Rancho Cordova City Council
February 7, 2022

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 7, 2022
5:30 PM – Regular Meeting

NO PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
Meetings are currently teleconference meetings only to align with the Sacramento County Public Health Order dated January 6, 2022.

Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361 amending the Ralph M. Brown Act (Govt. Code 54950-54963), the City has declared a state of emergency relating to COVID-19 and imposed measures to promote social distancing.

Join the Meeting Via Zoom Link:
https://cityofranchocordova.zoom.us/j/87656447788?pwd=S2VzVTdIbjU4djdwUUpUNXdMMmhqZz09

Join the Meeting via the Zoom Phone Number
Zoom Phone Number: +1 669 900 6833, +1 253 215 8782
Webinar ID: 876 5644 7788
Password: 578969
Instructions to Make Public Comment
Submitting Public Comment via Email
Members of the public who wish to provide public comment via email will need to submit comments to [email protected] no later than 3:00 p.m. on Monday, February 7, 2022. All comments submitted later than 3:00 p.m. will be sent to the City Council for their review and may not be read during the meeting.

Listening to a Zoom Meeting by Zoom Video Conference
To make a public comment using the Zoom platform, please use the “raise hand” feature at the bottom center of the screen. Please make sure to enable audio controls once access has been given by the City Clerk’s office to speak. Please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

Listening to a Zoom Meeting by Phone Only
You can join a Zoom meeting via teleconferencing/audio conferencing using a cell phone or traditional landline phone. To request to make a public comment by phone press *9 to raise your hand. Please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.

All public comments will be limited to three-minutes.

If you have questions related to the City Council Meeting or the use of Zoom, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 Monday, February 7, 2022, before 3:00 p.m.

AGENDA

1. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry

2. METRO CABLE TV TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENT

The Clerk will announce the meetings video recording and playback schedules.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Mayor will call on someone in attendance to lead the Pledge.

4. INVOCATION

Sherry DeShong with River City Christian Church will give the invocation.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1. Introduction of New Employees: Arlene Granadosin-Jones, Senior Planner by Darcy Goulart, Planning Manager, Heather Cook, Code Enforcement Officer I, and Andrew Thomas, Code Enforcement Officer I by Brittany Mariscal, Code Enforcement Supervisor, Kristy Acuna, Animal Services Officer I, by Craig Hall, Senior Animal Services Officer.

5.2. The SiFi Fiber Network Project Update.

5.3. Mayor Terry's Birthday on February 8, 2022.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

Citizens wishing to address the Council for any matter not on the agenda may do so at this time via teleconference.

If you want to make a public comment via teleconference, please use the “raise hand” feature at the bottom center of the screen. If you are participating by telephone and you want to make a public comment, please press *9 to raise your hand. For those participating by Zoom or telephone, please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.

For items on the agenda, speakers will be called by the Mayor at the point on the agenda when the item will be heard. Speakers are encouraged to keep comments to three minutes or less and to state name and community of residence.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

Under the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking immediate action on any item not on the agenda unless it can be demonstrated to be of an emergency nature or the need to take immediate action arose after the posting of the agenda.

7. COUNCIL REPORTS

8. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

9. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

9.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of January 18, 2022 and the Special Meeting of January 25, 2022.

Recommendation: Adopt the Minutes.

9.2. Subject: A Resolution Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election for Rancho Cordova Transit-Related Services Special Tax Area Zone 31 for a Portion of The Ranch Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.3. Subject: A Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Mills Crossing Civic Center Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Griffin/Swinerton, LLC and The Related Companies of California, LLC to Extend the Term by Six Months.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.4. Subject: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova and on Behalf of Commissions and Committees Created by the City Council Pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) Confirming the State of Emergency Under Government Code Section 8625, Recognizing Continued Measures to Promote Social Distancing, and Re-authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City for the Period from February 7, 2022 to March 8, 2022.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.5. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute Contract No. 2021-340 for an Amount not to Exceed $350,000 for the Hiring of an Executive Director as well as to Provide Executive Coaching and Consultancy for the Board of Directors and/or Rancho Cordova Food Locker Staff to Proactively Advance the Rancho Cordova Food Locker's Mission.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

10.1. Subject: A Resolution Approving the Issuance of Multifamily Revenue Bonds by the California Public Finance Authority in Support of an Affordable 82 Unit Multifamily Development, Sunrise Crossing Apartments.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10.2. Subject: A Resolution Approving an Update to the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study that Facilitates New Development and Ensures that Development Pays for Traffic Impacts to Maintain the Quality of Life in the City of Rancho Cordova.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

11.1. Subject: A Resolution Approving Residential Solid Waste Rate Adjustments for Implementation of the State Mandated Residential Food Waste Collection and Recycling Program.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

12. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

12.1. Subject: Appointment of Real Property Negotiators Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney for the Following Properties: 2931 Shawn Way, 072-0135-001-0000, 10517 Silverwood Way, 072-0191-017- 0000, 11137 Portage River Ct, 056-0370-068-0000, 2740 El Caprice Dr., 076-0261-006-0000, 2925 Kilgore Rd., 072-0480-022-0000, 2542 Rod Beaudry, 075-0690-048-0000, and 10149 Folsom Blvd, 076-0033-006-0000, 10145 Folsom Blvd, 076-0033-007-0000.

Recommendation: Approve appointment of Real Property Negotiators.

13. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

14. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Terry will adjourn the special meeting to closed session.

15. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry

16. CLOSED SESSION

Council will meet in closed session to discuss the following item:

1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:

Property: 2931 Shawn Way, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 072-0135-001-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: 3G Properties Incorporated; Property: 10517 Silverwood Way, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 072-0191-017-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Lawrence L Mack & Antoinette Mack; Property: 11137 Portage River Ct, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 056-0370-068-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: William Ledeen (Estate of); Property: 2740 El Caprice Drive, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 076-0261-006-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Layher Surviving Spouses Trust; Property: 2925 Kilgore Road, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 072-0480-022-0000; City

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Jennifer Berrueta Vergara Living Trust Berrueta Family Revocable Trust/Bypass;
Property: 2542 Rod Beaudry Drive, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 075-0690-048-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Delta CPM Inc. Defined Benefit Plan; Property: 10149 Folsom Blvd., Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 076-0033-006-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Daniel Dauenhauer, Thomas Dauenhauer; Property: 10145 Folsom Blvd, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 076-0033-007-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Daniel Dauenhauer, Thomas Dauenhauer; Under Negotiation for all properties: Price and terms of payment.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Cordova Recreation and Park District v. City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2021-80003705.

17. OPEN SESSION - REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION

The City Attorney will report on action taken in closed session.

18. ADJOURNMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SPECIAL MEETINGS LISTED BELOW ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE/CANCELLATION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

UNLESS THE COUNCIL ADOPTS A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING, ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT INITIATED BEFORE 11:00 PM WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT DAY AT 5:30 PM OR SCHEDULED ON THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AGENDA OF THE COUNCIL.

Public documents related to items on the open session portion of this agenda, which are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, shall be available for public inspection at the time the documents are distributed to the Council. Documents are available for inspection at the City Clerk's office located in Rancho Cordova City Hall.

The agenda items are accessible on the City’s website at www.cityofranchocordova.org on Thursdays or Fridays prior to the Regular City Council Meeting.

UPCOMING MEETINGS
February 15, 2022 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
February 22, 2022 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
March 7, 2022 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

March 21, 2022 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
March 29, 2022 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
April 4, 2022 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
April 18, 2022 5:30 PM Reguar Meeting
April 26, 2022 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
If you have any technical questions related to the agenda items, please contact City Hall at (916) 851- 8700.

The Rancho Cordova City Council meeting will be videotaped in its entirety and will be cablecast without interruption on Metro Cable 14, the Government Affairs Channel on the Comcast, Consolidated Communications and AT&T U-Verse Systems. Closed Captioning will be available on the playback cablecast. A DVD copy is available from the City Clerk’s Department and a webcast of this meeting will be available for viewing via video streaming from the City’s website within 48 hours of adjournment of this meeting.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Stacy Leitner, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cordova, declare that the foregoing agenda for the February 7, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council was posted and available for review on February 3, 2022 at City Hall of the City of Rancho Cordova, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, California, 95670. The agenda is also available on the city website at www.cityofranchocordova.org.

Signed February 3, 2022 at Rancho Cordova, California.

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 9.1.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
5:30 PM – Regular Meeting

NO PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
Meetings are currently teleconference meetings only to align with the Sacramento County Public Health Order dated January 6, 2022.

Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361 amending the Ralph M. Brown Act (Govt. Code 54950-54963), the City has declared a state of emergency relating to COVID-19 and imposed measures to promote social distancing.

DRAFT MINUTES

1. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Mayor Terry called the Regular meeting to order at 05:32 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Cyrus Abhar, Adam Lindgren, Stacy Leitner and Persephonie Riley

2. METRO CABLE TV TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENT

The City Clerk read the meetings recordings and playback schedule.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Cyrus Abhar led the pledge.

4. INVOCATION

Andy Gee with River City Christian Church gave the invocation.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1. Introduction of New Employees; Tina Colonnello, Customer Service Representative I, Heather Cook, Code Enforcement Officer I, Kristy Acuna, Animal Services Officer I and

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, January 18, 2022

Andrew Thomas, Code Enforcement Officer I by Russ Ducharme, Neighborhood Services Manager.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers. Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

7. COUNCIL REPORTS

Council reported on events since the last meeting.

8. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

City Manager Cyrus Abhar gave his report.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers. Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 9.1 through 9.4 by Sander second by Budge; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

9.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of January 3, 2022.

Recommendation: Adopt the Minutes.

9.2. Subject: A Resolution Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election for the Imposition of the Annual Stormwater Fee on a portion of The Ranch Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution declaring the results of the mail ballot election relating to the imposition of the annual Stormwater Utility Fee on a portion of The Ranch project.

9.3. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Construction Contract No. 2022-01 in an Amount not to Exceed $839,995.00 with FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. to Construct Safety Improvements at Six Elementary Schools in the Cordova School Zones Project that will Improve Safety and Promote the Positive Image of Rancho Cordova.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.4. Subject: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova and on Behalf of Commissions and Committees Created by the City Council Pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) Confirming the State of Emergency Under Government Code Section 8625, Recognizing Continued Measures to Promote Social Distancing, and Re- authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City for the Period from January 18, 2022 to February 16, 2022.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

None.

11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

None.

12. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

12.1. Subject: An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, January 18, 2022

Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on the Establishment and Operation of Electronic Cigarette Retailers and Electronic Cigarette Lounges and Vapor Bars.

Recommendation: Introduce and adopt the Urgency Ordinance.

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers. Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 12.1. by Budge second by Sander; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

12.2. Subject: Discussion and Approval of Council Member Appointments to Regional Boards, Commissions, and Committees.

Recommendation: That Council confirms commitments to serve on other agency boards, commissions, and committees.

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers. Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to keep the current commitments to serve on other agency boards, commissions and committees and to continue item 12.2 to a later date to discuss any potential changes by Gatewood second by Pulipati; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

13. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None.

14. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Terry adjourned the meeting to closed session at 6:32 p.m.

15. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Mayor Terry called closed session to order at 6:32 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Cyrus Abhar and Adam Lindgren

16. CLOSED SESSION

Council met in closed session to discuss the following item:

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: City Manager: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1).

17. OPEN SESSION - REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION

City Attorney Adam Lindgren reported that staff was given direction and no reportable action was taken during closed session.

18. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Terry adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m.

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, January 18, 2022

________________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 17.1.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
5:30 PM – Regular Meeting

NO PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
Meetings are currently teleconference meetings only to align with the Sacramento County Public Health Order dated January 22, 2022.

Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361 amending the Ralph M. Brown Act (Govt. Code 54950-54963), the City has declared a state of emergency relating to COVID-19 and imposed measures to promote social distancing.

DRAFT MINUTES

1. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Mayor Terry called the Special meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Cyrus Abhar, Adam Lindgren, Stacy Leitner and Persephonie Riley

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers. Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

3. SPECIAL MEETING

3.1. Subject: Presentation and Discussion of Planning Commission Applications and Selection Process.

Recommendation: Receive a report regarding the Planning Commission applications received and future selection process.

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the

ITEM 17.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. Jean Fox

2. Donald Childs

3. Debbie Cortez

4. Dawn King

5. Emily Wingo-Schneider

6. Cathy Birch

7. Brenda Astara Gustin

8. Angel Ball

9. Marcus Chaw

10. Helen Whelan-Bashaw

11. Paul S. Sessler

12. Jordan Schneider

13. Jessica Ocenosak

14. Carl Salmonsen

15. Regan King

16. Imants Leitis

17. Ken Green

18. Mark Berry

19. Lorin Peterson

20. Helen Whelan Bashaw

21. Mark Berry

22. Lusi
Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Input was received regarding the Presentation and Discussion of Planning Commission Applications and Selection Process.

3.2. Subject: Mobilehome Park Space Rent Stabilization Draft Ordinance Discussion.

Recommendation: Receive presentation, provide feedback and direction.

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1.Charles

2. Ken Kravenas

3. Kevin B. Jenkins

4. Helen C. Fredericks

5. Jesse Dias

6. Lisa K. James-Rembert

7. Diana Endicott

8. Jan Krueger

9. Lusi

10. Jerry

11. Jill Fellows

12. Ken Kravenas

13. Catherine Dambrosio

14. Elias Weiner

15. Brian H.

16. Doug Johnson

17. Mike Patterson

ITEM 17.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, January 25, 2022

18. P. Deterding

19. Helen Fredericks

20. Donald Beckman

21. Lisa James Rembert

22. Jose Robles

23. Daft Rylee
Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Input was received regarding Mobile Park Space Rent Stabilization Draft Ordinance Discussion and Mayor Donald Terry and Council Member David Sander were assigned to an ad-hoc committee to look further into Mobilehome Park Space Rent Stabilization.

4. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Terry adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m..
_____________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 9.2.

DATE: February 7, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Elizabeth Sparkman, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE MAIL BALLOT

ELECTION FOR RANCHO CORDOVA TRANSIT-RELATED
SERVICES SPECIAL TAX AREA ZONE 31 FOR A PORTION OF THE

RANCH PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would declare the results of the mail ballot election concerning Transit-Related Services Special Tax Area Zone 31 establishing a Special Tax for Transit- Related Services for a portion of The Ranch project.

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2021, the City Council approved a Resolution that established Special Tax Zone No. 31, the boundaries of which will be contiguous to the boundaries of a portion of The Ranch project. On December 6, 2021 the Council adopted an Ordinance that established the Special Tax for Transit-Related Services subject to land-owner voter confirmation.

For the Transit-Related Services Special Tax to go into effect, the Ordinance must be approved by two-thirds of the affected property owners voting in a mail-ballot election to be held by the City. If the tax in Zone 31 is approved by at least two-thirds of the property owners voting, the tax will first be collected hereunder for the tax year beginning July 1, 2022.

Elections Results
A ballot was mailed out to the property owners of The Ranch project following approval of the Ordinance. The mail-ballot election has been completed and the ballot tabulated by the City Clerk, Attachment 3. The property owner has approved the Ordinance and the tax will be applied to Zone 31.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

There is no impact to the City’s General Fund.

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Ballots

3. Certified Ballot Results

ITEM 9.2. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION FOR RANCHO CORDOVA TRANSIT-RELATED SERVICES SPECIAL TAX AREA ZONE 31 FOR

A PORTION OF THE RANCH PROJECT

WHEREAS, on November 15, 2021, the City adopted a Resolution, creating Special Tax Area Zone 31 within the Transit-Related Services Special Tax Area. Pursuant to the Resolution, the City Council directed the City Clerk to conduct a transit-related services tax election, to be conducted by mail ballot, pursuant to Elections Code section 4000; and

WHEREAS, the property owners within Zone 31 waived the timing requirements of Elections Code section 4000 in order to conduct the election on a date earlier provided under the Elections Code; and

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2021, the City adopted Ordinance No. 21-2021, which established a special tax for transit-related services in Zone 31, subject to landowner-voter confirmation; and

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 21-2021 takes effect immediately upon confirmation by two- thirds of the voters voting within the relevant zone, so that taxes will be first collected for the tax year beginning July 1, 2022; and

WHEREAS, a ballot was sent to the landowners of Zone 31, a portion of the Ranch project, which asked them a single question in the form of: “Shall Ordinance No. 21-2021 of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova be approved so as to authorize a special tax on property located in Zone 31 of the Rancho Cordova Transit-Related Services Special Tax Area to maintain the present level of transit-related services and provide additional funding for increased transit-related services?”; and

WHEREAS, the owners of the real property subject to the Transit-Related Services Special Tax Area Zone 31 have voted on the issue of whether to approve Ordinance No. 21- 2021 and the City now wishes to declare the results of this transit-related services tax election for Zone 31.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CORDOVA:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Clerk has tabulated the transit-related services special tax ballots and the following are the responses to the question on the ballot asking whether the landowners approve of Ordinance No. 21-2021 authorizing a special tax in the portion of Transit-Related Services Special Tax Zone 31 that encompasses the landowners' property, in order to maintain the present level of transit-related services and provide additional funding for increased transit- related services:

ITEM 9.2. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 2 of 2 Special Tax Area Zone 31: 2 “yes”; 0 “no”.

3. In accordance with Ordinance No. 21-2021, the transit-related services special tax for Zone 31 shall take effect immediately, so that taxes will first be collected hereunder for the tax year beginning July 1, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 7th day of February 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Donald Terry, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

The person completing and submitting this Property Owner Ballot must be the owner of the property identified above or the representative of the owner of such property who is legally authorized to complete and submit this ballot for and on behalf of the owner. The enclosed "Summary of Property Owner Ballot Procedures" has been provided to assist you in filling out the ballot. If there are two or more property owners, only one needs to sign and return the ballot.

Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 067-0242-002, 067-0241-004,
067-0241-005
Property Address: Chrysanthy and Rancho Cordova Parkway.

Designation: Vacant Land
Total Parcel(s) Area (acres): 33.42
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 067-0242-002, 067-0241-004, 067-0241-005 Owner Name: AG EHC II (HOV) CA 1 L.P, a Delaware limited partnership

SPECIAL TAX BALLOT MEASURE
Shall Ordinance No. 21-2021 of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova be approved so as to authorize a special tax on property located in Zone 31 of the Rancho Cordova Transit-Related Services Special Tax Area to maintain the present level of transit-related services and provide additional funding for increased transit-related services? �YES·
□ NO
I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I am the owner, or the authorized representative of the owner, of the parcel identified above. Your ballot will not be counted if you do not sign below. 12/2.1 ltl
Date Printed Name Signature
Please mark your ballot in ink and return the entire page.

Upon completion, fold the ballot, place it in the addressed, return envelope and seal the envelope. Pursuant to the enclosed instructions, mail the ballot to the address shown on the return envelope, or deliver to the City Clerk at City Hall located at 1 :30 p.m.

Tuesday, January 11, 2022.

Project: The Ranch (Market Rate Portion)
Return to:

City of Rancho Cordova
Attn: City Clerk
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
RANCHO CORDOVA TRANSIT-RELATED SERVICES SPECIAL TAX AREA ZONE 31

THE RANCH PROJECT

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICIAL SPECIAL TAX BALLOT (ELECTIONS CODE §4000)
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

City Council Staff Report – Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM
ITEM 9.3.

DATE:February 7, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM:Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MILLS

CROSSING CIVIC CENTER EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS

AGREEMENT WITH GRIFFIN/SWINERTON, LLC AND THE RELATED

COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC TO EXTEND THE TERM BY SIX
MONTHS

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adoption of the Resolution would extend the term of the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Griffin/Swinerton, LLC and The Related Companies of California, LLC for six months to continue negotiations with the City regarding the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project leading to execution of an agreement to enter the predevelopment and development phases of the Project.

BACKGROUND
After a competitive developer selection process, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENA) with Griffin/Swinerton, LLC and The Related Companies of California, LLC (the Developer Partners) to develop a preferred development alternative for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project located at 10153-10179 Folsom Blvd on August 17, 2020. The ENA had an initial term of one year with the option for the City Manager to extend the agreement by one six-month term. The City Manager exercised this option on August 17, 2021 extending the term to February 17, 2022.

The purpose of the ENA period is to further explore and analyze site alternatives and project financial feasibility, conduct due diligence, community outreach, and discussions with the City Council to determine what project best accomplishes the City’s goals for the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project. This is intended to result in a general agreement on the major site uses, components, general layout, project deal structures, and financial commitments to then execute a predevelopment agreement or development agreement, following which all these elements would be finalized. While a preferred development alternative has been selected by the City

City Council Staff Report – Page 2 of 2
Council, additional time is needed to complete community outreach and finalize the terms and of the predevelopment agreement or development agreement.

The major uses of the preferred development alternative include 100,000-120,000 sq ft of community/commercial facilities focused on arts and wellness uses, approximately 2.3 acres of plaza and community outdoor spaces, approximately 100-110 housing units of townhomes and multifamily apartments, and a 3-level parking garage.

NEXT STEPS
At the December 6, 2021 Council meeting, the Council expressed support for the preferred development alternative but requested one additional community outreach meeting prior to coming back to consider execution of a predevelopment or development agreement. City staff, in consultation with members of the community, have determined that an in-person workshop would be the best format for this outreach. However, due to the current precautions for meeting in large groups caused by the current wave of the COVID-19 omicron variant, additional time is needed to safely schedule this outreach meeting. Staff is tentatively planning for late February pending public health guidance.

Staff, the City Attorney, and the Development Partners have begun work on the terms and structure of the predevelopment agreement or agreement that will take the project into the next phase.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no new or additional fiscal impact for extending the ENA. Staff will continue to expend the original ENA budget of $1,192,605.00.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement

ITEM 9.3. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT WITH GRIFFIN SWINERTON WITH REGARD TO CITY PROPERTY AT 10153-10179

FOLSOM BLVD
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova owns fee simple title in that certain property consisting of approximately 9.85 acres located in the City at 10153-10179 Folsom Blvd (the “Civic Center Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City conducted an extensive visioning process to determine preliminary use concepts for the Civic Center Property. The City seeks the development of the Civic Center Property consistent with relevant City plans and development standards as a central gathering place with a mix of uses (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the City issued an Offering Memorandum for the Property to engage a qualified developer in a public-private partnership; and WHEREAS, the City selected Griffin/Swinerton, LLC and The Related Companies of California, LLC (the "Development Partners") as the potential developers of the Property for development of the Project on the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement ("ENA") with the Development Partners on August 17, 2020 to engage in good faith exclusive negotiations with the Development Partners toward the preparation of an agreement for the development of the Project on the Property and its submission to the City Council for approval; and
WHEREAS, the ENA had an initial term of one year with the option for the City Manager to extend that term by six months, which was exercised on August 17, 2021 to extend the term to February 17, 2022; and
WHEREAS, an additional six months is required to complete community outreach and finalize the terms of the agreement that will take the Project through the detailed design of the Project elements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1 The City Council authorizes the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute an ENA Amendment with the Developer extending the term of the ENA for six months, substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk, and to execute such other instruments and to take such other actions as necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

Section 2 If any provision, sentence, clause, section or part of this Resolution is found to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, such finding shall affect only such provision,

ITEM 9.3. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 2 of 2 sentence, clause, section or part, and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts.

Section 3 The above recitals are true and correct. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, and the minutes of this meeting shall so reflect the above City Council action.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova this 7th day of February, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Donald Terry, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

First Amendment Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement February 7, 2022 City of Rancho Cordova and Griffin Swinerton Page 1 of 3

FIRST AMENDMENT
TO

EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS

AGREEMENT
Th
is First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (this "Amendment") is entered into effective as of February 7, 2022 (the "Effective Date") by and between the City of Rancho Cordova, a municipal corporation ("City"), Griffin/Swinerton, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“G/S”), and The Related Companies of California, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Related”), on the terms and provisions set forth below. G/S and Related may be collectively referred to herein as "Developer". City and Developer are referred to herein individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties".

R

ECITALS
A. Upon the City’s selection of Developer after a competitive request for proposals issued by the City in July 2019, the Parties entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“ENA”), dated as of August 17, 2020, pertaining to the development negotiations of the Mills Crossing Civic Center Project, as more fully described in the ENA.

B. The ENA set forth a term of one year (the “Term”), with the option for the City Manager to extend the Term by one six-month period. The City Manager granted that extension on August 17, 2021 and the Term is currently set to expire on February 17, 2022.

C. The Parties have determined that the ENA should be revised to provide an additional six months to complete negotiations and execute a Disposition and Development Agreement, Predevelopment Agreement, or similar agreement leading to the detailed design and development of the Project elements. Such agreement may include, without limitation, a disposition and development agreement for the development of at least 100 residential units on the Civic Center Property, with at least 25% of those residential units to be restricted to lower income households.

N OW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree to revise the ENA as follows.

1. Term Extension. The Parties agree to modify the end of the Term of the ENA from February 17, 2022, to August 17, 2022. Section 5, Term, in the ENA is amended to ITEM 9.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

First Amendment Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement February 7, 2022 City of Rancho Cordova and Griffin Swinerton Page 1 of 3

read as follows:

“The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate on August 17, 2022, unless extended or terminated as provided herein.

Additional term extensions will require further approval of the City Council and Developer.”

2. No Other Changes to the Agreement. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the ENA remain unmodified and continue in full force and effect. Any terms used in this Amendment but not separately defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the ENA.

3. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first written above.

4. Conflicts with ENA. In the event of any conflict between this Amendment and the ENA, the provisions of this Amendment shall prevail.

5. Counterparts; Multiple Originals. The signatures of the Parties to this Amendment may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages or in counterparts which, when attached to this Amendment, shall constitute one complete Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the date first written above.

DEVELOPER:

Griffin/Swinerton, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
The Related Companies of California,
LLC
a California limited liability company
By: ___________________________
Roger Torriero
By: ___________________________
William Witte
Its: Managing Principal Its: Chairman & CEO

CITY:

City of Rancho Cordova, a California
ITEM 9.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

First Amendment Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement February 7, 2022 City of Rancho Cordova and Griffin Swinerton Page 1 of 3

municipal corporation

By: ___________________________
Cyrus Abhar, City Manager

Attest:

______________________________
Stacy Leitner, City Clerk

Approved as to form:

______________________________
Adam Lindgren, City Attorney

3550684.1
ITEM 9.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 3

ITEM 9.4.

DATE: February 7, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Adam Lindgren, City Attorney

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

CORDOVA AND ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54952(B) CONFIRMING THE STATE OF
EMERGENCY UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 8625,

RECOGNIZING CONTINUED MEASURES TO PROMOTE SOCIAL

DISTANCING, AND RE-AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE
MEETINGS OF THE CITY FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 7,
2022 TO MARCH 8, 2022

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the attached Resolution would allow the City Council and the City’s other legislative bodies to continue to meet via teleconference (“virtually”) in a manner substantially similar to the manner in which they have met during the COVID-19 pandemic, if a proclaimed State of Emergency remains in effect and other requirements are satisfied.

BACKGROUND

All meetings of the City Council and the City’s other legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq., so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business. On March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct virtual meetings to slow the spread of COVID-

19. As a result of Executive Order N-29-20, City Staff set up virtual meetings for the City Council and other City legislative bodies. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which, effective September 30, 2021, ended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 that allowed local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”), which allows local legislative bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 3
conditions. AB 361 took effect upon the expiration of Executive Order N-29-20 on October 1, 2021. On September 20, 2021, the City Council held a meeting in compliance with AB 361’s requirements for remote meetings.

In order for AB 361 to remain effective for meetings of the City’s legislative bodies, the City Council is required to make specified findings every 30 days. AB 361 allows a legislative body to continue holding meetings utilizing teleconferencing without complying with the standard teleconferencing requirements if a State of Emergency is proclaimed under Government Code section 8625, the City has reconsidered the emergency conditions, and if the local Public Health Officer continues to recommend social distancing measures to protect the public’s health and safety during local government meetings. These conditions are present.

Governor Newsom’s March 4, 2020 Proclamation of Emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is still in effect. The potential spread of COVID-19 continues to threaten public health and safety during indoor public gatherings, including indoor gatherings of the Rancho Cordova City Council and other Rancho Cordova legislative bodies. In addition, the Sacramento County Public Health Officer continues to recommend teleconferencing or social distancing to protect the public’s health and safety during local government meetings.

SUMMARY

The attached Resolution makes the required findings that the current conditions exist to allow teleconference meetings pursuant to AB 361 for the City Council and on behalf of all of the legislative bodies commissions and committees created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b). This will allow members of the public to safely observe and participate in local government meetings during the pandemic.

If a meeting is held via teleconference under AB 361, the following requirements apply:

1.Notices and agenda requirements remain the same under the Brown Act;

2.No physical location is required for public attendance or public comment.However, the public must be able to access and participate in the meeting through a call-in or an internet-based service, and instructions for how to participate must appear in the posted notices or agenda;

3.Teleconference meetings must protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public;

4.If there is any disruption of the call-in or internet-based service, the agency must suspend the meeting until the problem is fixed;

5.Legislative bodies may allow public comments to be submitted prior to a meeting but must also allow the public to participate in real time through call-in or internet-based service;

6.If an internet-based service requires registration through a third-party, individuals can be required to register with the third-party to participate in the meeting; and

7.When providing a public comment period, whether after each item or during a general comment period, a legislative body must allow reasonable time for members of the public to comment and must also include reasonable time for members to register with a third-party host if applicable.

City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 3

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The cost of continued remote access to Council meetings and the meetings of other City committees.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution - AB 361 Rancho Cordova

ITEM 9.4. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 1 of 3

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND ON

BEHALF OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54952(b) CONFIRMING THE STATE OF EMERGENCY UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 8625, RECOGNIZING CONTINUED

MEASURES TO PROMOTE SOCIAL DISTANCING, AND RE-AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE CITY FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBUARY 7, 2022 TO MARCH 8, 2022
WHEREAS, the City is committed to preserving and promoting public access and participation in meetings of the legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, all meetings of the City are open and public, as required by the Ralph M.

Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City conduct their business; and WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and
WHEREAS, it is further required that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, the legislative body meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2021 the City held a meeting during a state of emergency under Government Code section 8625 and during a period of recommended social distancing by state and local officials while complying with Government Code section 54953(e)(2); and WHEREAS, the City is required to make certain findings every thirty (30) days to continue teleconferencing under Government Code section 54953(e)(3), including reconsideration of the state of emergency declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, and State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the City continues to experience emergency conditions due to COVID-19, specifically, the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (“Delta”) continues to threaten public health and safety during indoor public gatherings; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the circumstances of the Governor’s state of emergency proclamation pursuant to Government Code section 8625, which remains active; and

ITEM 9.4. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, on July 30, 2021, the Sacramento County Health Officer issued an order requiring all individuals, regardless of vaccination status, to wear a mask while indoors in public spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six feet (6’) from others outside of the household; and WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Health Officer’s order incorporates the CDC’s guidance for vaccinated and unvaccinated people; and
WHEREAS, the State has issued an order in effect to February 15, 2022 requiring everyone in California to wear a mask in indoor public spaces and workplaces; and WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees, and other bodies that were created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) (collectively referred to as the “Legislative Bodies”), does hereby find that the Legislative Bodies shall continue to conduct their meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953, as authorized by subdivision (e) of section 54953, and that the Legislative Bodies shall continue to comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of section 54953 as a consequence of the ongoing state of emergency and the continued social distancing measures required by local officials.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

Section 2. Affirmation that Local Emergency Persists. The City Council hereby considers the conditions of the state of emergency pursuant to Government Code section 8625 and proclaims that a local emergency persists throughout the City, affirms the Sacramento Health Order’s required and recommended measures to promote social distancing, and finds that the conditions continue to exist pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow the Legislative Bodies to use teleconferencing to hold public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure members of the public have continued access to safely observe and participate in local government meetings.

Section 3. Remote Teleconference Meetings. City Staff are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, continuing to conduct open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

Section 4. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) March 8, 2022 or such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of City may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.

ITEM 9.4. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 3 of 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova, this 7th day of February 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Donald Terry, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 9.5.

DATE: February 7, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM:

Stacy Delaney, Community Enhancement and Investment Senior Management Analyst
Randi Kay Stephens, Management Analyst II

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR
DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE CONTRACT NO. 2021-340 FOR AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $350,000 FOR THE HIRING OF AN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE EXECUTIVE

COACHING AND CONSULTANCY FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

AND/OR RANCHO CORDOVA FOOD LOCKER STAFF TO

PROACTIVELY ADVANCE THE RANCHO CORDOVA FOOD

LOCKER'S MISSION

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute Contract No. 2021-340 with the Rancho Cordova Food Locker in the amount of $350,000 for the hiring of an Executive Director to proactively advance the Rancho Cordova Food Locker's mission, "to fight hunger and feed hope in Rancho Cordova."

BACKGROUND

The City of Rancho Cordova has long been a financial contributor to Rancho Cordova Food Locker (RCFL) through its Measure H funding mechanism. In February 2021, the city commissioned a feasibility study for RCFL to help better understand current operational structure as well as future growth potential. One of the key findings of the feasibility study was the need to hire an Executive Director to proactively advance its mission, "to fight hunger and feed hope in Rancho Cordova."
Following the completion of the feasibility study, the RCFL Board of Directors voted to develop a three-year strategic action plan that would activate the findings of the feasibility study so it could provide a broader food insecurity safety net for the community it serves. The strategic action plan provides a clear roadmap for the organization but requires the leadership and oversight of a full-time non-profit expert to carry out the detailed plan. Without a dedicated staff executive leader, it is difficult for RCFL to strengthen its services and expand its operations to

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2
further its mission.

Per the final rule of the United States Department of the Treasury, up to $10 million dollars of the $15 million dollars in American Rescue Plan Act funds the City of Rancho Cordova received may be allocated to general government use. A portion of those funds will be repurposed for community support. An investment of the City's funds in the Rancho Cordova Food Locker would be an investment in solidifying the food insecurity infrastructure and would serve the greater population well through capacity-building and partnership with a long-running Rancho Cordova community organization.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The city shall enter into an agreement with the Rancho Cordova Food Locker to underwrite the full-time contract Executive Director and additional services for an amount not to exceed $175,000 a year over a two-year period, totaling $350,000. This amount would provide up to $140,000 per year for Executive Director contract services as well as provide $35,000 per year for additional contract needs, such as executive coaching and consultancy for the Board of Directors and/or Rancho Cordova Food Locker staff.

The funding source is the City's general fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. RCFL Executive Director Funding Support

ITEM 9.5. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 1 of 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT NO. 2021-340 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $350,000 WITH RANCHO CORDOVA FOOD

LOCKER FOR THE HIRING OF AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO PROACTIVELY ADVANCE

THE RANCHO CORDOVA FOOD LOCKER MISSION

WHEREAS, in May of 2021, the City of Rancho Cordova was awarded $15 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova may use up to $10 million of its ARPA funding for general government use per a final rule of the United States Department of the Treasury; and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Cordova Food Locker is a longtime emergency food safety net provider, which formally became a 501c3 community benefit corporation in February 2020; and

WHEREAS, the City supported the development of a feasibility study and strategic action plan for the Rancho Cordova Food Locker that outlines hiring an inaugural executive director as a critical step in sustaining the organization's mission; and

WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to authorize the City Manager, or designee, to enter into an agreement with Rancho Cordova Food Locker to support the hiring of an Inaugural Executive Director.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA does authorize the City Manager to execute Contract No. 2021-340 in an amount not to exceed $350,000 with the Rancho Cordova Food Locker, and in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 7th day of February 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Donald Terry, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340
Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022
the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 1 of 5

AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

AND RANCHO CORDOVA FOOD LOCKER

FOR USE OF GRANTEE FUNDS
T
his Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into by and between the City of Rancho Cordova, a California municipal corporation (“Grantee”), and Rancho Cordova Food Locker, a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable corporation (“Subrecipient”) as of February 7, 2022.

W
HEREAS, the Grantee has applied for and received funds from the United States Government under Public Law No: 117-2 (3/11/2021) American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) providing additional relief to address the continued impact of COVID-19 on the economy, public health, state and local governments, non-profits, individuals, and businesses; and
Whereas, Grantee has allocated American Rescue Plan Act funds to Subrecipient for the purpose of hiring an executive director, which will benefit the City of Rancho Cordova and its residents by allowing Subrecipient to continue to improve its program to store and distribute food to the hungry, including families with children, in the City of Rancho Cordova; and W
hereas, there are many uncertainties with the COVID-19 pandemic, and while California has moved past its “Blueprint for a Safer Economy,” there may be future state and/or Sacramento County actions and/or orders which may restrict or prohibit certain activities.

Gr
antee and Subrecipient agree as follows:

1. Programs and Services. Subrecipient will provide the services described in Exhibit A, entitled “Scope of Services.”

2. Term. The term (the “Term”) of this Agreement is set forth in Exhibit A.

3. Funding and Use of Funds. Grantee has allocated funds to Subrecipient in the amount of Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000). The funds shall be disbursed to Subrecipient as set forth in Exhibit A and shall be used by Subrecipient solely for the purposes, and subject to the terms, set forth in Exhibit A. a . F ailure to use the funds for the purposes described in Exhibit A and pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement.

Subrecipient shall reimburse Grantee for such funds and may be required to reimburse Grantee for all funds allocated.

4. Unexpended Funds. If any funds advanced to Subrecipient remain unexpended upon the expiration of the term of this Agreement, Subrecipient shall return the unexpended funds to Grantee within thirty (30) days of the expiration date of the Agreement.

5. Timeliness. Due to the ongoing uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, grantees will have sixty (60) days following the receipt of their grant funding Agreement to provide the required insurance documents and IRS Form W-9 to the Grantee needed to execute ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022
the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 2 of 5 the Agreement. This is being done to help mitigate delay of the project and/or the inability to complete the project during the proposed Term.

6. Maintenance and Use. [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]

7. Documents, Reports and Records.

7.1 Record Retention. Subrecipient shall always maintain a complete and current set of financial and statistical records of all its activities which shall clearly reflect the application and use of the funds received from Grantee. All expenditures of the funds granted pursuant to this Agreement must be only for the items set forth in Exhibit A hereto and must be documented by receipts, cancelled checks, credit card statements, or other evidence acceptable to Grantee, which clearly document the amount and purpose of the expenditure. Expenditures for which there is no documentation are not eligible for funding under this Agreement.

7.2 Inspection of Records. All records required to be retained pursuant to Section 7.1 shall be subject to inspection or audit by Grantee at any reasonable time during the normal and usual business hours of Subrecipient. Recognizing, however, that Subrecipient may from time-to-time render services to recipients that are personal and confidential in nature, Grantee will always maintain that confidentiality and will not require a public record to be made or provided that would serve to violate the confidentiality requirements of Subrecipient. Any inspection or audit shall be made by Grantee’s Finance Director, or a designee of the Finance Director.

7.3 Required Reports. Subrecipient shall file Exhibit B, “Report Of Use of Grantee Funds,” with the Grantee on or before the dates set forth on Exhibit A. If payments of Grantee funds are to be distributed in more than one installment, distribution of the second and any subsequent distributions will not be made until any required reports have been filed and approved by the Grantee Manager or his or her designee. Subrecipient shall file Exhibit C, “Outcomes Report,” with Grantee on or before the date set forth on Exhibit A. Subrecipient shall file the Reports with the Grantee as set forth in Section 14, Notices, below.

8. Non-Discrimination. Subrecipient agrees that in the performance of this Agreement and in the provision of any services funded in whole or in part by the grant made by Grantee to Subrecipient pursuant to this Agreement, Subrecipient shall not discriminate against any employee, recipient of Subrecipient’s services, or any other person, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, gender, or sexual orientation. In the event that Subrecipient is a religious organization, Subrecipient shall also not condition receipt of any of the services funded by the grant made pursuant to this Agreement upon participation in any religious instruction or service.

9. Indemnification. Subrecipient shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the Grantee, and hold harmless the Grantee and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022
the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 3 of 5 caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Subrecipient or its employees, subcontractors, volunteers, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Subrecipient shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Grantee or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Subrecipient or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Subrecipient to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by Grantee of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Subrecipient from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Subrecipient acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration.

10. Insurance. Subrecipient shall comply with the insurance requirements contained in Exhibit D, “Insurance Requirements,” and shall procure, at its own cost and expense all insurance coverages listed in Exhibit D before commencing services, projects, or programs with allocated Grantee funds. Subrecipient shall provide proof of such coverage, including certificates of insurance and endorsements, prior to receiving Grantee funds.

11. Attribution. Provider shall include the following language in all printed materials or electronic communications promoting or describing the programs and services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement: “Supported in part by the City of Rancho Cordova.” That language or use of the City of Rancho Cordova’s logo shall be in proportional size to the total area of the printed material. If the funds provided herein are used to build or install a structure or improvement to property or a building, including, but not limited to, building improvements, playground or sports facilities, or art installations, or is used to fund the purchase of a vehicle on which signage will be placed, Provider shall include the attribution noted above on a permanent sign located at the site of the project or the signage located on the vehicle.

12. Subrecipient Not an Agent. Except as Grantee may specify in writing, Subrecipient shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of Grantee in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Subrecipient shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind Grantee to any obligation whatsoever.

13. No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.

14. Notices. Any approval, document or other notice which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given by first class mail, postage prepaid, or reputable overnight delivery service or personal delivery addressed to the party to whom the notice is directed as set forth below, or at any other address as that party may later designate:

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022
the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 4 of 5 Grantee: City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
Attn: City Manager
To Subrecipient: Rancho Cordova Food Locker
10497 Coloma Road
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
Any written notice, demand or communication shall be deemed received immediately if delivered by hand or upon the third day from the date it is postmarked if delivered by first class, registered or certified mail.

15. Interpretation. This Agreement will be performed entirely within California and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement must be brought in the County of Sacramento, State of California.

16. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any proceeding or action is brought in connection with the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including those on appeal.

17. Amendments. The parties may amend this agreement only by a writing signed by all parties.

18. Integration. This Agreement, including Exhibits A, B, C, and D, attached hereto, and incorporated herein, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral.

19. IRS FormW-9. Subrecipient shall complete and submit Internal Revenue Form W-9 to the Grantee before execution of this Agreement. The Grantee’s Finance Director shall have the ability to waive this requirement.

Signatures on following page.

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022
the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 5 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above, which date shall be considered by the Parties to be the effective date of this Agreement.

GRANTEE/City of Rancho Cordova: SUBRECIPIENT/Rancho Cordova Food Locker:
______________________ ________________________
Cyrus Abhar Walter Little
City Manager President

Date: ___________ Date: _____________

Attest:

_____________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Date: ____________

Approved as to Form:

______________________
Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit A to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Address: 10497 Coloma Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Telephone: 916-402-0398 (Walter Little)
Email: [email protected]
(Walter Little)
Contact Person/Title: Walter Little/President

Funding Allocation: $350,000

Term: February 7, 2022 – February 6, 2024

1. Services to be Provided: The Subrecipient will be responsible for administering the Project in a manner satisfactory to the Grantee and consistent with any standards required as a condition of providing these funds. Such Project will include the following activities:

Subrecipient shall use the grant funds to hire an Executive Director and for additional contract needs, such as executive coaching and consultancy for Board of Directors and/or Rancho Cordova Food Locker (RCFL) staff.

2. Units of Service to be Provided: See above.

3. Use of Funds: Subrecipient may use the funds for the purposes and in the manner set forth below:
$280,000 Executive Director
$70,000 A dditional contract needs, such as executive coaching and consultancy for Board of Directors and/or Rancho Cordova Food Locker staff $350,000 Total
a. The amounts listed above are estimates of the expenditures and may vary.

However, the amount may not vary by more than thirty percent (30%) (with City Manager approval) unless the Agreement is amended. In no event shall the City of Rancho Cordova’s total distribution of funds to Subrecipient under the Agreement exceed the total allocation shown above.
b. Unexpended Funds. If any funds advanced to Subrecipient remain unexpended upon the expiration of the term of this Agreement, Subrecipient shall return the unexpended funds to Grantee within thirty (30) days of the expiration date of the Agreement.
c. In the event that the costs to perform the items of work set forth herein exceed the amount of funds granted to Subrecipient, Subrecipient shall be responsible for the payment of all costs in excess of the funds granted.

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit A to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 2 of 3

d. Prevailing Wages. To the extent required by law, Subrecipient and all of the Subrecipient’s subcontractors shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 33422.1, and shall comply with California Labor Code Section 1770 et seq. and all regulations adopted pursuant thereto (referred to herein as, “Prevailing Wage Laws”), and be responsible for carrying out the requirements of such provisions. The Subrecipient shall, and hereby agrees to, unconditionally indemnify, reimburse, defend, protect and hold harmless the Grantee and its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, attorneys, consultants and employees, and all of their respective successors and assigns, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits and actions at law or in equity, and losses, liabilities, expenses, penalties, fines, orders, judgments, injunctive or other relief, and costs and damages of every kind, nature and description (including but not limited to attorneys’ fees and court costs; with counsel reasonably acceptable to the Grantee), and administrative, enforcement or judicial proceedings, whether known or unknown, and which directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, are caused by, arise from, or relate to, or are alleged to be caused by, arise from, or relate to, the payment or requirement of payment of prevailing wages or the requirement of competitive bidding in the construction of the Project, the failure to comply with any state or federal labor laws, regulations or standards in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited to California Labor Code Section 1770 et seq. and the Prevailing Wage Laws, or any act or omission of the Grantee or the Subrecipient related to this Agreement with respect to the payment or requirement of payment of prevailing wages or the requirement of competitive bidding, whether or not any insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any such claims, demands, suits, actions, losses, liabilities, expenses, penalties, fines, orders, judgments, injunctive or other relief, costs, damages, or administrative, enforcement or judicial proceedings. It is further agreed that the Grantee does not, and shall not, waive any rights against the Subrecipient which they may have by reason of this indemnity and hold harmless agreement because of the acceptance by the Grantee, or the deposit with the Grantee by the Subrecipient, of any of the insurance policies described in this Agreement.

4. Eligibility Criteria for Qualification of Recipients for Services: N/A Subrecipient shall keep documentation confirming eligibility requirements were met by recipients.

5. Allocation and Payment of Funds: Grantee shall distribute the funds to Subrecipient as follows: Grantee shall pay Subrecipient for the items set forth in Section 3, above, in two (2) equal installments with the first to be paid upon execution of this Agreement and the second on or before February 7, 2023.

In the event that any Report for Use of Grantee Funds and/or Outcomes Report which is due to be filed prior to the date upon which a distribution is otherwise due, has not been timely filed, Grantee shall not be obligated to make any additional distributions based on the submission of invoices until two (2) weeks after the date on which the delinquent reports are received by Grantee and have been reviewed and been determined to comply with the requirements of this Agreement.

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit A to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 3 of 3

All requests for the payment of funds shall be due to Grantee by the termination date of this Agreement. The Grantee acknowledges, however, that there may be circumstances when Subrecipient may be unable to do so because it may not yet have received an invoice from a vendor prior to that date. In that case Subrecipient may submit a final request for payment within sixty (60) days after the termination date of the Agreement. Grantee shall not be required to make any payments based on requests submitted more than sixty (60) days after the termination date.

6. Reports: Subrecipient shall file the following reports (each a “Report” and collectively the “Reports”) with Grantee on the dates set forth below:

6.1 Report of Use of Grantee Funds: June 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, June 30, 2023, and February 6, 2024. The Reports shall include copies of documentation for all expenditures of the funds granted pursuant to this Agreement. Such documentation may include receipts, cancelled checks, credit card statements, or other evidence acceptable to Grantee, and must clearly document the amount and purpose of the expenditure. Expenditures which are not so documented are not eligible for funding under this Agreement.

6.2 Outcomes Report June 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, June 30, 2023, and February 6, 2024. The Report shall describe the services and/or programs provided, number of participants or attendees, and include photographs.

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit B to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT B

REPORT OF USE OF GRANTEE FUNDS

Address: 10497 Coloma Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Telephone: 916-402-0398 (Walter Little)
Email: [email protected] (Walter Little)
Contact Person/Title: Walter Little/President

Report Due Date: June 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, June 30, 2023, and February 6, 2024.

Report Accounting Period: February 7, 2022 – June 30, 2022 (Report 1), July 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022 (Report 2), and January 1, 2023 – June 30, 2023 (Report 3), and July 1, 2023 – February 6, 2024 (Report 4).

Grantee funds received during reporting period:

Grantee funds expended during reporting period (please attach all receipts and proof of payments made using Grantee funds): [this should include a total and what it was spent on, including any line items, if applicable, and attach receipts or proof of expenditures]

Units of service provided during this period (if applicable):

Units of service provided to City of Rancho Cordova Residents during this period (if applicable):

The Report shall include copies of documentation for all expenditures of the funds granted pursuant to this Agreement. Such documentation may include receipts, cancelled checks, credit card statements, or other evidence acceptable to Grantee, and must clearly document the amount and purpose of the expenditure. Expenditures which are not so documented are not eligible for funding under this Agreement.

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit C to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT C

OUTCOMES REPORT

Address: 10497 Coloma Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Telephone: 916-402-0398 (Walter Little)
Email: [email protected] (Walter Little)
Contact Person/Title: Walter Little/President

Report Due Date: June 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, June 30, 2023, and February 6, 2024.

Report Accounting Period: February 7, 2022 – June 30, 2022 (Report 1), July 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022 (Report 2), and January 1, 2023 – June 30, 2023 (Report 3), and July 1, 2023 – February 6, 2024 (Report 4).

[Subrecipient should submit a narrative of any measurable outcomes achieved or goals met]

The Report shall describe the services and/or programs provided, number of participants or attendees, and include photographs.

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit D to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT D

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Subrecipient, at its own cost and expense, shall procure “occurrence coverage” insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services hereunder by the Subrecipient and its agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, and subcontractors.

Subrecipient shall provide proof satisfactory to Grantee of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects to the Grantee. Subrecipient shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution.

Grantee may approve reduced coverage amounts after review by the Finance Director and Grantee’s City Attorney.

Additionally, if insurance meeting all of the requirements set forth herein is provided directly by the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America, Grantee may accept that insurance coverage in lieu of coverage provided directly by Subrecipient.

1. Workers’ Compensation. Subrecipient shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Subrecipient. The Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, Subrecipient may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self- insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Subrecipient, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the Grantee and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement.

Subrecipient shall notify Grantee within fourteen (14) days of notification from Subrecipient’s insurer if such coverage is suspended, voided, or reduced in coverage or in limits.

The requirement to maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be waived by the Grantee upon written verification that Subrecipient does not have any employees.

2. General/Commercial Liability Insurance.

2.1 General requirements. Subrecipient, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general liability or general liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit D to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 2 of 4 amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00). The commercial general liability or general liability insurance shall be per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a commercial general or general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles.

2.2 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as an endorsement to the policy:

a. Grantee and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Subrecipient, including the insured’s general supervision of Subrecipient; products and completed operations of Subrecipient; premises owned, occupied, or used by Subrecipient; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Subrecipient. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to Grantee or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.

b. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis.

c. An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the Grantee and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Grantee shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage.

d. Any failure of Subrecipient to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to Grantee and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

e. An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Grantee. Subrecipient shall notify Grantee within fourteen (14) days of notification from Subrecipient’s insurer if such coverage is suspended, voided, or reduced in coverage or in limits.

2.3 Sexual Molestation and Abuse Coverage. [INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]

3. Automobile Liability Insurance.

3 .1 General requirements. When applicable, Subrecipient, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit D to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 3 of 4 amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00). The automobile liability insurance shall be per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If an automobile liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles.

3 .2 Minimum scope of coverage. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (most recent edition), Code 1 (any auto). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.

3 .3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as an endorsement to the policy:

a. Grantee and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Subrecipient, including the insured’s general supervision of Subrecipient; products and completed operations of Subrecipient; premises owned, occupied, or used by Subrecipient; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Subrecipient. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to Grantee or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.

b. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis.

c. An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the Grantee and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Grantee shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage.

d. Any failure of Subrecipient to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to Grantee and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

4. All Policies Requirements.

4.1 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Subrecipient shall furnish Grantee with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required herein. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The Grantee reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONTRACT NO.: 2021-340

Exhibit D to Funding Agreement Between February 7, 2022 the City of Rancho Cordova and Rancho Cordova Food Locker Page 4 of 4

4.2 Subcontractors. Subrecipient shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

4.3 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Subrecipient shall disclose to and obtain the approval of Grantee for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement.

During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Subrecipient may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to Grantee, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Subrecipient procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them.

4.5 Waiver of Subrogation. Subrecipient hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer or contractor may require from vendor by virtue of the payment of any loss.

Subrecipient agrees to obtain any endorsements that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the entity for all work performed by the Subrecipient, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.

4.6 Notice of Reduction in Coverage. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, or materially affected in any other manner, Subrecipient shall provide written notice to Grantee at Subrecipient’s earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than five (5) days after Subrecipient is notified of the change in coverage. 3835359.5
ITEM 9.5.

ATTACHMENT 2

City Council Staff Report – Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM
ITEM 10.1.

DATE:February 7, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM:Stefan Heisler, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY REVENUE

BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF AN AFFORDABLE 82 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, SUNRISE

CROSSING APARTMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopting the Resolution would approve the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds for the Sunrise Crossing Apartments in an amount not to exceed $14 Million and authorize the City to become a non-charter member of the California Public Finance Authority (“CalPFA”).

BACKGROUND
The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing pursuant to the federal Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”) and adopt a resolution which would approve the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) by the California Public Finance Authority for the purpose of financing the construction of an affordable residential housing development to be located at 11295 Folsom Blvd. in the City of Rancho Cordova (the “Project”).

The purpose of the resolution is to authorize the financing to meet a requirement of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”).

The Code requires that the “applicable elected representatives” of the jurisdiction in which a project to be financed with “private activity bonds” is situated adopt a resolution approving the issuance of such “private activity bonds” after holding a public hearing which has been noticed in a newspaper of general circulation in such jurisdiction. The City Council is being asked to hold such public hearing which has been noticed as required by the Code. The proposed Resolution would act as the approval by the “applicable elected representatives” with respect to the proposed Project.

The adoption of the Resolution is one of the steps in the process of financing the proposed Project. The Project has secured a “private activity bond” allocation from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (“CDLAC”) and prior to the issuance of bonds, CalPFA will need to

City Council Staff Report – Page 2 of 2
adopt a resolution which would approve the execution and delivery of certain bond documents that will reflect the terms of the Bonds.

CalPFA is a joint powers authority formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses with the issuance of both taxable and tax-exempt debt, and would be the issuing agency for the proposed bonds under this approval. In order for CalPFA to have the authority to serve as the issuer of the bonds for the Project, it is necessary for the City of Rancho Cordova to become a non-charter member of CalPFA. Attached to this report is a copy of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to be executed by a designated signatory of the City.

The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that CalPFA is a public entity, separate and apart from each member executing such agreement. The debts, liabilities and obligations of CalPFA do not constitute debts, liabilities or obligations of the members executing such agreement.

The Bonds to be issued by CalPFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds would be tax-exempt private activity bonds for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and, as such, require the approval of the elected body of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over the area where the project to be financed is located. The City will not be under any obligation to repay the Bond indebtedness. This action does not create any additional debt.

As a non-charter member of CalPFA, the Authority will share a portion of the administrative fees received for the Project with the City, estimated to be approximately $570 annually.

Separately, the City has made a $2,624,000 “subsidy” commitment to the project. Loan documents to formally provide that subsidy will be considered at a future Council meeting in the first half of 2022.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Joint Powers Agreement

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
RESOLUTION XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC FINANCE

AUTHORITY OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $14,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING

OR REFINANCING THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUNRISE CROSSING

APARTMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO
WHEREAS, Sunrise Crossing Affordable, LP or a partnership of which St. Anton Communities, LLC (the “Developer”) or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Public Finance Authority (the “Authority”) adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $14,000,000 in outstanding aggregate principal amount (the “Bonds”), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 11295 Folsom Boulevard, Rancho Cordova, California (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project is located within the City of Rancho Cordova (the "City"); and WHEREAS, the City proposes to become an Additional Member of the Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (the "Agreement") relating to the California Public Finance Authority; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is the applicable elected representative under Section 147(f) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council understands that its actions in holding this public hearing and in approving this Resolution do not obligate the City in any manner for payment of the principal, interest, fees or any other costs associated with the issuance of the Bonds, and said City Council expressly conditions its approval of this Resolution on that understanding.

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

Section 1. The City hereby requests to become an Additional Member of the Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Agreement. The Agreement is hereby approved and the Mayor of

ITEM 10.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 2 of 2 the City and all other proper officers and officials of the City, or a designee thereof, are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement.

The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the purposes of financing the Project. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this Resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the purpose of Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located.

Section 2. The officers of the City Council are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and execute and deliver any and all documents, certificates and other instruments which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby. Any actions heretofore taken by such officers are hereby ratified and approved.

Section 3. The City Council expressly conditions its approval of this Resolution on its understanding that the City shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay any principal, interest, fees or any other costs associated with the Authority's issuance of the Loan for the financing of the Project.

Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its passage and approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova held on this 7th day of February 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Donald Terry, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT

RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of May 12, 2015, among the parties executing this Agreement ( all such parties, except those which have withdrawn as provided herein, are referred to as the "Members" and those parties initially executing this Agreement are referred to as the "Charter Members"):

WITNESS ETH
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the California Government Code (in effect as of the date hereof and as the same may from time to time be amended or supplemented, the "Joint Exercise of Powers Act"), two or more public agencies may by agreement jointly exercise any power common to the contracting paiiies; and WHEREAS, each of the Members is a "public agency" as that term is defined in Section 6500 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act; and
WHEREAS, each of the Members is empowered by law to promote economic, cultural and community development, including, without limitation, the promotion of oppmiunities for the creation or retention of employment, the stimulation of economic activity, the increase of the tax base, and the promotion of opportunities for education, cultural improvement and public health, safety and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, each of the Members may accomplish the purposes and objectives described / in the preceding preamble by various means; and
WHEREAS, each Member is also empowered by law to acqmre, construct, improve, operate and dispose of real property for a public purpose; and WHEREAS, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes the Members to create a joint exercise of powers entity with the authority to exercise any powers common to the Members, as specified in this Agreement and to exercise the additional powers granted to it in the Joint Exercise of Powers Act and any other applicable provisions of the laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, a public entity established pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act is empowered to issue or execute bonds, notes, commercial paper or any other evidences of indebtedness, leases, installment sale or other financing agreements or certificates of participation therein (herein "Bonds"), and to otherwise undertake financing programs under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act or other applicable provisions of the laws of the State of California to accomplish its public purposes; and
ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

[Signature Page to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Public Finance Authority] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Additional Members hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized.

Dated: ________________
Additional Member Name:

By:

Its:

ATTEST:
___________________________________
By:

Its:

ITEM 10.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

City Council Staff Report – Page 1 of 3
ITEM 10.2.

DATE: February 7, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM:Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Byron Tang, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE TRANSPORTATION

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND NEXUS STUDY THAT

FACILITATES NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ENSURES THAT DEVELOPMENT

PAYS FOR TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adoption of the Resolution would approve an update of the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study and adopt the updated Transportation Development Impact Fees. Approved fees shall be effective no sooner than 60 days after approval in accordance with California Government Code 66017.

BACKGROUND
Transportation development impact fee (TDIF) programs are designed to identify infrastructure improvements needed to facilitate ongoing development and allocate fair share fees to specific developments based on their use type. TDIF programs ensure that single developments are not overly burdened by the full cost of improvements needed to accommodate new traffic demands generated by multiple and citywide development impacts. The City of Rancho Cordova facilitates the process by collecting fees, generally at the time of building permit issuance, and providing credits or reimbursements as developers complete infrastructure projects identified in the TDIF program. This process promotes steady economic development and ensures that development pays for infrastructure improvements needed to address traffic impacts they generate.

On November 7, 2005, the Council approved a nexus study establishing a Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program that implemented a set of fee rates for both the new developing area and the infill area. The Council selected a fee schedule that implemented different transportation development impact fee rates for both the new development area and infill area.

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report – Page 2 of 3
On January 22, 2013, the Council approved an update to the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program and Nexus Study reducing the transportation development impact fees in the new development area. Before approving the proposed fees, the Council directed to reduce the fee for the single-family dwelling unit by 20%. This reduction was also applied to commercial and industrial development in the new growth area and industrial rates for the infill area.

The updated 2022 transportation development impact fee schedule recommended for approval at this time does not have any significant increases relative to the previously adopted 2013 fee schedule.

DISCUSSION
The City of Rancho Cordova’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes improvements to the City’s major roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities that are needed to accommodate projected future travel demand. One of the key methods for financing these improvements is the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The intent of the fee program is to provide an equitable means of ensuring that future development contributes their fair share of transportation improvements so that the City’s quality of life can be maintained.

Pursuant to the California Mitigation Fee Act (MFA), the City must periodically review the factors used in estimating fee rates. Using the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) projected average annual growth rate in housing units, the estimated year when the city would reach full buildout of its residential uses is projected to be in 2055. Therefore, the planning horizon for the CIP and TDIF program was extended to 2055. An updated analysis of roadway improvement needs for this planning horizon was conducted. The total cost of all roadway improvements needed was analyzed by Wood Rodgers, which totaled $1,057,519,669.

The current revisions to the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program and Nexus Study seeks to establish a fee rate that provides for funding (with additional funding sources) the needed roadway improvements. The total fee per Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) is $17,867. The proposed fee rate is then translated to a full fee schedule by land use. The updated 2022 transportation development impact fee schedule recommended for approval at this time does not have any significant increases relative to the previously adopted 2013 fee schedule.

Remaining Page Intentionally Blank

City Council Staff Report – Page 3 of 3
Table 19 B
2022 Fee Schedule – Comparison: Current TDIF vs. TDIF Update Draft New Fees2
Current Fees1 Proposed Fees
Land Use Units Infill Area
Growth
Area
Nexus Based
Citywide Infill Area
Growth
Area
Single Family Detached
> 1,200 SF $11,682 $19,299 $19,225 $11,637 $19,225
< 1,200 SF $7,799 $16,983 $16,918 $7,770 $16,918
Multi-Family
DU
$7,605 $13,509 $10,958 $6,169 $10,958
Commercial $10.97 $14.14 $23.84 $11.20 $14.23
Office $10.63 $10.88 $20.57 $10.68 $10.93
Industrial
Sq Ft
$5.53 $5.53 $10.58 $5.49 $5.63
Fee revenue by 2055 $945 million $780 million
Funding required from alternative sources $165 million
1 Adjusting for 2021 ENR: 8%
2 Adjusting for 2021 ENR: 8% less 5% = 7.6%
City staff held multiple outreach meetings with the North State Building Industry Association (BIA) to ensure all comments were addressed with the update to the Nexus Study.

Any action challenging this fee shall follow the steps and procedures outlined in “Chapter 9.

Protests, Legal Actions, and Audits” of the California Government Code 66020.

FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact to the general fund.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Fee Schedule

3. Nexus Study

4. TDIF Presentation

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 1 of 3

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE TRANSPORTATION

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND NEXUS STUDY THAT FACILITATES NEW

DEVELOPMENT AND ENSURES THAT DEVELOPMENT PAYS FOR TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO

MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

WHEREAS, the Citywide Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) was approved by City Council on November 7, 2005, at the rates established by Resolution No. 127-2005 and was permanently established through Ordinance No. 33-2005; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 122-2007 readopting the findings of and continuing the fees as imposed by Resolution No. 127-2005 until a new fee schedule is adopted as part of a Transportation Impact Fee Program Update; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2013, the Council adopted Resolution No. 7-2013 updating the Citywide Transportation development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, the consultants retained by the City, DKS Associates, have prepared an updated Transportation Development Impact Fee Program and an updated TDIF Program Nexus Study, which are by this reference incorporated herein; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to implement the updated fee schedule detailed in Exhibit A attached, retroactive to January 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, on this date, February 7, 2022, the Council commenced a public hearing on the update to the TDIF Program including the Nexus Analysis, notice of said public hearing having been duly and properly given; and all written and oral presentations having been duly considered by the Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. The Council finds and determines that:
a. The purpose of the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program and the transportation development impact fee is to finance transportation improvements necessary to offset the impacts to the City’s transportation system of new development in the City, to ensure that adequate funding is provided for improvements required to meet the demands of such new development, and to fund administration of the Fee Program. b. The use of the Transportation Development Impact Fees is to fund the transportation improvements identified in the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program and to fund administration of the Fee Program.

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 2 of 3 c. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the Transportation Development Impact Fees and the type of development projects on which the fees will be imposed because the fees will be imposed on commercial and residential development projects in the City that generate or contribute to the need for roadway, transit, and/or pedestrian improvements, and are not imposed on projects that do not contribute to such need, as further set forth in the Nexus Study.
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the identified transportation improvements and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed because the need for such improvements varies depending on the type of development project at issue, and the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program takes into account the type of development project at issue by only applying a fee to development that is likely to contribute to such need, and ensuring that such fee is proportional to the need, as further set forth in the Nexus Study.
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Transportation Development Impact Fees and the cost of the identified transportation improvements or portion of the identified transportation improvements attributable to the development on which the fees are imposed. As discussed in the Nexus Study, the amount of the Transportation Development Impact Fees is based on the type of development at issue, the number of building permits being generated by such development, and the anticipated impact of such development on the city's transportation system. The amount of the fees contemplates the relationship between such development’s impact and the cost of roadway improvements that will be required to offset the impact of such development.
f. This project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Pub. Res. Code Section 21080(b)(8)(D) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a)(4) because it involves the establishment of a public agency fee for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain roadway service levels consistent with the City’s General Plan.

3. Approval of Fees. The updated TDIF Program and Nexus Study are hereby adopted. The fees as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, are hereby approved February 7, 2022. The fees established by this Resolution shall be effective no sooner than 60 days (April 8, 2022) in accordance with California Government Code 66017 and remain in effect until a new fee is adopted as part of any future update to the transportation development impact fee program.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 7th day of February 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Donald Terry, Mayor

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 3 of 3

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 10.2. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit A to the Resolution
2022 Fee Schedule

Nexus Study
2021 Transportation Development
Impact Fee Program
Prepared for:

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Prepared by:

DKS Associates in cooperation with
Wood Rodgers and Urban Economics
December 2021
ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

i December 2021 Final

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1

1.0  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4

1.1  PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM .......................................................... 4

1.2  PURPOSE 2021 UPDATE .................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0  DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS ........................................................................................ 5

3.0  TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................... 6

3.1  EXISTING LOS DEFICIENCIES ........................................................................................................................... 6

3.2  TRAVEL FORECASTS ........................................................................................................................................ 8

3.3  2055 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY NEEDS .................................................................................................. 9

3.4  2055 INTERSECTION CAPACITY NEEDS .......................................................................................................... 10

3.5  SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 14

3.6  FREEWAY INTERCHANGES ............................................................................................................................. 15

3.7  TRANSIT FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 19

3.8  BIKEWAYS AND WALKWAYS ......................................................................................................................... 19

4.0  IMPROVEMENT COSTS ................................................................................................ 21

4.1  ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 21

4.2  TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 21

4.3  BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 22

5.0  BASIS FOR ALLOCATING IMPROVEMENT COSTS ................................................... 23

5.1  ROADWAY CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 23

5.2  TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 26

5.3  BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 26

5.4  PROGRAM CONTINGENCY .............................................................................................................................. 27

5.5  IMPROVEMENTS AND ELEMENTS NOT INCLUDED IN TDIF PROGRAM ............................................................ 27

6.0  METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING FEES .............................................................. 28

6.1  DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS ..................................................................................................................... 28

6.2  FEES CALCULATION ....................................................................................................................................... 29 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ii December 2021 Final

7.0  TDIF NEXUS FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 30

7.1  PURPOSE OF FEES ........................................................................................................................................... 33

7.2  USE OF FEES ................................................................................................................................................... 33

7.3  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USE OF FEES AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ............................................................. 34

7.4  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEED FOR FACILITY AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ................................................ 34

7.5  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AMOUNT OF FEES AND THE COST OF FACILITY ATTRIBUTED TO DEVELOPMENT UPON WHICH FEE IS IMPOSED................................................................................................................................... 34

8.0  ON-GOING ADMINISTRATION OF THE TDIF PROGRAM ........................................... 35

8.1  ADMINISTRATION FEE .................................................................................................................................... 35

8.2  TDIF ADJUSTMENTS....................................................................................................................................... 35

8.3  TDIF CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 36

8.4  TDIF EXEMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 37

8.5  FEE IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................ 38

Appendix A: Land Use and Development Assumptions
Appendix B: Project Descriptions, Cost Estimates and Other Funding for TDIF Program Improvements Appendix C: Improvement Cost Estimation Methodology
ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

1 December 2021 Final
Executive Summary
The City of Rancho Cordova’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) incl udes improvements to the City’s major roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian fac ilities that are needed to acco mmodate projected future travel demand. The City has various methods for fi nancing the transportation improvements in the CIP.

One of the key methods is the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The intent of the fee program is to provide an equitable means of ensu ring that future development contributes their fair share of transportation improvements so that the City’s quality of life can be maintained.

Pursuant to the California Mitigation Fee Act (MFA 1), the City must periodically review the factors used in estimating fee rates. Based on the following fact ors, a comprehensive fee update was considered warranted:
 Changes in the City’s projected growth rate and long-term residential and non-residential development estimates;
 The City completed a major update to its’ travel demand model – the operative analysis tool for forecasting changes in the City’s long-range transportation needs and its CIP;  Need to update construction costs for infrastructure improvements;  The need to refine project definitions and update assumptions on potential funding from sources other than the TDIF Program; and,
 Need to reflect legislative amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.

The transportation needs and fee allocation for this update of the TDIF Program are based a 2007 “Base Year” (the same year as the current TDIF Program adopted in 2013) and a future development scenario that reflects full buildout of all residential uses within th e City. The City has the potential for almost 40,000 additional dwelling units over Base Year” (2007) levels. Using the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) projected average annual grow th rate in housing units for the City of Rancho Cordova through 2040, the estimated year when the City would reach full buildout of its residential uses is projected to be 2055. The “planning horizon” for th e CIP and TDIF Program was therefore extended to 2055. For non-residential uses, SACOG’s projected av erage annual growth rates for retail, office and industrial uses were used to estimate the 2055 development levels for those types of uses.

An updated analysis of roadway improvement needs was conducted using traffic forecasts from the City’s updated travel demand model and the new 2055 development estimates. As with the analysis conducted in 2013, the roadway and intersection improvements included in the TDIF Program were identified to meet the City’s level of service policy under 2055 travel demand levels after “thru trips” (those with neither trip end within the City) were subtracted from the traffic demand. This updated effort resulted in some changes in roadway improvements identified in the 2013 CIP. Th e descriptions of the improvement projects in the TDIF Program adopted in 2013 were reviewed and refined as necessary.

The estimated improvement costs are based on conceptual definitions and preliminary engineering of the improvement projects and then planning-level cost estimates. The “unit prices” for items used in those cost estimates were updated to current unit costs (2021). Generally, unit prices have increased by approximately 2% per year between 2013 and 2021, for an overall unit price increase of 16-20% for most items. However,

1 Mitigation Fee Act (MFA), California Government Code, Sections 66000-66025.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

2 December 2021 Final

several items including, but not limited to, drainage pipe and traffic signals have in particular, increased significantly more since 2013.

A 4% program contingency has been applied to the total CIP costs and the costs allocated to the TDIF Program. The program contingency is intended to cover project scope changes, alternative nexus-based projects, unforeseen and unbudgeted construction expenses, and other project related expenses.

The transportation elements and costs that are included in the updated CIP are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Summary of Costs in CIP
CIP Elements Cost
Roadways, Intersections, Interchanges and Light Rail Grade Separations $1,027,571,669 Phasing of Roadway Improvements $29,948,000
Traffic Signal System and ITS $28,922,000
Transit $138,225,000
Bikeways $78,089,000
TDIF Program Contingency $36,347,735
Total CIP $1,339,103,404
Source: Wood Rodgers, City of Rancho Cordova, DKS Associates, 2021

Table 2 shows that of the total $1.34 billion in transportation improvements that are included in the CIP, approximately $945 million of the total cost was allocated to new development in TDIF Program. The City shares responsibility for roadways along its border with Sacramento County. Approximately $162 million for improvements to those shared roadways would be funded by Sacramento County. The percent share of roadway and intersection improvements for shared fac ilities is consistent with those in the Sacramento County Transportation Development Fee (SCTDF) Program.

Other Funding
The City will need to secure $209 million in “other funding” for: 1) the City’s share of existing deficiencies; 2) “existing development’s share” of transit and bike way improvements; and, 3) some reduction in the developer funded portion of several major improveme nts. These include: Light Rail grade separations; Bikeway grade separations; and the Zinfandel Drive Complex. The City has secured approximately $49.2 million of funding for projects in the TDIF program , including Measure A funding and other grants. The TDIF assumes that about $24.5 million in future Measure A funding will be available, but only for the City’s portion of improvements to Grant Line Road. An assumed 30% of the cost of improvements along Grant Line Road is assumed to come from Measure A funding (as the Capital Southeast Connector Project) and the remainder would be split with Sacramento County. The sources for the remaining $135.4 million in “other funding” have not been identified

2. The City will seek grants to fund the City’s share of transit and bikeway improvements.

2 Since 2007, the City has collected $56.2 million in TDIF fees and has prepared $25.6 million fee credit agreements.

These fees are reflected in the $945 million of the total cost allocated to new development in TDIF Program.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

3 December 2021 Final

Table 2
Allocation of Costs of TDIF Program Improvements
Transportation Element
Cost Allocation
TDIF
Program
Sacramento
County2
Other
Sources Total
Roadways, Intersections, Interchanges, and
Light Rail Grade Separations1 $773,974,732 $164,378,257 $119,166,679 $1,057,519,669 Traffic Signals and ITS $23,822,747 $0 $5,099,253 $28,922,000 Transit $77,406,000 $0 $60,819,000 $138,225,000
Bikeways $33,489,904 $0 $44,599,096 $78,089,000
Subtotal $908,693,383 $164,378,257 $229,684,029 $1,302,755,669 Program Contingency (4%) $36,347,735 $0 $0 $36,347,735 Total $945,041,118 $164,378,257 $215,684,029 $1,339,103,404 1 Includes cost of phasing roadway segments
2 County’s share of improvements to roadways and intersections that are along City/County boundary Source: DKS Associates, 2021

Estimated Fees
Fees are differentiated by the type of development and relative demands on the transportation system. In the allocation of costs, each development type is assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate.

DUE’s measure how the trip-making characteristics of a land use type compares to a single-family residential unit. The estimated growth in developm ent between the Base Year (2007) and 2055 represents 52,951 DUEs. Table 3 summarizes the estimated “cost per DUE” for the TDIF. The “cost per DUE” is the development fee for a single-family unit and fees for other land uses are calculated using DUE ratios.

Table 3
Estimated Cost per DUE – TDIF Program Update
Elements of TDIF Program
CIP Cost Allocated to New Development
in TDIF Program
TDIF Program’s Portion of CIP Improvements $908,693,383 TDIF Program Contingency (4%) $36,347,735
Total $945,041,118
Fees Collected by City prior to January 2007 $33,143,248 Total Remaining Costs Funded by TDIF $911,897,870
Total Growth in DUEs 52,951
Cost per DUE $17,221
Administrative Cost (3.75%) per DUE $646
Total Fee per DUE $17,867
Source: DKS Associates, 2021
ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

4 December 2021 Final

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Transportation Development Impact Fee Program The City of Rancho Cordova’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) incl udes improvements to the City’s major roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian fac ilities that are needed to acco mmodate projected future travel demand. The City has various methods for fi nancing the transportation improvements in the CIP.

One of the key methods is the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program.

The TDIF Program collects funds from new developm ent in the City to finance the portion of the transportation improvements that result from the travel demand generated by new development in the City.

Fees are differentiated by the type of development in relationship to their relative impacts on the transportation system. The intent of the fee program is to provide an equitable means of ensuring that future development contributes their fair share of transportation improvements so that the City’s General Plan Circulation policies and quality of life can be maintained.

1.2 Purpose 2021 Update
When the City incorporated in July 2003, the C ity inherited fee programs established by Sacramento County. In 2005, the City established the costs of the roadways in the City’s General Plan and prepared a Nexus Study that resulted in implementation of the City’s first transportation impact fee program. In 2012 the City performed an update to the TDIF Program. A Nexus Study with updated fee rates was prepared and approved by the City Council in January 2013. Duri ng the remainder of 2013, the City worked with representatives of the building industry to explore various changes in the methodologies used to determine the fee rates. Those efforts resulted in a decision to update construction costs to 2013 levels to compensate for the Great Recession and to refine the definition of some improvement projects. That effort resulted in a reduction to the fee rates, which were approved by the City Council in December 2013. The current TDIF Program is based on the December 2013 Nexus Study.

The City periodically determines if a TDIF Program update is warranted. In 2020, the City determined that a comprehensive update should be performed based on the following factors:
 Changes in the City’s projected growth rate and long-term residential and non-residential development estimates;
 The City completed a major update to its’ travel demand model – the operative analysis tool for forecasting changes in the City’s long-range transportation needs and its CIP;  Need to update construction costs for infrastructure improvements;  The need to refine project definitions and update assumptions on potential funding; and,  Need to reflect legislative amendments to the Mitigation Fee Act requirements. This includes a Smart Growth Discount for residential developments that meet smart-growth criteria (Government Code 66005.1). A 15% fee discount based on reduced vehicle trip generation studies is offered to any residential development that meets the criteria.

The purpose of this Nexus Study report is to update the nexus (or reasonable relationship) between new development that occurs in the City and the need for additional transportation improvements and facilities to accommodate this new developmen t. This report documents the me thodology and assumptions used to update the 2013 Nexus Study for the TDIF Program.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

5 December 2021 FINAL

2.0 Development Forecasts
The transportation needs and fee allocation for this update of the TDIF Program are based a 2007 “Base Year” (the same year as the current TDIF Program adopted in 2013) and a future development scenario that reflects full buildout of all residential uses within the City. These analysis years are described as follows:
 The City of Rancho Cordova has prepared upda ted estimates of development “capacities” for its adopted and planned specific plan areas, as well as likely residential capacities for its vacant or underutilized infill sites. Based on that analysis, the City has the potential for almost 40,000 additional dwelling units over “base year” (2007) levels.  SACOG prepares forecasts of future development throughout the six-county SACOG region every four years. Their latest forecasts prepared in 2020 define growth betw een 2016 and 2040. Using SACOG’s projected average annual growth rate in total housing units for the City of Rancho Cordova, the estimated year when the City would reach full buildout of its residential uses is 2055.  For non-residential uses, SACOG’s projected aver age annual growth rates for retail, office and industrial uses were used to estimate the total 20 55 development levels for those types of uses.

Based on SACOG’s non-residential growth rate, the City will reach full buildout of its non- residential uses after 2055.

Appendix A details the assumptions and methodology used to prepare the City’s development forecasts.

Estimates of housing and jobs for the 2007 Base Year, 2055 and the growth over that 48-year period are provided in Table 4. As shown, housing units and employment in the City are expected to grow by 163 percent and 88 percent, respectfully. For non-residential uses, fees are based on the square footage of a building while the travel demand model uses jobs to determine the trips generated by non-residential uses.

Therefore, both the estimated number of jobs and building square footage by type is shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Summary of Development Forecasts
Land use Units 2007 2055 Growth
2007 to 2055
Residential
Single-Family
Dwelling Unit
18,141 47,177 29,036
Multi-Family 6,308 17,230 10,922
Total 24,449 64,407 39,958
Non-Residential
Retail
Jobs
7,603 19,695 12,092
Office 34,703 56,128 21,425
Industrial 7,541 17,799 10,258
Total 49,847 93,622 43,775

Retail
Square Feet
3,801,000 9,847,000 6,046,000
Office 9,479,000 15,906,000 6,427,000
Industrial 6,636,000 12,791,000 6,155,000
Total 19,916,000 38,544,000 18,628,000
Sources: DKS Associates, SACOG and City of Rancho Cordova ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

6 December 2021 Final

3.0 Transportation Improvements
The Circulation Element of the General Plan identifies the long-range transportation system that is needed to accommodate travel demand at full build out of the City. The CIP and TDIF Program are consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. The City h as been evaluating the timing of the transportation improvements in the General Plan. That effort has resulted in the following:
 Core Backbone Improvements – The City has identified th e following core backbone infrastructure improvements as necessary to support the next 10,000 residential EDUs in the new development area east of Sunrise Blvd. The estimated costs of these improvements are approximately $180 million. A de dicated revenue stream in the form of a set aside from the development impact fee is intended to partially fund the core improvements. - Zinfandel Complex Improvements;
- Sunrise Boulevard Widening from Kiefer B oulevard. to Jackson Highway including intersection improvements at Jackson Highway;
- White Rock Road Widening from Sunrise Boulevard. to Rancho Cordova Parkway including intersection improvements;
- Rancho Cordova Parkway Interchange and Rancho Cordova Parkway Extension to White Rock Road; and,
- Douglas Road Widening from Sunrise Blvd. to Zinfandel Drive including bridge widening over the Folsom South Canal and completion of intersection improvements at Sunrise Boulevard.
 CIP – This report summarizes the transportation analyses that have defined the transportation improvements that are needed to accommodate pr ojected growth by 2055, including and updated 2055 roadway needs analysis and the findings from the City’s Master Plan efforts on the transit and bikeways elements of the transportation system.
 Post-2055 Improvements – This report does not evaluate tran sportation needs and cost at full buildout of all land uses in the City (i.e., non-r esidential uses will not reach development capacity by 2055) and therefore improvements that would be needed after 2055 are not reflected. Future updates to the City’s TDIF Program will address this remaining increment of development growth including an updated deficiency assessment.

This section describes the transportation analysis that determined the improvement projects that would be included in the CIP as well as those that would be funded in the TDIF Program.

3.1 Existing LOS Deficiencies
Roadway Segments Deficiencies
An analysis of traffic demand in the 2007 Base Year (documented in the TDIF Program adopted in 2013) showed that nearly five miles of roadways in the City of Rancho Cordova operated at LOS E or F conditions.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

7 December 2021 FINAL
The locations and volume-to-capacity ratio of roadways with “existing LOS deficiencies” are summarized below:
 Sunrise Boulevard – American River to Gold Country Boulevard (1.56)  Sunrise Boulevard – Gold Country Boulevard to Coloma Road (1.54)  Sunrise Boulevard – Coloma Road to Zinfandel Drive (1.53)  Sunrise Boulevard – Zinfandel Drive to U.S. 50 Interchange (1.48)  Sunrise Boulevard – U.S. 50 Interchange to Folsom Boulevard (0.96)  Sunrise Boulevard –Folsom Boulevard to Sun Center Drive (1.06)  Sunrise Boulevard – Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard (1.11)  Sunrise Boulevard – Chrysanthy Boulevard to Kiefer Boulevard (1.00)  Sunrise Boulevard – Kiefer Boulevard to SR-16 (0.92)
Since 2007, Sunrise Boulevard north of Kiefer Boulevard has been widened and thus no longer is an existing deficiency. The 2007 “Base Year” for the TDIF Program remains for this 2021 update of the TDIF Program.

Development that has occurred between 2007 and 2021 has contributed fees to help fund improvements – some of which have been constructed (such as the widening of Sunrise Boulevard north of Kiefer Boulevard). For CIP projects partially (or fully) built and/or funded by a different source these cost amounts have been subtracted from the total project cost (i.e., are not part of the fee calculations). Constructed projects remain on the TDIF CIP list to:

1. provide a complete accounting of TDIF funds and expenditures;

2. account for portions of the project that are partially the responsibility of the County to fund/implement (such as portions of Sunrise Boulevard);

3. account for unfunded portions of projects; and,

4. account for existing project credit or reimbursement agreements.

The General Plan calls for a maximum of six lanes on the City’s busiest arterial roadways. Some of these roadways already have six lanes. Some two or four lane arterials could be widened under the CIP, but some roadway segments would operate at LOS E or F cond itions in 2055 with the maximum of lanes allowed under the General Plan.

Intersection Deficiencies
Based on the analysis of traffic demand in the 2007 Base Year (documented in the TDIF Program adopted in 2013), there were five intersections shown to operate at LOS E or F conditions and are thus considered existing deficiencies as part of this analysis. These intersections are listed in Table 5.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

8 December 2021 FINAL
Table 5
Existing Intersection Deficiencies
Project ID No. North-South Street East-West Street 2007 Base Level of Service
2007 Base
Volume/Capacity
251 Sunrise Boulevard Coloma Road E 0.96
267.4 Mather Field Road Folsom Boulevard E 0.99
270 Sunrise Boulevard Gold Country Blvd F 1.02
273 Grant Line Road Jackson Road F 1.04
288 Sunrise Boulevard Jackson Road E 0.97
Source: DKS Associates, 2012

3.2 Tr avel Forecasts
To generate travel forecasts, the City applies a modified version of SACOG’s SACSIM-19 Activity-Based Travel Model. The City modified SACSIM-19 to pr ovide greater roadway and transit network detail and more refined
traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the City and adjacent surrounding areas. While the City’s model is intended to focus on travel within the C ity, it covers the same area as SACSIM19 – the full six- county SACOG region. Thus, the City’s model predicts how the City’s development interacts with land uses region-wide and the entire regional transportation system.

The SACSIM-19 Activity-Based Travel
Model gives the City of Rancho Cordova the capability to generate technical information pertinent to t
he understanding of travel behavior and transportation network performance within the City. This information is criti cal to the development, updating and monitoring of the City’s transportation capital improvement program , analysis of specific tra nsportation projects and programs, and General Plan land use and transportati on strategies and policies. The City’s travel model yields the future volume sets (i.e., roadway segment volumes and intersection turn movements) to inform operational analyses that determine whether a given ro ad segment or intersection will operate acceptably in the f
uture and the extent to which new development within the City limits will contribute to future infrastructure deficiencies.

The City’s SACSIM-19 Activity-Based Travel Model reflects a baseline year of 2016 and a 2055 forecast horizon – the same planning horizon applied to the fee assessment. A planning horizon of 2055 is considered long enough
to plan for long-term infrastructure needs, yet short enough to represent reasonably anticipated growth based on current land use policy. There are practical reasons for this length of horizon (i.e., implementing a transportation infrastructure project ty pically takes 4-15 years and regional agency travel
demand mod
els typically use a 20-30 forecast horizon pursuant to the federal metropolitan planning regulations).

A key reason that transportation fee programs do not reflect planning horizons of 40 years or more is defensibility. If fees are not applied to adva nce projects listed in the program in a reasonable timeframe, the program CIP list could be considered too speculative and subject to legal challenge.

The 2055 land use assumptions
present in the City’s travel demand model is based on the following assumptions:
 Full Buildout of Residential Uses
ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

9 December 2021 FINAL
• About 50% Buildout of Non-residential Uses (see Appendix A) • SACOG’s 2040 MTP/SCS Preferred Land Use assumptions for areas outside the City limits except in the
following proposed development areas in Sacramento County adjacent to the City, where 2055 development estimates assumed:
- Cordova Hills
- Easton/Glenborough
- Mather South
- New
Bridge
Based on the above land use assumptions, daily, AM and PM peak hour 2055 travel forecasts were developed. These peak hour forecasts account for future transit ridership associated with planned transit services in the City of Rancho Cor dova and surrounding areas. This includes transit services partially funded by the Transit Benefit District.

3.3 Model Post Processing
Before “raw” model output can be considered su itable for operational determinations, post-processing adjustments must be performed. The recommende d procedure is based on the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, 1982. NCHRP-255 adjustments entail using model generated link-based growth (computed variation between base year and forecast year model link volumes) to adjust baseline traffic counts to reflect future conditions. These adjustments were performed for all daily roadway segment volumes and AM/PM peak hour intersection turn movements, respectively.

3.4 2055 Roadway Segment Capacity Needs
To determine the need for constructing or widening roadways to accommodate future development, a capacity threshold analysis was performed based on projected 2055 daily traffic volumes. As stated previously, these volumes account for the trip reduction benefit of planned transit services. The list of projects from the previous CIP and TDIF programs including additional projects identified as being necessary based on approved planned developments formed the basis for analysis. An iterative analysis was then performed to determine the need for additional roadway segment capacity relative to planned growth.

The roadway capacity needs analysis was guided by the level of service (LOS) policy in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which calls for ma intaining LOS D conditions on all roadways and intersections unless maintaining this standard would, in the City's judgment, be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals. Assuming 85% of capacity (mid-point of LOS D) yields the following daily capacities expressed in vehicle per day (vpd) for roadway segment analysis:
 6 Lane Threshold = 51,300 vpd
 4 Lane Threshold = 30,600 vpd
 2 Lane Threshold = 15,300 vpd
Typically, roadway widening is required if a given roadway segment has a projected volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.85 or greater. However, the maximum number of lanes on a roadway segment should not exceed the number of lanes allowed in the General Plan “Roadway System and Sizing”, which limits the ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

10 December 2021 FINAL
maximum number lanes on most arterial roadways to 6 lanes and limits Folsom Boulevard to 4 lanes. With those limits, the City recognizes that LOS D conditi ons may not be met on some portions of Sunrise Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard. Additionally, many new roadways planned to support new development would only require 2 lanes along their length but woul d require greater channelization capacity at their intersections. To maintain roadway lane continuity, particularly where intersection spacing is limited, these roadways were planned as 4 lane roadways.

Although much of the increase in traffic demand would result from growth within the City, some growth is attributed to “thru” vehicle trips that have neither end of the trip within the City. To determine whether the 2055 roadway improvements would still be needed with the growth in thru trips removed, the roadway segment analysis was performed in two phases. The first phase determined the ultimate roadway capacity needs. The second phase removed “thru” vehicle trips to determine the share of roadway improvements which should be attributed to the TDIF Program. As mentioned above, for any given roadway segment additional non-capacity related factors were also considered when determining facility sizing needs including existing policies; logical project limits; la ne continuity; geometric and spacing characteristics at/between intersections (see Section 3.4).

Table 6 summarizes the roadway capacity improvements, forecasted average daily traffic (ADT), and level of service analysis including with thru trips removed. The roadway needs analysis identifies roadways that would need to be widened, extended, or created to accommodate future 2055 development growth and resulting travel demand relative to the City’s General Plan LOS policy.

3.5 2055 Intersection Capacity Needs
The operational analysis used to determine the geometric needs at intersections (i.e., number of thru lanes and turn lanes), an LOS analysis was conducted for projected 2055 traffic demand during both the AM and PM peak commute hours on a typical weekday. The an alysis was performed using the City’s citywide Synchro network model. Intersection sizing needs to accommodate future growth was based on the City’s LOS D threshold and HCM 6
th Edition methodologies3 as implemented in Synchro 10. The LOS analysis used in the TDIF analysis is based on average intersection delay for signals and all-way stop control intersections and the worst movement at two-way stop control intersections. Table 7 summarizes the breakdown of LOS thresholds from the HCM 6th Edition.
3 Intersections along Grant Line Road fall under the jurisdiction of the Capitol SE Connector JPA whose policy requires LOS C conditions on all roadway segments and intersections.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

11 December 2021 FINAL

Table 6: 2055 Roadway Lanes Needs Analysis
Fee
ID Roadway From To Existing
Volume
Existing
Lanes
2055
Volume
2055
Lanes
2055 Volume Less
Through Trips
Existing Geometrics Fee Program Geometrics
Existing
Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency without
Through Trips
1 Rio del Oro
Sunrise Rancho Cordova - - 17,600 6 16,030 - - N N
2 Rancho Cordova Centennial - - 6,190 4 6,180 - - N N
3 Centennial Americanos - - 8,050 4 8,040 - - N N
4 Americanos White Rock - - 5,050 4 5,040 - - N N
7 Easton Folsom - - 14,330 4 13,390 - - N N
8 Villagio n/o Douglas - - - 5,100 2 5,040 - - N N
11 s/o White Rock - - - 12,540 4 12,510 - - N N
19 Easton / Eastern Valley
Pkwy
Rancho Cordova Rio del Oro - - 17,870 4 12,970 - - N N
20 Rio del Oro Cit y Limits - - 29,980 4 16,810 - - N N

24.1 Centennial
International Rio del Oro - - 13,860 4 13,860 - - N N

24.2 Rio del Oro Villa gio - - 12,800 4 12,800 - - N N

24.3 Villagio Americanos - - 8,520 4 8,520 - - N N
25 Americanos
Kiefer North Campus - - 3,280 4 3,280 - - N N

25.1 North Campus Chrysanthy - - 2,320 4 2,320 - - N N
26 Chrysanthy Dou glas 103 - - 5,670 4 5,670 - - N N
27 Douglas Centennial - - 4,150 4 4,150 - - N N
28 Centennial Villa gio - - 3,610 4 3,610 - - N N
29 Villagio Rio del Oro - - 4,860 4 4,860 - - N N
30 Rio del Oro International - - 9,840 4 9,840 - - N N
45 Chrysanthy
Sunrise Rancho Cordova 4,770 4 10,030 4 9,820 N N N N
45 Sunrise Rancho Cordova - - 7,090 4 6,940 - - N N
46 Rancho Cordova Americanos - - 16,930 4 16,340 - - N N 47 Americanos Grant Line - - 14,370 4 13,680 - - N N

54.1 Douglas
Zinfandel City Limits - - 36,660 6 32,030 - - N N
55 City Limits Sunrise 11,320 2 44,990 6 38,740 N Y N N 56 Sunrise Villagio 6,710 5 35,260 6 30,260 N Y N N
57 Villagio Rancho Cordova 3,630 5 29,850 4 24,840 N N N N 58 Rancho Cordova Americanos - - 20,940 4 17,110 - - N N 59 Americanos Grant Line 3,660 2 22,300 4 16,900 N Y N N 73 Femoyer Mather Peter McCuen 3,850 2 26,330 4 22,910 N Y N N 93 Grant Line1
Jackson Rancho Cordova 7,090 2 42,030 4 17,620 N Y Y N
94 Rancho Cordova Kiefer 7,090 2 42,030 4 12,260 N Y Y N 95 Kiefer Chr ysanthy 7,090 2 42,030 4 12,370 N Y Y N
96 Chrysanthy Douglas 7,560 2 42,580 4 17,980 N Y Y N
97 Douglas Cit y Limits 9,470 2 42,660 4 16,160 N Y Y N 103 Old Placerville Bradshaw Routier 15,910 4 43,560 6 26,700 N Y N N 104 Routier Peter McCuen 15,180 4 44,280 6 28,840 N Y N N 105 Peter McCuen Old Placerville Mather Field - - 20,080 4 19,700 - - N N 105.1 Mather Femo yer - - 14,240 4 13,970 - - N N

1 Grant Line Road falls under the jurisdiction of the Capitol SE Connector JPA whose policy requires LOS C conditions on all roadway segments.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

12 December 2021 FINAL

Fee
ID Roadway From To Existing
Volume
Existing
Lanes
2055
Volume
2055
Lanes
2055 Volume Less
Through Trips
Existing Geometrics Fee Program Geometrics
Existing
Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency without
Through Trips
110
International
Kilgore Sunrise 10,060 6 40,320 6 40,180 N N N N
111 Sunrise Rancho Cordova - - 40,070 6 40,010 - - N N 112 Rancho Cordova Centennial - - 33,980 4 33,890 - - Y Y 113 Centennial Americanos - - 12,960 4 12,890 - - N N
114 Americanos White Rock - - 12,540 4 12,470 - - N N
124 Jackson Sunrise Grant Line 13,290 2 36,070 6 15,780 N Y N N 126
Rancho Cordova
Grant Line Kiefer - - 12,340 4 12,340 - - N N
127 Kiefer North Campus - - 10,060 4 10,000 - - N N
127.1 North Campus Chrysanthy - - 13,880 4 13,800 - - N N 128 Chrysanthy Dou glas - - 28,190 4 27,630 - - N N
129 Douglas N Preserve Bdry - - 19,100 4 18,650 - - N N 130 Villagio Rio del Oro - - 26,060 4 25,600 - - N N
131 Rio del Oro International - - 42,520 6 40,390 - - N N 132 International White Rock - - 53,630 6 51,050 - - Y N 133 White Rock Easton - - 60,140 6 55,560 - - Y Y
142
Kiefer
Sunrise Rancho Cordova 4,510 2 19,500 4 19,400 N Y N N 143 Rancho Cordova Americanos 4,510 2 19,500 4 19,400 N Y N N 143.1 Americanos Grant Line 4,510 2 19,500 4 19,130 N Y N N 147
Mather
Peter McCuen Whitehead 4,130 2 19,470 4 18,110 N Y N N
148 Whitehead Bleckle y 2,490 2 9,500 4 8,840 N N N N
149 Femoyer North Mather - - 28,840 4 24,490 - - N N
173 Sun Center Sunrise Gold Cir Rancho Cordova 4,200 2 12,640 2 11,000 N N N N 177
Sunrise
Jackson Kiefer 17,490 2 31,790 6 29,780 Y Y N N
178 Kiefer Chr ysanthy 20,770 5 40,270 6 37,830 N Y N N 179 Chrysanthy Douglas 29,360 5 51,010 6 48,240 N Y N N 181 Rio del Oro Fitz gerald 31,390 6 50,560 6 47,950 N N N N 182 South of International - 31,390 6 42,310 6 40,340 N N N N 183 International White Rock 36,540 6 58,330 6 55,340 N Y Y Y 184 White Rock Sun Center 37,810 6 57,420 6 54,560 N Y Y Y 185 Sun Center Folsom 52,930 6 67,450 6 64,270 Y Y Y Y
186 Folsom US 50 54,550 6 74,900 6 71,720 Y Y Y Y
187 US 50 Zinfandel 83,020 6 104,270 6 87,380 Y Y Y Y
188 Zinfandel Coloma 78,390 6 96,830 6 80,820 Y Y Y Y
189 Coloma Gold Countr y 74,560 6 92,550 6 75,260 Y Y Y Y 190 Gold Country American River 82,570 6 97,720 6 70,020 Y Y Y Y 194
White Rock
Kilgore Sunrise 18,670 5 53,540 6 53,180 N Y Y Y
195 Sunrise Luyung 9,220 4 37,120 6 36,730 N Y N N
196 Luyung Rancho Cordova 3,920 2 43,080 6 42,630 N Y N N 197 Rancho Cordova International - - 22,480 6 20,930 - - N N 198 International Rio del Oro - - 25,670 6 24,160 - - N N 199 Rio del Oro Villagio - - 24,330 6 22,750 - - N N
200 Villagio Cit y Limits - - 20,470 6 18,970 - - N N
203 Zinfandel Douglas City Limits 10,850 2 54,460 6 45,210 N Y Y N 204.1 North Campus Rancho Cordova Americanos - - 4,040 4 4,040 - - N N

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

13 December 2021 FINAL

Fee
ID Roadway Existing
Volume
Existing
Lanes
2055
Volume
2055
Lanes
2055 Volume Less
Through Trips
Existing Geometrics Fee Program Geometrics
Existing
Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency
2055 Service
Deficiency without
Through Trips
- Bradshaw Road north of Lincoln Village Drive 42,790 6 56,380 6 - N Y Y - - Bradshaw Road south of Business Park Drive 30,240 6 39,460 6 - N N N - - Coloma Road north of Folsom Boulevard 16,550 4 19,800 4 - N N N - - Coloma Road west of Sunrise Boulevard 20,060 4 23,320 4 - N N N - - Jackson Road west of Sunrise Boulevard 10,110 2 35,750 4 - N Y Y - - Kilgore Road north of White Rock Road 5,490 2 12,380 2 - N N N - - Kilgore Road south of Folsom Boulevard 8,650 2 10,870 2 - N N N - - Kilgore Road south of White Rock Road 4,150 4 26,010 4 25,980 N N N N - Old Placerville Road south of Rockingham Road 14,090 4 21,070 4 - N N N - - Rockingham Road west of Mather Field Road 20,300 4 28,100 4 - N N N - - Routier Road north of Old Placerville Road 7,890 2 8,430 2 - N N N - - Routier Road south of Folsom Boulevard 7,930 2 11,470 4 - N N N - - White Rock Road east of Zinfandel Drive 14,850 6 34,920 6 - N N N - - White Rock Road west of Zinfandel Drive 11,230 2 14,580 2 - N N N - - Folsom Boulevard east of Bradshaw Road 17,680 4 22,800 4 - N N N - - Folsom Boulevard east of Mather Field Road 25,220 4 31,570 4 - N Y Y - - Folsom Boulevard east of Mercantile Drive 15,190 4 17,440 4 - N N N - - Folsom Boulevard east of Sunrise Boulevard 13,530 4 17,440 4 - N N N - - Folsom Boulevard east of Zinfandel Drive 13,880 4 17,180 4 - N N N - - Folsom Boulevard west of Mather Field Road 19,650 4 26,520 4 - N N N - - Folsom Boulevard west of Sunrise Boulevard 15,510 4 24,760 4 - N N N - - Folsom Boulevard west of Zinfandel Drive 18,930 4 24,570 4 - N N N - - International Drive east of Mather Field Road 18,410 6 28,130 6 - N N N - - International Drive east of Zinfandel Drive 12,360 6 36,980 6 - N N N - - International Drive west of Zinfandel Drive 15,960 6 43,740 6 - N N N - - Mather Field Road north of Mill Station Road 22,200 4 30,400 6 - N N N - - Mather Field Road north of Peter McCuen Boulevard 13,600 4 15,010 4 - N N N - - Mather Field Road north of Rockingham Drive 40,870 6 64,430 6 - N Y Y - - Zinfandel Drive north of Folsom Boulevard 7,030 2 7,290 4 - N N N - - Zinfandel Drive north of White Rock Road 47,440 6 77,770 6 - N Y Y - - Zinfandel Drive south of Folsom Boulevard 24,990 4 30,590 6 - N N N - - Zinfandel Drive south of International Drive 17,470 6 43,830 6 - N N N - - Zinfandel Drive south of White Rock Road 28,700 6 45,440 6 - N N N - Source: DKS Associates, 2021
ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

14 December 2021 FINAL

Table 7: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Threshold Level of Service
(LOS)
Total Delay Per Vehicle
Signalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections
A ≤ 10 ≤   10
B > 10 and ≤ 20  > 10 and ≤ 15
C > 20 and ≤ 35  > 15 and ≤ 25
D > 35 and ≤ 55  > 25 and ≤ 35
E > 55 and ≤ 80  > 35 and ≤ 50
F > 80  > 50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, 2016
An initial number of lanes at most intersections was determined by the required number of lanes on the adjacent roadway segments (determined as part of the analysis described in Section 3.3). New two-lane roads were assumed to have a single left and a single right turn lane at an intersection approach while new four and six lane roads were assumed to have a double left and a single right turn lane at an intersection approach. After the initial analysis, the number of thr ough and turn lanes was ad justed based on capacity needs identified through the initial analysis.

Like roadway segments, the intersection analysis was performed in two phases, the second phase with thru trips removed. If the 2055 intersection improvement was still needed with the growth in thru trips removed, then the TDIF Program would be required to pay fo r the entire 2055 improvement. However, if a reduced intersection improvement would operate at acceptable levels, then the TDIF Program would include only the cost for the reduced improvement. Conversely, for intersections reflecting the maximum number of thru-lanes allowed in the General Plan but are shown to operate deficiently under 2055 conditions, inclusion of additional improvements into the TDIF Program (i.e., expensive grade separations) was deemed unwarranted if estimated total delay was shown not to be excessive (.e., greater than 120 seconds). This check was not triggered by any City intersection.

The City recognizes that future detailed operational analyses may indicate that either less or more turn lanes may be needed at a given intersection to achieve the City’s LOS threshold (with thru trips removed). Figure 1 shows the CIP Project Map that shows the traffic la nes in the 2055 CIP along with the Project Numbers used in Table 6 and Table 8 as well as project cost estimation (see Appendix B).

3.6 Special Considerations
Zinfandel Complex
The Zinfandel Complex was not included as part of the fee program analysis as it includes significant growth with limited availability of right of way fo r improvements. The TDIF study found that there is a need for improvements along Zinfandel Boulevard, but these improvements are above and beyond what is considered in the City’s General Plan and beyond the planning horizon of the fee program.

Sunrise Complex
The Sunrise Boulevard Complex is one of the most heavily traveled corridors in the region and will continue to see growth in regional volumes going forward. Th e TDIF program includes improvements south of ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

15 December 2021 FINAL

Kiefer Boulevard to widen to six lanes, but all other segments within the City have already been widened to a six-lane cross section. To mitigate the needs of future demand on Sunrise Boulevard will require significant improvements beyond what is considered in the City’s General Plan. In addition, any capacity increases beyond providing six thru-lanes would need to involve Sacramento County given that the City and County of Sacramento share Sunrise Boulevard between Coloma and the river. Such considerations are beyond the planning horizon of the fee program.

In lieu of adding thru-lanes, the City has decided to include the cost of the “continuous right-turn lanes” on Sunrise Boulevard for all segments north of US 50 in the TDIF Program. These improvements will help to reduce congestion caused by vehicles turning right on and off Sunrise Boulevard. However, no additional through lanes would be added to its major intersections and thus they will continue to operate at LOS F conditions. Likewise, the City does not assume capacity improvements to the Sunrise Boulevard/US 50 interchange since they would have little impact without substantial improveme nts to Sunrise Boulevard north of US 50.

Folsom Boulevard
The City General Plan downgraded Folsom Boulevard from 6-lanes to a 4-lane arterial. To minimize the impact and improve levels of service, the General Plan identifies aggressive operational improvements on Folsom Boulevard. The CIP includes light rail trans it grade separations at th ree locations along Folsom Boulevard (one of which is shared with the County) . These grade separations would not benefit light rail trains, since crossing gates allow trains to travel across those roadways without delay but would help to mitigate traffic congestion along Folsom Boulevard.

3.7 Freeway Interchanges
The CIP includes the following improvements to freeway interchanges:
 Rancho Cordova Parkway/US 50 – Numerous studies have shown the clear need to construct a new interchange between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue on US 50 to accommodate future development in the City. Without that interchange, Sunrise Boulevard south of US 50 would have excessive delays. A new interchange, coupled with the planned construction of Rancho Cordova Parkway south of US 50, would mitigate that impact.
 Mather Field Road/US 50 – The projected 2055 traffic demand shows that the eastbound ramp intersection would operate at an unacceptable level. A focused widening at the eastbound ramp intersection would improve this deficiency to an acceptable LOS in 2055. However, any capacity improvements to the interchange would need to go through a Caltrans process to get and would likely include bringing some elements up to standard, including widening the freeway overpass to provide a bike lane and sidewalk on the west side over the freeway.  Zinfandel Drive – The need for improvements to this interchange is discussed in Section 3.2.

The City’s CIP is consistent with the Sacramento County Transportation Development Fee Program which assumes no improvements to the Bradshaw Road/US 50 interchange.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

16 December 2021 FINAL

Table 8: 2055 TDIF Intersection Analysis
Fee
Prog.

Int. #
Intersection
Existing  2055 ‐ No Build  2055 ‐ Fee Program CIP
2055 ‐ Fee Program CIP without Regional
Thru Trips
Control  AM  PM  Control  AM  PM  Control  AM  PM  Control  AM  PM Delay  LOS  Delay  LOS  Delay  LOS  Delay  LOS  Delay  LOS  Delay  LOS  Delay  LOS  Delay  LOS 209 Sunrise Blvd & Rio Del Oro Pkwy ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 12.7 B 9.8 A Signal 12.1 B 9.7 A 210 Rio Del Oro Pkwy & Rancho Cordova Pkwy ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 19.2 B 17.1 B Signal 18.9 B 17 B 211 Rio Del Oro Pkwy & Centennial Dr ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 20 B 18.8 B Signal 20 B 18.8 B 212 Rio Del Oro Pkwy & Americanos Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 14.2 B 12.1 B Signal 14.2 B 12.1 B 213 Rio Del Oro Pkwy & White Rock Rd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 7.4 A 8.7 A Signal 7.3 A 8.6 A 215 Easton Valley Pkwy & Rio Del Oro Pkwy ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 22.3 C 23.8 C Signal 19.9 B 19.9 B 216 Rio Del Oro Pkwy & Folsom Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 14.1 B 13.7 B Signal 14.1 B 13.7 B 217 Douglas Rd & Villagio Dr ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 38.1 D 20.5 C Signal 22.5 C 18.1 B 218 Villagio Dr & Rancho Cordova Pkwy ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 14 B 12.5 B Signal 13.9 B 12.5 B 219 Villagio Dr & Centennial Dr ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 19.3 B 17.7 B Signal 19.3 B 17.7 B 220 Villagio Dr & Americanos Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 14.8 B 14.9 B Signal 14.8 B 14.9 B 221 Villagio Dr & White Rock Rd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 9.2 A 9.7 A Signal 9.1 A 9.7 A 226 Rancho Cordova Pkwy & Easton Valley Pkwy ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 14.4 B 23.9 C Signal 12 B 18.5 B 227 Easton Valley Pkwy & Hazel Ave ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 42.2 D 30.4 C Signal 42.2 D 30.4 C 230.2 Centennial Dr & International Dr ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 13.8 B 16.8 B Signal 13.8 B 16.8 B 230.3 Americanos Blvd Centennial Dr ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 20.6 C 20.7 C Signal 20.6 C 20.7 C 231 Kiefer Blvd & Americanos Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 12.7 B 14.5 B Signal 12.7 B 14.5 B 231.1 Americanos Blvd & N Campus Dr ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 11.7 B 8.8 A Signal 11.7 B 8.8 A 232 Americanos Blvd & Chrysanthy Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 22.5 C 24.7 C Signal 22.4 C 24.7 C 233 Americanos Blvd & Douglas Rd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 14.9 B 13.1 B Signal 14.7 B 13 B 234 International Dr & Americanos Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 11.8 B 15.6 B Signal 11.8 B 15.6 B 245 Sunrise Blvd & Chrysanthy Blvd Signal  11 B 10.8 B Signal 35.1 D 14.9 B Signal 18.9 B 8.6 A Signal 16.4 B 8.3 A 246 Rancho Cordova Pkwy & Chrysanthy Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 33.6 C 15 B Signal 33.5 C 15 B 247 Grant Line Rd & Chrysanthy Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 15.8 B 6.8 A Signal 21 C 7.1 A 253 Sunrise Blvd & Douglas Rd Signal  24.2 C 41.1 D Signal 218.2 F 263.5 F Signal 74.3 E 79.5 E Signal 62.9 E 72.8 E 254 Rancho Cordova Pkwy & Douglas Rd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 69.9 E 27.7 C Signal 64.1 E 26.2 C 255 Grant Line Rd & Douglas Rd AWSC  32.5 D 46.6 E AWSC 1272 F 1002.6 F Signal 16.5 B 29.8 C Signal 9.6 A 12.7 B 265 Femoyer St & International Dr Signal  16.9 B 18.3 B Signal 601.7 F 526.3 F Signal 36.9 D 36.6 D Signal 36.9 D 36.6 D 269 Hazel Ave & Folsom Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 15.4 B 14.9 B Signal 15.4 B 14.9 B 273 Grant Line Rd & Jackson Rd Signal  104.2 F 101.7 F Signal 1278.1 F 796.1 F Signal 35.5 D 42.4 D Signal 22.5 C 23.1 C 274 Grant Line Rd & Rancho Cordova Pkwy ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 20.3 C 12.2 B Signal 10.8 B 9.4 A 275 Grant Line Rd & Kiefer Blvd AWSC  14.5 B 17.4 C AWSC 800.3 F 621.9 F Signal 17.1 B 18.5 B Signal 14.7 B 14 B 278.1 Old Placerville & Peter A McCuen Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 81.5 F 58.5 E Signal 81.5 F 58.5 E 279.1 Von Karman St & Mather Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - AWSC 9.4 A 8.8 A AWSC 8.9 A 8.5 A 279.1 Whitehead St & Mather Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - AWSC 10.6 B 11 B AWSC 10.1 B 10.5 B 279.2 Femoyer St & Mather Blvd AWSC  37.3 E 14.2 B AWSC 575.1 F 243.5 F Signal 16.4 B 18.2 B Signal 15.9 B 18 B

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

17 December 2021 FINAL

Fee
Prog.

Int. #
Intersection
Existing (2016) 2055 ‐ No Build 2055 ‐ Fee Program CIP 2055 ‐ Fee Program CIP without Regional Thru Trips
Control  AM PM Control AM PM Control AM PM Control AM PM Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 280.1 Femoyer St & Peter A McCuen Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 14.4 B 10.5 B Signal 14 B 10.4 B 282 Kilgore Rd & International Dr Signal  12 B 14.4 B Signal 58.9 E 33 C Signal 19.4 B 21.3 C Signal 19.4 B 21.3 C 283 Sunrise Blvd & International Dr/Monier Cir Signal  17.9 B 26.4 C Signal 403.7 F 379.7 F Signal 65.8 E 57.6 E Signal 61.5 E 54.4 D 284 Rancho Cordova Pkwy & International Dr ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 52.7 D 28.6 C Signal 52.7 D 28.6 C 284.1 International Dr & White Rock Rd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 10.9 B 11.2 B Signal 10.8 B 10.9 B 288 Sunrise Blvd & Jackson Rd Signal  57.7 E 30.4 C Signal 345.2 F 260.1 F Signal 32.3 C 27.4 C Signal 23 C 21 C 289 Rancho Cordova Pkwy & Kiefer Blvd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 23.3 C 22 C Signal 23.3 C 22 C 289.1 Rancho Cordova Pkwy & N Campus Dr ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 7.1 A 4.8 A Signal 7.1 A 4.8 A 290 Rancho Cordova Pkwy & White Rock Rd ‐  - - - - - - - - - Signal 40 D 30.6 C Signal 37.4 D 30.2 C 294 Sunrise Blvd & Kiefer Blvd Signal  22.9 C 15.2 B Signal 110.6 F 40.6 D Signal 28.3 C 21.3 C Signal 27.5 C 21.1 C 295 Mather Field Rd & Rockingham Dr Signal  50.4 D 59.8 E Signal 59 E 104.4 F Signal 39.7 D 56.4 E Signal 39.7 D 56.4 E 299 Sunrise Blvd & White Rock Rd Signal  32.4 C 42 D Signal 111.2 F 167.4 F Signal 60.9 E 73.9 E Signal 58.2 E 71.4 E 1 Grant Line Road falls under the jurisdiction of the Capitol SE Connector JPA whose policy requires LOS C conditions on all intersections.

Source: DKS Associates, 2021
ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

18 December 2021 FINAL

Figure 1: CIP Roadway Sizing and Project Map

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

19 December 2021 FINAL

3.8 Transit Facilities
Transit improvements identified in the Capital Improvement Program are directly tied to recommendations from the following:
 City of Rancho Cordova Transit Master Plan, approved by City Council in 2006  City of Rancho Cordova Mobility Master Plan, approved by City Council in 2019 (formally called the Transit Master Plan)
From those plans, the City has id entified the following transit improvements to be included in the CIP for implementation by 2055:
 The Sunrise/Citrus Road Transit Corridor between the Sunrise RT light rail station and the American River connecting to an exclusive lane on the Sunrise Bridge over the River.  Bus transit stations – an estimated 15 transit stations located in roadway medians  Mobility Hubs/Regional Transit Centers – three centers  A Transit Maintenance Facility
 Bus shuttle vehicles/autonomous vehicles – 26 vehicles  Enhanced bus stops – includes lighting, benches, shelters, etc., at an estimated 96 locations  ITS – including changeable message signs, DSRC and signal priority at key locations  The Streetcar Starter Project - a 3.0-mile streetcar loop thorough the downtown area along a portion of the ultimate 18-mile Signature Route.
 Two new light rail stations on SacRT’s Gold Line at Horn Road and Mine Shaft  Light rail station upgrades on SacRT’s Gold Line at four stations:
- Mather Field/Mills
- Zinfandel Drive
- Cordova Town Center
- Sunrise Boulevard
The CIP and the TDIF Program include capital costs fo r transit improvements but not cost for operations and maintenance (O&M). Funding transit O&M costs for new services must come from other sources and continues to be a considerable challenge.

3.9 Bikeways and Walkways
In 2016, the City Council approved the update to the City’s Bicycle Master Plan to guide the requirements for bikeway facilities. The City has identified the following elements of its bikeway system to include in its CIP by 2055 and thus for partial funding by the TDIF Program:
 The Mather Heritage Trail
 The Rod Beaudry–Routier Road Bikeway
 The Anatolia Preserve Bike Trail
ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

20 December 2021 FINAL
 The Stone Creek Trail Pedestrian Signals at Kilgore and Zinfandel  The Douglas Road Bike and Pedestrian connection to Folsom South Canal  Class I Bike Trail Connections:
- Rio del Oro Trail (East Boundary to Grant Line)
- Rio del Oro Trail (West Boundary to Folsom South Canal) - Aerojet Spur Trail (Folsom South Canal to Citrus Road Trail) - Sunrise Blvd. Trail (Folsom South Canal to Sunrise Station) - Sunrise Station to Citrus Road Trail
 Class II Bike Trail System
The City’s bikeway “vision plan” has identified 53 lo cations where the Class I trail system should have grade separations where trails would go over or under major roadways or canals. Of those locations three were identified to be funded by Sacramento County. Of the remaining 49 locations, the City has identified 27 locations anticipated to be built by 2055 and therefore should be included in the CIP.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

21 December 2021 FINAL

4.0 Improvement Costs

4.1 Roadway Improvements
Capital costs for roadway segment, intersection, and interchange projects in the TDIF Program are shown in Appendix B and summarized in Table 8. Roadway improvement costs reflect full project costs (i.e., costs associated with phasing and landscaping are reflected but administered separately). Roadway cost estimates were developed based on updated standard unit costs prepared by Wood Rogers. The methodology used to prepare these unit costs is described in Appendix C.

New roadway segments that will require four or six travel lanes by 2055 are assumed to be phased with two or four lanes constructed initially. Likewise, some existing two-lane roadway segments that will require six lanes by 2055 were assumed to be phased with an initial widening to four lanes.

Some individual project costs for improvements that have already been constructed were provided by City staff. The costs shown herein are only those consid ered for inclusion in the TDIF Program and do not include roadway and intersection frontage improvements considered to be the obligation of the adjacent landowner. Costs of completed projects were not escalated.

Table 8
Summary of Roadway Improvements
Improvement Type Description Cost
Roadway segments New roadway segments or widening of existing segments $535,382,802
Phasing of roadway segments Additional cost for expected phasing of new segment improvements $29,948,000
Intersections New intersections or widening of existing intersections $150,441,867
Light rail grade separations Intended to improve LOS at adjacent intersections on Folsom Boulevard $78,000,000
Interchange improvements $263,747,000
Total $1,057,519,669
Sources: Wood Rodgers and City of Rancho Cordova

4.2 Transit Improvements
The costs for transit improvements in the CIP are shown in Appendix B and summarized in Table 9. The costs shown are for capital improvements related to the City’s planned transit system and do not include cost for transit operations and maintenance. HDR orig inally prepared cost estimates for the streetcar vehicles, streetcar track work and the transit maintenance facility as part of the City’s 2006 Transit Master Plan. These cost estimates were updated in 2019 as part of the update to the Transit Master Plan, now called the Mobility Master Plan. URS right-of-way unit costs were used for transit station and maintenance facility lands. Costs for bus shuttles, light rail stations, and light rail station upgrades, are based on consultation with Sacramento Regional Transit and other local service providers.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

22 December 2021 FINAL

Table 9
Summary of Transit Improvement Costs
Project
ID No Facility Description Cost
304 City Transit
System
Sunrise/Citrus Road Transit Corridor, transit stations, mobility hubs/regional transit centers, transit maintenance facility, bus shuttle vehicles and ITS
$89,864,000
305 Streetcar
Starter Project Streetcar vehicles and track work $29,000,000 306 Light Rail
Stations
Light Rail station Upgrades
New Light Rail Stations $19,360,000
Total $138,225,000
Source: City of Rancho Cordova

4.3 Bikeway Improvements
The bikeway system costs are based on the Rancho Cordova 2016 Bicycle Master Plan. Table 10 provides costs for bikeway improvements.

Table 10
Summary of Bikeway Improvement Costs
Project
ID No Facility Description Cost
307 Bike trail grade separations
27 priority locations on the Class I bike
trail system for crossings over or under
roadways and canals
$62,369,000
308 Bike Trails
Planned new trails east of Sunrise
Boulevard and infill trails and trail gaps
west of Sunrise Boulevard
$15,720,000
Total $78,089,000
Source: City of Rancho Cordova
ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

23 December 2021 FINAL

5.0 Basis for Allocating Improvement Costs
The basis for allocating the cost of transporta tion improvements for the TDIF program update is summarized in Table 11 and is discussed in the following sections.

5.1 Roadway Capacity Improvements
The improvements included in the TDIF Program Update were identified to meet the City’s LOS policy under 2055 travel demand levels after “thru trips” (t hose with neither trip end within the City) were subtracted from the traffic demand. Roadway capacity improvements were limited by the maximum number of lanes allowed under the General Plan.

Appendix B lists each of the roadway and intersections improvements that would be fully or partially funded by the TDIF Program and shows: 1) the project description and costs of the CIP improvements; 2) funding from sources other than the TDIF Program; and, 3) the cost allocated to the TDIF Program.

For a roadway that operated at LOS D or better conditions in the Base Year (2007) but would operate at LOS E or F conditions unde r “2055 traffic demand without thru trips”, the entire cost of the capacity improvement was allocated to the TDIF Program. The cost of the capacity improvement allocated to the TDIF does not include the following:
 Roadway frontage improvements (i.e., curb, bike lane, curb and gutter plus sidewalk) where development is expected to occur; and,
 Portion of cross-section on roadways along juri sdictional boundaries that was assumed to be improved by Sacramento County.

An assumed 30% of the cost of improvements along Grant Line Road is assumed to come from Measure A funding and the remainder would be split with Sacramento County.

Existing Deficiencies
For existing deficiencies (roadways that operated at LOS E or F in the Base Year), the cost of the improvement that is allocated to the TDIF Program is e qual to the percent of total cost that is needed to return the roadway to existing congestion levels. For a roadway segment, this allocation is equal to the percentage of the total change in vo lume/capacity (v/c) ratio (due to th e improvement) that is needed to return the v/c ratio to current levels. For example, the v/c ratio of a two-lane roadway currently equals 0.94 (LOS E conditions) and its v/c ratio under 2055 traffic demand is estim ated at 1.24 (LOS F conditions) without any improvements and at 0.62 if the roadway is widened to four lanes. The cost allocated to the TDIF program for this example is calculated as follows:
(1.24 – 0.94) / (1.24 – 0.62) = 48%.

Tables 12A and 12B summarizes how the costs of the 2055 improvements on roadway and intersections that are existing deficiencies were allocated to new development in the TDIF Program. As described, only one of the existing deficiencies requires a fair share allocation other than 0% or 100%, Sunrise Boulevard from Kiefer Boulevard to Jackson Road (with an 92% fair share based on the 2013 TDIF Program). All other 2007 existing deficiencies either cannot be mitigated; no longer have an identified improvement; have already been improved; are funded with alternative (non-TDIF fee) sources; or are TDIF funded at 100%.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

24 December 2021 FINAL
Table 11
Basis of Cost Allocation – TDIF Program Update
Improvement
Type Facility Type
Basis for Allocating Cost
to TDIF Program1
Capacity
Improvements
on roadways and
intersections
Roadway that operated at LOS D or
better conditions in 2007 and would
operate at LOS E or F conditions in
2055
Full implementation cost
Existing Deficiencies - Roadway that
operated at LOS E or F conditions in
2007 and would operate at LOS E or F
conditions in 2055
Cost that is needed to bring roadway
to existing congestion level based on:

Percentage of the total change in
volume/capacity (v/c) ratio due to the
improvement that is needed to return
the v/c ratio to current levels
US 50 interchanges and LRT grade
separations See discussion below
Transit
Improvements
Portion of Transit Master Plan
included in TDIF Program
Costs are spilt between existing and
new development based on:

2007 to 2055 growth in dwelling unit
equivalents (DUEs) in the City as a
percent of total 2055 DUEs
Bikeway
Improvements
Bike trails as well as bikeway grade
separations in City’s Infill Area2 that
are included in TDIF Program
Bikeway grade separations in the
City’s Growth Area2 that are included
in TDIF Program
Full implementation cost
1 The basis describes the allocation of project cost to TDIF Program after any “other funding” (i.e., grants, Sacramento County’s share, etc.) has been subtracted from the total improvement cost. 2 Map depicting the City’s Infill Area and Growth Area is provided in Section 6.3 of this report

Source: DKS Associates, 2021

Freeway Interchanges
The CIP identifies one new freeway interchange on US 50 and improvements to two interchanges. The Rancho Cordova Parkway/US 50 interchange has b een identified as a key improvement needed to accommodate future development in th e City. This new interchange woul d not be constructed if not for planned new development. Thus, the full cost of this improvement is included in the TDIF Program.

At Mather Field Road/US 50 interchange, the intersections of the eastbound and westbound freeway ramps with Mather Field Road operated at an accepta ble LOS in the Base Year, but the eastbound ramp intersection would have an unacceptable LOS in 2055. The full cost of roadway improvements was allocated to the TDIF, but the TDIF would only fund a portion of the cost of providing a bike lane and sidewalk on the west side over the freeway based on the allocation described in Section 5.3.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

25 December 2021 FINAL

Table 12 A
Cost Allocation for Roadway Segments with Base Year Deficiencies Roadway
Project
ID No. Segment

2007
LOS
2007
V/C
Reduction in
2055 Fees
Needed Reason
Sunrise
Boulevard
190 American River to Gold Country Boulevard F 1.56
No
Full Mitigation is not feasible and major improvements
justify regional funding. The projects in CIP (continuous right-turn lanes) are consistent with (and split 50/50 with) Sacramento County and would not improve LOS more
than the percent traffic increase due to City growth
189 Gold Country Boulevard to Coloma Road F 1.54
188 Coloma Road to Zinfandel Drive F 1.53
187 Zinfandel Drive to U.S. 50 Interchange F 1.48
U.S. 50 Interchange to Folsom Boulevard E 0.96 No No segment widening projects in CIP Folsom Boulevard to Sun Center Drive F 1.06 No 179 Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard F 1.11 2007 LOS based on 2 lanes and segments have since been widened to 5 lanes with 6th lane to be funded by
Sacramento County 178 Chrysanthy Boulevard to Kiefer Boulevard F 1.00 177 Kiefer Boulevard to Jackson Road E 0.92 8%
TDIF funds four CIP lanes with adjacent development
and Sacramento County providing 5th and 6th lanes. The
2013 Nexus Study allocated 92% to TDIF.

Table 12 B
Cost Allocation for Intersections with Base Year Deficiencies Project
ID No. North-South Street East-West Street
2007
LOS
2007
V/C
Reduction in 2055
Fees Needed Reason
251 Sunrise Boulevard Coloma Road E 0.96 No See reasons for Projects 187-190 above 267.4 Mather Field Road Folsom Boulevard E 0.99 No LRT grade separation would not mitigate LOS and only 50% of cost in TDIF program
270 Sunrise Boulevard Gold Country Blvd F 1.02 No See reasons for Projects 187-190 above 273 Grant Line Road Jackson Road F 1.04 No 30% Measure A and 75% of remainder funded by Sacramento County - TDIF funds only 17.5% of cost (less than City growth) 288 Sunrise Boulevard Jackson Road E 0.97 No 75% funded by County - 25% in City Fees (less than City growth)

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

26 December 2021 FINAL
At the US 50/ Zinfandel Drive, the City has already obtained $7.8 million in grant funding that was used to help fund a significant interim improvement that adds capacity to the ramp intersections. While the new development will add a substantia l amount of traffic to the interchange, the City has limited new development’s share to 50% of the cost of interim and ultimate improvements.

Light Rail Grade Separations
The CIP includes light rail transit grade separations at three locations along Folsom Boulevard to help mitigate traffic congestion along Folsom Boulevard. The cost of grade separation at Bradshaw Road would be split with Sacramento County. While new development could be charged for nearly all of the remaining $65.5 million cost for those improvements, the City has decided to reduce new development’s share to 50 percent of the total cost, thereby reducing new development’s share of the improvements by about $32.75 million.

5.2 Transit Improvements
New development’s “fair share” of transit improvements is based on the estimated growth in dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) from development in the City between 2007 to 2055 growth as a percent of total 2055 DUEs. Section 6 describes DUEs and how they are calculated. The estimated growth in DUEs Citywide is as follows:

DUEs Percent
Base Year (2007) 41,688 44.0%
2007 to 2055 growth 52,951 56.0%
Total 94,639 100.0%

Table 13 shows this nexus-based allocation of transit improvement costs in the TDIF Program, which yields $77,406,000 allocated to new development.

The City will seek other sources, such as grants, to fund the City’s share of transit improvements.

Table 13
Allocation of CIP Transit Improvements
Cost Percent
TDIF (New Development’s) Share $77,406,000 56%
City’s Share $60,819,000 44%
Total $138,225,000 100.0%
Source: DKS Associates, 2021

5.3 Bikeway Improvements
Table 14 shows the allocation of bikeway improvements to the TDIF Program under a nexus-based allocation of costs. The City requires new development to fund bike grade-separations in the City’s Growth Area (east of Sunrise Boulevard). As such, the full cost of the 24 grade separations located in the City’s Growth Area would be included in the TDIF Program . The nexus-based allocation of the total cost to construct bike grade-separations in the City’s Infill Area (west of Sunrise Boulevard), plus the citywide ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

27 December 2021 FINAL
bike trails in the CIP, is based on the estimated growth in DUEs from development in the City between 2007 to 2055 growth as a percent of total 2055 DUEs. Applying the allocation percentages yields approximately $66.3 million allocated to new development.

The City has decided to lower the level of TDIF funding for bike grade-separations citywide from $57.5 million to $26 million. This effectively reduces new development’s allocation by $31.5 million. With about $1.3 million in existing funding, the cost of bikeway improvements allocated to new development by 2055 is about $33.5 million.

Table 14
Allocation of CIP Bikeway Improvements
Element Cost
Allocation to TDIF
Percent Amount
Nexus-Based Allocation of Bikeway Improvements in TDIF Program Bike grade separations – Infill Area1 (3 locations) $11,131,000 56% S6,233,000 Bike grade separations – Growth Area1 (24 locations) $51,238,000 100% $51,238,000 Subtotal $62,369,000 $57,471,000
Bike Trails - Citywide $15,720,000 56% $8,803,000
Total $78,089,000 $66,274,000
Selected Allocation of Bikeway Improvements in TDIF Program Reduced amount of grade separations in TDIF Program $26,000,000 Bike Trails - Citywide $8,803,000
Existing Funding $1,313,096
Total $33,489,904
1 Map depicting the City’s Infill Area and Growth Area is provided in Section 6.3 of this report Source: DKS Associates, 2021

5.4 Program Contingency
A four percent (4%) program contingency has been applied to the total costs allocated to the TDIF Program.

The program contingency will be managed at the City’s sole discretion to cover project scope changes, alternative nexus-based projects, unforeseen and unbudgeted construction expenses, and other project related expenses. The program contingency will be first prioritized for projects being delivered by the City.

5.5 Improvements and Elements Not Included in TDIF Program The CIP and TDIF Program does not include funding for “post-2055” improvements – that is additional improvements needed to accommodate full buildout of all land uses in the City. The TDIF program also does not include funding for roadway maintenance. The City will need to secure funding for its share of existing deficiencies, its share of transit, pedestri an, and walkway improvements, and to help fund those projects that the City decided to reduce new development’s nexus-based share.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

28 December 2021 FINAL

6.0 Methodology for Calculating Fees

6.1 Dwelling Unit Equivalents
In the allocation of costs to various types of developments, each development type is assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate. DUE’s are numerical measures of how the trip-making characteristics of a land use type compares to a single-family resident ial unit. A single-family residential unit is assigned a DUE of 1. Land uses which have greater overall traffi c impacts than single-family residential units are assigned values greater than 1, while land uses with lower overall traffic impacts are assigned values less than 1.

DUE’s were developed by comparing both the trip generation and trip length characteristics of various land uses to those of the single-family residential units. The DUE’s reflect the relative PM peak hour trips generated by each general land use type in the travel demand model. Also considered in the calculation of DUE’s are “percent new” trips since some of the vehicles attracted to non-residential uses would have been on the roadway system regardless of the presence of the new traffic generator. Average trip lengths for the remaining "primary" trips generated by a development were then utilized to better reflect overall impact of longer trips on the City’s roadway system.

The DUE rates were thus based on estimates of the average daily vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated by each general land use type. The DUE rates used to estimate the fees are shown in Table 15. Thus, 1,000 square feet of retail development is estimated to have a traffic impact on the City’s roadway system which is 1.24 times that of a single-family detached residential unit.

Table 15
DUE Rates
Land Use
Category1
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Rate per Unit2 Unit
Trip
Length
(miles)
Percent
New trips
Vehicle Miles of
Travel (VMT)
per Unit
DUE
per
Unit
Single-Family 0.99 Dwelling
Unit

5.1 100 5.049 1.00
Multi-Family 0.56 5.1 100 2.856 0.57
Retail 5.43 1,000
Square
Feet

2.3 50 6.245 1.24
Office 1.15 5.1 92 5.396 1.07
Industrial 0.63 4.8 92 2.782 0.55
1 The definitions of the residential and non-residential uses are provided in Appendix A 2 ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition

Source: DKS Associates, 2021

Table 16 shows the estimated growth in DUEs in the C ity between 2007 and 2055 which is calculated by applying the DUE per unit rates in Table 16 to the estimated development growth shown in Table 4. The City provides a lower fee rate for single-family units that are less than 1,200 square feet and has estimated that 2% of its future single-family units will have less than 1,200 square feet, which represents 581 units.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

29 December 2021 FINAL
Table 16
Growth in Citywide DUEs
Land Use
Category Units
Growth in
Units
2007 to 2055
DUE Rate
per Unit
Growth in
DUEs
2007 to 2055
Single-Family – greater than 1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling
Unit
28,455 1.00 28,455
Single-Family – less than 1,200 sq. ft.1 581 0.88 511
Multi-Family 10,922 0.57 6,226
Retail 1,000
Sq. Ft
6,046 1.24 7,497
Office 6,427 1.07 6,877
Industrial 6,155 0.55 3,385
Total 52,951
1 DUE rate for units that are less than 1,200 sq. ft. is based on trip generation analysis conducted for Sacramento County's Transportation Development Fee Program
Source: DKS Associates, 2021

6.2 Fees Calculation
Table 17 summarizes the costs allocated to new development in the TDIF Program and the resulting costs per DUE.

Table 17
Estimated Cost per DUE – TDIF Program Update
Elements of TDIF Program
Cost Allocated to New Development
in TDIF Program
Roadways, Intersections, Interchanges and
Light Rail Grade Separations $744,026,732
Phasing of Roadway Improvements $29,948,000
Traffic Signal System and ITS $23,822,747
Transit $77,406,000
Bikeways $33,489,904
Program Contingency $36,347,735
Total $945,041,118
Fees Collected by City through January 2007 $33,143,248 Total Remaining Costs Funded by TDIF $911,897,870
Total Growth in DUEs 52,951
Cost per DUE $17,221
Administrative Cost (3.75%) per DUE $646
Total Fee per DUE $17,867
Source: DKS Associates, 2021
Adjusting for 2022 results in a Total Fee per DUE of $19,225 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

30 December 2021 FINAL

6.3 Fee Schedule Calculation
The total cost per DUE information presented in Table 16 and Table 17 is translated into a full fee schedule by land use category provided in Table 18 below.

Table 19 A compares the updated fee schedule to the current fee schedule. As shown, TDIF Program fees remain relatively stable between the current and proposed fee schedule with the exception of multi-family which experiences an approximate 20% decrease.

Given that for some land use categories TDIF fees differ between the City’s designated Infill Area and Growth Area, Figure 2 provides a map delineating these areas of the city.

Table 18
2021 Fee Schedule – TDIF Program Update
Land Use
City-wide Updated
Nexus-based Fees
Current Fees
Infill Area Growth Area
Single Family Detached
> 1,200 SF $17,867 $10,816 $17,870
< 1,200 SF $15,723 $7,221 $15,725
Multi-Family $10,184 $7,041 $12,509
Commercial $22.16 $10.16 $13.09
Office $19.12 $9.84 $10.07
Industrial $9.83 $5.12 $5.12

All DUE information presented in Table 18 and Table 19 A reflect 2021 conditions. TDIF fees are automatically adjusted on January 1 of each year by the City to account for the increase, if any, in the 20- City Construction Cost Index (CCI) as reported in th e Engineering News Records (ENR) for the twelve- month period ending October of the prior year. Based on the ENR CCI increased by 8 percent in 2021. This percentage must then be reduced by 5% to account for TDIF funds already expended (i.e., expended funds are not escalated). This results in a 2022 TDIF fee adjustment of 7.6%. The 2022 Fee Schedule is provided in Table 19 B and includes a comparison of the ENR adjusted current fees.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

31 December 2021 FINAL
Figure 2: City of Rancho Cordova Infill Area and Growth Area Map

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

32 December 2021 FINAL
Table 19 A
2021 Fee Schedule – Comparison: Current TDIF vs. TDIF Update Land Use Units
Current Fees
Draft New Fees
Nexus Based
Citywide
Proposed Fees
Infill Area Growth Area Infill Area Growth Area
Single Family Detached
> 1,200 SF
DU
$10,816 $17,870 $17,867 $10,815 $17,867
< 1,200 SF $7,221 $15,725 $15,723 $7,221 $15,723
Multi-Family $7,041 $12,509 $10,184 $5,733 $10,184
Commercial
Sq Ft
$10.16 $13.09 $22.16 $10.41 $13.41
Office $9.84 $10.07 $19.12 $9.93 $10.16
Industrial $5.12 $5.12 $9.83 $5.10 $5.23
Fee revenue by 2055 $945 million $780 million
Funding required from alternative sources $165 million Table 19 B
2022 Fee Schedule – Comparison: Current TDIF vs. TDIF Update Land Use Units
Current Fees1
Draft New Fees2
Nexus Based
Citywide
Proposed Fees
Infill Area Growth Area Infill Area Growth Area
Single Family Detached
> 1,200 SF
DU
$11,682 $19,299 $19,225 $11,637 $19,225
< 1,200 SF $7,799 $16,983 $16,918 $7,770 $16,918
Multi-Family $7,605 $13,509 $10,958 $6,169 $10,958
Commercial
Sq Ft
$10.97 $14.14 $23.84 $11.20 $14.23
Office $10.63 $10.88 $20.57 $10.68 $10.93
Industrial $5.53 $5.53 $10.58 $5.49 $5.63
Fee revenue by 2055 $945 million $780 million
Funding required from alternative sources $165 million 1 Adjusting for 2021 ENR: 8%
2 Adjusting for 2021 ENR: 8% less 5% = 7.6%

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

33 December 2021 FINAL

7.0 TDIF Nexus Findings
A nexus analysis has been prepar ed on the City’s TDIF Program in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in AB1600 which is codified in California Government Section 66000 et seq. These code sections set forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting various development impact fees. These procedures require that “a reas onable relationship or nexus must exit between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the conditi on.” Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:
 Identify the purpose of the fee;
 Identify how the fee is to be used;
 Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
 Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and,  Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of public facility or potion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

The prior sections of this report identify the facilities that are included in the City’s CIP and TDIF Program, summarize the updated costs of those facilities and show how shares of those costs were allocated to new development to mitigate its transpor tation impacts. All this informa tion is used in this section to demonstrate that the resulting fees meet the AB 1600 nexus requirements, as outlined below.

7.1 Purpose of Fees
The purpose of the TDIF Program is to fund improvements to the City’s major roadway, transit and bikeway facilities needed to accommodate travel demand genera ted by new land development in the City through 2055.

The TDIF Program will help meet the City’s Genera l Plan policies including maintaining adequate LOS and safety for roadway facilities. New development in the City will increase the demand for all modes of travel (including walking, biking, transit, automobile, and truck/goods movement ) and thus the need for improvements to transportation facilities. The TDIF Program will help fund transportation facilities necessary to accommodate residential and non-residential development in the City.

7.2 Use of Fees
The fees from new development in the TDIF Program will be used to fund additions and improvements to the transportation system needed to accommodate future travel demand resulting from residential and non- residential development. The TDIF Program will he lp fund improvements to roadways (include the widening or extensions of arterial and collector roadways and intersection improvements) transit facilities, bikeways, and walkways. The transportation improvements wholly or partially funded by the program are described in more detail in Section 3.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

34 December 2021 FINAL

7.3 Relationship between use of Fees and Type of Development Fee revenues generated by the TDIF Program will be u sed to develop the transportation improvements as outlined in Section 3. New development in the City will generate resident and employees who will demand new and expanded roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. All these improvements increase the capacity of those segments of the transportation system affected by new development. The results of the transportation modeling analysis summarized in this report demonstrates that new development, both new residential and non-residential uses, will benef it from these improvements by improving service above levels that would occur if these improvements were not completed. Consequently, the cost of transportation improvements is allocated to both residential and non-residential development in the City.

7.4 Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Development The projected residential and non-residential development described in Section 3 will add to the incremental need for new and/or expanded transportation facilities by increasing the amount of demand on the transportation system. The transportation improvements outlined in Section 3 are required to minimize the degradation in current levels of service caused by new development.

7.5 Relationship between Amount of Fees and the Cost of Facility Attributed to Development upon which Fee is Imposed
Construction of necessary transportation improvements will directly serve residential and non-residential development within the City and will directly be nefit new development. The basis for allocating improvement costs to development is described in Section 5.

To define the required roadway and intersection im provements that would be included in the TDIF Program, the roadway segment and intersection LOS anal ysis was performed first with total 2055 travel demand and then a second time with the growth in “thru trips” removed. This was done to determine whether the 2055 roadway improvement would still be needed with the growth in thru trips removed. If it was determined that a reduced roadway improvement w ould operate at acceptable levels with thru trips removed, the TDIF Program would only include the cost of the reduced improvement.

For existing deficiencies (roadways or intersections that operated at LOS E or F during the Base Year), the cost of the improvement that is allocated to the TDIF program is equal to the percent of total cost that is needed to return the roadway to existing congestion levels. This allocation is equal to the percentage of the total change in volume/capacity (v/c) ratio (due to the improvement) that is needed to return the v/c ratio to current levels
The fee that a developer pays for a new residentia l unit or commercial building varies by the type of development based on its impact on the transportation system. Each development type is assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate based on its estimated vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) per unit of development. DUE’s are numerical measures of how the trip-making characteristics of a land use type compares to a single-family residential unit. DUE’s were developed by comparing both the trip generation and trip length characteristics of various land uses to those of the single-family residential units. Also considered in the calculation of DUE’s are “percent new” trips. The DUE rates were thus based on estimates of the peak hour vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated by each land use type.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

35 December 2021 FINAL

8.0 On-Going Administration of the TDIF Program

8.1 Administration Fee
To defray the City’s costs associated with administering the TDIF, including program management of CIP projects, project scope refinements, updating engineering studies, updating the City’s travel model, tracking fee credits and reimbursements, updating th e Nexus Study, and any ot her necessary studies in support of the TDIF Program, the City will levy and collect an administration charge equal to 3.75% of the total fees. The program ad ministration fee must be paid at building permit issuance, or as designated by the City, and cannot be credited th rough a fee credit or reimbursement agreement.

8.2 TDIF Adjustments
The TDIF may be adjusted in future years to reflec t revised facility standards, receipt of funding from alternative sources (e.g., state, or federal grants), re vised costs, or changes in demographics or land use.

In addition to such adjustments, in January of each calendar year, the TDIF for each type of development will automatically be adjusted by the increase, if any, in the 20-city Construction Cost Index (CCI) as reported in the Engineering News Record for the twelve-month peri od ending October of the prior year. For example, the adjustment for January 2022 will be determined by calculating the increase, if any, from October 2020 to October 2021 in the 20-city CCI. Given that the annual adjustment should not escalate project costs that have already been expe nded (fees applied to CIP projects that have been constructed in 2007), the CCI for any given year shall be reduced by the proportion of total TDIF Program funds that have been expended for completed projects to date. At the time of this TDIF update, the percentage off-set is 5%. As an example, the 8 percent CCI increase recorded in 2021 would be reduced by the 5% offset to yield a 7.6% escalation rate for 2022 fee schedule. At a minimum, this off-set percentage will be recalculated as part of major TDIF Program updates but more frequently if in a particular year, or stretch of years, significant CIP expenditures occur.

The fee categories summarized in prior sections ma y not be applicable to specialized development projects in the City. For example, development of a cemetery or golf c ourse would not fall under one of these categories. Other examples of speciali zed development projects are projects that increase trip generation rates, but do not in clude building square footage, such as a parking lot expansion. For specialized development projects, th e City staff will review traffic generation rates applicable to the specialized development and decide on an applicable fee.

Certain redevelopment projects may also be eligible for a fee adjustment. If, for example, a project applicant demolishes an existing 10,000 square foot building and rebuilds a 20,000 square foot building of the same land use, the applicant may be eligible for a waiver of 50% of the TDIF. If a redevelopment project results in a change of land use on a particular parcel, City staff will determine the appropriate TDIF adjustment to reflect the different trip characteristics of the original and new land uses.

The City will review redevelopment requests for fee adjustments on a case-by-case basis. If the previously built structure has been vacant for more than five years, the parcel will be treated as if it was undeveloped, and no such adjustment will be applied.

8.3 TDIF Smart Growth Discount
Pursuant to California Code–Section 66005.1, housing development projects that satisfy specific “smart growth” characteristics shall be provided a discounted fee. Housing development projects that satisfy all of the following “Smart Growth” characteristics shall be provided a discounted fee.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

36 December 2021 FINAL
 The housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length4.
 Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one-half mile of the housing development.
 The housing development provides either the mi nimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite park ing space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.

Given that the average reduction in trip generation has been shown to be approximately 15% relative to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) based trip generation factors for housing developments without these characteristics (SANDAG, 2011), the City will provide a discount of 15% fee reduction from the maximum fee rate allowed in this Nexus Study for new residential projects which meet these specific criteria.

The City has developed a GIS map that shows the current condition of existing transit stations/stops in the City with a ½ mile buffer to assist is assessing the eligibility for this discount. The map, along with corresponding criteria, will be periodically updated as information becomes available.

Assuming all the above Smart Growth criteria is met, this discount would apply unless another mechanism for discounting applicable traffic fees is applied by the City. The post-nexus adjustments for the Infill Area shown in Table 18, Table 19 A, and Table 19 B represent such a mechanism. Note that the Infill Area post- nexus adjustments far exceeds the 15% Smart Growth Discount.

8.4 TDIF Credits and Reimbursements
The City established a set of polic ies and procedures regarding fee credits and reimbursements. These policies are codified in Ordinance No. 33-2005 (“Ordi nance”), which was adopte d by the City Council on December 19, 2005. The Ordinance added Chapter 16.84 to the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code. Among other things, the Ordinance specifies th at the City may author ize and issue a credit toward the construction of any transportation facilities in order of “priority”. In other words, developers who construct “priority” facilities w ill likely receive credits or reimbursements ahead of those developers who construct “non-priority” facilities. For purposes of this Nexus Study, “priority” facilities are those facilities as determined by the C ity Engineer to avoid substantial congestion levels on key roadways.

4 "Housing development" means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floor space is for residential use. For the purposes of this section, "transit station" has the meaning set forth in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 65460.1. "Transit station" includes planned transit stations ot herwise meeting this defin ition whose construction is programmed to be completed prior to the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development. Transit headway criteria of 10 minutes or less at a transit hub serv ed by three or more transit service lines is defined as cumulative headway versus individual service line headways.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

37 December 2021 FINAL

8.5 TDIF Exemptions
All determinations regarding the exemptions provide d in this section will be made by the City Manager or his/her designee. Generally, the following uses will be exempt from payment of the TDIF:

Public Agencies
All federal and state agencies, public school districts, and the City will be exempt from the TDIF. Other non-City public agencies will be subject to payment of the TDIF; however, the City may choose to waive some or all the TDIF in certain cases.

Replacement/Reconstruction
a. Any replacement or reconstruction (no change in u se) of any residential unit that is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity, or act of God shall be exempt from the TDIF. However, if the residential unit(s) replaced or reconstructed exceeds the documented total number of units of the damaged/destroyed residential structure, the excess units are subject to the TDIF.
b. Any replacement or reconstruction (no change in use) of any non-residential structure that is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity, or act of God shall be exempt from the TDIF. However, if the building replaced or reconstructed exceeds the documented total floor area of the damaged/de stroyed building, the excess square footage is subject to the TDIF.
c. If a residential and/or non-residential structure is replaced with an alternative land use, such as replacing an office building with a retail building, then City staff will determine the appropriate TDIF adjustment to reflect the different trip characteristics of the original and new land uses.

Additions/Alterations/Modifications/Temporary Facilities a. Additions that increase the living area of a resi dential unit to more th an 1,200 square feet. b. Additions to single family reside ntial structures provided no cha nge in use occurs and a second full kitchen is not added.
c. Additions to multi-family residential structures that are not part of a mixed-use type project provided no change in use occurs and no additional units result. d. Supporting use square footage in multi-family proj ects, such as the office and recreation areas required to directly serve the mu lti-family project. The residentia l unit fee will provide the full mitigation required in multi-family projects.
e. Non-habitable residential structures such as decks, pools, pool cabanas, sheds, garages, etc. f. Construction of a granny unit that does not have a full kitchen. g. Mobile or manufactured homes with no permanent foundation.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

38 December 2021 FINAL

8.6 Fee Implementation
According to the California Govern ment Code, prior to levying a new fee or increasing an existing fee, an agency must hold at least one open and public me eting. At least 14 days prior to this meeting, the agency must make data on infrast ructure costs and funding sources av ailable to the public. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, and a general explanation of the matter, are to be published in accordance with Section 6062(a) of the Government Code, which states that publication of notice shall occur for 14 days in a newspaper regular ly published once a week or more. The C ity may then adopt the new fees at the second reading.

The nexus-based calculation of fee per Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) documented in Sections 1 through 6 is based on general land use categories (single fami ly, multi-family, retail, office, and industrial) which are the categories used in the transportation forecast ing process. When a developer gets a building permit and pays fees, a more specific land use is known a nd the number of DUEs for some specific land use will be based on specific DUE rates for that category. Th ose DUE rates are based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated on an average weekday for each land use type. Table 20 shows the calculation of DUE factors for each detailed land use type.

The City will determine the appropriate trip DUE factors for other land uses that may develop within the City that are not shown in Table 20.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

39 December 2021 FINAL

Table 20
Detailed DUE Rates

Land Use
PM Peak
Hour
Trip Rate

Units

Trip
Length
(miles)
Percent
New
Trips
Vehicle Miles
of Travel
(VMT)

Due
Rate
Residential
Dwelling
Units

Single Family – greater than 1,200 sq. ft.
1 0.99 5.1 100% 5.049 1.00
Single Family – less than or equal to 1,200 sq. ft.
2 0.88
Multi-Family3 0.56 5.1 100% 2.856 0.57
Age Restricted Single-Family 0.30 5.1 100% 1.530 0.30
Age Restricted Multi-Family 0.26 5.1 100% 1.326 0.26
Non-Residential
1,000
Square
Feet

Commercial 5.43 2.3 50% 6.245 1.24
Office 1.15 5.1 92% 5.396 1.07
Industrial 0.63 4.8 92% 2.782 0.55
Miscellaneous
Church 0.49 3.9 90% 1.720 0.34
Gasoline/Service Station 14.03 Position 1.9 20% 5.331 1.06 Hotel/Motel 0.38 Room 6.4 65% 1.581 0.31
Mobile Home Park 0.46 Unit 5.1 100% 2.346 0.46
1 Includes all single family attached or detached residential units with more than 1,200 square feet of living area based on the square footage reflected on the building permit issued for construction of the unit.
2 Includes all single family attached or detached residential units with 1,200 square feet or less of living area based on the square footage reflected on the building permit issued for construction of the unit. DUE rate is based on analysis conducted for Sacramento County's Transportation Development Fee Program
3 Includes (i) all attached units within a structure comprising 5 or more units that are solely available for rent, and (ii) all attached units structure comprising 5 or more units that are 1,200 SF or less and are available for sale.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

A-1 December 2021 FINAL
Appendix A

Land Use and Development Assumptions
For 2021TDIF Program Update

Land Use Assumptions
The transportation needs and fee allocation for this update of the TDIF Program are based a 2007 “Base Year” (the same year as the current TDIF Program adopted in 2013) and a future development scenario that reflects full buildout of all residential uses within the City. The City of Rancho Cordova has prepared estimated development “capacities” for its adopted and planned specific plan areas, as well as likely residential capacities for its vacan t or underutilized infill sites. Table A-1 shows the assumptions used to estimate residential development within the City for the TDIF update.

Table A-1
Residential Development Assumptions for the 2021 TDIF Update Area
Base Year (2007) 2055 Growth
Single
Family
Multi-
family Total
Single
Family
Multi-
family Total
Single
Family
Multi-
family Total
Infill 14,841 6,308 21,14 9 16,634 8,722 25,356 1,793 2,414 4,207 Sunridge 3,300 3,300 8,007 75 8,082 4,707 75 4,782
Suncreek 3,240 1,653 4,893 3,240 1,653 4,893
Rio Del Oro 9,641 2,548 12,189 9,641 2,548 12,189
Ranch 1,264 384 1,648 1,264 384 1,648
Westborough 3,900 3,171 7,071 3,900 3,171 7,071
Arboretum 4,040 677 4,717 4,040 677 4,717
Preserve 450 0 450 450 0 450
Total 18,141 6,308 24,449 47,176 17,230 64,406 29,036 10,922 39,958 Sources: City of Rancho Cordova and DKS Associates, 2020

SACOG prepares forecasts of future development throughout the six-county SACOG region every four years. Their latest forecasts prepared in 2020 define growth between 2016 and 2040. Using SACOG’s projected average annual growth rate in housing units for the City of Rancho Cordova, the estimated year when the City would reach full buildout of its resi dential uses is about 2055. For non-residential uses, SACOG’s projected average annual growth rates for retail, office and industrial uses were used to estimate the 2055 development levels for those types of uses.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

A-2 December 2021 FINAL
For non-residential uses, fees are based on the square footage of a building while the travel demand model uses jobs to determine the trips generated by non-residential uses. Table A-2 shows the assumed job growth citywide as well as the assumptions used to convert jobs to square footage estimates.

Table A-2
Non-residential Development Assumptions
Land use Units 2007 2055
Growth
2007 to 2055
Retail
jobs
7,603 19,695 12,092
Office 34,703 56,128 21,425
Industrial 7,541 17,799 10,258
Total 49,847 93,622 43,775
Assumed Average Square Feet per Job 500 300 600
Retail
Square feet
3,801,000 9,847,000 6,046,000
Office 9,479,000 15,906,000 6,427,000
Industrial 6,636,000 12,791,000 6,155,000
Total 19,916,000 38,544,000 18,628,000
Sources: DKS Associates, 2020

TDIF Program Land Use Categories
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that a reasonable re lationship exist between the need for public facilities and the type of development on which an impact fee is imposed. General and detailed land use categories have been defined to distinguish between the number of trips gene rated by residents and employees associated with various types of land use. Existing a nd projected land uses generated are classified by general land use types (e.g., single family detached, single family attached, multi-family, retail/commercial, office, and industrial) and serve as the basis for the cost per dwelling unit equivalent calculation included in this Nexus Study. However, some detailed land use categories have been established for purposes of implementing the TDIF Pr ogram. These categories have been created to differentiate specific impacts from each detailed la nd use on transportation facilities. For example, residential land use categories are defined based on characteristics related to unit type (e.g., age-restricted) and unit size as discussed further below.

Data from the American Housing Survey and SACOG implies an indirect rela tionship between the size of a housing unit and the number of trips generated by a housing unit. The data indicates a negligible difference in trip genera tion for medium to large single-family homes; however, a significant reduction in overall trip generation applies to homes that are 1,200 square feet or less. Based on these findings, a 1,200 square feet cutoff is used to delineate betw een residential land uses for purposes of this Nexus Study. Specifically, the American Housing Survey for the Sacramento region suggests a proportional relationship between the square footage of a dwelling unit and the number of persons residing in that unit – generally, persons per unit increases as the size of a residential unit increases. In addition, data on travel characteristics from SACOG’s 2000 Household Travel Survey suggests a proportional relationship between the number of persons in a home and the numbe r of trips generated by that household, namely that trips per household increase as persons per household increase. Based on combined data from these two sources, it can be conc luded that the average number of trips generated ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

A-3 December 2021 FINAL
per day is proportionally related to the number of pe ople living in the dwelling unit, which is generally related to the size of the dwelling unit.

A TDIF has been calculated per dw elling unit for residential land uses and per square-foot of building space for most non-residential land use categories. Exceptions in the non-reside ntial land use categories include the following: (i) gasoline/service stations for which impacts are calculated per vehicle position; (ii) mobile home parks impacts for which impacts are calculated per dwelling unit, and (iii) hotels and motels for which impacts are calculated per room. Specifically, the following detailed land use categories are identified for purposes of the TDIF Program:

Single Family Detached,
greater than 1,200 sq. ft.:

Includes all single family detached residential units with more than 1,200 square feet of living area based on the square footage reflected on the building permit issued for construction of the unit.

Single Family Detached,
1,200 sq. ft. or less:

Includes all single family detached r esidential units with 1,200 square feet or less of living area based on the square footage reflected on the building permit issued for construction of the unit.

Single Family Attached: Includes the following:
 All units within a structure that has 2-4 attached units, whether such units are all offered for rent or for sale to individual owners.  All units within a structure that h as 5 or more attached units that (i) are available for sale to individual owners, and (ii) have a living area greater than 1,200 square feet.

Multi-Family: Includes the following:
 All units within a structure that has 5 or more units, all of which are offered for rent to the public.
 All units within a structure that h as 5 or more attached units that (i) are available for sale to individual owners, and (ii) have a living area less than 1,200 square feet.

Retail/Commercial: Includes, but is not limited to, retail stores, clothing stores, book stores, video rental stores, drug stores, professional services (e.g., barber shops, dry cleaners), restaurants, supermarkets, hospitals, movie theaters, appliance and electronics stores, home supply stores, tire stores, auto parts stores, and other businesses providing auto-related products and services.

Office: Includes, but is not limited to, buildings in which professional, banking, insurance, real estate, administra tive or in-office medical or dental activities are conducted.

Industrial: Includes, but is not limited to, all forms of industrial, manufacturing, and warehousing land uses. Specific portions of any building space within this category that are used distinctly for retail/commercial sales, office space, or other such sp ecific use may be charged the ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

A-4 December 2021 FINAL
representative fees according to use. Remaining portions of the building will be charged fees on the industrial rate.

Miscellaneous: Includes churches, gas stations, hotels/motels, and mobile home parks.

City staff will make the final determination as to which land use category a par ticular development type will be assigned. Staff will determine the land use category that corresponds most directly to the development or, alternatively, can determine that none of the land use categories in this Nexus Study adequately correspond to the development in question and may work in conjunction with other members of City staff to determine the applicab le fee amounts based on trip DUE factors.

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

December 2021 FINAL
Appendix B

Project Descriptions, Cost Estimates and Other Funding for TDIF Program Improvements

ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Group Project Numbers
Roadway Segments 1 to 208
Intersections 209 to 299
Transit and Bikeways 300 to 312
Interchanges 313 to 320
=
=
=
=
=
=
Amount or % of the project construction cost that is funded by the Fee Program
Project Notes
Color Legend
This appendix provides general descriptions, cost estimates and funding assumptions for each of the CIP projects that are fully or partially funded by the City's Tranportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The projects are divided into the following groups:

Appendix B
CIP Transportation Project Costs and Funding
CIP Buildout
Credit Agreement
City Project
Notes

COUNTY SHARED

PROJECT
FEE PORTION:

Project has CIP portions fully buildout but it remains in Fee Program due to credit agreement and/or reimbursement of City funds Project has been partially or fully buildout and has a credit agreement with one or more developers
Project is partially or fully buildout and had funding from the City, which the City will be reimbursed by Fees
Sacramento County has a share of the funding project cost ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Roadway Segments
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No
1 Rio del Oro Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Sunrise Boulevard to Rancho Cordova Pkwy Lanes 0 6 6 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 6 lane roadway 6-F 3200 LF $1,049.61 $3,358,736
Subtotal $3,358,736
Contingency 15% $503,810
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,175,558
Total $5,038,104
Rounded $5,038,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $5,038,000
2 Rio del Oro Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Parkway to Centennial Dr Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 3500 LF $777.40 $2,720,900
Subtotal $2,720,900
Contingency 15% $408,135
Engineering and Permits 35% $952,315
Total $4,081,350
Rounded $4,081,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $4,081,000
Project Information and Cost
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
3 Rio del Oro Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Centennial Drive to Americanos Boulevard Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1200 LF $777.40 $932,880
Subtotal $932,880
Contingency 15% $139,932
Engineering and Permits 35% $326,508
Total $1,399,320
Rounded $1,399,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,399,000
4 Rio del Oro Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Americanos Boulevard to White Rock Road Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 2200 LF $777.40 $1,710,280
Subtotal $1,710,280
Contingency 15% $256,542
Engineering and Permits 35% $598,598
Total $2,565,420
Rounded $2,565,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,565,000
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
7 Rio del Oro Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Easton Valley Parkway to Folsom Boulevard Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1700 LF $777.40 $1,321,580
Bridge/Culvert 31200 SF $295.00 $9,204,000
Subtotal $10,525,580
Contingency 15% $1,578,837
Engineering and Permits 35% $3,683,953
Total $15,788,370
Rounded $15,788,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $15,788,000
8 Villagio Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Douglas Rd. to 111-OS (12Ac. Open Space) Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 0 LF $777.40 $0
Bridge/Culvert 0 SF $295.00 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Total $0
Rounded $0
Other Funding $0
Bridge/Culvert
Bridge/Culvert
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $0
11 Villagio Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Collector B to White Rock Rd. Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 500 LF $777.40 $388,700
Subtotal $388,700
Contingency 15% $58,305
Engineering and Permits 35% $136,045
Total $583,050
Rounded $583,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $583,000
19 Easton Valley Pkwy 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Pkwy to Rio Del Oro Pkwy Lanes 0 6 6 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 6 lane roadway 6-4L-2055-F 2500 LF $561.55 $1,403,863 Subtotal $1,403,863
Contingency 15% $210,579
Engineering and Permits 35% $491,352
Total $2,105,794
Rounded $2,106,000
Other Funding $0
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,106,000
20 Easton Valley Pkwy 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rio Del Oro Pkwy to Hazel Avenue Lanes 0 6 6
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 6 lane roadway 6-4L-2055-F 3700 LF $561.55 $2,077,717 Bridge/Culvert No. 1 Bridge/Culvert 6300 SF $295.00 $1,858,500 Bridge/Culvert No. 2 Bridge/Culvert 8190 SF $295.00 $2,416,050 Subtotal $6,352,267
Contingency 15% $952,840
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,223,293
Total $9,528,400
Rounded $9,528,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $9,528,000

24.1 Centennial Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From International Drive to Rio del Oro Parkway Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1300 LF $777.40 $1,010,620
Subtotal $1,010,620
Contingency 15% $151,593
Engineering and Permits 35% $353,717
Total $1,515,930
Rounded $1,516,000
Other Funding $0
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,516,000

24.2 Centennial Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rio del Oro Parkway to Villagio Drive Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1800 LF $777.40 $1,399,320
Subtotal $1,399,320
Contingency 15% $209,898
Engineering and Permits 35% $489,762
Total $2,098,980
Rounded $2,099,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,099,000

24.3 Centennial Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Villagio Drive to Americanos Boulevard Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped open field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 2700 LF $777.40 $2,098,980
Subtotal $2,098,980
Contingency 15% $314,847
Engineering and Permits 35% $734,643
Total $3,148,470
Rounded $3,148,000
Other Funding $0
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $3,148,000
25 Americanos Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Kiefer Boulevard to North Campus Drive Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 4900 LF $777.40 $3,809,260
Bridge/Culvert No. 1 Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000 Bridge/Culvert No. 2 Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000 Subtotal $5,343,260
Contingency 15% $801,489
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,870,141
Total $8,014,890
Rounded $8,015,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $8,015,000

25.1 Americanos Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From North Campus Drive to Chrysanthy Blvd Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1470 LF $777.40 $1,142,778
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000
Subtotal $1,909,778
Contingency 15% $286,467
Engineering and Permits 35% $668,422
Total $2,864,667
Rounded $2,865,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,865,000
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
26 Americanos Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Douglas Road to Douglas 103 southern Boundary Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1425 LF $777.40 $1,107,795
4-D 1350 LF $1,002.86 $1,353,858
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 5200 SF $295.00 $1,534,000 Subtotal $3,995,653
Contingency 15% $599,348
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,398,478
Total $5,993,479
Rounded $5,993,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $5,993,000

26.1 Americanos Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Douglas 103 Boundary to Chrysanthy Boulevard Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 3400 LF $777.40 $2,643,160
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 5200 SF $295.00 $1,534,000 Subtotal $4,177,160
Contingency 15% $626,574
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,462,006
Total $6,265,740
Rounded $6,266,000
Other Funding $0
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $6,266,000
27 Americanos Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Douglas Road to Centennial Drive Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 2050 LF $777.40 $1,593,670
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000
Subtotal $2,360,670
Contingency 15% $354,101
Engineering and Permits 35% $826,235
Total $3,541,005
Rounded $3,541,000
Credit Agreement $515,645
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $3,025,355.00
28 Americanos Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Centennial Drive to Villagio Drive Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1250 LF $777.40 $971,750
Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000
Subtotal $1,738,750
Contingency 15% $260,813
Engineering and Permits 35% $608,563
Total $2,608,125
Rounded $2,608,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,608,000
Bridge/Culvert
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
29 Americanos Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Villagio Drive to Rio del Oro Parkway Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 2500 LF $777.40 $1,943,500
Subtotal $1,943,500
Contingency 15% $291,525
Engineering and Permits 35% $680,225
Total $2,915,250
Rounded $2,915,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,915,000
30 Americanos Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rio del Oro Parkway to International Drive Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1000 LF $777.40 $777,400
Subtotal $777,400
Contingency 15% $116,610
Engineering and Permits 35% $272,090
Total $1,166,100
Rounded $1,166,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,166,000
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
45 Chrysanthy Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Sunrise Blvd to Rancho Cordova Pkwy Lanes 4 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 0 LF $777.40 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Total $2,710,436
Rounded $2,710,000
Credit Agreement $2,710,436
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $0
46 Chrysanthy Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Pkwy to Americanos Blvd Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 6500 LF $777.40 $5,053,100
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000
Subtotal $5,820,100
Contingency 15% $873,015
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,037,035
Total $8,730,150
Rounded $8,730,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $8,730,000
Constructed prior to 2007 but funding of credit agreement remains 12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
47 Chrysanthy Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Americanos Boulevard to Grant Line Road Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 3000 LF $777.40 $2,332,200
Bridge/Culvert No.1 Bridge/Culvert 13000 SF $295.00 $3,835,000 Bridge/Culvert No. 2 Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000 Subtotal $6,934,200
Contingency 15% $1,040,130
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,426,970
Total $10,401,300
Rounded $10,401,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $10,401,000

54.1 Douglas Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
(312.3) From Eagles Nest Road to West City Limit Lanes 2 6 6 Existing Condition: 1500 lf of 2-lane road w/o median
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 6 Lanes 6-F 1500 LF $1,049.61 $1,574,408
6-D 1500 LF $1,001.82 $1,502,734
Subtotal $3,077,141
Contingency 15% $461,571
Environmental 7.5% $230,786
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,076,999
Total $4,846,497
Rounded $4,846,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $4,846,000
Frontage

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
*No fronting development anticipated
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
55 Douglas Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From West City Limit to Sunrise Boulevard Lanes 2 6 6
Existing Condition: 2500 lf of 2-lane road w/o median
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Improve Fee Portion 6-F 2500 LF $1,049.61 $2,624,013
Bridge/Culvert No. 1 Bridge/Culvert 3150 SF $295.00 $929,250 Bridge/Culvert No. 2 (Canal Crossing) Bridge/Culvert 25200 SF $295.00 $7,434,000 Subtotal $10,987,263
Contingency 15% $1,648,089
Engineering and Permits 35% $3,845,542
Total $16,480,894
Rounded $16,481,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $16,481,000
56 Douglas Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Sunrise Boulevard to Villagio Drive Lanes 6 6 6
Existing Condition: Built
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 6 Lanes 6-F 0 LF $1,049.61 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Total $3,754,099
Rounded $3,754,000
Credit Agreement $3,754,099
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $0
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
57 Douglas Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Villagio Drive to Rancho Cordova Parkway Lanes 6 6 6 Existing Condition: Built
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 6 Lanes 6-F 0 LF $1,049.61 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Total $0
Rounded $0
See Project #56 Credit Agreement $0
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $0
58 Douglas Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Parkway to Americanos Blvd Lanes 4 4 4 Existing Condition: Built
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 Lanes 4-F 0 LF $777.40 $0
Landscaping 1 LS $532,719.90 $532,720
Subtotal $532,720
Contingency 0% $0
Engineering and Permits 0% $0
Total $6,278,185
Fee Program Rounded $6,278,000
Credit Agreement $5,745,465
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $533,000
Project Construction Cost included in Project #56
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
59 Douglas Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Americanos Boulevard to Grant Line Road Lanes 4 4 4 Existing Condition: Portions of Roadway are under construction as a condition of subdivision approval Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Improve Fee Portion 4-F 0 LF 777.40$ $0
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 0 SF 295.00$ $0 Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Total $2,377,672
Rounded $2,378,000
Credit Agreement $2,377,672
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $0
73 Femoyer Street 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Mather Boulevard to Peter A. McCuen Blvd Lanes 2 4 4 Existing Conditions: 1200 lf of 2 lane road w/o median from Mather to Peter McCuen Extension.

Contains 700 ft developed both sides, 650 ft developed on side. 150 ft of vacant land.

Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen Remainder to 4 Lanes 4-F 0 LF $777.40 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Right of Way (Industrial) Right of Way (Industrial) 0 SF $55.00 $0 $1,319,896
Total $1,327,896
Rounded $1,328,000
Other Funding $8,000
City Project (already built)
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,319,896
93 Grant Line Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Jackson Highway to Rancho Cordova Parkway Lanes 2 4 4 Existing Condition: 2 Lane with no median, undeveloped area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 Lanes 6-F 2460 LF $1,049.61 $2,582,028
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 5200 SF $295.00 $1,534,000 Subtotal $4,116,028
Contingency 15% $617,404
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,440,610
Traffic Control 20% $823,206
Total $6,997,248
Rounded $6,997,000
Other Funding $2,099,174
County Portion 50% $2,448,913
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,448,913
94 Grant Line Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Parkway to Kiefer Boulevard Lanes 2 4 4 Existing Condition: 2 Lane with no median, undeveloped area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 Lanes 6-F 5000 LF $1,049.61 $5,248,025
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 4680 SF $290.00 $1,357,200 Subtotal $6,605,225
Contingency 15% $990,784
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,311,829
Traffic Control 20% $1,321,045
Total $11,228,883
Rounded $11,229,000
Other Funding $3,368,665
County Portion 50% $3,930,168
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $3,930,168
6-F Section provides cost of 4 lanes in Fee Portion
6-F Section provides cost of 4 lanes in Fee Portion

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
95 Grant Line Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Kiefer Boulevard to Chrysanthy Boulevard Lanes 2 4 4 Existing Condition: 2 Lane with no median, undeveloped area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 Lanes 6-F 9300 LF $1,049.61 $9,761,327
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 6760 SF $295.00 $1,994,200 Subtotal $11,755,527
Contingency 15% $1,763,329
Engineering and Permits 35% $4,114,434
Traffic Control 20% $2,351,105
Total $19,984,395
Rounded $19,984,000
Other Funding $5,995,319
County Portion 50% $6,994,341
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $6,994,341
96 Grant Line Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Chrysanthy Boulevard to Douglas Road Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: 2 Lane with no median, undeveloped area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 Lanes 6-F 4300 LF $1,049.61 $4,513,302
Bridge/Culvert 4680 SF $295.00 $1,380,600
Subtotal $5,893,902
Contingency 15% $884,085
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,062,866
Traffic Control 20% $1,178,780
Total $10,019,633
Rounded $10,020,000
Other Funding $3,005,890
County Portion 50% $3,507,055
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $3,507,055

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
6-F Section provides cost of 4 lanes in Fee Portion
6-F Section provides cost of 4 lanes in Fee Portion
Bridge/Culvert

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
97 Grant Line Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Douglas Road to City Limit Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: 2 Lane with no median, undeveloped area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 Lanes 6-F 8100 LF $1,049.61 $8,501,801
Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000
Bridge/Culvert 5200 SF $295.00 $1,534,000
Demolish Existing 300 LF $85.00 $25,500
Subtotal $10,828,301
Contingency 15% $1,624,245
Engineering and Permits 35% $3,789,905
Traffic Control 20% $2,165,660
Right of Way (Agricultural) 18000 SF $2.60 $46,800
Total $18,454,911
Rounded $18,455,000
Other Funding $5,536,473
County Portion 50% $6,442,870
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $6,475,657
Demo Existing 2 Lane
Right of Way Cost Agricultural
Bridge/Culvert No. 2
Bridge/Culvert No. 1

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
6-F Section provides cost of 4 lanes in Fee Portion
Project is combined with #98
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
103 Old Placerville Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Bradshaw Road to Peter A. McCuen Blvd Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: Developed area, 4 lane Bradshaw to Granby Drive - 1200 ft, painted median, bike lane, c&g and sidewalk both sides. 2 lane - Granby to Astral - 2700 ft, no median, bike lane, c&g or sidewalk. 4 lane - Astral to Routier - 1200 ft, painted median, north side - bike lane, c&g and sidewalk. South side - bike lane, no c&g or sidewalk.

Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-F 9550 LF $1,049.61 $10,023,728
6-D 9550 LF $1,001.82 $9,567,405
Subtotal $19,591,133
Contingency 15% $2,938,670
Environmental 7.5% $1,469,335
Engineering and Permits 35% $6,856,896
Right of Way Commercial Right of Way (Commercial) 147600 SF $105.00 $15,498,000 Right of Way Residential Right of Way (Residential) 35000 SF $40.00 $1,400,000 Right of Way (Industrial) 250800 SF $55.00 $13,794,000
Total $61,548,034
Rounded $61,548,000
Other Funding $0
County Portion 50% $15,428,017
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $46,119,983

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
Improve Fee Portion
Right of Way Industrial
Widen to 6 Lanes
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
105 Peter A. McCuen Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Old Placerville to Mather Field Rd Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: 600ft of parking lot, 3900ft of 2 lane road, no median, c&g or sidewalk, developed area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
4-F 1850 LF $777.40 $1,438,190
4-D 1850 LF $1,002.86 $1,855,286
Subtotal $3,293,476
Contingency 15% $494,021
Environmental 7.5% $247,011
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,152,717
Right of Way (Industrial) 81400 SF $55.00 $4,477,000
Total $9,664,225
Rounded $9,664,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $9,664,000
105.1 Peter A. McCuen Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Mather Field Road to Femoyer St Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition:

Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
4-F 1225 LF $777.40 $952,315
4-D 1225 LF $1,002.86 $1,228,500
Subtotal $2,180,815
Contingency 15% $327,122
Environmental 7.5% $163,561
Engineering and Permits 35% $763,285
Right of Way (Industrial) 90650 SF $55.00 $4,985,750
Total $8,420,534
Rounded $8,421,000
Right of Way Industrial
Right of Way Industrial
Improve Fee Portion
Improve Fee Portion
Widen to 4 Lanes
Widen to 4 Lanes
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $8,421,000
110 International Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Kilgore Road to Sunrise Boulevard Lanes 6 6 6
Existing Condition: Project completed in 2013
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-F 0 LF $1,049.61 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15%
Environmental 7.5%
Total $13,815,430
Rounded $13,815,000
City Project $3,710,915
Other Funding $10,104,515
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $3,710,915
111 International Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Sunrise Boulevard to Rancho Cordova Parkway Lanes 0 6 6 2007 Condition: 1500 lf 4 lane w/ c&g and sidewalk, no bike lane; 1200 lf through industrial land and buildings; 3000 lf through undeveloped field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-F 2850 LF $1,049.61 $2,991,374
6-D 5400 LF $1,001.82 $5,409,842
Bridge/Culvert 6300 SF $295.00 $1,858,500
Subtotal $10,259,716
Contingency 15% $1,538,957
Environmental 7.5% $769,479
Engineering and Permits 35% $3,590,901
Right of Way Cost $24,000,000
Total $40,159,052
Rounded $40,159,000
Improvements
Bridge/Culvert
Widen to 6 Lanes
Improve Fee Portion
Includes Intersection at Sunrise Boulevard (Projects 282 & 283) 12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $40,159,000
112 International Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Parkway to Centennial Drive Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1500 LF $777.40 $1,166,100
Subtotal $1,166,100
Contingency 15% $174,915
Environmental 7.5% $87,458
Engineering and Permits 35% $408,135
Total $1,836,608
Rounded $1,837,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,837,000
113 International Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Centennial Drive to Americanos Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 400 LF $777.40 $310,960
Subtotal $310,960
Contingency 15% $46,644
Environmental 7.5% $23,322
Engineering and Permits 35% $108,836
Total $489,762
Rounded $490,000
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $490,000
114 International Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Americanos Road to White Rock Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 400 LF $777.40 $310,960
4A-2-F 0 LF $130.62 $0
Subtotal $310,960
Contingency 15% $46,644
Environmental 7.5% $23,322
Engineering and Permits 35% $108,836
Total $489,762
Rounded $490,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $490,000
124 Jackson Hwy. 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Sunrise Boulevard to Grant Line Road Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: 2 lane, no median, undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 lanes 6-F 4800 LF $1,049.61 $5,038,104
Bridge/Culvert near Grant Line Road Intersection Bridge/Culvert 6,300 SF $295.00 $1,858,500 Subtotal $6,896,604
Contingency 15% $1,034,491
Environmental 7.5% $517,245
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,413,811
Total $10,862,151
Rounded $10,862,000
Other Funding $0
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
County Portion 50% $5,431,000
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $5,431,000
126 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Grant Line Road to Kiefer Boulevard Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 2900 LF $777.40 $2,254,460
4-F 2900 LF $777.40 $2,254,460
Bridge/Culvert No. 1 Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000 Bridge/Culvert No. 2 Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000 Subtotal $6,042,920
Contingency 15% $906,438
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,115,022
Total $9,064,380
Rounded $9,064,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $9,064,000
127 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Kiefer Boulevard to North Campus Drive Lanes 2 4 4 Existing Condition: 2 lane
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
4-F 3300 LF $777.40 $2,565,420
Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000
Subtotal $3,332,420
Contingency 15% $499,863
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,166,347
Total $7,319,455
Rounded $7,319,000
Credit Agreement $2,320,825Credit agreement included Segment 127.1

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $4,998,175
127.1 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From North Campus Dr to Chrysanthy Blvd Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: 2 lane
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 lanes 4-F 3900 LF $777.40 $3,031,860
Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000
Subtotal $3,798,860
Contingency 15% $569,829
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,329,601
Total $5,698,290
Rounded $5,698,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $5,698,000
128 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Chrysanthy Boulevard to Douglas Road Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: Built
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 Lanes 4-F 0 LF $777.40 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Total $2,188,480
Rounded $2,188,000
Credit Agreement $543,207
City Project $445,273
Bridge/Culvert
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Other Funding $1,200,000
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $444,793
129 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Douglas Road to the Preserve Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane with wide median 4-F 1950 LF $777.40 $1,515,930 Frontage 4-D 1950 LF $1,002.86 $1,955,572
Subtotal $3,471,502
Contingency 15% $520,725
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,215,026
Total $5,207,253
Rounded $5,207,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $5,207,000
129.1 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From the Preserve to Villagio Drive Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane with wide median 4-F 1950 LF $777.40 $1,515,930 Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 2600 SF $295.00 $767,000
Subtotal $2,282,930
Contingency 15% $342,440
Engineering and Permits 35% $799,026
Total $3,424,395
Rounded $3,424,000
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $3,424,000
130 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Villagio Drive to Rio del Oro Parkway Lanes 0 6 6
Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane with wide median 6-F 2500 LF $1,049.61 $2,624,013 Subtotal $2,624,013
Contingency 15% $393,602
Engineering and Permits 35% $918,404
Total $3,936,019
Rounded $3,936,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $3,936,000
131 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rio del Oro Pkwy to International Dr Lanes 0 6 6
Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 6 lane roadway 6-F 4200 LF $1,049.61 $4,408,341
Subtotal $4,408,341
Contingency 15% $661,251
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,542,919
Total $6,612,512
Rounded $6,613,000
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $6,613,000
132 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From International Drive to White Rock Road Lanes 0 6 6 Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 6 lane roadway 6-F 4200 LF $1,049.61 $4,408,341
Subtotal $4,408,341
Contingency 15% $661,251
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,542,919
Total $6,612,512
Rounded $6,613,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $6,613,000
133 Rancho Cordova Parkway 2007 Ultimate 2055
From White Rock Rd to Easton Valley Pkwy Lanes 0 6 6
Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 6 lane roadway 6-F 6400 LF $1,049.61 $6,717,472
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 3150 SF $295.00 $929,250
Subtotal $7,646,722
Contingency 15% $1,147,008
Environmental 7.5% $573,504
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,676,353
Total $12,043,587
Rounded $12,044,000
Other Funding $0
Project is combined with #134
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $12,044,000
142 Kiefer Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Sunrise Boulevard to Rancho Cordova Parkway Lanes 2 4 4 Existing Condition: 2 lane, no median
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 4300 LF $777.40 $3,342,820
Bridge/Culvert 1040 SF $295.00 $306,800
Subtotal $3,649,620
Contingency 15% $547,443
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,277,367
Total $5,474,430
Rounded $5,474,000
Credit Agreement $1,573,584
Other Funding $53,572
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $3,846,844
143 Kiefer Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Pkwy to Americanos Blvd Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped Field
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 4200 LF $777.40 $3,265,080
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 10400 SF $295.00 $3,068,000 Subtotal $6,333,080
Contingency 15% $949,962
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,216,578
Total $9,499,620
Rounded $9,500,000
Other Funding $0
Bridge/Culvert
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $9,500,000
143.1 Kiefer Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Americanos Road to Grant Line Road Lanes 0 4 4
Existing Condition: 2 Lane, no median, undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 lane roadway 4-F 1100 LF $777.40 $855,140
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 8320 SF $295.00 $2,454,400 Subtotal $3,309,540
Contingency 15% $496,431
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,158,339
Total $4,964,310
Rounded $4,964,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $4,964,000
147 Mather Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Peter A. McCuen Blvd to Whitehead St Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: 2 lane, no median, most parcels with c&g, some sidewalk, developed area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
4-D 700 LF $1,002.86 $702,000
Widen Mather to 4 Lanes (Remove Couplet) 4-F 850 LF $777.40 $660,790 Subtotal $1,362,790
Contingency 15% $204,419
Engineering and Permits 35% $476,977
Right of Way (Industrial) 77450 SF $55.00 $4,259,750
Total $6,303,935
Rounded $6,304,000
Other Funding $0
Right of Way Industrial
Widen to 4 Lanes (Peter A McCuen Blvd to Eknes St)
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $6,304,000
148 Mather Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Whitehead Street to Bleckley Street Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: 2 lane, no median, most parcels with c&g, some sidewalk, developed area
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
4A-2-F 700 LF $130.62 $91,434
4A-2-D 700 LF $444.72 $311,304
Subtotal $402,738
Contingency 15% $60,411
Engineering and Permits 35% $140,958
Right of Way (Industrial) 34300 SF $55.00 $1,886,500
Total $2,490,607
Rounded $2,491,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,491,000
149 Mather Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Femoyer St. to North Mather Blvd Lanes 2 4 4
Existing Condition: Femoyer to beginning of N Mather Blvd - 1000ft of 2 lane, no median, undeveloped area and 1300ft of quarry.

Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 4 lanes 4-F 1270 LF $777.40 $987,298
4-D 1270 LF $1,002.86 $1,273,629
Subtotal $2,260,927
Contingency 15% $339,139
Engineering and Permits 35% $118,699
Total $2,718,765
Rounded $2,719,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,719,000
Right of Way Industrial
Widen Mather to 4 Lanes (Remove Couplet)
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
173 Sun Center Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Sunrise Blvd to Rancho Cordova Pkwy Lanes 2 2 2
Existing Condition: 1300ft roadway at ultimate, 650ft through business parking lot, developed area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
2-D 2700 LF $1,048.26 $2,830,302
Bridge/Culvert 11200 SF $295.00 $3,304,000
Subtotal $6,134,302
Contingency 15% $920,145
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,147,006
Right of Way (Industrial) 42840 SF $55.00 $2,356,200
Total $11,557,653
Rounded $11,558,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $11,558,000
177 Sunrise Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Jackson Hwy. to Kiefer Boulevard Lanes 2 6 6
Existing Condition: 2 lane with shoulder
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-F 6400 LF $1,049.61 $6,717,472
Subtotal $6,717,472
Contingency 15% $1,007,621
Environmental 15.0% $1,007,621
Engineering and Permits 35% $2,351,115
Total $11,083,829
Rounded $11,084,000
FEE PORTION 92% $10,197,280
Other Funding $886,720
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $10,197,280
ASSUMES COUNTY FUNDS 6th Lane
Right of Way
Improve Fee Portion
Bridge/Culvert
Existing Deficiency

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
Improve Pavement (2 Lanes)
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
178 Sunrise Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Kiefer Boulevard to Chrysanthy Boulevard Lanes 5 6 6 Existing Condition: 5 lane
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-F 0 LF $1,049.61 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Environmental 7.5% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Total $8,005,647
Rounded $8,006,000
Credit Agreement $5,878,323
Other Funding $2,127,324
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $0
179 Sunrise Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Chrysanthy Boulevard to Douglas Road Lanes 5 6 6
Existing Condition: 2 lane with shoulder
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-F 0 LF $1,049.61 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Environmental 7.5% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Total $3,787,216
Rounded $3,787,000
Credit Agreement $2,493,194
Other Funding $1,294,022
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $0.00
6th lane/western frontage to be built by County
6th lane/western frontage to be built by County
Widen to 6 Lanes
Widen to 6 Lanes

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
181 Sunrise Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rio del Oro Parkway to Fitzgerald Road Lanes 6 6 6 Existing Condition: Built
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-F 0 LF $1,049.61 $0
Subtotal $0
Contingency 15% $0
Environmental 7.5% $0
Engineering and Permits 35% $0
Right of Way (Industrial) 0 SF $55.00 $0
Total $596,720
Rounded $597,000
Credit Agreement $514,358
Other Funding $82,362
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $0
187 Sunrise Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From US 50-Interchange to Zinfandel Drive Lanes 6 6+ 6+ Existing Condition: 6 lane
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-D 1850 LF $1,001.82 $1,853,372
Subtotal $1,853,372
Contingency 15% $278,006
Environmental 7.5% $139,003
Engineering and Permits 35% $648,680
Total $2,919,060
Rounded $2,919,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,919,000
Widen to 6 Lanes
Additional Lane and Frontage
Right of Way Industrial
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
188 Sunrise Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Zinfandel Drive to Coloma Road Lanes 6 6+ 6+
Existing Condition: 6 lane, median, c&g and sidewalk, no bike lanes Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-D 200 LF $1,001.82 $200,365
Subtotal $200,365
Contingency 15% $30,055
Environmental 7.5% $15,027
Engineering and Permits 35% $70,128
Total $315,574
Rounded $316,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $316,000
189 Sunrise Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Coloma Road to Gold Country Boulevard Lanes 6 6+ 6+ Existing Condition: 6 lane, median, c&g and sidewalk, bike lane east side only.

Fully developed area. Construct bike lane and sidewalk at back of curb using 110ft row.

Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-D 2700 LF $1,001.82 $2,704,921
Subtotal $2,704,921
Contingency 15% $405,738
Environmental 7.5% $202,869
Engineering and Permits 35% $946,722
Right of Way (Commercial) 56700 SF $105.00 $5,953,500
Total $10,213,750
Rounded $10,214,000
Other Funding $0
County Portion 50% $2,130,125
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $8,083,625
Additional Lane and Frontage
Additional Lane and Frontage
Right of Way Commercial

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
190 Sunrise Boulevard 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Gold Country Boulevard to American River Lanes 6 6+ 6+ Existing Condition: 6 lane, painted median, c&g and sidewalk. Bike lane east side only.

Fully developed area. Construct sidewalk at back of curb with bike lane in existing 110ft row.

Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-D 2000 LF $1,001.82 $2,003,645
Subtotal $2,003,645
Contingency 15% $300,547
Environmental 7.5% $150,273
Engineering and Permits 35% $701,276
Total $3,155,741
Rounded $3,156,000
Other Funding $0
County Portion 50% $1,578,000
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,578,000
194 White Rock Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Kilgore Road to Sunrise Boulevard Lanes 5 6 6
Existing Condition: Kilgore to 650ft east - 5 lane, c&g and sidewalk both sides 650ft east to Sunrise - 6 lane, painted median, c&g and sidewalk, no bike lanes, Fully developed area Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
6-F 200 LF $1,049.61 $209,921
Median Island 500 LF $180.00 $90,000
Subtotal $299,921
Contingency 15% $44,988
Environmental 7.5% $22,494
Engineering and Permits 35% $104,972
Total $472,376
Rounded $472,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $472,000
Widen to 6 Lanes
M (edian)

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
Additional Lane and Frontage
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
195 White Rock Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Sunrise Boulevard to Luyung Drive Lanes 2-6 6 6
Existing Condition: Sunrise to Fitzgerald - 6 lane at ultimate with painted median Fitzgerald to Luyung - painted median, south side at ultimate, north side has 450ft of one lane, remainder at ultimate Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
1 LS $2,610,000.00 $2,610,000
$0
$0
Subtotal $2,610,000
Contingency 15% $391,500
Environmental 7.5% $195,750
Engineering and Permits 35% $913,500
Total $4,110,750
Rounded $4,111,000
Other Funding $3,812,085
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $298,665
196 White Rock Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Luyung Drive to Rancho Cordova Parkway Lanes 2 6 6 Existing Condition: 250ft of ultimate frontage, remainder at one lane each way Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
1 LS $3,340,000.00 $3,340,000
Subtotal $3,340,000
Contingency 20% $668,000
Environmental & ROW 7.5% $250,500
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,169,000
Total $5,427,500
Rounded $5,428,000
Other Funding $2,725,930
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,702,070
Reflects detailed cost estimate prepared separately
Reflects detailed cost estimate prepared separately
"Other funding" for Projects 195, 196 and 290 proportionally split based on total cost estimate "Other funding" for Projects 195, 196 and 290 proportionally split based on total cost estimate Widen and improve existing roadway and intersections
Widen and improve existing roadway
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
197 White Rock Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Pkwy to International Dr Lanes 2 6 6 Existing Condition: 2 lane, no shoulder, no median
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Widen to 6 Lanes 6-F 3700 LF $1,049.61 $3,883,539
Subtotal $3,883,539
Contingency 20% $776,708
Environmental & ROW 7.5% $291,265
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,359,238
Total $6,310,750
Rounded $6,311,000
Other Funding $1,901,622
County Portion 50% $2,204,689
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $2,204,688.80
198 White Rock Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From International Drive to Rio del Oro Parkway Lanes
Existing Condition: 2 lane, no shoulder, no median
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Improve Fee Portion 6-F 1700 LF $1,049.61 $1,784,329
Subtotal $1,784,329
Contingency 15% $267,649
Environmental 7.5% $133,825
Engineering and Permits 35% $624,515
Total $2,810,317
Rounded $2,810,000
Other Funding $0
County Portion 50% $1,405,000
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,405,000

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
199 White Rock Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rio del Oro Parkway to Villagio Drive Lanes 2 6 6
Existing Condition: 2 lane, no shoulder, no median
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Improve Fee Portion 6-F 2200 LF $1,049.61 $2,309,131
Subtotal $2,309,131
Contingency 15% $346,370
Environmental 7.5% $173,185
Engineering and Permits 35% $808,196
Total $3,636,881
Rounded $3,637,000
Other Funding $0
County Portion 50% $1,818,500
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,819,000
200 White Rock Road 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Villagio Drive to City Limit Lanes 2 6 6
Existing Condition: 2 lane, no shoulder, no median
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Improve Fee Portion 6-F 1800 LF $1,049.61 $1,889,289
Subtotal $1,889,289
Contingency 15% $283,393
Environmental 7.5% $141,697
Engineering and Permits 35% $661,251
Total $2,975,630
Rounded $2,976,000
Other Funding $0
County Portion 50% $1,488,000
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $1,488,000

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT

COUNTY SHARED PROJECT
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
203 Zinfandel Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Douglas Road to Villages of Zinfandel / City Limit Lanes 2 6 6 Existing Condition: 2 lane built by county
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 6 Lanes 4-F 2950 LF $777.40 $2,293,330
Bridge/Culvert Bridge/Culvert 4410 SF $295.00 $1,300,950 Subtotal $3,594,280
Contingency 15% $539,142
Environmental 7.5% $269,571
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,257,998
Total $5,660,991
Rounded $5,661,000
Other Funding $0
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $5,661,000
204.1 North Campus Drive 2007 Ultimate 2055
From Rancho Cordova Pkwy to Americanos Blvd Lanes 0 4 4 Existing Condition: Undeveloped
Item Description Section Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New 4 Lanes 4-F 5460 LF $777.40 $4,244,604
Subtotal $4,244,604
Contingency 15% $636,691
Environmental 7.5% $318,345
Engineering and Permits 35% $1,485,611
Total $6,685,251
Rounded $6,685,000
Other Funding $0
Assumes 2 additional lanes and median (no frontage) funded by City and that 2 frontage lanes would be funded by County
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

ID No Project Information and Cost
Remaining Fee Portion Cost $6,685,000
12/20/2021 C:\Users\michael.mauch\Desktop\2021 TDIF Program - Master Spreadsheet - Draft Fees - 8-4-2021 ITEM 10.2.

ATTACHMENT 3