Folsom City Council
December 10, 2024

12/10/2024 Item No.13.

This page is intentionolly left blonk
to focilitote double- sided printing
and minimize poper ttse.

CITY OF

DISTINCTIVE EY NATURE
FOLSOl\{

12/10/2024 Item No.13.
t; ;:rr:lr{a r, t-..rr i:

Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort
MEETING DATE: 121r012024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 1 1307 - A Resolution Rati$'ing the Additional Expenditures for the Folsom Zoo Sanctuary Perimeter Fence Project
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 1 1307 - A Resolution Ratifuing the Additional Expenditures for the Folsom Zoo Sanctuary Perimeter Fence Project
BACKGRO / ISSI]E
The Folsom Zoo Sanctuary receives an operating license through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), following regular inspections to ensure general standards for humane care and treatment of animals exhibited to the public are met. The Zoo Sanctuary was notified in 2022by the new USDA inspector, that there would be an extremely thorough inspection conducted in2024 that would include things that may have been overlooked or not inspected in previous years. Of particular concern atthat time, was the perimeter fence for the 6.7 acre Zoo Sanctuary property. The existing perimeter fence was as low as 6' in many locations, including near the front entry. It was stated that the required height of the perimeter fencing should be 8' minimum and that all trees and shrubs within three feet of the fence must be removed or trimmed per the requirement.

The perimeter fence replacement project was issued for bid in June 2023, and in July 2023, a contract in the amount of $590,291 was awarded to Golden Bay Fence Plus Ironworks, Inc. by the City Council. The project included a I0o/o contingency in the amount of $59,029, as required in the Folsom Municipal Code 2.36.080- Award of Contracfs. The contingency is used for unanticipated issues that arise during the construction process. Several unanticipated issues occurred during the construction of the perimeter fence and corresponding change orders were 1

12/10/2024 Item No.14.
issued. The total amount of the change orders is $83,313, which exceeds the original I0% contingency by $24,284.

POLICY / RULE
Section 2.36.080, Award of Contracts of the Folsom Municipal Code states, in part, that contracts for supplies, equipment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $70,952 or greater shall be awarded by City Council.

ANALYSIS
The change orders for this project are as follows:

1. Extra tree work to remove branches and atree that was within the 3' clear area at the fence because of fence location modifications that were adjusted in the field.

2. Providing two additional gates in the perimeter fence that were not included in the original plans. This replaced old gates that didn't meet the 8' height requirement.

3. Providing expanded metal mesh to the decorative tube-steel section of fence near the main entry and barn exit. The USDA inspector was concerned small animals could pass through the 4" on-center fence pickets.

4. Extending the barbed-wire metal arms to provide a nominal 9' high fence. The terrain around the zoo perimeter fence varies greatly with an elevation change of approximately 75'.To provide an 8' fence, a standard 7' chain link fence with 1' of barbed wire on top was originally specified for the entire perimeter. The barbed wire portion of the fence is on metal arms and extends out from the top of the chain link fence at an angle of approximately 45 degrees. The top of the barbed wire portion of the fence is therefore located one foot horizontally from the face of the chain link fence. With the elevation variations, this results in sections of the fence that were then up to 2" short of the required 8' height requirement. The most cost and time-efficient solution to ensure the fence was a minimum of 8' high was to extend the barbed wire metal arm an additional 1', resulting ina9'high fence.

The original I0% contingency was $59,029 The sum total for all four change orders is $83,313, which exceeds the contingency by 524/84. Considering the scope of the project, the extreme terrain and elevation changes, and the necessity of the fence meeting USDA requirements for the Zoo Sanctuary tohave a license to operate, staff recommends ratifring the additional project expenditures.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
At the July 25,2023 City Council meeting, the City Council passed and adopted Resolution No. ll0l9 authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for the Zoo Perimeter Fence Project with Golden Bay Fence Plus Iron Works, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $649,320, which included al0%o contingency in the amount of $59,029. The contingency is intended to be used for unanticipated issues that arise during construction. A total of four change orders were issued for the perimeter fence project for issues that were not anticipated. The costs for the change orders are below.
2 Page 146
12/10/2024 Item No.14.

Change Order 1 $3,209.3 8
Chanse Order 2 $3,415.00
Change Order 3 $38,033.00
Change Order 4 $38,6ss.sI
Total Change Order $83,312.89
The sum total of the change orders is $83,313, which exceeds the original I0% contingency by $24,284. Staff is recommending the City Council ratifr the524,284 in additional expenditures incurred to complete the project within the USDA timeframe to meet their license requirements and avoid the up to $10,000 per day fines. Sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds from savings other Parks and Recreation ARPA- funded projects which were completed under budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Article 19, 1500.1 - Relation to Ministerial Projects.

ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 1 1307- A Resolution Ratifuing the Additional Expenditures for the Folsom Zoo Sanctuary Perimeter Fence Project
Submitted,
Kelly Gonzalez, Parks & Recreation Director
aJ Page 147
12/10/2024 Item No.14.

RESOLUTION NO. II3O7

A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE

FOLSOM ZOO SANCTUARY PERIMETER FENCE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom desires to replace the perimeter fence of the Folsom Zoo Sanctuary to be in compliance with United States Department of Agriculture requirements; and WHEREAS, Parks & Recreation Staff prepared the bid package, solicited sealed bids, and received five bids on June 29,2023, with Golden Bay Fence Plus Ironworks,Inc. being the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, an Agreement was executed with Golden Bay Fence Plus Ironworks, Inc. for the Folsom Zoo Perimeter Fence Project in the amount of $590,291; and WHEREAS, a 10% contingency in the amount of $59,029 was included in the agreement for a total project budget of $649,320; and
WHEREAS, iustifiable construction change orders were issued totaling $83,313; and WHEREAS, $24,284 is currently available in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom ratifies the $24,284 in additional expenditures incurred to complete the Folsom Zoo Perimeter Fence Project for an updated total project cost of $673,604.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2024, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

ATTEST:

Resolution No. 11307
Page I of2
MAYOR

12/10/2024 Item No.14.

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11307
Page2 of2 Page 149
12/10/2024 Item No.14.

This page is intentionallA W blank
to focilitate double- sided printing
and minimize paper ttse.

CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE B.Y NATURE
FOLSOl\{

12/10/2024 Item No.14.
t *')i,:ji:,:\'l
Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort

RECOMMENDATION / COIINCIL ACTION
Move to adopt ResolutionNo. 11309 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Development Impact Fee Deferral Agreement with Vintage at Folsom, LP.

BACKGRO IND / ISSIIE
On February 15,2023,the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development Permit, and Density Bonus for the Vintage at Folsom Apartments Project. The decision was appealed to the City Council, and on March 28,2023, the City Council denied the appeal.

The Vintage at Folsom multifamily project is a new construction, 100 percent affordable, age- restricted multifamily rental development on a 4.86-acre site at 103 East Natoma Street. The project consists of 136 one- and two-bedroom units, which are affordable to low-, very-low, and extremely-low-income senior households as those terms are defined in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50150, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.

On December 6, 2023, the project received an award of private activity bond allocation from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee to help fund the development. While no City subsidy in the form of an affordable housing loan is being provided, in October of this year, the developer, Vintage at Folsom, LP submitted a fee deferral request for City-imposed development impact fees for the project.
1 MEETING DATE: r211012024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11309 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Development Impact Fee Deferral Agreement with Vintage at Folsom, LP
FROM: Community Development Department

12/10/2024 Item No.15.

SITF,
Figure 1: Vintage at Folsom Project Site Aerial Photograph

POLICY / RULE
Chapter 16.60 of the Folsom Municipal Code mandates that the City Council must approve any deferral of impact fees for qualified residential projects. In addition, the City of Folsom's Housing Element Policy H-2.3 (Fee Deferrals/Waivers for Affordable Housing) directs the City to provide fee deferrals of City-controlled residential impact fees to developers of qualified affordable housing projects consistent with the provisions of Chapter 16.60.

ANALYSIS
The City of Folsom is committed to work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-income and workforce housing by creating partnerships, providing incentives, and pursuing funding opportunities. Deferring payment of impact fees is a valuable incentive that offers developers significant savings, as developers would otherwise have to finance this expense.

Under Chapter 16.60 of the Folsom Municipal Code, the developer has requested a deferral of City-imposed development impact fees, while fees from non-City agencies remain payable at the time of building permit issuance unless deferred by those agencies. Chapter 16.60 permits the City Council to approve deferral of up to 75oh of the total impact fees for low- and very low-income units in a "qualified residential project." To qualiff, a project must have all required discretionary approvals and include at least l0%o of its units for very low-income households and 30o/o for low-income households, a criterion met by the Vintage at Folsom project.

The current estimated City-imposed impact fees for the project total approximately $2,838,556 with$2,128,917 (75% of the total amount) eligible for deferral. The maximum deferral period is 15 months from the issuance of the building permit, with fees due upon either the closing of 2 Page 152
12/10/2024 Item No.15.
permanent loan financing or the end of the deferral period, whichever occurs first. To ensure payment of deferred fees, a satisfactory deferral agreement and a deed of trust will be recorded against the property.

City staff support the requested fee deferral. Additionally, approving the fee deferral and adopting this resolution aligns with the City of Folsom's Housing Element Policy H-2.3 (Fee Defenals/Waivers for Affordable Housing).

FINANCIAL IMPACT
While the fee deferral for this project will not have a direct fiscal impact on the General Fund, the potential 15-month defenal could result in a missed opportunity for interest earnings during that period.

The estimated amount of development impact and building permit fees for the project is $3 million. Typically, permit fees, water and sewer connection fees, and development impact fees are paid at the time of building permit issuance. However, the fee deferral agreement allows these City-imposed impact fees to be deferred for 15 months.

Additional nominal costs to the Community Development Department will be incurred to draft and execute the fee deferral agreements/liens and to monitor the collection of deferred fees.

These costs will be offset by the fee deferral application and processing fees.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project have been previously approved in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No additional environmental review is required since the deferral of fees is not aproject under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 11309 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Development Impact Fee Deferral Agreement with Vintage at Folsom, LP
Submitted,
Pam Johns, Community Development Director
J Page 153
12/10/2024 Item No.15.

ATTACHMENT I
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Development Impact Fee Deferral Agreement with Vntage at Folsom, LP

12/10/2024 Item No.15.

RESOLUTION NO. 11309

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENT WITH VINTAGE AT FOLSOM, LP
WHEREAS, Vintage at Folsom, LP (an affiliate of Vintage Housing Asset Management) is the developer of the approved Vintage at Folsom project, located at 103 E. Natoma Street in Folsom; and
WHEREAS, the developer has secured the necessary funding to build the Vintage at Folsom project consisting of 136-unit multifamily all of which are affordable to extremely low, very-low and low-income households as those terms are defined in Sections 50079.5,50093, 50150, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code, except for one manager's unit; and WHEREAS, the developer has requested a deferral of City-imposed development impact fees; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 16.60 of the Folsom Municipal Code permits the City Council to approve deferral of up to 75%o of the total impact fees for low- and very low-income units in a "qualified residential project"; and
WHEREAS, Housing Element Policy H-2.3 requires the City to provide fee deferrals for qualified affordable housing projects; and
WHEREAS, the Vintage at Folsom project meets the criteria as a qualified residential project and is eligible for fee deferral; and
WHEREAS, the current estimated city-imposed impact fees for the project total approximately $2,838,556 with 52,128,917 (75% of the total amount) eligible for deferral; and WHEREAS, to ensure payment of deferred fees, a satisfactory deferral agreement and a deed of trust will be recorded against the property.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that the City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a development impact fee deferral agreement with Vintage at Folsom L.P. as well as other related documents in a form acceptable to the City Attorney consistent with and in furtherance of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this l0thday of December 2024by the following vote:

Resolution No. 11309
Page I of2 Page 155
12/10/2024 Item No.15.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

MAYOR
ATTEST
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11309
Page2 of2 Page 156
12/10/2024 Item No.15.
i {,}Ll-l i.it\'{
Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort

RECO ATION / CITY COUN ACTION
The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11310 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Service Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services'

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Public Works Department conducts regular and ongoing maintenance of the creek corridors throughout the city that fall within the city's jurisdiction and right of way. These activities can include removing excess, dead, and downed vegetation from the channels, removing debris and other potential obstructions from culverts and the overall creek corridors, and generally ensuring the creeks can convey storm flows and minimize risk to public health and safety.

One of the main sources of debris in the creek corridors comes from ongoing beaver activity as they knock down trees and other vegetation and utilize the materials to construct dams in the creeks. These beaver dams can result in localized flooding of the creek corridors, bike trails, and adjacent private properties and threaten public health and safety. To mitigate the effects of these beaver dams and resulting localized flooding, staff routinely knock down beaver dams and remove excess vegetation to try and limit the material available to the beavers.

Additionally, staff coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to 1 MEETING DATE: t211012024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11310 - A Resolution Authonzing the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Service Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services
FROM: Public Works Department

12/10/2024 Item No.16.
obtain depredation permits for beavers to further help reduce the damage these urban pests cause to the trees and creek corridors.

The city applies for a depredation permit from CDFW on an as-needed basis, and each permit identif,res specific locations and specific durations of validity. The depredation permits identiff the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services (WS) as the only authorized agent to trap and take the beavers.

Historically, the city had been able to coordinate with USDA APHIS-WS to perform the needed activities without having a cooperative service agreement in place; howevet, in spring of 2024, when staff reached out to the local USDA representative, they were informed that moving forward a cooperative service agreement was needed prior to proceeding with any work. Staff continues to regularly respond to calls for service to knock down beaver dams and remove excess vegetation and debris; however, without the ability to coordinate with the authorizedtrapper, the threat to public health and safety from localized flooding due to beaver activity continues to increase.

POLICY / RULE
Per the Folsom Municipal Code, the City Council is the sole authority for entering into agreements between the City and another party.

ANALYSIS
The cooperative service agreement provided by USDA APHIS-WS provides the framework for the pu{pose, authority, and responsibilities between the City of Folsom and USDA. The agreement would be valid for five years, beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2029.

As staff continues to mitigate the ongoing beaver activity and Iocalized flooding throughout the city and various creek conidors, the Public Works Department recommends entering into a five-year cooperative service agreement with USDA APHIS-WS.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no direct financial impact associated with this action at this time. Public Works Department staff will work with USDA APHIS staff annually to develop a suffrcient scope of work and not-to-exceed fee to accomplish the desired work for the given year. The associated Work and Financial Plan for each fiscal year will be routed for approval as appropriate. It is anticipated that the annual not-to-exceed fee will be approximately $25,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action of entering into a cooperative service agreement is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any individual projects 2

12/10/2024 Item No.16.
undertaken through this agreement will obtain the necessary environmental permits on a proj ect-by-proj ect basis.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11310 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Service Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Cooperative Service Agreement between the City of Folsom and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services
Submitted,
Mark Rackovan, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
2 a
--t

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

ATTACHMENT 1

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

RE,SOLUTION NO. 11310

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

COOPERATIVE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION

SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the creek corridors throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to mitigate ongoing nuisance beaver activity that can result in a threat to public health and safety in part by hiring authorized beaver trappers; and WHEREAS, the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has regularly issued the City a depredation permit authorizing the City to utilize the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services (WS) as the authorized agent to trap and take beavers; and
WHEREAS, the USDA APHIS-WS has provided a cooperative service agreement for the requested activities; and
WHEREAS, any future costs will be documented in a Work and Financial Plan on an annual basis and routed for approvals as necessary; and WHEREAS, the cooperative service agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute a cooperative service agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December 2024, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

ATTEST:

Resolution No. 1 1310
Page I of2
MAYOR

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1 1310

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

ATTACHMENT 2

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

WS Agreement Number: 24-7306-7 488-RA
WBS: AP.RA.RX06.73.03 1 8

COOPERATIVE SERVICE AGREEMENT
between

CITY OF FOLSOM (COOPERATOR)
and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)

WILDLIFE SERVICES (WS)
ARTICLE 1 _ PURPOSE
The purpose of this Cooperative Service Agreement is to maintain a biologically-sound Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM program to assist in resolving beaver damage to private property, culverts, bridges, flood control channels, levees, and other man-made water management structures within the City of Folsom.

ARTICLE 2 _ AUTHORITY
APHIS-WS has statutory authority under the Acts of March 2,1931, 46 Stat. 1468-69,7 U.S.C. $$ 835 l-8352, as amended, and December 22,1987, Public Law No. 100-202, $ 101(k), 101 Stat' 1329-331, 7 U.S.C. $ 8353, to cooperate with States, local jurisdictions, individuals, public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions while conducting a program of wildlife services involving mammal and bird species that are reservoirs for zoonotic diseases, or animal species that are injurious andlor a nuisance to, among other things, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wildlife, and human health and safety' ARTICLE 3 - MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The cooperating parties mutually understand and agree to/that:

1. APHIS-WS shall perform services set forth in the Work Plan, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The parties may mutually agree in writing, at any time during the term of this agreement, to amend, modiff, add or delete services from the Work Plan.

2. The Cooperator certifies that APHIS-WS has advised the Cooperator there may be private sector service providers available to provide wildlife damage management (WDM) services that the Cooperator is seeking from APHIS-WS.

3. There will be no equipment with a procurement price of $5,000 or more per unit purchased directly with funds from the cooperator for use on this project. All other equipment purchased for the program is and will remain the property of APHIS-WS.

4. The cooperating parties agree to coordinate with each other before responding to media requests on work associated with this project'

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

ARTICLE 4 - COOPERATOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Cooperator agrees

1. To designate the following as the authorized representative who shall be responsible for collaboratively administering the activities conducted in this agreement.

Mark Rackovan,
Public Works Director City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street, Folsom CA 95630
(9t6) 46t-6711
mrackovan@fo lsom. ca.us

2. To authorize APHIS-WS to conduct direct control activities as defined in the Work Plan.

APHIS-WS will be considered an invitee on the lands controlled by the Cooperator.

Cooperator will be required to exercise reasonable care to warn APHIS-WS as to dangerous conditions or abtivities in the project areas.

3. To reimburse APHIS-WS for costs, not to exceed the annually approved amount specified in the Financial Plan. If costs are projected to exceed the amount reflected in the Financial Plan, the agreement with amended Work Plan and Financial Plan shall be formally revised and signed by both parties before services resulting in additional costs are performed. The Cooperator agrees to pay all costs of services submitted via an invoice from APHIS-WS within 30 days of the date of the submitted invoice(s). Late payments are subject to interest, penalties, and administrative charges and costs as set forth under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.

4. To provide a Tax Identification Number or Social Security Number in compliance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.

5. As a condition of this agreement, the Cooperator ensures and certifies that it is not currently debarred or suspended and is free ofdelinquent Federal debt.

6. To notify APHIS-WS verbally or in writing as far in advance as practical of the date and time of any proposed meeting related to the program.

7. The Cooperator acknowledges that APHIS-WS shall be responsible for administration of APHIS-WS activities and supervision of APHIS-WS personnel.

8. To obtain the appropriate permits for removal activities for species listed in the Work Plan and list USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services as sub-permittees. 2

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

ARTICLE 5 _ APHIS-WS RESPONSIBILITIES
APHIS-WS Agrees:

1. To designate the following as the APHIS-WS authorized representative who shall be responsible for collaboratively administering the activities conducted in this agreement.

Jeffrey B. Flores, State Director, California
USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services
3419 AArden Way, Sacramento, CA 95825
(e16) 97e-267s
Jeffrey.B.Flores@usda. gov

2. To conduct activities at sites designated by Cooperator as described in the Work and Financial Plans. APHIS-WS will provide qualified personnel and other resources necessary to imilement the approved WDM activities delineated in the Work Plan and Financial Plan of this agreement.

That the performance of wildlife damage management actions by APHIS-WS under this agreement is contingent upon a determination by APHIS-WS that such actions are in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and any other applicable federal statutes. APHIS-WS will not make a final decision to conduct requested wildlife damage management actions until it has made the determination of such compliance.

To invoice Cooperator monthly for actual costs incurred by APHIS-WS during the performance of services agreed upon and specified in the Work Plan. Authorized auditing representatives of the Cooperalor shall be accorded reasonable opportunity to inspect the accounts and records of APHIS-WS pertaining to such claims for reimbursement to the extent permitted by Federal law and regulations.

ARTICLE 6 - CONTINGENCY STATEMENT
This agreement is contingent upon the passage by Congress of an appropriation from which expenditures may be legally met and shall not obligate APHIS-WS upon failure of Congress to so appropriate. This agreement may also be reduced or terminated if Congress only provides APHIS-WS funds for a finite period under a Continuing Resolution' ARTICLE 7 _ NON.EXCLUSIVE SERVICE CLAUSE
Nothing in this agreement shall prevent APHIS-WS from entering into separate agreements with any other organization or individual for the purpose of providing wildlife damage management seryices exclusive of those provided for under this agreement.

ARTICLE 8 - CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTIONS
Pursuant to Section 22, Title 4 1 , United States Code, no member of or delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit to arise therefrom.

J
4 a
J

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

ARTICLE 9 - LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This agreement is not a procurement contract (3 i U.S.C. 6303), nor is it considered a grant (31 U.S.C. 6304). In this agreement, APHIS-WS provides goods or services on a cost recovery basis to nonfederal recipients, in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and policies.

ARTICLE 10 - LIABILITY
APHIS-WS assumes no liability for any actions or activities conducted under this agreement except to the extent that recourse or remedies are provided by Congress under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1346(b),2401(b), and267l-2680).

ARTICLE 11 _ NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE
The United States Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.

ARTICLE 12 - DURATION, REVISIONS, EXTENSIONS, AND TERMINATIONS This agreement shall become effective on July I , 2024 and shall continue through June 30, 2029 not to exceed five years. This Cooperative Service Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties in writing. The Cooperator must submit a written request to extend the end date at least 10 days prior to expiration of the agreement. Also, this agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement of the parties in writing, or by one party provided that pafi notifies the other in writing at least 60 days prior to effecting such action. Further, in the event the Cooperator does not provide necessary funds, APHIS-WS is relieved of the obligation to provide services under this agreement.
4

12/10/2024 Item No.16.

In accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the Department of Treasury requires a Taxpayer Identification Number for individuals or businesses conducting business with the agency.

Cooperator's Tax ID No.: 9 4 -60 00 3 3 4
APHIS-WS's Tax ID : 4l -069627 1
CITY OF FOLSOM, A Municipal Corporation:

Elaine Andersen, City Manager Date
ORIGINAL APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ORIGINAL APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mark Rackovan, Public Works Director Date Steven Wang, City Attorney

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

WILDLIFE SERVICES
Date
Jeffrey B. Flores, State Director, Californta
USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services
3419 AArden Way, Sacramento, CA 95825
Date
Wendy Anderson, Westem Regional Director
USDA, APHIS Wildlife Services
2150 Centre Avenue
Bldg. B, Mail Stop 3W9
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Date
5

12/10/2024 Item No.16.
i {.}1."{t}i\'t
Folsom City Council
Staff rt

RE,COMMENDATION / COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 1 131 1- A Resolution Accepting the AB1600 Development Fees Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2024.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Following the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, ffiffiy cities began charging fees on new development to fund public improvements and services such as streets, transit facilities, sewers, and storm drains. These fees are commonly known as development impact fees. In order to ensure that these fees were spent in a timely manner and on projects for which they were being collected, the State Legislature passed a bill known as AB 1600 (Mitigation Fee Act). This bill applies to developer fees, increased, or imposed on or after January 1, 1989.

AB 1600 enacts Government Code Sections 66000-66008 that generally contain four requirements:
1 A local jurisdiction must follow the process set forth in the bill and make certain determinations regarding the purpose and use of the fees, and establish a "nexus" or connection between a development project or class of project and the public improvement being financed with the fee.

The revenue fee must be segregated from the general fund in order to avoid commingling of public improvement fees and the general fund. 2 1
MEETING DATE: 12/t0/2024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 1 13 1 1 - A Resolution Accepting the AB 1600 Development Fees Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30,2024
FROM: Finance Department

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

If a local jurisdiction has had possession of a developer fee for five years or more and has not committed that money to a project or actually spent that money, then it must make findings describing the continuing need for that money. In addition, an annual report must be made of fees collected, interest earned, projects on which fees were expended, and any transfers or loans from the fee account. This report is to be reviewed by the local agency assessing the fees.

4. If a local jurisdiction cannot make the findings required under paragraph 3, the city or county must refund the fees collected.

The attached report provides the information required by Government Code for the development fees that fall under this disclosure requirement. In some instances, the ending fund balance amount is less than the remaining appropriation because outstanding advances and loans are not included in the fund balance. Cash balances are sufficient for the remaining appropriations. No refunds have been made nor are any required. More information on these funds and all other capital project funds is available in the annual budget adopted by Council in June 2024 and in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).

This report was compiled with the unaudited City financial records. The audited ACFR will be available at the end of the current calendar year.

This report has been on file with the City Clerk's office as of November 26,2024

POLICY / RULE
Policy 1 1.6 of the General Plan states:

It is the Policy of the City of Folsom to require new development to bear the cost of its increased demand/ffict on municipal services and facilities so as not to create a greater burden on existing residents. Development contributes to the need for the expansion and extension of the City's circulation, water, sewer, storm drainage, and parks systems and other capital improvements, facilities, and equipment to adequately serve the development area. Service expansion and extension is not necessarily site- specific; rather, it is generallyrelatedto alarger areaandthe City as awhole. Inorder to accommodate the new development, maintain an acceptable level of service, and alleviate the efficts of the increased demand on City services, it is the policy of the City of Folsom to require certain necessary improvements as a part of the development and/or the payment of municipal services and facilities fees consistent with the proportional ffict of the development on such services. . .

ANALYSIS
For fiscal year ended June 30, 2024 development impact fee funds for all revenues totaled $51,708,432. Of the $51.71 million, $38,500,952 areimpact fees, the remaining $13,207,480 J
2 Page 170
12/10/2024 Item No.17.
are grants, reimbursements, interest, and miscellaneous revenue. Expenditures totaled $20,030,868.

Upon review, it is determined that all fees have been spent or committed within 5 years of receipt, and thus no refunds are required.

ATTA S

1. Resolution No. 11311 - A Resolution Accepting the ,4'81600 Development Fees Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2024

2. The Development Fees Annual Report for the City of Folsom for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2024
Submitted,
Stacey Tamagni, Finance Director
a
-t Page 171
12/10/2024 Item No.17.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 11311 - A Resolution Accepting the .4.81600 Development Fees Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 300 2024

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

RESOLUTION NO. 11311
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 4B1600 DEVELOPMENT FEES ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FTSCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2024
WHEREAS, Policy 11.6 of the General Plan requires new development to bear the cost of its increased demand/effect on municipal services and facilities so as not to create a greater burden on existing residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom has imposed and collected the Development Impact Fees based upon several adopted Nexus Reports that were completed in accordance with Government Code Section 66000, et. al.; and
WHEREAS, Section 66006(b) 2 of the Government Code of the State of California mandates that the "local agency shall review the information (concerning local agency improvement fees) made available to the public...at the next regularly scheduled public meeting..." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby accepts the Development Fees Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2024 on file in the City Clerk's office.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December 2024, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1 13l 1

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

ATTACHMENT 2
The Development Fees Annual Report for the City of Folsom for the Fiscal Year Ended June 3012024

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Development lmpact
Fee Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2024
City of Folsom
Cr? Y Ot
II()r,s()il{
Drl!llCl5tl ev ra'ult

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Table of Contents
lntroduction .............

Housing Trust Fee Fund..

Humbug Willow Creek Trails Fee Fund.

Tree Planting and Replacement Fee Fund.........
lnclusionary Housing Fee Fund.

Supplemental Park Fee Fund.

City-Wide Park lmprovement Fee Fund
Police Capital Fee Fund
Fire Capital Fee Fund
General Capital Fee Fund
Transportation lmprovement Fee Fund
Drainage Capital Fee Fund
Light Rail lmpact Fee Fund
General Park Equipment Fee Fund.........

Water lmpact Fee Fund..

Water Capital lmprovement Fee Fund ........

Sewer Capital lmprovement Fee Fund.........

Facilities Augmentation Critical Fee Fund
Facilities Augmentation General Fee Fund ........

Solid Waste Capital lmprovement Fee Fund........

Folsom Plan Area Highway 50 lmprovements Fee Fund
Folsom Plan Area Highway 50 lnterchange Fee Fund...

Folsom Plan Area Transit lmpact Fee Fund.

Folsom Plan Area Corporation Yard Fee Fund
Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital Fee Fund.........

Folsom Plan Area Solid Waste Capital Fee Fund
1 2
4 6
8 24
27 29
31 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Annual Report
Development lmpact Fees
For the City of Folsom
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
Government Code Section 66006 requires local agencies to submit annual and five year reports detailing the status of development impact fees. The annual report must be made available to the public and presented to the public agency (City Council) at least fifteen days after it is made available to the public.

This report summarizes the following information for each of the development fee programs:

1. A brief description of the fee program.

2. Schedule of fees.

3. Beginning and ending balances of the fee program'

4. Amount of fees collected and the interest earned.

5. Disbursementinformation, including operating transfers.

ANALYSIS
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024 all fund revenues totaled $51,708,432 while expenditures totaled $20,030,868' The table below summarizes, by program, the impact fees collected inFY 2023-2024 Fiscal Year End
June 30, 2024
Housing Trust Fund
Humbug-Willow Creek Fee
Tree Planting and Replacement Fee
lnclusionary Housing Fee
Supplemental Park Fee
Park lmprovements
Police Capital
Fire Capital
General Capital
Transportation I mprovement
Drainage Capital lmprovement
Light Rail Transportation
General Park Equip Cap
Water lmpact Fee
Water Capital lmprovement
Sewer Capital
Facilities Augmentation Critical
Facilities Augmentation General
Solid Waste Capital
FPA Highway 50 lmprovement
FPA Highway 50 lnterchange
FPA Transit lmpact
FPA Corporation Yard
FPA Specific Plan Capital
FPA Solid Waste Capital
Total lmpact Fees Collected
214,995
102,379
132,267
6,051 ,162
2,805,440
506,1 28
680,652
983,687
3,054,400
694,442
317,318
143,553
321,149
598,030
177,765
1't3,223
1,335,666
2,695,506
1,363,773
848,641
14,805,453
555,321
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$ 38,500,952

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Housing Trust
Fund221
Section 3.90.01 O of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Housing Trust Fund impact fee. The housing trust fund is intended to be utilized with other sources of funding including, but not limited to, fee deferrals, fee waivers, federal tax credits, tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds, community development block grants, and HOME funds. The purpose of this fee is to further the policies, goats and-programs of the housing element of the City's general plan and to help facilitate the development of affordable housing within the City.

Monies in the housing trust fund shall be used to promote the goals and policies of the housing element of the general plan; to implement any housing assistarice plan, program, or guidelines adopted by the City Council; and to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable t6 bw and very low incolrne housJholds, with priority given to residential projects which include very low income units, aswell as other housing related purposes. Housing trust funds may be used for loans, grants, equity participation or other funding mechanisms to accomplish tiese purposes. The housinj trust fund may be used to cover reasonable administrative, legal, consulting, or other housing related expenses, which are not reimbursed to the City through processing fees.

HOUSING TRUST FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Use Cateqory
Fee per Gross
Square Foot
Office
Retail
Light lndustrial
Heavy I ndustrial/Man ufacturing
Light I ndustrial/Manufacturin g
$
$
$
$
$

1.99 1.99

1.99 1.99

1.99 Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
DescriDtion FY 2019t20 FY 2020t21 FY 2021t22 FY 2022123 FY 2023124 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
1 Loan Receivable
Available Fund Balance
$ 223,872 $ 45,011 $ 57,996 $ 71,851 $ 258,931
$ $ $ $ $175,956
41,916
6,000
1'l,443
27,568
6,000
36,080
21,916
46,405
19,446
6,000
214,995
31,936
12,000
428
$$$$ 4,067
2,222
1 ,310

1.956
475
1,954 753
$
$ o,zag
$ 217,583
$ 1,888,840
$ 3,266
$ 41,745
s 2,106,422
$ 2,429
$ 55,567
$ 2,148,167
$ 2,2A3,734
$ 1,753
$ 70,098
$ 2,203,734
$ 428
$ 258,503
$ 2,273,832
$2, 106.422 $ 2,148,167 $ 2,273,832 $
$ 841.289 $ 841,289 $ 1,826,410 $ 1,826,410 $ 1 ,826,410 $ 1 ,265,1 33 $1, 306.878
Notes:
1 Loan Receivable are loans issued for development of affordable housing projects.

$ 377,324 $ 447.422 $ 705,926

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Housing Trust
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
Available Revenue CunentYear $ 223,872 $ 45'011 $ 57'996 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds) 90,188 223'872 45'O'l'l Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds) 103,462 90'188 223'872 Available Revenue Prior FiscalYear (4-yr Old Funds) 279,328 103,462 50,445 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yr Old Funds) 318,662 279'328 Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years 249'621 565,017 $ 7't,851
57,996
45,O11
223,872
48,692
25,931
71,851
57,996
45,011
223,872
281,26s
$
Total Revenue Available $ 1,265,133 $ 1,306,878 $ 377,324 $ 447,422 $ 705,926 Notes:

Result: The Housing Trust Fee Fund reports funds being held beyond the five-years as described by AB1600. The funds will be reserved until sufficienl funds are accumulated to support future affordable housing projects.

Gapital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer) $ 428
$ 428
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$428$-
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
10oo/o
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$428$
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 1,753
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Operations
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2O2O-21 Proiects
Operations
Admin istrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
$1 753
$ 1,753
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 475
1,954
$ 2,429
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 1,310
956
$ 3,266
lOOo/o
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 1,753 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
NonJmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-lOOo/o
100%
$ 475
1,954
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 2,429 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 1 ,310
1,956
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-100o/o
lOOo/o
$ 3,266 $
FY 2019-20 Projects
Operations
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 4,067
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-$ 4,067
2,222
$ 6,289
100%
100% 2 222
$-
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government supporl.

$ 6,289

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Humbug-Willow Creek Fee
Fund223
Section 4.12.010 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Humbug-Willow Creek Parkway impact fee. The iumbug-Willow Creek parkway fund is intended to be utilized with other sources of funding including, but not limited to, the residential construction tax, caiital improvement-new construction service charge, drainage fees, Quimby Act fees, major road. fees and park lmprovement Fee. The puipose of this fee is to further the long-range planning efforts of the. General Plan to develop the Humbug-Willow Creek Parkway. New- development, and the ""pin.ion
of exisiing luubtopr"-nt within the city, g_enerates the need for financing the planning and construction of recreaiional trail, and passive recreational amenities along the Humbug-Willow Creek Parkway.

Use Cateqory

HUMBUG-WILLOW CREEK FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Basis Fee Amount
Residential, Single Family
Residential, Multiple Family
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial/lndustrial Development
FY 2019t20
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Sq. Ft.
313
198
172

0.076
$
$
$
$
Statemenf of Revenues E<penditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2020t21 FY 2021t22 FY 2022t23 FY 2023124Description
Revenues
Fees
Grant Reimbursements
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
Humbug-Willow Creek Fee Fund
Available Revenue Currenl Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs and beyond)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
$ 81,891
68,1 23
123,785
$ 273,799
$ $17,265
40,000
74,160
42,365
985,000
80 $ 52,035 $ 102,379
$ 131,424 $ 1,027,445 $ 52,035 $ 102,379
$ 544,809
69,653
$ 30,308 $

79.472
30,202
18,637
$ 21,550
866
35,547
9'15
$
$
$
$
$
$
614,462
(340,664)
(824,527)
_$__11,1651_9!_
$ (1,165,191)
$ 109,780
$ 21,644
$ (1,165,191)
$ 48,839
$ 978,606
$ (1,143,546)
$ 22,4',16 $ 36,462
$ 65,917
$ (135,320)
$ (69,403)
_$_-199199r
29,620
1 64.940)
$ (1, 143.546) $ (164,e40) $ (135,320)
_$_a,14xg4l $ (164,e40) $ (135,320)
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
s$ $ $
$
$
$$ u
Result: Five Year Revenue test met in accordance with Government Code 66001 $

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Projects
Placerville Rail Trail
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Placerville Rail Trail
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2021-22 Projects
Placerville Rail Trail
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2020-21 Proiects
Placerville Rail Trail
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2019-20
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
Fee
$ 35,547
s15
$ 36,462
Project Amount
Expended
$ 21,550
866
$ 22,4',16
1O0o/o
't00%
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
1lOVo
100%
$ 36,462 $
$ $35,547
915
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 21,550
866
NonJmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
$ 22,416 $
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 30,202
18,637
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$-
Fee
$ 30,202
18,637
$ 48,839
Project Amount
Expended
$ 30,308
79,472
$ 109,780
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 48,839 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
1000h
100%
100Vo
1000
$ 30,308
79,472
$ 109,780 $
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$ 534,574 $ 91,625
10,235
69 653
$ 614,462 $ 91,625
$
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
Oak Parkway ng $ 626,'199
't0,235Placerville Rail Trail
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) 69 653 $ 706,087
Notes:
1 lnterfundtransfersareusedtoreimbursetheGeneralFundforprovidingGeneralGovemmentsupport 85o/o
1O0o/o
100%

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Tree Mitigation Fee
Fund 226
Section 12.16.160 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a tree planting and replacement fund fee. Mitigation fees and penalty assessments under ihis section shall be deposited into the tree planting and replacement fund. The tree planting and replacement funi may be used for tree planting and revegetation projects such as parkways, parks, planting of trees along public trails and beautification projects, to purchase property foi tree mitigation sites, or beautification projects, for the retention of a city arborist, or for the development, itaifing or implementation of in urban forestry program. Funds shall not be made available for mitigation or planting on private prop"riy, with the fol-lowing exceptions: (A) private property that is maintained by the city under the terms of a maintenance agreemenl; or (B) maintenance of landmark trees at the recommendation of the city arborist. This fund shall be administered by the community development department. (Ord. 1299 $ 2 (part),2020).

TREE PLANTING AND REPLACEMENT FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Use Cateoorv Fee Per lnch
Mitigation inJieu $ 250.00
Statement of Revenues E<penditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2019t20 FY 2020t21 FY 2021122 FY 2022123 FY 2023124 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
Tree Planting and Replacement Fund
Total Revenue Available
$ 132,939
21,544
1 ,018
177,797
13,246
280
$ 292,433
9,851
$ 146,888
32,013
132,267
51,586
861
$ $
$ 155,500 $ 191,323 $ 302,284 $ 178,901 s 184,7'14
$ 59,918
65,1 1 5
$ 31,122
161,983
$ 1 15,938
27,700
$ 143,638
$ 158,646
$ 123,875
16,536
$ 221,988
4,913
$ 125,033
$ 30,467
$ 1 ,007,191
$ 193,106
$ (1,783)
$ 140,411
$ 38,490
$ 1 ,194,521
$ 226,901
$ (42,187)
$ 1, 037,658 $ 1,035,875 $ 1,233 ,01 1
$ 1,037.658 $ 1,035,875
$ 1,037 .658 $ 1,035,875 $ 1,194,521
Fivo Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
Available Revenue Current Year $ I 55,500 $ 1 91 '323 $ 302,284 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds) 1 01 ,1 50 1 55,500 191 ,323 Available Revenue PriorFiscalYear(3-yrOld Funds) 225,385 101,150 155,500 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds) 217 ,358 225,355 101 , 150 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr Old Funds) 96,569 217 '358 225345 Available Revenue Grealer than Five Prior Fiscal Years 241,696 I 45,1 59 218,479 $ 1,194,521 $ 1 1 $ 1,190,824
$ 1, 233.01 1 $ 1 ,190,824
$ 178,901
302,244
't 9t,323
I 55,500
101 ,150
303,853
't84,7'14
178,901
302,284
191,323
155,500
174.102
$
$ 1,037,65S $ 1,035,875 $ 1,194,521 $ ',1,233,011 $ 1,1e0'824 Notes:

Resull: The Tree planting and Replacement Fund fee reports funds being held beyond the five-years as described by AB1 600. The City has an agreement with the Saffamento Tree Foundation for Tree programs and Tree planting and Maintenance. The Tree Planting and Replacement Fund will be utilized for a total of $430,000 for this agreement over lhe next two years.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital I mprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Operations r
Landscape Enhancements
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
Fee
$ 193,742
73,639
4,913
1O0o/o
38%
't00vo
193,742
28,245
4,913
45,394
$ $
$ 272,295
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
g 226,901 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpactProject
Amount
Expended
Fee
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Operations
Landscape Enhancements
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Operations
Landscape Enhancements
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 123,875
75,530
2,286
100%
19o/o
100%
$ 't23,875
14,250
2,286
Expenditures
$-
61,280
$ 201,691
Project
Amount
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
69,478
$ 69,478
Expended
$ 140,411
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$-
$ 1 15,938
93,624
3,555
$ 213,'t17
$ 115,938
24,145
3,555
$ 143,638
100To
26Yo
100o/o
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Fees
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
Fee
FY 2020-21 Proiects
Operations
Landscape Enhancements
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 31,'122
102,838
135,462
1000h
26To
100o/o
31,122
26,521
135,462
$ $
$ 269,422
76,316
$ 193,106 $ 76,316
FY 2019-20 Projects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
67,207
Operations
Landscape Enhancements
HumbugMillow CrU Prkwy/ Empire Ranch Bridge
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 't92,240
Notes:1 lnterfund lransfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government support. $ 59,918
90,729
40,000
1,593
100Vo
26%
100%
'1000/o
$ 59,918
23,522
40,000
1,593
$ 't25,033 $ 67,207

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gity of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
lnclusionary Housing Fee
Fund 238
Section j7.104.030 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes that all for-sale development poects consisting of ten or more units, including condominium conversion projects, as well as residential rental projects of ten or more units receiving funding assistance from the city or that are otherwise subject to a uoluntary affordable housing agreement with the city, shall include inclusionary housing units equal to ten percent of the total number of units in the proj-ect, excluding density bonus units. The ten percent shall consist of three percent very low income units and seven percent low income units. ihainclusionary housing requirement may be satisfied by: including the units within the development project; providing an alternative as set fo(h in Section 17.104.060; providing the units off site; dedicating land for other affordable development projects; acquisition, rehabilitation, and conversion of existing market rate units; conversion of existing market rate units; paying an in-lieu fee; other methods as approved by the city council that meet the intent of this chapter; or a combination of these methods or other alternatives set forth in this chapter.

Section 17.1 04.060 G of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for an ln-Lieu Fee. A developer may pay an in-lieu fee calculated as follows to satisfy all of the inclusionary housing requirements: multiply one percent of the lowest priced for-sale residential unit in the proposed subdivision by t-he total number of for-sale residintial units in the proposed subdivision. For custom lot subdivisions where only lots will be sold, multiply one-half percent of the estimated cost of the least expensive homes anticipated for the proposed subdivision by the total number of for- sale iois in the pioposed subdivision. The in-lieu fee is payable at the time of the building permit on a per-unit basis, and may be deferred upon application by the developer and approval in the city's sole and complete discretion pursuant to Section '16.80.030. Once the inlieu fee has been sei for an initial twelve months, the amount of the fee shall be evaluated on January 1st of each following year. ln the event the lowest priced for- sale residential unit or anticipaied home in the subdivision changes by ten percent or more, the amount of the inlieu fee shall be adjusted to the new amount using the formula set forth above, applicable prospectively to the remaining units or lots in the subdivision. !NCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEE SCHEDULE
An in-lieu inclusionary housing fee is calculated as follows to satisfy all of the inclusionary housing requirements: multiply one percent of the lowest priced for-sale residential unit in the proposed subdivision by the total number of for-sale residential units in the proposed subdivision. For custom iot subdivisions where only lots will be sold, multiply one-half percent of the estimated cost of the least expensive homes anticipated for the proposed subdivision by the total number of for-sale lots in the proposed subdivision.

Slaten enf of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2019t20 FY 2020t2'.1 FY 2021122 FY 2022123 FY 2023124 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Grant Reimbursements
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
1 Loan Receivable
Available Fund Balance
Notes:
$ 2,032,772
630,288
14,020
$ 2,677,080
$ 4,733,226
172,446
2,500,000
179,658
$ 6,625,814
(207,997)
$ 4,176,929
252,934
17,310
$ 6,051 ,162
646,863
12,012
1 1 ,0192,291,094
$ 7,585,330 $ 8,708,91 1 $ 4,447 j73 $ 6,721,057
$$ 112,869
13,853
$ 126,722
$ 2,550,358
$ 22,725,393
$ 25,275,751
$ 3,580,990
I 12,360
62,516
25,085
88,418
115,529 11 102
$ $ 485,602
$ 3,693,350
$ 3,891 ,980
$ 25,275,751
$ 87,601
$ 8,621 ,310
$ 203,947
$ 4,243,226
$ 37,789,041
$ 496,704
$ 6,224,353
$ 42,032,267
$ 12,738.995 $ 21.447,812 $30,0 15.044 $ 30,574,821
$ 2s, 167.731
$ 29,167,731 $ 37,789,041 $ 42,032,267 $48 620
$ 29,688,192
$ 12,536,757 $ 7,719,919
1 Loan Receivable are loans issued for development of affordable housing projects and down payment assistance.

$ 7.773,997 $ 11 ,457,447 $ 18,

12/10/2024 Item No.17.
lnclusionary Housing
Available Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available R€venue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
FY 2023-21 Proiects
Flve Year Revenue Test Uslng First ln FiEt Out ilethod
$ 2,677,080 $ 7,585,330 $ 7,773,957
2,580,493 134,589
7,279,144
$ 4,447,173
7,010,274
6,721,O57
4,447,173
7,400,1 98
$
$ 12,536,757 I 7,719,919 $ 7,773,997 $ 11,457,447 $ 18,568,428 Result: Five Year Revenue test mel in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital lmprovement Projects
Operations
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Operations
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
ProjectAmount Percent Funded lmpact Fee
Expended by lmpact Fees Expenditures
$ 62,516 1000/o $ 62,516
25,085 100o/o 25,085
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 41 ,075
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
436,O17
8,510
11,102
g 52,177 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 88,418
1 15,529
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
$ 203,947 $
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$-
$ 87,601 $
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
2,500,000
780,000
112,360
$ 413,350 $ 3,280,000
Non-lmPact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
g I 12,869 $
13,853
$ 126,722 $
Project Amount
Expended
Percent Funded
by lmpact Fees
Operations
Housing Element Program H-2 lmplementation
300 Persifer Street Project
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2022-23 Proiects
$ 41,075
436,O17
8,510
100%
Oo/o
0%
100o/o11 102
$ 496,704
Project Amount
Expended
Percent Funded
by lmpact Fees
$ 88,418
't15,529
't00%
100o/o
$ 203,947
$ 87,601
Fee
FY 2020-21 Proiects
ProjectAmount
Expended
Percent Funded
by lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 300,990Operations
Bidwell Street Studios
Broadstone Apartments
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 300,990
2,500,000
780,000
1 12,360
100o/o
0o/o
0%
100%
$ 3,693,350
FY 2019-20 Proiects
Project Amount
Expended
Percent Funded
by lmpact Fees
Operations
Administrative Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 1 12,869
13,853
100%
100o/o
$ 126,722
Notes:1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government support.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Gompliance 2024
Supplemental Park Fee
Fund 41 I
Section4.l0.OlOoftheFolsomMunicipal CodeestablishestheprovisionforcollectionofaParklmprovementimpactfee. Thefee established by this chapter is in addition to any other fees or charges, or taxes, required by law or city code as a condition of development, including, but not limited to, the residential construction tax levied by Chapter 17.90, capital improvement-new construction service charge levied by Chapter 17.92, drainage fees levied by Chapter 17.95, Quimby Act fees levied by Chapter

16.32 and major road feel levied by-Chapter 12.04.The fee established by this chapter is to be collected for park and recreation facilities for which an account shall be established and funds appropriated, and for which a proposed construction schedule shall be adopted. The fee imposed by this chapter is necessary in order to assure compliance with the applicable general plan requirements thatnew development bear the cost for park and recreation infrastructure which is needed to serve such development.

SUPPLEMENTAL PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND FEE SCHEDULE
This fee is no longer charged
Statement ofRevenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2019t20 FY 2020t21 FY 2021122 FY 2022J23 FY 2023124 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End of Year
Available Fund Balance
Supplemental Park Fee
$ $ $ $ $
5 703 3,276 2,508 7,342 12,033
$ 5,703 $ 3,276 $ 2,508 $ 7,342 $ 12,033
$-
435-F- 4g5
$ 5,268
$ 275,375
$
3,276
280,643
$-
$ 2,508
$ 283,919
7,342
286.427
$-
$ 12,033
$ 293,768
$ 280,643 $ 283 919 $ 286,427 $ 293,768 $ 305,801
$ 283,919 286,427 $ 293,768 $ 305.801
$
$$$
$$
$
$
$
$
$ 280.643 $
Avairabre Revenue current year
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln t"r:::* nt"tnoo
,,u0,
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds) 5,912 5,703 3'276 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds) 3'938 5,912 5,703 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds) 3,962 3,938 5'912 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs and beyond) 10,491 3,962 3'938 Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years 250.637 I 261 128 265,090 Total Revenue Available
$ 7,342
2,508
3,276
5,703
5,912
269,028
12,033
7,342
2,508
3,276
5,703
274.940
$ 280,643 $ 283,919 $ 286,427 $ 293,768 $ 305,801
Notes:

Result: The Supplemental park lmprovement Fund reports funds being held beyond the five-years as described by AB1600. Per the 2025 Capital lmprovement Plan funds are reserved for the Benevento Family park project. The Supplemental Park lmprovement Fund will be utilized for a total of $291 ,000 for this project which is currenty in the design phase.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Projects
$
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$-
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$10Oo/o
$
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$-
$
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$-
$
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
FY 2022-23 Projects
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) $
$
FY 2021-22 Projects
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$
FY 2020-21
Genera transfer) $
$
101o/o
$
Project
Amount
Expended
$
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
10oo/o
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$-
$
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$lOOo/o
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-1
$
FY 20tg-20 Proiects
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) $ 435
$ 435
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government support. 100% $ 435
$435$

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
City-Wide Park lmprovement Fund
Fund 4'12
Section 4.10.010 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Park lmprovement impact fee. The fee established by this chapter is in addition to any other fees or charges, or taxes, required by law or city code as a condition of development, including, but not limited to, the residential construction tax levied by Chapter 17.90, capital improvement-new construction service charge levied b! Chapter 17.92, drainage fees levied by Chapter 17.95, Quimby Act fees levied by Chapter 16.32 and major road fees levied by Chapter 12.04. The fee estabiished by this chapter is to be collected for park and recreation facilities for which an account shall be estahished and funds appropriated, and for which a proposed construction schedule shall be adopted. The fee imposed by this chapter is necessary in order to aisure compliance with the applicable general plan requirements that new development bear the cost for park and recreation infrastructure which is needed to serve such development'

CITY-WIDE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Use Category Basis Fee Amount
nesidential--,singleFamily
Residential, Multiple Family
Residential Senior dwelling
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial/lndustrial Development
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Sq. Ft.
7,984
5,303
4,099
3,064

0.540
$
$
$
$
$
Statement of Revenues E<penditures and Chang* in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
DescriDtion FY 2019t20 FY FY 2021t22 FY 2022t23 FY 2023124 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
City-Wide Park lmprovement Fund
Available Revenue Cunent Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs and beyond)
Available Revenue Greater lhan Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
$ 2,183,421 $ 467,070 $ 891,040 $ 1,316,658 $ 3,236,468 $ 2,034,287
141,800
7,334
446,419
1 9,1 63
1,488
1,213,251
103,407
$ 2,805,440
428,356
2,672
$ $ 1 ,010,323 $
(1 1e,283)
$ 145,665
$ 80,371
$ 226,036
$ 1,957,386
152,101
21,528
165,512
9,943
$
$
$
$
$ 173,629
$ 293,441
$ 3,931,589
$ 175,455
$ 715,585
$ 4,225,029
$ 223,757
$ 8,307
$ 232,064
$ 1,084,594
$ 231,534
$ 3,004,935
$ 6,025,208
$
$
222,673
8,861
$1 $ 4,940,615
$ 3,931,589 $ 4,22 5.029 $ 4,940,615 $ 6,025,208
.029$ 3,931,589 $ 4,225 $ 4,940,615 $ 6,025,208
$9, 030.143
$e, 030.143
Five Year Revenue Test Uslng First ln First Out Method
$ 2jets,421 $ 467,070 $
'1,748,168 2,'183,421
- 1,574,538
891,040
467,O70
2,153,421
1,399,084
1,316,658
891,040
467,O70
2,'143,421
1 ,'167,019
3,236,468
1,316,658
891,040
467,O70
2 1'a3,421
935,486
$ $
$ 3,93r,589 $ 4,225,029 $ 4,940,615 $ 6,025,208 $ 9,030,',143 Notes
Result: The City-Wide park lmprovement Fund reports funds being held beyond the live-years as described by A81600. Per the 2025 Capital lmprovement Plan funds are reserved for the Benevenlo Family Park project , which will utilize $7M for lhis proiecl. Construction is anticipated to start in Spring 2025.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital I mprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100%
lOOo/o
100%
100%
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
Operations
Benevento Park (Empire Ranch Site 5'l)
Sutter Middle School Gym
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 17,351
105,322
100,000
8,861
17,351
105,322
100,000
8,861
$ $
$ 231,534
Project
Amount
Expended
g 231,534 $
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
NonJmpact
Fee
Expenditures
Operations
Livermore Park
Benevento Park (Empire Ranch Site 51)
Sutter Middle School Gym
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 7't,027
6,535
46,1 95
100,000
1O0o/o
100To
100%
1O0o/o
1000/
71,027
6,535
46,195
100,000
8,307
$ $
8,307
@
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 32,305
6,239
26,968
100,000
9,943
$ 175,455
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 232,064 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
Fee
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Operations
Livermore Park
Benevento Park (Empire Ranch Site 51)
Sutter Middle School Gym
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2020-21 Proiects
Operations
Davies Park
Benevento Park (Empire Ranch Site 51)
Sutter Middle School Gym
Memorial/Celebratory Benches
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2019-20 Proiects
Operations
BT Collins Park
Econome Park (Site 44)
Sutter Middle School Gym
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
100%
100Yo
1000h
100%
't00%
32,305
6,239
26,968
100,000
9,943
$-$
g 175,455 $
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 30,727
4,650
15,236
100,000
1,488
2',1,528
100Vo $
100%
'to0Yo
'1000/o
0o/o
1000h
30,727 $
4,650
15,236
100,000
1,488
21,528
$ 172,141 $ 1,488$ 173,629
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Nonlmpact
Expenditures
Fee
$ 37,067
1,838
6,760
100,000
80,371
80Vo $
100To
100o/o
100%
100%
25,733
1,838
6,760
100,000
80,371
$ 7,334
$ 226,036
Notes:
1 lnterfundtransfersareusedtoreimbursetheGeneralFundforprovidingGeneralGovernmentsupport.

$ 218,702 $ 7,334

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Police Capital
Fund 428
Section 3.80.010 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision to implementthe City General Plan, Urban Development Policy No.

11.6, and to provide for adequate police, fire and general governmental services and facilities to serve new residential, induslrial and commercial development throughout the City. The City Council determined that the existing police, fire and general governmental services and facilities would be inadequate to accommodate the needs generated by projected new residential, industrial and commercial growth in the City, and additional services and facilities were needed to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of Folsom residents and businesses. Under this section of the City's Municipal Charter the City established three improvement funds entitled the police improvement fund, the fire improvement fund and the general government improvement fund. The amount of the capital improvement new construction fee shall be established by resolution adopted bythe City Council of the City, and shall be based upon the determination in the Nexus Studies of: (1) the use of the fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; (2) the need for the facilities and/or services created by the new residential and commercial development; and (3) the reasonable cost of the facilities and/or services attributable to new development. (Ord. 871 $ 1 (part), 1997) All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in these improvement funds and shall be expended solely to finance the planning, construction and development of the facilities and services identified in the Nexus Studies.

POLICE CAPITAL FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Use Category
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial Lodging
Commercial Development
lndustrial Development
Basis Fee Amount
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
681
773
177
39 1.148

0.992
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Description
Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019t20 FY 2020t21 FY 2021t22 FY 2022123 FY 2023t24
Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 376,561
19,536
48,085
13,505
$ 169,303
9,302
$ 195,297
31,345
506,128
68,610
$ $
$ 396,098 $ 61,590 $ 178,606 $ 226,643 $ 574,738
't17,796
716
$ 43,185 $ 137,633 $
2,643 5,604
$$
$ 1 1 8,512
$ 277,586
$ 764,598
43,185
18,405
1,042j84
$ 137,633
$ 40,973
$ 1,060,589
$ 2,643
$ 224,000
$'1,101,562
$ 5,604
$ 569,134
$ 1,325,56'1
$
$
$
$ 1,042,184 $ 1,060,589 $ 1,101,562 $ 1,325,561 $ 1,894,695 $ 1,042,184 $ 1,060,589 $ 1,101,562 $ 1,325,561 $ 1,894,695

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Police Capital
' Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln Firct Out Method Available Revenue CurrentYear $ 396,098 $ 61'590 $ 178'606 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds) 32'1,033 396,098 61 ,590 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds) 325,053 321,033 396'098 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds) - 281,868 321 '033 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs Old Funds) 144,235 Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
$$ 226,643
1 78,606
61,590
396,098
321,033
141,591
574,738
226,643
178,606
61,590
396,098
457,O20
Total Revenue Available $ r,042,184 $ 1,060,589 $ 1,101,562 $ 1,325,561 $ 1,894,695 Notes:

The police Capital Fund reports funds being held beyond the five-years as described by AB1 600. Per the 2025 Capital lmprovement Plan funds are reserved for the Police station Remodel project. ThePoliceCapilal Fundwill utilize$830,000forthisproject' Capital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) $ s,604 $ 5,604
Project
Amount
Expended
1oo% $ 5,604 $ $
FY 2022-23 Proiects
2,643
$ 2,643
10oo/o $ 2.643 $
$
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 5,604 $
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) $
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100%
0o/o
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 2,643 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 137,633
NonJmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$
$
Fee
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Police HQ Remodel
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2020-21 Projects
Police HQ Remodel
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 137,633
$ 137,633
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 137,633 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 43,185
$-
Non-lmpact
Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$-$-$ 43,185
$ 43,185
't00%
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 43,185 $-$
0o/o
Project
Amount
FY 2019-20 Proiects Expended
$ 1 17,796Purchase of Police Vehicles
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) 716
$ 1 1 8,512
Notes:
'l lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Govemment support. lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 117,796
716
NonJmpact NonJmpact
Expenditures Expenditures
$-$-
FeeFee
100%
100%
$ 118,512 $

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gity of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Fire Capital
Fund 441
Section 3.g0.010 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision to implement the City General Plan, Urban Development Policy No.

11.6, and to provide for adequate police, fire and general governmental services and facilities to serve new residential, industrial and commercial developmentthroughout the bity. fne iity Councii determined that the existing police, fire and general governmental services and facilities would be inadequate to aicommodate ttre needi generated by projected new residenlial, industrial and commercial groMh in the City, and additional services and facilities were needed to protec-t and promote the health, safety and welfare of Folsom residents and businesses. Under this section ot tfre City's Municipal Charter the City established three improvement funds entitled the police improvement fund, the fire improvement fund and the geneial government improvemeni fund. The amount of the capital improvement new construction fee shall be established by resolution adopled by t[e C1y Council of the City, and shall be based upon the determination in the Nexus Studies of: (1) the use of the fee and the type of Oevbbpm6nt on whictr the fee is imposed; (2) the need ior the facilities and/or services created by the new residential and commercial development; and (3) the reasonable cost of the facilities and/or services attributable to new development. (Ord. 871 S 1 (part), 1997) All fees collected puisuant'to this chapter shall be deposited in these improvement funds and shall be expended solely to finance the planning, construction and development of the facilities and services identified in the Nexus Studies.

FIRE CAPITAL FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Use Gategory
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial Lodging
Commercial Development
lndustrial Development
Basis Fee Amount
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.
1,232
1,'t91
1,228
1,066

0.720

0.310
$
$
$
$
$
$
Description
Slatement of Revenues fupendilures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019t20 FY 2020121 FY 2021t22
$ 503,670
26,669
FY 2022123 FY 2023t24
Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
Debt Service - interfund transfer
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 77,107
(12,922)
$ 64,185
$ 247,787
(2,412)
296,683
(736)
$ 680,652
11,445
$
$ 530,339 $ 245,374 $ 295,947 $ 692,098
$$$ $ 2,008,060
52,861
157,800
2,323
't2,432
78,947
57,383
$
80,420

43.784
78,583
$
$
$
$
$
124,204
406,1 35
193 723 $1
$ 2,060,921
$ (1,996,736)
_$_(3s6,87e)
_$_G99,q29_
$ 150,123
$ 85,251
$ (3e6,87s)
$ (311,627)
$ 148,762
$ 147,185
$ (311,627)
78,583
613,515
(164,442I
$ 't,599,857
$ 1,599,857
$ (164,442) $ 449,072
$ (311,627) $ (164,442) $ 449.072

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Fire Capital
Available Revenue Cunent Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Available Revenue
Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
$530,339$-$
525,91 6
543,602
$ $ 449,072
$ 1 ,599,857 $ $$ $ 449,072
Result: Five Year Revenue lest met in accordance wiih Govemment Code 66001 Capital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Project Amount
Expended
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
Fee
Debt Service on Fire Station 35 (interfund transfer) $ 218'285 $ 218,285
360/o $ 78,583 $ 139,702
$ 78,583 $ 139,702
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 78,947
12,432
57,383
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 140,100Debt Service on Fire Station 35 (interfund transfer) Capital Equipment
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2021-22
Debt Service on Fire Station 35 (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 219,047
12,432
57 383
$ 288,862
360/o
100%
100o/o
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 148,762 $ 140,100
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
FY 2020-21
$ 223,947
2,323
$ 226,270
Project Amount
Expended
7Oo/o
10oo/o
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
83o/o
1lOVo
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
360/o
10oo/o
$ 157,800
2,323
$ 160,123 $ 66,147
$ 66,147
1 lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 2,008,060
52,86',1
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 422,655Station 38 Remodel
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 2,430,715
FY 20{9-20
52 861
$ 2,483,576
Project Amount
Expended
$ 2,060,921 $ 422,655
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 142,968
1 Debt Service on Fire Station 35 (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 223,388
43,784
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 80,420
43,784
$ 267,',172
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for the impact fee portion of the debt service payments and capital expenses. 2 lnterfund lransfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government support. $ 124,204 $ 142,968

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
General Capital
Fund 445
Section 3.g0.010 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision to implement the City General Plan, Urban Development Policy No.

11.6, and to provide for adequate police, fire and general governmental services and facilities to serve new residential, industrial and commercial development throughout the City. The City Council determined that the existing police, fire and general governmental services and facilities would be inadequite to accommodate the needs generated by projected new residential, industrial and commercial growth in the City, and additional services and facilities were needed to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of Folsom residents and businesses. Under this section of the City's Municipal Charter the City established three improvement funds entitled the police improvement fund, the fire improvement fund and the glneral government improvement fund. The amount of the capital improvement new construction fee shall be established by resolution adopted bythtCity Council of the City, and shall be based upon the determination in the Nexus Studies of:
(1) the use of the fee
-and
the type of development on which the fee is imposed; (2) the need for the facilities and/or services created by the new residential and commercial development; and (3) the reasonable cost of the facilities and/or services aftributable to new development. (Ord. g71 g 1 (part), 1 997) All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in these improvement funds and shall be expended solely to nianib thJ planning, construction and development of the facilities and services identified in the Nexus Studies.

Use Cateqory

GENERAL CAPITAL FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Basis Fee Amount
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial Lodging
Commercial Development
lndustrial Development
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
't,81'l
1,811
1,803
258

0.560

0.560
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sfafemenf of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 20',t9t20 FY 2020t21 FY 2021122 FY FY 2023124Description Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1500 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 714,359
152,745
$ 155,250
$ 562,790
$ 205,075
$ 767.865
$ 117,263
10,224
$ 365,120
9,921
$ 450,067 $ 983,687
3 681 41 152 100 174
718,04 $ 'tzz ,nz $ 375,040 $ 491 ,219 $ I ,083,861
$ 2,505 $ 1,582 $ $
1,211 51 187
$
457
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,582
125,905
767,865
$ 1,21',1
$ 373,829
$ 893 770
$ 51,187
$ 440,032
$ 1,267,599
1,457
1,082,404
707.6311,
$ 893,770 $ 1,267 .599 $ 1,707,631 $2, 790.035
$ 767,86s $ 893,770 $ 1,267 .599 $ 1,707,631 $2, 790.035

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Available Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (z-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior FiscalYear (&yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (+yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
Result: Five Year Revenue test met in accordance with Govemmenl Code 66001 Gapital lmprovement Projects
General Gapital
FY 2023-24 Proiects
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
$ 718,041 $ 127,487 $
49,8_24
"r1:i1)
375,040
127,487
718,O41
47,031
491,219
375,040
127,487
713,885
'1,083,861
491,219
375,040
127,487
712,428
$$
$ 767,865 $ 893,770 $ 1,267,599 $ 1,707,631 $ 2,790'035 Project
Amount
Expended
$ 1,457
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
g 1,4s7 $ -
$
FY 2022-23 Proiects
$ 1,457
IOOVo
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 1,457
Project
Amount
Expended
Capital Equipment
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 59,994
1,187
$ 61,181
83o/o
100%
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 50,000
1,187
$ 51,187
NonJmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 9,994
$ 9,994
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 1,211
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) $ 1.211 10lo/o $ $ 1.211 $ 1,211 $
FY 2020-2'l Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2019-20 Proiects
Software upgrade
Capital Equipment
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
Notes:

I Inierfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund $ 1.582
$ 1,582
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 4,840
156,847
2,505
$ 164,192
10lo/o $ 1,582 $
$ 1,582 $
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 2,095
6,847
57o/o
96%
'1000/o
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 2,745
1 50,000
2,505
$ 155,250 $ 8,942

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Gompliance 2024
Transportation lmprovement Fund
Fund 446
Section 12.04.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for a transportation improvement fee. The purpose of the fee is to establish a fund for financing transportation facilities as identified in the circulation element of the city general plan and those studies which identify specific transportation facility improvements called for in the circulation element and the estimated costs thereof. lmprovements include construction oi new transportltion'facilities where there are none and reconstruction of existing transportation facilities which are not suflicient to accommodate increased iraffic caused by new development. The area of benefit of the transportation facilities is the entire corporate limits of the City.

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Use Category Basis Fee Amount
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial / Retail
lndustrial / Office
Hospital
Hotel / Motel
Other
Additional Land Uses
High Trip Commercial
Gas Stations
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft. $
Per Fueling Station $
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,266
6,486
6,486

13.91 6.04
'13.91

13.91 6.04

55.21 12,381
Descriotion
Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019t20 FY 2020t21 FY 2021t22 FY 2022123 FY 2023t24
Revenues
FeeS
lnterest
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
Other Expenses
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 4,363,978 $ 6,397,720
$ 2,339,992
355,678
1,668,308
547,306
(61,334)
5,911,747
$ 1,323,716
(12e,e33)
14,329,002
$ 15,522,785
$ 1,494,674
23,257
11,509,051
$ 3,054,400
469,411
6,802,058
$
$ 13,026,982 $ 10,325,870
$ 7,927,850
152,118
41,545
$ 8,993,579
117,918
100,682
$ 17,548,721
118,234
152,910
$ 7,647,824
2,208,939
't35,251
$ 4,038,078
17,573
273,644
$ 8,121,513
$ (3,757,534)
$ 12,886,574
$ 9,129,040
9,212,179
(2,814,459)
9,129,040
$ 17,819,865 $
$ (2,297,080) $
9,992,014
3,034,968
4,017,500
$ 4,329,295
$ 5,996,575
$ 7,052,468
$
$
$ $ 6,314,581 $
$ 6.314.581 $ 4,017,500
$ 9,129,040 $ 6.314.581 $ 4,017,500
s 7,052,468
$ 7,052,468
$ 13,049,043
$1
Available Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (z-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Flscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
$ 4,363,978
4,160,235
604,527
6,314,581 $ 4,017,500 $ 7,052,468 $ 1 0,325,870
2,723,173
6,314,581 $4,017,500$7,052,468$13,049,043$ 9.129,040 $
Result: Five Year Revenue test met in accordance with Government Code 66001

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Projects
Capital SE Connect Seg D3
East Bidwell/ lron Pt US50 Onramp
lntelligent Transportation System
lntelligent Transportation Sys Master Plan
Hwy50 / Empire Ranch Rd lnterchange
Folsom Lake Crossing Satety lmprovement
Green Valley Road Widening
Historic District Connectivity
HSIP Safety lmprovements
lron Point Median
Roadside Safety Project
Scott Road Realignment
Traffic Services
Traffic Safely
Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2022-23 Projects
Capital SE Connect Seg D3
Empire Ranch Rd lnterchange
East Bidwell/ lron Pt US50 Onramp
Green Valley Road Widening
lntelligent Transportation System
lntelligent Transportation Sys Master Plan
New Traffic Signal lmprovement
Folsom Lake Crossing Satety lmprovement
Historic District Connectiviity
HSIP Safety lmprovemenls
lron Point Median
Smtt Road Realignment
Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
Project Amount
Expended
Percent Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 912,668
457,853
41 ,424
694,20'l
677,569
72,319
21,985
38,763
4,440
26,063
$ 2,947,284
$ 912,668
283,537
119,133
457,853
41,424
694,201
2,035
4,51'l
1 ,355,1 38
148,904
7,066
21 ,985
38,763
5,740
137,079
273,644

7.573
0Yo
100%
'lo0%
0%
0%
0%o
1O0o/o
100%
50Yo
51%
100%
0o/o
0%
23%
8',\%
100Yo
100%
$-
283,537
1 19,133
1 2,035
4,511
677,569
76,585
7,066
1,300
1 1 'l ,016
273,644
17,573
$ 1,573,969$ 4,521,253
Project Amount
Expended
Percent Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 3,751 ,618
1 13,985
185,545
1',t,540
71,943
147,761
1,166
92,1 96
34,577
71,305
484,760
2,775,634
47,335
135,251
8,939
0%
100o/o
100%
42%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100To
100%
75o/o
100%
100%
100o/o
100o/o
1 13,985
185,545
4,840
71,943
$ $ 3,751 ,618

1.166
6,700
147,761
ez,1 go
34,577
71,305
364,934
2,775,634
47,335
135,251
1 19,826
939
$ 3,815,454 $ 4,118,102
I
$ 7,933,556

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Non-lmpact
Project Amount
Expended
Percent Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Fee
FY 2021-22 Proiects
East Bidwell Frontage lmprovements
Capital SE Connect Seg D3
Empire Ranch Rd lnterchange
East Bidwell Widening
East Bidwell / lron Pt Signal Delineation
East Bidwell/ lron Pt US50 OnramP
Green Valley Road Widening
lntelligent Transportation System
Median lmprovement Program
Folsom Lake Crossing Satety lmprovement
Greenbacu Madison Paving
Orangevale Bridge
Historic District Connectiviity
HSIP Safety lmprovements
lron Point Median
Scott Road Realignment
Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 77,328
16,554,198
198,636
74,740
49,704
7,101
23,507
10,942
25,084
32,902
2,361
25,673
46,726
17,555
3,600
383,683
69,657
't52,910
118,234
100% $
Oo/o
100o/o
100o/o
1O0o/o
100o/o
1000h
960/o
100%
Oo/o
100%
'lOOo/o
100%
100%
100%
100%
22o/o
100o/o
100%
Expenditures
$-

54.253
77,328
16,554,198
198,636
74,740
49,704
7,'t01
23,507
10,520
25,084
421
32,902
2,361
25,673
46,726
17,555
3,600
383,683
15,404
152,910
118,234
$ 1,232,765 $ 16,641,774
Non-lmpact
2 $ 17,874,539
Project Amount
Expended
Percent Funded by lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Fee
FY 2020-21 Proiects Fees Expenditures
East Bidwell Frontage lmprovements
Capital SE Connect Seg D3
Empire Ranch Rd lnterchange
East Bidwell Widening
East Bidwell / lron Pt Signal Delineation
Green Valley Road Widening
lntelligent Transportation System
Median lmprovement Program
Local Streets & Roads Program
New Traffic Signal lmprovement
Orangevale Bridge
Prairie City / Blue Ravine
Rainbow Bridge Repair
Riley Street Feasability Study
Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 251,712
6,322,280
230,580
563,324
34,040
830,339
174,992
15,723
34,754
84,430
6,367
342,415
10,306
72,412
62,098
100,682
100o/o
0%
100o/o
100o/o
10oo/o
11OVo
9SVo
'to0lo
100To
10oo/o
100o/o
100o/o
100vo
10oo/o
43o/o
1000
100%
$ 251,712 $
6,322,280
230,580
563,324
34,040
830,339
166,019
15,723
34,754
84,430
6,367
342,415
10,306
72,412
26,653
100,682
120 144
$ 2,889,899 $ 6,366,698
8,973
35,445
2 120 144
$ 9,256,597

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Project Amount
Expended
Percent Funded by
lmpact Fees
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$ 376,391 $ -
289,408
322,717
28,143
5,893,137 26
271,121 23,157
8,000
26,706 8,000
477,280
15,768
30,074
66,054
123,050 30,150
41,545
152 118
$ 8,121,513 $ 61,333
Fee
FY 2019-20 Proiects
East Bidwell Frontage lmprovements
Empire Ranch Rd lnierchange
East Bidwell Widening
East Bidwell / lron Pt Signal Delineation
Green Valley Road Widening
lntelligent Transportation System
lron Point Rail Road Crossing Modifications
Local Streets & Roads Program
New Traffic Signal lmprovement
Prairie City / Blue Ravine
Rainbow Bridge Repair
Riley Street Feasibility Study
Tratfic Signal System Upgrade
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 376,391
289,408
322,717
28,143
5,893,1 64
294,278
8,000
34,706
477,280
15,768
30,074
66,054
153,200
41,545
152,118
$ 8,182,846
100%
100o/o
lOOo/o
100%
100%
92o/o
100o/o
77o/o
100%
100o/o
100o/o
100%
80%
100%
100%
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse lhe General Fund for providing General Govemment support. 2 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing Engineering support.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gity of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Drainage Gapital
Fund 448
Section 17.95.030 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a fee to establish a drainage fund. The City Council declares and finds that it is necessary to adopt and establish the entire City as a zone for the improvement and construction of trunk and collection drainage facilities, including waterways, pumping plants, levees and other facilities utilized for controlling drainage and storm waters within the City in order to promotJand protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare from uncontrolled drainage and stormwater. (Ord.620 S 1, 1988: Ord' 368 (part)' 1978) For any residential structure, residential subdivision or parcel map, whether for single-family or multiple-family use, the fee shall be $832 per dwelling unit. For commercial or industrial buildings, commercial or industrial subdivision and all other land uses not otherwise provided for in this chipter or improvements appurtenant thereto, the fee shall be $5,055 per acre. When only a portion of a site is being developed, the city engineer may, by written agreement with the property owner, defer that portion of the fees due on the undeveloped portion of the site. (Ord. 620 $ 1, 1988)

DMINAGE CAPITAL FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Use Cateqory Basis Fee Amount
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Dwdlings
Commercial Development
lndustrial Development
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Acre
Per Acre
1,176
1,176
1,176
7J49
7,149
$
$
$
$
$
Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
Descriotion FY 201st20 FY 202012',| FY 2021t22 FY 2022123 FY 2023t24 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Grant Reimbursement
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ $488,461
23,629
71,862
10,545
$ 265,676
7,716
42,475
144
$ 294,656
27,476
$ 694,442
51,071
187,247
38,719
$ 512,090 $ 82,407 $ 316,0',11 $ 36o,Bs1 $ 932,75e
$ 459,797
78,174
$ 167,547
68,181
$ 272,377 $ 15 $ 672,519
50,1 2871 744
868
60051
$ 537,971
$ (25,881)
$ 1,090,456
$ 235,728
$ (153,320)
$ 1,064,576
$ 344,121
$ (28,110)
$ 911,255
$ 67,468
$ 293,382
$ 883,145
$ 1,176,527
$ 722,647
$ 1,064,576 $ 911.255 $ 883,145
$ 210,113
$ 1,176,527
$ 1,386,640
$1 $ e11,25s $ 883,145 $ 1,176,527 $ 1,386 ,640

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Drainage Capital
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
Available Revenue CurrentYear $ 512,090 $ 82,407 $ 316,011 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds) 552,486 512,090 82'407 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds) - 316,758 484,727 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total RevenueAvailable $ 1'064'576 $ 911,255 $ 883'145
Result: Five Year Revenue test met in accordance wilh Govemment Code 66001 Capital lmprovement Projects
$344,546
316,01 1
82,407
433,563
932,759
344,546
'109,335
FY 2023-24 Projects
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100%
1000
100o/o
0%
1 007o
0%
100%
100o/o
100%
Ed Mitchell Park
Ed Mitchell Park Drainage
Flood Plain Mapping
Persifer Street Alley Hydraulic Analysis
Natoma Street Drainage Phase 2
East Bidwell Corridor Drainage Analysis
Storm Drain Ponds
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2022-23 Projects
Ed Mitchell Park
Ed Mitchell Park Drainage
Flood Plain Mapping
NPDES
Weather Station
Misc Expense
Engineering Overhead (interfund hansfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 2,789
101
781
43,137
477,540
97,532
640
96,329
3,799
101
781
Expenditures
$ z,aet
lmpact Fee
Nonlmpact
Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$ 2,789 $ -
$ 1,176,527 $ 1,386,640
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
477,540
43,137
97,532
640
96,329
3,799
$ 581,979 $ 140,668
lmpact Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
2,395
893
8,1 60
745
795
46,940
4 660
$ 67,468 $
2 $ 722,647
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 2,881
2,395
893
8,'t60
745
795
46,940
4,660
100%
1O0o/o
100Vo
100%
100%
1O0Yo
100o/o
100o/o
2 1
$ 67,468
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 12,195
11,803
3,305
1,070
30,228
48,440
228,141
8,939
Storm Drain Ponds
Willow Creek Estates Storm Drain Lining
Flood Plain Mapping
NPDES
Weather Station
Glenn Drive Storm Drain Outfall Failure
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 12,195
11,803
3,305
1,070
30,228
48,440
228,141
8,939
lOOo/o
100%
100%
100%
lOOo/o
lOOo/o
't00%
100%
2 1
$ 344,121

$ 344,121 $

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

FY 2020-21 Proiects
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$ 67,237 $ -
7,307
3,654
5,616
32,1 96
1,160
I '15,543
3,015
$ 23s,728 $ 96,841
Storm Drain Ponds
Willow Creek Estates Storm Drain Lining
Flood Plain Mapping
NPDES
Weather Station
Annual NPDES Water Quality
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2019-20 Proiects
Storm Drain Ponds
Willow Creek Estates Storm Drain Lining
Bidwell @ Bluestone Storm Drain Repair
NPDES
Weather Station
Misc Expense
Engineering Overhead (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 67,237
7,307
3,654
5,616
34,566
95,631
115,543

3.015
10oo/o
1O0o/o
100o/o
100%
93%
10/
100o/o
lOOo/o
2,370
94,471
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 11,827
229,471
71,100
29,093
5,493
1,026
186,722
3,240
$ 537,97'l $ 524,184
2 1
$ 332,569
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 17,549
506,635
$ 29,376
736,106
71,100
29,093
5,493
1,026
186,722
3,240
40o/o
31o/o
100%
100%
't00%
100%
100o/o
't00%
2 1
$ 1 ,062,1 55
Notes:
1 lnlerfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government supporl. 2 lnterfund lransfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing Engineering support.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gity of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Gompliance 2024
Light Rail lmpact Fee
Fund 451
Section10.5o.o4ooftheFolsomMunicipalCodeestablishestheprovisionforcollectionofa@.The purpose of this fee is to implement the City General Plan, Urban Development Policy No. 17.20, which requires that the City develop a iong range service system io service Folsom residents and businesses. As required by the General Plan, a long range transit plan has bejn de-veloped entiled "City of Folsom Light Rail Transit lmplementation Study, Final Report, dated February 1993" (hereafter the ,,transit studyl'), and includes in analysis of the feasibility and financing of: (1) Continued city-operated intra-community bus service; (2) Continued city-op"r"r"O commuter bus service to downtown Sacramento and/or service to the nearest RT Metro Rail Station; and (3) Extending RT Metro service to Folsom and the preservation of future rights-of-way.

The fee established by chapter 10.50.010 is in addition to any other fees or charges or taxes, required by law or city code as a condition of development, incluiing, but not lim1ed to, the residential construction tax levied by Ghapter 17.90, drainage fees levied by Chapter

17.95, major road fees te-vied by Chapter 12.04, capital improvement new construction fees levied by Chapter 17.92 and is necessary in order io aisure compliance with the applicable general plan requirements that new development bear the cost for light rail transportation service infrastructure which is needed to serve such development.

LIGHT RAIL IMPACT FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Use Category
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial Development
lndustrial Development
$ 821
$ 565
$ 565
$ 0.260
$ 0.108
Basis Fee Amount
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Description
Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019120 FY 2020121 FY 2021t22
$ $ 121 ,969
8,772
FY 2022t23 FY 2023t24
Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expendiiures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 1,096,223 $ 950,326 $ 1,072,462 $ 1,063.'129 $ 1,334,338 $ 250,624
21,800
$ 147,974
28,554
$ 317,318
49,992
46,722
12,872
$ 272,425 $ 59,594 $ 130,740 $ 176,528 $ 367,310
$ 67,804
3,658
$ 127,315
78,176
$ 1,321
7,284
$ 65,010
120,852
$ 18,914
77 186
96,1 01
$ 271,209
$ 1 ,063,129
$
$
$
$
$
$
71,462
200,963
895,260
$ 205,491
$ (145,897)
$ 1,096,223
8,605
't22,135
950,326
$ 185,862
$ (e,333)
$ 1,072,462
$ 1,096,223 $ 950.326 $ 1,072,462 $ 1,063,129 $ 1,334,338

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Light Rail Impact Fee
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
Available Revenue CurrentYear $ 272,425 $ 59'594 $ 13'740 Available Revenue Prior FiscalYear (2-yt Old Funds) 290,067 272,425 59'594 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year ($yr Old Funds) 452,203 290,067 272,425 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds) 81,528 328,240 290'067 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year ($yr Old Funds) 436'636 Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
$ 176,528
13,740
59,594
272,425
290,067
250,775
367,310
176,528
13,740
59,594
272,425
$
444.741
Total Revenue Avallable
FY 2023-24 Projects
Light Rail Project
Administrative and Engineering Overhead
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Light Rail Project
Administrative and Engineering Overhead
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Light Rail Project
Administrative and Engineering Overhead
FY 2O2O-2'l Proiects
Safety Bumps
Light Rail Project
Historic Folsom Station L&L
Administrative and Engineering Overhead
FY 2019-20 Projects
SP-JPAAdmin
Landscaping
Administrative and Engineering Overhead
$ 1,096,223 $ 950,326 $ 1,072,462 $ 1,063,129 $ 1,334'338 Notes:

The Lighl Rail Transportation Service Fee Fund reports funds being held beyond the five-years as described by A81600. Per the 2025 Capilal lmprovemenl Plan funds arereservedforlheLightRail Project. TheLightRail TransportationserviceFeeFundwill beutilizedfor$l00,000forthisprojectannually.

Capital lm provement Projects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
NonJmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$ 18,914 $ -
77 186
$ 96,100 $
$ 18,914
77 186
$ 96,100
lOOo/o
100%
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 65,010
120,852
$ 185,862
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
100o/o
IOOVo
$$ 65,010
120,852
$ 185,862
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 1,321
7,284
$ 8,605
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 15,538
88,827
71,122
78,176
$ 253,663
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ t,gzt
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
$
lOOo/o
IOOVo
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
7,284
$ 8,605 $
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 15,538
Expenditures
$-
88,827
22,950
78,176
48,172
$ 205,491 $ 48,172
Non-lmpact
Fee
Fee
100o/o
100%
32%
lOOo/"
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 30,000
37,804
3,658
Expenditures
$-
53,406
$ 53,406
$ 30,000
91,209
3,658
100%
41Yo
'to0%
$ 124,867 $ 71,462
Notes:
1 lnterfund iransfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government and Engineering support.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
General Park Equipment Capital
Fund 452
Section4.l0.0l0oftheFolsomMunicipal CodeestablishestheprovisionforcollectionofaParklmprovementimpactfee. Thefeeestablishedby this chapter is in addition to any other fees or charges, or taxes, required by taw or city code as a condition of development, including, but not limited to, the residential construction tax levied by Chipter 17.90, capital improvement-new construction service charge levied by Chapter 17.92' drainage fees levied by Chapter 17.95, euimby Actiees levied by Chapter 16.32 and maior road fees levied by Chapter 12'04. The fee established by thiJchapter is to be collected for park and iecreation facilities forwhich an account shall be established and funds appropriated, and forwiich a pioposea ionstruction sctreoute snall be adopted. The fee imposed by this chapter is necessary in order to assure compliance with the applicable general plan requirements that new development bear the cost for park and recreation infrastructure which is needed to serve such development.

GENERAL PARK EQUIPMENT CAPITAL FUND FEE SCHEDULE
ljse Cateoorv
Residential
Single Family
Single Family - HD
Multi-Family - LD
Multi-Family
Multi-Family - HD
Mobile Dwellings
Non-Residential
Commercial Development
lndustrial Development
Basis
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Fee Amount
106
106
106
106
106
50 $
$
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

0.021
o.021
Stafemenl ofRevenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2021t22FY 2019/20 FY 2020t21 FY 2022t23 FY 2023124Description Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
General Park Equipment
Available Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs Old Funds)
Available Revenue Grealer than Five Prior Fiscal Yoars
Toial Revenue AYailable
$ 73,486 $ 85,969 $ 115,126 $ 138,016 $ 164,031
$ 70,e88 $
2 .498
83,624
2,344
112,358
2,768
127,996
10,020
143,553
20,478
$ $ $
$ 9,121
149
-S-----TP?o
$ 64,216
$86 704
$ 3,646 $ g 73,55e $
414137
12,336
2'19 500
$
$
$
3,783
82,186
150,919
$
$
$
'12,555
102,57',!
233,105
73,973
64,043
335,676
$
$
$
$ 500
$ 163,531
$ 399,720
$ 150.919 $ 233,105 $ 676 $ 399,720 $ 51
$ 150,91 I $ 233.1 05 $ 335,676 399.720 $ 563,251$
Five Year Revenue TeGt Uslng First ln First Out Method
$ 73,486 $ 85,969 $ 115,126
75,760 73,486 85,969
1,6:3 73,650
l?:133
1 38,01 6
't't5J26
85,969
60,609
164,031
138,016
115,126
85,969
60,109
$
'150,919 $ 233,105 $ 335,676 $
Result: Five Year Revenuo test mel in accordance with Government Code 66001

399,720 $ 563,251

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital lmprovement Projects
FY 2O23-2l Proiects
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
res
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) $
$
500 100o/o $ 500 $
500 $500 $
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Project Amount
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 73,559
414
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
2 Park Maintenance Equipment (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 73,559
414
'100o/o
100%
$ 73,973 g 73,e73 $
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
Fee
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Park Maintenance Equipment (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2O2O-2'l Proiects
$ 12,336
219
$ 12,555
Project Amount
Expended
100o/o
100o/o
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100%
1000
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100%
100o/o
$ 12,555 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 3,646
137
$
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 12,336
2't9
$
Park Maintenance Equipment (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2019-20 Proiects
Park Maintenance Equipment (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 3,646
137
$ 3,783
Project Amount
Expended
$ 9,121
149
1 $ 3,783 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ e,121
149
Nonlmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
$ 9,270
Notes:
1 lnterfundtransf€rsereusedtor6imbursetheGeneralFundforprovidingGeneralGovernmenlsupport. 2 lnterfund transfers are used to roimburse the General Fund where the equipment cosls were expensed. $ 9,270 $

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Section 13.30.010 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Water lmpact Fee. On october 31' 1988' the Folsom City Council approved and adopted its beneral plan (the "Geneial Plan") identifuing proposed growth within the city limits. and further identifying the impacts oi such growth updn public facilities within the city including the imfacis on water supply and the water supply system. The City of Folsom water masteiplan daied becember 1998 (Water Plan) was adopted by the City Council on May 25, 1999 by Resolution No.,6028. The water plan analyzed tire city{ present and proleited water iupply and facilities demands, and the costs of water conservation efforts within developed areas of the City.

Section 13.30.030 established a water impact fee which is imposed on the construction of all new commercial, industrial and residential buildings that are to be served with water supplies owned and treated by the City. This fee shall be imposed on all new construction within the City, unless such property is otherwise exempt'as provided for in Section ig.go.ozo of this chapter. The fee established by this chapter is in addition to any other iees or charges or taxes that are iequired by law or City code as a condition of development. (Ord. 912 $ 1 (part)' 1 999)' City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Gompliance 2024
Water lmpact Fund
Fund 456
Description
Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
Other Expenses
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance

WATER IMPACT FUND FEE SCHEDULE
Basis Fee AmountUse Category
Singile family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial
lndustrial / Office
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Acre
Per Acre
1,117
602
1,504
1,504
$
$
$
$
Statement of Reverlues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019120 FY 2020121 FY 2021122 FY 2022123 FY 2023t24
$ 272,941
34,955
$ 67,733
26,224
454,001
127,619
24,747
36,746
$ 137,51 1
68,913
35,357
$ 321,149
108,947
26,529
$
$ 307,896 $ 547,959 $ 189,112 $ 241,78',t $ 456,625
$ 158,198
104,226
$ 184,902 $ 135,437
47 139 195 351
$ 104,088
216,603
75,797
128,883
$
$ 262,424
$ 45,472
$ 232,04',1
$ 315,918
$ 2,457,446
$ 2,773,364
$ 320,691 $
$ (78,e10) $
$ 2,631,688 $
204,680
251 ,945
2,552,778
$
$
$
330,788
(141,676)
$ 2,4 11.974 2, 773,364
$ 2,457,446 $ 1.688 $ 2,552,778 $2, 723
$ 2,457,446 $ 2,773,364 $ 2,631,688 $ 2,552,778 $ 2,804 .723

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Water lmpact Fund
Available Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (z-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Water Delivery Reliability StudY
Recycled Water
Dry Year and Water Conservation (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
Five Year Revenue Test Using Firet ln Firct Out Method
$ 307,896 $ 547,959 $
425,079 307,896
519,340 425,079
216,364 519,340
128,766 216,364
860,001
g 2,457,446
756,726
$ 2,773364 $ 2,631,688 $ 2,552,775
$ 456,625
s 24'l.78'l
118,112
547,959
307,896
1,'132,350
$ 2,804,723
189,112
547,959
307,896
425,079
5't9,340
642,302
241,781
189,'l'12
547,959
307,896
425,O79
840,951
$
Notes:
water capital improvements. The fund will also be utilized for rebates to customers to reduce water use ($30q,000).

Capital lmprovement Projects
Non-lmpactProject
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$-
Fee
$ 70,414
5,384
121 ,757
126
$ 204,680
100o/o
100o/o
100%
100o/o
70,414
5,384
121,757
$
7 7 126
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 204,680 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$-
Fee
FY 2022-23 Proiects
GSWC lnter-Tie Booster
Water Delivery Reliability StudY
Recycled Water
Dry Year and Water Conservation (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ '14,447
39,675
49,965
207,763
100To
100Yo
100%
1 00%
100%
$ 14,447
39,675
49,965
207,763
8,8408.840
$ 320,691
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 320,691 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
Project
Amount
ExpendedFY 2021-22
Water Delivery Reliability Study
Recycled Water
Dry Year and Water Conservation (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 31,946
58,761
44,729
186,449
8,902
100%
100o/o
100o/o
100o/o
100yo
31,946
58,761
44,729
186,449
$
2 1
9028
$ 330,788
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 330,788 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$-
Project
Amount
Expended
Fee
FY 2020-21 Proiects
GSWC lnter-Tie Booster
Regional Water Authority
Recycled Water
Dry Year and Water Conservation (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 142,506
17,500
24,896
40,653
6,486
142,506
17,500
24,896
40,653
6,486
100Yo
100%
100Yo
100%
100Yo
$
$ 232,041

$ 232,041 $

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Project
Amount
Expended
$ 166,654
100,000
4,226'
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$ 8,456
Fee
FY 2019-20 Proiects
GSWC lnter-Tie Booster
Dry Year and Water Conservation (interfund transfer)
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
95o/o
100o/o
100o/o
1 58,1 98
100,000
4,226
$
$ 270,880 $ 262,424 $ 8,456
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund tor providing General Government support' 2 lnlerfund transfers are used to reimburse lhe Water Operating Fund. The Water Operating Fund captured the expenses for water conservation.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Water Connection Fund
Fund 52{
Section 13.24.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Water Connection Fee. Water conneclion charge was established to provide for the connection of water pipes to the city water system. (Ord 427,1981)

WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Use Category
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
South Lexington Hills
(1)
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial/lndustrial
3/4" meter
1" meter
1 112" melet
2" meter
3" meter
4" meter
6" meter
8" meter
10" meter
FY 2019t20
Fee Amount-$-- 3f1t$ 2,478
$ 2,361
$ 2,478
Basis
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,803
9,484
18,974
30,363
60,743
94,942
189,954
304,027
437,430
Statement of Revenues btpenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2020t21 FY 2021t22 FY 2022t23 FY 2023124 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1 600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 431 ,405
175,569
487,545
10,792
$ 498,337
$ 108,636
$ 5,493,310
$ 201,146 $
(3,153)
$ 598,030
140,322
183,388
363,450
(91,637)
467
216,389
181 ,471
3,8'19
$
$ 606,974 $ 197,993 $ 272,281 $ 401,679 $ 921,740
$ $ 1,499,707
9,969
1,222,500
16,393
562,554
26,899
$ 229,794
22,460
$ $
$ 1,509,676
$ (1,311,683)
$ 5,601,946
1,238,893
(966,613)
$ 589,453
$ (187,775)
$ 3,323,651
$ 252,254
$ 669,486
$
$
$ 4, 290.264 $3, 135.877
$5, .946 $ 4,290,263 $ 3,323,651 $ 3,135,876 _$__9,805p62_ _$__q,805,99?_$ .946 $ 4,290,263 $ 3,323,E51 $3, 135.876

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Water Connection Gapital lmprovement Fund
Available Revenue Currenl Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-y.s Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater lhan Five Prior Fiscal Years
Flve Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
$ 606,974 $ 197,993 $ 272'281 $
1,081,356 606,974 197'993
1 ,414,462 1,081,356 606,974
747,906 1,4'14,462 1'081'356
670,253 747 ,906 'l
"165'047
401,679
272,28'l
1 97,993
606,974
1,081 ,356
575,593
$ e21,740
401,679
272,281
1 97,993
606,974
1,404,695
$ 3,805,362
1,080,995 241,572
$ 5,601,946 $ 4,290,263 $ 3,323,651 $ 3,135,876
Notes:

The water connection Fee Fund reports funds being held beyond the five-years as described by ABI 600. Per the 2025 Capital lmprovement Plan funds are reserved for lhe water Pre- Treatment Sytem lmprovement project. The Water Connection Fee Fund will be utilitized for an additional $3.3 million ior this project.

Gapital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24P
Proiect Amount
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expendituresed
Water Treatment Plant Backwash & Recycle Water
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 658,301 35%
100o/o
$ 229,794
22,460
$ 428,507
22 460
$ 680,761 $ 252.254 $ 428,507
NonJmpact
lmpact Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
Fee
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Water Treatment Plant Backwash & Recycle Water
Water Treatment Plant Pre-Treatment System lmp
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 1,245,535
130,274
26,899
35o/o
99%
100%
433,348
129,206
26,899
812,187
1,068
$ $
$ '1,402,708 $ 589,453 $ 81 3,255
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
ExpendituresFY 2021-22
Water Treatment Plant Backwash & Recycle Water $ 71,362 1,219,911
4o/o
100%
100%
$ 2,589
1,219,911
16,393
$ 68,773
Water Treatment Plant Pre'Treatment System lmp
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) 6 393
$ 1,307,666 $ 1,238,893 $ 68,773
FY 2020-21 Proiects
Projecl Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
Water Treatment Plant Polymer Reliability & Redundancy
Water Treatment Plant Pre-Treatment System lmp
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2019-20
$ 1 09,390
1,517,623
9,969
23%
97%
lOOo/o
25,314
1,474,393
9,969
84,076
43,231
$ $
$ 1,636,983
Project Amount
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 1,509,676 $ 127,307
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
Water Treatment Plant Polymer
Water Treatment Plant Pre-Treatment System lmp
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
& Redundancy $ 553,307
395,342
o.792
23Vo
9104
100%
$ 126,509
36 1,036
10,792
$ 426,799
34,306
$ 959,441
Notes:
1 lnterfund lransfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government support.

$ 498,337 $ 461,103

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Sewer Gapital
Fund 531
Section 13.25.01 O of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a sewer connection charge. This charge shall be collected prior to the issuance of building permits for commercial/industrial development and dwelling units as established by resolution of the city council. The purpose of the fee is io establish a fund for financing equipment and capital improvement projects required to maintain municipal services ai ad'equate levels as service requirements increase with the construction of commercial/industrial developments and dwelling units.

SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Use Gategory
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
South Lexington Hills
Mobile Dwellings
Gommercial/lndustrial
3/4" inch
1" inch
1 1l2" inch
2" inch
3" inch
4" inch
6" inch
8" inch
10" inch
Basis Fee Amount
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
$
$
$
$
1,217
952
948
1,076
1,217
1,217
2,437
3,900
7,3',12
12,'t88
24,375
38,999
56,060
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Statement of Reverues E<penditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019t20 FY 2020t21 FY 2021122 FY 2022t23
$ 56,832
15,655
$ $ 219,485
FY 2023t24Description
Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 72,487
$ 39,835
13,343
$ 53,178 $ 68,785
24,614
$ 244,099
$ 177,765
34,177
$ 211,941
58,694
10,092
$
1,002 949 160
99,673
2,471
$ $ 79,982 $ $ 596,651
25,937
$
$
$
1,002
71,485
356,144
$ 949
$ 52,229
$ 427,628
$ 479,857
$ 81j42
$ (12,357)
$ 479,857
$ 102,144
$ 141,955
$ 467,500
$ 622,588
$ (410,647)
$ 609,455
$ 427.628 $ 467,500 $ 609.455 $ 198,808
$ 427,628 $ 479,857 $ 467,500

$ 609.455 $ 198,808

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Sewer Capital
Five Year Revenue Test Using Flrst In First Out Method
Available Revenue Currenl Year $ 72'487 $ 53,178 $ 68,785 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds) 129,796 72,487 53'178 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds) 225,345 129,796 72'487 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds) - 224,396 129'796 Avaifable Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (5-yrs and beyond) 143'254 Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
Notes:

Result: Five Year Revenue test mel in accordance with Govemment Code 66001 Gapital lmprovement Proiects
$ 244,099
68,785
53,r 78
72,487
129,796
$ 198,808
FY 2023-24
$ 427,628 $ 479,857 $ 467,500
41,110
$ 609,455 $ 198,808
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
4,227,067
$ 25,937
4,823,718
$ 4,849,655
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 25,937
596 65'l
$ 622,588 $ 4,227,067
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100%
12o/o
Engineering and Gen Government overhead
Sewer Evaluation & CapacitY Plan
FY 2022-23
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by lmpact Fee
lmpact Fees Expenditures
lo}o/o $ 2,471
18% 99,673
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
447,981
Engineering and Gen Government overhead
Sewer Evaluation & CaPacitY Plan
FY 2o2'l-22 Proiects
Engineering and Gen Government overhead
Sewer Evaluation & CaPacitY Plan
$
$ 550,125
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 1,160
92,062
$ 93,222
2,4V1
547,654 -E tozJaa g 447,981
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 1,160
79,982
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
12 080
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-
100%
87o/o
$ 81 ,142 $ 12,080
FY 2020-21 Projects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Engineering and Gen Government overhead $ 949
Project
Amount
100% $ 949
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 1,002
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
FY 2019-20
Engineering and Gen Government overhead $ 1,002 100%
Notes:
1 lnlerfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Govemmenl and Engineering support'

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Facilities Augmentation Critical
Fund 536
Section 3.40.010 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a facilities augmentation fee for the Folsom south area facilities plan. The fee is intended to augment existing City fees and thereby provide the necessary means for financing the construction of the facilities identified in the Folsom south area facilities plan.

FACILITIES AUGMENTATION CRITICAL FEE SCHEDULE
This fee is based on location and lot size. For fees related to development of property in this area please contact the City Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2019t20 FY 2020t21 FY 2021122 FY 2022t23 FY2023124 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
Facilities Augmentation Critical
Available Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year ($yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prlor Fiscal Year (s-yrs and beyond)
Available Revenue Grealer than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
$
$$$$
$ $ $ $
1,052
$ 1,052
1,725
$ 1,725
691 438 355
$6gt$+se$ 355
$
1,987 144 59 54
$ 42,159
47 47
$ 1,678
$ 42159
$ 43,837
_$_13,83?_
59 296
40,864
998
41 161
$ 41,16'l 42.159$ 40.571
$ 40.571 $ 40,864 41.161$
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,987
(1,2e6)
41,867
$ut
$ 294
$ 40,571
$ 40,864
54 $
$ 691
320
2,306
3,616
3,490
30,148
$ 40,571 $ 40,864 $ 41,161 $ 42,159
$ 1,7?5
1,052
355
438
69'l
39,576
$ 43,837
$ 438
691
320
2,306
3,616

33.493
355
438
691
320
2,306
37,051
$ $ 1,052
355
438
591
320
39,303
Notes:

TheFacilitiesAugmentationCrititcalFundreporlsfundsbeingheldbeyondthefive-yearsasdescribedbyABl600. ThefundshadbeenheldfortheWaterTreatmentPlant Lime System Upgrade project. Thal proiect has been replaced by the Water Treatment Plan Caustic Soda System project which will assume the funding.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital lm provement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2022-23 Proiects
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2021-22 Proiects
General Govemment overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2O2O-2'l Proiects
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
Project
Amount
Expended
$47
$ 47
Project
Amount
Expended
$54
$ 54
Project
Amount
Expended
$59
$ 59
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 144
$ 144
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$47
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
100% $
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 47$
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-100% $ 54
$ 54$
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$59
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
1 0070 $
$ 59$
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-100% $ 144
$ 144 $
FY 2019-20 Proiects
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 1,987
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
General Govemment overhead (interfund transfer) $ 1,987 $ 1,987
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse lhe General Fund for providing General Government support' 100o/o $
$ 1,987 $

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Facilities Augmentation General
Fund 537
Section 3.40.01 0 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a facilities augmentation fee for the Folsom south area facilities plan. The fee is intended to augment existing City fees and thereby provide the necessary means for financing the construction of the facilities identified in the Folsom south area facilities plan.

FACILITIES AUGMENTATION GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE
This fee is based on location and lot size. For fees related to development of proper$ in this area please contact the City' Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019t20 FY 2020121 FY 2021122 FY 2022123 FY 2023124Description Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
Facilities Augmentation General
Available Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior FiscalYear (&yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year ($yrs and beyond)
Available Revenue Greater lhan Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
$ $ $ $ $7
857932 747 2,280 1,471
$ 932 $
$ 17,023 $
864 $ 747 $ 2,280 $ 1,471
$ 18,135
$ (17,203)
$ 1 10,497
$
$-
426
T-6-
$ szt
$ 89,188
$ 27,695
$ (25,415)
$ 89,509
$ 60,526
$ (5e,055)
$ 64,093
112 4,970
27,577
118
60,423
103
$$
$
$
$
4,970
(4,106)
93,294

93.294 $ 89,1 88 $ 89,509 $ 64,093 $ 5,038
$ 93,294 $ 89.1 88 $ 89,509 $ 64.093 $ 5,038
$ 932
5,170
5,670
7,024
6,059
68,439
$ 93,294
Notes:

Resull: Five Year Revenue test met in accordance wilh Government Code 6600 1 Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
864
932
5,170
5,670
7,O24
69,528
$ $ 747
864
932
5,170
5,670
76,126
2,280
747
864
932
5,1 70
54 100
1,47'l
2,280
747
540
a $
$ 89,188 $ 89,509 $ 64,093 $ 5,038

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital lm provement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
lron Point Median
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 60,423
103
NonJmpact
Fee
$ 60,526 $ 88,481
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 27,577
118
$ 27,695 $ 484,760
$ 148,904
103
$ 149,007
41o/o
100o/o
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
5o/o
100%
Expenditures
$ 88,481
Project
Amount
Expended
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 484,760
FY 2022-23 Proiects
lron Point Median
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 512,337
118
$ 512,455
FY 2021-22 Projects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 426
NonJmpact
Fee
Expenditures
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) $ 426 100o/o Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
10Oo/o
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$
FY 2020-21 Proiects
$ 426
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 426 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-General Government Overhead (interfund transfer) $ 4,970 $ 4,970
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 4,970
FY 2019-20 Projects
Storm Drain Ponds
General Government Overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 4,970
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 17,023
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 12,353$ 29,376
1,112
$ 30,488
58o/o
100o/o 112
$ 18,135 $ 12,353
Notes:

I lnterfund transfers are used lo reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government support.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gity of Folsom
Developer Impact Fee Gompliance 2024
Solid Waste Capital lmprovement Fund
Fund 54{
Section 3.20.045 of the Folsom Municipal Code established a capital improvement service charge which shall be collected prior to the issuance of building permits for all residential development and upon application to the finance department for all commercial/industrial development as established by resolution of the City Council. The purpose of the fee is to establish a fund for financing equipment and capital improvement purchases required to maintain municipal services at adequate levels as service requirements increase with the construction of commercial/industrial developments and dwelling units.

SOLID WASTE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Use Category
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Dwellings
Commercial/lndustrial
2 yard dumpster
3 yard dumpster
4 yard dumpster
6 yard dumpster
15 yard roll-off
20 yard roll-off
30 yard roll-off
40 yard roll-off
$
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
411
189
189
Basis Fee Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,611
4,642
4,707
4,899
15,092
1 5,1 97
't6,121
16,470
Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019t20 FY 202012'.1 FY 2021t22Description
Revenues
Fees
lnierest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB '1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
FY 2022123 FY 2023124
$
$$$$
52,732
8,435
74,494
3,749
107,807
6,593
113,223
14,443
$ 96,108 $ $
783
$ 61,167 $ 78,243 $ 96,891 $ 114,400 $ 127,665
$ 2,27325,010
392
27,'t28
345,234
14,365
1,416
13,366
907 650
$
$
$
25,402
35,765
349,830
$ 372,362 $
$ (2e4,1 1e) $
$ 385,595 $
15,78'l
81,110
91,476
14,273
100,127
172,586
$
$
$
$ 2,923
$ 124,743
$ 272,712
$ 385,595 $ 91 ,476 $ 172,586 $ 272,712 $ 397.455
$ 385,595 $ 9'l,476 $ 172.586 $ 272.712 $ 397,455

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Solid Waste Capital lmprovement Fund
Availabla Rovenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yrs and beyond)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Garbage Containers
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Garbage Containers
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2021-22 Projects
Garbage Containers
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
Five Year Revenue Test Using Flrst ln Flrst Out Method
$ 61,167 $ 78,243 $ 96,891
129,029 13,233 75'695
195,399
$ 114,400
96,891
61,421
127,665
114,44O
96,891
58,499
$
$ 385,595 $ 91,476 $ 172,586 $ 272,7'12 $ 397,455
Result: Five Year Revenue test met in accordance with Government Code 6600 1 Capital lmprovement Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 2,273
650
$ 2,923
100o/o
't00%
2,273
650
$ $
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 2,923
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
NonJmpact
Expenditures
Fee
$ 13,366
907
$ 14,273
Project
Amount
1O0o/o
100% 907
$ 13,366
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 14,273 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-$ 14,365
1,416
$ 15,781
100o/o
100% 416
$ 14,365
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
g 15,781 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 27,128
344,127
't,107
$ 372,362
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 25,010
392
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$-
Fee
FY 2020-21 Proiects
Garbage Containers
Solid Waste Capital Equipment (interfund transfer)
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 20{9-20 Proiects
Garbage Containers
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 27,128
344,127
1,107
100%
100%
't000/o
2 1
$ 372,362 $-
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 25,010
392
100%
100o/o
$ 25,402 g 25/02 $
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the Gen€ral Fund for providing General Government suppon. 2 lnterfund transfers ar6 used to reimburse the Solid Waste Operating Fund. The Solid Waste Operating Fund captured the expenses for lhe purchase'

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Fund 443
Section 3.120.040 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Highway 50 lmprovement Fee. The purpose of this fee is to fund certain improvements to Highway 50 that serve the Folsom plan area such as, for example: Highway 50 segments from Sunrise to Hazel; Hazel to Folsom Boulevard, Folsom Boulevard to Scott Road, and the Hazel interchange modifications, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study, and including but not limited to those improvements identified in the memorandum of understanding dated December 17 ,20'14, entered into between the City and Caltrans' City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 202t1
Folsom Plan Area Highway 50 lmprovements
Use Category
FOLSOM PLAN AREA HIGHWAY 50 IMPROVEMENT FEE
Basis Fee Amount
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential High Density
Multi-Family Residential Low Density
Multi-Family Residential Medium Density
Multi-Family Residential High Density
Mixed Use - Residential
Mixed User - Commercial
Office Park
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Regional Commercial
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Sq. Ft.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,658
1,609
1,358
1,207
1,132
1,056

2.04 1.70

2.42 2.42

2.42 Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sfafemenf ofRevetues Expendilur* and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
DescriDtion FY 2019/20 FY 2020121 FY 2021t22 FY 2022t23 FY 2023124 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End of Year
Available Fund Balance
FPA Highway 50 lmprovements
$ 379,114 $ 1,031,102
49,022
$ 1,273,362
24,086
$ 1,537,486
98,544
$ 1,335,666
154,83911 .965
$ 391,078 $ 1,080,124 $ 1,297,448 $ 1,636,030 $ 1,490,504 $ $ $
38 $$
$
$
$
38 391,040
307.982
$-
$ 1 ,080,124
$ 699,022
$-
$ 1,297,448
$ 1,779,146
$-
$ 1,636,030
$-
$ 1,490,504
$ 4,7't2,624$3, 076.594
$ 699,022 $ 1,779,146 $3, .594 $ 4,712,624 $ 6,203,129
$ $ 1,779,146 _$_1!29891_ $4, 712.624 $ 6,203,129
Available Revenue Current Year
Availade Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Y€ar (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Y€ar (s-yr old Funds)
Available Revonue Greater than Five Prior Fis€l Years
Total Revenue Avallable
Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
$ 1,080,124
391,078
284,700
23,244
$$ 391,078
284,700
23,244
1,297,444
1,OA0,124
39'1,078
284,700
23,244
1,636,030
1,297,444
1,080,124
391,078
284,700
23,244
't,490,504
'1,636,030
1,297,448
1,080J24
391,078
307,945
$ $
699,022$1,779,'146$3,076,594$4,712,624$6,203,129
Notes:

TheFolsomplanAreaHighwaySOlmprovementFeeFundreportstundsbeingholdbeyondth€flve-yearsasd€scribedbyAB1600. TheFolsomPlanAreaHighway50 lmprovementFeeisintendedtoprovidelheCityofFolsom'sshareofalutur€CaltransprojecttowidenHighway50. Caltranshasyettoprogramthatproject.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital lmprovement Projects
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees Expenditures
$-
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
FY 2O23-2l ProiecG
Project Amount
Expended
$0o/o
0%
0o/o
$
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$-
$
Fee
FY 2022-23 Proiects
$ 0%
0o/o
0o/o
$
FY 2021-22 Proiects
$
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
0%
0%
0o/o
$ $
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$-$-
$ $
NonJmPact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$38$-
$ 38$
lmpact Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
ExpendituresExpenditures
$-
FY 2020-21 Proiects
$
Proiect Amount
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
General Government overhead (interfund transfer) $ 38
$ 38
1000
0o/o
0o/o
FY 2O1S-2O Proiects
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 0%
0o/o
0%
$
$ $ $
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government support.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Fund 44'l
Section 3.120.040 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Highwey 50 lnterchange Fee. The purpose of this fee is to fund a fair share contribution toward certain Highway 50 interchanges that serve the Folsom plan area, such as, for example, the Empire Ranch Road interchange, the Oak Avenue pariway'interchange, the ScotVBidwell interchange modifications, the Prairie City Road inierchange modifications, and the Rowberry Drive Overcrossing, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Folsom Plan Area Highway 50 lnterchange Fee
Descriotion
Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB '1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
FOLSOM PLAN AREA HIGHWAY 50 INTERCHANGE FEE
lJse Cateqorv
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential High Density
I
Multi-Family Residential Low Density
Multi-Family Residential Medium Density
MultlFamily Residential High Density
Mixed Use - Residential
Mixed User - Commercial
Office Park
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Regional Commercial
Basis Fee Amount
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
3,375
3,068
2,760
2,452
2,302
2,149

4.14 3.48

4.87 4.87

3.57 Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Statement of Revenues E><penditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019120 FY 2020121 FY 2021122 FY 2022t23 FY 2023t24
$ 768,668
25,483
$ 2,096,084
74,372
$ 2,589,411 $
(150,415)
2,989,948
87,481
$ 2,595,506
633,755
$ 794,1s1 $ 2,170,456 $ 2,438,996 $ 3,077,429 $ 3,329,261 $ $$$$
77 $77
$ 794,074
$ 675,041
$-
$ 2,170,456
$-
$ 2,438,996
$ 3,639,571
3,077,429
$-
$ 3,329,261
$ 9,155,996$1 115
$
$
$
$1 115 $ 3,639,571
$ 1,469,115 $
$ 9,155,996 $1 57_$ 6,078,567
$ 6,078,567 $ 9,155,996 $1

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

FPA Highway 50 lnterchange
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
Available Revenue CunentYear $ 794,151 $ 2'170,456 $ 2'438'996 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-vr Old Funds) 627J09 794,151 2"170'456 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds) 47 ,261 627,703 794'151 Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds) - 47 '261 627 '7Og Available Revenue Prior FiscalYear (s-yr Old Funds) 47 '261 o 3,077,429
2,438,996
2,170,456
794,'151
627.7o3
3,329,261
3,077,429
2,438,996
2,170,456
794,15'l
674,964
s
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years 47.261 Total Revenue Available $ 1,469,115 $ 3,639,571 $ 6,078,567 $ 9,155,996 $ 12,455,257 Notes:

The Folsom plan Area Highway so lnterchange Fee Fund reports funds being held beyond the five-years as described by ABl600. The Folsom Plan Area Highway 50 lnterchange (TBD), USso/Rowbeny Drive Crossing (tBD), and U55o/Oak Avenue Parkway lnlerchange' Capital Improvement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
NonJmpact Fee
Expenditures
$-$ 0lo
0o/o
0%
$
$
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
$-
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact Fee
Expenditures
0o/o
0%
0%
T-$
$ $
FY 202'l-22 Projects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ o%
Oo/o
0o/o
$
$ $
FY 2020-21 Proiects
Project
Amount
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee Non-lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$
Non-lmpact Fee
Expenditures
0%
o%
Oo/o
$
$ $
FY 2019-20 Proiects
General Government overhead (interfund transfer) $ 77
$77
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse lhe General Fund for providing General Governmenl support. 100%
0%
0o/o
$ 77$

$77 $

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Section 3.120.040 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Transit Fee. The purpose of this fee is to fund public transit improvements in the Folsom plan area, including, but not limited to, improvements to the transit corridor, transit parking' transit stops, and a share ofthe public transit vehicles, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Folsom Plan Area Transit Impact
Fund 4,f9
Use Category

FOLSOM PLAN AREATRANSIT FEE
Basis Fee Amount
$ 1,714
-sngeram'rtynesidential
Single Family Residential High Density
Multi-Family Residential Low Density
Multi-Family Residential Medium Density
Multi-Family Residential High Density
Mixed Use - Residential
Mixed User - Commercial
Office Park
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Regional Commercial
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,558
1,402
1,247
1,167
1,092

2.O9

1.75 2.48

2.48 1.82
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Statement of Revenues Expenditurcs and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
DescriDtion FY 2019120 FY 2020121 FY 2021t22 FY 2022123 FY 2023124 $ 1,363,773
Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
FPA Transit lmpact
Available Revenue Curront Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
$ 403,204 -s tws]zt $ 1,339,853 $ 1,477,589
$ $
39 $ 389,982
13,222
$ 1,064,446
'15,331
$ 1,315,011
24,842
$ 1,523,953
(46,364) 322,264
$ 1,686,037
$$ $
$39
$ 403,165
$ 354,927
$
$ 1,079,777
$-
$ 1,339,853
$ 1,837,869
$ 3,177,722
$-
$ 1,477,589
$ 3,177,722
$
$ 1,686,037
$ 4,655,311$ 758,092
$ 758,092 $ 1,837,869 $ 4,655,31'l
$ 4,655,311
$ 6,341,348
$ 758.092 $ 1,837,869 $3, 177.722 $ 6,341,348
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
$ 4O3,2O4 $ 1,079,777 $
330,888 403,204
24,OOO 330,888
- 24,000
1,339,853
1,079,777
403,204
330,888
24,OOO
1,477,589
1,339,853
1,079,777
403,204
330,888
24,OOO
1,686,037
1,477 ,589
1,339,853
1,O79,777
330,888
427,204
$ $
$ 758,092 $ 1,837,869 $ 3,177,722 $ 4,655,311 $ 6,341,348 Notes:

TheFolsomplanAreaTransitFe6Fundreportsfundsb6ingheldbeyondthefive-yearsasdescribedbyABl600. TheTransitF€eisintendedtofundimplomentationofthe Folsom plan Area Transit Master Plan. This project cannot be implement€d at this time as the plan area roadways have not been fully constructed yet.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gapital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$$$ 0Yo
0o/o
0o/o
$ $ $
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$$-$ 0o/o
0o/o
0o/o
$
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$-
$
Non-lmpact
Expenditures
$
Fee
FY 2021-22 Proiects
$ 0%
0o/o
Oo/o
$ $ $
Non-lmpact
Impact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$$
$ Q-
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$3e$-
$ 39 $
FY 2020-21 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 0o/o
0o/o
ooa
$
FY 20{9-20 Proiects
Project
Amount
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
General Government overhead (interfund transfer) $ 39 't000/o 0o/o
Oolo
$3e
Notes:

I lnterfundtransfersareusedloreimbursetheGeneralFundforprovidingGeneralGovernmentsupport.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gity of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Folsom Plan Area Corporation Yard
Fund 459
Section3.l20.040oftheFolsomMunicipal CodeestablishestheprovisionforcollectionofaCorporationYardFee. Thepurposeofthisfeeis to fund the cost of land for the corporation yard, and the fair share of the cost of facilities and construction of the city's new corporation yard necessary to accommodate future growth in the city and the Folsom plan area, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

FOLSOM PLAN AREA CORPORATION YARD FEE
Use Category Basis Fee Amount
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential High Density
Multi-Family Residential Low Density
MultLFamily Residential Medium Density
Multi-Family Residential High Density
Mixed Use - Residential
Mixed User - Commercial
Office Park
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Regional Commercial
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Sq. Ft.
1,623
984
592
284
2',13
266

0.61 0.41

0.48 0.54

0.44 Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Statement of Revenues E (penditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
DescriDtion FY 2019t20 FY 2020121 FY 2021122 FY 2022t23 FY 2023t24 Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 123,134
4,708
$ 127,842
$ 66'1,297
2,760
$ 840,618
6,532
$ 637,985 $ 848,641
37 342 96 779
$ 664,057 $ 847,150 $ 675,327 $ 945,420
$ 310,480

16.512
$ 281,332
588
$ 273,516
195
$ $
688 1,256
$ 326,992 $
$ (1ee,1s0) $
$ 334,095 $
281,920
382,137
't34,946
273,711
573,439
517,083
$
$
$
$ 688
$ 674,639
$ 1,090,522
$ 1,765,161
$ 1,256
$ 944,164
$ 1,765,161
$ 134.946 $ 517,083 $ 1,090,522
$ 134,946 $ 517.083 $ 1,090,522 $ 1,765,161
$2, 709,325
$ 2,709,325
FPA Corporation Yard
Available Revenue Cunent Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Avallable Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available $ 134,946
Result: Five Year Revenue tesl met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
$ 't27,842 $ 517,083 $
7,104
847,'150
243,372
675,327
847,1 50
242,684
945,420
675,327
847,150
241,428
$
$ 517,083 $ 1,090,522 $ ',1,765,161 $ 2,70e,325

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gapital lmprovement Projects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2022-23 Proiects
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2021-22 Proiects
Purchase Corp Yard Property
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2020-21 Projects
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2019-20 Proiects
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 1,256
$ 1,256
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 688
$ 688
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100o/o
Non-lmpact
lmpact Fee Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$ 1,256 $ -
$ 1,256 $
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100o/o
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$688$
$ 688 $
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
NonJmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$ 273,516
195
-f--E7Tr
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 28',t,332
588
$ 281,920
Project
Amount
Expended
100o/o
100%
100%
100%
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$-
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 273,516
195
$ 273,711
lmpact Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$ 281,332 $ -
588
$ 281,920 $
lmpact Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures Expenditures
$ 310,480 $ -
16,512
$ 326,992 $
$ 310,480
16,512
100o/o
100%
$ 326,992
Notes:
1 lnterfund transfers are used to reimburse lhe General Fund for providing General Government support.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Gity of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Capital
Fund 472
Section 3.120.040 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Specific Plan fee. The fee is comprised of 7 subcomponents as follows:
.1. The general capital facilities component of the FPASP fee is to fund acquisition of general capital facilities, including, but not limited to:
furniture,-fixtures and equipment for city facilities (including fire and police facilities); police and fire vehicles and uniformed personnel turnout gear, public works vehicles and equipment, library materials, suih as books, computers, and other materials; and other general capital needs of the city in the Folsom plan area, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

2. The library component of the FpASp fee is to fund the construction of a branch library in the Folsom plan area, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

3. The municipal services center component of the FPASP fee is to fund the construction of a municipal services center in the Folsom plan area that allows customers to make utility bill and license payments, register for recreation programs, obtain and file building planning and permit applications and employment applications, and request code enforcement and other public services, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

4. The police component of the FpASP fee is to fund a police substation to serve the Folsom plan area, which is anticipated to include a public information counter area, conference rooms, lockers and showers, interview rooms and supervisor offices, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

5. The firjcomponent of the FpASp fee is to fund two new fire stations to serve the Folsom plan area, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

6. The parks component of the FPASP fee is to fund the construction of one hundred twenty-five acres of parkland in the Folsom plan area comprised oftwo community parks, five neighborhood parks, and two local parks, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

7. fhe trails component of ifre f pnSP fee is to fund the construction of approximately thirty miles of trails in the Folsom plan area, which include trails, a Class 1 bike path, Class ll bike lanes, intersection protection, trail bridges, under-crossings, and design costs, as described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

Use Category

FOLSOM PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAN FEE
Basis Fee Amount
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential High Density
Multi-Family Residential Low Density
Multi-Family Residential Medium Density
Multi-Family Residential High Density
Mixed Use - Residential
Mixed User - Commercial
Office Park
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Regional Commercial
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Sq. Ft.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
16,094
16,094
11,537
11,537
11,537
11,537

3.54 2.61

2.99 3.25

2.75 Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

DescriDtion
Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
FY 2019/20 FY 2020121 FY 2021t22
$ 4,',t84,947
FY 2022123 FY 2023t24
Revenues
Fees
lnterest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1 600 Expenditures
Other Expenses
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
$ 10.215.972
129,91'l
$ 12,818,590
(717,905)
$ 11,488,461
519,830
$ 14,805,453
2,486,697234 593
$ 4,419,540 $ 10,345,882 $ 12, 100,685 $ 12,008,291 $ ',17 ,292,150 $ 192,000 $ 3't2,072 $ 766,238
10,842
$ 2,014,593
8,460366
$ 11,249,109
16,708
50,295
$ 192,366
$ 4,227,174
$ 3,351,364
$ 312,072
$ 10,033,810
$ 7,578,538
$ 777,080
$ 11,323,606
$ 17,612,348
$ 28,935,954
$ 2,023,053
$ 9,985,238
$ 28,935,954
$ 1'1,316,111
$ 5,976,039
$ 38,921 .192
$ 7,578,538 $ 17,6 12.348 $ 38,921 ,192 $ 44,897.230
$ 7,578,538 $ 17,612,348 $ 28,935,954

$ 38,921 ,192 $ 44,897,230

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Aveilable Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
AvailablB Revenue Prior FismlYear (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Rovenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Result: Five Year Revenuo test met in accordance with Government Code 66001 Capital Improvement Projects
FPA Specific Plan Gapital
FY 2023-24 Projects
FPA Neighborhood Park #3
Fire Station #34
Folsom Plan Area Trails
Russell Ranch Bike Trail
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
Flve Year Revenue Tqst Uslng FIret ln First Out Method
$ 4,419,540 $ ',10,345,882 $ 12,100,685
3,125,575 4,419,540 10,345,882
33,4_23 2,846,e26
)iirZ,.ii
$$ 12,OO8,29'l
12,1 00,685
'10,345,882
4,419.540
46,794
17,292,'t50
12,OO8,291
12,100,685
3,496,104
$ 7,578,538 $ 17,612,348 $ 28,935,954 $ 3A,921,192 $ 44,897'230 Project Amount
Expended
$ 5,542,616
5,545,868
24,405
291,060
50,295
$ 11,454,243
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
100%
96%
100o/o
100o/o
1000/
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 5,542,616
5,310,028
24,405
291,060
50,295
Non-lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$
235,840
$ 11,2',t8,404 $ 235,840
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Nonlmpact Fee
ExpendituresFY 2022-23 Projects
FPA Neighborhood Park #3
Fire Station #34
Folsom Plan Area Trails
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 180,151
1,477,627
't27,519
8,460
'1000/o
1O0o/o
100o/o
1007o
1 80,1 51
1,477,627
127,519
8,460
$ $
$ 1.793,757
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
g 1,793,757 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$-
FY 2021-22 Projects
FPA Neighborhood Park #3
Fire Station #34
Folsom Plan Area Trails
Russell Ranch Bike Trail
Folsom Specific Plan Area Capital Transfer
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 229,228
117,862
11,647
280,000
127,500
10,842
$ 777,080
100%
100%
100o/o
1O0o/o
100o/o
100o/o
$ 229,228
117,862
11,647
280,000
't27,500
10,842
g 777,080 $
Project Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact Fee
ExpendituresFY 2020-21 Proiects
FPA Neighborhood Park #3
Russell Ranch Bike Trail
FY 2019-20 Proiects
Equipment
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
$ 32,072
280,000
$ 3',t2,072
Project Amount
Expended
$ 32,072
280,000
100o/o
100o/o
$
$ 192,000
366
$ 192366
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
$ 3',t2,072 $
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 192,000
366
$
Non-lmpact Fee
Expenditures
100%
100o/o
$ 192,366 $
Notes:

I lnterfundtransfersareus6dtoreimburs€theGeneralFundforprovidingGeneralGovernmentsupport. 2 lnterfund transfers ar€ used to roimbursB th6 Public Works Fund. The Public Works Fund captured the expenses for the purchase.

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

City of Folsom
Developer lmpact Fee Compliance 2024
Folsom Plan Area Solid Waste Capital
Fund 544
Section 3120340 of the Folsom Municipal Code establishes the provision for collection of a Solid Waste Fee. The purpose of this fee is to fund solid waste vehicles and waste container purchases required to maintain the level of municipal solid waste service in the Folsom plan area described in the PFFP and the nexus study.

FOLSOM PLAN AREA SOLID WASTE FEE
Use Category
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential High Density
Multi-Family Residential Low Density
Multi-Family Residential Medium Density
Multi-Family Residential High Density
Mixed Use - Residential
Mixed User - Commercial
Office Park
General Commercial
Community Gommercial
Regional Commercial
FY 2019120
Basis
Per unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Per Unit
Fee Amount
611
611
406
406
406
406

0.46 0.46

0.46 0.46

0.46 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Statement of Revenues Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for Last Five Fiscal Years
Descriotion FY 2020121 FY 2021122 FY 2022123 FY 2023t24 Revenues
Fees
lnteresi
Total Revenues
Expenditures
AB 1600 Expenditures
AB 1600 Transfers Out
Revenues less Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End ofYear
Available Fund Balance
FPA Solid Waste Capital
$ 158,853
5,067
$ 382,189
5,787
$ 387,976
$ 480,558
7,264
$ 465,761
28,384
$ 555,321
32,322
$ 163,91 9 $ 487,822 $ 494,',t45 $ 587,643
$ $ 34,905 $ 216,006 $ 80,000
997
$ 1,336,595
7,67314
$
$
$
14 163,905
126,459
$ 34,905
$ 353,071
$ 290,365
$ 643,436
$ 216,006
$ 271,817
$ 643,436
$ 80,997
$ 413,148
$ 915,252
$ 1,344,268
$ (756,625)
$ 1,328,400
$ 290,365 $ 915,252 $ '1,328,400 $ 571.775
$ 290,365 $ 643,436 $ 915.252 $ 1,328,400 $ 571,775
Available Revenue Current Year
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr Old Funds)
Available Revenue Prior Fiscal Year (s-yr Old Funds)
Aveilable Revenue Greater than Five Prior Fiscal Years
Total Revenue Available
Result: Five Year Revenue test met in accordance wiih Government Code 66001 $ 290,365 $ 643,436 $ 915,252 $ 1,328,400 $ 571,775
Five Year Revenue Test Using First ln First Out Method
s 163,919 $ 387,976 $ 487,822
117,900 163,919 387,976
8,546 91,541 3S,454
$ 494,145
487,A22
346,433
$ 571,775

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Capital lmprovement Proiects
FY 2023-24 Proiects
Garbage Containers
Equipment Purchases
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 2022-23 Proiects
Garbage Containers
General Government overhead (interfund transfer)
FY 202'l-22 Projects
Garbage Containers
Equipment Purchases
FY 2020-2'l Projects
Garbage Containers
FY 2019-20 Proiects
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 108,920
5,846,411
673
$ 5,963,004
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
7 lOOo/o
2'lo/o
100%
lmpact Fee
Non-lmpact
Fee
ExpendituresExpenditures
$ 108,920 $
1,227,675
7,673
4,618,736
$ 1,344,268 $ 4,618,736
Non-lmpact
Fee
Project
Amount
Expended
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 80,000
997
Expenditures
$-
997
$ 80,000 100%
lOOo/o
Oo/o
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lOOo/o
43o/o
OVo
$ 80,997
Project
Amount
Expended
$ 80,997 $
$ 66,006
349,978
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$ 66,006
150,000
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$
$ 415,984
199,978
$ 216,006 $ 199,978
Project
Amount
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-'l $ 34,905$ 34,905
$ 34,905
Project
Amount
Expended
OOo/o
0o/o
Oo/o
$ 34,905 $
Percent
Funded by
lmpact Fees
lmpact Fee
Expenditures
$14
Non-lmpact
Fee
Expenditures
$-General Government overhead (interfund transfer) $ 14 $ 14
Notes:
1 lnterfund lransfers are used to reimburse the General Fund for providing General Government support.

OOo/o
Oo/o
0%
$14$

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

This poge is intentiono.IlA left blCInk
to focilitate double- sided printing
and minimize paper trse.

CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE B.Y NATURE
F()LSOl\f

12/10/2024 Item No.17.

Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL ACTION
The Public Works Departmentrecommends thatthe City Council pass and adoptthe following resolutions:

Resolution No. 11304 - A Resolution Adopting the Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study Update Report Resolution No. 11305 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Amended (August 2024) Agreement on Operating Protocols between the City of Folsom and the Sacramento Transportation Authority related to the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program
i
MEETING DATE: T21r012024
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Sacramento County Transportation Fee Program Update Resolution No. 1 1304 - A Resolution Adopting the Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study Update Report
Resolution No. 11305 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Amended (August 2024) Agreement on Operating Protocols between the City of Folsom and the
Sacramento Transportation Authority related to the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program
F'ROM: Public Works Department

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

BACKG / ISSUE
The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) Board adopted an updated nexus study for the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP). As required under the Measure A Ordinance, all recipient agencies of the Measure A program are required to adopt the SCTMFP and subsequent actions to receive distributions of Measure A revenues.

In2004, Sacramento countywide voters supported the renewal of Measure A (new Measure A), which is a ll2 cent Transportation Sales tax. The new Measure A, which went into effect rn2009, included an Expenditure Plan and extended the existing Measure A sales tax for 30 years. Administered by the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA), the new Measure A sales tax also required implementing the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Development Impact Fee Program (SCTMFP) to partially fund the transportation improvements and projects identified in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. The program was created to generate a uniform transportation mitigation fee on certain new development in Sacramento County as a funding source for road and transit system improvements needed to accommodate proj ected growth.

Each jurisdiction was required to implement the SCTMFP as a condition of receiving the new Measure A sales tax revenues. These collected revenues are then remitted to the STA for reallocation to specific countywide transportation projects included in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. Each local fee is required to be consistent with the SCTMFP, as adopted by the STA.

In 2022, the STA spearheaded efforts to conduct an updated nexus study supporting the SCTMFP to ensure current and forecasted land uses are consistent with the categories outlined in the program. Following extensive collaboration with the impacted agencies and various stakeholders, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board approved a resolution:
o Adoptingthe2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study with additional land use categories o Setting the updated SCTMFP Fee Rates effective January I,2025 o Including a new residential fee structure to align with AB 602 requirements for fees to be proportional to square footage categories
o Amending the local arterial program to include smart growth arterials and corridors o Revising the SCTMFP overall program allocation
On August 8,2024,the STA Governing Board approved an Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols which incorporates the updated Fee Rates effective January 1,2025, and includes fee reductions for infill and transit-oriented development projects, and additional exemptions for accessory dwelling units less than750 square feet and development projects intended for use by the County or the City.

Updated Fee Amounts and New Residential Fee Structures. The fees for the various development types were updated using current trip generation rates consistent with state In addition, the residential fees were updated to align with AB 602 requirements for fees 1aw.
to be
2Page 234
12/10/2024 Item No.18.
proportionate to the square footage of the proposed development. The Nexus Study consultant worked with local agency staff to find the most appropriate square footage categories. Based on the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study fee calculation and the Agreement on Operating Protocols (Amended - August 2024), the new fee rates effective January 7, 2025, are set as follows:

Category Prior Fee Imposed
(FY 20241202s)
New Fee
Single Family Residential
Very Small (5800 sq.ft.) $I,574 per unit $1,088 per unit Small (801-1,200 sq. ft.) $I,574 per unit $1,334 per unit Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq. ft.) $I,574 per unit $1,451 per unit Medium (1,601-2,400 sq. ft.) $1,574 per unit $1,574 per unit Large (>2,400 sq. ft.) $1,574 per unit $1,730 per unit
Single Family Residential, Senior
Very Small (<800 sq.ft.) $1,260 per unit $497 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq. ft.) $1,260 per unit $609 per unit Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq. ft.) $ 1,260 per unit $663 per unit Medium (1,601-2,400 sq. ft.) 51,260 per unit $719 per unit Large (>2,400 sq. ft.) $1,260 per unit $790 per unit
Multi-Family Residential
Very Small (<800 sq.ft.) $1,101 per unit $995 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq. ft.) $1,101 per unit SI,221per unit Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq. ft.) $1,101 per unit 5I,327 per unit Medium (1,601-2,400 sq. ft.) $1,101 per unit $1,440 per unit Large (>2,400 sq. ft.) $1,101 per unit $1,582 per unit
Multi-Family Residential, Senior
Very Small (<800 sq.ft.) $943 per unit $440 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq. ft.) $943 per unit $540 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq. ft.) $943 per unit $587 per unit Medium (1,601-2,400 sq. ft.) $943 per unit $637 per unit Large (>2,400 sq. ft.) $943 per unit $700 per unit
aJ Page 235
12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Category Prior Fee Imposed
(FY 20241202s)
New Fee
Accessory Dwelling Units
Very Small (<750 sq.ft.) Exempt from fee Exempt from fee Otherwise (>750 sq.ft.) Fee is based on the ratio of
the floor area of the ADU
compared to the primary
unit, times the fee that
would be charged on the
primary unit, if the
primary unit was being
newly built.

Fee is based on the ratio
of the floor area of the
ADU compared to the
primary unit, times the
fee that would be
charged on the primary
unit, if the primary unit
was being newly built.

Office Uses $1,890 per 1,000 sq. ft. $1,807 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Retail Use $2,362 per 1,000 sq.ft. $2,361per 1,000 sq. ft.

Industrial Use $1,260 per 1,000 sq. ft. $827 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Hotel/Motel $912 per sleeping room $854 per sleeping room Extended Stay Hotel/Motel $810 per sleeping room $559 per sleeping room Hospital 52,639 per 1,000 sq.ft. $1,796 per 1,000 sq.ft.

Service Station 52,047 per fuel pump 53,442 per fuel pump Supermarket $2,362 per 1,000 sq.ft. $1,078 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Warehouse/Self Storage $394 per 1,000 sq. ft. $238 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Assisted Living Facility $454 per bed $434 per bed
Congregate Care $333 per unit $369 per unit
Child Day Care $725 per student $682 per student
Private School (K-12) $410 per student $414 per student Auto Repair/Body Shop $2,362 per 1,000 sq.ft. 52j61per 1,000 sq. ft.

Gym/Fitness Center $2,362 per 1,000 sq.ft. 52,36I per 1,000 sq.ft.

Drive-thru Car Wash $2,362 per 1,000 sq.ft. $2,361per 1,000 sq. ft.

Normalized Cost Per Trip (All other
uses)
$167 per trip $167 per trip
Measure A Administrative Fee None 2%o of total Measure A Development Impact
Fee
4Page 236
12/10/2024 Item No.18.

POLICY / RULE
Financial agreements with external governmental agencies require City Council approval.

ANALYSIS
Adoption of the Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study Update Report and Execution of the Amended Agreement on Operating Protocols are requirements for the city to continue receiving Measure A funds.

F'INANCIAL IMPACT
This recommendation has no fiscal impact. A11 fees collected under this program are remitted to the STA for distribution through the capital program. Additionally, amendments to the Measure A Program do not increase or reduce the City's distribution of Measure A revenues.

The Fee Program allows the city to charge a 2%o administrative fee to cover administrative reporting and similar costs to administer the fee.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project is exempt from CEQA consistent with Statutory Exemption Section 15273(a)(4), which states establishment, modification, structuring, restructtuing, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies is not a project, and therefore not subject to the provisions of CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11304 - A Resolution Adopting the Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study Update Report

2. Resolution No. 11305 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Amended (August 2024) Agreement on Operating Protocols between the City of Folsom and the Sacramento Transportation Authority related to the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program

3. 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study

4. Agreement on Operating Protocols
Submitted,
Mark Rackovan, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
5 Page 237
12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Attachment I
Resolution No. 1 1304

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

RESOLUTION NO. II3O4

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MEASURE A SACRAMENTO COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM2O24 NEXUS STUDY UPDATE REPORT
WHEREAS, on July 29,2004, the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) adopted Ordinance No. 04-01, including the Sacramento County Transportation Expenditure Plan 2009- 2039, codiffing the allocation of the new Measure A sales taxes and Measure A development impact fees for specified public improvement projects;
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters in Sacramento County approved an extension of the one-half cent Measure A transportation sales tax, to become effective on April 1, 2009, and approved the Measure A Expenditure Plan;
WHEREAS, STA Ordinance No. 04-01 required each jurisdiction in the county to adopt the Measure A development impact fees as a condition of receiving the new Measure A sales tax proceeds consistent with the Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP);
WHEREAS, on Jvne 7, 2006, STA adopted Resolution No. 06-0006, approving the SCTMFP Nexus Study, which identified the additional public facilities required by new development and determined the amount of the development impact fees to be imposed on a countywide basis, ensuring all new development paid its fair share of the costs of new public facilities needed to serve such development;
WHEREAS, the STA Resolution that adopted the Measrue A Nexus Study and set for the SCTMFP rates effective April I, 2009 provided that protocols related to SCTMFP Fee implementation issues, including but not iimited to, required dates of Fee remittance to STA and documentation to be submitted by each participating Agency, shall be established by future resolution of the STA and contracts between the STA and the participating agencies; WHEREAS, on January 30,2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8444 - A Resolution Implementing the Voter-Approved Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, effective April 1, 2009;
WHEREAS, in an effort to ensure the SCTMFP reflects current and anticipated land uses and public infrastructure and transportation needs, the STA conducted an updated Nexus Study, working with various affected agencies and stakeholders to achieve consistency; WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 24- 0005 approving the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study with an updated project list, includes a Smart Growth Arterials and Corridors program, and has an updated fee amounts and new residential fee structures to align with AB 602 requirements for fees to be proportional to square footage categories with the new updated rates to be effective January I,2025;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 Resolution No. 11304
Page I of2 Page 239
12/10/2024 Item No.18.
et seq.) on this date of December 10,2024 a public hearing was held on the adoption of the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study and the Operating Protocols Agreement, Amended August 2024, notice of said public hearing having been duly and properly given; and all written and oral presentations having been duly considered by the Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby adopt the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study and proposed impact fees, and has determined this action meets Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080(bX8) and CEQA Statutory Exemption Section 15273(a)@) which states, establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval ofrates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies is not aproject, and therefore not subject to the provisions of CEQA as the SCTMFP will fund non-expansion projects.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December 2024, by the following roll-call vote
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s)
Councilmember(s)
Councilmember(s)
Councilmember(s)
MAYOR
ATTEST
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11304

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Attachment 2
Resolution No. 1 1305

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

RESOLUTION NO. 11305

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDED (AUGUST 2024) AGREEMENT ON OPERATING PROTOCOLS

BETWEEN THE CITY OF FOLSOM AND THE SACRAMENTO TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY RELATED TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTYWIDE

TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the New Measure A Transportation Sales Tax approved by the County voters in 2004, called for the implementation of a Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Development Impact Fee Program so that new development paid its fair share of the costs of the transportation improvements included in the Measure A Expenditure plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Folsom was required to implement the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program SCTMFP, also referred to as the Measure A Fee, as a condition of receiving New Measure A sales tax revenues, in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, and the fees went into effect on April I,2009; and WHEREAS, Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) staff developed an Agreement on Operating Protocols to apply to all jurisdictions in the County, regarding the obligation to impose, collect, account, and remit the Measure A development impact fees to STA which was approved by the STA Board on August 28,2008; and
WHEREAS, STA staff coordinated with local jurisdictions to prepare a technical amendment to the Agreement on Operating Protocols in order to update the fee rate schedule to accommodate specific types of land development; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 24- 0005 approving the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study with additional land use categories, updated fee amounts and new residential fee structures to align with AB 602 requirements, with the new updated rates to be effective January 1,2025; and
WHEREAS, on August 8,2024, the STA Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 24- 0006 approving an amended Operating Protocols Agreement to utilize the updated SCTMFP fee rates and the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby authorize the City Manager to Execute the Amended (August 2024) Agreement on Operating Protocols between the City of Folsom and the Sacramento Transportation Authority related to the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December 2024, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Resolution No. 11305
Page I of2
Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s)
ATTEST
MAYOR
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11305
Page2 of2 Page 243
12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Attachment 3
2024 S acramento Countywide Transportation
Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study

12/10/2024 Item No.18.
2024 Nexus Study
Update Report
Sacramento Transportation Authority
May 24,2024
TA + The Power of Commitment

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present information that the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) may find useful in updating the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (SCTMF), pursuant to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The report updates previous work in several ways:
o lt incorporates new land use forecasts for Sacramento County, prepared under a different contract.l . The status of individual transportation projects was updated. This resulted in some projects no longer needing future SCTMF funding because the project has either been completed or is no longer planned.
e Project costs were updated, based on construction cost inflation and new estimates prepared by member agencies.
. The trip generation rates were updated to reflect the new data found in the 1 1th edition of the lnstitute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) Trip Generation Manual. r The percentage of the need for new transportation projects attributable to new development was recalculated using a version of SACOG',s latest travel demand model. . Board policies since the last nexus study, such as those regarding fees for retail developments, are reflected in the calculation of future fees.
. Several new sections were added based on requirements mandated by AB 602, which went into effeclin2O22.

These updates enable STA and the localjurisdictions to reaffirm the findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act, which are described in Chapter 5, and implement the fee program.

Most readers of this report will find the calculation of the impact fees to be the part of greatest interest. This is found in Chapter 4. The proposed fee for the average single-family home would adhere to the 2004 voter- approved Measure A Ordinance's express requirement to adopt a fee consistent with State law. ln 2021, the Legislature passed AB 602, which requires cities, counties, and special districts, inter alia, to "calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development." (Cal. Government Code, $ 66016.s(aXsXa)). AB 602 also allows for other systems beyond square footage-based proportionality but requires "...an explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric," and "that an alternative basis [...] bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by new development", and "that other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments..." (Cal. Government Code, $ 66016.s(aXsXb)).

Accordingly, the percentage increase or decrease in fees for different types of development varies due to changes in their trip generation rates and the new AB 602-mandated adjustment for floor area. For example, while the rate for the average single-family dwelling (SFD, medium size 1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) would not change, the fee for very small SFD (< 800 sq.ft.) would decrease by $a86 (31%) and the fee for small SFD (801-1,200 sq.ft.) would decrease by $2a0 (5o/o).The fee for medium-small SFD (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) would increase by $123 (B%) and the fee for large SFD (>2,400 sq.ft.) would increase by $156 (10%). Rates for age-restricted senior housing would decrease. Rates for multi-family dwellings would generally increase for all development types except very small units due to revisions to their trip-generation rate. Per the Measure A Ordinance, non-SFD rates are set in proportion to the trip generation rate of a (medium) single-family dwelling unit' 1 Technical Memorandum: Sacramento Transpoftation Authority Development Forecasts. dated August 18,2021 GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report i

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Please note that these are all "potential" changes to fees; the STA Board may, at its discretion, choose to set fee rates for any given development type at a level lower than that calculation in this report. lt may not, however, set the fee rates higher than those supported by a nexus calculation.

The intent of this study is to validate the fee and allow the local jurisdictions to continue to implement the fee.

A localjurisdiction that fails to implement the fee would forfeit local street and road maintenance funds provided by Measure A. All such funds would be made immediately available on a pro rata basis to all other localjurisdictions that have this fee program in place.

GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report ii

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Gontents

1. lntroduction

1.1 Purpose of this rePort

1.2 Background on the SCTMF Program

1.3 lmplementation History

2. Review of Previous Nexus StudY

2.1 Methodology Used

2.2 Key AssumPtions

3. Updates of Key InPuts

3.1 Development Growth Forecasts

3.2 Traffic and Ridership Growth Forecasts

3.3 Volume-to-CaPacitY Ratios

3.4 Project Cost Estimates

4. Updated Fee Calculation

4.1 Consideration of Residential Floor Area

4.1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

4.2 Computing the Maximum Allowable Fee

4.3 Recommended Fee by Land Use Category

4.4 Funding from Other Sources

4.4.1 FundingfromLocalJurisdictions

5. Mitigation Fee Act Findings

5.1 Purpose of the Fee

5.2 Use of Fee Revenues

5.3 Use/Type-of-Development Relationship

5.4 Needffype-of-Development Relationship

5.5 Proportionality Relationship

5.6 Residential Floor Area
Table index
Table 1: Revenues by Year and Jurisdiction
Table 2: Expenditure by Years and Jurisdiction
Table 3: computation of Average Rate for commercial/Retail Uses Table 4: Computation of Average Rate for lndustrial Uses Table 5: Computation of Average Rate for Warehouse/Self Storage Uses Table 6: Computation of Average Rate for Lodging Uses
Table 7: Trip-Generation Rates Used for Forecast of Traffic Growth 1 1
1 2
5 5
7 I
9 10
16 18
22 22
24 24
25 28
28 32
32 32
32 32
33 33
3 4
14 14
14 14
15 GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority 112578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report iii

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Table 8: Growth in Trips Generated in Sacramento County Table 9: LOS Policies of Jurisdictions in Sacramento County Table 10: Volumeto-Capacity Ratios for Measure A Road Projects Table 11: Updated Project Costs
Table 12: Construction Cost lnflator
Table 13: Computation of Average Trip Generation by Dwelling Size Category Table 14: Computation of DUEs by Size and Dwelling Type Table 15: Calculation of Fee per New Vehicle Trip (for Roads) and Per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (for Roads and Transit)
Table 16: Fees for Residential Developments
Table 17: Updated Fees by Non-Residential Development Type Table 18: Grant Funding for Completed Measure A Projects Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects Figure index
Figure 1: Forecast Versus Actual Revenues
Figure 2: Steps Used in the 2006 Fee Calculation
Figure 3: Forecast Versus Actual Housing Starts in Sacramento County Figure 4: Forecast for Development of Single-Family Dwellings Figure 5: Forecast for Development of Multi-Family Dwellings Figure 6: Forecast for Non-Residential Development
15 16
17 19
21 23
24 25
26 27
29 30
2 6
7 1'l
12 13
GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 125787631 2024 Nexus Study Update Report iv

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

1. lntroduction

1.1 Purpose of this rePort
California's Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025) requires agencies that impose impact fees to periodically review the assumptions and calculations used in computing the fee. lt further requires them to revise the calculation if necessary to maintain a nexus, i.e. a logical connection between the developments that will be required to pay the fee and the impact being mitigated. The agency is then required to make certain specific findings certifying that the fee is in conformance with the Act. As STA does not impose impact fees, it would instead recommend that local agencies participating in the Measure A Program adopt the nexus study and revised fee schedule, with the local agencies then taking individual actions to formalize adoption.

The purpose of this report is to review the assumptions and methodology used in computing the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (SCTMF), update them as needed, and recommend changes to the fee schedule that will enable it to accomplish the Program's goals. The report is also intended to document this work and fulfill the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, including new requirements pursuant to the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 602in2021.

1.2 Background on the SCTMF Program
ln 1g88 the voters of Sacramento County approved a half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements in Sacramento County. The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) was created as a countywide transportation agency to fiscally administer the program. Measure A, the 30-year extension of the 1988 sales tax, was approved by voters in 2004 and went into effect in April 2009 when the previous tax expired.

One component of Measure A was the introduction of a countywide transportation mitigation fee. This was enacted by the STA Board in Section Vll of STA Ordinance 04-01. The stated goal was "to develop and implement a uniform transportation mitigation fee on all new development in Sacramento County that will assist in funding road and transit system improvements needed to accommodate projected growth and development."
The expected proceeds of the fee were tentatively allocated as follows:
35% Local streets and roads for capital improvements and rehabilitation 20% Public transit for capital improvements and rehabilitation 20o/o Local interchange upgrades, safety projects, and congestion relief improvements on the local freeway system, including bus and carpool lane projects' 15% Smart GroMh lncentive Program
10% Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation, including, but not limited to, habitat conservation, open space preservation, habitat replacement, and recreation, and overall environmental enhancement of transportation facilities to the benefit of local transit users and neighborhoods. Necessary open space preservation and natural habitat preservation programs shall be eligible uses of these funds.

A nexus study for the fee was completed in June 2006 which recommended the fee of $1,000 per single- family dwelling, with other developments to be charged based on their trip-generation rate relative to single- family dwellings. This study is described in detail in a later section of this report.

GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study update Report 1

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

1.3 lmplementation History
SCTMF fees were imposed, and revenues are collected, by localjurisdictions in Sacramento County based on the SCTMF as part of their development approval process. The revenues are then remitted to STA, which then distributes the proceeds to various eligible projects in accordance with direction from the STA Board.

Each of the seven-member jurisdictions (the six incorporated cities plus the County) have projects included in the Expenditure Plan, as do three additional agencies. These are Caltrans, Sacramento Regional Transit, and the Capitol Southeast Connector JPA.

Fees started to be collected in 2009 when Measure A went into effect. More than $80.5 million in fees have been collected to date. Table 1 shows the program revenues by fiscal year and jurisdiction. Revenues have followed a general upward trajectory over time, as the development industry in the region has recovered from the Great Recession in (late 2007 to mid-2009).

Table 2 shows the program expenditures by fiscal year and implementing agency. As of June 30, 2023, the program has made more than $68 million available to six different agencies for Measure A projects.

Although the SCTMF Program has successfully brought in tens of millions of dollars for transportation projecti needed to accommodate continued growth, the program has not achieved its revenue goals. Figure 1 compares the revenues that were forecast in the 2006 nexus study with the amounts actually received. For the 2008-2023 period, the program brought in only 160/o of the expected revenue. This is due in large part to unfortunate timing, with the program kicking off during the Great Recession. Real estate development was among the hardest hit during the recession and among the slowest to recover. With little development activity taking place to generate revenue, impact fee programs across California failed to generate the revenues expected from pre-recession forecasts, when development was booming.

Figure 1: Forecasf Versus Actual Revenues
6L
l!
=o(f
c
OJ
(J
OJ
co
(u
d,
E
ss0,000,000
$4s,0m,000
s40,00o,000
s3s,0m,000
$30,ooo,ooo
s2s,0m,000
520,0m,000
s1s,000,000
s10,000,0m
5s,mo,000
$o

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
2009 2010 20II 20L2 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fiscal Year
-ForecastRevenues -[6lu3l
Revenues
GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study update Report 2

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Total
$751,700
$2,321,958
$2,334,437
$2,957,362
$3,176,382
$3,540,542
$4,624,139
$4,363,650
$7,88,174
$7,621,753
$6,684,037
$7,55'1,556
$9,956,993
$8,237,425
$8,856,242
$740,739
$80,567,090
100%
Gitrus
Heights
$1,452
$15,989
$7,091
$60,e30
$22,491
$9,872
$95,5e4
$114,898
$89,477
$2A,720
$71,335
$17,465
$258,817
$373,344
$20,006
$10,944
$1,190,426
1%
Galt
$784
$32,697
$o
$0
$17,152
$629,402
$246,253
$127,781
$188,900
$52,510
$80,266
$96,852
$376,875
$1,385,171
$1,528,205
$89,506
$4,852,353
6%
Rancho
Cordova
$92,800
$259,378
$204,379
$302,467
$378,345
$360,591
$352,981
$428,758
$708,906
$400,807
$471,078
$916,239
$934,092
$179,181
$152,326
$20,238
$6,162,567
8%
Folsom
$388,909
$160,098
$235,420
$151,321
$372,038
$504,350
$563,908
$387,388
$309,544
$833,234
$782,022
$878,685
$1,165,476
$1,175,200
$1,609,388
$130,288
$9,647,269
12%
Elk Grove
$51,729
$539,123
$860,663
$990,421
$588,839
$665,916
$835,144
$920,723
$408,227
$1,434,011
$1,338,725
$964,492
$1,658,050
$1,014,918
$1,223,435
$74,692
$13,569,106
17%
Sacramento
County
$75,381
$540,256
$476,898
$864,400
$925,576
$768,585
$901,922
$1,053,408
$1,709,179
$1,009,173
$1,233,164
$1,479,587
$2,850,723
$1,448,899
$1,796,877
$158,994
$17,293,022
21%
Gity of
Sacramento
$140,644
$774,416
$549,987
$587,824
$871,942
$601,826
$1,628,337
$1,330,694
v,433,942
$3,871,298
$2,707,448
$3,198,236
$1,712,959
$2,660,711
$2,526,006
$256,077
$27,852,348
35%
Fiscal
Year
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 20{9
FY 2020
FY 2021
FY 2022
FY 2023
lnterest
Total
% of Total
Source: STA
Table 1: Revenues by Year and Jurisdiction
GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study update Report 3

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Total
$o
$o
$0
$7,525,163
$20,078
$2,556,820
$o
$o
$15.547.233
($10,837,673)
$9,581,120
$11.712,770
$15,503,666
$13,373,785
$2,625,749
$68,608,711
Capitol
Southeast
Connector
$o
$0
$0
$1,370,479
$o
$o
$0
$o
$2,275,776
($2,316,651)
$4,659,492
$7,144,332
$4,006,952
$7,898,740
$1,966,518
$27,005,638
SacRT
$0
$o
$0
$3,940,833
$o
$o
$o
$o
$106,607
($4,047,440)
$o
$0
$o
$o
$o
Caltrans
$o
$0
$o
$1,400,667
$20,078
$0
$o
$o
$3,047,319
($6,599,873)
$1.193,987
$937,911
$1,883,54e
$0
$1,883,639
Gitrus
Heights
$0
$0
$o
$59,275
$0
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0
$o
$600,000
$659,275
Galt
$o
$o
$o
$0
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0
$0
$o
$o
Rancho
Cordova
$0
$o
$0
$o
$o
$o
$0
$0
$666,782
$434,878
$1,322,524
$1,569,163
$2,756,887
$o
$6,750,230
Folsom
$o
$o
$o
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
$0
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0
$o
Elk Grove
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0
$o
$o
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
$93,561
$165.212
$258,773
Sacranento
Gounty
$o
$0
$o
$382,219
$0
$1,084,917
$0
$0
$1,872,358
$614,425
$1,689,048
$1,867,750
s6.372.770
$4,3U,452
$24,244
$18,242,182
City of
Sacranrento
$o
$o
$o
$371,690
$0
$1,471,903
$o
$o
$8,578,391
$'1,076,989
$716,073
$193,614
$483,507
w7,031
$469,776
$13.808,974
Fiscal
Year
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
FY 2022
FY 2023
Total
Table 2: Expenditure by Years and Jurisdiction
Notes: Some cell values are negative. This indicates cases where money from the General Fund was used to reimburse earlier expenditures from the SCTMF Program.

Expenditures for Caltrans, SacRT, and Capitol Southeast Connector have occurred within multiple jurisdictions. 4GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study update Report

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

2. Review of Previous Nexus StudY
Section 66016.5(aX4) of AB 602, which went into effect on July 1, 2022, states thal"lf a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the originalfee." This chapter is intended to fulfill this requirement by reviewing the methodology and assumptions used in the original nexus study by David Taussig & Associates, dated June 2006, entitled "Sacramento Transportation Authority Development lmpact Fee StudY".

2.1 Methodology Used
The methodology used in the 2006 fee calculation is shown in Figure 2. The key steps were:
1) Estimates for the existing residential and non-residential land uses in Sacramento County were provided by SACOG.

The study purposefully excluded neighborhood and community retail uses from the fee calculation.

The rationale was that trips to and from these uses would be made on local streets and thus would not contribute to traffic on the regional roads funded by the fee program. 2) Trip generation rates were taken from the lnstitute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) Trip Generation Manual,6th Edition. For the commercial retail land use category, a blended rate of 7 retail land use codes was used. The rates for retail uses were also adjusted to account for pass-by trips. 3) The number of units for each land use type, dwelling units for residential and square feet for non- residential, were multiplied by the ITE trip generation rates to estimate the daily number of vehicle trips generated in Sacramento County.
4) Forecasts for future growth were provided by SACOG and used to generate an estimate of the number of vehicle trips that would be generated in Sacramento County in the study's horizon year (203e).
5) Future development's fair share of the cost of roadway improvements was then calculated as its share of total trips generated in 2039, which was 31%.
6) A "Needs List" of projects was developed through consultation with Sacramento County, STA member cities, and Caltrans, and included in the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP).

No further elaboration of this process was provided in the nexus study. However, the fact that the project list was approved by the voters, who agreed to tax themselves to pay for the projects, is strongly indicative of a consensus that the facilities listed are in fact needed.

T) A cost was assigned to every p@ect on the Needs List. The nexus study did not state where the cost estimates came from, but it is likely that they were provided by whichever agency was tasked with implementing the Project.
8) The percentage share of costs attributable to new development from Step 5 was applied to the project costs in Step 7 to find the total project costs attributable to new development. 9)Thiswasdividedbythegrowthintripstofindtheallowablefeepernewtrip($1,005/single-family dwelling).
10) The STA Board of Directors made a policy decision to limit the fee on new development to $1,000 per single-family dwelling.
11) The permissible fee rates from Step 9 were duly factored down pro rata so that the fee on single- family dwellings was $1,000.

GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus study update Report 5

12/10/2024 Item No.18.
12) Other sources of funding, including sales tax revenues, local agency fees, and State and federal programs, were identified as sources for the remaining funds required to implement the projects on the Needs List.
13) The final fee schedule was then submitted to the STA Board for approval.

Figure 2; Sfeps Used in the 2006 Fee Calculation
Key
il, .lr,li
l;iulrquya,; '1:jl1- r1 1ii'y,r\'i r l,it;il,i, L i:,ii,l;iir1.r ir,).il[v tlliiirt, 1ll;r l! i:ll, l{,li i"lll )t,lt litit i:, rii,i'l,lri t: i l l';r;lc\,,'i lr i iolri: Iil:l l I l.l (,j[,r,iii(r l0]:iltij/'r.\:lijit jl'lthii,i tii,li il! lili.r,1/ Dl:lvt.i til.) I rr.rnlil.
, i i,'j:ri aoi
I L;.i1:i! .1.
ii r rr,,!t t,i ij
f..j i11 1s, I roJ i i iir tiiiu i{.) I )}i,jit i,i i:) rr.ii'r. j /l,\iiiirilirr tiii: i l,jl,t iilor ili,r,,'/
J t)li r.V:llor;trrtI.t ntir
lrYri,r,t,tr t,tl,|
(tl,t,jltri,rr r't,.
if,ri, ft{II Itr 0 ri i it.l rtfl ii fJ:jiLli.r I I i.I,) l;r't ' 1i:i)lill rl
I
I
, i,1rh) j lijlii,rlito)
li:lr1D ri;lr,iololol
I
irjljit-r,'.{oli rrt't,},r i11
i
:LrlrtJi:
i li{1{.10}i il i rri) i! {; [, tJ I I i tI: r
cHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority I'12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report o

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

2.2 Key Assumptions
As seen in Figure 2, the key assumptions in the 2006 study pertain to existing and proposed land uses, trip- generation rates, and project costs. These are discussed below' Land Use Assumptions
The 2006 nexus study reported that its land use assumptions came directly from SACOG's travel demand model; the origins of the data in the model were not discussed. Figure 3 compares the study's assumed production of single-family housing (dark lines) and multi-family housing (amber lines). As shown in Figure 3, the 2006 study assumed that the average longterm monthly production of multi-family would approximately double the previous highest-ever single-month production. Contrary to this forecast, MFD production declined after 2006, resulting in a 4-or-S-fold overestimate of MFDs that would pay the fee. The 2006 study also assumed a reduction in single-family housing production, though the actual reduction was greater than the forecast reduction.

Figure 3: Forecast Versus Actual Housing Sfarfs in Sacramento County 1,000
2006 NexusStudyAssu
2006 Nexus StudyAssumed Average Production of 5FD
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
chart bV llrrt lu€rdry
800
500
400
200
vt
c
1ll
t(!
V'
g
o
IJ5L
a
CoL.|
0 2017 2019 20Zt 2023
Data courtety U.S' Census
Slngle famlly resldentlal
{Stn) rtartr
Multi-lamily starts
The discrepancy between the forecast and the actual housing production can mostly be attributed to the effects of the Great Recession on the local, state, and national real estate markets. Housing starts fell statewide by 68% between 2007 and 2009 and did not recover to pre-recession levels for 10 years.

Furthermore, SACOG's belief at that time that residential development in the Sacramento region would focus on dense, infill development, including high levels of apartment development in Sacramento County, has not been fulfilled to the extent that had been hoped for in 2006.

Trip Generation Rates
The ITE Tip Generation Manualhas been the standard industry source for vehicle trip data for generations.

The Trip Generation Manuatcontains data from field surveys of thousands of sites and is regularly updated to capture the effects of changes in travel behavior. The 2006 study's use of this source was therefore in accordance with standard industry practice. The 2006 study used the 6th edition of the Trip Generation Manual; the current edition is the 11th.

GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 7

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Project Cosf Estimafes
The 2006 study does not state the source of the project cost estimates, beyond saying that the Needs List, "... rs a compitation of projects and cosfs identified by the local agency planning and engineering depaftments." No further details are provided in the report. cHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report I

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

3. Updates of KeY InPuts
The current nexus study offers an opportunity to update the key assumptions underpinning the nexus between new development and the fee. This process is described below.

3.1 Development Growth Forecasts
Land use forecasts are made for a variety of reasons, including preparation of a jurisdiction's General Plan, air quality conformity forecasts, and planning for transportation and other infrastructure projects, to name just a few. STA therefore commissioned Economic & Planning Systems, lnc. (EPS) to develop growth forecasts specifically for use in the SCTMF nexus update study. The results were documented in a technical memorandum to STA.2
EPS's development forecasts project short-term and longer-term land use changes for the total STA geography and by individualjurisdiction. The short-term projections focus on a 3-year period - fiscal years 2022,2029, and 2024 - while the longerterm development projections identify anticipated development through the remainder of the program (i.e. through 2039)' EpS used several sources when developing their forecasts, including historical building permit data by land use; the development pipeline, including planned and proposed development projects, residential units, non- residential square footage, etc.; and population, household, and employment projections. This data was provided by the seven-member jurisdictions, SACOG, the California Department of Finance, the Construction lndustry Research Board, the North State Building lndustry Association, and several media outlets.

EPS grouped potential development into three categories:

1. Active Entitled Development. This category includes the remaining residential units and nonresidential square footage for projects that are delivering homes or building infrastructure, including only those residential units and nonresidential square footage where building permits have not yet been issued. Development projects in this category are either developing - with absorption anticipated to continue in the near term - or anticipated to start vertical construction within the next 3 to 5 years.

Z. planned Development. Planned development includes projects that have been approved and have tentative maps, but infrastructure has not yet been initiated. Development in this category is considered likely to develop within the next 5 to 20 years.

3. Conceotual Development. Development classified as conceptual for this analysis includes projects for which planning applications may have been submitted but not yet approved. This category also includes development concepts that may have been reported by the localjurisdiction, developers, or via third-party sources such as the Sacramento Business Journal or other news entities.

Development in this category may not occur within the next 20 years.

Growth forecasts at the county and city levels were used as control totals to limit the groMh in the three categories described above to amounts reasonably foreseeable within the life of the SCTMF Program, considering past development performance.

Figure 4 charts the development of single-family dwellings since 2011 and the forecast going fonruard to the end of the SCTMF Program in 2039. Note the spike in construction in the City of Sacramento after a 2 Technical Memorandum: Sacramento Transpoftation Authority Development Forecasfs, dated August 18' 2021 GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report I

12/10/2024 Item No.18.
moratorium on development in Natomas3 was lifted, allowing many projects already in the development pipeline to proceed.

Figure 5 shows data for the same period for the development of multi-family housing. There was a surge in units between2015 and2020, especially in the Natomas, Downtown, and Midtown areas. This is forecastto drop as the stock of relatively easily developed lots becomes exhausted.

Figure 6 shows the corresponding graphs for non-residential development. ln 2016 there was a spike in construction, again due to lifting the moratorium on development in Natomas, but also encompassing major developments in other locations, like Delta Shores.
ln each case, the period between 2015 and 2020 appears to represent one-off occurrences of the release of pent-up demand. The forecasts going forward represent a return to long-term average conditions.

3.2 Traffic and Ridership Growth Forecasts
The development forecasts from the previous section must be converted into forecasts for the growth in traffic associated with new development in Sacramento County. The conversion from dwelling units (for residential development) and thousands of square feet (for non-residential developments) to trips was done using the trip generation rates found in the eleventh edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.

The Trip Generation Manualhas dozens of land use categories that do not directly correspond to the land use categories used in the land use forecast. For example, the Trip Generation Manual has trip generation rates for 76 types of retail and service establishments aggregated into a single "Commercial, Retail" category in the land use forecasts. This reflects the reality that a commercial building may host a variety of tenants over its service life, so attempting to forecast individual uses, for example, "hair salons," would be speculative at best. lnstead, some representative use sub-categories were combined to generate averages to represent large categories of development. Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 7 show the derivation of the average trip generation rates for the commercial/retail, industrial, warehouse/self-storage, and lodging categories, respectively. Table 7 shows the resulting rates used to forecast the growth in traffic attributable to future development in Sacramento County.

The growth estimates for each category were then multiplied by their respective trip-generation rates to determine the growth in daily vehicle trips generated by new development (see Table 8). A similar calculation was done for the trips generated by existing land uses, with the existing land uses taken from SACOG's SACSIM travel demand model. Table 8 shows that 5.6% of the trips generated in Sacramento County in 2039, when Measure A expires, would be attributable to new development.

Besides generating new vehicle trips, new development also generates new users for the transit system. This was computed as the percentage of dwelling units in the horizon year that would be built between 2022 and 2039. As seen in Table 8, 8.7o/o of lransit riders in 2039 could be attributed to new development. 3 ln the wake of the flooding of parts of New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina, the Federal government imposed a moratorium on development in the Natomis basin until the levees protecting it could be inspected and strengthened. The moratorium lasted 7 years. lt was lifted in 2015.

GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 10

12/10/2024 Item No.18.
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Single-Family Housing Units
Crdr$.AtCr"."C "4"C"&t"df "**rdP".t|"rdF"."""$ ".t..t9"Crdd'.r$"-f "..r""S"s""-S "stC.F"""** 0 -
$26;36snfs
-
Qi{y qf
-
city of
County Sacramento Elk Grove
-
city of
Folsom
-
city of
Rancho
Cordova
...'.. City of
Rancho
Cordova
-city
of
Citrus
Height
...... City of
Citrus
Height
-
city of
Galt
.. .... City of
Galt
...... Sacramento ...... City of " " " City of
County Sacramento Elk Grove
...... City of
Folsom
Figure 4: Forecast for Development of Single'Family Dwellings GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 11

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Multi-Family Housing Units
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 .r$"J"f C"d'e"Sn$ ""f.C"..p".r$.rdP".Sr$.f "..r""/ 'STCtdlrdr"SC"df rs""-$ ".9"C"."""."
-$2sr2rnento -city
of
-city
of
County Sacramento Elk Grove
-
city of
Folsom
-
city of
Rancho
Cordova -
city of
Citrus
Height -
city of
Galt
Sacramento ...... City of
County Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
Figure 5: Forecast for Development of Multi-Family Dwellings GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 1257s763 | 2024 Nexus Study update Report 12

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

5.8 MSF Non-Residential Development
3,000,000
2,500,000 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Co
Eooo
oo
o
oo
LL
oL
(5
f(ta
2,000,000
I
1,500,000 lllllltlllllll
t
1,000,000 l1
l1
500.000 \
0 ,$+lncPno!$"+"n$n*"rcsn"t"ncr"cPn"f n"{$n*'
-Qffiss---office (future) -fsfsjl- - -Retail (future) -lndusldsl -Other- - -lndustrial (future) - -'Other (future) Figure 6: Forecast for Non-Residential Development
GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12575763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report '13

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Tabte 3: Computation of Average Rate for CommerciallRetail Uses ITE llescription ITE
Code Unit
Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Pa*by
Credit
Net Daily
TripGen
Rate
Fstimated
% Square
Footage
Weighted
Average
ADT's
(A) (B) (c)=(A).(r-B) (D) (E)=(c)*(D)
Shopping Center (>1 50k) 820 KSF 37.01 40o/o 22.21 4O%o 8.88 Conrenience Store* 851 KSF 762.28 560/o 335.40 11o/o 36.89 Fine Dining Restaurant 931 KSF 83.84 44% 46.95 15o/o 7.O4 Fast-Food Restaurant 933 KSF 450.49 55o/o 202.72 5% 10.14 Automobile Sales (new
whicles) 840 KSF 27.84 Oo/o 27.84 6% 1.67
Home lmprorement
Superstore
862 KSF 30.74 42o/o 17.83 15% 2.67
Driw-ln Bank 912 KSF 100.35 35% 65.23 8o/o 5.22
Combined Rate 100.00% 72.52
* Pass-by rate taken from land use 945, Conrenience Store/Gas Station The Estimated % Square Footage is from the 2006 Nexus Study, Appendix E Table 4: Computation of Average Rate for Industrial Uses lndustrial Land Uses ITE
Gode Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
General Lioht lndustrial 110 KSF 4.96
lndustrial Park 130 KSF 3.37
Manufucturinq 140 KSF 3.93
Awraqe Rate 4.09
Table 5: Computation of Average Rate for WarehouselSelf Sforage Uses Warehouse Uses
ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Hioh-Cube Warehouse 154 KSF 1.40
Self Storaqe 151 KSF 1.45
Areraqe Rate 1.43
Table 6: Computation of Average Rate for Lodging Uses
Lodging Land Uses ITE
Gode Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Hotel 310 Room 7.99
Business Hotel 312 Room 4.02
Motel 320 Room 3.35
Awrage Rate 5.12
GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority I'12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 14

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Table 7: Trip-Generation Rafes Used for Forecast of Traffic Growth SCTMFP Land Use Gode ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Residential, Sinqle Family 210 DU 9.44
Residential, Multi-Family 220 DU 6.74
Commercial, Retail Mixed KSF 72.52
Commercial, Offce 710 KSF 10.84
lndustrial Mixed KSF 4.09
Hosoital/Medical 610 KSF 10.77
Warehouse/Self Storaqe Mixed KSF 1.43
Table 8: Growth in Trips Generated in Sacramento County Development Type
Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
per Unit
Existins in2A22 Future Growth eA22-2A391
Number of
Units Daily Trips Number of
Units Daily Trips
Residential, Single Family 9.44 362,022 3,417,491 42,050 396,952 Residential, Multi-Family 6.74 221,885 1,495.503 13,775 92,844 Commercial, Retail 72.52 94,445 6,849,004 2,764 200,441 Commercial, Office 10.84 57,936 628,026 1,964 21,290
lndustrial 4,09 100,527 410,822 4,'t86 17,107
Hospital/Medical 10.77 8,538 91,954 2,793 30,081
Warehouse/Self Storage 143 23.319 33,229 971 1,384
TotalTrips
Percent of Trips in 2039
Percent of DUs in 2039
12,800,845

94.4o/o
760,097

5.60/o

91.3Yo B.7Vo
GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority 112578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 15

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

3.3 Volume-to-Gapacity Ratios
For an impact fee to be collected, there must be a need for capacity improvements that are triggered by new development. Capacity deficiencies are identified using level of service (LOS) thresholds that are established in a jurisdiction's general plan. The LOS policies of the 7 jurisdictions in Sacramento County are shown in Table 9.

Table 9; LOS Policies of Jurisdictions in Sacramento County Jurisdiction LOS PolicY
Sacramento County "D" on rural roadways, "E" on urban roadways City of Sacramento* See note below
Etk Grove Not explicitly stated, but target delay at signalized intersections corresponds to LOS "D"
Folsom LOS'D', with some exceptions allowed
Rancho Cordova LOS "D', with some exceptions allowed
Citrus Heights LOS'E', with some exceptions allowed
Galt LOS "C', except "D" within Tnmile of SR-99 interchanges -The City of Sacramento has adopted Traffic lmpact Study Guidelines, which identiry roadway volume service thresholds that approximate an equivalent LOS C/D threshold for roadway sizing.

As can be seen in Table 9, the predominant approach among Sacramento County jurisdictions is to maintain LOS "D" in most situations. This balances a reasonable degree of mobility with the need to keep the cost of infrastructure at an affordable level.

Table 10 shows the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for the Measure A roadway projects that have not yet been constructed. The volumes assume that the forecast new growth occurs and the capacity assumes that no improvements are made to the roadway network. For context, a V/C ratio between 0.9 and 1.0 indicates LOS "E' and a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 indicates LOS 'F.' For every project on the list, new growth worsens the V/C ratio. And in every case but one, the V/C ratio would be worse than the acceptable threshold of 0.90, which is the upper limit of LOS 'D'. Based on these results, we determined that new development causes or contributes to the deficiencies triggering every project listed in Table 10 except for A25SC.

GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 16

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

Project Name
STA
Prolect # Jurisdiction E<isting Exlsting +
Growth
A. LOGAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Watt - le AOlSC Sac Countv 1.31 1.32
AO5SC Sac Countv 1.15 1.22
haw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blt,d AO6EG Elk Gro\€ 139 1.50 Bradshaw Road: Calvine-Old Placeruille Rd AOSSG Sac Countv 1.40 1.53 Elk Gro\E Bhid: Biq Horn-Waterman A1 1EG Elk Gro\E 1.11 1.30 Folsom Bhd: Watt Are. - Bradshaw Rd 413SC Sac County 1.01 1.04 A16JP.I CSCA JPA 1.09 1.26
n A17SC Sac Countv 1.01 1.03
Lane: Bhd - 2 A1gSC Sac Countv 1.12 1.16
AvL.nue: Ale - A22SC Sac Countv 1.23 1.25
Madison A\,e - A255C Sac Countv 0.87 o.71
Madison A\enue: Phase 3 (Watt Aw - Sunrise Bl!d) 4265C Sac County 1.44 1.48 S Watt/Elk Grore-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom BIv9|: t{qg A285C Sac County 1.43 1.66 A3OEG2 Flk Gro\F 0.98 1.17
A31SC Sac Countv 0.85 0.99
Blrid: M A33SC Sac Countv 1.17 1.22
A37SC Sac Countv 1.19 1.24

FREEWAY RELI
t-5 Lanes: 1 ftom Elk Grorc to US 445CT1 1.05 1.17
t-5 Lanes: Phase 2 to l-80 A45CT2 Caltrans 1.26 '1.35
sR 50 to 2 A47Cr Caltrans 1.06 1.10
& wl lanes A51CT Caltrans 1.05 't.11
Richards BhJd./l-5 A52CS Citv of Sac 0.95 1.02

E SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM
l-s/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Ri\,er Permanent Open Space Presene
A16JP3 CSCA JPA 1.16 1.33
F. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
l-s/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million br the Cosumnes Rircr Permanent Open Space Presen€
A,I6JP4 CSCA JPA 1.16 1.33
Tabte 10: Votume-to-Capacity Ratios for Measure A Road Proiects GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority 112578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 17

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

3.4 Project Cost Estimates
As can be seen in the Measure A project list in Table 11, since its passage, 19 Measure A projects have been completed and will need no further funding from the SCTMF Program. Additionally, 7 projects have been dropped from the list for one reason or another, and will also not need SCTMF Program funding.

Member agencies were asked to provide their most recent cost estimates for the remaining projects. These estimates, shown in Column A of Table 11, were developed in different years and were adjusted to reflect current construction prices. Per STA policy, this adjustment used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost lndex (ENR CCI) overall annual average. Table 12 shows how the construction cost inflator was developed from the price indices for all 20 cities reported in ENR's survey of construction prices nationwide' GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority 112578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 18

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

STA
Project # Jurisdiction illosf Recent
Gosf Estimate
Year of Most
Recent Cosl
Esfimate
Gosf
lnflation
Factor
Updated
Project CostProject Name
(A) (B) (c) = (A)*(B)
A. PROGRAM
$6.333,993
s26.702.045
s7.706.291
$28.515.317
$307.677,965
$6.520.342
$48.1 90.055
$517.608,881
$42.U2.405
$81 , 1 09,823
$23.380.258
$98.422,28C
$107.835,183
$31,201 ,34C
$140,923,332
$54,431,093
s280.736.981
$1 .617,1 16
$8-782.U1
$40.121 .087
$51,529.932
$8,524,1 15
$6.572.81 1

1.18 1.03
1_56

1.03 1.56

1.03 1.18

1.03 1.03

1.18 1.56

1.18 1.03

1.03 't.56

1.03 1.56

1.03 1.03

1.18 1.18

1.03 1.03

1.18 2019
2022
2009
2022
2009
2022
2019
2022
2022
2019
2009
2019
2022
2022
2009
2022
2009
2022
2022
2019
2019
2022
2022
2019
$5.349.275
Comoleted
$26.000.000
s4 944,101
Not Planned
s27.765.557
Comoleled
$197.396.000
Not Planned
Comoleted
$6.348.910
Not Planned
s4O 698 159
Comoleled
Comoleted
Comoleted
ss04 000 000
Comnleled
$41.716.000
s68.500.035
$15.000.000
ComnleJed
ComnleJed
s83 121 000
$105 000.000
$30.381.000
$90.411.746
s53.000.000
$180 111 556
Nol Planned
$2.495.550
Not Planned
Not Planned
a 551 924
s33 883 638
ComnleJed
s43.518.800
$8.300.000
CnmnleJed
$6.400.000
sR2 qnq 27n
Sac Countv
Citrus Heiqhts
Citrus Heiqhts
Sac County
Citv of Sac
Elk Grow
Sac Countv
Sac Countv
Citv of Sac
Citv of Sac
Elk Gro\e
Citv of Sac
Sac County
Rancho Cordova
Rancho Cordora
Folsom

CSCA JPA

CSCA JPA
Sac Countv
Sac Countv
Sac Countv
Citrus Heiqhts
Sac County
Sac County
Sac County
Sac Countv
Sac Countv
Sac Countv
Sac Countv
Elk Grow
Elk Gro\e
Elk Grow
Elk Grorc
Elk Grorc
Sac Countv
Rancho Cordora
Sac Countv
Citrus Heiqhts
Citrus Heiqhts
Citrus Heiohts
sac countv
AOlSC
AO2CH
AO3CH
AO55C
AO4CS
AO6EG
A07SC
AOSSC
AO9CS
A,IOCS
A1 1EG
412CS
A13SC
A14RC1
A14RC2
A1sFS
A16JP1
A16JP2
A17SC
A1gSC
42OSC
418CH
A21SC
A22SC
A235C
A24SC
A265C
A27SC
A285C
A29EG1
A29EG2
A23EG3
A3OFG1
A3OEG2
A3lSC
A32RC
A33SC
A3sCH
A34CH
A36CH
A37SC
Road Watt - Roseville Rd
Antelope Road: Roseville Rd - l-80
Antelope Road: l-80 - Aubum Bhd
Arden Wav: ITS impror,ements Ethan Wav-Fair Oaks Bltd
Arden Wav: ITS imororements Del Paso-Ethan WaY
Grant Line-Folsom
Bradshaw Road: Calr,ine-Florin
Bradshaw Road: CalUneold Placerville Rd
ruceVlle Road: umnes Riwr
Cosumnes n
Etk
Folsom Bltd: 65th-Watt
Blrrd: Watt
Folsom B P toS
om P 2 to
l-s/SR 99/SR 50 Connector
99/SR 50 m River
Oaks - Phase
Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Bltid - Main Aw) - Phase 2
Greenback Lane: l-80-Manzanita A\e
Lane: Oaks
Phase 1 (US 50 - Madison
Arenue: A\ie -
Hazel Arenue: (US Highway 50 - F
Madison Arenue: Phase 1 (Sunrise Bld - Hazel Aw)
on Aw-
Phase 1 om - Calvine
S WatUElk Grore-Florin Road: ne
Grore - Rd-
Elk Grow - Rd-
Elk Grore - Florin Rd (Calvine Road - Old Placenrille Road) Sheldon Bruceville-Elk
Road haw
Sunrise Blld: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd
Sunrise
Rd
Phase 2
Blrrd: Phase 1 (Oak Aw -
Sunrise Blrd: Phase 3 (Antelope Rd - Citv Limit)
-Watt
Aw: Antelope-Capital City Freeuay
Table 11: Updated Proiect Cosfs
GHD I Sacramento Transportation Authority | 125787631 2024 Nexus Study update Report 19

12/10/2024 Item No.18.

STA
Project # Jurisdiction Most Recent
Cost Estimate
Year of Mosf
Rec€nt Cosf
Estimate
Cosf
lnflation
Factor
Updated
Proiect GosfProiect Name
(A) (B) (c) =