Grass Valley City Council
August 22, 2023

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 17

3.3 Portion of Project Need Attributable to New
Development
The procedure for determining the percentage of the need to improve a roadway facility that is attributable to new development is illustrated in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Percent Attributable Cases
The capacity is the maximum volume that can be accommodated at the adopted LOS. Figure 3.2 shows a hypothetical roadway with a capacity of 1,000 vehicles/hour. There are three possible cases, namely:
• In Case 1, the roadway facility is operating at below its capacity under existing conditions and is forecast to continue to do so under future (2040 conditions. In such cases there is no deficiency and so no impact fees can be collected for the project6.
• In Case 2 the facility operates below its maximum capacity under existing conditions, but the capacity is insufficient to accommodate the expected future growth in traffic. In such cases the need to provide additional capacity is entirely attributable to new development.
• In Case 3 the traffic using the facility already exceeds its rated capacity and the expected growth in traffic will exacerbate the situation. In such cases the percentage attributable to new development is the portion of the volume beyond the rated capacity that comes from new development (Y/X) .

Table 3.2 shows how this methodology was applied to the projects identified in Table 3.1 as having existing and/or future deficiencies.
6 This is not to say that the project is not justified; only that the justification is unrelated to the need to provide additional capacity to accommodate future development. The seismic retrofit of a bridge would be an example of a project where the need is not based on insufficient capacity. 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Future
Vehicles per Hour
Growth
Existing
Capacity = 1000
X
Y
Deficiency is Y/X
New Development's
Share of the Future
Deficiency is Y/X

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 18 Table 3.2 Percent of Project Need Attributable to New Development (Project LOS) Peak-Hour
Entering
Volume
or ADT
Capacity* V/C Ratio LOS
Peak-Hour
Entering
Volume
or ADT
Capacity* V/C Ratio LOS
(A) (B) (C)=(A)/(B) (D) (E) (F) (G)=(E)/(F) (H)
1 1 Dorsey Drive Interchange D (keep for reimbursement) 33% 2 E. Main St @Bennett/Richardson D (keep for reimbursement) 100% 3 SR-49 PM 13.1 to PM 11.0 D 27,500 16,650 1.65 F 37,440 16,650 2.25 F 48% 5,10 4 McKnight Way @ S. Auburn St/La Barr Meadows Rd D C F 100% 6 5 McCourtney Rd @ SR 20 Eastbound Ramps D 1,072 980 1.09 E 1,230 980 1.26 F 63% 7 6 SR 20/49 NB Ramps @ Idaho-Maryland Road D C F 100%
9 7 SR 20/49 @ Uren Street D 1,492 1,190 1.25 F 1,685 1,190 1.42 F 39% 8 Brunswick Road @ SR 174/Colfax Highway D D F 100%
11 9 SR 49 @ Coyote Street D 1,132 960 1.18 E 1,260 960 1.31 F 43% V/C Ratio = Volume to Capacity ratio
*** Not in previous nexus study
% of Deficiency
Attributable to
New Development
(I)=(G-D)/(D-1)
* For roadway segments, capacity is as defined in the General Plan. For intersections, capacity is defined as the maximum sum of the approach volumes that does not exceed the LOS standard ** Calculated using model runs that showed the percentage of future traffic was attributable to existing demand and how much was attributable to new demand Project ID
(from
Previous
Study)
Facility
Future (2040) Without Improvements
Location LOS
Standard
Existing
Project ID
(New)

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 19 As can be seen from Table 3.2, of the 11 sites where deficiencies were identified, there were only 2 locations where the need for the project is wholly attributable to new development (i.e., Case 2 in Figure 3.2). In the 9 other locations a deficiency already exists to some degree and new development is responsible for only a portion of the need for improvement (i.e., Case 3 in Figure 3.2).

3.4 Determination of Amount Collectible through the
RTMF
The amount potentially collectable through the RTMF program was calculated using the updated project costs, the percentage of project need attributable to new development shown in Table 3.2, and the funding available from other sources shown in Table 2.3. This calculation is shown in Table 3.3.

Column F in Table 3.3 shows funding available that is in excess of the funding needed to correct existing deficiencies (Column D). The funds shown in Column J show how future development in Nevada County has benefitted from state and federal grant funding, since if funds had not come from those other sources, then these amounts would have been collectable from new development through impact fees.

Additionally, a policy decision was made to remove several widening projects along SR 49 in this update. This is due to the high cost associated with those improvements (approximately >$200M) and the fact that funds from other sources for the portion not funded through the fee program are not realistically attainable. However, NCTC will continue to pursue funding sources for the SR 49 widening improvements and these projects may return in the next update of the nexus study. Please note that SR 49 southbound from post mile 13.1 to 11.0 continues to be in the program because funding for that section has been identified.

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 20 Table 3.3 Amount Potentially Collectable Through RTMF between 2023 to 2040 (Project Costs) Updated
Cost
Estimate
% of Need
Attributable to
New
Development
Costs
Attributable to
New
Development
Costs Attributable
to Existing
Deficiencies (not
New Development)
Funding
from Other
Sources
(STIP,
SHOPP, etc.)
Funds from other
sources beyond what
is needed for existing
deficiencies
Amount
Potentially
Collectable from
Mitigation Fees
RTMF
Funds
Currently
Available
RTMF Funds
Collected in
Prior Years
RTMF Funds
Previously
Collected
Amount
Potentially
Collectable
from Mitigation
Fees
Funds Needed
from Other
Sources
(A) (B) (C) = (A)*(B) (D) = (A) - (B) (E) If (E)>(D), (F)=(E)-(D) Otherwise (F) = 0 (G)=(C)-(F) (H) (I) (J)=(G)-(H)-(I) (K)=(A)-(E)-(J) 1 SR-49 Interchange Dorsey Drive $24,000,000 33% $7,991,555 $16,008,445 $19,385,609 $3,377,164 $4,614,391 $1,016,041 $1,713,691 $2,729,732 $1,884,659 $0 2 E.Main St @ Bennett St/Richardson $1,500,000 100% $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 3 SR-49 SB PM 13.1 to PM 11.0 (SB) $21,000,000 48% $10,040,404 $10,959,596 $18,400,000 $7,440,404 $2,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,600,000 $0 4 McKnight Way
Interchange
@ S. Auburn St/La Barr
Meadows Rd $9,663,269 100% $9,663,269 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,663,269 $0 $0 $0 $7,663,269 $0 5 McCourtney Rd @ SR 20 EB Ramps $2,083,969 63% $1,317,068 $766,901 $0 $0 $1,317,068 $0 $0 $0 $1,317,068 $766,901 6 SR 20/49 NB Ramps @ Idaho Maryland Rd $1,847,696 100% $1,847,696 $0 $0 $0 $1,847,696 $0 $0 $0 $1,847,696 $0 7 SR 20/SR 49 @ Uren St $1,457,566 39% $568,304 $889,263 $0 $0 $568,304 $0 $0 $0 $568,304 $889,263 8 Brunswick Road @ SR 174/Colfax $1,384,179 100% $1,384,179 $0 $0 $0 $1,384,179 $0 $0 $0 $1,384,179 $0 9 SR-49 @ Coyote St $468,604 43% $199,938 $268,666 $0 $0 $199,938 $0 $0 $0 $199,938 $268,666 10 100% $349,302
Total $63,405,283 $34,512,413 $28,892,870 $39,785,609 $12,817,568 $21,694,845 $1,016,041 $3,213,691 $4,229,732 $17,814,415 $1,924,829 As a percent of total costs for needed projects 54% 46% 63% 20% 34% 2% 5% 7% 28% 3% Project
ID
(New)
Facility Location
Admin Costs and 5-year reviews (2% of
program)

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 21

3.5 Residential & Non-Residential Shares of Traffic
Impacts
Vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) is the main indicator of traffic impacts. VMT takes into account the fact that traffic impacts are proportional both to the number of new trips associated with the development and the average length of those trips. Outputs from the NCTC Travel Demand Model were used to forecast the growth in VMT for the five different types of trips that are represented in the model. The growth in VMT from new development was attributed to residential and non-residential developments based on trip type. Standard practice for how to do this can be found in NCHRP Report 1877, a primary reference for travel estimation techniques used in travel demand modeling, which states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non-Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB (Non-Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." NCTC policy follows this practice by attributing all trips beginning or ending at the traveler’s home (roughly 2/3rds of all trips) to the residential land use while all trips not involving a residential location (roughly 1/3rd of all trips) are attributed to non-residential land uses. The NonHome-Based trips include things like trip chaining between locations other than the traveler’s home.

Figure 3.3 shows the average trip length by trip purpose in the NCTC traffic model. The four home-based trip purposes, shown in grey, have longer average lengths than non-home-based trips. VMT-based fees tend to shift the incidence of the fees away from non-residential development and more towards residential development, compared to trip-based fees.

Figure 3.3 Average Trip Length by Trip Purpose
The forecast growth in VMT from residential and non-residential land uses is shown Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Percentage of VMT Growth Attributable to Residential & Non-Residential Development Trip Purpose
Growth in
VMT
% of Total
VMT Growth
Attributable to Residential Development
Home-Base Other Trips 122,759 36%
Home-Base Work Trips 169,544 49%
7 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide, Transportation Research Board, 1978

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 Home-Based
Work
Home-Based
Sierra College
Home-Based Other Home-Based School Non
Home-Based
Miles
Trip Purpose
Average Trip Length

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 22 Trip Purpose
Growth in
VMT
% of Total
VMT Growth
Home-Based School Trips 2,068 1%
Home-Based Sierra College Trips 1,427 0%
Attributable to Non-Residential Development
Non-Home-Based Trips 47,670 14%
Total 343,467 100%
Based on this calculation, 86% of VMT growth was attributed to residential development and 14% was attributed to non-residential development.

3.6 Consideration of Residential Floor Area
Since the 2016 nexus study, the State of California has instituted a new policy8 pertaining to fees on residential developments. California Government Code (CGC) Section 66016.5(a)(5), which is new with the enactment of AB602, states that, “(A)A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
(B)A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees. (C) This paragraph does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.”
AB 602 applies to impact fee programs generally and was not specifically designed to suit transportation impact fees regarding trip generation and unit size. Web research revealed that there are currently no well-established sources for trip generation rates based on residential unit size. However, data on the number of persons per household can be obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey, and data on the number of trips by household size is available from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 716, Travel Demand Forecast: Parameters and Techniques. This data was combined as shown in Table 3.5. 8 Assembly Bill 602, signed into law in September 2021.

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 23 Table 3.5 Computation of Average Trip Generation by Dwelling Size Category Persons
per
Household
Trips
per
Household
Less than 1,500 sq.ft 1,501 to 2,500 sq.ft Greater than 2,500 sq.ft Number
of Units
Percent of
Units
Trips Number
of Units
Percent
of Units
Trips Number
of Units
Percent
of Units
Trips
(A) (B) (C)=(B)*Σ(B) (D)=(A)
*(C)
(E) (F)=(E)*
Σ(E)
(G)=(A)*(F
)
(H) (I)=(H)*Σ
(H)
(J)=(A)*(I)
1 4.1 21,895 39% 1.58 7,828 20% 0.81 2,387 12% 0.48
2 8.2 18,076 32% 2.61 14,701 37% 3.04 7,754 38% 3.11
3 11.2 7,592 13% 1.50 6,928 17% 1.96 3,098 15% 1.70
4 16.1 5,355 9% 1.52 5,928 15% 2.41 4,106 20% 3.24
5 18.6 2,368 4% 0.78 2,754 7% 1.29 1,924 9% 1.75
6 18.6 907 2% 0.30 989 2% 0.46 755 4% 0.69
7+ 18.6 525 1% 0.17 553 1% 0.26 398 2% 0.36
Total 56,718 100% 8.46 39,681 100% 10.22 20,422 100% 11.33 Average Persons
Per Household

2.17 2.66 2.97
Trip-Gen Rate as a
% of SFD Average
83% 100% 111%
Sources: Columns (A),(C) - NCHRP Report 716, Columns (B), (E), and (H) - American Housing Survey As can be seen in Table 3.5, although the trip generation rate is somewhat related to the size of the residence, it is not directly proportional to the floor area, as is assumed in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A). We therefore find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(i), that it would not be appropriate to use square footage directly as the metric of traffic impacts for the purposes of this fee program. We instead find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(ii), that the data supports basing the fees on new small, medium, and large-sized homes on the relationships shown in the bottom row of Table 3.5. We further find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(iii), that these relationships would ensure that smaller units would not be charged disproportionate fees compared to larger units.

CGC Section 66016.5(a)(5)(C) allows agencies to establish different fees for different types of developments. In alignment with AB 602, NCTC believes that fees on multi-family and senior housing should be set lower than those of single-family dwellings, in recognition of their lower trip generation rates. Unfortunately, a calculation like that shown in Table 3.5 could not be done for these other classes of residential development because the American Housing Survey only has data on the number of persons per household for single-family dwellings (Table 3.5 uses SFD data).

DUEs for multi-family, mobile homes, and senior age-restricted housing were therefore calculated based on their respective PM peak-hour trip-generation rates found in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The average size for these housing types in the RTMF fee area falls within the “Small” category, so the ITE average rate for them was used to compute the “Small” value. The ratio of the values shown in the bottom row of Table 3.5 were then used to compute the DUEs for “Medium” and “Large” multi-family, mobile homes, and senior age-restricted housing. The results as shown in Table 3.6.

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 24 Table 3.6 Computation of Dwelling DUEs by Size and Dwelling Type Dwelling Type ITE 11th Edition
Trip-Gen Rate
(Daily)
Average Unit as %
of Average SFD
Trip-Gen Rate
Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUE)
Small
(< 1,500
sq.ft)
Medium
(1,501 to
2,500 sq.ft)
Large
(> 2,500
sq.ft)
Single-Family Dwelling 9.43 100% 0.83 1.00 1.11
Multi-Family Dwelling 4.54 48% 0.48 0.58 0.64
Senior Age-Restricted 3.78 40% 0.40 0.48 0.54
Mobile Home 7.12 76% 0.76 0.91 1.01
Since fees are based on DUEs, as can be seen in Table 3.6, the highest fees would be paid by large single-family dwellings, which would pay 111% of the base rate for SFD. The lowest fees would be paid by small senior dwellings, which would pay 40% of the base rate.

3.6.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
In addition to the considerations discussed above pursuant to AB-602, a separate piece of legislation, SB-13, passed in 2019, establishes a new system for assessing fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). It amended CGC Section 65852.2(3)(A)(f)(3) to read,
“A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
Based on this sub-section, if an ADU is smaller than 750 square feet then it is exempt from RTMF fees. Fees on ADU’s larger than 750 square feet require a two-part calculation. First the RTMF fee that would be charged to the primary unit (if it were new) is calculated, then the fee on the ADU is computed based on the ratio of its floor area in relation to the primary unit. For example, if the primary dwelling was 2,000 sq.ft. and would be charged a fee of $800, then an ADU 1,000 sq.ft. in size on that property would be charged a fee of $400.

3.7 Determination of Total Trips and Fee per Trip
As described earlier, the next step in the process is to determine the total number of trips for residential and nonresidential development. For residential units, the total number of new dwelling units from Table 2.2 is split amongst small, medium, and large unit sizes, and then multiplied by the trip generation rate for each category (see Table 2.1) and also by the DUE for each dwelling size from Table 3.6. For non-residential units, the total trips were calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate for each land use category (see Table 2.1) by number of new units of each land use type (Table 2.2). The results are shown in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Total Trips by Land Use - Residential and Non-Residential Trips Land Use Unit TripGen
Rate
Estimated Split
of Residential
Units by
Dwelling Type
# of New
Units
Dwelling
Unit
Equivalent
(DUE)
Daily Trips
(A) (B) (C)=(CTotal)*(B) (D) (E)=(A)*(C)*(D)
Residential
Single-Family Dwelling Totals DU 2,585 23,844
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) DU 9.43 29% 750 83% 5,870

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 25 Land Use Unit TripGen
Rate
Estimated Split
of Residential
Units by
Dwelling Type
# of New
Units
Dwelling
Unit
Equivalent
(DUE)
Daily Trips
(A) (B) (C)=(CTotal)*(B) (D) (E)=(A)*(C)*(D)
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) DU 9.43 46% 1,189 100% 11,212 Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) DU 9.43 25% 646 111% 6,762
Multi-Family Dwelling Totals DU 1,581 3,445
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) DU 4.54 100% 1581 48% 3,445
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) DU 4.54 0% 0 58% 0
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) DU 4.54 0% 0 64% 0
Mobile Home in Park DU 251 1,460
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) DU 7.12 63% 158 76% 855
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) DU 7.12 36% 90 91% 583
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) DU 7.12 1% 3 101% 22
Senior Housing DU 460 819
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) DU 3.78 29% 133 40% 201
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) DU 3.78 46% 212 48% 384
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) DU 3.78 25% 115 54% 234
Total Residential 29,568
Non-Residential
Retail - Low KSF 24.74 255 5,514
Retail - Medium KSF 47.62 204 10,306
Retail - High KSF 91.96 51 4,690
Office KSF 12.76 569 7,258
Light Industry KSF 4.75 2,162 10,270
Warehouse KSF 3.56 73 260
Lodging Rooms 4.21 97 408
Public & Quasi-Public* KSF 22.59 28 633
School K-8th Grade* Students 2.25 499 1,122
School 9-12th Grade* Students 1.98 298 590
Community College* Students 1.15 439 505
Total Non-Residential 41,555
* Public Sector
Note: Column (B), Estimated Split of Residential Units by Dwelling Type, is based on last 5 years of housing permits from Nevada County and Grass Valley.

The portion of project costs attributable to new development (see Table 3.3) was multiplied by the percent attributable to residential and non-residential development (see Table 3.4) to find the fee-eligible costs for residential and nonresidential development. This was then divided by the number of total trips shown in Table 3.7 to determine the fee per trip for residential and non-residential developments (see Table 3.8). Lastly, the fee per trip end for residential

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 26 units was multiplied by the daily trip generation rate of 9.43 to determine the fee per DUE (dwelling unit equivalent) for residential uses.

Table 3.8 Fee per Trip and DUE
Item Formula Total RTMFEligible
Project Costs
Attributable to
Residential
Development
Attributable to
Non-Residential
Development
Total Project Costs (A) $17,814,415
RTMF Fund Balance (Amount Collected)* (B) $91,702
Remaining Cost for Fee Collection (C) $17,722,712
% Attributable by Category (D) 86% 14%
Amount Attributable by Category (E)=(C)*(D) $15,262,990 $2,459,722 Trip Ends (F) 29,568 41,555
RTMF per Trip End (G)=(E)/(F) $516.20 $59.19
Fee per DUE (H)=(GRES)*9.43 $4,867.76
* RTMF Fund Balance excludes balance set aside for Dorsey Drive Note: 9.43 is the trip rate equivalent to a single family detached housing unit

3.8 Recommended Fee by Land Use Category
The final step is to compute the fee to be charged for each unit of new development. For residential uses, this is done by multiplying the DUE rates for each dwelling size shown in Table 3.6 by the fee per DUE shown in Table 3.8. For non-residential uses, the fee for each unit type is calculated by multiplying the trip generation rates from Table 2.1 by the fee per trip from Table 3.8. The residential fee results are shown in Table 3.9, and the non-residential fee results are shown in Table 3.10. These tables also compare the new fees with the current fees. The key points from this comparison are:
• A small increase is recommended for the fees for medium and large single-family homes. • Due to the change in the fee calculation methodology to consider unit size by types for residential uses, the resulting fee is reduced for smaller-sized single-family units, and for all multi-family, mobile home, and senior housing unit types.
• A larger reduction in fees is recommended for every category of non-residential land use. The decrease is primarily a function of the change in traffic growth of non-residential uses, with less non-residential development expected, and more trips attributable to residential uses.

Policymakers are sometimes concerned about the effects that a fee program might have in terms of making their county less competitive than peer counties in attracting development. There are two aspects to this, namely:
• People and businesses moving to foothills counties expect to find little or no traffic congestion. To the extent that the RTMF provides funding for needed capacity improvements it improves the competitiveness of Nevada County.

Impact fees, like any other cost, inhibit development to some extent. However, this does not mean that they necessarily reduce competitiveness. As can be seen in Figure 3.4, the recommended RTMF fees would be in the low end among peer counties and so are unlikely to deter development. The recommended RTMF fees for non-residential development would be quite low compared to peer counties (see Figure 3.5).

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 27 Table 3.9 Revised Fee Levels – Residential Uses
Table 3.10 Revised Fee Levels – Non-Residential Uses
Current Fee per
Trip
Current TripGen RateCurrent Fee per
Unit
Dwelling Unit
Equivalents
(DUE)
Proposed
Cost per
DUE
Proposed
Fee per Unit
%
Change in Fee
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E) (F)=(D)*(E) (G)=(F)/(C)-1
210
Dwelling Unit $485 9.52 $4,621 0.83 $4,868 $4,030 -13%
Dwelling Unit $485 9.52 $4,621 1.00 $4,868 $4,868 5%
Dwelling Unit $485 9.52 $4,621 1.11 $4,868 $5,396 17%
251
Dwelling Unit $485 6.59 $3,199 0.48 $2,344 $1,128 -65%
Dwelling Unit $485 6.59 $3,199 0.58 $2,344 $1,363 -57%
Dwelling Unit $485 6.59 $3,199 0.64 $2,344 $1,511 -53%
220
Dwelling Unit $485 4.99 $2,422 0.76 $3,675 $2,775 15%
Dwelling Unit $485 4.99 $2,422 0.91 $3,675 $3,352 38%
Dwelling Unit $485 4.99 $2,422 1.01 $3,675 $3,716 53%
252
Dwelling Unit $485 3.56 $1,728 0.40 $1,949 $780 -55%
Dwelling Unit $485 3.56 $1,728 0.48 $1,949 $942 -45%
Dwelling Unit $485 3.56 $1,728 0.54 $1,949 $1,045 -40%
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.)
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.)
Single Family
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
< 750 sq.ft.
> 750 sq.ft.

Typical Use
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.)
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.)
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.)
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.)
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.)
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.)
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.)
Residential (Dwelling Unit)
Multi-Family
Mobile Home
Senior Housing
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.)
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.)
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.)
Fee is based on the ratio of its floor area in relation to the primary unit, multiplied by the fee that the primary unit would pay, if it was being built today. (RTMF (F) for primary unit) x (ADU sq.ft. divided by primary unit sq.ft.) Exempt
ITE Code &
Unit
Current Fee per
Trip
Current TripGen Rate Current Fee Proposed Fee
per Trip
Updated
Trip-Gen
Rate
Proposed
Fee
%
Change
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E) (F)=(D)*(E) (G)=(F)/(C)-1
Non-Residential
Office KSF $86 12.05 $1,033 $59 12.76 $755 -27%
Industrial KSF $86 5.33 $457 $59 4.75 $281 -38%
Warehouse KSF $86 3.56 $305 $59 3.56 $211 -31%
Retail/Service - Low KSF $86 23.88 $2,047 $59 21.63 $1,280 -37% Retail/Service - Medium KSF $86 51.02 $4,373 $59 50.52 $2,990 -32% Retail/Service - High KSF $86 90.46 $7,754 $59 91.96 $5,443 -30% * Lodging Room $86 6.45 $553 $59 4.21 $249 -55%
** Public & Quasi-Public KSF Exempt Exempt N/A
** School K-8th Grade Student Exempt Exempt N/A
** School 9-12th Grade Student Exempt Exempt N/A
** Public College Student Exempt Exempt N/A
* The unit of analysis for this category is "rooms". Trip-gen rate shown is the average for the hotel and motel categories * * Public-sector land uses are generally exempt from local fees Typical Use Unit

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 28 Figure 3.4 Residential Impact Fee Comparison - Foothills Counties Figure 3.5 Non-Residential Impact Fee Comparison - Foothills Counties $-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
El Dorado (Kyburz)Placer (Newcastle) Amador Tuolumne RTMF (proposed) Calaveras Residential Fee Per EDU
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
El Dorado (Kyburz)Placer (Newcastle) Amador Tuolumne RTMF (proposed) Calaveras Non-Residential Fee per Trip

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 29

3.9 Revenues Raised by the RTMF Program
Based on the number of new units of development shown in Table 2.2 and the recommended fee schedule shown in Table 3.9 and
Table 3.10, the total fee revenue expected to be generated by the RTMF in the next 20 years is $17.6 million, as shown in Table 3.11. Note that this is slightly (1%) less than the $17.7 million in project costs attributable to new development shown in Row C of Table 3.8. This is because public-sector developments are exempt from the RTMF, and their share of the costs cannot legally be transferred to other development since the latter are responsible only for mitigating their own impacts.

Current Fee per
Trip
Current TripGen RateCurrent Fee per
Unit
Dwelling Unit
Equivalents
(DUE)
Proposed
Cost per
DUE
Proposed
Fee per Unit
%
Change in Fee
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E) (F)=(D)*(E) (G)=(F)/(C)-1
210
Dwelling Unit $485 9.52 $4,621 0.83 $4,868 $4,030 -13%
Dwelling Unit $485 9.52 $4,621 1.00 $4,868 $4,868 5%
Dwelling Unit $485 9.52 $4,621 1.11 $4,868 $5,396 17%
251
Dwelling Unit $485 6.59 $3,199 0.48 $2,344 $1,128 -65%
Dwelling Unit $485 6.59 $3,199 0.58 $2,344 $1,363 -57%
Dwelling Unit $485 6.59 $3,199 0.64 $2,344 $1,511 -53%
220
Dwelling Unit $485 4.99 $2,422 0.76 $3,675 $2,775 15%
Dwelling Unit $485 4.99 $2,422 0.91 $3,675 $3,352 38%
Dwelling Unit $485 4.99 $2,422 1.01 $3,675 $3,716 53%
252
Dwelling Unit $485 3.56 $1,728 0.40 $1,949 $780 -55%
Dwelling Unit $485 3.56 $1,728 0.48 $1,949 $942 -45%
Dwelling Unit $485 3.56 $1,728 0.54 $1,949 $1,045 -40%
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.)
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.)
Single Family
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
< 750 sq.ft.
> 750 sq.ft.

Typical Use
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.)
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.)
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.)
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.)
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.)
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.)
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.)
Residential (Dwelling Unit)
Multi-Family
Mobile Home
Senior Housing
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.)
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.)
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.)
Fee is based on the ratio of its floor area in relation to the primary unit, multiplied by the fee that the primary unit would pay, if it was being built today. (RTMF (F) for primary unit) x (ADU sq.ft. divided by primary unit sq.ft.) Exempt
ITE Code &
Unit

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 30 Table 3.11 Forecast of RTMF Revenues
Approximately 82% of the forecast revenue will come from single and multi-family housing. It is therefore crucial to the viability of the program that fees on those two categories of development is not further reduced.

3.10 Results in Terms of Project Funding
The revenue forecast computed in the previous section can be compared to the project costs shown in Table 3.3. Prorating the $17.6M in RTMF revenue over the $21.7M in eligible project costs results in the allocations by project shown in Table 3.12.

Table 3.12 shows that $2.6M in additional funding will be needed over the course of the next 20 years to fully fund the project list. Section 2.4 of this report showed that if future state funding is similar to previous funding, then approximately $158M will become available over the 20-year period (see Table 2.3). We therefore believe that there is a reasonable expectation that the projects identified for RTMF funding can be fully funded within the planning time horizon.

Unit
Proposed
RTMF/
Trip End
Trip-Gen
Rate
RTMF/
Unit
Expected # of
New Units
Expected
Revenues
Percent of
Revenues
Residential
Single Family DU $516.20 9.43 $4,868 2,585
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) DU 83% $4,030 29% $3,020,908 17.2% Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) DU 100% $4,868 46% $5,788,256 33.0% Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) DU 111% $5,396 25% $3,487,458 19.9% Multi-Family DU $516.20 4.54 $2,344 1,581
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) DU 48% $1,128 100% $1,783,814 10.2% Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) DU 58% $1,363 0% $0 0.0%
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) DU 64% $1,511 0% $0 0.0%
Mobile Home DU $516.20 7.12 $3,675 251
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) DU 76% $2,775 63% $438,814 2.5%
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) DU 91% $3,352 36% $302,895 1.7% Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) DU 101% $3,716 1% $9,328 0.1%
Senior Housing DU $516.20 3.78 $1,949 460
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) DU 40% $780 29% $104,063 0.6%
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) DU 48% $942 46% $199,391 1.1% Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) DU 54% $1,045 25% $120,134 0.7%
Residential Total > $15,255,061 86.9%
Non-Residential
Office KSF $59.19 12.76 $755 569 $429,588 2.4%
Light Industry KSF $59.19 4.75 $281 2,162 $607,868 3.5% Warehouse KSF $59.19 3.56 $211 73 $15,383 0.1%
Retail/Service - Low KSF $59.19 21.63 $1,280 255 $326,404 1.9% Retail/Service - Medium KSF $59.19 50.52 $2,990 204 $610,033 3.5% Retail/Service - High KSF $59.19 91.96 $5,443 51 $277,606 1.6% Lodging Rooms $59.19 4.21 $249 97 $24,172 0.1%
Public & Quasi-Public KSF Exempt 22.59 $0 28 $0 0.0%
School K-8th Grade Students Exempt 2.25 $0 499 $0 0.0%
School 9-12th Grade Students Exempt 1.98 $0 298 $0 0.0% Public College Students Exempt 1.15 $0 439 $0 0.0%
Non-Residential Total > $2,291,054 13.1%
Combined Total > $17,546,114
As a Percentage of Project Costs Attributable to New Development > 99% Land Use Category

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 31 Table 3.12 Proposed Allocation of RTMF Revenues to Projects Already
Collected
Fees on Future
Development
Already
Secured
Future
Funding
1 1 SR-49 Interchange Dorsey Drive $24,000,000 $2,729,732 $1,884,659 $19,385,609 $0 9 2 E.Main St @ Bennett St/Richardson St $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 * 3 SR-49 SB PM 13.1 to PM 11.0 (SB) $21,000,000 $0 $2,574,092 $0 $18,425,908 4 4 SR-49 NB & SB Ramps @ McKnight Way $9,663,269 $0 $7,586,908 $0 $2,076,361 5 5 SR 20 EB Ramps @ McCourtney Rd $2,083,969 $0 $1,303,945 $0 $780,025 6 6 SR 20/49 NB Ramps @ Idaho Maryland Rd $1,847,696 $0 $1,829,285 $0 $18,411 8 7 SR 20/SR 49 @ Uren St $1,457,566 $0 $0 $0 $1,457,566 * 8 Brunswick Road @ SR 174/Colfax Highway $1,384,179 $0 $1,370,386 $0 $13,793 11 9 SR-49 @ Coyote St $468,604 $0 $197,945 $0 $270,659 10 Admin Costs and 5-year reviews $349,302 $0 $345,822 $0 $3,481 Total $63,754,585 $4,229,732 $17,093,042 $19,385,609 $23,046,202 As a percent of total costs for needed projects 6.6% 26.8% 30.4% 36.1% * indicates a new project not in the previous project list but identified in the current study as a deficiency that is at least partially attributable to new development Project ID
(from
Previous
Study)
RTMF Funds Funds from Other Sources
Updated
Cost
Estimate
Facility Segment Project ID
(New)

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 32

4. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in the California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008, establishes the framework for mitigation fees in the State of California. The Act requires agencies to make certain findings with respect to a proposed fee. These are described in the sections below.

4.1 Purpose of the Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee
The purpose of the RTMF is to establish a uniform, cooperative program to mitigate the cumulative indirect regional impacts of future developments on traffic conditions on regional roadways in Nevada County. The fees will help fund improvements needed to maintain the target level of service in the face of the higher traffic volumes brought on by new developments.

4.2 Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified The list of projects to receive RTMF funding is shown in Table 3.12. Based on input from the member agencies and the public, we recommend that the regional fee should be used only for roads of regional significance. This is consistent with the fact that cumulative indirect impacts tend to be on regional facilities and so should be addressed with a regional fee program; Grass Valley and the County have complementary programs to mitigate more local impacts, and direct impacts are covered through exactions. Only projects involving state facilities were considered “regional” under this policy and can receive RTMF funding.

4.3 Use/Type of Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees’ use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “use” relationship, the development being assessed an impact fee must be reasonably shown to derive some use or benefit from the facility being built using the fee. In the case of the RTMF the projects to be funded were selected based on the fact that they performed a regional (as opposed to local) function and that the need for the project was at least partially attributable to new development. The growth in regional VMT and the increases in congestion at project sites (see Table 3.2) are evidence that new developments contribute towards the need for roadway improvements.

The fact that the projects that will be funded by the RTMF are high-priority regional roads means that all of the county’s new residents and businesses will benefit in important ways from the maintenance of a reasonable level of service. Most drivers in the new developments can be expected to use these roads regularly, and those that do not will nevertheless benefit because good traffic conditions on the RTMF-funded roads will keep drivers from diverting to other roads and causing congestion in other parts of the county. Even residents or workers in the new developments who do not drive at all will benefit from access to goods and services made possible in part by the serviceability of the regional road network.

Item # 11.

GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update 33

4.4 Need/Type of Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “need” relationship the facilities to be financed must be shown to be needed at least in part because of the new development. This was determined by analyzing the forecast traffic demand with the expected degree of new development and comparing that with the demand without new development. Projects were analyzed individually and the degree to which the need for the project was attributable to new development varied from project to project.

This analysis is described in an earlier chapter of this report.

4.5 Proportionality Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed The “proportionality” relationship requires that there be rough proportionality between the fee charged to each type of development and the cost of the facility being financed. In the case of the RTMF the differences in the traffic generated by different types of development were factored into the fee to be charged for each type, as is described earlier in this report. Within each land use category, the size of the project, i.e., the number of dwelling units constructed or size of the building, is accounted for in assessing the fee. This ensures that projects that generate a lot of traffic and therefore have a greater traffic impact will pay more than other projects that have less impacts.

Item # 11.
ghd.com GHD | Nevada County Transportation Commission | 11230706 | Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update The Power of Commitment Page 38534 Item # 11.

Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee
Program Administrative Plan
Prepared for:

Nevada County Transportation Commission
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
July 13, 2023
EPS #212065

Item # 11.

Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................. 1 Background ....................................................................................... 1 Purpose ............................................................................................. 2 Authority ........................................................................................... 2 RTMF Program Participation and RTMF Calculation ............................. 3 Land Uses Subject to the RTMF ............................................................. 3 Calculation of the RTMF ....................................................................... 6 Expiration of Building Permits ............................................................. 11 RTMF Exemptions ............................................................................. 12 RTMF Credits for Prior Uses ................................................................ 13 Other Fee and Funding Programs ........................................................ 13 Allocation of RTMF Program Funds ....................................................... 13 RTMF Program Credits and Reimbursements .................................... 14 Administration of RTMF Credits for Construction of Eligible Facilities ......... 14 Administration of RTMF Reimbursements for Construction of Eligible Facilities ............................................................................... 15 Administrative Responsibilities and Costs ........................................ 17 Regional Administration ..................................................................... 17 Local Administration .......................................................................... 24 Administrative Costs ......................................................................... 24 Challenging the RTMF Program ...................................................... 25 RTMF Program Appeals ................................................................. 26 Persons or Entities Who Have Standing to Appeal .................................. 26 Appealable Issues and Matters ............................................................ 26 Appeals Process ................................................................................ 26 California Environmental Quality Act Mitigation ................................ 28

Item # 11.

Appendices
Appendix A: RTMF Calculation Examples for Accessory Dwelling Units Appendix B: Guidelines for Administration of Programmed Projects in the Adopted Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Land Use Categories and Trip Generation Rates (2 pages) ........... 4 Exhibit 2. Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Calculation Form .............. 7 Exhibit 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) RTMF Calculation Form .............. 10 Exhibit 4. RTMF Administrative Decision-Making Process .......................... 17 Exhibit 5. Fee Collection and Disposition Process .................................... 23 Exhibit 6. Appeals Process ................................................................... 27 Exhibit 7. RTMF Capital Improvement Program ..................................... B-6 Exhibit 8. RTMF Expenditure Plan ....................................................... B-7

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 1
Introduction
Background
This 2023 Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Program Administrative Plan (2023 Administrative Plan or Administrative Plan) updates the 2016 RTMF Program Administrative Plan prepared by WSP and Parsons Brinckerhoff (2016 Administrative Plan). The 2023 Administrative Plan retains many elements of the 2016 Administrative Plan, with portions excerpted directly from the 2016 Administrative Plan. In addition, the 2023 Administrative Plan includes modifications and additions to address changes in the RTMF Program and California laws since 2016.

This 2023 Administrative Plan is a companion document to the 2023 RTMF Nexus Study Update prepared by GHD and adopted in July 2023. The RTMF Program was established in 2001 through a partnership of three local jurisdictions (unincorporated Nevada County, Nevada City, and Grass Valley) and the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) to provide funding from new development to make improvements to the Regional Transportation System (Regional System) needed to accommodate anticipated future development in western Nevada County. Comprehensive RTMF Program updates were prepared in 2008, 2016, and most recently in 2023. The 2023 RTMF Program Nexus Study updates the RTMF Program to account for changes to projected development, improvements, and costs, as well as for changes in the fee structure and administration mandated by recent State of California (State) laws passed since 2016.

The RTMF Program provides significant additional funds from new development to make improvements to the Regional System, complementing local transportation fee programs and other funding sources. The RTMF fee provides local agencies with a mechanism to collect developers’ fair share contribution toward sustaining the Regional System. The RTMF Program is a 20-year program and will be influenced by a variety of market factors that could cause a shortfall or surplus in the revenue projections. The RTMF Program shall be reviewed at least every 8 years, as mandated by state law to ensure the integrity of the program. The program is not designed to be the only source of revenue to construct the identified facilities, and it will be necessary for matching funds to be provided from a variety of available sources.

With approval from the local jurisdictions imposing the fees and the NCTC, RTMF obligations may be met by paying the fees, building eligible facilities, through public financing (e.g., Community Facility Districts and Assessment Districts), or through private financing vehicles consistent with local jurisdiction policies.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 2
General RTMF Program parameters, definitions, and procedures are described in the RTMF Program resolutions adopted by the three participating western Nevada County jurisdictions (Nevada County, Grass Valley, and Nevada City). The NCTC is designated as the RTMF Program Administrator and works closely with member jurisdictions to coordinate transportation expenditure programs to maximize the effectiveness of future transportation investments.

This Administrative Plan may be amended from time to time, provided that any material amendments shall be approved by the NCTC Executive Committee. This Administrative Plan serves as the guideline to implement the RTMF Program and will be amended as needed to address changing conditions over the life of the program.

Purpose
The purpose of this Administrative Plan is to provide those jurisdictions that are participants in the RTMF Program with guidelines and policies for implementation and administration of the RTMF Program.

RTMF Program funds may only be used for capital and administrative expenditures associated with the Regional System as detailed in the 2023 RTMF Nexus Study. More specifically, the RTMF Program may be used to fund the following items:
 Engineering and design
 Environmental documentation
 Right-of-way acquisition
 Construction
 Construction management
 Fee program administration
Authority
The RTMF Program has been developed pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of California Assembly Bill 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), which was most recently amended in 2021 to reflect the requirements of California Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602). In addition, AB 602 resulted in changes to reporting requirements for development impact fees, and Senate Bill 13 (SB 13), enacted in 2020, resulted in new requirements for development impact fees for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

This Administrative Plan will detail the fee program administration procedures needed to meet the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and other development impact fee program requirements, including the recent changes resulting from AB 602 and SB 13.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3
RTMF Program Participation and
RTMF Calculation
Participating jurisdictions in western Nevada County are responsible for collecting the fees on new development within their jurisdictions. To be considered a participant in the RTMF Program, a jurisdiction must have adopted the RTMF Program no later than September 1, 2008, and adopt any amendment of the RTMF Program within 90 days of approval by the NCTC Executive Committee, unless otherwise directed by the NCTC Executive Committee. Participating jurisdictions shall not modify the RTMF Program, except to meet local municipal codes and references. Further, to be considered a participating jurisdiction, local jurisdictions shall collect the full RTMF and transmit the fee to NCTC as provided herein. The current participating jurisdictions in western Nevada County are unincorporated Nevada County (Nevada County), Nevada City, and Grass Valley.

Land Uses Subject to the RTMF
The 2023 RTMF Nexus Study Update identifies the land uses subject to the RTMF Program by two types, residential and non-residential. For each land use type, Exhibit 1 displays additional subcategories of residential and non-residential land uses and the average daily trip rate for each subcategory. The average daily trip rates are based on a review of land use categories and trip generation rates in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE Trip Generation Manual).

Residential Uses
For the RTMF obligation, a residential dwelling unit is defined as a building or portion thereof used by one family and containing one kitchen, which is primarily designed for residential occupancy. Residential dwelling units may include, but are not limited to, detached houses, apartment homes, condominiums, and mobile homes. Mobile homes located in a mobile home park will be calculated as Mobile Home in Park units while mobile homes located on individual lots will be calculated as single-family dwelling units.

Item # 11.

Exhibit 1
Land Use Categories and Trip Generation Rates
Unit ITE Code Weekday Trips per Unit

RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Detached House Dwelling Unit 210 9.43
Multi-Family
Apartment Dwelling Unit 220 6.74
Low Rise Apartment Dwelling Unit 221 4.54
Residential Condominium/Townhouse Dwelling Unit 230 3.44 Median for Multi-Family 4.54
Mobile Home in Park Dwelling Unit 240 7.12
Senior Residential
Senior Adult Housing - Detached Dwelling Unit 251 4.31
Senior Adult Housing - Attached Dwelling Unit 252 3.24
Median for Senior Residential 3.78

NON-RESIDENTIAL
Office
General Office KSF 710 10.84
Single Tenant Office KSF 715 13.07
Office Park KSF 750 11.07
Business Park KSF 770 12.44
Clinic KSF 630 37.60
Medical-Dentist Office KSF 720 36.00
Median for Office 12.76
Industrial
General Light Industry KSF 110 4.87
Industrial Park KSF 130 3.37
Manufacturing KSF 140 4.75
Median for Industrial 4.75
Warehousing KSF 150 3.56
Retail/Service - Low
Building Materials and Lumber KSF 812 17.05
Hardware/Paint Store KSF 816 8.07
Factory Outlet Center KSF 823 26.59
New Car Sales KSF 841 27.06
Tire Store KSF 848 27.69
Tire Superstore KSF 849 20.37
Home Improvement Superstore KSF 862 30.74
Discount Home Furnishing Superstore KSF 869 20.00
Department Store KSF 875 22.88
Furniture Store KSF 890 6.30
Median for Retail - Low 21.63
Retail/Service - Medium
Day Care Center KSF 565 47.62
Discount Superstore KSF 813 50.52
Specialty Retail Center KSF 814 63.66
Discount Store KSF 815 53.87
Shopping Center KSF 820 37.01
Auto Parts Store KSF 843 54.57
Discount Club KSF 857 42.46
Electronics Superstore KSF 863 41.05
Arts and Crafts Store KSF 879 56.55
Median for Retail - Medium 50.52
Land Use Category
4

Item # 11.

Exhibit 1
Land Use Categories and Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Category Unit ITE Code Weekday Trips per Unit
Retail/Service - High
Nursery (Garden Center) KSF 817 68.10
Supermarket KSF 850 93.84
Apparel Store KSF 876 66.40
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/o Drive Through Window KSF 880 90.08 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive Through Window KSF 881 108.40 Drive-in Bank KSF 912 100.35
Quality Restaurant KSF 931 83.84
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant KSF 932 107.20
Median for Retail - High 91.96
Lodging
Hotel Room 310 7.99
All Suites Hotel Room 311 4.40
Business Hotel Room 312 4.02
Motel Room 320 3.35
Median for Lodging 4.21
Public & Quasi-Public
Church KSF 560 7.60
Library KSF 590 72.05
Government Office Building KSF 730 22.59
State Motor Vehicles Department KSF 731 11.21
United States Post Office KSF 732 103.94
Median for Public Sector 22.59
School K-8th Grade Student 520 & 522 2.25
School 9th-12 Grade Student 522 & 530 1.98
Junior/Community College Student 540 1.15
Other Non-Residential
All Port and Terminal Uses 000-099
All Recreational Uses 300-399
All Private Institutional Uses (Public Institutions are Exempt) 500-599 Convenience Market 851
Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through 934
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Through 937
Coffee/Donut Shop Drive Through No Seating 938
Gasoline/Service Station 944
Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market 945
Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market and Car Wash 946 Self-Service Car Wash 947
Based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed.

The trip generation for any
project in these categories
shall be computed using
the ITE daily tripgeneration rate for their
land use type or, at the
discretion of agency staff,
through a separate traffic
study
5

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6
Nonresidential Uses
For the purpose of calculating the RTMF obligation, non-residential development is defined as Retail/Service, Office, Industrial, Warehousing, and Lodging development that is designed primarily for use as a business and is not intended for residential occupancy or dwelling use. The applicable non-residential land use category for a non-residential development is determined by the predominate use of the building or structure associated with the new development and may be related to the underlying land use zoning of the new development site.

Retail developments with an average daily trip generation rate of 35 or fewer trips per thousand square feet are included in the Retail-Low category. Retail developments with an average daily trip generation rate between 36 and 65 trips per thousand square feet are included in the Retail-Medium category. Retail developments with an average daily trip generation rate greater than 65 trips per thousand square feet are included in the Retail-High category.

Other non-residential land uses are those that have trip generation characteristics that do not match any of the major categories. In these cases, the city or county may require a project-specific traffic study or will calculate the appropriate fee based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual (latest edition).

Exempt Uses
Public/Quasi-Public uses and schools are included in Exhibit 1 for the purposes of calculating trips but are exempt from paying the RTMF.

Calculation of the RTMF
Each participating jurisdiction shall calculate and collect the RTMF for projects as outlined in this Administrative Plan. The RTMF shall be calculated using the fee schedule in effect at the time the fee is due. The procedures for calculating fees differ for standard residential and nonresidential development and ADUs.

Residential and Nonresidential Development (excluding ADUs) Exhibit 2 is a form to calculate the amount of RTMF to be charged to residential or commercial development projects when applying for building permits. It contains three sections for Residential, Nonresidential, and Other development.

The Residential and Nonresidential categories apply to the majority of development. The Other category applies to residential and nonresidential development that does not fit into one of the RTMF standard fee categories.

Several examples of land uses in the Other category include convalescent homes, youth group homes, gasoline/service stations, and convenience stores.

Item # 11.

Exhibit 2
Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Calculation Form Owner Contractor
Permit Reference Number Permit Type
Property ID Job Address
Date
RESIDENTIAL Units Fee per Unit
Effective Date:

Total
Single Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) X $4,030 = $
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) X $4,868 = $
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) X $5,396 = $
Multiple Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) X $1,128 = $
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) X $1,363 = $
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) X $1,511 = $
Mobile Home in Park
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) X $2,775 = $
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) X $3,352 = $
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) X $3,716 = $
Retirement/Senior Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) X $780 = $
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) X $942 = $
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) X $1,045 = $

NON-RESIDENTIAL KSF/
Rooms
Fee per
KSF/Room
Effective Date:

Retail/Service – Low KSF X $1,280 = $
Retail/Service – Medium KSF X $2,990 = $
Retail/Service – High KSF X $5,443 = $
Office KSF X $755 = $
Industrial KSF X $281 = $
Warehousing KSF X $211 = $
Lodging rooms X $249 = $
Public/Quasi-Public and Schools KSF X Exempt = $
OTHER Description Units/KSF
Daily Trips
Per Unit/KSF Cost per Trip Total
(from ITE Manual) Effective Date:

Residential ________________________ units X X $516.20 = $ Non-Residential ________________________ KSF X X $59.19 = $ TOTAL Total Mitigation Fees $
Credits Applied $
Net Mitigation Fees $
7

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8
Regardless of the type of development, the information requested about the project at the top of the form needs to be entered before calculating the fees. The steps to complete the RTMF calculation form for each type of development are detailed below.

Note that the RTMF per dwelling unit and nonresidential thousand building square feet (KSF) and the residential and nonresidential cost per trip shown on Exhibit 2 are the 2023 fees and costs. Exhibit 2 should be updated annually to reflect annual fee updates. The fees should be updated to the new fee levels, and the costs per trip should be updated by the same percentage escalation as used for the fee updates. The percentage escalation process is detailed in the RTMF Program Update section of Chapter 4 (page 20).

Residential Development

1. Complete the project information section at the top of Exhibit 2.

2. For each applicable residential land use category included on Exhibit 2, enter the number of units for which building permits are to be issued. Note that is necessary to know the habitable square feet for all residential units to determine the land use categories. Backup documentation specifying each unit’s habitable square feet (excluding garages and other uninhabitable areas) should be submitted when applying for building permits.

3. For each land use category, multiply the number of units by the RTMF per unit and enter the calculated amount in the Total column.

4. Add the amounts in the Total column and enter the sum on the Total Mitigation Fees line.

5. Enter any credits on the next line labeled Credits Applied.

6. Subtract the credits, if any, from the Total Mitigation Fees and enter the amount on the line labeled Net Mitigation Fees. This is the amount of RTMF for the project.

Nonresidential Development

1. Complete the project information section at the top of Exhibit 2.

2. The RTMF for nonresidential projects, except for lodging, is charged per thousand building square feet (KSF). The RTMF for lodging is charged per room. For each applicable nonresidential land use category included on Exhibit 2, excluding lodging, enter the KSF for which building permits are to be issued. For any lodging development, enter the number of rooms.

3. For each land use category in the project other than lodging, multiply the KSF by the RTMF per KSF and enter the calculated amount in the Total column. For lodging, multiply the number of rooms by the RTMF per room and enter the calculated amount in the Total column.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9

4. Add the amounts in the Total column and enter the sum on the Total Mitigation Fees line.

5. Enter any credits on the next line labeled Credits Applied.

6. Subtract the credits, if any, from the Total Mitigation Fee and enter the amount on the line labeled Net Mitigation Fees. This is the amount of RTMF for the project.

Other Development
The RTMF calculation for residential and nonresidential development that does not fit into one of the standard RTMF categories may be based on trip generation rates from the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual. In these cases, the following steps are required to calculate the fees:

1. Complete the project information section at the top of Exhibit 2.

2. Use the most recent edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual to identify the development type and average daily trips per dwelling unit or nonresidential KSF.

3. Enter the development type, project dwelling units or nonresidential KSF, and average daily trips per dwelling unit or nonresidential KSF.

4. For residential land uses, multiply the dwelling units, trips per dwelling unit, and cost per trip to obtain the total fees, and enter the result in the Total column.

5. For nonresidential land uses, multiply the KSF, trips per KSF, and cost per trip to obtain the total fees, and enter the result in the Total column.

6. Add the amounts in the Total column and enter the sum on the Total Mitigation Fees line.

7. Enter any credits on the next line labeled Credits Applied.

8. Subtract the credits, if any, from the Total Mitigation Fees and enter the amount on the line labeled Net Mitigation Fees. This is the amount of RTMF for the project.

Accessory Dwelling Units
Exhibit 3 is a form to calculate the RTMF to be charged for a residential ADU.

If there are multiple ADUs planned on one residential parcel, each ADU should be treated separately, and a separate form should be completed for each ADU.

ADUs with fewer than 750 habitable square feet are exempt from paying development impact fees.

Item # 11.

Exhibit 3
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) RTMF Calculation Form
Owner Contractor
Permit Reference Number Permit Type
Property ID Job Address
Date
Primary Residence
Property ID
Land Use Category
Building Square Feet (A)
(excluding garage and other uninhabitable space)
Fee for Primary Unit, if it were new (B)
(See table below)
ADU Building Square Feet (C)
(excluding garage and other uninhabitable space)
Exempt (Y or N)
(Exempt if ADU square feet < 750)
If Not Exempt (Exempt = N), provide information below:

ADU Percentage [(D) = (C)/(A)]
(ADU Sq. Ft. / Primary Residence Sq. Ft.)
ADU RTMF Calculation
ADU Floor Space Percentage * Fee for Primary Residence
(E) = (B) * (D) * =
Fee Table for Primary Residence (if it were new)
Effective Date:

Single Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $4,030
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft) $4,868
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $5,396
Multiple Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $1,128
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,363
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,511
Mobile Home in Park
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $2,775
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $3,352
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $3,716
Retirement/Senior Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $780
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $942
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,045
TOTAL Total Mitigation Fees $
Credits Applied $
Net Mitigation Fees $
10

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 11
The steps listed below describe how to complete the RTMF calculation for an ADU.

Example calculations are provided in Appendix A.

1. Complete the project information section at the top of Exhibit 3.

2. Record the building square feet excluding garages and other uninhabitable areas (habitable square feet) of the planned ADU in the indicated area of Exhibit 3.

3. If the ADU habitable square feet are less than 750, then the ADU is exempt from the RTMF and no further calculations are necessary.

4. If the ADU habitable square feet are at least 750, then the ADU must pay the RTMF and the following steps below should be completed. a. Record the primary residence Property ID (e.g., address or APN) and habitable square feet. Square feet of existing residences should be obtained from the Nevada County Geographic Information System (GIS).

Recall that habitable square feet exclude uninhabitable areas such as garages.
b. Enter the primary residence land use category, which is determined by the type (single family, multifamily, mobile home, or age-restricted) and habitable square feet of the primary unit.
c. Record the ADU habitable square feet as a percentage of the primary residence habitable square feet in the ADU Percentage area for the applicable primary residence land use, using the formula below:

ADU Percentage = ADU Building Square Feet/Primary Residence Building Square Feet.
d. Multiply the ADU Percentage by the Fee per Unit. Enter the result in the Total column.
e. Enter the same amount on the Total Mitigation Fees line. f. Enter any credits on the next line labeled Credits Applied. g. Subtract the credits, if any, from the Total Mitigation Fee and enter the amount on the line labeled Net Mitigation Fees. This is the amount of RTMF for the ADU.

Expiration of Building Permits
RTMF Refund
If a building permit should expire, is revoked, or is voluntarily surrendered, and is therefore voided, and no construction or land improvements have commenced, then the applicant is entitled to a refund of the RTMF collected, which was paid as a condition of approval, less administrative costs ($500 or two percent of the fee amount, whichever is greater). The administrative cost shall be used to offset the

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12
cost of collection, accounting, and refund. The applicant shall submit an application for a refund to the local jurisdiction. If the local jurisdiction has not yet forwarded the fees to NCTC, the local jurisdiction will process the application and return the fees less the administrative costs. If the local jurisdiction has already forwarded the fees to NCTC, the local jurisdiction will process the refund and account for the reimbursement in the next transfer of fees collected to NCTC.

Permit Reapplication
The applicant must pay the appropriate RTMF in full if the applicant reapplies for a permit for which a refund was processed.

RTMF Exemptions
The following types of development are exempt from the RTMF Program:
 The reconstruction of, or addition to, a commercial building, as long as the building continues a use in the same fee category as the prior use and does not result in additional square feet.1
 The reconstruction of, or addition to, a residential dwelling unit, as long as the unit continues to be in the same fee category or in a residential fee category with lower fees.2
 Public/Quasi-Public development and schools.
 ADUs with fewer than 750 habitable square feet.
 Ancillary uses.

For example, a club house in an apartment building would be exempt from RTMF fees because it would serve the apartment residents and would not generate additional trips.
1 If the reconstruction or addition results in additional commercial square feet but not in a fee category change, the RTMF will only be paid on the additional square feet. 2 If the reconstruction or addition causes a change in the residential fee category to a residential fee category with higher fees, then the RTMF paid will be the difference in the fees between the two fee categories. Note that there are 12 residential fee categories as shown on Exhibit 2. Each residential fee category consists of a combination of unit type (Single Family, Multiple Family, Mobile Home in Park, and Retirement/Senior) and unit size (Small, Medium, and Large).

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 13
RTMF Credits for Prior Uses
Reconstruction of, or addition to, an existing building is eligible for an RTMF credit. The RTMF applicable to the existing and new development shall be calculated using the current fee schedule, and the new development will receive a fee credit of up to the RTMF that would have applied for the existing development:
 If the existing development RTMF is less than the new development RTMF, then the new development credit equals the existing development RTMF, and the new development will pay the difference between the existing and new development RTMF.
 If the existing development RTMF is greater than the new development RTMF, then the new development will receive a full credit and not pay any RTMF.

Other Fee and Funding Programs
The RTMF is in addition to any other fees, conditions, or exactions for on-site and off-site improvements imposed on a project according to state law, local ordinances, or administrative policy. In addition, the developer of a project shall not be entitled to any RTMF credits for other fees, conditions, or exactions not part of the RTMF Program.

Allocation of RTMF Program Funds
RTMF Program funds shall be distributed in accordance with Executive Committee actions, the most current RTMF Nexus Study, this 2023 Administrative Plan, and any future amendments thereto.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 14
RTMF Program Credits and
Reimbursements
Administration of RTMF Credits for
Construction of Eligible Facilities
Each local jurisdiction shall be responsible for the administration of RTMF credit agreements for development in its jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction shall transmit all RTMF credit agreements to the NCTC within 60 days of execution by that jurisdiction. The NCTC may administer credit agreements upon written request from that jurisdiction. The credit agreements shall be in accordance with the following requirements.

Developer Credits Conditions
Any RTMF credit shall be used first by the developer to offset any obligation of the developer to pay RTMF impact fees of the same development project and are subject to the following conditions:
 Credits may not be transferred or sold to other development projects.  Developers must exhaust all credits before they are eligible for reimbursements.
 Credits shall run with the sale of the land.

Amount of Credits
If a developer constructs improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall, upon execution of an approved fee agreement, receive credit for all costs associated with the improvements based on approved project cost estimates for the Regional System.

The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the most current project cost estimates for the Regional System, or actual costs, whichever is less. This shall be known as the maximum RTMF credit. The maximum RTMF credit shall be determined based on approved Improvement Plans and after Conditions of Approval have been determined. The maximum RTMF credit shall identify, at a minimum, the facility, the dimensions of the facility, the number of lanes, and the applicable project cost estimates as identified in the most current adopted RTMF Nexus Study.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15
Repayment of Credits
Should the NCTC Executive Committee determine that a jurisdiction granted credits exceeding the maximum RTMF credit, that jurisdiction shall provide NCTC payment in the amount equal to the excess credit amount.

Administration of RTMF
Reimbursements for Construction of
Eligible Facilities
Local jurisdictions/agencies and developers are eligible for reimbursement for construction of RTMF facilities. The processes for both are different and are described below.

Developer Reimbursements
Each local jurisdiction shall be responsible for the administration of reimbursement agreements. If a developer constructs Regional System improvements in excess of its RTMF fee obligation, the developer may be reimbursed for the difference between eligible costs and the RTMF obligation. The eligible costs are based on actual costs or the approved project cost estimates, whichever is less at the time of the agreement.

Reimbursements shall be made through agreements between developers and the local jurisdiction and are contingent upon funds being available. In all cases, reimbursements under such agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the most current Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) adopted by NCTC.

Developer Reimbursement Conditions
A developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with a local jurisdiction to reimburse the developer/owner for the direct and verifiable costs of constructing improvements to the Regional System when all of the following conditions are met:
 All available credits are exhausted.
 The improvements received prior approval from the jurisdiction and NCTC Executive Committee based on the review of the RTMF project priority list.  The jurisdiction and NCTC Executive Committee have reviewed and approved the scope of the project to be constructed.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 16
In no event shall a developer be reimbursed for improvements to the Regional System in excess of the most current approved project cost estimates for the RTMF at the time of the agreement.

Local Jurisdiction/Agency Reimbursements
In cases where a local jurisdiction constructs RTMF facilities, the jurisdiction is eligible for reimbursement up to the maximum share identified in the Nexus Study or actual cost, whichever is less, in accordance with the prioritization schedule in the adopted TIP. Local jurisdictions are required to enter into a reimbursement agreement with NCTC to be eligible to receive RTMF funds from NCTC.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 17
Administrative Responsibilities and
Costs
The NCTC shall administer the RTMF Program as described in this Administrative Plan adopted by the participating jurisdictions. This chapter describes the administration governing structure, responsibilities, and costs.

Regional Administration
As set forth in Chapter 1, NCTC is designated as the RTMF Program Administrator.

As Administrator, NCTC will receive all fees generated from the RTMF that are collected by local jurisdictions. NCTC shall invest, account for, and expend such fees in accordance with this Administrative Plan and applicable state laws. Exhibit 4 provides a flow chart of the administrative decision-making process.

Exhibit 4. RTMF Administrative Decision-Making Process
TAC
Adminstrative
Committee
Executive
Committee

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 18
NCTC Executive Director
The NCTC Executive Director reports to the NCTC Executive Committee and shall be responsible for the following RTMF Program activities:
 Administration of the RTMF Program, including development of credit agreements, fee collection processes, and processing RTMF Program appeals.  An independent fiscal audit conducted to report on the evidence that the expenditure of funds collected is in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

The audit shall be presented to the Executive Committee and made available to the public.
 Establishment and management of the RTMF Program Trust Fund for the purposes of depositing RTMF revenues and interest earned on Trust Fund deposits.
 Preparation of an Annual Report for consideration by the Executive Committee detailing the status of the RTMF Program including, but not limited to, fees collected and disseminated; capital projects planned for, prioritized, and built; reimbursement and credit agreements; appeals; and recommendations for RTMF Program adjustments.
 Preparation of periodic comprehensive RTMF Program review reports that provide, in concert with requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act, an analysis of the RTMF Program, including review of the various RTMF Nexus Study inputs and assumptions, and preparation of recommendations on potential RTMF Program revisions for consideration by the Executive Committee. Such reports may include but are not limited to recommended fee adjustments based on changes in the facilities required to be constructed, and revenues received pursuant to the Program.
 Preparation of technical studies/analysis required to select and prioritize Regional System projects.
 Development of a Strategic Plan that identifies long term planning goals and objectives for implementation of the RTMF Program.
 Development of a Five-Year TIP that identifies projects that are scheduled and funded for construction over a specified period of time and is reviewed on an annual basis. See Appendix B.
 Other related activities as directed by the Executive Committee.

NCTC Executive Committee
The Executive Committee shall be comprised of three members, with each member representing a distinct participating jurisdiction (Nevada County, Grass Valley, and Nevada City). The Executive Committee has final authority and shall be responsible for reviewing and acting on recommendations for project selection and prioritization of projects in the RTMF Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 19
Strategic Plan, and TIP. The Executive Committee shall review and consider recommendations on projects from the Administrative Committee and the NCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The Executive Committee shall also be responsible for approval of this Administrative Plan and any subsequent amendments thereto. From time to time the Executive Committee shall recommend changes to the Program for consideration by participating jurisdictions. All actions by the Executive Committee must be approved by all three members to be enforced. If there is a dispute at the Executive Committee level regarding project prioritization of a specific project(s) and a consensus cannot be reached, that project shall be tabled until such time as new information is presented and the matter can be resolved.

In developing recommendations on RTMF projects for consideration by the Executive Committee, NCTC staff and TAC shall work to coordinate compatibility with local project priorities and schedules of area transportation improvements.

NCTC TAC
The TAC shall review the technical documents and recommendations for RTMF Program projects. Additionally, the TAC shall meet annually in February or March to review the proposed RTMF inflation adjustment (detailed in RTMF Program Update section below) and make a recommendation on whether or not to adjust the fees. The TAC shall forward any recommendations to the Executive Committee for its consideration. The TAC shall also provide additional assistance to the RTMF Program as requested by the Executive Committee.

Administrative Committee
The Administrative Committee shall be comprised of the chief administrative officer, public works director or designee from the three participating jurisdictions, and NCTC's Executive Director. The Administrative Committee shall have the following responsibilities:
 Develop objective criteria for project selection and prioritization, including, but not limited to, the following factors: traffic safety issues potentially created by growth, regional significance, availability of matching funds, mitigation of congestion created by new development, system continuity, geographic balance, project readiness, and completed projects with reimbursement agreements.
 Provide additional assistance to the RTMF Program as requested by the Executive Committee and/or the NCTC TAC.
 Prepare the Strategic Plan.
 Prepare the Five-Year TIP, which will be reviewed annually.  Review and recommend changes in project priorities to the NCTC TAC and Executive Committee.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 20
 Select a lead agency for each of the projects in the CIP.  Review the Annual Report prepared by NCTC.
 Review and revise the roadways in the Regional System as necessary (at a minimum of every 5 years).
 Review and revise project cost estimates for the Regional System projects as necessary (at a minimum of every 5 years).

RTMF Program Update
The NCTC Executive Committee shall undertake a review of all components of the RTMF Program in accordance with AB 1600 and other applicable laws, and, if necessary, recommend Program amendments and/or adjustments.

Amendments to the Administrative Plan will be subject to the approval of the NCTC Executive Committee. Required RTMF Program amendments shall be approved by the three participating jurisdictions acting on recommendations provided by the Executive Committee. The review shall consider whether adjustments to future administration costs are needed. The RTMF program is subject to annual inflation adjustments and 8-year nexus study updates. The purpose of each update is described in this section.

Annual Inflation Adjustment
The RTMF may, at NCTC’s discretion, be adjusted to account for the inflation of construction, right-of-way acquisition, and design costs.

The proposed fees in the 2023 RTMF Nexus Study Update were adopted in July 2023. The fees in each jurisdiction will go into effect no sooner than 60 days after adoption. In February or March of each calendar year thereafter, the RTMF should be reviewed, and fee adjustments should be recommended by the TAC based on the percentage change in the San Francisco Construction Cost Index (CCI) as reported in the Engineering News Record for the 12-month period ending in December of the prior year. The inflation adjustment should then be adopted by the member agencies in April. This will allow for a 60-day noticing period before the new fee schedule becomes effective on July 1st of each year.

Below is an example of a percentage adjustment calculation.

San Francisco CCI - December 2021 14,228.24
San Francisco CCI - December 2022 14,977.94
Percentage Change 5.27%

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 21
RTMF Nexus Study Update
State law requires that impact fees be subject to periodic updates based on changes in developable land, cost estimates, or outside funding sources. This update of the nexus findings must be performed at least once every eight years.

During the nexus update studies, the TAC will analyze the following items:
 Changes to the required facilities listed in the CIP.  Changes in the cost to update or administer the fee.
 Changes in costs greater than inflation.
 Changes in assumed land uses.
 Changes in other funding sources.

Any changes to the RTMF based on a nexus study update will be presented to the Executive Committee for approval and recommendation to the participating jurisdictions.

During a nexus study update, the Executive Committee may change the funding priority of a project. Such a change will be based on level of service evaluations, the location and timing of new development that will add significant housing or jobs, or other considerations. RTMF revenues may be spent on any of the projects identified in the CIP without regard to the location of the project and the location of collected fees, so long as there is a nexus between the development paying the fee and the project being funded, as shown in the most recent nexus study update.

Five-Year Reporting Requirements
RTMF funds will be deposited, invested, and expended in accordance with Government Code Section 66006. In the fifth year following the first deposit into the RTMF account or fund and every 5 years thereafter, NCTC staff will provide the local jurisdictions with information required to make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:
 Identify the purpose for which the RTMF is to be used.  Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
 Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete CIP projects.
 Designate the approximate dates that the RTMF funding referred to in the above paragraph is expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund.

The local jurisdictions must refund the unexpended or uncommitted revenue portion of the RTMF for which a need cannot be demonstrated in the above findings unless the administrative costs exceed the amount of the refund.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 22
Noticing Requirements
State law imposes certain requirements related to providing public notice when impact fees are changed. The requirements most relevant to the RTMF are listed below:
 Adoption of Nexus Studies: All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days' notice. The city, county, or special district shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing (see CGC§ 66016.5).

The new nexus study must be posted on the agency’s website within 30 days of adoption.
 Changes to Fees: For any fee, notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data required by this subdivision is available shall be mailed at least 14 days prior to the first meeting to an interested party who files a written request with the agency for mailed notice of a meeting on a new or increased fee to be enacted by the agency. Notices may be sent electronically (see CGC§ 66019).

At least 10 days prior to the meeting, the agency shall make available to the public the data indicating the amount of cost, or the estimated cost, required to provide the public facilities and the revenue sources anticipated to fund those public facilities, including general fund revenues.

The new fees must be posted on the agency’s website for at least 60 days before going into effect.
 Annual Report: The local agency shall review the information in the Annual Report at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public, as required by this subdivision. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including the address where this information may be reviewed, shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting. Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year (see CGC§ 66006(b)(2)).  Five-Year Report: Five-Year Reports have the same requirements for noticing and review as described above for annual reports. The five-year report should be reviewed at the same meeting as that year’s annual report.

Disposition of RTMF Revenues
The fees that are paid to Nevada County, Grass Valley, and Nevada City are to be deposited into a trust account for which the NCTC is the treasurer. The three local jurisdictions are then responsible for implementing and constructing the projects

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 23
approved by the NCTC Executive Committee. They are to be reimbursed by NCTC for the cost incurred up to, but not exceeding, the project cost estimates in the approved CIP, upon submittal of valid invoices. A graphical illustration of the fee collection and disposition process is shown in Exhibit 5.

Exhibit 5. Fee Collection and Disposition Process
Annual Program Accountability
An annual report will be produced that will show the most current revenue balance for the RTMF Program, as well as provide a status of the Regional System projects to be constructed with the fee revenues. This report must be made available to the public within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year (see CGC§ 66006(b)(1)).

In addition, annual fiscal audits by an independent accounting firm are required by law to examine the fiscal responsibility of local governments. The NCTC is subject to an annual financial audit. The annual report and the annual financial audit will serve as the accountability mechanisms for the collection and use of the RTMF revenue.

Surplus Funds
If the RTMF program is terminated, then in accordance with State law, the jurisdictions may use the funds to complete eligible projects included in the RTMF Program and/or return surplus or unexpended funds to the current owners of the properties that paid the unexpended funds remaining in the RTMF program.

Mitigation Fees Collected
By Local Jurisdictions
Fees Deposited
to NCTC Trust Account
Fees Distributed
to Local Jurisdictions
for Approved Projects
Fees Expended
For Approved Projects
Grass Valley
Nevada City
Nevada
County
Nevada County
Transportation
Commission
Grass Valley Regional Project
Constructed
Nevada City Regional Project
Constructed
Nevada
County
Regional Project
Constructed

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 24
Local Administration
The RTMF fee schedule will be adopted by Grass Valley, Nevada City, and Nevada County through ordinances authorizing collection of the RTMF, and through resolutions establishing the RTMF. The RTMF fee schedule will be effective no sooner than 60 days following final action by each local agency on the ordinances authorizing collection of the RTMF, and on the resolutions establishing the RTMF.

The local ordinances or resolutions should reference the annual inflation adjustment process discussed in this Administrative Plan.

The local jurisdictions are responsible for collecting the RTMF. Fees collected and a corresponding activity report are to be transmitted to the Executive Director of NCTC either annually or bi-annually (in January and July) depending on the amount of fees generated. If over $10,000 has been collected during the prior 6 months, then the fees shall be transmitted within 30 days of the six-month period (January through June or July through December) in which the fees were collected. Otherwise, the jurisdiction may wait to transmit the fees until 30 days following the calendar year in which the fees were collected.

In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, NCTC will deposit, invest, account for, and disburse the transmitted fees. Participating jurisdictions are required to transmit quarterly reports to NCTC that shall include, but not be limited to, the following information regarding the RTMF Program status:
 Quarterly Remittance/Activity Reports—Within 30 days of the end of the quarter in which RTMF was collected, the participating jurisdiction shall submit the standard Remittance/Activity Report to NCTC containing information necessary for NCTC to determine the total amount of fees collected within each fee category as it relates to the number of building permits, certificates of occupancy, or final inspections issued during the same period of time. The information in the Remittance/Activity Report shall include: the name of the developer or payee, project address, APN, total square feet or number of dwelling units, credits issued, and such other information as requested by NCTC. This information will assist NCTC in tracking new development, total revenue received, and revenue projections for purposes of program audits and program updates. If an audit is required due to reporting and remittance irregularities, the jurisdiction will incur the cost of the audit.

Administrative Costs
The RTMF Program includes the costs of program administration and comprehensive program updates. NCTC administration costs will be reimbursed on a time and materials basis, but not to exceed $10,000 per year. The total cost for comprehensive program updates has been set at $150,000 for each update.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 25
Challenging the RTMF Program
Any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, may submit evidence that the RTMF nexus findings are insufficient or failed to comply with state law. Evidence submitted pursuant to this subdivision may include, but is not limited to, information regarding the proposed fee calculation, assumptions, or methodology or the calculation, assumptions, or methodology for an existing fee upon which the proposed fee or fee increase is based.

If such a challenge arises, then the governing board of RTMF, or the member agency to which the evidence was submitted, shall consider the evidence in a timely manner. After considering the evidence, the governing board may change the fee as deemed necessary by the board (see CGC§ 66019(d)).

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 26
RTMF Program Appeals
RTMF Program appeals shall only be made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Persons or Entities Who Have Standing
to Appeal
No person or entity shall have standing to initiate an RTMF Program appeal except those persons or entities who are responsible for paying the RTMF and have an unresolved appealable issue or matter.

Appealable Issues and Matters
No issue or matter shall be heard or reviewed under the appeals process detailed in this chapter unless the issue or matter is appealable. An issue or matter is appealable if a qualified person or entity (Appellant) has a good-faith dispute directly related to Appellant’s Property regarding one or more of the following items (RTMF Dispute):
 Amount of Appellant’s RTMF obligation
 Administration of RTMF Credits
 Exemption of Appellant’s property from the RTMF Program  Administration of RTMF reimbursements
 RTMF refunds
Appeals Process
Exhibit 6 outlines the potential levels of the Appeals process.

1. If an Appellant has an RTMF dispute, the Appellant shall first attempt to resolve the dispute with the staff of the local jurisdiction.

2. If the RTMF dispute remains unresolved after a reasonable attempt to address it at the local level, the Appellant may submit a written appeal to the NCTC Executive Director. The written appeal shall clearly identify key issues in the RTMF dispute. The NCTC Executive Director shall present the matter to the Administrative Committee. If the Administrative Committee determines the issue or matter is not a RTMF dispute, the written appeal shall be rejected.

The Administrative Committee’s decision shall be provided in writing to the Appellant.

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 27

3. If the Appellant desires further review and consideration, the Appellant must submit a written request for review to the NCTC Executive Director within five days of receiving the Administrative Committee’s written decision.

4. The RTMF dispute shall be presented to the NCTC Executive Committee within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal.

5. At the conclusion of the 30-day period, the Executive Committee shall render a written decision on the appeal. The decision of the Executive Committee shall be final.

Exhibit 6. Appeals Process
Appellant With
RTMF Dispute
Local Agency
Adminstrative
Committee
Executive
Committee
Unresolved
Final Decision
Final Decision
Final Decision
Resolved
Resolved
Resolved

Item # 11.

RTMF Program Administrative Plan
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 28
California Environmental Quality Act
Mitigation
The RTMF Program is a current financing mechanism dependent on future actions of the NCTC Executive Committee for improvements to the Regional System.

The NCTC Executive Committee and its associated committees prioritize and schedule Regional System improvements. The appropriate environmental documentation, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), must be completed before a project can commence construction.

The RTMF Program was developed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of future growth on the Regional System. It was not developed to mitigate project-specific traffic impacts. Accordingly, the program does not relieve any development project of the responsibility to mitigate project-specific impacts identified in the environmental analysis prepared for the project. When a development project is required to construct Regional System facilities as project-specific mitigation, it shall be eligible for credit or reimbursement.

Item # 11.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: RTMF Calculation Examples for
Accessory Dwelling Units
Appendix B: Guidelines for Administration of
Programmed Projects in the
Adopted Five-Year
Transportation Improvement
Program

Item # 11.

APPENDIX A:

RTMF Calculation Examples
for Accessory Dwelling Units

Item # 11.

Example 1: Exempt Accessory Dwelling Unit
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) RTMF Calculation Form
Owner Contractor
Permit Reference Number Permit Type
Property ID Job Address
Date
Primary Residence
Property ID APN: 123-456-789
Land Use Category Single Family Residential Large
Building Square Feet (A) 2,850
(excluding garage and other uninhabitable space)
Fee for Primary Unit, if it were new (B) $5,396
(See table below)
ADU Building Square Feet (C)
(excluding garage and other uninhabitable space) 700
Exempt (Y or N)
(Exempt if ADU square feet < 750) Y
If Not Exempt (Exempt = N), provide information below:

ADU Percentage [(D) = (C)/(A)]
(ADU Sq. Ft. / Primary Residence Sq. Ft.)
ADU RTMF Calculation
ADU Floor Space Percentage * Fee for Primary Residence
(E) = (B) * (D) * =
Fee Table for Primary Residence (if it were new)
Single Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $4,030
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft) $4,868
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $5,396
Multiple Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $1,128
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,363
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,511
Mobile Home in Park
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $2,775
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $3,352
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $3,716
Retirement/Senior Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $780
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $942
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,045
TOTAL Total Mitigation Fees $
Credits Applied $
Net Mitigation Fees $
A-1

Item # 11.

Example 2: 1,000 Sq. Ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit; 2,850 Sq. Ft. Primary Residence Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) RTMF Calculation Form
Owner Contractor
Permit Reference Number Permit Type
Property ID Job Address
Date
Primary Residence
Property ID APN: 123-456-789
Land Use Category Single Family Residential Large
Building Square Feet (A) 2,850
(excluding garage and other uninhabitable space)
Fee for Primary Unit, if it were new (B) $5,396
(See table below)
ADU Building Square Feet (C)
(excluding garage and other uninhabitable space) 1,000
Exempt (Y or N)
(Exempt if ADU square feet < 750) N
If Not Exempt (Exempt = N), provide information below:

ADU Percentage [(D) = (C)/(A)]
(ADU Sq. Ft. / Primary Residence Sq. Ft.) 35%
ADU RTMF Calculation
ADU Floor Space Percentage * Fee for Primary Residence
(E) = (B) * (D) $5,396 * 35% = $1,893.49
Fee Table for Primary Residence (if it were new)
Single Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $4,030
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft) $4,868
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $5,396
Multiple Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $1,128
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,363
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,511
Mobile Home in Park
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $2,775
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $3,352
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $3,716
Retirement/Senior Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $780
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $942
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,045
TOTAL Total Mitigation Fees $
Credits Applied $
Net Mitigation Fees $
A-2

Item # 11.

Example 3: 1,000 Sq. Ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit; 2,500 Sq. Ft. Primary Residence Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) RTMF Calculation Form
Owner Contractor
Permit Reference Number Permit Type
Property ID Job Address
Date
Primary Residence
Property ID APN: 123-456-789
Land Use Category Single Family Residential Medium
Building Square Feet (A) 2,500
(excluding garage and other uninhabitable space)
Fee for Primary Unit, if it were new (B) $4,868
(See table below)
ADU Building Square Feet (C)
(excluding garage and other uninhabitable space) 1,000
Exempt (Y or N)
(Exempt if ADU square feet < 750) N
If Not Exempt (Exempt = N), provide information below:

ADU Percentage [(D) = (C)/(A)]
(ADU Sq. Ft. / Primary Residence Sq. Ft.) 40%
ADU RTMF Calculation
ADU Floor Space Percentage * Fee for Primary Residence
(E) = (B) * (D) $4,868 * 40% = $1,947.10
Fee Table for Primary Residence (if it were new)
Single Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $4,030
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft) $4,868
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $5,396
Multiple Family Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $1,128
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,363
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,511
Mobile Home in Park
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $2,775
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $3,352
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $3,716
Retirement/Senior Residential
Small (<1,500 sq. ft.) $780
Medium (1,501 to 2,500 sq. ft.) $942
Large (> 2,500 sq. ft.) $1,045
TOTAL Total Mitigation Fees $
Credits Applied $
Net Mitigation Fees $
A-3

Item # 11.

APPENDIX B:

Guidelines for Administration of
Programmed Projects in the
Adopted Five-Year
Transportation Improvement Program

Item # 11.

Appendix B
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) B-1
Annual Review of Five-Year TIP
Once a Five-Year TIP is adopted by the Executive Committee, the TIP shall be incorporated into and governed by these guidelines, the Administrative Plan, and the Strategic Plan in accordance with AB 1600. NCTC staff should meet with the Technical Advisory Committee annually to review the status of all programmed projects on the Five-Year TIP and bring any project adjustment requests to the Executive Committee for approval. The goals of the annual review process are as follows:
 To update project cost estimates.
 To review project status.
 To determine the continued viability of projects.
 To review the backlog of reimbursement projects.
 To address local jurisdiction issues.
 To address compliance with AB 1600.

Annual Adjustments to Five-Year TIP
In accordance with the Five-Year TIP and the original reimbursement agreement with the NCTC (lead jurisdiction), all approved projects’ funding and schedules are directly tied to critical milestones. As such, requests to change a project’s funding or schedule shall necessitate an amendment to the original agreement and the adopted Five-Year TIP.

Annual Five-Year TIP adjustments could include, but are not limited to:
 Scope of work reductions or additions
 Project or phase delays
 Project or phase cancellations
 New shelf-ready network projects being added as replacement projects  Project or phase advances
Levels of Approval for Five-Year TIP
Adjustments
Executive Committee
The following shall be approved and adopted by the Executive Committee as required in the Administrative Plan:

1. Annual updates to the TIP.

2. Requests to increase total RTMF funding allocations to projects in the TIP.

These requests may be made by the local jurisdiction administratively outside of the annual TIP update cycles if deemed necessary by one of the

Item # 11.

Appendix B
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) B-2
participating jurisdictions and NCTC management due to unforeseen circumstances that necessitate immediate action. Such unforeseen circumstances shall include, but not be limited to, higher than expected bid prices. NCTC staff will obtain action from the Executive Committee in these cases either by calling for a Special Executive Committee meeting or through individual consultation.

3. Administrative requests to advance funds or adjust project schedules on TIP approved projects, upon the recommendation of the Administrative Committee. Such advancements are subject to the following conditions:
 Jurisdiction’s proof of readiness to move forward with project.  Confirmation that RTMF current cash flow can support the advancement or change.

NCTC Executive Director
The NCTC Executive Director shall be responsible for the review and approval of the following changes to an approved TIP, including the review and approval of any necessary agreements:

1. Change in lead jurisdiction, with the written consent of both the transferring and accepting lead jurisdiction.

2. Cancellation of project upon request of the local jurisdiction. In the event of cancellation, all RTMF funds programmed to said project shall revert to the RTMF Trust Account.

3. Approval of final completion of the project. Upon notification from the jurisdiction that a project has been completed, all unused funds programmed for that project shall revert to the RTMF Trust Account.

4. All other administrative requests, upon consultation with the Administrative Committee.

Administrative Committee
The Administrative Committee shall have the following responsibilities:

1. Provide review and approval of requests to move funds within project categories (environmental, design, etc.) administratively, contingent upon participating jurisdiction’s certification of viability of all phases.

2. Provide recommendations to the NCTC Executive Director on any other requests that are deemed administrative in nature by the Executive Director.

All administrative adjustments will be submitted to the Executive Committee as part of the next Annual Review Report for final adoption.

Item # 11.

Appendix B
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) B-3
Obligating Programmed Funds
The RTMF Program has established the policy that construction projects take priority, and therefore NCTC limits the obligation of RTMF dollars. NCTC has two options by which to obligate RTMF. In both options, steps 1, 2 and 3 (Option A) or 6 (Option B) must be completed by the local jurisdiction to ensure RTMF funding can be made available for use on an eligible project. Since RTMF project funds are generally obligated on a first come first served basis, failure to follow the prescribed steps for either option may preclude a project sponsor from receiving RTMF payments for completed work until sufficient funds are available to be obligated.

Option A
Funding for a project programmed in the Five-Year TIP is not considered obligated by NCTC until certain steps outlined below have been accomplished by the local jurisdiction.

1. Ensure that funding for the project phase is programmed in the current year of an adopted Five-Year TIP.

2. Ensure that there is a signed (executed) reimbursement agreement that matches the funding amount with the funding amount of the project phase in the adopted TIP.

3. Submit an invoice for RTMF eligible work prior to the end of the fiscal year to obligate the project phase funding. At the time of submitting the first invoice, the project sponsor will be required to submit all necessary supporting documentation (not previously submitted) in accordance with the provisions of the reimbursement agreement.

4. NCTC will obligate the entire phase of the project if there is available revenue at the time the invoice is submitted.

Option B
Funding for a project programmed in the Five-Year TIP is not considered obligated by NCTC until the steps outlined below have been accomplished by the local jurisdiction.

1. Ensure that funding for the project phase is programmed in the current year of an adopted Five-Year TIP.

2. Ensure that there is a signed (executed) reimbursement agreement that matches the funding amount with the funding amount of the project phase in the adopted TIP.

Item # 11.

Appendix B
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) B-4

3. Send NCTC a letter of notice of intent to issue a request for proposal (RFP), solicit bids, make an offer to purchase ROW, or other similar actions to verify that sufficient funding is available and that funds are obligated and reserved exclusively for the particular project phase.

4. Receive a notice of obligation from NCTC within 14 working days of receipt of the notice of intent confirming the amount of funding that is obligated and reserved exclusively for the particular project phase. Alternatively, the project sponsor will receive a notice of deferred obligation if NCTC determines that insufficient funds are available for the project phase to be obligated.

5. Award the project and execute a contract within four months of receipt of the notice of obligation from NCTC, and send a letter of confirmation of award to NCTC, including evidence of a Board/Council action relating to the project award and contract execution.

6. Commence project work and submit the first invoice for payment within nine months of receipt of a letter of obligation by NCTC to preserve fund obligation.

At the time of submitting the first invoice, the project sponsor will be required to submit all necessary supporting documentation (not previously submitted) in accordance with the provisions of the reimbursement agreement.

If a contract has not been executed within four months of receipt of the notice of obligation from NCTC (step 5), there will be a review of the project status. Based on the review of project status, NCTC will either:

1. Extend the fund obligation for up to a total of nine months from the notice of obligation if the project sponsor can demonstrate a realistic expectation that the project will be awarded and a confirmation of award can be provided to NCTC within that time frame; or

2. De-obligate the funds.

Similarly, if the first invoice has not been submitted to NCTC within nine months of receipt of the letter of obligation (step 6), there will be a review of the project status. Based on the review of project status, NCTC will either:

1. Extend the fund obligation for up to an additional nine months if the project sponsor can demonstrate a realistic expectation that the project work will commence and a first invoice is submitted within that time frame; or

2. De-obligate the funds.

Item # 11.

Appendix B
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) B-5
Project Priorities and Expenditure Plans
Setting project priorities and establishing an Expenditure Plan are two critical steps necessary in implementing a mitigation fee program. In Exhibit 7, the RTMF Capital Improvement Program, there is a column titled Funding Priority where NCTC will record project priorities once they are adopted.

Exhibit 8, the RTMF Expenditure Plan, will be based on the project priorities in Exhibit 7 and an assumed revenue generation across the twenty years of the program, with 30 percent of the funding from the fee collections set aside for repayment of the bonds issued for the Dorsey Drive Interchange project. Once the project priorities have been adopted by NCTC, they will be used to allocate the funding available for other projects on a year-by-year basis. The project priorities used in the Expenditure Plan can only be changed by unanimous vote of the NCTC Executive Committee.

Item # 11.

Appendix B
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) B-6
Exhibit 7. RTMF Capital Improvement Program
Updated Cost
Estimate
% of Need
Attributable
to New
Development
Costs
Attributable
to New
Development
Funds from Other
Sources Beyond
Amount Needed
for Existing
Deficiencies
RTMF Funds
Currently Available
or Collected in
Prior Years
Amount
Potentially
Collectable
from RTMF
Funding Priority
(to be determined)
(A) (B) (C) = (A)*(B) (D) (E) (F)=(C)-(D)-(E)
1 SR-49 Interchange Dorsey Drive $24,000,000 33% $7,991,555 $3,377,164 $2,729,732 $1,884,6592 E.Main St @ Bennett St/Richardson St $1,500,000 100% $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $03 SR-49 SB PM 13.1 to PM 11.0 (SB) $21,000,000 48% $10,040,404 $7,440,404 $0 $2,600,0004 McKnight Way Interchange @ S. Auburn St/La Barr Meadows Rd $9,663,269 100% $9,663,269 $2,000,000 $0 $7,663,2695 McCourtney Rd @ SR 20 EB Ramps $2,083,969 63% $1,317,068 $0 $0 $1,317,0686 SR 20/49 NB Ramps @ Idaho Maryland Rd $1,847,696 100% $1,847,696 $0 $0 $1,847,6967 SR 20/SR 49 @ Uren St $1,457,566 39% $568,304 $0 $0 $568,3048 Brunswick Road @ SR 174/Colfax Highway $1,384,179 100% $1,384,179 $0 $0 $1,384,1799 SR-49 @ Coyote St $468,604 43% $199,938 $0 $0 $199,938 10 100% $349,302
Total $63,405,283 $34,512,413 $12,817,568 $4,229,732 $17,814,415 54% 20% 7% 28%
Admin Costs and 5-year reviews (2% of program)As a percent of total costs for needed projects Project
ID Facility Location

Item # 11.

Appendix B
July 13, 2023
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) B-7
Exhibit 8. RTMF Expenditure Plan
Fiscal
Year
Anticipated
Revenue
Share of Revenue for
Dorsey Drive (30% until
Bonds are paid off)
Cumulative Funding
for Dorsey Drive
Share of Revenue
for Other Projects Expense
Balance of Funding
Available for All
Other Projects Projects
(A) (B) (C) = Previous(C) + (B) (D)=(A)-(B) (E) (F)=Previous(F)+(A)-(E) 22-Jul 22,115,341 $ 91,702 $
2023/24 886,136 $ 265,841 $ 22,381,182 $ 620,295 $ 265,841 $ 711,997 $ #1 Dorsey Drive bonds 2024/25 886,136 $ 265,841 $ 22,647,023 $ 620,295 $ 265,841 $ 1,332,292 $ #1 Dorsey Drive bonds 2025/26 886,136 $ 265,841 $ 22,912,863 $ 620,295 $ 265,841 $ 1,952,587 $ #1 Dorsey Drive bonds 2026/27 886,136 $ 265,841 $ 23,178,704 $ 620,295 $ 265,841 $ 2,572,882 $ #1 Dorsey Drive bonds 2027/28 886,136 $ 265,841 $ 23,444,545 $ 620,295 $ 265,841 $ 3,193,177 $ #1 Dorsey Drive bonds 2028/29 886,136 $ 265,841 $ 23,710,385 $ 620,295 $ 265,841 $ 3,813,472 $ #1 Dorsey Drive bonds 2029/30 886,136 $ 265,841 $ 23,976,226 $ 620,295 $ 265,841 $ 4,433,767 $ #1 Dorsey Drive bonds 2030/31 886,136 $ 23,774 $ 24,000,000 $ 862,362 $ 23,774 $ 5,296,128 $ #1 Dorsey Drive bonds 2031/32 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 6,182,264 $
2032/33 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 7,068,400 $
2033/34 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 7,954,535 $
2034/35 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 8,840,671 $
2035/36 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 9,726,807 $
2036/37 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 10,612,942 $
2037/38 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 11,499,078 $
2038/39 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 12,385,213 $
2039/40 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 13,271,349 $
2040/41 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 14,157,485 $
2041/42 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 15,043,620 $
2042/43 886,136 $ 886,136 $ 15,929,756 $
Total 17,722,712 $ 1,884,659 $ 15,838,053 $ 1,884,659 $

Item # 11.

A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE

NEVADA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND

CITY OF GRASS VALLEY
This Agreement is made between the City of Grass Valley, a political subdivision of the State of California, (hereinafter "Grass Valley") and the Nevada County Transportation Commission, a regional transportation planning agency in the State of California (hereinafter "NCTC"). The City of Grass Valley and the NCTC may be referred to herein individually as "Party" or collectively as the "Parties." This Agreement is made in consideration of the following facts:

A. WHEREAS, City of Grass Valley and the NCTC are each empowered by law to conduct, participate in and provide regional transportation planning activities and desire to cooperate in the exercise of those powers; and
B. WHEREAS, City of Grass Valley adopted and enacted Resolution No. **-***, which established a Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) and authorized City of Grass Valley to impose and collect said fee; and
C. WHEREAS, the RTMF will provide funds for the construction of transportation improvements throughout Western Nevada County, as that term is defined in Resolution No. **-***; and D. WHEREAS, City of Grass Valley desires the NCTC to administer the RTMF in accordance with Resolution No. **-*** and the Administrative Plan referenced herein.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements and covenants contained herein, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:

1. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this section and initially capitalized in the text, shall for all purposes of the Agreement have the meanings herein specified. a. Administrative Plan - "Administrative Plan" is defined as the Administrative Plan for the Western Nevada County RTMF Program, adopted by NCTC on July 19, 2023 (and as amended from time to time by NCTC), which serves as the guideline for implementation of the RTMF Program. b. Agreement - "Agreement" shall mean this agreement as the same now exists and as it may from time to time be amended by supplemental agreements entered into, pursuant to the provisions hereof.
c. City of Grass Valley/ NCTC - "Grass Valley" and "NCTC" are defined in the preamble. d. Resolution - "Resolution" shall mean City of Grass Valley Resolution No. **-***. e. Party/Parties - "Party" and "Parties" are defined in the preamble. f. Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee or RTMF - "Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee" or "RTMF" shall mean the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee component of the total road development fee established by Resolution No. **-*** and subsequent modifications to that component, as imposed and collected by City of Grass Valley.

2. Purpose; Supersedes Prior Agreements. This Agreement is made pursuant to the law and its purpose is to provide for the exercise of powers by the Parties to provide regional transportation planning and to provide for NCTC' s administration of the RTMF in accordance with the Administrative Plan attached hereto as Attachment "A", as it may be amended from time to time by NCTC. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the

Item # 11.

Administrative Plan and this Agreement, the Administrative Plan shall control. This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements between the Parties concerning the RTMF.

3. Term and Termination.
a. The term of this Agreement commences on the date it is executed by the Parties, and it shall continue until and unless terminated, rescinded, canceled or modified by agreement of the Parties. b. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason by giving thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other, which notice shall be sent by registered mail to the address set forth in Section 15.
c. Impose and collect all the RTMF due under Resolution No. **-***. d. Deliver to the NCTC all the RTMF collected quarterly. e. Cooperate with the NCTC to meet their obligations under this Agreement. f. Other responsibilities as set forth in the Administrative Plan.

4. Responsibilities of NCTC. NCTC shall have the following responsibilities:
a. Accept, deposit and hold all of the RTMF delivered to it pursuant to this Agreement. NCTC may invest all of the RTMF held by it pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with NCTC's investment policy/guidelines.
b. Account for all of the RTMF delivered to it by keeping and maintaining separate books and accounts pursuant to this Agreement, without co-mingling any RTMF received, collected or held pursuant to this Agreement with any other funds or accounts of NCTC. c. Report all receipts and disbursements of the RTMF to the Commission. d. Administer the RTMF and disburse the RTMF in accordance with the Administrative Plan. e. Designate and appoint its Executive Director to serve as the person who has charge of, handles and has access to all money and property delivered to NCTC pursuant to this Agreement, from whatever source. f. Contract for an independent financial audit of its books and accounts each year. g. Cooperate with Grass Valley to permit them to meet their obligations under this Agreement.

5. Programming and Disbursement of Funds. The programming and funding of projects within the RTMF program will be established through a five-year Transportation Mitigation Capital Improvement Program. The structure and guidelines for this program are set forth in the Administrative Plan.

6. Inspection of Records. All books, documents, records, accounts and files relating to the RTMF collected by Grass Valley and to the management and administration of the property and RTMF by the NCTC pursuant to this Agreement shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by Grass Valley and its designated representatives.

7. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year for the reporting and accounting for all moneys and the RTMF managed and administered by NCTC pursuant to this Agreement shall be the same as the fiscal year for NCTC.

8. Disposition of Property. On the termination of this Agreement, any property acquired as the result of the exercise of powers will be distributed to Grass Valley in proportion to the contributions made by Grass Valley.

9. Return of Surplus Moneys. Upon completion of the purpose of this Agreement and termination of this Agreement, any surplus money on hand shall be returned to Grass Valley as set forth in the Administrative Plan.

10. Indemnification. Grass Valley shall indemnify NCTC, its officers, agents and employees against all claims and hold them harmless from any and all liability attributed to Grass Valley’s active or passive negligence whether on account of injury to person or persons or death or damage to property resulting from or in any way arising out of Grass Valley’s operation or conduct under this Agreement, and shall reimburse NCTC, its officers, agents and employees for all costs of any such claims, demands, or causes of action which may be brought or asserted against NCTC, its officers, agents, or employees, including all costs of defense, attorney's fees, court costs and any adverse judgments.

Item # 11.

NCTC shall indemnify Grass Valley, its officers, agents and employees against all claims and hold them harmless from any and all liability attributed to NCTC's active or passive negligence whether on account of injury to person or persons or death or damage to property resulting from or in any way arising out of NCTC's operation or conduct under this Agreement, and shall reimburse Grass Valley’s, its officers, agents and employees for all costs of any such claims, demands, or causes of action which may be brought or asserted against Grass Valley’s, its officers, agents, or employees, including all costs of defense, attorney's fees, court costs and any adverse judgements.

11. Agreements. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this Agreement shall be of no force or effect unless contained in subsequent written modification signed by the Parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the Parties, but any amendment must be in writing and signed by the Parties.

12. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

13. Captions. The captions or paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are for reference only and not to be construed in any way as part of the agreement.

14. Assignment. No Party to this Agreement shall assign, sell, transfer or delegate any of its rights or duties under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party.

15. Notices. Any notice, demand or other communication required or permitted under the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective when in writing and either personally delivered or addressed and placed in the mail as follows:

City of Grass Valley
125 East Main St.

Grass Valley, CA 95945
Nevada County Transportation Commission
101 Providence Mine Road, Suite 102
Nevada City, CA 95959

16. Attorneys' Fees. In the event, that either Party hereto shall institute any legal proceeding or arbitration pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to be determined by the court or arbitrator, as the case may be.

17. Controlling Law. California law shall be considered the law applicable to and controlling interpretation of this Agreement.

18. Interpretation. No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted for or against any Party because that Party or that Party's legal representative drafted the provision.

Item # 11.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto the day and year shown below.

NCTC:
____________________________________ __________________________________ Ed Scofield, Chair Dale Sayles,
Nevada County Transportation Commission Administrative Services Officer _______________________________ ______________________________ Date Date
Approved as to Form:
__________________________________
Osman I. Mufti
Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong LLP
General Council
CITY OF GRASS VALLEY:
__________________ _________________
Mayor, City of Grass Valley Date
Approved as to Form:
__________________
Michael G. Colantuono
City Attorney

Item # 11.

RESOLUTION NO. R2023-53

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY AMENDING

GRASS VALLEY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, Grass Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.44 establishes the authority for imposing and charging traffic impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by this resolution are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, or obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grass Valley has established a Fee Schedule for the fiscal year 2023/24 as part of the Fiscal Year Budget approval process, which includes all fees of the City and a policy for the review and approval of City fees and charges; and WHEREAS, the City has completed a comprehensive review to calculate the costs and impacts attributable to new development on the local transportation system, as documented in the GHD report titled “Grass Valley Transportation Impact Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update, Final Report”, dated August 16, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2023, the City held a noticed public hearing to consider updates to the GVTIF program and proposed impact fees; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, as follows:

1. That the foregoing statements are true and correct.

2. That the GVTIF, development impact fees, policies, and calculations comply with California Government Code Section 66001 by establishing the basis for imposition of fees on new development by:
a. Identifying the purpose of the fee.
b. Identifying the use to which the fee will be put.
c. Showing a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
d. Showing a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.
e. Showing a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Item # 11.

3. That the fee methodologies, study, and proposed development impact fees, as documented in the GHD report titled “Grass Valley Transportation Impact Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update” are the basis for the fees and are hereby adopted.

4. That the Fee Schedule for the fiscal year 2023/24 is hereby amended for the transportation impact fees as shown in Exhibit “A”

5. That this amendment to transportation impact fees shall be effective starting on November 15, 2023, and subsequently adjusted per the prescribed annual inflation provisions on July 1 st for each fiscal year thereafter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Grass Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______________________________
Jan Arbuckle, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________ _______________________________ Michael G. Colantuono, CITY ATTORNEY Taylor Day, CITY CLERK

Item # 11.

EXHIBIT A
Proposed
GVTIF Rate
Proposed
RTMF Rate
Proposed
Total Rate
Residential
Single Family House
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) $3,293 $4,030 $7,323
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) $3,978 $4,868 $8,846
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) $4,410 $5,396 $9,806
Multi-Family
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) $922 $1,128 $2,050
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) $1,114 $1,363 $2,477
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) $1,235 $1,511 $2,746
Mobile Home in Park
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) $2,268 $2,775 $5,043
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) $2,739 $3,352 $6,091
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) $3,037 $3,716 $6,753
Senior Housing
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) $637 $780 $1,418
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) $770 $942 $1,712
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) $854 $1,045 $1,898
Non-Residential
Office $1,576 $755 $2,331
Industry $587 $281 $868
Warehouse $440 $211 $650
Retail - Low $2,671 $1,280 $3,951
Retail - Medium $6,241 $2,990 $9,231
Retail - High $11,360 $5,443 $16,803
Lodging $520 $249 $769
Public & Quasi-Public
School K-8th Grade
School 9-12th Grade
Public College
AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 15, 2023
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt

Item # 11.

RESOLUTION NO. R2023-54

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY AMENDING

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION IMPACT FEES FOR

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, Grass Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.44 establishes the authority for imposing and charging traffic impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grass Valley has established a Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2023/24 as part of the Fiscal Year Budget approval process, which includes all fees of the City and a policy for the review and approval of City fees and charges; and WHEREAS, the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by this resolution are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits; purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, or obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; and WHEREAS, the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) has completed a comprehensive review to calculate the costs and impacts attributable to new development on the regional transportation system, as documented in the GHD report titled “Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update, Final Report”, dated July 12, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) has recommended adoption by the local jurisdictions of the updated Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) program at their July 19, 2023 meeting;
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2023, the City held a noticed public hearing to consider updates to the RTMF program and proposed impact fees; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, as follows:

1. That the foregoing statements are true and correct.

2. That the RTMF, development impact fees, policies, and calculations comply with California Government Code Section 66001 by establishing the basis for imposition of fees on new development by:
a. Identifying the purpose of the fee.
b. Identifying the use to which the fee will be put.
c. Showing a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

Item # 11.
d. Showing a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.
e. Showing a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

3. That the fee methodologies, study, and proposed development impact fees, as documented in the GHD report titled “Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update” are the basis for the fees and are hereby adopted.

4. That the Fee Schedule for the fiscal year 2023/24 is hereby amended for the transportation impact fees as shown in Exhibit “A”

5. That this amendment to transportation impact fees shall be effective starting on November 15, 2023, and subsequently adjusted per the prescribed annual inflation provisions on July 1 st for each fiscal year thereafter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Grass Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______________________________
Jan Arbuckle, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________ _______________________________ Michael G. Colantuono, CITY ATTORNEY Taylor Day, CITY CLERK

Item # 11.

EXHIBIT A
Proposed
GVTIF Rate
Proposed
RTMF Rate
Proposed
Total Rate
Residential
Single Family House
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) $3,293 $4,030 $7,323
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) $3,978 $4,868 $8,846
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) $4,410 $5,396 $9,806
Multi-Family
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) $922 $1,128 $2,050
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) $1,114 $1,363 $2,477
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) $1,235 $1,511 $2,746
Mobile Home in Park
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) $2,268 $2,775 $5,043
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) $2,739 $3,352 $6,091
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) $3,037 $3,716 $6,753
Senior Housing
Small (<1,500 sq.ft.) $637 $780 $1,418
Medium (1,500-2,500 sq.ft.) $770 $942 $1,712
Large (<2,500 sq.ft.) $854 $1,045 $1,898
Non-Residential
Office $1,576 $755 $2,331
Industry $587 $281 $868
Warehouse $440 $211 $650
Retail - Low $2,671 $1,280 $3,951
Retail - Medium $6,241 $2,990 $9,231
Retail - High $11,360 $5,443 $16,803
Lodging $520 $249 $769
Public & Quasi-Public
School K-8th Grade
School 9-12th Grade
Public College
AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 15, 2023
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt

Item # 11.

RESOLUTION NO. R2023-55

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY AUTHORIZING

THE EXECUTION OF A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE (RTMF)

AGREEMENT AND ADOPTING A RTMF ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) has completed a comprehensive review to calculate the costs and impacts attributable to new development on the regional transportation system, as documented in the GHD report titled “Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee 2023 Nexus Study Update, Final Report”, dated July 12, 2023; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2023, the City held a noticed public hearing to consider updates to the RTMF program and proposed impact fees; and WHEREAS, the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) has completed an administrative manual that contains the guidelines on how the Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Program will be implemented and administered by the City and NCTC, as documented in the Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. report titled “Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Administrative Plan”, dated July 13, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) adopted the Administrative Plan at their July 19, 2023, meeting;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, as follows:

1. That the foregoing statements are true and correct.

2. That the July 13, 2023, report prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. and titled “Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Administrative Plan”, is hereby adopted.

3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Agreement between the Nevada County Transportation Commission and the City of Grass Valley, subject to legal review.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Grass Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______________________________
Jan Arbuckle, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________________ _______________________________ Michael G. Colantuono, CITY ATTORNEY Taylor Day, CITY CLERK

Item # 11.

City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: The Naming of the New Portion of Mill Street
CEQA: Not a Project.

Recommendation: That Council provide direction for naming/branding the newly renovated portion of Mill Street between Neal Street and Main Street.

Prepared by: Timothy M. Kiser, City Manager
Council Meeting Date: August 22, 2023 Date Prepared: August 17, 2023 Agenda: Administrative
Background Information: As the construction of Mill Street is almost finished, many people have asked the City to give this area an official name. The word "mall" is not well-liked by many. The staff has proposed two possible names (Mill Street Plaza or Mill Street City Center). The project aimed to create a space that would benefit our downtown businesses while also providing a community space, like a town square, for the people.

Staff will be looking for additional suggestions and direction from City Council for naming/branding this part of Mill Street.

Council Goals/Objectives: The execution of this action attempts to achieve Strategic Goal #5 – High Performance Government and Quality Service.

Fiscal Impact: None
Funds Available: N/A Account #: N/A
Reviewed by: Tim Kiser, City Manager
Attachments: None

Item # 12.

City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Interim Options for Fire Resiliency and Vegetation Management CEQA: Not a Project.

Recommendation: That Council 1) consider and provide direction to staff on using $400,000 of general fund reserves to hire up to seven seasonal firefighters and allocated a police officer during the winter to operate our vegetation management program; 2) set dates for a public discussion/meeting on a potential Fire Resiliency, Vegetation Management, and Sales Tax; and 3) authorize the Finance Director to make any necessary budget transfers to implement any actions approved by City Council associated with this item.

Prepared by: Timothy M. Kiser, City Manager
Council Meeting Date: August 22, 2023 Date Prepared: August 17, 2023 Agenda: Administrative
Background Information: On July 25, 2023, City Council heard an item discussing Fire and Vegetation Management and the potential implementation of a sales tax to support these areas. Additionally, the meeting focused on addressing public safety risks that Grass Valley may face due to extreme weather events and wildfires. At the July 25 th
meeting, City Council decided to hold off on the November 2023 Election and look at the March 2024 election instead. As part of the discussion at the meeting, it was asked of City staff what could be done now.

During the Council Meeting, one of the crucial topics discussed was Fire Resiliency. Fire Resiliency involves initiatives to improve the city's ability to handle fire incidents effectively. Proposed measures discussed during the tax conversation included increasing firefighter staffing and adding another fully staffed fire engine company.

These efforts aim to enhance efficiency in operations, allow for simultaneous engagement in essential tasks, and provide resilience, flexibility, and adaptability during critical events. These measures are necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our community in the face of fire-related challenges. To address what could be done now concerning Fire Resiliency, the staff is proposing to add up to seven (7) seasonal firefighters to augment fire department staffing to the industry standard of 3 firefighters per fire engine for 6 months. Seasonal firefighters are an enhancement to the career staffing during which time they provide an invaluable service while providing the department an opportunity to assess future employment should an opening occur.

These positions will ensure the Grass Valley Fire Department is prepared to provide for the quickly increasing current and future emergency service demands of the City and surrounding Nevada County areas we respond to regularly. Cooperative and coordinated emergency response has always been and will continue to be the focus of the City of

Item # 13.

Grass Valley Fire Department as we plan for the current and future protection of the community.

The estimated fiscal impact of adding 7.0 seasonal firefighters is approximately $400,000. Funding for these positions will be provided from the City’s General Fund Reserve. These funds are currently available in reserves and fund balances and will be incorporated into the base budget of the FY 2023-24 Year Budget if approved by the City Council. Staff is proposing a one-time use of reserves to fund this critical need, but another funding source such as a Sale tax will be required to make additional staffing permanent.

The discussion of the July 25th City Council Meeting also focused on Vegetation Management, a critical aspect of protecting our City from the impact of wildland fires.

This aspect encompasses various strategies, including hardening the areas surrounding critical infrastructure such as the hospital, schools, and water treatment plants.

Moreover, it aims to safeguard the City and its residents by reducing fuel and vegetation loads throughout the City and its geographical sphere of influence. Staff suggestion for an interim/temporary step to start to address these issues would be to temporarily assign a Police Office to operate the City's new masticator to clear vegetation and deal with illegal camping, amongst other vegetation management duties during the late fall/winter season. A police officer provides comprehensive capability to a cooperative team approach to vegetation management on private/public property. Since development started on the Wolf Creek Trail in 2016, GVPD officers have developed their capability to safely and compassionately confront and abate trespassing and unlawful camping on public and private lands. A police officer brings a unique “all in one” capability to this endeavor and with current staffing levels at the PD, the department is able to make a temporary assignment in furtherance of the City’s mission to prove the efficacy of this program. Staff is proposing this as a temporary solution to get things started, long-term or more than a few months assignment, a new revenue source or additional staffing would be required.

Additionally, staff would like to set up dates and times for public meetings to discuss a potential fire tax.

Council Goals/Objectives: The execution of this action attempts to achieve Strategic Goal #5 – High Performance Government and Quality Service.

Fiscal Impact: The funding required for hiring seven seasonal firefighters would result in a fiscal impact of around $400,000. In the short term, the GVPD has the ability to allocate an officer temporarily for the purpose of managing vegetation within their current budget.

Funds Available: Yes Account #: General Fund Reserves
Reviewed by: Tim Kiser, City Manager
Attachments: None

Item # 13.