora groundwaterfacility is 50 yearsl. Agroundwaterfacility. however, is comprised of several components, each of which have a typical useful life which is different than the overall useful lifu for the overall facility, For example. site improvements at a Sroundwater facility are likely to have a much longer useful life than the chemical feed equipment, For the purpose of this valuation, groundwater facilities were subdivided into the following five (5) major components:

Well Gsing (Downhole)
Pump and Motor
Electrical Equipment
Chemical Feed System
Site/Building
The typical useful lifu of these major components are summarized in Table 1' To develop the value of a groundwater facility asset, the following methodology was used:
lf the groundwater facilivs a8e exceeds the typical useful life of a well, then the value of the well was based on the value of the recent improvemenb, ifany, perfiormed on each of the five major well components (described above). The value ofthe improvements was first escalated to current dollars and subeequently depreciated based on the remaining useful lifu (by component), ln addition, the value of the land that the groundwater facility is on was also included in the overall value {discussed in more detail in the sub6equent sections below}. 1 Based on recommendations by the American Water Works Association and Water Environment Research Foundation.

Table 1, Summary of Useful life Assumptions by Asset class 50 2.0%Well (Downhole)

4.0%25Pump and Motor
25 4.OvoElectrical Equipment
to.oo/"Chemical Feed System 10

2.00/"50Site/Buildlng
50 2.O%Well Facility (Overall)
R€s€arch Fo!ndetion,
(e) Typlelusfullil6€stimatrsaEb3sdonBcomm€ndatlonsbyAmeildnWatorWorksAs$eiationendWeterEnvhonmont As:et Class 1 ypical Useiul Lile, year s('l
Straight'Line Deprecidtion Rate
9'o Per Year

WESTYOST

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

TM - City ofSacramento
June !7,2022
Pate 3
o lf a groundwater facility's age is less than the typical useful life of a well, then the value of the groundwater frcility is based on the remaining value of a Sroundwater facility plus the value of recent improvements, if any, perbrmed on each of the five major well components. lf records from the recent construction of the facility were available, this information was used to establish the remaining value of the facility; if these records were not available, then a replacement cost fior a new groundwater facility was used to estimate the remaining value of the facility. The value of the improvements was first escalated to current dollars and subsequently depreciated based on the remaining useful lifie (by component), ln addition, the value of the land that the groundwater facility is on was also included in the overall value (discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections below)' Groundwater facility/well construction and rehabilitation records were provided by the City. compiled and reviewed to obtain the value of the recent improvements. and further categorized by major component. As described above, costs were first escalated to current dollars then depreciated' assuming a straight-line depreciation from the improvement year to the current year, based on the assumed depreciation rates shown in Table 1. This depreciated cost for each component was then used in the valuation of the wells described below. Costs were escalated to current (January 2022) dollars using the same methodology that the City typically applies to other projects, where an avera8e of the ENR Construction Cost lndex (CCl) for 2o-Cities and San Francisco is used as the overall index. This average has been found by the City to be representative of costs in the Sacramento Region.

Groundwater Well Replacement Cost
The conceptual capital cost estimate for a new groundwater well is summarized in Table 2. Estimated construction costs are presented by the same five major well components discussed above and include an estimate of land acquisition costs. These costs are based on recent (2016 - 2022) well bid tabulation information and omit costs that are significantly impacted by market volatility and COVID supply chain constraints. ln addition, the construction costs include allowances for general conditions, contractor overhead and profit, sales tax. and planning{evel estimating contingencies. The construction costs presented in Table 2 are considered budget-level estimates with accuracies of -10 percent to +40 percent in accordance with the recommendations of the Association of Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE)' Other project costs are also included to estimate the value of other project elements including engineerin6 construction management and program implementation (e.8', administrative, CEQA. legal. etc.), which are consistent with other City planning efforts including the on-going Water Master Plan, Based on these assumptions, the total capital cost for a new groundwater well is estimated to be s5,050,500,
Land acquisition cost was estimated at S15 per square foot (S15/sq. ft'). This value is based on a review of average list prices and associated gross square footage of empty lots (zoned for commercial and industrial uses) within the North Sacramento and Del Paso Heights neighborhoods'?' , Listings obtained by acessing Zillow.com on April 2!,2022 and are based on average $/sq ft prices.

WTSIYOST

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

TM -City ofSacramento
June t7,2022

Costs presented in Table 2 assume that water quality in the new wells/groundwater facilities meet all Title 22 drinking w3ter standards. lf water quality in a new well is found to not meet Title 22 drinking water standards, additional treatment facilities would be required for these facilities to be permitted as active wells, and the type of treatrnent would be dependent on the specific constituents that exceed maximum contaminant levels. Costs associated with these treatment facilities vary widely and would be in addition to the costs presented in Table 2,
Table 2. conceptual Capital cost Estimate for a New Groundwater Well Constructlon Costs
s816,000Downhole
s1s0,0ooPump and Motor
s70o,o00Electrical Equipment
s1s0,000chemical Feed system
s700,ooo
Baed on recent bid c6b, not siSnifiGntly imp.ded by market volatility and or supplychain constrainb
Site/Building
SsT,sooS15/sq. ft., with an assumed 6,500 5q. ft. ldLand Acquisition s2,513,500Subtotol
ss23,ooo20% of Di6d CosbEstimating Contingency
53,136,s00Su btotql Direct Construction Cost (with Contingency) s314,000General Conditions 10% of DiEd Construdion Cosb (with Conting€ncy) s314,00010% of Dired Con*rudion Cosb (with Codingency)overhead and Profit s126,00087o of t2 of Dir€d Gnstrudion Cds{with Contingency)Sales Tax s3,890,5ooTotal Construdion Cost
Other Project C6ts{'J
s390,00010% of Construdion CdEngineering
939o,oooConstruction ManaBement x09; ofCon*rudion CGt
s390,00010% ofConstruction Co*Program lmplementation
51,170,000Total Other Project Costs
95,060,s0oTotel Cspital Costs
are @nsi*eil with City's 2022 Water Maser Plan{e}
Estimated CostCost Element Bas is
wtsT YogT

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

TM - City ofSacramento
JuneL7,7022

VATUATION OF EXISTING GROUNDWATER WEIIS
Table 3 summarizes the City's existing groundwater wells, associated pertinent well information (i.e., well name, pumping/firm capacity, active status, reliable status, years of remaining useful lifie, etc.) and presents the estimate of remaining value, by major asset component (five malrr well components) and land cost. The total value of the City's existing Eroundwater wells is estimated at 5i10,1 million (M)' Almost all the City's wells/groundwater frcilities are beyond their useful lifu with the exception of Wells 153A, L64, !65,166, and 167, Well 166 was recently completed at the City's E.A, Fairbairn Water Treatment Plan! and is not equipped with any above-grade pumping facilities, and is therefore inactive.

Wells 165 and 167 are located at the recently completed Shasta Park reservoir and booster pumping facility and a re currently not active and are undergoing startup activities. Wells 165 and 167 have elevated concentrations of methane and manganese, and a treatment system is provided for these wells. As of 202Q the combined production capacity for Wells 155 and 167 was approximately 5,000 gallons per minute {gpm). The treatment system, however, has a maximum capacity of 3,000 gpm, which limits the overall capacity of these wells. Only one well is intended to be operated and treated at a given time' Well information was obtained during the course of the on-going City Water Master Plan effort' Active and reliable well status is based on City staff input and consistent with other planning activities. While the City has a stated total pumping capacity of44.0 million gallons per day {mgd), it does not have the capacity to pump all of its groundwater well facilities at one time, Capacity is limited by age and performance of mechanical equipment, water quality of wells, and on-going maintenance activities, and operations at storage tanks a nd/or surface water treatment plants. The City has, however, identified wells/groundwater facilities that are reliable, meaning that they are more often than not producing water or are slated for upcoming improvements which would make them reliable. This reliable capacity is considered to be the City's firm groundwater supply capacity, and totals 19.6 mgd.

WESTYOST

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
crxo!llffi[*r@rFr
t
I le't /d
r lrr {'
5lli!1 ttsir(
i l::ri '.1'^
5lj!t
'l-"
;,
i

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

TM - City ofSacramenta
Jurl€L7,2027
PageT

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The fiollowing summarizes West Yost's findings and conclusions from the valuation of the City's groundwater facillties:
. Based on evailable recent improvement cost information, typical replacement costs or available costr for the construction of recent wells, the total value of the Ciq's troundwater facilities/wells is estimated at S40.1M.
o Nearly all of the City's groundwater facilities/wells are beyond the recommended useful life of 50 years.
. The City will need to make major investments in its groundwater well pro8ram to increase the remainlng useful lifie of its groundwater facilities/wells and maintain their firm capacity' r The Citv's reliable/ffrm groundwater supply capacity is currently equel to 19.6 mgd. Asthe City proceeds with the DIF updates, this supply cepacity should be used to define how rnuch existing supply capacity future customers are buying into.

WISTYOIT

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Transmission Mains
( r11,,!

SACRAMENTO
Department of Util ities

MEMO- DRAFT
TO: Michelle Carrey, Supervising Engineer
FROM: Kathy Sananikone, Assistant Engineer '?4:''
CC: Brett Ewart,supervising Engineer
DATE: May24,2O22
SUBiECT: CityTransmissionMainValuation
Summary
The total remainingvalue of the City of Sacramento's 158 miles of transmission main is estimated to be $Fa,4S3,136 (fable 1). Age of City's transmission mains ranged from 2 to 131. years, with a median age of 47.5 years. Over 56% of the City's mains a re older than 47 yeart the largest inventory at 60 years. pipe materials used for transmission mains within the City include cast iron, concrete cylinder, ductile and wrought iron, and riveted and welded steel, with coucrete cylinder making up over 5ffl'. Table 2 provides the percent, age range, and pipe diameters for the various pipe materials throughout the City Table 1. Remaining Value of Transmission Main
Pipe Diameter
{in}
Total Lencth {%) 2022 Replacement
cost {$}
Depreciation value
(sl
Remaining Value {$)
L4 2.1% Ss,879,4s9 5s,377,265 $s02,194
16 2.204 s7,007,300 5s,510,147 s 1,497,153
18 11.904 541,502,637 Szz,877,685 $ 18,624,952
20 o.4% tl,5s2,273 s1,201,118 s351,1s5
24 28.2% sr29,2r8,820 s69,807,439 559,411,381
30 23.701" s135,316,484 586,214,626 $49,r01,858
36 L8.9% s129,631,9s9 s77,950,79s ss1,671,154
38 o3% 5rp92,257 5r,992,757 5o
42 5,2% s41,713,450 s28,301.920 S 13,41 1,s30
4a 2.8Yo s26,264,881. Si.5,61&937 510,645,944
54 3.7"/o s32,780,402 $r2,207,04s s20,s73,3s7
60 o,6% s7,427,707 54,73rp72 $2,69s,835
55 o.3% 54,01s,372 s7s4319 53,261,0s4
7Z a3% $3,894,1.98 52,o44,967 51,849,230
84 O.tu/. s963,402 577,O72 5886,330
Grand Total LOO.O% S5E9,x60,rol s334,575,954 s234483,135 Protuling our aa\er. S erving zur carllmil fl i0:.
10t19t17

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
, i,, ,,,

SACRAMENTO
Department of Uti I ities
Table 2. Percentage, Age Range, and Pipe Diameters by Pipe Material MethodoloBy
Original cost of pipe construction was not available, thus remaining value was based on replacement cost in 2022 dollars minus the depreciation value. Cost estimates per pipe diameter were taken as the average data found in the Sacramento Suburban Water District WaterTransmission Main Asset Management Plan published in 2014 and 2020 data provided by consultant, West Yost and Associates.

Costs were adjusted to 2022 dollars using ENR'S Construction Cost lndex (Table 3). Depreciation was calculated for individuai pipe sections for varying age and pipe diameters.

Table 3. Estimated Replacement cost Per Foot
Pipe Diameter (inches) Estimated Cost in 2022 ($/ft)
\4 s 344.96
16 S ssr.ro
18 s 387.63
20 5 428.41
24 s 492.2s
30 s 575.08
36 s 83s.82
48 5 1,1s3.09
54 s 1,291.46
72 s 1,72e.53
78 S 1,97s.G9
Assumptions
A straight-line depreciation was used based on a 75 year service life, irrespective of pipe material. For pipes older than 75 years, it was assumed complete depreciation with remaining value of $0.

Construction method was assumed to be open trench construction' Pruxetling lunvtller. Seraing oilr clmmilnity.

Pipe Material Percent of lnv€ntory Age Range Pipe Diameters (inch) Cast lron 2,90/o 23-L2! L4-20
Concrete Cylinder Pipe 5!.5o/. 4-707 t4-72
lron (ductile, wrought) L3.4To 2-107 t6-42
Steel {riveted, welded} 31".60/. 2-ro7 10-84
Unknown o.6% 9-131 t4-72
lU19r17

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
i. r.,. i: 1 .
fli)l:\,i!'
,!; r:il:.t;ili
jr"ll I ittts\hli.
a
gti
Vilpoad.it

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Ap.p.([ldkA

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
l*pgndixA
,l;)
'illi:r ii:,ri
'1{;i:rJ:j l l'ltdll,'.1
',/r.l:jrl
{rli:l'J 'rl!l,r,;ii1:1r;
l.tl1J Ir'.iljllfrl'l
7S

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix A
Sum of 2022 Replacement grm of Deprcciatlon Value
C6t Sum of Value
Diameter A8e of Pip€
38 38 Total
513,4s0,100
S1,636,437
95,965,137
$2,652,841
s501,814
s272,876
$sJ44364
s25,274,372
s1,309,s17
S13,666,509
$3s3,80S
$3,752
s5,51577X
$9,325,402
S1,1s6,416
s429s,e07
s1,945,416
5374,687
s207,386
$4sta,g0o
520,219,491
91,065,074
97r,297,729
$316,058
s3,7s2
$5,515,771
s4,L24,69'l
$480,022
$x,670,630
5707,424
5727,726
S6s,49o
5r,22s,464
$s,0s4,874
s244A43
$2,368,87s
s37,739
so
So
So
s3,338
98,s1s,223
s2,882,673
S2,104,329
$804,092
s7,473,322
93,57s,753
$303,837
$4,602,352
$5,324,775
s15,912
ssss,5s4
s3,3s8,003
S593,s08
$1,794
5216,645
s532,128
S4,346
s25416
s1,362
$2,6s9,940
S1,936,95s
sx25743
s316,700
S1,019,728
52,496,672
$1,s83,428
s1,672,774
92,973,453
s239,779
s226,100
934qs00
so
so
52 54
55 56
57 59
60 61
62 67
76 84
101
8 72
15 16
18 2J.
22 24
25 25
27 33
34 35
38 42
45 50
51 54
55 57
59 60
61 62
68 7!
76 u
95 x
9534.37
19643.61
2389,99
s714,O!
3A74,42
732.A9
398.53
8389.s3
36972.7 4
1912.53
19959.82
sl6.73

5.48 8055.68
1429.18
ra7.7r

4.54 12315.85
4377.77
3249.90
1285.40
2486.07
6152.69
542.8s
8387.23
77751,.37

30.21 1150.49
7285.79
1319.91

4.09 533.53
1694.08

12.00 77 20

4.95 10098.79
8022.42
545,60
7442.87
5162.03
13381.69
9017.52
9796.95
!9352.72
1680.65
2943.14
1756.49
27fi.13
130.00
s1s4010
93,737
s10,137,171
93,603,341
s2,674,995
51,058,016
s2,046,280
$s,064274
s446,819
$6,903,528
s9,680.777
524,62
5946,968
ss,996,434
S1.086,417
53,364
s439,14s
s1,394,400
$9,877
s63,s4X
s4,086
98,312,313
s6,603,254
$449,0&3
91,187.625
$4248,867
s11,014,467
57,422,r2o
ss,063,869
s11929,214
s1,383,340
52,422,47
s6,384.366
s2,268,s69
s107,004
s399
s7,627,947
5720,668
ss70,666
$253,924
$s72,es8
9x,485,520
5r42,s82
$2,301,176
S3,355,003
s8,9s0
5391,413
$2,638,431
S492,50s
$1,s70
s222,sm
s762,272
ss,s31
$38,124
s2,724
9s,6s2,373
s4,666,300
$323,340
s870,926
s3,229,139
S8,s17,854
s5,838,892
s6,4sl,09s
s12,955,760
S1,143,s61
s2,196,397
s6,043,867
92,268,s69
s107,004
22W,78
577,950,795,,531,959 551,67r
.992.257 s1.992,2s7

1.992.257 9t,992.257

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix A
Sum ot 2022 Replacement grm of DepEciation valueDlameter Age of Pipe (inchesl *
48 Total
54 Total
66 Totsl
72 sum of
42 3901.96
x554.31
29s.82
3095.37
rr?2,77
310.78
299.82
4007.50

91.25.45 5885.15
3859.52
7518.35
1029.57
18 33
42 44
45 55
56 51
59 61
76 95
S1,s00,294
S28ts38
52,988,7s2
S1,093,396
5299,977
$28e,/o4
s3,869220
s8,808,29X
s5,680,619
s3,725,381
s7,2s7,043
9993,791
s9,449,067
s22,1se
s389,s83
s2,843,ss7
s4,129,676
ss,1x6,977
$3,ss4779
s4s2,2s4
59,237,474
$7,899,119
S782,293
s5449X20
s741,s6s
9271,08O
52,933,772
$360,070
s12s637
5r,673,707
$626,880
s175,987
sx73,642
s2,836,695
S6,s76,857
54317,270
92,930,633
s5,902,39s
se93J91
s2,77r,726
s6,79s
s124,667
s2,047,390
53,138,ss4
s4,025,355
s805,750
s108,s41
s2,340,160
S2,843,683
s292,0s6
$2,179,28
s514,1s2
S206,o2o
s2,307,8s3
57,74f,223
Sx5s,902
s1,315,0s1
s466,s15
S123,ss1
S11s,761
s1,031,s2s
5?-,2xr,4s4
s1,363,349
5794,74e
s1,3s4,648
5o
*,67734r
S1s,363
9264,9r]
s796,2O7
$997,722
5x,091,622
52,749,O29
5343,713
56,897,314
s5,ost436
5490,237
s3,268.872
5227,473
s6tose
s6258s8
22 23
24 54
57 59

6.63 8503.94

19.94 350,62
2559.X1
3716.61
4605,16
3875:17
10 6
77 18
19 27
28 30
52 57
59 u
18 23
34 59
OI
109
x1s
116
x28
131
x8
6 i
2419.49
358,71
7325.75
6265.23
620.48
4327,20
588.18
215.01
2325.89
532.98
147.70
757.47
103s,85
a7.31
126.24
2447.73
664.27

21.63 t7.47

59.54 23.89

62.48 1293.38
340.78
927.22
52?3,252
91,464,890
s723,472
s178,530
s4,027,2r7
s939,408
s3o,s83
524,624
S84,1e9
s33,79r
sso,604
S351,s74
937,86s
s80,934
s3,168,077
s764,052
$30,s83
s24,624
s84,199
s33,791
S172,648
sx,113,316
s85508
s97,s96
58ss,14o
Sx753s6
so
$o
so
$o
211.91
ss3s,485
s367,071
$128,s17
S83,203
s406,959
S2s3,868

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

AFpindh$
ilt\

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
6tr
J
3o
Parent Program
BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE3330 Total
BASE CIP CONTINGENCY-WATER Total
DISTRIB MAIN REHAB PROGRAM Total
DOU FACILiTIES IMPR/REHAB TOTAI
DOU IT PROGRAM Tota|
DRINKiNG WATER QUALITY 3330 TOTAI

FIRE HYDRANT & GATE VALVE REPL TOTAI
FLORIN RES BACK UP ENGINE Total
FWTP REHAB Total
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - SCADA Total
RESERVOIR REHAB PROGRAM Total
RESIDENTIAL WATER METERING PRO Total
SECURITY & EMERG PREP PROG Total
SHASTA PARK 4MG RES AND PMP ST Total
SRWTP IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Total
SRWTP INTAKE SED RMVL Total
SRWTP PROPERTY ACQUISITION335O TOTAI

TRANS MAIN REHAB PROGRAM TOTAI
UNPLANNED CORRECTiVE MAINT. Total
WATER+ PROGRAM [1]
WELL REHAB PROGRAM Total

ANNUAL MISCELLANEOUS
Totals
Totals from Above
Resiliency Cost Unrelated to New Growth
Adjusted Totals
Existing Customers
Share $ olo
$150,000 100.00o/o
$18,000,000 100.00%
$179,337,97O 100.00%
$2,L88,8r7 76.8o0/o
$6,443,571 76.80o/o
$1,056,008 76.800/o
$5,250,000 100.00o/o
$ 1,344,011 76.8o0/o
$31'280'887 76'800/o
$zo,tt5,6o7 76.800/o
$4L,871,69L 76.8o0/o
$45,050,000 100.00o/o
$3,801,630 76.800/o
$192'002 76'800/o
$40,762,275 76.800/o
$153,601 76.800/o
$700'099 76'8o0/o
$2O,352,L60 76.800/o
$6,912,055 76.800/o
$966,706,427 72.690/o
$86.830,766 76.800/o
$854'985 76'800/o
i1-,479,354,562 76.950/o
$ 1 s0,000
$18,000,000
$179,337 ,97O
$2,850,000
$8,390,000
$ 1,375,000
$5.250,000
$ 1,750,000
$40,730,000
$26,19 1,990
$54,520,000
$45,050,000
$4,9s0,000
$250,000
$53,075,460
$200,000
$9 1 1,580
$26,499,999
$9,000,000
$ 1,329,830,580
$1 13,060,000
$L,LL3,262
$1,922,485,841
Total Budget
$7,922,485,841
+1,922,485,84L
New Growth
Share $ olo
$0 0.00o/o
$0 0.000/o
$0 0.00o/o
$661,183 23'2Oo/o
$L,946,429 23.200/o
$318,992 23'2oo/o
$0 0.000/o
$405,989 23.2oo/o
$9,449,rr3 23.2oo/o
$6,076,383 23.2oo/o
$12,648,309 23.2oo/o
$0 0'00o/o
$1.148,370 23'2Oo/o
$57,998 23.2oo/o
$12,313,185 23,2Oo/o
$46,399 23.20o/o
$271,4Ar 23.2oo/o
$6,147,839 23.20o/o
$2,087,945 23.2oo/o
$363,L24,L53 27.37o/o
$26,229,234 23.2oo/o
$258,277 23.20o/o
$443,13L,279 23.O5o/o
ttttoo=1.1 A
!= x
E
T
N
Adjustment for New Resiliency Unrelated to New Growth
$1,479,354,562
$4s,056,356
$1,524,41O,9L8

76.95o/o
100.000/o

79.29o/o
$443,t31,279
($4s,0s6,3s6)
1398,O74,923

23.O5o/o
-100.00%
2O.7lolo
Sources: DOU Alternative 3.1, EPS Appendix_8,2a
Note:
1if ine Water+ program includes the 9220,000,000 RiverArc project to increase capacity by 30 mgd. New growth will need 22 mgd of this capacity for new growth exclusively. The value of this capacity is $161.333.333 and is allocated to New Growth, The remaining 9 mgd will benefit all customers, so is shared equally between Existing Customers (76.80Vo) and New Growth (23.200/o). These shares are $45,056'356 and $ 13,610,31 1 respectively.

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Descriptions
CIP Objective Description
Backflow Prevention Device3330
To ensure compliance with the City's Cross-
Connection Control Program, the
Department of utilities annually tests
backflow devices to ensure that backflow
prevention assemblies are working properly
Annually test backflow devices for city
departments requiring backflow testing and
repairs and issue a permit, or "tag" to show
compliance of the State requirement.

BASE CIP CONTiNGENCY-WATER
Reserve for unforeseen capital program
needs.

Facilitate the completion of capital projects
by reserving appropriations for minor
overruns and provide a source of funds for
small projects that could not be anticipated
before the start of the fiscal year.

Distrib Main Rehab Program
Improve water distribution system reliability
including increased pressures and fire
suppression capabilities.

Replace water distributlon mains (pipes
twelve-inch in diameter or smaller) and
other work associated with the distribution
system that have maintenance issues or
have exceeded their useful life.

DOU Facilities Impr/Rehab
Improve the existing condition of
Department of utilities facilities through
maintenance and/or replacement projects
for continued occupancy of Department of
Utilities sites.

This program provides funding for capital
improvements to Department of Utilities
facilities including space planning and
rehabilitation projects.

DOU IT Proqram
Supports initiatives through technology
advancements by providing reliable systems
that improves customer service and staff
with tools to be more efficient and make
decisions that promotes the Department's
vision,
Planning and implementation of IT initiatives
as well as coordination and management of
IT resources and oversight on all identified
IT programs, software, hardware upgrades,
and consulting services.

Drinkinq Water Quality 3330
Comply with drinking water regulatory
requirements of the California Surface
Water Treatment Rule, and California Code
of Regulations Title 22.

Provide for drinking water regulatory efforts
that encompass water production through
the water treatment plants, wells, and
reservoirs; and distribute this water to
ratepayers.

Fire Hydrant & Gate Valve Repl
Replace valves and fire hydrants to facilitate
positive system shutdowns and improve the
system's reliability and safety.

Replace valves and fire hydrants in the
water distribution system that have failed or
are obsolete.

Florin Res Back Up Engine
Complete necessary improvements for
reliability of pump station and redundancy
needs for maintenance, including needed
safety upgrades. (Parent CIP to close in
rY24,)
Design and construct various improvements
at Florin Pump Station including air quality,
improved communications, flow meter
replacement, pump redundancy,
programming improvements, and improved
safety and reliability of station.

FWTP Rehab
MaKe avallaole to tne Llty a telldule ruu-
120 million gallons per day of water
treatment capacity at the E.A. Fairbairn
Water Treatment Plant,
Rehabilitate the E.A. Fairbairn Water
Treatment Plant (FWTP) structures
constructed in 1964.

Information Technology - SCADA
Provide improvements and maintenance of
the SCADA system that have been deemed
essential and critical and are used by
Operations to remotely control and monitor
the facilities and equipment for the Water,
Wastewater, and Storm Drainage
infrastructure per the SCADA master plan.

This program funds the maintenance and
improvements of the Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system as
defined in the SCADA master plan,

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Reservoir Rehab Program
Improve the water system reliability and
extend useful lives of the City's reservoirs.

Rehabilitation work at water reservoirs,
including booster pump stations, which may
include patching interior and exterior
coatings, improvements to cathodic
protection systems. pump and motor
improvements, electrical upgrades.
structural repairs, etc.

Residential Water Metering Program
Comply with AB 2572, promote
conservation, and bill customers for the
amount of water they use. Once the City is
fully metered, a replacement program will
be developed to replace meters, gateways,
endpoints and other associated
infrastructure.

Install water meters at residential homes
lhat do not currently have meters.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2572 requires water
meters be installed on existing water servic€
connections by 2025. Once the City is fully
metered, a replacement program will be
developed and implemented.

Security & Emerg Prep Prog
Implement the Department of Utilities'
Security Master Plan recommendations, as
accepted by City Council in September
2014.

Provide security improvements to key
Water, Drainage, and Wastewater facilities
as recommended in the DOU Security
Master Plan.

Shasta Park 4Mq Res And Pmp St
Provide water to the southern portion of the
City during peak hour demands, fire
demands, and emergencies. (Parent CIP to
close in FY24.) ,
Design and construct a four million gallon
(4MG) water storage reservoir, booster
pump station, and two groundwater wells
SRWTP ImDrovements Proqram
Make available to the City a reliable 160
million gallons per day of water treatment
capacity at the Sacramento River Water
ent Plant (SRWTP)
Maintenance projects, upgrades due to
regulatory changes, safety improvements,
or updating antiquated electrical equipment
are examples of projects to be designed and
implemented.

SRWTP Intake Sed Rmvl Parent CIP to close in FY24
SRWTP Property Acquisition Parent CIP to close in FY24
Trans Main Rehab Proqram
Ensure the reliability of the water .
distribution system and reduce potential
damage from transmission main breaks.

Replace existing water transmission mains
(pipes larger than twelve-inch diameter)
that have significant maintenance issues
with new reliable mains that meet City
standards.

Unplanned Corrective Maint.

Enable repairs needed to continue operating
efficiently.

Correct and repair unexpected critical
failures with the City's water infrastructure.

Water+ Proqram
Ensure the City has sufficient and resilient
water treatment capacity for the future
water demands of the City of Sacramento.

Design plans and specifications for the
development of necessary water supply
expansion improvements needed due to
expected growth as well as resiliency
projects for the City's water supply and
facilities.

Well Rehab Proqram
Improve City's water supply reliability and
groundwater extraction capability. A reliable
groundwater supply will optimize
conjunctive management of the City's water
supply and will allow the City to participate
in future drought banking programs and
water transfers.

Rehabilitate and replace dilapidated
infrastructure at the City potable
groundwater facilities. Monitoring
capabilities may be required and other work
associated with the groundwater well
program.

Annual Miscellaneous See Description
This represents estimated remaining
available appropriations for the current year
For the Transmission and Distribution Main
Rehabilitaion Programs. Estimated
requirements for future years are in those
programs and are described above.
sources: DOU and EPS Appendix_8.2b

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart B-3.1a
Water Development lmpact Fees
per Dwelling Unit
Single Fomily T" Meter
{!,
E
o
1\lI
F
I
ct
o
o
E
|.o
o.
coo
o
CL
3o
o
INo
S2s,ooo
92o,ooo
$1s,ooo
s10,000
$s,ooo
5o
oo
tt!,
6'
o
ilP
-lJ
26fi5JCtoU'crA6'trctl
NldI
Fo
!l
CL
NI
tsFI
uo'"".

I
^"""+"o
"."""
-"""
)o'"' .""* ""-t "C ""'"- "'"".
^of
-.""
$"*'
-tt-"

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart B-3.2a
Water Development lmpact Fees
Retsil - 2,2" Meters
S4oo,ooo
$3s0,000
5300,000
S2so,ooo
92oo,ooo
$ 1s0,000
Sloo,ooo
5 so,0o0
$o
c
oPo0
""""
-'"t
,oo'* "od ."-" ""'"* ""'"- -'"'" .-'
G^O-
{sdP
.cu$"'".

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart B-3.3a
Water Development lmpact Fees
Office - 2,2" Meters
s400,000
5350,000
s300,000
$2s0,000
52oo,ooo
s 150,000
$1oo,ooo
Sso,ooo
So
a""""
aa'" .od .""-" C ""'-" "'"'" """"t.t\-
.-*t"
+d

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
s2s,000
s20,000
515,0m
s10,000
S5,ooo

2.c
a0
€
@
3o
oeoo
Chart B-3.1
Water Development lmPact Fees
per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
-.""" -""""
t""" ."".t """* ""- " *t"
-"C
-{og
o
NI
ts
1i
ot!l
o
ET
o
o.
coo
o
c
oo
s0
t"-"
I
""""

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart B-3.2
Water Development lmPact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
Retail
ooB
Et!:It6
!0
,E
E5
@
ooo-
o
CL
oo
I25,000
s3s,000
s30,000
5o
s20,000
s1s,000
s10,000
Ss,ooo
I
"c".""
I
C """-" C "s'" ""tt" -""to$t
-"""" ."""""
-"".q

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart B-3.3
Water Development lmpact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
olfice
s30,000
s2s,000
s20,000
s 15,000
s 10,000
Ss,ooo
ooB
o
63 6
bo
ET'
=3
CO
ooo
o
CL
oo
5o
t
"c
I
"t""
II
_"c !n"' ...c ."_" c c c -"'.Jf-
usd

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart B-3.4
Water Development lmpact Fees per Acre
Single FamilY
o
o
tn
Eo
o
os160,000
s140,000
s120,000
g
fu
€o
3o
o
CL
oo
s100,000
580,000
s50,000
s40.000
520,000
Is0
--". ,"oo*
-""""
s'' c .c c ""- t.*"t """*
,os

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart B-3.5
Water Development lmpact Fees per Acre
Retail
S40o,ooo
s3sq000
s300,000
s2s0,000
$2oqooo
s150,000
$100,000
ss0,000
oog
o
o
C'q
b0
E
=@
oo(>
d
o
CL
oor
So
I
,c*"t"
I
""". "."""
)o'* C "."-t C "s* """- c
..O-
$o+-
-'"""

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart B-3.5
Water Development lmpact Fees per Acre
office
S4ogooo
s3s0,000
s3oqmo
S25o,ooo
S2oo,ooo
s150,000
s 100,000
Sso,ooo
oor
o
G5
6 !ocE
3ooc)o
d
oIL
oor
5o III
-""". "rJ.--"4-
*"d ""." C "."- " "r-t
*""" ttt"-"

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Apprruorx C:

Separated Sewer System UtilitY
Appendix C-1: Technical Memorandum, Department of Utilities' November 18, 2009
Sample of Basin Improvements
Separated Sewer Detailed Fee Schedule
Companion Charts to Table 3-8
Appendix C-2:

Appendix C-3:

Appendix C-4;

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix C-l
Technical Memorandum, Depaltment of Utilities, November 18' 2OO9 CIry OF SACRAMENTODEPARTMENT
OF UTILITIES CALIfORNIA

ENGINEERING
SERVIC€s DtVlStON PH 9l 6'808.1 400
FAX 9l 6-808-t 497ll 498
November 'l 8, 2009
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

PRELIMINARY HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

SEPARATED SEWER BASINS
This technlcal memorandum (TM) summarizes our approach to evaluate the hydraulic capacity of sanitary sewer "backbone" facilities in each of the City of Sacramento (City) separated sewer basins. This evaluation is part of a broader effort to develop a reasonably accurate and realistic Sewer Development Fee by, in part, estimating the hydraulic capacity of the facilities utillzing a consistent method. Portions of the City have been evaluated via master plans over the past I 5 years, but the methods were not consistent. Excluded from this studywere combined sewer system facilities located in the older central Clty area and all small collection pipelines not ldentified as belonging to th€ "backbone" network of pipes.

The following sections present background information regarding the separated sewer system within the City, along with a discussion of the general wastewater components and methodology used in the hydraulic capacity evaluations. ln addition, the approach used for estimating the 2009 capital costs to replace and improve, if warranted, the existing "backbone" sewer infrastructure within the basins is discussed. Reports are included in the appendices that provide information regarding the existing infrastructure, existing land uses, and projected future land uses within each basin, along with the specific wastewater components used in each hydraulic evaluation.

Finally, the results of the hydraulic and capital costs evaluations for each basin are summarized.

This study involved static hydraulic evaluations based on various simplifuing assumptions in order to satisry limitations imposed on the project. Therefore, this study did not include flow monitoring, condition assessment of sewer facilities, or dynamic modeling of the collection systems and, thus, provides only a general overyiew of hydraulic considerations wlthin the basins. The reports presented in the appendices can be used as a preliminary assessment of hydraulic capacity and as a screening tool to determine if a more detailed sanitary sewer study is required, Paqet ofl3
I 395 35d AVENUE
SACMM€NTO, CA
95822-291 r

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Background lnformation
Wastewater collection in the City of Sacramento is provided by both the City and the County of Sacramento. The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) maintains approximately 35 percent of the public collection system within the City limits, primarily in the northwest and southeast sections of the City. The City Department of Utilities (DOU) maintains the remaining portion of the public collection system, which includes a combined sewer system in the older central City area with a total service area of approximately 7,545 acres and approximately 305 miles of 4 to 120 inch diameter pipes. The separated sewer system, which is described below in more detail, is located primarily in the northeast, east and southwest sections of the Citywith atotal service area of about 20,750 acres.

Wastewater conveyed by the City's separated sewer system is routed by the collection system to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) for treatment and disposal via an interceptor system consisting of large diameter pipes and pump stations. The interceptor system and the SRWTP, located just south of the City limits, are owned and operated by the independent Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). A detail showing the City of Sacramento and SASD service areas, as well as the location of SRCSD interceptor pipe within the City service area is presented in Figure L
Maintenance of the City's separated sewer system is provided by three Divisions within the DOU. The Field Services Division maintains the entire collection system infrastructure, including approximately 485 miles of 4 to 42 inch diameter gravlty collection pipes, about 5.3 miles of force mains, and about 14,400 manholes. The Plant Services Division maintains the pump stations. The Engineering Services Division coordinates wlth the Field and Plant Services Divisions to design and manage all capital improvement projects related to sewer replacement and rehabilitation. Figure I and Tables I and 2 show the size and distribution of separated gravity and force main pipes in the City service area.

Page2of13
Pipe
Diameter
(lnch)
Length
(feet)
Length
(miles)
Percentage of
system (by
lensth)
7 16,4 I36 o.284
6236 I.594.H 0 301 .91
1no8 460.984 87.31
to 1 5l .597 28.71 5.9
t7 127 f)74 27 l2 4.8
26l5 66.088 12.52
I8 35.671 6.76 1.4
2I 5S.5!14 I l_28 2.?
)4 qr qo6 6.04 1.2
o54 o.t 327 t.376
o4430 I I .314 2.14
t6 978 0^19 0.04
t4 7/j6 779 0.5742
Totel 2. S5q.507 484_8 100

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Plpe
Diameter
(inch)
Length
(f€et)
Length
(miles)
Percentage of
System (by
lensth)
4 4.679 0.89 16_66
6 1 752 o1? 67
I 5.859 t.l I 20.9
l2 4.976 0.94 17,7
t8 4.479 o-83 15.6
?t 5 tiR oq7 l* ?
24 497 0.09 t.8
30 42 0-01 o.1 5
36 772 o.15 )7\
Total 28 094 s.3 roo
The separated sewer system is composed predominately of vitrified clay and reinforced concrete pipes. A majority of the pipes were installed between the I940's and the I 970's. Pipes in the older sections of the City were constructed in the late 1 800's and early I 900's. Since the I970's, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe gradually gained acceptance and now PVC pipe is used almost exclusively as replacement pipes and ln new construction.

The City service area is divided into 49 separated sewer basins. Thirty-nine of the sewer basins are pumped through individual pump stations. The remaining ten sewer basins gravity flow directly or indirectly into the SRCSD interceptor pipes. Twenty-seven of the pump stations were constructed between the 1950's and the 1970's; most of these pumps have been rehabilitated and/or upsized during the past ten years. The remalning I 3 pump stations were constructed between I 985 and 2004 with only one pump station (Sump 122) rehabilitated in 1999. Many of the pump stations dlscharge into downstream gravity sewers which, in turn, convey the wastewater to pump stations further downstream. Because of thls interconnection, changes in one basin can affect the performance ofthe separated sewer system in downstream basins. Figure 2 shows the layout of separated sewer basins in the City.

Wastewater Comoonents
Sewer or wastewater flows used to evaluate hydraulic capacity are composed of several components termed: (l) average dry weather flow (ADWF), (2) peak dry weather flow (PDWF), (3) peak wet weather flow (PWWF), (4) groundwater infiltration (GWl), and (5) rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow (RDl/l), The latter two components are collectively referred to as infiltration/inflow (Ul), The following presents a brief discussion of each component and factors used in the hydraulic evaluations.

Average Dry Weather FIow
The ADWF is the average daily sanitary sewer flow contribution from residential, commercial, industrial and institutional users at any given point in the collection system during dry season conditions, excluding all flow from groundwater infiltration and

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Length
(miles)
Percentage of
System (by
lenqth)
Plpe
Dlameter
(lnch)
Length
(fee0
o8q 16.664 4.679
6)6 1.752 0.33
I 5.859 l.ll 20.9
4 q76 0.94 l7,7I2
I 5.6l8 4.379 0-83
21 5.1 38 o.97 r 8.3
497 0.0s 1,824
ool o.l 530 42
?6 772 o.l5 2.75
rooTotal 28.094 5.3
The separated sewer system is composed predominately of vitrified clay and reinforced concrete pipes. A majority of the pipes were installed between the 1940's and the I 970's. Pipes in the older sections of the City were constructed in the late I 800's and early 1900's. Since the 1970's, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe gradually gained acceptance and now PVC pipe is used almost exclusively as replacement pipes and in new construction,
The City service area is divided into 49 separated sewer basins. Thirty-nine of the sewer basins are pumped through individual pump stations. The remaining ten sewer basins gravityflowdirectlyorindirectlyintotheSRCSDinterceptorpipes. Twqnty-sevenofthe pump stations were constructed between the |950's and the 1970's; most of these pumps have been rehabilitated and/or upsized during the past ten years. The remaining I 3 pump statlons were constructed between I 985 and 2004 with only one pump station (Sump 122) rehabilitated in 1999. Many of the pump stations discharge into downstream gravity sewers which, in turn, convey the wastewater to pump stations further downstream. Because ofthis interconnection, changes in one basin can affect the performance ofthe separated sewer system in downstream baslns. Flgure 2 shows the layout of separated sewer basins in the City.

Wastewater Components
Sewer or wastewater flows used to evaluate hydraullc capacity are composed of several components termed: (l) average dry weather flow (ADWF), (2) peak dry weather flow (PDWF), (3) peak wet weather flow (PWWF), (4) groundwater infiltration (GWl), and (5) rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow (RDl/l). The latter two components are collectively referred to as infiltration/inflow (l/l). The following presents a brief discussion of each component and factors used in the hydraulic evaluations.

Average Dry Weather Flow
The ADWF is the average daily sanitary sewer flow contribution from residential, commercial, industrial and institutional users at any given point in the collection system during dry season conditions, excluding all flow from groundwater infiltration and Page3ofl3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
stormwater runoff infiltration/inflow.

Sewer system planning within the City is typically based on a unit flow rate representing the average sanitary sewer flow contribution from one single family residence, termed an Equivalent Slngle-Family Dwelling unit, or ESD. The flow contributions from other types of land uses are expressed ln terms of either an equivalent number of ESDs, actual water usage, an appropriate density factor (e.9., dwelling units or ESDs per net acre), or some other parameter that reflects sewage generation. For example, the flow from one multi-family dwelling unit is equated to 0.75 ESD, whereas a density factor of 6 ESD/acre may be used to equate flows from commercial/retail users. The ADWF is determined by totaling the ESDs from land uses that contribute flowto a particular collection pipe and then multiplying the value by a unit flow rate expressed in units of gallons per day per ESD (spd/ESD).

The current City Design and Procedures Manual requlres that a unit flow rate of 400 gpd/EsDbeusedforplanningpurposes. Areducedunitflowrateof3l0gpd/ESDwas selected for this evaluation based on flow monitoring performed by the DOU and the SASD in recent yearst. This reduced unit flow rate will be included in future revisions to the City Design and Procedures Manual.

To support the impact fee evaluation and for use in future planning, the ADWF was evaluated for three land use scenarios: existing conditions; development and/or redevelopment conditions expected by the year 2030, coinciding with the City's 2030 General Plan; and ultimate build-out conditions. A discussion regarding how land use conditions were determined for each basin is presented in the subsection titled "Land Use Conditions" and in the Basin Reports included in the Appendices.

Once the existing land use data was compiled, land uses that could reasonably be expected to convert sewer flow to the collection system were converted to equivalent ESDs using the factors shown on Table 3, The existing ADWF was determined by multiplying the total ESDs within the basin or subbasin by the unit flow rate of 310 spd/ESD.

ESD Flow Unit
I
Multi"Familv Residentia o7q
commercial/lndustria 6 ner net narcel arre-
O-13 bercaoita
etc. o
Once the acreage for all new or future 2030 and Build-out land use was compiled, the equivalent new or additional ESDs were calculated using the density factors presented in Table 4. The additional 2030 ESDs where then added to the Existing ESDS to establish the total 2030 ESDs for each basin or subbasin, Likewise, the additional Build-out ESDs were then added to the 2030 ESDs to establish the total Build-Out ESDs for each basin Flow monltorlng performed by the DOU and SASD has shown a signlficant reduction to the unlt flow rate due to water conseruatlon pollcl€s and measures. Measured unlt flow rates typlcally range ftom less than 200 gpdl€SD to 300 gpdlESD. A unlt llow rate of 3l 0 gpd,/ESD ls curently used by SASD for plannlng studies. The SASD unlt flow rate appears reasonable wlth an ad€quate safety factor.

Page4ofl3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

ESDs/Ac.zLand Use
I ow Densitv 6
1tMed. Densitv
l0Hidh Densltv
lqI ow Densitv
45Med. Densltv
Suburban & Traditional C€nter 6
6Redlonal Commercial Center
ILJrban Center Low
2SUrban Center Hiqh
suburban Corridor 5
ItUrban corrldor
6EmDlovment center Low Rise
Fmnl6vment Center Mid-Rise I
1llndustrlal
Public/Ouas i-Public
soace/Parks. etc.
or subbasin. The total ESDs were then multiplied by the unit flow rate to determine the 2030 and Build-out ADWF.

Peak Dry Weather FIow (PDWF)
The diurnal flow pattern in Sacramento and most cities tends to vary throughout the day in a typical way, generally peaking early in the morning in the upstream sewers and later and li-ss sharplyin the larger downstream sewers with higher flows. The PDWF refers to the maximum dryweather flow rate that is likely to be seen at any given point in the collection system. The typical PDWF tends to be I % to 2il2 times the ADWF. ln a static hydraulic analysis, the most common means of expressing the anticipated magnitude of rhe PDWF is by a "peaking factor" (PF), which relates the PDWF to the ADWF, The current City Design and Procedures manual provides a diagram relating the ADWF to the PF. As alluded to earlier, recent flow monitoring clearly shows that water qonservation policies and measures have not only reduced the unit flow rate from 400 gpd/ESD to 310 gpdlESD, but also reduced the measured PDWFs. These findings ibpiar to be conslstent wlth studles performed by other agencies and cities, such as SASO, tos Angeles and Portland among others. Using flow measurements recorded by the City and SASD, the DOU has developed a representative PF, which is more consistent with the PF used by cities such as Los Angeles and Portland. The new PF equation used in the evaluations is as follows:

PF = 1.9(ADWF)'"' {min. PF = I.5, max. PF = 3.0)
Numerous Jurlsdlctlonal resources were revlewed to determlne the density factors llsted on Table No. 2. Denslty facbrs weri averiged and th€n compared to avallable flow monitorlng and water usage data wlthin the Clty to obtain a reasonable and representatlve value for the varlous land uses.

Page5ofl3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

I
I
I
I
!
l
I
:

PDWF-ADWFXPF
This PF will be included in future revisions to the City Design and Procedures Manual.

Groundwater lnfiltration (GWI)
GWI is groundwater that enters the sewer system through cracks or defective joints in pipes and manhole walls. The magnitude of GWI depends on the condition of the sewers as well as on the depth of the groundwater table with respect to the local sewer collection system. Therefore, GWI is highly dependent on location and topography.

Sewers in low lying areas near the Sacramento and American Rlvers and the many creeks traversing the Sacramento area tend to exhibit higher GWI rates.

GWI is typically expressed on a unit area basis (gpd,/acres or gpad) by dividlng GWI flow determined through flow monitoring by the sewered acreage of the monitored area. An evaluation of City and SASD flow monitoring data suggests that typical GWI rates range from about 100 to 500 gpad. SASD currently applies a CWI value of 200 gpad for design of all collection systems in their service area based on data collected at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Unlike the Sacramento service area, however, much of the area served by the SASD ls located away from rives and creeks and generally at a higher elevation. Thus, groundwater levels for a majority of their service area tend to be relatively deep in comparison to the collection system. Because of Sacramento's proximity to rivers and creeks, groundwater tends to be relatively shallow under much of the City. This factor, combined with the recent flow monitoring data and the old age of the City collection systemr a GWI value of 300 gpad was considered more representative of conditions in the City provided groundwater is I 5 feet or less in depth. lf the groundwater table was found to be below a depth of I 5 feet, no GWI was included in estimated sewer flows. The I 5 foot depth was selected because most sewer facilities in the City are located near and/or above this depth.

For the purpose of our evaluation, groundwater elevations for the basin were determined using the data from geotechnical studies maintained on the DOU intranet and/or groundwater contour maps published by the California Department of Water Resources between Spring I 979 and Spring 2007'. Cround surface elevations were determined based on Lidar elevation maps also available on the DOU intranet.

The DOU recognizes that groundwater elevations can and will fluctuate due to variatlons in precipitation, temperature, localized pumping, and other factors. Therefore, it is possible that groundwater elevations may be higher or lower than the levels reported in past geotechnical studies and generalized groundwater contour maps.

Rai nfa ll-Depend ent I nfi ltrationfl nflow ( RDIfl )
RDI/I isinfiltrationandinflowthatisdirectlyrelatedtorainfall events. RDI/I mayenter the sewer collection system through manhole and pipe defects, as well as direct surface dralnage connections such as illegally connected roof, pool and yard drains. The magnitude of RDI/I flows are related to the intensity and duration of the rainfall, the 3 Spring groundwat€r contour maps were s€lected because rlver and creek stages and, thus, groundwat€r elevatlons tend to be at or near their highest levels.

Page6ofl3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
relative soil moisture at the time of the rainfall event, the condition of the collection system, and other factors. Peak sewer flows during ralnfall events are typically the highest flow rates that occur in any s€wer collection system.

Planning studies completed by outside consultants for Basins 2l , 5 5, 85, I I 9, 127,134, 135, 136, 137 and 145 have shown RDI/I flow rates ranging from less than 1,000 gpd/acre (gpad) to over 9,000 gpad for a 6-hr, I O-year frequency storm event (storm event used fordesign perthe City Design and Procedures manual). SASD has reported RDI/I ranging from I ,000 to 6,000 gpad within their system for the same design storm event and subsequently elected in their planning studies to incorporate RDI/I rates of I ,600 gpad for older existing development and I ,400 gpad for newer (less than 5 years old) and future development. Based on flow data collected from the planning studies completed in the City, the RDI/I rate of I ,600 gpad appears appropriate for sewers less than 20 years old (coinciding with the predominate use of PVC pipe in Sacramento). For sewers greater than 20 years old, an RDI/I rate of 2,500 gpad appears generally representative, Therefore, unless specific flow monitoring and RDI/I data was available for a basin, these values were used in the flow evaluations.

The DOU recognizes that, aside from pipe age, many other factors can contribute to RDI/I. ln the absence of flow monitoring data for each basin, however, these other factors cannot be accurately determined. Flow data presented in previous planning studies did suggest a general correlation between pipe age and RDlll and, thus, it was felt that pipe age would be the best method ofquantification for the stated purpose of the evaluations.

Peak Wet Weather FIow (PWWF)
The P\IVWF refers to the maximum flow rate obserued or predicted at any given point in the collection system during extreme wet weather conditions and is the component typically used to evaluate sewer facilities. Because the peak RDI/I during a storm event can occur at any time of the day, it is conservatively assumed in this analysis that the peak RDI/I flow would coincide with the PDWF. Therefore, the PWWF is the sum of the PDWF, CWl, and RDI/I components plus any flows from extraneous discharges.

Extraneous discharges are flows from pump stations that dlscharge into the basin or SASD pipes that discharge into the City's system. Flows from permitted "special dischargers," such as from industries that discharge high flows into the sewer for a limited time period, were not considered in this evaluation. These special dischargers, however, should be considered in any future project specific sewer studies or master plans.

PWWF = PDWF + GWI + RDI/I + Extraneous Flow
Hydraulic Capacitv Eval uation
Land Use Conditions
The first step in the evaluation process was to compile the existlng and future land use data for each basin. To support the impact fee evaluation and for use in future planning, three land use scenarios were evaluated: existing conditions; development PageToflS

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
and/or redevelopment conditions expected by the year 2030, coinciding with the City's 2030 General Plan; and ultimate build-out conditions. lt is recognized that full build'out of every parcel in a basin is never likely to occur. This scenario, however, provides for a sufficieni level of conservatism to allow the DOU to plan sewer facilities with useful lives of about 50 to 100 years, which is typical industry standard, without significant risk of shortfalls in future capacity.

For the purpose of the evaluations, the existing land use conditions in a basin were separated into the five general categories listed in Table 3 and compiled using the 2008 MasterAddress Database GIS files, the 2008 GIS Parcel files, the 2005 Existing Land Use GIS files, and school web sites available on the internet. Since detached single family residences and attached multi-family residences contribute a vast majority of flow to the City's sewer collection system, the Master Address Database was felt to be the best source for obtaining a reasonably accurate residential count within the basins. The Parcel and Existing Land Use files were used to identiry commercialf retail, industrial and open space parceis and to determine the gross acreage ofthe parcels. State and local sihool district web sites were used to determine enrollment at the numerous public and some private schools in the basins.
2030 land uses were determined using a CIS map developed by the Long Range Planning Department (LRPD) that identifies vacant and potentially subdividable parcels within the Citi that they feel have a potential or likelihood of belng developed or redeveloped by the year 2030. Subdividable parcels are large, currently occupied parcels that have a reasonable potential of being subdivided to a higher density land use. This map was then overlain by a GIS land use map also developed by the LRPD for the City's 2030 General Plan titled "Land Use & Urban Form Diagram" to determine the anticipated future land use and acreage for each ofthe identified vacant and subdividable parcels.

Build-Out land uses were determined in the same manner as the 2030 land uses except that the Master Address Database was overlain on a 2008 aerial photograph to visually identiry the remaining vacant and potentially subdividable parcels withln the basin. The aerial photograph was then overlaln by the "Land Use & Urban Form Diagram" to determine the anticipated future land use and acreage for each of the parcels. An assumption was made that land uses for existing low to high density housing and existing retail/commercial,/industrial developments would not change in the future.

Backbone Pipes
Once the existing and future land use information was compiled, the land uses were then plotted in GiS format on individual aerial photographs of the basins that lncluded overlays showing parcel locations and the layout of the collection systems. Based on the distribution, type, and density ofthe land uses, by inspection "backbone" pipes were selected for evaluation and nodes were chosen at the downstream end of "backbone" pipes. Backbone pipes are pipes that serve relatively large tributary or shed areas inA/or pipes that will serve future developments or redevelopments that could contribute significant flow. Nodes correspond to sewer manholes. The basins were then graphically separated, generally along parcel lines, into smaller subbasins that could be used to evaluate tributary sewer flow to the nodes.

PageSofl3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

I
I
I
i
:Once the nodes and subbasins were selected within a basin, the acreage and land use data was separated according to the subbasins for estimating the ESDs in each subbasin and the ADWF, PDWF and PWWF at each node using an Excel spreadsheet and the assumptions and methods previously discussed. Using the same Excel spreadsheet, the selected backbone pipes upstream of a node were then analyzed using Manning's Equation to estimate if the pipes are able to convey the PWWF without surcharging4. lf the hydraulic capacity of a pipe was found to be inadequate, the evaluation was concluded by estimating the minimum pipe diameter requlred to convey the flow.

Limited information is currently available regarding the line and grade (slope) of the existing collection system. ln addition, the flow characteristics throughout most of the system have not been measured through flow monitoring. Accordingly, several assumptions had to be made in order to complete the evaluations. These included a pipe roughness or Manning's coefficient of 0.01 3 and a minimum flowvelocity of 2 feet per second (fps) when the pipe ls flowing full, both minimum criteria per the current City Design and Procedures Manual. ln order to achieve the flow velocity of 2 fps, the minimum pipe slopes presented on Table 5 were assumed in the evaluations.

Pump Station
The hydraulic capacity of pump stations were evaluated by comparing the current firm discharge capacity of the pump stations to the projected PWWF discharging into the pump stations. The "firm" discharge capacity is the capacity of a pump station with all pumps operating at the same time, except for one of the larger pumps. lf the firm discharge capacity of a pump station exceeded the projected PWWF, the pump station wasjudgedtohaveadequatehydrauliccapacitywithnorequiredmodifications. lfthe 4 A llow condltion, 1.e., pressure flow, resultinq whetr the downstream hydraulic capaclty ls less thao the upsteam lnflow causing sewer to ac€umulate and rlse above the lnslde crown of a plpe or faalllty Page9ofl3
6 8
l0
l2
l5
l8
2t
24 27
30 33
36 42
48 54
60 66
72 78
84 90

0.005

0.0035

0.002s

0.002
0,00r s

0.00 t 2

0.00092

0.00077

0.00066

0.00057

0.0005 t

0.00045

0.00037

0.00031

0.00026

0.00023

0.0002

0.000r 8

0.00016

0.00015
0

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
firm discharge capacity of a pump station was less than the projected PWWF, it was assumed that the station would need either additional pumps installed or, if no room is available in the wet well, that some or all of the pumps would need to be removed and replaced with larger capacity pumps and associated electrical equipment. The potential need for complete reconstruction of a pump station for increased discharge capacity is beyond the scope ofthis study.

Quality Control
ln an effort to "test out" or "ground proof' the methodology and conclusions of the preliminary hydraulic evaluations, the results for Basins 21, 55, 85 and I l9 were compared to the findings reported in planning studies completed by outside consultants for these basins. ln all cases, the studies identified the same pipes as having insufficient capacity. ln a few instances, the conclusions varied as to the pipe diameter required to convey the estimated PWWF, but in no case did the pipe diameter vary by more than one pipe size, plus or minus. Since the results of the studies compared well, it was concluded that the methodology used in these preliminary evaluations produced reasonable results for the stated purpose of the evaluations.

Capital Costs Evaluation
A capital costs evaluation was performed to determined the average cost/ESD to: (1) replace the existing collection system and pump stations; (2) improve/upsize existing sewer backbone infrastructure that does not have adequate hydraulic capacity to convey the estimated existing and/or future PWWF without surcharging; and (3) both improve/upsize existing hydraulically inadequate sewer backbone infrastructure and replace the remaining sewer infrastructure, including pump stations. The evaluation was performed using the average unit costs obtained from the DOU Bid Book and the following assumptions:

L All sewer pipes estimated to have inadequate flow capacity would be replaced with a new larger diameter pipe along the same line and grade as the existing pipe using conventional trench and fill constructlon.

2. ln order to align the life cycle of the new pipe with the existing manholes along its alignment; all manholes greater than 20 years old would be replaced with a new manhole and all manholes 20 years or less in age would be rehabilitated in- place.

3. Unmarked utility crossing would be encountered at an interval of one per every 200 linear feet of new pipe alignment.

4. Due to wet soil, debris, etc., 0.3 tons of unsuitable soil (about 2 5% of the native backfill for a l0 foot deep trench excavation) will need to be excavated and replaced per foot of new pipe alignment.

5. lf a existing pump station was found to have inadequate discharge capacity for the estimated existing or future PWWF, capital costs include the addition of pumps or the replacement of some or all the existing pumps to increase the capacity of the pump station. Costs assume that the existing building and wet well are structurally adequate and include costs to modifo inlet and outlet control structures and switch gear.

6. A combined construction and estimating contingency of 25 percent would be Pag€ l0 of l3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
adequate to address potential unknowns, such as utility conflicts, and other miscellaneous construction issues, such as the need for dewatering, soil contamination, shoring and bracing, etc.

7. Existing sewer services, between the main and the point of service at the property line, would need to be realigned and/or replaced at an interval of one per every 100 linear feet of new pipe alignment.

Summary
The evaluation results indicate that about I 2 1,848, I 47,485 and I 71, I 9l linear feet of sanitary sewer "backbone" pipe will need to be improvedlupsized in I 7 of the 49 sewer basins to adequately serve the estimated Existing, 2030, and Build-out land uses, respectlvely. The remaining 32 basins possess backbone pipelines that are adequately sized to convey flow generated by all the projected land uses. The improvements would also include the replacement or rehabilitation of about 450 to 600 manholes along the backbone pipe alignments and modifications to increase the capacity of between 5 and 7 pump stations. Overall, this would constitute improving between 5 and 7 percent of entire (backbone and non-backbone) separated sewer system. Approximately 73, 60 and 52 percent ofthe backbone improvements needed to serve the estimated Existing, 2030 and Build-out land use conditions, respectively, would be concentrated in four basins, Basins 55,85, ll9 and G354. ln addition, the Citywould need to construct about 1 3,080 linear feet of new backbone sewer pipe in the northern portion of Basin G302, which is currently not served by the City system. A summary of the estimated linear footage of existing backbone pipe and manholes estimated to need improvement in each ofthe 1 7 sewer basins is presented on Table 5.

Pagellof13
ft. Manholes
Basin Existlng
Land
Use
%of
lmprove.
2030
Land
Use
%ot
lmprove.

Eulld-
Out
Land
Use
%of
lmprove. Min, Max.
32 2.31 O I.9 2.31 0 1.6 z.7ss I.6 l3 t4
45 1.697 "t.4 2.062 1.4 3.945 2,3 I 20

4.o72 s_5 9.292 5_4 20 3548 5.052 4.1
55 3 3.565 27.5 33.s6s 22.8 3 3.565 r 9.6 117 il7
80 0 0 3.365 2.3 3.365 2.0 t2 17

14.4 I 7.555 I1.9 17"565 I O.3 49 4985
7,505 2487 7.505 6.2 7.s05 5.1 4.4 24
106 1.505 1.2 4.765 3.2 6,1 00 3.6 7 24
ll9 't 6.970 13,9 16.974 I t.5 16.970 9.9 62 62
12r 5 1.6 1.925 1.3 r.925 I.l 7

1.3 r.850 4137 r.850 1.5 l.l 4
c30l 2.240 1.8 4.720 3.2 r 6.880 9.9 9 44
c302 0 2.509 t.8 s.272 3.1 5 ll
c303 2.4 4.560 3.1 6^830 4.0 13 24

3.2 4,745 l?c304 3.38s 2.8 4,745 2.8
c305 2.815 2.3 10,06s 6.8 I L795 6.9 8 34
G354 r 6.9 20.832 l4.l 20.832 12.2 88 88

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Basins
North of
American
River

37.930 3l.r 59,899 40.6 80,05 7 46.8 140 243
Basins
South of
Amerlcan
River
83,918 68-9 87,585 s9.4 9t,134 53.2 3tI 347
Total I 2l .848 147 .485 l7t.r 9t 459 590
A summary of the capital costs to replace and/or improve the backbone pipe network in each separated sewer basin to meet the needs ofthe projected land uses is presented on Figure 3. The estimated cost to replace the existing separated sewer system (both backbone and non-backbone) is about $ I .05 I billion, or about $ I 4,1 I 4 per existing ESD. The cost to upsize or improve the backbone network is estimated to be about $93.9 and $109,2 million, or about $7,412 and 54,422 per projected ne{future ESD for the 2030 and Build-Out land use conditions, respectively. Lastly, the cost to upsize or improve backbone facilities to meet the needs of the Existing, 2030 and Build-Out land use conditions and to replace all the remaining backbone and non-backbone facilities size-on-size is estimated to be about $.l.066, $1.069 and $1.071 billion, or about $'l4,326, $12,269 and $10,800 per estimated total ESD, respectively.

Approximately 62.5 percent of the total separated sewer pipe network is comprised of 4 to 6 inch diameter pipe that is by and large over 50 years old. Over the years, maintenance of these pipes have absorbed a majority of the Operations and Malntenance (O&M) budget since most are near or have exceeded their service life and are particularly susceptible to stoppages or plugging from root intrusion and the build- upoffats,.oilsandgrease. Thefrequencyofstoppagesinlargerdiameterpipehas been found to be significantly less. To further complicate issues, about I50 miles of this pipe is located in residential backyard easements, making it additionally difficult and costly to maintain and replace the pipe. Often repairs need to be made using hand excavations or small, inefficient equipment. ln addition, landscaping, hardscape, fences, etc. frequently need to be removed and replaced in orderto complete the repair.

As a result, City Standards over the past 20+ years have required all new sewer pipes to be at least 8 inches in diameter and located in streets or other City right-of-ways in an effort to reduce future maintenance costs.

By the year 2030, and certainly at Build-out, most of the existing 4 to 6 inch pipe will have reached and exceeded its service life and need to be replaced. At the same time, all pipes and manholes in residential backyard easements will need to be abandoned and relocated to the nearest street or accessible City right-of-way, Backyard seruices will also need to be replaced and redirected to the new pipe. Although replacement of these pipes is inevitable, the capital cost analysis presented herein did not consider this additional cost. lf this cost had been included, it would have increased the potential replacement/improvement costs an additional $700 to $800 millions, or an additional $9,400 to $l 0,750 per total existing ESD,
5 Because of numerous potentlal confllcts and other issues that llkely wlll be encountered during replacement, the cost for thls upgrade is dlfflcult to estlmate wlth any reasonable accuracy at thls time.

Page l2 ofl3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

References
City of Sacramento, Department of Public Works (1 990), "Design and Procedures Manual and lmprovement Standards."
Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) (2008), "Design Standards." City_of Portland, B.ureau of Environmental Services (2006), "Sewerand Drainage Facilities Design Manual."
West Yost & Associates (2001), "Basin I l9 Sanitary Sewer Master plan." James M. Montgomery (1993), "Sacramento Regional Countv Sanitation District and Sacramento, County Sanitation District No. I, Final Repoit Sacramento Sewerage Expansion Study."
Montgomery Watson Harza (2000), "County Sanitation District I Seweraqe Facilities lxpansion Mas_ter Plan., Technical Memorandum No. 3, Flow MonltoringResults and Design Flow Criteria."
West Yost {{ssociates (2008), Draft "Basin 85 Sewer Master Plan, City of Sacramento," March 2009,
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2007), "Gravity Sanitary Sewer Desiqn and Construction", ASCE Manuals and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 60,-ASCE, Reston, Va,
Boyle Engineering Corporation (l 996), "Basin 2l Sewer Master Plan." ECO:Logic (2006), "Basin 137 (South Pocket Area) lnfiltration and lnflow Analysis." ECO:Logic (2006), "Basin 55 (North Pocket Area) lnfiltration and lnflow Analysis." Boyle Engineering, Corporation ..(1995), "Preliminary Evaluation of Conveyance Alternatives for Sewer Basin 55."
Black & Veatch (2.000), "Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District lnterceptorSystem Master Plan, Final Draft ExecutiVe Summary." Nolte Associates, lnc. (2004), "65rh Street/University Transit Village lnfrastructure Needs Assessment."
City of Sacramento (2008), "Sacramento 2030 Ceneral Plan, Pubic Review Draft." City of Sacramento, Department of Utllities, Plant Services Divlsion (2004), "Sump Maps." National Clay Pipe lnstitute (2006), "Clay Pipe Engineering Manual." American Concrete Pipe Association (1985), "Concrete Pipe Design Manual." Pagel3ofl3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

City of Sacramento
Separated Sewer System
l
(
*G/t(_
I
I
. tt?
ffiH,BI \
,m\
j
I
1 -
Intd€ptoa Mains > 33"
-
Trunk Mains betw€n 12"and 33'
- --. Cdldor MaiF€ beM@n a" and < 12'
- - Colledor Mdre < I'
f] sepaeted sewer system
fl combined sewer system
- l snso s.uen,.,
2 Miles
N
v
Legend
noxnr SRCSD Inte.epto6
'qF.a'

DEPARTMENT

OF UTILITIES

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

City of Sacramento
Sewer Basins
s
I\
l*\.

Ll \!s\
lrf\
I
\t-
o swer slmps
2 Mils
Legend
x
v
0 .tW&.

DEPARTMENT

OF UTILITIES
Fioure 2

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

SUMMARY OF REPLACEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT GOSTS FOR SEPARATED SEWER SYSTEM Bulld{utLend
U!e
s?6 s
2030 Land U3€
t20a c5B
Crl6lhg Lend
Us€
$20a sa
Bulld{utbnd
U3e2030 Land lidAuild.out
kndUs
2030 krd
uae
Exi8tlng
knd Uoo
Ssild.outknr
Uae2030 L6nd U&
$3 1& S21
E Btlng bnd
s 134 521
Build{rt
knd Uss
2030 LandEristngAiBthg
ESDExishs sewrButld.oul2030hlstlng
4 ln&! cd. bm..l h oFdry qd6tu& d srMnD'rysn. &.! nd@6d4@rb b upodc.y!cn bd.it cry !bd6,1..., !9*i4 3lM di.fid.rFF b h. mhioNh 3ld dBd.krquiEd.nl 3) 6rrblnp.t.M'"pf 6!rd6 dn.d6Fev.ba!d. &r lh.6.t b.qedd...rrdiq r.winr!futuG. a) frMld b! didln! $. ..!drd lryov.runl du Ii d66 ?, 3, rd ! ry k .ldmdd @r ESo. ir d!d.! 2, 3 .d 4. r.!@. 5) tuhbr.d rydwingfircrlldrtdlfr@lncdds h Mi 3drdsB $.@rn 6soi hsrnrc30 ESoB (du6n 3).d b.{dirc 6DE(duf.2)lnd h€ auM.outEso.(dmn4}dnd ho drlt ESor{dmn 2} oitdrvcy €) crkbhd by dMhg ft 4ilmr6 rnry6n..r .d €t@Mt @s 'r d6nr 14 I r !d 12 br th. odtrFd bur Es05 h dum! 2, 3 3.d 4, E.pdly.t, d6.MlCryryh.l..&d.

FIGURE 3

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix C'2
Sample Basin ImProvements
Basin G3O3
Improvements are the net of Plate 9 minus Plate 8. ESD are current to 2022 (see Table 3-2) based on 2040 General Plan projections (Table 3-1). Costs are escalated to 2022 dollars (Table 3-3).

COST TO REPL,ACE INFRASTRUTUREWITH INADEQUATE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY (2030 LAND USE CONDITION)
Date
,| 1 s242,451
2 Traffic control (4S) 1 L5 121,225 5171,225
3 Preconstruction Photographs 1 L5 2,VJi) 52,00(
4 Ex. PiDe to Remove, 8" Pipe to Ptace LF 5165 5C
:x, PiDe to Removo.1o" PiDe to Place 1,705 LF 175 s298.175 6 Ex. Pipe to Remove, 12" Pipe to Place 420 LF i190 )/9,E{.t{J 7 Ex, PiDe to Remove, 15'Plpe to Ptace 1.850 LF 225 5416,25C E ix. PiDe to Remove, 18" PlDe to Place 3,920 LF 250 5e80,ofr 9 :x. Pipe to Remove, 21" Pipe to Place 720 LF ,zt5 519E,UX 10 :x. PiDe to Remove, 24" PiDe to Place 1,645 LF 310 5509,95C 11 :x. Pipe to Remove, 27" Pipe to Ptace LF tr45 s(
12 ix. Pipe to Remove, 30 Plpe to Place LF 5375 5C
13 ax. PiDe to Remove. 33' Pioe to Place LF 410 5C
14 :x. Pipe to Remove, 36" Pipe to Place LF 5440 s(
15 ix. Pioe to Remove, 42" Pipe to Ptace LF 510
16 \.tanhole Rehabllitation EA 4.500 5(
17 [anhote Type 3 36 EA 56,500 5214,0O!
18 \lanhote Tvoe 3A EA 7,300 5(
19 \,tanhole Type 4 5 EA 59,100 545,soC
20 iaddte Manhote EA 514,500 5i
21 Ex, S€rer seruice to Relocate/Replace 103 EA 1,400 5r43.64( 22 .rnsuitable soit to Remove 3,078 TON 515 5107,7J(
23 Jnmarked Utitity Crosslne 5l EA 300 515,39(
24 \{odlfy/lncrease Pump Statlon Capaclty IA
25 5(
26 5(
27 s(
28 5(
29 30 5(
3l 5(
32 s(

SUET( AL
GUlde
4% - 10% 10
o soi - 504 invironmenlal 1 $33
tneoement s169. /1ti
o s678.462
t0% - 20% s339 431
70% -20% s509 ,t 47
SUEI
. TOTALPROJECTEO| $5.46{.841
Noles:

PLATE NO.9

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

COST TO REPLACE INFRASTRUCTURE WITH INADEQUATE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY (EXTSTING LAND USE CONDITION)
PLATE NO.8
9r29t2009
1 1 LS
Traffic Controt (4%) 1 LS 552,725 s52,72r
3 Preconstruction Photographs 1 LS 52,000 s2.00(
4 Ex. Ploe to Remove, 8" PlDe to Place LF 5165 s(
5 Ex. Pioe to Remove,lo" PiDe to Place 1,705 LF 5175 5298,37:
6 Ex. PiDe to Remove, 12" PlDe to Ptace LF s190 5(
7 Ex, PiDe to Remove, 15" PlDe to Place 1,210 LF zz5 5272,75( 8 Ex. PiDe to Remove, 18" Pipe to Ptace LF 750 5(
9 Ex. PlDe to Remove, 21" Pipe to Ptace LF 275 $(
10 Ex. PiDe to Remove, 24" PiDe to Ptace 1,645 LF 310 s509.95( 11 Ex. Pipe to Remove, 27" Pipe to Ptace LF 345 5(
1Z Ex. Pipe to Remove, 30" Pipe to Place LF 375 5(
13 Ex. Pipe to Remove, 33" Pipe to Place LF 410 <a
14 Ex. PiDe to Remove, 36'Pipe to Place LF 440 S(
15 Ex. PiDe to Remove, 42" Plpe to Place LF 5510 S(
16 Manhote Rehabititatlon 4,500 S(
17 Manhole Tyoe 3 18 EA 56,s00 5117,00(
18 Manhole Type 34 EA 57,300 s(
't9 Manhote Type 4 EA 59,100 s(
20 Saddte Manhote EA 514,500 $(
21 Ex. Sewer Service to Retocate/RepLace 46 EA 51,400 s63,84( 22 unsultabte Soi[ to Remove 1,366 TON s3s s47,88(
23 Unmarked Utillty Crossing EA s300 s6,84(
24 Modify/lncrease PumD Station Capacity EA s(
25 5(
26 5(
27 28
29 30 (a
31 l(
32 31.476.31 1
Esilm8 sU6
4% - 10% 10 sl47 63
s14 7
s%-104 $/3.b
notneeflnd s295
aoq .281 tt14/-631
10% - 209{ : Continqencv for Undetined/Chanqed scope 15 $221.447 SUBT s900.
$2.376.861
Nolss:

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Land Use
Appendix C-3
Separated Sewer Detailed Fee Schedule
ESDs Per
Unit Factor
Cost Per
ESD
Fee per
Unit
Resrdentral
Single Family Residential
Apartments
Duplex
Triplex
Fourplex
Mobile Home
Hotel and Motel
College Dorm / Boarding House
Residential Care/Skilled Nursing Facility
Retail
Single Retail
Community Shopping Center
Market
Dine-In Restaurant
Drive-In or Fast Food Restaurant
Cocktail Lounge/Bar
Coffee Shop
Service Station
Theatre
Commercial
Car Wash
Clinic: Medical, Dental, Veterinarian
Food Processing
Store/Office Combo
Auto Repair
Auto Sales
Unclassified Commercial
Industrial and Warehouse
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Office Warehouse (>30o/o Office)
Distribution Warehouse ( 15olo-30o/o Office)
Storage Warehouse (3o/o- t4o/o Office)
Mini-Storage
Unclassified Warehouse
Office
Single Story
Two Story
Multi-Story
Schools and Hospitals
Hospital
Public Elementary , Middle, or Highschool
Public or Private Colleges
Private School
Church

3.64 0.32

3.02 0.43

0.18 o.70

0.33 $3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
Per residence
Per residence
Per residence
Per residence
Per residence
Per residence
Per room
Per bed or resident
Per residence
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 0.1 acre of property
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per bed
per 100 students
per acre of property
per acre of property
per 1,000 sq. ft.

1.00 0.66

0.83 0.60

0.60 o.67

0.43 0.40
o.49
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,s6s
$2,362
$2,946
$2,1s0
$2,155
$2,39s
$1,530
$1,410
$L,740

0.53 0.85

0.59 1.77

2.48 1.58

0.93 r.25
o.43
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
$3,46r
$1,889
$3,040
$2,106
$6,322
$B,B4B
$s,643
$3,33 1
$4,460
$1,538
$t2,976
$t,L27
$10,750
$ 1,s23
$6s8
$2,481
$1,170
$9s1
$1,058
$2,397
$4s4
$286
$166
$s42
$1,167
$648
$398
$5,772
$r4,127
$13,689
$t2,406
$800
O.27 per

0.30 per

0.67 per

0.13 per

0.08 per

0.05 per

0.15 per
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.

0.33 0.18

0.11 $3,461
$3,461
$3,461
t.62

3.96 3.84

3.48 0.22
$3,461
$3,461
$3,461
i3,461
$3,461
Sources: DOU and EPS Appendix_C.j

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
!o
c
;
s15,000
514,000
s12,000
s10,000
S8,ooo
S6,mo
s4ooo
S2,ooo
,zc,i0
EE3o
oeooL
oo
1J
o
=.>AH
Xcrox
dodir
o
b)I
oSo
Chart C-4.1
Sewer Development lmpact Fees
per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
I Local r Rqional
"""-"".q
""-" c ""* .*/
..*cJ
J
,"'
.""e'
-cq
-"""-
gro-

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
oog
o
6 =ET
6 !oc
=36ooe
oCI
ooL
s6,m0
ss,000
s4,000
S3,mo
S2,mo
s1,m0
Chart C-4.2
Sewer Development lmPact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
Retail
"/
aa'*
"cc
^u
"t"
So
-'"""
$d"/ "".-""-+-
r Local I Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart C-4.3
Sewer Development lmpact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
OIfice
oo4
g
G
ET
u:
=.o
ooo-
d
o
CL
oor
52,soo
54,500
s4,000
s3.s00
$3,000
s2,000
s1,500
s1,000
s500
,c
""-'"'t
So
""._"c
"a'- cc
t"""
.r$d """"c
_"c
-'".t
r Local r Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart C-4.4
Sewer Development lmpact Fees per Acre
Single Family
1to
ft
o
s120,000
Sloo,ooo
Sso,ooo
S60,om
s40,000
S2o,ooo
gc:'
h0
=o
3o
oeoo4
s0
"/
-"""q
-cc'
""t" cc
""*
""oo
cq-
r Local r R€ional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart C-4.5
Sewer Development lmpact Fees per Acre
Retail
s70,000
s60,000
ss0,000
540,000
s30,000
s20,000
s10,000
oog
g
o3ar
scu=3ro
oo<l
d
oeoog
s0
.cJ
"""*
".""-.o
-"ot
b4r
"/
_c
ai'" .."" C -"""
.$d2 ""'""
.c
r Local r Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
oog
o
o:
q
EO
==to
ooo
oeoog
s70,000
s50,000
ss0,000
s40,000
s30,000
s20,000
5 10,000
Chart C-4.6
Sewer Development lmpact Fees per Acre
Office
"ttt* _cc
""""*
So
-c
"".t'
! Local I Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Apprruorx D:

Combined Sewer System Utility
Appendix D-1:

Appendix D-2:

Detailed Fee Schedule
Fee Comparisons of Sewer Systems

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Appendix D-1
Combined Sewer System Detailed Fee Schedule
All Land Uses
New Im
Land Use
u
ESl,S
per
Unit Factor
Cost Per
ESD
Fee per
Unit
Foot
Residential
Single Family Residential
Apartments
Duplex
Triplex
Fourplex
Mobile Home
Hotel and Motel
College Dorm / Boarding House
Residential Care/Skilled Nursing Facility
Retail
Single Retail
Community Shopping Center
Market
Dine-In Restaurant
Drive-In or Fast Food Restaurant
Cocktail Lounge/Bar
Coffee Shop
Service Station
Theatre
Commercial
Car Wash
Clinic: Medical, Dental, Veterinarian
Food Processing
Store/Office Combo
Auto Repair
Auto Sales
Unclassified Com mercial
Industrial and Warehouse
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Office Warehouse (>30o/o Office)
Distribution Warehouse ( 1 5olo-30o/o Office)
Stora ge Wa rehouse (3o/o- I4o/o Office)
Mini-Storage
Unclassified Warehouse
Office
Single Story
Two Story
Multi-Story
Schools and Hospitals
Hospital
Public Elementary , Middle, or Highschool
Public or Private Colleges
Private School
Church
Per residence
Per residence
Per residence
Per residence
Per residence
Per residence
Per room
Per bed or resident
Per residence
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft,
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 0.1 acre of propert)
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq, ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.

1.00 0.65

0.83 0.60

0.60 0.67

0.43 0,40

0.49 $7,4r3
$7,4r3
$7,4L3
$7,4L3
$7,4L3
$7,4r3
$7,413
$7,4r3
$7,4t3
$7,635
$5,O60
$6,309
$4,605
$4,615
$5,130
$3t276
$3,O19
$3,727

0.53 0.85

0.59 L.77

2.48 1.58

0.93 L.25

0.43 $7,4t3
$7,4r3
$7,4L3
$7,4r3
$7,4t3
$7,413
$7,4t3
$7,4L3
$7,4t3
$4,O47
$6,510
$4,511
$13,541
$18,950
$12,087
i7,L36
$9,553
$3,294

3.64 0.32

3.02 0.43

0.18 0.70

0.33 $7,4t3
$7,4L3
$7,4L3
$7,4L3
$7,473
$7,4L3
$7,4t3

0.27 0,30

0.67 0.13

0.08 0.05

0.15 $7,473
$7,473
$7,4r3
$7,4L3
$7,4L3
$7,4r3
$7,413
$27,793
$2,413
$23,026
$3,261
$1,410
$5,313
i2,5O7
$2,O38
$2t265
$5,135
$972
$613
$3s7
$1,160
$2,499
$1,388
$8s2
$12,363
$3O,257
$29,32O
$26,57L
$1,713

0.33 0.18
0,11
$7,4r3
$7,4L3
$7,4L3
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per 1,000 sq. ft.
per bed
per 100 students
per acre of property
per acre of property
per 1,000 sq. ft.

7.62 3.96

3.84 3.48

0.22 $7,4r3
$7,4L3
$7,4L3
$7,4t3
$7,413
Sources: DOU and EPS Appendix_D.1

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart D-z.t
Combined Sewer Development lmpact Fees
per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
"a'" c"c
*o
.".c
.$d
.J
!o
c
;
S16,ooo
$14.ooo
912.ooo
91o,ooo
58,ooo
.Ec
J
!o
€o]o
oct
oor
oo
JEo
3Prtt
9EEA*oxdod'5g
o
$I
to
S6,ooo
5o
S4,ooo
52,ooo
.."4
a.lP
r".t'
".c
"""
"o"u
"c
.s*\
co-
c
qpf-
t Local I Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart D-2.2
Combined Sewer Development lmpact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
Retoil
o{,4
{,
6 =E
tD
bo
t
=5ro
ooo
oiL
a)
Itr
S6,ooo
Ss,ooo
$4,ooo
53,ooo
S2,ooo
51,ooo
So
.c
-""t'
J
"/
a"'" .C """" ".c
.{$d
o,."t.
_J ""--J
cP-
-'"".

I Local r Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart D-2.3
Combined Sewer Development lmpact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
Office
IU
IU
r
q,
(!
=cr6
bo
c€
co
ooo
0,
ct
o
0,r
$4,s00
s4,000
$:,soo
S3,ooo
$2,soo
52,ooo
s1,so0
Sl,ooo
Ssoo
5o
"--"".a'
t"'lt
J c
_.c
"a'" ""t"" """" """""oa'
.$-
,ouu o,".o.
r Local I Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart D-2.4
Combined Sewer Development lmpact Fees per Acre
Single Family
..c C
".""* .."""
.ts""*'
!o
o
o
s 120,000
5100,000
56o,ooo
54o,ooo
S2o,ooo
.=E
f
b!
.E
q,
3o
o
CL
ooG
80,000
So
.'c
".-'"/
aa'"
..".-"
*o
*ot
ca-
us"'"*
-"""
-'""
r local r Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
oo4
o
Gf
E
6 a!E
=5
ca
coo
d
ocoor
s70,000
S6o,ooo
$s0,000
$4o,ooo
S3o,ooo
s20,000
Slo,ooo
Chart D-2.5
Combined Sewer Development lmpact Fees per Acre
Retail
at'" .cc
So
"/
_"c
I Local I Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart D-2.5
Combined Sewer Development lmpact Fees per Acre
office
tt)
tu4
tu
(o
C'
DA
.E
=:lo
ooo
d
o
CL
oor
970.000
560,ooo
Sso,ooo
S4o,ooo
$3o,ooo
Szo,ooo
$1o,ooo
5o
"""-"c
J
"a'" .od
".""* ""...O-
*'
{$-
.*"".

I local t Regional

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Apprruorx E:

Storm Drainage System Utility
Appendix E-1:

Appendix E-2:

Assets by Basins and Basin Type
Companion Charts to Table 5-10

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
c6t
5 Z,a2!612 5
5 1)9),111 S
I J3,818 5
s 2,067,667 S
s ],1.15.061 s
s 4t8,012 s
I 6,548,542 S
5 9,101,/59 $
I 4,841,858 5
t 1,671,05f 5
s i/9,954 s
I 1,t14,09r; S
5 4,950,829 5
$ 217,]44 5
s 328,583 S
5 r8,2e 5
5 1,622,356 S
s s64,1s4 5
s 2,116,709 5
s J,526,111 5
5 2,405,068 5
I s,4?2,€{7 S
9 1,001,161 5
s 6,979,51 5
g 918,Jg 5
I 48,899 5
s ),798,914 5
s 7,565,110 5
5 L4,246,044 S
5 1,07r,912 5
s 4,154,9D S
5 r,111,510 5
s 9,601,580 S
s 3,298,696 5
5 r.,s1,204 $
I 17,9\6,49) I
$ 219,006 5
s 105,J95 5
E 4.s18.115 s
s 526,710 5
I 541,1)9 S
I 1,888,556 5
s 6,38&54s S
s 14.055,244 S
s ,,701,015 5
s 10,833,214 5
s 1,s09,459 5
5 1,172,5!9 5
CaFcily
lcFsl
Pu mp Siation
100year ltre tump Stfion
cycleElue, Depreciated
Depreciarcd Value
5 1,671,114 5 424,t59
5 2,071,59t I 526,991
5 1,5fi,4n- 5 385,74
s 1,916,06 s 4tt,95)
5 1,791j1L 5 455,657
J r,r92,91r 5 455,657
I 2,152,160 t 54&,958
$ 1,a94,\5a S 481,490
5 z,tgl,at" 5 558.560
s 4,0s,046 s 7"02e,441
J 1.t'47,560 S 418,217
5 1,7ot5ro I 4)2,422
5 r,eor,&r 5 483,s90
$ 1,605,s0 5 40&114
s 1,5r5,s06 5 190,)39
5 1,543,828 5 192,154
s 2,L12,41" 5 515,856
5 r,671.134 S D4,1\9
s 1,82s,079 $ 463.ri2
5 1,,r4b,10c ! 44t,sr1
J 1,r.48,856 5 800,262
t ),i)7,1.67 5 693,09'
s 1,917,769 s 487,1$
s 2,91r,49jlj 74).,9a7
5 1,6]9,361 J 41[,b:JJ
s 1,442j88 5 166,5€
s 2,184,891 S s80,692
5 2,7t0,659 5 704,145
s 3,29,835 S 811,836
5 s,o47,ai t r,2a1,87\
5 2,2.9J,577 5 s79,s9{
! 2.q59,959 t isr)ZA
9 -1,091,81,5 7at,7A)
s 2,916,964 5 74LZ)8
s z,orc,ara s 512,562
S 1,92;,886 $ 488,943
s 1q,4)4,)gt s 2,64q,)56
t 1,651,150 I 420,118
5 1,411,800 5 J58,S0
S 3,215,295 S at7,147
s 1,808,8S S {59,718
s 1,80),487 s 45*,ogl
t 1,595,521 S 40s,492
s 2,629.t45 9 668,131
$ 10,805,994 S 2,7&,?,75
s 1,142,592 s 849,499
5 40,252,tt0 5 10,229,91L
I \,6A7,026 5 47-A1741
s 1,788,1.51_ S 454,44f
Capacily rAeraF

0.2 4s4
0_15 105.22
o.z 17.51

0.11 4193

0.0a 1L61

0.12 1.79

0.11 103.98

0.1b 117.56

0.1 7L76
0_12 8.54

0.8 4180

0.24 15.07
0-t 51u

0.22 17.21

0.15 4.14

0.15 8.63

0.22 59.s6
0_r4 33.59

0.07 32.81

0.07 10.71

0.27 132.71

0.12 105.79

0.15 45.51

0.11 115.57

0.1 21.33

0.12 27.34

0.17 81.89

0.29 141.78
o.z 214.16

0.2 75.01

0.19 r19.SS

0.1 115.69

0.19 103.27

0.18 73.05

0.15 40.41

0.3 251.39

0.8 g.&

0.0/ 16.s5

0.3 135.69

0.24 36.01

0.) 45.04

0.2 41U

0.€ 116.63
0_] 430.13

0.28 14.92

0.] 517.25

0.14 27.&

0.17 36.66
Pipe unde@b Toral
DeFecialed Fd Derelope Pipe
Assetvatre A.eragc 4.16 dA.res LeiErh
!c
J
Eoo.
lpo
L
o
Bisin
8 10
B
22 21
25 26
l1
33 34
11 4'
M
50 51
52 54
63 65
66 67
66 69
10 7t
9t
92 95
96 97
s8
99 101
102
103
104
109
110
x11
115
115
171
u8
n9
130
132
EA
139
1,100.416
),4M,L51
13,1S
806,390
1,zJe,174
I 70,425
),,551,911.
1,991,/ 10
1 )4.647
52A,297
1,930,&2!
84,764
l)8,147
7,179
6a.2.,914
t70,0r0
8)5,517
1,1/5,t.84
931,977
2,1f,810
l9r,l11
2,722,t09
]14,154
19,071
7,091,57t:

2.,954,29"
1,557,444
5,555,957
I,1r7,656
1,6)0,416
2,9)/,297
3,144,616
1,)-S,491
I )7,5t0
\,0\1,i\)
45,112
41,104
1,7 n2,065
205,417
) 11,911>
726,\\7
2,49I,sr3
5,481,541
1,441,"96
4)16,90.
58€,S45
457,79!
)14 69
701.00
'71.12
t31.04
195.59

64.S
942.41
854.03
7t0.66
690.74
150.28
511 ?4

42.90 90.74
)69.)A
)) 1.74
469.31
295.99
490.99
874.11
)ov.t2

1.051.50
2U.h4
)17.ia
481.71
1135.ffi
488.58
1017.48
t59.01
g6 6l
ta!.02
53&80
192.27
1t9.b9
sa.8s
170.)2
134.tl
M1.{9
150.03
))5.14
191.81
641.0.1
1433.7a
215).32
1t5.60
)1rt64
2,361,641
),931,511
2/150,166
2,714,t),4
2,539,S4
1,048,817
2,683,491
3,113,490
5,184,421
2,410,447
2,695,596
2,214,*a
2,\15,246
2,187,035
2,992,571
2,587,464
4,4bil,/61
t,861,301
7,7\6,f12
4,147,512
2,JD,itO
2,041,191
z),36,8t1
'.,925,002
4,659,066
?,150,85
",210,7,,64,14),t04
4,380,063
4,11),,2b)

2.457,O8
),725,43/
14,767,1!-1
2,341,904
1,000,0u0
4,554,8a7
).,562,529
),553,460
2,260,265
f,,1 21,a79
15,104,109
4,715,121
5 i,il3,247
2,259,flA
2,531,151
Rephcmenr
5,1S,291
r0,230.23)
2,1a1,9&
4,782.001
5,714,955
9,597,159
11,,',45,650
1,955.36
lJ,459,411
),j al,\21
1,646,475
2,,97.221
2,503,829
2,205,315
4,615 )G7
4,70I,171
5,999,945
0,865,835
9,796)39
1,720,133
11,121.021
l )an, t 14
2,092,090
6,0tt,771
11,490,X12
8,657,50)
2L,39tt,929
6,301,64€
a,),42,4 t6
1L,9tI,593
1t,/!,a4)

6.155,7&
4,6 16,641
)7.7?1,461
2,560,910
2,r0J,395
9,!73,002
t,089,239
1,096,799
4,14S,91
10,1 t3,9J4
79,)61,15i

4.436,236
67,861,41
?,39r,75)
1,705,700
Deprecia&d
5 1,s25,19s
s 3,371,149
5 398,929
t 1,293.312
S 1,693,931
s 626,4&
s 1100,8
$ 4,031,1/6
S 2,46,885
s 4,0I,53
3 547,399
S 9s2,7t1
s 2/4144ts
S 49z,a7a
5 s1&3e
5 399,48'J
s 1.169,770
5 644,779
s 1,289,319
S 1,818,996
5 1,73&238
5 2,311,903
s a7a,loo
5 3,454,996
I 714,tA7
S 385,619
s 1,672,269
s 16S,538
s 7.,193,277
S 6,83&828
I 1,777,2s0
I 2,t71,654
5 3,723,0S
s 4,485,914
S 1,799,053
5 1,ZZ6,5La
I 7,7O))9A
s 505,5s0
9 399,904
s 2,579.212
s 665,135
5 569,993
I 1,111,02a
5 3,1s,865
I a,227,Uo
5 2,292,894
s r4,4s6,a74
5 7,017,592
s 911.741
EaeinValue
5 7,Lt4.17
S 4,ss.83
s 4,555.54
s 3,392.91
5 4,De.36
5 9,65d52
S 3,280.36
5 4,bS.34
s 3,()9.91
s s,7a.95
5 10,475.53
S 6,139.70
5 4,712.66
s 6,30118
S 6,zsl.1s
s 4,396.69
I 4,120.80
s 2,6s59
S 2,76.12
S 5,145.47
s 3,536.45
S 3,ao 74
9 2,Ss.98
s 3,295.29
5 3,63487
5 t,692.57
s 3,471.53
S 3,210.61
s 489s.33
S 6,s,71
s 4,735.04
S 1,t5s.53
I 9,611.79
s 8,253.0s
S 4,432.37
s 4,5s2.42
9 a8991
5 4,5S.73
S 1,01.14
5 s,702.44
5 4,433.34
s ).97\.21
I s,552.72
s 4,96.56
5 s,z3s55
5 4,sss.99
s 7,016.45
s s,1*.09
5 4,27a.O7
bnBrh
2L97

17.16 0.85

10.25 14.26
t?.76

4.14 1/.53
D.m

19.35 13.&

15.50 lt&

5.22 8.61
o.44

71.19 409
&14

17.05 9.€

11.63 6.8

72.53 &14

4.47 10.78
1154

14.10 22.90

15.93 1L58

32.47 2A.n

15. t

19.13 2.76
o45

17.07 6.92

5.)4

17.08 76.29

14.41 14.21

9.m

71.66 10.60
(,l
oo1+
o
E
trttotl9.o
lar
3l'omtrlots

9. -{
Eo
416 48.79 5
u035 102."19 s
14 7.1_.2a 5
3907 &3.t3 s
5545 66.9 S
p8 66.& 5
11556 111.4 S
150a1 80-50 5
9182 il.6.41 s
B45a 25&25 I722 45 5
2480 s1.47 s
a77 8r.61 5
408 18.1 S
7r9 25.52 5
I 21.16 )
3192 105.94 S
9A2 4a 79 J
3821 71.3 s
5047 b0.16 i
4660 202.53 J
10251 1.61.17 5
465 83.55 i
11175 184.48 5
!726 43.b/ !
rot 6.e8 s
5194 125.66 s
BB8 171.56 5
6892 213.22 S
21520 325.2.9 5
5980 125,21 5
1f16 tA7.1S S
12522 r9A.O1 5
[668 18?.94 5
6136 95.8 S
3592 84.ri 5
1J2i6 S\A.% I
174 45.9 5
107 os
1723 207.65 s
1038 69.07 S
17i9 68.18 s
35D 2614 s
10557 159.08 5
20152 572.17 s
7151 217.23 5
20165 1256.59 S
2a75 51.24 S
21A5 66.L/ s
2t5 000
701 0.47
s 9.8s
181 0.15
396 0.24
65 000
94t 1.4)
7 18 16.92
696 \.t4
:r? 0.1.0
1S0 0.00
51r 0.00
/8 4.50
8l 0.00
91 0.12
271 1.?S
240 18.67
470 0.19
296 0.00
49) 0.51
981 1.14
303 0.00
1052 0.00
)lJ 0.b9
224 0.25
432 0.00
1118 ).39
489 0.L
l07l 13.;t
175 16.11
t;tt 4 ffi
18& 0.60
541 4.7\
40b 11 62
)b9 9 f]
all ) !)

11.0 0.00
2i0 2.t0
452 rc.41
150 0.00
))\ 0.00
106 11.9
64a 0.90
1434 0.00
50f 10.35
2057 \.17
196 0.54
216 0.00

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

12.35 021 9706
'J27 0-3 Ua98
z3sl 0.25 fr54

22.a2 $.tL NZ69

53.m 0.1 1.92
tg.g 0.37 m.F
274 t.26 X9-8

10.49 0,1.3 367,03

3.49 0.14 3401
7162 0.13 8497
z4n| 0.26 33.09

9.66 0-Z 434.5
2166 0.r &.&
121 0,05 *.77

27.95 0.46 250.41
1t3t Gtgss
18n.76
zxa,76
n6,w
t;t2g,Ttg
759,t)38
r,17ts
73€,610
TFsAn
643,125
2F12295
1"ffi301
a,776,26
2Fn,$7
L,su275
sr85t19
t994,110
7,78!.754
l,630,ota

1.2,3€8.920
3,073,808
4,535,903
24,122876
2t,494)9t
1,t67 364
9219,790
5,333,658
!5,919,455
8,402,597
d,1a5,555
17,75!,599
724,m3
779264
425,90
1t0s,r35
374596
505,538
1,392,156
2,57641A
471365
s55,119
6:5,110
4,457 ]\L
979721
509J19
r,565;716
s 406e63
5 5213.37
I a.591o4
s 7;106'97
5 $!9566
S 71s.79
g 7,39A07
5 4,5t3,01
3 2,617.26
I 3,8er.S9
I ro,579,97
5 3,86143
I 6p76.4
I lteLss
s 9312.11
s
I
$
s
II
5 5
s
I
5 I
9 I
2,84€,79t
3,065,235
t\6/2Jgb
3,95r9g7
1"473,955
,,98,re
s,477 S1t
10,137,6A
\454,72L
2223,697
2,459,674
17,533.157
2,n$,b12
2,004345
6,160,989
4,035,692
4,14?,725
2P69.45

5.602,758
2,088.051
7,417,917
7,760J23
14,351,303
L627,455
9150,159
1,484.451
24,8/.5,792
\e92,47e
13N,126
e,72],849
s170 178.24
6997 X96.04
2551 49.02
11106 259.78
2757 r.59
3190 92.16
2789 348.45
16746 548.53
849 75.31
9543 719.2
3055 143.17
21yj: n7.B
1099 99.13
2609 94.35
15214 382.9t
{52 34.55
407 b.52
frf 0.s
5t5 26.88
ai 2.1i
162 0.00
998 2A.r1
1596 1.7\
21t 3,46
65t 1[94
t2r L75
2213 72.30
t6t ,ass
615 19.63
54' O00
32t{' 4tg'30

2.958,4rI3
,,417.029
1269r343
5,986,162
98t749
tt717p66
15,362;t53
13,136,994
e0J09
5,069,6t1

1.8$.201
1!"074353
t80s,668
L3{5,529
9,025;750
7,73t,79
1340,441
81,5U
2,724503
38J',MZ
67n,ow
5By1-41t
5,1?3/4
11r,160
\977,159
72J-r9a

4.319998
4mt27L
szLJ36
3,520,047

07.55 iaL07
105.&
491.92
11 ^94
162.&
917.8
b9f,09
239.€
6t7.9?
u t50
2200,49
4ft.M
595.8'1
54dia
140
1t1
74 7U
all
148
151
152
153
l.'l
155
757
ls8
159
160
!2ru 47@60 ro6il1 I 32A12q,6l1 $ 228,rS0Fs I CrJ961a,8 $ 594r410a7 S 1641619 9 991400T.ebS l7z,zcslf, t 16,13&$rl ft rsbd&arc(drr.+ rel

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Pipe
Depreciated Basin
Assetvalue Acr*
r,290,374 g1.m
3,007,681 1,596.97
Pipe
/Acre
Cap6city
Nominal x
Capaclty Acrace
Comrents (cfs/ac) (cfsl
o
o
s.

E!,

9.foBasin
G200
G201
G206
G207
€208
G209
a248
GZ52
GZ54
G258
G259
G260
G269
G270
G273
Totals
Total Pipe
Replacerne nt
Cost
3,308,651
7,772,OO3
4X56,868
722,7!4
Undereloped
Acres

0.00 ZI.8L

0.00 4.2L

0.00 0.00
3 1.64

35.46 0.m
L2, )1
0-o0

0.00 19.27

10.85 20,66
1s1.60
Developed
Acres
54Lm
1,575.!6
347.L3
45AL5
449.L2
910.98
289.61
1,X.8s.93
684.79
sog.27
753.54
ILqQA
175-03
7L8.46
350-50
7,9A3.O7
Depreciated
Basin Value
Per Acre
$ 2,385.16
S r.883.37
s-$-s-
5 \ne.ffi
S 877,38
s 5528.s6
$ 478.88
I 2,s74.89
5 4U4.46
s 3,18937
$ 7,877.!4
5 1,94,0.96
5 z391.ss
$ 3,007.97
L7.62

9.L7

40.85 CFD

18.79 CFD
33,74 CFD

5.7L

4.7L
24,%

2.09 12.38

21.85 L4.47

32.06 9-05

35.53 108.20
319.39
#\IALUEI
il/ALUE!
il/ALUE!

91.10 0.00

97.71-

82.L7
110.30
150.79

29.19 97.26
123.98
185.58
1",62L,L79
281,858
6,874,664
327,$A
L,420,6L
3,501,644
465,594
1,518,908
1/415,560
2,743,448
24,468,U1-
347.13
455.36
409.12
910.98
32r.25
L,22r.39
684.79
551.48
753.9t
145.96
194,30
729.3r
?7t.16
8,134.67
s
s
S
I
s
s
s
5 5
s
$
s
s
s
5 )
s
s
)
s
5 17,6?7,343
S 840,846
I 3,Ut,O29
5 8,978,574
S 1,193,83o
$ 3,894,637
$ 3,629,64r
5 7,034,482
s 62,740,618
Basin
Total Replacernent
Pipe Value per
Length Acre
6,287 $ 5,115.81
146s1 s 4,8n.75
14181 $
22,267 5
1":,,802 $
5 204 5 4,563.07
L,sL4 5 2,249.69
3A,47r sL4A3220
L,434 s 1,2n.89

6.82e s 6,602.29
16,470 s11,9G.87
2,L7O 5 8,!79.16
6,229 s2O,O44.45
6,@! s 4,976.82
13,186 $18,9s2.69
161,296 i 7;rX2.74
o.2
o.2
NN
NN
NN
0,1
o
o.08
o.tz
o.z

0.2 o.2
o.48
o.L7
o.5
weigtrted Arerage {ds/ac} = re

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
.)
o.l
o
!o
c
Chart E-?.t
Drainage Development lmpact Fees
per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
oo5
tto
6'>3tt
ALI
5ooflcL
2r'ont
JI
ONg
o
gl
I
Fo
s7,000
s6,000
s2,000
Sl,mo
5,000
s4,000
S3,ooo
s
:E
D
!o
€o
36 orL
oos
I
"'""
t'*
+o'
I
"c
I
c
-""-q""""
.c
+-
So
,.'
.Jf-
usd
c "".,"
aa'.

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
s6.000
ss,000
s4,000
53,ooo
s2,000
51,ooo
oor
o
o
=ET
vt
n0
!,
=5
ao
ooo
d
o
TL
oor
Chart E-2.2
Drainage Development lmpact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
Retail
a6'.
s0 I
ccI
."t"
""t
c
_c+'
*"
_Jf-
.$a
o,."*
c.c

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
54,ooo
s3,s00
s3,000
92,soo
52,ooo
S1,soo
S1,ooo
Ssoo
ooB
o
6I(t
EO
!t
=
@
ooo
d
o
CL
oo4
Chart E-2.3
Drainage Development lmpact Fees
per 1,000 Building Square Feet
Office
a"t.

So
""""
I
J*
q.o'_c
I
."""J
"".
-"""
c
""".

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart E-2.4
Drainage Developmenrr#ff, Fees per Acre
!o
o
o
(.)
o.l
UISso,ooo
s4s,000
s40,000
s3s,000
s30,000
o
b Szs,ooo
CL
oo
S20,om
sls,000
s10,000
ss,000
5o I
-"t.$e
cIc"i'"
I
""."
,""".q-
*"t*

07/11/2023 Item No.14.
$70,000
s60,000
S50,ooo
s40,000
s30,000
s 20,000
s10,000
o
I
o
CL
tt)
og
Chart E-2.5
Drainage Development lmpact Fees per Acre
Retail
a"t"
ISo
cc."..J
,"".
cP-
Jg
"'"-J-
u$d
""""
.c
"""*

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Chart E-2.6
Drainage Development lmpact Fees per Acre
office
s50,000
ss0,000
s40,000
o
I
b s:o,om
TL
oog
520,ooo
s10,000
So IcJ "a'"a"t"
-cg
.o$*
Q.o'
.*""c
.o.".

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

This page intentionallY Ieft blsnk
to focilitote double- sided printtng .

CITY OF
FOLSO1r{
OTSTI}.ICTIVE bY NATURE

07/11/2023 Item No.14.

Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. I 1074 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement with Pour Leadership Inc., DBA Uncle Charlie's Firehouse & Brew.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The City of Folsom acquired the parking garage at 905 Leidesdorff St., including the retail space located within comprising approximately 3,600 square feet of building area, in2012 from the Folsom Redevelopment Agency. In 2014, the retail space was leased to the Folsom Historical Society to bring in the Museum of Wonder and Delight at $1 per month for a three-year lease.

Following the termination of that lease, the area was vacant for several years. In June of 2021, a Request for Proposals was done, and the city received three proposals for use of the area from Nexus Jiu Jitsu, Practical Cycle and Uncle Charlie's Firehouse & Brew (UCFB). Six staff members and one extemal member reviewed and ranked the three proposals. Their criteria included: compatibility with Historic District Retail Study and zoning; concept and work plan; financial stability and feasibility; and cost per squa.re foot being offered. The total points possible was 100 with a score of 80 needed to proceed to the interview process. The three proposals ranked as follows:
1 MEETING DATE: 7nU2023
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 1 1074 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement with Pour Leadership Inc., DBA Uncle Charlie's Firehouse & Brew
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

07/11/2023 Item No.15.
' Jiujitsu 73.2 average points. Price per SF: $1 .20lsf . Practical Cycle: 78.6 average points. Wanted to keep the current location and the new space. Price per SF: $.63isf for the combined total square footage. ' UCFB: 88 average points. Price per SF: $2.50/sf
These results were brought to closed session on November 9,2021, and staff received direction to proceed with working on an agreement with UCFB. UCFB was also directed to work with the Community Development Department to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). On March 1, 2023,this item went before the Historic District Commission and the project was approved. On April 1 1,2023, an appeal was made to City Council regarding the approval of the CUP and the determination that the project was exempt from CEQA. This appeal was denied by City Council.

On April 25,2023, and June 27th,the project againwent to closed session at City Council to discuis some further details regarding the agreement. UCFB agreed to the terms directed by the council. Under the direction of the City Council, staff have worked with UCFB to draft an agreement that follows the terms dictated by the City Council and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

POLICY / RULE
The City Manager shall receive City Council authority to execute contracts in excess of $70,952.

ANALYSIS
The major terms and conditions of the proposed agreement are highlighted below. 1) UCFB will occupy the facility rent-free for up to six months to obtain a building permit for tenant improvements to the site. Once the building permit is obtained, or upon expiration of the six-month period, whichever occurs first, UCFB will have an additional ten months to occupy the facility rent-free.
2) Atthe end of the lO-month rent-free period, the term of the lease will commence for 10 years, with an option to renew for two additional terms of five years each for a total of 20 years.
3) The initial rent for the facility for year 1 will be $1.75 per residential square foot or $6,300 a month plus an additional $350 a month for the extra storage area in the garuge totaling $6,650 a month or $79,800 for the year.
4) Beginning in year 2, the rent for the facility will be $2.50 per residential square foot or $9,000 a month plus an additional $500 a month for the extra storage area in the garage totaling $9,500 a month or $114,000 for the year. Each year following year 2 would have a3Yo escalator and starting in year 11 rental fees for the patio will also be charged at the same rate per square foot as the storage area.
5) UCFB will use the facility only as approved by the Conditional Use Permit and as specified in the Conditions of Approval.
2 Page 308
07/11/2023 Item No.15.

F'INANCIAL IMPACT
If UCFB exercises both of its options to renew for a total of 20 years, the total value of the lease agreement would be $2,987,996. If the full 6 months' time period is utilized to obtain a building permit and then the next ten months are rent free, the rent would commence approximately November 2025. The entire time the rent is free the tenant is still responsible for the utilities and property tax.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review is not required pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (related to Existing Facilities) and section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (related to new construction or conversion of small structures). Based on staff s analysis, none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the use of the categorical exemptions in this case.

ATTA
Resolution No. 1 I 074 - A Resolution Authori zing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement with Pour Leadership Inc., DBA Uncle Charlie's Firehouse & Brew Submitted,
Kelly Gorualez,Parks & Recreation Director
J Page 309
07/11/2023 Item No.15.

RESOLUTION NO. IIO74

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH POUR LEADERSHIP INC., DBA UNCLE CHARLIE'S

FIREHOUSE & BREW
WHEREAS' the City of Folsom did a Request for Proposals and the proposal from Uncle Charlie's Firehouse & Brew (UCFB) ranked the highest; and WHEREAS' UCFB's Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Historic District Commission on March 1,2023; and
WHEREAS' the total value of the agreement would be $2,987 ,996 over a20 year period; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attomey:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute a Lease Agreement with Pour Leadership Inc., DBA Uncle Charlie's Firehouse and Brew.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this l lth day of July,2023, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Rosario Rodriguez, MAYOR
ATTEST
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. I1074

07/11/2023 Item No.15.
h
Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECO ATION / CITY COUN ACTION
The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No 11075 - A Resolution Authorizingthe City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Advanced Chemical Transport, Inc. for Hazardous Waste Management Services and Appropriation of Funds.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Public Works Department,Hazardous Materials Division (Division) provides hazardous waste collection, disposal, and recycling services for residents and businesses through the Division's door-to-door collection service and drop-off appointments at the city's corporation yard. In Fiscal Year202l-2022,the Division collected 434,255 pounds of hazardous waste from 5,05 8 service participants.

The Division contracts for hazardous waste management services which include transportation, disposal, and recycling of the collected waste. The existing contract was awarded by the Folsom City Council on June 26,2}l},through Resolution No. 10142. Due to a price increase, the Division was unable to exercise the option to extend the term of the existing contract and it expired on June 30,2023.

The Division issued a Request for Proposals to procure hazardous waste management services and received four proposals by the due date.
1 MEETING DATE: 7/tl 12023
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11075 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Advanced Chemical
Transport, Inc. for Hazardous Waste Management Services and Appropriation of Funds
F'ROM: Public Works Department

07/11/2023 Item No.16.

Staff have reviewed the proposals and selected the most qualified, responsible proposer to provide hazardous waste management services to support of the clty's collection program.

POLICY / RIII,E
Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code states, in part, that contracts for supplies, effiment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $70,952 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.

ANALYSIS
The Division published a request for proposals for hazardous waste management services on June 6, 2023.-Bidr *".. received from the following agencies and opened publicly at City Hall on June 26,2023. The summary of review scores is as follows:
tr'irm Name Total Score
Advanced Chemical Transport, Inc. (ACT)
Clean Harbors Environmental Services (Clean Harbors)
Clean Earth
NRC Environmental Services Inc. (l'{RC)
92 87
82 70
Staff initially reviewed each proposal based on a fixed set of minimum standards to be considered as a qualified, responsive proposal and determined all four are acceptable for the full range of hazardous materials management services. These standards included financial stability, pto'nirion of all required proposal documentation, and proof that all permits, registrations and licenses are in good standing.

Once qualified proposals were identified, a series of weighted criteria were considered for each.

These criteria included, but were not limited to, references, experience, compliance, waste management services, and cost.

The bid packet included a cost matrix spreadsheet for proposing agencies to bid on individual pricing for seventy-six different waste profiles with different packaging options for each one, i*."ty different packaging supplies, and labor rates for periodic on-call assistance with Folsom's Household Hazardous Waste program.

To evaluate cost, the review team used actual quantities of materials shipped and supplies used in Fiscal Year 2021-22to compare the estimated cost of the proposals over the next five years, including proposed increases. Two of the proposals, Clean Earth and NRC, contained open ended language for adjusting pricing during the term of the contract. This made it impossible to compare them accurately and negatively impacted their scores. ACT did not propose increases during the contract period. Clean Harbors proposed increases using a clearly defined methodology of CPI plus 3%.

Staff concluded the most competent, qualified and responsive proposer is ACT with an overall average scoreof92o/o.
2 Page 312
07/11/2023 Item No.16.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed disposal and recycling costs forhazardous waste materials managed by this contract is budgeted in the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for FY 2023-24 in the amount of $117,000. Actual costs for this contract will be based on quantities collected; however, the anticipated cost under the new contract is $148,000 annually, based on quantities from Fiscal Year 2021-22. The additional funds of $31,000 needed to maintain current program levels are available in Fund 540 and will require an appropriation for Fiscal Yeat 2023-24.

Funding needed for subsequent years will be requested through the budget process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The purchase of hazardous waste management services is not considered a project and therefore is not subject to CEQA.

ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. I 1075 - A Resolution Authorizingthe City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Advanced Chemical Transport,Inc. forHazardous Waste Management Services and Appropriation of Funds
Submitted,
Mark Rackovan, Public Works Director
J Page 313
07/11/2023 Item No.16.

RESOLUTION NO. 11075

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ADVANCED CHEMICAL TRANSPORT,INC. FOR

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department, Waste and Recycling Division, Hazardous Materials Division (Division) collects hazardous waste from the public; and WHEREAS, funds have been budgeted in the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540) for Fiscal Year 2023-24; and
WHEREAS, the Division requires a contractor to recycle or dispose of hazndous waste from its collection program; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated a request for proposal process and Advanced Chemical Transport, Inc. was the most qualified, responsive, and responsible proposer; and WHEREAS, an additional appropriation in the amount of $31,000 will be needed; and WHEREAS, additional funds in the amount of $31,000 are available in the Solid Waste Operating Budget Fund (Fund 540); and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE' BE IT RESOLVED, thatthe City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Advanced Chemical Transport, Inc. forHazardous Waste Management Services of which the anticipated cost based on quantities will not exceed $148,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Financial Officer is authorized to appropriate $31,000 for this contract to the Solid Waste Operating Fund (Fund 540).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1lft day of July,2023, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Resolution No. 11075

Rosario Rodriguez, MAYOR

07/11/2023 Item No.16.

ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11075
Page2 of2 Page 315
07/11/2023 Item No.16.

This page intentionolly Ieft blonk
to facilitate double- sided printtng .

CITY OF
FOLSOl\{

DISTINCTIVE BY NATURE

07/11/2023 Item No.16.
|i. I ': { .r i\'i
Folsom City Council
Staff Re rt
MEETING DATE: T ltt 12023
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11076 - A Resolution Adding a Stakeholder Representative to the River District Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 11076 - A Resolution Adding a Stakeholder Representative to the River District Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
On June 13,2023 City Council approved Resolution No. 11044 - A Resolution Authorizingthe Formation of the River District Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. The staff report recommended the City Council select both stakeholder groups and representatives, as well as at- large public representatives to participate on the committee. In accordance with the adopted resolution and the Folsom Municipal Code, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) will be active fromJuly 15,2023 toJuly 14,2024.

A total of 17 stakeholder groups were considered for participation on the CAC. The Shingle Springs Band of the Miwok Indians (Miwok Tribe) was included under the category of Cultural Resources, but was not selected. At the City Council's June 27,2023 meeting, Mayor Rodriguez directed staff to return with a resolution adding the Miwok Tribe to the CAC.

POLICY / RULE
Folsom Charter, Section 2.04.G - Duties of the Mayor, indicates the mayor may "Establish and dissolve ad hoc committees, subject to the approval of the Council, but no such committee shall exist for more than one year."
Folsom Municipal Code, Section 2.35.040 - One Seat Limitation, states that'No person may hold more than one appointed commission, board, council or committee seat at a time. This one-seat I

07/11/2023 Item No.17.
limitation shall not apply to: (1) commission, board, council or committee members who are appointed to other commissions, boards, councils or committees as a result of, or by virtue of, their status as a member of a particular commission, committee, board or council; or (2) membership on ad hoc committees."

ANALYSIS
The River District project area encompasses thousands of acres of federal and state properties, as well as city and private properties, all of which are the ancestral lands of indigenous Native Americans. Even after the impacts of European migration and the Gold Rush, there are many vital and culturally significant Native American resources remaining within Folsom and the River District specifically. Having tribal participation on the CAC will bring important depth of understanding and appreciation for the history and resources that remain, and that should be both protected and celebrated.

The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians has expressed interest in participating in the River District Master Plan project and designated Krystal Moreno as their representative. It is worth noting that the Miwok Tribe is not the only tribe that historically inhabited the Folsom area. The Nisenan and other sub-groups of the Miwoks were known to be part of the various Native American communities of the Central Valley and Sierra foothills. Ms. Moreno and the Miwok Tribe have committed to communication with other nearby tribal governments to keep them abreast of River District planning issues and progress.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action of the City Council is not aproject as defined by the CEQA and therefore does not require environmental review.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional fiscal impact as a result of the proposed action. Funds for both River District Master Plan project management and retained consultants have already been budgeted and appropriated. The source of the funds is from federal allocations from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11076 - A Resolution Adding a Stakeholder Representative to the River District Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
Submitted,

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
2 Page 318
07/11/2023 Item No.17.

RESOLUTION NO. 11076

A RESOLUTION ADDING A STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE TO THE RIVER

DISTRICT MASTER PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the 2035 Folsom General Plan suggests that the River District Master Plan be established by "Engaging the community, stakeholders, and federal, state and regional land management agencies in establishing a vision for Folsom's River District;" and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted ResolutionNo. 11044 - Authorizing the Formation of the River District Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee at its June 13, 2023 meeting, including both stakeholder organizations and at-large public representatives, however the Shingle Springs Band of the Miwok Indians was not selected; and, WHEREAS, the Folsom Charter. section 2.04.G - Duties of the Mayor, indicates the mayor may "establish and dissolve ad hoc committees, subject to the approval of the Council, but no such committee shall exist for more than one yeat; and, WHEREAS, at the June 27 ,2023 City Council meeting Mayor Rodriguez directed staff to prepare a staff report and resolution to add the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians to the Citizens Advisory Committee; and,
WHEREAS, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians continues to express interest in the River District Master Plan and has designated Krystal Moreno as their representative.

NOW' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby appoints the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians to the River District Citizens Advisory Committee.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11tr day of July 2023, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Rosario Rodriguez, MAYOR
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
ResolutionNo. 11076
Page I of1 Page 319
07/11/2023 Item No.17.

This page intenti"onolly left blank
to focilitote double- sided printing .

CI?Y OF
FOLSOl\{
DIgTIXC'IVE BY NATURE

07/11/2023 Item No.17.

Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Folsom Public Library respectfully recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. I 1069 - A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10479 to Revise the Master Fee Schedule for Library Services to Remove Fines and Adjust the Fee for Selected Library Services as of 711112023.

Under a revised Master Fee Schedule, the Library will continue to bill patrons for items that are not returned or which are returned damaged. Patron accounts will continue to be blocked from using Library services once these items are billed and patrons will continue to be referred to collections should they fail to pay fees over a designated amount. However, most fines will be removed from the schedule, and the Library Commission and staff recommend that charges that have been accrued under these defunct categories be removed.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Recognizing the negative impact that fines have on patron goodwill and their ability to access Library services, as well as the enhanced operational and customer service challenges that come from being the last library in Sacramento County to still charge fines, the Library Commission with then Director Lori Easterwood voted unanimously to recommend the removal of fines in May 2021. This position was reaffirmed in January 2023 ttrhenthe newly seated Library Commission again voted unanimously to recommend the removal of fines with Director Thomas Gruneisen.

I
MEETING DATE: 7ltl 12023
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11069 - A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10479 to Revise the Master Fee Schedule for Library Services to Remove Fines and Adjust the Fee for Selected Library Services as of 711112023
F'ROM: Library

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

During the past five years, libraries across the United States have seen a dramatic and widespread shift in the way they leverage fines. Recognizing that the primary purpose for charging overdue fines is to increase access to the collection by disincentivizing patrons from keeping items past their due date, libraries began to look more critically at whether the mechanism of imposing fines has acted to increase or decrease access to the collection.

Since then, research in this area has consistently indicated that the imposition of late fines has a marginal effect on whether or how long items are kept overdue and instead adversely affects item return rates. A more pronounced effect, however, is that while fines have only a small impact on the library budget, they have a noticeably larger negative impact on the goodwill of residents. Patrons that have their accounts blocked due to fines are significantly less likely to continue using library services, and libraries that discontinued charging fines have uniformly reported an increase in library registration and usage.

Additionally, although fines are accrued by residents from across a wide range of economic strata, the accounts that remain blocked from library services disproportionately come from households with fixed or limited incomes, in turn disproportionately impacting older adults, youth, and communities of color. Accordingly, the American Library Association in20l9 passed a resolution that found that'omonetary fines ultimately do not serve the core mission of the modern library," urging libraries to "actively move towards eliminating them." In response to this national guidance, as well as having experienced firsthand the benefits of going fine-free during the COVID-I9 pandemic, libraries across the United States have increasingly discontinued the collection of fines while retaining charges for lost and damaged items. In our region, Yolo County Library discontinued charging fines in 2021 andwas followed shortly after by Sacramento Public Library. Lincoln Public Library, Loomis Public Library, Nevada County Library, and Solano County Library are fine-free, while the collection of fines at Colusa County Library remains suspended.

At the same time, while promoting access to its services, it is important that the Library remain a responsible steward of public funds. In assessing the current Master Fee Schedule, staff found that the current fees for public color printing are insufficient to recoup expenses in this area. Similarly, although loans for items from Woodland and Sacramento, Colusa, and Sutter Counties remain free to Folsom Public Library customers, requests from outside these counties must be manually submitted and require considerable staff time to process.

Given that the library has alternate mechanisms to request items at lower cost, the fees for these services have been adjusted to restore cost neutrality.

POLICY / RULE
City of Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 states, "The city manager is hereby directed to recommend to the council the adjustment of fees and charges to recover the percentage ofcosts reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services 2Page 322
07/11/2023 Item No.18.
enumerated in this chapter and on the schedule of rate review as hereinafter established in this chapter. Costs reasonably borne shall be as are defined in Section 3.50.030." Resolution No. 10297 (2019) established the current fee schedule

ANALYSIS
The experience of Folsom Public Library staff concurs with that of the wider library profession that while charging customers fines has only a minor impact on our budget (l.l% forFY2023), it has a significant impact on our ability to serve our residents. Whether residents avoid using library services due to inconvenience or out of financial necessity, these charges create abarcier to access and present Folsom Public Library as a second-rate service when considered alongside its peers.

This issue has come particularly to the fore following the decision by Sacramento Public Library, the Library's major partner with which we have reciprocity agreements, to go fine free. Folsom Public Library patrons benefit from that partnership and widely use our neighbor' s facilities and materials.

This inconsistency leaves Folsom Public Library as the last library in Sacramento County to still charge fines, causing frequent confusion, frustration, and embarrassment for our residents. Library staff are frequently left attempting to explain to residents who return their items late why some items are being returned for free, whereas others are literally being oonickel and dimed" - and that their home library, Folsom, is the one doing the charging.

Other library patrons have found ways to circumvent these fines, leading to an uneven playing field and frustration for Folsom Public Library cardholders. Because the systems for other Sacramento County libraries are defaulted to waive fines at check-in, Sacramento County residents who check out Folsom Public Library materials can return these Folsom items to their home libraries late for free, whereas Folsom residents who return those same items late to their home library in Folsom are fined.

Similarly, some Folsom residents have begun returning their Folsom Public Library items to other libraries, in effect avoiding fines while creating longer delays for Folsom residents and additional cost to staff. Other residents have found that while staff at Folsom Public Library are unable to waive their fines, they can have these same fines waived by calling Sacramento Public Library's main call center, againleading to further resident frustration.

The barrier that overdue fines present to some of our customers is real. 2,682 patron cards are currently blocked due to fines and fees (8.43% of total cardholders). 698 of these cards are for youth accounts (10.37% of all youth cardholders). By way of illustration, the population at Theodore Judah Elementary was 627 students for the 2022-2023 school year.

This lack of access runs counter to Folsom Public Library's mission to "inspire lifelong learning, enrich lives, and connect our diverse community." aJ Page 323
07/11/2023 Item No.18.

F'INAN ,IMPACT
The Library is projected to collect approximately $22,500 in fines for Fiscal Year 2023. It collected approximatety $17,536 in FY 2021-22;$3,692 in FY 2020-21; and$24,663 in FY20l9-20. Because fines are correlated with circulation, if increases in circulation continue into the future, without an expansion in Library hours, the City could see a reduction in revenue as high as $25,000. The Fiscal Yen2023-24 Operating Budget did not include an amount for Library fines in anticipation of this change. If the City Council decides not to approve the change the increase in revenue would be minimal at around $20,000 to $25,000.

Increasing the fee for color printing by $.50ipage will result in additional revenue of approximately $623 per year.

The volume of Interlibrury Loanactivity varies significantly from year to year; however, increasing the fee for ILL service by $2.00 per transaction is not expected to increase revenue by more than $150 per year.

Folsom Public LiWary patrons currently have a cumulative balance of $18,384 in unpaid fines.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. I t069 - A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10479 to Revise the Master Fee Schedule for Library Services to Remove Fines and Adjust the Fee for Selected LiWary Services as of 7llll2023

2. Table 1: Current Master Fee Schedule for Library Services with Proposed Revisions - Iuly 2023

3. Resolution No. 10479 - A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10297 and Enacting the Annual lnflationary Adjustment for City User Fees as of July 1,2020, for Selected City Services
Submitted,
4 Thomas Gruneisen, Library Director

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

ATTACHMENT 1

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

RESOLUTION NO. 11069
A RE,SOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10479 TO REVISE THE MASTER

FEE SCHEDULE FOR LIBRARY SERVICES TO REMOVE FINES AND ADJUST THE FEE F'OR SELECTED LIBRARY SERVICES AS OF 7IIII2O23
WHEREAS, City of Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.5.020 states "The city manager is hereby directed to recommend to the council the adjustment of fees and charges to recover the p.rr.ntug" of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services enumerated in this cliapter and on the schedule of rate review as hereinafter established in this chapter' Costs reasonably borne shall be as are defined in Section 3.50.030'"; and WHEREAS, ResolutionNo. 10479 adopted by the Folsom City Council on June 23,2020 established the current Master Fee Schedule for the City of Folsom; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to amend its Master Fee Schedule for Library Services to eliminate certain fines; and
WHEREAS, the City now desires to adjust the fee for other selected Library services:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom amends ResolutionNo. 10479 as of July 11,2023 to enact in its Master Fee Schedule the revised schedule of services performed by Folsom Public Library, as set forth in the fee schedules attached hereto; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if there are any conflicts between the fines adopted in this Resolution and the fines adopted in any prior Resolution or schedule, the fines adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall control.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1lth day of July,2023,by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Rosario Rodriguez, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11069

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

ATTACHMENT 2

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

City of Folsom
Current Master f,'ee Schedule for Library Services with Proposed Revisions - July 2023 Pursuant to Resolution No. 11069
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE F'EE
7t0U2019
Reso 10297
F'EE
7mt2023
Proposed
LB-1 Adult and Teen Books and audio books -
Extended Use Fee (Fine)
$0.25i day per
item - $5.00
max/item
$0.00i day per
item
LB-2 High-Demand Express materials - Extended
Use Fee (Fine)
$1.00/ day per
item - $5.00
max/item
$0.00/ day per
item
LB-3 Children's books and audio books -
Extended Use Fee (Fine)
$.05/ day per item
- $1.00 max/item
$0.00/ day per
item
LB-4 DVDs, Music CDs, and specialtY kits -
Extended Use Fee
$.251 day per item
- $5.00 max/item
$0.00/ day per
item
LB-5
LB-6 Returned check fee City standard fee
(see Finance)
City standard fee
(see Finance)
LB-7 Li card $t $o
LB-8a Self service & $.15/paee $.1S/paee
LB-8b Self service $.5Oipage $1.00ipage
LB-9 Hold fee - item $1 $o
LB-10 Interlibrary loan/item (plus add'l lending
fees
$: $s
LB-11 Lost or damaged materials in Folsom
collection
Up to cost of item
plus $5.00
processing fee
Up to cost of item
plus $5.00
processing fee
LB-12 Lost or damaged materials from inter library
loan
Up to cost of item,
plus charges from
lending library,
plus $5.00local
processing fee
Up to cost of item,
plus charges from
lending library,
plus $5.00 local
processing fee
LB-13 Referral fee for material and fee recovery
services (for accounts with billed overdue
materials and total outstanding charges of
$25 or more
$10 $10

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

ATTACHMENT 3

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

Amended by Resolution No' 10836 on 041 1212022'
RESOLUTION NO. 10479
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10297 AND ENACTING TIIE A}INUAL INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT X'OR CITY USER FE,ES AS OF JULY 1' 2020, FoR SELECTED CITY SERVTCES
WHEREAS, City of Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 states "The city manager is hereby directed to recommend to the council the adjustnent of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services enumerated in this ch'apter and on the schldule of rate review as hereinafter established in this chapter. Costs reasonab$bome shall be as are defined in Section 3.50.030."; and WI{EREAS, Resolution No. 7815 adopted by the Folsom City Council on May 23,2006, allowed for an annual inflationary adjustnent to User Fees each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. I 0297 adopted by the Folsom City Council on June lI ,2019 , allowed for Building Valuation Data to be updated each year as published by the International Code Cor:ncil; and
WHEREAS, the annual inflationary adjustment is based on the (JS Bureau of Labor Statistics & CA Department of Finance CPI-West Urban Consumers, all items, San Francisco CMSA,Annual amount as of Dlcember of the previous calendar year and as of December3I,2}l9 the annual inflationary adjustment applied is 3'3%; and WIIEREAS, the Building ValuationDala will be updated to the February 2020 data as published by the International Code Council; and
NOW THEREF,ORE, BE IT RESOLYED that the City Council of q. City of Folsom Amends Resolution No. 10297 and Enacts the Annual lnflationary Adjustment for City User Fees as of July !,2020,for Selected City Services as set forth in the fee schedules attached hereto; and PASSED AI\D ADOPTED this 23rd day of June,2020,by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Council Member(s):

Council Member(s):

Council Member(s):

Council Member(s):

Howell, Kozlowski, Sheldon, Aquino
None
None
None
MA
4 \'
ATTEST:

Christa
Resolution No. 10479
Page I of8

CITY CLERK

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

City of Folsom
Master Fee Schedule as of July 112020
FEE
7t0u2020
ANNUAL

INF'LATION

ADJUSTMENT
Annual CPI t10297
FEE
7nv20l9DEPARTMENT/SERVICE#
(Non-Refundable
Deposit)
8,513
2,989
5,976
6,574
6,051
&128
282
5,9y2
58 zLs4
58 2,054
58 t20
55 1,195
288
2,7v2
5,575
943
5,379
1,567
1,567
239
479
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$6 417 +
$8,525 +
Base
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Ll34
4,073
I,f,16
60 5,528
6W
10,2@
&841
2,899
3,798
44s5
280
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2M
7l
143
rs7
145
t94
,|
t43
I
49 I
49 I
3 I
29 7
67 133
23 129
31 37
6 ll
51 97
195
I
r32
t5
127
$153 +
2tt
69 91
107
7 $204 +
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
&309
2918
5,833
6417
5,906
7934
n5
s,849
57 2005
57 2,005
57 L17
54 1J6
?41
\ns
5,42
920
5,250
1,530
1,530
233
48 2,083
3,976
7,951
59 s,396
$6,2u+
+$8,321
594
5,178
&630
e$0
3,707
+w
n3
PE-I
PF.2
PE-3
PE4
PE5
PF6
PF-7
PE,7b
PF8
PF-g
PE-IO
PE-I1
PF-Iz
PE.l3
PE-I5
PE-I5
PEIS
PE 2A
pE-21
PE.22
PF-23
PE24
PE2s
PE-25b
PE-26
PE 27
PF-28
PEF29
PF3O
PB3I
PF-32
PE-33
PE-35
PB36
P8,37
PF38
PE-39
PE4O
PR41
Planning & Engineerinq
Preliminary Project Review (deposit)
Tentative Parcel Map Review (deposit)
T€ntative Subdivision Map Review (deposit)
Tentative Map AnBndnBnt Review (deposit)
Final Map Anrcnd/Cert of Coffection (deposit)
Map Extension Review (dePosit)
Design Review - Planning Conrn (deposit)
Design Review
Developnnnt review (dePosit)
Developnrnt Mod. Review (deposit)
Development F,xt. Review (deposit)
Specific Plan Review (dePosit)
Speoific Plan Annnd. Review (deposit)
lnitial Environnental Study/Assrnt (deposit)
EnvironrEntal krpact Review & Report
Notice of CEQA determination
Dist SFD Design Rvw (dePosit)
Mult Fam/C.onrn Design Rvw (deposit)
Review - SFD (deposit)
Review - Mult Fanr/Conrn (deposit)
Historic Dist Sign Rcview (deposit)
Sign Permit - Staff
Sign Permit Etension
PD Permit Sign ortly (deposit)
Zoning Verification Review (deposit)
Reaning Request Review - 5 acres or less (deposit)
Reaning Request Review- 5+ acrcs (deposit)
Line Adj./Parcel Merger (phnning) (deposit)
Code Amendnpnt (deposit)
General Ptan Arngndnpnt <5 acres (deposit)
Crneral Plan Anpndnpnt >5 acres (deposit)
Tenporary Use Permit Review
Use Permit Review (Major) (deposit)
Mitigation Prog. Monitoring
Processing (deposit)
Review- SFD (deposit)
Review- Other (deposit)
-Admin
- by other (deposit)
Resolution No. 10479

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

CitY of Folsom
Master Fee Schedule as of July 1,2020
Annul inflationary adjutment bapd on the ItS Burcau ofLabor S7lati'ics & CA Depdrt iev of nmrce CPI-Wes arban Corcnrun,
All amounts are rounded to the n€arest dollar'
Resolution No. 10479

FEE
7101n020

AIINUAL

INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
Annual CPI IReso 10297
FEE
TtotnotgDEPARTMENT/SERVICE#
s3 + $.05/sq.
$4+ $1 Renewal
g
37 29
123
57 I
l0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
134
250
tl2
2 2
3l
60 25
I
0 2
6 7
4 7
0 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
a
26 I
(Non-Refundable
Deposit)
$132+ $1.9I/sq.
250.00 (DsH)
$187 + M7 Renewal
s 245
$ 280
$ 167
$ 280
$10
l0lo ofbuilding
permit fee
Hourly rate of CilY
Aftorist
s44

1.5 X Regular Fee
Actual Cost
I2s.00 (DStr)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2o/o
2,683
1,567
1,195
5,t41
23n.
37 428
5,605
t0,463
4,696
101
101
1,3u2
2,516
1,057
60 t9
84 6%offint
7o/one*.
5o/one>t
4o/one*.
as88
tt,t37
29 gl29 + $1.86/Sq.
s 2,526
$ 10,871
$28
$183 + $46 Renewal
g 239
$n3
$ 163
gn3
$10
l0olo of building
permit fee
Hourly rate of City
Arborist
$43

1.5 X Regular Fee
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2o/o
\619
1,530
1,166
5,018
2,335
36 418
5,471
102r3
4,584
99 I
Lnr
2,456
1,032
59 l9
82 6% offirst
7o/o'lLert
5o/onet&
4o/one>t
PE 4lb
PF-42
PE-43
PE4
PE45
PE/,6
P8,41
PE-48
PF"4'9
PF5O
PF51
PE52
PE53
PR54
PF55
PE56
PBs7
PE58
PB59
PE60
PE.61
PF-73
PF-62a
PB62b
PE43a
Pfu3b
PE{r'.

PE65
PE66
P8.67
PEJS
PE 69
PFTO
PF-71
P8.72
PF-74
PE-75
P8,76
PE17
PB78
Residential Landscape Review Fee (C\rstomHonF)
Plannine & Ensineerinq (conl)
Conditional Use Permit Review (Minor) (deposit)
Conditional Use Permit Modification (deposit)
Street Narp ReviedChange (deposit)
Devl. Agreemnt Processing (depos it)
of Way/ Easenrnt Abandonrnent
Renpval h- Permitted Renroval
Renpval Prrt- w/o Permit
PC & krsp - $l to $10,000
Eng PC & Inspl - $lO00l-$9,999
Eng PC & InsP I - $100k-$19,999
Eng PC & InsPl - $200k-$299,999
LLA Review - Engineering
Research ofEng Records (tloudY)
Misc Eng Services (HourlY)
Review of ROW /EasenPnt Docs
Dist/CFD Paynrcnt Process ing
Transportation Permits (Annual)
Encroachrnent Permits
Encroachrnent Permit (Annual)
Condominium Convenion Fee
Honr OccuPation Permit Fee
Opinion on a Planning Matter
LandrrrarkTree
Off-Site Weekend Directional Signs
Uniform Sign hogram
ical Assistance / Third Pany review or Inspection
Protected Tree rennved orimpacted within the buildable
area of a residential lot (DSHdianreter per inch)
Protected Tree rcnnved or inpacted @SHdiarneter per
inch)
PC&InsPl-$300k+
Parcel Map Check
Map Check
Agreennnt Prccessing
Special Events Pemit
Permits
Donation Box
Sign Permit
Plan Check Fee (Planning)
Services Fee
Permit
aA ilems, San

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

ANNUAL

INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
Annuel CPI t
FEE
7tou2020
ProposedReso 10297
FEE
7loll20r9DEPARTMENT/SERVICE#
653
87 258

2.75o/o - 3Yo
25 35
125
75 50
135
26 26
t2
19 19
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
170
25 4
l7
94 94
il0
165
t4
45 40
45 160
139
25 5
I
I
0 I
1 21
J
8 5
I
1 I
3 3
2 4
0 0
0 0
4 4
I
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$ 632
$u
$ 250

2.75Yo - 3Vo
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
25 35
179
25 25
t2
l8
l8
r65
vl
43 l6
9l
91 108
161
14 45
40 45
156
135
24 Finance
Renrned Check Fee - Initial
Returned CheckFee - Additional
Lien/D etinquency A&nin Fee
Admin/Disconnect Fee
Reconnect Fee - during business hows
Fee - after business hours
Comm. SW Acct Changes
Customer Business Lists - Year
Customer Business Lists - I month
Cardroom Business License Fees:

Table Fee per QUARTER
Permit (New)
Permit (Renewal - Commercial)
Alarm (2nd false alarm - infor. not
Alarm (3rd fabe alarm)
Alarm (4th false alarm)
False Alarm (5th+ false alarm)
Repossessiotu
VIN Verification
sEn-Oft'
Police
Letter-Clear
Fhearms Permit
Businesses
ew License Review Fee
Reprint Fee
and investigatbn
License Renewal
Method of PaYmont
Vehbb Release
Livescan
HS t 1590 Registration
Policc report copy
FN-2a
FN-2b
FN-2c
P-3b
P-4
la
1b
-3
-2
FN
-10
-t2
-13
P-7
P-8
P-9
l0
l5
17 l8
CitY of Folsom
Master Fee Schedule as of July lr2020
I Annual inflationsry adjustme,nt bssed onthe (JS Burcau of Labor Slatistics & CA Deparn ratt of Finance CPI-Wst Urtan itqrt, San Fmnciso CMSA, Annu d anoanl as o! Decanbet of the prcttious calandar ycar' Resolution No. 10479

Consnqoll

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

City of Folsom
Master F'ee Schedule as of July lr2020
I Arurual inflationary adjustmsrt based on tho ltS Bareta ol Labor Slalislic, & CA Dq'a'A"cttt of Finance CPI-lfal lung, San Fmncisxo CMSA, Annaal a.rwunt as ofDecemh*ofthe p'etious calendaryon Resolution No. 10479

Uftan Consnaa, all
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE
FEE
7tou20l9
Promsed
ANNUAL

INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
Annual CPt I
FEE
7t0u2020
Promsed
FR.I
FR.2
FR-3
FR-4
FR-5
FR-5
FR.7
FR-10
FR-l1
FR-14
FR-15
FR-23
FR.24
FR-26
IFR-28
lrn-zau
lrn-zs"
IFR-28d
lrn-re
h'n-ss
lrn-az
lrn-+:

File
California Fire Code InsPection
Re-Inspectbn (2nd and subsequent
Fh€ Stand Pbe System Plan Review
Hydrant System PC
Spninkler System Plan Review
Pump PlanReview
Alarrn System Plan Review
Fire Protection System Plan Review
Gas System PIan Review (Medical LPG,
Compressed, etc)
Public Fireworks DisPIaY PC
Special Fire Inspection (after hours or by
& Sane Fireworks Stand InsPection
Report Copy
Hazard Abatement Program
Alarm (2nd false alarm - infor' not
Ahrm (3rd false alarm)
False Alarm (4th false abrm)
False Alarm (5th+ false alarm)
Fire Hydrant Flow Test
Photograph Copy
Services Fee
Assistance / Third PartY review or
Inspection
$ r8s
s ?28
bldg pmt val
bldg pmt val
bldgpmt val
bldg pmt val
bldgpmt val
bldg pmt val
bldgpmt val
bldg pmt val
$ 247
$ 326
$30g 153
$el
$91g 108
s 16l
$ 201
s30

1.5 X Reg Fee
Actual Cost
6 8
bldg pmt val
bldg pmt val
bldg pmt val
bHg pmt val
bHg pmt val
bldg pmt val
bldg pmt val
8 ll
I
5 J
3 4
5 7
I
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$ 191
g 236
bldgpmt val
bldgpmt val
bldg pmt val
bldg pmt val
bHg pmt val
bldgpmt val
bldg pmt val
bldg pmt val
s 2s5
s 337
$ 3t
s 158
s94
$94
$ ltz
$ 166
$ 208
$ 3l

1.5 X Reg Fee
Actual Cost

07/11/2023 Item No.18.
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE
F'EE
7toln0lg
ANNUAL

INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
Annual CPI I
FEE
7rc1n020
Propmed
cc-1
CC-2a
cc-g
cc-10
cc-ll
t2
cc-13
Citv C.lerk
Agenda Mailing Service (Per YearlSubscriber)
Docurnent Printing & Copying (per side/per
page; $1.00 minimum; no charge for 9 copies or
bss)
Document Printing Pages greater than l7xl4 or
color copies (per side/Per Page)
Copy AudioA/ituo/DVD
Folsom MruriciPal Code
Updates to Folsom MrniciPal Code
Plaildng Commission Decision Appeal - Owner
occupied, single fami$ dwelling
Planning Commission Decision Appeal - All
others
Truancy Fee (Monies pait through City Cler$
Code Enforcement Administrative Hearing
$
$

24. 0.10
$
$5
Cost to Produce
Cost to Produce
$ 238
479
6l
t79
5 $
$
$

0.00 0$
$
$0
Cost to Produce
Cost to Produce
$8
$ 0
l6
2 6
$
$
$
24 0.10
5 ss
Cost to Produce
Cost to Produce
gue
495
63 185
s
$
$
$
$
$
CitY of F'olsom
Master Fee Schedule as of July 112020
I Annual infltionary adjustment based on the US Banau of l^bot Slztiilts & CA Departturt of Flnane CPI-V6' Urton Consns* all ileng San Fmndw CMSA, Annaol ansuat as of Deenba of the praious calendar yean Resolution No.704'79

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

City of Folsom
Master Fee Schedule as of July 1r2020
I Annual infldionary adjustment based on the US Bureau olLabor Stadli(s & CA Dq,artent of, Flnance CPI-|y& Arbdn Constrrars' aII Iterrls, San Fmndno CM9A, Anhual arraunt as of Decerrrba of lhePtzvtoas calendaryut' -'
CPI is negligible, therefore fee/fine will not change
Resolution No. 10479

# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE

AIINUAL

INF'LATION

ADJUSTMENT
Annual CPIr
FEE
7totDo2I
Proposed
LB-1
LB'-2
LB-3
LB-4
LB-6
LB-7
LB-8a
LB-8b
LB-9
LB-10
LB-II
LB-12
LB-13
Librnry*
Aduh and Teen Books and audio books -
Extcnded Use Fee (Fine)
High-Demand Express materbls - Extended Use
Fee (Fine)
Children's books and audio books - Extended Use
Fee (Fine)
DVD's, Music CD's, and specialty kits -
Extended Use Fee (Fine)
Retumed check fee
Library card replacement
Self service copy charges - (B & Vf)
Self service copy charges - (Color)
HoHre-shelving fee - per item
Interlibrrary loan/item (plus add'l lendinglibrary fees) Lost or damaged books in Folsom collection
Lost or damaged materials from interlibrary loan
Refenal fee for materbl and fee recovery
services (for accounts with billed overdue
materials and total outstanding chargcs of $25 or
more)
$0.25l day per item -
$5.00 rnaxlitem
$1.00/ day per item-
$5.00 ma:,r'item
$.05/ day per item-
.$1.00 nn:r'ftem
$.25/ day per item -
$5.00 ma:ditem
City standard fee
(see Finance)
$ls 0.15
$ o.so
$1$3
Up to cost of item
plus $5.00
processing fee
Up to cost of iten;
plus charges form
lending library, plus
$5.00 local
processing fee
$10
**
,.*
**
**
Itlt
++
**
d.*
+*
++
$0.25l day per item -
$5.0O nra:y'item
$1.00/ day per item -
$5.00 max/item
$.05/ day per item -
$1.(X)ma.rr'item
$.25/ day per item -
$5.00ma:r'item
City standard fee
(see Finance)
$1
$ 0.15
$ 0.s0
$1
s3
Up to cost of item
plus $5.fl)
processing fee
Up to cost of iterl
plus charges furm
lending library, plus
$5.00 local
processing fee
$10

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

City of F'olsom
Master Fee Schedule as of July lr2020
' Purk and Recreation fees are set by the department. Cost recovery levels are set at the programlevel and therefore changes are proposed during the budget pnccess-
Resolution No. 10479

# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE
#
PR-7
PR-9
PR-10
PR-l3
PR-14
PR-15
PR-I6
PR-17
PR-I8
PR-I9
PR-21
PR-22
PR-23
PR-24
PR-25
PR-26
PR-30
PR.32
PR-33
PR-37
PR.38
PR-39
PR-40
PR-42
PR-43
PR-45
PR-46
PR-47
PR.48
PR-49
Parks & Recreation
Zookeeping/Gate
Zoo-Gift Shop
Zoo-Education/Tows
Aquatics - Rec/Lap Swim
Aquatics - Swim Lessons
Aquatics - Swim Team
Aquatics - Aquacise
Aquatics - Swim Camps
Aquatics - School Parties
Aquatics - Birtlrday Parties
Aquatics - Swim Meets
Aquatics - RentaVSpons.

Aquatics - Concessions
Cummings Park/Skate
Comm Center - Resident
Comm Center - Non-Resident
Comm Center. FCUSD
Rotary Clubhouse (see Comm Center)
Park Rentals
Youth Speo. Interest
Culhral Classes
Fee Based Spec Events
YouthDay Camps
Cultural Svcs/Pre school
Seniors
Sporsorship
Kemp Concessions
Aduft Sports
Youth Sports
Comm. Youth Leagues
Sports Facilily Rentals

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

This page intentionollY Ieft blCInk
to focilitqte double- sided printing .

CITY OF
F()LSOl\{
DISTINCTIVE BY NATUNg

07/11/2023 Item No.18.

Folsom City Council
Staff rt
MEETING DATE: 71rU2023
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Consideration of Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with Folsom Cordova Unified School District and the City of Rancho Cordova to Share the Cost of a Folsom Cordova Unified School District Reorganization Feasibility Study and Direction to Staff
FROM: City Manager's Office

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL AEIIAN
The City Manager recommends that the City Council provide direction to the City Manager as to whether the City Manager should execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) and the City of Rancho Cordova to share the cost of an FCUSD Reorganization Feasibility Study to be conducted by School Services of California (SSC). The purpose of the study is to evaluate the potential reorganization of FCUSD into two separate unified school districts against the nine statutory criteria governing school district reorgarizations. If this Memorandum of Understanding were executed, the City of Folsom would reimburse FCUSD for one-third of the costs of the SSC contract.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
On June 8,2023, the Folsom City Council, the Rancho Cordova City Council, and the FCUSD Board met in a special joint meeting with one discussion item: ooProcess of District Re- Organization and Feasibility Study Report."
By way of background and quoting from the FCUSD staff report for the June 8, 2023 special joint meeting:
"At the January 19,2023, Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) Board Meeting, it was requested that staff report back on the cost and process of completing a study on the ability to reorganize Folsom Cordova Unified School District into two separate districts based upon the I

07/11/2023 Item No.19.
communities of Rancho Cordova and Folsom.
"Staff contacted Schools Services of California (SSCAL) to present to the FCUSD Board an overview of the reorganization process and provide a cost estimate to complete a reorganization study.
'oAt the March 23,2023, FCUSD Board meeting, Brianna Garcia, Vice President of SSCAL, presented the nine statutory criteria governing district reorganizations, the process, and the proposed scope and cost for completing a Reorganization Feasibility Study. "Additionally, staff provided a summary of the past reorganization activities that have taken place regarding FCUSD since 1994. . ..
"The FCUSD Trustee consensus was to have a joint board meeting with both governing bodies, the City Councils of Rancho Cordova and Folsom, to review the re-organizationpresentation and discuss whether to move forward with the feasibility study. "school Services of California's proposal for the re-organization feasibility study would be $72,500 from the general fund."
The June 8,2023 special joint meeting was the result of consensus direction of the FCUSD Board to hold a joint meeting with the City Councils of Folsom and Rancho Cordova to review the reorganizationpresentation and discuss whether to move forward with the feasibility study.

At the June 8, 2023 special joint meeting, the Folsom City Council did provide consensus direction (as did the Rancho Cordova City Council) to move ahead with the reorganization feasibility study.

The FCUSD Board then discussed the item at its regular Board meeting on June 15,2023. After that meeting, FCUSD Superintendent Sarah Koligian, Ed.D. followed up with the City Manager and shared that the Board tabled the action on moving forward with the feasibility study pending further information to be brought to the Board at a future meeting, including asking assistance "from City partners to assist with or cover the cost of the Feasibility Study ($72,500)."

POLICY / RULE
All powers of the City shall be vested in the City Council except as otherwise provided by the City Charter. Section 2.02 of the City Charter.

ANALYSIS
As described earlier, the Folsom City Council already provided consensus direction to move ahead with the feasibility study at the joint special meeting. The Folsom City Council was not asked at the joint special meeting to share in the cost, however. 2 Page 340
07/11/2023 Item No.19.

The City Manager understands from Superintendent Koligian that splitting the cost equally (i.e. one third from each of the partner jurisdictions - the City of Folsom, the City of Rancho Cordova, and FCUSD) would be ideal.

A draft Memorandum of Understanding has been presented to the City Manager from FCUSD and includes language as follows: "SSC proposes to perform the study.. .for $72,500, plus expenses. 'Expenses' are defined as actual, out-of-pocket expenses, such as travel, meals, shipping, and duplication of materials. The cost of the study includes one presentation to the Committee. If additional meetings or presentations are required that are not described in this proposal (for example, an additional presentation), a charge of $310 per hour, per consultant will be billed in addition to actual and reasonable expenses. SSC will submit monthly billings for services associated with the project."

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds available in the General Fund (Fund 010) for the approvedFY2023-24 Budget to cover reimbursement to FCUSD for one-third of the contract costs (as described above) should the Council wish to provide direction for the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with FCUSD and the City of Rancho Cordova to share the cost of an FCUSD ReorganizationFeasibility Study to be conducted by SSC.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action of the City Council is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore does not require environmental review

ATTACHMENTS

1. School Services of California Proposal to FCUSD, dated February 27 ,2023

2. School Services of California Presentation to FCUSD Board, dated March 23,2023 Submitted,
Elaine Andersen, City Manager
J

07/11/2023 Item No.19.

ATTACHMENT 1

07/11/2023 Item No.19.
a
ces
of i rnia
TM
CompanyAn
Folsom Gordova Unified School District
School District Reorganization
March 23,2023
Presented By:

Brianna Garcia
Vice President
@ 2023 School Services of California lnc.

07/11/2023 Item No.19.
f School District Reorganization
. Gommencing with Education Code Section (EG $) 35500, the code:

Defines the various types
of district reorganizations
Preseribes the timelines for public
hearlngs, governing hoard actions,
and voting
Specifies the employment
rights of district
employees
Lists the criteria upon
which the State Board of
Education must evaluate
reorgan ization proposals
Specifies the duties and
responsibilities of the
county committee on district
reorganization and other
relevant public agencies and
organizations
O 2023 School Services of California lnc.

II

07/11/2023 Item No.19.

E Basic Types of Reorganization
. Four most common types of reorganizations:

Territorv transfers
Transfer of a portion(s) or all
of one district to another
Formation of new school districts
unification
Typically, unification of
elementary and high school
districts into a unified school
district or splittinq an existinq
unified school district into two or
more unified school districts
Unifications with components
Unification of a high school
district excluding one or
more feeder elementary
districts completely within
the high school district
Lapsation
The dissolution of a
school district to one or
more adjacent districts

O 2023 School Services of California Inc.

07/11/2023 Item No.19.

Petitions
.Un er the laql a reorganization petition should include:
m ffi ffi ffi
J
list of the school
districts affected
. Reasons for a
proposed
reorganization
Designation of no
more than three
chief petitioners
and an affidavit
that all signatures
on the petition
are genuine
lPer EC S 35700.3, 35701, and 35702, and The California Department of Education (CDE) School District Organization Handbook- chapter 5, pages 30-31
@ 2023 School Services of California lnc.
--I
-

07/11/2023 Item No.19.
r Petitions
Owners of Uninhabited Territory 25% Petition,
or District Governing Boards
o Petition signed by:
* Owne(s) of uninhabited territory;
. At least 25% of the registered voters in the
inhabited territory proposed to be
reorganized;
. A majority of the members of the governing
boards of all affected districts; or
" At least 8% of registered voters who cast
votes in the last gubernatorial election to
reorganize adistrict with over 200,000 ADAI
into two or more districts
lAverage daily attendance
10% Petition or Local Agency
. Petition signed by:
. At least 10% of the registered voters of the
entire school district;
. At least 5% of the registered voters to
reorganize a district with over 200,000 ADA
into two or more districts; or
tr Resolution approved by a majority of the
members of a city council, county board of
supervisors, governing board of a special
district, or local agency formation
commission

O 2023 School Services of California lnc.

07/11/2023 Item No.19.
e
-o
l-
tF,
E(l)
o-
>elf)cl
5 STOP

ELECTION
CALLED
Notice Sent to
County Superintendent.

EC 535755
Public Headngs Held.

EC 535754
Hearing Date Set
and Notifcation
of Hearing Given.

EC E35752
Petition
Approved?
EC 535753 &
s35754
(2',)
Notice of Public Hearing.

EC 55362, 55363,&
535720.5
Notice to LAFCO
EC 535700.s
County Commitee
Recommends Approval
or Disapproval.

EC 535706
Review Criteria of
EC 535753.

Public Hearings
Held. EC $35705
Petiton, Recommendation,
and Report Transmitted to
State Board. EC 535707
STOP
County Supedntendent
Sends Petidon to County
Committee and State
Board. EC $35704
Superintendent
Finds Petition to be
Sufficient and Signed
County
as Required?
EC 535704
] snnr'
uilruxnarreo
rlennrronv
I
F
Ow
b
Boa
Afit
etition trom
rers or Petition
y Majority of
rd Members of
rcted Disticts.
:c s35700

INHABITED

TERRITORY
Petition by 25% of
Electors in
Tenitory (1) or
Petition by Majority
of Board Members
in Afiected
Districts.

EC S3s700
No
Yes
v7
xg
oct
.s
s3
No
(1) ln dslricts wilh over 200!00 ADA, a polilbn lo reorganize a didricl inlo lwo or mors dislrlcts ma)r be signed by 8% of lhe regidered volers. Ec S35700O).
(2) The SBE, as bad ag€ncyfor CEQA, musl comply wlh provisiom of CEOA bdore eprdring a unificallon if it delermines lhal lhe unilicatim is a proJect under CEQA.
d
-ec,
o
=Eo
o
at
o.9
eout
ooEoatt
art(\to6t
@
6O
Source: DE School Di Organization Handbook-chq0$q1f page 1 6

07/11/2023 Item No.19.

STOP

ELECTIOT,I
CALLED
Notice Sent to
County Superintendert.

EC 535755
Petition
Approved?
EC 535753 &
s35754
(3)
Headng Date Set
and Nc*ification
of Hearing Given.

EC 535752
Pnblic Hearings Held.

EC 535754
!c
tt
oo
E
Review Criteria of
EC S3s753.

PuHic Headngs
Held. EC$35721 &
s35720.5
.5EC
Notice of Public Hearing.

EC 55362, 55363, S35705,
s35705.5, & 535720.5
Notice b LAFCO
Petitio, Final
Recommendation, and
Report Transrnited to State
Board,
EG
Committee
Adopts Final
Recommendation?
County
EC 535722
STOP
Pudic Hearing Hdd.

EC 535721
EC 535720.5 & S35721(O
Adopt a Tentative
Recommenddion.

Petition
Granted?
EC 535721(d,
lnitiated by Voter
Petitim (1) c
Local Agency
Resolutim (2).

EC 535721
Yes
F
-o
l-
+,'E(l,
o-
€o-o
-
6 Yes Yes
(1 ) A petition to reorganize a distfct shall be signed by at least 1 0 percent of the registered v oters of the entire district. EC 53572 1 {a ) ln disiricts with w er 200,000 ADA. a petition to reorganize a district into two or more distids may be signed by 5% olthe registered voteB. EC 535721 (b).
(2) The city council. munty board of supervisors, governing body of a special disirict, or LAFCO may initiate a proposal to reorganize a district. EC 535721 (c) (3) The SBE, as lmd agency tor CEOA m ust @mply with provisions of CEOA before approving a unification it it determines that the unincation is a project undor CEQA. oE
.gc
o
=lE
o
ooo.9
t(t'
U'
6o-coU'
ao6lo6t
@
Source:The CDE School District Organization Handbook+hqg$g;fi page l9

07/11/2023 Item No.19.
7 (t)
(1)
r+r,
.E
E
Eo(J
+,e
-
I
J
o()
(1,
e
-+,
-cl
-(tr
oL
CL
CL
STOP

ELECNON
CALLED
Notice Sent to
County Superintendent.

EC Ss5755
Public Hearings Held.

Ec $35754
Hearing Date Set
and Notification
of Hearing Given.

EC 535752
Petition
Approved?
EC 535753 &
s357#
(3)
Appeal of Action to
Approve?
s35710.5,53571
Administrative Record
Transmited to
State Board. EC 535707,
EC S35710.s, EC 535711
Appeal Filed.

EC 53571 0.5,
EC 53571 1
Petition Approved?
Ec s35710(b)
(2')
120 days
(1)
START
Notice of Public Hearing
EC 55362, 55363
Notice to LAFCO
EC S35700.5, 535721.5
Public Hearings Held.

EC 535705, 535705"5
Review Criteria of
EC 535753.

PetiUon from EC 535704
or Tentative
Recommendation
trom EC S35721(d)
o(o
{r
=
No
No
No
(1) f compliance wilh CEQA is requlred, the 120 day period common@s frer CEQA complhnco Ge S35706tbD.
(2) The Cornty Commitlee musl csnplywilh CEOA requiremenls prior lo appro,/al of pelillm.
(3) th6 State B€rd of Educatlon must complywilh CEQA requircmenis prior lo apprdral of pelition whefl pellion reas disapproved bylhe County Commitlee.
(,
E
.g
EoE.s
o
o
ct(l'(,'E
al,
at
oo-c(J
U'(a(\to(\I
o
Source: The GDE School District Organization Handbook-chq[$q1f page 26

07/11/2023 Item No.19.

Nine Sta ry Griteria
. All the following conditions must be substan ally met:

Adequate i,lumber of P pilsu m
A
H
I
nity
bI
Gommu ldentity
Equitab ivision of Prop
and Facil es
Discrimi ion/Segregationnat
No Su ntial lncreas IN
Reference: EC $ 35753(a)
F I StatusISGA
I
ment
Costs
9 of '13
O 2023 School Services of California lnc.

07/11/2023 Item No.19.

Nine Stat cry f teria
Equitable Divisio'n
of Property and
Facilitles
Criterion 3
Community ldentity
Criterion 2
O 2023 School Services of California lnc
The reorganized districts
will be adequate in terms
of number of pupils
enrolled
The school districts are
each organized on the
basis of substantial
community identity
The proposal will result in
an equitable division of
property and facilities of
the original district or
districts
Paqellofl3

07/11/2023 Item No.19.

Nine Stat ry Griteria
The reorganization will
preserve each affected
school district's ability to
educate students in an
integrated envi ronment
and will not promote
racial or ethnic
discrimination or
segregation
Any increase in costs to
the state as a result of the
proposed reorgan ization
will be insignificant and
otherwise incidental to
the reorganization
The proposed
reorganization will
continue to promote
sound education
performance and will not
sign ificantly disru pt the
educational programs in
the affected school
districts
Page'11 of13
Criterion 5
Sound Educational
Program
Criterion 6
Discrimination/
Segregation
Criterion 4
O 2023 School Services of California lnc.

07/11/2023 Item No.19.
r Sta ory Griteria
Any increase in school
facilities costs as a result
of the proposed
reorganization will be
insignificant and
otherwise incidental to
the reorganization
The proposed
reorganization is primarily
designed for purposes
other than to significantly
increase property values
The proposed
reorganization will
continue to promote
sound fiscal management
and not cause a
substantial negative effect
on the fiscal status of the
affected district
Nine