12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Affordability Gap Analysis Results The following assumptions were used for both the rental and ownership product calculations:
• Income Levels—This analysis estimates the subsidy required to produce units for households earning up to 50, 80, and 120 percent of AMI for 3-person, 4- person, and 5-person households. HCD’s income limits by household size are shown in Table 1-1.
11 • Percentage of Gross Household Income Available for Housing Costs—HCD standards on overpaying for rent indicate that households should pay no more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs. For this analysis, EPS has assumed that all households spend 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, including utilities. Table 3-2 provides the estimated maximum monthly rent or mortgage payment by household size for HCD’s different household income levels.
Rental Product Assumptions
As shown in Table 3-3, the following assumptions are applied to the maximum rent payment calculated in the steps above to estimate the total supportable unit value by income level for a 3-person household:
• Operating Costs for Rental Units – This analysis assumes that multifamily rental operators incur annual operating costs of 35 percent of the annual rental revenue based on data from the National Apartment Association Survey. • Capitalization Rate – This analysis assumes a 5.25 percent capitalization rate based on information from CBRE United States Cap Rate Survey H1 2024, the most recently available survey at the time of this report.12 • Vacancy Rate – This analysis assumes a vacancy rate of 4.3 percent based on the average vacancy rate for multifamily rentals in the Sacramento-RosevilleArden-Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area from 2014 to 2024, as reported by the US Census Bureau.
Based on HCD’s income levels, the supportable multifamily apartment unit values range from $152,400 for very low, $265,600 for low, and $388,700 for moderate income.
11 California State law (California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) assumes that a 2-bedroom unit is occupied by a 3-person household, a 3-bedroom unit is occupied by 4-person household, and a 4-bedroom unit is occupied by a 5-person household and these assumptions are used in this analysis. 12 The capitalization rate is used to determine the current value of a property based on estimated future operating income and is typically a measure of estimated operating risk.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-2.Maximum Monthly Rent or Mortgage Payment
Item
Percentage
of AMI [1]
Maximum
Annual HH
Income [1]
Total Max.
Annual
Spending on
Housing [2]
Total Max.
Monthly
Spending on
Housing
Monthly
Spending on
Other Housing
Costs [3]
Maximum
Monthly Rent or
Mortgage
Payment [4]
Formula a b = a * 30% c = b / 12 d e = c - d
INCOME CATEGORY
AND HOUSEHOLD (HH) SIZE [5]
Rental Units
3-Person HH (2 bedrooms)
Extremely Low < 30% $34,750 $10,425 $869 $278 $591
Very Low 30-50% $57,900 $17,370 $1,448 $278 $1,170
Low 51-80% $92,650 $27,795 $2,316 $278 $2,038
Moderate 81-120% $130,450 $39,135 $3,261 $278 $2,983
For-Sale Units
4-Person HH (3 bedrooms)
Extremely Low < 30% $38,600 $11,580 $965 $610 $355
Very Low 30-50% $64,300 $19,290 $1,608 $850 $758
Low 51-80% $102,900 $30,870 $2,573 $1,160 $1,413
Moderate 81-120% $144,950 $43,485 $3,624 $1,500 $2,124
5-Person HH (4 bedrooms)
Extremely Low < 30% $41,700 $12,510 $1,043 $650 $393
Very Low 30-50% $69,450 $20,835 $1,736 $890 $846
Low 51-80% $111,150 $33,345 $2,779 $1,230 $1,549
Moderate 81-120% $156,550 $46,965 $3,914 $1,590 $2,324
[5] California State law (California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) assumes that a 2-bedroom unit is occupied by a 3-person household, a 3-bedroom unit is occupied by 4-person household, and a 4-bedroom unit is occupied by a 5-person household and these assumptions are used in this analysis.
Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, "State Income Limits for 2024"; EPS.
Maximum Monthly Rent or Mortgage Payment
[4] Maximum income available to pay for rent or mortgage after allowance for other housing costs. [2] Assumes a housing cost-to-income ratio of 30 percent, which is the standard measure used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assess housing cost burden.
[1] See Table 1-1.
[3] For rental units, other housing costs include utility expenditures consistent with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency allowances for a 2-bedroom unit (assumes electric heating and cooking); Refer to Table A-6 for cost breakdown. For for-sale units, other housing costs include mortgage insurance, taxes and homeowner insurance, utilities, and HOA fees. The assumptions are based on the applicable prototypes and are shown on Table 3-3 and Table 3-4.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-3. Prototype Revenue Assumptions: Rental Product Item Assumptions Formula
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Income
(120% AMI)
Maximum Annual HH Income (rounded) Table 3-2 a $57,900 $92,650 $130,450 Maximum Monthly Spending on All Housing Costs Table 3-2 b = a * 30% / 12 $1,448 $2,316 $3,261 Monthly Spending on Other Housing Costs
Utilities Table A-6 c $278 $278 $278
Maximum Rent Payment d = c - b $1,170 $2,038 $2,983
Project Net Operating Income (NOI)
Total Annual Revenue e = d * 12 $14,034 $24,459 $35,799 Less Operating Costs 35.0% f ($4,912) ($8,561) ($12,530) Less Vacancy for Market Rate Units [1] 4.3% g ($603) ($1,052) ($1,539) Annual NOI h = e - f - g $8,519 $14,847 $21,730
Capitalization Rate [2] 5.25% i - - -
Total Supportable Unit Value (rounded) j = h / i $162,300 $282,800 $413,900 Source: National Apartment Association Survey; CBRE; US Census Bureau Current Population Survey; EPS. [2] Cap rate per CBRE Cap Rate Survey H12024 for suburban west. [1] Vacancy rates based on the average multifamily vacancy rates within the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area from 2014 - 2024, rounded. 2 Bedroom (3 Person Household)
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Ownership Product Assumptions
As shown in Table 3-4, the following assumptions are applied to the maximum monthly spending on housing costs for an ownership product calculated in the steps above to estimate the total supportable unit value by income level and household size:
• Mortgage Insurance—This analysis assumes a mortgage insurance rate of
1.5 percent of the loan.
• Taxes and Insurance – Assumes property taxes, including Mello-Roos special tax assessments, and homeowners’ insurance account for 2 percent of the unit value.
• Utilities– Utilities costs calculations are shown in Table A-5 based on estimates from Sacramento Municipal Utilities District and the City of Folsom. • HOA Fee – Estimated HOA fees are based on comparable properties as shown in Table A-7.
• Down Payment – Assumes a 5 percent down payment.
The supportable ownership unit values based on HCD’s income levels by household size range from the following:
3 bedroom (4-Person Household)
• Very Low Income: $126,200
• Low Income: $235,300
• Moderate Income: $353,700
4 Bedroom (5-Person Household)
• Very Low Income: $140,900
• Low Income: $258,000
• Moderate Income: $387,000
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-4. Prototype Revenue Assumptions: Ownership Product (2025$) Item Assumptions Formula
Maximum Annual HH Income (rounded) Table 3-2 a $64,300 $102,900 $144,950 $69,450 $111,150 $156,550 Maximum Monthly Spending on All Housing Costs [2] b = a* 30% / 12 $1,608 $2,573 $3,624 $1,736 $2,779 $3,914 Monthly Spending on Other Housing Costs [3]
Mortgage Insurance [4] 1.50% c $150 $280 $420 $170 $310 $460 Taxes and Insurance [5] 2.00% d $210 $390 $590 $230 $430 $640 Utilities Table A-5 e $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300
HOA Fee Table A-7 f $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190
Total Monthly Spending on Other Housing Costs g = c + d + e + f $850 $1,160 $1,500 $890 $1,230 $1,590 Maximum Mortgage Payment h = b - g $758 $1,413 $2,124 $846 $1,549 $2,324 Estimated Loan Value [6] i $119,924 $223,552 $336,040 $133,846 $245,069 $367,682 Total Supportable Unit Value [7] [8] 5.0% down payment j = i / (1 - 5%) $126,200 $235,300 $353,700 $140,900 $258,000 $387,000 Source: California Health and Safety Code; HUD; Freddie Mac; EPS. [2] Assumes a housing cost-to-income ratio of 30 percent, which is the standard measure used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assess housing cost burden. [3] Rounded to nearest $10.
[4] Assumes mortgage insurance is equal to approximately 1.5% of loan value, divided by 12. [5] Assumes property taxes, Mello-Roos taxes, and homeowners insurance is equal to 2% of home value, divided by 12. [6] The estimated loan value is based on mortgage terms of a 6.5% interest rate and a 30-year repayment period. [8] Rounded to nearest $100.
Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
3 Bedroom (4 Person Household) [1] 4 Bedroom (5 Person Household) [1] Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
[7] The total supportable unit value is equivalent to the estimated loan value plus a 5.0 percent down payment. Federal Housing Administration-backed loans require a minimum of 3.5% down for most buyers. This analysis rounds this figure to 5%.
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
(80% AMI)
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
(80% AMI)
[1] California State law (California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) assumes that a 2-bedroom unit is occupied by a 3-person household, a 3-bedroom unit is occupied by 4-person household, and a 4-bedroom unit is occupied by a 5-person household and these assumptions are used in this analysis.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Development Cost Assumptions
Housing development costs include land costs, direct costs (e.g., labor and materials), and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture, entitlement, marketing, etc.). Data from recent Folsom land transactions have been combined with EPS’s information from various market-rate housing developers to estimate appropriate development cost assumptions for use in Folsom. These assumptions are shown in Table 3-5 and demonstrate the following total cost per unit in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan:
• Single Dwelling Unit Low Density 4-bedroom Unit: $807,600 • Single Dwelling Unit Medium Density 3-bedroom Unit: $611,600 • Owner-Occupied Multi-Unit Dwellings 3-bedroom Unit: $512,500 • Renter-Occupied Multi-Unit Dwellings 2-bedroom unit: $455,900
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-5. Development Costs by Prototype: Existing Fees (2025$) Rental Prototype
Item
Input
Assumptions
Prototype 1: SingleFamily Detached Home
(Low Density)
yp g
Family Detached
Home (Medium
Density)
Prototype 3: Single
Family Attached
(High Density)
Prototype 4: Multifamily
Apartments
(High Density)
Development Program Assumptions
Acreage 20.00 10.00 5.56 3.33
Density/Acre 5 10 18 30
Total Unit Count 100 100 100 100
Gross Unit Size [1] 2,600 2,000 1,765 1,176
Net Unit Size 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Number of Bedrooms 4 3 3 2
Parking Spaces/Unit [2] 2 2 2 1.5
Cost Assumptions per Unit
Land Value/ Acre [3] $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $810,000 Land Value (rounded) $9,400,000 $4,700,000 $2,611,000 $2,700,000 Land Cost/ Unit [3] $94,000 $47,000 $26,110 $27,000
Direct Costs
Basic Site Work/Grading $10 per land site sq. ft. $48,100 $37,000 $32,647 $21,765 Construction Costs/Gross SF [4] $150 $150 $150 $200
Direct Construction Costs/Unit (rounded) $390,000 $300,000 $264,700 $235,300 Carport Parking Construction Cost/Unit [5] $8,000 per space $0 $0 $0 $12,000 Subtotal, Direct Costs/Unit $438,100 $337,000 $297,347 $269,065 Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs/Unit (rounded) [6] 12.0% of direct costs $63,900 $40,400 $35,700 $32,300 Impact Fees
Existing Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $8,610 $6,558 $5,025 $0 Other Impact Fees (North of 50) Table A-20 $66,524 $59,764 $54,131 $34,016 Other Impact Fees (FPASP) Table A-21 $128,340 $121,421 $96,693 $78,079 Total Impact Fees (North of 50) [7] $75,134 $66,322 $59,155 $34,016 Total Impact Fees (FPASP) [7] $136,950 $127,979 $101,717 $78,079 Financing + Developer Fee Costs
Interest (7.0%, 50% LTC, 50% Outstanding) [8] $11,182 $8,844 $7,608 $6,640 Fees (2.0% of loan amount) $6,390 $5,054 $4,348 $3,794
Developer Fee 10.0% of direct costs $59,471 $45,762 $40,416 $34,582 Subtotal Financing + Developer Fee Costs $77,042 $59,660 $52,372 $45,016 Total Estimated Cost/Unit (rounded) (North of 50) $748,200 $550,400 $470,700 $407,400 Total Esitimated Cost/ Unit (rounded) (FPSAP) $810,000 $612,000 $513,200 $451,500 [7] Development impact fee estimates per the City of Folsom website for FY 2024-25. [8] Financing costs based on FPASP fees.
[6] Includes estimated costs for architecture and engineering; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; insurance; and contingency. [5] Garage parking costs for the single family units is assumed to be included in the construction costs per gross square foot.
The 1.5 parking spaces per multifamily unit are assumed to be covered spaces. [4] Construction cost estimates for single family home (both attached and detached) product is based on input from developers.
Construction cost estimate for multifamily rental product is based on 2022 Saylor Construction Cost data and adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars. [3] Single family land value assumption based on 2024 appraisal for Folsom SPIF Public Land/ Parkland Equalization Fee. Multifamily land value assumption based on 2024 appraisal for Folsom CFD No.18 Bond sale. [2] Parking assumption is consistent with the City's parking requirements for the prototype..
For-Sale Prototype
[1] Gross size per unit includes garage for single family attached units and common areas for high-density multifamily (assumed efficiency ratio of 85%).
Source: Saylor Construction Costs 2023 Edition 2022 Construction Costs; City of Folsom Municipal Code; California HCD; CoStar; Weekly; local developers; EPS.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Affordability Gap Results
Table 3-6 provides the affordability gap, or subsidy, required to develop each prototype unit at the very- low, low, and moderate-income levels. As shown, there is an affordability gap or subsidy needed for all of the prototypes at all income level ranges. The affordability gap ranges from a high of $666,700 for a low-density single family detached units at the Very Low-income level to a low of $67,200 for multifamily apartment units at the Moderate Income level. These housing affordability gaps then were used to calculate the justified nexus-based maximum supportable in-lieu fees by multiplying the required subsidy by the number of units required to house workers providing goods and services to new market-rate housing development. This methodology is discussed in more detail in the next section.
Demand-Based Nexus Fee Calculation
The maximum supportable nexus-based fees are based on both the affordability gap and the estimated impact that new market-rate rental units have on the need for affordable units, as reflected in the number of income-qualified local workers required to support the residents of market-rate multi-unit dwellings and the total subsidy required to construct housing for those workers.
This approach is based on the following logic: (a) residents of market-rate housing have disposable incomes and require a variety of goods and services (including private sector goods and services and government services); (b) the provision of those goods and services will create employment demand for some workers who make moderate or lower incomes and cannot afford market-rate housing; and (c) fees charged to market-rate projects can mitigate the impact of those projects on the increased need for affordable housing.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-6. Development Funding Affordability Gap: Existing Fees Item Source
Prototype 1: Single-Family Detached Home (Low Density)
Supportable Unit Value Table 3-4 $140,900 $258,000 $353,700 Unit Development Cost [1] Table 3-5 $810,000 $810,000 $810,000 Affordability Gap ($669,100) ($552,000) ($456,300)
Prototype 2: Single-Family Detached Home (Medium Density) Supportable Unit Value Table 3-4 $126,200 $235,300 $353,700 Unit Development Cost [1] Table 3-5 $612,000 $612,000 $612,000 Affordability Gap ($485,800) ($376,700) ($258,300)
Prototype 3: Single Family Attached
Supportable Unit Value Table 3-4 $126,200 $235,300 $353,700 Unit Development Cost [1] Table 3-5 $513,200 $513,200 $513,200 Affordability Gap ($387,000) ($277,900) ($159,500)
Prototype 4: Multifamily Apartments
Supportable Unit Value Table 3-3 $162,300 $282,800 $413,900 Unit Development Cost [1] Table 3-5 $451,500 $451,500 $451,500 Affordability Gap ($289,200) ($168,700) ($37,600)
[1] All unit development costs based on FPASP unit development costs.
Affordability Gap
by Income Level per Unit
Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
Source: EPS.
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Market-Rate Household Income Levels
Households with larger incomes typically spend more on goods and services, thereby creating additional lower-income jobs, which in turn generates a greater demand for affordable housing. To assess the impact that market-rate rental units have on the need for affordable housing, EPS estimated the typical income required to purchase or rent average market-rate units in Folsom, as shown in Table 3-7.
Average purchase prices and rental rates are based on recent comparable products shown in Table A-1, Table A-2, Table A-3, and Table A-4. Generally, newer unit purchase prices and rents are higher than existing housing stock because the higher prices and rents are required to cover the costs of construction.
The minimum household income needed to purchase or rent each unit type is calculated using the same assumptions to calculate the additional housing costs such as utilities, mortgage insurance, property taxes and homeowners’ insurance, and HOA costs as shown in Table 3-3, Table 3-4, and Table A-6. The minimum annual household income is also predicated on the assumption that a household will spend 30 percent of their income on the above housing costs in addition to rent and mortgage. As shown in Table 3-7, the required average household income by unit type is as follows:
• Single-Family Detached Low Density 4-bedroom Unit: $327,200 • Single-Family Detached Medium Density 3-bedroom Unit: $253,500 • Townhome/2-Packs 3-bedroom Unit: $199,100
• Market Rate Multifamily Apartment 2-bedroom unit: $130,100
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-7. Required Income by Market Rate Unit Type
Item
Formula A B C D E G = F * 12 H = G / 30%
Unit Type
Prototype 1: Single-Family Detached Home (Low Density) $861,011 $5,170 $300 $1,080 $1,440 $190 $8,180 $98,161 $327,200 Prototype 2: Single-Family Detached Home (Medium Density) $655,794 $3,938 $300 $820 $1,090 $190 $6,338 $76,054 $253,500 Prototype 3: Single Family Attached Home $502,467 $3,017 $300 $630 $840 $190 $4,977 $59,726 $199,100 Prototype 4: Market-Rate Multifamily Apartments $2,974 $2,974 $278 - - - $3,252 $39,026 $130,100 Source: CoStar;RedFin; EPS.
[1] See Table A-1, Table A-2, Table A-3, and Table A-4. [2] Estimated monthly mortgage and rent calculated using the same assumptions used in Table 3-4. [3] See Table A-5 and Table A-6.
[4] Assumes a housing cost-to-income ratio of 30 percent, based on HCD requirements.
Required Household Income for Market Rate Prototypes
Average Market
Rate Monthly
Mortgage/Rent
[2]
Mortgage
Insurance
Taxes and
Insurance
HOA
Fee
Utilities
[3]
Monthly
Total
Housing
Costs
Annual
Total
Housing
Costs
Minimum
Annual
Household
Income Required
(rounded) [4]
Weighted
Average
Sales
Price/Rent
[1]
F = A + B + C
+ D + E
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Household Expenditures and Job Creation by Income Level Having established the income requirements for purchasing or renting average units in the City, the fee calculation then requires an analysis of the household spending patterns at those required income levels. Consistent with development impact fee nexus calculations for schools, parks, roads, etc., this analysis also assumes that all households purchasing or renting new market-rate units in Folsom are “net new” households to the City. To assume otherwise—for instance, that only those buyers or renters of new housing units relocating from outside Folsom should be counted in the impact analysis—would require assuming that the homes left by those households relocating within Folsom would be demolished or left vacant in perpetuity. This scenario would occur only if the City were experiencing a significant loss of population and housing inventory, which has not happened and is not expected to occur.
The Consumer Expenditure Survey from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics provides data for households at a variety of income levels, detailing the amounts that typical households spend on things like “Food”, “Apparel and Services”, and “Vehicle Maintenance and Repairs”. Interestingly, household expenditures by category are not uniformly proportional to household income levels. For example, households earning around $40,000 to $49,000 spend roughly 17 percent of their income on food and drink (at home and eating out), while households earning $100,000 to $149,000 spend only about 11 percent of their income on food and drink. Because of these and other differences in proportionate spending, the expenditure profile varies at different income levels.
Each of the prototype’s household’s typical expenditures were converted to the number of jobs created by its spending. The first step in this process is to determine how much of an industry’s gross receipts are used to pay wages and employee compensation. EPS relied on data from the Economic Census, which provides employment, gross sales, and payroll data by industry for Sacramento County.13 To link the Economic Census data and the Consumer Expenditure Survey data, EPS made determinations as to the industries involved with expenditures in various categories. For example, purchases in the Consumer Expenditure Survey’s “Food at Home” category would likely involve the Economic Census’s “Food & Beverage Stores” industry, where gross receipts were more than eight times the employees’ wages. By contrast, purchases in the Consumer Expenditure Survey’s “Entertainment Fees and Admissions” category were attributed to the Economic Census’ “Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation” industry, where gross receipts are only four times the employees’ wages. Where more than one Economic Census category was 13 The Economic Census and Consumer Expenditure Survey and were published in 2017 and 2022, respectively, but are current as of 2024. EPS converted all numbers to 2024 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the urban west from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 Affordability Gap Analysis Results attributable to a Consumer Expenditure Survey category, EPS estimated the proportion of expenditures associated with each Economic Census category.
After determining the amount of the household’s expenditures that were used for employee wages, EPS estimated the number of employees those aggregate wages represent. EPS calculated the number of workers supported by that spending using the average wage per worker from the 2017 Economic Census, the most recent dataset available. After accounting for CPI adjustments to reflect 2025 dollars, these wages ranged from a low of roughly $22,600 per year for workers in the Food Services industry to a high of almost $132,500 in Legal Services.
A range of occupations and incomes exist in a given industry sector. For instance, the methodology used to generate Table A-12, Table A-13, Table A-14, and Table A-15 in Appendix A distinguishes between the typical incomes of workers in different types of retail stores (e.g., “food and beverage stores” versus “general merchandise stores”), rather than assuming all retail sector workers earn the same income. However, the average wage is used for each sub-category of industry employment and represents a reasonable proxy for the range of incomes in that group. While some employees will have higher wages and require lower subsidies, others will have lower incomes and require higher subsidies. Using the average approximates the total housing subsidy needed by workers in that industry.
To calculate the number of households supported by the expenditures of marketrate housing units, EPS estimated the employees’ household formation rates.
Importantly, employees generated from the increase in housing units do not all form households; some employees, in the retail and food services industries in particular, are young workers and do not form households. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that 12.5 percent of retail/restaurant workers are aged 16 to 19, but an average of only 1.9 percent of workers in the workforce overall. EPS applied these discounts to household formation by type of business to get a more accurate calculation of households formed by the employees and the average total incomes of those households.
To get the overall household income rather than the individual workers, the wages of workers forming households were multiplied by the average of approximately
1.65 workers per working household in Folsom.14 This assumption implies the workers in a given household will have roughly equivalent pay per hour. While certainly there will often be some variation in wages per employee within a household, on average this assumption is reasonable because it implies comparable levels of education and training among all workers in a household. The average household incomes then are allocated to various income categories to estimate the 14 Workers per working household based on American Community Survey (ACS) Census data as of 2023. Although ACS data reported is based on historical figures, these figures can vary somewhat based on ongoing revisions to the ACS data.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 Affordability Gap Analysis Results number of affordable housing units demanded in each income category (50 through 120 percent of AMI).
A simplified example of these calculations follows:
A. Number of Households (prototype #1) 1000
B. Average Household Income (prototype #1) $327,200
C. Aggregate Household Income (A x B) $327 million
D. Average Household Income Spent on Retail
(Consumer Expenditure Survey) $60,000
E. Aggregate Retail Spending (A x D) $60.0 million
F. Retail Gross Receipts: Payroll Ratio (Economic Census) 10:1 G. Estimated Retail Payroll (E ¸ F) $6.0 million
H. Average Retail Wage (Economic Census) $33,400
I. Estimated Total Retail Jobs (G ¸ H) 180
J. Percent Age 20+ (Bureau of Labor Statistics) 87.5%
K. Total Retail Workers Forming Households (I x J) 158
L. Average Workers/Household (Census Data) 1.65
M. Estimated Households Created (K÷L) 95
N. Average Household Income (H x L) $55,110
O. Income Category Low-Income (up to 80% of AMI)
In this simplified example, 1,000 new market-rate low density single family homes sold to households earning $327,700 per year would create demand for 95 housing units for retail workers with household incomes typically between 50 and 80 percent of AMI. Actual calculations and impact distinctions by type of household expenditure for various unit sizes are shown in the series of tables presented in Appendix A.
Demand for Public-Sector Workers
In addition to the jobs created by the spending of the new market-rate households, this analysis also aims to evaluate the number of public-sector employees generated by the public service demands of new market-rate households. Rather than a comprehensive computation of public-sector employment, the analysis aims to be conservative by sampling only certain public-sector jobs (e.g., teachers, transportation providers, and public safety providers) that are expected to grow in proportion to household growth.
Data from the 2023 Occupational Employment Survey for the Sacramento MSA was used to determine the number of these public-sector employees needed to serve new market-rate development. See Table A-16. This data was generated by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) and provides employment and wage information for a variety of occupational categories. EPS reviewed the data and sampled occupations that were public sector related.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Based on the ratio of the selected public-sector jobs to the total households in the MSA, EPS estimates that approximately 39 government jobs or 24 households with a government employee are required per 1,000 total households. These figures are conservative (i.e., low) because numerous types of public-sector jobs are not included in this analysis (such as federal postal workers and County health and human services workers).
Combined Demand for Income-Qualified Workers
The total number of income-qualified households required to support the expenditure and public-sector service needs of new market-rate units was determined based on the affordable housing income limits from HCD for 3- to 5-person households based on each prototype. Chapter 1 Table 1-1 summarizes the HCD income limits used to compute the total number of income-qualified households generated by the construction of market-rate units. The number of income-qualified households required to provide goods and services to new housing units is detailed in Appendix A Table A-12 through Table A-16.
The nexus methodology used herein computes the total number of income-qualified households generated by market-rate units (as shown in Table 3-8) and calculates the impact fee based on the estimated cost to subsidize the production of units to meet that affordable housing demand.
This analysis assumes that the fees on residential development will fund the required affordable housing for all new workers generated. In practice, only a portion of Folsom’s workers reside in the City as many workers commute in to the City from other areas for a variety of reasons, one of which is the relative cost of housing among different communities. However, if every jurisdiction adopted a policy that only funded housing for the fraction of its locally generated workers who also choose to live in the City, the region’s overall affordable housing demand would be grossly underrepresented and underfunded.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-8. Summary of Worker and Household Generation per 100 Market-Rate Units Item Very Low Low Moderate
Unit Type
Prototype 1: Single-Family Detached Home (Low Density) $327,200 78.6 44.0 24.3 18.1 5.8 0.3 N/A Prototype 2: Single-Family Detached Home (Medium Density) $253,500 61.7 33.9 20.8 11.6 7.2 1.9 N/A Prototype 3: Single Family Attached Home $199,100 49.3 27.1 16.4 9.1 5.7 1.5 N/A Prototype 4: Market-Rate Multifamily Apartment $130,100 33.6 18.5 15.4 8.0 6.2 1.2 N/A Source: EPS.
[1] Minimum household income required to afford the average home price or rent in the City of Folsom See Table 3-7. [2] Total workers generated by the development of market rate units. See Table A-12, Table A-13, Table A-14, and Table A-15. [4] Total income qualified households reflects the very low-, low-, and moderate-income households eligible for affordable housing based on total household income. SeeTable A-8 through Table A-15. [5] Allocates the income qualified households by income level based on estimated average wages of the jobs/workers generated by the development of new market rate households. See Table A-12, Table A-13, Table A-14, and Table A-15. Above Moderate Income households are excluded because these households can afford market-rate housing and typically do not qualify for affordable housing.
Above
Moderate
Minimum
Household Income
Requirement for
Market Rate Unit [1]
Total Income
Qualified
Households
[4]
Total
Worker
Households
[3]
Total
Workers
Generated per
100 Market Rate
Units [2]
Worker Households by Income Category [5]
[3] Total worker households derived assuming 1.65 workers per household. Includes a 12.5% discount for retail and 1.9% discount for other industries to account for workers under age 20.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Affordable Housing Impact Fee Calculation Conclusions
The affordability gap analysis quantifies the subsidy required to construct affordable housing at various income levels. Analysis of consumer expenditures that rely on lower-wage workers provides an estimate of the total number of income-qualified households generated by new residential units. Then for market-rate units, the nexus-based fee is calculated by applying the total number of income-qualified households generated to the affordability gap computed for each affordable household income level. The analysis provides the maximum supportable nexusbased fees for new for-sale and rental housing development in Folsom.
The impact fee calculation for each prototype market-rate unit by income level is reflected in Table 3-9. The total impact fee required for a representative project of 100 units is calculated by multiplying the number of affordable units required per income level by the cost of subsidizing such housing as shown in Table 3-9. The total nexus-based supported per unit fee is calculated based on the weighted average of the number of affordable unit required for each income level. The per unit fee is then divided by the average habitable square feet of residential unit type resulting in a maximum impact fee per square foot for each unit type as detailed in Table 3-9 and summarized below.
• Single Family Low Density Unit: $59.34
• Single Family Medium Density Unit: $41.90
• Single Family Attached Unit: $34.16
• Multifamily Apartment Unit: $34.69
While the City has the option of adopting fees up to the maximum level calculated, there are often reasons to adopt the fee below the maximum – for example, to support project financial feasibility. Housing affordability is also shaped by market forces, land use regulations, construction costs, and entitlement expenses, and the revenue from this fee program represents only one source of subsidy for affordable housing. Adoption of the maximum fees represents a sizable development cost increase, which could hamper the City’s economic development and competitiveness objectives.
For the City’s consideration, two fee scenarios representing a percentage of the maximum supportable nexus-based in-lieu fee are reflected in Table 3-9: 1) a Low In-Lieu Fee Scenario, which represents a percentage of the maximum fee set to approximate the existing in-lieu fee; and 2) a High In-Lieu Fee Scenario, which represents 20 percent of the maximum supportable in-lieu fee.
Based on the development prototypes used for this study, the fee for the high scenario, set at 20 percent of the maximum justifiable fee for this Study, is significantly higher than the current fee when expressed on a per-unit basis. Based on historical data provided by the City, developers have paid an in-lieu fee of
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37 Affordability Gap Analysis Results approximately $3.00 per square foot for single-family detached developments under the current fee structure. Accordingly, the low in-lieu fee scenario, was set at varying percentages of the maximum justifiable fee by residential prototype to approximate the per-square-foot fee that developers pay under the existing fee calculation methodology for single-family detached housing units. EPS recommends that the City consider adopting the low in-lieu fee scenario, which includes a reduced fee for single-family attached units and maintaining a $0 rate for multifamily rental units, as discussed further below.
The market rate feasibility analysis prepared for this study indicates that estimated residential development costs, including the existing in-lieu fee, are feasible for both single family detached unit protoypes, while single family attached and multifamily apartments appear to be infeasible, assuming current market values.
The maximum supportable fee results in project infeasibility for all identified prototypes. Under both alternative in-lieu fee scenarios described above, and similar to current development costs (including the existing in-lieu fee), both single family detached prototypes are estimated to be financially feasible, while the single family attached and multifamily apartment prototypes indicate funding gaps that may need additional subsidies. Based on these feasibility challenges, and the City’s policy goal of encouraging higher-density housing in key locations, EPS recommends that the City consider an in-lieu fee of $2.50 per square foot for single-family attached units and continue to exempt multifamily rental developments from the in-lieu fee.
A comparison of the existing fee with the updated maximum supportable fee and two in-lieu fee scenarios are shown in Table 3-10.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-9. Maximum Nexus-Based Support Fee per Gross Square Foot Item
Formula A B C = A * B D = C / 100 E F = D / E
AFFORDABLE UNIT INCOME LEVEL
Single Family Detached Units
Prototype 1: Single-Family Detached Home (Low Density)
Very Low Income 18.1 $669,100 $12,113,994
Low Income 5.8 $552,000 $3,213,644 5.0% of Maximum 20.0% of Maximum Moderate Income 0.3 $456,300 $158,491
Subtotal Maximum Fee for Low-Density SFR 24.3 - $15,486,129 $154,861 2,600 $59.56 $3.00 $11.91 Prototype 2: Single-Family Detached Home (Medium Density) Very Low Income 11.6 $485,800 $5,656,677
Low Income 7.2 $376,700 $2,730,808 6.8% of Maximum 20.0% of Maximum Moderate Income 1.9 $258,300 $482,044
Subtotal Maximum Fee for Med-Density SFR 18.9 - $8,869,528 $88,695 2,000 $44.35 $3.00 $8.87 Single Family Attached Units
Prototype 3: Single Family Attached
Very Low Income 9.1 $387,000 $3,539,673
Low Income 5.7 $277,900 $1,594,175 7.0% of Maximum 20.0% of Maximum Moderate Income 1.5 $159,500 $239,691
Total Maximum Fee for Single Family Attached Units 14.9 - $5,373,539 $53,735 1,500 $35.82 $2.50 $7.16 Multifamily Apartment Units
Prototype 4: Multifamily Apartments
Very Low Income 8.0 $289,200 $2,306,903
Low Income 6.2 $168,700 $1,047,792 0% of Maximum 20.0% of Maximum Moderate Income 1.2 $37,600 $46,220
Total Maximum Fee for Multifamily Units 14.2 - $3,400,915 $34,009 1,000 $34.01 $0.00 $6.80 Source: EPS.
[1] The amount of affordable units by income level generated by new market rate units household spending. See Table 3-8. [3] See Table 3-1 for gross square feet for each prototype. [4] The High Scenario is set at 20% of maximum supportable fee, while the objective of the Low Scenario is to apply percentages of the maximum supportable fee that would result in a similar per unit fee as the current in-lieu fee for the Single Family Detached units. The Low Scenario for the Single Family Attached units is set to be approximately $0.50 lower per square foot than the Single Family Detached units. The Low Scenario for multifamily units is set at zero to reflect the City's position to continue to exempt these units from inclusionary housing requirements.
G = F * % of Maximum
Maximum Nexus-Based Supported Fee
[2] See Table 3-6 for the affordability gap calcuation by prototype.
Affordability
Gap per
Affordable
Unit [2]
Affordable Units
Required Per 100
Market-Rate
Units [1]
Per 100
Market-Rate Units
Per MarketRate Unit
Per Gross
Sq. Ft. [3]
Prototype Gross
Sq. Ft. [3]
Potential Fee Update Scenario
(% of Maximum Supportable Fee) [4]
Low Scenario
(Set to match
existing per-unit fee)
High Scenario
(20% of maximum)
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 39 Affordability Gap Analysis Results Table 3-10. Development Feasibility Comparison: Existing Fee, Maximum Supportable Fee, and Potential Fee as % of the Maximum (2025$) Item Source
Existing
AH
In-Lieu Fee
Low Scenario
(Set to Match Existing
Per-Unit Fee)
High Scenario
(20% of Maximum)
Single Family Low Density 5.0% of Maximum 20.0% of Maximum Unit Value Table A-1 $861,011 $861,011 $861,011 $861,011 Unit Cost Table 3-5, Table A-17, & Table A-19 $810,000 $973,400 $809,100 $835,300 Development Funding Gap $51,011 ($112,389) $51,911 $25,711 Single Family Medium Density 6.8% of Maximum 20.0% of Maximum Unit Value Table A-1 $655,794 $655,794 $655,794 $655,794 Unit Cost Table 3-5, Table A-17, & Table A-19 $612,000 $703,000 $611,400 $622,900 Development Funding Gap $43,794 ($47,206) $44,394 $32,894 Single Family Attached Units 7.0% of Maximum 20.0% of Maximum Unit Value Table A-3 $502,467 $502,467 $502,467 $502,467 Unit Cost Table 3-5, Table A-17, & Table A-19 $513,200 $567,000 $511,800 $518,600 Development Funding Gap ($10,733) ($64,533) ($9,333) ($16,133) Multifamily Apartment .0% of Maximum 20.0% of Maximum
Unit Value Table A-4 $412,600 $412,600 $412,600 $412,600 Unit Cost Table 3-5, Table A-17, & Table A-19 $451,500 $488,600 $451,500 $458,500 Development Funding Gap ($38,900) ($76,000) ($38,900) ($45,900) Market Rate Feasibility per Unit
Source: EPS.
Updated Fee
Potential
Updated Fee
(% of Maximum)
Maximum
Supportable
AH In-Lieu Fee
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey
4. Comparative Jurisdictions Survey
EPS examined local affordable housing programs to provide context and comparable information as the City updates its affordable inclusionary housing in-lieu fee program. This information includes an evaluation of residential and nonresidential fees and program requirements and is intended to inform decision-making and ensure potential new fees are reasonable and competitive with neighboring areas.
EPS examined affordable housing programs in the following peer jurisdictions:
• City of Sacramento;
• City of Rancho Cordova;
• City of Folsom;
• City of Roseville; and
• Sacramento County.
Because no local jurisdiction in the Sacramento region has an inclusionary program comparable to Folsom, with both a formal inclusionary requirement and a set in-lieu fee, EPS also researched similar programs outside the region from:
• City of Berkeley;
• City of Santa Rosa;
• City of Sunnyvale; and
• City of Atascadero.
As shown in Table 4-1, the reviewed peer jurisdictions have adopted a range of affordable housing requirements on private development, including residential and nonresidential development impact fees or inclusionary housing policies and associated in-lieu fees.
Of the local jurisdictions evaluated, the City of Sacramento, City of Elk Grove, and Sacramento County have implemented development impact fees. The City of Roseville and City of Rancho Cordova do not have formal inclusionary policies.
Rather, large developments are subject to negotiated development agreements, which include requirements for inclusionary housing, including payment of in-lieu fees . Remaining jurisdictions evaluated have formal (adopted) or informal inclusionary housing requirements with options to pay a fee in lieu of developing affordable housing onsite. Additional details on the various affordable housing programs across the region, both implemented and proposed, are provided below.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 41 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey Table 4-1. Sacramento Region Peer Cities Analysis
Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Impact Fee Inclusionary Requirement In-Lieu Fee City of Folsom NA
City of Elk Grove NA NA
City of Sacramento
City of Rancho Cordova NA
City of Roseville NA
County of Sacramento $3.75 per habitable square foot of each market rate unit NA NA All large-scale development in the City's undeveloped
areas, generally located south of Highway 50, shall
prepare an Affordable Housing Plan (AHP) for the
project. Required units vary depending on terms set in
the AHP.
Variable, contigent upon terms of developer agreement
($2,470 - $7,238 per unit)
New Specific Plan Areas must designate at least 10%
of total units as affordable. Accomplished through an
Affordable Housing Goal established within a proposed
Specific Plan and a Development Agreement, and
effectuated by a Affordable Housing Agreement - not
done on a project-by-project basis.
Variable, contigent upon terms of developer agreement
based on recent costs of developing affordable rental
housing.
Source: City of Elk Grove 2024 Development Related Fees Booklet; City of Sacramento Planning Department 2024 Housing Impact Fee Notice & Mixed Income Housing Ordinance Revised Recommendations 3.24.24; City of Rancho Cordova 2021 - 2029 Housing Element & 2024 Development Related Processes and Fees Worksheet; City of Folsom Municipal Code Ch. 17.104; City of Roseville Housing Division & 2021 Housing Element; Sacramento County 2024 Notice of Affordable Housing Fee Increase; EPS.
Inclusionary Housing Requirement and In-Lieu Fee
10% of units in for-sale development projects, with
3% consisting of very low income units and 7%
consisting of low income units.
- (1% x lowest priced for-sale residential unit in
proposed subdivision) x total for-sale residential
units.
- Lots only: (0.5% x least expensive anticipated home
in
- $6,289 per Single Family Unit (1-2 units inc. duplex) - $3,773 per Multifamily Unit (3+ units)
Existing
- $0.00/SF for high density single-unit or duplex
dwellings (≥ 20 DU/acre) and multi-unit dwellings
(≥ 40 DU/acre)
- $0.00/SF for conversion of a nonresidential building to a residential use
- $1.54/SF for dwelling units in the Housing Incentive
Zone
- $3.56/SF for single-unit or duplex dwellings (< 20
DU/acre) and multi-unit dwellings (< 40 DU/acre)
Existing
Projects over 100 gross acres in size are required to
have an approved Mixed Income Housing Strategy that
indentifies how the project will provide housing for a
variety of incomes and family types. Fee credits may be provided for construction of affordable units, land
dedication, or other mechanism that leads to the
provision of affordable housing.
Proposed
Options range from 5% to 7% of units at 60% to 100%
AMI, increasing to 15% to 20% of units at 60% to 80%
AMI for large-scale developments. Requirements are
contingent on tenure type (rental
vs. for-sale).
Proposed
Fee schedule based on location and tenure type.
- Central City: $10/SF for rental and for-sale units.
- Inner South & East and West of I-5: $7/SF for
rental units and $10/SF for for-sale units
- Southern Neighborhoods: $3.54/SF for rental
units and $6/SF for for-sale units
- North Sacramento and South Natomas:
$3.54/SF for rental units and $5/SF for for-sale units. - North Natomas: $3.54/SF for rental units and
$7/SF for for-sale units.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 42 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey Local Peer Jurisdictions
City of Sacramento
The City’s Mixed Income Housing Ordinance (MIHO), originally adopted in 2015 and currently under revision, imposes a Housing Impact Fee (HIF) of $3.56 per square foot (effective July 1, 2024, and adjusted annually) on all new market-rate residential developments that fall below specific density thresholds. These thresholds are less than 20 dwelling units per acre for single dwelling units and duplexes, and less than 40 dwelling units per acre for renter-occupied multi-unit dwellings developments. However, the City of Sacramento applies reduced fees of $1.54 per square foot in the city's Housing Incentive Zones. Additionally, Sacramento also requires that for residential projects over 100 gross acres, developers must both pay a HIF as well as obtain City Council approval for a mixedincome housing strategy. The goal of this strategy is to outline how the project will provide housing for various income levels and household types, consistent with city policies. While not a traditional inclusionary housing requirement, it effectively requires the development of affordable units for projects over a certain size.
Since Sacramento’s implementation, however, significant market shifts have prompted calls for an updated fee structure and housing policy that better reflects and adapts to the diverse needs and submarkets within the city. In 2023, Sacramento began evaluating the financial feasibility of residential development in light of the current MIHO for both for-sale and rental prototypes across different market contexts. The analysis revealed that rising interest rates and financing costs have placed a significant strain on rental projects, reducing their ability to absorb increased fees or meet onsite affordability requirements. In contrast, forsale projects in submarkets capable of supporting higher home prices showed a greater capacity to accommodate these demands, prompting the City of Sacramento to explore revisions.15
As part of this update, the City of Sacramento is evaluating a new set of compliance options for all new residential developments, factoring in scale, location, tenure, transit proximity, market-based adjustments responsive to development trends, and triggers for re-evaluation in the event of new funding sources. These compliance options, which would replace the HIF, include: (1) providing onsite affordable units, (2) paying in-lieu fees, or (3) dedicating land. Additionally, both the definition and the requirements for large-scale projects would be revised. Rather than being defined as developments spanning 100 gross acres or more, large-scale projects would instead be characterized by having 750 or more units and a site size of at least 15 acres.
Furthermore, instead of being required to provide a mixed-income housing strategy, large developments would now have to choose from a range of inclusionary housing 15 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Feasibility Analysis, Historical Performance, and Case Study Research, Supporting Proposed Updates to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance. Draft Report. August 8, 2023. Available at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/MIHO-Draft-Report-8-8-23.pdf
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey options.16 The revised recommendations are aimed at addressing stakeholder comments and concerns focused on market conditions, fee levels and feasibility, and preferences between fee-based and inclusionary requirements.17 Sacramento County
Sacramento County has a development impact fee of $3.75 per square foot for both for-sale and rental market-rate units. Developers are required to meet affordable housing obligations through payment of this fee or, alternatively, by complying with a variety of other options that further housing affordability. As an alternative to paying the affordability fee, developers can comply with the project’s affordable housing plan, if applicable, or enter into a development agreement with the County. This agreement may offer fee credits for land dedication, construction of affordable dwelling units, or other mechanisms that facilitate the production of affordable housing. This approach ensures that developers can either directly produce affordable housing or contribute through equivalent financial or landbased alternatives.
City of Rancho Cordova and City of Roseville
Rancho Cordova and Roseville do not impose affordable housing development impact fees nor have formalized inclusionary policies with prescribed in-lieu fees.
Instead, the requirement to provide onsite affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee is established through a project-based agreement: an Affordable Housing Plan (AHP) in Rancho Cordova; and a Development Agreement (DA) in Roseville.
In Rancho Cordova, AHPs are created for individual development projects, particularly large-scale specific plans. In Roseville, affordable housing provisions are outlined in development agreements tied to new specific plans. The language in the AHPs or DAs of both cities suggests that, in at least one case, in-lieu fees are determined by the funding gap associated with tax credit-financed developments.18 16 City of Sacramento. Mixed Income Housing Ordinance - Revised Recommendations. March 3, 2024. Available at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/Housing/mixed-income-housingordinance/MIHO%20Revised%20Recommendations%203.4.2024%20Post-PDC%20For%20Distribution.pdf 17 City of Sacramento. Mixed Income Housing Ordinance – Revised Recommendations. PowerPoint presentation. February 22, 2024.
Available at: https://records.cityofsacramento.org/ViewDoc.aspx?ID=s6tFBnt4W+I1Q8PlxV8duRePJc3ZpKko 18 City of Rancho Cordova. Affordable Housing Plan for Suncreek Specific Plan. June 12, 2003. Available at:
https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showpublisheddocument/18387/637962457721800000
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 44 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey Selected Jurisdictions with Inclusionary
Requirements and In-Lieu Fees
In addition to examining inclusionary housing policies around the Sacramento region, EPS also examined jurisdictions throughout the State whose inclusionary ordinance was structurally similar to the City of Folsom’s, with a pre-set inclusionary requirement and in-lieu fee. As seen in Table 4-2 below, EPS examined policies from the Berkeley, Santa Rosa, Sunnyvale, and Atascadero.
In summary, all three Bay Area jurisdictions (Berkeley, Santa Rosa, and Sunnyvale) subject rental projects to inclusionary requirements, and all four jurisdictions examined have a much higher in-lieu fee than either the current or recommended in-lieu fee in the City of Folsom. However, all of these jurisdictions have housing prices much higher than Folsom.
City of Berkeley
In 2023, the City adopted its IHO, shifting from an Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee to an inclusionary requirement with an associated in-lieu fee. In 2025, the City once again adopted changes to its in-lieu fee. Previously, smaller projects were exempt or subject to a smaller fee. Projects below 5,000 SF of residential floor area were exempt from the fee, while projects between 5,000 and 11,999 SF were subject to a per-square-foot fee that rose with total project square footage. The 2025 update applied the same per-square foot fee to all projects, but exempted the first 5,000 SF from the fee calculation.
For projects electing to build units on-site, 20 percent of units are required be below market rate (BMR) units. Rental housing inclusionary units must be split evenly, with half affordable to VLI households and the remainder affordable to LI households. For ownership projects, all units must be affordable to LI households.
In addition to complying with the IHO by paying a fee or building units, the ordinance also allows a blended compliance option, where developers can construct some of the required inclusionary units. The in-lieu fee is then prorated based on the percentage of inclusionary requirement remaining after accounted for the on-site BMR units. For example, if a developer builds half of the required inclusionary units, the in-lieu fee would be half of the fee that would be required if the developer was electing to comply purely through in-lieu fee payment.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 45 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey Table 4-2. Comparison of Selected Jurisdictions' Inclusionary Programs Jurisdiction Inclusionary Requirement In-Lieu Fee
City of Folsom
City of Berkeley
City of Santa Rosa Outside Downtown DUs
Less than 909 SF - $5 PSF
More than 910 SF - $10 PSF
Downtown DUs
Less than 909 SF - $2 PSF
More than 910 SF - $3 PSF
City of Sunnyvale Rental
3-6 units - $15.50 PSF
7 or more units - $31.00 PSF
For Sale
7% of the higher of sales price or appraised value
City of Atascadero For Sale (Proposed)
$38.71 to $42.06 PSF
Rental
- 8% LI units OR 5% VLI units
For Sale
- 10% MI units
15% (5% VLI and 10% LI)
- All rental projects of 3 or more units
- All for-sale projects of 7 or more
20% for-sale condominium and subdivision projects
with 11 units or more.
Source: Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.328; City of Santa Rosa City Council Resolution No. Res-2019-153; City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.77; City of Atascadero Affordable Housing Fee Nexus Study for For-Sale Housing Dated April 22, 2022.
Inclusionary Housing Requirement and In-Lieu Fee
10% of units in for-sale development projects, with
3% consisting of very low income units and 7%
consisting of low income units.
- (1% x lowest priced for-sale residential unit in
proposed subdivision) x total for-sale residential
units.
- Lots only: (0.5% x least expensive anticipated home
in proposed subdivision) x total for-sale lots.
Existing
Projects over 5,000 SF of residential area must provide at least 20% of floor area in affordable units
$56.25 PSF for all new Residential Developments.
Projects using 100% fee to comply deduct 5,000 SF from
assessed SF.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 46 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey City of Santa Rosa
The City of Santa Rosa imposes different inclusionary requirements on rental and for-sale projects. Rental projects must provide either 8 percent of their total units as affordable to LI households or 5 percent of their units as affordable to VLI households. For-sale projects must ensure that 10 percent of their units are affordable to MI households.
Because Santa Rosa is seeking to encourage housing development in its downtown, and additionally seeking to incentivize denser projects, it provides different in-lieu fee rates for projects in downtown and for smaller dwelling units. Within downtown, smaller dwelling units (909 square feet or less) are subject to an in-lieu fee of $2 PSF, compared to $5 PSF for similarly-sized units outside of downtown.
For units larger than 910 SF, fees are $10 PSF for units outside of downtown or $5 PSF for units in downtown.
City of Sunnyvale
The City updated its IHO in 2019 to apply inclusionary requirements, including inlieu fees as a compliance option, to rental projects. Both for-sale and rental projects to which the IHO applies must provide a total of 15 percent of their units as inclusionary units. A minimum of 5 percent of the total units must be affordable to VLI households, while the remainder must be affordable to LI households.
The IHO requirements do not apply to for-sale projects with six or less dwelling unit nor rental projects of two units or less. The IHO also calculates in-lieu fees for rental projects and for-sale projects differently.
Small rental projects (3 to 6 units) are subject to a per-square foot fee of $15.50 PSF, while projects of 7 or more units pay twice this fee, $31.00 PSF. In-lieu fees on for-sale projects are based on the value of the dwelling units. For each unit, the project must pay a fee equal to the 7 percent of the sales price or 7 percent of the appraised value of the unit, whichever amount is greater.
City of Atascadero
The current inclusionary policy only applies to residential developments of 11 units or larger that require legislative approval at the City council. Projects subject to the policy must provide 20 percent of their units as affordable. Single-family projects must include inclusionary units affordable to MI households, while multifamily projects must provide their inclusionary units as follows: 20 percent affordable to VLI households, 37 percent affordable to LI households, and 43 percent affordable to MI households.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 47 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey Projects electing to pay an in-lieu fee pay a fee equal to 5 percent of the building permit construction value of the market rate units. The City is currently considering updates to its inclusionary housing ordinance due to recent changes in state law thatincrease the ability of projects to secure ministerial approvals, thus exempting them from Atascadero’s inclusionary housing policy.
As part of this evaluation, the City retained EPS to calculate the maximum nexusbased fees for its in-lieu fee. Based on a similar methodology to the approach used in this Study, the maximum justifiable fee ranges from approximately$39 to $42 per square foot.19 At this time, Atascadero is still evaluating the fee amount.
Local Jurisdiction Fee Amounts
In addition to evaluating the policies of each jurisdiction examined in the Sacramento Region, this Study also includes a summary of the per-unit fee amount for the single-family low-density prototype. This analysis shows what the developer of one single-family unit would pay for an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee or affordable housing impact fee in jurisdictions throughout the Sacramento Region. As shown in Table 4-3, the City of Folsom’s current fee and the recommended fee in this Study are broadly comparable to fees throughout the region. Folsom’s fee is approximately 10 percent lower than the fees in the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County, but between 35 and 75 percent higher than fees in the City of Rancho Cordova and City of Elk Grove.
As noted in Table 4-3, the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan affordable housing fee was originally negotiated in 2016 and was not subject to inflationary adjustments until 2024. Additionally, that agreement also includes a stipulation allowing the City to buy certain sites within the project for developing affordable housing. While the City of Roseville’s affordable housing agreements follow a similar structure to the City of Rancho Cordova’s, no recent affordable housing agreements in Roseville include an in-lieu fee as part of the developer obligations.
The major outlier in the region is the City of Davis, which has a significantly higher inclusionary requirement and associated in-lieu fee for single-family subdivisions with lots greater than 5,000 square feet.
19 City of Atascadero Inclusionary Housing Policy and Program. Available at: https://www.atascadero.org/sites/default/files/2023- 11/Nexus_Studies_and_Recommendations_4_15_22.pdf
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 48 Comparative Jurisdictions Survey Table 4-3. Sacramento Region Peer Cities Fee Comparison Jurisdiction Fee Type Fee Amount Notes
Prototype for Fee Comparison
Type Single-Family Detached for Sale
Density 5 units/ acre
Unit Sq. Ft. 2,600
Sales Price $861,011
City of Folsom (existing in-lieu fee) In-Lieu $8,610 1% of Lowest Sales Price in Subdivision City of Folsom (proposed in-lieu fee) In-Lieu $7,800 $3.00 Per Square Foot [1] City of Rancho Cordova (Rio Del Oro Specific Plan) Development Agreement $4,978 Per Dwelling Unit [2] City of Elk Grove Impact Fee $6,396 Per Dwelling Unit [3] City of Davis [1] In-Lieu $21,028 Per Dwelling Unit [4] West Sacramento In-Lieu $7,699 Per Dwelling Unit
Sacramento County Impact Fee $9,854 $3.79 Per Square Foot City of Sacramento Impact Fee $9,256 $3.56 Per Square Foot [5] [5] Fee only applies to developments under 20 units/ net acre.
Fee Calculation Method
Source: City of Folsom, EPS; City of Rancho Cordova; City of Elk Grove; City of Davis; City of West Sacramento; Sacramento County.
[1] Rate based on Single-Family Low Density Prototype
[2] Fee was originally negotiated in 2016 and was not subject to inflationary increases for 7 years thereafter. Development agreement also includes City right to purchase sites within the Specific Plan area for the purposes of developing affordable housing. [3] City is currently updating to a per-square-foot-fee. [4] Payment of in-lieu fees as a method of complying with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance must be approved by City Council. Based on a 25% inclusionary requirement for homes on lots greater than 5,000 sq. ft. and a $84,410 in-lieu fee per affordable unit required.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 49 Policy and Implementation Considerations
5. Policy and Implementation Considerations
Maximum/Recommended Fee Levels
The City may choose to establish impactfees at levels below or equal to (but not higher than) the maximum fees calculated in the Nexus Study for policy, feasibility, or other reasons. As part of this project and to help guide this decision, EPS surveyed other affordable housing impactfees in other jurisdictions to provide the City with a comparison of adopted fees elsewhere in the region (see Chapter 4). The maximum supportable fee level would be significantly higher than the jurisdictions surveyed.
Implementing Ordinances/Resolutions
The updated in-lieu fee would be adopted by the City through an ordinance or resolution amending the existing inclusionary housing policy, including the updated fee amount, methodology for calculation, and any other related updated provisions.
The new ordinances or resolutions should incorporate the automatic inflation adjustment factor discussed in this chapter and definitions for single family attached units that would be subject to a lower fee.
Alignment with Other City Housing Policies
The City’s Housing Element contains several policies designed to incentivize higher-density housing development with smaller units, which are more naturally affordable to home buyers than larger units in low-density development. In an effort to align with these policies, EPS recommends that single family attached units be subject to a lower per-square foot in-lieu, as shown in Table 1-2 and Table 3-9. The feasibility analysis in Table 3-10 shows that the financial feasibility for these types of units is marginal and decreasing this in-lieu fee could increase the feasibility of these units.
Additionally, the City does not currently apply the inclusionary housing policy (including the in-lieu fee)to rental products. Given that renters tend to have lower incomes than homeowners, and recognizing the feasibility challenges of multifamily rental projects show in Table 3-10, EPS recommends that the City continue to exempt multifamily rental projects from the inclusionary housing policy.
Assessing the Fee
The City should be explicit about defining the area square footage or other fee metric that a fee is charged upon. If possible, the City’s method for calculating the square footage subject to the fee should align with other City or local agency fees that are charged per-square-foot. If not, the City can use other existing definitions
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 50 Policy and Implementation Considerations of assessable square footage for new development. For example, California Government Code section 65995, which describes methods for charging school impact fees for new development, defines residential and commercial spaces as follows:
Residential space: “Assessable space,” for this purpose, means all of the square footage within the perimeter of a residential structure, not including any carport, covered or uncovered walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached accessory structure, or similar area. The amount of the square footage within the perimeter of a residential structure shall be calculated by the building department of the city or county issuing the building permit, in accordance with the standard practice of that city or county in calculating structural perimeters.
In-Lieu Fee Update
EPS recommends that the fee be subject to automatic annual inflation adjustments, periodic updates, and a 5-year review requirement. The purpose of each update is described in this section.
Automatic Annual Inflation Adjustment
The proposed fee should be automatically adjusted by the City annually to account for the inflation of construction, environmental, or design costs. The City’s Housing Trust Fund Fee, which applies to non-residential developments, is adjusted each year at the discretion of the City Council based on the change in construction costs described by the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI). 20
The ENR CCI measures the change of construction costs by tracking the cost of construction labor and key construction materials. Additionally, using the CCI would ensure that fee revenue roughly keeps pace with the cost of constructing affordable housing.
In order to ensure the index adjustment is made in a manner that minimizes administrative burden to City staff, EPS recommends that an enabling ordinance give authority to the Finance Director or a similar City staff member to execute the inflationary adjustment, as is allowed for the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Infrastructure Fees.21
In addition, the ordinance should specify that, if no listed index is available the Finance Director may use an alternative index or other source that the Finance Director finds, in his or her discretion, to be most equivalent to estimate changes in construction costs.
20 Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 3.90.050(E). 21 Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 3.120.080(A).
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 51 Policy and Implementation Considerations Study Timeframe: Updating the Impact Fee Nexus Study
While not required by law it is recommended that the City evaluate the fee at least every five years following this update. During the fee evaluation, the City should consider updating the fee based on:
• The overall fee and infrastructure burden in the City of Folsom compared to housing prices;
• Significant changes to land costs and/or costs for construction labor or materials;
• Changes in the City’s affordable housing need;
• Changes in the cost of producing affordable housing and the availability of external funding for affordable housing;
• Feedback from stakeholders, such as affordable and market-rate housing developers.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Appendix A: Fee Calculation Detail
Table A-1 Low-Density Single-Family Detached Home Market Comparables............... A-1 Table A-2 Medium-Density Single-Family Detached Home Market Comparables....... A-2 Table A-3 Single Family Attached Unit Market Comparables............................................... A-3 Table A-4 Multifamily Apartment Market Comparables........................................................ A-4 Table A-5 Owner-Occupied Residential Utilities Calculations............................................. A-5 Table A-6 Sacramento County Renter-Occupied Residential Utility Allowances per Month (2022$)........................................................................................................... A-6 Table A-7 HOA Fee Comparables (2024$) .................................................................................. A-7 Table A-8 Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 1 Low-Density SFR............................................................................................................... A-8 Table A-9 Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 2 Medium-Density SFR.....................................................................................................A-11 Table A-10 Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 3........A-14 Table A-11 Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 4........A-17 Table A-12 Worker Household Generation per 1,000 Market-Rate Units - Prototype 1 .......................................................................................................................A-20 Table A-13 Worker Household Generation per 1,000 Market-Rate Units - Prototype 2 .......................................................................................................................A-21 Table A-14 Worker Household Generation per 1,000 Market-Rate Units - Prototype 3 .......................................................................................................................A-22 Table A-15 Worker Household Generation per 1,000 Market-Rate Units - Prototype 4 .......................................................................................................................A-23 Table A-16 Representative Public-Sector Employment and Wages (2023$) ..................A-24 Table A-17 Development Costs by Prototype: Maximum Supportable Fee.....................A-25 Table A-18 Development Costs by Prototype: Potential Updated Fee Scenario Low % of Maximum ........................................................................................................A-26 Table A-19 Development Costs by Prototype: Potential Updated Fee Scenario High % of Maximum .......................................................................................................A-27 Table A-20 Development Impact Fee Summary: North of 50 ..............................................A-28 Table A-21 Development Impact Fee Summary: FPASP ........................................................A-30 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-1
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Low-Density Single-Family Detached Home Market Comparables Item City Sales Price Beds Unit SF Price/SF Lot SF Year Built Property Address
3302 Whispering Brook Way Folsom $755,000 4 2,566 $294 4,000 8.7 2024 4625 Snapdragon Way Folsom $879,990 4 2,458 $358 4,038 8.6 2023 4621 Snapdragon Way Folsom $804,990 3 2,160 $373 4,121 8.5 2023 4651 Dandelion Way Folsom $665,000 3 1,879 $354 4,121 8.5 2025 4647 Dandelion Way Folsom $819,536 3 2,458 $333 4,121 8.5 2025 4639 Dandelion Way Folsom $677,990 3 1,879 $361 4,121 8.5 2025 3422 Apollo Dr Folsom $790,265 4 2,392 $330 4,500 7.7 2024 3362 Apollo Ct Folsom $754,000 4 2,392 $315 4,500 7.7 2024 3419 Apollo Dr Folsom $663,000 3 1,784 $372 4,991 7.0 2024 4268 Crescent Way Folsom $873,000 4 3,056 $286 5,375 6.5 2024 4256 Crescent Way Folsom $719,000 4 1,962 $366 5,375 6.5 2024 3308 Crooked Bed Way Folsom $839,656 5 2,995 $280 5,432 6.4 2024 3129 Velvet Grove Ct Folsom $855,000 4 2,150 $398 6,181 5.6 2024 3276 Bitterroot Way Folsom $754,990 4 2,160 $350 6,438 5.4 2024 4244 Crescent Way Folsom $777,000 4 2,517 $309 6,444 5.4 2024 3321 Garden Terace Dr Folsom $1,010,000 4 3,131 $323 6,573 5.3 2024 3369 Rock Springs Ranch Rd Folsom $990,000 4 2,380 $416 6,961 5.0 2024 4514 Rocky Hills Circle Folsom $1,205,880 5 3,952 $305 8,057 4.3 2024 5073 Brooks Circle Folsom $1,016,000 4 3,308 $307 8,825 3.9 2023 4511 Rocky Hills Circle Folsom $1,070,740 3 2,604 $411 9,330 3.7 2024 4510 Rocky Hills Circle Folsom $1,160,200 4 3,476 $334 11,326 3.1 2024 5077 Brooks Circle Folsom $1,016,000 5 3,008 $338 11,326 3.1 2023 Average/Weighted Average $861,011 4 2,576 $334 4,917 7.3 2024 Source: RedFin; Zillow; EPS.
Estimated
Density [2]
Low-Density Single-Family Detached Home Market Comparables [1] [1] Includes detached single-family homes sold from October 2024 to March 2025 built 2023 or later. Excludes 55+ communities.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-1 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-2
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Medium-Density Single-Family Detached Home Market Comparables Item City Price Beds Unit SF Lot SF Year Built
Property Address
3429 Magnolia Way Folsom $580,000 3 1,705 2,449 14.2 2024 3376 Gallatin Dr Folsom $621,000 4 2,239 2,644 13.2 2023 3395 Gallatin Dr Folsom $650,000 4 1,990 2,801 12.4 2023 3425 Magnolia Way Folsom $637,716 3 1,941 2,997 11.6 2024 4428 Sanderson Dr Folsom $665,000 4 1,945 3,381 10.3 2023 3449 Magnolia Way Folsom $675,000 4 1,990 3,511 9.9 2024 3485 Nightberry Dr Folsom $690,427 3 2,033 3,935 8.9 2024 3469 Nightberry Dr Folsom $665,000 3 2,033 4,328 8.1 2024 3481 Nightberry Dr Folsom $625,000 3 1,822 3,611 9.7 2024 4759 Gailander Ct Folsom $694,548 3 2,033 3,637 9.6 2024 4758 Gailander Ct Folsom $672,683 3 2,033 4,186 8.3 2024 4750 Gailander Ct Folsom $693,154 3 2,033 3,747 9.3 2024 Average/Weighted Average $655,794 3 1,983 3,436 10.5 2024 Source: RedFin; Zillow; EPS.
Estimated
Density
Med-Density Single-Family Detached Home Market Comparables [1] [1] Includes detached single-family homes sold from October 2024 to March 2025 built 2023 or later. Excludes 55+ communities.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-2 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-3
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Single Family Attached Unit Market Comparables
Item City Price Beds Unit SF Lot SF Year Built
Property Address - Recently Sold
2715 Democracy Aly Sacramento $750,000 3 1,486 1,621 21.5 2023 2932 Chatelet Walk Sacramento $485,000 4 1,920 1,920 18.2 2020 3057 Cityscape Walk Sacramento $525,000 3 1,656 1,442 24.2 2020 3051 Copper Rose Walk Sacramento $520,000 3 1,740 1,740 20.0 2020 990 Central St West Sacramento $715,000 2 1,615 1,615 21.6 2020 4187 Gloster Way Sacramento $425,000 3 1,263 1,307 26.7 2019 3764 E Commerce Way Sacramento $500,000 3 1,263 1,424 24.5 2018 2559 Radar Ln Sacramento $428,000 2 1,065 1,394 25.0 2018 10934 International Dr Rancho Cordova $445,000 3 1,378 1,400 24.9 2015 3188 Bridgeway Dr Rancho Cordova $420,000 3 1,311 1,917 18.2 2009 10946 Tower Park Dr Rancho Cordova $405,000 2 1,065 1,306 26.7 2009 3139 Rushall Rancho Cordova $475,000 3 1,649 1,742 20.0 2007 2430 Pavilions Place Ln Sacramento $663,000 3 2,006 2,265 15.4 2007 7737 Park River Oak Cir Sacramento $441,000 3 1,379 1,821 19.1 2005 3925 Oak Villa Cir Carmichael $340,000 3 1,323 1,355 25.7 2002 Average/Weighted Average $502,467 3 1,475 1,618 22.1 2014 Source: RedFin; Zillow; EPS.
Single Family Attached Comparables [1]
Estimated
Density
[1] Due to the limited number of Single Family Attached comparables within the City of Folsom, the analysis compares sales prices for recent Single Family Attached units constructed around the greater Sacramento Region.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-3 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-4
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Multifamily Apartment Market Comparables
Property Name Address % 1-Bed % 2-Bed % 3-Bed Year Built Anindell [2] 115 Healthy Way 153 $3,317 919 $3.61 1.36 64% 36% 0% 2025 Broadstone Villas 2840 E Bidwell St 257 $2,801 1,105 $2.53 1.82 25% 68% 7% 2024 Verdell Pointe 2137 Iron Point Rd 253 $2,559 863 $2.96 1.53 55% 38% 7% 2024 Atwell at Folsom Ranch 14481 Southpointe Dr 278 $2,628 1,136 $2.31 1.71 47% 34% 18% 2024 Revel Folsom Apartments [2] 2075 Iron Point Rd 166 $4,139 754 $5.49 1.81 37% 44% 19% 2024 Average/Weighted Average 1,107 $2,974 979 $3.17 1.65 45% 45% 11% 2024 Source: Costar; EPS.
[1] Data was filtered by active multifamily properties with rental units within the City of Folsom completed within the last 5 years.
Multifamily Property Details
Number
of Units
Average
Rent/Unit
Average
Unit SF
Average
Rent/SF
Average
Bedroom
Count
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-4 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-5
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Owner-Occupied Residential Utilities Calculations
Item
Single-Family For-Sale
Residential
Utility Costs
Monthly Utility Cost Estimates
Electric [1] $139
Water [2] $51
Waste [3] $82
Sewer [4] $25
Total Utility Allowance per Month (Rounded) $300
[1] Electric estimated fees based on an average monthly price for a residential bill per month as of 10/01/2024, derived from Sacramento Municipal Utility District
website.
[2] Estimated water costs assume a 1" meter size, for
residential customer types, and 14.5 CCF a month.
[3] Estimated waste collection fees based on 2024-2025
rate for one (1) 32 gallon refuse carts, derived from City of Folsom website.
[4] Estimated sewer fees based on 2024-2025 rates for
single-family units, established by the City of Folsom.
Source: Sacramento Municipal Utility District; City of Folsom; EPS.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-5 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-6
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Sacramento County Renter-Occupied Residential Utility Allowances per Month (2022$) Item 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR
Heating [1] $12 $14 $18 $21 $25 $29
Cooking [1] $6 $7 $11 $14 $18 $21
Other Electric & Cooling
Other Electric (Lights & Appliances) $24 $28 $39 $50 $61 $73 Air Conditioning $12 $14 $20 $25 $31 $36
Water Heating [1] $15 $17 $22 $27 $32 $37
Water, Sewer, Trash Collection
Water (avg) $46 $46 $49 $51 $54 $57
Sewer (avg) $23 $23 $23 $23 $24 $25
Trash Collection (avg) $47 $47 $47 $47 $47 $47
Tenant-supplied Appliances
Range / Microwave - Tenant-supplied $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 Refrigerator - Tenant-supplied $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12
Other
Electric Charge $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 $26
Total Utility Allowance per Month $234 $245 $278 $307 $341 $374 Source: Utility Allowance Schedule for Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency Locality HUD as of 2025; EPS [1] Assumes use of electricity for space heating, cooking, and water heating.
Renter-Occupied Units by Number of Bedrooms
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-6 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-7
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
HOA Fee Comparables (2024$)
Item HOA Fees
Address
4188 Eagle View Way $255
3324 Auburn Leaf Loop $123
3349 Jackrabbit Ct $119
4810 White Pine Dr $103
3363 Loggerhead Cir, Folsom $155
14869 Auburn Summit Dr $300
3325 Garden Terrace Dr $195
4522 Rocky Hills Cir $187
150 Barnhill Dr $124
106 Monet Ln $372
3320 Parasol Ct $195
Average (Rounded) $190
Source: Redfin as of November 2024; EPS.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-7 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 1 of 3
Table A-8
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 1 Low-Density SFR Item
% of
Household
Income Spent
per Category
[1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
Low-Density SFR
in Folsom
Expenditures [3]
Expenditures
per 1,000
HHs
Gross
Receipts to
Wages
Total Wages
per 1,000
Households
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker
HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH Income
to Afford LowDensity SFR of
$327,200 * a Calc
Econ.
Census 2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Food at Home 6.9% 100% $22,540
Food & Beverage Stores 100% $22,540 $22,539,708 9.85 $2,288,892 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 61.72 100.0% 1.65 37.41 $61,191 Very Low Food Away From Home 4.5% 100% $14,645
Food Services and Drinking Places 100% $14,645 $14,645,411 3.37 $4,351,428 50,828 $17,222 $22,585 192.67 87.5% 1.65 102.17 $37,265 Extremely Low Alcoholic Beverages 0.7% 100% $2,372 $2,372,013
Food & Beverage Stores 50% $1,186 $1,186,006 9.85 $120,438 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 3.25 87.5% 1.65 1.72 $61,191 Very Low Food Services and Drinking Places 50% $1,186 $1,186,006 3.37 $352,385 50,828 $17,222 $22,585 15.60 87.5% 1.65 8.27 $37,265 Extremely Low Housing Maintenance, Repairs, Insurance, Other expens 3.0% 100% $9,678 $9,677,962 Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 45% $4,355 $4,355,083 3.13 $1,389,805 6,507 $24,559 $32,207 43.15 98.1% 1.65 25.66 $53,142 Very Low Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealer 45% $4,355 $4,355,083 8.85 $491,987 4,783 $31,497 $41,305 11.91 87.5% 1.65 6.32 $68,154 Very Low Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 10% $968 $967,796 5.53 $175,158 9,009 $49,123 $64,420 2.72 98.1% 1.65 1.62 $106,294 Low Fuel oil and Other fuels [7] 0.2% 100% $521 $521,322
Nonstore Retailers 100% $521 $521,322 14.48 $36,014 1,785 $35,886 $47,061 0.77 87.5% 1.65 0.41 $77,650 Low Water and Other Public Services [7] 0.9% 100% $2,905 $2,904,506 Waste Management and Remediation Services 100% $2,905 $2,904,506 4.29 $676,664 1,267 $58,325 $76,488 8.85 98.1% 1.65 5.26 $126,205 Median Household Operations Personal Services 0.6% 100% $2,048 $2,048,049 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 40% $819 $819,220 2.41 $339,289 11,439 $30,269 $39,695 8.55 98.1% 1.65 5.08 $65,497 Very Low Social Assistance 60% $1,229 $1,228,829 3.02 $407,317 15,778 $27,674 $36,292 11.22 98.1% 1.65 6.67 $59,881 Very Low Household Operations Other Household Expenses 1.6% 100% $5,344 $5,343,546 Services to Buildings and Dwellings 100% $5,344 $5,343,546 2.50 $2,135,699 1,267 $58,325 $76,488 27.92 98.1% 1.65 16.60 $126,205 Median Housekeeping Supplies 0.9% 100% $3,046 $3,046,007
Building Materials and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 10% $305 $304,601 8.85 $34,410 4,783 $31,497 $41,305 0.83 87.5% 1.65 0.44 $68,154 Very Low Food & Beverage Stores 35% $1,066 $1,066,102 9.85 $108,262 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 2.92 87.5% 1.65 1.55 $61,191 Very Low General Merchandise 35% $1,066 $1,066,102 10.71 $99,496 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 2.96 87.5% 1.65 1.57 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 20% $609 $609,201 5.89 $103,504 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 3.63 87.5% 1.65 1.92 $47,095 Very Low Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-8 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-8
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 1 Low-Density SFR Item
% of
Household
Income Spent
per Category
[1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
Low-Density SFR
in Folsom
Expenditures [3]
Expenditures
per 1,000
HHs
Gross
Receipts to
Wages
Total Wages
per 1,000
Households
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker
HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH Income
to Afford LowDensity SFR of
$327,200 * a Calc
Econ.
Census 2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Household Furnishings and Equipment 2.9% 100% $9,339
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 40% $3,736 $3,735,641 7.31 $510,888 1,671 $29,240 $38,346 13.3 87.5% 1.65 7.1 $63,270 Very Low Electronics and Appliance Stores 40% $3,736 $3,735,641 9.51 $392,811 1,962 $27,499 $36,063 10.9 87.5% 1.65 5.8 $59,504 Very Low General Merchandise 10% $934 $933,910 10.71 $87,159 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 2.6 87.5% 1.65 1.4 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 10% $934 $933,910 5.89 $158,673 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 5.6 87.5% 1.65 2.9 $47,095 Very Low Apparel and Services 2.3% 100% $7,600
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 40% $3,040 $3,040,049 7.56 $402,287 7,012 $18,120 $23,763 16.9 87.5% 1.65 9.0 $39,209 Extremely Low General Merchandise 40% $3,040 $3,040,049 10.71 $283,719 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 8.4 87.5% 1.65 4.5 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 10% $760 $760,012 5.89 $129,127 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 4.5 87.5% 1.65 2.4 $47,095 Very Low Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 5% $380 $380,006 3.13 $121,269 6,507 $24,559 $32,207 3.8 87.5% 1.65 2.0 $53,142 Very Low Drycleaning and Laundry Services 5% $380 $380,006 3.30 $115,164 1,824 $31,553 $41,379 2.8 87.5% 1.65 1.5 $68,275 Very Low Vehicle Purchases (net outlay) 6.3% 100% $20,626
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 100% $20,626 $20,625,713 12.17 $1,695,068 8,549 $48,855 $64,069 26.5 87.5% 1.65 14.0 $105,713 Low Gasoline and motor oil 3.1% 100% $10,032
Gasoline Stations 100% $10,032 $10,031,715 32.04 $313,091 2,212 $22,756 $29,843 10.5 87.5% 1.65 5.6 $49,241 Very Low Vehicle Maintenance and Repairs 1.1% 100% $3,631
Repair and Maintenance 100% $3,631 $3,630,632 3.58 $1,014,557 6,004 $38,749 $50,815 20.0 98.1% 1.65 11.9 $83,845 Low Medical Services 1.4% 100% $4,662
Ambulatory Health Care Services 40% $1,865 $1,864,842 2.22 $839,836 35,993 $82,454 $108,131 7.8 98.1% 1.65 4.6 $178,415 Above Moderate General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 30% $1,399 $1,398,631 2.75 $509,050 24,767 $92,641 $121,490 4.2 98.1% 1.65 2.5 $200,459 Above Moderate Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 30% $1,399 $1,398,631 2.41 $579,258 11,439 $30,269 $39,695 14.6 98.1% 1.65 8.7 $65,497 Very Low Drugs 0.7% 100% $2,201
Health and Personal Care Stores 100% $2,201 $2,200,722 6.72 $327,449 4,366 $37,345 $48,974 6.7 87.5% 1.65 3.5 $80,807 Low Medical Supplies 0.3% 100% $994
Health and Personal Care Stores 100% $994 $994,235 6.72 $147,934 4,366 $37,345 $48,974 3.0 87.5% 1.65 1.6 $80,807 Low Entertainment Fees and Admissions 1.1% 100% $3,541
Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 100% $3,541 $3,541,263 2.61 $1,359,127 8,187 $35,292 $46,282 29.4 87.5% 1.65 15.6 $76,366 Low Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-9 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-8
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 1 Low-Density SFR Item
% of
Household
Income Spent
per Category
[1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
Low-Density SFR
in Folsom
Expenditures [3]
Expenditures
per 1,000
HHs
Gross
Receipts to
Wages
Total Wages
per 1,000
Households
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker
HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH Income
to Afford LowDensity SFR of
$327,200 * a Calc
Econ.
Census 2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Entertainment Audio and Visual Equipment and Services 1.1% 100% $3,631 Electronics and Appliance Stores 100% $3,631 $3,630,632 9.51 $381,769 1,962 $27,499 $36,063 10.6 87.5% 1.65 5.6 $59,504 Very Low Entertainment Pets, Toys, Hobbies, and Playground Equ 1.2% 100% $3,936 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 40% $1,574 $1,574,391 7.62 $206,636 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 8.7 87.5% 1.65 4.6 $39,095 Extremely Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 40% $1,574 $1,574,391 5.89 $267,491 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 9.4 87.5% 1.65 5.0 $47,095 Very Low Veterinary Services 20% $787 $787,195 3.06 $257,264 34,059 $47,652 $62,491 4.1 98.1% 1.65 2.4 $103,110 Low Other Entertainment Supplies, Equipment, and Services 0.7% 100% $2,432 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 85% $2,067 $2,066,854 7.62 $271,271 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 11.4 87.5% 1.65 6.1 $39,095 Extremely Low Photographic Services 15% $365 $364,739 4.27 $85,503 6,920 $30,385 $39,847 2.1 98.1% 1.65 1.3 $65,748 Very Low Personal Care Products and Services 1.1% 100% $3,538
Unspecified Retail 50% $1,769 $1,768,769 5.89 $300,517 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 10.5 87.5% 1.65 5.6 $47,095 Very Low Personal Care Services 50% $1,769 $1,768,769 2.90 $610,333 3,230 $18,932 $24,828 24.6 98.1% 1.65 14.6 $40,966 Extremely Low Reading 0.1% 100% $436
Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 100% $436 $435,676 7.62 $57,182 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 2.4 87.5% 1.65 1.3 $39,095 Extremely Low Education 1.9% 100% $6,166
Educational Services 100% $6,166 $6,166,489 2.84 $2,171,667 4,202 $29,430 $38,595 56.3 98.1% 1.65 33.5 $63,681 Very Low Tobacco Products and Smoking Supplies 0.4% 100% $1,378
Unspecified Retail 100% $1,378 $1,377,778 5.89 $234,087 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 0.1 87.5% 1.65 0.1 $47,095 Very Low Miscellaneous 1.3% 100% $4,409
Accounting 20% $882 $881,778 2.91 $302,981 4,019 $48,431 $63,512 4.8 98.1% 1.65 2.8 $104,795 Low Architectural, Engineering, and Related [8] 20% $882 $881,778 2.74 $321,688 6,361 $92,859 $121,777 2.6 98.1% 1.65 1.6 $200,931 Above Moderate Specialized Design Services 20% $882 $881,778 3.63 $242,713 22,856 $62,955 $82,560 2.9 98.1% 1.65 1.7 $136,223 Moderate Death Care Services 20% $882 $881,778 3.96 $222,628 10,167 $44,027 $57,738 3.9 98.1% 1.65 2.3 $95,268 Low Legal Services 20% $882 $881,778 2.94 $299,915 150,205 $101,023 $132,482 2.3 98.1% 1.65 1.3 $218,595 Above Moderate Total per 1,000 Market Rate Households 746.8 416.9
Source: 2023 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 Economic Census, American Community Survey; EPS. [2] Where multiple business types are likely to provide goods and services in the expenditure category, EPS has estimated the proportion accruing to each business type. [1] Percentage of income spent per category is based on the nationwide 2023 Consumer Expenditure Survey data for households at this income level. Note that the sum of the categories included in this analysis is well below the total expenditures of households at this income level, and thus represents a conservative estimate of job creation and housing impacts. Expenditure categories not incorporated due to data constraints include taxes, housing and lodging, most utilities, tobacco, health insurance, personal/ life insurance, cash contributions, and financing charges. [8] Note that average salary reported for architecture, engineering and related industries reflects the full range of employees within the industry, not solely professional and technical staff. [3] 2023 expenditures are based on the estimated household income distributed based on the percent of income spent per the 2023 U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey. Assumes a household income of $327,200, as shown in Table 3-7. [4] 2017 wages converted to 2024 dollars using the CPI for the urban West from the BLS. [5] BLS data indicates that 12.5% of retail/restaurant workers are age 16-19, but an average of only 1.9% of workers are 16-19 in other industries. EPS has assumed that such young workers do not form their own households. [6] Based on US Census, 2022 ACS data for the City of Folsom. [7] Part of the Utilities, Fuels, and Public Services category (includes natural gas, electricity, and telephone services). Natural gas, electricity, and telephone services not estimated because data was not available in the 2017 Economic Census.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-10 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 1 of 3
Table A-9
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 2 Medium-Density SFR Item
% of
Household
Income
Spent per
Category [1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditure
s per 1,000
HHs
Gross
Receipts
to Wages
Total
Wages per
1,000
Household
s
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker HH
Income
Income
Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR
of $253,500 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Food at Home 6.9% 100% $17,463
Food & Beverage Stores 100% $17,463 $17,462,763 9.85 $1,773,332 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 47.82 100.0% 1.65 28.98 $61,191 Very Low Food Away From Home 4.5% 100% $11,347
Food Services and Drinking Places 100% $11,347 $11,346,613 3.37 $3,371,293 50,828 $17,222 $22,585 149.27 87.5% 1.65 79.16 $37,265 Extremely Low Alcoholic Beverages 0.7% 100% $1,838 $1,837,730
Food & Beverage Stores 50% $919 $918,865 9.85 $93,310 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 2.52 87.5% 1.65 1.33 $61,191 Very Low Food Services and Drinking Places 50% $919 $918,865 3.37 $273,012 50,828 $17,222 $22,585 12.09 87.5% 1.65 6.41 $37,265 Extremely Low Housing Maintenance, Repairs, Insurance, Other expense 3.0% 100% $7,498 $7,498,054 Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 45% $3,374 $3,374,124 3.13 $1,076,759 6,507 $24,559 $32,207 33.43 98.1% 1.65 19.88 $53,142 Very Low Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealer 45% $3,374 $3,374,124 8.85 $381,169 4,783 $31,497 $41,305 9.23 87.5% 1.65 4.89 $68,154 Low Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 10% $750 $749,805 5.53 $135,705 9,009 $49,123 $64,420 2.11 98.1% 1.65 1.25 $106,294 Median Fuel oil and Other fuels [7] 0.2% 100% $404 $403,897
Nonstore Retailers 100% $404 $403,897 14.48 $27,902 1,785 $35,886 $47,061 0.59 87.5% 1.65 0.31 $77,650 Low Water and Other Public Services [7] 0.9% 100% $2,250 $2,250,282 Waste Management and Remediation Services 100% $2,250 $2,250,282 4.29 $524,249 1,267 $58,325 $76,488 6.85 98.1% 1.65 4.08 $126,205 Moderate Household Operations Personal Services 0.6% 100% $1,587 $1,586,737 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 40% $635 $634,695 2.41 $262,866 11,439 $30,269 $39,695 6.62 98.1% 1.65 3.94 $65,497 Low Social Assistance 60% $952 $952,042 3.02 $315,571 15,778 $27,674 $36,292 8.70 98.1% 1.65 5.17 $59,881 Very Low Household Operations Other Household Expenses 1.6% 100% $4,140 $4,139,941 Services to Buildings and Dwellings 100% $4,140 $4,139,941 2.50 $1,654,645 1,267 $58,325 $76,488 21.63 98.1% 1.65 12.86 $126,205 Moderate Housekeeping Supplies 0.9% 100% $2,360 $2,359,911
Building Materials and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 10% $236 $235,991 8.85 $26,660 4,783 $31,497 $41,305 0.65 87.5% 1.65 0.34 $68,154 Low Food & Beverage Stores 35% $826 $825,969 9.85 $83,877 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 2.26 87.5% 1.65 1.20 $61,191 Very Low General Merchandise 35% $826 $825,969 10.71 $77,085 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 2.29 87.5% 1.65 1.22 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 20% $472 $471,982 5.89 $80,190 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 2.81 87.5% 1.65 1.49 $47,095 Very Low Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-11 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 2 of 3
Table A-9
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 2 Medium-Density SFR Item
% of
Household
Income
Spent per
Category [1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditure
s per 1,000
HHs
Gross
Receipts
to Wages
Total
Wages per
1,000
Household
s
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker HH
Income
Income
Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR
of $253,500 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Household Furnishings and Equipment 2.9% 100% $7,236
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 40% $2,894 $2,894,208 7.31 $395,813 1,671 $29,240 $38,346 10.3 87.5% 1.65 5.5 $63,270 Very Low Electronics and Appliance Stores 40% $2,894 $2,894,208 9.51 $304,332 1,962 $27,499 $36,063 8.4 87.5% 1.65 4.5 $59,504 Very Low General Merchandise 10% $724 $723,552 10.71 $67,527 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 2.0 87.5% 1.65 1.1 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 10% $724 $723,552 5.89 $122,933 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 4.3 87.5% 1.65 2.3 $47,095 Very Low Apparel and Services 2.3% 100% $5,888
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 40% $2,355 $2,355,295 7.56 $311,674 7,012 $18,120 $23,763 13.1 87.5% 1.65 7.0 $39,209 Very Low General Merchandise 40% $2,355 $2,355,295 10.71 $219,813 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 6.5 87.5% 1.65 3.5 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 10% $589 $588,824 5.89 $100,042 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 3.5 87.5% 1.65 1.9 $47,095 Very Low Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 5% $294 $294,412 3.13 $93,953 6,507 $24,559 $32,207 2.9 87.5% 1.65 1.5 $53,142 Very Low Drycleaning and Laundry Services 5% $294 $294,412 3.30 $89,224 1,824 $31,553 $41,379 2.2 87.5% 1.65 1.1 $68,275 Low Vehicle Purchases (net outlay) 6.3% 100% $15,980
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 100% $15,980 $15,979,885 12.17 $1,313,263 8,549 $48,855 $64,069 20.5 87.5% 1.65 10.9 $105,713 Median Gasoline and motor oil 3.1% 100% $7,772
Gasoline Stations 100% $7,772 $7,772,127 32.04 $242,569 2,212 $22,756 $29,843 8.1 87.5% 1.65 4.3 $49,241 Very Low Vehicle Maintenance and Repairs 1.1% 100% $2,813
Repair and Maintenance 100% $2,813 $2,812,852 3.58 $786,034 6,004 $38,749 $50,815 15.5 98.1% 1.65 9.2 $83,845 Low Medical Services 1.4% 100% $3,612
Ambulatory Health Care Services 40% $1,445 $1,444,796 2.22 $650,668 35,993 $82,454 $108,131 6.0 98.1% 1.65 3.6 $178,415 Above Moderate General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 30% $1,084 $1,083,597 2.75 $394,389 24,767 $92,641 $121,490 3.2 98.1% 1.65 1.9 $200,459 Above Moderate Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 30% $1,084 $1,083,597 2.41 $448,784 11,439 $30,269 $39,695 11.3 98.1% 1.65 6.7 $65,497 Low Drugs 0.7% 100% $1,705
Health and Personal Care Stores 100% $1,705 $1,705,021 6.72 $253,693 4,366 $37,345 $48,974 5.2 87.5% 1.65 2.7 $80,807 Low Medical Supplies 0.3% 100% $770
Health and Personal Care Stores 100% $770 $770,289 6.72 $114,613 4,366 $37,345 $48,974 2.3 87.5% 1.65 1.2 $80,807 Low Entertainment Fees and Admissions 1.1% 100% $2,744
Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 100% $2,744 $2,743,613 2.61 $1,052,991 8,187 $35,292 $46,282 22.8 87.5% 1.65 12.1 $76,366 Low Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-12 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 3 of 3
Table A-9
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 2 Medium-Density SFR Item
% of
Household
Income
Spent per
Category [1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditure
s per 1,000
HHs
Gross
Receipts
to Wages
Total
Wages per
1,000
Household
s
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker HH
Income
Income
Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR
of $253,500 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Entertainment Audio and Visual Equipment and Services 1.1% 100% $2,813 Electronics and Appliance Stores 100% $2,813 $2,812,852 9.51 $295,778 1,962 $27,499 $36,063 8.2 87.5% 1.85 3.9 $66,682 Low Entertainment Pets, Toys, Hobbies, and Playground Equip 1.2% 100% $3,049 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 40% $1,220 $1,219,768 7.62 $160,093 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 6.8 87.5% 1.85 3.2 $43,811 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 40% $1,220 $1,219,768 5.89 $207,240 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 7.3 87.5% 1.85 3.4 $52,776 Very Low Veterinary Services 20% $610 $609,884 3.06 $199,317 34,059 $47,652 $62,491 3.2 98.1% 1.85 1.7 $115,549 Median Other Entertainment Supplies, Equipment, and Services 0.7% 100% $1,884 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 85% $1,601 $1,601,306 7.62 $210,169 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 8.9 87.5% 1.85 4.2 $43,811 Very Low Photographic Services 15% $283 $282,583 4.27 $66,244 6,920 $30,385 $39,847 1.7 98.1% 1.85 0.9 $73,680 Low Personal Care Products and Services 1.1% 100% $2,741
Unspecified Retail 50% $1,370 $1,370,364 5.89 $232,827 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 8.2 87.5% 1.85 3.9 $52,776 Very Low Personal Care Services 50% $1,370 $1,370,364 2.90 $472,859 3,230 $18,932 $24,828 19.0 98.1% 1.85 10.1 $45,908 Very Low Reading 0.1% 100% $338
Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 100% $338 $337,542 7.62 $44,302 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 1.9 87.5% 1.85 0.9 $43,811 Very Low Education 1.9% 100% $4,778
Educational Services 100% $4,778 $4,777,521 2.84 $1,682,511 4,202 $29,430 $38,595 43.6 98.1% 1.85 23.1 $71,364 Low Tobacco Products and Smoking Supplies 0.4% 100% $1,067
Unspecified Retail 100% $1,067 $1,067,441 5.89 $181,360 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 0.1 87.5% 1.85 0.1 $52,776 Very Low Miscellaneous 1.3% 100% $3,416
Accounting 20% $683 $683,162 2.91 $234,736 4,019 $48,431 $63,512 3.7 98.1% 1.85 2.0 $117,438 Median Architectural, Engineering, and Related [8] 20% $683 $683,162 2.74 $249,230 6,361 $92,859 $121,777 2.0 98.1% 1.85 1.1 $225,171 Above Moderate Specialized Design Services 20% $683 $683,162 3.63 $188,043 22,856 $62,955 $82,560 2.3 98.1% 1.85 1.2 $152,657 Above Moderate Death Care Services 20% $683 $683,162 3.96 $172,482 10,167 $44,027 $57,738 3.0 98.1% 1.85 1.6 $106,760 Median Legal Services 20% $683 $683,162 2.94 $232,361 150,205 $101,023 $132,482 1.8 98.1% 1.85 0.9 $244,965 Above Moderate Total per 1,000 Market Rate Households 578.6 315.5
Source: 2023 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 Economic Census, American Community Survey; EPS. [7] Part of the Utilities, Fuels, and Public Services category (includes natural gas, electricity, and telephone services). Natural gas, electricity, and telephone services not estimated because data was not available in the 2017 Economic Census. [8] Note that average salary reported for architecture, engineering and related industries reflects the full range of employees within the industry, not solely professional and technical staff. [2] Where multiple business types are likely to provide goods and services in the expenditure category, EPS has estimated the proportion accruing to each business type. [1] Percentage of income spent per category is based on the nationwide 2023 Consumer Expenditure Survey data for households at this income level. Note that the sum of the categories included in this analysis is well below the total expenditures of households at this income level, and thus represents a conservative estimate of job creation and housing impacts. Expenditure categories not incorporated due to data constraints include taxes, housing and lodging, most utilities, tobacco, health insurance, personal/ life insurance, cash contributions, and financing charges. [3] 2023 expenditures are based on the estimated household income distributed based on the percent of income spent per the 2023 U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey. Assumes a household income of $253,500, as shown in Table 3-7. [4] 2017 wages converted to 2024 dollars using the CPI for the urban West from the BLS. [5] BLS data indicates that 12.5% of retail/restaurant workers are age 16-19, but an average of only 1.9% of workers are 16-19 in other industries. EPS has assumed that such young workers do not form their own households. [6] Based on US Census, 2022 ACS data for the City of Folsom.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-13 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 1 of 3
Table A-10
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 3 Item
Household
Income
Spent per
Category
[1]
Category
Expenditur
e per Type
of Business
[2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditures
per 1,000 HHs
Gross
Receipts to
Wages
Total Wages
per 1,000
Households
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker
HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditur
e Survey
2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR of
$199,100 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Food at Home 6.9% 100% $13,715
Food & Beverage Stores 100% $13,715 $13,715,330 9.85 $1,392,783 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 37.56 100.0% 1.65 22.76 $61,191 Very Low Food Away From Home 4.5% 100% $8,912
Food Services and Drinking Places 100% $8,912 $8,911,679 3.37 $2,647,828 50,828 $17,222 $22,585 117.24 87.5% 1.65 62.17 $37,265 Extremely Low Alcoholic Beverages 0.7% 100% $1,443 $1,443,361
Food & Beverage Stores 50% $722 $721,681 9.85 $73,286 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 1.98 87.5% 1.65 1.05 $61,191 Very Low Food Services and Drinking Places 50% $722 $721,681 3.37 $214,425 50,828 $17,222 $22,585 9.49 87.5% 1.65 5.03 $37,265 Extremely Low Housing Maintenance, Repairs, Insurance, Other expenses 3.0% 100% $5,889 $5,889,004 Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 45% $2,650 $2,650,052 3.13 $845,692 6,507 $24,559 $32,207 26.26 98.1% 1.65 15.61 $53,142 Very Low Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealer 45% $2,650 $2,650,052 8.85 $299,372 4,783 $31,497 $41,305 7.25 87.5% 1.65 3.84 $68,154 Low Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 10% $589 $588,900 5.53 $106,583 9,009 $49,123 $64,420 1.65 98.1% 1.65 0.98 $106,294 Median Fuel oil and Other fuels [7] 0.2% 100% $317 $317,222
Nonstore Retailers 100% $317 $317,222 14.48 $21,914 1,785 $35,886 $47,061 0.47 87.5% 1.65 0.25 $77,650 Low Water and Other Public Services [7] 0.9% 100% $1,767 $1,767,381 Waste Management and Remediation Services 100% $1,767 $1,767,381 4.29 $411,748 1,267 $58,325 $76,488 5.38 98.1% 1.65 3.20 $126,205 Moderate Household Operations Personal Services 0.6% 100% $1,246 $1,246,230 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 40% $498 $498,492 2.41 $206,456 11,439 $30,269 $39,695 5.20 98.1% 1.65 3.09 $65,497 Low Social Assistance 60% $748 $747,738 3.02 $247,851 15,778 $27,674 $36,292 6.83 98.1% 1.65 4.06 $59,881 Very Low Household Operations Other Household Expenses 1.6% 100% $3,252 $3,251,528 Services to Buildings and Dwellings 100% $3,252 $3,251,528 2.50 $1,299,565 1,267 $58,325 $76,488 16.99 98.1% 1.65 10.10 $126,205 Moderate Housekeeping Supplies 0.9% 100% $1,853 $1,853,484
Building Materials and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 10% $185 $185,348 8.85 $20,939 4,783 $31,497 $41,305 0.51 87.5% 1.65 0.27 $68,154 Low Food & Beverage Stores 35% $649 $648,719 9.85 $65,877 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 1.78 87.5% 1.65 0.94 $61,191 Very Low General Merchandise 35% $649 $648,719 10.71 $60,543 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 1.80 87.5% 1.65 0.96 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 20% $371 $370,697 5.89 $62,982 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 2.21 87.5% 1.65 1.17 $47,095 Very Low % of % of
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-14 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 2 of 3
Table A-10
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 3 Item
Household
Income
Spent per
Category
[1]
Category
Expenditur
e per Type
of Business
[2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditures
per 1,000 HHs
Gross
Receipts to
Wages
Total Wages
per 1,000
Households
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker
HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditur
e Survey
2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR of
$199,100 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Household Furnishings and Equipment 2.9% 100% $5,683
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 40% $2,273 $2,273,124 7.31 $310,873 1,671 $29,240 $38,346 8.1 87.5% 1.65 4.3 $63,270 Very Low Electronics and Appliance Stores 40% $2,273 $2,273,124 9.51 $239,024 1,962 $27,499 $36,063 6.6 87.5% 1.65 3.5 $59,504 Very Low General Merchandise 10% $568 $568,281 10.71 $53,036 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 1.6 87.5% 1.65 0.8 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 10% $568 $568,281 5.89 $96,552 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 3.4 87.5% 1.65 1.8 $47,095 Very Low Apparel and Services 2.3% 100% $4,625
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 40% $1,850 $1,849,859 7.56 $244,790 7,012 $18,120 $23,763 10.3 87.5% 1.65 5.5 $39,209 Very Low General Merchandise 40% $1,850 $1,849,859 10.71 $172,642 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 5.1 87.5% 1.65 2.7 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 10% $462 $462,465 5.89 $78,573 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 2.8 87.5% 1.65 1.5 $47,095 Very Low Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 5% $231 $231,232 3.13 $73,791 6,507 $24,559 $32,207 2.3 87.5% 1.65 1.2 $53,142 Very Low Drycleaning and Laundry Services 5% $231 $231,232 3.30 $70,077 1,824 $31,553 $41,379 1.7 87.5% 1.65 0.9 $68,275 Low Vehicle Purchases (net outlay) 6.3% 100% $12,551
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 100% $12,551 $12,550,671 12.17 $1,031,443 8,549 $48,855 $64,069 16.1 87.5% 1.65 8.5 $105,713 Median Gasoline and motor oil 3.1% 100% $6,104
Gasoline Stations 100% $6,104 $6,104,262 32.04 $190,515 2,212 $22,756 $29,843 6.4 87.5% 1.65 3.4 $49,241 Very Low Vehicle Maintenance and Repairs 1.1% 100% $2,209
Repair and Maintenance 100% $2,209 $2,209,226 3.58 $617,355 6,004 $38,749 $50,815 12.1 98.1% 1.65 7.2 $83,845 Low Medical Services 1.4% 100% $2,837
Ambulatory Health Care Services 40% $1,135 $1,134,749 2.22 $511,037 35,993 $82,454 $108,131 4.7 98.1% 1.65 2.8 $178,415 Above Moderate General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 30% $851 $851,062 2.75 $309,755 24,767 $92,641 $121,490 2.5 98.1% 1.65 1.5 $200,459 Above Moderate Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 30% $851 $851,062 2.41 $352,477 11,439 $30,269 $39,695 8.9 98.1% 1.65 5.3 $65,497 Low Drugs 0.7% 100% $1,339
Health and Personal Care Stores 100% $1,339 $1,339,131 6.72 $199,252 4,366 $37,345 $48,974 4.1 87.5% 1.65 2.2 $80,807 Low Medical Supplies 0.3% 100% $605
Health and Personal Care Stores 100% $605 $604,988 6.72 $90,017 4,366 $37,345 $48,974 1.8 87.5% 1.65 1.0 $80,807 Low Entertainment Fees and Admissions 1.1% 100% $2,155
Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 100% $2,155 $2,154,845 2.61 $827,024 8,187 $35,292 $46,282 17.9 87.5% 1.65 9.5 $76,366 Low % of % of
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-15 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 3 of 3
Table A-10
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 3 Item
Household
Income
Spent per
Category
[1]
Category
Expenditur
e per Type
of Business
[2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditures
per 1,000 HHs
Gross
Receipts to
Wages
Total Wages
per 1,000
Households
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
% Forming
HH [5]
Workers/
HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker
HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditur
e Survey
2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR of
$199,100 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Entertainment Audio and Visual Equipment and Services 1.1% 100% $2,209 Electronics and Appliance Stores 100% $2,209 $2,209,226 9.51 $232,305 1,962 $27,499 $36,063 6.4 87.5% 1.85 3.0 $66,682 Low Entertainment Pets, Toys, Hobbies, and Playground Equip 1.2% 100% $2,395 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 40% $958 $958,011 7.62 $125,737 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 5.3 87.5% 1.85 2.5 $43,811 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 40% $958 $958,011 5.89 $162,768 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 5.7 87.5% 1.85 2.7 $52,776 Very Low Veterinary Services 20% $479 $479,006 3.06 $156,544 34,059 $47,652 $62,491 2.5 98.1% 1.85 1.3 $115,549 Median Other Entertainment Supplies, Equipment, and Services 0.7% 100% $1,480 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 85% $1,258 $1,257,673 7.62 $165,067 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 7.0 87.5% 1.85 3.3 $43,811 Very Low Photographic Services 15% $222 $221,942 4.27 $52,028 6,920 $30,385 $39,847 1.3 98.1% 1.85 0.7 $73,680 Low Personal Care Products and Services 1.1% 100% $2,153
Unspecified Retail 50% $1,076 $1,076,290 5.89 $182,863 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 6.4 87.5% 1.85 3.0 $52,776 Very Low Personal Care Services 50% $1,076 $1,076,290 2.90 $371,385 3,230 $18,932 $24,828 15.0 98.1% 1.85 7.9 $45,908 Very Low Reading 0.1% 100% $265
Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 100% $265 $265,107 7.62 $34,795 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 1.5 87.5% 1.85 0.7 $43,811 Very Low Education 1.9% 100% $3,752
Educational Services 100% $3,752 $3,752,286 2.84 $1,321,452 4,202 $29,430 $38,595 34.2 98.1% 1.85 18.2 $71,364 Low Tobacco Products and Smoking Supplies 0.4% 100% $838
Unspecified Retail 100% $838 $838,373 5.89 $142,441 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 0.1 87.5% 1.85 0.1 $52,776 Very Low Miscellaneous 1.3% 100% $2,683
Accounting 20% $537 $536,559 2.91 $184,363 4,019 $48,431 $63,512 2.9 98.1% 1.85 1.5 $117,438 Median Architectural, Engineering, and Related [8] 20% $537 $536,559 2.74 $195,746 6,361 $92,859 $121,777 1.6 98.1% 1.85 0.9 $225,171 Above Moderate Specialized Design Services 20% $537 $536,559 3.63 $147,690 22,856 $62,955 $82,560 1.8 98.1% 1.85 0.9 $152,657 Above Moderate Death Care Services 20% $537 $536,559 3.96 $135,468 10,167 $44,027 $57,738 2.3 98.1% 1.85 1.2 $106,760 Median Legal Services 20% $537 $536,559 2.94 $182,497 150,205 $101,023 $132,482 1.4 98.1% 1.85 0.7 $244,965 Above Moderate Total per 1,000 Market Rate Households 454.5 247.8
Source: 2023 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 Economic Census, American Community Survey; EPS. [7] Part of the Utilities, Fuels, and Public Services category (includes natural gas, electricity, and telephone services). Natural gas, electricity, and telephone services not estimated because data was not available in the 2017 Economic Census. [8] Note that average salary reported for architecture, engineering and related industries reflects the full range of employees within the industry, not solely professional and technical staff. [2] Where multiple business types are likely to provide goods and services in the expenditure category, EPS has estimated the proportion accruing to each business type. [1] Percentage of income spent per category is based on the nationwide 2023 Consumer Expenditure Survey data for households at this income level. Note that the sum of the categories included in this analysis is well below the total expenditures of households at this income level, and thus represents a conservative estimate of job creation and housing impacts. Expenditure categories not incorporated due to data constraints include taxes, housing and lodging, most utilities, tobacco, health insurance, personal/ life insurance, cash contributions, and financing charges. [3] 2023 expenditures are based on the estimated household income distributed based on the percent of income spent per the 2023 U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey. Assumes a household income of $199,100, as shown in Table 3-7. [4] 2017 wages converted to 2024 dollars using the CPI for the urban West from the BLS. [5] BLS data indicates that 12.5% of retail/restaurant workers are age 16-19, but an average of only 1.9% of workers are 16-19 in other industries. EPS has assumed that such young workers do not form their own households. [6] Based on US Census, 2022 ACS data for the City of Folsom. % of % of
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-16 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 1 of 3
Table A-11
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 4 Item
% of
Household
Income
Spent per
Category [1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditures
per 1,000 HHs
Gross
Receipts
to Wages
Total
Wages per
1,000
Household
s
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
%
Forming
HH [5]
Workers
/ HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR
of $130,100 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Food at Home 6.9% 100% $8,962
Food & Beverage Stores 100% $8,962 $8,962,152 9.85 $910,101 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 24.54 100.0% 1.65 14.87 $61,191 Low Food Away From Home 4.5% 100% $5,823
Food Services and Drinking Places 100% $5,823 $5,823,252 3.37 $1,730,198 50,828 $17,222 $22,585 76.61 87.5% 1.65 40.63 $37,265 Very Low Alcoholic Beverages 0.7% 100% $943 $943,151
Food & Beverage Stores 50% $472 $471,575 9.85 $47,888 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 1.29 87.5% 1.65 0.68 $61,191 Low Food Services and Drinking Places 50% $472 $471,575 3.37 $140,114 50,828 $17,222 $22,585 6.20 87.5% 1.65 3.29 $37,265 Very Low Housing Maintenance, Repairs, Insurance, Other expenses 3.0% 100% $3,848 $3,848,114 Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 45% $1,732 $1,731,651 3.13 $552,609 6,507 $24,559 $32,207 17.16 98.1% 1.65 10.20 $53,142 Very Low Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealer 45% $1,732 $1,731,651 8.85 $195,622 4,783 $31,497 $41,305 4.74 87.5% 1.65 2.51 $68,154 Low Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 10% $385 $384,811 5.53 $69,646 9,009 $49,123 $64,420 1.08 98.1% 1.65 0.64 $106,294 Median Fuel oil and Other fuels [7] 0.2% 100% $207 $207,286
Nonstore Retailers 100% $207 $207,286 14.48 $14,320 1,785 $35,886 $47,061 0.30 87.5% 1.65 0.16 $77,650 Low Water and Other Public Services [7] 0.9% 100% $1,155 $1,154,878 Waste Management and Remediation Services 100% $1,155 $1,154,878 4.29 $269,053 1,267 $58,325 $76,488 3.52 98.1% 1.65 2.09 $126,205 Moderate Household Operations Personal Services 0.6% 100% $814 $814,337 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 40% $326 $325,735 2.41 $134,907 11,439 $30,269 $39,695 3.40 98.1% 1.65 2.02 $65,497 Low Social Assistance 60% $489 $488,602 3.02 $161,956 15,778 $27,674 $36,292 4.46 98.1% 1.65 2.65 $59,881 Low Household Operations Other Household Expenses 1.6% 100% $2,125 $2,124,680 Services to Buildings and Dwellings 100% $2,125 $2,124,680 2.50 $849,188 1,267 $58,325 $76,488 11.10 98.1% 1.65 6.60 $126,205 Moderate Housekeeping Supplies 0.9% 100% $1,211 $1,211,142
Building Materials and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 10% $121 $121,114 8.85 $13,682 4,783 $31,497 $41,305 0.33 87.5% 1.65 0.18 $68,154 Low Food & Beverage Stores 35% $424 $423,900 9.85 $43,047 12,338 $28,279 $37,086 1.16 87.5% 1.65 0.62 $61,191 Low General Merchandise 35% $424 $423,900 10.71 $39,561 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 1.18 87.5% 1.65 0.62 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 20% $242 $242,228 5.89 $41,155 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 1.44 87.5% 1.65 0.76 $47,095 Very Low Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-17 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 2 of 3
Table A-11
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 4 Item
% of
Household
Income
Spent per
Category [1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditures
per 1,000 HHs
Gross
Receipts
to Wages
Total
Wages per
1,000
Household
s
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
%
Forming
HH [5]
Workers
/ HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR
of $130,100 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Household Furnishings and Equipment 2.9% 100% $3,713
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 40% $1,485 $1,485,351 7.31 $203,137 1,671 $29,240 $38,346 5.3 87.5% 1.65 2.8 $63,270 Low Electronics and Appliance Stores 40% $1,485 $1,485,351 9.51 $156,188 1,962 $27,499 $36,063 4.3 87.5% 1.65 2.3 $59,504 Low General Merchandise 10% $371 $371,338 10.71 $34,656 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 1.0 87.5% 1.65 0.5 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 10% $371 $371,338 5.89 $63,091 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 2.2 87.5% 1.65 1.2 $47,095 Very Low Apparel and Services 2.3% 100% $3,022
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 40% $1,209 $1,208,773 7.56 $159,956 7,012 $18,120 $23,763 6.7 87.5% 1.65 3.6 $39,209 Very Low General Merchandise 40% $1,209 $1,208,773 10.71 $112,811 12,002 $25,624 $33,604 3.4 87.5% 1.65 1.8 $55,446 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 10% $302 $302,193 5.89 $51,343 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 1.8 87.5% 1.65 1.0 $47,095 Very Low Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 5% $151 $151,097 3.13 $48,218 6,507 $24,559 $32,207 1.5 87.5% 1.65 0.8 $53,142 Very Low Drycleaning and Laundry Services 5% $151 $151,097 3.30 $45,791 1,824 $31,553 $41,379 1.1 87.5% 1.65 0.6 $68,275 Low Vehicle Purchases (net outlay) 6.3% 100% $8,201
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 100% $8,201 $8,201,116 12.17 $673,986 8,549 $48,855 $64,069 10.5 87.5% 1.65 5.6 $105,713 Median Gasoline and motor oil 3.1% 100% $3,989
Gasoline Stations 100% $3,989 $3,988,772 32.04 $124,490 2,212 $22,756 $29,843 4.2 87.5% 1.65 2.2 $49,241 Very Low Vehicle Maintenance and Repairs 1.1% 100% $1,444
Repair and Maintenance 100% $1,444 $1,443,598 3.58 $403,404 6,004 $38,749 $50,815 7.9 98.1% 1.65 4.7 $83,845 Low Medical Services 1.4% 100% $1,854
Ambulatory Health Care Services 40% $741 $741,491 2.22 $333,932 35,993 $82,454 $108,131 3.1 98.1% 1.65 1.8 $178,415 Above Moderate General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 30% $556 $556,118 2.75 $202,407 24,767 $92,641 $121,490 1.7 98.1% 1.65 1.0 $200,459 Above Moderate Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 30% $556 $556,118 2.41 $230,322 11,439 $30,269 $39,695 5.8 98.1% 1.65 3.4 $65,497 Low Drugs 0.7% 100% $875
Health and Personal Care Stores 100% $875 $875,042 6.72 $130,199 4,366 $37,345 $48,974 2.7 87.5% 1.65 1.4 $80,807 Low Medical Supplies 0.3% 100% $395
Health and Personal Care Stores 100% $395 $395,324 6.72 $58,821 4,366 $37,345 $48,974 1.2 87.5% 1.65 0.6 $80,807 Low Entertainment Fees and Admissions 1.1% 100% $1,408
Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 100% $1,408 $1,408,063 2.61 $540,411 8,187 $35,292 $46,282 11.7 87.5% 1.65 6.2 $76,366 Low Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-18 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT Page 3 of 3
Table A-11
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 4 Item
% of
Household
Income
Spent per
Category [1]
% of
Category
Expenditure
per Type of
Business [2]
MediumDensity SFR in
Folsom
Expenditures
[3]
Expenditures
per 1,000 HHs
Gross
Receipts
to Wages
Total
Wages per
1,000
Household
s
# of
Workers
2017 Avg.
Wages per
Worker
2024 Avg.
Wages [4]
# of New
Workers
%
Forming
HH [5]
Workers
/ HH [6]
Total
Worker
HH
Avg.
Worker HH
Income Income Category
Source
Consumer
Expenditure
Survey 2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford LowDensity SFR
of $130,100 * a Calc
Econ.
Census
2017 Calc
Econ.
Census
2017
Econ.
Census
2017/g
Escalated
using CPI Calc
Adj. to
exclude
workers
under 20
ACS
2023 Calc Calc
Formula a b c d = c * 1,000 e f = d / e g h i = h * 1.31 j = f / i k l m= j * k / l n = i * l Entertainment Audio and Visual Equipment and Services 1.1% 100% $1,444 Electronics and Appliance Stores 100% $1,444 $1,443,598 9.51 $151,797 1,962 $27,499 $36,063 4.2 87.5% 1.85 2.0 $66,682 Low Entertainment Pets, Toys, Hobbies, and Playground Equip. 1.2% 100% $1,565 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 40% $626 $626,003 7.62 $82,162 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 3.5 87.5% 1.85 1.6 $43,811 Very Low Miscellaneous Store Retailers 40% $626 $626,003 5.89 $106,359 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 3.7 87.5% 1.85 1.8 $52,776 Very Low Veterinary Services 20% $313 $313,002 3.06 $102,292 34,059 $47,652 $62,491 1.6 98.1% 1.85 0.9 $115,549 Moderate Other Entertainment Supplies, Equipment, and Services 0.7% 100% $967 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 85% $822 $821,814 7.62 $107,862 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 4.6 87.5% 1.85 2.2 $43,811 Very Low Photographic Services 15% $145 $145,026 4.27 $33,997 6,920 $30,385 $39,847 0.9 98.1% 1.85 0.5 $73,680 Low Personal Care Products and Services 1.1% 100% $1,407
Unspecified Retail 50% $703 $703,291 5.89 $119,490 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 4.2 87.5% 1.85 2.0 $52,776 Very Low Personal Care Services 50% $703 $703,291 2.90 $242,678 3,230 $18,932 $24,828 9.8 98.1% 1.85 5.2 $45,908 Very Low Reading 0.1% 100% $173
Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 100% $173 $173,232 7.62 $22,736 2,355 $18,068 $23,694 1.0 87.5% 1.85 0.5 $43,811 Very Low Education 1.9% 100% $2,452
Educational Services 100% $2,452 $2,451,895 2.84 $863,490 4,202 $29,430 $38,595 22.4 98.1% 1.85 11.9 $71,364 Low Tobacco Products and Smoking Supplies 0.4% 100% $548
Unspecified Retail 100% $548 $547,827 5.89 $93,077 3,257 $21,765 $28,542 0.1 87.5% 1.85 0.1 $52,776 Very Low Miscellaneous 1.3% 100% $1,753
Accounting 20% $351 $350,609 2.91 $120,470 4,019 $48,431 $63,512 1.9 98.1% 1.85 1.0 $117,438 Moderate Architectural, Engineering, and Related [8] 20% $351 $350,609 2.74 $127,908 6,361 $92,859 $121,777 1.1 98.1% 1.85 0.6 $225,171 Above Moderate Specialized Design Services 20% $351 $350,609 3.63 $96,506 22,856 $62,955 $82,560 1.2 98.1% 1.85 0.6 $152,657 Above Moderate Death Care Services 20% $351 $350,609 3.96 $88,520 10,167 $44,027 $57,738 1.5 98.1% 1.85 0.8 $106,760 Median Legal Services 20% $351 $350,609 2.94 $119,251 150,205 $101,023 $132,482 0.9 98.1% 1.85 0.5 $244,965 Above Moderate Total per 1,000 Market Rate Households 297.0 162.0
Source: 2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 Economic Census, American Community Survey; EPS. [7] Part of the Utilities, Fuels, and Public Services category (includes natural gas, electricity, and telephone services). Natural gas, electricity, and telephone services not estimated because data was not available in the 2017 Economic Census. [8] Note that average salary reported for architecture, engineering and related industries reflects the full range of employees within the industry, not solely professional and technical staff. [2] Where multiple business types are likely to provide goods and services in the expenditure category, EPS has estimated the proportion accruing to each business type. [1] Percentage of income spent per category is based on the nationwide 2023 Consumer Expenditure Survey data for households at this income level. Note that the sum of the categories included in this analysis is well below the total expenditures of households at this income level, and thus represents a conservative estimate of job creation and housing impacts. Expenditure categories not incorporated due to data constraints include taxes, housing and lodging, most utilities, tobacco, health insurance, personal/ life insurance, cash contributions, and financing charges. [3] 2023 expenditures are based on the estimated household income distributed based on the percent of income spent per the 2023 U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey. Assumes a household income of $130,100, as shown in Table 3-7. [4] 2017 wages converted to 2024 dollars using the CPI for the urban West from the BLS. [5] BLS data indicates that 12.5% of retail/restaurant workers are age 16-19, but an average of only 1.9% of workers are 16-19 in other industries. EPS has assumed that such young workers do not form their own households. [6] Based on US Census, 2022 ACS data for the City of Folsom.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-19 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-12
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Worker Household Generation per 1,000 Market-Rate Units - Prototype 1 Item
Total
Workers
[1]
Total Worker
Households
[1] [2]
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Median Moderate
Above
Moderate
Retail
Unspecified Retail 10.64 5.6 0.00 5.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Food & Beverage Stores 67.89 40.7 0.00 40.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Food Services and Drinking Places 208.27 110.4 110.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Health and Personal Care Stores 9.71 5.1 0.00 0.00 5.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 General Merchandise 14.00 7.4 0.00 7.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 13.32 7.1 0.00 7.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 12.74 6.8 0.00 6.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Electronics and Appliance Stores 21.48 11.4 0.00 11.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 16.93 9.0 8.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 26.46 14.0 0.00 0.00 14.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gasoline Stations 10.49 5.6 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 22.58 12.0 11.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 23.08 12.2 0.00 12.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-store Retailers 0.77 0.4 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 29.37 15.6 0.00 0.00 15.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 Medical/Health
Ambulatory Health Care Services 7.77 4.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.62 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 4.19 2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 23.14 13.8 0.00 13.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Social Assistance 11.22 6.7 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services
Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 46.92 27.7 0.00 27.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to Buildings and Dwellings 27.92 16.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.60 0.00 0.00 Waste Management and Remediation Services 8.85 5.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.26 0.00 0.00 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2.72 1.6 0.00 0.00 1.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 Personal Care Services 24.58 14.6 14.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services 2.78 1.5 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 19.97 11.9 0.00 0.00 11.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 Veterinary Services 4.12 2.4 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 Photographic Services 2.15 1.3 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Educational Services 56.27 33.5 0.00 33.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Accounting 4.77 2.8 0.00 0.00 2.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural, Engineering, and Related 2.64 1.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 Specialized Design Services 2.94 1.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 Death Care Services 3.86 2.3 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Legal Services 2.26 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35
Government 38.78 23.5 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.37 1.73 19.41
Total Workers and Households per 1,000 HH 785.6 440.4 146.0 181.0 58.2 22.2 3.5 29.4 Total Income-Qualified HH Generated Per 1,000 Market-Rate Units 440.4 146.0 181.0 58.2 22.2 3.5 29.4 Total Income-Qualified HH Generated Per 100 Market-Rate Units 44.0 14.6 18.1 5.8 2.2 0.3 2.9 Source: 2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 Economic Census, American Community Survey; EPS. [1] See Table A-8.
Households by Income Level [3]
[2] Assumes 1.65 workers per worker household in the City of Folsom based on data from the Table B-1. Includes a 12.5% discount for retail and 1.9% discount for other industries to account for workers under age 20.
[3] Households for each industry by income level are counted only for the income level that the average household income falls within. See Table A-8 for income level by category.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-20 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Table A-13
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Worker Household Generation per 1,000 Market-Rate Units - Prototype 2 Item
Total
Workers
[1]
Total Worker
Households
[1] [2]
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Median Moderate
Above
Moderate
Retail
Unspecified Retail 8.27 3.9 0.00 3.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Food & Beverage Stores 52.59 31.5 0.00 31.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Food Services and Drinking Places 161.36 85.6 85.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Health and Personal Care Stores 7.52 4.0 0.00 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 General Merchandise 10.84 5.8 0.00 5.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 10.32 5.5 0.00 5.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealer 9.87 5.2 0.00 0.00 5.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Electronics and Appliance Stores 16.64 8.4 0.00 4.48 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 13.12 7.0 0.00 6.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 20.50 10.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.87 0.00 0.00 Gasoline Stations 8.13 4.3 0.00 4.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 17.50 8.3 0.00 8.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 17.88 9.1 0.00 9.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-store Retailers 0.59 0.3 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 22.75 12.1 0.00 0.00 12.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 Medical/Health
Ambulatory Health Care Services 6.02 3.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.58 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 3.25 1.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 17.93 10.7 0.00 0.00 10.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 Social Assistance 8.70 5.2 0.00 5.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services
Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 36.35 21.4 0.00 21.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to Buildings and Dwellings 21.63 12.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.86 0.00 Waste Management and Remediation Services 6.85 4.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.08 0.00 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2.11 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 Personal Care Services 19.05 10.1 0.00 10.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services 2.16 1.1 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 15.47 9.2 0.00 0.00 9.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Veterinary Services 3.19 1.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69 0.00 0.00 Photographic Services 1.66 0.9 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 Educational Services 43.59 23.1 0.00 0.00 23.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 Accounting 3.70 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.96 0.00 0.00
Architectural, Engineering, and Related 2.05 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 Specialized Design Services 2.28 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.21 Death Care Services 2.99 1.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.00 Legal Services 1.75 0.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93
Government 38.78 23.5 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.37 1.73 19.41
Total Workers and Households per 1,000 HH 617.4 339.0 85.6 116.4 72.5 17.7 18.7 28.1 Total Income-Qualified HH Generated Per 1,000 Market-Rate Units 339.0 85.6 116.4 72.5 17.7 18.7 28.1 Total Income-Qualified HH Generated Per 100 Market-Rate Units 33.9 8.6 11.6 7.2 1.8 1.9 2.8 Source: 2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 Economic Census, American Community Survey; EPS. [1] See Table A-9.
Households by Income Level [3]
[2] Assumes 1.65 workers per worker household in the City of Folsom based on data from the Table B-1. Includes a 12.5% discount for retail and 1.9% discount for other industries to account for workers under age 20.
[3] Households for each industry by income level are counted only for the income level that the average household income falls within. See Table A-9 for income level by category.
DRAFT
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-21 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Table A-14
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Worker Household Generation per 1,000 Market-Rate Units - Prototype 3 Item
Total
Workers
[1]
Total Worker
Households
[1] [2]
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Median Moderate
Above
Moderate
Retail
Unspecified Retail 6.52 3.1 0.00 3.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Food & Beverage Stores 41.31 24.8 0.00 24.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Food Services and Drinking Places 126.73 67.2 67.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Health and Personal Care Stores 5.91 3.1 0.00 0.00 3.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 General Merchandise 8.52 4.5 0.00 4.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 8.11 4.3 0.00 4.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealer 7.75 4.1 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Electronics and Appliance Stores 13.07 6.6 0.00 3.51 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 10.30 5.5 0.00 5.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 16.10 8.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.54 0.00 0.00 Gasoline Stations 6.38 3.4 0.00 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 13.74 6.5 0.00 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 14.05 7.1 0.00 7.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-store Retailers 0.47 0.2 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 17.87 9.5 0.00 0.00 9.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 Medical/Health
Ambulatory Health Care Services 4.73 2.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 2.55 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 14.08 8.4 0.00 0.00 8.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Social Assistance 6.83 4.1 0.00 4.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services
Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 28.55 16.8 0.00 16.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to Buildings and Dwellings 16.99 10.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.10 0.00 Waste Management and Remediation Services 5.38 3.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 0.00 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.65 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 Personal Care Services 14.96 7.9 0.00 7.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services 1.69 0.9 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 12.15 7.2 0.00 0.00 7.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Veterinary Services 2.51 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 Photographic Services 1.31 0.7 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 Educational Services 34.24 18.2 0.00 0.00 18.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 Accounting 2.90 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00 0.00
Architectural, Engineering, and Related 1.61 0.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 Specialized Design Services 1.79 0.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 Death Care Services 2.35 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.00 Legal Services 1.38 0.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73
Government 38.78 23.5 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.37 1.73 19.41
Total Workers and Households per 1,000 HH 493.2 271.3 67.2 91.5 57.4 14.0 15.0 26.3 Total Income-Qualified HH Generated Per 1,000 Market-Rate Units 271.3 67.2 91.5 57.4 14.0 15.0 26.3 Total Income-Qualified HH Generated Per 100 Market-Rate Units 27.1 6.7 9.1 5.7 1.4 1.5 2.6 Source: 2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 Economic Census, American Community Survey; EPS. [1] See Table A-10.
Households by Income Level [3]
[2] Assumes 1.65 workers per worker household in the City of Folsom based on data from the Table B-1. Includes a 12.5% discount for retail and 1.9% discount for other industries to account for workers under age 20. [3] Households for each industry by income level are counted only for the income level that the average household income falls within. See Table A-10 for income level by category.
DRAFT
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-22 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Table A-15
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Worker Household Generation per 1,000 Market-Rate Units - Prototype 4 Item
Total
Workers
[1]
Total Worker
Households
[1] [2]
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Median Moderate
Above
Moderate
Retail
Unspecified Retail 4.30 2.0 0.00 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Food & Beverage Stores 26.99 16.2 0.00 0.00 16.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 Food Services and Drinking Places 82.81 43.9 0.00 43.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Health and Personal Care Stores 3.86 2.0 0.00 0.00 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 General Merchandise 5.57 3.0 0.00 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 5.30 2.8 0.00 0.00 2.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealer 5.07 2.7 0.00 0.00 2.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 Electronics and Appliance Stores 8.54 4.3 0.00 0.00 4.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 6.73 3.6 0.00 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 10.52 5.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.58 0.00 0.00 Gasoline Stations 4.17 2.2 0.00 2.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical Instrument Stores 8.98 4.2 0.00 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 9.18 4.7 0.00 4.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-store Retailers 0.30 0.2 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 11.68 6.2 0.00 0.00 6.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Medical/Health
Ambulatory Health Care Services 3.09 1.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 1.67 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 9.20 5.5 0.00 0.00 5.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 Social Assistance 4.46 2.7 0.00 0.00 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services
Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 18.65 11.0 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to Buildings and Dwellings 11.10 6.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.60 0.00 Waste Management and Remediation Services 3.52 2.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.00 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.08 0.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 Personal Care Services 9.77 5.2 0.00 5.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services 1.11 0.6 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 7.94 4.7 0.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 Veterinary Services 1.64 0.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 Photographic Services 0.85 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 Educational Services 22.37 11.9 0.00 0.00 11.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 Accounting 1.90 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00
Architectural, Engineering, and Related 1.05 0.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 Specialized Design Services 1.17 0.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Death Care Services 1.53 0.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 Legal Services 0.90 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48
Government 38.78 23.5 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.37 1.73 19.41
Total Workers and Households per 1,000 HH 335.8 185.5 0.0 79.8 62.1 7.4 12.3 23.9 Total Income-Qualified HH Generated Per 1,000 Market-Rate Units 185.5 0.00 79.8 62.1 7.4 12.3 23.9 Total Income-Qualified HH Generated Per 100 Market-Rate Units 18.5 0.00 8.0 6.2 0.7 1.2 2.4 Source: 2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2017 Economic Census, American Community Survey; EPS. [1] See Table A-11.
Households by Income Level [3]
[2] Assumes 1.65 workers per worker household in the City of Folsom based on data from Table B-1. Includes a 12.5% discount for retail and 1.9% discount for other industries to account for workers under age 20.
[3] Households for each industry by income level are counted only for the income level that the average household income falls within. See Table A-11 for income level by category.
DRAFT
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-23 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-16
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Representative Public-Sector Employment and Wages (2023$) Item [1] Assumptions Income Category
Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom MSA 2023 HH 888,619
Occupations
Protective Service Occupations [4] 7,780 8.8 5.3 $75,530 $124,625 Above Moderate Education 2,930 3.3 2.0 $49,590 $81,824 Low Income
Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special
Education 300 0.3 0.2 $87,530 $144,425 Above Moderate
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special
Education 9,220 10.4 6.3 $82,420 $135,993 Above Moderate Secondary School Teachers, Except Special
and Vocational Education 6,300 7.1 4.3 $98,700 $162,855 Above Moderate Special Education Teachers, Kindergarten
and Elementary School 220 0.2 0.2 $93,920 $154,968 Above Moderate Special Education Teachers, Middle School 730 0.8 0.5 $101,280 $167,112 Above Moderate Special Education Teachers, Secondary
School 850 1.0 0.6 $100,710 $166,172 Above Moderate
Teachers and Instructors, All Other 3,060 3.4 2.1 $77,810 $128,387 Above Moderate Bus Drivers, School 540 0.6 0.4 $53,880 $88,902 Median
Postal Service Clerks 470 0.5 0.3 $60,380 $99,627 Moderate Postal Service Mail Carriers 2,060 2.3 1.4 $61,030 $100,700 Moderate Total 38.8 23.5
[1] Not a comprehensive list of public sector employment. Rather a sampling of public sector jobs for which employment and wage data was available from the BLS. [3] Household income assumes 1.65 workers per household. [4] Protective Service Occupations includes firefighters and police officers.
Sacramento MSA
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Occupational Employment Statistics; CA Employment Development Department; California Department of Finance; EPS. [2] Total worker households derived assuming 1.65 workers per household based on the ACS 2023 estimates for the City of Folsom; 98.1% of workers assumed to be forming households.
Public Sector
Employee HH
Income [3]
Avg. Wage
2023$
Sector
Employee
HH [2]
Public Sector
Empl / 1,000
HH
Estimated
Public Sector
Empl.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-24 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-17
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Development Costs by Prototype: Maximum Supportable Fee Rental Prototype
Item
Input
Assumptions
Single-Family
Detached Home
(Low Density)
Single-Family
Detached Home
(Medium Density)
Single Family
Attached Home
(High Density)
Multifamily
Apartments
(High Density)
Development Program Assumptions
Acreage 20.00 10.00 5.56 3.33
Density/Acre 5 10 18 30
Total Unit Count 100 100 100 100
Gross Unit Size [1] 2,600 2,000 1,765 1,176
Net Unit Size 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Number of Bedrooms 4 3 3 2
Parking Spaces/Unit [2] 2 2 2 1.5
Cost Assumptions per Unit
Land Value/ Acre [3] $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $810,000 Land Value (rounded) $9,400,000 $4,700,000 $2,611,000 $2,700,000 Land Cost/ Unit [3] $94,000 $47,000 $26,110 $27,000
Direct Costs
Basic Site Work/Grading $10 per land site sq. ft. $48,100 $37,000 $32,647 $21,765 Construction Costs/Gross SF [4] $150 $150 $150 $200
Direct Construction Costs/Unit (rounded) $390,000 $300,000 $264,700 $235,300 Carport Parking Construction Cost/Unit [5] $8,000 per space $0 $0 $0 $12,000 Subtotal, Direct Costs/Unit $438,100 $337,000 $297,347 $269,065 Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs/Unit (rounded) [6] 12.0% of direct costs $63,900 $40,400 $35,700 $32,300 Impact Fees
Existing Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $154,856 $88,700 $53,730 $34,010 Other Impact Fees (North of 50) Table A-20 $66,524 $59,764 $54,131 $34,016 Other Impact Fees (FPASP) Table A-21 $128,340 $121,421 $96,693 $78,079 Total Impact Fees (North of 50) [7] $221,380 $148,464 $107,861 $68,026 Total Impact Fees (FPASP) [7] $283,196 $210,121 $150,423 $112,089 Financing + Developer Fee Costs
Interest (7.0%, 50% LTC, 50% Outstanding) [8] $12,659 $9,203 $7,716 $6,464 Fees (2.0% of loan amount) $7,234 $5,259 $4,409 $3,694
Developer Fee 10.0% of direct costs $74,327 $54,033 $45,303 $37,955 Subtotal Financing + Developer Fee Costs $94,220 $68,494 $57,428 $48,113 Total Estimated Cost/Unit (rounded) (North of
50) $911,600 $641,400 $524,400 $444,500
Total Esitimated Cost/ Unit (rounded) (FPSAP) $973,400 $703,000 $567,000 $488,600 [1] Gross size per unit includes garage for single family attached units and common areas for high-density multifamily (assumed efficiency ratio of [7] See Table 3-9 for detail.
For-Sale Prototype
Source: Saylor Construction Costs 2023 Edition 2022 Construction Costs; City of Folsom; Production home developers in Folsom; EPS. [3] Single family land value assumption based on 2024 appraisal for Folsom SPIF Public Land/ Parkland Equalization Fee. Multifamily land value assumption based on 2024 appraisal for Folsom CFD No.18 Bond sale. [2] Parking assumption is consistent with the City's parking requirements for the prototype.. [5] Garage parking costs for the single family units is assumed to be included in the construction costs per gross square foot. The
1.5 parking spaces per multifamily unit are assumed to be covered carport spaces. [6] Includes estimated costs for architecture and engineering; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; developer fee and contingency. [4] Construction cost estimates for single family (both attached and detached) ownership product is based on conversations with developers in Folsom Construction cost estimate for multifamily rental product is based on 2022 Saylor Construction Cost data, adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars, and conversations with the BIA.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 A-25 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-18
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Development Costs by Prototype: Potential Updated Fee Scenario High % of Maximum Rental Prototype
Item Input Assumptions
Single-Family
Detached Home
(Low Density)
Single-Family
Detached Home
(Medium Density)
Single Family
Attached Home
(High Density)
Multifamily
Apartments
(High Density)
Development Program Assumptions
Acreage 20.00 10.00 5.56 3.33
Density/Acre 5 10 18 30
Total Unit Count 100 100 100 100
Gross Unit Size [1] 2,600 2,000 1,765 1,176
Net Unit Size 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Number of Bedrooms 4 3 3 2
Parking Spaces/Unit [2] 2 2 2 1.5
Cost Assumptions per Unit
Land Value/ Acre [3] $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $810,000 Land Value (rounded) $9,400,000 $4,700,000 $2,611,000 $2,700,000 Land Cost/ Unit [3] $94,000 $47,000 $26,110 $27,000
Direct Costs
Basic Site Work/Grading $10 per land site sq. ft. $48,100 $37,000 $32,647 $21,765 Construction Costs/Gross SF [4] $150 $150 $150 $200
Direct Construction Costs/Unit (rounded) $390,000 $300,000 $264,700 $235,300 Carport Parking Construction Cost/Unit [5] $8,000 per space $0 $0 $0 $12,000 Subtotal, Direct Costs/Unit $438,100 $337,000 $297,347 $269,065 Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs/Unit (rounded) [6] 12.0% of direct costs $63,900 $40,400 $35,700 $32,300 Impact Fees
Existing Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $30,966 $17,740 $10,740 $6,800 Other Impact Fees (North of 50) Table A-20 $66,524 $59,764 $54,131 $34,016 Other Impact Fees (FPASP) Table A-21 $128,340 $121,421 $96,693 $78,079 Total Impact Fees (North of 50) [7] $97,490 $59,764 $54,131 $34,016 Total Impact Fees (FPASP) [7] $159,306 $139,161 $107,433 $84,879 Financing + Developer Fee Costs
Interest (7.0%, 50% LTC, 50% Outstanding) [8] $11,573 $9,040 $7,708 $6,759 Fees (2.0% of loan amount) $6,613 $5,166 $4,405 $3,862
Developer Fee 10.0% of direct costs $61,768 $45,137 $39,929 $34,600 Subtotal Financing + Developer Fee Costs $79,954 $59,342 $52,042 $45,222 Total Estimated Cost/Unit (rounded) (North of
50) $773,400 $543,500 $465,300 $407,600
Total Esitimated Cost/ Unit (rounded) (FPSAP) $835,300 $622,900 $518,600 $458,500 [7] See Table 3-9 for detail.
For-Sale Prototype
Source: Saylor Construction Costs 2023 Edition 2022 Construction Costs; City of Folsom Municipal Code; California HCD; CoStar; Weekly; local [1] Gross size per unit includes garage for single family attached units and common areas for high-density multifamily (assumed efficiency ratio of 85%).
[2] Parking assumption is consistent with the City's parking requirements for the prototype.. [3] Single family land value assumption based on 2024 appraisal for Folsom SPIF Public Land/ Parkland Equalization Fee. Multifamily land value assumption based on 2024 appraisal for Folsom CFD No.18 Bond sale. [4] Construction cost estimates for single family (both attached and detached) ownership product is based on conversations with developers.
Construction cost estimate for multifamily rental product is based on 2022 Saylor Construction Cost data and adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars. [5] Garage parking costs for the single family units is assumed to be included in the construction costs per gross square foot. The
1.5 parking spaces per multifamily unit are assumed to be covered carport spaces. [6] Includes estimated costs for architecture and engineering; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; developer fee and contingency.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 A-26 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-19
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Development Costs by Prototype: Potential Updated Fee Scenario Low % of Maximum Rental Prototype
Item Input Assumptions
Single-Family
Detached Home
(Low Density)
Single-Family
Detached Home
(Medium Density)
Single Family
Attached Home
(High Density)
Multifamily
Apartments
(High Density)
Development Program Assumptions
Acreage 20.00 10.00 5.56 3.33
Density/Acre 5 10 18 30
Total Unit Count 100 100 100 100
Gross Unit Size [1] 2,600 2,000 1,765 1,176
Net Unit Size 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Number of Bedrooms 4 3 3 2
Parking Spaces/Unit [2] 2 2 2 1.5
Cost Assumptions per Unit
Land Value/ Acre [3] $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $810,000 Land Value (rounded) $9,400,000 $4,700,000 $2,611,000 $2,700,000 Land Cost/ Unit [3] $94,000 $47,000 $26,110 $27,000
Direct Costs
Basic Site Work/Grading $10 per land site sq. ft. $48,100 $37,000 $32,647 $21,765 Construction Costs/Gross SF [4] $150 $150 $150 $200
Direct Construction Costs/Unit (rounded) $390,000 $300,000 $264,700 $235,300 Carport Parking Construction Cost/Unit [5] $8,000 per space $0 $0 $0 $12,000 Subtotal, Direct Costs/Unit $438,100 $337,000 $297,347 $269,065 Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs/Unit (rounded) [6] 12.0% of direct costs $63,900 $40,400 $35,700 $32,300 Impact Fees
Existing Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $7,800 $6,000 $3,750 $0 Other Impact Fees (North of 50) Table A-20 $66,524 $59,764 $54,131 $34,016 Other Impact Fees (FPASP) Table A-21 $128,340 $121,421 $96,693 $78,079 Total Impact Fees (North of 50) [7] $74,324 $65,764 $57,881 $34,016 Total Impact Fees (FPASP) [7] $136,140 $127,421 $100,443 $78,079 Financing + Developer Fee Costs
Interest (7.0%, 50% LTC, 50% Outstanding) [8] $11,167 $8,834 $7,586 $6,640 Fees (2.0% of loan amount) $6,381 $5,048 $4,335 $3,794
Developer Fee 10% $59,387 $45,705 $40,285 $34,582
Subtotal Financing + Developer Fee Costs $76,936 $59,587 $52,206 $45,016 Total Estimated Cost/Unit (rounded) (North of
50) $747,300 $549,800 $469,200 $407,400
Total Esitimated Cost/ Unit (rounded) (FPSAP) $809,100 $611,400 $511,800 $451,500 [7] See Table 3-9 for detail.
For-Sale Prototype
Source: Saylor Construction Costs 2023 Edition 2022 Construction Costs; City of Folsom Municipal Code; California HCD; CoStar; Weekly; local developers; [1] Gross size per unit includes garage for single family attached units and common areas for high-density multifamily (assumed efficiency ratio of 85%).
[2] Parking assumption is consistent with the City's parking requirements for the prototype.. [3] Single family land value assumption based on 2024 appraisal for Folsom SPIF Public Land/ Parkland Equalization Fee. Multifamily land value [4] Construction cost estimates for townhome and condominium ownership product is based on conversations with developers.
Construction cost estimate for multifamily rental product is based on 2022 Saylor Construction Cost data and adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars. [5] Garage parking costs for the single family units is assumed to be included in the construction costs per gross square foot. The
1.5 parking spaces per multifamily unit are assumed to be covered carport spaces. [6] Includes estimated costs for architecture and engineering; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; developer fee and contingency.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 A-27 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Development Impact Fee Summary: North of 50
Item Detached LD Detached MD Attached HD
Unit Size (sq. ft.) 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Lot Size (sq. ft.) 6,970 3,485 1,936 17,424
Building Valuation [1] $469,424 $367,970 $283,425 $198,880 Zoning SFHD SFHD MLD MHD
Processing Fees per Unit [1]
Building Permit $3,823 $3,076 $2,454 $1,832
Plan Check $150 $150 $150 $150
Plan Review Fee $30 $30 $30 $30
Processing Fee $77 $77 $77 $77
CASP Training Fund Fee $4 $4 $4 $4
City General Plan Fee $199 $161 $130 $99
Master Plan Plan Check Fee $30 $30 $30 $30
Poduction Permit Intake Plan Check Fee $400 $400 $400 $400 Poduction Permit Fee for Fire Submittals $460 $460 $460 $460 State Disability Access Fee $0 $0 $0 $0
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee $19 $19 $19 $19 Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $61 $61 $61 $61
Business License Fee $25 $25 $25 $25
General Plan Update Fee $8 $8 $8 $8
Subtotal Processing Fees per Unit $5,285 $4,501 $3,848 $3,194 Citywide Impact Fees
Roads $9,115 $9,115 $9,115 $661
Water $1,148 $1,148 $1,148 $618
Water Connection $3,916 $3,916 $3,916 $2,545
Water Meter Fee $349 $349 $349 $349
Sewer $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250
Drainage $1,208 $1,208 $1,208 $1,208
General Capital $1,860 $1,860 $1,860 $1,860
Fire $1,265 $1,265 $1,265 $1,223
Police $700 $700 $700 $794
Park Equipment $109 $109 $109 $109
Transportation Management Fee $35 $35 $35 $25
Citywide Parks $8,199 $8,199 $8,199 $5,446
Light Rail $844 $844 $844 $580
Solid Waste $422 $422 $422 $422
Waste Management Admin $21 $21 $21 $5
School Impact Mitigation Fee $45 $45 $45 $45
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee [2] - - - -
Subtotal Citywide Impact Fees per Unit $30,486 $30,486 $30,486 $17,140 Single Family Residential
Multifamily Unit
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-28 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Development Impact Fee Summary: North of 50
Item Detached LD Detached MD Attached HD
Unit Size (sq. ft.) 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Lot Size (sq. ft.) 6,970 3,485 1,936 17,424
Building Valuation [1] $469,424 $367,970 $283,425 $198,880 Zoning SFHD SFHD MLD MHD
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Unit
Other Agency Impact Fees
Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) Measure $1,574 $1,574 $1,574 $1,260 Regional SAN Sewer Fee [3] $3,283 $3,283 $3,283 $2,462
Folsom Cordova USD School Facilities Fee $25,896 $19,920 $14,940 $9,960 Subtotal Other Agency Fees $30,753 $24,777 $19,797 $13,682 Total Fee Summary
Processing Fees $5,285 $4,501 $3,848 $3,194
Citywide Impact Fees $30,486 $30,486 $30,486 $17,140
Other Agency Fees $30,753 $24,777 $19,797 $13,682
Total $66,524 $59,764 $54,131 $34,016
Source: City of Folsom; Folsom Cordova USD; Regional SAN; Goodwin Consulting Group; EPS. [1] Processing fees exclude mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other similar review fees. [3] Assumes development north of Highway 50 pays Regional San impact fees for infill development. [2] The existing City of Folsom Inclusionary Housing Fee is excluded from this calculation.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-29 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-21
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Development Impact Fee Summary: FPASP
Item Detached LD Detached MD Attached HD
Unit Size (sq. ft.) 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Lot Size (sq. ft.) 6,970 3,485 1,936 1,162
Building Valuation [1] $469,424 $367,970 $283,425 $198,880 Zoning SFHD SFHD MLD MHD
Processing Fees per Unit [1]
Building Permit $3,823 $3,076 $2,454 $1,832
Plan Check $150 $150 $150 $150
Plan Review Fee $30 $30 $30 $30
Processing Fee $77 $77 $77 $77
CASP Training Fund Fee $4 $4 $4 $4
City General Plan Fee $199 $161 $130 $99
Master Plan Plan Check Fee $30 $30 $30 $30
Poduction Permit Intake Plan Check Fee $400 $400 $400 $400 Poduction Permit Fee for Fire Submittals $460 $460 $460 $460 State Disability Access Fee $0 $0 $0 $0
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee $19 $19 $19 $19 Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $61 $61 $61 $61
Business License Fee $25 $25 $25 $25
General Plan Update Fee $8 $8 $8 $8
Subtotal Processing Fees per Unit $5,285 $4,501 $3,848 $3,194 Citywide Impact Fees
Transportation Management Fee $35 $35 $35 $25
School Impact Mitigation Fee $45 $45 $45 $45
Water Meter Fee $384 $384 $384 $384
General Park Equipment Fee $99 $99 $99 $99
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee [2] - - - -
Subtotal Citywide Impact Fees per Unit $563 $563 $563 $553 Other Agency Impact Fees
Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) Measure A [2] $1,765 $1,605 $1,480 $1,354 Regional SAN Sewer Fee [2] $6,479 $6,479 $6,479 $4,859
Folsom Cordova USD School Facilities Fee $25,896 $19,920 $14,940 $9,960 Subtotal Other Agency Fees $34,140 $28,004 $22,899 $16,173 TOTAL CITY/COUNTY/SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES PER UNIT $39,988 $33,068 $27,310 $19,920 Single Family Residential
Multifamily Unit
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-30 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-21
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Development Impact Fee Summary: FPASP
Item Detached LD Detached MD Attached HD
Unit Size (sq. ft.) 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Lot Size (sq. ft.) 6,970 3,485 1,936 1,162
Building Valuation [1] $469,424 $367,970 $283,425 $198,880 Zoning SFHD SFHD MLD MHD
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Unit
PLAN AREA FEES PER UNIT
Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) Fees
General Capital Facilities Fee [3] $1,550 $1,550 $1,275 $1,275 Library $391 $391 $260 $260
Municipal Center $712 $712 $474 $474
Police [3] $471 $471 $532 $532
Fire [3] $1,325 $1,325 $1,283 $1,283
Parks [3] $10,077 $10,077 $6,696 $6,696
Trails [3] $1,993 $1,993 $1,323 $1,323
Subtotal Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) Fees $16,519 $16,519 $11,843 $11,843 FPASP Stand Alone Fees
Solid Waste $627 $627 $417 $417
Corp Yard $1,010 $1,010 $608 $219
Transit $1,599 $1,599 $1,439 $1,198
Highway 50 Improvement Fee $1,549 $1,549 $1,394 $1,162
Highway 50 Interchange Fee $3,149 $3,149 $2,833 $2,363
Sacramento County TDF $6,048 $6,048 $5,445 $4,539
Subtotal City of Folsom FPASP Stand Alone Fees $13,982 $13,982 $12,136 $9,898 Specific Plan Infrastructure Fees (SPIF)
On- and Off-Site Roadways [3] $16,983 $16,983 $15,258 $12,737 Dry Utilities $4,072 $4,072 $3,054 $3,054
On-Site Water [3] $11,898 $11,898 $7,396 $5,788
Off-Site Water $1,075 $1,075 $668 $523
Recycled Water $3,320 $3,320 $2,064 $1,615
Drainage $7,577 $7,577 $7,920 $4,347
Sewer [3] $2,692 $2,692 $2,019 $2,019
Habitat Mitigation $1,040 $1,040 $725 $298
Administration $1,460 $1,460 $1,174 $911
Subtotal Specific Plan Infrastructure Fees (SPIF) $50,117 $50,117 $40,278 $31,292 SPIF Parkland Equalization Fee [4] $6,682 $6,682 $4,439 $4,439 SPIF Public Facility Land Equalization Fee [4] $1,053 $1,053 $687 $687 TOTAL PLAN AREA FEES PER UNIT $88,353 $88,353 $69,383 $58,159 Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-31 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table A-21
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Development Impact Fee Summary: FPASP
Item Detached LD Detached MD Attached HD
Unit Size (sq. ft.) 2,600 2,000 1,500 1,000
Lot Size (sq. ft.) 6,970 3,485 1,936 1,162
Building Valuation [1] $469,424 $367,970 $283,425 $198,880 Zoning SFHD SFHD MLD MHD
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Unit
Fee Summary
Processing Fees $5,285 $4,501 $3,848 $3,194
Citywide Impact Fees $563 $563 $563 $553
Other Agency Fees $34,140 $28,004 $22,899 $16,173
FPASP Fees $88,353 $88,353 $69,383 $58,159
Total $128,340 $121,421 $96,693 $78,079
Source: City of Folsom; Folsom Cordova USD; Regional SAN; EPS. [4] The SPIF Equalization Fees are based on the fair share dedication of land for parkland and public facilities (e.g., water storage tanks, transit facilities). These fees vary based on a developer's dedication of parkland or public facility land.
[3] These fees replace existing City fees.
[2] The existing City of Folsom Inclusionary Housing Fee is excluded from this calculation. [1] Processing fees exclude mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other similar review fees.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025
A-32 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Appendix B: Assumptions and Sources
Table B-1 Assumptions and Sources .............................................................................................. B-1 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
DRAFT
Table B-1
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Assumptions and Sources
Item Total Unit Source
Demographic Assumptions
Total Population 80,585 persons DOF 2024
Total Employed (Workers) 42,183 persons American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 2023 Households 32,761 households American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 2023 Households with Earnings 25,559 households American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 2023 Workers per Household with Workers 1.65 persons American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 2023 Persons per Working Household 3.15 persons American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 2023 Folsom Workers Living in Folsom 7,235 of workers US Census Bureau "On The Map" 2022 data Employment Density Assumptions
Commercial/Retail 450 sq. ft. per employee EPS; based on typical industry employment densities Hotel 750 sq. ft. per employee EPS; based on typical industry employment densities Manufacturing 600 sq. ft. per employee EPS; based on typical industry employment densities Office 250 sq. ft. per employee EPS; based on typical industry employment densities Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. per employee EPS; based on typical industry employment densities Sources: DOF 2024; U.S. Census American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 2023; US Census Bureau "On The Map" 2022; EPS.
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 B-1 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 4
List of Inclusionary Housing Fees
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Attachment 5
Alternative Fee Structure Considerations
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Alternative Fee Structure Considerations
The following three alternative fee structure options were outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report and presented to the Planning Commission at the November 19, 2025 hearing.
Option 1: Retain Current Fee Structure with Third-Party Administration Under this option, the City would retain the existing fee structure but engage a third-party consultant to administer key components of the in-lieu fee program. The consultant would be responsible for verifying fee calculations, collecting subdivision-specific sales data, and conducting annual reviews to confirm that pricing has not fluctuated more than 10%. Developers would pay an administrative fee to cover the cost of third-party fee establishment and ongoing monitoring.
Given that many consulting firms have greater expertise in market analysis, this approach could improve the accuracy and consistency of fee assessments. Staff recommends a flat administrative fee supplemented by a per-unit charge, recognizing that larger subdivisions may require multi-year monitoring. For example, a 50-unit subdivision may be completed within two years, while a 100- unit project could span three years or more, necessitating additional monitoring.
While this approach would reduce the analytical burden on City staff, staff would still be responsible for processing deed restrictions, tracking individual fees by subdivision, manually entering data into the system, and managing the consultants as well as reviewing and processing their invoices. Staff has contacted several consulting firms to explore the feasibility of this service model and to obtain preliminary cost estimates.
Option 2: Retain Current Fee Structure with Collection at Certificate of Occupancy This option would retain the existing fee structure but shift the timing of fee collection to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy (COO). Under this approach, the fee would be based on the actual sales price, as originally intended by the ordinance, eliminating the need for market analysis and potentially removing the need for third-party consultant involvement.
However, this method presents several operational challenges. The City does not typically collect fees at the time of COO, making this approach inconsistent with current fee collection practices.
It would also still require staff to manually enter fee data into the tracking system and ensure timely collection for each subdivision, increasing the risk of errors and adding to the administrative burden.
Another option that could benefit the City is to collect the full in-lieu fee for the entire subdivision at the time of the first COO. This approach would reduce the administrative burden by eliminating the need for annual reviews and avoiding manual fee entry for each individual building permit. It would also simplify tracking and improve efficiency.
A key advantage of this method is that it would provide the City with full fee revenue upfront, enabling earlier allocation of funds toward gap financing for affordable housing projects. This
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
could help accelerate project delivery and increase the effectiveness of available resources, even without capturing future market appreciation. However, this approach may present challenges from the development community’s perspective. Developers are often reluctant to pay in-lieu fees upfront, particularly prior to generating revenue from home sales during early phases of construction.
Option 3: Transition to Square-Foot-Based Fee with Sliding Scale This option proposes moving forward with a square-foot-based in-lieu fee structure, but implementing it on a sliding scale to address concerns raised by the development community.
Developers have explained that under a flat square-foot fee model, larger homes bear a disproportionately higher cost, even though the affordability impact may not scale linearly with home size.
Under the City’s current practice—where the in-lieu fee is calculated as one percent of the lowest priced unit in a subdivision—the resulting fee structure functions as a de facto sliding scale.
Smaller homes tend to pay a higher fee per square foot than larger homes – approximately $4 per square foot for smaller homes compared to about $2.30 per square foot for large homes. This outcome differs from most commonly used methodologies and best practices, which typically assign higher fees to larger homes based on their greater impact on housing affordability. In addition, it is not consistent with the findings of EPS’ study which identifies that larger homes generate more low wage jobs and therefore a greater need for affordable housing units compared with smaller homes.
The proposed three dollar per square foot rate for single-family units reflects a blended average based on historical data. Compared to the current one percent model, this approach would lower the fee for smaller units and increase it for larger homes. For subdivisions with a mix of unit sizes, the overall fee burden is expected to remain relatively consistent, and total revenue generated should align with current levels. If the fee were reduced for larger homes, an increase for smaller homes would likely be needed to maintain that balance.
In reviewing examples of formal sliding scale fee structures for single-family units, staff identified one California jurisdiction—Oakland—that applies a tiered housing impact fee based on unit size.
According to Oakland’s adopted fee schedule:
• Units under 750 square feet are charged a lower fee.
• Units between 750 and 2,500 square feet are charged a mid-range fee. • Units over 2,500 square feet are charged the highest fee.
Oakland’s structure assumes that larger homes generate greater demand for public infrastructure and affordable housing and is supported by its nexus analysis.
While a sliding scale structure is not typically supported by current nexus methodologies, the City could further evaluate this approach if there is policy interest and if developers or stakeholders can identify additional examples or provide supporting rationale. If a sliding scale for single-family units is proposed, additional analysis would be needed to ensure it maintains overall revenue levels, aligns with nexus findings, and supports the City’s broader housing goals. Introducing a
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
sliding scale would also add modest complexity to the proposed fee structure, resulting in three separate fee categories (based on size): two for single-family units and one for multi-family forsale units.
Note: Under the proposed square foot–based fee model, larger multi-generational homes with attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that are 750 square feet or less may exclude the ADU square footage from the in-lieu fee calculation, in accordance with State ADU law. This exclusion would result in a lower fee for those housing units and supports the City’s goal of encouraging the development of lower-income housing opportunities.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
12/09/2025 Item No.15.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE: 12/9/2025
AGENDA SECTION: Old Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11522 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services and Consultant Agreement with Romo Studios, LLC for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $279,730 (Grant Funds) for the Fabrication, Installation, and Construction of Hello, I'm Johnny Cash on the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience (PK1502) from California Department of Parks & Recreation Budget Act of 2023 Grant Funds and Acceptance of Grant and Appropriation of Funds
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department
RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommend that the City Council approve Resolution No. 11522 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services and Consultant Agreement with Romo Studios, LLC for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $279,730 (Grant Funds) for the Fabrication, Installation, and Construction of Hello, I'm Johnny Cash on the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience (PK1502) from California Department of Parks & Recreation Budget Act of 2023 Grant Funds and Acceptance of Grant and Appropriation of Funds.
BACKGROUND
The Johnny Cash Trail was finalized in 2017 as a Class I trail connecting to the Sacramento County trail system and providing access across the Folsom Lake Crossing. As part of the overall trail master plan, eight dedicated art experiences were identified for installation within the Johnny Cash Trail. As part of the project and funding available, it was determined that the first two art pieces to be constructed would be Johnny Cash Picks No. 1 & 2. Pick No.1 was completed and installed in November 2024.
In alignment with the adopted City of Folsom’s Strategic Plan Goal C: Economic and Community Development staff submitted a request letter to Assemblymember Josh Hoover, District 7, seeking $425,000 in the State of California Budget Act of 2023 for the design, engineering, and art fabrication of Cash’s Pick No. 2. In July 2023, Assemblymember Hoover notified staff that the request had been included in the state budget, with funds to be administered
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
2 through California State Parks and the Office of Grants and Loans and expended by January 2027. On April 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11183, approving the submission of the grant application.
The planned location for Pick No. 2 was on property owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
During the site licensing process, Bureau staff determined that the proposed installation constituted a monument and, pursuant to 43 CFR 423.28, monuments are prohibited on federal land (Attachment 4). As a result, staff discontinued efforts to construct Pick No. 2 and evaluated alternative art experiences that could be delivered within the grant timeline and budget. The “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” art experience was identified as the next viable project. Staff met with artist Adan Romo of Romo Studios LLC to discuss project requirements. In coordination with the foundry, the artist confirmed an estimated eleven-month fabrication schedule, which would allow for installation by December 2026, meeting the grant obligations.
POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Chapter 2.36.090 (A)(1) and 2.36.120 of the Folsom Municipal Code, professional services are not subject to competitive sealed bidding requirements, and those costing $75,049 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.
City Council adopted Resolution No. 7479- Guidelines Regarding Permanent Artwork in Public Spaces.
ANALYSIS
On October 10, 2025, the City received formal written notification from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation denying the City’s request for a site license to install Cash’s Pick No. 2 on Bureau property. Based on this determination, staff evaluated alternative locations and art concepts and identified “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” as the most feasible art experience to construct on the eastern end of the trail. Staff have confirmed with the California Department of Parks and Recreation that the existing grant funding may be redirected to this installation. In addition, Assemblymember Josh Hoover was contacted and expressed his support for applying the awarded grant funds toward the “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” art experience.
The Folsom Arts and Culture Commission reviewed the history of the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience on November 20, 2025. The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the use of the grant funding to initiate project development for “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” as the next installation along the Johnny Cash Trail. The selected site for this art experience is located on City-owned property. Staff anticipate that the $425,000 in grant funding will be sufficient to cover the sculpture fabrication, installation, and associated landscape design. Any remaining grant funds would be allocated toward construction-related costs.
The proposed sculpture will be located to the west of the Johnny Cash Bridge, as noted in the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience Master Plan. The sculpture features Cash holding his guitar at his side, symbolizing both his musical legacy and his deep connection to American storytelling and folk traditions. Seated on a stool, the bronze figure holds his guitar casually on his lap.
Fabricated using traditional bronze casting methods, the sculpture is designed for long-term durability in an outdoor environment. Its scale is intended to be visually impactful along the trail while remaining accessible to trail users who may wish to view or photograph the artwork up
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
3 close. Overall, the sculpture is intended to serve as a distinctive cultural landmark, honoring Cash’s lasting influence and creating a meaningful point of interest within the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience (Attachment 5).
If the City Council approves staff’s recommendation, staff will begin coordination with RRM Landscape Architecture and will prepare a contract for design and construction documents, along with a contract with Romo Studios, LLC, for fabrication of the art sculpture. Both contracts are expected to exceed the City Manager’s approval authority. Therefore, the RRM Landscape Architecture contract will be presented to the City Council for consideration at a future meeting.
Based on preliminary review of fabrication, installation, and required site improvements, staff have determined that the estimated project costs will utilize the full amount of available grant funding. In review of the art fabrication, installation, and site work of the “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash”, staff have determined estimates would be 100% of the grant funding available as follows:
FINANCIAL IMPACT
For the “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” art experience on the Johnny Cash Trail, the City of Folsom has received a grant allocation of $425,000 from the Budget Act of 2023, which is administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation in the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS). The grant funding is identified explicitly for the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience.
Romo Studios, LLC has submitted a scope of work for the fabrication and installation of “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash”, in the amount of $279,730. The remaining grant money will be identified for additional art experience expenses, including construction at the project site. The total project will not exceed the $425,000 to be received from the grant funds.
An appropriation of $425,000 is needed from the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience Fund (Fund 414) for the grant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In 2018, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience was prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., which includes the “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” art piece. The IS/MND identified that the project would result in less than significant impacts to the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11522 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services and Consultant Agreement with Romo Studios, LLC for a Not-toExceed Amount of $279,730 (Grant Funds) for the Fabrication, Installation, and Construction of Hello, I'm Johnny Cash on the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience (PK1502) from California Department of Parks & Recreation Budget Act of 2023 Grant Funds and Acceptance of Grant and Appropriation of Funds Project Cost Estimate Grant Funding
Art Fabrication and Installation $ 279,730 $ 279,730
Design and Site work $ 145,270 $ 145,270
Total $ 425,000 $ 425,000
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
4 2. Romo Studios Scope of Work
3. Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience Masterplan
4. Bureau of Reclamation Letters
5. Hello, I’m Johnny Cash Art Experience Concept Image and Design
6. November 20, 2025 - Arts and Culture Commission Staff Report Respectfully Submitted,
Kelly Gonzalez, Parks & Recreation Director
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 1
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Resolution No. 11522
RESOLUTION NO. 11522
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH ROMO STUDIOS, LLC FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $279,730 (GRANT FUNDS)
FOR THE FABRICATION, INSTALLATION, AND CONSTRUCTION OF HELLO, I'M JOHNNY CASH ON THE JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE (PK1502)
FROM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION BUDGET ACT OF 2023 GRANT FUNDS AND ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
WHEREAS, Romo Studios, LLC will provide services to fabricate, construct and install “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” at the art experience site located to the west of the Johnny Cash Bridge as notated in the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience Masterplan; and WHEREAS, Romo Studios, LLC will fabricate and install “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” for a total sum not to exceed of $279,730; and
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom has received a grant funding allocation from the California Department of Parks and Recreation in the amount of $425,000 to be used for this project; 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 authorizes the City Manager to execute a consultant and professional services agreement with Romo Studios, LLC for the fabrication, installation, and construction of “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” for the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience (PK1502) in the amount not to exceed $279,730.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the acceptance of the $425,000 in grant funds from the California Department of Parks & Recreation Budget Act of 2023 grant funds for the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate the grant amount of $425,000 as expenditures and revenue in the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience Fund (Fund 414).
PASS AND ADOPTED on this 9
th day of December 2025, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Council Member(s):
NOES: Council Member(s):
ABSENT: Council Member(s):
ABSTAIN: Council Member(s):
______________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Resolution No. 11522
ATTEST:
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 2
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Hello, I’m Johnny Cash Bronze Sculpture Itemized Budget Fees & Expenses:
Artist Fees $45,000
Studios Expenses 5,900
Rental Equipment 1,800
Subcontractors 9,800
Travel Expense 3,000
Storage 1,000.
Insurance & Professional Fees:
Engineering Fees 2,500
Artwork Insurance 1,500
General Liability 1,500
Automotive Liability 1,400
Legal Fees 1,500
Photography & Documentation:
Copyright 1,200
Photography of work in progress 500
On-site documentation of work 700
Fabrication:
Clay Sculpture/Armature 13,500
3D Scanning 6,000
3D Printing 32,000
Molds 21,000
Wax 2,500
Bronze Cast 72,500
Welding and Patina 13,000
Steel Framing 6,500
Installation:
Transport Art To Folsom 2,500
Installation 7,500
Contingency:(10%) 25,430
____________
Total $279,730
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 3
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
THE
TRAIL
art experience
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
MAY 2019
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 1
City Council
Kerri M. Howell, Mayor
Sarah Aquino, Vice Mayor
Roger Gaylord III
Mike Kozlowski
Ernest L. Sheldon
Parks & Recreation Commission
Paul Romero, Chair
Dave Nazworth, Vice Chair
David Benevento, D.C.
Samantha Davidson
Matt Hedges
Will Kempton
Brian Wallace
Arts & Cultural Commission
Sally Buchanan, Chair
Marc Allaman, Vice Chair
YK Chalamcherla
Heather Gorton
John Hall
Brenda Scheuble
Maribel Wyatt
City Staff
Elaine Andersen, City Manager
Jim Francis, Assistant City Manager
Lorraine Poggione, Parks and Recreation Director
Brad Nelson, Senior Park Planner
Tom Hellmann, Community and Cultural Services Manager
Acknowledgments
Adan Romo, Lead Artist, Designer
Jesus Romo, Artist, Sculptor
Gary Tillery - Man In Black Artist
Itamar Amrany - Project & Design Manager
Omri Amrany - Concept Visionary
Lief McKay, Landscape Architect
Amy McKay, Designer
Romo Studios
SACRAMENTO, CA
The Fine Art Studio
of Rotblatt Amrany
CHICAGO, IL
RRM Design Group
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
The City of Folsom extends special thanks to the John R. Cash Revocable Trust, Cindy Cash and Lou Robin.
Back cover photo: Johnny Cash at “The Compound,” his 50-acre property in Hendersonville, TN. Many thanks to Cindy Cash for providing this photograph.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
2 reason for this master plan
On October 4th, 2014, the City of Folsom proudly opened Phase I of The Johnny Cash Trail – a 1.2-mile segment of Class I bike trail that connects the Folsom Lake Trail by way of a new bike/pedestrian overcrossing, beautifully inspired by the architecture of the nearby Folsom Prison. The trail was completed during Phase II, in the fall of 2017, when the remaining 1.25-mile segment was constructed. With this trail crossing over Folsom State Prison property, and the history that Johnny Cash has with this city, it is a unique opportunity to honor the Man In Black through art, interpretation and education within the setting of the beautiful wooded hills of Folsom, California.
With the bike trail infrastructure in place, the City of Folsom plans to create a world-class linear public art project intended to celebrate and honor Johnny Cash, the man and his music, and the connection that will always be strong with this special city. The project includes eight sculptures and a 3-acre park which will only expand the use of the Folsom bike trail system as well as providing an extraordinary art experience for Johnny Cash fans from near and far. The Johnny Cash Trail will offer smart phone apps designed to bring each piece to life as it incorporates Cash’s music, historical documentary information and interactive elements.
With the goal of completing the art trail in less than five years, the City of Folsom has designed an innovative fund-raising campaign for the Art Experience. This master plan is the vision for the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience, and is the first comprehensive plan integrating art, the trail and the natural environment of the City of Folsom and its historical prison made famous by Johnny Cash. “The highlights of his career hold
their own special memories for me. I
was 10 years old when Dad played at
Folsom Prison and my memory was
only that I couldn’t go with him even
though he was in California and close
to home. This was the only time he
didn’t take us and I didn’t understand
why not. I couldn’t see why four little
girls couldn’t come along with Dad to
a maximum security prison!”
-Cindy Cash
Artist Selection Meeting, February 2014
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 3
johnny cash trail art experience
overall trail map
Site photos for all 8 locations can be found in the Appendix of this document, page 24. Proposed Audio Art Component/Smart Phone App, page 22.
Greenback Lane
Hancock Dr.
E. Natoma
Stafford St.
Folsom Blvd.
Folsom Lake Crossing
Folsom - Auburn Rd.
Oak Ave.
Folsom Prison Rd.
E. Natoma
E. Natoma St.
FOLSOM
STATE
PRISON
FOLSOM
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
DAN RUSSELL
RODEO ARENA
LAKE
NATOMA
FOLSOM
LAKE
FOLSOM
DAM
American River
1 3
4 6
5 8 7 2
Folsom
Prison
Rd.
N
Am
erica
n
Ca
nyo
n
Dr. HISTORIC
FOLSOM
RUSTY CAGE
GREYSTONE CHAPEL
FOLSOM
PRISON BLUES
CASH’S PICK
RING OF FIRE
MAN IN BLACK
HELLO, I’M
JOHNNY CASH
CASH’S PICK
ROBBER’S
RAVINE
BRIDGE
LEGACY
PARK
SEPTEMBER 2018
JOHNNY
CASH
BRIDGE
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
4 site one cash’s pick
cash’s pick
Positioned at the northern most end of the Johnny Cash Trail, Cash’s Pick, created by Romo Studios, is a 7’ tall bronze guitar pick, featuring Johnny Cash’s signature and the Cash name on one side, while the back features a trail map and information about the trail route and features.
Just as Cash began every song with a pick on the strings of his guitar, this large bronze pick acts as bookends for the Johnny Cash Trail. Cash’s Pick will be placed at the northern end of the trail, where it intersects the American River Bike Trail at Folsom Lake Crossing.
The design of this art node provides space for trail users to exit the trail, enjoy the art piece and rest. Bike racks are provided, as well as shade trees and seating. The seating opportunity occurs around the back edge of a Corten deck, accented with laser-cut details to imply the grooves of a record, with Cash’s Pick sitting in the center. The node also features a record label art marker, which highlights the name of the art piece, the artist themselves, materials used and the date of installation. This record label art marker is inspired by the Sun Record Company, who were the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” and played a critical role in Johnny’s career.
Plant materials are based on a primarily native palette, honoring the surrounding landscape of Folsom and the backdrop of Folsom Lake, as well as providing shade for trail users on hot summer days.
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
“CASH’S PICK”
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
STEEL
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRONZE
ARTIST
“MAN IN BLACK
ROTBLATT AMRANY
FINE ART STUDIO OF
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2016
ARTIST
Inspired by the original Sun Record label, the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” these ‘record label art
markers’ accompany each art piece, noting its name,
the artist, materials used and the date of installation.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
FOLSOM LAKE CROSSING
AMERICAN RIVER BIKE TRAIL
keymap
1 3
4 6
7 5 8 2
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 5
cash’s pick site one
30 40
“Cash’s Pick”
Bench Seating
Record Label Art Marker
Pick-Shaped Bike Racks
Decorative Concrete Paving
Corten Decking
Bench Seating
Shade Trees
Landscape Boulders
to Johnny Cash Bridge
Native and Drought Tolerant Planting
Existing Trees
Retaining Wall
Paving Detail to alert
riders to art node
plant palette
materials
Curvilinear bench encircles the Pick Granite and Corten ‘Rumble Strip’ slows cyclists
The Corten Steel, record-shaped deck will
surround Pick No. 1, and will patina with
rustic red and yellow hues
Guitar pick-shaped bike racks will be
available at each art node
Clustered Field Sedge Pozo Blue Salvia
Leather Leaf Coffeeberry
Deer Grass
PHOTO: timelessenvironments. PHOTO: www.gardentheory.com PHOTO: Sloat Garden Center
Valley Oak
PHOTO: Jennifer Jewell, Garden Writer
California Lupine
PHOTO: City of Folsom
PHOTO: Landscape Plants for Western Regions
PHOTO: Archiproducts.com PHOTO: G&C Architects, Landezine, Landscape Architecture Works
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
keymap
1 3
4 6
7 5 8 2
Cash performing at 1968 Folsom Prison concert
6 site two hello, I’m johnny cash
Inspired by a photo taken of Cash during the 1968 Folsom Prison concert, this life-like bronze sculpture of the musician is positioned to take full advantage of the main tower of the prison itself. This location is on Folsom Prison Road, at the intersection where Johnny was photographed all those years ago. This is a popular photo spot for Cash fans and visitors to the Folsom Prison Museum. The art piece is placed in a circular shape, implying a spotlight on the piece, and would also be up-lit at night. A small plaza, featuring a low split-face granite wall, allows for a group to gather, sit, rest and reflect and read the interpretive information and record label art marker before continuing along the trail.
hello, I’m johnny cash
“GREYSTONE CHAPEL” “HELLO, I’M JOHNNY CASH”
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRONZE
ARTIST
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
FOLSOM PRISON GRANITE WALL
ARTIST
FOL
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
SOM, CALIFORNIA
Inspired by the original Sun Record label, the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” these ‘record label art
markers’ accompany each art piece, noting its name,
the artist, materials used and the date of installation.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 7
hello, I’m johnny cash site two
30 40
Record Label Art Marker
Pick-shaped Bike Racks
Native Shrub
Planting “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash”
Native Tree Planting
Decorative concrete
with uplighting
Split-face Granite Retaining Wall
with Custom Built-in Bench
Paving Detail to alert
riders to Art Node
Johnny Cash Trail
Dedication Plaque
JOHNNY CASH BRIDGE
Interpretive Pick
Native and Droughttolerant Planting
to Legacy Park
materials
A split-face granite wall will define the plaza Curved benches will be mounted to the stone wall and appear to ‘float’
plant palette
Deer Grass Clustered Field SedgePHOTO: timelessenvironments.blogspot Pick-shaped interpretive signs provide key
information to visitors about the art piece and
setting
Guitar pick-shaped bike racks will be
available at each art node
PHOTO: Landscape Plants for Western Regions
PHOTO: Archiproducts.com
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
8 site three man in black
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
“CASH’S PICK”
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
STEEL
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRONZE
ARTIST
“MAN IN BLACK”
ROTBLATT AMRANY
FINE ART STUDIO OF
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2016
ARTIST
man in black
Johnny Cash Legacy Park originated as a concept for a site-specific work for the Johnny Cash Art Trail—a sculpture at the corner of East Natoma Street and Folsom Lake Crossing. Gary Tillery, of the Fine Art Studio of Rotblatt-Amrany, imagined Man in Black, as a large steel piece that would rise from the site as a landmark, facing west across the hills toward Folsom Prison. Fellow artist Omri Amrany proposed a distinctive setting for the sculpture—a park where Folsom residents and visitors could come and relax.
Tillery, valuing simplicity of form, presented Cash wearing his familiar long coat, which provided a smooth “canvas” for the pattern of flame-like cut-outs intended to evoke Cash’s character and suggest one of his most famous songs. Depicting him with the long hair he wore during the middle of his career offered the chance to sculpt mass while maintaining the Cubist representation.
At 40’ tall, atop a 10’ granite base, the Man in Black landmark will be viewable from two approaching arterial streets and the new pedestrian bridge. The work will rise from the sound hole of the guitar shape that defines the main plaza of the three-acre park, collaboratively designed by RRM Design Group and Rotblatt Amrany Studio.
Monumental exterior and interior lighting designed by studio artist Itamar Amrany provides detail to highlight the sculpture in the evening and nighttime, while a poetic tribute to Mr. Cash by the artist will be placed at its base. Mother of Pearl tile mosaic around the sound hole, and Cash’s signature in stainless steel set into paving provide detail to further highlight the art work. Man In Black is surrounded by a grove of Arkansas Black Apple trees, representing his birthplace of Dyess, Arkansas. “I wanted to capture that charisma...He had a
commanding presence. He was a passionate guy,
full of energy, heat, life.”
- Gary Tillery, Artist
Inspired by the original Sun Record label, the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” these ‘record label art
markers’ accompany each art piece, noting its name,
the artist, materials used and the date of installation.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 9
man in black site three
Johnny Cash’s
Signature set
into paving Star-Shaped Finger
Positioning inlaid
into paving
Paving Detail
defines guitar
strings and
frets
Drifts of Native
Grasses &
Ground covers
Ornamental
Flowering Tree
“Man In Black”
50’-Tall Work
Open Plaza
Planter with
Native Grasses Special
Paving to
Define Sound
Hole
Mother-ofPearl Tile
Mosaic Band
Mounded Turf
keymap
1 4 3
6 7 5 8 2
materials
Plaza benches take a soft, organic form Granite boulders surround the base of Man In Black
A Mother-of-Pearl tile mosaic surrounds the
sound hole of the guitar, imitating Cash’s D-35
Martin Guitar
Steel bands embedded in the concrete mark
the ‘guitar strings’ across the plaza and would
incorporate an in-ground lighting system for a
dramatic night-time effect
plant palette
Emerald Carpet Manzanita Arkansas Black Apple
PHOTO: Fresno Garden Resources PHOTO: www.piratstudenterna.se Deer Grass
PHOTO: Landscape Plants for Western Regions
Clustered Field Sedge
PHOTO: timelessenvironments.blogspot
NOT TO SCALE
PHOTO: MD3 Contract, Ltd.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
keymap
1 4 3
6 7 5 8 2
10 site three legacy park
Park overlook
Integral colored concrete
designs inspired by website
and album cover graphics
Lyrics from Man In Black sandblasted into paving at overlook Series of polished black granite interpretive panels
document the Folsom Prison Concert and feature images
of the event, including the West Sacramento Hotel where Cash and crew rehearsed for two days beforehand, and
were visited by Governor Ronald Reagan, who wished
them well.
Bronze Medallion “Johnny Cash
Legacy Park” with dedication date, City
Council/Parks & Rec staff, Cash Family.
Bus Loading Zone
Parking Lot
Entry Drive (25 spaces, 2 ADA accessible)
Welcome Signage
Area/Guitar Pick Interpretive
Panel with park information
Tree
Wells
Integral Colored Paving Details
Planted
Slope
Pedestrian walkway to/
from bus zone
Picnic Tables in
between star-shaped
tree wells
Planted
Area
Planted
Slope
Planted
Area
‘Air Guitars’
Shapes and details inspired
by the guitars that Johnny
Cash played over the yearsmake and model noted in a
steel band in the paving at
the base of each one
Mounded Grass for
Seating
Concrete seat walls
Guitar neck features stainless
steel or bronze stars at
finger positions and graphic
of guitar neck extends into
intersection using concrete
Bollards to alert walkers
at the bike path’s edge
Amphitheater
Restroom
Tennessee Three Plaza
honoring Luther Perkins,
Marshall Grant and W.S.
“Fluke” Holland
Bike Racks
Paving Detail to alert
riders to art node
Entry
Plaza
E.NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM LAKE CROSSING
Steel bands embedded in the concrete mark
the ‘guitar strings’ across the plaza and
would incorporate an in-ground lighting
system for a dramatic night time effect
“Man In Black”
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 11
legacy park site three
plant palette
Designed by RRM Design Group, the three-acre park along the Johnny Cash Trail offers not only a resting spot for trail users, but also the opportunity to journey through the story of Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison.
The elevated nature of the bike trail entering the park from the north side allows trail users to catch glimpses of the amphitheater, guitar shape in the ground plane, and Man In Black - looking towards Folsom Prison, while entering through native trees and grasses. The trail leads to the park overlook where trail users can continue along Johnny Cash Trail, or choose to stop at the park. The overlook above the park offers site lines directly down the center of the guitar-shaped plaza towards Man In Black.
Paving finishes define the shape of Johnny’s characteristic Martin D-35 guitar with depictions of frets, finger positioning stars, and stainless steel guitar strings set in paving, emitting a subtle glow at night. The neck of the guitar image, formed out of concrete, extends into the intersection of East Natoma Street and Folsom Lake Crossing, engaging traffic as it passes.
The park entry plaza features a series of interpretive panels created from polished black granite that tell the story of Cash’s famous Folsom Prison concert, set atop a variety of swirling paving patterns to create a dynamic and musical feeling in the ground plane. The park also features many seating opportunities, a native plant palette including plenty of shade trees, public restroom, picnic tables and amphitheater.
Making for a great photo opportunity, five guitar silhouettes made of steel plate offer park visitors the opportunity to ‘play’ guitar with Man In Black in the background.
Immediately adjacent, The Tennessee Three Plaza pays tribute to Johnny’s band that shared the stage with him at the 1968 Folsom concert. Three bronze stars in the pavement will honor these musicians (Luther Perkins, Marshall Grant, W.S. “Fluke” Holland). The park is served by a 25-space parking lot and bus loading area set amongst native landscaping.
Deer Grass
legacy park
materials
Integral colored paving Integral steel bands in paving at overlook feature lyrics from Man In Black Sculpted concrete seatwalls surround the plaza Polished black granite interpretive panels greet the
user in the plaza, guiding them through the story of
the 1968 Folsom Concert via images and text etched
into the reflective surface of the stone
Grass between amphitheater steps provide informal
seating and picnicking opportunities Corten steel tree grates with custom star design will provide a weathered patina
Emerald Carpet Manzanita
PHOTO: Fresno Garden Resources
California Native Grass Meadow
PHOTO: L. Koteen
California Lilac
PHOTO: Idyllwild Garden Club
Pick-shaped interpretive signage occurs in the park and along the trail
materials
PHOTO: TB Penick & Sons PHOTO: MD3 Contract Ltd.
PHOTO: Landscape Plants for Western Regions
PHOTO: Iron Age Designs
Valley Oak
PHOTO: Jennifer Jewell, Garden Writer
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
keymap
1 3 4
6 7 5 8 2
12 site four ring of fire
ring of fire
Made of varying sizes of stainless steel picks, this Romo Studios piece appears to be floating above the trail, along a section of very steep rock face adjacent to the trail. At 12’ tall, this work of art must be viewed from some distance away to get the full effect. From a distance the ring will look engulfed in flames, but upon closer inspection it will become clear that the flames are individually-sized stainless steel guitar picks.
Pull-outs on either side of the Ring of Fire are provided for trail users to take a moment to read the interpretive pick and record label art marker safely clear of traffic. This piece is also visible from the adjacent street. At night, solar LED lighting set at the base will illuminate Ring of Fire and the piece will be a symbol of Cash’s song and passion. The
lighting will cast red, yellow and orange upon the steel picks, creating a glow similar to that of flames.
“FOLS
LASER CUT _____
“RING OF FIRE”
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
STEEL
ARTIST
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
Inspired by the original Sun Record label, the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” these ‘record label art
markers’ accompany each art piece, noting its name,
the artist, materials used and the date of installation.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 13
ring of fire site four
Record Label Art
Marker
“Ring of Fire”
4’ Diameter Base
Trail Corridor Fence
Interpretive pick
mounted on fence rail
Record Label Art
Marker in pull-out
area
Solar Panels to
power uplighting
NOTE: A viewing area on the accessible path on East
Natoma will also be addressed when topography is available in the design development phase of the project.
Paving Detail
to alert riders
to art node
TO
CAGE
RUSTY
TO
LEGACY PARK
EQUESTRIAN PATH
BIKE PATH
EAST NATOMA
30 40
Pick-shaped interpretive signs mounted
to the trail fencing at the pull-outs
provide information about the art piece
Fencing around the pull-out areas
will match the existing trail fencing
Trail corridor fencing will match
the existing prison property line
fencing
Granite and Corten ‘Rumble Strip’
slows cyclists
materials
PHOTO: G&C Architects, Landezine, Landscape
Architecture Works
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
14 Towering above the bike trail, atop a grassy knoll, stands Rusty Cage, by Romo Studios. As if giant guitars were buried underground, the three necks of the steel Rusty Cage form the shape and scale of a standard cell at nearby Folsom State Prison, offering trail users the opportunity to imagine what life might feel like in the confines of such a small space. But this ‘cell’ affords the user a view over the rolling Folsom hills and the American River from a bench or the granite blocks scattered under the nearby oak trees. rusty cage
site five rusty cage
“RUSTY CAGE” “C
BRONZE
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
CORTEN STEEL
ARTIST
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
Pick-shaped interpretive signs provide key
information to visitors about the art piece
Guitar pick-shaped bike racks will be
available at each art node
California Native Grass Meadow
PHOTO: L. Koteen
Granite blocks provide informal seating A single curved bench will provide seating at the edge of the node
‘Rustic’ Paving treatment with natural edge
Inspired by the original Sun Record label, the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” these ‘record label art
markers’ accompany each art piece, noting its name,
the artist, materials used and the date of installation.
PHOTO: Archiproducts.com
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
keymap
1 3
4 6
7 5
8 2
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 15
rusty cage site five
Rustic Paving
Granite Seat Blocks for
informal seating under
existing oak trees
“Rusty Cage”
Bench
Robber’s Ravine
Bridge
Bike Racks
Bench
Low Corten retaining wall
TO
GREYSTONE CHAPEL
Record Label
Art Marker
TO RING OF FIRE
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
keymap
1 3
4 6
7 5 8 2
16 greystone chapel
This piece celebrates Johnny Cash’s ability to accept his own failures and those of others. His music was an extension of this empathy and always spoke about the truth of the human condition. No where was this more evident than at his performances at Folsom Prison. Romo Studio’s Greystone Chapel features two tall granite plinths on either side of the bike trail, connected by a decorative paving treatment which cuts through the trail. As visitors approach the bridge, they will see featured on the facing plinth, the Greystone Chapel lyrics, by Folsom Prison inmate, Glen Sherley, while trail users coming the opposite direction will be greeted by a moving Cash quote. This node is a quiet, reflective spot, with granite seating blocks placed almost as pews would be, for resting and reflection. A granite stone retaining wall will also feature excerpts from prisoner’s letters written to Cash after his Folsom concert. It is said that he inspired many of the prisoners that day, and they were moved enough to reach out to him. site six greystone chapel
“GREYSTONE CHAPEL” “HEL
BRONZE
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
FOLSOM PRISON GRANITE WALL
ARTIST
FOL
SOM, CALIFORNIA
Inspired by the original Sun Record label, the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” these ‘record label art
markers’ accompany each art piece, noting its name,
the artist, materials used and the date of installation.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 17
greystone chapel site six
TO FOLSOM
BLUES
PRISON
ROBBER’S RAVINE BRIDGE
30 40
Native and Drought Tolerant Planting
Granite Retaining Wall with
engraved excerpts of inmate’s
letters to Johnny Cash following
his Folsom Prison Concert
Robber’s Ravine Bridge
Dedication Plaque
Paving Detail to alert
riders to Art Node
Concrete pavers
with Corten steel
edging
Granite ‘pews’ as
informal seating
“Greystone Chapel”
Lyrics engraved in
granite
Pick-shaped bike racks
Interpretive Pick
Record label art
marker
Valley Oaks
EXISTING TREES
Small-scale ornamental tree Low granite wall with
decorative safety rail
Cash Quote in
polished black granite
TO
RUSTY CAGE
materials
Split-face granite blocks provide the canvas for
the prisoners’ letters
Pick-shaped interpretive signs provide key
information to visitors about the art piece
Guitar pick-shaped bike racks will be
available at each art node
‘Rustic’ Paving treatment with natural edge
plant palette
Deer Grass Clustered Field Sedge Pozo Blue Salvia Leather Leaf Coffeeberry PHOTO: timelessenvironments. PHOTO: www.gardentheory.com PHOTO: Sloat Garden Center Valley Oak
PHOTO: Landscape Plants for Western Regions PHOTO: Jennifer Jewell, Garden Writer Concrete plank pavers cross the bike path,
spanning the space between the two granite
plinths featuring Cash’s quote and the
“Greystone Chapel” lyrics
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
keymap
1 3
4 6
7 5 8 2
18 folsom prison blues
site seven folsom prison blues
Romo Studios’ Folsom Prison Blues is created from many vertical poles on which are imprinted a portion of an abstract image of Johnny Cash. At first glance, the whole piece will merely look like a series of individual elements grouped together, evoking the bars found in the prison. Collectively, these 10’-tall poles portray the full picture, with the image only visible from one designated point, offering the sense of discovery to trail users as they approach from either direction. This particular art node provides a viewing point off the trail at which to see the image come into focus, read the record label art marker, and rest in the shade. Trails users can also explore the art piece up close, as the plaza surrounding the poles is accessible via a curving path, surrounded by drifts of native grasses and ground covers.
“FOLSOM PRISON BLUES”
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LASER CUT _____
ARTIST
“RING OF FIRE”
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
STEEL
ARTIST
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
Inspired by the original Sun Record label, the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” these ‘record label art
markers’ accompany each art piece, noting its name,
the artist, materials used and the date of installation.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 19
folsom prison blues site seven
plant palette
Paving Detail to alert
riders to Art Node
Decorative Paving
Interpretive Pick
Pick-Shaped Bike Racks
Record Label
Art Marker
Granite Seat Block
Native and Drought Tolerant Planting
EXISTING TREES
T
O
CASH’S
PICK NO.2
“Folsom Prison Blues”
Emerald Carpet Manzanita
PHOTO: Fresno Garden Resources
Clustered Field Sedge
PHOTO: timelessenvironments.blogspot
Granite and Corten ‘Rumble Strip’
slows cyclists
Granite blocks provide informal
seating
materials
PHOTO: Landscape Plants for Western Regions
Deer Grass
PHOTO: G&C Architects, Landezine, Landscape Architecture Works Pick-shaped interpretive signs provide key
information to visitors about the art piece
Guitar pick-shaped bike racks will be
available at each art node
Pozo Blue Salvia
PHOTO: www.gardentheory.com
Decorative paving treatment
TO GREYSTONE CHAPEL
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
keymap
1 3
4 6
7 5 8 2
20 site eight cash’s pick
Positioned at the southern most end of the Johnny Cash Trail, near the intersection of Greenback Lane and the American River Bike Trail, Cash’s Pick, created by Romo Studios, is a 7’ tall bronze guitar pick, featuring Johnny Cash’s signature and the Cash name on one side, while the back features a trail map and information about the trail route and features. This piece marks either the end or starting point of the journey, depending on the direction of the trail user and is located near public parking.
The design of this art node provides space for trail users to pause, enjoy the art piece and rest. Cash’s Pick is placed at the center of this node, within a record-inspired Corten deck feature. The node also features a record label art marker, which highlights cash’s pick
the name of the art piece, the artist themselves, materials used and the date of installation. This record label art marker is inspired by the Sun Record Company, who were the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” and played a critical role in Johnny’s career.
Plant materials are based on a primarily native palette, honoring the surrounding landscape of Folsom, as well as presenting a simple and soft backdrop in which to highlight the art.
“RUSTY CAGE” “CASH’S PICK”
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRONZE
ARTIST
ROMO STUDIOS
2016
RRM DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
CORTEN STEEL
ARTIST
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
Inspired by the original Sun Record label, the first to record “Folsom Prison Blues,” these ‘record label art
markers’ accompany each art piece, noting its name,
the artist, materials used and the date of installation.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 21
cash’s pick site eight
Cash’s Pick
to
“Folsom Prison
Blues”
30 40
to
Historic Folsom
Bench Seating
Record Label Art Marker
Pick-Shaped Bike
Racks
Concrete Paving
Landscape Boulders
Corten Decking
Native and Drought
Tolerant Planting
Paving Detail to alert
riders to Art Node
Bench Seating
GREENBACK LANE
plant palette
materials
Curvilinear bench encircles the Pick Granite and Corten ‘Rumble Strip’ slow cyclists
Guitar pick-shaped bike racks will be
available at each art node
Clustered Field Sedge Pozo Blue Salvia
Leather Leaf Coffeeberry
Deer Grass
PHOTO: timelessenvironments.blogspot PHOTO: www.gardentheory.com PHOTO: Sloat Garden Center
California Lupine
PHOTO: Landscape Plants for Western Regions
PHOTO: Archiproducts.com PHOTO: G&C Architects, Landezine, Landscape Architecture Works The Corten Steel, record-shaped deck
will surround Cash’s Pick No. 2, and will
patina with rustic red and yellow hues
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
22 AUDIO ART COMPONENT
The Johnny Cash App
• Guided/Self-Guided tour of sites using geo-location
software
• Music library
• Event listings
• Audio Documentaries
• E-commerce
• Visitor information
• Social Media Integration
the johnny cash trail app
DESIGNED BY ROMO STUDIOS
PROPOSED
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE
JOHNNY
CASH
TRAIL
ART EXPERIENCE
THE
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 23
App allows personal engagement with the music, art, life and legacy of Johnny Cash.
*Music, image, and other rights license agreements, and digital app content will require the authorization of appropriate and lawful holders. the johnny cash trail app
JOHNNY
CASH
TRAIL
ART EXPERIENCE
THE
JOHNNY
CASH
THE
The Johnny Cash Art Trail
Experience Would Like to Use Your
Current Location
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
View of Folsom Lake from Pick No. 1 Site
24 cash’s pick appendix
site
1
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 25
man in black legacy park appendix
site
2
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
26 folsom prison blues appendix
site
3
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 27
ring of fire appendix
site
4
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
28 hello, I’m johnny cash appendix
site
5
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 29
greystone chapel appendix
site
6
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
30 rusty cage appendix
site
7
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
JOHNNY CASH TRAIL ART EXPERIENCE MASTER PLAN 31
cash’s pick appendix
site
8
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
“His connection and our family’s
connection will go on in a most
beautiful way with the City of
Folsom. Now this beauty and this
connection to nature, that he loved
so much, are going to be here
forever.”
-Rosanne Cash
Trail Dedication, October 4, 2014
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 4
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 5
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 6
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
ACTION ITEM 6A
Arts and Culture Commission
November 20, 2025
TO: Arts and Culture Commission
FROM: Tom Hellmann, Recreation & Community Services Manager SUBJECT: “HELLO, I’M JOHNNY CASH” THE NEXT ART
EXPERIENCE ON THE JOHNNY CASH TRAIL
BACKGROUND
The Johnny Cash Trail was finalized in 2017 as a Class I trail that connects Sacramento County trails that takes you over Folsom Lake Crossing. The 8 dedicated art experiences were master planned to their locations as part of the overall trail project with the trail on a combination of City of Folsom property, California State Prison property, and Bureau of Reclamation property. Everything to the east of the Johnny Cash Trail Bridge is Bureau of Reclamation property.
You can find the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience map and specific art experience sites in the attached Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience masterplan (attachment 1) The art experiences that are identified on the map and in the master plan, were determined from a national database of artists during the October 15, 2013, release for Request for Qualifications. This request garnered 32 interested artists that were reviewed by a 12-member art selection panel comprised of Art and Culture Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Bureau, project engineer, Folsom Prison Museum, Friends of Folsom Parkways, and the Parks & Recreation Department. In addition, Cindy Cash was invited to participate as one of five children of Johnny Cash providing invaluable insight into his career and personal life.
An extensive amount of time and multiple meetings were conducted in reviewing submissions and ranking them based upon experience, budget estimates, suitability of concepts for the trail venue, creativity, and vision. Ultimately, the submissions were narrowed down from 32 to 20 to 8 to 4 and then the top 2 artists. The panel selected Romo Studios LLC and the Fine Art Studio of Rotblatt Amrany (dba Timeless Creations). Romo Studios LLC was selected for 7 total artwork pieces, but 6 creatively unique pieces of artwork, while Timeless Creations was selected for a single art and park proposal.
During September 23, 2014, Folsom City Council meeting the council approved Resolution No. 9435 approving the concepts for the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience Project, Direction to Staff, and Appropriation of Funds.
On September 11, 2018, the Folsom City Council Approved Resolution No. 10181 to execute a consultant and professional services agreement with Romo Studios, LLC for the casting of Cash’s Pick No. 1 for the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience. During that contract review, Mr. Romo prepared a presentation to bring to the Art and Culture Commission regarding the design of Pick No. 1. This was for two reasons: 1. In speaking
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
with John R. Cash Trust/Estate it was determined that the use of CASH resembled and replicated an album cover of Johnny Cash that did not correlate to Johnny’s time in Folsom in 1968, thus making the use of the block lettering on the pick design not an option and 2. Adan Romo amended the original concept design he submitted in 2014 to align with this new direction and alter the design to be a black sculpture guitar pick.
At the September 13, 2018, Arts and Culture Commission meeting an action item was brought forward regarding Cash’s Pick design. The commission heard from Romo Studios artist, Adan Romo regarding the design of Cash’s Pick and the recommendation to remove lettering and name from the pick as to not denote this as a sign, but a standalone art sculpture of a guitar pick that is settled in the middle of a record deck as the landscape design plan suggests for this art experience. The commission heard from Mr. Romo, asked questions and took action to pass a recommendation to City Council on the design of Cash’s Pick by a vote of 4-1 with two commissioners absent.
Following this new information and action from the Arts and Culture Commission to recommend the design change, staff worked with Mr. Romo on the project.
Unfortunately, six months later we saw the world impacted by the COVID pandemic and things came to halt. Following those years of impact, we emerged with available funds from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) that we designated to the construction of Cash’s Pick No. 1. At the April 27, 2021, Folsom City Council meeting they approved Resolution No. 10614 for increased compensation in the amount of $20,920 to Romo Studios, LLC for the casting of Cash’s Pick No. 1 for the Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience. The staff report also shared the design image of Cash’s Pick No. 1 of a solid black sculpture with no lettering or naming on the face of the guitar pick. The contract was approved for execution and from then until November 21, 2024, when it was installed.
On September 9, 2025, the Folsom City Council requested an update on the Art Experience projects. City Council shared concerns about the art pick design and wanted to ask staff for options on the art pick design along with next steps for the project.
DISCUSSION
The City of Folsom and City Council adopted a Strategic Plan in 2023-2024 that provided strategic initiatives that the City Council wished to focus on over the next five years. The City Council identified five priorities with one of those being, developing funding plan for the Johnny Cash Trail (JCT) art trail. This priority coincided with action staff had already taken in the spring of 2023 when staff submitted a member request letter to Assemblymember Josh Hoover, District 7 requesting $425,000 to be identified in the State of California Budget Act of 2023 for the design, engineering, and art fabrication of Cash’s Pick No. 2. The plan was to complete both of Cash’s Pick art experiences to signify the start and end of the Johnny Cash Trail. In July, Mr. Hoover contacted staff to say that the request was granted and placed in the budget for funds to be disbursed by California State Parks and the Office of Grants and Loans, to be spent by January 31, 2027. City staff contacted the Bureau of Reclamation to restart conversations regarding a letter issued to the City of Folsom in 2018 and 2019 that signified their completion of a cursory review of our project proposal to place Cash’s
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Pick No. 2 on federal land, and that our application was found to be “not incompatible” with Reclamation’s mission. Staff submitted payment to the Bureau of Reclamation totaling $5,000 for this site license in 2019 and as we fast forward to a meeting between the two agencies on July 19, 2024, the Bureau of Reclamation changed their position claiming the art experience was identified as a “monument” to Johnny Cash and under 43CFR 423.28, describes that monuments are not allowed on federal land. Staff asked the Bureau of Reclamation to explain the definition of a monument and to further explain what changed from their letter issued in 2018 until now as the same Area Manager was still representing this area. We had a follow up phone call with Edward Rosa, Relator Specialist with the Bureau of Reclamation on September 22, 2025, to discuss and request the above-mentioned explanation of a monument and letter of approval. Staff received a letter from the Bureau of Reclamation on October 10, 2025, which officially denied the site license. (Attachment 2)
RECOMMENDATION
It is staff’s recommendation that we abandon Cash’s Pick No. 2 as an Art Experience site and focus our attention on the next Art Experience that would signify entry onto the Johnny Cash Trail from the east end of the trail with a public art sculpture entitled, “Hello, I am Johnny Cash”. (Attachment 3)
This Art Experience site is located on City of Folsom property and staff expect $425,000 to cover the art fabrication, art installation, and the landscape design. Staff would look at any remaining funds for use of other construction costs. Staff would begin conversations with RRM Landscape Design and enter a contract for design and construction documents along with a contract with Romo Studios, LLC, for the fabrication of the art sculpture. Staff do not have accurate estimates for this total project cost now but would turn our attention to this project to spend the grant money secured by Assemblymember Hoover and held with California State Parks. Contracts with RRM Landscape and Romo Studios, LLC, would likely exceed the City Manager’s authority, thus an action would be taken by the City Council at a future meeting.
ACTION
Staff recommend the Arts and Culture Commission approve the action to move forward with securing California State Park grant funds and developing a professional services agreement with Romo Studios, LLC for the fabrication and installation of “Hello, I’m Johnny Cash” and to forward this request to the Folsom City Council.
Attachments
1. Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience Masterplan
2. Bureau of Reclamation Letter
3. Hello, I’m Johnny Cash Art Experience Concept
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 1
Johnny Cash Trail Art Experience Masterplan
Can be found at https://folsomcasharttrail.com/the-trail/about
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 2
Bureau of Reclamation Letter
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Attachment 3
Hello, I’m Johnny Cash Art Experience Concept
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Jc
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
12/09/2025 Item No.16.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE: 12/9/2025
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Appointment of At-Large Members to the Folsom Historic District Commission
FROM: City Clerk's Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff requests that the Mayor, with approval from the City Council, appoint at-large members to the Folsom Historic District Commission for two-year terms ending in December 2027.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52 establishes the Folsom Historic District Commission and defines the Committee’s purpose of the Historic District Commission, in part, as to preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere of the Historic District; to encourage an active business climate which promotes the development of a diverse range of businesses compatible with the Historic District; to retain the residential areas within the Historic District; to ensure that new residential and commercial development is consistent with the historical character of the Historic District; and to increase the awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the history of the city.
The Commission is comprised of seven members consisting of one representative who is actively involved with historic preservation, one representative who is a resident of the Historic District, one representative who owns a business within the Sutter Street Subarea, two Planning Commissioners, one representative from a Historic District business outside the Sutter Street Subarea, and one architect, landscape architect, or other design professional with expertise in historic preservation.
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
2 The three current vacant positions are for a representative who is a business owner within the Sutter Street subarea, a resident within the Historic District and an applicant representing the Historical Society / Historic Preservation. The three vacancies were created due to the expiration of each of the existing appointee’s two-year terms ending in December 2025.
A Notice of Vacancy was published in the Folsom Telegraph and in the City’s newsletter, posted on the city’s website and social media pages, and on the bulletin boards located at City Hall. Correspondence was sent to current Historic District Commission members whose terms expire in December 2025 inviting them to submit an application for reappointment.
The City Clerk’s office received three applications. Those applications were provided to the Councilmembers in mid-November for advance review and consideration.
POLICY / RULE
Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.35.030 states that at-large appointments to the Historic District Commission shall expire as follows:
December of even numbered years:
Planning Commission Members (2 appointees)
Representative from a Historic District Business outside the Sutter Street subarea Architect, Landscape architect, or other design profession December of odd-numbered years:
Historic Preservation
Resident of the Historic District
Business Owner within the Sutter Street subarea
Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.52.020 states that the mayor shall appoint each of the members, subject to the approval of the city council.
ANALYSIS
There are currently three vacancies for representatives of the Folsom Historic District Committee consisting of a business owner within the Sutter Street subarea, a resident within the Historic District and an applicant representing the Historical Society / Historic Preservation. Each of the two-year terms will end in December 2027.
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
3 The City has received three applications for the three at-large seats, as shown below. There were no applications received for the Historic Preservation seat. Pending City Council action on December 9, staff may re-open the recruitment to solicit applications for the seat.
Eligible to Represent:
Applicants
Historic
Preservation
Resident of the
Historic District
Business
Owner within
the Sutter
Street subarea
Kathleen Cole (incumbent) X
Lisa Gomez X
Rosa Vais X
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recruitment Packet for Historic District Commission
Respectfully submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
Attachment 1
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
Recruitment Packet for Historic District Commission
The Historic District Commission works to ensure the protection of the historic and cultural character of the city’s Historic District. The commission reviews the design and architecture of new and altered structures within the Historic District. It also reviews applications for sign permits, conditional use permits, variances, land divisions, and land mergers within the Historic District. In addition, the commission advises and makes recommendations to the City Council concerning matters associated with historic landmarks, sites, and structures.
Authority: Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 17.52
Rules of Conduct - Adopted December 2022
View agendas, minutes and webcasts
Positions
Lane, John, Position 1, Historic Preservation
Cole, Kathleen Marie, Position 2, Resident of the Historic District Dascallos, Mark, Position 3, Business Owner Within the Sutter Street Subarea Herrera, Matt, Position 4, Planning Commission Member
West, Daniel, Position 5, Planning Commission Member
Felts, John, Position 6, Representative from a Historic District Business Outside the Sutter Street Subarea
Cabrera, Jennifer, Position 7, Architect, Landscape Architect, or Other Design Professional
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
Applicants Information
Cole, Kathleen Marie
Gomez, Lisa
Vais, Rosa M
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
1/3
Historic District Commission Application
Historic District Commission Seat
Please identify which seat you qualify for:
Representative who is a resident of the Historic District Applicant Information
First Name
Kathleen
Last Name
Cole
Residence Address Line 2
City
Folsom
State
CA
Zip Code
95630
Email
[email protected]
Phone
(916) 606-2039
Employer and Occupation
Retired
Currently Serving on a Commission/Committee?
Yes
If yes, please specify:
Folsom Historic District Commission
Folsom Residency / Registered Voter Verification
Registered to vote?
Yes
Financial Disclosure / Ethics Training
I understand that commission and committee members must file statements disclosing financial information.
Yes
I understand that commission and committee members must complete ethics and harassment training.
Yes
E-Filed
11/14/2025
08:25:02
Filing ID:
12639
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
2/3
Informational Questions
Why do you want to serve on this commission or committee? Response
It has been a privilege to serve on the Folsom Historic District Commission, and I remain deeply committed to preserving the character, vitality, and historic integrity of our beloved district. My continued interest in serving stems from a genuine passion for Historic Folsom and a strong belief in the importance of giving back to my community. I have cultivated meaningful relationships with local businesses, residents, and members of the broader Folsom community. These connections have given me a unique perspective on the district’s evolving needs and the value of inclusive community-driven decision-making. I am eager to build on the work we’ve begun to help guide future projects under the authority established by the city council.
What do you think is (are) the top issue(s) facing this commission or committee? Response
I believe there are two top issues facing the Historic District Commission.The first stems from a recent ruling by a Sacramento County Superior Court judge who opined that all city commissions, including the Planning Commission and Historic District Commission, are no longer final decision bodies for most entitlement applications. All city commission decisions are to be considered advisory only based upon the court's decision. Projects that previously ended with a commission vote must now go through an additional layer of review by the city council. This will delay project approvals, add to already full city council agendas, and require additional staff time and resources. The second priority issue relates to the absence of objective design standardsfor the Folsom Historic District. Without clear, objective criteria, the tools to evaluate projects are limited and subject to interpretation. Without established and published standards, applicants and neighbors have little insight into why certain projects are approved or denied creating unfairness among homeowners and business owners. This erodes trust in the process.
Project approvals based upon objective design standards should result in faster and more efficient approvals for property owners; consistent and predictable preservation of the district’s history and character; and improved communication with stakeholders.
Briefly describe how your experiences qualify you to serve on the commission or committee.
Response
I was first appointed to the Historic District Commission in 2019 and have served continuously since my initial appointment. I was elected chair of the Historic District Commission in 2022 and have served in that role to the present. I approach Commission responsibilities with care, professionalism, and a commitment to a transparent process. I value diverse viewpoints and strive to make decisions that balance historic preservation with progress.
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
3/3
Which commission or committee meetings have you attended? Response
Aside from my attendance at Folsom Historic District Commission meetings, I have attended several Folsom Planning Commission meetings. I also served on the Folsom Water Vision Advisory Committee. I also believe it is important to attend City Council meetings to keep current on broader city issues.
Truth and Accuracy
Signature
Kathleen M. Cole
Signature Date
11/14/2025
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
Signature of Kathleen M. Cole
Dated November 14, 2025
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
1/2
Historic District Commission Application
Historic District Commission Seat
Please identify which seat you qualify for:
Representative who owns a business within the Sutter Street Subarea Applicant Information
First Name
Lisa
Last Name
Gomez
Residence Address Line 2
City
Folsom
State
CA
Zip Code
95630
Email
[email protected]
Phone
(916) 276-1536
Employer and Occupation
Business Owner of The Vine and Property Owner of 609 Sutter St.
Currently Serving on a Commission/Committee?
No
If yes, please specify:
Folsom Residency / Registered Voter Verification
Registered to vote?
Yes
Financial Disclosure / Ethics Training
I understand that commission and committee members must file statements disclosing financial information.
Yes
I understand that commission and committee members must complete ethics and harassment training.
Yes
E-Filed
11/13/2025
14:51:27
Filing ID:
12631
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
2/2
Informational Questions
Why do you want to serve on this commission or committee? Response
I have been a business owner on Sutter St for almost 8yrs and involved in community historic district events. I am now also a property owner in the historic district. I want to ensure that the quaintness, the history and district as a whole stays protected for future generations and keep it protected from modern, trendy architecture and investor & corporate growth.
What do you think is (are) the top issue(s) facing this commission or committee? Response
I think there are several issues from growth, lack of parking, balance of neighborhood resident complaints vs small business survival, homelessness issues, non compliance of construction, etc
Briefly describe how your experiences qualify you to serve on the commission or committee.
Response
I have been a small business owner for over 8yrs and owned multiple restaurants. Prior to that I spent 18 years in corporate. I worked at Hewlett Packard for 8 years working on various committees, from MERT (medical emergency response team), DEI (diversity) and Non-Profit Committees. I worked for 10years as the Vice President of an Event Software company, managing large teams, multi-million dollar budgets, sales, Project development and management of product lifecycles.
Which commission or committee meetings have you attended? Response
a few assorted Historic District hearings, one on the Murrays taproom, the new building at Sutter & Scott, the small business OPEN/Closed signage Truth and Accuracy
Signature
Lisa Gomez
Signature Date
10/30/2025
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
1/2
Historic District Commission Application
Historic District Commission Seat
Please identify which seat you qualify for:
Representative who is a resident of the Historic District Applicant Information
First Name
Rosa
Last Name
Vais
Residence Address Line 2
City
Folsom
State
CA
Zip Code
95630
Email
[email protected]
Phone
(916) 342-0363
Employer and Occupation
Retired
Currently Serving on a Commission/Committee?
No
If yes, please specify:
Folsom Residency / Registered Voter Verification
Registered to vote?
Yes
Financial Disclosure / Ethics Training
I understand that commission and committee members must file statements disclosing financial information.
Yes
I understand that commission and committee members must complete ethics and harassment training.
Yes
E-Filed
10/27/2025
10:48:11
Filing ID:
12591
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
2/2
Informational Questions
Why do you want to serve on this commission or committee? Response
I am interested in serving on this particular committee because I value preserving the integrity of our Historic District; I believe it is the jewel of Folsom. I have been involved with the Historic District Residence Association (HFRA) in the past.
What do you think is (are) the top issue(s) facing this commission or committee? Response
To have our advocacy, voices, concerns truly addressed by planning commission and City leaders.
Briefly describe how your experiences qualify you to serve on the commission or committee.
Response
My successful career as a leader in Corporate Industry has provided me with the critical strategic thinking skills to consider multiple aspects of situations.
I care deeply about the impact of the progressive growth and how it can negatively effect or enhance our Historic District.
Which commission or committee meetings have you attended? Response
I have attended the meetings on ADU's and City Council Meetings, Public Works Committee
Truth and Accuracy
Signature
Rosa Vais
Signature Date
10/27/2025
12/09/2025 Item No.17.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE: 12/9/2025
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11525 – A Resolution Establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee
FROM: City Manager's Office
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 11525 - A Resolution Establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee and provide direction to staff regarding:
1. Assignment of up to two City Councilmembers to the Ad Hoc Committee;
2. Method of identifying and selecting Committee members;
3. Timeline for completing the Committee’s work; and
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The City Charter was adopted on June 5, 1990. On July 11, 2000, the City Council established an Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee (Attachment 2 to this Staff Report) to review the City Charter and make recommendations for potential Charter amendments. Members of the 2000 Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee were:
1. Former Mayor Robert Holderness (Chair);
2. Former Mayor Glenn Fait (Vice Chair);
3. Seven additional voting members (each Councilmember selected one member, and two additional members on the recommendation of City staff);
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
2 4. Then-serving Mayor and City Manager (or their designees) served as non-voting members of the Committee;
5. The City Attorney served as legal advisor to the Committee.
Based on records available in the City Clerk’s Office, then-City Council declined to submit any proposed changes recommended by the 2000 Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee to the voters. A copy of the Staff Report and proposed Ordinance to be submitted to the City’s voters in 2002 is attached as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report.
A need to review the City Charter arose following the recent court decision in Robert Delp v.
City of Folsom where the court agreed with Mr. Delp that a sentence in the City Charter precluded the City Council from granting final approval authority to the Historic District Commission. The proposed Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee can help identify and recommend updates to the City Charter at a future statewide general election.
POLICY / RULE
Section 2.04(G) of the City Charter authorizes the Mayor to establish ad hoc committees, subject to the approval of the City Council, for a term not to exceed one year.
Elections Code Section 9255, Government Code Section 34458(a), and Section 8.01 of the City Charter provide that the City Council may submit to the voters a proposition to amend the City Charter at a statewide general election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the City Charter shall be amended accordingly.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Delp filed suit against the City’s approval of a proposed mixed-use property at 603 Sutter Street. In challenging the project approval, Mr. Delp also challenged City Council’s authority to convey final decision-making authority to the Historic District Commission under Section 4.07 of the City Charter because it contains a sentence that states “All boards and commissions only shall be advisory to the Council”. Section 4.07 of the City Charter states as follows:
4.07 Boards and Commissions:
The City Council may by ordinance create other Boards and Commissions and prescribe their powers and duties, determine the number and qualification of the members, their method of selection, term of office and removal, and fix their compensation, if any. All boards and commissions only shall be advisory to the Council. Each member of any Board or Commission shall be a resident and registered voter of the City.
Trial court issued a final ruling on October 31, 2025, granting Mr. Delp’s challenge and disapproved City Council actions granting final decision-making authority to the Historic District Commission. Prior to the court decision, the Historic District Commission exercised final
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
3 decision-making authority on matters such as design review, variance, use permit, and sign permit, subject to appeal to the City Council.
Since the Charter was last reviewed by an ad hoc committee in 2000, the recent court ruling presents an opportunity to have an ad hoc committee review the entire City Charter and make recommendations to the City Council on any updates and adjustments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact is negligible. Sufficient funds exist in the City’s General Fund to cover expenses related to ad hoc committee meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) – the common sense rule of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the proposed creating of an Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee has no potential to cause significant effects on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 11525 - A Resolution Establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee
2. Resolution No. 6331 – A Resolution Establishing The Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee (2000)
3. Ordinance No. 946 – An Ordinance Submitting Amendments to Sections 2.04(G),
2.08(B)(4), 2.09, 3.02, 3.03(E), 4.01(B), 5.04(A)(2), 5.05(G), 5.05(K), 5.08(C), 9.02,
9.03(C) of the Charter of the City of Folsom to a Vote of the Electorate at the General Municipal Election on March 5, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
BRYAN WHITEMYER
City Manager
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
Attachment 1
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
Resolution No. 11525
RESOLUTION NO. 11525
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE
2026 AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Charter was adopted on June 5, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 6331 in 1990 and established an Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee; and,
WHEREAS, none of the recommendations made by the 1990 Ad Hoc Charter Advisory Committee was submitted to the voters; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires a comprehensive review of the City Charter by a new ad hoc committee; and,
WHEREAS, Section 2.04(G) of the City Charter authorizes the Mayor to establish ad hoc committees, subject to approval of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that the Mayor is hereby authorized to establish the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee in the following manner:
1. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee shall be comprised of:
A. Councilmembers: [to be determined]
B. One appointee by each Councilmember [to be determined] C. Two appointees recommended by City staff [to be determined] D. The Mayor and the City Manager shall serve as non-voting members of the Committee
E. The City Attorney shall serve as legal advisor to the Committee
2. The Committee is established for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of this Resolution.
3. Each member of the Committee shall have one vote, and the decisions of the Committee shall be made by majority vote.
4. Committee members at the first meeting shall choose a Chair and a Vice Chair.
5. The City Manager may assign staff resources to provide administrative support and subject matter expert services to the Committee.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
Resolution No. 11525
6. The Committee is tasked to conduct a comprehensive review of the City Charter and recommend appropriate updates and changes to the City Council.
7. The Committee will submit a report and recommendations to the City Council no later than 12 months from the first Committee meeting.
8. The meetings of the Committee shall be held at least monthly and shall be established at a regular time. The date and times of such meetings shall be noticed as required by the Brown Act, and the public shall be encouraged to participate.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 9th day of December, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
Attachment 2
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
Attachment 3
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
12/09/2025 Item No.18.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE: 12/9/2025
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11526 – A Resolution Establishing the 2026 American River Canyon School District Boundary Ad Hoc
Committee
FROM: City Manager's Office
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 11526 - A Resolution Establishing the 2026 American River Canyon School District Boundary Ad Hoc Committee and provide direction to staff regarding:
1. Assignment of up to two City Councilmembers to the Ad Hoc Committee;
2. Method of identifying and selecting Committee members;
3. Timeline for completing the Committee’s work; and
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) serves all transitional-kindergarten through 12 grade students (TK-12) in the City of Folsom through its extensive educational programs and facilities. FCUSD’s services to Folsom students extend into the American River Canyon neighborhood of the City, which is not officially within the FCUSD jurisdictional boundaries. Instead, the American River Canyon neighborhood falls within the San Juan Unified School District (SJUSD) jurisdictional boundaries.
Through agreement between FCUSD and SJUSD, students residing in the American River Canyon neighborhood have been permitted to attend FCUSD schools instead of schools operated and managed by SJUSD.
12/09/2025 Item No.19.
2 POLICY / RULE
Section 2.04(G) of the City Charter authorizes the Mayor to establish ad hoc committees, subject to the approval of the City Council, for a term not to exceed one year.
ANALYSIS
Students residing in the American River Canyon neighborhood of the City have been permitted to attend FCUSD schools for many years, including transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, elementary school, and high school. Over the years parents of these students have voiced a desire to have their children continue attending FCUSD schools as a matter of right and not with permission from the SJUSD.
The City Council desires to form an ad hoc committee to review of the jurisdictional boundaries of FCUSD and SJUSD to determine whether adjustments should be made to formally incorporate the American River Canyon neighborhood into the FCUSD boundary.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact is negligible. Sufficient funds exist in the City’s General Fund to cover expenses related to ad hoc committee meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) – the common sense rule of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the proposed creating of an Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee has no potential to cause significant effects on the environment.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution 11526 - A Resolution Establishing the 2026 American River Canyon School District Boundary Ad Hoc Committee
Respectfully submitted,
BRYAN WHITEMYER
City Manager
12/09/2025 Item No.19.
Attachment 1
12/09/2025 Item No.19.
Resolution No. 11526
RESOLUTION NO. 11526
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE
2026 AMERICAN RIVER CANYON SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
AD HOC COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) provides excellent educational programs and facilities for transitional-kindergarten through 12 grade students (TK12) in the cities of Folsom and Rancho Cordova; and, WHEREAS, while the jurisdictional boundary of FCUSD does not formally extend into the American River Canyon area of the City, through agreement with the San Juan Unified School District (SJUSD), Folsom students living in the American River Canyon neighborhood have been permitted to attend FCUSD schools instead of schools operated and managed by SJUSD; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires a comprehensive review of the jurisdictional boundaries of FCUSD and SJUSD to determine whether adjustments should be made to formally incorporate the American River Canyon neighborhood into the FCUSD boundary; and, WHEREAS, Section 2.04(G) of the City Charter authorizes the Mayor to establish ad hoc committees, subject to approval of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that the Mayor is hereby authorized to establish the 2026 American River Canyon School District Boundary Ad Hoc Committee in the following manner:
1. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee shall be comprised of:
A. Councilmembers: [to be determined]
B. One appointee by each Councilmember [to be determined] C. Parents of students living in the American River Canyon neighborhood of the City [to be determined]
2. The Committee is established for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of this Resolution.
3. Each member of the Committee shall have one vote, and the decisions of the Committee shall be made by majority vote.
4. Committee members at the first meeting shall choose a Chair and a Vice Chair.
5. The City Manager may assign staff resources to provide administrative support and subject matter expert services to the Committee.
12/09/2025 Item No.19.
Resolution No. 11526
6. The Committee is tasked to conduct a comprehensive review of the jurisdictional boundaries of FCUSD and SJUSD and make recommendations to the City Council whether adjustments should be made to formally incorporate the American River Canyon neighborhood into the FCUSD boundary.
7. The Committee will submit a report and recommendations to the City Council no later than 12 months from the first Committee meeting.
8. The meetings of the Committee shall be held at least monthly and shall be established at a regular time. The date and times of such meetings shall be noticed as required by the Brown Act, and the public shall be encouraged to participate.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 9th day of December, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
12/09/2025 Item No.19.
This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.
12/09/2025 Item No.19.
Folsom City Council
Staff Report
1 MEETING DATE: 12/9/2025
AGENDA SECTION: New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11512 - A Resolution Approving a Minor Administrative Modification Request from Folsom Cordova Unified School District to Modify Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Residential Unit Allocations for Designated Parcels, to Accommodate the Relocation of a Planned Middle School Site to a Location Adjacent to a High School Site FROM: Community Development Department
RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt Resolution No. 11512 - A Resolution Approving a Minor Administrative Modification Request from the Folsom Cordova Unified School District to Modify Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Residential Unit Allocations for Designated Parcels, to Accommodate the Relocation of a Planned Middle School Site to a Location Adjacent to a High School Site.
BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP or Plan Area) is a comprehensively planned community that includes a mix of residential, commercial, employment, and public uses, with a projected population of over 31,000 at full buildout. The Plan Area is within the boundaries of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD). Based on student generation factors for each type of residential unit expected in the Plan Area, FCUSD estimated that four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school would be needed to support students in the Plan Area. Accordingly, the FPASP identifies sites for several elementary schools, a middle school and a high school in Figure 11.1 – Public Services & Facilities (refer to Attachment 2). As of the writing of this report, two elementary schools, Mangini Ranch and Alder Creek, have been built in the eastern portion of the Plan Area.
12/09/2025 Item No.20.
2 On July 18, 2025, the City of Folsom received an application from the FCUSD for a Minor Administrative Modification (MAM) to the Plan Area. The FCUSD is making this request because they wish to relocate the planned middle school site to a location adjacent to the planned high school site to create a combined campus. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed middle school sites is below:
FIGURE 1: EXISTING AND PROPOSED MIDDLE SCHOOL SITES
FCUSD states that the project vision for a combined high school/middle school includes:
Providing seamless transitions through middle and high school (a critical issue for student success).
Improving communication for staff and articulation of instruction across grade levels. Sharing facilities otherwise unavailable to middle school students. Maintaining a safe and cohesive campus for studies.
Separate schools with individual identities, while benefitting from shared resources and facilities.
Meet the District’s goal to deliver a timely and cost-efficient school complex.
A preliminary site plan showing a combined campus prepared for FCUSD is included with this report as Attachment 3 and the Project Cover Letter and Narrative are included as Attachment 4.
12/09/2025 Item No.20.
3 This request requires a change to Specific Plan Land Use Designations for the two subject sites and a Transfer of Development Rights between FPASP Parcels, both of which can be accommodated through a MAM for public/quasi-public uses. Specific changes are as follows:
The existing Middle School site (FPASP Parcel 165A-1, 22.21 acres) would be changed from a PQP (Public/Quasi-Public) to SFHD (Single Family High Density) Land Use Designation.
The proposed Middle School site (FPASP Parcel 17B, 15.68 acres) would be changed from a SFHD Land Use Designation to a split of 11.75 acres of PQP and 3.93 acres of SFHD Land Use Designations.
85 Residential Dwelling Units allocated to FPASP Parcel 17B, and 4 Residential Dwelling Units allocated to FPASP Parcel 12, would be transferred to FPASP Parcel 165A-1 to retain consistency with land use residential density requirements.
After internal review, staff determined that the MAM request, while usually considered at a staff level, was a decision best made in a public forum by the City Council. This is because the Specific Plan is now home to residents who may wish to provide input to both the City Council and FCUSD on the proposed relocation.
POLICY / RULE
As set forth in Section 13.3 (Administrative Procedures) of the FPASP, Minor Administrative Modifications (MAMs) to the FPASP that are consistent with and do not substantially change its overall intent, such as minor adjustments to the land use locations and parcel boundaries shown in Figure 4.2 - Specific Plan Land Use and Figure 4.3 - Plan Area Parcels and the land use acreages shown in Table 4.2 – Land Use Summary may be approved administratively by the City of Folsom Community Development Department, provided the following criteria are met:
• The proposed modification is within the Plan Area.
• The modification does not reduce the size of the proposed town center. • The modification retains compliance with City Charter Article 7.08, previously known as Measure W.
• The general land use pattern remains consistent with the intent and spirit of the FPASP.
• The proposed changes do not substantially alter the backbone infrastructure network. • The proposed modification offers equal or superior improvements to development capacity or standards.
• The proposed modification does not increase environmental impacts beyond those identified in the EIR/EIS.
12/09/2025 Item No.20.
4 • Relocated park or school parcels continue to meet the standards for the type of park or school proposed.
• Relocated park or school parcels remain within walking distance of the residents they serve.
Further, Section 13.3 allows for the transfer of residential unit allocations and commercial, industrial/office park and the commercial portions of mixed use building area allocations shall be allowed as a minor administrative modification. The city shall approve residential dwelling unit allocation transfers or density adjustments between any Plan Area residential land use parcel or parcels, provided the following conditions are met:
• The transferor and transferee parcel or parcels are located within the Plan Area and are designated for residential use.
• The transferor and transferee parcel or parcels conform to all applicable development standards contained in Appendix A of the FPASP.
• The transfer of units does not result in increased impacts beyond those identified in the FPASP EIR/ EIS.
• The transfer of units does not adversely impact planned infrastructure, roadways, schools or other public facilities; affordable housing agreements; or fee programs and assessment districts; unless such impacts are reduced to an acceptable level through project-specific mitigation measures.
Related to this specific case, Policy 4.24 of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (FPASP) states that all Public/Quasi-Public sites shown in Figure 4.2 – Specific Plan Land Use may be relocated or abandoned as a minor administrative modification of the FPASP. The land use designation of the vacated site or sites will revert to the lowest density adjacent residential land use. In no event shall the maximum number of Plan Area dwelling units and the total commercial building area allocated in this Specific Plan be exceeded.
Finally, Section 13.3 of the FPASP also allows the Community Development Department to defer review or action on any item, including a MAM, to the City Planning Commission and/or the City Council.
ANALYSIS
Staff of the Community Development Department reviewed the MAM request and have determined that the requested relocation meets all applicable Plan Area policies and the required MAM findings.
Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Policy Conformance
12/09/2025 Item No.20.
5 Land use policies for the Plan Area are found in Chapter 4 – Land Use and public services policies are found in Chapter 11 – Public Services and Facilities. In general, the FPASP expects that schools will be sited near residential neighborhoods and accommodate the needs of Plan Area residents.
FPASP Policy 4.22 specifically states that:
Land shall be reserved for schools as required by the City of Folsom and the Folsom Cordova Unified School District in accordance with state law. School sites shall be in the general locations shown in Figure 4.2 Specific Plan Land Use and have comparable acreages as established in Table 4.2 - Land Use Summary.
Policy 11.1 further states that:
Public schools will be constructed in the Plan Area in accordance with the Folsom City Charter and state law.
As discussed in more detail in the Required Minor Administrative Modifications section of this report, the proposed relocation is consistent with Plan Area policies in that the middle school remains near residential neighborhoods and because FCUSD will provide campus facilities that meet state law, the needs of Plan Area residents. and that will not burden Folsom residents outside of the Plan Area financially. Further, Figure 4.2, Table 4.2, and Table 11.4 as well as Figure 11.1 – Public Services & Facilities as shown in Attachment 2, will be updated to reflect the revised land use designations and summary. The discussions of both the middle school and high school Section 11 of the FPASP will need to be updated as well.
Required Minor Administrative Modification Finding
Staff have reviewed the requested relocation against the findings required for approval of MAMs to the FPASP and provide the following analyses:
Finding: The proposed modification is within the Plan Area.
Analysis: Met. All affected properties are within the Plan Area.
Finding: The modification does not reduce the size of the proposed town center.
Analysis: Met. The requested modification does not affect the town center.
Finding: The modification retains compliance with City Charter Article 7.08, previously known as Measure W.
Analysis: Met. The requested modification does not affect the Water Supply Agreement, the Infrastructure Funding and Phasing Plan, or any Open Space areas required or protected under Measure W. Further, the Folsom Cordova Unified School District approves of the proposed relocation of the middle school site and consolidation with the proposed high school site.
12/09/2025 Item No.20.
6 Finding: The general land use pattern remains consistent with the intent and spirit of the FPASP.
Analysis: Met. The proposed change results in both the middle and high school sites being in the southwest quarter of the Plan Area, while the central portion of the Plan Area becomes more residential. This does shift the overall land use pattern of the Plan Area, reducing the intermingling of land uses to a degree. However, consolidation of the middle and high school sites and a residential central area are consistent with the Plan Area land use pattern first approved in 2011, which planned for a combined high school and middle school site in a portion of the area now occupied by the Regency at Toll project. At the request of FCUSD, the city approved a MAM in 2017 to split the high school and middle school sites and relocate them. The current request returns to the more efficient combined campus plan, which has reduced the necessary acreage for the middle school from 22 acres to less than 12 acres and restores the residential land use planned for the central area. Finally, with the transfer of development rights requested with this MAM, the number of dwelling units remains the same.
Finding: The proposed changes do not substantially alter the backbone infrastructure network.
Analysis: Met. At the city’s request, FCUSD contracted with Kimley Horn for an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Study to review any potential impacts to Plan Area intersections or roadways. The ICE Study confirmed that the intersection and roadway improvements already required for Specific Plan buildout would support the shift in traffic to the new combined middle school and high school site. See Attachment 5 for the ICE Analysis. All other backbone infrastructure (sewer, water, dry utilities) is unaffected by the relocation.
Therefore, no alterations to the backbone infrastructure network are required.
Finding: The proposed modification offers equal or superior improvements to development capacity or standards.
Analysis: Met. As stated earlier in this report, consolidation of the middle and high school sites and a residential central area are consistent with the Plan Area land use pattern first approved in 2011. This request returns to the more efficient combined school campus plan, which has reduced the necessary acreage for the middle school from 22 acres to less than 12 acres and restores the residential land use planned for the central area.
Finding: The proposed modification does not increase environmental impacts beyond those identified in the EIR/EIS.
Analysis: Met. At the city’s request, FCUSD contracted with Kimley Horn for a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis to confirm that the relocation would not result in an increase in VMT and thus a need for further environmental review under CEQA. For background, Senate Bill 743 (2013) changed the focus of