Agenda packet — Folsom City Council, January 13, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 146 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 147 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 148 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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 nexus- based 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

Page 149 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 150 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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 Market-
Rate 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)

Page 151 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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

Page 152 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 153 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 154 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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 mixed- income 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, for- sale 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

Page 155 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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 land- based 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-housing- ordinance/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

Page 156 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 157 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

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.

Page 158 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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 in- lieu 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.

Page 159 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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 that increase 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 nexus- based 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

Page 160 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 161 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 49 Policy and Implementation Considerations

5. Policy and Implementation Considerations
Maximum/Recommended Fee Levels
The City may choose to establish impact fees 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 impact fees 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

Page 162 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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).

Page 163 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

Page 164 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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

Page 165 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025 A-1Page 166
01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

A-2
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 167 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

A-3
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 168 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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
A-4
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 169 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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, der
ived from Sacramento Municipal Utility District
w
ebsite.
[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 F
olsom 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.

A-5
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 170 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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
A-6
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 171 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

A-7
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 172 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 1 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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 A-8
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 173 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 2 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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 Vehi
cle 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 Medi
cal 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 Medi
cal 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 A-9
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 174 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 3 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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, pers
onal/ 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.

A-10
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 175 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 1 of 3 ends

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]
Medium-
Density 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 Low-
Density 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 A-11
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 176 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 2 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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 Vehi
cle 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 Medi
cal 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 A-12
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 177 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 3 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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, pers
onal/ 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.

A-13
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 178 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 1 of 3 ends

Table A-10
City of Folsom
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee and Nexus Study
Household Expenditures and Employment Generation - Prototype 3 Item
House
hold
Income
Spent per
Category
[1]
Category
Expenditur
e per Type
of Business
[2]
Medium-
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
Expenditur
e Survey
2023 EPS
Min HH
Income to
Afford Low-
Density 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
A-14
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 179 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 2 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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 Vehi
cle 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 Medi
cal 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 Medi
cal 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
A-15
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 180 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 3 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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, pers
onal/ 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
A-16
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 181 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 1 of 3 ends

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]
Medium-
Density 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 Low-
Density 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 A-17
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 182 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 2 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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 Vehi
cle 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 Medi
cal 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 Medi
cal 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 A-18
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 183 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 3 of 3 ends

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 Low-
Density 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, pers
onal/ 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.

A-19
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 184 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

A-20
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 185 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

DRAFT
A-21
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 186 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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
A-22
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 187 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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
A-23
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 188 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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 Educat
ion 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.

A-24
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 189 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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
Cos
t 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 dol
lars, and conversations with the BIA.

A-25P repared by EP S 10/ 20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 190 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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
Co
st 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

A-26P repared by EP S 10/ 20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 191 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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
Co
st 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.

A-27P repared by EP S 10/ 20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 192 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 1 of 2 ends

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
A-28
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 193 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 2 of 2 ends

A-29
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 194 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 1 of 3 ends

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
A-30
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 195 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 2 of 3 ends

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 A-31
Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025

Page 196 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

DRAFT

Page 3 of 3 ends

Prepared by EPS 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025 A-32

Page 197 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

Appendix B: Assumptions and Sources
Table B-1 Assumptions and Sources .............................................................................................. B-1 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

CITY OF FOLSOM INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM STUDY

Page 198 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

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.

B-1Prepared by EP S 10/20/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\252000\252017 Folsom Inclusionary\Model\252017 AH Impact Fee Nexus Study m1 10-16-2025Page 199 01/13/2026 Item No.14.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 200 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.14.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

1/13/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Old Business
SUBJECT: Castle Park – Play Structure Replacement Project:

i. Resolution No. 11537 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with
Granite Construction, Inc. for Concrete Pavement Work for the Castle Park - Play Structure Replacement Project
(PK2501) for a Not to Exceed Amount of $72,356 and
Appropriation of Measure A Funds (Fund 276) in the
Amount of $79,592 Including 10% Contingency

ii. Resolution No. 11538 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with KYA
for Site Work for the Castle Park - Play Structure
Replacement Project (PK2501) For a Not to Exceed
Amount of $308,309 from the Parks and Recreation
Equipment and Capital Fund (Fund 609) in the Amount of
$257,755, and Appropriation of Measure A Funds (Fund
276) in the Amount of $55,609 for a Total Budgeted
Amount of $313,364 Including a 10% Contingency for the
Measure A Portion

FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL ACTION
The Parks & Recreation Department recommends that the City Council approve the following resolutions:

Castle Park – Play Structure Replacement Project:

i. Resolution No. 11537 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Granite Construction, Inc. for Concrete Pavement work for the Castle Park - Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501) for a Not to Exceed

Page 201 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.
2 Amount of $72,356 and Appropriation of Measure A Funds (Fund 276) in the Amount of $79,592 Including 10% Contingency

ii. Resolution No. 11538 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with KYA for Site Work for the Castle Park - Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501) For a Not to Exceed Amount of $308,309 from the Parks and Recreation Equipment and Capital Fund (Fund 609) in the Amount of $257,755, and Appropriation of Measure A Funds (Fund 276) in the Amount of $55,609 for a Total Budgeted Amount of $313,364 Including a 10% Contingency for the Measure A Portion

BACKGROUND
Castle Park is located at 201 Prewett Drive, south of Oak Chan Elementary School in the Willow Creek Estates South neighborhood. The park is 2.1 acres and is home to a beloved castle-themed wooden playground designed by Robert Leathers and built by the community in 1996. The almost 30-year-old wooden play structures reached the end of their useful life and without replacement parts available, the City decided to rebuild the play structures.

Staff publicly advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the playground design in April 2025.

A total of four proposals were received and reviewed by staff from the Parks & Recreation Department. Following a comprehensive evaluation process, staff recommended awarding the Kids Play Park Renovation Project playground design contract to Leathers & Associates. On May 27, 2025, Resolution No. 11389 was presented to the City Council to award the contract, and as a condition of approval, the Council directed staff to change the construction method to a community build to help with costs and complete the project in a faster timeline. Leathers & Associates revised their scope and fee. On October 10, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11469 to rescind Resolution No. 11389 and award the design contract to Leathers & Associates under a community-build format. Subsequently, on November 12, 2025, the City Council approved three resolutions as follows:

 Resolution No. 11497 to change the park name to Castle Park  Resolution No. 11498 to execute an agreement with Leathers & Associates for procuring play structure materials
 Resolution No. 11499 to execute an agreement with Playground Plastics for additional playground materials

As the project continues to progress, staff have solicited interest from various contractors and vendors willing to participate in the project. Staff believe that the project will be best served by having certain items of work, including general site grading and ADA sidewalk and concrete work, completed by licensed contractors in advance of the community-built general playground construction and assembly.

POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Chapter 2.36.120 of the Folsom Municipal Code, contracts for supplie s, equipment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $75,049 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.

Page 202 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.
3 In accordance with Chapter 2.36.170 of the Folsom Municipal Code, the purchasing agent may enter into cooperative purchasing agreements with other public procurement units without following Sections 2.36.080, 2.36.090, and 2.36.100. These agreements can include joint or multiparty contracts or state contracts extended to the city.

Public Contract Code (PCC) § 10298 and 10299 authorizes local government agencies and school districts to use CMAS and other Department of General Services (DGS) agreements without competitive bidding.

In accordance with Chapter 2.36.1 40 of the Folsom Municipal Code, sole-source contracts are allowed if the department has surveyed available sources to determine whether there is only 1 source for the required supply, equipment, service, or construction item.

ANALYSIS
The site work for the Castle Park – Play Structure Replacement Project includes clearing and grading the play areas in preparation for the community-build; replacing concrete pavement to meet ADA standards; installing poured-in-place safety surfacing and engineered wood fiber; constructing a brick donor wall with a park dedication plaque; installing new site furnishings such as a drinking fountain, benches, trash receptacles, picnic tables, and a bike rack; adjusting existing irrigation and stubbing out potable water and electrical service for a future restroom; and replacing damage irrigation and turf (Attachment 3).

To keep the project within the $800,000 allocation from the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609), City staff evaluated multiple approaches to completing the required site work. These included soliciting donations of labor or materials from local contractors, solicitation of volunteers and vendors, partnering with a non-profit, dividing the work among different contractors, and utilizing California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) cooperative purchasing.

Among the multiple contractors that staff have spoken to about partnering with the city on this project, Granite Construction, Inc. expressed an interest in completing the concrete pavement portion of the work. Granite provided an estimate of $144,712, excluding markup, and have generously agreed to donate half of this amount and perform the work at a cost to the City of $72,356 (Attachment 4). In addition, staff is requesting appropriation of Measure A Fund (Fund 276) resources to fund this work, thereby offsetting impacts to the General Fund. Use of Measure A funds is appropriate, as the concrete improvements directly support park accessibility, safety, and ADA compliance.

While staff continues to coordinate with other local contractors for their participation on the project, both in advance of the community build and in conjunction with it, in order to keep the project schedule moving forward, staff consulted with KYA for the remaining site work including poured-in-place safety surfacing, site grading, and fibar installation, they provided an estimate totaling $308,309 (Attachment 5). KYA is a qualified CMAS construction vendor, and staff recommend awarding a construction agreement to KYA through CMAS. The city has successfully used CMAS for various past projects, including the HVAC replacement at 405 Natoma Station, carpet replacement at the Folsom Public Library, installation of the Citywide Access Control System, and the purchase of vehicles and construction equipment.

Page 203 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.
4 Cooperative purchasing enables public agencies to leverage collective buying power, resulting in cost savings, efficiency, and a streamlined procurement process. Contractors must offer to provide products and/or services at prices based on an existing GSA schedule, or “base” contract.

The State of California adds standard contract terms and conditions and procurement codes, policies, and guidelines, which result in the award of a CMAS, an independent California agreement for the same products and services at equal or lower prices.

A standard public bid typically takes three to six months to complete, requiring preparation of bid documents, public advertisement, a formal bid period, bid review, City Council award, and contract execution before construction can begin. In contrast, procurement through a CMAS vendor can generally be completed in two to six weeks. Because CMAS contractors are pre- approved by the California DGS, the City can obtain proposals directly, negotiate scope and pricing, and proceed with approval and contract execution without formal advertising or competitive bid opening. This streamlined approach enables faster project delivery while maintaining compliance with state procurement standards, which is critical to keeping Castle Park’s accelerated schedule on track and meeting the April 2026 opening date.

Portions of KYA’s scope of work are also eligible for funding through Measure A. This includes grading, backfilling, and aggregate base preparation required prior to concrete placement, which is not included in Granite’s scope. Staff is requesting appropriation of Measure A funds for this work to further offset impacts to the General Fund. The current estimated project costs are summarized as follows:

Castle Park Estimated Project
Design
Leathers & Associates $111,569
Civil, Geotechnical, Survey,
Playground Certification, and
Community Workshops $47,266
Design Subtotal $158,835

Materials
Leathers & Associates $85,510
Playground Plastics $293,268
Additional Materials $660
Materials Subtotal $379,438

Construction
*KYA $308,309
*Granite Construction $72,356
Site Landscaping $40,000

Page 204 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.
5 Brick Donor Wall with a
Dedication Plaque $20,000
Community Build Support $10,000
*Construction Contingency $12,291
Construction Subtotal $462,169

Project Total $1,001,229
*Indicate contracts being considered.

The current proposed project funding breakdown is summarized as follows:

Castle Park Estimated Project Costs by Funding Source
Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609) $716,063 Measure A Fund (276) $135,201
Folsom Kids Play - For Generations/Donations $149,965
Total $1,001,229

Of the $800,000 allocated from the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609), $534,613 has been spent or encumbered, leaving a remaining balance of $265,387. Fundraising efforts by Folsom Kids Play-For Generations have been an integral part of the project’s funding strategy and were always intended to help offset impacts to the General Fund, as reflected in the table above. At this time, staff is not requesting any additional appropriation of funds from the General Fund into Fund 609; however, should the full fundraising amount not be realized, staff may return at a later date to request an additional appropriation to be transferred to the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609) to fund the remaining items of work noted in the table above.

The project total includes additional costs related to new elements that were either not fully anticipated during initial budgeting or increased in scope as community priorities became clearer and the project design was finalized. These elements include:

 the poured-in-place playground safety surfacing - $99,965  the brick donor wall and dedication plaque - $20,000
 site landscaping work - $40,000
 installation of utility stubs for the future restroom - $19,885

Early in the process, staff identified using wood fiber instead of the poured-in-place playground safety surfacing as a potential scope reduction due to its cost; however, following meetings with community members and after Folsom Kids Play - For Generations advocated for its inclusion and emphasized their intent to raise funds to support it, this element was retained because of its importance to the community. In addition, the brick donor wall and dedication plaque were added to the project at the request of Folsom Kids Play - For Generations as a way to support fundraising efforts for the project. Additional site landscaping was added in part to address the impacts to the existing landscaping associated with grading and sidewalk reconstruction through the park to establish an ADA-compliant path. Utility stubs for a future restroom were added

Page 205 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.
6 midway through the project, providing a long-term benefit but not included in the original design.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Castle Park – Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501) is included in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Plan with a project budget of $800,000 in the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609). If approved, the contract with Granite Construction, Inc. would be authorized for $72,356 with the work budgeted for $79, 592 to include a 10% contingency, funded by Measure A Fund (Fund 276).

The contract with KYA would be authorized for $308,309, with the work budgeted for $313,364 to include a 10% contingency on the portion of work funded through the Measure A Fund (Fund 276). The KYA contract funding will be $55,609 funded by Measure A Fund (Fund 276), and $257,755 funded by the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609). Sufficient funds are budgeted and available within the Parks & Recreation Equipment/Capital Fund (Fund 609) for this work.

Staff is requesting appropriation of $1 35,201 from the Measure A Fund (Fund 276) to cover the concrete pavement and associated work. This amount includes the Granite Construction, Inc. quote with a 10% contingency for $79,592, as well as the portion of KYA’s quote related to the concrete pavement work for $55,609. There are sufficient funds available in Fund 276 for this appropriation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, replacing an existing playground is exempt from environmental review since the project involves minor alterations to an existing public facility with negligible or no expansion of use.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11537 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Granite Construction, Inc. for Concrete Pavement Work for the Castle Park - Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501) for a Not to Exceed Amount of $72,356 and Appropriation of Measure A Funds (Fund 276) in the Amount of $79,592 Including 10% Contingency

2. Resolution No. 11538 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with KYA for Site Work for the Castle Park - Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501) For a Not to Exceed Amount of $308,309 from the Parks and Recreation Equipment and Capital Fund (Fund 609) in the Amount of $257,755, and Appropriation of Measure A Funds (Fund 276) in the Amount of $55,609 for a Total Budgeted Amount of $313,364 Including a 10% Contingency for the Measure A Portion

3. Layout Plan showing the Site Work

4. Quote from Granite Construction, Inc.

Page 206 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.
7 5. CMAS quote from KYA

Respectfully Submitted,

Kelly Gonzalez, Parks & Recreation Director

Page 207 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 1

Page 208 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11537

Page 1 of 1 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11537

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH GRANITE CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR

CONCRETE PAVEMENT WORK FOR THE CASTLE PARK - PLAY STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PK2501) FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $72,356 AND AN APPROPRIATION OF MEASURE A FUNDS (FUND 276) IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,592 INCLUDING 10% CONTINGENCY

WHEREAS, the scope of work for this agreement includes replacing concrete pavement to meet ADA standards; and

WHEREAS, Granite Construction provided an estimate for the work totaling $144,712; and

WHEREAS, Granite Construction has agreed to donate half of this cost and perform the work for a cost to the City of $72,356; and

WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of $79,592 in the Measure A Fund (Fund 276) will be required for the agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a construction agreement with Granite Construction, Inc. for concrete pavement work for the Castle Park Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501) in the amount of $72,356 , with the budgeted amount to include a 10% contingency of $7,236, for a not to exceed amount of $79,592.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $79,592 in the Measure A Fund (Fund 276) for the Castle Park Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of January, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 209 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 2

Page 210 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11538

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11538

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH KYA FOR SITE WORK FOR THE CASTLE PARK - PLAY STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PK2501) FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $308,309 FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION EQUIPMENT AND CAPITAL FUND (FUND 609) IN THE AMOUNT OF $257,755, AND APPROPRIATION OF MEASURE A FUNDS (FUND 276) IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,609 FOR A TOTAL BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $313,364 INCLUDING A 10%

CONTINGENCY FOR THE MEASURE A PORTION

WHEREAS, the Parks & Recreation Department is utilizing California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) cooperative purchasing for this scope of work; and

WHEREAS, cooperative purchasing enables public agencies to leverage collective buying power, resulting in cost savings, efficiency, and a streamlined procurement process; and

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom has successfully used CMAS for various past projects ; and

WHEREAS, KYA is a qualified certified CMAS vendor; and

WHEREAS, the agreement is for a total not-to-exceed cost of 308,309; and

WHEREAS, $257,755 is budgeted and available in the Parks and Recreation Equipment and Capital Fund (Fund 609); and

WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of $55,609 in the Measure A Fund (Fund 276) is required for the agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a construction agreement with KYA for site work for the Castle Park - Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501) in the amount of $ 308,309, with the budgeted amount to include a contingency of $5,055, f or a not to exceed amount of $313,364.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $ 55,609 in the Measure A Fund (Fund 276) for the Castle Park Play Structure Replacement Project (PK2501).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of January 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

Page 211 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11538

Page 2 of 2 ends

__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 212 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 3

Page 213 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.
32"(2X8)32"(2X8)
32"(2X8)32"(2X8)

65.5"(2X8)65.5"(2X8)
32"(2X8)32"(2X8)
32"(2X8)32"(2X8)
32"(2X8)32"(2X8)

65.5"(2X8)65.5"(2X8)
7 3
8 10
119
8 13
13 10 89101112
76 45
76543
9 14
3 12
6 G
G

STRUCTURE
FALL HEIGHT 7'77"(2X8)77"(2X8)

65.5"(2X8)65.5"(2X8)
789
8 11
T7T6T5T4
T13T3
T13
T8T9T10T11T12
T14
T11
T9T10
T8T7T6
T12
T4
T3
T3
+14" +14"
+14"
+14"
54 G
G
G
G
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
G
E
E
G
G
EE
E
3 3
6 T3
65 349 10
6 6
+22"
T3
3 345
8 6
13 11129876 13
4 10
4 3
3 +11"
3 G
E
E
E
E
E
GG
GG
G
E
G
G
G
G
G
FALL HEIGHT 6'
T8T8
T5T5T4T4
13 3 10
8 8
7 13
7 BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME231 Vernon StreetTel 916.341.7760Fax 916.341.7767Roseville, CA 95678

Page 214 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 4

Page 215 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Castle Park – Playground Replacement Project
Folsom, California QUOTE
Granite Construction, Inc. Date: 12/15/2025

Qty Description Unit price Line total
1 Placement of the concrete curb and sidewalk, including the cost of material s $144,712 $144,712
1 Donation of labor ($72,356) ($72,356)

Total $72,356

*This cost does not include markup. This cost covers forming, pouring, stripping and required reinforcement. The cost does not include any grading, backfilling or aggregate needed prior to placement of the concrete work.

Page 216 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 5

Page 217 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Budget and Scope Sheet

Date: 12/18/2025

Prepared for – City Of Folsom
Castle Park Modernization

Demo & Grade Remaining Fibar (in play areas) $ 37,622.29

• Includes off-haul of existing fibar (9915 SF)
• Includes rough grading of existing area before installation of drain rock and base to meet 15” for EWF installation
Furnish & Install 2” Drain Rock (in play areas) $ 45,646.01

• In fibar area (9915 SF)
• Includes fine grading to tolerances for drainage & fibar, drain rock, and filter fabric Excavate Existing Contaminated Base Rock (walkways) $ 17,119.34

• Includes off-haul of the existing material (5250 SF)
• Includes rough grading for new base rock to be placed as per plans Furnish & Install New Class ll Aggregate Base (walkways) $ 18,810.51

• Includes hauling all material needed to site to prep (5250 SF) • Includes placing and fine grading class ll base rock to city std. plans and specifications Water Line & Electrical Conduit Trenching $ 19,884.95

• Includes trenching for items mentioned above
• Includes pull electrical conduit 2” with pull wire for future use • Includes Water line stub up for placement of OFCI water fountain

Page 218 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Budget and Scope Sheet

Rat Slab Curb For PIP (where pip and ewf meet) $ 22,771.27

• Includes 3 #4 cont. pieces of rebar throughout the entire curb to ensure rolled edge for pip
• Includes material to form and pour concrete curb as per plans (221 LF) Mow Strip $ 7,872.24

• Includes prep, pour, and finishing concrete mow strip (20 LF) • Includes 1 #4 cont. bar of rebar as per city std specifications • Finish with a broom finish as per city std. specifications Curb & Gutter At Entrance Of Park $ 6,751.94

• Demo and off-haul existing concrete in place
• Compact subgrade & add class ll base rock

Concrete 2” Rat Slab (under pip within rat slab curbs) $ 17,893.76

• Includes prep, form, pour and screed finish (1691 SF) • Includes a 2” “Rat Slab Pour” as per plans and specifications • No rebar included

Page 219 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Budget and Scope Sheet

Donor Wall $ 45,301.53

• Includes prep, form, pour, concrete footing as per plans • Includes CMU wall as per plans
• Includes Brick on outside of CMU wall
• Includes hangers set in mortar while bricks are being place. • Includes all rebar and ties for footing and wall

Aggregate Base (underneath 2” rat slab) $ 8,906.73

• Furnish, install and grade new ¾” base rock as per plans and specifications underneath new 2” rat slab (1691 SF)

Poured In Place Surfacing $ 50,392.95

• Supply & Install 1656 sf
• 50% Blue 25% Lite Blue 15% Beige 10% turquoise
• Rolled Edge
• Aromatic binder

REMOVE FROM

CONTRACT

Page 220 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Budget and Scope Sheet

Engineered Wood Fibar $ 46,007.95

• Supply & Install 15” of certified EWF surfacing (9915 SF) • 575 Cubic yards of material on prepared base
New Water Fountain Drainage system $ 8,628.93

• Includes all materials and labor to install a drainage system behind drinking fountain.

Qualifications

1. Area must have access to water and power.

2. City to ensure area is clear of all obstacles.

3. City to ensure area is clear of all foot traffic for duration of construction.

4. KYA pays prevailing wages

5. Priced for all work to be performed Monday- Friday, 6:00am-5:00pm excluding holidays.

6. Price valid for 30 days.

Exclusions

1. Abatement, containment or disposal of hazardous materials.

2. DSA permitting or review.

3. ADA upgrades.

4. Nights, weekends or overtime.

5. Furniture moving, storing or relocating.

6. Connecting power of any kind

7. Temp Fencing (already in place)

8. SWPP water run off control of any kind

9. Arborist of any kind

10. Utility locating of any kind (plans as built obtained by city)

11. Excludes Special Engraved Donor Wall Sign in center of wall

Page 221 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Budget and Scope Sheet

Preliminary Construction Schedule

Task Name Duration Start Finish
Board Meeting / NTP
Submittal
Submittal Review
Material Lead Time n/a
Installation /
Construction
28 days weather
Dependent

Substantial
Completion
28 days

Signature of Acceptance of Budget and Scope: Print: Date:

Page 222 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.15.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

1/13/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Old Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11528– A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 11525 and Appointing Members to 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. 11528 - A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 11525 and Appointing Members to the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11525 on December 9, 2025 to form the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee and designated that members of the Committee shall be comprised of:

A. Councilmembers: [to be determined]
B. One appointee by each Councilmember [to be determined] C. The Mayor and the City Manager as non-voting members of the Committee

Subsequent discussions have proposed the Mayor’s inclusion as a voting member of the Committee. Should the Council support this modification, Committee membership must be limited to one additional Councilmember to ensure the body remains below a quorum of the City Council. Accordingly, Resolution No. 11528 seeks to amend the membership structure established by Resolution No. 11525 and formally appoint the designated Committee members.

POLICY / RULE

Page 223 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.16.
2 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

Members of the City Council have designated the following individuals for appointments to the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee:

Tom Aceituno – designated by Mayor Raithel
Bill Romanelli – designated by Vice Mayor Rohrbough
Ken Payne – designated by Councilmember Aquino
Justin Hurst – designated by Councilmember Leary
Glenn Fait – designated by Councilmember Kozlowski

In addition to the foregoing, the City Council will be asked at the January 13, 2026 Council meeting to designate a Councilmember to serve on the Committee.

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 11528 - A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 11525 and Appointing Members to the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee

2. Resolution 11525 – A Resolution Establishing the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee

Respectfully submitted,

BRYAN WHITEMYER
City Manager

Page 224 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.16.

Attachment 1

Page 225 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11528

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 11528

A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 11525 AND

APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE
2026 AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11525 on December 9, 2025 to form the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee and designated that members of the Committee shall be comprised of:

A. Councilmembers: [to be determined]

B. One appointee by each Councilmember [to be determined]

C. The Mayor and the City Manager (to be non-voting members of the Committee)

WHEREAS, subsequent to approval of Resolution No. 11525, modifications were proposed for the Mayor’s inclusion as a voting member of the Committee and therefore Committee membership must be limited to one additional Councilmember to ensure the body remains below a quorum of the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to appoint Committee members set forth in this Resolution:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that the membership provisions of Resolution No. 11525 are hereby amended and the following individuals shall be appointed to serve on the 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee:

1. Mayor Raithel

2. Councilmember [to be determined]

3. Tom Aceituno (appointed by Mayor Raithel)

4. Bill Romanelli (appointed by Vice Mayor Rohrbough)

5. Ken Payne (appointed by Councilmember Aquino)

6. Glenn Fait (appointed by Councilmember Kozlowski)

7. Justin Hurst (appointed by Councilmember Leary)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager shall serve as a non-voting member of the Committee, and the City Attorney shall serve as legal advisor to the Committee.

Page 226 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11528

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 13th day of January, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 227 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.16.

Attachment 2

Page 228 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11525

Page 1 of 2 ends

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. The Mayor and the City Manager shall serve as non-voting members of the Committee

D. 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.

Docusign Envelope ID: BF1F5084-0E4A-4398-B427-3BDEFAB8F38C

Page 229 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11525

Page 2 of 2 ends

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): Leary, Raithel, Rohrbough, Kozlowski, Aquino NOES: Councilmember(s): None
ABSENT: Councilmember(s): None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s): None

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Docusign Envelope ID: BF1F5084-0E4A-4398-B427-3BDEFAB8F38C

Page 230 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.16.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

1/13/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Old Business
SUBJECT: Public Meeting Related to Proposal to Modify the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District

FROM: City Manager's Office

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff Recommends the City Council hold a public meeting to allow for public testimony on the proposed modification to the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District (FTBID)

The next step in the process is a public hearing on January 27, 2026, on the modification of the FTBID. There would be no actual adjustment to the FTBID assessment rates until completion of the proposed modification process. The businesses within the FTBID shall be specifically benefitted by the activities and improvements funded by the assessments.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The City of Folsom established the FTBID in 2012 via the adoption of Resolution No. 9071, pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highway Code § 36500 et seq.) (the “89 Law”) and Ordinance No. 1171 (which c odified Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 3.100). The FTBID is a benefit assessment district that provides specific benefit directly to the Folsom lodging businesses that are assessed that is not provided to those not paying the assessment. The boundaries of t he FTBID are the boundaries of the City of Folsom.

Benefit assessment districts have been used successfully in Folsom as well as other destination areas throughout the state to improve tourism and drive additional room nights to assessed businesses. The FTBID includes all lodging businesses with twenty or more rooms, existing and in the future, within the boundaries of the City of Folsom.

Resolution No. 9071 established the FTBID with an assessment rate of 4% to be levied for a term of 20 years, commencing on January 1, 2013 and ending on December 13, 2032. Assessments are levied on lodging businesses on the basis of benefit.

Page 231 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.17.
2 Folsom Tourism and Economic Development Corporation (TEDCorp), serving as the Owners’ Association for FTBID, has recommended to the lodging business owners to pursue modification of the FTBID in order to expand a revenue source devoted to marketing Folsom as a tourist, meeting, and event destination.

The 89 Law and Ordinance No. 1171 allow the Folsom City Council (Council) to modify the FTBID in accordance with Section 36540 of the 89 Law. To initiate the modification process, TEDCorp has requested that Council increase the FTBID assessment rates. The proposed modified assessment rate is eight percent (8%) of gross room rental revenue, increasing the current rate of four percent (4%) of gross room rental revenue. The additional 4% assessment will be dedicated to improvements (as defined in the 89 Law), including but not limited to development of facilities that attract overnight visitation to businesses paying the TBID assessment, infrastructure improvements, and marketing and development efforts directly related to the facilities and associated visitor growth. The increased assessments will provide specific benefit to the Folsom lodging businesses that are assessed that it does not provide to those not charged. To continue the modification process, the Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to Modify the FTBID on November 12, 2025. Pursuant to that action, a public meeting is now being held to allow for public testimony on the proposed modification, prior to the public hearing.

Assuming no majority protest at the public hearing scheduled for January 27, 2026, the Council could adopt a resolution of modification on the same night. The increased rate and list of authorized expenditures of the FTBID would be effective as soon as pra cticable following the modification proceedings for the FTBID, which effective date is estimated for April 1, 2026.

TEDCorp staff evaluated lodging assessments (both through TBIDs and Transient Occupancy Tax) in nearby jurisdictions. This information is included in Attachment A, and indicates that an increase of 4% will not affect the competitiveness of Folsom lodging against other lodging choices in the region.

POLICY / RULE

City of Folsom Ordinance No. 1171 establishes procedures for forming parking and business improvement areas supplemental to the 1989 Law.

ANALYSIS

TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS

Tourism Business Improvement Districts (TBIDs) utilize the efficiencies of private sector operation in the market -based promotion of tourism. These special assessment districts allow assessed business owners to organize their efforts to increase tourism. Business owners within the TBID fund the TBID, and those funds are used to provide services and facilities that are desired by and benefit the assessed businesses within the TBID.

Page 232 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.17.
3 TBID benefits:
• Funds cannot be diverted for other government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of each destination; • They allow for a wide range of services and improvements, including, but not limited to, destination marketing, tourism promotion, and sales lead generation; • They are designed, created, and governed by those who will pay the assessment with oversight by the city; and
• They provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion.

FTBID MODIFICATION PROCESS

Holding a public meeting will result in a public hearing on January 27, 2026, on the modification of the FTBID. There would be no actual adjustment to the FTBID assessment rates until completion of the proposed modification process. The businesses within the FTBID shall be specifically benefitted by the activities and improvements funded by the assessments.

November 12, 2025 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO MODIFY FTBID (COMPLETED) Upon the written request of the Owners’ Association, the City may propose to modify the FTBID.

Written Request: The TEDCorp, serving as Owners’ Association, has provided a letter requesting modification of the FTBID. This written request allows the Council to initiate proceedings for FTBID modification at the November 12, 2025 meeting.

NOTICE (COMPLETED)
A copy of the Notice and Resolution of Intention to Modify shall be mailed by first class mail to the owners of all lodging businesses within the FTBID. Mailing the notice begins a mandatory forty-five (45) day period in which owners may protest FTBID modification.

January 13, 2026 PUBLIC MEETING
Allow public testimony on the modification of the FTBID. No Council action required.

January 27, 2026 PUBLIC HEARING
Hold a public hearing on the proposed modification to the FTBID.

If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the modified FTBID which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied, and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than fifty percent (50%), no further proceedings to modify the proposed assessment against such businesses shall be taken.

Page 233 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.17.
4 If the Council, following the public hearing, decides to modify the FTBID as described in the Resolution of Intention to Modify, the Council shall adopt a resolution of modification.

April 1, 2026 Target date for FTBID assessment modifications to take effect.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

None immediately. In FY24/25, the FTBID assessments generated approximately $1,248,000 in revenue. The proposed modifications would increase the assessment rate from 4% of gross room rental revenue to 8% of gross room rental revenue. In addition, because the FTBID assessments levied on lodging businesses are intended to increase room rentals on lodging business being assessed within the City, there may be an increase in transient occupancy tax and sales tax collections.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This action is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

ATTACHMENT

1. TEDCorp Lodging Assessment Evaluation

Submitted,

Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager

Page 234 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.17.

Attachment 1

Page 235 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.17.

Current Regional TBID Rates
Proposed TBID Rates
• Increase TBID to 8% combine with TOT at 8%
• Total of 16% puts Folsom on par with surrounding cities Jurisdiction TOT Rate TBID Assessment TOTAL
CA State Tourism
Assessment
Rancho Cordova 12% 4.50% 16.50% + 0.195%
Placer Valley (Roseveille, Rocklin, Lincoln) 10% $6.50 per room nt (4.55% at $143 ADR) 14.55% + 0.195% City of Sacramento 12% 3.45%, 2.875%, 2.3%, 1.15% by zone +1% STID) 15.45% + 0.195% Elk Grove 12% 4% City; 1% County 17% + 0.195%
Folsom 8% 4% 12% + 0.195%

Page 236 ends

01/13/2026 Item No.17.

Folsom City CouncilJanuary 13, 2026

Folsom City Council
January 13, 2026