Folsom City Council
April 28, 2026

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

customer turnouts along the Jones Pipeline. The upgrade will reduce seepage losses and enable the Association and stakeholders to better manage the water supply. The project will also make the Jones Pipeline compatible with the recently pressurized main canal and will enable agricultural customers to make future on-farm irrigation improvements.

The project meets the goals of the Association’s Water Management and Conservation Plan in 2015.
• State the length of time and estimated completion date for the proposed project (month/year). Note: Proposed projects should not have an estimated construction start date that is prior to 12 months after the submission deadline for the application period. • Whether or not the proposed project is located on a Federal facility.

Project Location
Provide detailed information on the proposed project location or project area including a map showing the geographic location. For example, [project name] is located in [state and county] approximately [distance] miles [direction, e.g., northeast] of [nearest town]. The project latitude is [##°##’N] and longitude is [###°##’W].

Technical Project Description
Provide a comprehensive description of the technical aspects of your project, including the scope of work to be accomplished and the approach for the on-the-ground project. This description should provide detailed information about the project materials and equipment including what is currently installed and a description of the upgrade being made. Include in your description the necessary site preparation, removal of materials, motorized and rotating equipment required for installation, site laydown and mobilization areas, and areas impacted by construction. This section provides an opportunity for the applicant to provide a clear description of the technical nature and installation process of the project and to address any aspect of the project that reviewers may need additional information to understand. Please identify if any buildings, structures, or features associated with the project are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (over 50 years of age).

Please do not include your project schedule and milestones here; that information is requested in response to the Merit Review Criterion C—Implementation and Results. In addition, please avoid discussion of the benefits of the project, which are also requested in response to merit review criteria. This section is solely intended to provide an understanding of the technical aspects of the project.

Merit Review Criteria
“The Merit Review Criteria” section provides a detailed description of each criterion and sub- criterion and points associated with each. The merit review criteria portion of the application should thoroughly address each criterion and sub-criterion in the order presented to assist in the complete and accurate merit review of the proposal.

Copying and pasting the merit review criteria and sub-criteria in Project Narrative’s Merit Review Criteria into your applications is suggested to ensure that all necessary information is adequately addressed.

Letters of Support

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

Attach all support letters from interested stakeholders at the end of your application. Letters received after the application deadline will not be evaluated.

Letter of Partnership (Category B Applicants)
Category B applicants need to submit a Letter of Partnership from their eligible Category A partner, confirming their collaboration and agreement with the application. Ideally, this letter should be included with the application; however, if selected for an award, it must be received before the financial assistance agreement is finalized.

Budget Narrative
Applicants must describe and justify items and costs listed in their budget. The budget narrative must identify the following cost items: total estimated costs, non-Federal cost share, third-party contributions, and any pre-award costs. Total project cost is the sum of all allowable costs, including required and voluntary cost share and third-party contributions.

Budget items must be:
• Reasonable, allowable, allocable, and necessary
• Compliant with 2 CFR §200 Subpart E cost principles
Indirect Costs: Applicants must indicate in their budget narrative how they will charge indirect costs, including the rate to be applied:
• De Minimis Rate: If eligible, state if your organization is opting to use the de minimis rate of up to 15% of total modified direct costs. Entities that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may propose to use the de minimis rate. For more information, refer to 2 CFR 200.414(f). • Negotiated Rate: State if you will negotiate with your cognizant agency. If your organization has previously negotiated a rate, attach a copy of the most recently negotiated rate agreement (active or expired).

The budget narrative provides a written description of the costs included in each budget category on the SF-424A and how they were estimated. While the SF-424A gives the total cost for each category of the budget, the budget narrative gives the item by item breakdown for each category and shows the calculations used to derive the costs. The budget description serves two purposes:
1) it explains how the costs were estimated, and 2) it justifies the need for the cost. See Attachment A for Budget Narrative Guidance. Attachment B is a suggested format for capturing budget details to support the Narrative.

Applicants may include pre-award costs (defined at 2 CFR 200.458) in their budget estimate.

The estimate may only include costs that were or will be incurred after the posting date of this funding opportunity. Incurrence of pre-award costs are at the applicant’s risk. If selected, the pre- award costs will be reviewed and approved costs will be included in the financial assistance agreement.

Program Cost Restrictions:

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

Proposal costs: The costs for preparing and submitting an application in response to this funding opportunity, including developing data necessary to support the proposal, are not eligible project costs and must not be included in the project budget.

Other project costs: The costs for the purchase of water or land, or to secure an easement other than a construction easement are not eligible project costs under this funding opportunity.

Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Costs:

Include costs in the budget for completing compliance activities for Federal environmental and cultural resources laws and regulations. Applicants may contact their local Reclamation office to discuss the compliance requirements and potential costs. If the project is selected for award, these costs will be reviewed for accuracy and adjusted as needed. See “Administration and National Policy Requirements” for additional detail.

Conflict of Interest and Unresolved Matters Disclosures:

If any actual or potential conflict of interest exists related to this project at the time of application, the applicant must provide sufficient information to support a program determination of significance per 2 CFR 1402.112. Refer to 2 CFR 200.112 Conflict of Interest and 2 CFR 200.113.

Overlap or Duplication of Effort Statement:

Applicants must state in their application if the activities, costs, or time commitment of key personnel proposed in this application overlap with those in any other Federal proposal or award or not. If no overlap exists, include a statement to that effect. If any overlap exists, provide:
• Activities: Description any overlapping activities.
• Costs: Description of any overlapping costs.
• Time: Description of any overlapping key personnel time. • A copy of any overlapping or duplicative proposal submitted to any other potential funding entity.
• Details on when any overlapping proposal was submitted, to whom, and the expected date of the funding decision.

Other Required Information
Letters of Commitment:

Applicants should include letters of commitment from third-party cost share sources. Letters of commitment should identify the amount of funding committed, the date the funds are available, time constraints on the availability of funds, and any other funding contingencies.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES
Address to Request Application Package
Grants.gov contains a complete application kit to submit a full application in response to this NOFO. Instructions for the Grants.gov application process are available here. Contact Devin Baez at [email protected] if you are unable to access the application materials electronically.

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

Proposals received after the application deadline will not be considered unless it can be determined that the delay was caused by Reclamation or there were technical issues with Grants.gov. To document a delay due to a technical issue in Grants.gov, you must furnish a Grants.gov helpdesk ticket number to the NOFO team that validates the delay. Difficulties related to an applicant’s Grants.gov profile (e.g., incorrect organizational representative), uploading documents to Grants.gov, or an applicant’s SAM.gov registration are not considered technical issues with the Grants.gov system.

Submission Dates and Times
Closing Date for Applications: 06/02/2026
Closing Date Explanation
June 02, 2026 at 4:00 pm MDT
Submission Instructions
Apply Through Grants.gov
To apply through Grants.gov, please follow the instructions in the Quick Start Guide for Applicants. Before applying, ensure that at least one person at your organization is registered and has the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR). Only the AOR can submit the application. If you need more users, they must create their own Grants.gov account. Follow these steps below to apply:
• Create a Workspace: Creating a workspace allows you to complete it online and route it through your organization for review before submitting. • Complete a Workspace: Invite participants to the workspace so you can collaborate on the application. Required applications forms are included in the Grants.gov Funding Opportunity Package and can be completed in the Workspace, unless noted otherwise in the Required Forms table above. Check for errors before submission. • Submit a Workspace: An application may be submitted through workspace by clicking the Sign and Submit button on the Manage Workspace page, under the Forms tab • Track a Workspace Submission: After successfully submitting a workspace application, a Grants.gov Tracking Number (GRANTXXXXXXXX) is automatically assigned to the application.

The system generates a date and time stamp and sends it to the applicant’s AOR via email as proof of submission. Make sure your application passes the Grants.gov validation checks. Do not encrypt, zip, or password-protect any files. Only registered individuals in SAM as both a user and an AOR can submit applications. Please allow 30 days to register in Grants.gov.

Application System Technical Support: For Grants.gov technical registration and submission, downloading forms, and application packages, contact Grants.gov Customer Support at 1-800- 518-4726 or by email at [email protected].

Applicants can submit a hard copy application by U.S. Mail or express delivery to the addresses below.

By mail or United States Postal Service overnight services:

Bureau of Reclamation

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

Financial Assistance Operations Section
Attn: NOFO Team
P.O. Box 25007, MS 84-27133
Denver, CO 80225
By all other express delivery and courier services:

Bureau of Reclamation mail services
Attn: NOFO Team
Denver Federal Center
Bldg. 67, Rm. 152
6th Avenue and Kipling Street
Denver, CO 80225
Please notify the Reclamation Financial Assistance Contact listed in the “Basic Information” section on the submission date to confirm the hard copy submission.

APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
Eligibility Review
During the eligibility review, the application is checked for timely submission, completed packages (see Application Documents above) and alignment with the requirements of this announcement. The Federal agency may remove an application if it does not pass the eligibility review.

Reclamation will remove an application if it does not include:
• Completed SF-424 and SF-424A forms
• SAM.gov registration, with a valid UEI (unless an exemption at 2 CFR 25.110 applies, see below)
• A project narrative
• A budget narrative
If an applicant selected for funding hasn't finished their SAM.gov registration (see 2 CFR 25.200 and 2 CFR 25.110) when the federal agency is ready to make an award, we may decide that the applicant is ineligible for the award and choose to grant it to someone else. Please refer 2 CFR

25.205 for more information.

Prior to making an award, the DOI checks the anticipated recipient and their key project personnel against the current list of prohibited or restricted persons or entities in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) Exclusions database. We are prohibited from making an award if a recipient or any key personnel are found ineligible, prohibited, restricted, or otherwise excluded from receiving or participating in an award, as their ineligibility condition applies to this program.

If removed from consideration for ineligibility, the Federal agency will notify the applicant in writing.

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

Merit Review
The merit review criteria should be addressed in the Project Narrative. Applications should thoroughly address each criterion and any sub-criterion in the order presented below.

Applications will be evaluated against the merit review criteria listed below.

Merit Review Criteria Scoring Summary Points
A. Project Benefits 15
B. Planning Efforts Supporting the Project 25
C. Project Implementation 20
D. Nexus to Reclamation 5
E. Presidential and Department of Interior Priorities 20 F. Construction Priority 10
G. Cost-Share Priority 5
Total 100
Note: Projects may be prioritized to ensure balance among the program task areas and to ensure that the projects address this NOFO’s goals and objectives.

Merit Review Criterion A. Project Benefits (15 points)
Up to 15 points may be awarded based upon evaluation of the benefits that are expected to result from implementing the proposed project. This criterion considers a variety of project benefits, including the significance of the anticipated water management benefits and the public benefits of the project. This criterion prioritizes projects that modernize existing infrastructure to address water reliability concerns, increasing water yield available for multiple beneficial uses and resolving water related conflict in the region.

If the work described in your application is a phase of a larger project, only discuss the benefits that will result directly from the work discussed in the Project Narrative and that is reflected in the budget, not the larger project.

Benefits to the Category A Applicant’s Water Delivery System: Describe the expected benefits to the Category A applicant’s water delivery system. Address the following:

Clearly explain the anticipated water management benefits to the Category A applicant’s water supply delivery system and water customers. Consider:
• Will the project result in more efficient management of the water supply? • Where any conserved water as a result of the project will go and how it will be used?

Explain the significance of the anticipated water management benefits for the Category A applicant’s water delivery system and customers. Consider:
• Are customers not currently getting their full water right at certain times of year?

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

• Does this project have the potential to prevent lawsuits or water calls? • What are the consequences of not making the improvement? • Are customer water restrictions currently required?
• Other significant concerns that support the need for the project.

Broader Benefits: Describe the broader benefits that are expected to occur as a result of the project. Consider:

Will the project improve broader water supply reliability at sub-basin or basin scale? • Will the proposed project increase collaboration and information sharing among water managers in the region? Please explain.
• Is the project in an area that is experiencing, or recently experienced, drought or water scarcity? Will the project help address drought conditions at the sub-basin or basin scale? Please explain.
• Will the proposed project benefit different sectors and economies within the geographic areas (e.g., benefits to agriculture, environment, recreation, and tourism)? Please explain. • Will the project complement work being done in coordination with NRCS in the area (e.g., the area with a direct connection to the districts water supply)? Please explain.

Please note, on-farm improvements themselves are not eligible activities for funding under this NOFO. This criterion is intended to focus on how the WaterSMART Grant project will complement ongoing or future on-farm improvements. NRCS will have a separate application process for the on-farm components of selected projects that may be undertaken in the future, separate of the WaterSMART Grant project.

Merit Review Criterion B. Planning Efforts Supporting the Project (25 points) Up to 25 points may be awarded based on the extent to which the proposed on-the-ground project is supported by an applicant’s existing water management plan, water conservation plan, System Optimization Review, or identified as part of another planning effort led by the Category A applicant. This criterion prioritizes projects that are identified through local planning efforts and meet local needs. Note: Project specific planning and design for the project or other phases of the project are considered in Criteria C – Implementation.

Plan Description and Objectives: Is your project supported by a specific planning document or effort? If so, describe the existing plan. When was the plan developed? What is the purpose and objective of the plan?

Plan Development: Who developed the planning effort? What is the geographic scope of the plan? If the planning effort was not developed by the Category A applicant, describe the Category A applicant’s involvement in developing the planning effort.

Support for the Project: Describe to what extend the proposed project is supported by the identified plan. Consider:

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

• Is the project identified specifically by name and location in the planning effort? • Is this type of project identified in the planning effort? • Explain whether the proposed project implement a goal, objective, or address a need or problem identified in the existing planning effort?
• Explain how the proposed project has been determined as a priority in the existing planning effort as opposed to other potential projects/measures.

Merit Review Criterion C. Implementation and Results (20 points) Up to 20 points may be awarded based upon the extent to which the applicant is capable of proceeding with the proposed project upon entering into a financial assistance agreement.

Applicants that describe a detailed plan (e.g., estimated project schedule that shows the stages and duration of the proposed work, including major tasks, milestones, and dates) will receive the most points under this criterion.
• Describe the implementation plan for the proposed project. Please include an estimated project schedule that shows the stages and duration of the proposed work, including major tasks, milestones, and dates.
• Proposals with a budget and budget narrative that provide a reasonable explanation of project costs will be prioritized under this criterion. • Describe any permits and agency approvals that will be required along with the process and timeframe for obtaining such permits or approvals.
• Identify and describe any engineering or design work performed specifically in support of the proposed project. What level of engineering design is the project currently? If additional design is required, describe the planned process and timeline for completing the design.
• Does the applicant have access to the land or water source where the project is located? Has the applicant obtained any easements that are required for the project? If the applicant does not yet have permission to access the project location, describe the process and timeframe for obtaining such permission.
• Identify whether the applicant has contacted the local Reclamation office to discuss the potential environmental and cultural resource compliance requirements for the project and the associated costs. Has a line item been included in the budget for costs associated with compliance? If a contractor will need to complete some of the compliance activities, separate line items should be included in the budget for Reclamation’s costs and the contractor’s costs.

Merit Review Criterion D. Nexus to Reclamation (5 Points) Up to 5 points may be awarded based on the extent that the proposal demonstrates a nexus between the proposed project and a Reclamation project or activity. Describe the nexus between the proposed project and a Reclamation project or activity, including:

Is the proposed project connected to a Reclamation project or activity? If so, how? Please consider the following:

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

• Does the applicant have a water service, repayment, or operations and maintenance (O&M) contract with Reclamation?
• If the applicant is not a Reclamation contractor, does the applicant receive Reclamation water through a Reclamation contractor or by any other contractual means? • Will the proposed work benefit a Reclamation Project area or activity?

Merit Review Criterion E. Presidential and Department of Interior Priorities (20 points) Up to 20 points may be awarded based on the extent that the project demonstrably:
• advances the Trump Administration’s priorities, including E.O. 14154: Unleashing American Energy, justifies alignment with priorities and requirements in E.O. 14332:

Improving Oversight in Federal Grantmaking;
• includes primary project elements that develop, demonstrate, and or implement artificial intelligence (AI) technologies that advance the Trump Administration and Department of Interior’s priorities for AI, including OMB M-25-21 Accelerating the Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust; S.O. 3444: Leading Interior’s Path to Artificial Intelligence Transformation;
• aligns with Secretary Burgum’s strategic objectives, including those identified in S.O.s 3417: Addressing the National Energy Emergency, 3418 Unleashing American Energy, 3419 Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost- of-Living Crisis;
• aligns with goals and objectives in the U.S. Department of the Interior FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan; and
• supports water management and enhanced operational flexibility in Reclamation States, with priority given to the Colorado River Basin, which is experiencing long-term drought conditions.

Please address only those priorities that are applicable to your project. All priorities will be given equal consideration. A project will not necessarily receive more points simply because multiple priorities are addressed. Points will be allocated based on the degree to which the project supports, advances, or otherwise demonstrates an enhancement of one or more of the priorities identified, and whether the connection to the stated priority (or priorities) is (are) well supported.

Merit Review Criterion F. Construction Priority (10 points) Up to 10 points may be awarded based on the extent that the proposed project is a construction project that can be completed within the allowable project duration. Projects that focus on construction of hard infrastructure to deliver durable, long-term improvements in water reliability and resilience will be prioritized. Hard infrastructure is tangible or built infrastructure.

Please identify the hard infrastructure construction components of the project, if applicable.

Merit Review Criterion G. Cost Share Priority (5 Points)

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

Up to 5 points may be awarded to proposals that include non-Federal cost share contributions exceeding the statutory minimum by at least 5 percent. Projects with a higher non-Federal cost share may be awarded more points. State the percentage of non-Federal funding provided using the following calculation:

Non-Federal Funding / Total Project Cost = %
See Cost Sharing Requirement and Budget Narrative for more information on cost-share requirements and eligible costs.

Note: projects selected for award will have reported cost-share amounts verified. If reported cost share is found to be ineligible, there may be impacts to award. Accordingly, please ensure reported cost share amounts are accurate and eligible.

Review and Selection Process
This program reviews proposed budgets to ensure:
• figures are correct
• estimated costs are necessary and reasonable and clearly linked to project narratives • avoid obviously unallowable costs
• identify costs requiring prior approval
• ensure indirect cost rates are applied correctly
• confirm cost sharing requirements are reflected in the budget.

This program reviews applications for potential overlap or duplication between the proposed project and any other funded or proposed project. Depending on the circumstances, DOI may choose to not make an award.

Initial Review: Prior to conducting the comprehensive merit review, an initial review will be performed to determine whether: (1) the applicant is eligible for an award; (2) the information required by the NOFO has been submitted; (3) all mandatory requirements of the NOFO are satisfied; (4) the proposed project is responsive to the program objectives of the NOFO (program determination); and (5) the proposed project is in compliance with all applicable executive and secretary orders, including the President’s executive order on Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and referencing as well as the executive order and Secretary order on Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History. If an applicant fails to meet the requirements or objectives of the NOFO, or does not provide sufficient information for review, the applicant will be considered nonresponsive and eliminated from further review.

An Application Review Committee (ARC), made up of experts in relevant disciplines, will review the technical merit of the application, based on the merit review criteria. The ARC will also review the application to ensure that the project is eligible and meets the objective of this NOFO. During ARC review, Reclamation may contact applicants to request clarifications to the information provided, if necessary.

After the merit review, Reclamation conducts a “red-flag” review of top-ranking applications.

During this review, Reclamation identifies any reasons a project would not be feasible or advisable, including environmental or cultural compliance, permitting, legal, financial,

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

performance or other concerns. After the red-flag review, Reclamation conducts a “managerial review” of top-ranking applications. The managerial review prioritizes applications for selection based on the objectives of the NOFO. The review of applications will follow the requirements of E.O. 14332, such as ensuring review by senior appointees, and that selections demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities consistent with applicable law. Geographic dispersion, project types, applicant types, previous award history, and applicant success in implementing Gold Standard Science (E.O. 14303) may be considered during the review. Selections are finalized once all reviews are complete, and all applicants are notified.

Risk Review
Prior to making an award, the applicant will be assessed for their level of risk per 2 CFR 200.206. This assessment includes the applicant's financial management capabilities, project delivery experience, staffing resources, past award performance, administration and reporting compliance records, and overall project complexity and potential for challenges. If an award will be made, special conditions may be applied to the award corresponding to the assessed risk. For awards over the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $350,000), a review of the applicant's eligibility and financial integrity information in the applicant's SAM.gov records will also be performed per 2 CFR 200.206.

Reclamation conducts a detailed budget analysis and a business evaluation and responsibility determination. During this evaluation, Reclamation will consider several factors, such as:
• Allowability, allocability, and reasonableness of proposed costs • Financial strength and stability of the applicant
• Past performance, including satisfactory compliance with all terms and conditions of previous awards, such as environmental compliance, reporting requirements, and audit compliance
• Adequacy of personnel practices, procurement procedures, and accounting policies and procedures.

AWARD NOTICES
Notices of Federal Award are sent electronically via GrantSolutions or e-mail. These notices outline the terms, conditions, and payment instructions per 2 CFR 200.211. The Notice of Federal Award signed by an authorized Grants Officer is the legal instrument obligating financial assistance to a recipient. Any other prior notice is not an authorization to begin work. If the program allows pre-award costs per 2 CFR 200.458, beginning performance before receiving a Notice of Federal Award is at the applicant’s own risk.

Anticipated Project Start Date: 06/02/2027
Anticipated Project End Date: 06/30/2029
Reclamation anticipates contacting potential award recipients and unsuccessful applicants in December 2025, subject to the timing and amount of final appropriations. Reclamation will contact award recipients individually to discuss the time frame for the completion of their agreement. A webinar will be held for successful applicants within 30 days following their notice of selection to review next steps and pre-Financial Assistance Agreement procedures.

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

Reclamation may post successful applications on a Reclamation website, after necessary redactions, in consultation with the successful applicant.

POST AWARD REQUIREMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION
Administration and National Policy Requirements
For award administration and national policy requirements, see the DOI General Terms and Conditions. Infrastructure projects require the use of American iron, steel, manufacture products, and construction materials per 2 CFR 184.

Automated Standard Application for Payments Registration All recipients must be registered with and willing to process all payments through the Department of Treasury Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP) system. All recipients with active financial assistance agreements with Reclamation must be enrolled in ASAP under the appropriate Agency Location Code(s) and UEI Number prior to the award of funds. If a recipient has multiple UEI numbers, they must separately enroll within ASAP for each unique UEI Number and/or Agency. If your entity is currently enrolled in the ASAP system with an agency other than Reclamation, you must enroll specifically with Reclamation in order to process payments. All of the information on the enrollment process for recipients, will be sent to you by ASAP staff if selected for award.

Approvals and Permits
Recipients must comply with Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal, and local laws, regulations, and codes, as applicable, and must obtain all required approvals and permits. Recipients must also coordinate and obtain approvals from site owners and operators, as applicable.

Environmental and Cultural Resources Compliance
The recipient must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental, cultural, and paleontological resource laws and regulations. Data collections supporting compliance efforts must follow separate compliance procedures. All projects will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) before any ground-disturbing activity may begin.

Recipients are prohibited from any ground-disturbing activities (e.g., biological or water quality surveys, grading, clearing, excavation, and other preliminary or construction activities) on a project before environmental and cultural resources compliance is complete. A recipient that proceeds before environmental and cultural resources compliance is complete risks forfeiting funding. The Grant Officer will issue a Notice to Proceed that explicitly authorizes work to proceed once environmental and cultural resource compliance is complete.

Official Resolution
Prior to award, the recipient must provide an official resolution adopted by the organization’s governing body, or, for state government entities, an official authorized to commit the recipient to the financial and legal obligations of the financial assistance award. The official resolution verifies:

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

• The identity of the official with legal authority to enter into an agreement • The board of directors, governing body, or appropriate official who has reviewed and supports the application submitted
• That the organization will work with Reclamation to meet established deadlines

Geospatial Data
If you receive financial assistance from the Department of the Interior (DOI), recipient must follow these rules for geospatial data:

Follow Federal Standards: All geospatial data you collect or create must meet the standards set by the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC) or the Department of the Interior. This is required by the Geospatial Data Act of 2018, which is part of Public Law 115-254, specifically in Subtitle F (Geospatial Data), sections 751-759C (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 2801–2811).

Include Metadata: Your Geographic Information Systems (GIS) files must include complete metadata. Metadata is information that describes the data, such as where it came from, how accurate it is, and how it should be used. This is to ensure that anyone using the data understands its context and quality.

Check for Existing Data: Before you start collecting new geospatial data, you need to check GeoPlatform.gov. This is to see if there is already existing geospatial data from federal, state, local, or private sources that can meet your needs and is available for free. If such data is available, you should use it instead of gathering new data.

These rules help ensure that geospatial data is reliable, high-quality, and that resources are used efficiently.

Intangible Property
Title to intangible property acquired under this agreement vests upon acquisition with the Recipient, however Reclamation reserves the right to obtain, publish, reproduce, or otherwise use and authorize others to use for Federal purposes in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.315.

Real Property
Real property, equipment, and intangible property that is acquired or improved with a Federal award must be held in trust by the recipient as trustee for the beneficiaries of the project or program under which the property was acquired or improved, per 2 CFR §200.316. Title to real property acquired or improved under a Federal award will vest upon acquisition in the recipient.

Except as otherwise provided by Federal statutes or by the Federal awarding agency, real property will be used for the originally authorized purpose as long as needed for that purpose, during which time the recipient must not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests. When real property is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the recipient must obtain disposition instructions from the Federal awarding agency or pass- through entity.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Please note that any application submitted for funding under this NOFO may be subjected to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (5 U.S.C. §552, as amended by P.L. No. 110-175), and as a result, may be made publicly available.

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

In response to a FOIA request for research data relating to published research findings produced under a Federal award that were used by the Federal Government in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law, the Federal awarding agency must request, and the recipient must provide, within a reasonable time, the research data so that they can be made available to the public through the procedures established under the FOIA.

Requirements for Agricultural Operations under P.L. 111-11, Section 9504(a)(3)(B) In accordance with Section 9504(a)(3)(B) of P.L.111-11, financial assistance will not be awarded for an improvement to conserve irrigation water unless the recipient agrees to both of the following conditions:

1. Not to use any associated water savings to increase the total irrigated acreage of the recipient and

2. Not to otherwise increase the consumptive use of water in the operation of the recipient, as determined pursuant to the law of the state in which the operation of the recipient is located.

If the recipient is a Tribe, a financial assistance agreement will not be awarded unless the recipient agrees to not use any associated water savings to increase the total irrigated acreage or otherwise increase the consumptive use of water more than the water right of the Tribe, as determined by a court decree, a settlement, a law, or any combination of these authorities.

Title to Improvements P.L.111-11, Section 9504(a)(3)(D) If the project results in a modification to a portion of a federally owned facility that is integral to the existing operations of that facility, the Federal government shall continue to hold title to the facility and the improvements thereto. Title to improvements, P.L.111-11, Section 9504(a)(3)(D) that are not integral to existing water delivery operations shall reside with the project sponsor.

Operation and Maintenance Costs under P.L.111-11, Section 9504(a)(3)(E)(iv) The non-Federal share of the costs for operation and maintenance of any infrastructure improvement funded through an agreement awarded under this NOFO shall be 100 percent.

Improvements to Federal Facilities
Note that improvements to Federal facilities that are implemented through any project awarded funding must comply with additional requirements. Reclamation may also require additional reviews and approvals prior to award to ensure that any necessary easements, land use authorizations, or special permits can be approved and that the development will not impact or impair project operations or efficiency, consistent with the requirements of 43 CFR Section 429.

Liability under P.L.111-11, Section 9504(a)(3)(F)
Except as provided under 28 U.S.C. Chapter 171 (commonly known as the Federal Tort Claims Act), the United States shall not be liable for monetary damages of any kind for any injury arising out of an act, omission, or occurrence that arises in relation to any facility created or improved through an agreement awarded under this NOFO, the title of which is not held by the United States.

Reporting
The recipient’s Notice of Award will detail all reporting requirements, including frequency, due dates, and instructions for requesting extensions. In general, but not limited to, recipients must:

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

• Submit Federal Financial reports and Program Performance reports. • Use the Federal Financial Report (SF-425) form for financial reporting, • Monitor award activities and report on program performance per 2 CFR 200.329, • Promptly notify the awarding program in writing of any issues, delays, or conditions impairing award objectives per 2 CFR 200.329(e),
• Disclose any conflicts of interest related to their award that arise during the award period per 2 CFR 1402.112,
• Report on the status of real property acquired under the award in which the Federal government retains an interest per 2 CFR 200.330, and
• Report all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award per 2 CFR 200.113. • Report any matters related to recipient integrity and performance to SAM.gov per Appendix XII to 2 CFR 200.
• If the Federal share of the award is more than $100,000 and the recipient makes or agrees to make any payment using non-appropriated funds for lobbying in connection to the award, disclose those activities using the Disclosure of Lobbying (SF-LLL) form per 43 CFR 18.100.
• Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) and 2 CFR 170 requires certain recipients to report information on executive compensation, and information on all sub-awards, subcontracts and consortiums equal to or over $30,000 to SAM.gov.
• Report any required mitigation to lessen environmental impacts of the project. • Recipients of Reclamation awards must include the following information in performance reports:
• a comparison of actual accomplishments to the milestones established by the financial assistance agreement for the period,
• the reasons why the project did not meet established milestones, if applicable, • the status of milestones not met from the previous reporting period, if applicable, • whether the project is on schedule and within the original cost estimate, • any additional pertinent information or issues related to the status of the project, and
• photographs documenting the project (appreciated, although not required). Note:

Reclamation may print photos with appropriate credit to the recipient.

• Final reports are public documents and may be made available on Reclamation’s website.

Other Information
Reclamation will host a webinar to provide general information regarding this NOFO and answer questions. For more information regarding this NOFO, the general information webinar, and WaterSMART Small-Scale Water Efficiency Projects, including previously funded projects and applications, visit https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/swep.

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

04/28/2026 Item No.8.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11597 – A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit Grant Applications for Funding for the Folsom Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) Project Through the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program Administered by the U.S.

Department of Transportation and the Statewide Active
Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 8 Administered by the California Department of Transportation

FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Parks & Recreation Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11597 - A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit Grant Applications for Funding for the Folsom Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) Project Through the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program Administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Statewide Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 8 Administered by the California Department of Transportation.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

Folsom Boulevard is a major barrier in providing a safe crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians from Folsom’s over 50 miles of Class I trails to the regional trail network along Lake Natoma and the American River . A new Class I overcrossing would be a gateway to connect residents, workers, and visitors to a larger network of Class I trails in the region and would connect users to cities, communities, and neighborhoods between Folsom and downtown Sacramento. The proposed Folsom Boulevard Trail Overcrossing was identified as a hi gh-priority project in the City's Active Transportation Plan (ATP) as the best solution for trail users to safely cross four lanes of vehicle traffic and an active (and expanding) light rail line. While identified as a high priority, the ATP also noted that further study was required to better define the scope and limits of a potential overcrossing, as well as the design and construction cost estimates.

04/28/2026 Item No.9.
2 On November 8, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 10945 to execute a professional services agreement with Dokken Enginee ring to develop a feasibility study for the proposed overcrossing. Between March and October of 2023, the Parks and Recreation Department, along with its consultant team, conducted extensive outreach on a range of possible overcrossing routes and designs cross ing Folsom Boulevard between the Glenn Station area and Parkshore Drive.

Based on public input, the range of routes and designs was narrowed down from four alternatives to two, and on January 23, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11160 to approve the North Alternative Alignment as the preferred alternative for the Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing project and to authorize staff to apply for grant funding for the project.

In 2018, staff applied for Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Cycle 4 grant funding for the project but were unsuccessful. Grant reviewers cited a lack of in -depth public outreach showing support for the project and more relevant details on the disadvantaged community benefits of the project.

To address the grant application shortc omings, staff sought funding for a Feasibility Study to bolster public outreach and disadvantaged community benefits.

In 2024, staff applied for ATP Cycle 7 grant funding for the project but were unsuccessful. The project grant application fell just short of receiving the requested funding for design/engineering and environmental clearance phas es. Reviewers cited wanting additional details on the type of people who would use this type of facility. Regional partners (SacRT / State Parks) and extensive public outreach were cited as positives, but the project still lacked a detailed connection to disadvantaged communities. After receiving feedback from the ATP Cycle 7 application, staff applied to SACOGs Technical Assistance Program, at no cost to the city, to help refine and improve a grant application for ATP Cycle 8.

The current Safe Streets For All grant applications are due May 26, 2026, and the Active Transportation Program Cycle 8 grants applications are due June 22, 2026.

POLICY / RULE

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 10405 Amending Financial Policies of the City of Folsom regarding grant administration on April 14, 2020. Section D – Intergovernmental Revenues, Paragraph A – Grant Applications states, “Grant application shall be the responsibility of the department seeking the grant. Grant applications that require an expenditure of funds by the City of less than or equal to the City Manager contract authority amount may be approved by the City Manager prior to submittal to the grantor. All other grant applications, including any requiring an ongoing commitment of resources or staff, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to submittal. In circumstances where it is not possible for the City Council to approve the grant application prior to submittal, the City Manager may approve the application, subject to the City Council ratification as soon as practicable to do so.

Requests to the City Council or the City Manager for approval of a grant application shall identify anticipated long-term maintenance and/or renovation costs, required City matching funds, and additional personnel that may be needed if the grant is awarded for a capital project. Concerning

04/28/2026 Item No.9.
3 grants for staffing, the source of funds for long-term staffing after the expiration of the grant shall also be identified in the request for approval of the grant application.

All grant applications on behalf of the City shall be reviewed by the Finance Director before submittal to the City Council or the grantor.”

ANALYSIS

According to the SS4A Grant Program guidelines, eligible projects for Implementation Grants typically focus on infrastructure, operational, and behavioral interventions aimed at eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. Project categories encouraged under the program include:

• Improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, such as sidewalk gap closures, curb extensions, high- visibility crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and protected bicycle lanes.
• Traffic calming measures that reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety for vulnerable road users, including road diets, raised intersections, and neighborhood traffic management features.
• Intersection safety improvements, such as roundabouts, protected left -turn phases, signal upgrades including leading pedestrian intervals, and improved sight distance. • Enhancements to promote safe speeds, including automated speed enforcement technology (where authorized), speed feedback signage, and corridor -wide speed management strategies.
• Safe routes to school improvements, focusing on improved pedestrian and bicycle access to educational facilities.
• Improvements to transit access and safety, including better pedestrian infrastructure around transit stops and integration of transit priority features into roadway designs. • Lighting improvements for pedestrian crossings and corridors with nighttime crash histories.
• Systemic safety analysis projects, involving data -driven identification of high- risk locations and proactive interventions even where crash histories are lower.

Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 8 (2027) aims to fund projects increasing walking/biking trips, safety, and greenhouse gas reductions. Criteria prioritize projects benefiting disadvantaged communities, demonstrating high safety improvements, and proving project deliverability. Applications are graded on alignment with state goals, including public health and, in some areas, housing element compliance.

Key elements for Cycle 8 include:
• Focus Areas: Increased biking/walking, enhanced safety (reducing injuries/fatalities), and public health improvements.
• Disadvantaged Communities: At least 25% of regional funds must benefit these communities.
• Project Types: Infrastructure, non-infrastructure (education/encouragement), and plans. • Deliverability: Rigorous requirements for cost estimates, schedules, and maps in the project application.

04/28/2026 Item No.9.
4 • Regional Requirements: Specific guidelines (e.g., SCAG/SACOG) often require high- scoring projects to align with local regional transportation plans and, in some cases (e.g., MTC), require certified housing elements.

City staff from both the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments evaluated candidate projects using the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to identify projects that best align with the grant program’s focus areas, and it was determined that the Folsom Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing Project was the most appropriate project for the SS4A and ATP Cycle 8 applications.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no additional financial impact associated with submitting the grant applications. Grant application assistance will be done with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., through a prior - approved contract.

If awarded, the SS4A grant would require a minimum local match of 20% of the total project or planning cost. The ATP grant would not require a minimum local match. The exact match requirement and funding amounts will depend on the final application scope and award conditions.

The local match would be determined through eligible local funding sources and brought back to Council at a future date for acceptance of the grant and approval of the award.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Submission of a grant application is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and does not require environmental review. Should the City be awarded funding, any projects resulting from the grant would undergo appropriate environm ental review prior to implementation.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 11597 – A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit Grant Applications for Funding for the Folsom Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) Project Through the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program Administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the State wide Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 8 Administered by the California Department of Transportation

Submitted,

Kelly Gonzalez, Parks & Recreation Director

04/28/2026 Item No.9.

Attachment 1

04/28/2026 Item No.9.

Resolution No. 11597

RESOLUTION NO. 11597

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR

FUNDING FOR THE FOLSOM BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING (POC) PROJECT THROUGH THE SAFE STREETS FOR ALL (SS4A) GRANT PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE STATEWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) CYCLE 8

ADMINISTERED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom desires to provide a safe, direct, grade-separated crossing of Folsom Boulevard to connect residents, workers, and visitors to a larger network of trails in the region; and

WHEREAS, in June 2022, the City adopted an Active Transportation Plan that identified a Folsom Boulevard bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing as a "high-priority" project; and

WHEREAS, on January 23, 2024, City Council approved the North Alternative Alignment as the preferred alternative for the Folsom Boulevard POC from the approved Feasibility Study; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom proposes to apply for SS4A and ATP grants to fund environmental review compliance and design/engineering for the Folsom Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project; and

WHEREAS, once the project is awarded grant funding, staff will return to Council for approval of the source of the required match funding:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes staff to s ubmit grant applications for funding for the Folsom Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) Project through the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Statewide Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 8 administered by the California Department of Transportation.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28
th day of April 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

04/28/2026 Item No.9.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401)
i. Resolution No. 11598 – A Resolution Authorizing the
City Manager to Execute an Agreement with BWD
Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering
Contractors for $ 1,311,720 from the Water Operating
Fund (Fund 520) and $874,480 from the Water Capital
Fund (Fund 521) for Construction of the Water
Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System
Project (WA2401)
ii. Resolution No. 11599 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Inferrera
Construction Management Group, Inc. for $225,171
from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and
$150,114 from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) for
Construction Management and Inspection Services for
the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and
Feed System Project (WA2401) and Appropriation of
Funds

FROM: Utilities Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Utilities Department recommends the City Council pass and adopt the following resolutions:

i. Resolution No. 11598 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with BWD Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering Contractors for $1,311,720 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $874,480 from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) for Construction of the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401)

04/28/2026 Item No.10.
2 ii. Resolution No. 11599 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. for $225,171 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $150,114 from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401) and Appropriation of Funds

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Utilities Department identifies projects that are critical to ensuring the delivery of adequate and high- quality water supply to all water customers through water master plans, ongoing condition assessment programs, and regulatory changes. Through these efforts, Cit y staff identified the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda System Project as a priority project.

This project involves removal of existing, decommissioned steel tanks and associated piping, modifications to the existing tank containment wall, installation of new caustic feed tank and new caustic containment area, installation of new caustic feed pumps and caustic feed pipeline, removal of existing lime feed piping and abandoned aqua ammonia tank, miscellaneous civil sitework including AC pavement and concrete replacement associated with the Work, and associated electrical, instrumentation, and controls.

These resolutions will accept the request from American Integrated Services, Inc. to withdraw their bid and will authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with BWD Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering Contractors for construction of the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project for a not-to-exceed amount of $2,186,200 including a 10% contingency in the amount of $218,620, and an agreement with Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. for construction management and inspection services for a not-to-exceed amount of $375,285.

POLICY / RULE

In accordance with Chapter 2.36 of the Folsom Municipal Code, supplies, equipment, services, and construction with a value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by City Council.

ANALYSIS

i. Construction:

The City completed plans and specifications for the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project and publicly advertised in the Sacramento Bee for bids on February 2, 2026. In addition, the City provided these documents to www.publicpurchase.com and www.virtual-bid.com, which are picked up by several area builders’ exchanges, and posted information on the City of Folsom’s website. The Utilities Department received the following bids on March 3, 2026, for construction of the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project:

Contractor Bid Amount

04/28/2026 Item No.10.
3 American Integrated Services, Inc. $1,794,800.00*
BWD Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering Contractors $2,186,200.00 TNT Industrial Contactors, Inc. $2,320,450.00
Auburn Constructors LLC $2,382,300.00
Swierstok Enterprise Inc. dba Pro Builders $2,388,000.00 GSE Construction Co. Inc $2,388,600.00
Table 1: Construction Bids
*Bid determined as non-responsive due to inclusion of non-approved alternative pump package

Upon review, the bid from American Integrated Services, Inc. was shown to include an alternative pump package as part of their bid. The required pre-approved pump package was identified in the technical specifications of the project manual of the bid documents. The alternative pump package proposed by American Integrated Services, Inc. does not meet the project technical specifications and is not approved by the city for use at the Water Treatment Plant. In consultation with the City Attorney’s office, the bid from Amer ican Integrated Services, Inc. was determined to be non- responsive.

BWD Construction, Inc., dba BWD General Engineering Contractors , was therefore determined to be the lowest responsible and responsive bidder who meets the requirements and specifications set forth in the invitation for bids.

This resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with BWD Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering Contractors for Construction of the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project for a not-to-exceed amount of $2,186,200.

ii. Construction Management and Inspection:

In January 2025, the Utilities Department completed a pre-qualification process for consultants for construction management services for water and wastewater projects. The firms Albat, Inferrera Construction Management (ICM) Group, Inc., and Psomas were among a group of firms selected to provide these services for this type of project through this previously completed pre - qualification process.

On November 13, 2025, the City requested proposals from these consultants to provide construction management services consisting of full-time resident engineer services, full-time on- site inspection, project schedule tracking, coordination of project submittals, coordination with the other on- going City construction projects, labor compliance review, customer coordination, materials testing, and overall owner representation throughout construction of the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project. On December 12, 2025, Utilities Department staff received proposals from Albat, ICM Group, Inc., and Psomas.

Based on the scope of work assumptions described above, Utilities Department staff assumed a maximum of 1,998 hours of work would be required for the duration of the project. This includes inspection time during regular working hours, nightwork inspection hours, resident engineer time, and administration support time for the project. These assumptions are based on previous City

04/28/2026 Item No.10.
4 projects of similar size and scope. Each consultant had the opportunity to adjust hours based on the scope of work provided and is outlined in Table 3 below.

The proposals were evaluated by three Utilities Department staff members for technical evaluation prior to reviewing project costs. The proposals were reviewed and scored for project understanding, project team qualifications and experience, recent relevant project experience, and understanding of the scope of work. The technical evaluations were scored as shown in Table 2.

Consultant UT 1 UT 2 UT 3 Average
ICM Group, Inc. 73 74 69 72
Albat 65 65 56 62
Psomas 72 75 75 74
Table 2: Consultant Technical Scores without Costs

After reviewing each proposal for project understanding, project team qualifications and experience, recent relevant project experience, and understanding of the scope of work, the proposals were reviewed for project costs.

Utilities Department staff compared the direct hours and corresponding direct costs from each proposal for work expected to be performed by the Project Manager, Resident Engineer, Inspector (regular time), Inspector (night work), and Administration for pre -construction services, services during construction and post-construction services. These were then compared to the assumptions included in the RFP described above. The direct hours from each consultant, direct cost per hour (not including subconsultants), and total project costs are shown in Table 3.

Consultant
Fee
Amount
Direct Consultant
Hours
Direct Cost Per Hour
Construction Phase
ICM Group, Inc. $375,285.00 1,897 $190.30
Albat $468,867.83 1,998 $229.82
Psomas $522,553.00 2,482 $208.12
Table 3: Consultant Direct Hours, Cost per Hour, and Total Project Costs

Table 4 shows the overall total scores including project costs based on a maximum score of 100:

Consultant Technical
Score (Avg.)
Cost Score Total Score
Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. 72.0 20 92.0 Albat 62.0 16.3 78.3
Psomas 74.0 16.3 90.3
Table 4: Consultant Overall Scoring Including Project Costs

ICM Group, Inc. was determined to provide the best value to the City based on the scope of work provided in their proposal, the project team, their expertise for this type of project, and the fee amount that aligned with the assumptions provided in the RFP.

04/28/2026 Item No.10.
5 This resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection services for the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project for a not -to-exceed amount of $375,285.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The current Lime Feed System at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) can treat 30 million gallons a day (MGD) with a current overall WTP capacity of 50 MGD. The new Caustic Soda Feed System will have the capacity to treat the maximum 50 MGD. Therefore, project funding is split 60/40 between the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521).

i. Construction:

The Utilities Department recommends that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder, BWD Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering Contractors for $2,186,200 with the project budgeted for this agreement in the amount of $2,404,820 which will include a 10% contingency in the amount of $218,620.

The Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401) is included in the Fiscal Year 2025- 26 Capital Improvement Plan with a total project budget of $3,222,500 with $1,933,500 in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $1,289,000 in the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521).

Sufficient funds in the amount of $1,311,720 are budgeted and available in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $874,480 the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521).

ii. Construction Management and Inspection:

The Utilities Department recommends that the contract be awarded to Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. for $375,285.

The Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401) is included in the Fiscal Year 2025- 26 Capital Improvement Plan with a total project budget of $3,222,500 with $1,933,500 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $1,289,000 from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521).

Planned project costs to date , including design, advertisement, construction, and construction management and inspection services total approximately $3,257,500, with $1,954,500 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $1,303,000 from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521).

An appropriation is therefore needed for the costs of construction management and inspection services. Staff is requesting an appropriation in the amount $21,000 in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $14,000 in the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) for this agreement. Sufficient funds are available in both funds. The updated total project budget will be $3,257,500

04/28/2026 Item No.10.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project is replacement and/or improvement of existing infrastructure with negligible or no expansion of use and therefore is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act as noted in Title 14 – California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 – Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Article 19 – Categorical Exemptions, Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities), 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction), and/or 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11598 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with BWD Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering Contractors for $1,311,600 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $874,480 from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) for Construction of the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401)

2. Resolution No. 11599 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. for $225,171 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $150,114 from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401) and Appropriation of Funds

Submitted,

Marcus Yasutake, Director

UTILITIES DEPARTMENT

04/28/2026 Item No.10.

Attachment 1

04/28/2026 Item No.10.

Resolution No. 11598

RESOLUTION NO. 11598

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BWD CONSTRUCTION, INC. DBA BWD GENERAL
ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS FOR $1,311,720 FROM THE WATER OPERATING FUND (FUND 520) AND $874,480 FROM THE WATER CAPITAL FUND (FUND 521)

FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAUSTIC SODA STORAGE AND FEED SYSTEM PROJECT (WA2401)

WHEREAS, the City identified that the project is critical to ensuring the treatment of high quality water supply to be delivered to all residents; and

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom has identified this project as a priority to maintain the integrity and operation of the water treatment system; and

WHEREAS, the current Lime Feed System at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) can treat 30 million gallons a day (MGD) with a current overall WTP capacity of 50 MGD. The new Caustic Soda Feed System will have the capacity to treat the maximum 50 MGD. Therefore, project funding is split 60/40 between the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521); and

WHEREAS, plans and specifications were prepared for this work and publicly advertised for bids on February 2, 2026; and

WHEREAS, on March 3, 2026, the Utilities Department received bids for construction of the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project; and

WHEREAS, BWD Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering Contractors was the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, with an amount of $2,186,200; and

WHEREAS, the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System P roject (WA2401) was included in the FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Plan with a total project budget of $3,222,500 with $1,933,500 in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $1,289,000 in the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521); and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are budgeted and available in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and in the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) for this project; and

WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with BWD Construction, Inc. dba BWD General Engineering Contractors for Construction of the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401) in them amount of $2,186,200 with the budgeted amount to include a 10% contingency of $218,620 for a total not to exceed amount of $2,404,820 with $1,442,892 from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $961,928 from the Water Capital

04/28/2026 Item No.10.

Resolution No. 11598

Fund (Fund 521).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April 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

04/28/2026 Item No.10.

Attachment 2

04/28/2026 Item No.10.

Resolution No. 11599

RESOLUTION NO. 11599

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH INFERRERA CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

FOR $225,171 FROM THE WATER OPERATING FUND (FUND 520) AND $150,114 FROM THE WATER CAPITAL FUND (FUND 521) FOR CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAUSTIC SODA STORAGE AND FEED SYSTEM PROJECT (WA2401) AND

APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

WHEREAS, the City identified that the project is critical to ensuring the treatment of high quality water supply to be delivered to all residents; and

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom has identified this project as a priority to maintain the integrity and operation of the water treatment system; and

WHEREAS, the current Lime Feed System at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) can treat 30 million gallons a day (MGD) with a current overall WTP capacity of 50 MGD. The new Caustic Soda Feed System will have the capacity to treat the maximum 50 MGD. Therefore, project funding is split 60/40 between the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521); and

WHEREAS, Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. by reason of their past experience,
knowledge, and abilities for performing these types of services, are qualified to perform the required construction management and inspection services for the project; and

WHEREAS, the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System P roject (WA2401) was included in the FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Plan with a total project budget of $3,222,500 with $1,933,500 in the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $1,289,000 in the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) and staff is now projecting the total project costs will be $3,257,500; and

WHEREAS, an additional appropriation of funds in the amount of $35,000 is needed for a revised project budget of $3,257,500; and

WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to e xecute an agreement with Inferrera Construction Management Group, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Water Treatment Plant Caustic Soda Storage and Feed System Project (WA2401) for $375,285 with $225,171 funded from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) and $150,114 funded from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $35,000 for this agreement. The appropriation will be from the Water Operating Fund (Fund 520) in the amount of $21,000 and from the Water Capital Fund (Fund 521) in the amount of $14,000,

04/28/2026 Item No.10.

Resolution No. 11599

for a total project budget of $3,257,500.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April 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

04/28/2026 Item No.10.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11600 - A Resolution Authorizing Applications for Grant Funding from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2026 Federal Funding Programs , Authorizing the City Manager to Submit City of Folsom SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Program Application Priorities, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Grant Documents and Timely Project Delivery Requirements

FROM: Public Works Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11600 - A Resolution Authorizing Applications for Grant Funding from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2026 Federal Funding Programs , Authorizing the City Manager to Submit City of Folsom SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Program Application Priorities, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Grant Documents and Timely Project Delivery Requirements.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the greater Sacramento region, which is a six -county region including Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Placer, and El Dorado counties. SACOG is also the transportation planning agency for the four -county sub-region of Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, and Yuba counties (El Dorado County and Placer County both have their own transportation planning agencies).

The SACOG plays a central role in funding transportation improvements throughout the region by administering Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds across three programs. For the first time, the 2026 funding cycle includes

04/28/2026 Item No.11.
2 all six counties - El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba - marking a more comprehensive, region-wide approach.

This competitive process now establishes performance -based funding targets for each county to ensure resources are distributed in line with regional priorities and measurable outcomes. Through its three core programs - Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air, System Performance, and System Preservation - SACOG directs federal funds to projects that improve mobility, enhance safety, support sustainability, and advance equity.

Project eligibility for the funding programs requires the projects to be either listed in the 2025 Blueprint or fit within 2025 Blueprint lump -sum project categories, including but not limited to road maintenance and reconstruction, transit vehicle replacements, operational improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and bicycle and pedestrian investments.

Program Structure

The Federal Funding Cycle is organized into three distinct programs that help direct federal transportation dollars to the region's highest priorities in the six-county region.

Each program supports different types of projects that collectively aim to improve air quality, enhance mobility, and keep our transportation system in good working condition.

• Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air (CMAQ)
o Goal of Program: Reduce emissions & advance clean mobility o Funds projects like:
▪ High-capacity transit improvements
▪ Zero-emission vehicles & charging/fueling stations
▪ Bikeways, trails & Complete Streets
▪ Traffic flow & smart signal upgrades
▪ Carpool/vanpool, micromobility & clean travel programs

• System Performance (STBG)
o Goal of Program: Improve how the transportation system functions o Funds projects like:
▪ Roadway and safety improvements
▪ Transit vehicle and facility upgrades
▪ EV charging infrastructure
▪ New bike/ped connections & grade separations
▪ Mobility hubs
▪ Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

• System Preservation (STBG)
o Goal of Program: Maintain and extend the life of key roadways o Funds pavement maintenance & resurfacing on major arterials and collectors that support:
▪ Transit routes

04/28/2026 Item No.11.
3 ▪ Freight and goods movement
▪ Equity-priority communities
▪ Emergency/evacuation routes
▪ Key destinations and commercial corridors

Available Funding for 2026 Program

SACOG intends to program three years of funding in the 2026 Program covering Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2028 through 2030. The current estimated total available funding for the six-county region for this cycle is approximately $203 million.

• CMAQ Funds: Approximately $92 million

• STBG Funds: Approximately $111 million

The revenue target ranges available for each of the six-county regions are shown below and reflect the range of available federal transportation funding for the funding round; however, the amounts are not guaranteed, are not for individual jurisdictions, and are not program specific. These targets are intended to assist sponsors in making informed decisions regarding grant application amounts and to address what constitutes a reasonable funding request.

2026 Federal Funding Countywide Performance-Based Revenue Target Ranges (in Millions) El Dorado Placer Sacramento Sutter Yolo Yuba
120% $15.3 $40.4 $139.8 $10.4 $26.4 $11.0
100% $12.8 $33.6 $116.5 $8.6 $22.0 $9.2
80% $10.2 $26.9 $93.2 $6.9 $17.6 $7.3

Agencies may submit up to three (3) applications per program, for a total of up to nine (9) across the three funding programs.

The following tentative timeline has been established by SACOG for the three programs.

04/28/2026 Item No.11.
4 Program Category Call for Projects Application Closing Date
Anticipated SACOG
Board Action
System
Preservation Ongoing May 8, 2026 August 19, 2026
System
Performance June 1, 2026 September 19, 2026 December 17, 2026 Next Generation
and Clean Air June 1, 2026 September 19, 2026 December 17, 2026

POLICY / RULE

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 10405 , Amending the Financial Policies of the City of Folsom regarding grant administration on April 14, 2020. Section D – Intergovernmental Revenues, Paragraph A – Grant Applications states, “Grant application shall be the responsibility of the department seeking the grant. Grant applications which require an expenditure of funds by the City of less than or equal to the City Manager contract authority amount may be approved by the City Manager prior to submittal to the grantor. All other grant applications, including any requiring an ongoing commitment of resources or staff, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to submittal. In circumstances where it is not possible for the City Council to approve the grant application prior to submittal, the City Manager m ay approve the application subject to the City Council’s ratification as soon as practicable to do so.

Requests to the City Council or the City Manager for approval of a grant application shall identify anticipated long-term maintenance and/or renovation costs, required City matching funds, and additional personnel that may be needed if the grant is awarded for a capital project. With respect to grants for staffing, the source of funds for long -term staffing after the expiration of the grant shall also be identified in the request for approval of the grant application.

All grant applications on behalf of the City shall be reviewed by the Finance Director before submittal to the City Council or the grantor.”

04/28/2026 Item No.11.
5 ANALYSIS

In the previous two funding rounds (2020-21 and 2022-23), staff submitted a total of 17 grant applications to SACOG and were awarded over $11 .5 million in funding for five projects; the results are summarized below:

2020-21 Funding Round

• US50/East Bidwell Improvement Project, 2020-21: $4.6 million • ITS Master Plan Implementation, 2020-21, $4.3 million • US50/Empire Ranch Interchange Design, 2020-21: $2.5 million • Central Business District Streetscape, 2020-21: $100,000 • Natoma Street Drainage, Phase 2, 2020-21: Not awarded • Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail, 2020-21: Not awarded
• Oak Avenue Complete Streets, 2020-21: Not awarded
• Blue Ravine Road Pavement Rehab, 2020-21: Not awarded • Folsom Boulevard Bicycle Overcrossing, 2020-21: Not awarded • American River Canyon Road Diet, 2020-21: Not awarded

2022-23 Funding Round
• Roundabout Feasibility Assessment 2022-23: $400,000
• Class I Trail Maintenance and Repair 2022-23: Not awarded • Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure 2022-23: Not awarded (Note: Funded through Regional Active Transportation Program)
• Natoma Street Drainage Phase 3 Project 2022-23: Not awarded • Santa Juanita Realignment Project 2022-23: Not awarded • East Bidwell Pavement Resurfacing Project 2022-23: Not awarded • US 50 at Empire Ranch Road Interchange 2022-23: Not awarded

In March 2026, staff from Public Works, Community Development, and Parks & Recreation collaborated to identify candidate projects for the current 2026 SACOG Federal Funding cycle.

Project selection was guided by priorities established in the City’s foundational planning documents, including, but not limited to, the 2035 General Plan, the 2022 Active Transportation and Local Roads Safety Plans, the Central Business District Vision Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan, and City Council ’s Strategic Plan and Prio rities. By evaluating these priorities against SACOG’s specific competitiveness criteria, staff finalized the project list presented today. As required by SACOG guidelines, staff will rank these projects by relative priority to assist the selection committee in evaluating the City’s multiple applications.

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS FOR THE 2026 SACOG FEDERAL FUNDING

PROGRAM

04/28/2026 Item No.11.
6 After conferring with SACOG Staff, City Staff recommends the following projects , along with their corresponding programs.

East Bidwell Operational and Pavement Improvements (System Preservation Program):

Pavement Rehabilitation from Clarksville Road/Scholar Way to approximately 500’ south of Eastbound US50 Offramp . The p roject will provide necessary pavement treatments on East Bidwell Street to increase pavement life.

Prairie City Road Pavement Improvements (System Preservation Program) : Pavement Rehabilitation from US50 to Levy Road. This project will improve the Pavement Condition Index and extend the pavement life of the corridor through a variety of treatments including grind and overlay, dig outs and deep lift base repairs, crack seal, and slurry.

Iron Point Road Pavement Improvements (System Preservation Program): Through a variety of pavement treatments, this project will a ddress the Iron Point Road corridor between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City Road which serves a key commercial and economic generation area of the City.

East Bidwell Pedestrian Overcrossing (Next Generation Solutions and Clean Air Program):

Requesting construction funding for the East Bidwell Pedestrian Overcrossing located between Via Sole and Iron Point Road on East Bidwell Street to provide a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing over East Bidwell Street.

Folsom Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing (Next Generation Solutions and Clean Air Program): Requesting PA/ED funding for a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing over Folsom Boulevard near the Glenn Drive Light Rail Station to provide connectivity from the American River Bike Trail to Regional Transit.

East Natoma/Folsom Lake Crossing Roundabout (Next Generation Solutions and Clean Air Program): Requesting project funding to convert the existing traffic signal at East Natoma Street and Folsom Lake Crossing to roundabout control to improve safety, reduce delays, and provide improved bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Johnny Cash Trail.

Empire Ranch Road Interchange Phase 1 Overcrossing (System Performance Program):

Requesting partial construction funding for Phase 1 of the overcrossing of Empire Ranch Road over US50.

Central Business District Complete Streets (System Performance Program) : Pavement Rehabilitation from Montrose Drive to Riley Street along East Bidwell Street in the Central Business District. Complete streets project to close gaps in sidewalk, lane reductions, on street bike lanes to increase multimodal connections.

Riley Street Active Transportation Project (System Performance Program): Requesting construction funding for Riley Street between East Bidwell Street and Sutter Street to construct active transportation elements identified in the current Riley Street Complete Streets project.

04/28/2026 Item No.11.
7 Cost estimates and grant request amounts are still in process for each of these applications with attention and efforts focused on the System Preservation applications with a near term due date of May 8, 2026.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact associated with this action at this point. Should the City be awarded grant funding for any of these projects, the City would be required to provide local matching funds of approximately 11 .47 percent of the amount granted. Once any of the projects are awarded grant funding, staff will return to Council to identify the source of the required match and accept the grant if approved.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The proposed action (submitting grant applications) is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it constitutes an administrative activity that will not result in a direc t or indirect physical change in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11600 – A Resolution Authorizing Applications for Grant Funding from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2026 Federal Funding Programs, Authorizing the City Manager to Submit City of Folsom SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Program Application Priorities , and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Grant Documents and Timely Project Delivery Requirements

2. Table 1: SACOG 2026 Funding Round, City of Folsom Applications

3. Table 2: SACOG 2026 Funding Round, Preliminary Project Grant Requests and Required City Match

Submitted,

___________________________________________________________________________ Rebecca Neves, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 11600 – A Resolution Authorizing Applications for Grant Funding from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2026 Federal Funding Programs, Authorizing the City Manager to Submit City of Folsom SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Program Application Priorities, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Grant Documents and Timely Project Delivery Requirements

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

Resolution No. 11600

RESOLUTION NO. 11600

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDING FROM THE SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SACOG) 2026

FEDERAL FUNDING PROGRAMS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT CITY OF FOLSOM SACOG 2026 FEDERAL FUNDING PROGRAM

APPLICATION PRIORITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE ALL GRANT DOCUMENTS AND TIMELY PROJECT DELIVERY

REQUIREMENTS

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has announced three 2026 Federal Funding Cycle Programs (Funding Programs), which are open to sponsoring agencies within the six -county SACOG region: System Preservation Program, System Performance Program, and Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program; and

WHEREAS, the System Preservation Program invests in maintaining and resurfacing major roadways that keep people and goods moving; and

WHEREAS, the System Performance Program funds projects that improve how the transportation system functions day -to-day, including roadway and safety improvements, transit upgrades, EV charging, new bike and pedestrian connections, mobility hubs, and smart - transportation technologies that help manage traffic and improve reliability; and

WHEREAS, the Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program supports projects that reduce emissions and improve air quality —such as high-capacity transit, zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure, bikeways and trails, Complete Streets, traffic flow improvements, and programs that encourage carpooling, transit use, and other clean transportation options; and

WHEREAS, eligible projects for Funding Programs must be listed in the 2025 Blueprint or fit within 2025 Blueprint lump -sum project categories , including but not limited to road maintenance and reconstruction, transit vehicle replacements, operational improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and bicycle and pedestrian investments; and

WHEREAS, SACOG limits Funding Programs grant applications to no more than three applications per sponsoring agency for any one of the three different Funding Programs to SACOG, up to a maximum of nine total applications per sponsoring agency; and

WHEREAS, applicants shall affirm their commitment to delivering projects in accordance with the requirements of the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program and Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, as applicable; and

WHEREAS, grant proposals for construction work shall obligate Funding Program dollars for construction activities no later than the end of federal fiscal year 2028-29; and

WHEREAS, SACOG will not provide additional federal or state funding if cost overruns

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

Resolution No. 11600

are identified; and

WHEREAS, project sponsors shall commit to providing local matching dollars, typically

11.47% of the total project cost; and

WHEREAS, SACOG requires that if awarded federal funds by the SACOG Board, City of Folsom staff responsible for project delivery must attend quarterly project delivery meetings with SACOG staff to receive assistance until project closeout; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the following for grant funding from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2026 Federal Funding Programs:

1. The City Manager or designee is authorized to execute all documents necessary to commit the City of Folsom to federal, state , and regional funding and project delivery requirements, including but not limited to abiding by Funding Program guidelines.

2. Acknowledges that in the event of receiving an award by the SACOG Board of Funding Program dollars, that the City of Folsom will be required to abide by multiple timely use of funding requirements described in Funding Program guidelines and SACOG’s Regional Delivery Policies, including but not limited to, obligating federal funding no later than the end of federal fiscal year 2028-2029 for construction activities, committing to securing required local match dollars, acknowledging that SACOG does not cover cost overruns, and committing staff to attend delivery meetings until project closeout.

3. The City Manager or designee is directed to submit the following applications for the 2026 Six-County Federal Funding Cycle Programs.

• East Bidwell Operational and Pavement Improvements (System Preservation Program): Pavement Rehabilitation from Clarksville Road/Scholar Way to approximately 500’ south of Eastbound US50 Offramp . The project will provide necessary pavement treatments on East Bidwell Street to increase pavement life.

• Prairie City Road Pavement Improvements (System Preservation Program):

Pavement Rehabilitation from US50 to Levy Road. This project will improve the Pavement Condition Index and extend the pavement life of the corridor through a variety of treatments including grind and overlay, dig outs and deep lift base repairs, crack seal, and slurry.

• Iron Point Road Pavement Improvements (System Preservation Program):

Through a variety of pavement treatments, this project will address the Iron Point Road corridor between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City Road which serves a key commercial and economic generation area of the City.

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

Resolution No. 11600

• East Bidwell Pedestrian Overcrossing (Next Generation Solutions and Clean Air Program): Requesting construction funding for the East Bidwell Pedestrian Overcrossing located between Via Sole and Iron Point Road on East Bidwell Street to provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing over East Bidwell Street.

• Folsom Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing (Next Generation Solutions and Clean Air Program): Requesting PA/ED funding for pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing over Folsom Boulevard near the Glenn Drive Light Rail Station to provide connectivity from the American River Bike Trail to Regional Transit.

• East Natoma/Folsom Lake Crossing Roundabout (Next Generation and Clean Air Program): Requesting project funding to convert the existing traffic signal at East Natoma Street and Folsom Lake Crossing to roundabout control to improve safety, reduce delays, and provide improved bicycle and pedestrian connections to Johnny Cash Trail.

• Empire Ranch Road Interchange Phase 1 Overcrossing (System Performance Program): Requesting Partial Construction Funding for Phase 1 overcrossing of Empire Ranch Road over US50.

• Central Business District Complete Streets (System Performance Program) :

Pavement Rehabilitation from Montrose Drive to Riley Street along East Bidwell Street in the Central Business District. Complete streets project to close gaps in sidewalk, lane reductions, on street bike lanes to increase multimodal connections.

• Riley Street Active Transportation Project (System Performance Program):

Requesting construction funding for Riley Street between East Bidwell Street and Sutter Street to construct active transportation elements in the current Riley Street Safety Improvement Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

___________________________________
Justin Rathiel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

ATTACHMENT 2
Table 1: SACOG 2026 Funding Round, City of Folsom
Applications

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

Table 1: SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Round – City of Folsom Grant Applications

Draft
Priority
Project Title Program Project Description
1 East Bidwell
Operational and
Pavement
Improvements
System
Preservation
Pavement Rehabilitation from Clarksville/Scholar to approximately 500’ south of the Eastbound US50 Offramp. The project will provide necessary pavement treatments on East Bidwell Street to increase pavement life.
2 Prairie City Road
Pavement
Improvements
System
Preservation
Pavement Rehabilitation from US50 to Levy Road. This project will improve the Pavement Condition Index and extend the pavement life of the corridor through a variety of treatments including grind and overlay, dig outs and deep lift base repairs, crack seal, and slurry. 3 Iron Point Road
Pavement
Improvements
System
Preservation
Through a variety of pavement treatments, this project will address the Iron Point Road corridor between Folsom Boulevard and Prairie City Road which serves a key commercial and economic generation area of the City.
4 East Bidwell
Pedestrian
Overcrossing
Next
Generation
and Clean
Air
Construction funding for the East Bidwell Pedestrian Overcrossing located between Via Sole and Iron Point on East Bidwell to provide a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing over East Bidwell.
5 Folsom Boulevard
Pedestrian
Overcrossing
Next
Generation
and Clean
Air
Requesting PA/ED funding for pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing over Folsom Blvd near the Glenn Drive Light Rail Station to provide connectivity from the American River Bike Trail to Regional Transit.
6 East
Natoma/Folsom
Lake Crossing
Roundabout
Next
Generation
and Clean
Air
Requesting project funding to convert the existing traffic signal at East Natoma Street and Folsom Lake Crossing to roundabout control to improve safety, reduce delay, and provide improved bicycle and pedestrian connections to Johnny Cash Trail. 7 Empire Ranch
Road Interchange
Phase 1
Overcrossing
System
Performance
Requesting Partial Construction Funding for Phase 1 overcrossing of Empire Ranch Road over US50.
8 Central Business
District
Revitalization
Project
System
Preservation
Pavement Rehabilitation from Montrose Drive to Riley Street along East Bidwell in the Central Business District. Complete streets project to close gaps in sidewalk, lane reductions, on street bike lanes to increase multimodal connections.

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

9 Riley Street Safety
Improvements
Project
System
Performance
Requesting construction funding for Riley Street between East Bidwell and Sutter Street to construct active transportation elements identified in the current design project.

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

ATTACHMENT
Table 2: SACOG 2026 Funding Round, Preliminary Project Grant Requests and Required City Match

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

Table 2: SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Round – Preliminary Project Grant Requests and Required City Match

Draft
Priority
Project Title Program Requested Program
Amount
(Preliminary)
Approximate City
Required Match
(11.47%)
1 East Bidwell Operational and Pavement Improvements System Preservation $7,000,000 $802,900 2 Prairie City Road Pavement Improvements System Preservation $3,000,000 $345,000 3 Iron Point Road Pavement Improvements System Preservation $2,500,000 $287,000 4 East Bidwell Pedestrian Overcrossing Next Generation and Clean Air $10,000,000 $1,147,000 5 Folsom Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing Next Generation and Clean Air $2,000,000 $229,400 6 East Natoma/Folsom Lake Crossing Roundabout Next Generation and Clean Air $12,000,000 $1,376,400 7 Empire Ranch Road Interchange Phase 1 Overcrossing System Performance $30,000,000 $3,441,000 8 Central Business District Revitalization Project System Preservation $8,000,000 $917,600 9 Riley Street Safety Improvements Project System Performance $5,000,000 $573,500

04/28/2026 Item No.11.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11602 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount of $57,376.80 from the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499, and Appropriation of Funds

FROM: Public Works Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11602 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount of $57,376.80 from the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499, and Appropriation of Funds.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The City of Folsom currently owns and maintains a storm drain system along Bidwell Street that collects runoff from portions of Riley Street, Comstock Drive, Wool Street, and Decatur Street, as well as adjacent residential and commercial private properties . The storm drain line along Bidwell Street consists of an 18-inch pipe running north to south, joining with a second 18-inch pipe at the intersection of Bidwell Street and Decatur Street, and connecting east. Most segments of the pipe are corrugated metal pipe (CMP).

In 2020, during routine storm drain inspections, the Public Works Department determined that a section of storm drain line along Bidwell Street south of Wool Street had never been

04/28/2026 Item No.12.
2 constructed, and the line was plugged. During rain events, accumulated runoff bubbles up out of a slotted manhole lid and into the adjacent unpaved roadside ditch. Over the years, this has caused erosion along the edge of the pavement and carried sediment into the next downstream drain inlet located at Decatur Street.

On October 25, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 10937, authorizing a Green Means Go grant application under the Capital category for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project to address the identified issue. The City received a full grant award from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), and on April 25, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11027 to accept the grant. Acceptance of the $305,000 fully funded Capital grant award provides funding for the replacement of approximately 500 linear feet of the 18-inch storm drain line, associated manholes, and additional curb and gutter along the length from Wool Street to Decatur Street to prevent any future erosion.

The project was originally advertised for construction in June 2025, and the City only received one bid. Upon review, staff did not recommend awarding the project given the lack of additional bids and some discrepancies with noticing through the original bid platform, and on August 12, 2025, City Council approved Resolution No. 11448 to reject bids, with the intent for staff to immediately readvertise the project on another bidding platform.

The project was readvertised for construction in August 2025, and the City received several bids. On October 14, 2025, City Council approved Resolution No. 11472 , awarding the construction contract to Imperial Construction & Engineering, Inc. Prior to proceeding with construction of the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, the City solicited for construction management services from multiple qualified engineering consultants to assist City staff with managing construction of the project.

POLICY / RULE

Section 2.36. 080, Award of Contracts of the Folsom Municipal Code states, in part, that contracts for supplies, equipment, services , and constructio n with an estimated value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by City C ouncil. While the contract value is below the adjusted threshold for City Council award per Section 2.36.080, Council action is required to authorize the appropriation of additional funds into the project budget.

ANALYSIS

City staff received proposals from qualified engineering consultants in response to a solicitation for construction management services for the Bidwell Street Drainage Improvements Project. The Public Works Department has evaluated the proposals and recommends the contract be awarded to Dewberry Engineers, Inc.

Staff will use the City’s standard Consulting Services Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

04/28/2026 Item No.12.
3 FINANCIAL IMPACT

The Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499, is included in the Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Capital Improvement Plan with a project budget of $305,000 in the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448), which consists of $300,000 of Green Means Go grant funds. The grant program does not require a local match contribution.

The construction contract with Imperial Construction & Engineering, Inc. was authorized for $233,000, with the total budget for the agreement in the amount of $256,300, which included a 10% contingency of $23,300 for potential change orders.

If approved, the contract with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. would be authorized in the amount of $57,376.80. Staff is requesting an appropriation in the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) in the amount of $8,676.80 to cover the contract amount over the remaining project budget amount of $48,700.

If approved, the total project budget for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project 2499, would increase to $313,676.80. Sufficient funds are available in the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the appropriation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project is a rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and, therefore, is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11602 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount of $57,376.80 from the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499, and Appropriation of Funds

2. Bidwell Street Drainage Improvements Project Exhibit

Submitted,

_________
Rebecca Neves, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER

04/28/2026 Item No.12.

ATTACHMENT 1
A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consultant Service Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount of $57,376.80 from the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499, and Appropriation of Funds

04/28/2026 Item No.12.

Resolution No. 11602

RESOLUTION NO. 11602

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DEWBERRY ENGINEERS, INC.

FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,376.80 FROM THE DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (FUND 448) FOR THE BIDWELL STREET STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 2499, AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom desires to receive construction management services for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project; and

WHEREAS, the project was included in the Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Capital Improvement Plan with a project budget of $305,000, which consists of a $300,000 Green Means Go grant award with no required local match; and

WHEREAS, in October 2025, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11472 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Imperial Construction & Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $233,000 Using Green Means Go Grant Funds in the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the Bidwell Stre et Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499; and

WHEREAS, prior to construction, the City of Folsom received proposals from qualified engineering consultants in response to a solicitation for construction management services , and after evaluating the proposals, Public Works staff recommend that the contract be awarded to Dewberry Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $57,376.80; and

WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of $8,67 6.80 in the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for a Consultant Services Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. will be required for a new total project budget of $313,676.80; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the appropriation; and

WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to Execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount of $57,376.80 from the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund, Fund 448, for the Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499, and Appropriation of Funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $8,676.80 in the Drainage Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 448) for the

04/28/2026 Item No.12.

Resolution No. 11602

Bidwell Street Storm Drain Replacement Project, Project No. 2499 , for a total project budget of $313,676.80.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 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

04/28/2026 Item No.12.

ATTACHMENT 2
Bidwell Street Drainage Improvements Project Exhibit

04/28/2026 Item No.12.

04/28/2026 Item No.12.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11605- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for the Renewal of Police Camera and Technology Lease

FROM: Police Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Counci l pass and adopt Resolution No. 11605- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for the Renewal of Police Camera and Technology Lease.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
In 2021, Council approved (Resolution 10647) a 5 year lease for Body-worn cameras (BWC) and in-car cameras (ICC) to provide officers with a reliable and compact tool to systematically and automatically record their field observations and encounters. Taser electronic control devices were included in this contract. The cameras have proven successful for documentation purposes, to include interactions with victims, witnesses, and others during police -public encounters, arrests, and critical incidents. Additionally, body-worn cameras can be used for training and evaluation purposes, allowing the police department to identify and address performance deficiencies with their officers.

The renewal of this contract to extend for another 5 year period increases the costs by about 10%. In addition to the existing products and software, the new contract includes analytical cloud-based software to better observe officers in the field and provide supervisors with tools for oversight over field activity. Additionally, a virtual reality training is platform designed for reinforcing deescalation techniques and proper use of force will be included.

POLICY / RULE
This purchase is exempt from competitive bids due to Axon being the sole manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of all TASER brand products.

04/28/2026 Item No.13.
2 Section 2.36.080 of the Folsom Municipal Code states, in part, that contracts for supplies, equipment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $7 7,426 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.

ANALYSIS
Axon is the manufacturer of TASER, the electronic control device (ECD) deployed by Folsom Police Officers for more than a decade and the ECD of choice for law enforcement agencies across the nation. Axon’s firmly established relationship with law enforcement provided them the opportunity to move into the in-car camera (ICC) and body-worn camera (BWC) industry.

As technology advanced, Axon began integrating all three technologies, and they now integrate additional software based tools to manage the inventory, and oversee the use of the tools.

The Axon products have proven reliable, are accepted and integrated with the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office and the infrastructure is already in place. Staff recommends renewing the contract with Axon to secure costs for the next 5 years.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

If approved, the renewal agreement with Axon Enterprise for the lease of software services, body-worn and in-car cameras, and tasers would be for a five -year term with a total amount not to exceed $1,705,343. The proposed renewal reflects an annual increase of $31,000 compared to the current agreement.The agreement would take effect in FY 2026-27 and will continue to be funded through the General Fund (Fund 010) with appropriations to be requested annually as part of the City’s budget process.

ATTACHMENT

Resolution No. 11605 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for the Renewal of Police Camera and Technology Lease

Submitted,

Adam Green, Chief of Police

04/28/2026 Item No.13.

Attachment 1

04/28/2026 Item No.13.

Resolution No. 11605

RESOLUTION NO. 11605

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. FOR THE RENEWAL OF POLICE

CAMERA AND TECHNOLOGY LEASE

WHEREAS, In 2021, Folsom City Council adopted Resolution 10647 approving a 5- year lease agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. to provide Body -Worn and In -Car Camera systems, as well as Taser devices and software services for the Police Department; and

WHEREAS, Axon Enterprise, Inc. has performed well and Police Staff recommend renewing the contract for an additional 5 years with Axon, who is a sole-source provider of the cameras and Taser devices currently in use with the Police Department; and

WHEREAS, the agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. will be for the not-to-exceed amount of $1,705,343, to be paid over 5 years; and

WHEREAS, the agreement will take effect in FY 2026-27 and will continue to be funded through the General Fund (Fund 010) with appropriations to be requested annually as part of the City’s budget process; and

WHEREAS, the contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc. will be in a format acceptable to the City Attorney.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for a total amount not to exceed $1,705,343 for Cameras, Tasers and technology.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April 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

04/28/2026 Item No.13.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Natoma Station Maintenance Assessment District No. 2025-2 Public/Protest Hearing and Ballot Proceedings; Direction to Staff to Tally Ballots and Return with Results at the Next City Council Meeting

FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing to receive testimony and to allow for the submittal of ballots before the close of the public hearing.

Staff recommends following the close of the public hearing, the item be continued to the next City Council meeting scheduled for May 12, 2026 , so the City Clerk can tabulate t he ballots on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 9 a.m. in the Large Public Works Conference Room at City Hall, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630. This ballot tabulation is open to the public. Results from the tabulation will be presented at the May 12, 2026, City Council meeting.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

On J une 24 , 2025, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11403 - A Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Formation of a Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District to be known as the Natoma Station Maintenance Assessment District No. 2025-2.

On February 10, 2026, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11548 - A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Engineers Report, Declaring the Intention to Order the Formation of the Natoma Station Maintenance Assessment District No. 2025-2, to Levy and Collect Assessments, to Provide Notice of Public Hearing and Direct the Mailing of Assessment Ballots Within the Proposed District in the City of Folsom.

04/28/2026 Item No.14.
2 Pursuant to Government Code Section 53753, ballots were mailed to all current property owners within the proposed district.

Under the provisions of Proposition 218, a public hearing must be held on the levy of new assessments at least 45 days after notice of the proposed assessment was mailed to record owners of each parcel in the new district. The public hearing was set in Resolution No. 11548 on February 10, 2026, and published in the Folsom Telegraph on April 17, 2026. The public hearing was set for April 28, 202 6, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, California 95630.

POLICY / RULE
The City Council is required to approve, or modify and approve, the Engineer's Report as part of the formation process pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22586). The City Council shall comply with the hearing procedures pursuant to Section 22588 of the Streets and Highways Code.

Pursuant to Section 22605(d) of the Streets and Highways Code, the original Natoma Station Landscaping and Lighting District will be consolidated with the Natoma Station Maintenance Assessment District No. 2025-2 if a majority is in favor.

Pursuant to Section 22611 of the Streets and Highways Code, all assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, and installments of the original Natoma Station Landscaping and Lighting District shall be transferred to, and assumed by, the Natoma Station Maintenance Assessment District No. 2025- 2 for the continued maintenance and servicing of the improvements.

ANALYSIS
The Natoma Station Landscaping and Lighting District was formed by Resolution No. 3024 on June 18, 1990, to maintain improvements within the District. These improvements include landscaping and associated improvements along Iron Point Road, Blue Ravine Roa d, Turnpike Drive, Black Diamond Drive, and Natoma Station Drive, as well as the subdivision’s streetlights, landscape lighting, irrigation systems, open space, monument entry signage, soundwalls, mini - parks, and art monuments. This District was formed pri or to Proposition 218 and, therefore, does not have an escalator built into the annual rate.

There are 1,272 single-family dwelling units within the District, and it is one of the older Districts in the city. In early 2025, the District pursued the Proposition 218 reassessment process; however, the resulting ballot measure did not receive suffici ent support, with voters opposing the assessment. The District is increasingly unable to keep pace with rising operational and maintenance costs, which have placed significant strain on its financial resources. The District maintains the aforementioned improvements along the frontages and medians of Iron Point Road, Blue Ravine Road, Turnpike Drive, Black Diamond Drive, and Natoma Station Drive. In addition to maintaining these areas, the District is responsible for servicing costs for irrigation, water, an d electricity to the street and landscape lights.

Revenue from the existing assessment (approximately $170,000 annually) is allocated yearly to maintain the District’s features. The existing per-unit rate of $91.70 has not been increased since

04/28/2026 Item No.14.
3 it was established over 36 years ago. Approximately 37% of the budget currently covers scheduled and unscheduled landscape maintenance; 9% to streetlight maintenance and supplies; 23% to water and electricity; and 31% to incidental cost (non -landscape contract services, electrical repairs, vandalism response/repairs, hazard tree removal, sidewalk repair, yearly backflow testing, preparation of Engineer’s Reports, publications/mailings, staff, overhead, county auditor fee). The existing revenue from collec ted assessments has been unable to fund the expected day -to-day unscheduled costs, such as irrigation repairs and plant/tree replacements, as well as not being able to set aside funds for life-cycle costs in the District.

The primary objective of forming a new District to replace the existing District is to specifically provide the level of service originally intended, address deferred maintenance of the improvements within the District, plan for life -cycle replacements and repairs for years into the future, and provide for an annual inflationary adjustment as needed. Such deferred items include outdated and un-centralized irrigation systems, replacement of missing landscaping, addressing tree care, and implementing water conservation measures such as replacing dead/dying trees and shrubs with water-wise plantings and LED streetlight retrofits. Should the new Landscaping and Lighting District be formed, it is proposed to complete many of the deferred maintenance improvement s over the first few years, as well as embark on the phased replacement plan for the older landscape areas.

Staff conducted community outreach meetings on May 20, 2025, and May 28, 2025, to inform property owners of the results of the failed assessment and to solicit input regarding potential next steps, including interest in initiating a subsequent reassessment in accordance with Proposition 218. Based on feedback from community outreach meetings and subsequent communications, a majority of participating property owners supported pursuing another assessment effort. In response to this demonstrated interest, staf f initiated a reassessment process in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218 and applicable state law. As part of the process to form a new assessment District, staff initiated a public outreach program for the Natoma Station community with two public meetings that were held on January 22, 2026, and January 29, 2026. The intent of the meetings was to discuss the option proposed to address the District’s financial condition and develop a viable option that will ultimately be voted on and approved (or denied) by the property owners within the District. Staff presented an option for the District utilizing the trips method of apportionment. This proposal would create a new District that consolidates and replaces the existing District. This new Distr ict would cover the regular maintenance and servicing of the District assets, cover the deficit, address all deferred maintenance, and provide some enhancements. There was a thoughtful discussion to ensure those in attendance had their questions answered. As a result of these two public meetings, those in attendance were supportive of the proposed option for the District; as such, it was the option that appeared on the ballot for the entire community to vote on.

The property owners of Natoma Station Landscaping and Lighting District were sent a ballot to vote on the proposal to form a new assessment district in the middle of February 2026, meeting the 45-day period for the district property owners to consider the proposed assessment. At the public hearing, ballots will be collected by the close of the Public Hearing. Ballots are scheduled to be tabulated on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 , at 9 a.m. in the Large Public Works Conference Room located at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630. This tabulation is open to the Public. After

04/28/2026 Item No.14.
4 confirmation of the ballot tabulation, results from the tabulation will be made public by posting on the City website located at www.folsom.ca.us, the afternoon of April 29, 2026. Results will be presented at the City Council meeting scheduled for May 12, 2026.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The maximum assessment amount is calculated as the total cost of improvements, less the portion attributable to general benefit in accordance with Proposition 218. The general benefit of $53,617.44, determined to be 15.095% of total improvement costs, includes benefits to the broader community, including Sheldon Park and Mann Park. In addition to the funding for this general benefit portion, the City will contribute an additional $30,492.10 annually from the General Fund (Fund 010) to further offset general benefit costs associated with Sheldon Park and Mann Park.

The total maximum amount to be assessed in Fiscal Year 2026 -2027 is $527,371.40. The remaining costs of the District will be funded through the assessment and will directly benefit properties within the District boundaries.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The formation of a financing District, maintaining and servicing existing landscaping and lighting improvements, is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. No environmental review is required.

Submitted,

Kelly Gonzalez, Parks & Recreation Director

04/28/2026 Item No.14.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11539 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Modifying the Assessment Rate of the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District (Continued from February 24, 2026)

FROM: City Manager's Office

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff Recommends the City Council hold final public hearing, declare results of majority protest proceedings, and, if no majority protest exists, adopt Resolution No. 11539 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Modifying the Assessment Rate of the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

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.

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.

TBID benefits:
• Funds cannot be diverted for other government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of each destination;

04/28/2026 Item No.15.
2 • 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.

FOLSOM TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (FTBID)

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.) (89 Law) and Ordinance No. 1171 (which codifie d 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 the FTB ID are the boundaries of the City of Folsom.

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 with twenty or more rooms, on the basis of benefit.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION

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 and support facility- related investments such as infrastructure improvements. The 89 Law and Ordinance No. 1171 allow the Folsom City Council (Council) to modify the FTBID in accordance generally with Section 36540 of the 89 Law.

TEDCorp staff evaluated lodging assessments (both through TBIDs and Transient Occupancy Tax) in nearby jurisdictions. This information is included in Attachment 2, and indicates that an increase of four percent (4%) will not affect the competitiveness of Folsom lodging against other lodging choices in the region.

To initiate the modification process, TEDCorp 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 four percent (4%) assessment will be dedicated to improvements, 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, Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to Modify the FTBID (Attachment 3). Since the adoption of the Resolution of Intention to Modify the FTBID,

04/28/2026 Item No.15.
3 TEDCorp as the Owners’ Association for the FTBID , has continued to conduct outreach with lodging businesses in the boundaries of the existing FTBID. Council continued the public hearing that was previously scheduled for January 27, 2026 and February 24, 2026 to April 28, 2026, to allow TEDCorp to continue outreach and discussions with lodging businesses and community members.

Based on feedback received from the lodging businesses that will be subject to the proposed increased assessment, TEDCorp will establish the FTBID Capital Improvement Committee (Committee) and adopt a Governance Policy (Attachment 4). The Committee shall be comprised of representatives from assessed hotels, TEDCorp, and the City of Folsom that shall direct use of the additional revenue from the supplemental four percent (4%) assessment, if adopted. The City will require an amendment to the agreement with the Owners’ Association to incorporate these requirements and ensure they are in place if the proposed modification is adopted.

To complete the modification process, Council must adopt this Resolution of Modification.

Holding the final hearing, declaring results of the majority protest proceedings, and adopting the Resolution Modifying the Assessment Rate will result in the modification of the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District (FTBID). The businesses within the FTBID shall be specifically benefitted by the activities and improvements funded by the assessments.

POLICY / RULE

City of Folsom Ordinance No. 1171, codified as Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 3.100, establishes procedures for forming, modifying, and governing parking and business improvement districts supplemental to the 89 Law.

ANALYSIS

FTBID MODIFICATION PROCESS

October 24, 2025 WRITTEN REQUEST (COMPLETED)
TEDCorp, serving as Owners’ Association, provided a letter requesting modification of the FTBID. This written request allowed the Council to initiate proceedings for FTBID modification at the November 12, 2025 meeting.

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.

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.

04/28/2026 Item No.15.
4 January 13, 2026 PUBLIC MEETING (COMPLETED)
Allow public testimony on the proposed modification of the FTBID. No Council action required.

January 27, 2026 PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
Council continued the public hearing on the proposed modifications to the FTBID.

February 24, 2026 PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
Council continued the public hearing on the proposed modifications to the FTBID.

April 28, 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.

If the Council, following the public hearing and a determination that no majority protest exists , decides to modify the FTBID as described in the Resolution of Intention to Modify, the Council shall adopt a R esolution Modifying the Assessment Rate.

June 1, 2026 Target date for FTBID assessment modification to take effect. City will require an amendment to its agreement with the Owners’ Association to reflect the Committee and Governance Policy requirements before the modification takes effect.

Assuming no majority protest at this Public Hearing, 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 practicable following the modific ation proceedings for the FTBID, which effective date is estimated for June 1, 2026. Before the modification takes effect, the City will require an amendment to its agreement with the Owners’ Association to include requirements for the Committee and the Governance Policy, as requested by the lodging businesses that will be subject to the increased assessment.

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.

04/28/2026 Item No.15.
5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not considered a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5). See also CEQA Guidelines section 15002(d).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11539 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Folsom Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Modifying the Assessment Rate of the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District

2. TEDCorp Lodging Assessment Evaluation

3. November 12, 2025, Resolution No. 11506 - Resolution of Intention

4. FTBID Capital Improvement Committee Governance Policy

Submitted,
Bryan Whitemyer
City Manager

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 1

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11539

RESOLUTION NO. 11539

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM

DECLARING RESULTS OF MAJORITY PROTEST PROCEEDINGS

AND MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT RATE OF THE FOLSOM

TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Streets and Highways Code §36500 et seq., (1989 Law) authorizes cities and counties to establish parking and business improvement districts for the purpose of promoting tourism; and

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom (City) adopted Ordinance No. 1171, codified as Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 3.100, which establishes procedures for forming parking and business improvement districts supplemental to the 1989 Law; and

WHEREAS, the City Council established the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District (FTBID) on October 23, 2012, by Resolution No. 9071; and

WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code § 3.100.090 authorizes the FTBID Owners’ Association at any time to recommend the City modify the FTBID; and

WHEREAS, the Folsom Tourism and Economic Development Corporation (TEDCorp) , as the FTBID Owners’ Association, has facilitated the request to modify the FTBID; and

WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025 at 6:30 PM at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630, the Council adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 11506; and

WHEREAS, the public meeting and the public hearing to consider the modification of the FTBID have each been properly noticed in accordance with Folsom Municipal Code Section

3.100.090 and Government Code §54954.6; and

WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026 at 6:30 PM at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630, the Council held a public meeting regarding the proposed modification of the FTBID, and the Council heard and received objections and protests, if any, to the modification of the FTBID assessment rate and the levy of the proposed assessment; and

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026 at 6:30 PM at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630, the Council continued the public hearing regarding the proposed modification of the FTBID to February 24, 2026; and

WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026 at 6:30 PM at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630, the Council continued the public hearing regarding the proposed modification of the FTBID to April 28, 2026; and

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11539

WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026 at 6:30 PM at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630, the Council held a public hearing regarding the proposed modification of the FTBID, and the Council heard and received all objections and protests, if any, to the modification of the FTBID assessment rate; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code §3.100.110, business owners subject to the assessment may request disestablishment; and
WHEREAS, a majority protest is defined as written protests received from owners of businesses in the modified FTBID which would pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied. Protests are weighted based on the assessment proposed to be levied on each assessed business; and

WHEREAS, the City Clerk has determined that there exists a conditional majority protest to the effect that owners of businesses in the modified FTBID which would pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied submitted written protests stating that they support the proposed modification contingent upon the governance of the FTBID conforming to a governance policy prepared by the assessed business owners and agreed to by the Owners’ Association (Governance Policy) which includes a requirement for the Owners’ Association to establish the FTBID Capital Improvement Committee, a committee of representatives from assessed hotels, TEDCorp, and the City to direct use of the additional revenue from the supplemental four percent (4%) assessment consistent with the terms of the Governance Policy (Committee); and

WHEREAS, to effectuate the will of business owners in the modified FTBID which would pay fifty percent (50% ) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied as stated in the conditional majority protest, the agreement between the City and the Owners’ Association must be amended to incorporate requirement s that the Owners’ Association establish the Committee and conform operations of the FTBID to the Governance Policy with respect to the increased assessment; and

WHEREAS, the City bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an assessment imposed for a specific benefit or specific government service is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the costs to the City in providing the specific benefit or specific government service, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the specific benefits or specific government services received by the payor.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom as follows:

1. The recitals set forth herein are adopted by the City Council as findings and they are true and correct.

2. The Council hereby modifies the assessment rate from a rate of four percent (4%) to eight percent (8%), contingent upon governance of the FTBID conforming to the Governance Policy with respect to the increased assessment.

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11539

3. The additional four percent ( 4%) assessment will be dedicated to improvements including but not limited to development of facilities that attract overnight visitation to businesses paying the F TBID assessment, infrastructure improvements, and marketing and development efforts directly related to the facilities and associated visitor growth.

4. The FTBID Owners ’ Association shall establish the FTBID Capital Improvement Committee, a committee of representatives from assessed hotels, TEDCorp, and the City that directs use of the additional revenue from the supplemental four percent (4%) assessment in conformity with the terms of the Governance Policy.

5. The existing agreement between the City and the Owners’ Association shall be amended to incorporate requirements that the Owners’ Association establish the Committee and conform operations of the FTBID to the Governance Policy with respect to the increased assessment.

6. The increased assessment shall not be levied until the Committee has been established and the contract amendment described in Paragraph 5 has become effective.

7. The FTBID modified pursuant to this Resolution will be subject to any amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code chapter 3.100.

8. The City Clerk, or his or her designee, is directed to take all necessary actions to complete the modification of the FTBID assessment rate.

9. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28
th day of April 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

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 2

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

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%

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 3

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11506

RESOLUTION NO. 11506

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO

MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT RATE OF THE FOLSOM TOURISM BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC

MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING THEREON, AND GIVING NOTICE THEREOF WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Streets and Highways Code §36500 et seq., (1989 Law) authorizes cities and counties to establish parking and business improvement areas for the purpose of promoting tourism; and WHEREAS, the City of Folsom (City) adopted Ordinance No. 1171, which establishes procedures for forming parking and business improvement areas supplemental to the 1989 Law; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1171, the City Council established the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District (FTBID) on October 23, 2012, by Resolution No. 9071; and

WHEREAS, the FTBID includes all lodging businesses with twenty or more rooms, existing and in the future, within the boundaries of the City; and

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1171 authorizes the District Owners’ Association at any time to recommend the City modify the assessment rate of the FTBID; and

WHEREAS, the Folsom Tourism and Economic Development Corporation (TEDCorp) has facilitated the request to modify the FTBID; and

WHEREAS, modifications to the FTBID are limited to those described in this Resolution of Intention as set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom as follows:

1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. The City Council declares its intention to modify the FTBID assessment rate pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Streets and Highways Code §36500 et seq. and Folsom Municipal Code section 3.100.010 et seq. The current assessment rate is four percent (4%) of gross room rental revenue. The modified assessment rate is eight percent (8%) of gross room rental revenue. The additional 4% assessment will be dedicated to improvements and activities related to improvements , including but not limited to development of facilities that attract overnight visitation to businesses paying the FTBID assessment, infrastructure improvements, and marketing and development efforts directly related to the facilities and associated visitor growth.

3. New lodging businesses with twenty or more rooms within the FTBID boundaries will be Docusign Envelope ID: 45DBDEE6-A55E-46FE-986B-34F714C66B4F

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11506

subject to the levy of assessment as authorized by Streets and Highways Code §36531.

4. The time and place for a public meeting for comments on the proposed FTBID and the levy of assessments are set for 6:30 PM on January 13, 2026 at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630.

5. The time and place for the public hearing to modify the FTBID and levy assessments are set for 6:30 PM on January 27, 2026 at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630.

6. At the public meeting and public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against modifying the FTBID will be heard.

7. A protest against modifying the FTBID, the extent of the FTBID, or the furnishing of a specified type of improvement or activity, as provided in Streets and Highways Code §36524, may be made in writing. To count as a protest against the FTBID, a protest must be made in writing. A written protest may be withdrawn, in writing, at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person signing the protest is interested, sufficie nt to identify the business and its address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business, or the authorized representative. Any protest as to the regularity or evidence of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. Written protests must be received by the Clerk of the City of Folsom before the close of the public hearing scheduled herein, and may be delivered or mailed to the City Clerk at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630.

8. If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the FTBID that will collectively pay fifty percent or more of the total FTBID assessment, no further proceedings to modify the FTBID shall occur. If the majority of written protest is only as to a proposed improvement or activity, then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the FTBID. The FTBID shall be effective on April 1, 2026 or as soon as possible thereafter.

9. Further information regarding the proposed FTBID may be obtained from the City Clerk, at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630.

10. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public meeting and public hearing as follows:

a. Mail a complete copy of this Resolution of Intention to each and every business owner proposed to be assessed in the FTBID within seven days of the adoption of this Resolution; and
b. Provide notice of the Public Meeting and the Public Hearing on the Resolution of Modification as provided in Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.100.090 and pursuant to Gov. Code § 54954.6.

11. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify Docusign Envelope ID: 45DBDEE6-A55E-46FE-986B-34F714C66B4F

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Resolution No. 11506

the vote adopting this resolution.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution of Intention was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November 2025, by the following vote:

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

___________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________
Christina Kelley, CITY CLERK SPECIALIST

Docusign Envelope ID: 45DBDEE6-A55E-46FE-986B-34F714C66B4F

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Attachment 4

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Approved by TEDCorp Board 4.8.2026
Attachment 4

Folsom TBID Capital Improvement Committee
Governance Policy

1. Purpose

The Folsom TBID Capital Improvement Committee (the “Committee”) is established as a formal committee of TEDCorp/Folsom Tourism Bureau. The Committee shall operate within TEDCorp’s governance structure and function in accordance with all applicable laws, including those governing Tourism Business Improvement Districts (TBIDs).

The Committee is established to direct and oversee the use of funds generated by the additional 4% TBID assessment dedicated for capital improvements. The Committee ensures these funds support projects that:

• Increase overnight hotel stays in Folsom
• Enhance tourism-related infrastructure and amenities
• Improve visitor experiences
• Strengthen Folsom’s competitiveness as a regional destination

2. Committee Name
FTBID Capital Improvement Committee

3. Authority & Relationship to Existing Organizations
The Committee shall have the authority to review, prioritize, and approve the use of funds generated by the additional 4% TBID assessment. No funds generated by the additional 4% TBID assessment shall be expended without prior approval of the Committee.

The TEDCorp Board retains ultimate fiduciary responsibility, contracting authority, legal and financial oversight and shall ensure compliance with all governing laws and agreements. The committee shall be subject to the same audit, accounting, reporting, and legal requirements as TEDCorp. The expenses associated with these requirements shall come from the additional 4% TBID assessment. The committee shall not have authority to approve, authorize or commit TEDCorp to any indebtedness, borrowing, guarantee, or financial obligation without approval of the Board of Directors.

4. Control of Funds
All funds generated by the additional 4% TBID assessment shall be treated as restricted funds. These funds shall not be commingled or used outside the Committee’s authority.

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Approved by TEDCorp Board 4.8.2026
The Committee shall have sole authority to approve allocation of these funds, subject only to the authority of the TEDCorp Board to accept or reject the allocation.

5. Responsibility of the Committee
Each year the Committee will:

1. Review tourism trends and hotel performance

2. Establish annual spending priorities

3. Identify high-impact tourism investments

4. Consider projects for funding approval

6. Project Eligibility & Evaluation Criteria
Funds shall be used exclusively for projects and initiatives reasonably expected to generate overnight hotel stays and increase visitation.

Eligible uses include:
• Tourism-related infrastructure, including sports tourism • Event attraction
• Destination-driving events, programming and marketing • Capital improvements supporting overnight visitation
• Strategic demand-generating investments

Projects must demonstrate a clear nexus to overnight stays, visitor demand, or economic impact.

In evaluating projects, the Committee shall prioritize projects and programs that:
• increase measurable room night generation
• increase midweek and shoulder season demand
• have long-term economic impact
• leverage funding or include public private partnerships • strategically align with TEDCorp’s Tourism Strategy

7. Committee Composition & Voting Structure
To ensure balanced representation, the Committee will consist of eleven (11) members nominated as described below. Each member shall have one (1) vote. Proxy voting is not permitted.

Hotel Industry Representatives (6 seats)
• Six representatives from hotels paying into the FTBID Appointments shall be by participating hoteliers.

TEDCorp Representatives (2 seats)
• Two members of the TEDCorp Board of Directors
Appointments shall be by TEDCorp Board of Directors and shall not be a City representative.

City Representatives (3 seats)
• Two members of the Folsom City Council
• City Manager

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Approved by TEDCorp Board 4.8.2026
City Council appointments shall be by the City Council.

8. Member Terms
Terms shall be five (5) years and may be staggered initially for continuity with the exception of City Council Representatives, which will be appointed each year by the City Council.

Members may serve up to two consecutive terms.

Hotel representatives must remain active operators of a hotel subject to the FTBID assessment.

9. Leadership
The Committee shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from the hotel industry representatives The Chair, in coordination with the TEDCorp CEO, shall set agendas, facilitate meetings, and serve as liaison to the TEDCorp Board.

The Vice Chair shall perform these duties in the absence of the Chair.

10. Meetings & Compliance
The Committee shall meet as needed and maintain records of all actions. Meetings shall comply with applicable laws and governance requirements including the Brown Act.

TEDCorp shall form the Committee by Board resolution, pursuant to the California Corporations Code and the TEDCorp Bylaws. The resolution should establish the Committee's authority, composition, and purpose as required by Cal. Corp. Code § 7212(a)(6).

The Committee's initial meeting shall be scheduled and agendized in compliance with Brown Act notice requirements (Cal. Gov. Code § 54954.2). The agenda for the initial meeting should include:

• Dissemination of Brown Act requirements to all Committee members • Election of Committee officers
• Adoption of policies for the conduct of Committee business • Establishment of a regular Committee meeting schedule

11. Accountability & Reporting
Pursuant to TEDCorp Bylaw’s, staff shall provide an annual report on fund use and project outcomes, including impacts on hotel occupancy and visitation each year.

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

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

04/28/2026 Item No.15.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11601– A Resolution Replacing Resolution No. 11366 and Approving the Updated City Impact and Connection Fee Schedule for Law Enforcement, Fire Suppression, General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment, Park Improvement,
Humbug-Willow Creek, Housing Trust, Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Transportation Improvement, Drainage, and Light Rail Impact Fees

FROM: Finance Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff requests the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 11601 – A Resolution Replacing Resolution No. 11366 and Approving the Updated City Impact and Connection Fee Schedule for Law Enforcement, Fire Suppression, General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment, Park Improvement, Humbug- Willow Creek, Housing Trust, Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Transportation Improvement, Drainage, and Light Rail Impact Fees.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

In May 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 7812 which established new city impact and connection fees for law enforcement, fire suppression, general facilities, vehicles and equipment, park improvement, Humbug- Willow Creek, housing trust, water, sanitary sewer, transportation improvement, drainage, and light rail. Resolution No. 7812 also approved an annual inflationary adjustment.

POLICY / RULE

Folsom Municipal Code

04/28/2026 Item No.16.
2 The Folsom Municipal Code sets impact fees in various code sections as follows:

• Section 03.20.045 – Solid Waste Fee
• Section 03.80.040 – Police, Fire, and General Government Improvement • Section 03.90.010 – Housing Trust Fee
• Section 04.10.010 – Park Improvement
• Section 04.12.010 – Humbug-Willow Creek Fee
• Section 10.50.040 – Light Rail
• Section 12.04.060 – Transportation Improvement
• Section 13.24.050 – Water Connection
• Section 13.25.010 – Sewer Connection
• Section 13.30.010 – Water Impact Fee
• Section 17.95.010 – Drainage Improvement

ANALYSIS

In accordance with Resolution No. 7812, adopted May 23, 2006, Staff have calculated proposed fee schedules to be effective July 1, 202 6. The annual inflationary adjustment to be applied is 2.43%. This percentage adjustment is based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index Annual Average for January through December 2025. The proposed fee schedules were derived by applying the annual inflationary adjustment to the current fee.

Government Code section 66018 require s a public hearing for certain fee increases.

Government Code section 66017 states fees may be effective no sooner than 60 days following the adoption of the increase in the fee or charge.

The proposed July 1, 2026, fee schedules are included in Resolution No. 11601 as Attachment 1 and the Construction Cost Index obtained from the Engineering News Record is included as Attachment 2.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11601– A Resolution Replacing Resolution No. 11366 and Approving the Updated City Impact and Connection Fee Schedule for Law Enforcement, Fire Suppression, General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment, Park Improvement, Humbug-Willow Creek, Housing Trust, Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Transportation Improvement, Drainage, and Light Rail Impact Fees.

2. Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index

3. Resolution No. 7812 - A Resolution Rescinding Resolution Nos. 6222 And 6684 And Establishing New City Impact and Connection Fees for Law Enforcement, Fire Suppression, General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment, Water, Sanitary Sewer, Transportation Improvement, Drainage, and Light Rail

04/28/2026 Item No.16.
3 Submitted,

Stacey Tamagni, Finance Director

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

Attachment 1

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11601

RESOLUTION NO. 11601

A RESOLUTION REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 11366 AND APPROVING THE

UPDATED CITY IMPACT AND CONNECTION FEE SCHEDULE FOR LAW

ENFORCEMENT, FIRE SUPPRESSION, GENERAL FACILITIES, VEHICLES AND

EQUIPMENT, PARK IMPROVEMENT, HUMBUG-WILLOW CREEK, HOUSING

TRUST, WATER, SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, TRANSPORTATION

IMPROVEMENT, DRAINAGE, AND LIGHT RAIL IMPACT FEES

WHEREAS, the Folsom Municipal Code sets impact fees in various code sections as follows:
1). Section 03.20.045 – Solid Waste Fee
2). Section 03.80.040 – Police, Fire, and General Government Improvement 3). Section 03.90.010 – Housing Trust Fee
4). Section 04.10.010 – Park Improvement
5). Section 04.12.010 – Humbug-Willow Creek
6). Section 10.50.040 – Light Rail
7). Section 12.04.060 – Transportation Improvement
8). Section 13.24.050 – Water Connection
9). Section 13.25.010 – Sewer Connection
10). Section 13.30.010 – Water Impact Fee
11). Section 17.95.010 – Drainage Improvement; and

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7812 adopted by the Folsom City Council on May 23, 2006, allowed for an annual inflationary adjustment to selected City Impact and Connection fees each fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the City Council on April 2 8, 2026, held a public hearing on the proposed fee updates and considered public comment; and

WHEREAS, the annual inflationary adjustment is based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index Annual Average for January through December 2025 and the annual adjustment to be applied is 2.43%; and

WHEREAS, notice has been given at the time and in the manner required by State Law and City Code;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom replaces Resolution No. 11366 and approves the updated City Impact and Connection Fees as of July 1, 2026 for Law Enforcement, Fire Suppression, General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment, Park Improvement, Humbug- Willow Creek, Housing Trust, Water, Sanitary Sewer, So lid Waste, Transportation Improvement, Drainage, and Light Rail Impact Fees.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28
th day of April 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11601

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

___________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11601

City of Folsom Impact and Connection
Fee Schedule
FEE
7/1/2025
Annual
Inflation
Adjustment
FEE
7/1/2026
Fee Description BASIS Reso 11366 Annual CCI1 Proposed
Police (FMC 3.80.010)
Single Family Residential Unit $711 $17 $728
Multi-Family Residential Unit $807 $20 $827
Mobile Dwellings Unit $184 $4 $188
Commercial Lodging Unit $41 $1 $42
Commercial Development Sq. Ft. $1.198 $0.03 $1.228
Industrial Development Sq. Ft. $1.035 $0.03 $1.065
Fire (FMC 3.80.010)
Single Family Residential Unit $1,285 $31 $1,316
Multi-Family Residential Unit $1,243 $30 $1,273
Mobile Dwellings Unit $1,281 $31 $1,312
Commercial Lodging Unit $1,112 $27 $1,139
Commercial Development Sq. Ft. $0.75 $0.02 $0.77
Industrial Development Sq. Ft. $0.33 $0.01 $0.34
General Facilities (FMC 3.80.010)
Single Family Residential Unit $1,890 $46 $1,936
Multi-Family Residential Unit $1,890 $46 $1,936
Mobile Dwellings Unit $1,881 $46 $1,927
Commercial Lodging Unit $269 $7 $276
Commercial Development Sq. Ft. $0.59 $0.01 $0.60
Industrial Development Sq. Ft. $0.59 $0.01 $0.60
General Park Equip (FMC 3.80.010)
Single Family Residential Unit $111 $3 $114
Multi-Family Residential Unit $111 $3 $114
Mobile Dwellings Unit $52 $1 $53
Commercial Development Sq. Ft. $0.022 $0.001 $0.023
Industrial Development Sq. Ft. $0.022 $0.001 $0.023
Drainage (FMC 17.95.030)
Single Family Residential Unit $1,227 $30 $1,257
Multi-Family Residential Unit $1,227 $30 $1,257
Mobile Dwellings Unit $1,227 $30 $1,257
Commercial Development/Office Acre $7,459 $181 $7,640
Industrial Development Acre $7,459 $181 $7,640
Light Rail Impact Fee (FMC 10.50.040)
Single Family Residential Unit $857 $21 $878
Multi-Family Residential Unit $589 $14 $603
Mobile Dwellings Unit $589 $14 $603
Commercial Development/Office Sq. Ft. $0.272 $0.007 $0.279 Industrial Development Sq. Ft. $0.113 $0.003 $0.116

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11601

Transportation Improv Fee (FMC 12.04.060)
Single Family Residential Unit $9,668 $235 $9,903
Multi-Family Residential Unit $6,767 $164 $6,932
Mobile Dwellings Unit $6,767 $164 $6,932
Commercial Sq Ft. $14.52 $0.35 $14.87
Industrial/Office Sq Ft. $6.30 $0.15 $6.45
Other Sq Ft. $6.30 $0.15 $6.45
Additional Land Uses
High Trip Commercial Sq Ft. $57.61 $1.40 $59.01
Gas Stations (per fueling station) Sq Ft. $12,919 $314 $13,233 Water Impact Fees (FMC 13.30.010)
Single Family Residential Unit $1,166 $28 $1,194
Multi-Family Residential Unit $628 $15 $643
Commercial Acre $1,570 $38 $1,608
Industrial/Office Acre $1,570 $38 $1,608
Water Connection Fees (FMC 13.24.010)
Residential
Single Family Residential Unit $3,978 $97 $4,075
Multi-Family Residential Unit $2,586 $63 $2,649
Lexington Hills Unit $2,464 $60 $2,524
Mobile Home Unit $2,586 $63 $2,649
Commercial
3/4” meter $3,968 $96 $4,064
1” meter $9,896 $240 $10,136
1 1/2” meter $19,798 $481 $20,279
2” meter $31,682 $770 $32,452
3” meter $63,381 $1,540 $64,921
4” meter $99,066 $2,407 $101,473
6” meter $198,204 $4,816 $203,020
8” meter $317,232 $7,709 $324,941
10” meter $456,428 $11,091 $467,519
Sewer Connection Fees (FMC 13.25.010)
Residential
Single Family Residential Unit $1,270 $31 $1,301
Multi-Family Residential Unit $993 $24 $1,017
Lexington Hills Unit $989 $24 $1,013
Mobile Home Unit $1,123 $27 $1,150
Commercial
3/4” meter $1,270 $31 $1,301
1” meter $1,270 $31 $1,301
1 1/2” meter $2,543 $62 $2,605
2” meter $4,069 $99 $4,168
3” meter $7,630 $185 $7,815
4” meter $12,717 $309 $13,026
6” meter $25,434 $618 $26,052
8” meter $40,693 $989 $41,682
10” meter $58,495 $1,421 $59,916

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

Resolution No. 11601

Solid Waste Capital Improvement Fee (FMC 3.20.045)
Residential
Single Family Residential Unit $429 $10 $439
Mobile Homes Unit $197 $5 $202
Commercial/ Multi Family
2 yard dumpster $4,811 $117 $4,928
3 yard dumpster $4,843 $118 $4,961
4 yard dumpster $4,911 $119 $5,030
6 yard dumpster $5,112 $124 $5,236
15 yard roll-off $15,748 $383 $16,131
20 yard roll $16,170 $393 $16,563
30 yard roll $16,821 $409 $17,230
40 yard roll $17,185 $418 $17,603
Park Construction Capital Impact (FMC 4.10)
Single Family Residential Unit $8, 330 $202 $8,532
Multi-Family Residential Unit $5, 534 $134 $5,668
Senior Residential Housing Unit $4, 277 $104 $4,381
Mobile Dwellings Unit $3, 197 $78 $3,275
Commercial Development Sq. Ft. $0. 564 $0.014 $0.578
Industrial Development Sq. Ft. $0. 564 $0.014 $0.578
Humbug-Willow Creek (FMC 4.12)
Single Family Residential Unit $327 $8 $335
Multi-Family Residential Unit $206 $5 $211
Mobile Dwellings Unit $179 $4 $183
Commercial Development Sq. Ft. $0. 079 $0.002 $0.081
Industrial Development Sq. Ft. $0. 079 $0.002 $0.081
1 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index - 2025 Annual Average City of Folsom Impact and Connection
Fee Schedule
FEE
7/1/2025
Annual
Inflation
Adjustment
FEE
7/1/2026
Fee Description Reso 11366 Annual CCI1 Proposed
Housing Trust (FMC 3.90.010)
Office Sq. Ft. $2.08 $0.051 $2.13
Retail Sq. Ft. $2.08 $0.051 $2.13
Light Industrial Sq. Ft. $2.08 $0.051 $2.13
Heavy Industrial/Manufacturing Sq. Ft. $2.08 $0.051 $2.13 Light Industrial/Manufacturing Sq. Ft. $2.08 $0.051 $2.13 1 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index - 2025 Annual Average

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

Attachment 2

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

ATTACHMENT 3

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

04/28/2026 Item No.16.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Resolution No.11604- A Resolution Replacing Resolution No. 11364, 11365 and 11371 and Enacting the Annual Inflationary Adjustment for City User Fees

FROM: Finance Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt Resolution No.11604- A Resolution Replacing Resolution No. 11364, 11365 and 11371 and Enacting the Annual Inflationary Adjustment for City User Fees

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

In May 2006, the Folsom City Council adopted Resolution No. 7815 which established a new user fee schedule for selected city services and also adopted an annual inflationary adjustment.

City User Fees for Selected City Services had the inflationary adjustment last applied on July 1, 2025, adopted with Resolution No. 11364.

Community Development User Fees had the inflationary adjustment last applied on July 1, 2025, adopted with Resolution No. 11365.

In May 2025, the Folsom City Council adopted Resolution No. 11371 which established an amended user fee schedule for Police User Fees. This fee schedule became effective June 13, 2025.

POLICY / RULE

City of Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 Direction to recover costs. states, “The amount of fees and charges established under this chapter shall be sufficient to recover a

04/28/2026 Item No.17.
2 percentage of the costs reasonably borne in providing the services for which the fees and charges are imposed. Costs reasonably borne shall be as defined in Section 3.50.030. The percentage of the cost to be recovered by the fee shall be at the sole discretion of the council but shall not exceed one hundred percent, as set forth by Section 3.50.040. (Ord. 1344 § 2, 2024; Ord. 609 § 1, 1988).”

City Council Resolution No. 7815 adopted on May 23, 2006, approved an annual inflationary adjustment to be applied each fiscal year for selected city user fees along with fee increases based on a fee study.

City Council Resolution No. 11186 adopted on May 28, 2024, adopted a n amended user fee schedule for Community Development Engineering and Building Services based on a fee study. This study included a fee schedule with identified fees assessing and annual CPI increase.

On May 13, 2025, Resolution No. 11371 adopted an amended user fee schedule for Police user fees with an annual CPI increase.

ANALYSIS

The annual inflationary adjustment to be applied is 3.04%. This is based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics & CA Department of Finance CPI -West Urban Consumers, all items, San Francisco CMSA, Annual amount as of December of the previous calendar year as set forth in Resolution No. 7815. The proposed fee schedules were derived by applying the annual inflationary adjustment to the current fees if allowed.

The proposed April 28, 2026, City user fee schedule for selected City Services is included as part of Resolution No. 11604 and will be effective July 1, 2026.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

This inflationary adjustment will enable the City to improve cost recovery and reduce the financial burden on the General Fund as long as User Fee activity continues.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11604- A Resolution Replacing Resolution No. 11364, 11365 and 11371 and Enacting the Annual Inflationary Adjustment for City User Fees

2. United States Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-West Urban consumers, all items, San Francisco CMSA as of December 2025

04/28/2026 Item No.17.
3 Submitted,

Stacey Tamagni, Finance Director

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Attachment 1

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

RESOLUTION NO. 11604

A RESOLUTION REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 11364, 11365 AND 11371 AND

ENACTING THE ANNUAL INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY USER FEES

WHEREAS, City of Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 Direction to recover cost. states “The amount of fees and charges established under this chapter shall be sufficient to recover a percentage of the costs reasonably borne in providing the services for which the fees and charges are imposed. Costs reasonably borne shall be as defined in Sect ion 3.50.030. The percentage of the cost to be recovered by the fee shall be at the sole discretion of the council but shall not exceed one hundred percent, as set forth by Section 3.50.040. (Ord. 1344 § 2, 2024; Ord. 609 § 1, 1988)”; and

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7815 adopted by the Folsom City Council on May 23, 2006, allowed for an annual inflationary adjustment to User Fees each fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11364 adopted by City Council on April 22, 2025, set the most recent User Fee schedule for selected City Services; and

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11365 adopted by City Council on April 22, 2025, set the most recent User Fee schedule for Community Development; and

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 11371 adopted by City Council on May 13, 2025, set the most recent User Fee schedule for Police; and

WHEREAS, the annual inflationary adjustment is based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics & CA Department of Finance CPI -West Urban Consumers, all items, San Francisco CMSA annual amount as of December of the previous calendar year; and

WHEREAS, as of December 31, 2025, the annual inflationary adjustment to be applied is

3.04%;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom Replaces Resolution No. 11364, 11365 and 11371 and Enacts the Annual Inflationary Adjustment for City User Fees as of July 1, 2026 as set forth in the fee schedules attached hereto;

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28
th day of April, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

___________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

ATTEST:

____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

City of Folsom User Fee Schedule
FEE
07/01/2025

ANNUAL INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
FEE
07/01/2026
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE Reso 11364 A nnual CPI 1 Proposed Finance
FN-1a Returned Check Fee - Initial $25 $25
F
N-1b Returned Check Fee - Additional $35 $35
FN-2 Lien/Delinquency Admin Fee $125 $125
FN-2a Admin/Disconnect Fee $75 $75
FN-2b Reconnect Fee - during business hours $50 $50
FN-2c Reconnect Fee - after business hours $135 $135
Business License Certificate
FN-4 New License Review Fee $29 $1 $30
FN-5 License Reprint Fee $14 $0 $14
FN-7 Customer Business Lists - Year $21 $1 $22
FN-8 Customer Business Lists - 1 month $21 $1 $22
Annual Historic District Surcharge Tax $60 $60
Home Occupation Annual Certificate $40 $40
Business License Certificate Fee Table Class. A-C Class. A-C Specialty Operations Class. D Class. D
Cardroom Business License Fees
FN-9 Application and investigation $725 $22 $747
FN-10 Annual License Renewal $96 $3 $99
FN-12 PER Table Fee per QUARTER $287 $9 $296
FN-13 Alternative Method of Payment 2.75% - 3% 2.75% - 3% Water
W-3 Construction Meter Rental Rate per Month $100 $100
W-4 Security Deposit for 2.5 inch Construction Meter $900 $900 W-5 Security Deposit for 4 inch Construction Meter $2,700 $2,700 W-6 Relocation of Construction Meter $25 $25
W-7 Repeat Disinfection Testing of New Facilities $200 $200 W-8 Backflow Testing Tag $15 $15
W-9 Testing of Backflow Device $100 $100
W-10 Backflow Test Submission Fee $15 $15
Wastewater
WW-1 Emergency Call Out (After Hours/Hourly Rate) $135 $135 WW-2 Clean up of Sanitary Sewer Overflow From Private Lateral or collection ssytem (Hourly rate) $200 $200
WW-3 Inspection of Private Collection Systems to Include Manholes, Maines and Laterals (Hourly Rate) $150 $150

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

City of Folsom User Fee Schedule
FEE
07/01/2025

ANNUAL INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
FEE
07/01/2026
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE Reso 11364 Annual CPI 1 Proposed
Police 2
P1 Alarm Permit $47 $1 $48
P2 A
larm Permit (Renewal - Commercial) $20 $1 $21
P3 False Alarm (2nd in 365 day period) $0 $0 $0
P4 False Alarm (3rd in 365 day period) $150 $5 $155
P5 False Alarm (4rd in 365 day period) $175 $5 $180
P6 False Alarm (5th + in 365 day period) $200 $6 $206
P7 Alarm Permit: Failure to Register $20 $1 $21
P8 Police Report Copy $25 $1 $26
P9 Digital Media Storage $12 $0 $12
P10 Audio/Visual/Media reprod. (per 15min) $20 $1 $21
P11 DUI COST RECOVERY Hourly Rates Hourly Rates
P12 Law Enforcement Svcs: Officer (per hour) $149 $5 $154 P13 Law Enforcement Svcs: Corporal (per hour) $165 $5 $170 P14 Law Enforcement Svcs: Sergeant (per hour) $178 $5 $183 P15 Law Enforcement Svcs: Lieutenant (per hour) $269 $8 $277 P16 Vehicle Release $200 $6 $206
P17 Livescan $50 $2 $52
P18 Repossessions $15 $0 $15
P19 VIN Verification $70 $2 $72
P20 Clearance Letter $25 $1 $26
P21 Vehicle Sign-off $60 $2 $62
P22 Adult Businesses $360 $11 $371
P23 Subpoena Duces Tecum $15 $0 $15
P24 Civil Subpoena $275 $8 $283
P25 Factual Innocence Petition $100 $3 $103
Fire
FR-1 California Fire Code Inspection - HSC 13146.2 and 13146.3 $210 $6 $216 Pre-license Inspection < 25 - HSC 13235 $54 $2 $56
Pre-license Inspection > 25 - HSC 13235 $110 $3 $113
F
R-2 Re-Inspection (2nd and subsequent reinspections) $259 $8 $267 FR-3 Fire Stand Pipe System Plan Review bldg pmt val bldg pmt val bldg pmt val FR-4 Fire Hydrant System PC bldg pmt val bldg pmt val bldg pmt val FR-5 Fire Sprinkler System Plan Review bldg pmt val bldg pmt val bldg pmt val FR-6 Fire Pump Plan Review bldg pmt val bldg pmt val bldg pmt val FR-7 Fire Alarm System Plan Review bldg pmt val bldg pmt val bldg pmt val FR-10 Fixed Fire Protection System Plan Review bldg pmt val bldg pmt val bldg pmt val FR-11 Gas System Plan Review (Medical, LPG, Compressed, etc) bldg pmt val bldg pmt val bldg pmt val FR-14 Public Fireworks Display PC bldg pmt val bldg pmt val bldg pmt val F
R-15 Special Fire Inspection (after hours or by request) $279 $8 $287 FR-16 Annual Fire Inspection N/A N/A $216
FR-23 Safe & Sane Fireworks Stand Inspection $370 $11 $381 F
R-24 Incident/Inspection Report Copy $20 $20
FR-25 Patient Care Report (PCR) and/or Medical Billing $32 $32 FR-26 Fire Hazard/Vegetation Management Adminitrative fee per Re Inspection $173 $5 $178 Weed Abatement Cost - City's cost $1000 Minimum $1000 Minimum

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

City of Folsom User Fee Schedule
FEE
07/01/2025

ANNUAL INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
FEE
07/01/2026
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE R eso 11364 Annual CPI 1 Proposed FR-28 False Alarm (2nd false alarm - infor. not updated) $103 $3 $106 F
R-28b False Alarm (3rd false alarm) $103 $3 $106
FR-28c False Alarm (4th false alarm) $123 $4 $127
FR-28d False Alarm (5th+ false alarm) $182 $6 $188
FR-36 Fire Hydrant Flow Test $228 $7 $235
FR-39 Fire Photograph(s) Flash Drive $34 $1 $35
FR-42 Expedited Services Fee 1.5 X Reg Fee 1.5 X Reg Fee FR-43 Fire Safety Officer Standby, Third Party review or Inspection Actual Cost A ctual Cost Ambulance Services
Base Rate Witin Corporate City Limits $2,158 $2, 158
Base Rate Outside Corporate City Limits $2,158 $2, 158
Patient Assessment/Treatment - No Transport $425 $425
Milage (per mile) $39 $39
A
LS Supplies $105 $105
Oxygen $165 $165
Cardiac Monitor/Debibbrillator $168 $168
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) $225 $225
Bone Drill $305 $305
Community Development
PE-77 Protected Tree removed or impacted within the buildable area of a residential lot (DSH-diameter per inch) 125.00 (DSH) 125.00 (DSH) P
E-78 Protected Tree removed or impacted (DSH-diameter per inch) 250.00 (DSH) 250.00 (DSH) City Clerk
CC-2a Document Printing & Copying (First 10 pages free) $0.10 $0. 00 $0.10 CC-3 Document Printing Pages greater than 17x14 or color copies (per side/per page) $5 $0 $5
C
C-6 Copy DVD $5 $0 $5
CC-8 Folsom Municipal Code Cost to Produce C ost to Produce Cost to Produce CC-9 Updates to Folsom Municipal Code Cost to Produce C ost to Produce Cost to Produce CC-13 Code Enforcement Administrative Hearing $203 $6 $209 Library
LB-6 Returned check fee City standard fee
(see Finance) N/A City standard fee
(see Finance)
LB-8a Self service copy charges - (B & W) $0.15 $0. 15
LB-8b Self service copy charges - (Color) $.50/page $. 50/page LB-10 Interlibrary loan/item (plus add'l lending library fees) $5 $5 LB-11 Lost or damaged books in Folsom collection
Up to cost of
item plus $5.00
p
rocessing fee
Up to cost of
item plus $5.00
p
rocessing fee
LB-12 Lost or damaged materials from interlibrary loan
Up to cost of
item, plus
c
harges form
lending library,
plus $5.00 local
Up to cost of
item, plus
c
harges form
lending library,
plus $5.00 local
LB-13 Referral fee for material and fee recovery services (for accounts with billed overdue materials and total outstanding charges of $25 or more) $10 $10 1 Annual inflationary adjustment based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics & CA Department of Finance CPI-West Urban Consumers, all items, San Francisco CMSA, Annual amount as of December of the previous calendar year. 2 Police User Fees updated with Reso 11371

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

City of Folsom User Fee
Schedule
FEE
07/01/2025
ANNUAL

INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
FEE
07/01/2026
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE Approved Annual CPI 1 Proposed Charge Basis Note Engineering Fees
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing $4,800 $146 $4,946 Fixed Fee a 2 Encroachment Permit a
2a a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days $50 $2 $52 Fixed Fee
ii. 7-14 calendar days $100 $3 $103 Fixed Fee
iii. 14+days $200 $6 $206 Fixed Fee
2b b) Utility Work/Connections (Individual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections Fixed Fee
a. Base Fee $200 $6 $206
b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5 $0 $5 ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location) Fixed Fee
a. Base Fee $200 $6 $206
b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00 $0 $5 iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5 $0 $5 Fixed Fee iv. Inspections and Testing (when applicable) $400 $12 $412 Fixed Fee 2c c) Driveways/Minor Frontage Improvements
i. Residential (per driveway) $400 $12 $412 Fixed Fee
ii. Commercial (per driveway) $400 $12 $412 Fixed Fee
2d d) Pools and Spas (in ground) $400 $12 $412 Fixed Fee 2e e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. Isolated Site $200 $6 $206 Fixed Fee
ii. Multiple Closures/Staging $1,000 $30 $1,030 Fixed Fee 2f f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone $50 $2 $52 Fixed Fee
ii. Inactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity) $200 $6 $206 Fixed Fee 2g g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities $6,000 $182 $6,182 Fixed Fee
ii. Dry Utilities $20,800 $632 $21,432 Fixed Fee
iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utilities) T&M T&M T&M b iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities) $20,800 $632 $21,432 Fixed Fee v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid annually) $200 $6 $206 Fixed Fee 2h h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new permits only) $2,400 $73 $2,473 Fixed Fee c 3 Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspection
(Fee Includes Up to 3 Cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing Applies for Reviews Required Beyond 3rd Cycle)
3a a) Project Value Up to $10,000 8.00% 8.00% Fixed Fee 3b b) Project Value $10,001 - $100,000
i. Base Fee for First $10,000 $800 $800 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000 8.00% 8.00% Fixed Fee 3c c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000 $8,000 $8,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000 6.40% 6.40% Fixed Fee 3d d) $200,001 - $299,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000 $14,400 $14,400 Fixed Fee ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $300,000 4.80% 4.80% Fixed Fee 3e e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 $19,200 $19,200
T & M with
Initial
Deposit

ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 3.60% 3.60%
T & M with
Initial
Deposit

3f f) Miscellaneous Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development Landscape Plan Review $200 $200 Per Hour ii. New Custom Home $1,100 $1,100 Fixed Fee
iii. Production Home/Subdivision (Typ. Tract Home)
a. 0-4 Planting Schemes/Master Plans $2,300 $2,300 Fixed Fee b. 5+ Planting Schemes/Master Plans
$2,500 + 10%
per Scheme
above 5
Schemes
$2,500 + 10%
per Scheme
above 5
Schemes
Fixed Fee

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

City of Folsom User Fee
Schedule
FEE
07/01/2025
ANNUAL

INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
FEE
07/01/2026
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE Approved Annual CPI 1 Proposed Charge Basis Note 4 Final Map and Parcel Map a
4a a) Parcel Map Check $8,050 $245 $8,295 F ixed Fee
4b b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment $11,500 $350 $11,850 F ixed Fee ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee $144 $4 $148 F ixed Fee
4c c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance (including Parcel Mergers) $2,000 $61 $2,061
T & M with
Initial
Deposit
4d d) Lot Line Adjustment Check $8,050 $245 $8,295 F ixed Fee 5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements a
5a a) Review of ROW/Easement Documents $3,450 $105 $3,555 F ixed Fee 5b b) ROW/Easement Abandonment $5,750 $175 $5,925 F ixed Fee 6 Agreement Processing $5,750 $175 $5,925 F ixed Fee a 7 Transportation Permit (Per State Regulation)
7a a) Permit $16 $16 Fixed Fee
7b b) Annual Permit $90 $3 $93 F ixed Fee
8 Tree Removal/Work Permit a
8a a) Permitted Pruning/Cabling $40 $1 $41 F ixed Fee 8b b) Permitted Removal/Work
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a. 0-4 Trees $100 $3 $103 F ixed Fee
$150 $5 $155 Fixed Fee
+ 10% per tree
above 5 trees
+ 10% per tree
above 5 trees
c. "In Decline" Tree
(Requires City Arborist Concurrence) $100 $3 $103 F ixed Fee ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Multi-family, Commercial, etc.):
a. 0-4 Trees $1,200 $36 $1,236 F ixed Fee
$1,400 $43 $1,443 Fixed Fee
+ 10% per tree
above 5 trees
+ 10% per tree
above 5 trees
iii. Misc. $200 $6 $206 P er Hour
8c c) w/o Permit (Does not include sanctions or mitigation) Double the Permit Rate
2x permit
amount
2x permit
amount Fixed Fee
Other Fees for Service a
9 Research of Engineering Records $200 $6 $206 P er Hour 10 Miscellaneous Engineering Services $200 $6 $206 P er Hour 11 Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) $200 $6 $206 P er Hour 12 Revisions $200 $6 $206 P er Hour
13 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum) $240 $7 $247 P er Hour 14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) $200 $6 $206 Ea ch 15 Missed Inspection Fee $200 $6 $206 Ea ch
16 Expedited Services Fee 1.5x Regular
Fee

1.5x Regular
Fee Fixed Fee
17 Residential Landscape Review Hourly Rate of
Arborist
Hourly Rate of
Arborist Per Hour
18 Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspection Actual Cost Actual Cost T & M b. 5+ Trees
b. 5+ Trees

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

City of Folsom User Fee
Schedule
FEE
07/01/2025
ANNUAL

INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
FEE
07/01/2026
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE Approved Annual CPI 1 Proposed Charge Basis Note Building Fees
1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential $235 $7 $242 per permit 2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential $188 $6 $194 per permit 3 Residential Re-Roof $377 $11 $388 per permit
4 Siding Replacement $330 $10 $340 per permit
5 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential $283 $9 $292 per permit 6 Battery Backup Storage $377 $11 $388 per permit
7 Electric Vehicle Charger $377 $11 $388 per permit
8 Generator $377 $11 $388 per permit
9 Residential Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
9a a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee for 15kW or Less $200 $200 per permit d,e
ii) Fee for Each Additional kW above 15kW $15 $15 per permit d,e b) Permit $250 $250 per permit d,e
10 Commercial Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
10a a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee 50kW or Less $444 $444 per permit d,e
ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 50kW up to 250kW $7 $7 per permit d,e ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 250kW $5 $5 per permit d,e b) Permit $555 $555 per permit d,e
11 Pool Solar $188 $6 $194 per permit
12 Swimming Pool Replaster / Equipment Change-Out $470 $14 $484 per permit 13 Swimming Pool Remodel (e.g., Changing Pool Shape, Adding Cabo Shelf, etc.) $941 $29 $970 per permit
14 Retaining Wall
a) One Type of Retaining Wall Type/Configuration $565 $17 $582 per permit b) Each Additional Wall Type/Configuration $282 $9 $291 per permit 15 Window / Sliding Glass Door - Retrofit / Repair
a) Up to 5 $188 $6 $194 per permit
b) Per Window Over 5 Windows $37 $1 $38 per permit
16 Fences Requiring a Building Permit $376 $11 $387 per permit 17 Electrical and Irrigation Pedestals per pedestal $282 $9 $291 per permit 18 Detached and Attached ADUs $4,709 $143 $4,852 per permit 19 Junior ADUs $2,260 $69 $2,329 per permit
Other Building Fees
1 Permit Processing Fee $79 $2 $81 per permit
2 Strong Motion Instrumentation (SMI) Fee Calculation f a) Residential
$0.50 or
valuation x
.00013
$0.50 or
valuation x
.00013
f
b) Commercial
$0.50 or
valuation x
.00028
$0.50 or
valuation x
.00028
f

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

City of Folsom User Fee
Schedule
FEE
07/01/2025
ANNUAL

INFLATION

ADJUSTMENT
FEE
07/01/2026
# DEPARTMENT/SERVICE Approved Annual CPI 1 Proposed Charge Basis Note 3 Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) f a) $1 - $25,000 $1 $1 f
b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2 $2 f
c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3 $3 f
d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4 $4 f
e) Each Add'l $25,000 or fraction thereof Add $1 Add $1 f 4 Business License Fee $25 $25
5 CASP Training Fund Fee $3.60 $3.60
6 State Disability Access Fee $0.40 $0.40
7 General Plan/Zoning Code Update Fee (percent of building permit fee) 5% 5% g
8 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Phasing Plan) Fee $942 $29 $971 9 Permit Extension $0 $0 $0
10 Permit Reactivation Fee
10a a) Reactivation Fee if All Inspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not Including Final Inspection $188 $6 $194 10b b) Reactivation Fee - All Other Scenarios
10i i) Permit Expired Up to One Year
50% of
Original Base
Building
Permit Fee
50% of
Original Base
Building
Permit Fee
10ii ii) Permit Expired More than One Year
100% of
Original Base
Building
Permit Fee
100% of
Original Base
Building
Permit Fee
11 Permit Reissuance Fee $188 $6 $194
12 Damaged Building Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) (per hour) $188 $6 $194
13 Phased Inspection Fee (per inspection) $188 $6 $194 14 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum) $226 $7 $233 15 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) $188 $6 $194 h 16 Missed Inspection Fee $188 $6 $194
17 Duplicate Copy of Permit $79 $2 $81 Per Permit
18 Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy $79 $2 $81 Per Permit 19 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) $94 $3 $97 Per .5 Hour
Violation Fees
20 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)
equal to
permit fee
equal to
permit fee
Building Plan Review Fees i
1 Building Plan Check Fees - Building
a) Plan Review Fee, if applicable 80% - 80% j
b) Expedited Plan Check - At Application Submittal (when applicable)

1.5x standard
plan check fee - 1.5x standard
plan check fee
c) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) 20% of
standard plan
check fee
-
20% of
standard plan
check fee
k
d) Production Permit for Multi-family permit $1,507 $46 $1,553 Per Permit e) Production Permit for Fire permits and other misc.
permits $471 $14 $485 Per Permit
f) Alternate Materials and Methods Review (per hour) $188 $6 $194 Per Hour g) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour) $188 $6 $194 Per Hour h) Revisions to an Approved Permit (per hour) $188 $6 $194 Per Hour i) Deferred Submittal (per hour) $188 $6 $194 Per Hour

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

Note:
a - Fee is subject to annual updates based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). b - Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. c - Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets). d - Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). e - The City will not collect additional permit processing fees. Amounts shown are total amount due for permit processing, plan review, and permit.
f - Amounts established by State of California. In the case of discrepancy between this schedule and amounts established by the State, State amounts shall supersede these amounts. g - Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits.
h - Reinspection fee applies after the first re-inspection. i - When applicable, plan check fees shall be paid at the time of application for a building permit. The plan checking fee is in addition to the building permit fee.
j - Includes up to three plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. k - For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time.

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Resolution No. 11604

Category Lowe r Gros s
Receipts
Uppe r Gros s
Receipts Annual Fee
1 $ - $ 99, 999.99 $ 40.00 2 $ 100,000.00 $ 899, 999.99 $ 125.00 3 $ 900,000.00 $ 5, 099,999.99 $ 250.00 4 $ 5,100,000.00 $10, 899,999.99 $ 500.00 5 $10,900,000.00 $25, 099,999.99 $ 1,000.00 6 $25,100,000.00 M ax 100 + .05/$1,000 GR
Category
Lowe r
Employe e
C
ount
Upper
Employe e
C
ount
Annual Fee
1 0 1 $ 40. 00
2 2 4 $ 125. 00
3 5 8 $ 175. 00
4 9 12 $ 220. 00
5 13 25 $ 250. 00
6 26 55 $ 500. 00
7 56 124 $ 1, 000.00
8 125 Ma x $100 + $10 per Employee
Category Lower Sq Ft U pper Sq Ft Annual Fee
1 0 2000 40. 00$
2 2000 18000 125.00$
3 18000 102000 250.00$
4 102000 218000 500.00$
5 218000 502000 1,000.00$
6 502000 Max 100 + $2.50/1,000 Sq. Ft.
$0.00
$25 per building permit
$500.00
$25.00
$30.00
$75.00
$200.00
$25.00
$25.00
Business License Certificate Classification Fee Tables
Classification D - Business License Certificate Specialty Operations Fee
Building Contractors
Street Stand) Flat Annual
Classifation A - Business License Certificate Gross Receipts Non-Residential
Classification B - Service Professions, Manufacturing, Wholesale Based on Employee Count
Manufacturing, Wholesale and Service Professions
Classification C - Commercial, Industrial, Research & Development Based on Square Feet
Quarte ry Spe cialty - Fixe d Location
Annual Specialty - Fixed Location
Branch Location Certificate
Bingo Halls
Daily Specialty - Fixed Location
Monthly Specialty - Fixed Location

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Attachment 2

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Series Id:

Series
Title:Area:

Item:

Base
Period:Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 2017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.542 2018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.435 2019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.859 2020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.059 2021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.718 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 328.871 332.062 331.222 327.060 323.408 330.711 2023 337.173 338.496 340.056 340.094 341.219 339.915 339.050 337.689 340.411 2024 345.151 351.247 351.064 349.290 349.370 348.001 348.417 347.857 348.977 2025 354.432 355.707 356.460 357.992 358.568 356.005 354.522 357.786 2026 363.211
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0,CUUSS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
All items in San Francisco-Oakland-
Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA All items
1982-84=100
2016 to 2026
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: March 30, 2026 (03:55:21 PM)

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

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

04/28/2026 Item No.17.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Old Business
ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11596 – A Resolution Approving the Parks & Recreation Commission’s Recommendation to Approve the
Benevento Family Park Master Development Plan

FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends approval of Resolution No. 11596 – A Resolution Approving the Parks & Recreation Commission’s Recommendation to Approve the Benevento Family Park Master Development Plan

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The City of Folsom Parks & Recreation Master Plan (PRMP), adopted in 2015, identifies a future 19.0-acre park site located at 421 Carpenter Hill Road. The site is bordered by Broadstone Parkway and Carpenter Hill Road and features distinct topography consisting of three primary terraces and a centrally located pond. The terrain slopes downward toward Vista del Lago High School and includes natural features that both inform and constrain the park design.

The Parks & Recreation Commission previously approved a Master Development Plan for Benevento Family Park in 2022. Since that time, staff have continued to refine the design and conduct extensive community outreach to ensure the plan reflects community priorities.

In September 2025, staff presented an update on the project to the community and received feedback indicating a lack of support for the proposed 2022 plan. In response, staff undertook a comprehensive revision process. Additional community meetings were held in October and December 2025, culminating in a “Big Design Reveal” where the revised plan received overall positive feedback and community support.

The plan was presented to the Parks & Recreation Commission on January 6, 2026; however, the Commission deferred action and directed staff to conduct further analysis, including additional cost estimating and continued community engagement. Staff subsequently met with the

04/28/2026 Item No.18.
2 Planning, Development & Renovations Subcommittee on January 16, 2026, and continued outreach with residents, the Folsom Cordova Unified School District, and other stakeholders.

Project updates were provided at Commission meetings on February 3 and March 3, 2026.

Community input has been a central component of the planning process. Input included a July 2021 petition opposing parking access from Carpenter Hill Road and a January 2026 petition supporting a community-prepared concept that included a parking lot off Carpenter Hill Road and active park amenities on the upper terraces, including a children’s play area and a basketball court. To further ensure balanced and representative input, the City conducted an online survey from March 3–11, 2026, which received over 500 responses.

Based on the extensive community engagement and input received along with consideration of site constraints, topography, and available project funding, staff developed a revised Master Development Plan that balances active and passive recreation opportunities while remaining feasible to construct. (See Attachment Master Development Plan) The revised plan reflects community priorities, addresses key concerns related to access, noise, and usability, and aligns with the project budget.

On March 31, 2026, the Parks & Recreation Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to forward the updated Master Development Plan to the City Council for approval.

POLICY / RULE
The proposed Master Development Plan is consistent with the City of Folsom Parks & Recreation Master Plan 2015 Update and the 2035 Folsom General Plan Goal PR 1.1 – Develop and maintain quality parks that support the diverse needs of the community.

The project will be implemented in compliance with the Folsom Municipal Code, including the requirement that public works construction contracts include a 10% construction contingency.

ANALYSIS
Community involvement has been a key component of the Master Development Plan process and included multiple community meetings in fall 2025, ongoing Parks & Recreation Commission updates, and a City-sponsored online survey conducted March 3–11, 2026, with over 500 responses. The purpose of this online survey was to ensure a fair and balanced representation of community input toward finalizing the Master Development Plan. Feedback from these efforts directly informed revisions to the plan and helped establish overall community support for the proposed design.

The survey asked participants to evaluate two concepts:
• Concept A: Passive-focused amenities on the upper terraces (estimated $6.0 million construction cost)
• Concept B: Active-focused amenities on the upper terraces (estimated $8.1 million construction cost)

04/28/2026 Item No.18.
3 Survey results showed a strong preference for Concept B, particularly for active amenities such as playgrounds, courts, and flexible-use spaces. Respondents prioritized the following sports amenities, listed in preferred order:
• Pickleball courts (highest ranked)
• Multi-use field
• Basketball courts
• Volleyball courts
Support was also expressed for lighting to extend usability, though some concerns regarding noise and light impacts were noted. Passive amenities and the fishing dock ranked lower overall when prioritizing due to budget constraints.

Master Development Plan
The proposed plan reflects community priorities while balancing site constraints and available funding. (See Attachment Master Development Plan)
Key features include:
• Parking: 26 spaces (Carpenter Hill Rd.) and 61 spaces (Broadstone Pkwy) • Upper terrace scenic overlook
• ADA-accessible circulation to all terraces (stairs and ramps) • Two playgrounds (ages 2–5 and 5–12) with shade
• Group picnic areas on the middle and lower terraces
• Sports amenities:
o Four lighted pickleball courts
o Basketball court (lighting as add alternate)
o Multi-use turf field
• Open lawn and flexible-use space
• Natural surface trail around pond
• Looping concrete pathways
• Two-stall all-gender restroom building
• Maintenance area
Nature and Wellness Theme
The proposed Master Development Plan for Benevento Family Park is guided by a cohesive theme centered on Nature and Wellness, reflecting both the site’s existing environmental assets and the legacy of the park’s namesake.

The Nature component emphasizes preservation and enhancement of the site’s natural character, including the established flora and fauna that have evolved on the property. The pond will serve as a defining feature, offering habitat value, scenic views, and opportunities for recreation such as walking, seating, and nature observation. Additional elements may include native and drought-tolerant landscaping, shaded tree groves, interpretive signage, and nature-themed play

04/28/2026 Item No.18.
4 areas that incorporate logs, boulders, and landforms to create an immersive and educational environment for all ages.

Complementing this, the Wellness component promotes active recreation, physical health, and community connection while honoring the Benevento family’s contributions to athletics, including the Folsom Athletic Association and chiropractic care. In response to community input, the park will emphasize active recreational opportunities such as pickleball courts, basketball courts, and a multi-use soccer field. These amenities will be complemented by walking and jogging loops, and open turf spaces that encourage daily exercise, informal gathering, and social interaction. Together, these elements support active lifestyles, strengthen community connections, and create a meaningful link between the park and the Benevento family legacy.

Additive Alternates
Following the March 31, 2026, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, staff evaluated potential enhancements and developed an alternative approach to the Master Development Plan, incorporating additional park amenities as additive alternates for City Council consideration. (See Attachment 3 - Master Development Plan Alternate)

Additive alternates are optional components of a project that are fully designed and included in the bid documents but are priced separately by contractors at the time of bidding. This approach allows the City to maintain flexibility by establishing a base project cost (base bid) and identifying additional scope to add if sufficient funding is available. Following receipt of bids, staff evaluates the base bid and alternate pricing and determines which, if any, add alternates can be awarded within the approved project budget. This method is commonly used in projects to maximize project value while maintaining fiscal control.

The add alternates proposed for the Benevento Family Park project include:

1. Basketball Court Lighting – Adds lighting to the basketball court to extend usability into evening hours. Estimated Cost - $68,200

2. Two Sand Volleyball Courts (Lighted) – Proposed on the middle terrace, where the layout is more suitable. This requires relocation of the group picnic area. Under the base bid, the picnic area is located north of the primary east-west walkway; the add alternate would shift the picnic area to the opposite side of the walkway to accommodate the volleyball courts. Estimated Cost - $250,720

3. Fishing Dock – Includes construction of a dock at the pond, along with an accessible concrete pathway to provide ADA-compliant access. Estimated Cost $419,725

The complexity of these add alternates varies. The basketball court lighting is relatively straightforward and requires minimal additional design and engineering. The fishing dock requires more extensive work, including grading an accessible pathway through a moderately sloped area and constructing the dock using cofferdams to allow work within the pond. The volleyball court add alternate is the most complex, as it includes both deductive and additive

04/28/2026 Item No.18.
5 components. It removes the originally planned picnic area and associated grading, planting, and irrigation, and reconstructs those elements in a new location, in addition to constructing the volleyball courts with associated grading and site improvements.

Incorporation of these add alternates also results in additional soft costs. The project consultant team has estimated approximately $74,000 in additional design and engineering services to fully develop these alternates. If, at the time of bidding, there is insufficient funding to include the add alternates in the construction contract, these additional design costs would not be recoverable.

Contingency Considerations
Project budgets include both a construction contingency and a project contingency, each serving a distinct purpose. The construction contingency, required by the Folsom Municipal Code at 10% of the construction contract, is used during construction to address unforeseen field conditions, quantity adjustments, or minor design modifications that arise once work is underway. The project contingency is a broader reserve managed by the City and is intended to address uncertainties outside of construction, including design development, site engineering, environmental mitigation requirements, permitting conditions, and unforeseen site constraints.

At the Master Development Plan stage, it is industry standard practice to maintain a larger project contingency due to the number of unknowns that remain as the project advances into design, site engineering, environmental review, and permitting. Inclusion of the proposed add alternates at this stage of the project, the Master Development Plan stage, would likely require the use of project contingency funds to supplement the available budget. Staff have concerns with utilizing this contingency at this stage, given known site challenges and potential unknowns associated with the CEQA process and permitting requirements. The site includes complex grading conditions identified in the geotechnical investigation, including undocumented fill requiring over-excavation and recompacting, shallow metavolcanic bedrock that may require heavy excavation equipment and may present drainage considerations, and areas with large boulders that must be removed, buried, or reduced in size to meet compaction standards. These conditions introduce cost uncertainty at this stage and until design progresses. However, if directed by the City Council, staff can utilize a portion of the project contingency to attempt to incorporate the add alternates and bring the overall project estimate closer to the available budget, recognizing the associated risks.

In addition, the project contingency must also account for escalation in construction costs that may occur between the time the Master Development Plan is approved and when the project is ultimately advertised for bid. Based on data from the Department of General Services (DGS), construction cost escalation has averaged approximately 7% annually over the past five years.

Depending on the timing, this impact can vary; for example, if the project is advertised for bid within approximately six months, the escalation may be closer to 3.5%. For a $6 million construction project, this equates to an increase of roughly $200,000 at best and up to approximately $350,000 under higher escalation conditions. Given the anticipated timeline for design, environmental clearance, and permitting, this escalation factor represents a meaningful

04/28/2026 Item No.18.
6 potential impact to the overall project budget. Maintaining sufficient contingency at this stage helps ensure the project remains financially viable and reduces the likelihood of scope reductions or funding gaps at the time of bid.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Benevento Family Park Project (Project #2604) is included in the FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Plan budget in the amount of $7,973,288. The project is funded by the Supplemental Park Fee Fund (Fund 411) for $290,864, the Parks Improvements Fund (Fund 412) for $7,182,424, and the Park Dedication Fund (Fund 240) for $500,000.. Staff’s goal is to construct the park in a single phase. The Master Development Plan has been developed to maximize amenities within the available budget while accounting for site constraints, including the existing pond and varying topography.

Approval of the Master Development Plan does not have a direct financial impact on the current project budget; however, staff anticipates bringing forward future contract amendments for both the design consultant and environmental consultant to account for additional services performed beyond the original scopes of work. The design consultant has been working outside of their initial scope to revise the Master Development Plan in response to community feedback and direction from the Parks & Recreation Commission. These additional costs are anticipated to remain within the $800,000 currently identified for design and engineering in the overall project budget.

Below is a summary of the current estimated project costs:

Funding Summary:

Item Cost
Park Construction $6,000,000 (includes 10% construction contingency) Design & Engineering $800,000
Permit Fees $65,000
Staff Administration $220,000
Project Contingency $760,000
Total $7,845,000
The inclusion of add alternates and associated design costs may require the use of project contingency funds and could impact the final project scope depending on bid results and Council direction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the Master Development Plan is a planning-level action. Following approval, environmental review will be completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and all required permits will be obtained. The completed CEQA document

04/28/2026 Item No.18.
7 will be brought back to the City Council for consideration and approval at a future date. If there is any consideration of including the proposed add alternates, it is important that they are incorporated into the approved Master Development Plan so they can be fully evaluated as part of the CEQA analysis and permitting process. Including these elements at this stage ensures environmental impacts are properly assessed and maintains flexibility for potential implementation as the project moves forward.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11596 – A Resolution Approving the Parks & Recreation Commission’s Recommendation to Approve the Benevento Family Park Master Development Plan

2. Master Development Plan

3. Master Development Plan - Alternate

Submitted,

Kelly Gonzales,
Parks & Recreation Director

04/28/2026 Item No.18.

Attachment 1

04/28/2026 Item No.18.

Resolution No. 11596

RESOLUTION NO. 11596

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM
APPROVING THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION

TO APPROVE THE BENEVENTO FAMILY PARK MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Folsom has adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015), which identifies a future 19.0- acre park site located at 421 Carpenter Hill Road; and

WHEREAS, the site includes unique topographical features, including three terraces and a centrally located pond, which influence park design and development; and

WHEREAS, a Master Development Plan for Benevento Family Park was previously approved in 2022 and has since been refined through extensive staff analysis and community outreach; and

WHEREAS, the City conducted multiple community meetings, stakeholder engagement efforts, and an online survey in March 2026 with over 500 responses to ensure broad and balanced public input; and

WHEREAS, community feedback indicated a preference for active recreational amenities, including pickleball courts, a multi-use field, and a basketball court, while also supporting passive recreational features and preservation of natural elements; and

WHEREAS, the revised Master Development Plan reflects a balance of active and passive recreational opportunities, incorporates community feedback, addresses site constraints, and aligns with available project funding; and

WHEREAS, the proposed plan is consistent with the City of Folsom Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the 2035 General Plan Goal PR 1.1 to develop and maintain quality parks that support diverse community needs; and

WHEREAS, on March 31, 2026, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously recommended approval of the updated Master Development Plan; and

WHEREAS, environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be completed following approval of the Master Development Plan and brought back to the City Council for consideration.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby approves the Parks & Recreation Commission’s recommendation and adopts the Benevento Family Park Master Development Plan.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28
th day of April, 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

04/28/2026 Item No.18.

Resolution No. 11596

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

04/28/2026 Item No.18.

Attachment 2

04/28/2026 Item No.18.

04/28/2026 Item No.18.

Attachment 3

04/28/2026 Item No.18.

04/28/2026 Item No.18.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Old Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11603 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment #1 with R.E.Y. Engineers, Inc. for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, Project No. PW2101, in the Amount of $1,616,074 using $1,430,710 from a Federal Grant and $18 5,364 from the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) and Appropriation of Funds in the Transportation
Improvement Fund (Fund 446)

FROM: Public Works Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11603 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment #1 with R.E.Y. Engineers, Inc. for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, Project No. PW2101, in the Amount of $1,616,074 using $1,430,710 from a Federal Grant and $185,364 from the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) and Appropriation of Funds in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446)

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Riley Street Safety Improvement Project is a high -priority initiative to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity along Riley Street between East Bidwell Street and Sutter Street. Riley Street serves as a critical corridor linking Sutter Middle School, the Central Business District, and Historic Folsom.

A 2020 feasibility study prepared by R.E.Y. Engineers , Inc., segmented the corridor into three primary areas, documenting severe deficiencies in sidewalk continuity, A mericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, storm drainage, and pedestrian crossings. Key hazards include substandard or missing sidewalks, non -compliant curb ramps, inadequate stormwater

04/28/2026 Item No.19.
2 infrastructure, and challenging grades along the section of Riley Street between Mormon Street and Sutter Street.

In February 2022, Congressman Bera’s office requested a call for projects for potential federal funding that included a City cost share requirement of 11.47% . Public Works staff submitted a request for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, and the project was ultimately chosen to receive $4 million in project funding with a local cost share requirement of $ 518,243. This Congressionally Directed Spending grant funding includes a requirement that funds must be obligated to the appropriate project phase by September 30, 2026.

On November 14, 2023, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Program Supplement Agreement with Caltrans Local Assistance to accept $400,000 of the grant funding that is allocated to the preliminary engineering phase and allowed the City to proceed with design.

Below is a summary of the original project funding.

Project Phase Federal Funding City Cost Share
Design $400,000 $51,825
Right of Way $200,000 $25,912
Construction $3,400,000 $440,506
Total $4,000,000 $518,243

In August 2025, City Council approved Resolution No. 11452 to execute a design and engineering contract with R.E.Y. Engineers for the project to initiate project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) tasks. The intent as outlined in the staff report for that August 2025 item was to complete PA&ED tasks for the entire project length, along Riley Street from Sutter Street to East Bidwell Street. Upon completion of the environmental document , staff would return to City Council to present options to proceed with the final design of a Phase 1 portion of the project that could be designed and constructed within the remaining funding timelines required by the federal grant.

As both the preliminary design and environmental clearance ha ve progressed on the project, the design team identified multiple unanticipated project constraints and challenges that are impacting our project delivery timeline and have required staff to consider options to ensure we can maximize the use of the available grant funding. As noted above, the Congressionally Directed Spending grant funding requires funds to be obligated by September 30, 2026. In discussions with Caltrans Local Assistance staff who process the requests for obligation, such requests should be submitted approximately six weeks in advance to ensure approval by the deadline. Therefore, in order to obligate construction funds by September 30, 2026, the project would need to obtain environmental document approval and complete the final design of a Phase 1 project by approximately August 15, 2026.

Staff and the project team attended a Field Review meeting with Caltrans on January 14 , 2026, and following that meeting , Caltrans environmental reviewers provided feedback that requires more extensive and detailed environmental technical studies than were initially anticipated and were originally included in the scope of work. Preparation and approval of these additional

04/28/2026 Item No.19.
3 technical studies is anticipated to take several months and will not allow sufficient time for final design and obligation of construction funds for a Phase 1 project.

Additionally, as part of preliminary design efforts, the Utilities Department was consulted with , and it was found that there are planned water and sewer infrastructure improvements anticipated for Riley Street within the project limits within the next five years. In order to avoid trenching through new pavement, the Departments agreed that there would be mutual benefit to incorporating the necessary water and sewer infrastructure into the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project.

Staff requested a contract amendment proposal from R.E.Y. Engineers to incorporate the additional environmental technical study efforts, add in the water and sewer infrastructure design, and complete full right of way and design services for the entire project.

POLICY / RULE

Section 2.36.080 of the Folsom Municipal Code states, in part, that contracts for supplies, equipment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $77,426 or greater shall be awarded by the City Council.

ANALYSIS

The proposed contract amendment #1 includes the following expanded services:

• Water and sewer system improvements have been added to the scope of the project to ensure that all underground infrastructure improvement and repairs are completed prior to pavement treatment within the project limits. Water system improvements consist of the complete replacement of the existing water main and associated water services. Sewer system improvements consist of partial mainline replacement, targeting the repair of identified areas. To effectively connect these proposed improvements to the existing water and sewer systems, the limits of the project will be extended on the north and south ends of Riley Street as well as within the side streets including Peddlers Lane, Figueroa Street, Figueroa/Mormon Alley, Mormon Street, Mormon/Natoma Alley, Natoma Street, and Persifer Street. The assumed limits of the water and sewer system improvements are shown on the attached draft APE map dated February 2026.
• Since this project utilizes federal funding sources, it is subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance procedures. After reviewing the project information and meeting with the project team on site, Caltrans environmental reviewers have required more extensive and detailed environmental technical studies than were initially anticipated and were included in the scope of work. Additionally, the footprint of the originally scoped technical studies has increased to accommodate the water and sewer system improvements. • The initial scope of work from August 2025 focused on providing PA&ED services for the entire project length – from a point south of Sutter Street to a point south of Bidwell Street – and right of way and plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) services for a Phase 1 segment of the project that was assumed to include improvements from Natoma Street to

04/28/2026 Item No.19.
4 a point south of Bidwell Street. The proposed amendment #1 revises the scope of work to include right of way and final design services for the entire length of the project.

Staff is working with Caltrans and SACOG to move the construction grant funding to the design phase to fund this additional design work, as summarized in the table below.

Project Phase Federal Funding City Cost Share
Design $3,800,000 $492,331
Right of Way $200,000 $25,912
Construction $0 $0
Total $4,000,000 $518,243

Staff have reviewed the R.E.Y. Engineers' scope and fee to provide the additional services and concur with the level of effort required to comply with Caltrans requests and full design efforts for this phase of the project.

Staff will use the City’s standard contract amendment in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The City of Folsom applied for and successfully secured $4,000,000 in Congressionally Directed Spending during Fiscal Year 2023 to fund the design and construction of the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project with a total local cost share of $ 518,243 (11.47%). These federal funds are being administered through the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), and the Preliminary Engineering phase has already been formally programmed in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) under SACOG ID SAC25350.

The Riley Street Safety Improvement Project , Project PW2101, was included in the F iscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement P lan with a budget of $587,902 in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) . Resolution No. 11452 approved an additional appropriation of $170,340 in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) to cover the cost of the original design and engineering consultant agreement.

If approved, the contract amendment #1 would require an additional appropriation of $1,616,074, for a new total contract amount of $2,276,038. Costs would be initially funded through the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) and reimbursed by the federal grant at an 88.53% rate.

If approved, the total project budget for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, Project No.

PW2101 would increase to $2,374,316. Sufficient f unds are available in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) for this appropriation.

04/28/2026 Item No.19.
5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The Riley Street Safety Improvement Project is expected to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.

Environmental studies are ongoing and CEQA and NEPA compliance documentation will be brought to City Council at a later date.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11603 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment #1 with R.E.Y. Engineers, Inc. for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, Project No. PW2101, in the Amount of $1,616,074 using $1,430,710 from a Federal Grant and $185,364 from the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) and Appropriation of Funds in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446)

2. Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map

Submitted,

Rebecca Neves, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 11603 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment #1 with R.E.Y. Engineers, Inc. for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, Project No. PW2101, in the Amount of $1,616,074 using $1,430,710 from a Federal Grant and $185,364 from the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) and Appropriation of Funds in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446)

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

Resolution No. 11603

RESOLUTION NO. 11603

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 WITH R.E.Y. ENGINEERS, INC. FOR THE RILEY STREET SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO. PW2101, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,616,074 USING $1,430,710 FROM A FEDERAL GRANT AND $185,364 FROM THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND (FUND 446) AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND (FUND 446)

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom has identified the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project as a priority to improve pedestrian safety along the Riley Street corridor; and

WHEREAS, the project was selected to receive $4 million in Congressionally Directed Spending funds with a local cost share of $518,243 and is eligible for federal reimbursement; and

WHEREAS, City Council approved Resolution No. 11452 authorizing the City Manager to execute a design and engineering contract with R.E.Y. Engineers , Inc. to prepare project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project; and

WHEREAS, Caltrans environmental review feedback and comments have led to expanded technical studies from the initial scope to obtain approval of the environmental document; and

WHEREAS, the City desires additional planned water and sewer infrastructure improvements along Riley Street to be included in the project scope; and

WHEREAS, an appropriation in the amount of $1,616,074 in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) will be required, for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,276,038; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) for the appropriation, for a new total project budget of $2,374,316; and

WHEREAS, reimbursement in the amount of $1,430,710 will be received through Caltrans invoicing and will be credited to the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446), resulting in a net financial impact of $185,364; and

WHEREAS, the contract will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment #1 with R.E.Y. Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $ 1,616,074 using $1,430,710 from a Federal Grant and $185,364 from the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) for an updated not to exceed contract amount of $2,276,038 for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, Project No. PW2101.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

Resolution No. 11603

authorized to appropriate $1,616,074 in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, Project No. PW2101.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 28th day of April 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

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

ATTACHMENT 2
Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSS
SSSS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSS

SSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSS

OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

OHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHT

OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE

OHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHC

OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHT
WWW
WWWW
WWW
WWW
W
TT

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS
GAS

GASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS
GAS

GASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGAS
GAS
GAS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSD
WW
SDSD

OHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHC

OHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHC

OHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHC

OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE
WW W
GASGAS
SDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
S
S
S
S
S
D
D
W

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW SCO
SDSD
SD

SDSDSDDSDSDSD
32 SF
SCOS
D
S
S
S
S
SS
S
S
S
D
D
D
DD
DD
070-0111-002BAKERFAMILYTRUST
070-0111-016CRACKEL MARTINCRACKEL JENNY
070-0112-001LZ KHANINVESTMENTS LLC
070-0112-013AKS EQUITIES INC
070-0161 -001ZANETTA FAMILYTRUST
070-0161 -013CERMAK SCOTTNAULTY JAMES
070-0105-012BAKER FAMILY TRUST
070-0105-013SCALZI DOUG
070-0106-010MOORE CHRISTINA
070-0106-005RUMSEY RICHARDRUMSEY DEE
070-0155-012ZOO PROPERTIES LLC
070-0155-006JIMMERSON JONATHANJIMMERSON SELBY48"SD
48"SD
48"SD48"SD
48"SD
12"SD
12"SD
12"SD
12"SD
070-0111-001BAKERFAMILYTRUSTD
070-0161 -012COLLINS FAMILY TRUST

FIGUEROA ST

FIGUEROA ST

SUTTER ST
XXX
SHEET 1 OF 2
X
RILEY STREET SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTFebruary 2026RILEY STREET SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTAPE MAP 40'SCALE IN FEET080'160'

MORMON STFIGUEROA ST -MORMON ST ALLEYMORMON ST -NATOMA ST ALLEY

FIGUEROA ST -MORMON ST ALLEYSUTTER ST -FIGUEROA ST ALLEY

SUTTER ST -FIGUEROA ST ALLEY

MORMON ST

HISTORICDOWTOWN
MATCHLINE A(SEE SHEET 2)MORMON ST -NATOMA ST ALLEY

AFFECTED PARCEL (PERMANENT ACQUISITION)AFFECTED PARCEL (TCE OR PTEC)XSTORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (OPEN TRENCH)REMOVE TREEAREA OF DIRECT EFFECT (ADE)AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE)

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (NON DESTRUCTIVE CIPP LINING)(E)STORM DRAIN TO BE ABANDONEDSEWER IMPROVEMENTS (OPEN TRENCH)CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTSPAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS WALL HEIGHT10' MAXWALL HEIGHT14' MAX
WALL HEIGHTS6' MAX
WALL HEIGHTS10' MAXRILEY STLEGEND:RETAINING WALLRIGHT OF WAY WATER IMPROVEMENTS (OPEN TRENCH)

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

SSSSSSSDSDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSS

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD

OHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHT

OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE

OHCOHCOHC

OHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHT

OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE

TTTTTTTTTT
TTTT
TT

TTTT TTTTT

TTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD

OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE
WWWWW
W

WWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWW

OHEOHEOHE

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS GASGASGAS

GASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGAS
GASGAS

WWWWWWWW WWWW
W
WWWWWW
W
WW
W

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SSSSSSSS
TT

CCCCCCCCC
OHC
CC
GASGAS
GASGAS
GAS

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
WW
SDSD

SDSDSDSD
SDSD
CCCCC
GTSS S
SS
SS
S
D D
WW

WWWWWWWW

WWWW WWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

GASGASGASGASGASGAS
WWW
WWWW
WWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHCOHC WWWWWW
WWWWW
WWWWW
TTT
WPB

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS X X
D
S
SS
SS
S
WPB
S SD
S
070-0162 -001MACK BISHOPLIVING TRUST070-0162-002MALLORYKEVINMALLORYMOLLY070-0162 -0003WHATLEYFAMILY TRUST070-0162-011JOHN/THERESAKIPILOREVOCABLETRUST070-0162-012COMMUNITYBIBLE CHURCHOF FOLSOM071-0320-106FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIEDSCHOOL DISTRICT071-0190-084FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIEDSCHOOL DISTRICT 070-0156-005SUPER SMART MARKET070-0156-013KENT V WOOD 2010REVOCABLE SEPARATE PRO070-0203-006KELLISON ASH LKELLISONIONA M070-0203-018GUNNELL FOLSOM LLC071-0156-013701 BIDWELL STREET LLC071-0190-069VLASYUKVLADIMIRCOX SABINE071-0190-071RUEDA ALICIA071-0190-070JEFFREY A SEIBELREVOCABLEFAMILYTRUST 071-0190-084FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIEDSCHOOL DISTRICT
071-0156-013701 BIDWELL STREET LLC

BIDWELL ST

PERSIFER ST

PERSIFER ST
SUTTER MIDDLE SCHOOLCENTRALCOMMERCIALDISTRICTRILEY STREET SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTFebruary 2026RILEY STREET SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTAPE MAP 40'SCALE IN FEET080'160'
SHEET 2 OF 2
MATCHLINE A(SEE SHEET 1)

NATOMA ST

NATOMA ST

RILEY ST

AFFECTED PARCEL (PERMANENT ACQUISITION)AFFECTED PARCEL (TCE OR PTEC)XSTORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (OPEN TRENCH)REMOVE TREEAREA OF DIRECT EFFECT (ADE)AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE)

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (NON DESTRUCTIVE CIPP LINING)(E)STORM DRAIN TO BE ABANDONEDSEWER IMPROVEMENTS ( OPEN TRENCH)CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTSPAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

PHB SYSTEM
LEGEND:RETAINING WALLRIGHT OF WAY WATER IMPROVEMENTS (OPEN TRENCH)

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

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

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

Folsom City Council Meeting

Additional Information
Transmittal

Instructions to staff: Deliver original and 30 stapled/double-sided copies to the City Clerk’s Department; City Clerk’s Department will distribute via email and hardcopy to City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.

Updated: Jan 2026
MEETING DATE:

4/28/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

Old Business
STAFF REPORT TITLE Resolution No. 11603 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment #1 with R.E.Y.

Engineers, Inc. for the Riley Street Safety Improvement Project, Project No. PW2101, in the Amount of $1,616,074 using $1,430,710 from a Federal Grant and $185,364 from the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446) and
Appropriation of Funds in the Transportation Improvement Fund (Fund 446)
FROM: Public Works Department

Staff is providing the attached additional information for the above-referenced agenda item.

04/28/2026 Item No.19.

April 28, 2026

City of Folsom City Council
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: [email protected] for distribution to City Council

SUBJECT: Comments to City Council re: April 28, 2026, Agenda Item No. 19 – Resolution No. 11603 Amending Contract for Riley Street Safety Improvement Project

Dear City Councilmembers:

The conceptual design of sidewalks and retaining walls along Riley Street between Bidwell Street and Sutter Street as illustrated on the “Riley Street Safety Improvement Project APE Map, February 2026” (Sheets 1 and 2, pkt. pgs. 390 and 391) of the City Council’s Agenda Item No. 19 staff report would result in substantial modifications along this primary corridor through Folsom’s Historic District and would adversely affect the historic quality and character of historic resources.

I request that the City Council reconsider the conceptual design for Riley Street improvements prior to advancing additional funds for the current design concept. The current design concept would have a substantial adverse effect on the character of the Historic District and would not be eligible for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption as contemplated in the staff report.

The staff report acknowledges that, “Caltrans environmental reviewers provided feedback that requires more extensive and detailed environmental technical studies than were initially anticipated and were originally included in the scope of work.” That the necessary environmental technical studies were underestimated in the original scope of work is just one indication that the City is prematurely pursuing improvements along Riley Street. This project is in need of a process that identifies alternatives that would achieve the project objectives while lessening the significant effects on historic resources that will result from the current conceptual design.

The conceptual design represents substantial alteration to the existing condition of Riley Street and intersecting side streets, and fails to integrate with the historic character of the Historic District and its neighborhood streets. By way of example, under existing conditions, the north side of Mormon Street east of Riley Street contains a sidewalk separated from the street by a landscaped median and elevation change. The conceptual design illustrates a new sidewalk at street grade typical of a modern residential area design and without any apparent attempt to interconnect with the existing sidewalk along the north side of Mormon Street, and nowhere does the conceptual plan demonstrate any effort to integrate the proposed Riley Street design with Historic District character.

Protection of the character of the Historic District requires more thorough consideration of project alternatives to minimize impacts on the Historic District.

Sincerely,

Bob Delp
Historic District - Folsom, CA 95630 - -

04/28/2026 Item No.19.