Folsom City Council
September 22, 2026

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 5
“Other Taxable Property” means all other land uses of Taxable Property, for which a building permit for new construction can be issued. Other Taxable Property does not include Residential Property and Non-Residential Property land use categories.
“Outstanding Bonds” means all Bonds, which remain outstanding as defined in the Indenture pursuant to which such Bonds were issued.
“Pay As You Go Costs” means that portion of the Facilities Special Tax Requirement attributable to the direct payment for the acquisition and/or construction of public improvements, which are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 22A IA3.
“Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property zoned for multi-family or non-residential land use for which all discretionary entitlements have been obtained, including, without limitation, development plan review and improvement plan approval, such that building permits may be issued without further approvals for the construction of multi-family Residential Units or non-residential buildings within such Assessor’s Parcel. The City shall have sole discretion, based upon available development information, in classifying an Assessor’s Parcel as Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property. “Planned Development” means the planned number of Residential Lots, Permit Ready Multi- Family/Non-Residential Property Acreage planned within CFD No. 22A IA3, set forth in Attachment B or, following the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation, Attachment D of this Rate and Method of Apportionment, as amended by the future recordation of all Large Lot Maps and Small Lot Final Subdivision Maps within CFD No. 22A IA3.
“Price Point Study” means an analysis, prepared by an independent firm, to verify the estimated Average Sales Price within each land use category of Residential Property given the project location and current market conditions.
“Property Owner Association Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 22A IA3, which is (a) owned by a property owner association or (b) designated with specific boundaries and Acreage on a Small Lot Final Subdivision Map as property owner association property. As used in this definition, a property owner association includes any master or sub-association. “Proportionately” means for Taxable Property that the ratio of the Facilities Special Tax levy to the Maximum Facilities Special Tax (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax) and the Services Special Tax levy to the Maximum Services Special Tax is equal for all Assessors’ Parcels within each classification (Developed Property, Single Family Final Map Property, Permit Ready Multi- Family/Non-Residential Property, Large Lot Property, etc.) within CFD No. 22A IA3. “Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 22A IA3, which (a) is owned by a public agency, (b) has been irrevocably offered for dedication to a public agency, or (c) is designated with specific boundaries and Acreage on a Small Lot Final Subdivision Map as property, which will be owned by a public agency. For purposes of this definition, a public agency includes the federal government, the State of California, the County, the City, or any other public agency.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 6
“Residential Lot” means an individual lot of land for which a building permit could be issued to construct a Residential Unit.
“Residential Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a building permit could be issued for purposes of constructing Residential Units, including Single-Family Detached Property – SF/SFHD Zoning, Single-Family Detached Property – MLD Zoning Property. “Residential Unit” means a residential dwelling unit, including accessory dwelling units, as allowed by the City zoning code.
“Services Administrative Expenses” means the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of the Services Special Tax including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing the Services Special Taxes and preparing the annual Services Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City or designee thereof or both); the costs of collecting the Services Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs associated with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Services Special Tax; and the costs of the City, CFD No. 22A IA3, or any designee thereof related to any appeal of the levy or application of the Services Special Tax. Services Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD No. 22A IA3 for any other administrative purposes related to the Services Special Tax.
“Services Special Tax” means, prior to the Transition Event, the annual Special Tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Services Special Tax Requirement.
“Services Special Tax Escalation Factor” means the maximum of two percent (2%) or the June annualized percentage change of the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area, not to exceed four percent (4%). “Services Special Tax Requirement” means the amount of Services Special Tax revenue required for CFD No. 22A IA3, before the Transition Year, to (i) pay Services Administrative Expenses in an amount designated by the City; (ii) pay Authorized Services expenses; (iii) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish any repair and contingency funds, capital improvement funds, or reserve funds related to the Authorized Services expenses; (iv) cover any shortfalls that exist if, in any Fiscal Year, the levy of the Facilities Special Tax on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property is insufficient to pay the Facilities Special Tax Requirement in that Fiscal Year. Facilities Special Tax Requirement shortfalls shall not include Pay As You Go Costs, and (v) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Services Special Taxes based on the delinquency rate for Services Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; less (vi) a credit for funds available to reduce the annual Services Special Tax levy as determined by the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator.
“Single-Family Detached Property – MLD Zoning” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a building permit could be issued for purposes of constructing one or more detached or attached Residential Units with a permitted density range of 7-12 Residential Units per Acre and more fully described in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan adopted on June 28, 2011 and as amended by the City Council.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 7
“Single-Family Detached Property – SF Zoning” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a building permit could be issued for purposes of constructing one or more Residential Units.

Single-Family Detached Property – SF Zoning shall consist of single-family property with a permitted density range of 1-4 Residential Units per Acre, which is more fully described in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan adopted on June 28, 2011 and as amended by the City Council.

Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a building permit could be issued for purposes of constructing one or more Residential Units.

Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning shall consist of single-family property with a permitted density range of 4-7 Residential Units per Acre, which is more fully described in the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan adopted on June 28, 2011 and as amended by the City Council. “Special Tax” means, before the Transition Year, the annual Facilities Special Tax and Services Special Tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Facilities Special Tax Requirement and the Services Special Tax Requirement; and, beginning in the Transition Year, the annual Transition Services Special Tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Transition Services Special Tax Requirement. “Small Lot Final Map Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property for which a Small Lot Final Subdivision Map was recorded prior to June 30 of the previous Fiscal Year. “Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel that is created from the subdivision of Large Lot Property by the recordation of a Small Lot Final Subdivision Map that has not yet been mapped for final development approval. Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property is that portion of property for which the Small Lot Final Subdivision Map definition does not apply (i.e., does not contain individual lots for which building permits may be issued for Residential Units without further subdivision of such property). Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property classified as Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property, as of June 30 of the previous Fiscal Year, will be considered Large Lot Property.
“Small Lot Final Subdivision Map” means a subdivision of property created by recordation of a final subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment, approved by the City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 1352, that creates individual lots for which building permits may be issued for Residential Units without further subdivision of such property. “State” means the State of California.
“Taxable Property” means all of the Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 22A IA3 that are not exempt from the CFD No. 22A IA3 Special Tax pursuant to law or Section F below. “Total Effective Tax Rate” means the percentage of the Total Estimated Tax Burden as compared to the estimated average sales price identified in the Price Point Study for each land use category of Residential Property.
“Total Estimated Tax Burden” means the total amount of overlapping property taxes anticipated to be levied upon a Residential Unit, based upon the estimated Average Sales Price identified in the most

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 8
recently completed Price Point Study and existing property tax rates for the current Fiscal Year.

Existing property tax rates shall reflect the actual property tax rates— excluding utility-related fees and charges and PACE loans— levied upon Taxable Property in the Fiscal Year that the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation is completed.
“Transition Event” means the earlier of (i) Fiscal Year 2086-2087 or (ii) the Fiscal Year when the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator determines that both of the following events have occurred (1) all Bonds secured by the levy and collection of the Facilities Special Tax in CFD No. 22A IA3 have been fully repaid and the City determines that no additional Bonds are to be issued, and (2) all Facilities Administrative Expenses have been paid or reimbursed to CFD No. 22A IA3. “Transition Services Administrative Expenses” means the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of the Transition Services Special Tax including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing the Transition Services Special Taxes and preparing the annual Transition Services Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City or designee thereof or both); the costs of collecting the Transition Services Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs associated with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Transition Services Special Tax; and the costs of the City, CFD No. 22A IA3, or any designee thereof related to any appeal of the levy or application of the Transition Services Special Tax. Transition Services Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD No. 22A IA3 for any other administrative purposes related to the Transition Services Special Tax.
“Transition Services Special Tax” means, after the Transition Event, the annual Special Tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Transition Services Special Tax Requirement.
“Transition Services Special Tax Escalation Factor” means the maximum of two percent (2%) or the June annualized percentage change of the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area, not to exceed four percent (4%). “Transition Services Special Tax Rate” means, calculated in the Transition Year, the amount equal to the prior Fiscal Year’s Maximum Services Special Tax Rate plus fifty percent (50%) of the prior Fiscal Year’s Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate. The Transition Services Special Tax Escalation Factor shall be applied beginning in the Transition Year. Following the Transition Year, the Transition Services Special Tax Rate shall be equal to the prior Fiscal Year’s Transition Services Special Tax Rate, increased by the Transition Services Special Tax Escalation Factor. “Transition Services Special Tax Requirement” means the amount of Transition Services Special Tax revenue required for CFD No. 22A IA3, beginning in the Transition Year, to (i) pay Transition Services Administrative Expenses in an amount designated by the City; (ii) pay Authorized Services expenses; (iii) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish any repair, replacement and contingency funds, capital improvement funds, or reserve funds related to the Authorized Services expenses; (iv) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Transition Services Special Taxes based on the delinquency rate for Transition Services Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; less (v) a credit for funds

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 9
available to reduce the annual Transition Services Special Tax levy as determined by the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator.
“Transition Year” means the first year in which the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator determines that the Transition Event occurred in the prior Fiscal Year. “Trustee” means the entity appointed pursuant to an Indenture to act as the trustee, fiscal agent, or paying agent or a combination thereof.
“Undeveloped Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property, Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property, or Large Lot Property.
“Welfare Exempt Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 22A IA3 that (a) have been granted a welfare exemption by the County under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code indicated in the Assessor’s Data finalized as of January 1 of the previous Fiscal Year, and (b) are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act.

Pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act, after the issuance of the first series of Bonds, as applicable, any Assessor’s Parcels that receives a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall not be classified as Welfare Exempt Property and will be subject to the Facilities Special Tax.

B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year, using City and County records, City zoning information, and land use development plans, all Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 22A IA3 shall be designated as either Taxable Property or Exempt Property.

All Taxable Property shall be further classified as Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property, Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property, Large Lot Property, or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to the levy of the annual Special Tax determined pursuant to Sections C and D below.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 10
C. FACILITIES SPECIAL TAX
Prior to the Transition Year, a Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be assigned to all Taxable Property within CFD No. 22A IA3 according to the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates set forth in Attachment A of this Rate and Method of Apportionment.

Once assigned, the sum of the total Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be equal to or greater than the Minimum Facilities Revenue, unless adjusted by an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation as described below. The Minimum Facilities Revenue for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 is set forth in Attachment B of this Rate and Method of Apportionment.

C.1. Increase in the Maximum Facilities Special Tax
On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 2028, the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates and Minimum Facilities Revenue in effect for the previous Fiscal Year shall be increased by the Facilities Special Tax Escalation Factor.

C.2. Future Assessor’s Parcel Changes – Prior to an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation The Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be assigned to all future Assessor’s Parcel(s) created from a subdivision, lot line adjustment, or merger of one or more Assessor’s Parcels so that the revised sum of the total Maximum Facilities Special Tax revenue is not less than the Minimum Facilities Revenue set forth in Attachment B of this Rate and Method of Apportionment.

Undeveloped Property Subdividing into Large Lot Property When Undeveloped Property subdivides into Large Lot Property, the Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be calculated for all Taxable Property as if all of the Taxable Property was classified as Developed Property. The expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax for any Large Lot Property and any remaining Undeveloped Property shall be based upon the Planned Development for the Large Lot Property and remaining Undeveloped Property.

If the sum of the total expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax generated by all of the Taxable Property is greater than or equal to the Minimum Facilities Revenue, there will be no further adjustments to the Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates for the Large Lot Property created from the Undeveloped Property subdivision.

If the sum of the total expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax is less than the Minimum Facilities Revenue, the Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall be uniformly increased on the Large Lot Property created from the Undeveloped Property subdivision until the sum of the total expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax is equal to the Minimum Facilities Revenue. Further, if the sum of the total current Maximum Facilities Special Tax is less than the Minimum Facilities Revenue, the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates for the Large Lot Property and any remaining Undeveloped Property created from the Undeveloped Property subdivision shall be uniformly increased until the sum of the total current Maximum Facilities Special Tax is equal to the Minimum Facilities Revenue. Attachment B of this

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 11
Rate and Method of Apportionment shall be updated to reflect any increases to the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates from the Undeveloped Property subdivision. The Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall not be adjusted for any Taxable Property already classified as Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property or Permit Ready Multi- Family/Non-Residential Property.

Large Lot Property Subdividing into Small Lot Final Map Property and/or Permit Ready Multi- Family/Non-Residential Property
When Large Lot Property subdivides into Small Lot Final Map Property and/or Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property, the Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be calculated for all Taxable Property as if all of the Taxable Property was classified as Developed Property. If the Large Lot Property subdivision also creates Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property, the expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax for the Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property shall be based upon the Planned Development for the Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property. The expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax for any remaining Large Lot Property and Undeveloped Property shall be based upon the Planned Development of the Large Lot Property and the Undeveloped Property.

If the sum of the total expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax is greater than or equal to the Minimum Facilities Revenue, there will be no further adjustments to the Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non- Residential Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates for the Small Lot Final Map Property, Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property created from the Large Lot Property subdivision.

If the sum of the total expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax is less than the Minimum Facilities Revenue, and such difference is not eliminated by the partial prepayment of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax pursuant to Section L, the Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non- Residential Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall be Proportionately increased, on the Small Lot Final Map Property, Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property created from the Large Lot Property subdivision, until the sum of the total expected Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax is equal to the Minimum Facilities Revenue. Attachment B of this Rate and Method of Apportionment shall be updated to reflect any increases to the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates from the Large Lot Property subdivision. The Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall not be adjusted for any Taxable Property already classified as Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property or Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property created prior to the Large Lot Property subdivision.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 12
C.3. Effective Tax Rate Evaluation
Prior to the issuance of the first series of Bonds within CFD No. 22A IA3 an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation will be completed. Following the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation, Attachment C of this Rate and Method of Apportionment will be updated to reflect the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate for all Taxable Property in CFD No. 22A IA3.

Additionally, prior to the issuance of the first series of Bonds, the Developer may, one time, at their discretion, further reduce the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate for any or all Taxable Property in CFD No. 22A IA3 to an amount less than the rates produced in the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation. If reduced, the reduction will be applied uniformly by land use category.

Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates As part of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation, a Price Point Study will be prepared and an estimated Average Sales Price will be established for each Residential Property land use category. Using the estimated Average Sales Price information determined in the Price Point Study, the Total Estimated Tax Burden and Total Effective Tax Rate will be calculated, using the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates set forth in Attachment A, for each Residential Property land use category. If the calculated Total Effective Tax Rate is less than or equal to the Total Maximum Effective Tax Rate for a Residential Property land use category, the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate shall not be adjusted and will be assigned using the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates set forth in Attachment A. Attachment C of this Rate and Method of Apportionment will be updated to set forth the Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate for each Residential Property land use category.

If the Total Effective Tax Rate for any Residential Property land use category exceeds the Total Maximum Effective Tax Rate, the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate set forth in Attachment A shall be reduced until the Total Effective Tax Rate is less than or equal to the Total Maximum Effective Tax Rate for that Residential Property land use category.

Attachment C of this Rate and Method of Apportionment will be updated to set forth the Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate for each Residential Property land use category.

Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue As a result of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation, if the calculated Total Effective Tax Rate is less than or equal to the Total Maximum Effective Tax Rate for a Residential Property land use category used in the Minimum Facilities Revenue calculation, the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate for the applicable Residential Property land use category shall not be adjusted and the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate will be assigned using the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates set forth in Attachment B. Attachment D of this Rate and Method of Apportionment will be updated to set forth the Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate for each Residential Property land use category and the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 13
If the calculated Total Effective Tax Rate exceeds the Total Maximum Effective Tax Rate for a Residential Property land use category used in the Minimum Facilities Revenue calculation, the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate will be assigned using the Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates set forth in Attachment C. Attachment D of this Rate and Method of Apportionment will be updated to set forth the Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate for each Residential Property land use category and the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue.

C.4. Future Assessor’s Parcel Changes – After an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation The Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be assigned to all future Assessor’s Parcel(s) created from a subdivision, lot line adjustment, or merger of one or more Assessor’s Parcels so that the revised sum of the total Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax revenue is not less than the total Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue set forth in Attachment D of this Rate and Method of Apportionment.

Undeveloped Property Subdividing into Large Lot Property When Undeveloped Property subdivides into Large Lot Property, the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be calculated for all Taxable Property as if all of the Taxable Property was classified as Developed Property. The expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for any Large Lot Property and any remaining Undeveloped Property shall be based upon the Planned Development for the Large Lot Property and remaining Undeveloped Property.

If the sum of the total expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax generated by all of the Taxable Property is greater than or equal to the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue, there will be no further adjustments to the Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non- Residential Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates for the Large Lot Property created from the Undeveloped Property subdivision.

If the sum of the total expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax is less than the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue, the Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non- Residential Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall be uniformly increased, on the Large Lot Property created from the Undeveloped Property subdivision, until the sum of the total expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax is equal to the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue. Further, if the sum of the total current Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax is less than the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue, the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates for the Large Lot Property and any remaining Undeveloped Property created from the Undeveloped Property subdivision shall be uniformly increased until the sum of the total current Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 14
Facilities Special Tax is equal to the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue.

Attachment D of this Rate and Method of Apportionment shall be updated to reflect any increases to the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates from the Undeveloped Property subdivision. The Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall not be adjusted for any Taxable Property already classified as Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property or Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property.

Large Lot Property Subdividing into Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi- Family/Non-Residential Property
When Large Lot Property subdivides into Small Lot Final Map Property or Permit Ready Multi- Family/Non-Residential Property, the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax shall be calculated for all Taxable Property as if all of the Taxable Property was classified as Developed Property. If the Large Lot Property subdivision also creates Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property, the expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for the Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property shall be based upon the Planned Development for the Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property. The expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for any remaining Large Lot Property and Undeveloped Property shall be based upon the Planned Development of the Large Lot Property and the Undeveloped Property.

If the sum of the total expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax is greater than or equal to the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue, there will be no further adjustments to the Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates for the Small Lot Final Map Property, Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property created from the Large Lot Property subdivision.

If the sum of the total expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax is less than the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue, and such difference is not eliminated by the partial prepayment of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax pursuant to Section L, the Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall be Proportionately increased, on the Small Lot Final Map Property, Small Lot Final Map Remainder Property and Permit Ready Multi- Family/Non-Residential Property created from the Large Lot Property subdivision, until the sum of the total expected Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax is equal to the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue. Attachment D of this Rate and Method of Apportionment shall be updated to reflect any increases to the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates from the Large Lot Property subdivision. The Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property and Permit Ready Multi-

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 15
Family/Non-Residential Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall not be adjusted for any Taxable Property already classified as Developed Property, Small Lot Final Map Property or Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property created prior to the Large Lot Property subdivision.

C.5. Method of Apportionment of Facilities Special Tax
Using the definitions and procedures described herein, the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator shall determine the Facilities Special Tax Requirement and levy the Facilities Special Tax until the amount of Facilities Special Taxes equals the Facilities Special Tax Requirement. The Facilities Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year until the Transition Year as follows:

Prior to an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation
First: The Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Developed Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Developed Property in order to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement.

Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement (excluding Pay As You Go Costs) after the first step has been completed, the Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Small Lot Final Map Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Small Lot Final Map Property.

Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement (excluding Pay As You Go Costs) after the first two steps have been completed, the Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non- Residential Property.

Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement (excluding Pay As You Go Costs) after the first three steps have been completed, the Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Large Lot Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Large Lot Property.

Fifth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement (excluding Pay As You Go Costs) after the first four steps have been completed, the Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Undeveloped Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Undeveloped Property.

After an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation
First: The Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Developed Property at a rate up to 100% of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Developed Property in order to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement.

Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement (excluding Pay As You Go Costs) after the first step has been completed, the Facilities Special Tax

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 16
shall be levied Proportionately on all Small Lot Final Map Property at a rate up to 100% of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Small Lot Final Map Property.

Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement (excluding Pay As You Go Costs) after the first two steps have been completed, the Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property at a rate up to 100% of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property.

Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement (excluding Pay As You Go Costs) after the first three steps have been completed, the Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Large Lot Property at a rate up to 100% of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Large Lot Property.

Fifth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement (excluding Pay As You Go Costs) after the first four steps have been completed, the Facilities Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Undeveloped Property at a rate up to 100% of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for Undeveloped Property.

D. SERVICES SPECIAL TAX
A Services Special Tax shall be assigned to all Taxable Property within CFD No. 22A IA3 according to the Maximum Services Special Tax Rates set forth in Attachment A of this Rate and Method of Apportionment.

D.1. Prior to the Transition Event - Increase in the Maximum Services Special Tax Prior to the Transition Event, on each July 1, commencing on July 1, 2027, the Maximum Services Special Tax Rates in effect for the previous Fiscal Year shall be increased by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor.

D.2. Prior to the Transition Event - Method of Apportionment of Services Special Tax If, in any Fiscal Year prior to the Transition Year, the Facilities Special Tax is levied against each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property within CFD No. 22A IA3 and the Facilities Special Tax revenues generated are insufficient to pay the Facilities Special Tax Requirement, such shortfall shall be deemed a component of the Services Special Tax Requirement in that Fiscal Year, and proceeds from the levy of the Services Special Tax shall first be applied to mitigate the shortfall in the Facilities Special Tax Requirement before being used to pay for Authorized Services. The Services Special Tax revenue shall not be applied to any Facilities Special Tax Requirement shortfalls attributable to Pay As You Go Costs authorized to be financed by CFD No. 22A IA3.

Using the definitions and procedures described herein, the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator shall determine the Services Special Tax Requirement and levy the Services Special Tax until the amount of Services Special Tax equals the Services Special Tax Requirement. The Services Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows:

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 17
First: The Services Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Developed Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Services Special Tax for Developed Property in order to satisfy the Services Special Tax Requirement.

Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Services Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Services Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Small Lot Final Map Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Services Special Tax for Small Lot Final Map Property in order to satisfy the Services Special Tax Requirement.

Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Services Special Tax Requirement after the second step has been completed, the Services Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Permit-Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property, Large Lot Property, and Undeveloped Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Services Special Tax for Permit-Ready Multi- Family/Non-Residential Property, Large Lot Property, and Undeveloped Property in order to satisfy the Services Special Tax Requirement.

E. TRANSITION SERVICES SPECIAL TAX
A Transition Services Special Tax shall be assigned to all Taxable Property within CFD No. 22A IA3 according to the Maximum Transition Services Special Tax Rates set forth in Attachment A of this Rate and Method of Apportionment.

E.1. After the Transition Event – Method of Apportionment of Transition Services Special Tax Using the definitions and procedures described herein, the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator shall determine the Transition Services Special Tax Requirement and levy the Transition Services Special Tax until the amount of Transition Services Special Tax equals the Transition Services Special Tax Requirement. The Transition Services Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows:

First: The Transition Services Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Developed Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Transition Services Special Tax for Developed Property in order to satisfy the Transition Services Special Tax Requirement.

Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Transition Services Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Transition Services Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on all Small Lot Final Map Property at a rate up to 100% of the Maximum Transition Services Special Tax for Small Lot Final Map Property in order to satisfy the Transition Services Special Tax Requirement.

F. DELINQUENCIES
Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the CFD No. 22A IA3 Facilities Special Tax levied against any Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property classified as Residential Property, in any Fiscal Year, be increased as a consequence of the delinquency or default in the payment of the CFD No. 22A IA3 Facilities Special Taxes by the owner or owners of any other Taxable Property by more than ten percent (10%) above the amount that would have been levied against such Assessor’s Parcel in such Fiscal Year had there been no delinquencies or defaults.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 18
G. EXEMPTIONS
The CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator shall classify the following as Exempt Property: Public Property, Property Owner Association Property, Open Space Property, and Assessor’s Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for any use other than the purposes set forth in the easement.

The Maximum Facilities Special Tax obligation or, if applicable, the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax obligation for Taxable Property which will be transferred or dedicated to a public agency and will be classified as Public Property may be fully prepaid by the seller, pursuant to Section L, prior to the transfer/dedication of such Taxable Property. Until the Maximum Facilities Special Tax obligation or, if applicable, the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax obligation for any such Taxable Property is prepaid, the Taxable Property shall continue to be subject to the levy of the Facilities Special Tax. An exception to this may be made if an Assessor’s Parcel of Public Property, such as a school site, is relocated to an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property, in which case the Assessor’s Parcel of previously Public Property becomes Taxable Property and the Assessor’s Parcel of previously Taxable Property becomes Public Property. This trading of an Assessor’s Parcel from Taxable Property to Public Property will be permitted to the extent there is no loss in Maximum Facilities Special Tax revenue or, if applicable, Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax revenue, and the transfer is agreed to by the owners of all Assessor’s Parcels involved in the transfer and the City Council.

If the use of an Assessor’s Parcel changes so that such Assessor’s Parcel is no longer eligible to be classified as one of the uses set forth in paragraph 1 of Section G. above that would make such Assessor’s Parcel eligible to continue to be classified as Exempt Property, such Assessor’s Parcel shall cease to be classified as Exempt Property and shall be deemed to be Taxable Property and subject to the Special Tax.

No Special Tax shall be levied on any Assessor’s Parcel in any Fiscal Year in which such Assessor’s Parcel is classified as Welfare Exempt Property; however, pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act, after the issuance of the first series of Bonds, as applicable, any Assessor’s Parcel that receives a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall not be classified as Welfare Exempt Property and will be subject to the Facilities Special Tax.

H. TRANSFERS
Prior to the issuance of the first series of Bonds within CFD No. 22A IA3, the City may permit the transfer of Maximum Facilities Special Tax or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax from one Assessor’s Parcel to another Assessor’s Parcel. Before recordation of a Small Lot Final Subdivision Map, if a subdivision map is required, the City may permit a transfer if the number of planned Residential Units, Multi-Family Attached Property Acreage, or Non-Residential Property Acreage is transferred from one Assessor’s Parcel(s) to another Assessor’s Parcel(s) in any portion of Large Lot Property. The City may, in its sole discretion, allow for a transfer of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax from one Assessor’s Parcel to another Assessor’s Parcel provided such a transfer shall be allowed only if (1) all adjustments are

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 19
agreed to in writing by the affected property owners and the City’s Finance Director, and (2) there is no reduction in the sum of the total Maximum Facilities Special Tax or sum of the total Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax as a result of the transfer. Should a transfer result in an amendment to Attachment B or, following an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation, Attachment D of this Rate and Method of Apportionment, the requesting property owner shall bear the costs to affect the transfer in the CFD No. 22A IA3 records and prepare the required amendments to Attachment B or, following an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation, Attachment D of this Rate and Method of Apportionment.

I. INTERPRETATIONS
The City reserves the right to make minor administrative and technical changes to this document that do not materially affect the Rate and Method of Apportionment. In addition, the interpretation and application of any section of this document shall be at the City’s discretion. Interpretations may be made by the City by ordinance or resolution for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity in this Rate and Method of Apportionment.

J. REVIEW/APPEALS
The CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator may establish such procedures, as it deems necessary to undertake the review of any such appeal. The CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator shall interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the Special Tax and any property owner appeals, as herein specified.

Any property owner may file a written appeal of the Special Tax with the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct. The appeal must be filed not later than one calendar year after having paid the Special Taxes that are disputed, and the appellant must be current in all payments of Special Taxes. In addition, during the term of the appeal process, all Special Taxes levied must be paid on or before the payment date established when the levy was made. The appeal must specify the reasons why the appellant claims the Special Taxes are in error. The CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator shall review the appeal, meet with the appellant if the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator deems necessary, and advise the appellant of its determination.

If the property owner disagrees with the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator’s decision relative to the appeal, the owner may file a written notice with the City Manager of the City appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor’s Parcel. If following such consultation and action (if any by the City Manager of the City), the property owner believes such error still exists, such person may file a written notice with the City Council appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor’s Parcel. The decision of the City shall be final and binding to all persons. If the decision of the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator or subsequent decision by the City Manager of the City or City Council requires the Special Taxes to be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, no cash refund shall be made for prior years’ Special Taxes, but an adjustment shall be made to credit future Special Taxes. This procedure shall be exclusive and its exhaustion by any property owner shall be a condition precedent to filing any legal action by such owner.

K. MANNER OF COLLECTION

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 20
The annual Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that CFD No. 22A IA3, may, at the sole discretion of the City, directly bill the Special Tax, may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner as necessary to meet its financial obligations, and may covenant to foreclose and may actually foreclose on Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property that are delinquent in the payment of Special Taxes.

L. PREPAYMENT IN PART OF FACILITIES SPECIAL TAX
The Facilities Special Tax obligation of an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property may be partially prepaid as described herein; provided that there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor’s Parcel at the time of partial prepayment. An owner of an Assessor’s Parcel intending to partially prepay the Facilities Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator with written notice of intent to partially prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator shall notify such owner of the partial prepayment amount of such Assessor’s Parcel. Any partial prepayment must be submitted at least 60 days before the next occurring bond redemption date, and the proceeds of such prepayment shall be provided to the Trustee for application toward bond redemption in accordance with the Indenture. The CFD No. 22A IA3 Administrator may charge a fee for providing this service.

L.1. Partial Prepayment Amount
The Facilities Special Tax may be prepaid in an amount determined at the time of prepayment based on the portion of Bonds then outstanding; provided, however, that no partial prepayment shall be accepted in an amount equal to an annual Special Tax amount less than the annual Transition Services Special Tax rate escalated to the then current fiscal year less the then current Services Special Tax rate.

The “Partial Prepayment Amount” is calculated as follows:

Step 1: Determine the current Fiscal Year Maximum Facilities Special Tax for the Assessor’s Parcel based on the assignment of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax described in Section C above. If an Effective Tax Rate Evaluation has occurred, determine the current Fiscal Year Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax for the Assessor’s Parcel based on the assignment of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax described in Section C above.

If the Assessor’s Parcel is not already classified as Developed Property, the Maximum Facilities Special Tax (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax) shall be assigned as though the Assessor’s Parcel was already designated as Developed Property.

Step 2: Calculate the annual revenue produced, by annually applying the Facilities Special Tax Escalation Factor, from the Maximum Facilities Special Tax (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax) from the date of prepayment through the earlier of the end of the Facilities Special Tax Term or the Transition Event, except that this final date may be amended by the City no later than the time of the calculation of the prepayment. If the final date used in the prepayment calculation is amended by the City, this amended final date shall apply to any and all prepayment calculations from that point forward.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 21
Step 3: Calculate the present value of the Assessor’s Parcel’s annual Maximum Facilities Special Tax (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax) revenue stream determined in Step 2. The present value shall be calculated using a discount rate that earns a rate of interest that, when the prepayment is invested in City permitted and available investments, would produce annual revenues equal to the amounts calculated in Step 2.

If there are Outstanding Bonds at the time of the Partial Prepayment Amount calculation, the Partial Prepayment Amount shall be first allocated to the Redemption Amount. If the Partial Prepayment Amount is insufficient to fund the Redemption Amount, then the Partial Prepayment Amount shall be increased to equal the Redemption Amount.

The “Redemption Amount” is calculated as follows:

Step 1: Divide the Maximum Facilities Special Tax (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax) computed pursuant to Step 1 of Section L.1 by the total Maximum Facilities Special Taxes (or total Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Taxes) for the entire CFD No. 22A IA3, based on the Maximum Facilities Special Taxes (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Taxes) that could be charged in the current Fiscal Year if all Taxable Property were designated as Developed Property, excluding any Assessor’s Parcels which have prepaid the Maximum Facilities Special Tax (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax) obligation (the “Prepayment Quotient”).

Step 2: Multiply the Prepayment Quotient by the Outstanding Bonds to compute the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the “Bond Redemption Amount”).

Step 3: Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount by the applicable redemption premium, if any, on the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed.

Step 4: Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first Bond interest payment date following the current Fiscal Year until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds.

Step 5: Determine that portion of Facilities Special Taxes levied on the Assessor’s Parcel in the current Fiscal Year to satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement, which have not yet been paid.

Step 6: A reserve fund credit shall equal the lesser of: (a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture for the Bonds), if any, associated with the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the partial prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture for the Bonds) in effect after the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the partial prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. Such reserve fund credit will not decrease the balance in the reserve fund below the new reserve requirement.

Step 7: If any capitalized interest for the Outstanding Bonds will not have been expended at the time of the first interest and/or principal payment following the current Fiscal Year, a

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 22
capitalized interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the quotient computed pursuant to Step 1 by the expected balance in the capitalized interest fund after such first interest payment.

Step 8: The redemption amount is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5, less the amount computed pursuant to Steps 6 and 7 (the “Redemption Amount”).

If the Partial Prepayment Amount exceeds the Redemption Amount, then any remaining Partial Prepayment Amount, after allocating the Redemption Amount, shall be designated as Pay As You Go Costs.

The Partial Prepayment Amount shall include any fees or expenses, including the costs of computation of the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the cost of redeeming Bonds, and the costs of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the “Administrative Fees and Expenses”).

In addition, the City has the authority to adjust the Partial Prepayment Amount calculated above if a portion or all of the current property tax bill and the portion attributable to the payment of the Facilities Special Tax has not been used to make an interest and/or principal payment on the Bonds.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, no partial prepayment shall be allowed unless the amount of Maximum Facilities Special Taxes (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Taxes), net of any priority administration, if any as defined in the Indenture, that may be levied on Taxable Property, in each Fiscal Year, both prior to and after the proposed partial prepayment, is at least 1.1 times the annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds to be paid from the Maximum Facilities Special Taxes (or Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Taxes) in each Fiscal Year.

M. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
The Facilities Special Tax shall be levied commencing in Fiscal Year 2027-2028 to the extent necessary to fully satisfy the Facilities Special Tax Requirement and shall be levied through the Facilities Special Tax Term.

The Services Special Tax shall be levied commencing in Fiscal Year 2027-2028 and shall be levied until the Transition Event to the extent necessary to fully satisfy the Services Special Tax Requirement.

The Transition Services Special Tax shall be levied commencing in the Fiscal Year following the Transition Event in perpetuity, unless and until such time the City determines that revenues are no longer needed to pay the Transition Services Special Tax Requirement.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 23

ATTACHMENT A

CITY OF FOLSOM
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 22A (FOLSOM HEIGHTS) IMPROVEMENT AREA 3

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES
(FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027)
Land Use Category Lot Size
2026-2027
Maximum
Facilities Special
Tax Rate(1)
2026-2027
Maximum
Services Special
Tax Rate(2) Taxed Per
Developed Property:

Single-Family Detached Property – SF Zoning Any $0 $137 Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning > = 5,775 Sq Ft $0 $137 Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning < 5,775 Sq Ft $0 $137 Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – MLD Zoning Any $0 $117 Residential Lot Other Taxable Property Any $0 $474 Acre
Small Lot Final Map Property:

Single-Family Detached Property – SF Zoning Any $0 $137 Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning > = 5,775 Sq Ft $0 $137 Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning < 5,775 Sq Ft $0 $137 Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – MLD Zoning Any $0 $117 Residential Lot Other Taxable Property Any $0 $474 Acre
Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property $0 $474 Acre Large Lot Property $0 $474 Acre
Undeveloped Property $0 $474 Acre
(1) On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 2027, the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall be increased by the Facilities Special Tax Escalation Factor of the Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. (2) On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 2027, the Maximum Services Special Tax Rates shall be increased by an amount equal to the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor of the Maximum Services Special Tax Rates in effect for the previous Fiscal Year.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 24

ATTACHMENT B

CITY OF FOLSOM
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 22A (FOLSOM HEIGHTS) IMPROVEMENT AREA 3

MINIMUM FACILITIES REVENUE
(FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027)
Land Use Category Lot Size
Planned Number
of Residential
Lots
2026-2027
Developed Property
Maximum Facilities
Special Tax Rate(1)(2)
2026-2027
Minimum
Facilities
Revenue (1)(3)
Developed Property:

Single-Family Detached Property – SF Zoning Any 0 $0 $0 Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning > = 5,775 Sq Ft 0 $0 $0 Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning < 5,775 Sq Ft 0 $0 $0 Single-Family Detached Property – MLD Zoning Any 0 $0 $0 Other Taxable Property Any 0 $0 $0
Total Minimum Facilities Revenue(4) $0
(1) On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 2027, the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates and Minimum Facilities Revenue shall be increased by the Facilities Special Tax Escalation Factor of the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates and Minimum Facilities Revenue in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. (2) As a result of future Assessor’s Parcel changes, described in Section C.2, the assigned Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates for Developed Property may exceed the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates set forth in this table. (3) The total Minimum Facilities Revenue may be decreased as result of a portion of Maximum Facilities Special Tax obligations being prepaid pursuant to Section L.
(4) Based upon the Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate for Single-Family Detached Property in Improvement Area No. 3.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 25

ATTACHMENT C

CITY OF FOLSOM
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 22A (FOLSOM HEIGHTS) IMPROVEMENT AREA 3

EFFECTIVE TAX RATE EVALUATION MAXIMUM FACILITIES SPECIAL TAX RATES (FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027)
Land Use Category Lot Size
2026-2027
Effective Tax Rate
Evaluation Maximum
Facilities Special Tax
Rate(1)(2) Taxed Per
Developed Property:

Single-Family Detached Property – SF Zoning Any $_________ Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning > = 5,775 Sq Ft _________ Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning < 5,775 Sq Ft _________ Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – MLD Zoning Any _________ Residential Lot Other Taxable Property Any _________ Acre
Small Lot Final Map Property:

Single-Family Detached Property – SF Zoning Any $_________ Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning > = 5,775 Sq Ft _________ Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning < 5,775 Sq Ft _________ Residential Lot Single-Family Detached Property – MLD Zoning Any _________ Residential Lot Other Taxable Property Any _________ Acre
Permit Ready Multi-Family/Non-Residential Property $_________ Acre Large Lot Property $_________ Acre
Undeveloped Property $_________ Acre
(1) Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates will be inserted following the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation. (2) On each July 1, commencing in the Fiscal Year after the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation occurs, the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates shall be increased by the Facilities Special Tax Escalation Factor of the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates in effect for the previous Fiscal Year.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 26

ATTACHMENT D

CITY OF FOLSOM
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 22A (FOLSOM HEIGHTS) IMPROVEMENT AREA 3

EFFECTIVE TAX RATE EVALUATION MINIMUM FACILITIES REVENUE (FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027)
Land Use Category Lot / Village #
Planned Number
of Residential
Lots / Acres(1)
2026-2027
Developed Property
Effective Tax Rate
Evaluation Maximum
Facilities Special Tax
Rate(1)(2)(3)
2026-2027
Effective Tax Rate
Evaluation
Minimum Facilities
Revenue(1)(2)(4)
Developed Property:

Single-Family Detached Property – SF Zoning Any 0 $_________ $_________ Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning > = 5,775 Sq Ft 0 _________ _________ Single-Family Detached Property – SFHD Zoning < 5,775 Sq Ft 0 _________ _________ Single-Family Detached Property – MLD Zoning Any 0 _________ _________ Other Taxable Property Any 0 _________ _________
Total Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum
Facilities Revenue(5)
$_________
(1) Planned Number of Residential Units/Acres, Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate and Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue to be inserted following the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation. (2) On each July 1, commencing in the Fiscal Year after the Effective Tax Rate Evaluation occurs, the Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates and Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue shall be increased by the Facilities Special Tax Escalation Factor of the Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates and Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. (3) As a result of future Assessor’s Parcel changes, described in Section C.3, the assigned Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates may exceed the Developed Property Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rates set forth in this table.
(4) The total Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Minimum Facilities Revenue may be decreased as result of a portion of Effective Tax Rate Evaluation Maximum Facilities Special Tax obligations being prepaid pursuant to Section L. (5) Based upon the total Effective Developed Property Maximum Facilities Special Tax Rate Evaluation for Single-Family Detached Property in Improvement Area No. 3.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

City of Folsom - Community Facilities District No. 22A (Folsom Heights) July 20, 2026 Improvement Area 3 Page 27

ATTACHMENT E

CITY OF FOLSOM
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 22A (FOLSOM HEIGHTS) IMPROVEMENT AREA 3

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

Attachment 8

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

09/22/2026 Item No.10.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

9/22/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11723 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with
Sacramento County Related to Interim Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Prairie City Road

FROM: Public Works Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt the following Resolution No. 11723 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understandin g with Sacramento County related to interim design, construction, and maintenance of Prairie City Road.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

South of US-50, Prairie City Road is a jointly owned facility between the City of Folsom and County of Sacramento. Additionally, the centerline of the road serves as the jurisdictional boundary between both communities, providing a north-south route to the freeway and serving as a primary quarry truck route for several key facilities located within unincorporated Sacramento County. Earlier this year, the City and County entered into an agreement for maintenance of shared transportation facilities, which was approved by City Council on March 24, 2026, under Resolution No 11578.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.
2 In 2024, the City of Folsom was engaged by the local development community to explore near- term opportunities to continue development and construction west of East Bidwell Street, located in the remaining undeveloped portions of the Folsom Plan Area. This initiated discussions around circulation, congestion mitigation, and community facilities to support existing residents and planned growth in both jurisdictions. With approved master plans for both the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan and the Glenborough at Easton Land Use Master Plan, a coordinated plan for Prairie City Road became a necessity.

Currently a two-lane facility, Prairie City Road is in
need of realignment and construction of a larger facility to support the future circulation needs of planned
growth. In the County’s General Plan, Prairie City Road is identified as a six-lane arterial roadway from White Rock Road to the US-50 interchange. In the City’s
adopted Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, Prairie City
Road is identified as a four-lane facility from White
Rock Road to the future extension of the Alder Creek
Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway intersection (Section
G), and a six-lane facility north of that same
intersection to US-50 (Section F).

Additionally, the County has approved several rock
quarries in the unincorporated area south of White Rock Road, including a Quarry Truck Management Plan
Operational Agreement adopted under Board

09/22/2026 Item No.11.
3 Resolution No. 2012-0045 (and approved by the Folsom City Council on December 6, 2011, under Resolution No. 8938). This allowed the City of Folsom to participate in the Truck Management Plan Program and receive funding collected by the County from participating quarries for quality-of-life improvements along designated truck routes, which includes Prairie City Road. As part of that operational plan, a six-lane facility was planned with dedicated, depressed lanes to serve as the primary quarry truck route.

In 2025, the City of Folsom received an application for the development of 1,424 residential lots and various community amenities, including private and public recreation spaces, parks, landscaping, open space, a future fire station, elementary school site s, and roadways. Given the existence of three different conceptual cross -sections and alignments across various planning documents for both the County and the City, staff reached out to the County in February 2025 to reopen discussions around the future of Prairie City Road to seek agreeable alternatives that meet the needs of all users and stakeholders. Following a year of coordination with County staff, rock quarries, development partners, and relevant stakeholders, City and County staff arrived at a mutual understanding and acceptable options for future cross -sections and alignment that protect and serve the needs of the community.

POLICY / RULE

Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding Agreement between Agencies require s City Council approval.

ANALYSIS

The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) addresses critical long -range traffic and transportation needs for Prairie City Road between White Rock Road and US-50, benefiting both the City of Folsom and Sacramento County. It creates a joint framework for the planning, design, funding, construction, and ongoing maintenance of the future Prairie City Road project.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.
4 Purpose and Council Action
On September 22, 2026, the County Board of Supervisors will consider approving the MOU, and City staff will provide an update to the City Council during its regular meeting.

Approval allows the City and County to require developers and new quarry operators to pay for traffic mitigations and road improvements needed to offset their impact on Prairie City Road and nearby utilities, such as SMUD’s overhead power lines. It also re serves the right for both jurisdictions to initiate road reconstruction as funding becomes available. Once complete, the upgraded road will support planned housing, commercial growth, walking and biking routes, and quarry truck traffic.

Key Roadway Design Features

Exhibits D, E, and F of the MOU (provided on the following page) illustrate conceptual designs consistent with the goals and objectives City and County planning documents, including the Quarry Truck Management Plan and recently approved entitlements, including the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek approved by Council on June 23, 2026. Key features include:

• Right-of-Way: A reserved 90-foot-wide corridor from White Rock Road to US-50.

• Traffic Control: At the request of Sacramento County, signalized intersections with no roundabouts are recommended.

• Travel Lanes : Standard 12-foot-wide travel lanes (with 11 -foot lanes adjacent to the landscaped median in the final design).

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths: A 12-foot paved, off-street multi-use path on both sides of the road. The west -side path will also serve as a maintenance access road for SMUD's power lines.

• North Segment (Alder Creek Parkway to US -50): Expanded to a six-lane arterial road (Exhibit D), consistent with the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan.

• South Segment (White Rock Rod to Alder Creek Parkway): Initially built as a four - lane road (Exhibit E), with long-term plans to expand to six lanes to align with the County’s General Plan (Exhibit F).

• Future Connections: The Prairie City Road and Alder Creek Parkway intersection will be built 98 feet wide with utility connections ready for the future Easton Valley Parkway extension to the west.

Once fully designed, the project will accommodate all planned residential, commercial, and multimodal traffic, including dedicated capacity for quarry haul trucks. Additional details on shared maintenance, ownership, and administrative duties are included in the attached MOU.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.
5

09/22/2026 Item No.11.
6 Next Steps and Annexation

Realigning the road requires adjusting City and County boundaries at the centerline of the new road to serve as the official border. On September 22, 2026, City staff will present an item to the City Council seeking direction on the Prairie City Road Right-of-Way Annexation.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Executing this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has no direct financial impact. Future Prairie City Road improvements will be presented to the City Council for consideration either as developer-funded conditions or as City- or County-led capital projects. Staff will return to Council for approval before any funds are encumbered.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) memorializes the agreement between the City and the County regarding the interim design, construction, and maintenance planning for Prairie City Road. It does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Environmental review and clearance will be completed as part of a future, defined project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11723 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Sacramento County Related to Interim Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Prairie City Road

2. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding between City of Folsom and Sacramento County

Respectfully Submitted,

Rebecca Neves, Public Works Director/City Engineer

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Attachment 1

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Resolution No. 11723

RESOLUTION NO. 11723

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SACRAMENTO COUNTY RELATED

TO INTERIM DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE FOR PRAIRIE

CITY ROAD

WHEREAS, Prairie City Road serves as the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Folsom and County of Sacramento as identified in the City and County General Plans, the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, and the Quarry Truck Managem ent Plan with various funding mechanisms and differing cross sections of four-lane and six-lane facilities; and

WHEREAS, adopted plans, approved projects, existing aggregate mining operations, and proposed development resulted in a need for coordinated tr ansportation improvements along the Prairie City Road corridor between White Rock Road and US-50; and

WHEREAS, the City and County recognize that reconstruction of Prairie City Road is necessary to accommodate future residential, commercial, and quarry truck traffic while maintaining consistency with each agency’s long-range transportation planning objectives; and

WHEREAS, the City and County have negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish a mutually agreeable cooperative framework for the planning, design, funding, construction, operation, and maintenance of Prairie City Road between White Rock Road and US- 50; and

WHEREAS, the MOU establishes mutually agreed -upon roadway cross sections, identifies potential funding sources, provides pr ocedures for coordinated project delivery and design review, and establishes administrative responsibilities for implementation of the agreement.

The MOU is administrative in nature and does not approve any specific construction project or authorize physical changes to the existing environment, which is subject for review under future roadway improvement projects as appropriate; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Sacramento County related to interim design, construction, and maintenance of Prairie City Road as administrative in nature, does not authorize any physical improvements, is in substantial form attached hereto, and does not require separate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes and directs the Public Works Director , or his/her designee, on behalf of the City, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; to make administrative amendments as necessary; to implement the purposes, mechanisms, and strategies contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding; and to do and perform necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Resolution No. 11723

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 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

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Attachment 2

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF FOLSOM AND

SACRAMENTO COUNTY REGARDING AN INTERIM DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND

MAINTENANCE FOR PRAIRIE CITY ROAD

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into this ________day of _____________________, 2026, by and between the County of Sacramento, a political subdivision of the State of California (“COUNTY”), and the City of Folsom, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (“CITY”).

BACKGROUND

A. Prairie City Road is identified in the COUNTY’s General Plan as a six-lane arterial roadway in unincorporated COUNTY and the centerline of the roadway serves as the boundary between the unincorporated COUNTY and the CITY.

B. In January 2009 , COUNTY approved the Glenborough at Easton Land Use Master Plan and certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for approximately 1,208 acres of development adjacent to and west of Prairie City Road, which will include up to 3,239 housing units.

C. Since 2010, the COUNTY approved several hard rock quarries in the unincorporated area of COUNTY south of White Rock Road including but not limited to the Teichert (“Teichert”), and Stoneridge Quarry, LLC (“Stoneridge”) quarries.

D. The COUNTY certified EIRs for those quarries requiring that the owners of the quarries contribute their fair share as mitigation toward improvements to the roadways impacted by quarry truck operations including but not limited to Prairie City Road.

E. In June 2011, CITY adopted the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (“FPASP”) for the development of approximately 3,500 acres south of Highway 50 and bounded by El Dorado County in the east and Prairie City Road, and COUNTY to the west and south below White Rock Road.

F. The FPASP included a new four-lane cross section and design for Prairie City Road from White Rock Road to the future intersection of Alder Creek Parkway and Easton Valley Parkway, and a six-lane arterial roadway from said intersection to US Highway 50 in the north in order to handle traffic from development as shown in Exhibit A.

G. In addition to adoption of the FPASP, the CITY Council also certified in June 2011 an Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (“EIR/EIS”) as well as a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the area as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and National Environmental Policy Act.

H. In December of 2011, COUNTY, CITY, and Sacramento County Water Agency entered into an agreement relating to transportation and water supply issues involving the south of Highway 50 Folsom Plan Area Annexation (“SOI Agreement”), which included required improvements as part of the special road design along Prairie City Road from Highway 50 to White Rock Road. The required improvements are listed in Section 4 of the SOI Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B,

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

and include a depressed, two -lane roadway at the future intersection of Prairie City Road and Easton Valley Parkway.

I. On December 14, 2011, the COUNTY Board of Supervisors (“Board”) approved Resolution No. 2011-0938 establishing a Quarry Truck Management Plan (“QTMP”) funding program for quality- of-life improvements for the multiple mining interests for southeastern Sacramento County.

J. On January 24, 2012, the COUNTY Board approved the QTMP Operational Agreement with the City of Rancho Cordova, and delegated authority for the Director of the Department of Transportation to approve and execute a QTMP Operational Agreement with the City of Folsom in substantially the same form, subject to the approval of the agreement by COUNTY Counsel.

K. The QTMP among other things provides a funding mechanism for potential roadway improvement options along Prairie City Road that could facilitate construction of a dedicated quarry truck haul route, as identified in Figure V to Exhibit B of the QTMP Operational Agreement with CITY, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

L. In 2014 prior to the start of the construction of the backbone infrastructure for the FPASP, an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (“ISMND”) was prepared and certified by the CITY Council. The ISMND evaluated the environmental effects of construction of the backbone infrastructure.

M. In January 2014, the CITY Council approved the Public Facilities Finance Plan (“PFFP”) in Resolution No. 9298 to fund backbone infrastructure as well as other required facilities necessary for the development set forth in the FPASP.

N. As part of the PFFP for the FPASP, t he CITY has been collecting and remitting Sacramento County Transportation Development Fees (“SCTDF”) to the COUNTY as development occurs in the FPASP Area.

O. In addition, COUNTY collects SCTDF fees for development projects in the unincorporated area of COUNTY adjacent to and west of Prairie City Road. The CITY and COUNTY agree that the SCTDF fees collected are eligible to be used for the design and reconstruction of Prairie City Road in accordance with the adopted MOU under COUNTY Board Resolution 2015-0375.

P. On March 28, 2024, CITY Council approved the QTMP Operational Agreement with the COUNTY that identified certain roads in Folsom as acceptable routes for the quarry truck traffic including Prairie City Road. Said QTMP Operational Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Q. Both CITY and COUNTY agree that Prairie City Road and its intersection with the future Easton Valley Parkway shall be designed with the intent to accommodate and facilitate the movement not only of vehicles but also of quarry haul trucks.

R. In 2025, the CITY received development applications for approximately 1,400 lots located near and adjacent to Prairie City Road . Furthermore, the Glenborough Development is expected to

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

develop in the unincorporated area of the COUNTY immediately west of Prairie City Road. The reconstruction of Prairie City Road will be necessary prior to completion of any of those projects.

S. Both the CITY and COUNTY have interests in re-aligning and reconstructing Prairie City Road using a mutually agreeable cross sections to serve not only residential and commercial traffic but also to provide a reasonable and continuously direct route for quarry trucks to access US Highway 50 through the use of an interim cross section that does not preclude the COUNTY from widening Prairie City Road to the planned six-lane arterial per the COUNTY’s General Plan in anticipation for future development, operation of the quarries, and development of other unincorporated areas.

T. CITY and COUNTY wish to enter into this MOU to document the coordination efforts associated with the design, construction, and operation of the realignment and reconstruction of Prairie City Road and the intersections located between White Rock Road and US Highway 50.

AGREEMENT

With these Background facts in mind, the CITY and COUNTY agree as follows:

1. DEVELOPERS TO CONSTRUCT
To the extent permissible by law, CITY and COUNTY shall impose conditions and require fulfillment of mitigation measures on land developers and any new quarries not previously approved by COUNTY that cause a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and benefit from the use of Prairie City Road to facilitate the reconstruction or payment for reconstruction of applicable segments of Prairie City Road, including associated wet and dry utility infrastructure as well as the relocation of the SMUD 69 kV line. Notwithstanding this provision, both CITY and COUNTY each reserve the right to initiate or complete all or any portions of the reconstruction of Prairie City Road subject to the availability of and access to funding.

2. PRAIRIE CITY ROAD DESIGN
As shown in Exhibits D, E, and F, attached here to, Prairie City Road shall be designed consistent with the FPASP with the following modifications:
a. 90-foot Right of Way is reserved for Prairie City Road from White Rock Road to US Highway 50;
b. Signalized intersections and no roundabouts;
c. 12-foot-wide travel lanes for each of the two travel lanes; except for the lanes adjacent to the median which shall be 11-foot lanes in the ultimate configuration; d. 12-foot, Class I separated pedestrian and bike path on the east side; e. 12-foot, Class I separated pedestrian and bike path on the west side, which shall also serve as a maintenance road for SMUD to access the 69 kV power lines; f. Six-lane arterial north of Alder Creek Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway to US Highway 50 as shown in Exhibit D, shown as the CITY and COUNTY ultimate cross section for this northernmost segment of Prairie City Road;

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

g. The western intersection of Prairie City Road and Alder Creek Parkway shall be stubbed out for future utilities and built to a width of 98 feet to accommodate the future Easton Valley Parkway to the west;
h. Four-lane arterial south of Alder Creek Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway to White Rock Road as shown in Exhibit E representing the CITY’s ultimate cross section and the COUNTY’s interim cross section; and
i. Future six-lane arterial south of Alder Creek Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway to White Rock Road as shown in Exhibit F, representing the COUNTY’s ultimate cross section for this segment consistent with the COUNTY’s General Plan.

3. DESIGN AS INTERIM CONDITION
The redesign and reconstruction of the roadway as described in Section 2 shall be an interim condition until such time that the traffic volume warrants and the COUNTY has the necessary funding to construct the road consistent with what is shown in the COUNTY General Plan as illustrated in Exhibit F, subject to COUNTY and CITY approval. CITY and COUNTY agree that the redesign of the roadway described in Section 2 and shown in Exhibit s D and E shall replace the conceptual roadway design presented in the QTMP and will preclude any future construction of the roadway improvements options for a dedicated depressed grade quarry truck haul route, which is identified in Figure V of Exhibit B of the QTMP. Furthermore, this redesign and reconstruction replaces the required designs shown in Figures 7.8 and 7.9 of the FPASP (Exhibit A) and also removes the requirement for a depressed, two-lane roadway at the future intersection of Prairie City Road and Easton Valley Parkway as stated in the first bullet point in Section 4 of the SOI Agreement (Exhibit B). CITY and COUNTY further agree that the design shall incorporate appropriate quality of life roadway improvements identified in Section 3.3 of the QTMP including, but not limited to the use of rubberized asphalt for travel , sound walls and soundwall extensions, and landscaping.

4. RELOCATION OF 69kV POWERLINES
In order to construct the new design for Prairie City Road, the 69 kV poles and power lines, which are owned and operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (“SMUD”) shall be relocated with SMUD’s authorization to a final approved location acceptable to SMUD, the COUNTY, and the CITY.

5. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING AND PROJECT DELIVERY
I. The CITY and COUNTY agree that the following funding sources may be used in a manner consistent with funding requirements for the design and construction of Prairie City Road including relocation of the 69 kV power lines:

a. Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan – Stand-Alone Component entitled “SCTDF Fees” b. Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Infrastructure Fees (“SPIF”); c. Quarry Truck Management Plan Funds;
d. Folsom Plan Area Community Facilities District No. 18; e. Sacramento County Transportation Development Fees;
f. Other such eligible funds as agreed to by the CITY and COUNTY; and g. Funding from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Any and all work contemplated under this MOU shall be subject to availability of funds and compliance with applicable public procurement requirements. The funds listed above are not in priority order and shall be used consistent with the requirements of each fund.

II. Notwithstanding the language in this section, CITY or COUNTY and/or a developer may use a credit and reimbursement agreement or a similar instrument to allow for the reconstruction of the roadway in advance of the availability of all funds necessary to complete the project given that funds may be collected over time from subsequent development in the area served by the roadway.

III. The selection of the design professional who will prepare the Prairie City Road bid documents shall be conducted via a competitive Q ualification Based Selection (QBS) process. The CITY and COUNTY reserve the right to establish minimum qualification criteria, participate in the evaluation committee, and provide final concurrence on the selected firm to ensure technical competency and adherence to regional standards. To ensure the highest quality of project delivery, the CITY and COUNTY shall be voting members of the selection committee responsible for evaluating proposals for the Prairie City Road design contract. The CITY and COUNTY agree that the appointment of the design consultant is contingent upon a consensus regarding the firm’s qualifications and past performance on similar public works projects.

IV. If a developer is conditioned to build all or a portion of Prairie City Road then the selection of the design professional and the competitive bid process shall be the responsibility of the developer. The developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of Prairie City Road consistent with Exhibits D, E and F unless that responsibi lity is otherwise delegated back to the CITY and/or the COUNTY through a development agreement. The CITY and COUNTY shall each review and sign the plans with CITY as the final approving party.

6. ANNEXATION TO ROADWAY CENTERLINE
CITY agrees to work with COUNTY to annex to the CITY the land to the center line of the new Prairie City Road alignment consistent with the requirements of the COUNTY Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), subject to the approvals of the Folsom City Council and the COUNTY Board of Supervisors . The CITY and COUNTY further agree to extend the existing tax sharing provisions related to the land subject to adjustment and realignment of Prairie City Road when annexation occurs.

7. SHARED MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
CITY and COUNTY agree to share maintenance responsibility of Prairie City Road in a fair and equitable manner and in accordance with the Parties’ agreement for maintenance of shared transportation facilities, as the agreement may be amended from time to time ( City of Folsom Contract No. 174-21 26-014/ Sacramento County Contract No. 81570).

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

8. OWNERSHIP, CONTROL AND SUPERVISION
Notwithstanding the work performed by third parties, the CITY or the COUNTY or that of either agency in the jurisdiction of the other, each agency retains full ownership, control and supervision of the roadways and facilities within its jurisdiction. This MOU does not transfer roadways or roadway facility ownership, control or supervision from one agency to the other.

9. DISPUTES
In the event of any dispute arising out of or relating to this MOU, the agencies will attempt, in good faith, to promptly resolve the dispute mutually between themselves. If the dispute cannot be resolved by mutual agreement, nothing herein will preclude either agency’s right to pursue its available legal and equitable remedies, pursuant to the laws of the State of California.

10. TERM
This MOU will be effective on the date the MOU is fully executed set out on the signature page below and will terminate upon completion of Prairie City Road or December 31, 2035 whichever is later, unless extended, modified or terminated by mutual agreement of the parties.

11. TERMINATION
Either agency may terminate this MOU for any reason and without cause during the term thereof by providing 180-days prior written notice of such termination to the other agency.

12. ADMINISTRATION
The CITY’s Public Works Director (CITY’s Director) shall administer this MOU on behalf of the CITY and the COUNTY’s Director of the Department of Transportation (COUNTY’s Director) shall administer the MOU on behalf of COUNTY. Said administration shall include the authority to make administrative amendments to this MOU on behalf of their respective agency. Administrative amendments may include, but are not limited to, updating party contact information, correcting typographical errors, and minor adjustments to the Prairie City Road Design. Administrative amendments do not include changes to any section in this MOU which materially affect the rights, obligations, scope, or financial terms of this MOU , extensions of the term of this MOU, or changes to the responsibilities of any Party. Unless otherwise provided herein or required by applicable law, CITY’s Director and COUNTY’s Director shall be vested with all the rights, powers and duties of their respective agencies herein. With respect to matters subject to the approval, satisfaction, or discretion of CITY, CITY’s Director’s decision in such matters shall be final. With respect to matters subject to the approval, satisfaction, or discretion of COUNTY, COUNTY’s Director’s decision in such matters shall be final. Any matter that is not an administrative amendment shall include consultation with other affected parties including landowners to Prairie City Road and the quarr y owners/operators prior to action by the CITY Council and/or COUNTY Board.

13. RECORDS
During the term of this MOU and for at least five (5) years after the work performed under the MOU is complete, both parties shall keep appropriate books, records, and accounts in connection with the activities performed under this MOU except that records pertaining to any audit then in progress, or any claims or litigation, will be retained beyond such five (5) year period until final

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

resolution of such audit, claim or litigation. These records shall be available to any federal or state auditor, as required under any subsequent agreement.

14. INDEMNIFICATION
CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY, its Board of Supervisors, officers, directors, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors and volunteers from and against all demands, claims, actions, liabilities, losses, damages, and costs, including payments of reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the MOU, caused in whole or in part by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of CITY’s C ity Council, officers, directors, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or volunteers.

COUNTY shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its CITY Council, officers, directors, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors and volunteers from and against all demands, claims, actions, liabilities, losses, damages and costs, including payments of reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the MOU, caused in whole or in part by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the COUNTY’s Board of Supervisors, officers, directors, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or volunteers.

It is the intention of COUNTY and CITY that the provisions of this paragraph be interpreted to impose on each party responsibility to the other for the acts and omissions of their respective officers, directors, agents, employees, volunteers, COUNTY’s Board of Supervisors, CITY’s City Council and CITY’s and COUNTY’s subcontractors. It is also the intention of the COUNTY and CITY that, where comparative fault is determined to have been contributory, principles of comparative fault will be followed and each party shall bear the proportionate cost of any damage attributable to the fault of that party, its officers, directors, agents, employees, volunteers, COUNTY’s Board of Supervisors, CITY’s C ity Council and their subcontractors.

15. INSURANCE
Each agency, at its sole cost and expense, shall carry insurance – or self-insure – its activities in connection with this MOU, and obtain, keep in force and maintain, insurance or equivalent programs of self -insurance to cover its potential liabilities hereunder. Each agency agrees to provide the other thirty (30) days’ advance written notice of any cancellation, termination or lapse of any of the insurance or self -insurance coverages.

16. GOVERNING LAWS AND JURISDICTION
This MOU shall be deemed to have been executed and to be performed within the State of California and shall be construed and governed by the internal laws of the State of California.

Any legal proceedings arising out of or relating to this MOU shall be brought in Sacramento County, California.

17. ASSIGNMENT
Neither party hereto shall assign, or transfer any interest in this MOU hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other party, and no assignment shall be of any force or effect whatsoever unless and until the other party furnishes such consent in writing, signed by both parties to this MOU.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

18. AMENDMENTS
This MOU may be modified or amended, or any of its provision s waived, only by a subsequent written amendment executed by each of the parties hereto.

19. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
It is agreed and acknowledged by the parties hereto that the provisions of this MOU have been arrived at through negotiation, and that each of the parties has had a full and fair opportunity to revise the provisions of this MOU and to have such provisions reviewed by legal counsel.

Therefore, the normal rule of construction that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in construing or interpreting this MOU.

20. WAIVER
A party's failure to insist on strict performance of this MOU or to exercise any right or remedy upon the other party's breach of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of the performance, right, or remedy. A party's waiver of the other party's breach of any term or provision in this MOU is not a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term or provision. A waiver is binding only if set forth in writing and signed by the waiving party.

21. SEVERABILITY
The invalidity, illegality or unenforceability of any provision of this MOU shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal, provided that such invalidity does not materially affect the respective rights and obligations of the parties.

22. NOTICES
All notices and other communications under this MOU must be in writing and are deemed to have been duly given (i) on the date of delivery, if delivered personally to the party to whom notice is given, or if made by email directed to the party to whom notice is to be given at the email address listed below, or (ii) at the earlier date of actual receipt or the second business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices and other communications must be directed to the parties at the addresses shown below. A party may change its person designated to receive notice, or its address from time to time by giving notice to the other party in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Article.

CITY: City of Folsom
Attention: Rebecca Neves, Director
Public Works Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, California 95630
Email: [email protected]

COUNTY: Sacramento County
Attention: Ron Vicari, Director
Department of Transportation
4111 Branch Center Road
Sacramento, California 95827
Email: [email protected]

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

23. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
Each person executing this MOU represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal authority to execute and deliver this MOU for or on behalf of the parties to this MOU. Each agency represents and warrants to the other that the execution and delivery of the MOU and the performance of such party’s obligations hereunder have been duly authorized.

24. COUNTERPARTS
This MOU may be executed in counterparts. The MOU shall be deemed executed when it has been signed by both parties.

25. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES.

This MOU is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the CITY and COUNTY and their successors and assigns . No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this MOU.

(“Signature page to follow”)

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and COUNTY have entered into this MOU on the day and year set out in the last date set out below.

CITY OF FOLSOM, a Municipal
Corporation

________________________________
Name: Bryan Whitemyer
Title: City Manager

Dated: __________________________

ATTEST:

________________________________
Christa Freemantle
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Sari Myers Dierking
City Attorney
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a political
subdivision of the State of California

________________________________
Name: David Villanueva
Title: County Executive

Dated: __________________________

ATTEST:

________________________________
Todd Stermer
Board Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________
Amanda L. McDermott
Deputy County Counsel

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Exhibit A
Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan
Figures 7.8 and 7.9 for Prairie City Road

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Note:

1. 6’ Sidewalk in 30’ Natural Parkway
Along all Development Frontages
Except for Section Between White
Rock Road and First Collector Street
North of Community Park West.

Note:

1. 6’ Sidewalk in 30’ Natural Parkway
Along all Development Frontages
Except for Section Between White
Rock Road and First Collector Street
North of Community Park West.

Circulation
7-21
Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan – April 2024
Figure 7.8 - Northern Section - Prairie City Road
(Section F - 6 Lane Major Arterial)
Figure 7.9 - Southern Section - Prairie City Road
(Section G - 4 Lane Minor Arterial)
Exhibit A - Figures 7.8 and 7.9
from the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Exhibit B
Section 4 of the SOI Agreement Showing
A Depressed, Two-lane roadway at the future intersection of Prairie City Road and Easton Valley Parkway

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Exhibit B

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Exhibit C
Quarry Truck Management Plan Operational Agreement

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Exhibit D
Prairie City Road Modified FPASP Cross-Section
Ultimate 6-Lane Configuration (City/County)
Alder Creek Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway to US 50

09/22/2026 Item No.11.
90' ROW
30'
Landscape Buffer

EXHIBIT D

PRAIRIE CITY ROAD MODIFIED FPASP CROSS-SECTION
ULTIMATE 6-LANE CONFIGURATION (CITY/COUNTY)
ALDER CREEK PARKWAY/EASTON VALLEY PARKWAY TO US-50
(LOOKING NORTH)
MAY 18, 2026

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Exhibit E
Prairie City Road Modified FPASP Cross-Section
4-Lane Configuration (City Ultimate/County Interim)
White Rock Road to Alder Creek Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway

09/22/2026 Item No.11.
90' ROW
30'
Landscape Buffer

EXHIBIT E

PRAIRIE CITY ROAD MODIFIED FPASP CROSS-SECTION
CITY ULTIMATE/COUNTY INTERIM 4-LANE CONFIGURATION

WHITE ROCK ROAD TO ALDER CREEK PARKWAY/EASTON VALLEY PARKWAY (LOOKING NORTH)
MAY 18, 2026
11'
FTL
All Irrigation & Drainage
Infrastructure Located in
Central 14' of Proposed Median Low Water Use Shrub
& Ground Cover
20'-25' Clear
PROPOSED
Relocated
OH 69kV Lines
(Ultimate)
EXISTING OH
69kV Lines
(Approx.)
TO BE
RELOCATED
11'
FTL
Class I Bike Trail is also intended to serve as an access and
maintenance road for SMUD.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Exhibit F
Prairie City Road Modified FPASP Cross-Section
6-Lane Configuration (County Ultimate)
White Rock Road to Alder Creek Parkway/Easton Valley Parkway

09/22/2026 Item No.11.
90' ROW
30'
Landscape Buffer

EXHIBIT F

PRAIRIE CITY ROAD MODIFIED FPASP CROSS-SECTION
COUNTY ULTIMATE 6-LANE CONFIGURATION

WHITE ROCK ROAD TO ALDER CREEK PARKWAY/EASTON VALLEY PARKWAY (LOOKING NORTH)
MAY 18, 2026
20'-25' Clear
PROPOSED
Relocated
OH 69kV Lines
(Ultimate)
EXISTING OH
69kV Lines
(Approx.)
TO BE
RELOCATED
Class I Bike Trail is also intended to serve as an access and
maintenance road for SMUD.

09/22/2026 Item No.11.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

9/22/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Direction to Staff on Prairie City Road Right-of-Way Annexation for Jurisdictional Boundary Realignment

FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommend that the City Council direction to staff to initiate discussions with Sacramento County and the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) regarding a potential modification of the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Folsom and Sacramento County to generally align the boundary with the future realignment of Prairie City Road.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The existing jurisdictional boundary between the City of Folsom and unincorporated Sacramento County in the vicinity of Prairie City Road does not consistently follow the road's centerline or right-of-way. In several segments, the boundary bisects the roadway itself or splits individual parcels between the two jurisdictions. This condition, which is common where boundaries were originally set by section lines, parcel lines, or prior annexations rather than by infrastructure, creates recurring practical difficulties, including:

 Ambiguity over which agency is responsible for pavement maintenance, striping, signage, drainage, and traffic signal operations along affected segments of Prairie City Road;
 Split jurisdiction over code enforcement, law enforcement, and emergency response for parcels or road segments that straddle the boundary;
 Inconsistent permitting and development review where a single project site or frontage improvement falls under two jurisdictions; and
 Increased administrative burden for property owners, utility providers, and both agencies in confirming service and taxing jurisdiction.

09/22/2026 Item No.12.
2 City and County staff have had preliminary discussions regarding a boundary realignment that would move the jurisdictional line to follow the centerline of future Prairie City Road right-of- way, consistent with the approach the City and County have used elsewhere along shared corridors. With current City and County action adopting a new Memorandum of Understanding for interim and ultimate right-of-way cross sections and alignment of Prairie City Road, the agencies can now proceed with realignment of our jurisdictional boundary down the centerline of that future roadway between the two agencies.

Because the proposed action would reorganize territory between two local agencies, it is subject to review and approval by Sacramento LAFCo under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, and requires an application initiated by resolution of the affected legislative body or bodies. Staff is not requesting formal direction to submit the application, but rather to commence the coordination with Sacramento County and LAFCo. Staff anticipate returning to City Council in the first quarter of 2027 with a resolution to initiate the application including additional details on the project, process, cost, and timeline.

ANALYSIS

Proposed Boundary Realignment

The proposed modification would adjust the Folsom / Sacramento County jurisdictional boundary along Prairie City Road so that it follows the road right-of-way (or centerline, to be determined through the LAFCo application process) rather than its current, irregular alignment.

09/22/2026 Item No.12.
3 The intent is not to expand the City's jurisdiction for land-use purposes beyond what is necessary to establish a logical and functional jurisdictional boundary. Rather, the proposed modification would seek to create a boundary that is readily identifiable in the field, corresponds with the future transportation network, and provides a more logical division of responsibility between the City and County.

A boundary generally following the centerline or other appropriate right-of-way boundary of the realigned Prairie City Road could provide several benefits, including:

 Logical jurisdictional boundary. A major public roadway provides a clear and readily identifiable boundary between jurisdictions.
 Improved service delivery. Aligning the jurisdictional boundary with the roadway could reduce situations in which roadway improvements, maintenance, landscaping, drainage, utilities, or other public infrastructure cross jurisdictional boundaries in an irregular manner.
 Clear maintenance responsibilities. A boundary aligned with the future roadway could provide greater clarity regarding responsibility for roadway and associated public improvements.
 Consistency with planned development. The modification would better reflect the transportation network planned for the Folsom Plan Area and surrounding areas.  Long-term administrative efficiency. Establishing a logical boundary before completion of the roadway realignment could reduce future boundary and maintenance issues.  Improved coordination with Sacramento County. A mutually agreed-upon boundary would provide a framework for coordinating transportation, public works, emergency response, land-use planning, and other municipal services.

The precise location of the proposed boundary has not yet been established. Staff would work with Sacramento County, affected property owners, surveyors, and Sacramento LAFCo to develop an appropriate legal description and boundary exhibit. Attachment 1 includes a Conceptual Realigned Boundary Exhibit.

Ultimately, the realignment will also implement the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan adopted in 2011 and memorialize a previous conditional certificate of compliance – lot line adjustment between Aerojet/Easton and the City of Folsom.

Annexation Process

Any proposed annexation that involves a change to City of Folsom boundaries is subject to review and approval by Sacramento County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in addition to approval by the Folsom City Council (and in this instance Sacramento County Board of Supervisors). This is true for service district boundary changes as well. Procedurally, this type of change to a jurisdictional boundary requires extensive study, environmental analysis, public review, and decision-making that can take years and often decades to complete for a project of this magnitude. The general LAFCo process, along with Folsom’s annexation history can be found in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively.

09/22/2026 Item No.12.
4 The realignment is intended to be jurisdiction-neutral in effect — it is not proposed as an annexation of new territory for development purposes, but as a technical correction to align governmental boundaries with a readily identifiable physical feature. Because minor amounts of territory may transfer between the City and County to achieve a clean boundary, the application will need to address:

 Preparation of a legal description and boundary map of the proposed new jurisdictional line, prepared by a licensed land surveyor;

 Identification of any affected parcels, including notice to property owners whose parcel would change jurisdiction, tax rate area, or service provider as a result;

 A property tax exchange agreement between the City and County, as required for any reorganization under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99, reflecting the (likely minimal) net change in assessed value and service responsibility;

 Coordination on which agency assumes maintenance, capital improvement, and operational responsibility for the realigned road segments; and

 Review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is anticipated to qualify for an exemption as a minor boundary adjustment involving no physical change or new development entitlement, subject to confirmation by the LAFCo executive officer.

A jurisdictional boundary modification of this type is processed by Sacramento LAFCo as a reorganization application. Typical steps include: adoption of a resolution of application by the City Council (and a concurrent or parallel action by the County Board of Supervisors); submittal of the application, boundary map, and legal description to LAFCo staff; LAFCo staff review and preparation of a report and recommendation; a public hearing before the LAFCo Commission; and, if approved, recordation of the boundary change with the Sacramento County Recorder and update of official jurisdictional maps. Depending on LAFCo's hearing calendar and the complexity of the tax-sharing negotiation with the County, staff estimates the process could take approximately [9–12 months] from application submittal to effective date.

At this meeting, LAFCo Executive Director Jose Hernriquez will present information about the traditional Annexation process for territorial change and the simplified/streamlined process for this qualifying reorganization Annexation to realign the jurisdictional boundary between Folsom and Sacramento County along the future centerline of Prairie City Road.

Why Council Direction Is Requested Now

Because the application must be filed jointly, or with concurrence, from both affected agencies, and because it commits staff time from Community Development, Public Works, Finance, and the City Attorney's Office, staff is seeking Council direction before finalizing the scope of the application and returning with a resolution of application and any required interagency agreements for formal Council action.

09/22/2026 Item No.12.
5 FISCAL IMPACT

At this stage, the proposed action is primarily to provide direction to staff and authorize further coordination and preparation of a potential LAFCo application.

There may be costs associated with surveying, preparation of legal descriptions and exhibits, application fees, environmental review, title research, and other technical work necessary to process the boundary modification. Staff will evaluate these costs as the proposal is developed.

If additional funding is necessary to complete the application or associated technical work, staff will return to the City Council for authorization as appropriate.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The action requested at this time is to provide direction to staff to investigate and pursue a potential jurisdictional boundary modification. No physical development or construction is proposed as part of this action.

Staff will coordinate with the City Attorney's Office and Sacramento LAFCo to determine the appropriate environmental review for the eventual boundary modification proposal.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Conceptual Realigned Boundary Exhibit for Prairie City Road

2. Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation Process

3. Folsom Annexation History

Submitted,

Pam Johns, Community Development Director

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

Attachment 1

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

PRAIRIE CITY RD

PRAIRIE CITY RD
US 50

PRAIRIE CITY RD

WHITE ROCK RD

PRAIRIE CITY RD
US 50

WHITE ROCK RD

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

Attachment 2

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

LAFCO Annexation Process Overview
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is a countywide commission, required in each California county. Sacramento County LAFCO has authority over any Sphere of Influence Amendments or Annexations in Sacramento County.

The broad goals of the Commission's directive are to ensure the orderly formation of local governmental agencies, to preserve agricultural and open space lands, and to discourage urban sprawl. Commissions must, by law, create Municipal Service Reviews and Update Spheres of Influence for each independent local governmental jurisdiction within their countywide jurisdiction.

Relevant Definitions and Acronyms
• Municipal Service Review (MSR). Municipal Service Review is a study conducted by the commission documenting and analyzing the services in a particular geographic region or jurisdictional area pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 56430 and Sacramento LAFCO's adopted local policy as permitted pursuant to subsection (a)(7) of section 56430.

• Sphere of Influence (SOI). Sphere of Influence is a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission consistent with Government Code Section 56425.

• Pre-zoning. Prezoning is the adoption of an anticipated zoning category prior to annexation to be effective subsequent to annexation.

• Annexation. Annexation is the inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district which is Governed by Government Code Section 65668.

Process/Logistics for a City to Request Sphere of Influence Amendment/Annexation A city, a landowner, and/or registered voters can request a modification to a Sphere of Influence (SOI). Landowners can initiate this on their own without the city but at some point the city has to state whether they are in favor of the Sphere of Influence change or not.

Municipal Service Review(s) are required before a city can change/update a Sphere of Influence, one or to analyze ability to provide services now and in the future. The Municipal Service Review would accompany the Sphere of Influence application but can also be done in advance of a Sphere of Influence application. Sacramento County LAFCO has a policy that the Sphere of Influence is heard at a different meeting than the Municipal Service Review.

Sphere of Influence Amendments and Annexation are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In any Sphere of Influence Amendment, the city and county have to meet and confer. Before LAFCO can adopt a Sphere of Influence amendment, there has to be agreement/resolution between the city and the county.

A public hearing with LAFCO is required for both Sphere of Influence requests as well as Annexation requests.

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

LAFCO Annexation Process Overview
LAFCO must consider the following factors in determining the Sphere of Influence of each governmental agency:

1. The maximum possible service area of the agency is based upon present and possible service capabilities of the agency.

2. The range of services the agency is providing or could provide.

3. The projected future population growth of the area.

4. The type of development occurring or planned for the area, including, but not limited to, residential, commercial, and industrial development.

5. The present and probable future service needs of the area.

6. Local governmental agencies presently providing services to such area and the present level, range and adequacy of services provided by such existing local governmental agencies.

7. The existence of social and economic interdependence and interaction between the areas within the boundaries of a local governmental agency and the area which surrounds it and which could be considered within the agency's sphere of influence.

8. The existence of agricultural preserves in the area which could be considered within the agency's sphere of influence and the effect on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of such preserves in the event that such preserves are within a sphere of influence of a local governmental agency.

LAFCO Commission may put policy conditions onto Sphere of Influence amendment that could affect annexation. Once a Sphere of Influence is amended through LAFCO, the city can apply for the Annexation at any time. The city would need to pre-zone the area prior to LAFCO’s approval of the annexation. Below is a simple flow chart for the above-described process:

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

Attachment 3

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

Folsom Annexation History 1946 - Present
When Folsom incorporated in 1946, development was largely restricted to the Historic District. By 1980, 35 years later, development had expanded east and north of the Historic District on both sides of the American River and the city limits had expanded south to Highway 50. When the last General Plan was adopted in 1988, Folsom had gone through a massive expansion; the city grew from a population of 5,800 in 1970 to 23,000 in 1988 – quadrupling in size in less than 20 years. The previous 1988 General Plan guided Folsom’s continued growth for 30 years.

In 2018 with a population over 77,000 residents and city limits largely developed north of Highway 50, City Council adopted Folsom General Plan 2035 creating a blueprint for the City’s growth and development over the next 20 years. That current General Plan incorporated 3,585 acres south of Highway 50 that were annexed in 2012 in conjunction with the adoption of the Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan (after more than a decade of study, planning, analysis, and agreements). See the City’s annexation history map on the following page and the chronology for the most recent annexation south of Highway 50 below.

Folsom Annexation Process to Expand the Sphere of Influence South of Highway 50 1999 City Growth and Annexation Consideration. Growth area designated in SACOG Blueprint.

Discussion about whether the City or County should plan it. 2001 Sacramento LAFCO approved the City’s application to expand it’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) with the condition for a comprehensive planning process to ensure the area is efficiently served, its valuable natural resources protected, and that “piecemeal” development is avoided
2004 Measure W passed by Folsom voters with 3 primary stipulations:
• The city must secure a new water supply for the area
• Current residents not be required to pay fees for construction of new infrastructure, including schools and roads, in the new community
• 30% of the gross land area be maintained as natural open space for the preservation of oak woodlands and sensitive habitat
2005 Vision/Land Planning Process Commenced (multi-year process) 2011 Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan Adopted and EIR Certified, Development Agreement Adopted 2012 Prezoning and Annexation Approved
2013 Specific Plan Refinements, Open Space Management Plan, Public facilities and Financing Plan, Design Guidelines, Specific Plan Amendments, Tentative Subdivision Maps 2015 Construction of Phase 1 Backbone Infrastructure $250M investment in water, sewer and roadway infrastructure and improvements
2017 First residential building permits issued
2018 First residential home occupied

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

Folsom Annexation History 1946 - Present

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

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

09/22/2026 Item No.12.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

9/22/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Housing Program Implementation Workshop: City Council Priorities for the Next Two Years
FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The purpose of this workshop is to provide an overview of the progress made to date on Housing Element implementation, share information on projects underway, and discuss several proposed housing initiatives that require City Council input/direction. With two and a half years remaining in the current Housing Element cycle, staff hopes to ensure that workload and re sources remain focused on the most important and impactful efforts.

BACKGROUND/ISSUE

The City has sufficient housing funds avail able to support additional affordable housing developments and over the past year, staff has received a number of inquiries from affordable housing developers expressing strong interest in building an affordable housing project in Folsom, including significant interest in the Lakeside Church property and the City-owned Glenn Station light rail site, which is currently used as a park -and-ride lot. Given our current funding capacity and the substantial level of developer interest, staff believes the City should carefully consider how to best utilize our limited staff resources and available housing funds to ensure that we direct these resources toward projects that most effectively address community needs, leverage outside funding sources, and advance our Housing Element goals.

To support this effort, staff has identified several initiatives intended to establish clear priorities and encourage future affordable development, ensuring that the City is well positioned as new opportunities emerge. To advance this work, staff are requesting City Council review and provide input on each initiative and determine priority order. Each City Council member will be asked to rank these initiatives to prioritize staff implementation during the remaining two and half years of this Housing Element cy cle. Any ini tiatives receiving strong support from City Council that

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
2 cannot be fully completed in this cycle may be incorporated as programs (in whole or in part) in the next Housing Element cycle (2029 – 2037).

Purpose and Background of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element

The primary purpose of a Housing Element is to ensure that local governments plan for the housing needs of all income levels, remove barriers to development, support private market solutions, address constraints to housing, and promote fair and equitable access. It serves as a state-approved blueprint for how communities will grow to meet housing demands.

The City’s sixth cycle Housing Element was adopted in August 2021 and establishes the framework for housing policy during the planning period of May 15, 2021, through May 15, 2029.

The adopted Element re-evaluated the City’s housing -related goals and objectives, addressed existing and emerging housing issues, and identified a comprehensive set of programs to support housing development, affordability, and equity. This cycle introduced several new challenges for the City, including the need to accommodate a significantly increased share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation (refer to the table below) and comply with evolving state housing laws. Among these was SB 166 (2017), the “no -net-loss” law, which requires the City’s land inventory and site identificatio n programs to maintain sufficient sites to meet any unmet RHNA throughout the planning period.

Progress to Date

The table below summarizes the City’s progress in meeting RHNA targets though December 2025.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Progress – 8-year period Income Level RHNA Allocation
Of Units
Total Units Built
in 2021 and 2025
Total Units
Remaining
Very Low (50% AMI) 2,226 186 2,040
Low (80% AMI) 1,341 348 993
Moderate (80-120% AMI) 829 812 17
Above Moderate (+120% AMI) 1,967 3,473 0
Totals 6,363 4,819 3,050

While the City has made good progress meeting its RHNA targets for housing affordable to moderate and above-moderate income households, the City has struggled to meet its share of the lower-income housing need like many cities throughout the state. While the City has provided enough land zoned to address this need, i nsufficient State and federal funding, the cost of construction, overall development costs including fees, and financial feasibility are major barriers to this type of development. In addition to ongoing work to meet the City’s RHNA obligations, the City has made solid progress implementing the goal s, policies, and programs in the adopted Housing Element. Of the 34 programs included in the Housing Element, ten are complete, 19 are ongoing, three are in pro cess or partially implemented, and two have not yet been initiated . A summary of progress for each Housing Element program is provided in Attachment 1.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
3 State Housing and Community Development Compliance and Monitoring Timely implementation is increasingly important, as the State Housing and Community Development Department ( HCD) closely tracks jurisdictions for compliance. In March of this year, HCD issued a Letter of Inquiry requesting updates on several sixth-cycle programs with past completion dates listed in the 2024 Annual Progress Report. The letter also reiterated potential consequences for noncompliance, including ineligibility for certain state funding, referral to the Attorney General, court -imposed pen alties, loss of local land use authority, and possible application of the builder’s remedy. Several of the programs identified as past due by HCD were already completed or in progress (Program H -3: Standards for Transit -Oriented Development; Program H:5 Accessory Dwelling Unit Incentive - pre-approved ADU Plans; and Program H:13 Update to Density Bonus Ordinance). However, two of the identified programs (Program H -6:

Tracking and Monitoring ADUs and Multi -Generational Units and Program H-30: Zoning Code Amendments for Special Needs Housing) still require City action. City staff respond ed to HCD with a detailed letter that provided an update outlining recent progress and revised timelines. 2025/2026 Housing Element Program Implementation Highlights The following section highlights the implementation progress made on Housing Element programs over the past year:

Program H -3: Standards for Transit -Oriented
Development and Program H -8: Objective Design
Standards for Multifamily Housing (Implemented)
On December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted a
comprehensive set of Objective Development and
Design Standards (ODDS) for the East Bidwell Street
corridor, the transit priority areas surrounding the
Glenn and Iron Point light rail stations, and the Folsom Plan Area, specifically the Folsom Town Center south
of Highway 50. These standards are intended to guide
the physical form and character of new development,
promote compatibility with the community’s
established character, and s upport walkability and
human-scale urban design.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
4 Program H-5: Accessory Dwelling Unit Incentives (Implementation Initiated) In September 2026, staff launched the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Pre-Approved Master Plan Program. This program allows architects and designers to submit ADU plans for pre -approval as master plans, which residents can then purchase for use. The program is expected to reduce costs for homeowners by providing multiple pre -approved plan options and streamline the review process. A dedicated webpage is now live, and staff has initiated targeted outreach to encourage architect and designer participation.

Program H-9: Conduct Inclusionary Housing Fee Study (Implemented) On January 13, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1359 and Resolution No. 11510, revising the method for calculating the inclusionary in -lieu fee. The update replaces the previous formula (1% of the lowest-priced home within a subdivision ) with a simplified and standardized fee structure based on square footage, consistent with practices in other jurisdictions. The action also incorporated non-substantive cleanup revisions for clarity and consistency.

Program H-17: Study the Purchase of Land for Affordable Housing (Completed and Pending) On June 2 3, 2026 , the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 11659, authorizing the purchase of
Leidesdorff Street property (Assessor Parcel Numbers
070-9946-026 and 070 -0042-002) as a strategic
location for future affordable housing. The site s are
identified as suitable for lower-income housing needs,
and the City Council considered the purchase of these
sites as an important opportunity for an innovative
housing project that could be thoughtfully planned in
coordination with the surrounding neighborhood and
the future redevelopment of the City’s Corporation
Yard. The acquisition was fully funded through the
City’s Housing Fund.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
5 On August 11, 2026, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 11686 , authorizing the
purchase of approximately 6.69 acres of
undeveloped land located at the northeast
corner of East Bidwell Street and Oak Avenue
Parkway. The property, owned by Lakeside
Church, had been identified as an important
site to help meet the city ’s lower -income
housing needs. Securing the land will allow
the City to preserve a strategically located
opportunity for future affordable housing and
to guide the timing, type, and quality of
development consistent with community needs. The site’s proximity to the Los Rios Community College campus also create s potential for future partnerships, including opportunities to explore student and workforce housing. The acquisition will be fully funded by the City’s Housing Fund.

Program H-13: Update to Density Bonus Ordinance (Underway) On September 22, 2026 , t he revised Density Bonus Ordinance is scheduled for City Council consideration and final adoption. Staff separated this update from the broader zoning code effort to advance a targeted amendment that brings the ordinance into full compliance with current state density bonus requirements and simplifies its provisions for clearer application and implementation.

Other 2025/2026 Accomplishments

In addition to implementing Housing Element programs, the City has made progress over the past year on several other housing-related efforts, summarized below:

Affordable Housing Loan (AHL) Program Guidelines (Completed) On August 26, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11427 approving the AHL Program Guidelines, establishing a clear framework for providing financial assistance to affordable housing projects. The guidelines formalize loan policies and create a st ructured basis for issuing future Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs), allowing the City to proactively solicit proposals and direct funding to projects that align with Housing Element priorities. This ensures resources can be allocated to developments in preferred locations or those serving high -need populations while maintaining a transparent and equitable process.

Evaluation of CDBG Entitlement Status (Completed)
In April of 2026, the City retained a consultant to evaluate whether the City should pursue CDBG entitlement status, including an assessment of funding potential, administrative obligations, and the limited number of eligible Low and Moderate Income (LMI) areas. Based on this analysis, the consultant did not recommend moving forward with entitlement status, citing limited benefit relative to the City’s small allocation and significant administrative burden. Following this recommendation, the City entered into a cooperative agreement with SHRA to continue accessing CDBG funds through the existing countywide structure.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
6 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Update (Completed) On April 12, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1361 , which updated the City’s existing ADU regulations to align with State law, while preserving and strengthening standards in areas where the City can still exercise local control, such as limited regulations related to size, height, and other objective design and development requirements. The updated ordinance also standardized and consolidated ADU provisions to improve readability and streamline the review process.

Seventh Cycle Housing Element Consultant Procurement (Completed) The City issued the RFP for the Sevent h Cycle Housing Element Update on May 20, 2026, reviewed all four proposals that were received, and selected Ascent as the consultant. On August 11, 2026, the City Council approved Resolution No. 11676 authorizing the Professional Services Agreement and contract execution is currently underway. Early initiation of this effort is essential to secure the consultant’s availability and ensure the City is well-prepared to address the complex requirements of the Seventh Cycle.

Local Tenant Preference Policy (Initiated)
Staff is currently developing a local tenant preference policy for City -funded affordable housing projects and has reviewed policies from several jurisdictions across California. Based on this research, staff recommends moving forward with a program modeled closely on Placer County’s approach, which includes preferences for cu rrent residents, former residents, local workers, and potentially local students. Once the draft policy and required disparate impact analysis are complete, staff will present the proposed policy to the City Council.

LOOKING AHEAD: HOUSING INITIATIVES AND CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES

As the City moves into the final quarter of the current eight-year Housing Element cycle, it is important to maintain steady implementation of the programs and policies identified in the Housing Element. While the City has limited staffing capacity (one Housing Manager) and constrained General Fund resources, it also retains a meaningful amount of dedicated housing funds that can be directed toward strategically selected housing initiatives . See Attachment 2:

Housing Funds Overview for Housing Fund information and funding totals . Given these conditions, prioritization is essential to ensure that available resources are applied to initiatives that have the greatest level of community support and meet the City Council’s housing policy priorities.

Maintaining momentum will require focused attention on core implementation tasks, strategic use of available funding, and steady alignment of land‑use decisions with long‑term housing goals.

Clear direction from the City Council will help ensure that limited staff capacity and financial resources are directed toward the initiatives most likely to meaningfully advance the production of affordable housing needed during this Housing Element cycle.

To assist with this effort, staff has identified five near-term initiatives for the City Council’s consideration and prioritization. These items represent opportunities to utilize existing resources efficiently and advance the city’s housing goals. Each item is summarized below with supporting background information.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
7 Initiative 1: Glenn/Holderness Station Request for Proposals (RFP)

Recommended Action
Direct staff to advance Program H -15 by continuing coordination with affordable housing developers and Sacramento Regional Transit ( SacRT) regarding development feasibility of the Glenn/Holderness Station site as a transit -oriented housing development. This evaluation would address Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) parking obligations, infrastructure needs, and partnership opportunities, and include preparation and release of a Request for Proposal (RFP), for development of this site.

Background and Context
Program H -15 calls for the City to partner with an affordable housing developer to construct affordable units at the Glenn/Holderness Station, with a goal of producing at least 74 lower-income units by 2029. The 2.73 -acre park -and-ride site is designated for high -density housing and is identified in the Housing Element as an eligible affordable housing location. The property was originally acquired using FTA funds as part of the larger Gold Line project. Because of this federal participation, the site remains subject to FTA real property requirements intended to ensure the long-term transit use and benefit of the asset.

It is staff’s understanding based on information from SacRT and a previous 2007 TOD analysis of the site, that under FTA rule, parking acquired with federal funds must be preserved unless the local agency chooses to reimburse FTA for the federal investment associated with the facility or replaces the parking. The original plans submitted to FTA identified a commitment to provide 191 parking stalls. While FTA regulations do not prohibit additional uses or structures on the property, a redevelopment concept must maintain the required parking or provide acceptable replacement parking.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
8 Developer interest in the site has increased over the past year, coinciding with the City’s adoption of increased density for of targeted areas and Objective Design and Development Standards supporting higher -density, transit -oriented development (TOD). Prior studies, including TOD concept analyses completed in 2007 and feasibility testing through the 2022 Objective Development Standards project, identified the site as a strong candidate for infill residential development at increased densities, but recommended reduced residential parking requirements.

Infrastructure considerations remain an important factor in evaluating future development potential. The General Plan update identified possible wastewater conveyance constraints north of Highway 50, particularly within the 33 -inch and 27 -inch trunk line sheds. A Wastewater Conveyance Master Plan study is currently underway and expected to be completed early next year, which will clarify available system capacity and determine any improvements necessary to support higher-intensity development at this site. Final impacts will depend on the level of density proposed and other key assumptions.

State law now allows reduced parking near major transit stops, so future development at the Glenn Drive site may not require traditional parking levels. Any project will still need to determine the appropriate amount of parking to support transit use, which may include exploring shared-parking options with nearby properties while meeting FTA’s replacement expectations.

If prioritized, staff will continue coordination with SacRT regarding parking requirements, conduct outreach to adjacent property owners, assess infrastructure needs to support a potential affordable housing development , and bring a Resolution to the City Council outlining the recommended development approach and authorizing the release of an RFP for the site.

Initiative 2: Master Plan a City-Owned Site for Future Affordable Housing

Recommeded Action
Direct staff to initiate a master planning effort for one of the City-owned sites to evaluate potential affordable housing development opportunities. This work would likely require hiring a consultant to prepare the master plan, conducting site analysis, and leading a public engagement process. The effort would identify feasible housing concepts, infrastructure needs, and partnership options. This initiative is not specific to any particular Housing Element program, but complements future implementation of Program H -17, which calls for studying the purchase of land for affordable housing.

Background and Context
Master planning a City-owned site would allow the City to proactively shape affordable housing outcomes by clearly identifying development constraints, infrastructure requirements, and community priorities before selecting a housing development partner. A master plan would also ensure that any future development is consistent with the City’s recently adopted ODDS, allowing the City to proactively guide development to align with updated design, zoning, and development standards. A consultant would be needed to prepare the master plan, conduct site analysis, and facilitate public input to help refine and evaluate housing alternatives . Consultant service costs would be a qualifying expense of the cities housing funds.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
9 Both the Glenn Station and Lakeside Church sites are strong candidates for this type of planning effort. Their size and location provide opportunities to evaluate several affordable housing concepts, such as transit-oriented development housing, student housing, mixed-income housing, or other income-restricted multifamily options. A structured master planning process would allow the City to explore these alternatives, incorporate community feedback, and determine the most appropriate and feasible housing approach for the selected site. Alternatively, the City Council may determine that another City -owned site (such as the Wye property or the Corporation Yard) is better suited for this type of planning and could choose to direct staff to focus the effort on a different City-owned site.

If prioritized as a top initiative, staff will work with the City Council to confirm the site with preferred housing opportunities /alternatives, and outline a plan for community engagement and master planning services on that particular site.

Initiative 3: Land Acquisition Program for Future Affordable Housing

Recommended Action
Direct staff to establish a program that continues exploring and pursuing opportunities to acquire land for future affordable housing development. This effort would include evaluating potential acquisition strategies and analyzing options for using City -owned land (such as direct sale, long-term ground leases, and other partnership structures ) to determine which approaches best support long-term affordable housing objectives.

Background and Context
Housing Element Program H -17, “Study the Purchase of Land for Affordable Housing,” directs the City to explore the feasibility of creating a program to purchase land for affordable housing across the community. In 2026, two land acquisition opportunities emerged: the Leidesdorff site adjacent to the Corporation Yard and the Lakeside Church property on Oak Avenue Parkway at East Bidwell Street. Both sites are identified in the Housing Element as appropriate for future affordable housing development and the acquisition of these properties gives the City greater ability to guide development outcomes there.

The Leidesdorff site’s proximity to the Corporation Yard provides an opportunity for intentional planning and phased adjustments that could create a more developable parcel while maintaining compatibility with the Historic District. The Lakeside Church site offers a strategic location where City ownership would allow the City to determine the most appropriate affordable housing type for the area and ensure that necessary infrastructure to support development is in place.

Continuing to explore these opportunities helps the City preserve key sites for affordable housing, avoid loss of designated sites to market-rate development, control the timing/type/details of future affordable housing, and ultimately strengthen long-term Housing Element compliance.

If prioritized as a top initiative, staff with Council’s direction will begin assessing what types of sites the City should pursue for acquisition, including appropriate size, location, and overall development suitability. Staff will also evaluate specific options for using City -owned land (including direct sale, long -term ground leases, and other partnership structures ) to determine

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
10 which approach would best support future affordable housing development. This analysis will define feasible development pathways and provide a clear, actionable strategy for how City-owned sites should be used moving forward.

Initiative 4: Partner to Build Additional For-Sale Affordable Housing

Recommended Action:

Direct staff to explore partnership opportunities with affordable for-sale housing developers such as Habitat for Humanity to support the development of additional for-sale affordable housing in Folsom. This effort would include identifying potential sites, assessing feasibility and infrastructure needs, and c oordinating with Habitat and other for -sale affordable developers to understand project models, funding considerations, and alignment with the City’s long -term affordable housing objectives.

Background and Context
Habitat for Humanity successfully constructed ten affordable homes on Pe rsifer Street. Their development model (using sweat equity, long-term affordability restrictions, and targeted subsidy) creates stable, income-restricted homeownership opportunities. This approach is one of the most effective methods for producing low -income for -sale housing and directly supports the City’s Housing Element goals.

Over the past several months, staff has met with Habitat for Humanity to discuss potential future partnership opportunities and identified several possible sites. Although none of these lo cations have yet proven viable due to site constraints or timing issues, Habitat has expressed sustained interest in pursuing a project in Folsom when an appropriate site becomes available.

Housing Element Program H -23, “Expand Existing Affordable Housing Developments,” directs the City to initiate conversations with existing affordable housing developers to identify opportunities and available funding or incentives that could support the expansion of current developments and increase the number of affordable units. Exploring opportunities with Habitat and other for-sale affordable developers aligns with this directive, as it strengthens relationships with established affordable housing partners and helps the City identify realistic pathways for expanding affordable homeownership options.

If prioritized as a top initiative, staff will continue evaluating potential sites, assess development feasibility, and work closely with Habitat and other for-sale affordable developers to understand project requirements, funding needs, and partnership structures. This work will help identify realistic development opportunities and clarify the steps required to support a future affordable for-sale project in Folsom.

Initiative 5: Establish a NOFA Process for Distribution of Affordable Housing Funds

Recommended Action
Direct staff to establish a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process to guide distribution of the City’s affordable housing funds moving forward. This would include frequency of distribution, amount of distribution, and criteria for distribution on an annual or bi-annual basis.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
11 Background and Context
The City’s affordable housing efforts are funded primarily through inclusionary in -lieu fees (Folsom Housing Fund) and commercial development fees (Housing Trust Fund), which support the Affordable Housing Loan Program. Historically, the City has allocated funding based on the reasonableness of a project’s financial request while allowin g developers flexibility in housing type and income targeting.

Housing Element Program H-11, “Local Funding for Affordable Housing Development,” directs the City to explore the possibility of establishing priorities for how affordable housing funds are distributed. A NOFA process is a tool that would allow the City to implement more targeted funding priorities—such as income levels, housing types, special needs populations, or geographic focus areas (such as the Folsom Plan Area)—while maintaining developer flexibility. It would also allow the City to establish a distribution amount and frequency (e.g., up to $5,000,000 every other year) as a way of metering the housing funds over time.

If identified as a top priority, staff will prepare a NOFA framework, seek Council input on funding levels and desired focus areas , such as geographic or special need preferences , and begin implementing a more structured and targeted process for allocating affordable housing funds.

CONCLUSION

These five initiatives together reflect opportunities that staff have identified to support steady and meaningful implementation of the Housing Element during the remain ing two and half years of the current Housing Element cycle. Given limited staffing capacity and available funding resources, prioritization is necessary to ensure attention and funding are directed toward efforts that can deliver measurable progress on City Council top housing policies and programs . Clear direction from the City Council on the relative priority of these proposed initiatives will enable staff to organize the work program, allocate available resources appropriately, and focus on activities that can reliably advance the City’s long ter m housing objectives. Providing this direction will also help the development community understand the City’s funding priorities and better anticipate opportunities for partnership on future affordable housing projects.

Attachment 3 includes an initiative ranking sheet listing these five initiatives, along with an option for City Council to identify one or more additional initiatives for consideration and ranking. At the City Council meeting, staff will request that City Council individually identify their ranked priorities. Compiled rankings will establish direction to staff for implementation of top -ranked initiatives over the next two and half years of the current Housing Element cycle (2021 – 2029).

Some initiatives may carry over to the next Housi ng Element cycle and other initiatives may become policy or program directives in the next Housing Element cycle (2029 – 2037) as determined by City Council with community and stakeholder input.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
12 ATTACHMENTS

1. Housing Element 2025 Progress Report Summary

2. Housing Funds Overview

3. Initiative Ranking Sheet

Submitted,

Pam Johns, Community Development Director

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Attachment 1

Housing Element 2025 Progress Report Summary

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Name of Program Objective
H-1 Adequate Sites Monitoring The City shall annually update the vacant and underutilized sites inventory; maintain adequate sites to accommodate assigned RHNA; and provide “no net loss” findings consistent with Government Code Section 65863.

H-2 Create Additional Lower-Income Housing
Capacity
Increase allowable densities; coordinate with property owners; disperse affordable housing; update FPASP Policy 4.7; ensure lower-income sites are maintained.

H‑3 Standards for Transit-Oriented
Development
Establish TOD development standards; support sustainable development; allow mixed-use/residential; provide CEQA
streamlining.

H-4 Accessory Dwelling Unit Tools and
Resources
Develop ADU Design Workbook; provide illustrated examples; promote ADUs; target 194 ADUs by 2029.

H-5 Accessory Dwelling Unit Incentives Provide fee reductions; pursue pre approved plans; coordinate with lenders; target 194 ADUs by 2029.

H-6 Track and Monitor ADUs and Multi-
Generational Units
Track units; review affordability; ensure RHNA compliance if units do not meet lower-income needs; target 194 ADUs and 387 multi generational units by 2029.

H-7 Development Impact and Permit Fees Review impact and permit fees; determine feasibility of fee reductions for affordable projects; identify revenue offset options.

H-8 Objective Design Standards for
Multifamily Housing
Adopt multifamily objective design standards; rescind prior guidelines.

H-9 Conduct Inclusionary Housing Fee Study Prepare study to determine subsidy gap; evaluate fee levels; consider ordinance revisions.

H-10 Provide Information on Affordable
Housing
Create educational materials; update website; collaborate with homeless service providers.

H-11 Local Funding for Affordable Housing
Development
Allocate Housing Fund resources; consider priority criteria; support approx. 580 units by 2029.

H-12 Incentives for Affordable Housing
Development
Provide incentives (density bonus, fee deferrals); conduct annual outreach; support approx. 2,150 units by 2029.

H-13 Update Density Bonus Ordinance Update ordinance to reflect State law as part of zoning code update.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

H-14 Facilitate Affordable Housing on Large
Sites
Coordinate developers and property owners; streamline
approvals; provide fee deferrals; target 635 lower income units by 2029.

H-15 Affordable Development at
Glenn/Robert G. Holderness Station
Pursue TOD affordable housing opportunities; coordinate with SacRT; maintain parking; target 74 lower income units by 2029.

H-16 Facilitate Affordable Housing on City
Owned Land
Support affordable housing on Persifer and Comstock sites; collaborate with developers; comply with Surplus Land Act; target 16 units by 2029
H-17 Study the Purchase of Land for
Affordable Housing
Explore feasibility of purchasing land using housing funds; continue gap financing if infeasible
H-18 Prioritize Infrastructure for Affordable
Housing
Establish procedures for granting priority water and sewer service to developments with lower income units per Government Code Section 65589.7.

H-19 Participate in Sacramento County CDBG
Program
Coordinate with SHRA to receive CDBG funds supporting Renter’s Helpline and housing rehabilitation; target 550 rehab units by 2029.

H-20 Housing Choice Vouchers Continue participation in SHRA’s voucher program; promote SHRA Landlord Incentive Program; target 120 voucher households per year; distribute program information.

H-21 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program Continue participation in SHRA’s MCC Program; assist low income first time homebuyers; prepare outreach materials; target 20 households by 2029.

H-22 Additional State, Federal, and Regional
Funding
Pursue State/Federal/Regional funding; target $5 million through 2029; seek funds from HOME, MHP, PLHA, TOD, AHSC programs and others.

H-23 Expand Existing Affordable Housing
Developments
Initiate conversations with owners of existing affordable complexes; identify opportunities and funding to expand facilities; target 30 units by 2029.

H-24 Mobile Home Repair and Replacement
Loan Forgiveness Program
Continue forgiving CDBG loans for manufactured home
improvements for households experiencing HUD defined
economic hardship.

H-25 Housing Conditions Survey Seek CDBG or other funds to conduct a housing conditions survey; identify units needing rehabilitation or replacement.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

H-26 Code Enforcement Encourage rehabilitation of substandard residential properties using the Code Enforcement program to improve housing quality.

H-27 Seniors Helping Seniors Program Provide minor and major home repair assistance to low income seniors and mobile homeowners; target 550 households by 2029.

H-28 Habitat for Humanity Home Repair
Program
Work with Habitat to promote its Home Repair Program; provide accessibility, safety, and critical repair assistance; target 3 units per year.

H-29 Emergency Shelter Facility
Development
Encourage and assist local groups to develop emergency shelters; target at least 47 shelter beds.

H-30 Zoning Code Amendments for Special
Needs Housing
Amend zoning code to comply with multiple State laws regarding special needs housing, supportive housing, navigation centers, group homes, farmworker housing, mobile home zoning, SB 35 streamlining, and parking requirements.

H-31 Homeless Services Work with Sacramento County and community organizations to expand satellite services for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

H-32 Fair Housing Information Use CDBG funds for Renter’s Helpline; provide fair housing information at City Hall, website, and library; conduct annual outreach campaigns.

H-33 Affirmative Marketing Plan Require affordable developers (and encourage private developers) to prepare an affirmative marketing plan attracting diverse renters and buyers.

H‑34 Green Means Go Program Support SACOG Green Means Go; accelerate infill development; identify additional Green Zones including Greenback Lane near River Rock Drive.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Annually The City's residential vacant and underutilized sites are fond in Attachment C-2 of the Housing Element and available on the City website. All rezones or development proposals include required “no net loss” findings.

Increase densities by
2022; conduct outreach
annually
Completed – On August 27, 2024, the City Council approved General Plan amendments creating capacity for approximately 6,046 additional units. FPASP landowners agreed to provide at least 956 deed restricted units.
2021 / Ongoing Completed – In 2023, the City secured $243,000 in SACOG REAP funds to prepare Objective Design Standards (ODDS). ODDS adopted in December 2025.
2022 Completed – Two part ADU Design Workbook created; includes design standards, review processes, and Historic District guidelines.
2024 Underway – The City has developed an ADU Master Plan program to encourage architects to submit their plans for pre-approved ADU plans.

Ongoing; determine
affordability by 2025
Ongoing – In 2025, permits issued for 19 ADUs and 4 multi generational units.
2022 Ongoing – City provides 50% fee reductions for studio units and completed an inclusionary nexus study in 2025; adopted per sq ft in lieu fee methodology; exempted for sale units ≤1,500 sq ft. 2021 Completed – ODDS adopted in December 2025; apply to East Bidwell Corridor Overlay, Folsom Boulevard TOD Overlay, and FPASP Town Center.
2022 Completed – 2025 nexus study retained rental exemption; adopted per sq ft fee methodology; exempted small for sale units (≤1,500 sq ft).

Create by September
2022
Ongoing – Updated online resources, social media information, and brochures. Housing resource documents updated in 2023.

Establish priorities by
2024
Ongoing – City loans provided to Sage at Folsom, Mangini Place, Bidwell Place, and Harrington Grove.

Annual outreach; ongoing Ongoing – Incentives granted for Mangini Place, Sage, Vintage Senior, Persifer Street, and Harrington Grove. Continued outreach with supportive housing providers.
2021 Underway – Completion scheduled for Fall 2026.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Ongoing Ongoing – City continues facilitating large site affordable housing. Parcel 61 map revised in 2024 to create parcel for 64 deed restricted units.

Initiate by 2026 Ongoing – Discussions with SacRT initiated; ODDS and General Plan amendments adopted 2024/2025 support higher density housing; City engaged developers in 2025.
2022 Completed/Ongoing – Persifer land sale finalized in 2024; construction completed in 2025 (10 units). Comstock site partially designated exempt surplus in 2025 to enable future housing.
2026 Underway – In 2026, the City identified two sites to purchase for future affordable housing development.
2022 The City is currently updating the Management Plan and will evaluate priority sewer service procedures in late 2026/early 2027.

Ongoing Ongoing – City continues participation with SHRA in CDBG and HOME programs; CDBG funds subsidize minor and major repairs through Seniors Helping Seniors.
2022 / Ongoing Ongoing – City continues participating with SHRA. In 2024, 296 households used vouchers, exceeding the 120 household target and increasing 14% from the previous year.

Ongoing Ongoing – City continues participating in MCC Program. Since 1990, 79 households have received MCCs. No single family MCC allocations have been available since 2019.

Annually Ongoing – City continues pursuing additional funding. Awards include: three SACOG REAP grants totaling $765,000 (2021), SACOG Green Means Go Early Activation Grant ($374,000 in 2022), and PLHA allocations totaling $439,703 (2024).

Additional programs listed in Housing Element remain under active pursuit.

Initiate in 2023 In 2024, City initiated discussions with several affordable housing owners to identify expansion opportunities.

Ongoing Completed – Since 2011, 13 loans have been forgiven. All loans have now been resolved; the last forgiveness occurred in February 2024.
2025 In 2023, the City’s housing intern conducted a windshield survey of Block Group 3, Census Tract 84.04 (homes built 1916–1938).

Results: 13% showed moderate repair needs; one home
required major repairs; none categorized as dilapidated.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Ongoing Ongoing – City continues encouraging rehabilitation of substandard properties.

Ongoing Ongoing – In 2025, the program provided $235,430 in assistance to 75 households, plus three major repair grants totaling $22,552.

Ongoing Ongoing – City continues promoting Habitat’s Home Repair Program via e news and social media.

Ongoing Ongoing – City continues providing technical assistance for emergency shelter development.
2021 Underway – Completion planned as part of the comprehensive zoning update scheduled for adoption in late 2026.
2022 / Annually Ongoing – City continues partnering with Sacramento County and local organizations to expand homeless related services.

Annually Ongoing – City continues funding Renter’s Helpline and distributing fair housing information; outreach conducted regularly.
2024 Completed – City requires affirmative marketing plans for affordable housing developments.
2021 Completed – City continues supporting Green Means Go; Greenback Lane/River Rock Drive area identified as a designated Green Zone.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Attachment 2

Housing Funds Overview

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

1 Attachment 2: Housing Funds Overview
This attachment provides an overview of the City of Folsom’s primary housing funding sources, including historical context, current balances, and external sources of funding. These resources play a critical role in implementing Housing Element programs and supporting broader affordable housing goals.

City-Managed Housing Funds
The City utilizes several dedicated funding mechanisms to support affordable housing development and related activities. The four major City-managed funds are summarized below.

Fund 238 – Folsom Housing Fund
Established in 2013, this fund is supported by inclusionary housing in-lieu fees and applies to for-sale residential development. The Inclusionary Housing Fee equals $3.00 per square foot for dwelling units larger than 1,500 square feet, based on conditioned square footage. Units 1,500 square feet or less are exempt from the fee. Under a legal settlement with the Sacramento Housing Alliance, a minimum of 50 percent of all deposits must be used for construction or major rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing affordable to low- and very low-income households.

Fund 221 – Housing Trust Fund
Established in 2002, the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) collects a fee of $2.13 per square foot from new commercial development. This revenue source reflects the relationship between job creation and housing demand. HTF revenues are primarily used to close financing gaps for affordable rental housing projects.

Fund 274 – Oaks at Willow Springs Fund
Created in 2006 as part of the Oaks at Willow Springs Development inclusionary housing requirement. Of the $3.1 million contributed by the developer, $2.7 million was dedicated to developing low-income housing on City-owned land on Sibley Street, now the site of Granite City Apartments.

Fund 280 – Bonds Fund
Following the dissolution of redevelopment in 2012, the City lost a key affordable housing funding source. Senate Bill 107 (2015) authorized the use of remaining pre-2011 redevelopment bond proceeds for housing purposes. This enabled the City to access more than $9.6 million, which has since been committed to various affordable housing developments.

These funds are used to support development of affordable projects, Housing Element updates, and specialized housing financial consulting services.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
2 CURRENT Fund Balances
As of June 30, 2026 (unaudited), the City’s available housing fund balance totals approximately $15.4 million. The table below summarizes balances for each fund.

Folsom Housing Funds
Table 1. Folsom Housing Funds
Housing Fund Name Source Cash Balance
Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221) Commercial Fees $1,725,464 Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) Inclusionary In-lieu Fees $13,540,351* Oaks at Willow Springs (Fund 274) Willow Springs Inclusionary Fee $26,681 Bonds Fund (Fund 280) Former Redevelopment Bonds $155,580 Total $15,448,076
*This total has factored in the $7.1 million authorized for the purchase of the Lakeside Church site.

Note: Total funds include allocations for consulting services, special reports, and other housing-related activities.

Of the four funding sources, only the Folsom Housing Fund (Fund 238) and Housing Trust Fund (Fund 221) generate ongoing revenue. So far over this calendar year, the City has collected more than $1.6 million in inclusionary fees (primarily from new single-family development in the Folsom Plan Area) and approximately $339,206 in Housing Trust Fund fees from new commercial projects. The table below provides a summary of the amount of Inclusionary In-lieu Fees and the amount of Housing Trust Fund Fees collected since 2022.

Table 2. Summary of Inclusionary and Housing Trust Fund Activity (2022–2025)

Year Fee Type Fees Collected Number of Permits
2022 Inclusionary $5,771,200 805
Housing Trust Fund $67,940 5
2023 Inclusionary $5,659,341 870
Housing Trust Fund $53,090 5
2024 Inclusionary $4,600,739 649
Housing Trust Fund $346,369 7
2025 Inclusionary $2,886,777 403
Housing Trust Fund $435,110 3
External Funding Sources
In addition to local funds, the City leverages federal, state, and regional programs to support affordable housing initiatives.

Federal Funding (via SHRA)
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): Approximately $200,000 annually supports

09/22/2026 Item No.13.
3 the Seniors Helping Seniors Program.
• HOME Investment Partnership Program: $800,000 currently allocated for an upcoming affordable rental housing project.

State Funding (via HCD)
Programs such as Homekey and Infill Infrastructure Grants require prevailing wage compliance, which increases development costs but provides critical financing for affordable housing.

Notably, the City secured $2.5 million in Homekey funding for the Bidwell Street Studios project.
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA): Folsom receives approximately $161,538 annually. In 2025, up to $810,000 in current and future PLHA allocations were committed to the Persifer Street Habitat for Humanity homeownership project.

Regional Funding (via SACOG)
SACOG administers several grant programs supporting infill development and climate-friendly growth, including Regional Early Action Planning and Green Means Go. Awards include:
• $41,000 for Housing Element updates (2020).
• $575,000 for Program H-2 implementation (2021).
• $374,000 in Green Means Go funding (2022) to support infrastructure improvements associated with the Persifer Street project.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Attachment 3
Initiative Ranking Sheet

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Initiatives Ranking Sheet
Please rank each initiative from 1 (top priority) to 5 (lowest priority). If an initiative is not a viable option for you, mark it with an “X” . You may also cross out an initiative and replace it with a different one in the write-in section.

Initiative Description Justin Raithel
(Mayor)
Anna Rohrbough
(Vice Mayor)
Sarah Aquino
(Councilmember)
Barbara Leary
(Councilmember)
Mike Kozlowski
(Councilmember)
Initiative 1 Glenn/Holderness
Station Request for
Proposals (RFP)

Initiative 2 Master Plan a City-
Owned Site for
Future Affordable
Housing

Initiative 3 Land Acquisition
Program for Future
Affordable Housing

Initiative 4 Partner to Build
Additional For-Sale
Affordable Housing

Initiative 5 Establish a NOFA
Process for Fund
Distribution

Initiative 6 Write-In
Initiative 7 Write-In
Initiative 8 Write-In

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

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

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

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:

9/22/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
STAFF REPORT TITLE Housing Program Implementation Workshop: City Council Priorities for the Next Two Years

FROM: Community Development Department

The above-referenced agenda item will be continued off calendar so that staff can prepare additional background information regarding potential housing initiatives for consideration and direction from City Council.

09/22/2026 Item No.13.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

9/22/2026
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: i. Resolution No. 11718 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement
with Doug Veerkamp General Engineering, Inc. for the
Empire Ranch Crack Seal Project in the amount of
$218,600, and Appropriation of Funds in the amount of
$258,600 from the Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235)
ii. Resolution 11719 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a No-Cost Contract Amendment
No. 1 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction
Management and Inspection Services Expanded Scope

FROM: Public Works Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt the following:

Resolution No. 11718 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Doug Veerkamp General Engineering, Inc. for the Empire Ranch Crack Seal Project in the amount of $218,600, and appropriation of funds in the amount of $258,600 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235)

Resolution No. 11719 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a no-cost Contract Amendment No. 1 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services Expanded Scope

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

The Public Works Department is aggressively pursuing road maintenance, which includes a variety of measures such as routing and crack sealing in advance of winter. This simple but effective

09/22/2026 Item No.14.
2 measure prevents water intrusion into the subgrade that ultimately leads to road base and asphalt failure if not addressed. Using the “fix -it-first” prioritization approach, road maintenance can reduce long-term costs of replacement when crack seal and other maintenance measures are implemented. Staff has identified several key neighborhoods that would benefit from this approach, with crack seal taking place this fa ll to be followed by slurry seal taking place the following spring as part of a larger effort.

In advance of the coming winter, this contract proposes to crack seal multiple residential neighborhoods in Empire Ranch, which include the following roads:

 Stockman Circle
 Carpenter Hill Road
 Longhorn Road
 Owl Meadow Street
 Hidden Falls Drive
 Fenceline Drive
 Buljan Drive
 Lefevre Drive
 Fehr Road
 Connecting Courts and Secondary Drives

Below is an image of the three specific neighborhoods included in this project:

09/22/2026 Item No.14.
3 The project improvements include approximately:
 73,000 pounds of crack seal material on residential streets  3” Removal and Replacement of failed asphalt sections

09/22/2026 Item No.14.
4 The proposed improvements will preserve roadway life cycle as winter arrives, with planned slurry seal in the Spring of 2027 as part of a much larger contract. Residents within the project areas will receive advance notification prior to construction activities. Temporary traffic control measures, parking restrictions, and short -duration rolling lane closures will be used during construction to safely complete the work while maintaining local access whenever feasible. Below are example photos of the roadway conditions within the neighborhoods to be crack sealed and repaired as part of this contract:

As maintenance efforts continue, future near-term crack seal contracts will include:
 The Parkway – Fall 2026
 Prairie Oaks – Fall/Winter 2026
 Natoma Station – Spring 2027

09/22/2026 Item No.14.
5 Bid documents for those areas are underway and will be brought forward at a future City Council meeting for consideration and approval. Staff is fully committed to the most cost -effective approach in maintaining Folsom’s roads by retaining or improving its Pavement Condition Index (PCI) wherever possible to uphold the quality-of-life residents value and deserve within available funding.

POLICY / RULE

Section 2.36.120 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

This project was informally bid utilizing the City’s on-call contracting list. Bids were solicited in August, and on September 1, 2026, the City received the following bids:

1. Doug Veerkamp General Engineering, Inc.: $218,599.80

2. Arrow Construction: $373,410.00

3. Central Valley Engineering Asphalt, Inc.: $434,000.00

Staff reviewed the bids submitted along side the contractor stated exclusions against the requirements of Public Contract Code 22034 for Informal Bidding Procedures and has deemed Doug Veerkamp Gen eral Engineering, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Construction is anticipated to begin in October 2026 and will be completed by mid-November 2026 in advance of winter.

The proposed pavement rehabilitation work is consistent with the recommendations identified in the City’s 2026 Pavement Management Program Update and supports the City’s ongoing effort to preserve roadway infrastructure through preventative maintenance strategies that maximize pavement life and reduce long -term rehabil itation costs. Should City Council approve this contract, staff will use the City’s standard Construction Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

With a focus on project delivery and preparation for winter, staff assessed the available internal construction management resources and found that additional support is needed. T he current contract with Dewberry Engineers, Inc., awarded by City Council on July 14, 2026 (Resolution No. 11670) for the Pavement Resurfacing Project FY 25-26 pavement rehabilitation in the amount of $232,954.04 has significant available funds remaining, and the work is concluding . For that reason, staff is requesting the issuance of Amendment No. 1 to the contract at no additional cost , and it will include expansion of construction management and inspections for th e Empire Ranch Crack Seal Project and the upcoming crack seal projects through the spring of 2027 until fully expended.

09/22/2026 Item No.14.
6 FINANCIAL IMPACT

If approved, the contract with Doug Veerkamp General Engineering, Inc., would be authorized for $218,600, with the project budgeted for a total of $258,600, which includes a contingency amount of $40,00 for potential change orders at the recommendation of staff . An appropriation in the amount of $ 258,600 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) would be required for the contract. The Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) has sufficient funding available to support the cost of construction agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) – Existing Facilities. CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) specifically exempts existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycl e and pedestrian facilities, and similar roadway improvements, including the addition of bicycle lanes and other transportation safety improvements that do not create additional automobile travel lanes.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11718 - A Resolution Aut horizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Doug Veerkamp General Engineering, Inc. for the Empire Ranch Crack Seal Project in the amount of $218,600, and Appropriation of Funds in the amount of $258,600 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235)

2. Resolution No. 11719 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a No-Cost Contract Amendment No. 1 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services Expanded Scope

Respectfully Submitted,

Rebecca Neves, Public Works Director/City Engineer

09/22/2026 Item No.14.

Attachment 1

09/22/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11718

RESOLUTION NO. 11718

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH DOUG VEERKAMP GENERAL
ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE EMPIRE RANCH CRACK SEAL PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $218,600, AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $258,600 FROM THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND
REHABILITATION FUND (FUND 235)

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom desires to repair and preserve the existing asphalt on various roadways within the City; and

WHEREAS, the project was informally bid utilizing provisions from Public Contract Code and the City’s On -Call Contractor List , and three bids were received on September 1, 2026, with Doug Veerkamp General Engineering, Inc. being the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and

WHEREAS, the Empire Ranch Crack Seal Project was identified as a priority utilizing the “fix -it first” approach to road preservation and as identified in the City’s Pavement Management Program; and

WHEREAS, sufficient funding is available in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235) to support the recommended work and appropriation of $240,460; 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 a Construction Agreement with Doug Veerkamp General Engineering, Inc. for the Empire Ranch Crack Seal Project in the amount of $218,600, including a contingency of $40,000 for a total not -to-exceed amount of $ 258,600 funded in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $258,600 for this agreement in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund (Fund 235).

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 22nd day of September 2026, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
___________________________________
Justin Raithel, MAYOR
ATTEST:

09/22/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11718

____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

09/22/2026 Item No.14.

Attachment 2

09/22/2026 Item No.14.

Resolution No. 11719

RESOLUTION NO. 11719

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A NO-COST CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH DEWBERRY ENGINEERS, INC. FOR

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES EXPANDED SCOPE

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom desires to receive construction management services for road maintenance projects; and

WHEREAS, City Council approved a consultant services agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for construction manag ement services for the Pavement Resurfacing Project FY 25-26 in the amount of $232,954.04 at their regularly scheduled meeting held on July 14, 2026; and

WHEREAS, the Pavement Resurfacing Project FY 25-26 is approaching completion and significant budget remains in the current construction management services contract with Dewberry Egngineers, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, staff would like to amend and expand their scope to include construction management and inspection services for the Empire Ranch Crack Seal Project and upcoming crack seal projects through Spring of 2027, utilizing the existing remaining contract balance with no additional appropriation of funds; and

WHEREAS, the amendment 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 the City Manager to Execute a No-Cost Contract Amendment No. 1 with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services expanded scope.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 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

09/22/2026 Item No.14.

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

09/22/2026 Item No.14.