Minutes — Lincoln City Council, June 28, 2022

• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life Lincoln • ****
-America City

MINUTES

CITY OF LINCOLN

CITY COUNCIL, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTORITY
and REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY
Regular Meeting
June 28, 2022

OPEN SESSION MEETING
Meeting conducted in-person at City Hall, 600 fth Street, Lincoln, CA and virtually on Zoom with Live Stream on City of Lincoln YouTube Channel and WAVE Channel 18.

1. CALL TO ORDER by Mayor Andreatta at 6:00PM.

2. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Paul Joiner
Dan Karleskint
William Lauritsen
Alyssa Silhi
Mayor Holly Andreatta
Roll Call: 5 members present, 0 members absent, 0 members excused.

Staff members present: Sean Scully, City Manager
Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney
Matt Alves, Public Safety Chief
Jennifer Brown, Chief Innovation & Technology Officer
Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk
Travis Williams, City Engineer (consultant)
Nita Wracker, Finance Director
Veronica Rodriguez, Human Resources Director
Various City employees, consultants and members of the public were also present in person and via teleconference.

3. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION - Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney, stated staff met on two property negotiations but there was no reportable action.

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE led by Richard Pearl, City Treasurer.

5. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS - none.

6. PRESENTATIONS - none.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
a) Gus Murphy, a Lincoln resident, discussed increase of shoplifting incidents at numerous stores. He is working with multiple stores in the City, Lincoln PD, the City, the Placer County DA's office to address concerns.
b) Mike Nusink, a Lincoln resident, is concerned with a home-based business in his neighborhood Mayor Andreatta asked City staff to respond. City Attorney stated resident holds a legal home-based business permit and is not in violation. It is the City's practice to follow the Public Records Act which states non-disclosure of confidential information. City Attorney reiterated that this issue is not related to an occupancy permit issue as stated by Mr. Nusink. Mayor Andreatta thanked City Attorney and stated the City Attorney will follow up with Mr. Nusink to discuss concerns. Public Comment closed at 6:11pm. 600 Sixth Streer • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400 • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • *****

Page 2 of 9 ends

City Council, Public Finance Autority and
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Regular Meting Minutes
June 28, 2022

8. CONSENT
Mayor Andreatta asked if any members of the City Council or public would like to pull any items from the Consent Agenda, hearing none Mayor Andreatta called for a motion. Councilmember Joiner motioned approval of the items and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, Silhi - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye. Those items approved were:

8.A. Approval of Minutes of June 28, 2022 Regular City Council meeting.

Receive and file Contract Report identifying contracts, task orders and purchase orders executed by the City Manager and filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

8.C. Receive and File Budget to Actual Report for period ending May 31, 2022.

8.D. Receive and File Treasurer's Report for the period ending April 30, 2022 and May 31, 2022.

8.E. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-153 accepting the Warrants of June 10 and 17, 2022 to be placed on file with the City Clerk and available for audit.

8.F. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-154 requesting Placer County Collect the Charges for the District on the FY 2022-23 County Property Tax Roll.

8.G. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-155 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the December 8, 2020 Task Order with REY Engineers, Inc. for Professional Design Services in the amount of $98,840 and extending the contract term to December 31, 2023, for professional design services for the Water Distribution Rehab H, I and J Streets Project - CIP 485.

8.H. Waive second full reading and adopt, by title only, ORDINANCE 1046B of the City of Lincoln amending Section 13.04.360 to the Lincoln Municipal Code establishing source water connection charges.

8.1. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-156 amending its existing multi-year contract with Stantec, for operations and maintenance of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Reclamation Facility (WWTPRF), to allow for a s) ant o cate oa atona two-year extension in term (with the option to terminate the contract at any time), and to define total compensation of services for the WWTPRF operations over the two-year period, and to allow for an assignability clause that allows the city to transfer the Agreement over to another public agency during the two-year term.

8.J. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-157 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 with Cagwin Dorward for additional landscape areas at pre-determined square footage rates for all new Parks and Streetscape Maintenance once accepted by the City. All services will piggyback to existing Landscape Maintenance Contract terms and specifications as shown in RFP 08222021-01. The first term of the three- year-year contract shall end on June 30, 2025, with an option to extend for one additional three-year period ending June 30, 2027. The Contract allows for a 2.5% escalation and shall be in effect at annual renewal until June 30, 2027. All additional Landscape services will be paid from CFD (Community Facilities District) 2018-1, Fund 285.

CFD 2018-1 (Community Facilites District Fund 285). Fund 285 has a projected 21/22 ending fund balance of $2,118,794
600 Sixth Street • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400 Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln •

Page 3 of 9 ends

City Council, Public Finance Authority and
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2022

8.K. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-158 authorizing the City Manager to execute Contracts for On-Call Professional Services for Various Projects and Programs with 4Leaf, Inc., A. Graham and Associates, Alpha CM, Ascent, Bennett Engineering, Blackburn Consulting, BPR Consulting Group, Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc., Coastland Civil Engineering, CSG Consultants, DKS Associates, Dokken Engineering, Inc., Dudek, Economic & Planning Systems, ECORP Consulting, Inc., ESA, First Carbon Solutions, Geocon Consultants, Inc., HydroScience Engineers, Interwest, KASL Consulting Engineers, Inc., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Land Logistics, Manger Solutions, Mark Thomas, Psomas, Quincy Engineering, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of CONSOR North America, Inc., Raney Planning & Management, Inc., REY Engineers, Inc., Salaber Associates, Inc., Shums Coda Associates, Stantec, TRC Engineers, Inc., UNICO Engineering, West Yost, Wood Rodgers, Youngdahl Consulting Group.

There is no contract values to the On-Call Professional Services Contracts. Notices to proceed will be authorized for specific project only after sufficient funding has been deposited to the City for development projects or after a Capital Improvement Project is funded and is included in the annual City budget.

8.L. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-159 authorizing the City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement and accept grant funding in the amount of $150,000 from the State of California for the 2022/2023 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant to fund two police traffic vehicles and obtain all equipment necessary to conduct safe and effective traffic enforcement with the goal of reducing and combating traffic related incidents, injuries and deaths related to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, to include cannabis and to execute any and all necessary documents associated with acceptance and administration of said funds.

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS

9.A

1. Conduct a Public Hearing;

2. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-160 approving the Final Engineer's Report, Ordering Improvements, and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022/23; and

3. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-161 ordering the levy and collection of assessments within Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022/23.

The projected Fiscal Year 2022/23 collection of assessments is estimated to be $3, 559,900, which provides funds that are necessary for maintenance activities associated with the Landscaping and Lighting District #1.

Travis Williams, City Engineer (consultant) introduced Ed Espinoza from Francisco & Associates, the City's Lighting & Landscaping (LLAD) consultant, who presented the final step in the City's annual approval of the LLAD assessment. Mr. Espinoza gave a brief powerpoint presentation, made a part of these minutes of mention thereof.

A brief City Council discussion ensued regarding how fees apply towards shared use facilities.

Next steps include conducting the Prop. 218 analysis and proceedings for the fiscal year of 2022/2023, determining benefit zones, appropriate assessment rates for a replacement LLAD, conducting public outreach and moving forward with formal process.

Sean Scully, City Manager, stated a possibility of going through the Prop 218 process to include those residents that are not paying funds towards shared facilities. Shared facilities are enjoyed and utilized by everyone. Second risk is in cutting costs would result in cutting services.

Public hearing was opened at 6:34pm
600 Sixth Street • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400 Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • *****

Page 4 of 9 ends

City Council, Public Finance Authority and
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2022
a.) Lena Labosky, a Lincoln resident, wanted to remind the City that Sun City Lincoln Hills residents do not use shared facilities, as they pay their local charges.

Public hearing closed at 6:36pm
Mayor Andreatta closed the discussion with no further public comments and called for a motion.

Councilmember Joiner motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner-Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Silhi - Aye, , Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye. RESOLUTION 2022-160 approving the Final Engineer's Report, Ordering Improvements, and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022/23; and RESOLUTION 2022-161 ordering the levy and collection of assessments within Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022/23.

9.B.

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public testimony in regards to amending the Public Facilities Element (PFE) fees for transportation, wastewater, water, drainage and community services with an effective date of August 15, 2022;

2. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-162 adopting the Public Facilities Element Program Nexus Study, dated June 10, 2022 (PFE Update);

3. Waive full reading and introduce by title only ORDINANCE 1047B of the City of Lincoln amending Section 13.04.360 to the Lincoln Municipal Code establishing water connection charges; and

4. Waive full reading and introduce by title only ORDINANCE 1048B of the City of Lincoln amending Sections 13.12.050 and 13.12.060 establishing sewer connection charges and apportionment. (Travis Williams)
Prior to meeting, Council received three opposition letters from the following: James Wiley of Taylor & Wiley, Chad Roberts of Hefner Law, and John Fett from the Economic Development Committee, all three letters are made a part of these minutes by mention thereof.

Travis Williams gave a brief powerpoint presentation, made a part of these minutes of mention thereof, with background and overview of PFE adoption. State requirement changes July 1, 2022. State is changing method and template.

Councilmember Joiner- raised concerns over documents missing from study & reasons for State deadline.

Sean Scully, City Manager stated Staff is comfortable with identifying the methodology of how we are going to continue to apply PFE fees. City is not disputing comments made by the development community. City wants to protect reasonable process at this point. State passed a law AB602 that upended how most fee studies were conducted. Previously, it was based on land use base but as of July 1, 2022, it is based on square feet. Council asked to adopt framework method, not fees. Staff and Council discussed State standards, case law as a result of starting new template.

Public Hearing opened at 7:02pm with the following comments:
a.) John Fett, a Lincoln resident and member of the Economic Development Committee, questioned the Nexus study and fundamental flaws with Goodwin Analysis. Concerned that information would lead to erroneous funding requirements.
b.) Jeff Short, North State Building Industry Association, stated he appreciates efforts made by the City.

Concerns with the information, caution City to not move to quickly and adopting resolution that would impact development for a number of years. Directed staff to develop fair fee schedule. 600 Sixth Street • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400 Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln- Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • *****
Al-America City

Page 5 of 9 ends

City Council, Public Finance Authority and
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2022
c.) Marcus LoDuca, a Roseville attorney, stated he received document on June 15th & shares Whipple's concerns. Asks City to review lessons other cities have learned. d.) Richard Pearl, City Treasurer, reiterated that the Council is asked to vote on the concept on the Nexus, but not on the fees. Is the method correct?
d.) Chad Roberts, Hefner Law, on behalf of Elliott Homes stated he addressed the letter sent to Council voicing concern with Nexus study. His client did not have an opportunity to address concerns with staff and the study could impact development in years to come. Mr. Roberts stated he understands pressure to adopt proposed Nexus study tonight to avoid requirements of AB 602 but he would like an additional conversation to discuss further with stakeholders and get it right.

Public Hearing closed at 7:19pm.

A brief City Council discussion ensued regarding adopting framework, revisiting fees and risks of conducting a new study.

Mayor Andreatta closed the discussion with no further public comments and called for a motion.

Councilmember Silh motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Silhi - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Joiner- Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-162 adopting the Public Facilities Element Program Nexus Study, dated June 10, 2022.

Councilmember Silhi moved to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Joiner. By the following Vote (Approved): Silhi - Aye, Joiner- Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: Waive full reading and introduce by title only ORDINANCE 1047B of the City of Lincoln amending Section 13.04.360 to the Lincoln Municipal Code establishing water connection charges.

Councilmember Silhi moved to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Silhi - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Joiner- Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: Waive full reading and introduce by title only ORDINANCE 1048B of the City of Lincoln amending Sections 13.12.050 and 13.12.060 establishing sewer connection charges and apportionment.

10. GENERAL BUSINESS

10.A. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-163 Approving a Revision to the Salary Schedule for the Customer Service Supervisor Classification.

Veronica Rodriguez, Human Resources Director provided a brief staff report on behalf of Justin Orton, Sr.

Human Resources Analyst. A market study completed for supervisory position to ensure City was competitive and the study revealed position was 11.5% above market. Staff is requesting to fix salary to be in alignment with staff compensation package. Fiscal impact equals a reduction of $5k/year and funding for the position is from Enterprise funds. No further comment from City Council or from the public.

Councilmember Joiner motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, Silhi - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-163 Approving a Revision to the Salary Schedule for the Customer Service Supervisor Classification 600 Sixth Street • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400 •Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life Lincoln • MA America City *****

Page 6 of 9 ends

City Council, Public Finance Authority and
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2022

10.B. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-164 reclassifying the Finance Department's Accounting Manager position to a Financial Analyst and adoption of the salary schedule for the proposed Financial Analyst classification.

Veronica Rodriguez, Human Resources Director provided a brief staff report. A review of the needs of the Finance Department has identified the reclassification of its vacant Accounting Manager position to a Finance Analyst to meet the current and upcoming demands of the Department. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution reclassifying the Finance Department's Accounting Manager position to a Finance Analyst and the adoption of the salary schedule for the proposed Financial Analyst classification.

The fiscal impact of this request is approximately $153, 703 per year. No further comment from City Council or from the public.

Councilmember Lauritsen motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Silhi. By the following Vote (Approved): Lauritsen - Aye, Silhi - Aye, Joiner - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-164 reclassifying the Finance Department's Accounting Manager position to a Financial Analyst and adoption of the salary schedule for the proposed Financial Analyst classification.

10.C. Adopt RESOLUTION 2022-165 approving the Annual Budget and Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-23, and adopting an Appropriations Limit for the City of Lincoln.

Councilmember Joiner-left meeting at 7:49pm and returned at 7:51pm.

Mayor Andreatta- Left meeting at 7:53pm and returned at 7:55pm.

Sean Scully, City Manager thanked members of the staff for their collaboration and months of work to piece together $129M puzzle. There are areas of concern and areas that the City can be proud of & that will benefit the community.

Nita Wracker, Finance Director- Kudos to Ruthann, our Budget Manager for her tireless hours and dedication. Ms. Wracker gave a brief powerpoint presentation, made a part of these minutes of mention thereof.

A budget conversation ensued between City staff and Council. Councilmember Lauritsen stated he appreciated efforts and budget workshop. Mayor Andreatta opened the discussion to the public with the following comment:
a.) Erik Kurland, a Lincoln resident, viewing the meeting via Zoom, stated he would have liked to see more information around our parks for this year and future years.

Mayor Andreatta called for a motion to adopt resolution 2022-165. Councilmember Joiner motioned approval of the resolution and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Karleskint. By the following Vote (Approved): Silhi - Aye , Joiner - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen - Aye , and Andreatta - Aye:

RESOLUTION 2022-165 approving the Annual Budget and Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-23, and adopting an Appropriations Limit for the City of Lincoln.

10.D. Receive an update on current planned and potential future rate studies for Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste funds and provide any relevant direction on the timing for consideration of new rates as appropriate.
600 Sixth Street • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400 Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • *****

Page 7 of 9 ends

City Council, Public Finance Authority and
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2022
Sean Scully, City Manager, stated there are deficits in all three enterprise funds. He attributed rising costs to increased rates from wholesale providers but most notably, large deficit is due to lack of new rates over the last 9 years. Mr. Scully continued he'd prefer to bring a total package of rate increases of all three enterprise funds at one time because it gives members of the public a better holistic view of their utility bill.

However, the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTRF) expansion must move forward so Staff is working on rate analysis for that expansion in the next couple of months.

Questions: How would we like to handle the solid waste and water rates? We are prepared to initiate studies on both. Do we start this fall or do we push out to next year? Either path would be appropriate.

When would you like to see those studies? All follow Prop 218 which states that the City can't adopt rate increases beyond a 5-year period.

A brief discussion ensued by City Council. Council consensus was to roll out fee increase to waste water in the fall and address additional fees in the Spring. They requested Staff educate community on rate increases, why it is important, how it benefits the community. Mayor Andreatta opened the discussion to the public with the following comment:
a.) Eric Kurland, a Lincoln resident, questioned process on how utility rates are voted upon and or if they are mandated?
Sean Scully, City Manager, stated utility rates are voted on by City Council and the Prop 218 process has a provision that allows for a protest vote, which would have to be passed by a majority protest of the entire community.

Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney- Offered to walk Mr. Kirkland through the process. Mayor Andreatta gained consensus from City Council to address waste water fee in the fall and then roll out additional fees in the spring.

10.E. Receive a presentation from City Staff and Dan Heldridge of the Housing Trust Placer on possible partnership and funding opportunities on projects that support affordable housing development.

Sean Scully, City Manager- Gave a brief introduction into an affordable housing program and whether or not the City would be interested in contributing to a revolving loan fund.

Small and medium scale projects would qualify.

Dan Heldridge - Provided an introduction and background. Housing Trust Placer formed in 2020. Mission is to help create and preserve affordable housing.

City Council and Staff deliberated on funds, state and federal housing requirements, location and impact to the City. Mayor Andreatta confirmed Council was on board with looking at project and next steps would be to look at a couple different funds.

10.F. Discussion of proposed hotel incentive program and if so desired Adopt RESOLUTION 2022- 166 authorizing and approving the Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.

Sean Scully, City Manager, thanked EDC members for continued work to accelerate projects and recruit quality hotels. He continued developing and onboarding a hotel can be a lengthy multi- year process and a.

Hotel incentive program was introduced by the prior City Manager. Mr. Scully stated the City would promote this program in anticipation of Placer Ranch development which may include lodging. The City would like to get ahead of their development, additionally, the City would like to attract desirable lodging.

Significant public benefits include ease of use for families, attracting future developers, providing meeting 600 Sixth Street • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400 •Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life Lincoln • *****
M-America City)

Page 8 of 9 ends

City Council, Public Finance Authority and
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2022
spaces and adds to a diverse economy. Program Eligibility requirements would be put into place provided by the Economic Development Committee (EDC.)
Prior to meeting, Council received a letter in support from Tom Indrieri, Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce, made a part of these minutes by mention thereof.

Mayor Andreatta open the discussion to the public with the following comments:
a.) Jason Price, EDC member and Lincoln resident, agreed that the project would help accelerate sales tax revenue and how it would positively impact the general fund. City is under represented from a hospitality standpoint. Lincoln is the gateway to wine and ale trails, concert venue, ag tourism, golf & sports activities. Smart to entice hotel development into the city through this program. b.) John Fett, EDC Chair and Lincoln resident, thanked EDC committee for their contributions.

Program allows the developer a cushion & support from the City. Competition from County and surrounding cities, if the City doesn't act we could lose out on securing quality development. c.) Richard Pearl, City Treasurer and Lincoln resident, stated 100% of TOT will be absorbed by the City.
d.) James and Jeanette Guertin, La Quinta owners and Lincoln residents, gave thanks for considering project and looking forward to project completion. They stated hotel financing has been challenging and an incentive program is a positive to help achieve financing. They concluded they are supportive of this community, and want this project to succeed.

Mayor Andreatta thanked La Quinta owners for hanging in there throughout each phase. e.) Tony Frayji, of Frayji Design Group, reminded the current council that the hotel on Ferrari Ranch Road wouldn't be here if City of Lincoln hadn't worked with them as well, as well as the development around the surrounding areas. Start somewhere, to help open the doors for future business development.

Mayor Andreatta closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Joiner motioned approval of the program and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Silhi.

By the following Vote (Approved): Joiner - Aye, Silhi - Aye, Karleskint - Aye, Lauritsen - Aye, and Andreatta - Aye: RESOLUTION 2022-166 authorizing and approving the Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.

11. COUNCIL INITIATED BUSINESS
Councilmember Joiner stated one of EDC's roles is to retain business and noticed Raising Cain's is on the agenda for the Design Review Board on June 30th n, 2022 at same location of Kobe restaurant. He suggests EDC reach out to Kobe to assist them to help find another location, as we want to retain their business.

12. INFORMATION ITEMS

12.A. Airport Appreciation Day.

Sean Scully, City Manager, provided a brief introduction and goals of a future airport appreciation day. City Manager turned it over to Richard Pearl who is spearheading the project. Event would take place October 8, 2022.

Event will highlight airport which would include vouth and family centric activities, fly-by's and display air- 600 Sixth Street • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400 Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln• Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • Live • Life • Lincoln • *****

Page 9 of 9 ends

City Council, Public Finance Authority and
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2022
craft. City would incur a minimum cost for portable toilets. Event would be staffed by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). Mayor Andreatta thanked Code Enforcement for clean up efforts.

City Attorney gave an update on code & lease violations. Dilapidated items will be removed prior to event.

Councilmember Silhi provided an update on the 1st in person regional homeless taskforce planning meeting on June 29th , 2022. All elected staff is encouraged to attend.

Mayor Andreatta provide an update on the 4'h of July Fireworks Committee fundraising efforts. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) generously donated $5k. Mayor Andreatta presented the check to Anthony Bersamin, President of the 4* of July Committee, stated committee is operating in the black.

Residents have generously donated. PG&E is taking care of traffic control. Mayor Andreatta thanked City staff for continual support. Events include annual parade, Potters game and fireworks.

13. ADJOURNMENT - Mayor Andreatta adjourned the meeting at approx. 9:33pm.

Submitted by:

Owen Scand
Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk
600 Sixth Street • Lincoln, CA 95648 • www.ci.lincoln.ca.us • 916-434-2400

LINCOLN,
CALIFO

MONORATE NOT PALA
Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 1
FY 2022-23 Overview and Final Approval
FRANCISCO Where Innovative Strategies
Fund Tomorrow's Communities

ANDYASSOCIATES
LLAD Formation and Annexations
FY 2022-23 Overview and Approval LLAD No. 1
• The City's LLAD was formed in 1982 to fund the
maintenance of City landscaping, parks, open space,
trails, and streetlighting.
• Annexation History
From FY 1982-83 through FY 2003-04, new development annexed into the Original Zone with variable assessment rates and no CPI escalator authorized. • From FY 2004-05 through FY 2015-16, 32 additional Benefit Zones were annexed into the LLAD with a CPI escalator authorized.
• In October 2018, Community Facilities District No. 2018-1 was formed. Beginning in FY 2018- 19, new development is annexed into CFD No. 2018-1 instead of the LLAD.

FRANCISCO
AND ASSOCIATES 2
City Maintenance District Parcel Summary
FY 2022-23 Overview and Approval LLAD No. 1
Percentage of Total
ORIG
Maintenance City of Lincoln
District Category Taxable Parcels
-30 ORId
Original LLAD Zone 14%
(16
All Other LLAD Zones 26%
CFD No. 2018-11 19%
Not in any LLAD Zone or CFD No. 2018-1 41%
Totals: 100%
'Based on number of anticipated parcels at build-out.

FRANCISCO
ANDVASSOCIATES 3
LLAD Funding Issues
FY 2022-23 Overview and Approval LLAD NO. 1
• The City funds the portion of LLAD budget attributed to benefit to non-District parcels and the public at large.
• The Original Zone and 7 other Zones are projected to have an operating deficit for FY 2022-23 (the "Deficit Zones").
• For FY 2022-23, the LLAD Budget is proposed to be funded as follows:
• FY 2022-23 Assessments: $3,559,900
• Deficit Zone Fund Balances Available to Cover FY 2022-23 Operating Deficits: $395,000 • City Contribution for Benefit Attributed to Non-District Parcels and Public at Large: $463,800 • City Contribution to Cover Remaining FY 2022-23 Operating Deficits: $333,800 • City Contribution is anticipated to increase by approximately 50% for FY 2023-24.

FRANCISCO

AND ASSOCIATES
Proposition 218 Proceedings BALLOT
FY 2022-23 Overview and Approval LLAD No. 1
• Increasing LLAD assessments to alleviate the City's increasing annual contribution requires majority property owner approval in accordance with Proposition 218.
• In 2017, a special vs. general benefit analysis of the LLAD improvements was performed to strengthen the City's benefit nexus.
• In 2018 and 2019, Council workshops were held on the LLAD funding issues. • In late 2019, the City hired a consultant to conduct a poll/survey to determine whether property owners were amenable to LLAD assessment increases. • Survey results indicated property owners were likely to oppose LLAD assessment increases at that time and therefore revisiting Prop. 218 proceedings at a later date was determined to be the best course of action.

FRANCISCO
ANDYASSOCIATES 5
Next Steps and Staff Recommendation
FY 2022-23 Overview and Approva LLAD No. 1
• Approve LLAD Final Engineer's Report and assessments for FY 2022-23 • On June 14, 2022, City Council adopted Resolutions initiating the FY 2022-23 proceedings and declaring the intent to levy and collect assessments, approving the Preliminary Engineer's Report, and setting June 28, 2022 as the date for the Public Hearing.

Tonight, City staff recommends City Council conduct a Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution approving the Final Engineer's Report and assessments for FY 2022-23. • Deadline to submit LLAD assessments to the County is June 30th every year. • Conduct Prop. 218 analysis and proceedings during FY 2022-23 Determine Benefit Zones and appropriate assessment rates for a replacement LLAD • Public Outreach (Community meetings, Virtual Meetings, Mailers, etc.) • Mail notices and ballots 45 days prior to Public Hearing per Prop. 218

FRANCISCO
ANDYASSOCIATES 6
CITY

MOLORATED AUGUST BATA
Thank you!
We are happy to answer any questions you may have.

FRANCISCO
Where innovative Strategies
Fund Tomorrow's Communities

ANDYASSOCIATES
9B

TAYLOR & WILEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JOHN M. TAYLOR ATTORNEYS
JAMES B. WILEY SACRAMENTO CAL SUN 150.

MATTHEW S. KEASLING
JESSE J. YANG TELEPHONE: (918) 929-5545
KATE A. WHEATLEY
MARISSA C. FUENTES
June 28, 2022
Via Email
Mayor Andreatta
City of Lincoln
600 6th Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
RE: Item 9B Public Facilities Element Fee Nexus Study Update Dear Mayor Andreatta:

We are writing this letter on behalf of Pappas Gateway LP, Pappas Arizona Limited Partnership and JCPSAC Properties LP (collectively, "Pappas"), successors in interest to Placer Holdings, Inc. ("PHI") in the Development Agreement with the City of Lincoln covering the Twelve Bridges Project (DA). We are writing to you to express our concerns about the proposed Public Facilities Element (PFE) Nexus Study Update before you this evening.

First and foremost, we believe that the City has not provided adequate time for a meaningful review of the Nexus Study. Although we have been discussing with the City staff PFE fees and fee credits for the last few years, we did not get an official draft of the latest-and significantly different-PFE Nexus study until last week when the agenda was posted. Our comments prepared by Development & Financial Advisory are attached and at this point are mainly questions regarding methodology and nexus.

Additionally, we want to make clear that we believe, as proposed, the Fee program violates the terms of the DA. First, the staff report states that Fee credits associated with the DA will terminate with the DA next year. We believe this is not an accurate statement. In addition, as the DA is still valid, the following provisions are still applicable:

2.4.1 Development Fees - Adjustments. City's Development Fees may be adjusted by City to account for increases or decreases in the cost of constructing the facilities or in providing the services for which such Development Fees are collected. As applied to Development Fees imposed for the construction of capital facilities, increases shall be limited to increases in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco area, unless specific Development Fees amounts are otherwise fixed under this agreement.... Such adjustments shall retain the same assumptions, methodology and list of improvements upon which such Development Fees, were based at the time of the Effective Date of this Agreement or as may by amended subiect to Section 4.2 of this Agreement. [Emphasis added.]

4.1.1 Accounting for PFE Credits. [Excerpt] For purposes of calculating and applying PHI PFE Credits, City shall maintain a single pooled PFE account for roadway, water, wastewater and drainage facilities against which all PHI PFE Credits for contributing to these facilities may be applied, with the exception of the PFE Critical Facilities as defined in Section 3.12 of this agreement and listed in Exhibit "W".... Any PFE credits accruing to PHI pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be adjusted annually in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the CCI of the Engineering News Record during the proceeding calendar year, or the revised cost estimates for applicable PFE improvements, if any, whichever is greater. [Emphasis added.]

4.2 Initial PFE Update. ... Subsequent amendments to the Public Facilities Element shall be consistent with the terms, conditions and limitations of this Agreement. (Emphasis added.] The proposed PFE fee update would breach the terms of Section 2.4.1, 4.1.1 and 4.2. Some examples of these violations would be:
• It is not.based upon the same assumptions, methodology and list of improvements. In particular, it changes the methodology and nature of wastewater improvements, switching such improvements into the "Critical" category. Furthermore the additional improvements have no nexus to Twelve Bridges; and
• It is not clear whether it accounts for the appropriate CCI adjustments to the credits that are outstanding.

As the City is not adopting the contemplated PFE fee tonight, we have planned further discussions with your staff to address our concerns. Nevertheless, as currently formulated, we would find the adoption of such a fee program a breach of the terms of our DA.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to further discussions with the City with the goal of rectifying these matters in short order, especially given that we have been trying to resolve these items for over three years.

CC: Sean Scully
Kristine Mollenkopf
Thad Johnson
Travis Batts
Mike Whipple, Jr.
•
DFA
Development & Financial Advisory
Sacramento • Orange County devfa.com
Memorandum
To: Thad Johnson
From: Development & Financial Advisory ("DFA")
CC: Jim Wiley & Travis Batts
Date: 6/28/22
Re: PFE Nexus Study dated June 10, 2022
Below are preliminary concerns with the draft Public Facilities Element ("PFE") Program Nexus Study ("2022 Nexus Study") prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group dated June 10, 2022 for the City of Lincoln ("City").

1. General:
a. Have any facilities been completed since the previous nexus study (2012) which are still listed in the 2022 Nexus Study?
b. The 2022 Nexus Study has failed to provide supporting documentation for the proposed equivalent dwelling unit factors.
c. Failure to properly index fees since 2012 results in a funding deficiency created by reduced impact fee collections.
d. Fails to provide required analysis indicating the improvements and facilities are necessary to serve new development.

2. Transportation:
a. Includes the cost of road reconstruction - Do these facilities provided expanded capacity for future development or cure existing deficiencies (Government Code Section 66001 (g))?
Should these improvements be funded as part of the City's new maintenance districts?
b. California Code Section 66005.1
i. Local agencies imposing fees to mitigate vehicular traffic impacts on housing units that meet specific characteristics shall be set at a rate that reflects the lower trip generation associated with the housing development.

SACRAMENTO - ORANGE COUNTY
www.DevFA.com

1. Housing development located within a ½ mile of a transit station with

2. Housing development located within ½ mile of convenience retail,

3. Housing development provides the minimum number of parking spaces. c. Does the 2022 Nexus Study account for vehicle miles traveled in determining equivalent dwelling units ("EDU") and cost allocations? If vehicle miles traveled are not analyzed is there the potential for conflict between the 2022 Nexus Study and environmental documents?
d. Does PPFE Area No. 1 or PFE Area No. 2 have any planned age-restricted or transit- oriented developments?
e. The EDU factors for market rates and age-restricted are the same. This is not consistent with standard nexus approach for determining traffic impacts.

3. Wastewater:
a. Is the discharge rate of 215 gallons per day per 1.0 EDU based on existing development or future development?
i. Does future development have a lower discharge rate? b. What is the basis for the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1 and PFE Area No. 27 i. Are these allocations summarized in the 2022 Nexus Study? c. Do any of the facilities provide benefit to existing users? i. Are any of the planned facilities expansion of existing facilities? d. How has the 2022 Nexus Study accounted for the existing funding deficiency outlined in the March 19, 2019 presentation to City council? The estimated mismanagement of the wastewater account was estimated at $28.8 million.
e. Active adult EDU factors are the same for all density ranges at 0.72. f. Table A-15: 10.3 MGD appears to provide capacity for approximately 47,900 EDUs based on 215 gallons per day compared to the 55,566 EDUs projected. g. Includes roughly $30 million of various storage bonds and booster pumps for non- potable water. Should these be allocated to new and existing development? h. Assumes $92.1 million in debt attributable to future development for expansion of the wastewater treatment facility.
i. Is this required?
ii. Is debt assumed for existing development?
ili. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs? iv. Are other funding sources available?
v. What is timing of bond financing?
vi. What happens if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred?

4. Water:
a. Does the Nexus Study account for mandated water efficiency standards? i. Senate Bill X7-7
il. AB 1668/SB 606
ili. Do future units have a lower demand factor compared to existing units? b. What is the water demand for an assumed EDU?
PFE Nexus Study Page 2 of 5
Discussion Items
c. Why did the EDU factors increase from the previous nexus study in 2012? d. Why are market rate and active adult EDU factors the same? e. Why are the high density EDU factors the same as low density? f. Can the single-family residential fee be tiered to match Placer County Water Agency? i. Fee based on lot size to match specific water consumption. g. What is the basis for the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1 and PFE Area No. 2? i. Are these allocations summarized in the Nexus Study? h. Do any of the facilities provide benefit to existing users? i. Are any of the planned facilities expansion of existing facilities? i. Table A-18 & A-19:
i. EDU counts do not appear to match.
ii. Does PFE Area No. 2 include any public facilities?
ili. Should Citywide costs include an EDU assumption for public facilities?

5. Drainage:
a. What is the basis for the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1 and PFE Area No. 2? i. Are these allocations summarized in the 2022 Nexus Study? b. Do any of the facilities provide benefit to existing users? i. Includes $20.6 million for Lakeview Farms - Phase 2. c. Table A-22 & A-23:
i. The schools and public facilities categories are not assigned EDUs. ii. Does PFE Area No. 2 include any public facilities?
ili. Should Citywide costs include an EDU assumption for public facilities?

6. Fire:
a. Includes the replacement costs of vehicles and equipment yet these costs are also funded as part of Community Facilities District No. 2018-2 ("CFD 2018-2"). b. What happens to vehicles that are replaced?
c. Do existing facilities provide capacity for future development? i. If so, some facilities will be depreciating assets. New development should only be responsible for a share of the replacement costs less depreciation. d. How would an assumption for active adult in PFE Area No. 2 impact facility requirements?
Does the City need a ladder truck for PFE Area No. No. 1 and 2? Revise engine requirements in on PFE Area No. 2 from 3.1 to 3.0. i. Does each station need a Type 1 and Type 3 engine?
g. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? h. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.
i. Per acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus study in 2012?

1. What was the reason for the adjustment?
PFE Nexus Study Page 3 of 5
Discussion Items

7. Police:
a. What is the basis for the facility standard of 475 square feet per personnel? i. What is existing standard?
b. Do existing residents require additional facilities to meet the 475 square foot standard? i. If so, how many square feet are required and what is the City's plan of finance? c. Assumes $6.9 million in debt attributable to future development. i. Is this required?
ii. Is debt assumed for existing development?
ili. Does the Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs? iv. Are other funding sources available?
v. What is timing of bond financing?
vi. What happens if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred? d. Can CFD 2018-2 fund the costs of vehicles and equipment? e. Includes $2.8 million for animal shelter.
i. Will this benefit existing development?
ii. Does County of Placer provide these services?
f. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? g. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.
i. Per acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus study in 2012?

1. What was the reason for the adjustment?

8. Administration:
a. What is the basis for the 350 square feet per employee standard? i. What is the existing standard?
b. How does the City plan to fund the 35,590 square feet of additional square feet required to serve existing residents? This is approximately $24.8 million. c. Why does the existing, Future Area 1 and Future Area 2 population estimates not match between Police, Fire and Administration?
i. Is this based on fee credit projects?
d. Assumes $7.7 million in debt attributable to future development. i. Is this required?
il. Is debt assumed for existing development?
ili. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs? iv. Are other funding sources available?
v. What is timing of bond financing?
vi. What happens if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred? e. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? f. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.

9. Library:
a. Is the basis for the .7 square foot per person standard the General Plan? i. What is the existing standard?
PFE Nexus Study Page 4 of5
Discussion Items
b. Will new library facilities be required by existing residents? i. How does the City plan to fund existing resident's facility requirement? c. Assumes a cost per square foot if $1,006?
i. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide a breakdown or source for this assumption? d. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? e. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.

10. Solid Waste:
a. The list of facilities includes maintenance vehicles. i. Are there other sources of revenue to fund these items?

1. Monthly user fees or CFD revenues?
b. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? c. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.

11. Parks, Trails & Recreation:
a. What are the existing park and recreation standards? b. How are plan area fee programs accounted for in the calculation? c. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? d. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.
i. Per acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus study in 2012?

1. What was the reason for the adjustment?
e. What is the basis for the cost per acre assumptions for neighborhood and community parks?
f. The 2022 Nexus Study includes costs for the following community facilities:
i. Aquatic Center - $17.6 million
ii. Swimming Centers/Pools - $5.0 million
ili. Basketball Courts - $1.2 million
iv. Community Centers - $10.0 million
v. What is the existing level of service standards for the above-reference community facilities?
vi. What is the basis for the cost assumptions?
DFA is available to discuss the concerns in greater detail.

PFE Nexus Study Page 5 of 5
Discussion Items
9B
•
•HEFNER
LAW Chad E. Roberts
916.567.7312
2150 River Plaza Drive #450
[email protected]
Sacramento, CA 95833-4136
T 916.925.6620
F 916.925.1127
hefner-law.com
June 28, 2022
Lincoln City Council
Mayor Holly Andreatta
Mayor Pro Tem Paul Joiner
Councilmember Dan Karleskint
Councilmember William Lauritsen
Councilmember Alyssa Silhi
600 6th Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
Sent Via Email
RE: June 28, 2022 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item No. 9.B Objections to Proposed Nexus Study and Public Facilities Element (PFE) Fees Dear Mayor Andreatta, Mayor Pro Tem Joiner, and Councilmembers, On behalf of our client, Sunset Tartesso, LLC, an entity controlled by Elliott Homes, Inc., we respectfully request your Council continue Agenda Item No. 9.B, which proposes to amend the Public Facilities Element fees for transportation, wastewater, water, drainage, and community services. As explained in this letter and attachments hereto, we have fundamental concerns about flaws in the proposed nexus study and fees and request additional time for our client and the development community to address those concerns with City of Lincoln staff and consultants.

The Mitigation Fee Act "was passed by the Legislature in response to concerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to development projects.'' (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 864; see generally Gov. Code, §§ 66000-66025.) To ensure fees charged are appropriate and fair, "Government Code section 66001 requires the local agency to determine 'how there is a reasonable relationship' between the proposed use of a given exaction and both 'the type of development project' and 'the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.'" (Id. at p. 865 [quoting Gov. Code, § 66001].)
"In a challenge to development fees, the public agency bears the initial burden of producing evidence to show it used a valid method for imposing the fee in question." (Boatworks, LLC v.

City of Alameda (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 290, 298.) A fee cannot withstand scrutiny under the Mitigation Fee Act if the methodology and supporting nexus study fail to establish the necessary nexus and reasonable relationship for each type of development project. (See, e.g., SummerHill Agenda Item No. 9.B - PFE Fees and Nexus Study
June 28, 2022

Page 2 ends

Winchester LLC v. Campbell Union School Dist. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 545, 553; Balch Enters. v. New Haven Unified Sch. Dist. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 783, 794.) "The Board imposing the fee must therefore show that a valid method was used for arriving at the fee in question... [and] the court must be able to assure itself that before imposing the fee the District engaged in a reasoned analysis designed to establish the requisite connection between the amount of the fee imposed and the burden created." (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 235.) A petitioner who successfully challenges a fee under the Mitigation Fee Act is also entitled to seek attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5. (See generally Boatworks, LLCv. City of Alameda, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th 290 at p. 307.)
Public review of nexus studies and proposed fees is also a critical component of the Mitigation Fee Act. Subsection 66019(d) provides:
(1) Any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, may submit evidence that the city, county, or other local agency's determinations and findings required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 66001 are insufficient or that the local agency otherwise failed to comply with this chapter. 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.
(2) The legislative body of the city, county, or other local agency shall consider any evidence submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) that is timely submitted under this chapter. After consideration of the evidence, the legislative body of the city, county, or other local agency may change or adjust the proposed fee or fee increase if deemed necessary by the legislative body.
(Gov. Code, § 66019, subd. (d).)
While our client only received the proposed nexus study on June 13, 2022 and has not had adequate time to exhaustively review it and the underlying assumptions, our client engaged two independent consultants with substantial expertise to review the proposed nexus study and fees. The concerns these experts raise provide substantial evidence establishing that the nexus study and fees, as proposed, do not comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. First, in its June 24, 2022 memorandum, Development & Financial Advisory advances numerous questions that should be addressed in the nexus study but remain unknown at the current time. These questions raise serious preliminary concerns about the likely erroneous assumptions and inadequate information and analysis in the nexus study. Second, in its June 23, 2022 letter, Jason Reed, P.E., with Wood Rodgers, Inc. similarly raises deficiencies in the analysis and assumptions in the proposed nexus study and public noticing for the requested action tonight. Both of these documents are attached to this letter and incorporated herein by reference. Absent the ability of City consultants and staff to provide sufficient answers to each question and the Agenda Item No. 9.B - PFE Fees and Nexus Study
June 28, 2022

Page 3 ends

concerns that Development & Financial Advisory and Wood Rodgers, Inc., raise, your Council cannot defensibly adopt the proposed nexus study and fees.

We understand your Council may feel pressured to adopt the proposed nexus study and fees tonight in an effort to avoid new requirements from AB 602 that take effect July 1, 2022. While that may appear to be an easier path in the short-term and we understand the desire to avoid the additional work AB 602 requires, such a short-sighted strategy does not embody good governance or justify adopting the nexus study and fees as proposed tonight. Instead of rushing to avoid the new requirements that will apply to future nexus study updates anyway, your Council should ensure that its Public Facilities Element Fees comply with state law and are calculated based on sufficient analysis with the opportunity for input from stakeholders. In these efforts, we believe the City will also find that shifting to square-footage-based fees does not pose a significant hurdle, especially because numerous jurisdictions and districts have been utilizing that methodology long before AB 602.

Thank you for considering our concerns and ensuring that the City of Lincoln continues to reach decisions that uphold stakeholder engagement, fairness, and compliance with state law. We welcome the opportunity to provide further stakeholder input in advance of a future meeting to consider a more thorough and adequate nexus study.

Very truly yours,

HEFNER, STARK & MAROIS, LLP
By
Chad E. Roberts
cc: Sean Scully, City Manager
Kristine Mollenkopf, City Attorney
Price Walker, Elliott Homes, Inc.

Attachments: June 24, 2022 Memorandum from Development & Financing Advisory June 23, 2022 Letter from Wood Rodgers, Inc.

DFA
Development & Financial Advisory
Sacramento • Orange County devfa.com
Memorandum
To: Price Walker
From: Development & Financial Advisory ("DFA")
CC: Jason Reed & Chad Roberts
Date: 6/24/2022
Re: PFE Nexus Study dated June 10, 2022
Below are preliminary concerns with the draft Public Facilities Element ("PFE") Program Nexus Study ("2022 Nexus Study") prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group dated June 10, 2022 for the City of Lincoln ("City").

2. Transportation:
a. Includes the cost of road reconstruction - Do these facilities provided expanded capacity for future development or cure existing deficiencies (Government Code Section 66001 (g))?
i. Should these improvements be funded as part of the City's new maintenance districts?
b. California Code Section 66005.1
i. Local agencies imposing fees to mitigate vehicular traffic impacts on housing units that meet specific characteristics shall be set at a rate that reflects the lower trip generation associated with the housing development.

SACRAMENTO • ORANGE COUNTY
www.DevFA.com

1. Housing development located within a ½ mile of a transit station with direct access.

2. Housing development located within ½ mile of convenience retail, including a store that sells food.

3. Housing development provides the minimum number of parking spaces. c. Does the 2022 Nexus Study account for vehicle miles traveled in determining equivalent dwelling units ("EDU) and cost allocations? If vehicle miles traveled are not analyzed is there the potential for conflict between the 2022 Nexus Study and environmental documents?
d. Does PPFE Area No. 1 or PFE Area No. 2 have any planned age-restricted or transit- oriented developments?
e. The EDU factors for market rates and age-restricted are the same. This is not consistent with standard nexus approach for determining traffic impacts.

Table A-15: 10.3 MGD appears to provide capacity for approximately 47,900 EDUs based on 215 gallons per day compared to the 55,566 EDUs projected. g. Includes roughly $30 million of various storage bonds and booster pumps for non- potable water. Should these be allocated to new and existing development? h. Assumes $92.1 million in debt attributable to future development for expansion of the wastewater treatment facility.
i. Is this required?
ii. Is debt assumed for existing development?
lili. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs? iv. Are other funding sources available?
v. What is timing of bond financing?
vi. What happens if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred?

4. Water:
a. Does the Nexus Study account for mandated water efficiency standards? i. Senate Bill X7-7
ii. AB 1668/SB 606
ili. Do future units have a lower demand factor compared to existing units? b. What is the water demand for an assumed EDU?
PFE Nexus Study Page 2 of 5
Discussion Items
c. Why did the EDU factors increase from the previous nexus study in 2012? d. Why are market rate and active adult EDU factors the same? e. Why are the high density EDU factors the same as low density? f. Can the single-family residential fee be tiered to match Placer County Water Agency? i. Fee based on lot size to match specific water consumption. g. What is the basis for the cost allocations between PFE Area No. 1 and PFE Area No. 2? i. Are these allocations summarized in the Nexus Study? h. Do any of the facilities provide benefit to existing users? i. Are any of the planned facilities expansion of existing facilities? i. Table A-18 & A-19:
i. EDU counts do not appear to match.
ii. Does PFE Area No. 2 include any public facilities?
ili. Should Citywide costs include an EDU assumption for public facilities?

1. What was the reason for the adjustment?
PFE Nexus Study Page 3 of 5
Discussion Items

7. Police:
a. What is the basis for the facility standard of 475 square feet per personnel? i. What is existing standard?
b. Do existing residents require additional facilities to meet the 475 square foot standard? i. If so, how many square feet are required and what is the City's plan of finance? c. Assumes $6.9 million in debt attributable to future development. i. Is this required?
il. Is debt assumed for existing development?
ili. Does the Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs? iv. Are other funding sources available?
v. What is timing of bond financing?
vi. What happens if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred? d. Can CFD 2018-2 fund the costs of vehicles and equipment? e. Includes $2.8 million for animal shelter.
i. Will this benefit existing development?
ii. Does County of Placer provide these services?
How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? g. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.
i. Per acre EDU factors have adjusted since previous nexus study in 2012?

1. What was the reason for the adjustment?

8. Administration:
a. What is the basis for the 350 square feet per employee standard? i. What is the existing standard?
b. How does the City plan to fund the 35,590 square feet of additional square feet required to serve existing residents? This is approximately $24.8 million. c. Why does the existing, Future Area 1 and Future Area 2 population estimates not match between Police, Fire and Administration?
i. Is this based on fee credit projects?
d. Assumes $7.7 million in debt attributable to future development. i. Is this required?
ii. Is debt assumed for existing development?
iii. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide details of the assumed financing costs? iv. Are other funding sources available?
v. What is timing of bond financing?
vi. What happens if fee paid prior to financing costs incurred? e. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? f. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.

9. Library:
a. Is the basis for the . 7 square foot per person standard the General Plan? What is the existing standard?
PFE Nexus Study Page 4 of 5
Discussion Items
b. Will new library facilities be required by existing residents? i. How does the City plan to fund existing resident's facility requirement? c. Assumes a cost per square foot if $1,006?
i. Does the 2022 Nexus Study provide a breakdown or source for this assumption? d. How would future active adult units impact facility requirements and cost allocations? e. EDU factors are the same for market rate and active adult. If population based this assumption is incorrect.

10. Solid Waste:

The list of facilities includes maintenance vehicles.
i. Are there other sources of revenue to fund these items?

1. What was the reason for the adjustment?
e. What is the basis for the cost per acre assumptions for neighborhood and community parks?
f. The 2022 Nexus Study includes costs for the following community facilities:
i. Aquatic Center - $17.6 million
ii. Swimming Centers/Pools - $5.0 million
iii. Basketball Courts - $1.2 million
iv. Community Centers - $10.0 million
v. What is the existing level of service standards for the above-reference community facilities?
vi. What is the basis for the cost assumptions?
DFA is available to discuss the concerns in greater detail.

PFE Nexus Study Page 5 of 5
Discussion Items

WOOD RODGERS
June 23, 2022
City of Lincoln
Attn: Mr. Ray Leftwich, PE
600 Sixth Street, 2nd Floor
Lincoln, CA 95648
E-mail: [email protected]
RE: Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update - Draft Report Comments for Review
Dear Mr. Leftwich:

Wood Rodgers, Inc. has received and reviewed the City of Lincoln Public Facilities Element Fee Program Nexus Study Update Draft Report (Report) on behalf of our client, Elliott Homes. The Report is dated June 10, 2022, and has been prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group. Please our comments for your review and response.

Comment: General
Prior iterations of the Report (2018 / 2019 timeframe) had included improvement exhibits to depict where the facilities as included in the program costs are located. Please provide a copy of the exhibits to review.

Comment: General.

Verbiage was not found in the Report to memorialize the previously approved Village 1 Public Facilities Finance Plan Volumes 1 & 2 (V1PFFP) language for PFE fees collected within a Village are to be used for PFE improvements within said village before they are used for other purposes. This language was included on pages 12 and 13 of the V1PFFP Volume 1 and pages 15-17 of the V1PPFP Volume 2. This applies to the non-critical fee component and is noted accordingly in the V1PFFP references.

Comment: General
Accounting of PFE revenues and expenditures should be categorized on a per village basis, per comments above to pool funds collected.

Comment: Page 1 - Introduction
The Report discusses that 'Funding for these facilities may come from several sources, including the City's Public Facilities Element Fee Program, federal and state program, existing reviews in the impact fee funds and other fundings sources. ' How have the other funding sources noted been considered in establishing the PFE fees, or do the PFE fees assume a 'go alone' funding source for all designated improvements, with exception of any existing revenues in the impact fee fund? Comment: Page 4 - New Transparency Requirements for Public Agencies The first bullet point indicates that Fees must be posted to the public agency's website within 30 days of any change in the fees. We had received the first notification of the new fees by way of e- mail receipt of the Report on June 14, 2022. This requirement does not appear to have been Corporate Office: 3301 C Street, Bldg. 100-B • Sacramento, CA 95816 • Tel: 916.341.7760 • Fax: 916.341.7767 www.woodrodgers.com
June 23, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

satisfied with the intended presentation and approval of PFE update to City Council on June 28, 2022. Please advise.

Comment: Page 6 - Plan Based Fee Methodology
Please refer to General comment above relative to pooling of PFE revenue within the respective villages and analysis of adequate funding per village based or if shortfalls in particular villages are anticipated.

Comment:

The number of existing jobs per resident is presented at 8,600 private jobs per 51,252 population, or 0.16 jobs per population. Jobs within build-out of Areas 1 and 2 (City buildout) is indicated at over 95,000 jobs and 130,000 residents, or a 0.73 jobs per population, a 4.5x increase from existing jobs basis and very high on a population basis for a community with Retirement housing as a significant make-up of the population base. For comparison, City of Roseville demographic information (sourced from City of Roseville Economic Development website) has 92,281 jobs and a population of 147,969. This represents a 0.62 jobs per population ratio, which is lower than the numbers projected for Lincoln. Lincoln would need to be larger employer base and net importer of jobs. These numbers affect services required which translates to infrastructure sizing and costs as included in the PFE for Citywide backbone infrastructure. Are these numbers realistic, or does a new jobs estimate need to be prepared which could potentially reduce some infrastructure requirements and costing?
Comment: Page 14 - Table V-1
PFE Area Number 2 has a cost allocation for Interchanges, at approximately $116,762,247. The Report claims that nearly all interchange cost is Area 2 impact and therefore cost. Interchange improvements associated with new development (Area 2 development) only provides for interchanges along the Highway 65 corridor. As such, a similar argument can be made to Village 1 as to existing Area 1 that the Village 1 development has no more impact or demand for the interchanges than existing area 1 has considering the geographic location and circulation elements to access the Village, and therefore should not be allocated cost for it. Alternatively, if Village 1 was not to be pulled out of cost structure for the interchanges of Areas 2, the interchange costs should be allocated citywide, to both Areas 1 and 2.

Comment: Page 34 - Level of Service - Fire
The section starts by stating: 'The City's fire department level of service is based on response time.

For Area No. 1, the City's fire department has determined that the existing fire stations 33, 34, and 35 can provide adequate coverage and response times to all of Area No. 1 and Village 1. If this is the case, Village 1 should not be included in Area #2 fee structure as adequate level of service is achieved with existing facilities.

Comment: Page 46 - Required Facilities and Estimated Costs - Library The construction cost of $1,006 per square foot is an exceptionally high cost. What is the source of this information? Additionally, although the general plan indicates a level of service of 0.7 square feet of space per 1,000 residents, is that realistic based upon the demands on the existing library? The existing library is operating limited hours and days of the week as-is. Increasing the usage of the existing facility prior to new facility construction would be more economical.

June 23, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

Comment: Table A-15 - Wastewater Treatment Cost Estimates The total cost allocated for total expansion of treatment plant is established at ~$417M. Is there any funding participation from Placer County or is the need for this level of wastewater treatment plant expansion it solely generated by the City demands and estimated demands for future capacity? Additionally, what EDU waste factors have been considered for the evaluation of treatment plant expansion? Is it based upon new lower waste generation per EDU due to low flow fixture requirements on development?
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the comments above or if you would like to meet and discuss.

Thank you,
WOOD RODGERS, INC.
jason Reed, PE
Senior Engineer, Associate
Cc: Mr. Travis Williams, PE; City of Lincoln, E-mail
Mr. Price Walker; Elliott Homes, Inc., E-mail
Mr. Chad Roberts; Hefner Law, E-mail
Mr. Mike Whipple; DFA - Development & Financial Advisory, E-mail 9B
Gwendolyn Scanlon
From: John Fett
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Alyssa Silhi; William Lauritsen; Dan Karleskint; Holly Andreatta; Paul Joiner; Gwendolyn Scanlon
Cc: Peter Gilbert; Dan Cross; Michele Hutchinson; Eric Johnson; Bill Lyons; Tony Manning; Kelye McKinney
Subject: Public Facilities Element Fees Comments
Attachments: Ist Qtr Retail CBRE Placer SF.pdf; Retail Space per Capita 2018.pdf; Land Use Summary 2050.pdf; Roseville CA Jobs per US Census 65k in 2019.pdf; Council Letter on PFE 6-28-2022.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
I have reviewed and analyzed the Public Facilities Element Fee Program and found what appears to be substantial errors based on erroneous assumptions. These errors are caused by relying on a General Plan that may be outdated. The Goodwin Report finds the following:
1) Calculated that Lincoln's projected build out of 130,000 people results in 95,000 jobs. Roseville, by example, has 143,000 people and 64,700 jobs (US Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimate). They are also a hub city. Clearly, a projection of 95,000 jobs in Lincoln appears unreasonable. 2) Calculated that Lincoln's projected commercial space will exceed 20,000,000 SF at build out. The national average of retail space per capita is 23 SF (and likely declining). Thus for 130,000 people Lincoln would typically have about 3,000,000 SF of retail space, not 20,000,000 SF. This is an apparent error exceeding 600%. Roseville, which has 143,000 people has about 6,500,000 SF of retail space, or 45/SF of space per capita. Roseville is a hub city with the second highest retail sales tax per capita in the state of California. Rocklin, with 75,000 people has 2,600,000 SF of commercial retail space or 34 SF of space per capita. Lincoln will be unlikely to exceed either of these per capita ratios.

The Goodwin Report is calculating over $2.2 billion of fees collected from different projects. Many of these assumptions are for commercial projects which may never have viability. How these miscalculations manifest themselves for our city and our future revenue are not clear, but one thing is certain: This projections in the analysis could lead to erroneous funding requirements.

Please note we have only had four days to review the Goodwin Report and the resulting PFE schedule since it was only posted last Friday. We suggest you review our points with the Goodwin consulting team prior to taking any actions.

Thank you,
Sincerely, John Fett
#LoveLincolnCA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1 Public Facilities Element Fees Comments
June 28, 2022
Dear City Council Members,
I have reviewed and analyzed the Public Facilities Element Fee Program and found what appears to be substantial errors based on erroneous assumptions. These errors are caused by relying on a General Plan that may be outdated. The Goodwin Report finds the following:
1) Calculated that Lincoln's projected build out of 130,000 people results in 95,000 jobs. Roseville, by example, has 143,000 people and 64,700 jobs (US Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimate). They are also a hub city. Clearly, a projection of 95,000 jobs in Lincoln appears unreasonable. 2) Calculated that Lincoln's projected commercial space will exceed 20,000,000 SF at build out. The national average of retail space per capita is 23 SF (and likely declining). Thus for 130,000 people Lincoln would typically have about 3,000,000 SF of retail space, not 20,000,000 SF. This is an apparent error exceeding 600%. Roseville, which has 143,000 people has about 6,500,000 SF of retail space, or 45/SF of space per capita. Roseville is a hub city with the second highest retail sales tax per capita in the state of California. Rocklin, with 75,000 people has 2,600,000 SF of commercial retail space or 34 SF of space per capita. Lincoln will be unlikely to exceed either of these per capita ratios.

Thank you,
John Fett
-
FIGURES I SACRAMENTO ! Q12022
RETAIL OVERVIEW (continued)
FIGURE 2: Submarket Statistics
In Q1 2022, discount retailers and fitness clubs were the two most active categories in the market. Chuze Fitness (34,070 sq. ft.) signed the largest Not Total Total Average lease of the quarter, and RL Liquidators (30,100 sq. ft.) signed the second Submarket Rentable Vacancy Availability Direct Asking Q1 Net YTD Net largest lease in Q1 2022. Both leases were signed in the South Area (%) Rate (S) Absorption Absorption Sacramento submarket. Several national retailers have also signed Arden/Watt /Howe 3,643,210 9.6 13.6 1.34 11,056 11,056 expansions throughout the region, including DoorDash, Old Navy, and Auburn/Loomis 1,152,690 4.8 4.8 1.98 5,530 5,530
Five Below.

Carmichael 1,071,163 17.6 19.0 1.20 (938) (938)
Market-wide availability and vacancy decreased quarter-over-quarter as a 9.8 1.27 Citrus Heights/Fair Oaks 4,779.512 8.3 (12,243) (12,243) result of increased tenant demand and leasing activity. Availability decreased 15 basis points (bps) to 8.5% while vacancy decreased 9 bps to Folsom/El Dorado Hills 5,341,789 7.1 7.8 2.06 (21,253) (21,253)

6.6% in Q1 2022. Since peaking in Q4 2020 at 7.5%, vacancy has continued Greenhaven/Pocket 429,018 1.5 9.8 (2,354) (2,354) its steady decrease into 2022
Hwy 50/Rancho Cordova/Rosemont 2,901,512 14.7 16.8 1.53 (39,092) (39,092) Direct asking lease rates decreased slightly, due to a significant amount Laguna/Elk Grove 5,543,730 24 4.1 212 4,134 4,134 of lower quality product coming to market. The average asking lease rate Lincoln 1,168,982 1.4 1.7 237 (1,300) (1,300)
decreased by $0.01 quarter-over-quarter, to $1.60 NNN. Net absorption totaled negative 45,161 sq. ft. in Q1 2022, the first quarter of negative North Highlands 2,583,559 4.9 5.7 1.22 (10,791) (10,791) absorption since Q2 2021. Despite the downtick in occupancy gains, North Natomas 3,379,685 3.4 3.6 223 3,834 3,834
demand remains robust across all submarkets for top tier space.

Rocklin 2,579,959 5.6 7.2 1.56 11,807 11,807
There were no new construction deliveries in 01 2022. However, new Roseville 6,416,935 5.9 9.1 1,92 2,059 2,059 retail developments are following the rooftops in expanding suburban areas. South Folsom, West Roseville, and Elk Grove are looking forward to South Natomas 656,257 7.5 13.2 1.48 (4,857) (4,857) the delivery of newly proposed projects in their respective submarkets. South Sacramento 4,465,124 8.7 1.51 11,707 11.707

6.1 The Sacramento Retail market remains fluid, as highlighted by several West Sacramento/Davis 2,640.922 7.3 8.4 1.93 (2,190) (2,190) noteworthy investment transactions during the quarter. Highland Reserve Sacramento Retail Market 48,754,047 6,6 8.5 1.60 (45,161) (45,161) Marketplace (191,415 sq. ft.) located in the Roseville submarket was acquired by Schnitzer Properties for $52 million. Consumer demand for Source: CBRE Research goods remained strong this quarter, which will continue to bolster retail investment in the Sacramento region throughout 2022.

Real Estate › Commercial Real Estate
Retail space per capita in selected countries worldwide in 2018 (in square feet)
30 25 23.5
· 20

16.8 15
Space in square feet per

11.2 6
10 5 4.6 4.4 4.1
3:8 3.6 3.4

2.8 "#"°฿"_
0 United States Australia United Kingdom Netherlands France Switzerland Thailand South Korea © Statista 2022 N
® Additional Information Show source O
Table A-5
Land Use Summary
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (2022)
Estimated Number of Residents In the City 51,252
Estimated Number of Jobs in the fity 8,564

ESTIMATED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT '
Total Persons Total
Units per Household Population
Realdential - PEE Area No. 1
Very Low Density 67 2.37 159
Low Density 2,199 2.37 5.212
Medium Density 1,724 2.37 4,066
High Density 791 1.71 1,350
High Density - Tweive Bridges 935 1.71 1.595
Subtotal 5,716 12,402
Residontial - PFE Area No. 2
Very Low Density 13202 2.37 4,633
Low Density 2.37 31,289
Medium Density 8,534 2.37 20,226
High Density 6,192 1.71 10,566
Subtotal 29,883 66,714
Total Residontal 35,599 79,115
Net Total Bidg SF Total
Acres Bldg SF per Job Jobs
Non-Residential - PEE Area No. 1
Commercial 190.9 2,494,420 500 4,989
Business & Professional 89.8 1,172.853 300 3,910
Industriat 276.0 3,005,640 327 9,192
Subtotal 556.6 6,672,913 18,090
Men-Residential - PEE Area Me, 2
Commerci 1319.9 0.30 17.247,800 500 34,496
Business & Profession 432.8 0.30 5.655.127 300 18.851
Industrial 480.0 0.25 5,227,200 327 15.985
Subtotal 2,232.6 28,130,177 69,332
Total Non-ResIdential 2,789.2 34,803,090 87,421
Public / Other - PFE Area No. 1
Parks 147.18 n/a Na n/a
Schoots 93.70 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Public Facilities 179.10 nia n/a
Subtotal 419.98
Public / Other - PFE Area No. 2
Parks 185.10 n/a r/a n/a
Schools 104.60 n/a n/a nia
Open Space 6,031.30 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Subtotal 6,321.00

TOTAL EXISTING & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT BUILD OUT
Estimated Number of Residents in the City 130,367
Estimated Number of Jobs in the City 95,985
Includes development from the current General Plan.

Sources. City of Lincan: Dept. of Finance: Environics Analytics, Ine; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.

Roseville, CA Jobs 2019 per US Census
Employment by Occupations

64.7k 2.63%
2019 VALUE 1 YEAR GROWTH
+1,688 3.65%
From 2018 to 2019, employment in Roseville, CA grew at a rate of 2.63%, from 63.1k employees to 64.7k employees.

The most common job groups, by number of people living in Roseville. CA, are Management Occupations (8.208 people), Sales & Related Occupations (7.988 people), and Office & Administrative Support Occupations (7.198 people). This chart illustrates the share breakdown of the primary jobs held by residents of Roseville, CA
Total: 64.7k
Architecture Food Personal Production
Health Diagnosing & Computer & Sales & Related
Management Care's
Treating Practitioners Mathematical Engineerng Preparation & Service Occupations & Other Technical Occupatons 268%
Occupations Occupations Occupations Serving Related
Occupations, Occupations Transportation
Occupations

12.3%

2.44% 2.12%
Education Technologists& Office & Administrative Heatibcare Support Construction Instartation.

Business & Financial Occupations
Instruction, & Mantenance,
273% & Extraction 6 Repaid
Operations Occupations Library Occupations Support Occupations Eccupalines Balling & Brands Creamg Occupations
Maintenseca Occupations
5095 1.37%
29456
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
City of Lincoln
Public Facilities Element
Update
JUNE 28, 2022
Current PFE
•Ord 517B establishing Public Facilities Fee adopted March 14, 1989 •Last update adopted by Res 2012-024 on February 28, 2012 'Adjusted for inflation on May 13, 2014
•Contract for services with Goodwin Associates for Update approved on October 28, 2014 «Process for adoption delayed due to numerous changes to City staff and nuances associated with Construction, Operations and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (COJA) between the City and Placer County, adopted on October 16, 2013
•Contract with Goodwin Associates amended in October 2017, April 2018, July 2020, and March 2022
Laws and Regulations - AB1600
•Mitigation Fee Act - California Government Code [§§66000 -66008] •Provide a nexus for the purpose, use, relationship and need for the fee • Shall only include the portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed
•Five year reporting of purpose, relationship, funding and timing of improvements •Capital Improvement Plan adopted annually
•May include the following facilities:
• Water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities
• Transportation and transit facilities
• Public buildings, parks, recreation facilities and other capital project identified in the capital facilities plan adopted pursuant to §66002
AB602
•Amends Government Code Section 65940.1
•Adds Government Code Section 66016.5
•Requires fees, zoning ordinances, development standards and annual reports to be posted on City's website
«Fee nexus study shall be adopted prior to adoption of an impact fee •All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days notice • Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning January 2022 •Nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 shall calculate fees for residential development projects proportionally to square footage of proposed housing units •State of California to provide a nexus study template for square footage proportionality by January 1, 2024
Review of PFE Update
•Assigns two primary fee areas:
• Area No. 1: includes buildout of 1988 General Plan, Lincoln 270 and Village 7 • Area No. 2: includes 2008 General Plan Villages 1 - 6 and Special Use Districts A - C "Area No. 1 Drainage divided by drainage areas north and south of Auburn Ravine - Village 1 within Area No. 2 is included within Area No. 1 for Fire 'Area No. 1 Library is demand is met by 12 Bridges Library •12 Bridges Development Agreement includes different allocation factors that will continue until the DA expires on April 15, 2023
Fees for Typical 1.00 EDU Permit
Facility Type Current PFE 2012 PFE Indexed to Inflation? Proposed Area 1 Fee Proposed Area 2 Fee Transportation $3,636 $5,040 $6,477
Wastewater $1,870 $2,514 $4,568
Wastewater Treatment $4,575 $6,419 $7,699
Water Transmission $3,037 $3,719 $1,920
Water Storage $3,571 $4,374 $1,024
Drainage - Area 1 North of Ravine $1,795 $2,489 $2,700
Drainage - Area 1 South of Ravine $1,060 $1,469 $264 $0 Drainage - Areawide $0 $0 $767 $811
Fire? $557 $772 $691 $862
Police $1,097 $1,520 $803 $892
Administration $970 $1,346 $1,103 $1,103
Library $o $0 $0 $1,482
Solid Waste $802 $1,111 $682 $665
Parks and Trails - Area 1 $4,182 $5,798 $5,754 $0
Neighborhood parks - Area 2 $O $0 $3,847
Regional Parks - Area 2 $O $0 $4,210
Trails - Area 2 $O $0 $719
Park Recreational Facilities $0 $758 $826
Total Area 1 North of Ravine $26,092 $35,102 $34,946
Total Area 1 South of Ravine $25,357 $34,082 $32,510
Total Area 2 $36,417
Area 1 Fee: Low Density Residential
North of Auburn Ravine
Current Fee 2012 PFE Indexed to Proposed Fee
Inflation
Transportation $3,636 $5,040 $6,477
Wastewater $6,445 $8,933 $12,267
Water $6,608 $8,093 $2,944
Drainage $1,795 $2,489 $3,467
Community Facilities $7,608 $10,547 $9,791
Total $26,092 $35,102 $34,946
Area 1 Fee: Low Density Residential
South of Auburn Ravine
Current Fee 2012 PFE Indexed to Proposed Fee
Inflation
Transportation $3,636 $5,040 $6,477
Wastewater $6,445 $8,933 $12,267
Water $6,608 $8,093 $2,944
Drainage $1,060 $1,469 $1,031
Community Facilities1 $7,608 $10,547 $9,791
Total $25,357 $34,082 $32,510
Area 2 Fee: Low Density Residential
2019 Draft
Transportation $4,848
Wastewater $14,069
Water $2,083
Drainage $811
Community Facilities $14,606
Total $36,417
Area 2 Fee: Low Density Residential
Village 1
Proposed Fee
Transportation $4,848
Wastewater $14,069
Water $2,083
Drainage $811
Community Facilities $14,435
Total $36,246
Municipal Code Section 13.04.160
•Currently includes the Water PFE cost of $6,608.77 per 1,150 gallons per day (1.00 EDU) •Proposed revision to reference the most recently adopted nexus study •Add allocation factors for Residential Facilities
•Current ordinance provides the minimum charge of 1.00 EDU Municipal Code Sections

13.12.050 and 13.12.060
•Adds sanitary sewer allocation factors for Residential Facilities •Defers payment of Sewer PFE for commercial shell construction to time of Tenant Improvements when allocation factors can be determined
•Currently includes the Sewer PFE cost of $6,134.00 per each 1.00 EDU •Proposed revision to reference the most recently adopted nexus study •Revises the date of Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index used for annual inflation adjustments to align with the rest of the PFE and to be in place at the beginning of the fiscal year Recommendations
•Conduct a public hearing to receive public testimony in regards to amending the PFE fees for transportation, wastewater, water, drainage and community services with a proposed effective date of September 10, 2022
•Adopt a resolution adopting the Public Facilities Element Program Nexus Study, dated June 10, 2022
•Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Section 13.04.160 establishing water connection charges
•Waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance amending Section 13.12.050 and

13.12.060 establishing sewer connection
Questions????
City of Operating and
Lincöln
Capital
Improvement
Budget
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Funds Overview
• General Fund (Fund 100)
• ARPA SLFRF Federal Assistance (Funds
102 & 237)
• Public Safety Tax Share (Fund 102)
• Development Services Fund (Fund 248)
• PFE Funds
B
• Enterprise Funds
Budget Overview & Highlights
• Total proposed combined budget is
$129,722,349 across 57 funds
• $11,548,406 in SLFRF ARPA funds with
$10,000,000 available to be used for
general governmental purposes
• Anticipation of continued construction
• Position allocation increases
• Increases in Capital projects
Photo Credit Nancy Rice
Photo Credit M Milville
General Fund
General Fund: Funding Sources
FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Projected Increase/
Actual Projected Proposed Budget Decrease
Property Taxes 11,893,785 11,903,720 12,508,199 5%
Sales & Other taxes 5,102,939 5,500,000 5,570,000 1%
Licenses & Permits 1,577,978 1,498,605 1,522,000 2%
Intergovernmental 747,768 140,300 238,000 70%
Service Charges 2,506,143 2,346,520 2,356,155 0%
Recreation Services 749,668 945,100 1,162,000 23%
Fines and Forfeitures 39,059 39,600 41,000 4%
Use of Money and Property 327,883 318,973 325,282 2%
Other Revenues 342,205 629,941 267,401 -58%
Transfer In 815,810 756,961 456,963 -40%
24,103,238 24,079,720 24,447,000 1.5%
General Fund Budget
• Beginning unaudited balance
July 1, 2022 9,932,690
- Total Inflows 24,447,000
- Total Outflons* (26,714,893)
• Projected ending balance
June 30, 2023 7,664,797
I Colon
* Outflows include LLD deficit expense, transfer to Reserves General Fund: Expense and Revenue Trend
$30.0
$25.0
$20.0
$15.0
$10.0
$5.0
$000
FY2021-22 FY2022-23
FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17 FY2017-18 | FY2018-19 : FY2019-20 FY2020-21 Proposed Projected
Budget
-Revenue $16.4 $16.4 $17.8 $18.3 $21.5 $21.6 $24.1 $24.1 $24.4 -Expenditures | $14.3 $15.3 $15.8 $18.0 $18.7 $19.3 $19.7 $24.9 $26.7 FY 2022-23
FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund Uses Uses by Department Proposed
Actuals Projected
Budget
Police 6,379,106 6,978,875 7,557,314
Fire 5,730,898 5,953,317 6,157,753
Recreation 559,929 1,190,680 1,311,976
50%
Library 579,810 699,405 860,491
40%
Finance 533,808 580,854 587,476
30% City Manager 28,334 85,100 192,974
City Council / Treasurer 180,352 349,747 219,312
20%
Economic Development 129,336 54,334 278,522
10%
Community Development 662,100 625,756 369,941
0%
Parks/Facilities/Fleet 1,541,970 2,008,794 2,418,996
Police Fire Recreatio Library Finance Manner Can bon Condon earl City (ilities/Flee! Attorney
n
ent
35% 0% 1% City Attorney 218,570 276,078 243,111
• 20-21 39% 3% 4% 3% 1% 4% 9% 1%
•21-22 37% 32% 6% 4% 3% 0% 2% 0% 3% 11% 1%
-22-23 37% 30% 6% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 12% 1%
LOtE 16,544,213 18,802,940 20,197,866
Public Safety Tax Share (Fund 101)
• Beginning unaudited balance
July 1, 2022 1,145,652
- Total Inflows 1,048,574
- Total Outflows (979,671)
• Projected ending balance
June 30, 2023 1,214,555
Hugne:

ARPA State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF)
Standard Allowance (Fund 102) ARPA Federal Assistance (Fund 237) Received FY 21/22 $ 4,225,797 Received FY 21/22 $1,548,406 To be Received 22/23 $ 5,774,203
FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,000,000 FUNDS AVAILABLE $ 1,548,406 Approved &/or Expended Amounts Approved &/or Expended Amounts Business Grants (FY21/22) $ (972,500) COVID Business relief (FY21/22)| $ (5,000) Admin Business Grants (FY21/22) $ (50,000)
LPOA retro & incentive payments $ (340,957)
9 firefighter personnel (3 yrs) $(2,872,814)
REMAINING AVAILABLE $ 5,763,729 REMAINING AVAILABLE $ 1,543,406 Development Services (Fund 248)
• Beginning unaudited balance
July 1, 2022 12,271,017
- Total Inflows 5,865,500
- Total Outflows (4,89,624)
• Projected ending balance
June 30, 2023 13,244,893
Rhoto Credi Hid Hognes
Summary of PFE Funds
Available Available
Fund Funds July 1, Proposed Proposed Funds June 30,
# Fund Name 2022 Revenues Expenses 2023
240 Transportation 4,711,259 2,835,500 (4,200) 7,542,559 241 CS - Police 1,516,001 1,093,000 (465,900) 2,143,101 243 CS - Administration 2,307,455 967,500 (405,680) 2,869,275 244 CS - Library 915,577 - (296,918) 618,659
246 CS - Parks 7,883,129 3,403,000 (1,723,300) 9,562,829 242* CS - Fire (6,416,966) 484,000 (26,190) (5,959,156) *Construction of three Fire Stations to provide Citywide coverage 247** Drainage 30,776 1,596,160 (500) 1,626,436
**Acquisition of Regional Retention site to serve entire General Plan area Enterprise Fund - Water (Fund 710)
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000 4 Revenue --Expenses
2021-22 2022-23
2019-20 2020-21 Projected
Proposed Budget
(Revenue ' 12,385,230 12,955,475 15,398,700 12,694,100
Expenses 11,648,751 12,769,604 13,838,315 15,102,704
2022-23
2021-22 Proposed
2019-20 2020-21 Projected Budget
Beginning Fund
Balance 3,206,209 3,942,688 4,128,559 5,688,944
Revenue 12,385,230 12,955,475 15,398,700 12,694,100
Expenses 11,648,751 12,769,604 13,856,583 15,102,704
Ending Fund
Balance 3,942,688 4,128,559 5,688,944 3,280,340
Photo Credit Eiden Choe
Enterprise Fund - Wastewater (Fund 720)
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
-Revenue -- Expenses
2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
2019-20 Projected
Proposed Budget
Revenue 12,196,495 11,970,016 10,281,772 11,188,350
¡Expenses 10,255,718 9,620,888 11,007,924 12,898,934
2022-23
2021-22 Proposed
2019-20 2020-21 Projected Budget
Beginning Fund
Balance 5,151,019 4,742,668 7,091,796 6,365,644
Revenue 12,196,495 11,970,016 10,281,772 11,188,350
Expenses 10,255,718 9,620,888 11,007,924 12,898,934
Ending Fund
Balance 7,091,796 7,091,796 6,365,644 4,655,060
Enterprise Fund - Solid Waste (Fund 730)
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
→ Revenue -- Expenses
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
Projected Proposed Budget
[Revenue 7,637,878 7,551,764 7,793,525 7,712,825
Expenses! 6,077,952 8,849,286 6,807,332 9,082,690
2022-23
2021-22 Proposed
2019-20 2020-21 Projected Budget
Beginning Fund
Balance 3,929,136 5,489,062 4,191,540 5,177,733
Revenue 7,637,878 7,551,764 7,793,525 7,712,825
Expenses 6,077,952 8,849,286 6,807,332 9,082,690
Beginning Fund
Balance 5,489,062 4,191,540 5,177,733 3,807,868
Enterprise Fund - Airport (Fund 750)
1,750,000
1,500,000
1,250,000
1,000,000
750,000
500,000
250,000
Revenue --Expenses
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
Projected Proposed Budget
|Revenue 1,573,480 1,516,665 1,665,017 1,670,636
¡Expenses 1,577,749 1,376,583 1,543,731 1,546,464
2022-23
2021-22 Proposed
2019-20 2020-21 Projected Budget
Beginning Fund
Balance (6,232,008) (6,236,277) (6,096,195) (5,974,909) Revenue 1,573,480 1,516,665 1,665,017 1,670,636
Expenses 1,577,749 1,376,583 1,543,731 1,546,464
Ending Fund
Balance (6,236,277) (6,096,195) (5,974,909) (5,850,737)

CIP - PARKS
100 245 246 270
PARKS General Fund Park PFE Landscape & Total
Park Tax Lighting
McBean Stadium Bleacher Replacement 120,000 $ 120,000
Foskett Park & Wilson Park Laser Grading 30,000 $ 30,000 Foskett Park Soccer Field Renovation 340,000 $ 340,000
McBean Park Bandstand Electrical 74,500 $ 74,500
Brown Park Matting replacement 67,500 $ 67,500
Coyote Pond Park Matting replacement 66,500 66,500
Joiner Park Shade and Picnic Areas 100,000 $ 100,000
Moore Road Class 1 Trail 1,215,000 $ 1,215,000
Foskett Park post and cable 85,000 $ 85,000
Total Parks 194,500 164,000 1,640,000 100,000 2,098,500

CIP - STREETS
221 223 244 245 298 620
Streets - Gas Streets - TDA Library PFE Federal Facility Maint / Park Tax Grants Total
Replacement
Joiner Pkwy Pavement Rehab Phase 2-CON 279,536 1,670,464 $ 1,950,000 Ferrari Ranch Road UPRR Crossing 515,000 515,000
I Street &J Street Rehabilitation 373,536 1,526,464 $ 1,900,000 Slurry seal & re-stripe parking lots 53,708 191,931 75,514 $ 321,153 Road Sealant project 850,000 850,000
Bicycle Infrastructure Project 22/23 43,274 43,274
Total Streets 1,223,536 2,364,274 53,708 191,931 1,670,464 75,514 5,579,427

CIP - WATER, WASTEWATER, DRAINAGE, AIRPORT
275 711 721 750 755
CFD 2004-1 Federal
Storm Water Water Capital Wastewater Aviation
Airport Total
Retention Basin Capital Grants
WATER
Water distribution rehabilitation FY 21/22 East 850,000 $ 850,000 Water distribution Rehab FY 21/22 West 4,810,000 $ 4,810,000 Total Water 5,660,000 - 5,660,000

WASTEWATER
SCADA control upgrades 235,000 $ 235,000
Total Wastewater •l 235,000 235,000
Ongoing projects requiring no additional
funding in FY 2022-2023
WATER
Verdera North Pressure Reducing Station
- Replacement/repair of water pipelines, fire hydrants, water valves and laterals Fire hydrant replacement program
-Replace fire hydrants and laterals across the city
Large water meter replacement
-Replacement of 5 existing large water meters that are past their service life

WASTEWATER
Oxidation Ditch
-Retrofit of existing rotor system
Corp Yard CDS unit installation
-Installation of hydrodynamic separator

CIP - WATER, WASTEWATER, DRAINAGE, AIRPORT
275 711 721 750 755
CFD 2004-1 Federal
Wastewater
Storm Water | Water Capita Airport Aviation Total
Retention Basin Capital Grants

DRAINAGE
Lakeview Farms Volumetric Storage Phi 2,277,000 $ 2,277,000 Total Drainage 2,277,000 2,277,000

AIRPORT
Airport Oil/Water Separator $ 70,000
Airport Pavement Management Plan 12,000 108,000 $ 120,000 Total Airport 12,000 108,000 190,000
Ongoing projects requiring no additional
funding in FY 2022-2023

AIRPORT
Underground Fuel Tank Removal
-Removal of existing underground fuel tank system
Reconstruct Runway 15-33 Design
-Design services for the reconstruction of Airport Runway

CIP - PUBLIC BUILDINGS
236 241 243 244 250 540 620
Supplemental Capital Facility Maint
PFE - Police PFE - Admin Library PFE State Grants Improvement Total Replacement
Community Center Improvements 178,000 $ 178,000
PD server room A/C upgrade 40,000 $ 40,000
PD IT room expansion 350,000 $ 350,000
McBean Park roof repairs 80,000 $ 80,000
Beermans Plaza lawn replacement 50,000 $ 50,000
McBean Pavilion AC Replacement 75,000 $ 75,000
Police parking lot expansion 50,000 $ 50,000
Police Dispatch break room 25,000 $ 25,000
City Hall exterior painting 140,000 $ 140,000
Twelve Bridges Library exterior paint 51,500 135,000 $ 186,500 McBean Pavilion exterior paint 123,000 $ 123,000
McBean Pavilion Interior upgrades 100,000 $ 100,000
Council Chambers & Office relocation design 225,000 $ 225,000 Total Public Bidgs 274,500 465,000 365,000 135,000 178,000 75,000 130,000 1,622,500

CIP - VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT
100 223 246 270 711 721 731
Landscape & Water Capital Wastewater Solid Waste
General Fund Streets - TDA Park PFE Total
Lighting Capital Capital
VEHICLES and EQUIPMENT
HME Type 3 Wildland engine - Fire 477,000 477,000
suv/pickup for Chief 79,800 $ 79,800
(10) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus - Fire 140,000 140,000 Chevy Traverse - Police 40,000 40,000
(2) Patrol Vehicles - Police 140,000| $ 140,000
(2) Chevy Silverado 1500 - Parks 80,000 80,000
Chevy Colorado-Parks 20,000 20,000 $ 40,000
(2) Collection truck - Solid Waste 800,000 $ 800,000
Roll off collection truck - Solid Waste 270,000 $ 270,000 (2) F350 Utility trucks with liftgate & crane - Streets 190,000 $ 190,000 Dump truck - Streets 190,000 $ 190,000
3 Axle Trailer - Streets 45,000 $
Chevy Silverado 1500 - Water 33,000
Case Backhoe - Water 175,000 $ 175,000
Trailer mounted bypass pump - Wastewater 90,000 $ 90,000 Ford F250 utility truck - Wastewater 65,000 $ 65,000
Vactor and two separators - Wastewater 600,000 $ 600,000 Bobcat for WWTRF 115,000 $ 115,000
Total Vehicles and Equipment 896,800 425,000 80,000 20,000 208,000 870,000 1,070,000 3,569,800

CIP - TECHNOLOGY
223 243 244 270 600 630 710 711 720 730
Landscape & Internal Water
Streets - TDA PFE - Admin Library PFE Service Fund Technology Water Capital Wastewater | Solid Waste Total Lighting Operations

TECHNOLOGY
City-wide Financial Software 500,000 $ 500,000
Physical Security Upgrades 600,000 $ 600,000
Network Architecture Security 200,000 $ 200,000
Solid Waste Routing software 225,000$ 225,000
City Hall / Library Camera Security Project 40,000 30,000 70,000 Public Works work order system 19,200 6,000 6,000 120000 2,400 79,.00 120,000 19,200 40,000 30,000 6,000 6,000 500,000 800,000 2,400 299,400 1,715,000 2022/2023 FUTURE YEARS CIPs - $126,149,462
PARKS $ 12,121,000 STREETS $ 21,910,462
McBean Baseball Stadium Ph2 $ 6,050,000 Fiddyment Road base failure & pothole repair $ 214,844 McBean Park Playground Ph1 $ 350,000 Twelve Bridges Channel Maintenance $ 300,000 540 F Street ADA Ramp with signage 52,621
Joiner Park Playground Equipment $ 208,000 Ashwood Court Drainage Imp 65,000 Jimenez Park Ph4 - Baseball Fields $ 3,590,000 540 F Street Directional signs S 52,621 McBean Baseball Dugouts $ 1,100,000 Industrial Avenue Rehab S 1,550,000 Ferrari Ranch Road metering project $ 312,000
Foskett Park Parking Lot ADA Ph2 $ 213,500 Lincoln Blvd Repaving Ph2 $ 1,966,078 Coyote Pond Park Parking Lot ADA $ 183,500 Deploy signal coordination GPS receivers $ 171,000 High School street resurfacing & sewer 4,600,000
Pete Singer Park Parking Lot ADA $ 183,500 3rd Street Rehab $ 2,280,000 East Avenue Rehab $ 2,015,000
Twelve Bridges Park Parking Lot ADA $ 120,000 Joiner Parkway Pavement Rehab Ph3 $ 3,265,000 Lincoln Blvd Ph4 $ 2,028,000
Wilson Park Parking Lot ADA $ 122,500
McBean Sidewalk gap closure Ph1 $ 130,000
Crosswalk at Ferrari and Groveland $ 309,625
Twelve Bridges Striping Refresh Ph2 $ 350,000
Fiddyment Road Rehab Project $ 2,053,673
New Storm drain manholes $ 100,000
Storm Drain Replacement $ 95,000
WASTEWATER $ 56,781,000
2022/2023 FUTURE YEARS CIPs- $126,149,462 WWTRF Expansion Ph1 $ 1,940,000 UPRR Sewer Rehab $ 2,285,000
WATER $ 13,425,000 East Joiner Pump Station Imp
2,010,000
Water Distribution Rehab FY 23/24 $ 5,500,000 Q Street Lift Station Rehab 1,745,000
Water Distribution Rehab FY 24/25 $ 2,525,000 East Joiner Lift Station Rehab $ 1,555,000 Water Distribution Rehab FY 25/26 $ 5,400,000 High School Area Street Resurfacing & Sewer $ 4,600,000
DRAINAGE $ 366,000
New Storm Drain Manholes Sewer hot spot repairs $ 685,000 $ 188,000
Storm Drain Replacement 178,000 Aviation & Venture Sewer Line Rehab $ 510,000 AIRPORT $ 20,395,000 Sewer Restriction - Aviation Drive Pump $ 1,410,000 Reconstruct Runway 15-33 Construction $ 20,395,000 3rd St Sanitary Sewer Lift Station $ 265,000 PUBLIC BLDGS 1,001,000
Markham Sewer Point Repairs S 590,000
Community Center Roof $ 210,000
CCTV Wastewater Collection System Ş 1,040,000
Civic Center Exterior Painting 210,000
Fire Stations 33, 34, & 35 ADA Improvements 145,000 Ph2 Reclamation - Machado & Singer Ş 975,000 Fire Stations 35 Driveway & Fencing $ 436,000 Sewer Restriction - Lincoln Crossing 1,840,000 VEHICLES / EQUIPMENT $ 150,000 Sewer Restriction - North East Avenue 1,941,000 Ford F350 utility truck $ 65,000 Sewer Restriction - NRPS Collection Shed 2,615,000 Ford F350 Utility truck with crane $ 85,000 Sewer Restriction - Old Town North 2,475,000 Sewer Restriction - Old Town South (A) $ 1,900,000
Sewer Restriction - Old Town South (B) 1,625,000
Sewer System Rehab FY 23/24 1,950,000
Sewer System Rehab FY 24/25 2,845,000
Sewer System Rehab FY 25/26 2,100,000
Sewer System Rehab FY 27/28 4,880,000
WWTRF Expansion Ph2 $ 13,000,000
New Positions
• IT Supervisor • Police Sergeant • Associate Planner • Maintenance • GIS Analyst I/1I • Dispatcher • Engineer Services Manager • Code • Police Records • Building Inspector • Wastewater Tech Enforcement Clerk/Evidence (2 FTE) • Water Tech (2 FTE) Officer 1/Il Tech (2 FTE) • Permit Tech
• Fire Engineer (9
FTE)
IT / Administration Public Safety Community Public Works Development
26 Photo Credit David Hughes
lOF
Holly Andreatta, Mayor
City of Lincoln
600 Sixth Street
Pincoln Lincoln, CA 95648
AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE June 28, 2022
RE: Proposed Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.

Tom Indrieri, CEO
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce Dear Mayor Andreatta and members of the City Council, Mark Luster, President The Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce would like to submit a letter of Sierra Pacific Industries support for the proposed Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.

The Chamber is very supportive of a program designed to encourage hotel Ed Mertens, Past President development and help move forward and drive economic development in the Mertens Insurance Agency City of Lincoln.

Brandon Bowling, Vice President As a voice for our business community, we enthusiastically support an William Jessup University
incentive program that can help bring more hotels to our city. As Lincoln Brandon Sanders, Director continues to grow, so does our schools and sports programs. It is nearly PG&E impossible to estimate the loss of revenue and tax dollars that we lose to Roseville and Rocklin due to our relatives, friends and corporate events that Eric Dalton, Treasurer have to lodge in the nearby cities. Wouldn't it be nice to capture all that Sutter Health revenue and TOT taxes from activities generated right here in Lincoln? But only having one hotel forces most families to lodge elsewhere and a majority Kimberly McCue, Secretary spend their money gassing up and eating out in close proximity to the hotel Lincoln Funeral Home they are staying at.

Claire Luke, Board Chair On behalf of the Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce, I ask that you support Lincoln Community Foundation the proposed Lincoln Hotel Incentive Program.

Melanie Bergevin, Director Sincerely,
Edward Jones
Tom Indrieri
Cherri Spriggs, Director CEO - Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce FSB Public Affairs 530-300-6039
Randy Johnson, Director
Lincoln Gun Exchange
Aldo Pineschi, Director
Aldo Pineschi Consulting
Vic Wursten, Director
PRIDE Industries
Lew Forrest, Director
Realty One Group
540 F St., Lincoln, CA 95648 Phone: 916-645-2035 Fax: 916-645-9455 www.lincolnchamber.com Silhi Lauritsen Joiner ITEM Page 1 Meeting Regular ACTION Mayor Andreatta Karleskint RESO/ORD# June 28, 2022 SUMMARY -- -- - -
-- -- Presentation
--
Y 2 1 June 7 and June 14, 2022 Meeting Minutes
8A
Y Y 2 1 -- 8B Contract Report
Y 1 -- Budget to Actual Report
8C
-- 8D Treasurer's Report
Y Y 1 153 8E
Y 1 154 8F FY 22/23 Property Tax Roll
2 1 155 8G REY Amd#1 for Water Rehab Project
2nd Read Ord 1046B - Source Water Connection
1 1046B 8H

CONSENT
Y 2 1 156 8l Stantec Amd. WWTRF Operations
Y 2 1 157 8J Cagwin Dorward Amd#1 for New Landscape Areas On-Call Professional Services Contracts
158 8K
159 8L CHP Cannabix Tax Fund Grant
-- -- --
-- -- --
-- -- --
ITEM Page 2 Meeting Regular ACTION
Mayor Andreatta Silhi Lauritsen Karleskint Joiner RESO/ORD# June 28, 2022 SUMMARY -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- - -
Consent
-- -- -- - -
-- -- -- -
160 9A L&L District 1 Final Engineer's Report
Y 2 1
2 1 161 9A L&L District 1 Levy & Assessments
Y 1 Y Y 162 9B Public Facility Element (PFE) Nexus Study Public Hearings
1047B 9B PFE Update - 1s* Read Ord. 1047B Water Connection Y 2
PFE Update - 1st Read Ord. 1048B Sewer Connection
Y Y 1048B 9B
Y Y Y 2 1 163 10A Customer Service Supervisor Salary Schedule Y 2 1 Y Y 164 10B Financial Analyst Salary Schedule
1 2 165 10C FY 22/23 Annual Budget & Appropriations Limit General Business
-- - - - - - 10D Update on Water, Wastewater & Solid Waste Rate Studies - -- -- - 10E Housing Trust Placer Affordable Housing Presentation 1 166 10F Hotel Incentive Program
Airport Appreciation Day
- - - - - 12A Info Items

Lincoln City CouncilJune 28, 2022

Lincoln City Council
June 28, 2022