Agenda packet — Rancho Cordova City Council, October 2, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
Attention: City Clerk
____________________________________________________________________________

AMENDED NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2018-2
(COMMUNITY PLACES AND NEIGHBORHOOD GREENS)

OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114.5 of the Streets and Highways Code and Section 53328.3 of the Government Code, the undersigned clerk of the legislative body of the City of Rancho Cordova (the “City”), State of California, hereby gives notice that a lien to secure payment of special taxes is hereby imposed by the City Council of the City. The special taxes secured by this lien are authorized to be levied for the purpose of providing services as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof.

The special taxes are authorized to be levied within Annexation Boundary Map No. 7 (the “Annexed Area”) of the City of Rancho Cordova Community Facilities District No. 2018-2 (Community Places and Neighborhood Greens ) (the “District”), which has now been officially annexed to the District, and the lien of the special taxes are a continuing lien which shall secure each annual levy of the special taxes and which shall continue in force and effect until the special taxes cease to be levied and a notice of cessation of special taxes is recorded in accordance with Section 53330.5 of the Government Code.

The rate, method of apportionment, and manner of collection of authorized special t ax is as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. The obligation to pay the special tax may not be permanently satisfied by way of prepayment of the special tax and the lien of the special tax cannot be canceled in this manner.

Notice is further given that upon the recording of this notice in the office of the county recorder, the obligation to pay the special tax levies shall become a lien upon all nonexempt real property within the District in accordance with Section 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code.

The name of the owner and the assessor’s parcel number(s) of the real property included within the District and not exempt from the special tax are as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto.

Reference is hereby made to the Notice of Special Tax Lien with respect to the District recorded on October 4, 2018, as Document No. 201810040991 page 15, in the office of the County Clerk & Recorder of the County of Sacramento, California, which contains a list of the then existing owners and assessor tax parcel numbers of the original boundaries of the District.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 134 of 436 ends

Reference is made to the boundary map of the District recorded on August 21, 2018, as Document No. 201808210674, at Book 126 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Page No.19, in the office of the County Clerk & Recorder of the County of Sacramento, California, (the “ Original Boundary Map”), and the map of the Annexed Territory recorded at Book 133, Page 4, Document No. 202103290292 in the Office of the County Recorder for the County of Sacramento, State of California, which map together with the Original Boundary Map and the boundary maps of record for all prior annexations, are now the final boundary maps of the Community Facilities District including the Annexed Territory.

For further information concerning the current and estimated future tax liability of owners or purchasers of real property subject to this special tax lien, interested persons should contact the Department of Public Works of the City of Rancho Cordova , 2729 Prospect Park Drive , Rancho Cordova, California 95670, (916) 851-8710.

Dated: ___________________________ ___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CORDOVA
ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 135 of 436 ends

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2018-2
(COMMUNITY PLACES AND NEIGHBORHOOD GREENS)

LIST OF FACILTIES AND SERVICES
The City of Rancho Cordova (the “City”) is establishing Community Facilities District No. 2018 - 2 (Community Places and Neighborhood Greens) (the “CFD”) to fund, in whole or in part, the following facilities and services (the terms “facilities” and "services" shall have the meaning as given in the M ello- Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982.

AUTHORIZED FACILITIES
The CFD is being established to fund the maintenance, operations, servicing, rehabilitation and replacement of CFD Facilities. The costs associated with the initial capital improvements required for the construction or installation of the Facilities are not included in the costs to be funded by the CFD. A general list of the Facilities to be maintained by the CFD include:

1. Community Plazas. Community Plazas are a component of the Community Places category of City Open Space, as defined in the City’s Open Space Guidelines. Community Plazas are typically located in Village and Town Centers to provide areas for congregation, socializing and co mmunity events/activities. Two Community Plazas are planned for the CFD.

Specific amenities will be determined on a site by site basis. Typical amenities may include, but are not limited to, expanded public gathering space; outdoor seating and shade structures; signage and lighting; trash and recycling receptacles; bicycle park ing; features of interest such as fountains, art work, engaging landscapes and other unique structures/treatments; hardscape areas; and formal landscaping in planter boxes.

This system of trails will have an estimated 250,530 linear feet of bicycle trails (over 47 miles) that will be a part of the City’s overall Bicycle Trail network.

Primary trails are 16’ in overall width (12’ of asphalt pavement with a 2’ shoulder on each side). Primary trails are typically located within a corridor of at least 50 feet in width, with larger widths up to 100 feet encouraged. Corridors of less than 50 feet in width may be accepted based on the unique opportunities ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 136 of 436 ends

and constraints within a given development project. Secondary trails feed into primary trails and provide connections to significant corridors and local trails. Secondary trails are 14’ in overall width (10’ of asphalt pavement with a 2’ shoulder on each side) and are typically located within a corridor of at least 35 feet in width, with larger widths encouraged.

Typical amenities for Bicycle Trails may include, but are not limited to, native and/or draught tolerant plants; railings and edge protections; grade separated crossings; signage and lighting; shade trees; and trailheads where trails begin or connect to other trails. Trailheads are small open space areas that may include benches; signage and lighting; trash and recycling receptacles; maps; and other elements to assist trail users.

3. Neighborhood Greens. Neighborhood Greens are the most commonly occurring component of the Community Places category of City Open Space, as defined in the City’s Open Space Guidelines.

Neighborhood Greens are small -scale urban and suburban open spaces serving as places to meet , gather, socialize, commune with nature or otherwise participate in passive recreation activities.

Neighborhood Greens are typically located in small developed and landscaped areas generally within residential neighborhoods in new development areas.

Specific amenities will be determined on a site by site basis. Typical amenities may include, but are not limited to, public gathering space; multi -purpose tables and shade structures; signage and lighting; trash and recycling receptacles; water fountains, barbeque areas and bicycle parking; walking paths, including those with special paving materials; landscape areas and hardscape areas; and distinguished areas with a special design feature such as tree variety or amenity.

4. Other Facilities. In addition to the facilities described above, the following features as described in the City’s Open Space Guidelines may be maintained by the CFD:

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 137 of 436 ends

Additionally, Facilities may include any other facilities permitted under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, including the facilities described in Section 53313.5 of the California Government Code, as amended from time to time, provided that such facilities satisfy at least one of the following criteria: 1) augment, improve or expand existing CFD Facilities that are primarily for the benefit of the CFD; or 2) repair or rehabilitate existing CFD Facilities.

AUTHORIZED SERVICES
The CFD is being established to fund the cost of all authorized CFD Services which are to include, but are not limited to:

1. Capital Replacement. Capital Replacement includes any and all costs associated with repairing and replacing any of the Facilities described above.

2. Maintenance. Maintenance includes any and all costs associated with maintaining, operating and servicing all of the Facilities described above. This includes, but is not limited to the cost of labor, mechanical and automotive expenses, maintenance services, materials and supplies, water, electricity and other utilities, refuse collection, sewage disposal, security services or other costs incurred for the Facilities.

3. General CFD Costs. General Costs include any and all administrative costs associated with the CFD including, but not limited to, the costs of setting the annual levy and the collection of Special Taxes, such as county tax collection fees, consultant fees, legal fees and city staff costs.

Additionally, Services may include any other facilities permitted under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, including the facilities described in Section 53313.5 of the California Government Code, as amended from time to time, provided that su ch services are related to at least one of the following criteria: 1) the augmentation, improvement or expansion of existing Facilities that are primarily for the benefit of the CFD; or 2) the reparation or rehabilitation of existing Facilities.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 138 of 436 ends

EXHIBIT B
City of Rancho Cordova
Community Facilities District No. 2018 -2
(Community Places and Neighborhood Greens)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
A Special Tax as described herein and authorized under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”) shall be applicable to parcels of land within the Community Facilities District No. 2018-2 (Community Places and Neighborhood Greens) (the “CFD”) of the City of Rancho Cordova (the “City”), including any parcels of land subsequently annexed into the CFD unless a separate Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax is adopted at the time of annexation. The Special Tax shall be levied and collected as determ ined by the City through the application of the Rate and Method of Apportionment as described below.

A. Definitions
“Act” means the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. “Age-Qualified Residential Parcel” means a Residential Parcel within an age-qualified community as defined in the Fair Housing Act of 1968 or the 1995 Housing for Older Persons Act including amendments to those Acts.
“Age-Qualified Multi -Family Residential Parcel” means a Multi -Family Residential Parcel that meets the criteria for an Age -Qualified Residential Parcel. “Age-Qualified Single Family Residential Parcel” means a Single Family Residential Parcel that meets the criteria for an Age -Qualified Residential Parcel. “Administrative Expenses” means the actual or reasonably estimated costs incurred by the City acting for and on behalf of the CFD as administrator thereof, to determine, levy and collect the Special Taxes, in responding to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes, including sa laries of City employees and a proportionate amount of the City’s general administrative overhead related thereto; the fees of consultants and legal counsel providing services related to the administration of the CFD; any amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD for any other administrative purposes; and any other costs required to administer the CFD as determined by the City. “Annual Special Tax” means the total Special Tax levied against a Residential Parcel in the CFD in a Fiscal Year.
“Assessor’s Parcel” or “Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the County Assessor of the County designating lots or parcels by an Assessor’s Parcel Number.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 139 of 436 ends

“Assessor’s Parcel Number” means the Assessor’s Parcel Number for any Parcel based on the County Assessor’s secured property tax roll as of July 1 of each Fiscal Year. “Authorized Facilities and Services” or “Facilities and Services” means the authorized facilities, maintenance activities and/or services, and expenses that may be funded by the CFD pursuant to the Act as amended, including, without limitation, the facilities and services authorized to be funded by the CFD as set forth in the documents adopted by the City Council at the time the CFD was formed.
“Base Year” means the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019. “Building Permit” means a building permit issued by the City prior to the June 30 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied.
“Capital Replacement Reserve Fund(s)” means a fund or funds that may be maintained for the CFD to provide for the accumulation and holding of funds for long -term capital projects, asset replacement, or other large anticipated expenditures.
“CFD” or “CFD No. 2018 -2” means Community Facilities District No. 2018 -2 (Community Places and Neighborhood Greens) of the City of Rancho Cordova. “CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes. “City” means the City of Rancho Cordova.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova, acting as legislative body of the CFD.
“County” means the County of Sacramento.
“Developed Residential Parcel” means any residential parcel for which a building permit has been issued by the City prior to the start of the current Fiscal Year. “Dwelling Unit” means each separate residential dwelling unit that comprises an independent facility capable of conveyance or rental separate from adjacent residential dwelling units. “Final Subdivision Map” means a subdivision of property creating residential buildable lots by recordation of a Final Subdivision Map or parcel map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), or recordation of a condominium plan pursua nt to the California Civil Code 1352, that creates individual lots for which building permits may be issued without further subdivision and is recorded prior to June 30 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levi ed.
“Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending the following June 30. “Maximum Annual Special Tax” means the Maximum Special Tax that may be levied against a Taxable Parcel in a Fiscal Year determined in accordance with Section C and Section D. “Maximum Special Tax Rate” means the amount shown in Section C that is used in calculating the Maximum Annual Special Tax that may be levied on a Residential Parcel based on its residential land use and the number of residential Dwelling Units on the Parcel for a Fiscal Year.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 140 of 436 ends

“Multi-Family Residential Parcel” means a Residential Parcel with authorized residential use to consist of two or more for -rent Dwelling Units that share common walls, including, but not limited to, apartments and Residential Property that are not for sale to an end user and are under com mon management.
“Operating Reserve Fund” means a fund that may be maintained for the CFD each Fiscal Year to provide necessary cash flow to pay for the operation, maintenance and servicing of the CFD Facilities, Administrative Expenses and any other allowable CFD costs through the first six mont hs of each Fiscal Year, which is at or around the time in which the City will receive the first allocation from the County of the annual Special Tax levy.
“Other Land Use Parcel” means a Taxable Parcel that does not have authorized residential use that is verified by issuance of a Building Permit for residential use, secured assessment roll classification for residential land use and assessed valuation that includes the improved v alue of residential Dwelling Unit(s) by the County Assessor, Final Subdivision Map or other authorization of the City or County allowing the Parcel to be used for residential purposes. “Proportionately” means that the ratio of the Annual Special Tax to the Maximum Annual Special Tax is equal for all Taxable Parcels levied within the CFD. “Public Parcel” means any Parcel, in its entirety, that is or is intended to be publicly owned and is normally exempt from the levy of general ad valorem property taxes under California law, including, but not limited to, public streets, schools, parks, fire stations, po lice stations, and public drainage ways; public landscaping, wetlands, greenbelts, and public open space. These parcels are exempt from the levy of Special Taxes and classified as Tax -Exempt Parcels. “Residential Parcel” means a Taxable Parcel that does have authorized residential use. A Residential Parcel is further classified as either a Single -Family Residential or a Multi -Family Residential Parcel depending on the type of residential use authorized for the Parcel. On ce classified as a Residential Parcel, no Parcel shall be removed from the Residential Parcel classification unless the Building Permit or other authorization expires, is revoked, or is otherwise terminated.
“Resolution of Formation” means the City Council resolution establishing the CFD and authorizing the levy the Special Tax.
“Single-Family Residential Parcel” means a Residential Parcel with authorized residential use to consist of one Dwelling Unit that may or may not share common walls with one or more other Dwelling Unit(s), including, but not limited to, detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and other Residential Parcels that are for sale to an end user and are not under common management.
“Special Tax” means any Special Tax authorized to be levied in the CFD under the Act and the Resolution of Formation.
“Special Tax Requirement” means the amount, as determined by the CFD Administrator, for any Fiscal Year to: (i) pay the costs for the operation, maintenance and services of the Authorized Facilities and Services during such Fiscal Year based upon the service levels established at the time of formation or as may be amended by the City in the future, (ii) pay Administrative Expenses associated with the Special Tax, (iii) establish or replenish the Operating Reserve Fund, (iv) establish or replenish the Capital Replacement Reserve Fund(s), (v) pay incidental expenses related to the Authorized Facilities and Services as authorized pursuant to the Act, and less (vi) any excess ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 141 of 436 ends

funds available in the Operating Reserve Fund, the Capital Replacement Reserve Fund(s), or other funds associated with the CFD as determined by the CFD Administrator. “Tax Escalation Factor” means an annual percentage increase equal to the greater of (i) the annual average Consumer Price Index (CPI), for San Francisco -Oakland-San Jose, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the prior calendar year, or (ii) three percent (3%). If the CPI listed abov e is no longer published, the Administrator shall select a new tax escalation factor that is reasonably comparable to the CPI that is no longer published.
“Taxable Parcel” means any Parcel that is not a Tax -Exempt Parcel. “Tax-Exempt Parcel” means a Parcel not subject to the Special Tax. Tax -Exempt Parcels are Public Parcels (subject to the limitations set forth in Section B), or privately owned Parcels that are non-developable, such as common areas, wetlands, and open space, all of which are exempt from the levy of Special Taxes as determined by the City.
“Tax Zone” means one of two (2) mutually exclusive tax zones identified in Exhibit 1 of this Rate and Method of Apportionment, which may be updated to include new assessor’s parcels or new Tax Zones added to the CFD as a result of future annexations. “Tax Zone A” means the Tax Zone that includes parcels located in a development that has local neighborhood greens within such development that will be maintained by the City. “Tax Zone B” means the Tax Zone that includes parcels located in a development that does not have local neighborhood greens within such development or has local neighborhood greens that will be maintained by an entity or agency other than the City. “Total Annual Special Tax” means the total of the Annual Special Taxes levied against all Residential Parcels in the CFD in a Fiscal Year.
“Total Maximum Annual Special Tax” means the total of the Maximum Special Taxes that could be levied against all Residential Parcels in the CFD in a Fiscal Year. “Undeveloped Residential Parcel” means any residential parcel for which a building permit has not been issued by the City prior to the start of the current Fiscal Year.

B. Data Collection for the Annual Special Tax Levy
On July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing with the Base Year, the Administrator shall classify the Parcels in the CFD using the Definitions in Section A, the Parcel records of the Assessor’s secured property tax roll as of July 1 and other City or County development approval records as follows:
i. Each Parcel shall be assigned to either Tax Zone A or Tax Zone B; ii. Each Parcel shall be classified as a Taxable Parcel or a Tax -Exempt Parcel;
iii. Each Taxable Parcel shall be further classified as a Residential Parcel or an Other Land Use Parcel;
ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 142 of 436 ends

iv. Each Residential Parcel for shall be classified as a Single -Family Residential Parcel or a Multi -Family Residential Parcel; v. Each Residential Parcel that meets the criteria for an Age -Qualified Residential Parcel shall be further designated as either an Age -Qualified Single Family Residential Parcel or an Age -Qualified Multi -Family Residential Parcel
If a Tax -Exempt Parcel is converted to a Taxable Parcel as a result of the sale of a Tax -Exempt Parcel to a private owner for residential development, it shall become subject to the Special Tax.

Conversely, if a Taxable Parcel is converted to a Tax -Exempt Parcel as a result of either (i) the sale of the Taxable Parcel to a public entity, and such entity is normally exempt from the levy of general ad valorem property taxes under California law or ( ii) the inability of the private owner to develop the parcel as described in the definition of “Tax -Exempt Parcel,” it shall become a Tax -Exempt Parcel.

C. Maximum Special Tax Rates
The annual Maximum Special Tax Rates for Residential Parcels for Base Year 2018/19 are as follows:

Residential Land Use
Maximum Special Tax per Dwelling
Unit
Tax Zone A Tax Zone B
Single-Family Residential Parcel
Age-Qualified Single Family
Residential Parcel
Multi-Family Residential Parcel
Age-Qualified Multi -Family
Residential Parcel
$115.84
$78.54
$60.48
$41.01
$28.49
$19.32
$14.88
$10.09
For each Fiscal Year following the Base Year, each of the Maximum Annual Special Tax Rates shall be increased from the prior Fiscal Year’s respective Maximum Annual Special Tax Rates by multiplying such prior Fiscal Year Maximum Special Tax Rates by the Ta x Escalation Factor.

D. Determination of Multi -Family Residential Parcel’s Maximum Annual Special Tax When a building permit is issued for a Multi -Family Residential Parcel, the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Parcel for which such building permit has been issued for each Fiscal Year shall be determined by multiplying the number of Dwelling Units assign ed to the Parcel times the Maximum Special Tax Rate for the Parcel as determined in Section C.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 143 of 436 ends

E. Levy of the Annual Special Tax
Each year, the CFD Administrator shall levy the Annual Special Tax commencing with Fiscal Year 2018-2019, and for each Fiscal Year thereafter as follows:
i. Each Year on July 1, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Special Tax Requirement for the current Fiscal Year.
ii. The Annual Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Developed Residential Parcel within each Tax Zone up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Annual Special Tax, not to exceed the Special Tax Requirement for the current Fiscal Year. iii. If additional revenue is required to equal the Special Tax Requirement for the current Fiscal Year, the Annual Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on Undeveloped Residential Parcels up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax, not to exceed the re mainder of the Annual Special Tax Requirement for which a Final Subdivision Map has been approved and Authorized Facilities have been accepted for maintenance by the City.

Under no circumstances will the Annual Special Tax levied in any Fiscal Year against any Residential Parcel be increased as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner or owners of any other parcel or parcels within the CFD by more than 10 percent above the amount that would have been levied in that Fiscal Year had there never been any such delinquencies or defaults.

F. Manner of Collection
The Annual Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that the Administrator or its designee may directly bill the Annual Special Tax and may collect the Annual Special Tax at a di fferent time, such as on a monthly or other periodic basis, or in a different manner, if necessary, to meet the City’s financial obligations.

The Administrator shall prepare a listing of the amount of the of the Annual Special Tax levy for each Taxable Parcel and send it to the County Auditor -Controller requesting that it be placed on the County’s secured property tax roll for that Fiscal Year.

G. Limitations
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, no Special Tax shall be levied on any Other Land Use Parcel, Public Parcel or Tax -Exempt Parcel.

H. Duration of the Special Tax
Parcels in the CFD will remain subject to the Special Tax in perpetuity, unless and until such time the City determines the revenues are no longer needed, in which case the Special Tax shall cease to be levied and City shall direct the County Recorder to r ecord a Notice of Cessation of Special Tax. Such notice will state that the obligation to pay the Special Tax has ceased and that the lien imposed by the Notice of Special Tax Lien is extinguished. The Notice of Cessation of Special Tax ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 144 of 436 ends

shall additionally identify the book and page of the Book of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts where the map of the boundaries of the CFD is recorded.

I. Appeals
Any taxpayer who believes that the amount of the Special Tax assigned to a Parcel is in error may file a notice with the City appealing the levy of the Special Tax. The City will then promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the applicant. I f the City verifies that the Special Tax should be modified or changed, the Special Tax levy shall be corrected and, if applicable, a refund or revised tax bill shall be granted for the current Fiscal Year.

Interpretations may be made by Resolution of the City Council for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity as it relates to the Maximum Annual Special Tax Rate, the method of apportionment, the classification of properties or any defini tion applicable to the CFD.

J. Prepayment of the Special Tax Obligation
The Special Tax for a Taxable Parcel may not be prepaid. The Special Tax is collected to fund Authorized Facilities and Services in perpetuity, or until the City Council determines that the Special Tax should no longer be collected.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 145 of 436 ends

Rate and Method of Apportionment
EXHIBIT 1

TAX ZONE DESIGNATIONS

CFD Boundary

Development Boundary Line
Grant Line 208

TAX ZONE A
Douglas 98

TAX ZONE B
Sunridge Lot J

TAX ZONE A
ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 146 of 436 ends

EXHIBIT C
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2018-2
(COMMUNITY PLACES AND NEIGHBORHOOD GREENS)

OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
NAMES OF OWNER(S) AND THE ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER(S)

ASSESSOR PARCEL
NUMBER

NAME OF PROPERTY OWNERS
067-2420-018-0000
067-2420-019-0000
067-2420-020-0000
067-2420-021-0000
067-2420-022-0000
067-2420-023-0000
067-2420-024-0000
067-2420-025-0000
067-2420-026-0000
067-2420-027-0000
067-2420-028-0000
067-2420-029-0000
067-2420-030-0000
067-2420-031-0000
067-2420-032-0000
067-2420-033-0000
067-2420-034-0000
067-2420-001-0000

K.HOVNANIAN AT JAEGER RANCH,
LLC

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B to the Resolution

Page 147 of 436 ends

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Community Facilities District No. 2018-2
(Community Places and Neighborhood Greens)
Annexation No. 7

UNANIMOUS APPROVAL
of Annexation to a Community Facilities District
and Related Matters
To the City Council
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 956703
Members of the City Council:

This constitutes the Unanimous Approval (the “ Unanimous Approval ”) of K.HOVNANIAN AT JAEGER RANCH, LLC, a California limited liability company , the record owner(s) (the “Property Owner”) of the fee title to the real property identified below (the “ Property”) contemplated by Section 53339.3 et seq. of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the “ Act”) to annexation of the Property to the " City of Rancho Cordova Community Facilities District No. 20 18-2 (Community Places and Neighborhood Greens) (the “CFD”), and it states as follows:

1. Property Owner. This Unanimous Approval is submitted by the Property Owner (whether one or more) identified below as or for the recorded owner(s) of the Property identified below. The Property Owner warrants to the City of Ranch Cordova (the “City”) that they are such Property Owner or is legally authorized to execute this Unanimous Approval for and on behalf of such Property Owner.

2. Approval of Annexation . This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the annexation of the Property to the CFD. The CFD was formed to finance the municipal services (the “Services”) described in Exhibit A hereto and made a part hereof.

3. Approval of Special Tax and the Facilities . This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the levy of special taxes (the “Special Taxes”) on the Property to finance the Services, according to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for the CFD attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof (the " Rate and Method").

Exhibit B describes the maximum special tax rate for the Services. This annexed property is placed in Tax Zone A for purposes of computation of the Special Tax.

4. Approval of the Appropriations Limit . This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the appropriations limit established for the CFD.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 148 of 436 ends

5. Waivers and Vote . The Property Owner hereby confirms that this Unanimous Approval constitutes its approval and unanimous vote as described herein and as contemplated by Section 53339.3 et seq. of the Act and Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. The Property Owner hereby waives all other rights with respect to the annexation of the Property, the levy of the Special Taxes on the Property and the other matters covered in this Unanimous Approval.

6. Recordation of Amendment to Notice of Special Tax Lien. The Notice of Special Tax Lien for the CFD was heretofore recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Sacramento, State of California on September 14, 2018, recorded at Book 20180914 at Page 0535.

The Property Owner hereby authorizes and directs the City Clerk to execute and cause to be recorded in the O ffice of the County Recorder of the County of Sacramento an amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien for the CFD as required by Section 3117.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien shall include the Rate and Method as an exhibit thereto.

7. City Warranted. The Property Owner warrants to the City that the presentation of this Unanimous A pproval, any votes, consents or waivers contained herein, and other actions mandated by the City for the annexation of the Property to the CFD shall not constitute or be construed as events of default or delinquencies under any existing or proposed financi ng documents entered into or to be entered into by the Property Owner for the Property, including any “due -on-encumbrance” clauses under any existing security instruments secured by the Property. If requested by the City, the Property Owner agrees, at its own expense, to supply to the City, current title evidence so that the City may verify ownership for the annexation to the CFD.

8. Due Diligence and Disclosures. The Property Owner agrees to cooperate with the City and its attorneys and consultants an d to provide all information and disclosures required by the City about the Special Taxes to purchasers of the Property or any part of it.

9. Agreements. The Property Owner further agrees to execute such additional or supplemental agreements as may be required by the City to provide for any of the actions and conditions described in this Unanimous Approval, including any cash deposit required to pay for the City's costs in annexing the Property to the CFD.

10. The Property. The Property is identified as follows:

County of Sacramento Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:
067-2420-018: The property consists of a total of 11.22 acres. 067-2420-019: The property consists of a total of 17.74 acres. 067-2420-020: The property consists of a total of 12.83 acres. 067-2420-021: The property consists of a total of 17.22 acres. 067-2420-022: The property consists of a total of 9.30 acres. 067-2420-023: The property consists of a total of 7.94 acres.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 149 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 150 of 436 ends

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Community Facilities District No. 2018-2
(Community Places and Neighborhood Greens)

LIST OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES AUTHORIZED TO BE FUNDED The City of Rancho Cordova (the “City”) is establishing Community Facilities District No. 2018-2 (Community Places and Neighborhood Greens) (the “CFD”) to fund, in whole or in part, the following facilities and services (the terms “facilities” and "services" shall have the meaning as given in the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982.

1. Community Plazas. Community Plazas are a component of the Community Places category of City Open Space, as defined in the City’s Open Space Guidelines. Community Plazas are typically located in Village and Town Centers to provide areas for congregation, socializing and community events/activities. Two Community Plazas are planned for the CFD.

Specific amenities will be determined on a site-by-site basis. Typical amenities may include, but are not limited to, expanded public gathering space; outdoor seating and shade structures; signage and lighting; trash and recycling receptacles; bicycle parking; features of interest such as fountains, art work, engaging landscapes and other unique structures/treatments; hardscape areas; and formal landscaping in planter boxes.

2. Bicycle Trails. Bicycle Trails are a component of the Green Infrastructure category of City Open Space as define d in the City’s Open Space Guidelines. A system of Bicycle Trails, defined as the Class I Bicycle Trails East of Sunrise Boulevard in the City’s Bicycle Trails Master Plan, is planned for the CFD. This system of trails will have an estimated 250,530 linear feet of bicycle trails (over 47 miles) that will be a part of the City’s overall Bicycle Trail network.

Primary trails are 16’ in overall width (12’ of asphalt pavement with a 2’ shoulder on each side).

Primary trails are typically located within a cor ridor of at least 50 feet in width, with larger widths up to 100 feet encouraged. Corridors of less than 50 feet in width may be accepted based on the unique opportunities and constraints within a given development project.

Secondary trails feed into prima ry trails and provide connections to significant corridors and local trails. Secondary trails are 14’ in overall width (10’ of asphalt pavement with a 2’ shoulder ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 151 of 436 ends

on each side) and are typically located within a corridor of at least 35 feet in width, with larger widths encouraged.

3. Neighborhood Greens. Neighborhood Greens are the most commonly occurring component of the Community Places category of City Open Space, as defined in the City’s Open Space Guidelines. Neighborhood Greens are small-scale urban and suburban open spaces serving as places to meet, gather, socialize, commune with nature or otherwise participate in passive recreation activities. Neighborhood Greens are typically located in small developed and landscaped areas generally within residential neighborhoods in new development areas.

Specific amenities will be determined on a site -by-site basis. Typical amenities may include, but are not limited to, public gathering space; multi -purpose tables, benches and shade structures; signage and lighting; trash and recycling receptacles; water fount ains, barbeque areas and bicycle parking; walking paths, including those with special paving materials; landscape areas and hardscape areas; and distinguished areas with a special design feature such as tree variety or other similar amenity.

4. Other Faciliti es. In addition to the facilities described above, the following features as described in the City’s Open Space Guidelines may be maintained by the CFD:

Community Places Green Infrastructure
Neighborhood Greens Pedestrian Trails
Town Greens Pedestrian Paseos
Community Gardens / Rose Gardens / Display
Gardens
Utility Easements
Water Resources / Streams / Ponds / Lakes Green Streets Community Wide Open Space Facilities Local Residential Street Landscape Enhancement
Outdoor Amphitheaters Enhanced Detention Basins / Drainage Ways Additionally, Facilities may include any other facilities permitted under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, including the facilities described in Section 53313.5 of the California Government Code, as amended from time to time, provided that such facilities satisfy at least one of the following criteria: 1) augment, improve or e xpand existing CFD ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 152 of 436 ends

Facilities that are primarily for the benefit of the CFD; or 2) repair or rehabilitate existing CFD Facilities.

AUTHORIZED SERVICES
The CFD is being established to fund the cost of all authorized CFD Services which are to include, but are not limited to:

1. Capital Replacement. Capital Replacement includes any and all costs associated with repairing and replacing any of the Facilities described above.

2. Maintenance. Maintenance includes any and all costs associated with maintaining, operating and servicing all of the Facilities described above. This includes, but is not limited to the cost of labor, mechanical and automotive expenses, maintenance services, materials and supplies, water, electricity and other utilities, refuse collection, s ewage disposal, security services or other costs incurred for the Facilities.

Additionally, Services may include any other facilities permitted under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, including the faciliti es described in Section 53313.5 of the California Government Code, as amended from time to time, provided that such services are related to at least one of the following criteria: 1) the augmentation, improvement or expansion of existing Facilities that ar e primarily for the benefit of the CFD; or 2) the reparation or rehabilitation of existing Facilities.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 153 of 436 ends

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Community Facilities District No. 2018 -2
(Community Places and Neighborhood Greens)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL
TAX
A Special Tax as described herein and authorized under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”) shall be applicable to parcels of land within the Community Facilities District No. 2018-2 (Community Places and Neighborhood Greens) (the “CFD”) of the City of Rancho Cordova (the “City”), including any parcels of land subsequently annexed into the CFD unless a separate Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax is adopt ed at the time of annexation. The Special Tax shall be levied and collected as determined by the City through the application of the Rate and Method of Apportionment as described below.

A. Definitions
“Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 19 82, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. “Age-Qualified Residential Parcel” means a Residential Parcel within an age - qualified community as defined in the Fair Housing Act of 1968 or the 19 95 Housing for Older Persons Act including amendments to those Acts.
“Age-Qualified Multi -Family Residential Parcel” means a Multi -Family Residential Parcel that meets the criteria for an Age -Qualified Residential Parcel. “Age-Qualified Single Family Residential Parcel” means a Single Family Residential Parcel that meets the criteria for an Age -Qualified Residential Par cel. “Administrative Expenses” means the actual or reasonably estimated costs incurred by the City acting for and on behalf of the CFD as administrator thereof, to determine, levy and collect the Special Taxes, in responding to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes, including salaries of City employees and a proportionate amount of the City’s general administrative overhead related thereto; the fees of consultants and legal counsel providing services related to the administration of the CFD; any amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD for any other administrative purposes; and any other costs required to administer the CFD as determined by the City. “Annual Special Tax” means the total Special Tax levied against a Residential Parcel in the CFD in a Fiscal Year.
“Assessor’s Parcel” or “Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the County Assessor of the County designating lots or p arcels by an Assessor’s Parcel Number.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 154 of 436 ends

“Assessor’s Parcel Number” means the Assessor’s Parcel Number for any Parcel based on the County Assessor’s secured property tax roll as of July 1 of each Fiscal Year. “Authorized Facilities and Services” or “Faciliti es and Services” means the authorized facilities, maintenance activities and/or services, and expenses that may be funded by the CFD pursuant to the Act as amended, including, without limitation, the facilities and services authorized to be funded by the C FD as set forth in the documents adopted by the City Council at the time the CFD was formed. “Base Year” means the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019.
“Building Permit” means a building permit issued by the City prior to the June 3 0 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied. “Capital Replacement Reserve Fund(s)” means a fund or funds that may be maintained for the CFD to provide for the accumulation and holding of funds for long -term capital projects, asset replacement, or other large anticipated expenditures. “CFD” or “CFD No. 2018 -2” means Community Facilities District No. 2018 -2 (Community Places and Neighborhood Greens) of the City of Rancho Cordova. “CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes.
“City” means the City of Rancho Cordova.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova, acting as legislative body of the CFD.
“County” means the County of Sacramento.
“Developed Residential Parcel” means any residential parcel for which a building permit has been issued by the City prior to the start of the current Fiscal Year. “Dwelling Unit” means each separate residential dwelling unit that comprises an independent facility capable of conveyance or rental separate from adjacent residential dwelling units.
“Final Subdivision Map” means a subdivision of property creating residential buildable lots by recordation of a Final Subdivision Map or parcel map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), or recordation of a condominium plan pursua nt to the California Civil Code 1352, that creates individual lots for which building permits may be issued without further subdivision and is recorded prior to June 30 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied. “Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending the following June 30. “Maximum Annual Special Tax” means the Maximum Special Tax that may be levied against a Taxable Parcel in a Fiscal Year determined in accordance with Section C and Section D.
“Maximum Special Tax Rate” means the amount shown in Section C that is used in calculating the Maximum Annual Special Tax that may be levied on a Residential Parcel ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 155 of 436 ends

based on its residential land use and the number of residential Dwelling Units on the Parcel for a Fiscal Year.
“Multi-Family Residential Parcel” means a Residential Parcel with authorized residential use to consist of two or more for -rent Dwelling Units that share common walls, including, but not limited to, apartments and Residential Property that are not for sale to an end user and are under common management.
“Operating Reserve Fund” means a fund that may be maintained for the CFD each Fiscal Year to provide necessary cash flow to pay for the operation, maintenance and servicing of the CFD Facilities, Administrative Expenses and any other allowable CFD costs through the first six months of each Fiscal Year, which is at or around the time in which the City will receive the first allocation from the County of the annual Special Tax levy. “Other Land Use Pa rcel” means a Taxable Parcel that does not have authorized residential use that is verified by issuance of a Building Permit for residential use, secured assessment roll classification for residential land use and assessed valuation that includes the improved value of residential Dwelling Unit(s) by the County Assessor, Final Subdivision Map or other authorization of the City or County allowing the Parcel to be used for residential purposes.
“Proportionately” means that the ratio of the Annual Special T ax to the Maximum Annual Special Tax is equal for all Taxable Parcels levied within the CFD. “Public Parcel” means any Parcel, in its entirety, that is or is intended to be publicly owned and is normally exempt from the levy of general ad valorem property taxes under California law, including, but not limited to, public streets, schools, parks, fire stations, police stations, and public drainage ways; public landscaping, wetlands, greenbelts, and public open space. These parcels are exempt from the levy of Special Taxes and classified as Tax-Exempt Parcels.
“Residential Parcel” means a Taxable Parcel that does have authorized residential use. A Residential Parcel is further classified as either a Single -Family Residential or a Multi-Family Residential Parcel depending on the type of residential use authorized for the Parcel. Once classified as a Residential Parcel, no Parcel shall be removed from the Residential Parcel classification unless the Building Permit or other authorization expires, is revoked, or is otherwise terminated.
“Resolution of Formation” means the City Council resolution establishing the CFD and authorizing the levy the Special Tax.
“Single-Family Residential Parcel” means a Residential Parcel with authorized residential use to consist of o ne Dwelling Unit that may or may not share common walls with one or more other Dwelling Unit(s), including, but not limited to, detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and other Residential Parcels that are for sale to an end user and are not under common management. “Special Tax” means any Special Tax authorized to be levied in the CFD under the Act and the Resolution of Formation.
“Special Tax Requirement” means the amount, as determined by the CFD Administrator, for any Fiscal Year to: (i) pay the costs for the operation, maintenance and ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 156 of 436 ends

services of the Authorized Facilities and Services during such Fiscal Year based upon the service levels established at the time of formation or as may be amended by the City in the future, (ii) pay Administrative Expenses associated with the Special Tax, (iii) establish or replenish the Operating Reserve Fund, (iv) establish or replenish the Capital Replacement Reserve Fund(s), (v) pay incidental expenses related to the Authorized Facilities and Services as authorized pursuant to the Act, and less (vi) any excess funds available in the Operating Reserve Fund, the Capital Replacement Reserve Fund(s), or other funds associated with the CFD as determined by the CFD Administrator. “Tax Escalation Factor” means an annual percentage increase equal to the greater of (i) the annual average Consumer Price Index (CPI), for San Francisco -Oakland-San Jose, All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) for the prior calendar year, or (ii) three percent (3%). If the CPI listed above is no longer published, the Administrator shall select a new tax escalation factor that is reasonably comparable to the CPI that is no longer published. “Taxable Parcel” means any Parcel that is not a Tax -Exempt Parcel. “Tax-Exempt Parcel” means a Parcel not subject to the Special Tax. Tax -Exempt Parcels are Public Parcels (subject to the limitations set forth in Section B), or privately owned Parcels that are non -developable, such as common areas, wetlands, and open space, all of which are exempt from the levy of Special Taxes as determined by the City. “Tax Zone” means one of two (2) mutually exclusive tax zones identified in Exhibit 1 of this Rate and Method of Apportionment, which may be updated to include new assessor’s parcels or new Tax Zones added t o the CFD as a result of future annexations. “Tax Zone A” means the Tax Zone that includes parcels located in a development that has local neighborhood greens within such development that will be maintained by the City.
“Tax Zone B” means the Tax Zone tha t includes parcels located in a development that does not have local neighborhood greens within such development or has local neighborhood greens that will be maintained by an entity or agency other than the City. “Total Annual Special Tax” means the total of the Annual Special Taxes levied against all Residential Parcels in the CFD in a Fiscal Year. “Total Maximum Annual Special Tax” means the total of the Maximum Special Taxes that could be levied against all Residential Parcels in the CFD in a Fiscal Yea r. “Undeveloped Residential Parcel” means any residential parcel for which a building permit has not been issued by the City prior to the start of the current Fiscal Year.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 157 of 436 ends

iii. Each Taxable Parcel shall be further classified as a Residential Parcel or an Other Land Use Parcel;
iv. Each Residential Parcel for shall be classified as a Single -Family Residential Parcel or a Multi -Family Residential Parcel; v. Each Residential Parcel that meets the criteria for an Age -Qualified Residential Parcel shall be further designated as either an Age - Qualified Single Family Residential Parcel or an Age-Qualified Multi- Family Residential Parcel
If a Tax-Exempt Parcel is converted to a Taxable Parcel as a result of the sale of a Tax-Exempt Parcel to a private owner for residential development, it shall beco me subject to the Special Tax.

Conversely, if a Taxable Parcel is converted to a Tax -Exempt Parcel as a result of either (i) the sale of the Taxable Parcel to a public entity, and such entity is normally exempt from the levy of general ad valorem property taxes under California law or (ii) the inability of the private owner to develop the parcel as described in the definition of “Tax -Exempt Parcel,” it shall become a Tax -Exempt Parcel.

C. Maximum Special Tax Rates
The annual Maximum Special Tax Rates for Residential Parcels for Base Year 2018/19 are as follows:

Residential Land Use
Maximum Special Tax per Dwelling
Unit
Tax Zone A Tax Zone B
Single-Family Residential Parcel
Age-Qualified Single Family
Residential Parcel
Multi-Family Residential Parcel
Age-Qualified Multi-Family
Residential Parcel
$115.84
$78.54
$60.48
$41.01
$28.49
$19.32
$14.88
$10.09
For each Fiscal Year following the Base Year, each of the Maximum Annual Special Tax Rates shall be increased from the prior Fiscal Year’s respective Maximum Annual Special Tax Rates by multiplying such prior Fiscal Year Maximum Special Tax Rates by the Tax Escalation Factor.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 158 of 436 ends

D. Determination of Multi -Family Residential Parcel’s Maximum Annual Special Tax When a building permit is issued for a Multi-Family Residential Parcel, the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Parcel for which such building permit has been issued for each Fiscal Year shall be determined by multiplying the number of Dwelling Units assigned to the Parcel times the Maximum Special Tax Rate for the Parcel as determined in Section C.

E. Levy of the Annual Special Tax
Each year, the CFD Administrator shall levy the Annual Special Tax commencing with Fiscal Year 2018 -2019, and for each Fiscal Year thereafter as follows:
i. Each Year on July 1, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Special Tax Requirement for the current Fiscal Year.
ii. The Annual Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Developed Residential Parcel within each Tax Zone up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Annual Special Tax, not to exceed the Special Tax Requirement for the current Fiscal Year.
iii. If additional revenue is required to equal the Special Tax Requirement for the current Fiscal Year, the Annual Special Tax sha ll be levied proportionately on Undeveloped Residential Parcels up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax, not to exceed the remainder of the Annual Special Tax Requirement for which a Final Subdivision Map has been approved and Authorized Facilities ha ve been accepted for maintenance by the City.

F. Manner of Collection
The Annual Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and a t the same time as ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that the Administrator or its designee may directly bill the Annual Special Tax and may collect the Annual Special Tax at a different time, such as on a monthly or other periodic basis, or in a different manner, if necessary, to meet the City’s financial obligations.

The Administrator shall prepare a listing of the amount of the of the Annual Special Tax levy for each Taxable Parcel and send it to the County Auditor-Controller requesting that it be placed on the County’s secured property tax roll for that Fiscal Year.

G. Limitations
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, no Special Tax shall be levied on any O ther Land Use Parcel, Public Parcel or Tax-Exempt Parcel.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 159 of 436 ends

H. Duration of the Special Tax
Parcels in the CFD will remain subject to the Special Tax in perpetuity, unless and until such time the City determines the revenues are no longer needed, in which case the Special Tax shall cease to be levied and City shall direct the County Recorder to record a Notice of Cessation of Special Tax. Such notice will state that the obligation to pay the Special Tax has ceased and that the lien imposed by the Notice of Specia l Tax Lien is extinguished.

The Notice of Cessation of Special Tax shall additionally identify the book and page of the Book of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts where the map of the boundaries of the CFD is recorded.

I. Appeals
Any taxpay er who believes that the amount of the Special Tax assigned to a Parcel is in error may file a notice with the City appealing the levy of the Special Tax. The City will then promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the applicant. If the City verifies that the Special Tax should be modified or changed, the Special Tax levy shall be corrected and, if applicable, a refund or revised tax bill shall be granted for the current Fiscal Year.

Interpretations may be made by Resolution of the City Counc il for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity as it relates to the Maximum Annual Special Tax Rate, the method of apportionment, the classification of properties or any definition applicable to the CFD.

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 160 of 436 ends

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
EXHIBIT 1

TAX ZONE DESIGNATIONS

ITEM 16.8.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 161 of 436 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 16.9.

DATE: October 2, 2023

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Dalia Fadl, Principal Engineer

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO IMPOSE

AN ANNUAL STORMWATER UTILITY FEE FOR THE MAINTENANCE

OF STORM DRAINAGE AND FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS FOR

THE RANCH ACTIVE ADULT PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution designating a time and place for hearing protests in connection with the annual Stormwater Utility Fee for the Ranch Active Adult project.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would declare the Council’s intention to impose an annual Stormwater Utility Fee for the maintenance of the storm drainage and flood protection system in the Ranch Active Adult project.

BACKGROUND

The Council previously approved the Ranch Active Adult project with a condition of approval which requires that the property owner fund operation and maintenance of the storm drainage system. This condition will be satisfied by participation in the City’s Stormwater Utility Fee for storm drainage and flood protection services, which is the subject of this action.

Previously, projects were required to annex to the County’s Stormwater Utility. Since the City has taken over drainage maintenance and operations services from the County, it was necessary to establish the Stormwater Utility District to fund drainage services to ensure compliance with new state and federal laws and regulations. The Stormwater Utility Fee was established on September 2, 2014, by Ordinance No. 7-2014.

DISCUSSION

The property owners have submitted a petition and waiver for the City to institute the proceedings to impose the Stormwater Utility Fee (Attachment 5). The Ranch Active Adult project is being annexed into the Stormwater Utility Fee (Attachment 3). The maintenance services to be funded include the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operation, maintenance, and servicing of the storm drain and flood protection improvements.

A “Rate Analysis Report” was adopted on August 7, 2014, by Resolution No. 103-2014. The

Page 162 of 436 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

report calculated the Fiscal Year 2014-2015 maximum annual Stormwater Utility Fee amount for each parcel proportionate to the estimated stormwater runoff for each parcel. The maximum annual fee increases each subsequent Fiscal Year by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), during the preceding year, for All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco- Oakland-San Jose areas, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. A sample of the Stormwater Utility Fees for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 is provided in Attachment 4.

In accordance with Article XIII D, the “Procedures for the Conduct of a Protest Hearing and Balloting Relating to a Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee” as set forth in Attachment 2 and incorporated herein by reference (the “Procedures”).

The Resolution (Attachment 1) sets the public hearing at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, on October 16, 2023, as the time and date for a hearing on the matters set forth therein and directs the City Clerk to give notice of the public hearing. Notice of the Public Hearing will be published in the Grapevine Independent as required by law.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund. The annual stormwater utility fees collected are deposited into an enterprise fund specifically for the maintenance of the storm drainage and flood protection system.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A to the Resolution

3. Annexation Boundary Map

4. Stormwater Utility Fee Rate Sheet Fiscal Year 2023-24

5. Petition with Waivers

Page 163 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2023 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2023

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

OF CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS IN

CONNECTION WITH THE ANNUAL STORMWATER UTILITY FEE FOR THE RANCHO

CORDOVA RANCH ACTIVE ADULT PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Stormwater Utility Fee was established on September 2, 2014, by Ordinance No. 7-2014 to fund services and facilities furnished by the City in connection with its storm drain system. The Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee may be billed through the County Utility Billing Service (CUBS) as part of the consolidated utility bill or may be collected on the County of Sacramento tax roll, commencing in Fiscal Year 2023-24, in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes of the City in the manner prescribed by Sections 5471 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code; and

WHEREAS, this Council has caused a written report entitled, "Rate Analysis Report," dated August 7, 2014, (the "Written Report") prepared by Harris & Associates and filed with the City Clerk containing a description of each parcel of real property within the City to which the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee is applicable collectively, (the "Identified Parcels") and the amount of the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee for each such Identified Parcel for Fiscal Year 2014-15. The Written Report is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is available for public inspection; and

WHEREAS, Article XIII D of the California Constitution and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750, et seq.) (the "Implementation Act") imposes certain procedural and substantive requirements relating to the imposition of property- related fees and charges (as defined in Article XIII D), such as the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee, including the requirement to conduct a protest hearing and balloting for consideration of the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee. In accordance with Article XIII D and the Implementation Act, the City Council hereby approves the "Procedures for the Conduct of a Protest Hearing and Balloting Relating to a Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee" as set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (the "Procedures"); and WHEREAS, this Council has received petitions and waivers from the owners of 100% of the area of land proposed to be included in the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee in which the Petitioner has waived all notices of hearings and all published notices regarding the establishment of the stormwater utility fee, notices of election, and applicable waiting periods.

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

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.

2. Notice is hereby given that the City Council designates Monday October 16, 2023, at the hour of 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, California, as the time and place for a public hearing on the above- described written report and protests or objections to the imposition of the proposed

Page 164 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2023 Page 2 of 2 Stormwater Utility Fee. At the above-described public hearing, all interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard, and the City Council shall consider all protests against the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee. If written protests against the Stormwater Utility Fee are presented by a majority of owners of the Identified Parcels, the City shall not impose the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee. In the absence of a majority protest, the City Council may submit the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee to a vote of the property owners in accordance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution.

3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of the above-described public hearing in accordance with law and the Procedures.

4. Reference is hereby made to the Written Report described in Section 2 hereof, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee upon parcels of land within the City.

5. The City Council hereby designates Dalia Fadl, Principal Engineer, telephone number (916) 851-8718 to answer inquiries regarding the public hearing, protest proceedings and procedural or technical matters.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 2nd day of October 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Linda Budge, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 165 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 1 ends

EXHIBIT "A"

PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF A

PROTEST HEARING AND VOTE RELATING TO A PROPOSED

STORMWATER UTILITY FEE
The following Procedures have been adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova for the purpose of conducting a protest hearing required by Article XIII D of the California Constitution for consideration of the imposition of a proposed Stormwater Utility Fee (the "Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee”).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Written Report
B. Notice of the Public Hearing on the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee C. Eligibility to File a Protest
D. Submission of Written Protests
E. Conduct of the Public Hearing; Determination of A Majority Protest F. Conduct Property Owner Vote; Determination of a Majority Protest

Page 1 ends

Page 2 ends

Page 3 ends

Page 4 ends

A. Written Report
The City shall cause to be prepared a written report ("Written Report"), which shall contain a list of all parcels to which the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee will apply (the "Identified Parcels") and the amount of the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee for each Identified Parcel for Fiscal Year 2020- 2021.

The Written Report shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk prior to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing on the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee and shall remain available for public inspection.

B. Notice of the Public Hearing on the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee Notice of the public hearing on the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee shall be sent, postage prepaid, by first class mail at least forty-five (45) days prior to the date set for the public hearing to the Record Owner of each Identified Parcel. The forty-five (45) day requirement may be waived with the unanimous consent of the property owners.

Page 166 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 2 ends

"Record Owner" means the owner of an Identified Parcel whose name and address appears on the last acramento County equalized secured property tax assessment roll (the "Assessment Roll"), or in the case of any public entity, the State of California, or the United States, means the representative of that public entity at the address of that entity known to the City.

Notices shall be mailed to the Record Owners of the Identified Parcels, addressed to the names and addresses as they appear on the Assessment Roll, and, in the case of any public entity, the State of California, or the United States, addressed to the public entity at the address of that entity known to the City. In addition, notices shall be mailed to owners of the Identified Parcels, addressed to the names and addresses known to the City Clerk, if different than shown on the Assessment Roll.

Each mailed notice shall contain all of the following:
· A reference to filing of the Written Report;
· A reference to the proposed ordinance imposing the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee and providing for the collection of the Fee on the County tax roll; · The amount of the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee to be imposed upon the Identified Parcel covered by the notice;
· The basis upon which the amount of the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee was calculated; · The reason for the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee;
· A statement that the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee may be collected as part of a consolidated utility bill via CUBS or on the County of Sacramento tax roll each year, commencing with Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
· The effect of a majority protest; and
· The date, time and location of a public hearing on the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee.

The City Clerk, or the designee of the City Clerk, may certify the proper mailing of notices by an affidavit, which shall constitute conclusive proof of mailing in the absence of fraud.

Failure of any person to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings.

Notice of the filing of the Written Report and the public hearing shall be published once a week for two successive weeks in the Grapevine Independent, with the first publication at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the public hearing, and with at least five (5) days intervening between the first and second publications. The published notice may be waived by unanimous consent of the property owners.

C. Eligibility to File a Protest
The Assessment Roll shall be presumptive evidence of ownership of an Identified Parcel for protest purposes.

Page 167 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 3 ends

If the owner of any Identified Parcel is not shown on the Assessment Roll, such owner may file a protest for such parcel by filing with the City Clerk a proxy from the Record Owner in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney or evidence of ownership satisfactory to the City Attorney. Any such proxy or evidence must be received by the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.

When an Identified Parcel is held by a partnership, as community property, in joint tenancy, or as a tenancy in common, any partner, spouse, joint tenant, or tenant in common, as the case may be, may file a protest for such parcel.

An executor, administrator, or guardian may file a protest for an Identified Parcel on behalf of the estate it represents. If such representative is shown on the Assessment Roll as paying taxes and assessments levied against the parcel, that fact shall establish the right of such representative to file the protest. If such representative is not shown on the Assessment Roll, the representative must file with the City Clerk written documentation satisfactory to the City Attorney establishing the legal representation. Any such documentation must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.

When an Identified Parcel is held by a corporation or unincorporated association, a protest may be filed by any person authorized in writing by the board of directors or trustees or other managing body thereof to take such actions. The corporation or unincorporated association must file with the City Clerk written authorization satisfactory to the City Attorney. Any such written authorization must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.

D. Submission of Written Protests
Written protests may be mailed (via U.S. mail) to the City Clerk at City Hall or delivered in person to the City Clerk at City Hall or at the public hearing.

No protests delivered via e-mail will be counted for purposes of determining whether a majority protest exists, but the City Council may, in its discretion, consider such protests in making determinations regarding the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee Each written protest must identify the property covered by the protest and be signed.

No protest received after the close of the public hearing shall be counted in determining the existence of a majority protest. The last pick up by the City Clerk of protests mailed or delivered to City Hall will occur at 5:30 p.m. on the date scheduled for the public hearing. To ensure that protests which are mailed or delivered to City Hall are received by the City Clerk prior to the close of the public hearing, such protests must be received by the City Clerk at City Hall prior to 5:30 p.m. on the date scheduled for the public hearing. The City Clerk shall endorse on each written protest the date it is filed with the City. The City Clerk shall identify any protests which are received after the close of the public hearing.

Written protests may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing by the person who submitted the written protest.

For purposes of determining whether a majority protest exists, only one protest for each Identified Parcel will be counted.

Page 168 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution

Page 4 ends

All written protests shall be considered public records.

E. Conduct of the Public Hearing; Determination of a Majority Protest

1. At the time, date and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council shall:
(i) Conduct a public hearing pertaining to the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee; (ii) Hear all persons interested in the matter of the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee; and (iii) Receive all written communications regarding the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee.

2. The public hearing may be continued from time to time, as the City Council determines is necessary to complete its consideration of the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee.

3. If the City Council determines at the close of the public hearing that written protests have been presented, and not withdrawn, by a majority of owners of the Identified Parcels (i.e., there is a majority protest), the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee shall not be approved.

4. If the City Council determines at the close of the public hearing that there is not a majority protest, the City Council may:
(i) Remedy and correct any clerical error in the Written Report or otherwise modify the Written Report; provided that any such modification or correction shall not result in a Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee for any Identified Parcel which is greater than the amount shown in the notice of the public hearing that was mailed to the Record Owner of the Identified Parcel;
(ii) Confirm the Written Report, as originally filed or as amended in accordance with subparagraph (i), above;
(iii) Adopt a resolution calling for a property owner vote regarding the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee.

F. Conduct Property Owner Vote: Determination of a Majority Consent Pursuant to Government Code Section 53755.S(c), the proceedings described in this section shall not constitute an election or voting for purposes of Article II of the California Constitution or of the Elections Code.

An election on the Proposed Stormwater Utility Fee shall be sent, postage prepaid, by first class mail at least forty-five (45) days prior to the date set for the election to the Record Owner of each Identified Parcel. The forty-five (45) day requirement may be waived with the unanimous consent of the property owners.

Each mailed ballot shall contain all of the following:
•On the face of the envelope in which the notice of election and ballot are mailed, there shall appear in substantially the following form in no smaller than 16-point bold type:
"OFFICIALBALLOT ENCLOSED."

Page 169 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
• The ballot shall include the agency's address for return of the ballot, the date and location where the ballots will be tabulated, and a place where the person returning it may indicate his or her name, a reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed fee. The ballots shall be tabulated in a location accessible to the public. The ballot shall be in a form that conceals its content once it is sealed by the person submitting it. The ballot shall remain sealed until the ballot tabulation commences.

No ballot received after the time of the ballot tabulation shall be counted in determining the existence of majority consent. The last pick up by the City Clerk of ballots mailed or delivered to City Hall will occur at 1:30 p.m. on the date scheduled for the election. To ensure that ballots which are mailed or delivered to City Hall are received by the City Clerk prior to the commencement of the ballot tabulation , such ballots must be received by the City Clerk at City Hall prior to 5:30 p.m. on the date scheduled for the ballot tabulation. The City Clerk shall endorse on each ballot the date it is filed with the City. The City Clerk shall identify any ballots which are received after the commencement of the ballot tabulation.

An impartial person designated by the City who does not have a vested interest in the outcome of the proposed fee shall tabulate the ballots submitted in support of or opposition to the proposed fee. An impartial person includes, but is not limited to, the City Clerk. If the City uses City personnel for the ballot tabulation , or if the City contracts with a vendor for the ballot tabulation and the vendor or its affiliates participated in the research, design, engineering, public education, or promotion of the fee, the ballots shall be unsealed and tabulated in public view to permit all interested persons to meaningfully monitor the accuracy of the tabulation process .

The ballot tabulation may be continued to a different time or different location accessible to the public, provided that the time and location are announced at the location at which the tabulation commenced and posted by the City in a location accessible to the public. The impartial person may use technological methods to tabulate the ballots, including, but not limited to, punchcard or optically readable (bar-coded) ballots. During and after the tabulation , the ballots and, if applicable, the information used to determine the weight of each ballot, shall be treated as public records, subject to public disclosure and made available for inspection by any interested person.

The ballots shall be preserved for a minimum of two years, after which they may be destroyed.

Majority approval of the Record Owners shall exist if the number of valid ballots in favor of the fee exceeds the number of valid ballots in opposition to the fee.

At the time, date and place fixed for the ballot tabulation, the City Council shall direct the City Clerk to commence the ballot tabulation.

If there is no majority approval, the Stormwater Utility Fee shall not be imposed .

If majority approval exists, the City Council may impose the Stormwater Utility Fee pursuant to the Ordinance .

Page 170 of 436 ends

Legend
Annexation Boundary
Parcel Boundary

RANCHO CORDOVA PKWY

CHRYSANTHY BLVD
APN
067-2420-033
APN
067-2420-032
APN
067-2420-027
APN
067-2420-029
APN
067-2420-030
APN
067-2420-031
APN
067-2420-028
APN
067-2420-023
APN
067-2420-022
APN
067-2420-034
APN
067-2420-024
APN
067-2420-018
APN
067-2420-020
APN
067-2420-026
APN
067-2420-021
APN
067-2420-019
APN
067-2420-025
APN
067-2420-001
!

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

STORMWATER UTILITY FEE AREA
ANNEXATION 37
(THE RANCH ACTIVE ADULT PROJECT)
ATTACHMENT 3
ITEM 16.9.

Page 171 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9. ATTACHMENT 4 Stormwater Utility Fee
Sample of the Stormwater Utility Fees for the Ranch Active Adult (gated community) for Fiscal Year 2023-2024:

Table 1
Land Use Description
Total Area
(acres) Sample Fee
Single Family Residential (SFR1) 0.16 $34.96
Multi-Family Residential (MFR1) 1.00 $328.17

Page 172 of 436 ends

Project: The Ranch (Active Adult)

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

PETITION
(With Waivers)
Related to the Imposition of a Stormwater Utility Fee
and Other Related Matters
This is a petition to impose a stormwater utility fee and related matters under the Health and Safety Code and Article XIIID of the California State Constitution and it states as follows:

1. Petitioner. This Petition is submitted by the person (the “Pet itioner”) (whether one or more) identified below as or for the record owner(s) of the parcels of land identified below (the “Prop erty”). The Petitioner warrants to the City that the Petitioner is such owner or is legally authorized to execute this Petition for and on behalf of such owner(s).

2. Proceedings Requested . This Petition asks that the City Council undertake proceedings un der the Health and Safety Code and Article XIIID of the California State Constitution to impose a stormwater utility fee.

3. Boundaries. This Petition asks that the territory to be included consist of that shown on a map of the proposed area of the stormwater utility fee described in Exhibit “A” and attached hereto made a part hereof and which map includes the Property.

4. Purpose. This Petition asks that the stormwater utility fee be created, and the fee be levied to finance all or a part of the storm and flood protection services.

5. Waivers. To expedite the completion of the proceedings, the Petitioner waives all notices of hearing and all published notices regarding the establishment of the stormwater utility fee , notices of election, applicable waiting periods for the holding of any public hearing and for election and all ballot arguments and analysis for th e election, it being acknowledged by the Petitioner that all such notices are for the benefit of the Petitioner and may be waived.

The Property that is subject to this petition is identified as:

ITEM 16.9.

ATTACHMENT 5

Page 173 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.9.

ATTACHMENT 5

Page 174 of 436 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 16.10.

DATE: October 2, 2023

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rob Nunley, Information Technology Manager

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

A CONTRACT WITH PROUD AUDIO VISUAL FOR AUDIO VISUAL

SYSTEM UPGRADES TO THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND

CITY CONFERENCE ROOMS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$169,788

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Proud Audio Visual for audio visual upgrades to the City Council Chambers and other conference rooms for an amount not to exceed $169,788.

BACKGROUND

The City of Rancho Cordova is a member of the Sacramento Metro Cable Television Commission (SMCTC), a joint powers agency that collects a 1% Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access channel fee from cable television operators to support PEG facilities. SMCTC allocates the PEG funding to member agencies to fund capital improvements that support projects, programming, and services relating to PEG access facilities. The City's Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG funding application included audio visual enhancements to the City Council Chambers and other conference rooms to better support the City's desire for greater access to City Council meetings.

The City has selected Proud Audio Visual to complete these upgrades due to their familiarity with the City's existing audio-visual setup and SMCTC requirements. The improvements included in the contract will update aging A/V equipment, ensuring reliability for future council meetings and broadcasts. This new equipment will continue its integration with Zoom to reach those unable to attend in person.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The City has been awarded $212,523 in PEG funding for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The current projected amount to complete the upgrades under the Proud Audio Visual contract is $154,352.

A contingency of 10% has been included in the authorized amount in the event of any increases

Page 175 of 436 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

in equipment prices between now and the project completion date. Only allocated PEG funding will be utilized for this project.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. FY 2023-24 PEG Fee Funding Agreement - City of Rancho Cordova

3. Professional Services Agreement Proud Audio Visual

Page 176 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.10. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2023 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2023

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

OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH

PROUD AUDIO VISUAL FOR AUDIO VISUAL SYSTEM UPGRADES TO THE CITY

COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND CITY CONFERENCE ROOMS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $169,788

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova is a member of the Sacramento Metro Cable Television Commission (SMCTC), a joint powers agency that collects a 1% Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access channel fee from cable television operators to support PEG facilities; and

WHEREAS, SMCTC allocates the PEG funding to member agencies to fund capital improvements that support projects, programming, and services relating to PEG access facilities; and

WHEREAS, the City's Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG funding application included audio visual enhancements to the City Council Chambers and other conference rooms to better support the City's desire for greater access to City Council meetings; and

WHEREAS, the City has selected Proud Audio Visual to complete these upgrades due to their familiarity with the City's existing audio visual setup and SMCTC requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Proud Audio Visual in an amount not to exceed $169,788 for audio visual system upgrades to the City Council Chambers and City conference rooms.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 2nd day of October 2023 by following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Page 177 of 436 ends

ITEM 16.10. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2023 Page 2 of 2 Linda Budge, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 178 of 436 ends

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION

PEG FEE FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR MEMBER AGENCY

FISCAL YEAR 2023-24

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ____ day of ______________, 2023, by and between the Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission (“SMCTC”) and the City of Rancho Cordova , a political subdivision of the State of California (“Member Agency”).

WHEREAS, SMCTC i s a joint powers agency comprised of seven member jurisdictions (collectively, the “Member Agencies”) , one of which is the Member Agency;

WHEREAS, commencing with the 2009-2010 fiscal year, SMCTC began collecting a 1% Public, Educational, and Governmental (“PEG”) access channel fees (“ PEG Fee funding ”) from cable television operators to support PEG facilities;

WHEREAS, SMCTC anticipates that PEG Fee funds will be available to provide to its Member Agenc ies to support projects , pro gramming, and services relating to PEG access facilities;

WHEREAS, SMCTC has received a request(s) for PEG Fee funding from Member Agency and hereby approves that request(s). A copy of Member Agency’s approved request(s) is hereby incorporated by this reference;

WHEREAS, federal law currently restricts the use of PEG Fee funding to capital costs and facilities; and

WHEREAS, SMCTC and Member Agency desire to enter into this Agreement to memorialize the terms under which SMCTC will provide PEG Fee funding to Member Agency, and to expressly set forth the restrictions on Member Agency’s use of such funding.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42078A31-65D8-4B91-8C77-2426F1D48537 August25th

Page 179 of 436 ends

Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG Fee Funding Agreement – Rancho Cordova

Page 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, SMCTC and Member Agency agree as follows:

1. Funding to Member Agency . SMCTC hereby agrees to provide to Member Agency the total not to exceed sum of TWO HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE DOLLARS ($212,523), which consists of PEG Fee funding to be used solely for the purposes summarized in the table below and detailed in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG Project (See Exhibit A)
PEG Equipment / Facilities List $212,523
TOTAL FY 2023-24 PEG FEE FUNDING REQUEST $212,523
The PEG Fee funding will be available during FY 2023-24 as set forth below.

2. Payment Contingent on Receipt of PEG Fees. Member Agency understands that the funding amount set forth in Section 1 will be made to Member Agency solely out of PEG fees collected by SMCTC from cable television operators. Such PEG fees are received in quarterly payments and SMCTC shall be u nder no obligation to pay to Member Agency the amount stated in Section 1, or any other amount, unless SMCTC receives sufficient PEG fees to make such payment. If actual revenue received through PEG Fees is less than anticipated, SMCTC is not obligated to pay Member Agency.

Payments to member agenc y will occur during the fiscal year and will be prioritized by the SMCTC based upon facility needs and available revenue; Member Agency will be reimbursed based on actual expenditures.

Member Agency further understands that SMCTC may enter, or has already entered, into similar funding agreements with other member agencies and with channel licensees that operate one or more of the SMCTC PEG channels. In the event SMCTC receives some, but not all of the PEG fees necessary to fund all such funding agreements, each member agency and channel licensee shall receive available PEG funds based on the criteria set forth above. If there are insufficient PEG fees to satisfy all funding requests during this fiscal year, members agencies not receiving all identified funding shall be entitled to a higher priority in the next fiscal year before any funding for new projects for the next year fiscal year is approved.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42078A31-65D8-4B91-8C77-2426F1D48537

Page 180 of 436 ends

Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG Fee Funding Agreement – Rancho Cordova

Page 3 ends

3. Use of PEG Fee funding . Member Agency understands that t he funding provided to it pursuant to this Agreement originated from PEG access channel fees. As a condition of accepting the PEG Fee funding , Member Agency agrees to use those funds only for capital expenditures and facilities related to the provision of cablecasting on the PEG channels and for no other purpose. SMCTC has both the responsibility and the right under this Agreement to monitor and audit the use of the funding allocated under this Agreement. Member Agency shall agree to cooperate fully with any audit requested by SMCTC.

Since applicable law does not specifically define those expenses that qualify as capital costs, SMCTC has developed a working definition of the types of expenses that it believes qualify for the use of PEG Fee funding .

SMCTC reserves the right to modify its working definition as the law on this topic develops. In accordance with SMCTC’s working definition, PEG Fee funding may be used for the following expenditures: purchase of equipment, rental of facilities, purchase of software, and tangible goods provided that a CPA certifies that the tangible goods qualify as capital expenditures pursuant to standard accounting practices. PEG Fee funding may not be used for the following expenditures: operations, training, maintenance , m aintenance contracts/agreements, employment of staff, and hiring of persons to perform services. Member Agency shall provide for such fiscal control and funding accounting procedures as reasonably necessary to assure proper disbursement, accounting, and expenditures of PEG Fee funding.

Member Agency further understands and agrees that the PEG Fee funding provided by SMCTC was awarded based on a request from Member Agency and that the use of the PEG funds are limited to the expenditures outlined in that request as approved by SMCTC. If Member Agency determines that it will not proceed with the expenditure s as set forth in the request approved by SMCTC during the current fiscal year, then Member Agency may (1) notify SMCTC that the Member Agency will re-submit the PEG Fee funding in the next fiscal year or (2) request an extension for use of the funds within sixty days of the expiration of the current fiscal year. The Executive Director may approve or condition such request in their discretion. The Member Agency may also request to modify the approved use of the funding. The Executive Director may consider and approve requests up to a total of $50,000 DocuSign Envelope ID: 42078A31-65D8-4B91-8C77-2426F1D48537

Page 181 of 436 ends

Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG Fee Funding Agreement – Rancho Cordova

Page 4 ends

in the fiscal year if the requested change(s) is an allowable PEG Funding expenditure. Requests above a total of $ 50,000 will require Commission consideration and action. The Executive Director may consider and approve any request as authorized by this section. The Executive Director may also elect to seek direction or action by the Commission on any such requests.

4. Indemnification. Member Agency shall, at its sole expense, fully indemnify, defend and hold harmless SMCTC and its member agencies, and in their capacity as such, the officers, agents and employees thereof, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, liability and judgments for damages including reasonable attorneys’ fees or otherwise.

For actual or alleged injury to persons or property, including loss of use of property due to an occurrence, whether or not such property is physically damaged or destroyed, directly or indirectl y arising out of or attributable to, in whole or in part, the acts or omissions of Member Agency in connection with, related to, or in any way arising out of Member Agency’s use of the PEG Fee funding provided to it under this Agreement.

Directly or indirectly arising out of or attributable to, in whole or in part, Member Agency’s failure to comply with the provisions of any statute, regulation, or ordinance of the United States, the State of California , SMCTC or any local agency in connection with, related to, or in any way arising out of Member Agency’s use or expenditure of the PEG Fee funding provided to it under this Agreement.

5. Attorneys’ Fees. If any party to this Agreement commences any legal action against another party to this Agreement which ari se out of this Agreement or the performance thereof, the prevailing party in such action may recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses and attorneys’ fees.

6. Reimbursement Requirement; Record Retention. No later than June 1st for each fiscal year , Member Agency shall submit to SMCTC a copy of all invoices and receipts reflecting the expenditures made with such funds during the preceding fiscal year , a request for reimbursement from funds identified in Section 1 above and such other information as SMCTC may DocuSign Envelope ID: 42078A31-65D8-4B91-8C77-2426F1D48537

Page 182 of 436 ends

Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG Fee Funding Agreement – Rancho Cordova

Page 5 ends

require. Any expenses or projects that have not been completed by June 15 of that fiscal year shall be subject to the provisions of section 3 above. SMCTC shall reimburse Member Agency within a reasonable time of receipt of such documentation subject to the provisions of this Agreement, including Sections 2 and 3. Member Agency shall retain all records related to the expenditure of PEG Fee funds for a period of no less than three (3) ye ars from the last expenditure reimbursed under this Agreement.

7. Unauthorized Use of PEG Fee funding. If SMCTC determines that Member Agency has used the PEG Fee funds provided to it under this Agreement for purposes other than capital expenditures and facilities, Member Agency shall return to SMCTC the total sum of those unauthorized expenditures within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice from SMCTC.

8. Ownership of Facilities and Equipment. Member Agency shall own and be solely responsible for a ny facilities, equipment, or other items that it acquires with PEG Fee funding provided to it pursuant to this Agreement.

SMCTC shall have no obligations, and shall bear no costs, with respect to any facilities, equipment, or other items that Member Agenc y acquires with such PEG Fee funding.

9. No Right of Action. Member Agency understands and agrees that it has no right of judicial action against SMCTC for the failure of SMCTC to pay any or all of the funds to Member Agency under this Agreement. Such judicial actions include those at law and/or equity, including, but not limited to, any action to compel payment of the funds, any action for general or special damages, or otherwise.

10. Agreement Contains All Understanding. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Parties, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral regarding the subjects addressed herein. This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by all Parties.

11. Effective Date of Agreement . This Agreement shall be effective on the date next to the signature of the Executive Director of the SMCTC, as authorized by the SMCTC Board on the 1st of September 2022.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42078A31-65D8-4B91-8C77-2426F1D48537

Page 183 of 436 ends

Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG Fee Funding Agreement – Rancho Cordova

Page 6 ends

12. Terms. The term of the PEG Fee funding Agreement ends June 30, 2024.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN

CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION

By: ________________________ By: _______________________ Title: ________________________ Title: ________________________ Date: ________________________ Date: _______________________

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42078A31-65D8-4B91-8C77-2426F1D48537 8/25/2023
Information Technology Manager
Rob Nunley
Executive Director
8/25/2023
Candice Mabra

Page 184 of 436 ends

Fiscal Year 2023-24 PEG Fee Funding Agreement – Rancho Cordova

Page 7 ends

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 PEG FEE FUNDING REQUEST

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42078A31-65D8-4B91-8C77-2426F1D48537

Page 185 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220
La
st Revised January 2022
Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 1 of 15

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AND
Proud Audio Visual
T
HIS AGREEMENT for professional services is made by and between the City of Rancho Cordova, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and Proud Audio Visual, a California Corporation (“Professional”) as of September 20, 2023.

S
ection 1. SERVI CES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Professional shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1 .1 Term of Services. T he term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted above and shall end on August 31, 2024, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A.

Professional shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8.

The time provided to Professional to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1 .2 Standard of Performance. Professional shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Professional is engaged in the geographical area in which Professional practices its profession. Professional shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Professional's profession. 1 .3 Assignment of Personnel. Professional shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Professional shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.
1 .4 Time. P rofessional shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.2 above and to satisfy Professional’s obligations hereunder.

S
ection 2. COM PENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Professional a sum not to exceed ONE

HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS AND FORTY-NINE CENTS ($154,352.49), notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Professional’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Professional’s proposal, attached as Exhibit B, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Professional for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 186 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 2 of 15

shall be the only payments from City to Professional for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.

Professional shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Professional shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.

Professional and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Professional under this Agreement is based upon Professional’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Professional. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Professional and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.

2.1 I
nvoices. Professional shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:

 S
erial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.;
 The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;  A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion;
 At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense;
 T
he total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Professional and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Professional performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by Professional and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Professional reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A;
 The Professional’s signature.

2.2 M onthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Professional.

2.3 Fi
nal Payment. City shall make the final payment within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 187 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 3 of 15

2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Professional pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Professional in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.

I
n no event shall Professional submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment.

2.5 H
ourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Professional on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B.

2.6 R eimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses, if any, are set forth in Exhibit B, and shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0.00). Expenses not listed in Exhibit B are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded.

2.7 P
ayment of Taxes. Professional is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

2.8 P ayment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Professional terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Professional for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Professional shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date.

2.9 A
uthorization to Perform Services. The Professional is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.

Section 3. F ACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Professional shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Professional only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein.

C
ity shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Professional’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 188 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 4 of 15

Section 4. I NSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Professional, 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 work hereunder by the Professional and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors.

Professional shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects to the City. Professional shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Professional's bid. Professional shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Professional has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. Professional shall maintain all required insurance listed herein for the duration of this Agreement.

4.1 W
orkers’ Compensation. Professional 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 Professional. 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, Professional 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 Professional, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement.

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

The requirement to maintain Statutory Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance may be waived by the City upon written verification that Professional does not have any employees.

4.2 C
ommercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.

4.2.1 G eneral requirements. Professional, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00). The commercial general liability and automobile ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 189 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 5 of 15

liability insurance shall be per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a commercial general liability insurance or 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.

4.2.2 M
inimum scope of coverage. Commercial general liability coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 (most recent edition) covering comprehensive General Liability on an “occurrence” basis. 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.

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

a. C
ity 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 Professional, including the insured’s general supervision of Professional; products and completed operations of Professional; premises owned, occupied, or used by Professional; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Professional. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City 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 City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage.

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

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 190 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 6 of 15

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

4.3 P rofessional Liability Insurance. Professional, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) covering the licensed professionals’ errors and omissions.

4. 3.1 Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per claim.

4.3.2 An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.

4.3.3 The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverages are written on a claims-made form:

a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement.

b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates.

c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Professional must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, at the Professional’s sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Professional cancels or does not renew the coverage.

d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.

4.4 A
ll Policies Requirements.

4.4.1 A cceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 191 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 7 of 15

4.4.2 V erification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Professional shall furnish City 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 City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

4.4.3 S
ubcontractors. Professional 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.

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

D
uring the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Professional may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City, 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 Professional 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.

4.4.5 W
aiver of Subrogation . Professional hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer or contractor may require from vendor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsements that may be necessary to e ffect 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 Professional, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.

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

4.5 R
emedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Professional fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Professional’s breach:

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 192 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 8 of 15

 Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;

 Order Professional to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Professional hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Professional demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or

 Terminate this Agreement.

Section 5. I
NDEMNIFICATION AND PROFESSIONAL’S RESPONSIBILITIES.

5.1 G eneral Requirement. Professional shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City 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 caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Professional or its employees, subcontractors, 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 Professional shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Professional 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 Professional to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Professional 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 or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Professional acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration.

5.2 P
ERS Indemnification. In the event that Professional or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Professional providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Professional shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any and all employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Professional or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City, and any attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the City to enforce this Section.

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 193 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 9 of 15

5.3 Design Professionals. To the extent that the services under this Agreement include design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8, as may be amended from time to time, Professional’s duty to indemnify under Sections 5.1 and 5.2 shall only be to the maximum extent permitted by California Civil Code Section 2782.8.

Section 6. S
TATUS OF PROFESSIONAL.

6.1 I ndependent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Professional shall be an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, and shall not be an employee of City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to be inconsistent with the foregoing relationship or status. City shall have the right to control Professional only insofar as the results of Professional's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means and methods by which Professional accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Professional shall have no power or authority by this Agreement to bind the City in any respect. All employees and agents hired or retained by Professional are employees and agents of Professional and not of the City. The City shall not be obligated in any way to pay any wage claims or other claims made against Professional by any such employees or agents, or any other person resulting from performance of this Agreement.

N
otwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Professional and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. Professional shall not allow any employee, agent or subcontractor to become eligible for a claim for PERS benefits.

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

Section 7. L EGAL REQUIREMENTS.

7.1 G overning Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.

7.2 C ompliance with Applicable Laws. Professional and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the performance of the work hereunder, including but not limited to, the California Building Code, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and any copyright, patent or trademark law. Professional’s ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 194 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 10 of 15

f ailure to comply with any law(s) or regulation(s) applicable to the performance of the work hereunder shall constitute a breach of contract.

7.3 O ther Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Professional and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.

7.4 L
icenses and Permits. Professional represents and warrants to City that Professional and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Professional represents and warrants to City that Professional and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Professional and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain valid Business Licenses from City during the term of this Agreement.

7.5 N
ondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Professional shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Professional under this Agreement. Professional shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Professional thereby.

P
rofessional shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.

Section 8. T
ERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.

8.1 Te rmination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Professional.

P
rofessional may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days’ written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.

In the event of termination, Professional shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Professional delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 195 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 11 of 15

Professional or prepared by or for Professional or the City in connection with this Agreement.

8.2 E xtension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Professional understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Professional with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Professional for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period.

8.3 A mendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties.

8.4 A ssignment and Subcontracting. City and Professional recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Professional and is based upon a determination of Professional’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Professional.

Professional may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Professional shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.

8.5 S
urvival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Professional shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

8.6 O
ptions upon Breach by Professional. If Professional materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

8. 6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;

8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Professional pursuant to this Agreement;

8.6.3 R
etain a different Professional to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Professional; or

8.6.4 C harge Professional the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Professional pursuant to Section 2 if Professional had completed the work.

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 196 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 12 of 15

Section 9. KE EPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.

9.1 R ecords Created as Part of Professional ’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Professional prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Professional hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Professional agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties.

9.2 P
rofessional ’s Books and Records. Professional shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Professional pursuant to this Agreement.

9.3 I
nspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Professional to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement.

Section 10 M
ISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

10.1 A ttorneys’ Fees. If a Party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that Party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.

10.2 V
enue. In the event that either Party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the Parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Sacramento or in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 197 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 13 of 15

10.3 S everability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.

10.4 N o 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.

10.5 S uccessors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties.

10.6 U
se of Recycled Products. Professional shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.

10.7 C
onflict of Interest. Professional may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Professional in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.

P
rofessional shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.

Professional hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Professional was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Professional warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Professional understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Professional will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Professional will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Professional. Professional understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.

10.8 S
olicitation. Professional agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 198 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 14 of 15

10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Rob Nunley ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee.

10.10 N
otices. Any written notice to Professional shall be sent to:

Proud Audio Visual
11353 Sunrise Gold Circle Unit A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
ATTN: Bill Proud
Email Address (for Insurance Update Requests)
[email protected]

Any written notice to City shall be sent to:
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
ATTN: IT Manager

10.11 P rofessional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the Contract Administrator or when required by law, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example.

_________________________________________
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.

10.12 I
ntegration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and the compensation schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Professional and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral.

10.13 I RS Form W -9. Professional shall complete and submit Internal Revenue Service Form W-9 to the City before execution of this Agreement. The City’s Finance Director shall have authority to waive this requirement.

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 199 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Last Revised January 2022

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2023 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual Page 15 of 15

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.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA PROFESSIONAL

______________________________ ______________________________ Micah Runner, City Manager [NAME, TITLE]

Date: ____________________ D ate: ____________________

Attest:

______________________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC, City Clerk

Date: ____________________

Approved as to Form:

______________________________
Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 200 of 436 ends

CONTRACT NO.: 2023-220

Professional Services Agreement between September 20, 2 City of Rancho Cordova and Proud Audio Visual--Exhibit A Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 201 of 436 ends

QUOTE
Date
5/30/2023
QUOTE #
3113
CUSTOMER:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
SHIP TO:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Terms
Net 30
Project Name
PEG Funding 2023/2024
Print Name:

Purchase Order No.:
_____________________________________Customer Signature:
_____________________________________
DATE: _____________________________________
Total:

Subtotal:

CA Sales Tax: (8.75%)

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AJA Video AJA - Pak 2000-X3 - 2TB SSD for KiPro Ultra 1.00 2,129.33 2,129.33T Equipment Cobalt - 9241 - Audio DA Card 2.00 587.44 1,174.88T Equipment Cobalt - RM20-9241-D/S - Audio DA Backplane 1.00 232.38 232.38T Equipment Denon - DN-300ZB - Music Player 1.00 378.00 378.00T Equipment Ashley MX-206 Mixer 6 Input 1.00 985.30 985.30T Equipment Panasonic - AW-HE145KPJ - PTZ Camera 5.00 9,783.912 48,919.56T Equipment Panasonic FEC-150GMW Professional PTZ Camera Wall Mount - White 5.00 294.00 1,470.00T Equipment Panasonic - AW-RP60 - PTZ Camera Controller 1.00 2,602.80 2,602.80T Equipment Ubiquiti USW-PRO-24-POE++ Layer 3 Switch - 24 Ports - Manageable - 3 Layer Supported (400 Watts)

1.00 908.90 908.90T
Equipment Transcend - TS256GJF920 - 256GB USB Drive for Helo 1.00 60.00 60.00T M-8S Furman M-8S Power Conditioner with Power Sequencing 1.00 293.75 293.75T AJA Video AJA HD5DA 1x4 HD/SD-SDI Distribution Amplifier - SDI to Clerk PC 1 for Zoom Calls 1.00 277.99 277.99T SDI2USB3 INOGENI SDI to USB 3.0 Capture Device 1.00 650.00 650.00T ANIUSB-MATRIX Shure 4 x 2 Audio network interface connects up to 4 Dante channels and 1 analog output to a room's audio and video conferencing system via USB connection. - Dante audio to Clerk PC 1 for Zoom Calls

1.00 715.40 715.40T
DSAN Corporation PRO-2000-T Limitimer Speaker Timer (Additional Timer Control for Clerk Station 2) 1.00 816.00 816.00T DMC-4KZ-HDO 2-Channel HDMI 4K60 4:4:4 HDR Scaling Output Card for DM Switchers - From PEG 22-23. 1.00 1,336.50 1,336.50T Equipment AJA OG-HA5-4K openGear 4k/2k/HD/SD HDMI 20. To 3G-SDI Converter - From PEG 22-23. 1.00 937.50 937.50T Cable & Connectors Cable, Connectors, & Misc Hardware. 1.00 350.00 350.00T Shipping Shipping 1.00 1,560.00 1,560.00
Project Managment Project Management 1.00 300.00 300.00 CAD Computer Aided Drafting/System Documentation - Update Signal Flow Drawings 1.00 750.00 750.00 Installation Technical Services - Onsite Installation, Setup & Configuration 1.00 8,500.00 8,500.00

Page 1 ends

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 202 of 436 ends

QUOTE
Date
5/30/2023
QUOTE #
3113
CUSTOMER:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
SHIP TO:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Terms
Net 30
Project Name
PEG Funding 2023/2024
Print Name:

Purchase Order No.:
_____________________________________Customer Signature:
_____________________________________
DATE: _____________________________________
Total:

Subtotal:

CA Sales Tax: (8.75%)

SCOPE OF WORK
- Remove the (5) existing Sony PTZ Cameras.
- Remove (1) existing Sony PTZ Camera controller.
- Install (5) new Panasonic AW-HE145KPJ - PTZ Cameras on new mounts - Pull and Terminate (1) CAT6 LAN cable to each of the (5) new camera locations. - Install (1) Panasonic PTZ Camera controller.
- Install (1) POE++ 24 port LAN switch in existing rack. - Remove existing Ashley audio mixer.
- Install (1) new Ashley Mixer
- Install (2) Cobalt - 9241 - Audio DA Cards in open gear Chassis. - Pull & Terminate (1) HD-SDI RG-59 coax cable to Clerk PC 2. - Install HD-SDI DA at Clerk PC 1.
- Install (1) INOGENI SDI to USB 3.0 Capture Device at Clerk PC 1 - Install (1) Shure 4 x 2 Audio network interface at Clerk PC 1 for Zoom Call audio. - Install additional PRO-2000-T Limitimer Speaker Timer at Clerk Station 2 LOBBY
35+ Inch Flat Screen Samsung/QM55B 55"3840x2160 4K UHD LED LCD Display, 500 nit 24/7 - Black 3.00 1,483.02 4,449.06T Shipping Shipping 3.00 145.00 435.00
Programming -CODE Control System Programming 1.00 250.00 250.00 Installation Technical Services - Onsite Installation 1.00 1,200.00 1,200.00

SCOPE OF WORK
- Remove (3)existing NEC E556 Displays In Lobby
- Install (3) new Samsung/QM55B displays on existing universal mount. - Upgrade Crestron control programming for RS-232 control of new display. - E-Waste old display

COLOMA ROOM
35+ Inch Flat Screen NEC/V864Q 86" 4K 3840 x 2160 LED Display 24/7 - Black 1.00 6,948.15 6,948.15T PDM625t-11 Extra Large Universal Flat Screen Tilt Wall Mount ( Display sizes 65 " to 100") 1.00 256.00 256.00T AT-HDVS-210H-TX... HDMI HDBaseT Transmitter (230 ft) over a Single Category Cable 1.00 805.00 805.00T AT-OME-PS62 Atlona AT-OME-PS62 6×2 Matrix Presentation Switcher with USB 1.00 3,774.40 3,774.40T AT-UHD-EX-70C-RX 4K/UHD HDMI Over HDBaseT Receiver with Control and PoE 1.00 309.40 309.40T

Page 2 ends

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 203 of 436 ends

QUOTE
Date
5/30/2023
QUOTE #
3113
CUSTOMER:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
SHIP TO:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Terms
Net 30
Project Name
PEG Funding 2023/2024
Print Name:

Purchase Order No.:
_____________________________________Customer Signature:
_____________________________________
DATE: _____________________________________
Total:

Subtotal:

CA Sales Tax: (8.75%)

1.00 3,619.00 3,619.00T
MXA920W-S Ceiling Array Microphone with Shure® IntelliMix® DSP Suite, White outputs, 8 channels configurable USB audio, Sona™ Acoustic Echo

1.00 4,411.40 4,411.40T
VC-4-PC-3 Computer with Crestron Virtual Control Server Software 1.00 2,100.00 2,100.00T LX CASE LUXEPORT - LX CASE PRO 10.5 BLACK (For iPad) 1.00 343.00 343.00T LX WALLSTATION... LUXEPORT - LX WALLSTATION BLACK 1.00 441.00 441.00T LX BASESTATION LUXEPORT - LX BASESTATION BLACK 1.00 441.00 441.00T Connect 352 LEA 2 Channel 70v Class D Amplifier 1.00 1,222.20 1,222.20T PS-C63RT Sonance PS-C63RT White 6.5" In-Ceiling 70V/100V/8 Ohm Selectable Speaker 4.00 182.00 728.00T Equipment Araknis Networks® 210 Series Websmart Gigabit Switch with Partial PoE+ and Rear Ports 1.00 605.07 605.07T BRK16 16 RU Black Rack 18" Deep Rack 1.00 239.25 239.25T CAB-COOL 2 CABINET COOL SYSTEM 40 CFM 1.00 238.70 238.70T M-8S Furman M-8S Power Conditioner with Power Sequencing 1.00 293.75 293.75T Cable & Connectors Cable, Connectors & Misc. Hardware 1.00 400.00 400.00T Shipping Shipping 1.00 650.00 650.00
CAD Computer Aided Drafting/System Documentation - Signal Flow Drawings 1.00 300.00 300.00 Programming -CODE Crestron Control System Programming 1.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 Programming - DSP DSP Audio Programming 1.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 Project Managment Project Management 1.00 250.00 250.00 Installation Technical Services - Onsite Installation 1.00 4,800.00 4,800.00

Page 3 ends

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 204 of 436 ends

QUOTE
Date
5/30/2023
QUOTE #
3113
CUSTOMER:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
SHIP TO:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Terms
Net 30
Project Name
PEG Funding 2023/2024
Print Name:

Purchase Order No.:
_____________________________________Customer Signature:
_____________________________________
DATE: _____________________________________
Total:

Subtotal:

CA Sales Tax: (8.75%)

SCOPE OF WORK
- Wall mount (1) NEC/V864Q 86" flat screen display.
- Pull & Terminate CAT6 cable from rack location to display. - Install (1) (OFE) Vaddio ROBOSHOT PTZ Camera.
- Pull & Terminate Cat6 cable from rack to camera location. - Install (1) Barco ClickShare CX-50
- Install Shure Ceiling Array Microphone in drop ceiling. - Pull & Terminate CAT6 cable from rack location to ceiling mic. - Install (1) HDMI wall plate transmitter at counter location. - Install (1) iPad wall docking station for (OFE) iPad. - Install (4) ceiling speakers.
- Install AV rack with power dist. in existing credenza. - Install ventilation in existing for new equipment.
- Provide DSP audio programming.
- Provide Crestron control programming with intuitive user interface on (OFE) iPad. - Provide updated system documentation - Create Video, Audio, and Control CAD AV system schematics.

The City Of Rancho Cordova to provide the following:
- 120 VAC quad power receptacle behind flat screen display. - Remove thumbtack board material from screen wall.
- 120 VAC quad power receptacle at AV equipment rack location. - LAN connection at AV rack location.
- iPad for AV control, and WiFi connection.
- Docking station for (OFE) Laptops.

CANFIELD ROOM
Projector Panasonic PT-MZ880WU Laser Projector 8,000 ISO lumens, 1920 x 1200 1.00 8,677.11 8,677.11T RPMA302 Cheif RPA Elite Custom Ceiling Projector Mounts with Keyed Locking - RPMA302 (Black) Fits - Panasonic PT-MZ880

1.00 239.20 239.20T
AT-HDVS-200-TX-... Wallplate HDBaseT Transmitter for HDMI and VGA 1.00 810.00 810.00T AT-UHD-SW-5000ED 4K/UHD Five-Input HDMI / HDBaseT Switcher with Mirrored HDMI / HDBaseT Outputs 1.00 1,918.00 1,918.00T AT-UHD-EX-70C-RX 4K/UHD HDMI Over HDBaseT Receiver with Control and PoE 1.00 309.40 309.40T VC-4-PC-3 Computer with Crestron Virtual Control Server Software 1.00 2,100.00 2,100.00T

Page 4 ends

ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 205 of 436 ends

QUOTE
Date
5/30/2023
QUOTE #
3113
CUSTOMER:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
SHIP TO:

Rob Nunley
City Of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Terms
Net 30
Project Name
PEG Funding 2023/2024
Print Name:

Purchase Order No.:
_____________________________________Customer Signature:
_____________________________________
DATE: _____________________________________
Total:

Subtotal:

CA Sales Tax: (8.75%)

AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
QUOTE VALID FOR 45 DAYS
11353 Sunrise Gold Cir. Unit A Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 Phone: 800.875.9121 Fax: 916.728.2910
Specialists In Audio Visual System Design & Integration www.ProudAudio.com
Contractor License # 845056
Item Description Qty Price Total
CEN-IO-RY-104 Crestron Wired Ethernet Module with 4 Relay Ports 1.00 285.60 285.60T TSW-770-B-S 7” Touch Screen, Black Smooth 1.00 1,620.00 1,620.00T BLX24R/B58 Wireless Vocal Rack-mount Set with Beta 58A 1.00 488.60 488.60T BRK16 16 RU Black Rack 18" Deep Rack 1.00 239.25 239.25T CAB-COOL 2 CABINET COOL SYSTEM 40 CFM 1.00 238.70 238.70T M-8S Furman M-8S Power Conditioner with Power Sequencing 1.00 293.75 293.75T Equipment Araknis Networks® 210 Series Websmart Gigabit Switch with Partial PoE+ and Rear Ports 1.00 605.07 605.07T Cable & Connectors Cable, Connectors & Misc. Hardware 1.00 250.00 250.00T Shipping Shipping 1.00 425.00 425.00
CAD Computer Aided Drafting/System Documentation - Signal Flow Drawings 1.00 300.00 300.00 Programming -CODE Crestron Control System Programming 1.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 Installation Technical Services - Onsite Installation 1.00 2,800.00 2,800.00

SCOPE OF WORK
- Remove the existing Barco projector.
- Install (1) Panasonic 8000Lumen 1920 x 1200 Laser Projector. - Remove the existing SP Controls Pixie Pro wall mounted button control panel - Install (1) new HDMI/VGA wall plate transmitter for laptop presentation inputs. - Install (1) new HDMI receiver at the projector.
- Install (1) new Crestron Wall Mounted Touch Panel w/Crestron room controller CPU. - Install (1) Shure wireless handheld microphone system. - Provide Crestron programming (Projector ON/OFF, Screen UP/DWN, Program Volume, Mic - Volume, and Source Select)
- Provide updated system documentation - Create Video, Audio, and Control CAD AV system schematics.

Page 5 ends

_____________________________________
All work will be done during normal business hours (Mon. - Fri. 8am - 5pm) $154,352.49
$10,245.14
$144,107.35
ITEM 16.10.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 206 of 436 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 3

ITEM 18.1.

DATE: October 2, 2023

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Stacy Leitner, City Clerk

SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE

ELECTION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS BY FIVE DISTRICTS AND

ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES AND ELECTION ORDER OF

EACH DISTRICT

RECOMMENDATION

1. Open the public hearing, receive public comments, close the public hearing.

2. Waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance establishing five districts for election of five City Council Members, which would continue the practice of the City Council annually appointing a member of the City Council to serve for one year as Mayor of the City and amending and adding new sections to Chapter 2.42 Elections of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code to provide for City Council Election Districts.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Adoption of the Ordinance would establish five districts for election of five City Council Members. Designating five districts would continue the practice of the City Council annually appointing a member of the City Council to serve for one year as Mayor of the City. This action would also amend and add sections to Chapter 2.42 Elections of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code to provide for City Council Election Districts.

BACKGROUND

The City Council was elected under an at-large election system, whereby Council Members are elected by voters of the entire City. On June 7, 2023, the City received a letter from attorney Scott J. Rafferty asserting that the at-large election system violates the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily convert to district-based elections. District-based elections is a method of electing the members to the City Council in which the candidate must reside within an election district and is elected only by voters residing within that election district.

On July 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 108-2023 initiating the process to consider changing to a district-based election system. To assist with the transition from an at- large to a district-based election system, the City entered into an agreement with National Demographics Corporation (NDC). Since that time, the City has engaged in an extensive public engagement process to identify communities of interest and to encourage the community to

Page 207 of 436 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 3

provide input on the transition and on the specific election district maps.

The public engagement process included messaging through the City’s website, newspapers, flyers, a postcard mailed to residences, social media, a website dedicated to district-based elections, and outreach to organizations in the City. Language translation was also available in Spanish and Russian. As a result of the extensive public outreach, the City initially received a total of thirty-two (32) maps submitted by members of the public, including twenty (20) five- district maps, seven (7) six-district maps, and five (5) seven-district maps. One (1) seven-district map was prepared by the City’s consultant based on the public comments, applicable legal standards, and other relevant factors. Thirteen (13) of the submitted maps were either duplicates, not population-balanced, or raised concerns around the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act, resulting in twenty (20) unique, contiguous, population-balanced draft maps.

The City held community forums to solicit public comment on this transition on August 10, 2023, and August 30, 2023. City Council public hearings were held on August 7, 2023, and August 14, 2023, to receive input regarding the composition of the City’s voting districts before any draft maps were drawn. At the City Council public hearings held on August 29, 2023, and September 18, 2023, the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps released at least seven (7) days before each meeting, and the proposed sequence of elections.

After receiving public input at the August 29, 2023 public hearing, the Council narrowed the list of draft maps under consideration from the initial twenty (20) unique, contiguous, population- balanced draft maps to three (3) focus maps: Map 508b (revised version of Map 508 drawn to incorporate Council direction at the public hearing), Map 511, and Map 516b (revised version of Map 516 drawn to incorporate Council direction at the public hearing). Furthermore, Map 508c (revised version of Map 508) and Map 516c (revised version of Map 516) were subsequently created by NDC because the City Council's original direction at the August 29, 2023, public hearing created a map that NDC later determined was not population-balanced. Each of these five (5) focus maps, Map 508b, Map 508c, Map 511, Map 516b, and Map 516c have five districts.

The City also received three (3) additional maps from the public on or before the September 7, 2023 deadline to submit new or revised public maps. These maps are Map 511b, Map 521 (not population-balanced, not contiguous), and Map 522, and the City received public input at the September 18, 2023 public hearing.

At the City Council meeting on September 18, 2023, the City Council voted to designate "preferred map 516c" (Attachment 2) of five districts, which will continue the practice of the City Council annually to appoint a member of the City Council to serve for one year as Mayor of the City. The City Council also determined the election sequence, voted to waive the first reading and introduced the Ordinance (Attachment 1) for adoption at tonight's City Council Meeting on October 2, 2023, and added new sections to Chapter 2.42 Elections of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code to provide for City Council Elections Districts.

It is the position of the City Council that map "Preferred Map 516c" hereto as Exhibit A (Attachment 2), will serve the best interests of the City of Rancho Cordova and be consistent with the California Voting Rights Act and applicable laws. The map identified as “Preferred Map 516c,” attached hereto as Exhibit A (Attachment 2), is selected and adopted by the City Council as the final district map in the creating of a “by district” election system in the City of

Page 208 of 436 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 3

Rancho Cordova, as that term is defined in California Government Code 34871.

Members of the Rancho Cordova City Council from Council Districts 1, 3, and 4 shall be elected on a by district basis as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 34871(a), beginning with the General Municipal Election in November 2024 and every four years thereafter, as such Council Districts may be amended from time to time pursuant to applicable law. Also, members of the Rancho Cordova City Council from Council Districts 2 and 5 shall be elected on a by district basis as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 34871(a), beginning with the General Municipal Election in November 2026 and every four years thereafter, as such Council Districts may be amended from time to time pursuant to applicable law.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

Neighborhood Elections Now will receive a partial reimbursement, capped at approximately $37,000 if the City complies with the process to transition from at-large to district-based elections.

The City is working with a professional demographer at an estimated cost of $60,000-$80,000 to assist the City with the process of transitioning from at-large to district-based elections.

The City would also incur additional fees for City Attorney time, community meetings, assistance from consultants for public outreach, and staff time.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Ordinance

2. Exhibit A to the Ordinance - Preferred Map for Council Districts

Page 209 of 436 ends

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 1 of 5

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2023

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A BY DISTRICT ELECTION SYSTEM IN FIVE COUNCIL DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10010, AND AMENDING AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS TO CHAPTER 2.42 ELECTIONS OF THE

RANCHO CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR CITY COUNCIL ELECTION

DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the members of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova are currently elected at-large, whereby all five (5) members are elected by all of the voters of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City also has a Council appointed Mayor, who is appointed every year to a one year term; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 34886 and 34871(a), the City has the authority to adopt an ordinance requiring members of the City Council to be elected by district in five districts with a Council appointed Mayor; and WHEREAS, in a by district election system, a candidate for City Council must reside in the district which they wish to represent, and only the voters of that district are entitled to vote to decide who their representative will be; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2023, the City received a letter from attorney Scott J. Rafferty asserting that the City’s at-large election system violated the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily convert to by district elections; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, the Rancho Cordova City Council declares that this change in the method of electing members of the Rancho Cordova City Council is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (California Elections Code Sections 14025 et. seq.) to avoid litigation; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on July 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 108-2023, a Resolution of Intent to transition to a by district election system pursuant to Section 10010 of the California Elections Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10010 of the California Elections Code, a city that changes from an at-large method of election to a by district method of election shall hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than thirty days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts before drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts; and
WHEREAS, before any maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts were considered, the City held public hearings on August 7, 2023, and August 14, 2023, and a community forum on August 10, 2023, at which time input from the public on the proposed composition of the districts was invited and heard; and

Page 210 of 436 ends

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, on and prior to holding the third public hearing on August 29, 2023, pursuant to Section 10010 of the California Elections Code, the City published and made available for public review draft maps for consideration by the City Council seven (7) days before the meeting; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10010 of the California Elections Code, the City held a third public hearing on August 29, 2023, and also held a community forum on August 30, 2023, at which the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the potential sequence of elections; and
WHEREAS, after the close of the public hearing on August 29, 2023, the City Council provided input on the draft maps. Three “focus” draft maps were selected by the City Council, published, and made available for public review along with two revised maps submitted by National Demographics Corporation. Additional maps were submitted by members of the public for further consideration before the September 7, 2023 deadline. These draft maps were made available to the public seven (7) days prior to the fourth public hearing pursuant to Section 10010 of the California Elections Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10010 of the California Elections Code, the City held a fourth public hearing on September 18, 2023, where the public provided input prior to the City Council adopting a final district map, determined the election sequence, and considered an ordinance that would establish a by district election system; and WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the City Council held on October 2, 2023, the City Council held a final public hearing on the proposal to establish district boundaries, reviewed additional public input, formally selected the voting district map and the election sequence attached to, incorporated in, and set forth in this Ordinance, which returned for a second reading and adoption at the same regular meeting of the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is the position of the City Council that map “Preferred Map 516c”, attached hereto as Exhibit A, will serve the best interests of the City of Rancho Cordova and be consistent with the California Voting Rights Act and applicable laws; and WHEREAS, the map identified as “Preferred Map 516c”, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is selected and adopted by the City Council as the final district map in the creating of a “by district” election system in the City of Rancho Cordova, as that term is defined in California Government Code 34871.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Ordinance is to enact, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, an ordinance providing for the by district election system to elect members of the Rancho Cordova City Council in five (5) single-member districts pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010.

SECTION 2 DECLARATION

Page 211 of 436 ends

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 3 of 5 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, the City Council declares that this change in the method of electing members of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Elections Code Sections 14025 et. seq.)
SECTION 3 CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS
The City of Rancho Cordova is hereby divided into five (5) City Council Districts with the boundaries of the districts as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 4 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 2.42.010 subsections A. and B. are amended to read as follows:
“2.42.010 Election consolidation.

A. Pursuant to Elections Code § 1301, the general municipal election for the city shall be held on the same date as the date of the statewide general election.

B. The board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento, State of California, is hereby requested to order consolidation of the City of Rancho Cordova’s general municipal election with the statewide general election held on the same date as the statewide general election.”

SECTION 5 ADDITIONS TO CODE
Sections 2.42.020, 2.42.030, and 2.42.040 are hereby added to the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code to read as follows:
“2.42.020 City council by-district electoral system.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886 and the schedule established in Section 2.42.010 of this Chapter, commencing with the November 2024, General Municipal Election, each member of the Rancho Cordova City Council shall be elected by district in five (5) single-member districts. The term “by districts” as used in this article shall mean election of members of the legislative body by voters of the district alone.

The City’s by district election system shall be conducted in accordance with California Government Code Section 34871(a).

2.42.030 Establishment of city council election districts.

A. Pursuant to Section 2.42.030 of this Chapter, members of the Rancho Cordova City Council from Council Districts 1, 3, and 4 shall be elected on a by district basis as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 34871(a), beginning with the General Municipal Election in November 2024 and every four years thereafter, as such Council Districts may be amended from time to time pursuant to applicable law.

B. Pursuant to Section 2.42.030 of this Chapter, members of the Rancho Cordova City Council from Council Districts 2 and 5 shall be elected on a by district basis as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 34871(a), beginning with the General

Page 212 of 436 ends

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 4 of 5 Municipal Election in November 2026 and every four years thereafter, as such Council Districts may be amended from time to time pursuant to applicable law.

C. Except as provided in subsection (E) below, all candidates for the City Council and all appointed and elected Councilmembers shall fully comply with applicable law including but not limited to California Government Code Section 34882 and California Elections Code Section 201. Termination of residency in a Council District by a Councilmember shall create an immediate vacancy for that Council District unless a substitute residence within that District is established within thirty (30) calendar days after the termination of residency.

D. Only the registered voters residing in the Council District may vote for candidates running for City Council in that District.

E. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, each of the Councilmembers in office at the time this Chapter takes effect shall continue in office until the expiration of the full term to which they were elected and until their successor is qualified. Vacancies in Councilmember offices elected at-large at the time this Chapter takes effect may be filled by the City Council from the City at-large pursuant to applicable law until the expiration of that at-large term. At the end of the term of each Councilmember, that member’s successor shall be elected on a by district basis in the Council Districts established herein and as subsequently reapportioned as provided by law. A vacancy in a Councilmember office elected by district shall be filled by a person qualified to hold the office in that vacant Council District pursuant to applicable law.

2.42.040 Map of council districts.

The City Clerk shall maintain a map of the City showing the current boundaries and numbers of each Council District as they are established and may be amended from time to time by ordinance of the City Council. The map of the initial Council Districts is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.” SECTION 5 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not impact the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 7 EFFECTIVE DATE
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in the Grapevine Independent, or the Sacramento Bee, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Sacramento County and circulated in the City of Rancho Cordova, in accordance with

Page 213 of 436 ends

ITEM 18.1. ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. XX-2023 Page 5 of 5 California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 2nd day of October 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
____________________________
Linda Budge, Mayor
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

Page 214 of 436 ends

ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

Page 215 of 436 ends

Map 516c
District 1
Total Pop 15,454
Deviation from ideal -475
% Deviation -2.98%
% Hisp 21.1%
% NH White 52%
% NH Black 11%
% Asian-American 10%
Total 10,054
% Hisp 16%
% NH White 65%
% NH Black 7%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 10%
Total 8,804
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 79%
% NH Black 5%
Total 7,067
% Latino est. 11%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 80%
% NH Black 5%
Total 5,082
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 2%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 81%
% NH Black est. 4%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 15,834
age0-19 28%
age20-60 53%
age60plus 19%
immigrants 24%
naturalized 46%
english 64%
spanish 12%
asian-lang 6%
other lang 18%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 18%
hs-grad 66%
bachelor 17%
graduatedegree 7%
Child in Household child-under18 34%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65%
income 0-25k 14%
income 25-50k 18%
income 50-75k 20%
income 75-200k 42%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 70%
multi-family 30%
rented 46%
owned 54%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.
2 15,641
-288
-1.81%
27%
49%
9%
9%
11,093
18%
64%
9%
7%
8,221
15%
14%
2%
2%
73%
8%
6,343
14%
13%
2%
2%
73%
8%
4,481
11%
11%
2%
2%
76%
7%
16,461
26%
55%
20%
21%
53%
69%
15%
3%
12%
13%
66%
16%
6%
35%
62%
16%
19%
20%
43%
2%
72%
28%
49%
51%
3 16,316
387

2.43%
24%
43%
14%
12%
9,754
19%
45%
21%
13%
8,049
17%
16%
5%
1%
55%
22%
5,969
15%
14%
5%
1%
56%
22%
3,687
14%
13%
5%
2%
56%
21%
14,814
27%
56%
17%
24%
62%
63%
17%
7%
14%
18%
65%
13%
4%
35%
65%
21%
25%
17%
34%
3%
68%
32%
52%
48%
4 15,373
-556
-3.49%
14%
39%
8%
34%
9,149
15%
44%
10%
30%
9,145
14%
13%
12%
4%
61%
9%
7,798
14%
13%
11%
3%
62%
9%
4,572
13%
12%
9%
3%
63%
9%
13,821
31%
54%
15%
26%
85%
68%
3%
17%
12%
13%
48%
32%
15%
47%
73%
4%
3%
13%
55%
25%
99%
1%
13%
87%
5 16,859
930

5.84%
21%
41%
11%
22%
11,455
13%
49%
15%
19%
8,593
15%
14%
9%
3%
59%
14%
6,774
14%
13%
9%
3%
60%
13%
4,250
12%
12%
7%
3%
63%
13%
17,572
27%
57%
16%
25%
58%
62%
13%
12%
13%
18%
59%
20%
9%
36%
69%
10%
15%
19%
49%
7%
66%
34%
50%
50%
Total
79,643
1,486

9.33%
22%
45%
11%
17%
51,505
16%
54%
13%
15%
42,812
15%
14%
6%
2%
65%
11%
33,951
13%
13%
6%
2%
66%
11%
22,072
12%
11%
5%
2%
69%
11%
78,502
28%
55%
17%
24%
61%
65%
12%
9%
14%
16%
61%
19%
8%
37%
67%
14%
17%
18%
44%
7%
74%
26%
44%
56%
08/30/2023 11:15 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

Page 216 of 436 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 19.1.

DATE: October 2, 2023

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Maria Kniestedt, Communications and Public Affairs Director Stefan Heisler, Senior Management Analyst I

SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF THE 2023 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY

RESULTS

RECOMMENDATION

Receive presentation of the results from the 2023 Resident Satisfaction Survey.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Council will receive the results of the Survey and provide feedback to staff.

BACKGROUND

In June 2023 the City of Rancho Cordova completed its eighth Resident Satisfaction Survey.

This is the third time it has been administered by consultant Dennis Tootelian, Ph.D. The first Resident Satisfaction Survey was completed in 2006. These surveys are used to gauge resident opinions on the quality of life in the City of Rancho Cordova and satisfaction with the services provided by the City.

Resident satisfaction surveys prior to 2018 were conducted by Godbe Research. In 2018, City staff decided to review past methodologies and questionnaires to streamline the survey while maintaining some ability to compare the 2018 findings with those from the 2016 survey. The 2021 survey followed the same methodology and is nearly identical to the 2018 survey.

Likewise, the 2023 survey closely mirrors the 2021 and 2018 surveys.

The 2023 biennial Resident Satisfaction Survey had the following scope:
• A reduced questionnaire of 20 questions, mirroring the 2021 and 2018 surveys that were jointly developed by City staff and Dennis Tootelian, maintaining key metrics from previous surveys
• 350 residents over age 18 were surveyed by telephone (land lines and cell phones) • Survey interviews lasted less than 20 minutes
• The surveys occurred during the month of June 2023

The specific topics assessed were:
• Overall perceptions of living in Rancho Cordova

Page 217 of 436 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

• Satisfaction with services offered by the City
• Satisfaction with customer service when contacting the City • Public safety and the services provided by the Police Department • Satisfaction with the City’s responsiveness to resident issues/concerns • Satisfaction with information provided by the City on its programs and services • Sources of information used by residents to learn about City programs and services

The survey results will assist the City Council and staff in setting its strategic and budgetary priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The cost of this survey was a not to exceed $26,550. There is no direct additional fiscal impact associated with this activity, except that the results of this survey may inform future policy and fiscal decisions.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. 2023 Resident Satisfaction Survey Report

2. Presentation

Page 218 of 436 ends

2023 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY FOR

THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
Pr
esented to:

City of Rancho Cordova
P
resented by:

D
r. Dennis H. Tootelian
Sacramento, California
Fi
nal Report
August 2023
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 219 of 436 ends

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 4

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 8 Goals of the Survey ..................................................................................................................... 8 Background ................................................................................................................................. 8 About the Consultant .................................................................................................................. 9 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 10 Population for the Study ........................................................................................................... 10 Research Design........................................................................................................................ 10 Sample Plan and Sample Size ................................................................................................... 10 Questionnaire Design ................................................................................................................ 10 Caveats ...................................................................................................................................... 11 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................... 12 Respondent Demographic Characteristics ................................................................................ 12 Respondent Residential Characteristics .................................................................................... 13 Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova ................................................................................ 13 Ratings of the City on Service Attributes and Responsiveness ................................................ 14 Sources and Rating of Information Regarding City Activities ................................................. 17 Perceptions of Personal Safety from Crime .............................................................................. 17 Ratings of the Rancho Cordova Police Department ................................................................. 18 Significant Cross-Tabulations ................................................................................................... 19 Comparisons to the 2021 and 2018 Surveys ............................................................................. 19 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 26 TABLE ONE: RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS................................ 29 TABLE TWO: RESPONDENT RESIDENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................. 30 TABLE THREE: PERCEPTIONS OF LIVING IN RANCHO CORDOVA ............................. 31 TABLE FOUR: RATINGS OF THE CITY ON SERVICE ATTRIBUTES AND RESPONSIVENESS..................................................................................................................... 33

TABLE FIVE: SOURCES AND RATING OF INFORMATON REGARDING CITY ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................. 36

TABLE SIX: PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY ......................................................... 37 TABLE SEVEN: RATINGS OF THE RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT ....... 38 ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 220 of 436 ends

3 TABLE EIGHT: SIGNIFICANT CROSS-TABULATIONS ..................................................... 39 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Age .................................................................................. 49 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Household Income .......................................................... 56 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Ethnicity .......................................................................... 64 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Years a Resident of Rancho Cordova ............................. 77 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Whether Own or Rent ..................................................... 86 TABLE NINE: COMPARISON OF THE 2023 RESULTS TO THE 2021 AND 2018 SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 88 Respondent Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................ 88 Respondent Residential Characteristics ................................................................................ 89 Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova ............................................................................ 89 Ratings of the City on Service Attributes and Responsiveness ............................................ 91 Sources and Rating of Information Regarding City Activities ............................................. 94 Perceptions of Personal Safety .............................................................................................. 94 Ratings of the Rancho Cordova Police Department ............................................................. 95 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE 2023 SURVEY ........................................ 97

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 221 of 436 ends

4 2023 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY FOR

THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

In March 2023, the City of Rancho Cordova, California (City) retained Dennis H. Tootelian, Ph.D. to assist it in conducting a survey of residents ’ views on various community topics and their satisfaction with services offered by the City. The overall goal of the survey wa s to provide City officials with residents’ views on how well City services are meeting residents’ needs and areas where the City could improve. Similar resident satisfaction studies were conducted in 2021 and 2018, as well as in previous years.

METHODOLOGY

The population for this study was residents of the City of Rancho Cordova who were at least 18 years of age. Given the nature of the study, it was determined that a telephone survey would be the most appropriate method of data collection. Telephone interviews are cost effective and can be conducted in reasonably short time periods which reduces the risk s of extraneous events occurring during the data collection process.

The sample size for the survey was established by examining the nature of the questions and expectations regarding variability of responses. Based on this, and taking into consideration normal time and costs, the sample size for the survey was set at 350.

The questionnaire for the survey focused on the issues identified in the Introduction of this Report.

The City approved the questionnaire prior to the launch of the survey.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this study, and subject to the Caveats expressed in the Methodology, the following conclusions appear warranted for the 2023 Resident Survey. They are provided in bullet format for emphasis:

• More than 90% of the respondents thought people can have a good quality of life when living in Rancho Cordova, and 83% would recommend living in the City to a friend. These ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 222 of 436 ends

5 percentages are higher than was found in 2021 even though the percentages in prior years also were quite high.

• Nearly 45% of the respondents thought the image of Rancho Cordova has improved in the last two years, and a similar percentage thought it has remained the same. Overall, nearly 90% of the respondents believed the image has improved or remained the same while only 10% thought it had gotten worse. While the percentage who felt the City’s image has improved was lower than in prior years, the percentage who thought it stayed the same increased. Given the favorable attitudes about quality of life and recommending the City to friends, this change may reflect a belief that the City already has a positive image.

Reasons cited by those who believed the image has improved were the quality of the streets and infrastructure, the businesses that have come into the area, and the City’s growth rate.

Among the relatively few residents who thought the image has gotten wor se, most cited crime rate and homeless issues.

• The City continued to receive high ratings for its services. The majority of respondents rated City services as very good or good on all of the dimensions studied except for addressing homeless population issues. The highest ratings were for maintaining s treets (including cleanliness, lighting, and landscaping), providing police protection in neighborhoods, repairing/resurfacing streets, and planning for the City’s future. Compared to 2021, ratings went up in 2023 for six of the eight dimensions studied, remained the same for one, and declined slightly for one (repairing/resurfacing streets).

The only area in which there was an appreciable number of negative ratings was for addressing homeless population issues. Approximately 33% of the respondents rated the City as very good or good in this area compared to 38% who rated it as poor or very poor.

It is important to note, however, that during the last two- year period, the City was bound by State regulations, County Health requirements, and notable court cases (Martin v.

Boise), which limited actions and interactions with those experiencing home lessness.

These limitations are likely to have continued this change in respondent ratings since 2021.

• Nearly 85% of the respondents were very or somewhat satisfied overall with the services provided by the City. This percentage was considerably higher than found in prior years, which also were quite positive.

• More than 85% of the respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the customer service they received when contacting the City in person or by telephone, and nearly 80% were very or somewhat satisfied with the service they received when contacting the City through its website/RC Online. Relatively few were not very or not at all satisfied with either form of contact. It is unknown whether the negative ratings are due to the interaction between residents and City representatives or electronic contacts, or due to the residents not getting the actions/answers they wanted. Direct comparisons to prior years were not possible because the question was not broken out by form of contact in prior years.

However, the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each of the two forms of contact was higher in 2023 than in prior years.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 223 of 436 ends

6 • More than 75% of the respondents indicated they were satisfied that the City tries to be responsive to the well-being and concerns of its residents. This is consistent with the other perceptions of the City and the ratings respondents gave to various City services. It also is a higher percentage than found in prior years, even though satisfaction was high in those years as well.

• The main sources for information about the City’s activities were City printed material and social media. This is consistent with the findings in 2021.

Nearly 55% of the respondents indicated they get their information about City activities from City-provided sources, which is up from the 48% and 42% that did so in 2021 and 2018 respectively. This indicates that City sources of information are increasingly important and useful to residents.

Furthermore, nearly 50% of the respondents in 2023 indicated they get their information about the City’s activities from electronic sources (i.e., social media, City’s website, City’s digital newsletter) compared to 44% who did so in 2021 and 34% who did so in 2018.

Therefore, digital communication appears to be increasing while word of mouth and television/radio/newspapers declined as main sources of information about the City’s activities from prior years.

• Nearly 70% of the respondents were satisfied with the City’s efforts to keep them informed about the programs and services it makes available to residents, and only 8% were dissatisfied. The percentage of respondents who were satisfied was higher in 2023 than in prior years, and the percentage who were dissatisfied was lower than in 2021. This indicates that the City’s efforts are being noticed and well-received.

• Most respondents indicated they felt safe from crime when in their neighborhoods (89%), at their local parks (84%), when alone (80%), and shopping in the City (77%). or in the other venues included in this study. Direct comparisons to prior years were not possible because the question was changed in 2023 to focus on “safe from crime” instead of “safe” in 2021 and 2018. However, the percentages who feel safe when alone and when shopping, while higher than in 2021, are still below 2018 levels.

• About 80% of the respondents rated the Rancho Cordova Police Department positively on all dimensions studied. They rated the Police Department as very good or good on helping citizens (82%), community involvement (80%), being able to respond quickly when needed (79%), and treating people fairly (78%). Few respondents gave the Police Department a poor rating on any of the dimensions studied. These percentages are substantially higher than was found in 2021 and better than two of the four dimensions studied in 2018.

• With respect to the demographic composition of respondents, the percentages of females and males remained about the same compared to 2021. There were more males in 2023 than in 2018.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 224 of 436 ends

7 Respondents to the 2023 survey tended to be younger and have higher household incomes than was found in the 2021 and 2018 surveys. About 36% were under 40 years of age compared to 30% in 2021 and 2018. Furthermore, nearly 45% had household incomes in excess of $100,000 in 2023 compared to 38% in 2021 and 29% in 2018.

Additionally, fewer respondents were Caucasian/White (52%) in 2023 compared to 2021 (58%) and 2018 (60%), and more were Latino/Hispanic (16% in 2023) and Asian- American (10% in 2023) compared to prior years. The percentage of African- American/Black remained about the same as in 2021. The percentage of respondents who indicated they were of two or more races increased to 10% in 2023 compared to 8% in 2021 and less than 1% in 2018.

In terms of residential characteristics, while the majority of respondents indicated they own their homes, more respondents in 2023 indicated they rented their homes (25%) compared to 2021 (22%) and 2018 (17%). While the majority in all years resided in zip code 95670, somewhat more in 2023 resided in zip code 95742 than in prior years.

Overall, the demographic and residential characteristics of respondents reflect demographics changes across the city and new residential expansion, particularly in zip code 95742, that have occurred over the last two years.

Overall, the vast majority of respondents continued to believe they can have a good quality of life by living in the City, would recommend the City to a friend, and think the City’s image has improved or remained the same. They also continue to give favorable ratings for the services the City offers, and believe the City is trying to be responsive to the well -being and concerns of its residents. The findings are consistent in showing that residents rate City services, City information, and the Rancho Cordova Police Department positively.

Importantly, too, respondents increasingly are relying on City- provided sources of information about City activities, and are satisfied with the information the City provides its residents. There clearly has been a shift in what sources of information residents use, and City- provided sources seem very much in line with those.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 225 of 436 ends

8 2023 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY FOR

THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

INTRODUCTION

In March 2023, the City of Rancho Cordova, California (City) retained Dennis H. Tootelian, Ph.D. (Consultant) to assist it in conducting a survey of residents’ views on various community topics and their satisfaction with services offered by the City. Similar surveys have been conducted previously on a bi-annual basis, with the most recent ones being in 2021 and 2018. The results of these surveys are used by City officials to assess selected services and make adjustments as necessary to better serve residents of Rancho Cordova.

Goals of the Survey

The overall goals of the survey were to provide City officials with residents’ views on how well City services are meeting residents’ needs and areas where the City c ould improve. The specific objectives of the survey were to assess resident perceptions and satisfaction on a variety of topics, including:

• Overall perceptions of living in Rancho Cordova.
• Satisfaction with services offered by the City.
• Satisfaction with customer service when contacting the City. • Satisfaction with the City’s responsiveness to resident issues/concerns. • Sources of information used to learn about City programs and services. • Satisfaction with information provided by the City on its programs and services. • Perceptions of personal safety from crime when in various venues. • Perceptions of the services provided by the Rancho Cordova Police Department.

Background

The Tootelian Company was first retained to conduct this type of survey in 2018. At that time, it was decided to review past methodologies and questionnaires, and to streamline the survey while maintaining some ability to compare future findings with those from previous resident surveys .

This 2023 survey used the same methodology and a similar questionnaire to what was used in 2021 and 2018. Accordingly, many comparisons of results from 2018 and 2021 to 2023 are possible.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 226 of 436 ends

9 About the Consultant

Dr. Dennis H. Tootelian is the founder and principal of The Tootelian Company, a marketing and management consulting firm in Rancho Cordova and Sacramento, California. Dr. Tootelian is an Emeritus Professor of Marketing and former Director of the Center for Small Business in the College of Business at California State University, Sacramento. He received his Ph.D. in Marketing from Arizona State University, with minor fields in Accounting and Management.

Dennis has published approximately one hundred articles dealing with all facets of business, and h
as co-authored six texts on marketing and small business management. His academic research has appeared as peer -reviewed articles (i.e., reviewed by academicians for quality of research methodology) in such journals as the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing , Journal of Business Research, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Journal of Health Care Marketing , and Journal of Professional Services Marketing. Results of some of his applied research and writing have appeared in The Congressional Record, The Wall Street Journal , Forbes, The Kiplinger Report, USA Today, ABC National News website, and even The National Enquirer.

In addition to teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels, Dennis has worked in a consulting capacity with Fortune 500 companies (e.g., McDonald’s Corporation, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Nestle U.S.A., McKesson Corporation), not-for-profit organizations (e.g., California Pharmacists Association, California Dental Association ), and federal and State governmental agencies (e.g., Centers for Disease Control, California Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and California Department of Food and Agriculture). He also has served on the Board of Directors of several publicly traded and not-for-profit organizations.

Among the services Dennis offers are assistance in marketing research for external and internal constituencies, developing marketing plans, assisting in strategic business planning, conducting economic impact studies, and designing materials to be used in public relations programs.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 227 of 436 ends

10 METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this survey conformed to generally accepted research practices. Adjustments in the methodology needed to address normal time and cost constraints were not considered significant.

Population for the Study

The population for this study was defined to be residents of the City of Rancho Cordova who were at least 18 years of age and resided in 95670, 95742, and 95827 zip codes.

Research Design

Given the nature of the study, it was determined that a telephone survey would be the most appropriate method of data collection. T elephone interviews are cost -effective and can be conducted in reasonably short periods of time . The speed with which telephone surveys are completed reduces the risk of extraneous events occurring during the data collection process which could adversely affect the quality of the information obtained. Additionally, this method was used in 2021 and 2018 and was one of the meth ods used in previous resident satisfaction surveys .

Maintaining similar methodologies allowed for better comparisons to past findings.

Sample Plan and Sample Size

The sample size for the survey of residents was established on the basis of the nature of the questions and expectations regarding variability of responses. Accuracy levels for a survey are generally determined by the extent to which responses vary. The more responses vary, the larger the sample size needs to be.

Based on this, and taking into consideration time and costs, the sample size for the survey was set at 350 completed interviews. This was considered adequate given the nature and objectives of the study to achieve normally acceptable accuracy levels at the 95% confidence level.

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire for the survey was jointly developed by the City and the Consultant. It focused on the issues identified in the Introduction of this Report.

The questionnaire contained eighteen questions , and the interviewers also recorded respondent gender and respondent zip code . Because several questions were multi -part in nature , each respondent was asked a total of thirty-one questions.

The Consultant reviewed the questionnaire s used in the 2021 and 2018 surveys and prepared a 2023 questionnaire in draft form based on the issues described above as well as additional ones he thought might be considered . The City was asked to decide which questions to retain , which ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 228 of 436 ends

11 questions to modify, and what new questions to add. The Consultant then prepared a revised questionnaire with the appropriate wording and in the appropriate sequence. The City approved the questionnaire prior to the launch of the survey. The final questionnaire used in this survey was similar to what was used in 2021 and 2018, and a copy is presented in Appendix A.

Caveats

The results of any research should be used with caution and at the reader’s own discretion. Every study, no matter how well constructed, contains the possibility of some degree of error.

Accordingly, the reader assumes sole responsibility for the use of this information.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 229 of 436 ends

12 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

The findings of this study are presented in nine sections:

• Respondent Demographic Characteristics
• Respondent Residential Characteristics
• Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova
• Ratings of the City on Service Attributes and Responsiveness • Sources and Rating of Information Regarding City Activities • Perceptions of Personal Safety from Crime
• Ratings of the Rancho Cordova Police Department
• Significant Cross-Tabulations
• Comparisons to the 2021 and 2018 Surveys

Tabled data is presented immediately following the Summary and Conclusion section of this Report. Comparisons of responses between years are described in the last section of the Findings.

Statistical tests were conducted to measure the error level of the sample based on categorized data.

The sample of 350 was found to be statistically sound at a 95% confidence level.

Respondent Demographic Characteristics

Respondents were asked their age, household income in 2022, and ethnicity. In addition, their genders were recorded by the interviewers. Respondent demographic characteristics are presented in Table One.

Of the total number of respondents, 49.1% were females and 50.9% were males. With respect to age, the single largest group of respondents (31.4%) was 40 to 54 years of age, and the next largest groups were 25 to 39 (25.6%) and 55 to 64 (19.6%). Overall, there were about equal representations of those under 40 (35.7%), 40 to 54 (31.4%), and 55 and older (32.9%).

The largest group of respondents (24.0%) had 2022 household incomes in excess of $150,000, and the next largest group ( 20.8%) had incomes of $101,000 to $150,000. Approximately 20.5% of the respondents had incomes of $50,000 or less in 2022, 34.6% had incomes between $51,000 and $100,000, and 44.8% had incomes in excess of $100,000.

The majority of respondents (5 2.2%) were Caucasian . The next largest groups were Latino/Hispanic (1 6.0%), Asian-American ( 10.1%), and African-Americans (6. 2%). Another

10.4% of the respondents indicated they were of two or more races, 2.7% were Native American,

1.2% were Pacific Islanders, and 1.2% indicated they were of other ethnic groups.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 230 of 436 ends

13 Respondent Residential Characteristics

Respondents were asked how long they had lived in the City and whether they owned or rented their place of residence. Additionally, interviewers recorded respondent s’ residential zip codes.

These results are presented in Table Two.

The largest group of respondents ( 28.3%) indicated they have lived in the City for more than 20 years. The next largest groups have lived in the City for 11 to 20 years (24.3%) and 2 to 5 years (19.4%). Overall, 28.8% have lived in the City for 5 years or less, 18.6 % for 6 to 10 years, and

52.6% for more than 20 years.

The majority of respondents ( 58.0%) lived in zip code 95670, which comprises the bulk of the City’s population. Both 95742 ( 26.9%) and 95827 (15.1%) were reasonably represented in the sample as well.

Most respondents (75.3%) indicated they owned their homes. The remaining 24.7% rented homes or apartments.

Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova

Respondents were asked whether they thought someone can have a good quality of life when living in the City, whether they would recommend living in Rancho Cordova to a friend, and whether they thought the image of the City has become better or worse within the last two years and why they felt that way. Their responses are presented in Table Three.

Overall, 90.3% of the respondents believed a person can have a good quality of life when living in the City. The majority of respondents ( 56.3%) agreed with the statement that “You can have a good quality of life living in Rancho Cordova,” and the next largest group (34.0%) strongly agreed with the statement. Only 4.0% disagreed with the statement.

2023
Agree or disagree: “You can have a good
quality of life living in Rancho Cordova"?
Strongly agree or Agree 90.3%
Disagree or Strongly disagree 4.0%

Consistent with the above finding, 83.4% of the respondents indicated they would recommend living in Rancho Cordova to a friend. An additional 6.0% said they were unsure, and 10.6% said they would not recommend living in the City to a friend.

2023
Would you recommend living in Rancho
Cordova to a friend?
Yes 83.4%
No 10.6%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 231 of 436 ends

14 About 89.4% of the respondents thought the image of the City has either gotten better or remained unchanged in the last two years. The largest group of respondents (44.8%) believed the image of Rancho Cordova has gotten better and the next largest group ( 44.6%) thought the image has remained the same. Only 10.6% believed it has gotten worse. Given the favorable perceptions cited above regarding the quality of life and willingness to recommend the City to friends, this suggests that remaining the same could be viewed as a more positive than negative connotation.

2023
Do you think the image of the City has gotten better,
remained the same, or gotten worse over the last two years? Gotten better 44.8%
Remained the same 44.6%
Gotten worse 10.6%

When asked the main reason for their beliefs about the image of the City, those that thought it had gotten better primarily cited the quality of streets and infrastructure (25.5%), businesses that have come into the City (17.8%), the City’s growth rate ( 12.1%), and less crime ( 10.8%). Other individual positive comments are presented in Table Three.

A relatively small number of respondents (10.6% or 37 of 350 respondents) thought the image has gotten worse in the last two years. Therefore, caution should be used in considering percentages since the base is small. The main reason s cited were more crime (4.6% of the total sample) and homeless issues (3.4% of the total sample).

Ratings of the City on Service Attributes and Responsiveness

Respondents were asked to rate the City on a variety of services, how satisfied they were with services provided by the City, how satisfied they were with contacting the City regarding a question/problem, and how satisfied they were that the City has tried to be responsive to their well- being and concerns. Their responses are presented in Table Four.

As shown below, the majority of respondents rated the City as very good or good on seven of the eight services studied. The most positive responses (i.e., very good and good) were for maintaining the streets (78. 7%), providing police protection in neighborhoods (70.9%), repairing and resurfacing the streets ( 69.7%), planning for the City’s future (69.7%), and attracting/retaining businesses and jobs within the City (68.0%).

2023
Maintaining streets, including cleanliness, lighting and landscaping? Very good or Good 78.7%
Poor or Very poor 4.8%

Providing police protection in your neighborhood?
Very good or Good 70.9%
Poor or Very poor 10.1%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 232 of 436 ends

15 2023
Repairing and resurfacing City streets?
Very good or Good 69.7%
Poor or Very poor 9.2%

Planning for the City's future?
Very good or Good 69.7%
Poor or Very poor 9.5%

Attracting and retaining businesses and jobs within the City? Very good or Good 68.0%
Poor or Very poor 6.4%

Enforcing City code requirements/conducting beautification programs? Very good or Good 66.8%
Poor or Very poor 11.5%

Using City's Community Enhancement Funds to meet resident needs? Very good or Good 64.4%
Poor or Very poor 7.7%

Addressing homeless issues?
Very good or Good 33.4%
Poor or Very poor 38.2%

The least positive rating was for addressing homeless population issues. In this case, the single largest group rated the City as fair ( 28.3%), with more rating it poor or very poor (38.2%) than good or very good (33.4%).

It is also important to note that fairly high percentages of people had no opinions about how well the City was using the City’s Community Enhancement Funds (33.4%) and planning for the City’s future (24.6%). This may in part be due to a lack of awareness, given that 28.8% of the respondents have been residents of the City for 5 years or less. Of respondents who had lived in the City for 5 years or less, 37.6% had “no opinion” about the City’s Community Enhancement Funds and 29.7% had ”no opinion” about planning for the City’s future. Comparatively, of respondents who had lived in the City for 6 or more years, 31.7% had “no opinion” about the City’s Community Enhancement Funds and 22.5% had “no opinion” about planning for the City’s future.

Overall, 84.5% of the respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the services provided by the City. The single largest group of respondents ( 53.1%) were somewhat satisfied with the services and an additional 31.4% were very satisfied. Comparatively, 4.5% were somewhat or very dissatisfied. The remaining 10.9% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

2023
Overall, how satisfied are you with the city services
provided by the City?
Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied 84.5%
Somewhat dissatisfied or Very dissatisfied 4.5%
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 233 of 436 ends

16 Respondents were asked if they had contacted the City in person or by telephone to obtain information and/or report a problem, get a problem resolved, or for some other reason. Just under half of the respondents ( 46.0%) indicated they had contacted the City in person or by telephone .

The single largest group of respondents who had contacted the City in these way s (44.7%) were very satisfied with the customer service they received, and another 41.0% were somewhat satisfied. Accordingly, 85.7% of the respo ndents who contact ed the City were satisfied , while

11.8% were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the customer service they received. It should be noted that some or all of this dissatisfaction may be due to not getting problems resolved in the manner they wanted rather than poor customer service.

2023
If you contacted the City in person/phone,
how satisfied were you with the customer service?
Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied 85.7%
Somewhat dissatisfied or Very dissatisfied 11.8%

Respondents also were asked if they had contacted the City using the City’s website or Rancho Cordova Online to obtain information and/or report a problem, get a problem resolved, or for some other reason. About one -third of the respondents ( 33.4%) indicated they had contacted the City using the City’s website or Rancho Cordova Online. The single largest group of respondents who had contacted the City in these manners (41.9%) were very satisfied with the customer service they received, and another 35.9% w ere somewhat satisfied. Accordingly, 77.8% of the respondents who contacted the City were satisfied, while 15.3% were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the customer service they received. As indicated above, it should be noted that some or all of this dissatisfaction may be due to not getting problems resolved in the manner they wanted rather than poor customer service.

2023
If you contacted the City's website/RC Online,
how satisfied were you with the customer service?
Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied 77.8%
Somewhat dissatisfied or Very dissatisfied 15.3%

Overall, 76.0% of the respondents were very or somewhat satisfied that the City tries to be responsive to the well -being and concerns of its residents. Half of the respondents ( 50.0%) indicated they were somewhat satisfied and another 26.0% were very satisfied. Comparatively, only 6.0% were somewhat or very dissatisfied. The remaining 18.0% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

2023
How satisfied that the City tries to be responsive
to the well-being and concerns of its residents?
Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied 76.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied or Very dissatisfied 6.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 234 of 436 ends

17 Sources and Rating of Information Regarding City Activities

Respondents were asked their main source of information about what the City is doing in the community and how they would rate the City’s efforts to provide them with information about the programs and services it makes available. Their responses are shown in Table Five.

The single largest group of respondents (28.6%) indicated their main source of information about what the City is doing in the community wa s from City -printed material such as mailers or brochures. The next largest groups got their information from social media such as Facebook (23.1%), the City’s website (15.1%), word of mouth from friends/others (12.9%), and the City’s digital newsletter such as Rancho Cordova News and Rancho Cordova Events (10.6%). Only

5.7% of the respondents indicated that the main source of information wa s television/radio/newspaper.

2023
Main source of information about what the City is doing in the Community?
City printed material, such as a mailer or brochure 28.6% Social media, such as Facebook 23.1%
City’s website 15.1%
Word of mouth from friends or others 12.9%
City’s digital newsletter, such as Fresh News or Fresh Events 10.6% Television/Radio/Newspaper 5.7%

Overall, 54.3% of the respondents indicated that their main source of information about what the City is doing came from City-provided sources. Furthermore, 66.8% of the respondents indicated the main source of information about the City wa s through electronic means (i.e., City’s website, social media, City’s digital newsletter). About 14.0% of the respondents cited other sources, and these are presented in Table Five.

About 68.3% of the respondents rated the City as very good or good in providing information about the programs and services it makes available to its residents. The largest group of respondents (39.7%) rated the City as good for providing information and another 28.6% rated the City’s efforts as very good. Comparatively, 8.0 % rated the City’s efforts as poor or very poor.

The remaining 23.7% rated the City’s efforts as fair.

2023
How rate the City on providing info. about programs
and services it makes available to residents?
Very good or Good 68.3%
Poor or Very poor 8.0%

Perceptions of Personal Safety from Crime

Respondents were asked how safe from crime they feel they are when in particular situations and venues. Their responses are presented in Table Six.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 235 of 436 ends

18 As shown below, respondents generally felt safe from crime in all of the situations studied. They felt safest when they were in their neighborhood (88.5%) and at local parks (84.3%). To a slightly lesser extent, they felt safe when alone (79.7%) or shopping within the City (77.0%).

2023
When you are in your neighborhood?
Very safe or Somewhat safe 88.5%
Somewhat unsafe or Very unsafe 9.2%

When you are at your local parks?
Very safe or Somewhat safe 84.3%
Somewhat unsafe or Very unsafe 6.5%

When you are alone?
Very safe or Somewhat safe 79.7%
Somewhat unsafe or Very unsafe 11.2%

When you are shopping within the City?
Very safe or Somewhat safe 77.0%
Somewhat unsafe or Very unsafe 16.4%

Ratings of the Rancho Cordova Police Department

Respondents were asked to rate the Rancho Cordova Police Department on a variety of dimensions. Their responses are presented in Table Seven.

As shown below, the Police Department was rated very good or good by a large majority of the respondents for each dimension studied. More than three -fourths of the respondents rated the Police Department very good or good for helping citizens (81.8%), community involvement (79.7%), and being able to respond quickly when needed (78.9% ), and treating people fairly (77.7%).

It is important to note th at very small percentages of respondents rated the Police Department as poor or very poor on any of the dimensions included in this survey. Poor or very poor ratings were given by only 5.2% of the respondents for helping citizens, 6.3% for treating people fairly, 7.5% for community involvement, and 9.8% for being able to respond quickly when needed.

2023
Helping citizens?
Very good or Good 81.8%
Poor or Very poor 5.2%

Community involvement?
Very good or Good 79.7%
Poor or Very poor 7.5%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 236 of 436 ends

19 2023
Being able to respond quickly when needed?
Very good or Good 78.9%
Poor or Very poor 9.8%

Treating people fairly?
Very good or Good 77.7%
Poor or Very poor 6.3%

Significant Cross-Tabulations

Questions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were cross-tabulated with most respondent demographic and residential characteristics (i.e., Questions 19, 16, 17, 18, 1, 15). In the case of ethnicity, some categories were merged because the number of respondents in more detailed categories was too small to analyze.

Chi-Square tests were performed to measure if observed numbers (i.e., actual responses) were greater or less than what would normally be expected by chance. Chi-Square tests are commonly used to compare the actual distribution of responses to a question with what would normally be expected to occur by chance. If a sufficiently larger or smaller number of actual responses occur than would be expected by chance, it assumes there is some relationship between the variables studied. A Chi-Square test is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, meaning that the differences between observed and expected are not likely to occur simply by chance.

Only those cross -tabulations that were found to show statistically significant differences at the

0.05 level are presented in Table Eight. The cells in each table in which the Consultant thought the differences were most meaningful are highlighted. Therefore, if the “observed” (i.e., actual responses) number is greater than the “expected” number, it means that: “More respondents than normally expected by chance think….” Conversely, if the “observed” number is less than the “expected” number, it means that: “Fewer respondents than normally expected by chance think…”

Caution should be used, however, in drawing conclusions from the cross-tabulations presented in Table Eight. Generally, the Chi-Square test requires that there are at least 5 responses in each cell to help ensure the accuracy of the test results. In the results reported here, some cells do not have the required minimum observed number. Therefore, it is best to review the cross -tabulations as possible relationships rather than draw conclusions that relationships absolutely exist.

Comparisons to the 2021 and 2018 Surveys

Comparisons were made between the results of this survey and the surveys conducted in 2021 and 2018. As previously indicated, nearly all of the questions were worded the same over the years, so comparisons of most results were possible. More detailed percentage responses to each question for 2023, 2021, and 2018 are presented in Table Nine.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 237 of 436 ends

20 Presented below in italics are brief summaries of the Consultant’s impressions of the similarities and differences in the 2023 findings and the findings in 2021 and 2018.

• To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: “You can have a good quality of life living in Rancho Cordova?

2023 2021 2018
Agree or disagree: “You can have a good
quality of life living in Rancho Cordova"?
Strongly agree or Agree 90.3% 84.0% 81.7%
Disagree or Strongly disagree 4.0% 4.0% 3.4%

In 2023, more respondents agree d with the statement than was found in 2021 or 2018. The percentage of respondents who disagreed with the statement remained very low in 2023 and consistent with prior years.

• Would you recommend living in Rancho Cordova to a friend?

2023 2021 2018
Would you recommend living in Rancho Cordova to a friend? Yes 83.4% 78.9% 70.6%
No 10.6% 11.7% 6.6%
Uncertain 6.0% 9.4% 22.9%

In 2023, more respondents said they would recommend the City than was found in 2021 or 2018, and fewer said they would not recommend the City than was found in 2021. The number who were uncertain declined appreciably in 2023 from prior years.

• Do you think the image of the City of Rancho Cordova has gotten better, remained the same, or gotten worse over the last two years?

2023 2021 2018
Do you think the image of the City has gotten better, remained the same, or gotten worse over the last two years?
Gotten better 44.8% 53.4% 54.0%
Remained the same 44.6% 34.6% 37.9%
Gotten worse 10.6% 12.0% 8.0%

While fewer respondents said the image has gotten better over the last 2 years when compared to 2021 and 2018, more felt the image has remained the same, and fewer thought the image has gotten worse compared to 2021. Given the fact that the vast majority of respondents in 2023 felt that people can have a good life living in the City and would recommend the City to friends, it may be that the image of the City is already viewed positively and thereby resulted in responses of “remaining the same.”

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 238 of 436 ends

21 • What is the one main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten better?

2023 2021 2018
Main reason the City's image has gotten better?
Quality of streets and infrastructure (bike paths, bridges, medians, etc.) 25.5% 26.7% 48.1% Businesses that have come/left 17.8% 18.7% 8.6%
City’s growth rate 12.1% 23.0% 1.6%
Crime rate 10.8% 9.6% 20.9%
Homeless issues 5.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Convenient to rest of Sacramento Region 3.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Parks and other amenities have improved/places are cleaner 3.2% 5.3% 11.8% Community events 2.5% 3.7% 5.3%
Diversity of the population 0.6% 1.1% 0.0%
Traffic congestion 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Cost of housing 0.0% 0.5% 1.1%
Other 12.7% 10.7% 2.7%

Of the nearly 45% who indicated in 2023 that the City’s image has gotten better, fewer respondents cited the city’s growth and the businesses that have come to the area as reasons for the image improvement when compared to 2021. However, other reasons were cited more often than found in 2021 and 2018.

• What is the one main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten worse?

2023 2021 2018
Main reason the City's image has gotten worse?
Crime rate 43.2% 33.3% 60.7%
Homeless issues 32.4%
Businesses that have come/left 2.7% 2.4% 0.0%
City’s growth rate 2.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Quality of the schools 0.0% 0.0% 3.6%
Quality of streets and infrastructure (bike paths, bridges, medians, etc.) 0.0% 11.9% 10.7% Traffic congestion 0.0% 0.0% 10.7%
Community events 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%
Parks and other amenities have gotten worse 0.0% 9.5% 3.6% Other 18.9% 40.5% 10.7%

Of the 10% who indicated in 2023 that the City’s image has gotten worse, more respondents cited the city’s crime rate as a reason for the image to decline compared to 2021. “Homeless issues” was not a defined category in 2021 and 2018, but was frequently mentioned in “Other.” Therefore, comparisons to prior years w ere not possible. No respondents in 2023 cited the quality of the City’s streets and infrastructure or parks and other amenities as causes of the City’s image decline, while those two factors were mentioned in prior years.

• How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on each of the following:

A) Maintaining the streets, including cleanliness, lighting and landscaping? B) Repairing and resurfacing City streets?
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 239 of 436 ends

22 C) Enforcing city code requirements and conducting beautification programs in your neighborhood?
D) Addressing homeless issues?
E) Attracting and retaining new and existing businesses and jobs in the City? F) Providing police protection in your neighborhood?
G) Using the City’s Community Enhancement and Investment Fund, which is funded by two recent sales tax measures, to meet residents’ needs?
H) Planning for the City’s future?

2023 2021 2018
Maintaining streets, including cleanliness, lighting and landscaping? Very good or Good 78.7% 78.9% 78.0%
Poor or Very poor 4.8% 6.9% 7.4%

Repairing and resurfacing City streets?
Very good or Good 69.7% 74.3% 78.5%
Poor or Very poor 9.2% 6.6% 2.1%

Enforcing City code requirements/conducting beautification programs? Very good or Good 66.8% 60.0% 58.1%
Poor or Very poor 11.5% 9.4% 19.7%

Addressing homeless issues?
Very good or Good 33.4% 26.6% n.a.

Poor or Very poor 38.2% 34.0% n.a.

Attracting and retaining businesses and jobs within the City? Very good or Good 68.0% 56.3% 77.4%
Poor or Very poor 6.4% 9.2% 7.9%

Providing police protection in your neighborhood?
Very good or Good 70.9% 65.7% 79.2%
Poor or Very poor 10.1% 7.1% 6.8%

Using City's Community Enhancement Funds to meet resident needs? Very good or Good 64.4% 56.9% n.a.

Poor or Very poor 7.7% 6.6% n.a.

Planning for the City's future?
Very good or Good 69.7% 51.2% 77.6%
Poor or Very poor 9.5% 13.8% 6.9%

In 2023, the responses were generally si milar to what was found in 2021. The majority of respondents continued to rate the City as very good and good in all of the dimensions included in prior surveys, and r elatively few rated the City poor or very poor on any individual dimension.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 240 of 436 ends

23 • Overall, how satisfied are you with the city services provided by the City of Rancho Cordova?

2023 2021 2018
Overall, how satisfied are you with the city services provided by the City? Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied 84.5% 76.6% 76.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied or Very dissatisfied 4.5% 5.1% 4.0%

More respondents were satisfied with the City’s services in 2023 compared to 2021 and 2018, and a very small percentage continued to be dissatisfied.

• If you have contacted the City to obtain information, report a problem, get a problem resolved, or for some other reason, how satisfied were you with the customer service you received? In 2023, this question was divided into two parts: a) if contacted the City in person or by telephone, and b) if contacted the City through its website or Rancho Cordova Online.

2023
All Methods
of Contact
2021
All Methods
of Contact
2018
If you contacted the City in person/phone,
how satisfied were you with the customer service?
Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied 85.7% 69.4% 72.3%
Somewhat dissatisfied or Very dissatisfied 11.8% 14.7% 22.6%

If you contacted the City's website/RC Online,
how satisfied were you with the customer service?
Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied 77.8% 69.4% 72.3%
Somewhat dissatisfied or Very dissatisfied 15.4% 14.7% 22.6%

Direct comparisons to prior years were not possible since the question about satisfaction with contacting the City was divided into two methods in 2023. However, more respondents indicated they were satisfied with each group of methods in 2023 compared to prior years.

• Which one of the following is your main source of information about what the City of Rancho Cordova is doing in the community?

2023 2021 2018
Main source of information about what the City is doing in the Community?
City printed material, such as a mailer or brochure 28.6% 28.0% 20.3% Social media, such as Facebook 23.1% 23.7% 12.0%
City’s website 15.1% 11.4% 8.9%
Word of mouth from friends or others 12.9% 13.7% 18.3%
City’s digital newsletter, such as Rancho Cordova News or Rancho Cordova Events 10.6% 8.6% 13.1%
Television/Radio/Newspaper 5.7% 10.3% 27.1%
Other 4.0% 4.3% 0.3%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 241 of 436 ends

24 In 2023, more respondents used City-provided sources of information (54.3%) than was found in 2021 (48.0%) or 2018 (42.3%). Additionally, more respondents used electronic sources (i.e., social media, City’s website, City’s digital newsletter) in 2023 (48.8%) than occurred in 2021 (43.7%) or 2018 (34.0%). Finally, fewer used television/radio/newspaper in 2023 compared to 2021 or 2018.

• How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on providing you with information about the programs and services it makes available to residents?

2023 2021 2018
Very good or Good 68.3% 62.0% 71.6%
Poor or Very poor 8.0% 11.1% 2.0%

In 2023, more respondents rated the City as very good or good and fewer rated it as poor or very poor than was found in 2021.

• Overall, how satisfied are you that the City of Rancho Cordova tries to be responsive to the well-being and concerns of its residents?

2023 2021 2018
Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied 76.0% 73.1% 75.1%
Somewhat dissatisfied or Very dissatisfied 6.0% 7.4% 3.1%

In 2023, more respondents were satisfied with the City’s efforts to be responsive than was found in either 2021 or 2018, and relatively few continued to be dissatisfied with the City’s efforts.

• How safe from crime do you feel on each of the following situations:

A) When you are alone?
B) When you are in your neighborhood?
C) When you are shopping within Rancho Cordova?
D) When you are at your local parks?

2023 2021 2018
When you are alone?
Very safe or Somewhat safe 79.7% 76.6% 96.9%
Somewhat unsafe or Very unsafe 11.2% 11.7% 2.0%

When you are in your neighborhood?
Very safe or Somewhat safe 88.5% 84.3% 87.4%
Somewhat unsafe or Very unsafe 9.2% 9.1% 6.3%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 242 of 436 ends

25 2023 2021 2018
When you are shopping within the City?
Very safe or Somewhat safe 77.0% 75.1% 83.5%
Somewhat unsafe or Very unsafe 16.4% 12.6% 5.8%

When you are at your local parks?
Very safe or Somewhat safe 84.3% 68.6% 79.9%
Somewhat unsafe or Very unsafe 6.5% 5.4% 6.9%

The wording of the question was changed from just “safe” to “safe from crime” in 2023, making it difficult to undertake direct comparisons between the three years. However, while the great majority of respondents in 2023 indicated they felt safe from crime in each of the situations studied, the percentages who feel safe when alone and when shopping are still below 2018 levels. A reason for this feeling when shopping may be due to a heightened visibility of the homeless population.

• How would you rate the Rancho Cordova Police Department on each of the following? A) Community involvement?
B) Helping citizens?
C) Treating people fairly?
D) Being able to respond quickly when needed?

2023 2021 2018
Community involvement?
Very good or Good 79.7% 70.6% 82.6%
Poor or Very poor 7.5% 6.3% 2.3%

Helping citizens?
Very good or Good 81.8% 66.6% 73.7%
Poor or Very poor 5.2% 6.3% 7.2%

Treating people fairly?
Very good or Good 77.7% 62.3% 70.6%
Poor or Very poor 6.3% 7.1% 8.9%

Being able to respond quickly when needed?
Very good or Good 78.9% 64.0% 82.4%
Poor or Very poor 9.8% 8.6% 6.6%

In 2023, the vast majority of respondents rated the Police Department as very good or good on each of the dimensions included in the survey. These percentages are substantially higher than was found in 2021 and better than for two of the four dimensions studied in 2018. As was the case in 2021 and 2018, few respondents in 2023 rated the Police Department as poor or very poor on any individual dimension studied.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 243 of 436 ends

26 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

• More than 90% of the respondents thought people c an have a good quality of life when living in Rancho Cordova, and 83% would recommend living in the City to a friend. These percentages are higher than was found in 2021 even though the percentages in prior years also were quite high.

• Nearly 45% of the respondents thought the image of Rancho Cordova has improved in the last two years, and a similar percentage thought it has remained the same. Overall, nearly 90% of the respondents believed the image has improved or remained the same while only 10% thought it had gotten worse. While the percentage who felt the City’s image has improved was lower than in prior years, the percentage who thought i t stayed the same increased. Given the favorable attitudes about quality of life and recommending the City to friends, this change may reflect a belief that the City already has a positive image.

Reasons cited by those who believed the image has improved were the quality of the streets and infrastructure, the businesses that have come into the area, and the City’s growth rate.

Among the relatively few residents who thought the image has gotten worse, most cited crime rate and homeless issues.

• The City continued to receive high ratings for its services. The majority of respondents rated City services as very good or good on all of the dimensions studied except for addressing homeless population issues. The highest ratings were for maintaining streets (including cleanliness, lighting, and landscaping), providing police protection in neighborhoods, repairing/resurfacing streets, and planning for the City’s future. Compared to 2021, ratings went up in 2023 for six of the eight dimensions studied, remained the same for one, and declined slightly for one (repairing/resurfacing streets).

It is important to note, however, that during the last two- year period, the City was bound by State regulations, County Health requirements, and notable court cases (Martin v.

Boise), which limited actions and interactions with those experiencing homelessness.

These limitations are likely to have continued this change in respondent ratings since 2021.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 244 of 436 ends

27 • More than 85% of the respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the customer service they received when contacting the City in person or by telephone, and nearly 80% were very or somewhat satisfied with the service they received when contacting the City through its website/RC Online. R elatively few were not very or not at all satisfied with either form of contact. It is unknown whether the negative ratings are due to the interaction between residents and City representatives or electronic contacts , or due to the residents not getting the actions/answers they wanted. Direct comparisons to prior years were not possible because the question was not broken out by form of contact in prior years.

However, the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each of the two forms of contact was higher in 2023 than in prior years.

• More than 75% of the respondents indicated they were satisfied that the City tries to be responsive to the well-being and concerns of its residents. This is consistent with the other perceptions of the City and the ratings respondents gave to various City services. It also is a higher percentage than found in prior years, even though satisfaction was high in those years as well.

• The main sources for information about the City’s activities were City printed material and social media. This is consistent with the findings in 2021.

Therefore, digital communication appear s to be increasing while word of mouth and television/radio/newspapers declined as main sources of information about the City’s activities from prior years.

• Nearly 70% of the respondents were satisfied with the City’s efforts to keep them informed about the programs and services it makes available to resident s, and only 8% were dissatisfied. The percentage of respondents who were satisfied was higher in 2023 than in prior years, and the percentage who were dissatisfied was lower than i n 2021. This indicates that the City’s efforts are being noticed and well-received.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 245 of 436 ends

28 • About 80% of the respondents rated the Rancho Cordova Police Department positively on all dimensions studied. They rated the Police Department as very good or good on helping citizens (82%), community involvement (80%), being able to respond quickly when needed (79%), and treating people fairly (78%). Few respondents gave the Police Department a poor rating on any of the dimensions studied. These percentages are substantially higher than was found in 2021 and better than two of the four dimensions studied in 2018.

• With respect to the demographic composition of respondents , the percentages of females and males remained about the same compared to 2021. There were more males in 2023 than in 2018.

Respondents to the 2023 survey tended to be younger and have higher household incomes than was found in the 2021 and 2018 surveys . About 36% were under 40 years of age compared to 30% in 2021 and 2018. Furthermore, nearly 45% had household incomes in excess of $100,000 in 2023 compared to 38% in 2021 and 29% in 2018.

Overall, the vast majority of respondents continued to believe they can have a good quality of life by living in the City, would recommend the City to a friend , and think the City’s image has improved or remained the same. They also continue to give favorable ratings for the services the City offers, and believe the City is trying to be responsive to the well -being and concerns of its residents. The findings are consistent in showing that residents rate City services, City information, and the Rancho Cordova Police Department positively.

Importantly, too, r espondents increasingly are rely ing on City-provided sources of information about City activities, and are satisfied with the information the City provides its residents. There clearly has been a shift in what sources of information residents use, and City- provided sources seem very much in line with those.

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 246 of 436 ends

29 TABLE ONE: RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS

2023 2023
Number Percent

19. Respondent’s gender.

Female 172 49.1%
Male 178 50.9%
Total 350 100.0%

16. What is your age?
Under 25 35 10.1%
25 to 39 89 25.6%
40 to 54 109 31.4%
55 to 64 68 19.6%
65 or older 46 13.3%
Total 347 100.0%
Did not answer 3 0.9%

17. What was your total household income before taxes in 2022? $30,000 or less 20 6.4%
$31,000 to $50,000 44 14.1%
$51,000 to $75,000 54 17.3%
$76,000 to $100,000 54 17.3%
$101,000 to $150,000 65 20.8%
More than $150,000 75 24.0%
Total 312 100.0%
Did not answer 38 10.9%

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? African-American/Black 21 6.2%
Asian-American 34 10.1%
Caucasian/White 176 52.2%
Latino/Hispanic 54 16.0%
Native American 9 2.7%
Pacific Islander 4 1.2%
Two or more races 35 10.4%
Other 4 1.2%
Total 337 100.0%
Did not answer 13 3.7%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 247 of 436 ends

30 TABLE TWO: RESPONDENT RESIDENTIAL

CHARACTERISTICS

2023 2023
Number Percent

1. Number of years lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? Less than 2 years 33 9.4%
2 to 5 years 68 19.4%
6 to 10 years 65 18.6%
11 to 20 years 85 24.3%
More than 20 years 99 28.3%
Total 350 100.0%

20. Respondent’s zip code.
95670 203 58.0%
95742 94 26.9%
95827 53 15.1%
Total 350 100.0%

15. Do you own or rent your home?
Own 262 75.3%
Rent 86 24.7%
Total 348 100.0%
Did not answer 2 0.6%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 248 of 436 ends

31 TABLE THREE: PERCEPTIONS OF LIVING IN

RANCHO CORDOVA

2023 2023
Number Percent

2. To what extent agree or disagree with the statement: “You can have a good quality of life living in Rancho Cordova"? Strongly agree 119 34.0%
Agree 197 56.3%
Neither agree nor disagree 20 5.7%
Disagree 11 3.1%
Strongly disagree 3 0.9%
Total 350 100.0%

3. Would you recommend living in Rancho Cordova to a friend? Yes 292 83.4%
No 37 10.6%
Uncertain 21 6.0%
Total 350 100.0%

4. Do you think the image of the City has gotten better, remained the same, or gotten worse over the last two years?
Gotten better 157 44.8%
Remained the same 156 44.6%
Gotten worse 37 10.6%
Total 350 100.0%

5. What is the main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten better? Quality of streets and infrastructure (bike paths, bridges, medians, etc.) 40 25.5% Businesses that have come/left 28 17.8%
City’s growth rate 19 12.1%
Crime rate 17 10.8%
Homeless issues 8 5.1%
Convenient to rest of Sacramento Region 5 3.2%
Parks and other amenities have improved/places are cleaner 5 3.2% Community events 4 2.5%
Diversity of the population 1 0.6%
Traffic congestion 1 0.6%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 249 of 436 ends

32 2023 2023
Number Percent

Other 20 12.7%
Amgen tour, improved events.

Availability of housing
Beatification
Beatifications of buildings.

Development on the south end.

Folsom Blvd. upgrade, new businesses.

I moved to a better area of town. The south side of town is worse.

Informing residents to unit as a whole/equitable living in Rancho.

Jesus
Leadership of the city striving for better condition.

Money back into the community.

More homes and less crime.

More services for everything and people are more active.

Police are more active.

Police are proactive.

Property value is going up.

Responsiveness of the local government
Revitalization
The crime areas have been cleaned like west Laloma.

The people
Unsure 9 5.7%
Total 157 100.0%

5. What is the main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten worse? Crime rate 16 43.2%
Homeless issues 12 32.4%
Businesses that have come/left 1 2.7%
Diversity of the population 1 2.7%
City’s growth rate 1 2.7%
Other 6 16.2%
Because Gavin Newsom is the Governor
Graffiti
Homelessness, crime rate increase, no community programs for youth The city code violations
The City's policing
Visual decline in people
Total 37 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 250 of 436 ends

33 TABLE FOUR: RATINGS OF THE CITY ON SERVICE

ATTRIBUTES AND RESPONSIVENESS

2023 2023
Number Percent

6. How do you rate the City on each of the following:

A) Maintaining streets, including cleanliness, lighting and landscaping? Very good 100 28.7%
Good 174 50.0%
Fair 57 16.4%
Poor 13 3.7%
Very poor 4 1.1%
Total 348 100.0%
No opinion 2 0.6%

B) Repairing and resurfacing City streets?
Very good 92 26.6%
Good 149 43.1%
Fair 73 21.1%
Poor 23 6.6%
Very poor 9 2.6%
Total 346 100.0%
No opinion 4 1.1%

C) Enforcing City code requirements/conducting beautification programs? Very good 68 21.1%
Good 147 45.7%
Fair 70 21.7%
Poor 24 7.5%
Very poor 13 4.0%
Total 322 100.0%
No opinion 28 8.0%

D) Addressing homeless issues?
Very good 28 8.9%
Good 77 24.5%
Fair 89 28.3%
Poor 65 20.7%
Very poor 55 17.5%
Total 314 100.0%
No opinion 36 10.3%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 251 of 436 ends

34 2023 2023
Number Percent

E) Attracting and retaining businesses and jobs within the City? Very good 53 17.2%
Good 157 50.8%
Fair 79 25.6%
Poor 14 4.5%
Very poor 6 1.9%
Total 309 100.0%
No opinion 41 11.7%

F) Providing police protection in your neighborhood?
Very good 92 28.1%
Good 140 42.8%
Fair 62 19.0%
Poor 22 6.7%
Very poor 11 3.4%
Total 327 100.0%
No opinion 23 6.6%

G) Using City's Community Enhancement Funds to meet resident needs? Very good 45 19.3%
Good 105 45.1%
Fair 65 27.9%
Poor 10 4.3%
Very poor 8 3.4%
Total 233 100.0%
No opinion 117 33.4%

H) Planning for the City's future?
Very good 42 15.9%
Good 142 53.8%
Fair 55 20.8%
Poor 15 5.7%
Very poor 10 3.8%
Total 264 100.0%
No opinion 86 24.6%

7. Overall, how satisfied are you with the city services provided by the City? Very satisfied 110 31.4%
Somewhat satisfied 186 53.1%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 38 10.9%
Somewhat dissatisfied 12 3.4%
Very dissatisfied 4 1.1%
Total 350 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 252 of 436 ends

35 2023 2023
Number Percent

8. If you contacted the City in person/by telephone to obtain information, report a problem, get a problem resolved, or for some other reason, how satisfied were you with the customer service you received? Very satisfied 72 44.7%
Somewhat satisfied 66 41.0%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 4 2.5%
Somewhat dissatisfied 11 6.8%
Very dissatisfied 8 5.0%
Have not contacted the City 189 54.0%
Total of those who have contacted the City 161 100.0%

9. If you contacted the City using the City's website/RC Online to obtain information, report a problem, get a problem resolved, or for some other reason, how satisfied were you with the customer service you received? Very satisfied 49 41.9%
Somewhat satisfied 42 35.9%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 8 6.8%
Somewhat dissatisfied 10 8.5%
Very dissatisfied 8 6.8%
Have not contacted the City 233 66.6%
Total of those who have contacted the City 117 100.0%

12. Overall, how satisfied are you that the City tries to be responsive to the well-being and concerns of its residents?
Very satisfied 91 26.0%
Somewhat satisfied 175 50.0%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 63 18.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied 15 4.3%
Very dissatisfied 6 1.7%
Total 350 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 253 of 436 ends

36 TABLE FIVE: SOURCES AND RATING OF

INFORMATON REGARDING CITY ACTIVITIES

2023 2023
Number Percent

10. Which one of the following is your main source of information about what the City is doing in the community?
City printed material, such as a mailer or brochure 100 28.6% Social media, such as Facebook 81 23.1%
City’s website 53 15.1%
Word of mouth from friends or others 45 12.9%
City’s digital newsletter, such as Fresh News or Fresh Events 37 10.6% Television/Radio/Newspaper 20 5.7%
Other (please specify) 14 4.0%
Both digital and mailer.

Chamber of Commerce
City Council involvement / meetings
City Council meeting & News papers
Cordova Connect app does not always work.

Email
Magazines
Mailers and social media
None
None
Phone
Phone call
Printed and website
Regular emails from the city of Rancho Cordova/Website
Total 350 100.0%

11. How would you rate the City on providing you with information about the programs and services it makes available to residents? Very good 100 28.6%
Good 139 39.7%
Fair 83 23.7%
Poor 19 5.4%
Very poor 9 2.6%
Total 350 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 254 of 436 ends

37 TABLE SIX: PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY

2023 2023
Number Percent

13. How safe do you feel on each of the following:

A) When you are alone?
Very safe 147 42.0%
Somewhat safe 132 37.7%
Neither safe nor unsafe 32 9.1%
Somewhat unsafe 36 10.3%
Very unsafe 3 0.9%
Total 350 100.0%

B) When you are in your neighborhood?
Very safe 222 63.4%
Somewhat safe 88 25.1%
Neither safe nor unsafe 8 2.3%
Somewhat unsafe 30 8.6%
Very unsafe 2 0.6%
Total 350 100.0%

C) When you are shopping within Rancho Cordova?
Very safe 136 39.2%
Somewhat safe 131 37.8%
Neither safe nor unsafe 23 6.6%
Somewhat unsafe 48 13.8%
Very unsafe 9 2.6%
Total 347 100.0%
No opinion 3 0.9%

D) When you are at your local parks?
Very safe 168 48.0%
Somewhat safe 127 36.3%
Neither safe nor unsafe 32 9.1%
Somewhat unsafe 19 5.4%
Very unsafe 4 1.1%
Total 350 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 255 of 436 ends

38 TABLE SEVEN: RATINGS OF THE RANCHO

CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT

2023 2023
Number Percent

14. How would you rate the Rancho Cordova Police Department on each of the following:

A) Being involved in the community?
Very good 105 36.1%
Good 127 43.6%
Fair 37 12.7%
Poor 12 4.1%
Very poor 10 3.4%
Total 291 100.0%
No opinion 59 16.9%

B) Helping citizens?
Very good 104 38.0%
Good 120 43.8%
Fair 36 13.1%
Poor 7 2.6%
Very poor 7 2.6%
Total 274 100.0%
No opinion 76 21.7%

C) Treating people fairly?
Very good 103 38.1%
Good 107 39.6%
Fair 43 15.9%
Poor 7 2.6%
Very poor 10 3.7%
Total 270 100.0%
No opinion 80 22.9%

D) Being able to respond quickly when needed?
Very good 115 40.5%
Good 109 38.4%
Fair 32 11.3%
Poor 16 5.6%
Very poor 12 4.2%
Total 284 100.0%
No opinion 66 18.9%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 256 of 436 ends

39 TABLE EIGHT: SIGNIFICANT CROSS-TABULATIONS

Significant Cross-Tabulations by Gender

Q4 * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q4 1 Count 82 75 157
Expected Count 77.2 79.8 157.0
2 Count 80 76 156
Expected Count 76.7 79.3 156.0
3 Count 10 27 37
Expected Count 18.2 18.8 37.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 8.125a 2 .017

19. Respondent’s gender.
1) Female
2) Male

4. Do you think the image of the City of Rancho Cordova has gotten better, remained the same, or gotten worse over the last two years?
1) Gotten better
2) Remained the same
3) Gotten worse

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 257 of 436 ends

40 Q6B * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q6B 1 Count 41 51 92
Expected Count 45.2 46.8 92.0
2 Count 88 61 149
Expected Count 73.2 75.8 149.0
3 Count 30 43 73
Expected Count 35.9 37.1 73.0
4 Count 6 17 23
Expected Count 11.3 11.7 23.0
5 Count 4 5 9
Expected Count 4.4 4.6 9.0
6 Count 3 1 4
Expected Count 2.0 2.0 4.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 14.568a 5 .012

19. Respondent’s gender.
1) Female
2) Male

6. How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on EACH of the following? Your choices are: 1=VERY GOOD, 2=GOOD, 3=FAIR, 4=POOR, 5=VERY POOR, 6=UNSURE
B) Repairing and resurfacing City streets?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 258 of 436 ends

41 Q6H * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q6H 1 Count 15 27 42
Expected Count 20.6 21.4 42.0
2 Count 78 64 142
Expected Count 69.8 72.2 142.0
3 Count 25 30 55
Expected Count 27.0 28.0 55.0
4 Count 4 11 15
Expected Count 7.4 7.6 15.0
5 Count 1 9 10
Expected Count 4.9 5.1 10.0
6 Count 49 37 86
Expected Count 42.3 43.7 86.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 16.506a 5 .006

19. Respondent’s gender.
1) Female
2) Male

6. How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on EACH of the following? Your choices are: 1=VERY GOOD, 2=GOOD, 3=FAIR, 4=POOR, 5=VERY POOR , 6=UNSURE
H) Planning for the City’s future?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 259 of 436 ends

42 Q9 * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q9 1 Count 30 19 49
Expected Count 24.1 24.9 49.0
2 Count 20 22 42
Expected Count 20.6 21.4 42.0
3 Count 3 5 8
Expected Count 3.9 4.1 8.0
4 Count 5 5 10
Expected Count 4.9 5.1 10.0
5 Count 0 8 8
Expected Count 3.9 4.1 8.0
6 Count 114 119 233
Expected Count 114.5 118.5 233.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 11.072a 5 .050

19. Respondent’s gender.
1) Female
2) Male

9. If you have contacted the City using the City’s website or Rancho Cordova Online to obtain information, report a problem, get a problem resolved, or for some other reason, how satisfied were you with the customer service you received?
1) Very satisfied
2) Somewhat satisfied
3) Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
4) Somewhat dissatisfied
5) Very dissatisfied
6) Have not contacted the City

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 260 of 436 ends

43 Q10 * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q10 1 Count 27 26 53
Expected Count 26.0 27.0 53.0
2 Count 43 57 100
Expected Count 49.1 50.9 100.0
3 Count 19 18 37
Expected Count 18.2 18.8 37.0
4 Count 54 27 81
Expected Count 39.8 41.2 81.0
5 Count 7 13 20
Expected Count 9.8 10.2 20.0
6 Count 17 28 45
Expected Count 22.1 22.9 45.0
7 Count 5 9 14
Expected Count 6.9 7.1 14.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 16.540a 6 .011

19. Respondent’s gender.
1) Female
2) Male

10. Which ONE of the following is your main source of information about what the City of Rancho Cordova is doing in the community?
1) City’s website
2) City printed material, such as a mailer or brochure
3) City’s digital newsletter, such as Rancho Cordova News or Rancho Cordova Events 4) Social media, such as Facebook
5) Television/Radio/Newspaper
6) Word of mouth from friends or others
7) Other (please specify)

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 261 of 436 ends

44 Q11 * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q11 1 Count 54 46 100
Expected Count 49.1 50.9 100.0
2 Count 74 65 139
Expected Count 68.3 70.7 139.0
3 Count 37 46 83
Expected Count 40.8 42.2 83.0
4 Count 6 13 19
Expected Count 9.3 9.7 19.0
5 Count 1 8 9
Expected Count 4.4 4.6 9.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 10.122a 4 .038

19. Respondent’s gender.
1) Female
2) Male

11. Over the last two years how would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova’s efforts to provide you with information about the programs and services it makes available to residents? 1) Very Good
2) Good
3) Fair
4) Poor
5) Very Poor

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 262 of 436 ends

45 Q13A * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q13A 1 Count 56 91 147
Expected Count 72.2 74.8 147.0
2 Count 72 60 132
Expected Count 64.9 67.1 132.0
3 Count 24 8 32
Expected Count 15.7 16.3 32.0
4 Count 19 17 36
Expected Count 17.7 18.3 36.0
5 Count 1 2 3
Expected Count 1.5 1.5 3.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 17.771a 4 .001

19. Respondent’s gender.
1) Female
2) Male

13. How safe from crime do you feel in each of the following situations: Your choices are: 1=Very Safe, 2=Somewhat Safe, 3=Neither Safe nor Unsafe, 4=Somewhat Unsafe, 5=Very Unsafe A) When you are alone?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 263 of 436 ends

46 Q13C * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q13C 1 Count 54 82 136
Expected Count 66.8 69.2 136.0
2 Count 77 54 131
Expected Count 64.4 66.6 131.0
3 Count 14 9 23
Expected Count 11.3 11.7 23.0
4 Count 20 28 48
Expected Count 23.6 24.4 48.0
5 Count 5 4 9
Expected Count 4.4 4.6 9.0
6 Count 2 1 3
Expected Count 1.5 1.5 3.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 12.568a 5 .028

19. Respondent’s gender.
a. Female
b. Male

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 264 of 436 ends

47 Q14A * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q14A 1 Count 51 54 105
Expected Count 51.6 53.4 105.0
2 Count 66 61 127
Expected Count 62.4 64.6 127.0
3 Count 18 19 37
Expected Count 18.2 18.8 37.0
4 Count 1 11 12
Expected Count 5.9 6.1 12.0
5 Count 1 9 10
Expected Count 4.9 5.1 10.0
6 Count 35 24 59
Expected Count 29.0 30.0 59.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 16.996a 5 .005

19. Respondent’s gender.
c. Female
d. Male

14. How would you rate the Rancho Cordova Police Department on EACH of the following? Your choices are:
1=Very Good, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, 5=Very Poor, 6=Did not answer A) Being involved in the community?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 265 of 436 ends

48 Q14B * Q19

Q19
Total 1 2
Q14B 1 Count 55 49 104
Expected Count 51.1 52.9 104.0
2 Count 59 61 120
Expected Count 59.0 61.0 120.0
3 Count 18 18 36
Expected Count 17.7 18.3 36.0
4 Count 0 7 7
Expected Count 3.4 3.6 7.0
5 Count 0 7 7
Expected Count 3.4 3.6 7.0
6 Count 40 36 76
Expected Count 37.3 38.7 76.0
Total Count 172 178 350
Expected Count 172.0 178.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 14.491a 5 .013

19. Respondent’s gender.
e. Female
f. Male

14. How would you rate the Rancho Cordova Police Department on EACH of the following? Your choices are:
1=Very Good, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, 5=Very Poor, 6=Did not answer B) Helping citizens

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 266 of 436 ends

49 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Age

Q4 * Q16

Q16
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q4 1 Count 12 31 55 29 27 3
Expected Count 15.7 39.9 48.9 30.5 20.6 1.3
2 Count 21 49 43 27 16 0
Expected Count 15.6 39.7 48.6 30.3 20.5 1.3
3 Count 2 9 11 12 3 0
Expected Count 3.7 9.4 11.5 7.2 4.9 .3
Total Count 35 89 109 68 46 3
Expected Count 35.0 89.0 109.0 68.0 46.0 3.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 20.167a 10 .028

16. What is your age?
1) Under 25
2) 25 to 39
3) 40 to 54
4) 55 to 64
5) 65 or older
6) Did not answer

4. Do you think the image of the City of Rancho Cordova has gotten better, remained the same, or gotten worse over the last two years?
1) Gotten better
2) Remained the same
3) Gotten worse
ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 267 of 436 ends

50 Q6D * Q16

Q16
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q6D 1 Count 2 9 5 3 8 1
Expected Count 2.8 7.1 8.7 5.4 3.7 .2
2 Count 6 23 26 11 10 1
Expected Count 7.7 19.6 24.0 15.0 10.1 .7
3 Count 8 20 33 14 14 0
Expected Count 8.9 22.6 27.7 17.3 11.7 .8
4 Count 4 15 21 18 7 0
Expected Count 6.5 16.5 20.2 12.6 8.5 .6
5 Count 9 16 11 17 2 0
Expected Count 5.5 14.0 17.1 10.7 7.2 .5
6 Count 6 6 13 5 5 1
Expected Count 3.6 9.2 11.2 7.0 4.7 .3
Total Count 35 89 109 68 46 3
Expected Count 35.0 89.0 109.0 68.0 46.0 3.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 38.550a 25 .041

16. What is your age?
1) Under 25
2) 25 to 39
3) 40 to 54
4) 55 to 64
5) 65 or older
6) Did not answer

6. How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on EACH of the following? Your choices are 1=VERY GOOD, 2=GOOD, 3=FAIR, 4=POOR, 5=VERY POOR , 6=UNSURE
D) Addressing homeless issues?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 268 of 436 ends

51 Q6H * Q16

Q16
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q6H 1 Count 5 7 9 6 14 1
Expected Count 4.2 10.7 13.1 8.2 5.5 .4
2 Count 12 43 45 28 14 0
Expected Count 14.2 36.1 44.2 27.6 18.7 1.2
3 Count 7 13 25 4 5 1
Expected Count 5.5 14.0 17.1 10.7 7.2 .5
4 Count 2 5 3 4 1 0
Expected Count 1.5 3.8 4.7 2.9 2.0 .1
5 Count 0 3 3 3 1 0
Expected Count 1.0 2.5 3.1 1.9 1.3 .1
6 Count 9 18 24 23 11 1
Expected Count 8.6 21.9 26.8 16.7 11.3 .7
Total Count 35 89 109 68 46 3
Expected Count 35.0 89.0 109.0 68.0 46.0 3.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 38.477a 25 .042

16. What is your age?
1) Under 25
2) 25 to 39
3) 40 to 54
4) 55 to 64
5) 65 or older
6) Did not answer

6. How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on EACH of the following? Your choices are 1=VERY GOOD, 2=GOOD, 3=FAIR, 4=POOR, 5=VERY POOR, 6=UNSURE
H) Planning for the City’s future?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 269 of 436 ends

52 Q9 * Q16

Q16
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q9 1 Count 6 7 20 9 7 0
Expected Count 4.9 12.5 15.3 9.5 6.4 .4
2 Count 0 8 13 10 9 2
Expected Count 4.2 10.7 13.1 8.2 5.5 .4
3 Count 0 0 4 0 4 0
Expected Count .8 2.0 2.5 1.6 1.1 .1
4 Count 0 5 1 2 2 0
Expected Count 1.0 2.5 3.1 1.9 1.3 .1
5 Count 1 1 6 0 0 0
Expected Count .8 2.0 2.5 1.6 1.1 .1
6 Count 28 68 65 47 24 1
Expected Count 23.3 59.2 72.6 45.3 30.6 2.0
Total Count 35 89 109 68 46 3
Expected Count 35.0 89.0 109.0 68.0 46.0 3.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 51.673a 25 .001

16. What is your age?
1) Under 25
2) 25 to 39
3) 40 to 54
4) 55 to 64
5) 65 or older
6) Did not answer

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 270 of 436 ends

53 Q10 * Q16

Q16
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q10 1 Count 4 8 22 13 4 2
Expected Count 5.3 13.5 16.5 10.3 7.0 .5
2 Count 6 31 26 23 13 1
Expected Count 10.0 25.4 31.1 19.4 13.1 .9
3 Count 4 5 14 7 7 0
Expected Count 3.7 9.4 11.5 7.2 4.9 .3
4 Count 10 30 20 11 10 0
Expected Count 8.1 20.6 25.2 15.7 10.6 .7
5 Count 1 2 3 6 8 0
Expected Count 2.0 5.1 6.2 3.9 2.6 .2
6 Count 8 12 20 3 2 0
Expected Count 4.5 11.4 14.0 8.7 5.9 .4
7 Count 2 1 4 5 2 0
Expected Count 1.4 3.6 4.4 2.7 1.8 .1
Total Count 35 89 109 68 46 3
Expected Count 35.0 89.0 109.0 68.0 46.0 3.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 60.392a 30 .001

16. What is your age?
1) Under 25
2) 25 to 39
3) 40 to 54
4) 55 to 64
5) 65 or older
6) Did not answer

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 271 of 436 ends

54 Q11 * Q16

Q16
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q11 1 Count 10 28 22 21 17 2
Expected Count 10.0 25.4 31.1 19.4 13.1 .9
2 Count 12 33 47 30 17 0
Expected Count 13.9 35.3 43.3 27.0 18.3 1.2
3 Count 12 18 34 11 8 0
Expected Count 8.3 21.1 25.8 16.1 10.9 .7
4 Count 1 10 3 3 1 1
Expected Count 1.9 4.8 5.9 3.7 2.5 .2
5 Count 0 0 3 3 3 0
Expected Count .9 2.3 2.8 1.7 1.2 .1
Total Count 35 89 109 68 46 3
Expected Count 35.0 89.0 109.0 68.0 46.0 3.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 35.556a 20 .017

16. What is your age?
1) Under 25
2) 25 to 39
3) 40 to 54
4) 55 to 64
5) 65 or older
6) Did not answer

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 272 of 436 ends

55 Q13A * Q16

Q16
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q13A 1 Count 24 34 38 28 22 1
Expected Count 14.7 37.4 45.8 28.6 19.3 1.3
2 Count 7 39 47 17 20 2
Expected Count 13.2 33.6 41.1 25.6 17.3 1.1
3 Count 2 5 13 10 2 0
Expected Count 3.2 8.1 10.0 6.2 4.2 .3
4 Count 2 10 11 11 2 0
Expected Count 3.6 9.2 11.2 7.0 4.7 .3
5 Count 0 1 0 2 0 0
Expected Count .3 .8 .9 .6 .4 .0
Total Count 35 89 109 68 46 3
Expected Count 35.0 89.0 109.0 68.0 46.0 3.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 33.033a 20 .033

16. What is your age?
1) Under 25
2) 25 to 39
3) 40 to 54
4) 55 to 64
5) 65 or older
6) Did not answer

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 273 of 436 ends

56 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Household Income

Q2 * Q17

Q17
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q2 1 Count 4 12 15 19 19 36
Expected Count 6.8 15.0 18.4 18.4 22.1 25.5
2 Count 11 24 36 33 40 33
Expected Count 11.3 24.8 30.4 30.4 36.6 42.2
3 Count 5 5 1 1 3 2
Expected Count 1.1 2.5 3.1 3.1 3.7 4.3
4 Count 0 2 1 0 3 4
Expected Count .6 1.4 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.4
5 Count 0 1 1 1 0 0
Expected Count .2 .4 .5 .5 .6 .6

Total
Count 20 44 54 54 65 75
Expected Count 20.0 44.0 54.0 54.0 65.0 75.0

Q17
Total 7
Q2 1 Count 14 119
Expected Count 12.9 119.0
2 Count 20 197
Expected Count 21.4 197.0
3 Count 3 20
Expected Count 2.2 20.0
4 Count 1 11
Expected Count 1.2 11.0
5 Count 0 3
Expected Count .3 3.0
Total Count 38 350
Expected Count 38.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 39.384a 24 .025

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 274 of 436 ends

57 17. What was your total household income before taxes in 2022? 1) $30,000 or less
2) $31,000 to $50,000
3) $51,000 to $75,000
4) $76,000 to $100,000
5) $101,000 to $150,000
6) More than $150,000
7) Did not answer

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: “You can have a good quality of life living in Rancho Cordova?”
1) Strongly agree
2) Agree
3) Neither agree nor disagree
4) Disagree
5) Strongly disagree

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 275 of 436 ends

58 Q6D * Q17

Q17
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q6D 1 Count 0 2 4 3 9 7
Expected Count 1.6 3.5 4.3 4.3 5.2 6.0
2 Count 4 7 10 10 19 24
Expected Count 4.4 9.7 11.9 11.9 14.3 16.5
3 Count 6 11 16 13 17 20
Expected Count 5.1 11.2 13.7 13.7 16.5 19.1
4 Count 3 12 12 9 12 8
Expected Count 3.7 8.2 10.0 10.0 12.1 13.9
5 Count 1 5 9 15 4 12
Expected Count 3.1 6.9 8.5 8.5 10.2 11.8
6 Count 6 7 3 4 4 4
Expected Count 2.1 4.5 5.6 5.6 6.7 7.7
Total Count 20 44 54 54 65 75
Expected Count 20.0 44.0 54.0 54.0 65.0 75.0

Q17
Total 7
Q6D 1 Count 3 28
Expected Count 3.0 28.0
2 Count 3 77
Expected Count 8.4 77.0
3 Count 6 89
Expected Count 9.7 89.0
4 Count 9 65
Expected Count 7.1 65.0
5 Count 9 55
Expected Count 6.0 55.0
6 Count 8 36
Expected Count 3.9 36.0
Total Count 38 350
Expected Count 38.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 52.916a 30 .006

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 276 of 436 ends

59 17. What was your total household income before taxes in 2022? 1) $30,000 or less
2) $31,000 to $50,000
3) $51,000 to $75,000
4) $76,000 to $100,000
5) $101,000 to $150,000
6) More than $150,000
7) Did not answer

6. How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on EACH of the following? Your choices are 1=VERY GOOD, 2=GOOD, 3=FAIR, 4=POOR, 5=VERY POOR, 6=UNSURE
D) Addressing homeless issues?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 277 of 436 ends

60 Q6E * Q17

Q17
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q6E 1 Count 2 5 5 8 9 16
Expected Count 3.0 6.7 8.2 8.2 9.8 11.4
2 Count 10 27 32 23 27 26
Expected Count 9.0 19.7 24.2 24.2 29.2 33.6
3 Count 2 5 8 17 18 24
Expected Count 4.5 9.9 12.2 12.2 14.7 16.9
4 Count 1 1 2 1 3 2
Expected Count .8 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.6 3.0
5 Count 0 0 2 1 0 2
Expected Count .3 .8 .9 .9 1.1 1.3
6 Count 5 6 5 4 8 5
Expected Count 2.3 5.2 6.3 6.3 7.6 8.8
Total Count 20 44 54 54 65 75
Expected Count 20.0 44.0 54.0 54.0 65.0 75.0

Q17
Total 7
Q6E 1 Count 8 53
Expected Count 5.8 53.0
2 Count 12 157
Expected Count 17.0 157.0
3 Count 5 79
Expected Count 8.6 79.0
4 Count 4 14
Expected Count 1.5 14.0
5 Count 1 6
Expected Count .7 6.0
6 Count 8 41
Expected Count 4.5 41.0
Total Count 38 350
Expected Count 38.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 44.243a 30 .045

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 278 of 436 ends

61 17. What was your total household income before taxes in 2022? 1) $30,000 or less
2) $31,000 to $50,000
3) $51,000 to $75,000
4) $76,000 to $100,000
5) $101,000 to $150,000
6) More than $150,000
7) Did not answer

6. How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on EACH of the following? Your choices are 1=VERY GOOD, 2=GOOD, 3=FAIR, 4=POOR, 5=VERY POOR, 6=UNSURE
E) Attracting and retaining new and existing businesses and jobs in the City?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 279 of 436 ends

62 Q11 * Q17

Q17
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q11 1 Count 5 12 21 9 26 17
Expected Count 5.7 12.6 15.4 15.4 18.6 21.4
2 Count 9 19 21 18 16 39
Expected Count 7.9 17.5 21.4 21.4 25.8 29.8
3 Count 3 10 10 24 17 13
Expected Count 4.7 10.4 12.8 12.8 15.4 17.8
4 Count 3 2 1 1 5 5
Expected Count 1.1 2.4 2.9 2.9 3.5 4.1
5 Count 0 1 1 2 1 1
Expected Count .5 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.9
Total Count 20 44 54 54 65 75
Expected Count 20.0 44.0 54.0 54.0 65.0 75.0

Q17
Total 7
Q11 1 Count 10 100
Expected Count 10.9 100.0
2 Count 17 139
Expected Count 15.1 139.0
3 Count 6 83
Expected Count 9.0 83.0
4 Count 2 19
Expected Count 2.1 19.0
5 Count 3 9
Expected Count 1.0 9.0
Total Count 38 350
Expected Count 38.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 42.559a 24 .011

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 280 of 436 ends

Rancho Cordova City CouncilOctober 2, 2023

Rancho Cordova City Council
October 2, 2023