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

63 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

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 281 of 436 ends

64 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Ethnicity

Q4 * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q4 1 Count 3 16 87 28 8 8
Expected Count 9.3 15.1 78.3 24.0 15.6 7.6
2 Count 15 17 69 25 17 7
Expected Count 9.3 15.1 78.3 24.0 15.6 7.6
3 Count 3 1 20 1 10 2
Expected Count 2.3 3.7 19.3 5.9 3.8 1.9
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 30.862a 10 .001

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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 282 of 436 ends

65 Q6A * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q6A 1 Count 7 6 50 18 9 8
Expected Count 6.1 9.9 51.2 15.7 10.2 4.9
2 Count 8 24 95 21 10 9
Expected Count 10.4 16.8 87.2 26.8 17.3 8.4
3 Count 6 1 24 11 11 0
Expected Count 3.3 5.3 27.7 8.5 5.5 2.7
4 Count 0 0 6 4 3 0
Expected Count .8 1.3 6.8 2.1 1.4 .7
5 Count 0 2 1 0 1 0
Expected Count .2 .4 2.1 .6 .4 .2
6 Count 0 1 0 0 1 0
Expected Count .1 .2 1.0 .3 .2 .1
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 51.067a 25 .002

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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
A) Maintaining the streets, including cleanliness, lighting and landscaping?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 283 of 436 ends

66 Q6B * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q6B 1 Count 8 5 41 16 8 8
Expected Count 5.4 8.7 44.9 13.8 8.9 4.3
2 Count 8 23 76 24 8 6
Expected Count 9.0 14.6 75.7 23.2 15.1 7.3
3 Count 4 4 36 10 15 1
Expected Count 4.4 7.1 36.6 11.2 7.3 3.5
4 Count 0 0 15 4 2 2
Expected Count 1.4 2.3 12.0 3.7 2.4 1.2
5 Count 1 2 4 0 2 0
Expected Count .6 .9 4.7 1.4 .9 .5
6 Count 0 0 4 0 0 0
Expected Count .2 .4 2.1 .6 .4 .2
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 40.484a 25 .026

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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 284 of 436 ends

67 Q6C * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q6C 1 Count 3 3 35 14 7 4
Expected Count 4.1 6.7 34.5 10.6 6.9 3.3
2 Count 4 22 75 23 9 8
Expected Count 8.8 14.2 73.6 22.6 14.6 7.1
3 Count 9 2 32 13 9 2
Expected Count 4.2 6.8 35.0 10.7 7.0 3.4
4 Count 1 1 13 2 5 2
Expected Count 1.5 2.4 12.5 3.8 2.5 1.2
5 Count 0 2 5 2 3 0
Expected Count .7 1.2 6.3 1.9 1.2 .6
6 Count 4 4 16 0 2 1
Expected Count 1.7 2.7 14.1 4.3 2.8 1.4
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 41.796a 25 .019

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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
C) Enforcing city code requirements and conducting beautification programs in your neighborhood?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 285 of 436 ends

68 Q6F * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q6F 1 Count 5 7 51 16 5 4
Expected Count 5.5 8.9 46.0 14.1 9.1 4.4
2 Count 8 20 74 21 7 9
Expected Count 8.7 14.0 72.6 22.3 14.4 7.0
3 Count 7 7 25 10 7 2
Expected Count 3.6 5.9 30.3 9.3 6.0 2.9
4 Count 1 0 9 5 5 1
Expected Count 1.3 2.1 11.0 3.4 2.2 1.1
5 Count 0 0 3 1 5 1
Expected Count .6 1.0 5.2 1.6 1.0 .5
6 Count 0 0 14 1 6 0
Expected Count 1.3 2.1 11.0 3.4 2.2 1.1
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 54.146a 25 .001

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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
F) Providing police protection in your neighborhood?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 286 of 436 ends

69 Q6G * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q6G 1 Count 3 1 24 8 4 4
Expected Count 2.7 4.4 23.0 7.1 4.6 2.2
2 Count 4 18 56 16 3 4
Expected Count 6.3 10.2 52.7 16.2 10.5 5.1
3 Count 8 7 21 14 10 2
Expected Count 3.9 6.3 32.4 9.9 6.4 3.1
4 Count 0 0 6 0 3 1
Expected Count .6 1.0 5.2 1.6 1.0 .5
5 Count 0 1 2 1 3 0
Expected Count .4 .7 3.7 1.1 .7 .4
6 Count 6 7 67 15 12 6
Expected Count 7.0 11.4 59.0 18.1 11.7 5.7
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 49.335a 25 .003

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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
G) Using the City’s Community Enhancement and Investment Fund, which is funded by two recent sales tax measures, to meet residents’ needs?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 287 of 436 ends

70 Q6H * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q6H 1 Count 4 1 23 9 2 1
Expected Count 2.5 4.0 20.9 6.4 4.2 2.0
2 Count 5 21 75 22 9 7
Expected Count 8.7 14.0 72.6 22.3 14.4 7.0
3 Count 5 5 20 9 8 4
Expected Count 3.2 5.1 26.6 8.2 5.3 2.6
4 Count 1 0 9 0 4 0
Expected Count .9 1.4 7.3 2.2 1.5 .7
5 Count 0 1 4 0 4 1
Expected Count .6 1.0 5.2 1.6 1.0 .5
6 Count 6 6 45 14 8 4
Expected Count 5.2 8.4 43.3 13.3 8.6 4.2
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 39.821a 25 .030

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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 288 of 436 ends

71 Q9 * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q9 1 Count 2 9 19 8 7 4
Expected Count 3.1 4.9 25.6 7.9 5.1 2.5
2 Count 1 2 27 8 0 3
Expected Count 2.6 4.1 21.4 6.6 4.3 2.1
3 Count 0 0 6 1 1 0
Expected Count .5 .8 4.2 1.3 .8 .4
4 Count 0 0 3 1 4 0
Expected Count .5 .8 4.2 1.3 .8 .4
5 Count 0 1 2 2 3 0
Expected Count .5 .8 4.2 1.3 .8 .4
6 Count 18 22 119 34 20 10
Expected Count 13.9 22.5 116.5 35.7 23.2 11.2
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 42.424a 25 .016

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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 289 of 436 ends

72 Q12 * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q12 1 Count 4 8 57 9 5 6
Expected Count 5.5 9.0 46.5 14.3 9.2 4.5
2 Count 11 18 81 36 14 8
Expected Count 10.5 16.9 87.7 26.9 17.4 8.5
3 Count 5 6 28 6 11 3
Expected Count 3.7 6.0 30.8 9.5 6.1 3.0
4 Count 1 2 9 1 2 0
Expected Count .9 1.5 7.8 2.4 1.6 .8
5 Count 0 0 1 2 3 0
Expected Count .4 .6 3.1 1.0 .6 .3
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 32.525a 20 .038

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

12. Overall, in the last two years, how satisfied are you that the City of Rancho Cordova has tried to be responsive to the well-being and concerns of its residents?
1) Very satisfied
2) Somewhat satisfied
3) Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
4) Somewhat dissatisfied
5) Very dissatisfied

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 290 of 436 ends

73 Q14A * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q14A 1 Count 4 13 61 17 2 5
Expected Count 6.4 10.3 53.3 16.3 10.6 5.1
2 Count 8 11 65 22 12 6
Expected Count 7.7 12.5 64.8 19.9 12.9 6.3
3 Count 2 3 14 8 4 2
Expected Count 2.1 3.3 17.2 5.3 3.4 1.7
4 Count 3 0 2 2 3 2
Expected Count .7 1.2 6.3 1.9 1.2 .6
5 Count 2 0 1 1 6 0
Expected Count .6 1.0 5.2 1.6 1.0 .5
6 Count 2 7 33 4 8 2
Expected Count 3.5 5.6 29.2 9.0 5.8 2.8
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 66.136a 25 .000

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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=No Response A) Being involved in the community?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 291 of 436 ends

74 Q14B * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q14B 1 Count 5 7 66 13 5 5
Expected Count 6.3 10.2 52.7 16.2 10.5 5.1
2 Count 3 18 58 23 9 6
Expected Count 7.3 11.8 61.1 18.7 12.2 5.9
3 Count 3 2 11 8 5 2
Expected Count 1.9 3.1 16.2 5.0 3.2 1.6
4 Count 2 0 2 0 3 0
Expected Count .4 .7 3.7 1.1 .7 .4
5 Count 2 0 0 2 2 1
Expected Count .4 .7 3.7 1.1 .7 .4
6 Count 6 7 39 8 11 3
Expected Count 4.6 7.5 38.6 11.9 7.7 3.7
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 54.425a 25 .001

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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 292 of 436 ends

75 Q14C * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q14C 1 Count 7 7 64 13 3 5
Expected Count 6.2 10.0 51.7 15.9 10.3 5.0
2 Count 2 17 50 22 10 4
Expected Count 6.5 10.6 54.8 16.8 10.9 5.3
3 Count 5 2 16 9 4 3
Expected Count 2.4 3.9 20.4 6.2 4.1 2.0
4 Count 2 0 3 0 2 0
Expected Count .4 .7 3.7 1.1 .7 .4
5 Count 1 0 0 2 5 2
Expected Count .6 1.0 5.2 1.6 1.0 .5
6 Count 4 8 43 8 11 3
Expected Count 4.8 7.8 40.2 12.3 8.0 3.9
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 64.826a 25 .000

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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 C) Treating people fairly?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 293 of 436 ends

76 Q14D * Q18

Q18
1 2 3 4 7 8
Q14D 1 Count 6 7 71 16 5 8
Expected Count 7.0 11.4 59.0 18.1 11.7 5.7
2 Count 5 18 50 18 10 5
Expected Count 6.6 10.7 55.4 17.0 11.0 5.3
3 Count 5 3 8 7 5 0
Expected Count 1.7 2.8 14.6 4.5 2.9 1.4
4 Count 0 0 8 4 2 2
Expected Count 1.0 1.6 8.4 2.6 1.7 .8
5 Count 0 0 3 3 6 0
Expected Count .7 1.2 6.3 1.9 1.2 .6
6 Count 5 6 36 6 7 2
Expected Count 3.9 6.3 32.4 9.9 6.4 3.1
Total Count 21 34 176 54 35 17
Expected Count 21.0 34.0 176.0 54.0 35.0 17.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 59.838a 25 .000

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
7) Two or more races
8) Other

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 D) Being able to respond quickly when needed?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 294 of 436 ends

77 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Years a Resident of Rancho Cordova

Q4 * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q4 1 Count 5 19 35 46 52 157
Expected Count 14.8 30.5 29.2 38.1 44.4 157.0
2 Count 28 43 28 26 31 156
Expected Count 14.7 30.3 29.0 37.9 44.1 156.0
3 Count 0 6 2 13 16 37
Expected Count 3.5 7.2 6.9 9.0 10.5 37.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 51.773a 8 .000

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

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 295 of 436 ends

78 Q6H * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q6H 1 Count 2 7 5 15 13 42
Expected Count 4.0 8.2 7.8 10.2 11.9 42.0
2 Count 8 34 32 27 41 142
Expected Count 13.4 27.6 26.4 34.5 40.2 142.0
3 Count 9 8 15 15 8 55
Expected Count 5.2 10.7 10.2 13.4 15.6 55.0
4 Count 1 1 6 2 5 15
Expected Count 1.4 2.9 2.8 3.6 4.2 15.0
5 Count 1 0 0 4 5 10
Expected Count .9 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.8 10.0
6 Count 12 18 7 22 27 86
Expected Count 8.1 16.7 16.0 20.9 24.3 86.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 40.414a 20 .004

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

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 296 of 436 ends

79 Q7 * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q7 1 Count 8 20 28 27 27 110
Expected Count 10.4 21.4 20.4 26.7 31.1 110.0
2 Count 20 36 34 37 59 186
Expected Count 17.5 36.1 34.5 45.2 52.6 186.0
3 Count 2 10 2 12 12 38
Expected Count 3.6 7.4 7.1 9.2 10.7 38.0
4 Count 0 2 1 8 1 12
Expected Count 1.1 2.3 2.2 2.9 3.4 12.0
5 Count 3 0 0 1 0 4
Expected Count .4 .8 .7 1.0 1.1 4.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 46.134a 16 .000

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

7. Overall, how satisfied are you with the services provided by the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Very satisfied
2) Somewhat satisfied
3) Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
4) Somewhat dissatisfied
5) Very dissatisfied

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 297 of 436 ends

80 Q8 * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q8 1 Count 4 7 14 20 27 72
Expected Count 6.8 14.0 13.4 17.5 20.4 72.0
2 Count 0 14 13 15 24 66
Expected Count 6.2 12.8 12.3 16.0 18.7 66.0
3 Count 0 0 0 2 2 4
Expected Count .4 .8 .7 1.0 1.1 4.0
4 Count 1 4 0 5 1 11
Expected Count 1.0 2.1 2.0 2.7 3.1 11.0
5 Count 0 1 2 1 4 8
Expected Count .8 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.3 8.0
6 Count 28 42 36 42 41 189
Expected Count 17.8 36.7 35.1 45.9 53.5 189.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 38.692a 20 .007

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

8. If you have contacted the City in person or 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? 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 298 of 436 ends

81 Q9 * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q9 1 Count 3 10 6 17 13 49
Expected Count 4.6 9.5 9.1 11.9 13.9 49.0
2 Count 0 11 14 4 13 42
Expected Count 4.0 8.2 7.8 10.2 11.9 42.0
3 Count 3 0 0 2 3 8
Expected Count .8 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.3 8.0
4 Count 1 2 1 1 5 10
Expected Count .9 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.8 10.0
5 Count 2 0 2 3 1 8
Expected Count .8 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.3 8.0
6 Count 24 45 42 58 64 233
Expected Count 22.0 45.3 43.3 56.6 65.9 233.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 35.901a 20 .016

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 299 of 436 ends

82 Q11 * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q11 1 Count 1 23 21 22 33 100
Expected Count 9.4 19.4 18.6 24.3 28.3 100.0
2 Count 9 30 32 31 37 139
Expected Count 13.1 27.0 25.8 33.8 39.3 139.0
3 Count 19 14 8 22 20 83
Expected Count 7.8 16.1 15.4 20.2 23.5 83.0
4 Count 4 0 4 6 5 19
Expected Count 1.8 3.7 3.5 4.6 5.4 19.0
5 Count 0 1 0 4 4 9
Expected Count .8 1.7 1.7 2.2 2.5 9.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 45.554a 16 .000

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 300 of 436 ends

83 Q12 * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q12 1 Count 5 18 15 26 27 91
Expected Count 8.6 17.7 16.9 22.1 25.7 91.0
2 Count 14 37 41 34 49 175
Expected Count 16.5 34.0 32.5 42.5 49.5 175.0
3 Count 13 11 6 15 18 63
Expected Count 5.9 12.2 11.7 15.3 17.8 63.0
4 Count 1 0 2 8 4 15
Expected Count 1.4 2.9 2.8 3.6 4.2 15.0
5 Count 0 2 1 2 1 6
Expected Count .6 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.7 6.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 28.482a 16 .028

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 301 of 436 ends

84 Q14A * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q14A 1 Count 5 20 21 27 32 105
Expected Count 9.9 20.4 19.5 25.5 29.7 105.0
2 Count 7 21 33 25 41 127
Expected Count 12.0 24.7 23.6 30.8 35.9 127.0
3 Count 7 8 3 11 8 37
Expected Count 3.5 7.2 6.9 9.0 10.5 37.0
4 Count 2 4 2 4 0 12
Expected Count 1.1 2.3 2.2 2.9 3.4 12.0
5 Count 2 1 2 3 2 10
Expected Count .9 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.8 10.0
6 Count 10 14 4 15 16 59
Expected Count 5.6 11.5 11.0 14.3 16.7 59.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 34.142a 20 .025

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

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 302 of 436 ends

85 Q14D * Q1

Q1
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Q14D 1 Count 6 14 22 31 42 115
Expected Count 10.8 22.3 21.4 27.9 32.5 115.0
2 Count 9 24 28 19 29 109
Expected Count 10.3 21.2 20.2 26.5 30.8 109.0
3 Count 5 5 5 7 10 32
Expected Count 3.0 6.2 5.9 7.8 9.1 32.0
4 Count 1 2 6 3 4 16
Expected Count 1.5 3.1 3.0 3.9 4.5 16.0
5 Count 3 2 0 4 3 12
Expected Count 1.1 2.3 2.2 2.9 3.4 12.0
6 Count 9 21 4 21 11 66
Expected Count 6.2 12.8 12.3 16.0 18.7 66.0
Total Count 33 68 65 85 99 350
Expected Count 33.0 68.0 65.0 85.0 99.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 42.422a 20 .002

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 303 of 436 ends

86 Significant Cross-Tabulations by Whether Own or Rent

Q2 * Q15

Q15
Total 1 2 3
Q2 1 Count 90 29 0 119
Expected Count 89.1 29.2 .7 119.0
2 Count 152 44 1 197
Expected Count 147.5 48.4 1.1 197.0
3 Count 13 7 0 20
Expected Count 15.0 4.9 .1 20.0
4 Count 7 4 0 11
Expected Count 8.2 2.7 .1 11.0
5 Count 0 2 1 3
Expected Count 2.2 .7 .0 3.0
Total Count 262 86 2 350
Expected Count 262.0 86.0 2.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 64.135a 8 .000

15. Do you own or rent your home?
1) Own
2) Rent
3) No Response

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 304 of 436 ends

87 Q9 * Q15

Q15
Total 1 2 3
Q9 1 Count 42 7 0 49
Expected Count 36.7 12.0 .3 49.0
2 Count 38 4 0 42
Expected Count 31.4 10.3 .2 42.0
3 Count 5 2 1 8
Expected Count 6.0 2.0 .0 8.0
4 Count 9 1 0 10
Expected Count 7.5 2.5 .1 10.0
5 Count 7 1 0 8
Expected Count 6.0 2.0 .0 8.0
6 Count 161 71 1 233
Expected Count 174.4 57.3 1.3 233.0
Total Count 262 86 2 350
Expected Count 262.0 86.0 2.0 350.0

Value df Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 35.060a 10 .000

15. Do you own or rent your home?
1) Own
2) Rent
3) No Response

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 305 of 436 ends

88 TABLE NINE: COMPARISON OF THE 2023 RESULTS
TO THE 2021 AND 2018 SURVEY RESULTS

Respondent Demographic Characteristics

2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

19. Respondent’s gender.

Female 49.1% 49.4% 56.0%
Male 50.9% 50.6% 44.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

16. What is your age?
Under 25 10.1% 8.0% 12.6%
25 to 39 25.6% 21.7% 17.4%
40 to 54 31.4% 35.4% 11.1%
55 to 64 19.6% 22.3% 20.9%
65 or older 13.3% 12.6% 38.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Did not answer 0.9%

17. What was your total household income before taxes in 2022? $30,000 or less 6.4% 11.4% 0.6%
$31,000 to $50,000 14.1% 10.6% 12.5%
$51,000 to $75,000 17.3% 24.9% 33.1%
$76,000 to $100,000 17.3% 15.1% 24.8%
$101,000 to $150,000 20.8% 24.6% 16.7%
More than $150,000 24.0% 13.4% 12.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Did not answer 10.9%

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? African-American/Black 6.2% 6.3% 8.8%
Asian-American 10.1% 6.9% 13.6%
Caucasian/White 52.2% 58.0% 59.9%
Latino/Hispanic 16.0% 11.7% 13.0%
Native American 2.7% 0.9% 2.7%
Pacific Islander 1.2% 0.9% 0.6%
Two or more races 10.4% 8.3% 0.3%
Other 1.2% 5.4% 0.9%
Not sure 0.0% 1.7% 0.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Did not answer 3.7%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 306 of 436 ends

89 Respondent Residential Characteristics

2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

1. Number of years lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? Less than 2 years 9.4% 1.7% 6.3%
2 to 5 years 19.4% 12.3% 12.3%
6 to 10 years 18.6% 24.3% 16.3%
11 to 20 years 24.3% 35.7% 19.4%
More than 20 years 28.3% 26.0% 45.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

20. Respondent’s zip code.
95670 58.0% 66.6% 73.1%
95742 26.9% 19.7% 11.7%
95827 15.1% 13.7% 15.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

15. Do you own or rent your home?
Own 75.3% 78.3% 83.4%
Rent 24.7% 21.7% 16.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Did not answer 0.6%

Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova

2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent 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 34.0% 27.4% 48.0%
Agree 56.3% 56.6% 33.7%
Neither agree nor disagree 5.7% 12.0% 14.9%
Disagree 3.1% 2.9% 3.1%
Strongly disagree 0.9% 1.1% 0.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3. 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%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 307 of 436 ends

90 2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

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 44.9% 53.4% 54.0%
Remained the same 44.6% 34.6% 37.9%
Gotten worse 10.6% 12.0% 8.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5. What is the main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten better? Crime rate 10.8% 9.6% 20.9%
Convenient to rest of Sacramento Region 3.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Businesses that have come/left 17.8% 18.7% 8.6%
Cost of housing 0.0% 0.5% 1.1%
Diversity of the population 0.6% 1.1% 0.0%
Quality of the schools 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%
Quality of streets and infrastructure (bike paths, bridges, medians, etc.) 25.5% 26.7% 48.1% Traffic congestion 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Community events 2.5% 3.7% 5.3%
City’s growth rate 12.1% 23.0% 1.6%
Parks and other amenities have improved/places are cleaner 3.2% 5.3% 11.8% Homeless issues 5.1%
Other 12.7% 10.7% 2.7%
Unsure 5.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5. What is the main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten worse? Crime rate 43.2% 33.3% 60.7%
Convenient to rest of Sacramento Region 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Businesses that have come/left 2.7% 2.4% 0.0%
Diversity of the population 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%
City’s growth rate 2.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Parks and other amenities have gotten worse 0.0% 9.5% 3.6% Homeless issues 32.4%
Other 16.2% 40.5% 10.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 308 of 436 ends

91 Ratings of the City on Service Attributes and Responsiveness

2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

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

A) Maintaining streets, including cleanliness, lighting and landscaping? Very good 28.7% 32.0% 30.0%
Good 50.0% 46.9% 48.0%
Fair 16.4% 14.3% 14.6%
Poor 3.7% 4.9% 6.0%
Very poor 1.1% 2.0% 1.4%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 0.6%
B) Repairing and resurfacing City streets?
Very good 26.6% 24.9% 30.9%
Good 43.1% 49.4% 47.6%
Fair 21.1% 19.1% 19.4%
Poor 6.6% 4.9% 0.6%
Very poor 2.6% 1.7% 1.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 1.1%
C) Enforcing City code requirements/conducting beautification programs? Very good 21.1% 17.7% 17.8%
Good 45.7% 42.3% 40.3%
Fair 21.7% 30.6% 22.2%
Poor 7.5% 8.0% 18.5%
Very poor 4.0% 1.4% 1.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 8.0%
D) Addressing homeless issues?
Very good 8.9% 2.6%
Good 24.5% 24.0%
Fair 28.3% 39.1%
Poor 20.7% 22.3%
Very poor 17.5% 11.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 10.3%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 309 of 436 ends

92 2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

E) Attracting and retaining businesses and jobs within the City? Very good 17.2% 12.6% 25.8%
Good 50.8% 43.7% 51.6%
Fair 25.6% 34.5% 14.7%
Poor 4.5% 6.9% 7.9%
Very poor 1.9% 2.3% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 11.7%
F) Providing police protection in your neighborhood?
Very good 28.1% 19.7% 28.4%
Good 42.8% 46.0% 50.8%
Fair 19.0% 27.2% 14.0%
Poor 6.7% 5.1% 5.9%
Very poor 3.4% 2.0% 0.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 6.6%
G) Using City's Community Enhancement Funds to meet resident needs? Very good 19.3% 16.0%
Good 45.1% 40.9%
Fair 27.9% 36.5%
Poor 4.3% 4.6%
Very poor 3.4% 2.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 33.4%
H) Planning for the City's future?
Very good 15.9% 10.9% 25.4%
Good 53.8% 40.3% 52.2%
Fair 20.8% 35.0% 15.5%
Poor 5.7% 10.9% 6.9%
Very poor 3.8% 2.9% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 24.6%

7. Overall, how satisfied are you with the city services provided by the City? Very satisfied 31.4% 33.4% 18.0%
Somewhat satisfied 53.1% 43.1% 58.0%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 10.9% 18.3% 20.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied 3.4% 2.9% 3.7%
Very dissatisfied 1.1% 2.3% 0.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 310 of 436 ends

93 2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent 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?* All forms All forms Very satisfied 44.7% 37.6% 40.1%
Somewhat satisfied 41.0% 31.8% 32.2%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 2.5% 15.9% 5.1%
Somewhat dissatisfied 6.8% 5.3% 12.4%
Very dissatisfied 5.0% 9.4% 10.2%
Have not contacted the City 54.0% 51.4% 49.4%
Total of those who have contacted the City 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *In 2021 and 2018 methods of contact were not broken out.

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? * All forms All forms Very satisfied 41.9% 37.6% 40.1%
Somewhat satisfied 35.9% 31.8% 32.2%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 6.8% 15.9% 5.1%
Somewhat dissatisfied 8.5% 5.3% 12.4%
Very dissatisfied 6.8% 9.4% 10.2%
Have not contacted the City 66.6% 51.4% 49.4%
Total of those who have contacted the City 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *In 2021 and 2018 methods of contact were not broken out.

12. Overall, how satisfied are you that the City tries to be responsive to the well-being and concerns of its residents?
Very satisfied 26.0% 30.3% 19.4%
Somewhat satisfied 50.0% 42.9% 55.7%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 18.0% 19.4% 21.7%
Somewhat dissatisfied 4.3% 5.4% 2.9%
Very dissatisfied 1.7% 2.0% 0.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 311 of 436 ends

94 Sources and Rating of Information Regarding City Activities

2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

10. Which one of the following is your main source of information about what the City is doing in the community?
City’s website 15.1% 11.4% 8.9%
City printed material, such as a mailer or brochure 28.6% 28.0% 20.3% City’s digital newsletter, such as Fresh News or Fresh Events 10.6% 8.6% 13.1% Social media, such as Facebook 23.1% 23.7% 12.0%
Television/Radio/Newspaper 5.7% 10.3% 27.1%
Word of mouth from friends or others 12.9% 13.7% 18.3%
Other (please specify) 4.0% 4.3% 0.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 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 28.6% 30.3% 20.9%
Good 39.7% 31.7% 50.7%
Fair 23.7% 26.9% 26.4%
Poor 5.4% 6.3% 2.0%
Very poor 2.6% 4.9% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Perceptions of Personal Safety

2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

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

A) When you are alone?
Very safe 42.0% 30.3% 83.1%
Somewhat safe 37.7% 46.3% 13.7%
Neither safe nor unsafe 9.1% 11.7% 1.1%
Somewhat unsafe 10.3% 6.9% 2.0%
Very unsafe 0.9% 4.9% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B) When you are in your neighborhood?
Very safe 63.4% 52.9% 53.6%
Somewhat safe 25.1% 31.4% 33.8%
Neither safe nor unsafe 2.3% 6.6% 6.3%
Somewhat unsafe 8.6% 4.3% 6.3%
Very unsafe 0.6% 4.9% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 312 of 436 ends

95 2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

C) When you are shopping within Rancho Cordova?
Very safe 39.2% 34.9% 32.1%
Somewhat safe 37.8% 40.3% 51.4%
Neither safe nor unsafe 6.6% 12.3% 10.7%
Somewhat unsafe 13.8% 8.6% 5.5%
Very unsafe 2.6% 4.0% 0.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 0.9%
D) When you are at your local parks?
Very safe 48.0% 35.7% 34.0%
Somewhat safe 36.3% 32.9% 45.9%
Neither safe nor unsafe 9.1% 26.0% 13.1%
Somewhat unsafe 5.4% 2.9% 6.2%
Very unsafe 1.1% 2.6% 0.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Ratings of the Rancho Cordova Police Department

2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

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

A) Being involved in the community?
Very good 36.1% 32.3% 25.8%
Good 43.6% 38.3% 56.8%
Fair 12.7% 23.1% 15.2%
Poor 4.1% 3.1% 2.3%
Very poor 3.4% 3.1% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 16.9%
B) Helping citizens?
Very good 38.0% 28.3% 28.3%
Good 43.8% 38.3% 45.4%
Fair 13.1% 27.1% 19.1%
Poor 2.6% 2.9% 6.8%
Very poor 2.6% 3.4% 0.4%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 21.7%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 313 of 436 ends

96 2023 2021 2018
Percent Percent Percent

C) Treating people fairly?
Very good 38.1% 27.4% 27.4%
Good 39.6% 34.9% 43.1%
Fair 15.9% 30.6% 20.6%
Poor 2.6% 3.4% 7.7%
Very poor 3.7% 3.7% 1.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 22.9%
D) Being able to respond quickly when needed?
Very good 40.5% 26.6% 33.2%
Good 38.4% 37.4% 49.2%
Fair 11.3% 27.4% 10.9%
Poor 5.6% 5.1% 5.5%
Very poor 4.2% 3.4% 1.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No opinion 18.9%

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 314 of 436 ends

97 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE 2023
SURVEY

Hello, my name is _____, and we are conducting a brief survey sponsored by the City of Rancho Cordova. The City periodically conducts a survey of its residents to assess how well it is serving their needs, so your views are very important in helping us plan for the future. I am not selling anything, and you need not identify yourself for this survey. This survey focuses on local rather than state or national conditions within the last two years, and I’d like to ask you a few questions such as: INTERVIEWER: GO DIRECTLY TO QUESTION #1.

1. For how many years have you lived in the City of Rancho Cordova? 1) Less than 2 years
2) 2 to 5 years
3) 6 to 10 years
4) 11 to 20 years
5) More than 20 years

3. Would you recommend living in Rancho Cordova to a friend? 1) Yes
2) No
3) Uncertain

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) G
otten better Go to Question 5-A
2) Remained the same Go to Question 6
3) G otten worse Go to Question 5-B

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 315 of 436 ends

98 5. 5-A What is the ONE main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten BETTER? --INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ THIS LIST TO THE RESPONDENT. AFTER THIS, GO TO QUESTION 6.
1) C rime rate
2) Convenience of location relative to rest of Sacramento Region 3) Businesses that have come/left
4) Cost of housing
5) Diversity of the population
6) Quality of the schools
7) Quality of streets and infrastructure (bike paths, bridges, medians, etc.) 8) Traffic congestion
9) Community events
10) City’s growth rate
11) Parks and other amenities have improved/gotten worse 12) Homeless issues
13) Other (Please specify)

5-B What is the ONE main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten WORSE? --INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ THIS LIST TO THE RESPONDENT. AFTER THIS, GO TO QUESTION 6.
1) C rime rate
2) Convenience of location relative to rest of Sacramento Region 3) Businesses that have come/left
4) Cost of housing
5) Diversity of the population
6) Quality of the schools
7) Quality of streets and infrastructure (bike paths, bridges, medians, etc.) 8) Traffic congestion
9) Community events
10) City’s growth rate
11) Parks and other amenities have improved/gotten worse 12) Homeless issues
13) Other (Please specify)

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 316 of 436 ends

99 6. How would you rate the City of Rancho Cordova on EACH of the following? Your choices are Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor.

INTERVIEWER: READ EACH OF THESE, AND USE: 1=VERY GOOD, 2=GOOD, 3=FAIR, 4=POOR, 5=VERY POOR
A) Maintaining the streets, including cleanliness, lighting and landscaping? B) Repairing and resurfacing City streets?
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?

8. If you have contacted the City in person or 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?
1) Very satisfied
2) Somewhat satisfied
3) Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
4) Somewhat dissatisfied
5) Very dissatisfied
6) Have not contacted the City

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 317 of 436 ends

100

10. Which ONE of the following is your main source of information about what the City of Rancho Cordova is doing in the community? INTERVIEWER: READ LIST TO RESPONDENT.
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)

12. Overall, in the last two years, how satisfied are you that the City of Rancho Cordova has tried to be responsive to the well-being and concerns of its residents? 1) Very satisfied
2) Somewhat satisfied
3) Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
4) Somewhat dissatisfied
5) Very dissatisfied

13. How safe from crime do you feel in each of the following situations: Your choices are: Very Safe, Somewhat Safe, Neither Safe nor Unsafe, Somewhat Unsafe, Very Unsafe INTERVIEWER: READ EACH OF THESE, AND USE: 1=VERY SAFE, 2=SOMEWHAT SAFE, 3=NEITHER SAFE OR UNSAFE, 4=SOMEWHAT UNSAFE, 5=VERY UNSAFE
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?

14. How would you rate the Rancho Cordova Police Department on EACH of the following? Your choices are: Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor INTERVIEWER: READ EACH OF THESE, AND USE: 1=VERY GOOD, 2=GOOD, 3=FAIR, 4=POOR, 5=VERY POOR.

A) Being involved in the community?
B) Helping citizens?
C) Treating people fairly?
D) Being able to respond quickly when needed?

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 318 of 436 ends

101

The following questions are used for cross-classification purposes only.

15. Do you own or rent your home?
1) Own
2) Rent

16. What is your age?
1) Under 25
2) 25 to 39
3) 40 to 54
4) 55 to 64
5) 65 or older

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

18. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of? 1) African-American/Black
2) Asian-American
3) Caucasian/White
4) Latino/Hispanic
5) Native American
6) Pacific Islander
7) Two or more races
8) Other
9) Not sure

This completes the survey. Thank you for your time.

19. INTERVIEWER: Record respondent’s gender.
1) Female
2) Male

20. INTERVIEWER: Record respondent’s zip code.
1) 95670
2) 95742
3) 95827

ITEM 19.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 319 of 436 ends

1 RANCHO CORDOVA BIANNUAL

RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY
September 2023
CityOfRanchoCordova.org

Page 320 of 436 ends

2 Overall Goal – to survey residents’ views on how well City services meet residents’ needs Survey Goals
Sample size and population
• 350 residents over age 18
• Respondents reached by phone -
both land lines and cell phones
• Surveys were conducted during
June, 2023
• All comparisons are to the last
surveys in 2018 and 2021
In particular:
• Overall perceptions of living in Rancho Cordova
• 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 to learn about City programs and services

Page 321 of 436 ends

3 Respondent Characteristics
Gender 2023 2021 2018
Male 51% 51% 44%
Female 49% 49% 56%
Age
65 and older 13% 13% 38%
40 to 64 51% 58% 32%
Under 40 36% 29% 30%
Income
Above $100,000 45% 38% 29%
$76,000 to $100,000 17% 15% 25%
$51,000 to $75,000 17% 25% 33%
Less than $51,000 21% 22% 13%
Race
Caucasian 52% 58% 60%
Asian American 10% 7% 14%
Latino/Hispanic 16% 12% 13%
African American 6% 6% 9%
Other/Mixed 16% 17% 4%
Years in RC
More than 20 years 28% 26% 46%
6 to 20 years 43% 60% 36%
5 years or less 29% 14% 18%
Tenure 2023 2021 2018
Homeowners 75% 78% 83%
Renters 25% 22% 17%

Page 322 of 436 ends

4 You can have a good quality of life living in Rancho Cordova.

Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova
Part 1 of 5
Disagree or Strongly Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
4%
12%
57%
27%
4%
6%
56%
34%
2023 2021

Page 323 of 436 ends

5 Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova
Part 2 of 5
Would you recommend living in Rancho Cordova to a friend? No
Unsure
Yes
12%
9%
79%
11%
6%
83%
2023 2021

Page 324 of 436 ends

6 Has the image of Rancho Cordova gotten better in the last 2 years? Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova
Part 3 of 5
Gotten worse
Remained the same
Gotten better
12%
35%
53%
10%
45%
45%
2023 2021

Page 325 of 436 ends

7 26%
21%
18%
17%
12%
3%
3%
Streets and infrastructure
Other
Attracting quality
businesses
Less crime/good
police/less homelessness
City's growth rate
Cleaner City, better parks
and amenities
Community events
Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova
Part 4 of 5
What is the main reason you feel the image of the City has gotten BETTER? (Of the 45% of respondents saying image has gotten better, responses summarized into categories) v. 4%v. 5%
v. 23%
v. 10%
v. 12%
v. 19%
v. 27%
Specific comments:
• There is a lot of new
construction, beautification,
money back into the
community etc. going on
• Police more proactive, crime
areas have been cleaned
• Responsiveness of the local
government

Page 326 of 436 ends

8 76%
21%
3%
Higher crime rate/homeless
issues
Other
Businesses that have
come/left
Perceptions of Living in Rancho Cordova
Part 5 of 5
What is the main reason you feel the image of the City of Rancho Cordova has gotten WORSE? (Of the 11% of respondents saying image has gotten worse, responses summarized into categories) v. 2%
v. 65%
v. 33%

Page 327 of 436 ends

9 How well is the City providing the following service? Ratings on City Service Attributes
Addressing Homeless Issues
NOTE: NOT ASKED IN 2021
Providing police protection in your
neighborhood
Part 1 of 6
7%
27%
66%
10%
19%
71%
33%
28%
39%
2023 2021
Very good & good
Fair
Poor & very poor
Very good & good
Fair
Poor & very poor

Page 328 of 436 ends

10 How well is the City providing the following service? Ratings on City Service Attributes
Part 2 of 6
Repairing and resurfacing City streets
Maintaining the streets, including
cleanliness, lighting and landscaping
7%
14%
79%
7%
19%
74%
10%
19%
71%
5%
16%
79%
9%
21%
70%
2023 2021
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor
Using the City's Community Enhancement
and Investment Fund, which is funded by two
recent sales tax measures, to meet residents'
needs (NOTE: Not asked in 2021)

Page 329 of 436 ends

11 How well is the City providing the following service? Ratings on City Service Attributes
Planning for the future of the City
Attracting and retaining businesses within
the City
Enforcing City requirements in
your neighborhood
Part 3 of 6
9%
31%
60%
9%
35%
56%
14%
35%
51%
11%
22%
67%
6%
26%
68%
9%
21%
70%
2023 2021
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor

Page 330 of 436 ends

12 Very dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
9%
5%
16%
32%
38%
5%
7%
2%
41%
45%
2023 2021
If you have 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? (46% had contacted the City in person or by telephone) – NOTE: Slight wording change in 2023 Ratings on City Service Attributes
Part 4 of 6

Page 331 of 436 ends

13 If you have 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? (33% had contacted the City by website or RC Online) – NOTE: Not asked in 2021 Ratings on City Service Attributes
Part 5 of 6
Very dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
7%
9%
7%
36%
42%
2023

Page 332 of 436 ends

14 Very dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
2%
3%
18%
43%
33%
1%
3%
11%
53%
32%
2023 2021
Ratings on City Service Attributes
Part 6 of 6
Overall how satisfied are you with the City services provided?

Page 333 of 436 ends

15 How safe do residents feel when they are in particular situations? Perceptions of Safety and Ratings of RCPD
Part 1 of 4
When you are alone
When you are in your neighborhood
9%
7%
84%
12%
11%
77%
9%
2%
89%
11%
9%
80%
2023 2021
Somewhat or Very Safe
Neither Safe nor Unsafe
Somewhat or Very Unsafe
Somewhat or Very Safe
Neither Safe nor Unsafe
Somewhat or Very Unsafe

Page 334 of 436 ends

16 How safe do residents feel when they are in particular situations? Perceptions of Safety and Ratings of RCPD
Part 2 of 4
When you are shopping within
Rancho Cordova
When you are at your local parks
5%
26%
69%
13%
12%
75%
7%
9%
84%
16%
7%
77%
2023 2021
Somewhat or Very Safe
s
Neither Safe nor Unsafe
s
Somewhat or Very Unsafe
Somewhat or Very Safe
s
Neither Safe nor Unsafe
s
Somewhat or Very Unsafe

Page 335 of 436 ends

17 How would you rate the Rancho Cordova Police Department on each of the following? Perceptions of Safety and Ratings of RCPD
Part 3 of 4
Community involvement
Helping citizens
6%
27%
67%
6%
23%
71%
5%
13%
82%
7%
13%
80%
2023 2021
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor

Page 336 of 436 ends

18 How would you rate the Rancho Cordova Police Department on each of the following? Perceptions of Safety and Ratings of RCPD
Part 4 of 4
Treating people fairly
Being able to respond quickly
when needed
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor
Very good & good
s
Fair
s
Poor & very poor 9%
27%
64%
7%
31%
62%
10%
11%
79%
6%
16%
78%
2023 2021

Page 337 of 436 ends

19 Somewhat or very
dissatisfied
6% in 2023
v. 7% in 2021
How satisfied are you that the City tries to be responsive to the well-being and concerns of its residents? City Responsiveness to Resident Concerns
76% of Rancho Cordova residents are
Very satisfied or Somewhat satisfied that
the City is responsive to resident well-
being and concerns (73% in 2021)
Very satisfied
26% in 2023 v. 30% in 2021
Somewhat satisfied
50% in 2023 v. 43% in 2021
Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied
18% in 2023
v. 19% in 2021

Page 338 of 436 ends

20 How well does the City inform residents about
programs and services?
Information Dissemination
What is your main source of information about what
Rancho Cordova is doing in your community?
v. 10%
v. 14%
v. 24%
v. 28%
v. 11%
v. 9%
Poor or
Very poor
8% v. 11%
Fair 24%
v. 27%
Very Good 28%
v. 30%
Good 40%
v. 32% Television/Radio/Newspape
r
City's Digital Newsletter
Word of Mouth
City's Website
Social Media
City Mailers, Brochures,
other Printed Material
6%
10%
13%
15%
23%
29%

Page 339 of 436 ends

21 Overall, this survey indicates a high level of satisfaction with living in Rancho Cordova and the services residents receive from the City.

Overall:
• Quality of life perceptions have remained high
• The image of Rancho Cordova has remained relatively even since 2021 • City services ratings have remained strong
• Safety perceptions remained positive and improved over 2021 • A larger number of residents receive information from City materials and media Area indicated for additional focus:
• Addressing homeless population issues
Summary and Conclusions

Page 340 of 436 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 3

ITEM 19.2.

DATE: October 2, 2023

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Dalia Fadl, Principal Engineer

SUBJECT: PRESENTATION REGARDING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO INCREASE THE ANNUAL STORMWATER UTILITY 1 FEE FOR THE

MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE AND FLOOD PROTECTION
SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATION

Direct staff to bring a Resolution to the October 16, 2023, City Council meeting to designate a time and place for hearing protests in connection with the proposed SWU1 Fee increase (December 4, 2023) and authorize the City Clerk’s office to give notice of the above-described protest hearing.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff would bring a resolution to the October 16, 2023, City Council meeting to designate a time and place for hearing protests in connection with the proposed SWU1 Fee increase (December 4, 2023) and authorize the City Clerk’s office to give notice of the above-described protest hearing.

BACKGROUND

The City's stormwater infrastructure includes the following facilities:
• 6 pump stations
• 6 regional detention basins
• 254 miles of drainage pipes
• 7740 drainage inlets
• 4370 manholes
• 70 acres of creek channels and tributaries

The Stormwater Utility 1 Fee (SWU1) was created in 1995 in order to provide for the safety of the residents of the City, protect property in the City from the damage associated with flooding, and meet the requirements of the NPDES permit. It is necessary to design, construct, operate, maintain, improve and replace storm drainage facilities which collect storm and surface water runoff and convey and treat such runoff in a safe manner. It is also necessary to inspect, monitor, and take enforcement action related to illegal dumping, trash, and illicit discharges into

Page 341 of 436 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 3

the City's storm drain system.

The City of Rancho Cordova has over $50 million in deferred maintenance, including outdated pump stations, local flooding, and damaged and aging infrastructure. Delay in addressing deferred maintenance will result in a growing maintenance backlog and an increased need to reactively address emergency conditions. Furthermore, the effort needed to comply with state and federal regulations continues to grow.

DISCUSSION

The SWU1 revenue is not adequate to support the City’s stormwater enterprise and, as a result, the stormwater utility fund has a growing deficit. In addition, inadequate revenues generated by the current SWU1 fee have necessitated the deferral of capital improvements to the storm drain system. Staff recommends an increase to the SWU1 fee to provide adequate funding for maintenance and capital improvements of stormwater infrastructure, addressing deferred maintenance, staying in compliance with state and federal regulations, and reducing the potential for future flooding.

A “Rate Analysis Report” was prepared by Harris & Associates and found that revenue generated by the current rate is not adequate to support the City’s stormwater enterprise (Attachment 1). The analysis completed by the City found that the annual costs to maintain, replace, and improve the stormwater infrastructure in the SWU1 area is $8.9 million per year.

The current SWU1 fee collects about $3.5-$4 million per year, a shortfall of approximately $5 million per year. Increasing the rate would close this gap and allow the City to provide a higher level of service to address deferred maintenance, decrease the potential for flooding, and comply with growing federal and state regulations. In addition, attached is a boundary map (Attachment 2) that depicts the boundaries of the SWU1 Fee area.

The existing SWU1 fee for a typical single-family home (LDR1) is $70.09 annually. The proposed SWU1 fee for a typical single-family home (LDR1) is $156.79 annually. A sample fee calculation for various land uses and parcel sizes are summarized in the following table:

In tonight’s action, staff is seeking direction from City Council to bring a resolution to the October 16, 2023, City Council meeting to designate a time and place for hearing protests in connection with the proposed SWU1 Fee increase (December 4, 2023) and authorize the City Clerk’s office to give notice of the above-described protest hearing.

Page 342 of 436 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 3

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The proposed action would have no impact on the City's General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Preliminary Stormwater Utility 1 Rate and Analysis Report

2. Drainage Districts Map

3. Stormwater Utility I Rate Increase Presentation

Page 343 of 436 ends

STORM DRAIN
RATE ANALYSIS
REPORT
(STORMWATER UTILITY FEE 1)
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
September 2023
ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 344 of 436 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Background information ................................................................................................................................................. 2

3. Services funded .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

4. Proposition 218 Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 6

5. Rate Structure Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 7

6. Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................................................ 10

7. Fee Calculations ............................................................................................................................................................ 14

Exhibit A DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Exhibit B RUNOFF COEFFICIENT

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 345 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 1
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

1. INTRODUCTION
The Stormwater Utility Fee 1 (“SWU 1”) was established by Sacramento County in 1995 to cover the cost for the maintenance and improvements of the City of Rancho Cordova’s storm drainage management system. In 2014, the City took ownership of the system from Sacramento County, and is now responsible for the operation an d maintenance of the system. The SWU 1 did not include an annual cost escalator to keep up with the rate of maintenance and repairs, and as a consequence, the SWU 1 fee revenue is not adequate to support the City’s stormwater enterprise. In addition, inadequate revenues generated by the current SWU 1 fee have necessitated the deferral of capital improvem
ents to the storm drain system. In order to continue to provide stormwater management services, the City of Rancho Cordova (City) is updating the Stormwater Utility Fee 1 to provide adequate funding for maintenance and capital improvements of stormwater infrastructure.

These fees would be levied per the California He
alth and Safety Code Section 5470 et seq. The City will use the Stormwater Utility Fee 1 to fund the operation and maintenance of the facilities needed to provide the appropriate facilities and control measures for Stormwater quality control.

The purpose of this Rate Analysis Report is to:
 Identify the improvements and maintenance that needs to be funded.  Review the requirements of Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218), the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 et. Seq.), and Health & Safety Code Section 5470 et. Seq. re lating to requirements for apportioning the costs associated with the City’s stormwater runoff system.
 Analyze and recommend an appropriate rate structure and provide estimated rates based on cost data information provided by the City.

Note: The City’s Enhanced Stormwater Utility Fee 2 (“Enhanced SWU 2”) is not imp acted by this update.

Enhanced SWU 2 fees address the additional costs to the City for maintaining low impact design (LID) improvements. If a developer wishes to place their LID improvements in public right‐of‐way that will be maintained by the City, that development will be conditioned to provide an adequate funding mechanis m to cover the annual cost of the LID improvement including, but not limited to, annexing into the City’s Enhanced Stormwater Utility Fee 2 district. If the development has private LID improvements, they may annex into the City’s SWU 1 or provide a City‐approved alternate funding source.

Exhibit A includes a map of the City’s Drainage District Boundaries.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 346 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 2
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Stormwater Utility Fee 1 (“SWU 1”) was established in 1995 as an initiative dedicated to managing stormwater effectively within Sacramento County. Notably, SWU 1 operates as an enterprise fund, ensuring its revenues and expenditures are segregated into a specific fund, exclusively designated for the stormwater program. It’s important to note there is no inflat or or annual adjustment mechanism in place, which means the funding levels remain constant without periodic increases.

In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to establish regulations setting forth National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit standards. The enactm ent of 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act (Act) of 1972 imposes permit requirements for discharge of storm waters. The Act allows the EPA to delegate its NPDES permitting authority to states with an approved environmental regulatory program. The State of California is one of the delegated states.

The respons
ibility for implementing various NPDES permits in the State of California has been delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB administers NPDES authority through its nine Regional Boards. As an NPDES permittee, the City is required to prevent or minimize stormwater pollution within its j urisdiction. This includes overseeing the maintenance and operations of the City’s extensive stormwater assets encompassing 6 pump stations, 6 regional detention basins, 254 miles of drainage pipes, 7,7740 drainage inlets, and 4,370 manholes. Additionally, it includes managing 70 acres of creek channels and tributaries. Duties also entail coordinating routine maintenance and emergenc y response activities while prioritizing and addressing customer service requests. Furthermore, the role necessitates collaboration with regulatory agencies, notably the Department of Fish & Wildlife, to secure all required permitting.

In order to provide for the safety of City residents and protect property in the City from the damage associated with floodin
g and to meet the requirements of the NPDES permit, it is necessary to design, construct, operate, maintain, improve and replace storm drainage facilities which collect storm and surface water runoff and convey and treat such runoff in a safe manner to an acceptable point of discharge. It is also necessary to inspect, monitor, and take enfor
cement action related to illegal dumping, and illicit discharges. In order to properly fund such facilities and activities, the City has determined that it is necessary to impose on all developing properties in Rancho Cordova a user charge for storm drainage service.

Based on the City’s General Plan and current specific plan areas, Ranch o Cordova is expected to develop as shown in Table 1 below.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 347 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 3
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

TABLE 1 LAND USE

Land Use / Zoning Description Total Acres Total Units
Residential:

Low Density Residential (LDR) Single Family (2.1-6.0 DU/AC) 2,635 13,156 Medium Density (6.1-12 DU/AC) 322 2,524
Medium Density Residential (MDR) Medium Density (6.1-18.0 DU/AC) 1,852 13,231 Medium Density (14.0-29.9 DU/AC) 60 885
High Density Residential (HDR) High Density (18.1-40.0 DU/AC) 192 4,372 High Density (30+ DU/AC) 30 825
Residential Total 5,090 34,993

Non-Residential:

VC Village Commercial 202
LTC Local Town Center 134
RTC Regional Town Center 172
BP Business Park 158
MP Industrial Park 283

Education:

HS/MS High School/Middle School 356
MS Middle School 20
ES Elementary School 102

Open Space & Public:

CP Community Park 313
P/QP Public/Quasi Public 37
NP Neighborhood Park 194
SWD Storm Water Detention 186
WP Wetland Preserve 745
DP Drainage Parkway 270
PR Private Recreation 63
OS Open Space 168
OS/P Open Space/Preserve 279
LC Landscape Corridors 123
GB Green Belts 54
ROW Right-of-way 596
BR/WP Reservoir / Wetland Preserve 528
S Sewer Lift Station / Utility Substation 14
Vacant (unknown dev plan) 595

Total Non-residential 5,590

Total Residential & Non-Res 10,680

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 348 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 4
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

This development is expected to require significant stormwater drainage and flood control facilities. Based on the development area and improvements that were required in recent developments within the City of Rancho Cordova, Table 2 summarizes the improvements that are expected once development is complete.

TABLE 2 EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS

Infrastructure Type Quantity
Inlets 6,400 LF
Manholes 4,460 LF
66" Pipe 3,950 LF
60" Pipe 10,280 LF
54" Pipe 11,140 LF
48" Pipe 10,210 LF
42" Pipe 28,620 LF
36" Pipe 42,420 LF
30" Pipe 51,050 LF
27" Pipe 540 LF
24" Pipe 91,960 LF
21" Pipe 2,230 LF
18" Pipe 100,300 LF
15" Pipe 101,300 LF
12" Pipe 529,890 0
10" Pipe 4,170 0
Creeks and Channels 80 AC
Basins 320 AC

Source: Rate Analysis Report for the Stormwater Utility Fee For the City of Rancho Cordova, August, 2014, prepared by Harris and Associates.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 349 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 5
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

3. SERVICES FUNDED
Expenditures from the revenue generated from the Stormwater Utility Fee are intended to comply with the requirements set forth in the NPDES permit. The activities and services funded by this fee include, but are not limited to:

1. Oversee all aspects of the City’s stormwater assets, including routine Operation and Maintenance, repairs, stormwater response, and weed abatement.

2. Respond to an
d investigate incidents of illicit discharges and illegal connections to the storm drain system.

3. Periodically inspect facilities for proper handling of materials, chemicals, pollutants, garbage, waste, and debris and prevent any discharges to the storm drain system.

4. Regularly clean and maintain cat ch basins, the flowline, and storm drainage facilities.

5. Installation and maintenance of water quality devices required to keep pollutants out of the storm drain system.

6. Discourage illegal dumping or discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system by stenciling all City‐owned catch basins with a "No Dumping" mes sage.

7. Augment public education and outreach programs in regards to the proper use and function of the storm drainage system and the receiving waters.

8. Develop programs to promote, publicize, and facilitate public reporting of illicit discharges to the storm drain system.

9. Encourage the proper disposal of household hazar dous waste (HHW) to prevent the improper disposal to the storm drain system or to the sewer system.

10. Discourage the improper disposal of litter, garden clippings, leaves, and pet waste into the street or the storm drain system.

11. Capital replacement of storm drainage, flood control improvements and bioretention i mprovements at the end of the expected useful life for such improvements.

12. Administration and oversight of the requirements set forth in the NPDES permit to City departments, developments, and local agencies.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 350 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 6
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

4. PROPOSITION 218 REQUIREMENTS
This fee must comply with the provisions of Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). Section

6.b of Proposition 218 has the following requirements for all “new, extended, imposed or increased” fees and charges:

1. “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property‐ relat
ed service.”

2. “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.”

3. “The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exc
eed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.”

4. “No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of service ar
e not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with [the assessment section of this code].”

5. “No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services where the service is available to the public at large substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.”

There have been a number of court cases related to property‐related fees in the last few years; however, they have focused on water rates or groundwater charges. The only substantive part of these cases that related to storm water fees is the requirement that the fees be based on the cost of serv ice, that they must be proportional to the service received, and that ballots are not secret ballots. The City’s current rate structure complies with this requirement as does the new fee methodology recommended in this report.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 351 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 7
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

5. RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

Section 6.b of Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218) states that:

“The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.” and
“No fee or charge may be im posed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question.”

By definition, all properties that shed stormwater into the City’s stormwater drainage system use, or are served by, the City’s stormwater drainage system. The amount of use attributed to each parc el is measurable by the amount of storm runoff contributed by the property, which is directly proportional to the amount of impervious area on a parcel (such as buildings and concrete). The more impervious area on a property, the more storm runoff the property generates, the more dema nd placed on the storm drain system.

The amount each parcel uses the stormwater drainage system is computed by the following formula:
(Parcel Area) x (Impervious Percentage) = Drainage Units The typical percent impervious (% Impervious) for land uses in the City, have been applied for the purposes of estimating the runoff ge nerated by each property. These are shown in Appendix B.

The more Drainage Units a parcel has, the more storm run‐off it generates, and the more it uses and impacts the stormwater drainage system.

It is standard practice to relate other land uses to a developed single family r esidential (SFR) parcel, instead of working exclusively with drainage units. The median size of a SFR parcel will be approximately 0.16 acre. Therefore, it makes sense to relate all parcels to this median residential property. The runoff from a 0.16‐acre SFR parcel is set equal to one Drainage Measurement Uni t (DMU) and this base DMU is calculated as follows:

(0.16 acres of area) x 50% = 0.0800 Impervious Area = 1 DMU

Residential Parcels
The City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Residential categories include Estate Residential (0.51 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre), Low Density Residential (2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre), Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 18.0 dwelling units per acre) and High Density Residential (18.1 to 14.0 dwelling units per acre).

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 352 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 8
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

Estate and Low Density Residential Parcels
As a residential property increases in size over the median parcel size, the typical percentage of impervious area decreases, as shown in Exhibit B. Conversely, as a residential parcel decreases in size below the median parcel size, the typical percentage of impervious area increases, and such increase is typically proportional to the decr ease in size. For purposes of this analysis, Estate Residential is combined with Low Density Residential, and are separated into five (5) groups. The median parcel area for each group was used and their DMUs are calculated as follows:

Estate & Low Density Residential Category DMU/ Formula LDR1 – Parcels 0.166 acres or less 1.000 DMU
LDR2 – Parcels greater than 0.167 but less than or equal to 0.250 acres 1.100 DMUs LDR3 – Parcels greater than 0.250 but less than or equal to 0.333 acres 1.175 DMUs LDR4 – Parcels greater than 0.333 but less than or e qual to 0.500 acres 1.250 DMUs LDR5 – Parcels greater than 0.500 acres 1.250 + [(acres – 0.50) x 5%] = DMUs

0.0800
Medium Density Residential Parcels
Per the City’s Land Use Policy, Medium Density Residential parcels may contain 6.1 to 18.0 dwelling units per acre, and may contain single family residential and/or multi‐family residential development. Typical percentage of impervious area is estimated as 70% of the parcel size. DMUs for Medium Density Residential parcels is calculated as follows:

Reside
ntial Category Density % Impervious
Medium Density 10 – 18 DU/Ac 70%

Acreage x 70% Impervious = DMUs

0.0800

High Density Residential Parcels
Per the City’s Land Use Policy, High Density Residential parcels may contain 18.1 to 40.0 dwelling units per acre, and typically contain multi‐family residential development. Typical percentage of impervious area is estimated as 75% of the parcel size. DMUs for High Density Residential parcels is calculated as follows:

Residential Ca
tegory Density % Impervious
High Density Greater than 18 DU/Ac 75%

Acreage x % Impervious = DMUs

0.0800

Condominium unit parcel areas are calculated by dividing the total area of the condominium complex (which includes the common area) by the number of condominium units, and the total imperviousness of the entire complex is attributed to each individual condo parcel in the complex. (This divides the runoff of the entire compl ex to each of the individual units.) Because these condominium common areas are taken into consideration in this manner, they are exempt from the charge.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 353 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 9
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

Non‐Residential Parcels
All non‐residential parcel DMUs will be based on the impervious area (runoff coefficient) table shown in Exhibit B, using the following formula:

Acreage x %Impervious = DMUs

0.0800

SUMMARY
Based on the information available, all parcels draining into Rancho Cordova Stormwater Utility Fee‐maintained drainage infrastructure are proposed to be charged the same user fee rate per DMU for stormwater management services. The Rancho Cordova Stormwater Utility Fee is proposed in perpetuity.

For the purposes of this report, City‐maintained drainage infrastructure includes streets, basins, pipes, inlets, outlets, and natural drainage courses and bioretention areas. Parcels used for or related to stormwater management and right of way that contain City maintained drainage infrastructure are exempt from the runoff charge, as they are part of th e infrastructure being funded. Also exempt from the runoff charge is Caltrans right‐of‐way, because Caltrans handles its own runoff under a separate NPDES permit.

Drainage units may be adjusted based on appeal from the property owner. See the Appeals Process below.

Table 3, below, provides a preliminary summary of DMU s for the various land uses in Rancho Cordova.

TABLE 3 DRAINAGE MEASUREMENT UNIT SUMMARY

Land Use Description Total Area (Acres) Number of Units Drainage Measurement per Unit Impervious Area (Acre) DM Units Residential
LDR1 parcels 0.166 acres or Less 1,205.70 9,442 1.000 ‐‐ 9,442.00 LDR2 parcels 0.167 ‐ 0.250 acres 1,425.28 7,448 1.100 ‐‐ 8,192.80 LDR3 parcels 0.251 ‐ 0.330 acres 165.22 591 1.175 ‐‐ 694.42 LDR4 parcels 0.331 ‐ 0.500 acres 43.00 114 1.250 ‐‐ 142.50 LDR5 parcels greater than 0.500 a cres 1,301.85 ‐‐ 1.250 + (Acres‐0.50 x 5%)/0.0800 ‐‐ 1,102.17 Medium Density Residential 10 ‐ 18 DU/AC 49.90 ‐‐ acreage x 70% / 0.08 34.93 393.32 High Density Residential Greater than 18 D 119.36 ‐‐ acreage x 75% / 0.08 89.52 1,053.16 Residential Total 4,310.32 124.45 21,020.38 Non‐Residential
Office 1,229.24 ‐‐ 75% 921.93 11,531.17 Commercial 598.21 ‐‐ 70% 418.75 5,234.32 Industrial 1,007.43 ‐‐ 80% 805.94 9,900.31 Private Recreation 25.11 ‐‐ 25% 6.28 78.48 Parks/Greenbelts 2,099.27 ‐‐ 25% 524.82 6,568.16 Public/Quasi Public 265.81 ‐‐ 25% 66.45 2,566.48 Non‐Residential Total 5,225.08 2,744.17 35,878.93 Total Residential and Non‐Residential 9,535.40 2,868.63 56,899.30 Notes

1. Total acres and total units based on Sacramento County Assessor's Parcel and Zoning data.

2. Impervious assumptions from City of Rancho Cordova Rate Analysis Report (Low Impact Development Stormwater Utility Fee), May 2022.

3. DM per unit assumptions from City's existing SWU I fee.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 354 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 10
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

6. COST ESTIMATE

Capital Improvement Projects
Stormwater is conveyed through the City through a storm drainage system consisting of over 250 miles of underground pipes, 20 miles of open channels/creeks and six pump station. In 2014, the City took ownership of the system from Sacramento County, and is now responsible for the operation and maintenance of the system. In Ap ril 2021, a comprehensive master planning study of the system, the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program Master Plan (SCIPMP) was prepared by West Yost. The SCIPMP recommends improvement projects needed to address flooding and maintenance issues. Table 4 below summarizes the proposed flood control projects recommended in the SCIPMP and provides updated estimate
d costs for the capital improvement projects. These costs are anticipated to be collected over a fifteen (15) year period, approximately $3,258,377.77 annually.

TABLE 4 ESTIMATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COSTS

Project ID1 Priority Project Description
Total Estimated
Cost2,3
Total Estimated Cost
(2023)4
ARD4‐1H i g h F o l s o m Blvd Detention Basin and Sunrise Blvd Pipes Imp 3,072,000$ 3,495,833$ CC‐1 High Mills Tower Pump Station and DS Pipe System Impr 24,558,000$ 27,946,184$ MC3‐2 High School Property Detention Basin 3,132,000 $ 3,564,111$ CC‐2H i g h D o n Juan Drive Improvements 2,430,000 $ 2,765,259$ MC3‐3M e d i u m S u n r i s e Blvd and Recycle Road Pipe Impr 1,114,000 $ 1,267,695$ MC3‐4 Medium Mechanical Dr and Rec ycle Rd Pipe Impr 1,322,000 $ 1,504,392$ ART2‐1M e d i u m E l l e n w o o d Ave and Routier Rd Pipe Impr 1,032,000 $ 1,174,382$ MC3‐1M e d i u m W h i t e Rock Rd Underground Storage 4,496,000 $ 5,116,298$ ARD4‐2L o w C o l o m a Rd Pipe Impr 646,000 $ 735,126$ ART2‐2L o w B r a d s h a w Rd Pipe Impr 590,000 $ 671,400$ MC1‐1L o w I n t e r n a t i o n a l Dr at Data Dr Pipe Impr 558,000 $ 634,985$ 42,950,000$ 48, 875,667$
1S o u r c e : Table 6‐1, Stormwater Capital Improvement Program Master Plan, April 2021 prepared by West Yost 2D o e s not include land acquisition costs
3B a s e d on December 2020 Engineering News Record 20 Cities CCI of 11,626 4D e c e m b e r 2020 costs escalated to April 2023 ENR 20 Cities CCI of 13,230 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 355 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 11
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

Infrastructure Maintenance Costs
Table 5 below shows the estimated costs for infrastructure maintenance. These costs are estimated yearly, based on assumed frequency of maintenance activities, at approximately $3,327,896.51 annually.

TABLE 5 ESTIMATED INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE COSTS

Maintenance Item
Estimated
Quantity Unit Cost ($/unit)1 Total Cost/Year
Trunk Lines (larger than 24") ‐ TV Lines 220,284 LF 25 years 9.16$ 80,680.45$ Drainage Lines 10"‐24" Cleaning 573,695 LF 10 years 3.66$ 210,119.62$ Drainage Lines 10"‐24" TV 573,695 LF 25 years 9.16$ 210,119.62$ Creek and Channel Maintenance and Repair2 10,560 LF 1 year 0.92 $ 9,669.17$ Pipe Repairs3 79,398 LF 1 year 0.54 $ 42,812.23$ Creeks and Channels Mowing 97 AC 1 year 8,342.51 $ 808,970.67$ Creeks and Channels Herbicides 97 AC 1 year 829.16 $ 80,403.79$ Basin Maintenance4 1 LS 1 year 317,329.06 $ 317,329.06$ Rip Rap Inspection Annual Maintenance5 2,000 Ton 1 year 14.24 $ 28,486.62$ Channel and Outfall Maintenance6 1 LS 5 years 1,688,742.47 $ 337,748.49$ Storm Drain Lift Stations7 1 LS 3 year 500,000.00 $ 166,666.67$ High Priority Maintenance Improvements 8 1 LS 25 years 152,259.93 $ 6,090.40$ Medium Priority Maintenance Improvements 8 1 LS 25 years 375,870.38 $ 15,034.82$ Low Priority Maintenance Improvements 8 1 LS 25 years 23,094,122.31$ 923,764.89$ Annual Infrastructure Maintenance Cost Estimate for SWU 1: 3,237,896.51$ Frequency
1 2A s s u m e 10.0% of frontage is maintained/repaired annually (emergency maintenance repairs). 3A s s u m e 10.0% of conveyance system is maintained/repaired annually (emergency maintenance/repairs). 4 5S e v e n (7) Outfalls with Rip Rap, and misc Rip Rap. 6 7
8P e r Stormwater Capital Improvement Program Master Plan , Final Report April 2021, Table 6‐7 Summary of Recommended Maintenance Improvements , prepared by West
Yost Associates, based on December 2020 ENR 20 Cities CCI of 11,626, escalated to April 2023 ENR 20 Cities CCI of 13,230.

Maintenance costs based on Rate Analysis Report (Low Impact Development Stormwater Utility Fee) , May 2022, prepared by Harris & Associates, Table 4 Estimated Costs, escalated from May2022 ENR 20 Cities of 13004 to April 2023 ENR 20 Cities CCI of 13,230, unless otherwise noted.

Per Annual Maintenance Contract for Stormwater Facility Maintenance Services provided by City of Rancho Cordova, based on July 2021 ENR 20 Cities CCI of 12,238, escalated to April 2023 ENR 20 Ci ties CCI of 13,230.

Per Stormwater Capital Improvement Program Master Plan , Final Report April 2021, Table 3‐3 Recommended Maintenance Improvements For Channels and Outfalls and Estimated Cost, prepared by West Yost Associates, based on December 2020 ENR 20 Cities CCI of 11,626, escalated to April 2023 ENR 20 Cities CCI of 13,230.

Per Annual Maintenance Contract for On‐call Stormwater Support Pump Station O&M Services and Infrastructure Maintenance Pump Station O&M Services, November 2022 to November 2025.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 356 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 12
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

Infrastructure Replace Costs
Table 6 below shows the estimated costs for infrastructure replacement. Existing infrastructure was estimated from data extracted from the City’s OpenData GIS within SWU 1 boundary. These costs are estimated yearly, based on assumed design life or frequency of replacement of the infrastructure, approximately $2,095,220.55 annually.

TABLE 6 ESTIMATED INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT COSTS

Infrastructure Item
Estimated
Quantity Unit Cost ($/unit)1 Total Cost/Year
48 inch manhole 3,535 EA 75 years 4,985.16 $ 234,967.13$ 60 inch manhole 47 EA 75 years 7,325.13 $ 4,590.42$ 72 inch manhole 12 EA 75 years 9,665.10 $ 1,546.42$ 84 inch manhole 5 EA 75 years 12,005.08 $ 800.34$ 96 inch manhole 6 EA 75 years 15,158.95 $ 1,212.72$ Inlets 5,101 EA 75 years 3,509.96 $ 238,723.98$ Erosion Control Rip Rap (7 outfalls) 2,000 TON 25 years 76.30 $ 6,104.28$ Misc. Concrete (outfall structures) 5 EA 100 years 7,500.00 $ 375.00$ Misc. Concrete (culverts) 5 EA 100 years 7,500.00$ 375.00$ Misc. Concrete 2,000 CY 100 years 1,424.33$ 28,486.62$ 10" mains 85,170 EA 100 years 102.42$ 87,228.77$ 12" mains 181,202 EA 100 years 111.91$ 202,786.27$ 15" mains 90,459 EA 100 years 132.26$ 119,640.44$ 18" mains 98,246 EA 100 years 142.43$ 139,934.82$ 21" mains 38,636 EA 100 years 152.61$ 58,961.20$ 24" mains 79,982 EA 100 years 162.78$ 130,195.25$ 27" mains 19,347 EA 100 years 203.48$ 39,366.47$ 30" mains 46,767 EA 100 years 234.00$ 109,433.49$ 33" mains 2,347 EA 100 years 274.69 $ 6,447.03$ 36" mains 45,867 EA 100 years 295.04 $ 135,325.99$ 42" mains 25,270 EA 100 years 366.26 $ 92,553.03$ 48" mains 26,845 EA 100 years 427.30 $ 114,708.50$ 54" mains 19,335 EA 100 years 529.04 $ 102,289.35$ 60" mains 16,848 EA 100 years 529.04 $ 89,132.19$ 66" mains 7,752 EA 100 years 529.04 $ 41,010.97$ 72" mains 7,283 EA 100 years 595.85 $ 43,395.76$ 78" mains 1,521 EA 100 years 595.85 $ 9,062.88$ 84" mains 1,102 EA 100 years 595.85 $ 6, 566.27$ Storm Drain Lift Stations 5 EA 75 years 750,000.00$ 50,000.00$ Annual Infrastructure Replacement Cost Estimate for SWU 1: 2,095,220.55$ Frequency
1 2T h e following infrastructure has been excluded from the Maintenance and Replacement cost estimates:

Privately owned infrastructure
Developer owned infrastructure
State owned infrastructure
County owned infrastructure
Segments less than 10‐inches in diameter
Segments with no diameter provided
3S D M H s with no size provided are assumed to be 48‐in SDMHs Replacement costs based on Rate Ana lysis Report (Low Impact Development Stormwater Utility Fee) , May 2022, prepared by Harris & Associates, Table 4 Estimated Costs, escalated from May2022 ENR 20 Cities of 13004 to April 2023 ENR 20 Cities CCI of 13,230, unless otherwise noted.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 357 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 13
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

Total Costs
An annual County administration fee of $0.30 per parcel is included in the program. An operating reserve equal to 10% of Operation and Maintenance costs is included, to provide the City with the means to address unexpected events and large unbudgeted expenses. The total costs, including annual administration fees and operating reserve are presented in Table 7 below.

TABLE 7 ESTIMATED TOTAL COSTS

Annual Escalator
An annual escalator is included to provide the City with the means to address continuing inflation and rising costs of goods and services. The storm drain utility fee shall be adjusted annually based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index, from December to December, during the preceding year, for All Urban Consumers All Items, for the San Francisco‐Oakland‐San Jose areas as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Should this index become unavailable, another comparable index shall be determined by Director of Public Works and approved by the City Council. The proposed annual escalator is consistent with the annual escalator that was incorporated with the City’s Enha nced SWU II fee.

Capital Improvement Projects in SWU 1 (15‐years) 3,258,377.77 $ Annual Infrastructure Maintenance Cost Estimate for SWU 1 3,237,896.51$ Annual Infrastructure Replacement Cost Estimate for SWU 1 2,095,220.55$ Total Annual CIP/Maintenance/Replacement Cost 8,591,494.84$ Annual Fee Administration ($0.30 per parcel) 5,991.60$ Operating Reserve (10% of Maintenance Costs) 323,789.65$ Estimated Total 8,921,276.09$
ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 358 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 14
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

7. FEE CALCULATIONS

The estimated annual costs for the proposed storm drain improvements are $8,921,276.09 as shown in Table 7 above.

Dividing that by the total number of proposed DMU’s in Rancho Cordova (56,899.30), the maximum estimated annual Stormwater Utility Fee rate is $156.79 per DMU for the 2024‐25 fiscal year. The maximum rate will be incr eased each subsequent Fiscal Year by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from December to December, 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 (or a reasonably e quivalent index should the stated index be discontinued, as determined by the Director of Public Works).

The actual rate to be levied each year will be as approved by the City at a public hearing, after they consider an Annual Fee Report outlining the estimated annual costs of the program for the ensuing fiscal year.

Table 8 provi
des existing annual fee and proposed sample fee calculations for various land uses and parcel sizes.

TABLE 8 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

The Preliminary Charge Roll, which is a listing of each parcel to be charged a fee and its proposed maximum fee for FY 2024‐25, will be on file in the office of the City Clerk at a future date.

Land Use Description
Total Area
(Acres)
Impervious
Area
(Acre) DMUs
Existing
Annual
Fee
Sample
Annual
Fee
LDR1 parcels 0.167 acres or Less 0.16 ‐‐ 1.000 $70.09 $156.79 LDR2 parcels greater than 0.167 but less than or equal to 0.250 acres 0.22 ‐‐ 1.100 $77.10 $172.47 LDR3 parcels greater than 0.250 but less than or equal to 0.333 acres 0.30 ‐‐ 1.175 $82.36 $184.23 LDR4 parcels greater than 0.333 but les s than or equal to 0.500 acres 0.40 ‐‐ 1.250 $87.61 $195.99 LDR5 parcels greater than 0.500 acres 1.00 ‐‐ 1.563 $109.52 $244.98 Medium Density Residential 10 ‐ 18 DU/AC 5.00 3.75 43.750 $3,066.44 $6,859.50 High Density Residential Greater than 18 DU/AC 5.00 3.75 46.875 $3,285.47 $7,349.47 Office 1.00 0.75 9.375 $657.09 $1,469.89 Commercial 1.00 0.70 8.750 $613.29 $1,371.90 Industrial 1.00 0.80 10.000 $700.90 $1,567.89 Private Recreation 1.00 0.25 3.125 $219.03 $489.96 Parks/Greenbelts 2.00 0.25 6.250 $438.06 $979.93 Public/Quasi Public 2.00 0.25 6.250 $438.06 $979.93 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 359 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Page 15
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

Appeals Process
If a property owner disagrees with the calculation of his or her fee, based on the parcel area and estimated impervious percentage assigned to the property, then the property owner may appeal the calculation as follows:

1. Property owner must provide written documentation explaining the reason why the charge should be changed. This documentation must include:
a. The name, phone number, mailing address, and email address, if available, of the property owner. b. The Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) of the property in question.

2. If additional documentation is required or insufficient documentation was submitted, a representative of the Department of Public Works (Staff) will notify the property owner in writing.

3. Once Staff has determined that sufficient documentation has been submitted, Staff will perform the initial review.

Staff will notify the property owner in writing within four (4) weeks from the time sufficient documentation was submitted as to whether or not the fee amount will be changed. a. If the determination is to change the fee amount, then the new fee amount will be documented within the City’s fee database.
b. If the determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner can appeal Staff’s decision to the Director of Public Works. The appeal must be made in writing and returned no later than four (4) weeks from the date of mailing of Staff’s initial review decision. The Director of Public Works will notify the prope rty owner in writing within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal as to whether or not the fee amount will be changed.

If the owner of any parcel shall have reason to feel that the computation of the DMU for his/her parcel is not correct, that person may f
ile an appeal with the Director of Public Works in the manner prescribed by the Director of Public Works. The Director of Public Works will consider all data provided by the appellant and shall render a decision in writing. The decision of the Director of Public Works will be final wi th respect to City action on the appeal.

Appeals will be accepted annually up until June 30 for inclusion on the following fiscal year’s property tax roll submittal.

However, if an appeal is granted by Staff or the Director of Public Works that does not permi t inclusion for the following fiscal year’s property tax roll submittal, a reimbursement will be provided to the property owner by the City.

Respectfully submitted:

Tamorah Bryant, PE
R.C.E No. C67205
Engineer of Work
ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 360 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Exhibit A
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

EXHIBIT A
ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 361 of 436 ends

City of Rancho Cordova Exhibit B
Storm Drain Rate Analysis Report (SWU Fee 1)

EXHIBIT B

Estimated Percent Impervious Based on Land Use
Land Use Impervious1
Low Density Residential less than 0.167 acres 50%
Low Density Residential greater than 0.167 but less than or equal to 0.250 acres 40% Low Density Residential greater than 0.250 acres but less than or equal to 0.333 acres 30% Low Density Residential greater than 0.333 acres but less than or equal to 0.500 acres 25% Low Density Residential greater than 0 .500 acres (excluding the first 0.500 acres) 5% Medium Density Residential 70%
High Density Residential (including Apartments and Mobile Home Parks) 75% Condominiums 70%
Commercial Downtown Areas2 80%
Commercial Neighborhood Areas 70%
Industrial 80%
Schools 50%
Parks 25%
Greenbelts 10%

Footnotes:
1 Estimated impervious percentages are consistent with the Rancho Cordova Rate Analysis Report (Low Impact Development Stormwater Utility Fee), May 2022, and the Rancho Cordova Storm Drainage Impact Fee Program, July 2020, with the exception of Commercial and Industrial impervious percentages, which were modified in the Impact Fee Program to account for Low Impa ct Development fixtures and Hydromodification Management Plan Requirements placed on new development. 2 City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Chapter 15.

Sources:

1. Yolo County City/County Drainage Manual, February 2010.

2. Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento and South Placer Regions, May 2007.

ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 362 of 436 ends

Am er ican River
Folsom
SouthCanal
·|}þ16

FOLSOM BLVD

DOUGLAS RD

KILGORE
RD

ROUTIER RD

RANCHO CORDOVA PKWY

BRADSHAW RD

COLOMA RD

WHITE ROCK RD

KIEFER BLVD

OLD PLACERVILLE
RD

INTERNATIONAL DR

ZINFANDEL DR

SUNRISE BLVD

SUNRISE
B
LVD

MATHERFIELDRD

GRANT LINE ROADJACKSON HWY

HAZEL AVE
£¤50

MATHER AIRPORTMATHER AIRPORT
Drainage District BoundariesDrainage District Boundaries Existing Stormwater Utility (SWU1)Existing Stormwater Utility (SWU1) New Stormwater Utility (SWU2)New Stormwater Utility (SWU2) Future Stormwater Fee District (Future SWU2)Future Stormwater Fee District (Future SWU2) City of Rancho Cordova
X:\GIS_Staff\PROJECTS\PUBLIC_WORKS\WATER_RESOURCES\RC_DRAINAGE_DISTRICT.mxd | 1/19/2023 0 0.5 1 Mile
´
City of Rancho CordovaCity of Rancho CordovaCity of Rancho Cordova ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 363 of 436 ends

1 Stormwater Utility
Rate Assessment
October 2, 2023
ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 364 of 436 ends

2 PRESENTATION

OVERVIEW
Background on deferred maintenance
and operation of the City’s stormwater
system
Direct staff to move forward with the
proposed stormwater utility rate and
Proposition 218 process, to increase level of
service and address funding shortfall.

Next steps if the resolution is approved
2 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 365 of 436 ends

3 COMPLETED STEPS
▪ Staff presented to City Council in the May 23rd budget workshop and received direction to move forward with rate assessment. ▪ Staff worked with Harris & Associates to develop a rate analysis report and develop recommendations for a fee increase.
▪ Identified $8.9 million per year funding need. The current rate collects $3.5-$4 million per year, which leaves a shortfall of ~$5 million per year.

Outreach:
▪ Mailer to ~20,000 residents about the workshops.
▪ City held two public workshops. In person workshop on September 14th and a virtual workshop on September 19th.
▪ Slides and presentation recording posted on the website. ▪ Additional outreach at City pop-up events.
3 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 366 of 436 ends

4 Background
Stormwater Utility I (SWUI)
• SWUI established in 1995
by Sacramento County.
• SWU is an enterprise
fund- revenues and
expenditures are
segregated into a fund.

Can only be used for
stormwater program.
• No inflator/annual
adjustment.
• MAP of SWUI & SWUII
4 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 367 of 436 ends

5 Maintenance and Operations
Oversee the maintenance and operations of the City’s
stormwater assets, which include:
• 6 pump stations
• 6 regional detention basins
• 254 miles of drainage pipes
• 7740 drainage inlets
• 4370 manholes
• 70 acres of creek channels and tributaries
Other Tasks:
• Coordinate routine maintenance activities
• Coordinate emergency response activities
• Prioritize and respond to customer service
requests
• Coordinate with regulatory agencies, such as the
Dept of Fish & Wildlife, for all required permitting
Weed Abatement
Routine Maintenance
Pump Stations
Drainage Channels
Detention Basins
Pipes and Inlets
Customer Service
Requests
Trash Removal
Emergency Response
5 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 368 of 436 ends

6 Current & Future Investments
Current & Future
Investments
• Over $4M of Pump Station Equipment
Improvements.
• Monier Circle flood Control Basin.
• Pump station capacity improvements:
$26M.
• Maintain, remove and replace tens of
thousands of damaged pipes, inlets, and
MHs: $8.9M (est).
• Outfall repair.

Sunrise Blvd - Oct 2021
Mills Tower – Oct 2021
6 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 369 of 436 ends

7 PURPOSE -

FUNDING NEEDS
• $50 Million in deferred improvements.
• Safety improvements:
• Alleviate local flooding.
• Storm Response.
• Increasing Cost:
• Aging facilities- growing costs because of deferred
maintenance and repairs.
• Increased regulatory compliance requirements- FEMA, State Water Board.
• Meeting Community Needs:
• Expedited response to resident complaints and community needs.
• Need for robust outreach to community and business owners. • Need for capacity Improvements.
• If rate is not increased:
• Funding gap will grow.
• Level of service will be impacted.
• More reactive program- challenging for multi-year planning. 7 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 370 of 436 ends

8 RATE COMPARISON -

SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL ( SFR )
• Annual: $70.08
• Monthly: $5.84
SWUI Current Rate:
• Annual: $150.42
• Monthly: $12.54
SWUII Current Rate:
8 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 371 of 436 ends

9 Proposed Rate
Stormwater Utility
Rate
SWUI (Current) SWUII (Current) SWUI (Proposed)
Annual $70.08 $150.42 $156.79
Monthly $5.84 $12.54 $13.07
ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 372 of 436 ends

10 • RC SWU I Rate: $70.08
• RC SWU I Rate (proposed): $156.79
• RC SWU II Rate: $150.42
• City of Citrus Heights: $70.08
• City of Davis Rate: $122.76
• City of Elk Grove: $246.84
• City of Folsom: General Fund
• City of Sacramento: $200
RATE COMPARISON – ANNUAL SFR
10 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 373 of 436 ends

11 Annual Inflator
• An annual inflator is included to provide
the City with the means to address
continuing inflation and rising costs of
goods and services.
• The storm drain utility fee shall be
adjusted annually based on the increase
in the Consumer Price Index for the San
Francisco‐Oakland‐San Jose areas as
published by the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
11 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 374 of 436 ends

12 Prop 218 Process-
Stormwater
12 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 375 of 436 ends

STORMWATER UTILITY RATE INCREASE
Prop 218 Process Schedule
Public Outreach Council Meetings:
• Rate Study
• Set Protest Hearing
• Authorize mailing of
protest notices.

Council Meeting:
• Public Hearing
• Authorize mailing
of ballots.
• Publish 1st Notice of
Intent to Collect.
• Publish 2nd Notice
of Intent to Collect.
Council Meeting:
• Public Hearing
• Ballot Tabulation
Sept
2023
Oct
2023
Dec
2023
Jan
2024 Feb
2023
ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 376 of 436 ends

14 ▪ Direct staff to move forward with the proposed stormwater utility rate and Proposition 218 process, to increase level of service and address funding shortfall.
▪ October 16th City Council Meeting- Consent Agenda Item:
• Adopt a Resolution designating a time and place for
hearing protests in connection with the proposed
Stormwater Utility 1 Fee increase- December 4th.
• Authorize City Clerk’s office to give notice of the above- described protest hearing.
▪ Mail protest notices to property owners.
▪ Protest hearing- December 4th.
▪ If majority protest is not received, authorize mailing of ballots.
▪ Mail ballots to property owners.
▪ Public Hearing- ballot tabulation February 2024. Must receive more than 50% approval vote of those that cast ballots to pass. ▪ If over 50% approval is received, Apply new rate- July 2024.

Recommended Action
Stormwater
Utility Rate
SWUI
(Current)
SWUII
(Current)
SWUI
(Proposed)
Annual $70.08 $150.42 $156.79
Monthly $5.84 $12.54 $13.07
14 ITEM 19.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 377 of 436 ends

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 1
ITEM 19.3.

DATE: October 2, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Micah Runner, City Manager
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT LETTER TO THE FOLSOM

CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

REGARDING THE TIMELINE OF THE FUTURE HIGH

SCHOOL/MIDDLE SCHOOL IN RIO DEL ORO

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the draft letter and provide direction to staff on any edits requested or desire to appoint a subcommittee to edit or draft a letter prior to the planned Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) Board Study Session.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff would submit the attached letter to the FCUSD prior to the second FCUSD Board Study Session on Facilities. That FCUSD meeting is scheduled to take place on Monday, October 9, 2023.

BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2023, part one of the districtwide facilities discussion took place during the FCUSD Board Study Session. The presentation and discussion included information on the Facilities Master Plan, district educational facilities standards, funding options, as well as needs specific to each jurisdiction within the district's boundaries.

During the September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting, it was requested by the City Council to bring a draft letter to a future meeting for discussion. Attached to this item is the draft letter in response to the FCUSD Board Study Session for the City of Rancho Cordova (Attachment 2).

The draft letter highlights the position of the City of Rancho Cordova regarding the planned timeline for the future secondary schools in the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan area.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact for this item.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Presentation of the Draft Letter

2. Draft Letter to the Folsom Cordova Unified School District

3. Folsom Cordova Unified School District Board Study Session August 21 2023 Presentation

Page 378 of 436 ends

1 Presentation of the Draft
Letter to Folsom Cordova
Unified School District
October 2, 2023
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 379 of 436 ends

2 Highlights from Board Study Session on School Facilities • Districtwide facilities discussion (part one) took place in August 2023 regarding Folsom Cordova Unified School District’s (FCUSD):
• Facilities Master Plan
• Educational standards
• Funding options
• Needs specific to each jurisdiction within the district’s boundaries • School Facility Improvement District (SFID) #3 covers the new developments happening south of US Highway 50 for the City of Rancho Cordova, City of Folsom, and adjacent unincorporated areas.
• Projected growth in SFID #3 could nearly double the size of the district’s student population in the next 20-30 years.
• Measure M bond for $750 million in SFID #3 is projected to be fully exhausted in 2029.

ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 380 of 436 ends

3 • A total of six elementary school sites, one middle school site, and one joint high school/middle school are designated in the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan (RDOSP). • Current timeline has Rancho Cordova’s next high school/middle school being built in 2034-2039 in the RDOSP area after Measure M funds are anticipated to be depleted. • Folsom Ranch High School is slated for buildout in 2026-2029. • Existing FCUSD middle schools and comprehensive high school in Rancho Cordova are all approximately 60 years old.
• If timelines were swapped, the next high school/middle school would be in Rancho Cordova rather than Folsom.
• FCUSD Board asked to bring back a conversation in October to discuss the possibility of building the Rio Del Oro joint high school/middle school first. • City Council directed staff as a future agenda item request to support building the Rio Del Oro joint high school/middle school earlier than currently planned by FCUSD.

Timeline for School Buildout
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 381 of 436 ends

4 • A draft letter is included in the packet outlining reasons for the construction of the future Mather High School/Morrison Creek Middle School to be built before another high school is built in Folsom:
• Prevent overcrowding at Mills Middle, Mitchell Middle, and Cordova High School • Achieve equitable school facilities and student outcomes • Expand educational opportunities for students in Rancho Cordova • Retain Rancho Cordova students and families
• Ensure quality facilities are built in Rancho Cordova with the taxpayer’s funds • Part two of the FCUSD facilities discussion is planned for October 9, 2023. • If Council desires to send a letter, the attached letter or one edited/or newly drafted would need to be sent prior to the scheduled FCUSD Board Study Session.

Next Steps
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 382 of 436 ends

5 Discussion
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 383 of 436 ends

DRAFT
October 2, 2023
Folsom Cordova Unified School District Board of Education 1965 Birkmont Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
Subject: City of Rancho Cordova’s Endorsement of a Joint High School/Middle School in Rio Del Oro
Dear Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD) Board Members, On August 21, 2023, part one of the districtwide facilities discussion took place during the FCUSD Board Study Session. The presentation and discussion included information on the Facilities Master Plan, district educational facilities standards, funding options, as well as needs specific to each jurisdiction within the district’s boundaries.

School Facility Improvement District (SFID) #4 includes portions of Rancho Cordova which encompasses all the existing elementary, middle, and high schools in the City of Rancho Cordova within the FCUSD. SFID #4 only covers updates and enhancements to existing Rancho Cordova schools.

As development continues south of US Highway 50 in Rancho Cordova, future school buildout is required in the next few years. SFID #3 covers the new developments happening south of US Highway 50 for the City of Rancho Cordova, City of Folsom, and adjacent unincorporated areas. Based on the FCUSD Annual Report 2021-2022, the projected growth in SFID #3 could nearly double the size of the district’s student population in the next 20-30 years.

Based on the information shared during the Board Study Session, the 2007 Measure M bond for $750 million in SFID #3 is projected to be fully exhausted in 2029. Within SFID #3, the new school facilities built to date have all occurred within the City of Folsom. The first Rancho Cordova new school planned in this area is the Rio Del Oro Elementary School #1 in the 2026-2029 timeline. The additional elementary school sites and the future Mather High School and Morrison Creek Middle School specified in the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan (RDOSP) area are all planned for buildout after 2029 when Measure M funds are anticipated to be depleted.

ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 384 of 436 ends

DRAFT
A total of six elementary school sites, one middle school site, and one joint high school/middle school are designated within the RDOSP. The RDOSP projections include 12,189 dwelling units and approximately 6,564 new students. It's acknowledged that FCUSD originally designed plans for Mather High School and Morrison Creek Middle School in the mid-2000’s based on developer information on when subdivisions would be built. Furthermore, the combined Mather High School/Morrison Creek Middle School will be co-located on one site with shared administrative and support buildings.

The Rancho Cordova City Council supports this concept and desires that the FCUSD Board of Education designates that the combined high school/middle school will be constructed prior to Measure M funds being depleted. This could occur by swapping the timeline with the Folsom Ranch High School which is slated for buildout between 2026- 2029. The taxpayers of the City of Rancho Cordova have paid local property taxes on this bond obligation and deserve to see their funds spent on construction of a new facility for a high school/middle school in Rancho Cordova. Achieving equitable school facilities for our city and expanding educational opportunities for all students in Rancho Cordova is paramount to the success of student outcomes. The quality, design, and upkeep of school facilities have a direct effect on student performance.

The existing FCUSD middle schools and comprehensive high school in Rancho Cordova are all approximately 60 years old. According to the California Department of Education dashboard, Cordova High School, the only traditional high school in Rancho Cordova, has an enrollment of 1,955. Mills Middle School has 745 students enrolled and Mitchell Middle School has enrollment of 846 students. The schools do not have the capacity to take on the students from the new development area as it is being built if construction occurs as late as 2034-2039 as is currently listed on the timeline.

The Rio Del Oro groundbreaking occurred in the Summer of 2020 with development planned in several phases starting in 2021. Without the construction of the new Mather High School/Morrison Creek Middle School, students will be required to attend overcrowded schools or transfer to schools outside of their neighborhood and potentially city of residence. The City Council of Rancho Cordova, therefore, supports that the timing of the future high school/middle school be discussed during the October 9, 2023, Board Study Session on Facilities, and that the FCUSD Board of Education considers the impact to Rancho Cordova students and families in that decision. It is our position that the construction of the high school/middle school should occur in 2026-2029 and not 2034- 2039.

Sincerely,
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 385 of 436 ends

Folsom Cordova Unified School District
Board Study Session on Facilities
Presenters
Joanna Bowes, KNN Public Financing LLC
Teri Jamison, HMC Architects
Charles Health, Team CivX
Sean Martin, FCUSD Assistant Superintendent
Matt Washburn, FCUSD Chief Operation Officer
Geri Wickham, FCUSD Director of Facilities
August 21, 2023 – Part 1
October 9, 2023 – Part 2
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 386 of 436 ends

Presentation Overview
• Districtwide Facilities Discussion
• Facility Master Planning
• District Educational Facilities Standards
• Value Engineering and Cost Control
• Facilities Funding
• State Funding/Other Funding
• Deferred Maintenance / Routine Repair Maintenance Funding • Bonds: Polling and Bond Process
• SFID #4 - Rancho Cordov a Sites Facility Needs
• Project Needs/Estimated Costs - Measur e P
• Funding Options including Bonds
• SFID #5- Folsom Si tes Facility Needs
• Project Needs/Estimated Costs - Measur e G
• Funding Options including Bonds
• SFID #3 - South of H ighway 50 Developments
• School Buildout Overview
• Measure M
• New High School
• Next Steps
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 387 of 436 ends

DISTRICTWIDE FACILITIES

DISCUSSION
• Facility Master Planning
• District Educational Facilities Standards
• Value Engineering and Cost Control
• Facilities Funding
• State Funding/Other Funding
• Deferred Maintenance/Routine Repair Maintenance Funding • Bonds: Polling and Bond Process
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 388 of 436 ends

Facility Master Planning
• The Facilities Master Plan (FMP) is the compilation and analysis of the i
nformation needed by a school board and its community to make informed decisions about school facilities
• Should be updated at least every five to ten years
• Benefits of an FMP include:
• Organizes an inventory and appraisal of the condition and capacity of existing
school facilities and sites
• Creates a system for considering the facility impacts of implementing educational progr
ams
• Establishes a program of continuous comprehensive planning and financing of school fac
ilities
• Collects policies on school enrollment, school site size, walking, biking, and community
use of school facilities and grounds
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 4
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 389 of 436 ends

Facility Master Planning
• Parks and recreation
• School district staff
• Business community
• Community-based organizati ons
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 5
• State of purpose
• Description of the planning process
• Description of the community
• Description of the educational program
• Analysis of existing facilities
• Students
• P ar
ents
• Community members
• Local government
• Phase 1 - Demographi cs, projections, capacities
• Phase 2 - Assessment of facilities
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 390 of 436 ends

District Educational Facilities Standards
Folsom Cordova Unified School District
6 FCUSD
Office of Public
School Construction
(OPSC)
Funding
Standard
FCUSD
Office of Public
School Construction
(OPSC)
Funding
Standard
FCUSD
Office of Public
School Construction
(OPSC)
Funding
Standard
TK 24:2
K-3 24:1
4-5 34:1
SPE
D 13:1
TK 25:1
K-3 25:1
4-5 25:1
SPE
D 13:1
6-8 34:1
SPED 13:1
6-8 27:1
SPE D 13:1
9-12 34:1
SPED 13:1
9-12 27:1
SPED 13:1
Teaching Stations
Student Capacity
Site Size
Classro
om Sizes
Ancillary Facilities
- 1,200 to 1,350 Sqft TK/K classrooms,
inclusive of storage and restrooms
- 960 Sqft
classrooms for grades 1-5
- 960 Sqft classrooms for core classrooms
-1,000 to 2,000 Sqft for science, electives
and music
- 960 Sqft classrooms for core classrooms
-1,000 to 2,000 Sqft for science, electives
and music
Administration, multipurpose, library, stage,
kitchen, small group instruction areas, child
care f
acilities and/or preschool
Administration, multipurpose, kitchen,
library, gymnasium, student services,
sport f
ields, small group instruction
areas, and circulation areas
Administration, multipurpose, kitchen,
library, gymnasium(s), student services,
sport f
ields, stadium, small group
instruction areas, and circulation areas
716 Students 1,200 Students 2,100 Students
10 Acres 21.2 Acres 55.6 Acres
New Elementary School Educational
Standards
New Middle School Educational
Standards
New High School Educational
Standards
Loading Standards
27 Standard Teaching Stations
(plus space for four relocatables)
27 standard teaching stations
9 science classrooms
4 elec
tive classrooms
1 physical education classroom
2 music classrooms
50 standard teaching stations
11 science classrooms
9 elec
tive classrooms
1 physical education classroom
3 music classrooms
4 visual arts
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 391 of 436 ends

District Educational Facilities Standards
Folsom Cordova Unified School District
7 - learning environments that are easily adaptable to changing student populations, education programs and student services - student spaces developed for socialization and interaction that are diverse in activity and size to foster feelings of emotional safety, belonging and inclusion
- learning environments that create opportunities for students, teachers, and the school community to develop collaboration and communication skills that are required to build relationships and thrive in a global workplace
- Spaces that connect the students and engage them in the education process
- flexible technology that supports anywhere, anytime learning throughout the campus
- a key element in establishing learning environments that support collaboration and community by allowing a greater sense of connection - services and spaces to provide community that will allow students to feel safe and comfortable in their surroundings
- safe, secure and peaceful environments for students, staff and visitors ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 392 of 436 ends

District Educational Facilities Standards
Folsom Cordova Unified School District
8 ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 393 of 436 ends

Value Engineering and Cost Control
9 • From the Society of American Value Engineers International a “function-oriented, systematic, team approach to provide value in a product, system, or service. • Building System selections
• Pr
oduct and Material
selecti
ons
• Evaluation of Life Cycle Costs
• Capital
Costs versus
Operational Costs
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 394 of 436 ends

Value Engineering and Cost Control
10 • Mangini Ranch to Alder Creek - During Design - $3.4 Million Savings • All prior value engineering items completed at Mangini retained • Reduction of metal roof planes converted to parapets creating a uniform roof diaphragm and reducing the volume of the building
• Replaced exterior window screens and with pre-manufactured shading fins • Adjusted exterior window sizes and heights for more uniformity • Redesigned multipurpose proscenium
• Changed the Office ceiling to acoustical lay-in ceiling; reworked the lighting design • Mangini Ranch to Alder Creek - During Documents - $800,000 Savings • Remove concrete outdoor Learning Bridge and exterior stairs • Eliminate skylights in the multipurpose
• Convert operable partition to fixed storefront at Media Center • Reduce quantity of mechanical screens
• Remove built in casework cubbies in classrooms and use mobile furniture • Folsom Ranch High School - During Design - $23.6 Million Savings by Reducing 30k Sqft • Reduction to 1,800 students: the third floor was removed simplifying building structure • Reduced volume of the Main Entrance
• Allowed roof plane to be continuous from Media Center through Multipurpose to Theater • Canted walls back to 90-degree angles
• Reduced the parking lot for reduced capacity
• Curved stairwell at the Gym redesigned to rectilinear ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 395 of 436 ends

Value Engineering and Cost Control
11 • Post occupancy evaluation of Mangini Ranch Elementary • Review of educational program and standards
• Study design alternatives at the elementary school that still meet program needs
• Continuous value engineering throughout project development • Contracting partnerships early in projects
• Constructability reviews
• 3rd Party Value Engineering request for proposal (RFP) for high school ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 396 of 436 ends

Facility Funding – State Funding/Other Funding
12 • New Construction - based on projected unhoused students and is funded on a per pupil grant basis. Requires a 50% match from the applicant.
• Modernization - based on number/percentage of permanent buildings at least 25 years old and relocatable buildings at least 20 years old. Funded on a per pupil grant based on the site’s enrollment. Requires a 40% matching share from the applicant. • General Obligation Bonds - ad valorem property tax.
• Dev el
oper Fees - must establish a nexus between new residential/commercial construction and the need for additional facilities due to the growth from the construction.
• Certificates of Participation (COP) - tax-exempt funds for capital facilities repaid in lease or installment payments and secured by the district’s general fund. • Mello-Roos Special Tax Bonds - voter-approved special tax secured by a lien on the land upon which the tax is levied.
• Parcel Tax - requires ⅔ voter-approval and allows a specific dollar amount to be taxed per parcel.
• Proceeds from the Sale of Surplus Property.

ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 397 of 436 ends

Facility Funding – Deferred & Routine Repair Maintenance 13 • Ongoing and regular maintenance of school buildings including repair of plumbing, HVAC, electrical, roofing, and floor systems
• District is required to contribute a minimum of 3% of the annual general fund expenses (approximately $9 million)
• Major repairs or replacement of facilities including flooring, paving, el
ectrical systems, HVAC, roofing, painting, play structures, athletic facilities including pools, tracks, and stadiums, and plumbing • The state provides no additional funding for deferred maintenance since the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) • FCUSD allocates $1.2 million annually for deferred maintenance but half of the funding comes from the RRM funding
• The 25-year replacement analysis shows the average need is $5.6 million ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 398 of 436 ends

Facility Funding – Bonds: Polling and Process
14 • Assess the feasibility of a measure
• Determine the best election date, tax rate, project priorities • Develop the measure and qualify for the ballot
• Tell your story to the community regarding your funding needs ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 399 of 436 ends

Facility Funding – Bonds: Polling and Process
15 • 2024
• March 5 – Statewide Primary Election (qualification deadline December 8, 2023) • November 5 – Presidential General Election (qualification deadline August 9, 2024) • 2026
• June 2 – Statewide Primary Election (qualification deadline March 6, 2026) • November 3 – Presidential General Election (qualification deadline August 7, 2026) • Election Timing?
• Bond Amount/Tax Rate?
• Project Priorities?
• Competing Issues?
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 400 of 436 ends

Facility Funding – Bonds: Polling and Process
16 Feasibility1
Awareness
Building 2
Measure
Development3
Independent
Campaign4
• Non-advocacy Communications
• Projec
t List
• Ballot Question
• Consensus Building
• Resolution
• Fundraising
• Direct Mail/Advertising
• Website
• Endorsements
• Lawn Signs
• Get Out The V
ote
• Bond Planning Timeline
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 401 of 436 ends

SFID #4 - Rancho Cordova Sites Facility
Needs
• Project Needs/Estimated Costs - Measure P
• Fundi
ng Options including Bonds
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 402 of 436 ends

SFID No. 4
 Formation date: June 2006
 Located in western portion of District
• Includes portion of City of Rancho Cordova and adjacent unincorpo
rated areas (territory west of Sunrise Boulevard)
• Encompasses about 18.3 square miles (19.1% of total District)  SFID 4’s boundaries overlap SFID 1’s boundaries
 Passed two General Obligation (GO) Bond authorizations • 2006 Measure N - $125 milli on
• $60 million in remaining authorization (Not Accessible until 2033)* • 2012 Measure P - $68 millio n
• No remaining authorization
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 18
• 5.5% year over year increase
11/7/2006 N Prop. 39 $125,000,000 69.2% $60,001,169
11/6/20
12 P Prop. 39 $68,000,000 71.5% -
Date Measure Election
Type
Authorization
Amount
Voter
Approval
Remaining
Authorization
2012-13 $4,353,859,291 -2.1%
2013-14 $4,383,068,059 0.7%
2014-15 $4,666,921,098 6.5%
2015-16 $4,847,881,341 3.9%
2016-17 $5,146,708,211 6.2%
2017-18 $5,440,657,452 5.7%
2018-19 $5,905,898,021 8.6%
2019-20 $6,245,743,534 5.8%
2020-21 $6,503,315,399 4.1%
2021-22 $6,780,151,981 4.3%
2022-23 $7,149,821,752 5.5%
Fiscal
Year
Total Assessed
Value1
YoY
Change
Meas. N Meas. P Total
2012-13 $72.60 - $72.60
201
3-14 $71.50 $59.90 $131.40
2014-15 $78.70 $82.30 $161.00
2015-16 $55.30 $38.80 $94.10
2016-17 $73.00 $48.90 $121.90
2017-18 $55.80 $45.90 $101.70
2018-19 $60.50 $48.80 $109.30
2019-20 $60.50 $46.60 $107.10
2020-21 $60.80 $48.40 $109.20
2021-22 $61.40 $48.60 $110.00
2022-23 $66.40 $39.70 $106.10
Historical Tax Rate2
(per $100,000 of AV)
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 403 of 436 ends

SFID No. 4 Available Funding
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 19
Funding Sources / Expenditures Amount Balance
Funding Sources:

Bond Funds (Measure N/P) $ 137,602,956
Other District Funds (Def. Maint., Food Services, Dev Fees) 5,973,501 State School Building Program 1,486,082
E-Rate 1,201,338
City of Rancho Cordova/Other Outside Sources 2,998,434
Total Funds: $ 149,262,311
Expenditures and Encumbrances:

Elementary Schools (31,239,188)
Middle Schools (22,509,585)
Cordova High School (74,429,770)
Alternative Ed Schools (8,484,142)
Technology (9,291,406)
Master Plan/Legal Fees/Software/Other (2,857,397)
Completed and Encumbered: (148,811,488)
Remaining Available - reserved for Cordova High School stadium restrooms, site maintenance facility, gym lobby renovations, and Cordova Gardens Elementary sitework and kitchen
$ 450,823
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 404 of 436 ends

SFID No. 4 Needed Capital Projects
• Continued modernization upgrades to various schools, including flooring, lighting, wall covering, cabinetry, ceiling
s, plumbing, roofing, painting, windows, landscape, and irrigation • Additional buildings to accommodate program growth
• New library at Cordova High School
• New administration building at Cordova High School to consolidate services • Cordova High School stadium improvements, including new grand entrance, press box, and auxiliary facilities • New multipurpose buildings at Peter J. Shields Elementary, Riverview Stem Academy and Cordova Lane Center • New baseball field at Cordova High School
• Athletic facilities upgrades, including fields, lighting, scoreboards, sound systems, and tennis courts • Additional and upgraded facilities for transitional and full-day kinder garten and special education • Fencing of sites for safety and security
• Additional video surveillance cameras
• Technology upgrades
• Low voltage upgrades, including fire alarm, intrusion, and intercom systems • Career Technical Education (CTE) program improvements and enhancements • Playground equipment replacement and upgrades
• Kitchen, restroom, and multipurpose upgrades
• Shade structures
• Furniture and equipment
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 20
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 405 of 436 ends

2024 Preliminary Election Sizing SFID 4
 Election scenarios assumptions:
• Proposition 39 bond election
• Assessed valuation growth rate:
• FY 2022-2023 AV: $7. 15 billion
• FY 2023-2024: 3.00%
• FY 2024-2025 &
beyond: 3.50%
• 30-year term of bonds
• Measure’s final maturity: October 2063
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 21
Series FY Issued Par Amount
A 2024-25 $36,500,000
B 2027-28 $36,500 ,000
C 2030-31 $36,500,000
D 2033-34 $36,500,000
Authorization Amount: $146,000,000
Tax Rate per $100,000 of AV: $60.00
• Current Interest Bonds and no Capital Appreciation Bonds • Issuing four series set three years apart
• Assumed borrowing rate: 5.00%
 Assumes maximum tax rate of $60 per $100,000 of AV
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 406 of 436 ends

Combined Tax Rate for SFID No. 1 & No. 4
 Where multiple SFID boundaries overlap, property owners’ tax levy reflect each respective SFID’
s debt service
• SFID No. 4’s boundaries overlap SFID No. 1’s boundaries • SFID No. 1’s boundaries also overlap SFID No. 3’s boundaries • SFID No. 4’s boundaries do not ov erlap SFID No. 3’s boundaries • FY 2022-2023 combined tax rate: $151.70 per $100,000 of AV1 • FY 2022-2023 t ax rate SFID No. 1: $45.60 per $100,000 of AV1 • FY 2022-2023 tax rate SFID No. 4: $106.10 per $100,000 of AV1  Chart below provides pro forma tax rate for residence within overlapping SFID 1 and 4 boundar
ies2
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 22
Average Tax Rate
2035-2041: $109.75
2042-2053: $59.93
2054-2058: $52.56
2059-2063: $16.01
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 407 of 436 ends

SFID No. 4 “The Facts”
• Needs in SFID No. 4 exceed available funding
• Access to over $36 million in future state modernization funding by 2026, requir
es a match of district funds which currently FCUSD
could not meet
• Passage of a new bond could generate as much as $146 million in funding ass
uming a tax rate of $60
• Remaining authorization of Measure N could access $60 million, but not unt
il 2033
• Passage of a bond in 2024 is only option available to continue to update and enhance
existing Rancho Cordova schools
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 23
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 408 of 436 ends

SFID #5- Folsom Sites Facility Needs
• Project Needs/Estimated Costs - Measure G
• Fundi
ng Options including Bonds
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 409 of 436 ends

2012-13 -
2013-14 -
2014-15 -
2015-16 $56.80
2016-17 $64.10
2017-18 $7.10
2018-19 $58.30
2019-20 $54.70
2020-21 $54.30
2021-22 $54.80
2022-23 $53.00
Historical Tax Rate2
(per $100,000 of AV)
2012-13 $9,644,534,879 -1.9%
2013-14 $10,083,285,933 4.5%
2014-15 $10,765,629,871 6.8%
201
5-16 $11,247,691,152 4.5%
2016-17 $11,832,061,242 5.2%
2017-18 $12,455,551,415 5.3%
2018-19 $13,228,902,163 6.2%
2019-20 $13,947,523,040 5.4%
2020-21 $14,672,204,040 5.2%
2021-22 $15,273,792,815 4.1%
2022-23 $16,025,908,706 4.9%
Fiscal
Year
Total Assessed
Value1
YoY
Change
11/4/2014 G Prop. 39 $195,000,000 68.9% -
Date Measure Election
Type
Authorization
Amount
Voter
Approval
Remaining
Authorization
SFID No. 5
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 25
• Includes territory north of Highway 50 in City of
Folsom
• Encompasses about 25 square miles (26% of total
District)
• 2014 Measure G - $195 m
illion
• No remaining authorization
• 4.9% year over year increase
1Source: California Municipal Statistic, Inc.
2Source: County of Sacramento Voter-Approved Debt Rates for FY 2012-2013 thru FY 2022-2023.
3As of March 31, 2023.

ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 410 of 436 ends

SFID No. 5 Available Funding
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 26
Funding Sources / Expenditures Amount Balance
Funding Sources:

Bond Funds (Measure G) 199,839,169
Other District Funds (Def. Maint., Food Services, Dev Fees, Facilities Use)
5,070,851
State School Building Program (includes pending receipt of $8 M) 46,792,115 E-Rate 1,001,910
City of Folsom/Other Outside Sources 1,982,346
Total Funds: 254,686,391
Expenditures and Encumbrances:

Elementary Schools (includes Gold Ridge) (98,063,682)
Middle Schools (includes Folsom Middle, Sutter Middle Phase 4) (69,666,410) High Schools (includes Folsom High Ph 1, 2) (63,090,056) Furniture and Equipment (includes Gold Ridge, Folsom High) (5,860,633) Technology (includes multipurpose upgrades) (10,000,000) Master Plan/Legal Fees/Software/Other (2,067,950)
Completed and Encumbered (248,748,731)
Remaining Available as matching share for state funds for Empire Oaks Elementary, Sandra J Gallardo Elementary modernization projects 5,937,660
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 411 of 436 ends

Future SFID No. 5 Capital Projects & Funding
 Continued modernization upgrades to various schools, including flooring, lighting, wall covering, cabine
try, ceilings, plumbing, roofing, painting, windows,
• Including Folsom High, Folsom Middle, Empire Oaks Elementary, Sandra J. Gallardo Elementary, and other Folsom
Sites
 Additional buildings to accommodate program growth
 Landscape and irrigation upgrades
 Low voltage upgrades, including fire alarm, intrusion, and intercom systems  Swimming pool upgrades and enhancement at Vista del Lago High School  Athletic facilities upgrades, including fields, lighting, scoreboards, sound systems, and tennis courts
 A
dditional and upgraded facilities for transitional and full-day k indergarten and special education  Fencing of sites for safety and security
 Additional video surveillance cameras
 Technology upgrades
 CTE program improvements and enhancements
 Playground equipment replacement and upgrades
 Kitchen, restroom, and multipurpose upgrades
 Shade structures
 Furniture and equipment
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 27
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 412 of 436 ends

Series FY Issued Par Amount
A 2024-25 $83,000,000
B 2027-28 $83,000,000
C 2030-31 $83,000,000
D 2033-34 $83,000,000
Authorization Amount: $332,000,000
Tax Rate per $100,000 of AV: $60.00
2024 Preliminary Election Sizing SFID 5
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 28
 Election scenarios assumptions:
• Proposition 39 bond election
• Assessed valuation growth rate:
• FY 2022-2023 AV: $16.03 billion
• FY 2023-2024: 3.00%
• FY 2024-2025 & beyond: 3.50%
• 30-year term of bonds
• Measure’s final maturity: October 2063
• Current Interest Bonds and no Capital Appreciation Bonds • Issuing four series set three years apart
• Assumed borrowing rate: 5.00%
 Assumes maximum tax rate of $60 per $100,000 of AV
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 413 of 436 ends

Combined Tax Rate of SFID No. 2 & No. 5
 Where multiple SFID boundaries overlap, property owners’ tax levy reflect each respective S
FID’s debt service
• SFID No. 5’s boundaries overlap SFID No. 2’s boundaries • SFID No. 2’s boundaries also overlap SFID No. 3’s boundaries • SFID No. 5’s boundaries do not ov erlap SFID No. 3’s boundaries • FY 2022-2023 combined tax rate: $74.70 per $100,000 of AV1 • FY 2022-2023 tax rate SFID No. 2: $21.70 per $100,000 of AV1 • FY 2022-2023 tax rate SFID No. 5: $53.00 per $100,000 of AV1  Chart below provides pro forma tax rate for residence within overlapping SFID 2 and 5 boundaries
2 Folsom Cordova Unified School District 29
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 414 of 436 ends

SFID No. 5 “The Facts”
• Needs in SFID No. 5 exceed available funding
• Access to over $32 million in future state modernization funding by 2026, requir
es a match of district funds which currently FCUSD
could not meet
• Passage of a new bond could generate as much as $332 million in funding ass
uming a tax rate of $60
• Passage of a bond in 2024 or 2026 is only option available to continue t
o update and enhance existing Folsom schools
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 30
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 415 of 436 ends

SFID #3 - South of Highway 50 Developments
• School Buildout Overview
• Measure M
• New High School
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 416 of 436 ends

SFID No. 3
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 32
• Includes portion of City of Rancho Cordova, portion of City of Folsom, and adjacent unincorporated areas
• Encompasses about 52.6 square miles (54.8% of total
District)
• 2007 Measure M - $750 m
illion
• 2006 Measure M did not pass
• $545.87 million in remaining authorization
• 25.7% year over year increase
• Ac
counts for 13.4% of District’s total AV
• Debt will increase with additional issuances of
rem
aining authorization
• Maturity of outstanding debt service: October 1, 2044 1Source: Folsom Cordova Unified School District Annual Report 2021-2022. 2Source: California Municipal Statistic, Inc.
3Source: 2Source: Sacramento County Auditor-Controller Tax Accounting Reports, Voter Approved Debt Rates for FY 2012-2013 thru FY 2022-2023. 4As of March 31, 2023.
3/27/2007 M Prop. 46 $750,000,000 81.1% $545,866,144
Date Measure Election
Type
Authorization
Amount
Voter
Approval
Remaining
Authorization
2012-13 $1,503,791,295 -3.2%
2013-14 $1,537,321,440 2.2%
2014-15 $1,496,042,567 -2.7%
201
5-16 $1,541,703,476 3.1%
2016-17 $1,671,714,589 8.4%
2017-18 $1,703,059,167 1.9%
2018-19 $1,908,530,925 12.1%
2019-20 $2,172,008,172 13.8%
2020-21 $2,469,904,959 13.7%
2021-22 $2,863,814,202 15.9%
2022-23 $3,600,702,459 25.7%
Fiscal
Year
Total Assessed
Value2
YoY
Change
2012-13 $115.50
2013-14 $112.50
2014-15 $122.90
2015-16 $112.90
2016-1
7 $125.90
2017-18 $187.80
2018-19 $145.10
2019-20 $136.60
2020-21 $206.50
2021-22 $388.10
2022-23 $275.80
Historical Tax Rate3
(per $100,000 of AV)
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 417 of 436 ends

SFID No. 3 Buildout Timeline
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 33
• Assumes the completion of four elementary sites, district support building, and one high school
• Assumes state facilities bond will pass in 2024 to reimburse FCUSD for Alder Creek School to build Rio del Oro ES #1
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 418 of 436 ends

SFID No. 3 High School
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 34
• This
was a combined High School and Middle School on one site with a shared administrative and support buildings

MATH ER

HIGH SCHOOL

57.3 acres
2100 students
250,732 square feet

MORRISON CREEK

MIDDLE SCHOOL

17.7 acres
1200 students
98,217 square feet
348,949
combined
square feet
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 419 of 436 ends

SFID No. 3 High
School Design
 Folsom Ranch High School
 Mather High & Morrison
Creek Middle School
35 ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 420 of 436 ends

SFID No. 3 High School - Design
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 36
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 421 of 436 ends

SFID No. 3 High School - Design
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 37
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 422 of 436 ends

Next Steps
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 423 of 436 ends

Next Steps
 Board direction to move forward on potential Bond Election for SFID #4 and SFID
#5
• Next steps would be to complete polling to determine community support and tax rat
e(s)
 District Staff has started process to Request for Proposals (RFP) for Architect
Services and for a Master Facilities Plan
 District is working with consultant on demographics study for boundaries with A
lder Creek Elementary opening in 2024-2025
 Potential need to complete RFP for Financial Advisor Services and third- party v
alue engineering consultant for High School project
 Study Session scheduled on October 9 to continue discussions of FCUSD facili
ties needs
Folsom Cordova Unified School District 39
ITEM 19.3.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 424 of 436 ends

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 19.4.

DATE: October 2, 2023

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Amanda Norton, Economic Development Manager

SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION

Receive the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund and Workforce Development Update from the Economic Development Department.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

If directed to do so by the City Council, City staff would return with additional information or discussion items at a future Council meeting.

BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2020, the Rancho Cordova voters approved Measure R, a half-cent sales tax measure. The City Council held several visioning sessions in 2021 to identify the key priority areas for Measure R /Community Enhancement and Investment Fund. One key priority area was Economic Recovery/Community Response and Economic Development/ Workforce Development. Under that umbrella, the Economic Development Department identified projects/programs that reflect the Council’s goals and expectations for this allocation of funding.

The identified projects/ programs include:
• Business Assistance
• Business License Fee Waivers
• Small Business Design Assistance Program
• Community Enhancements Grants with an Economic Development Focus • RCity/ Shop Local App
• Business Retention/ Technical Assistance
• Small Business Recovery Grants
• Workforce Development

The presentation will provide an update of the identified projects and programs for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Measure R/ Community Enhancement and Investment as well as staff recommendations for future projects and programs.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

Page 425 of 436 ends

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Economic Development Department Update

Page 426 of 436 ends

1 Economic Development
Department Update
Economic Development
Department Update
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
Department Initiatives
& Programs
Business Expansion,
Retention & Assistance
Business Incentives
Small Business Recovery
Workforce Grants
Chamber of Commerce
Partnership
Economic Gardening
Minority Business Assistance
Kickstart
Shop Local App
Workforce
Future Programs and
Initiatives
Agenda
1 2
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 427 of 436 ends

2 Business
Expansion,
Retention &
Assistance
 Staff aided 59 Rancho Cordova businesses and non-
profits.
 Types of Assistance: Site Visits, Issue Resolution,
Expansion Planning, Site Selection, Access to Resources  4 Rancho Cordova Businesses utilized the Design
Assistance Program
 $33,000 used to offset design costs for small businesses Business Incentive Programs
 Funding Provided: $83,080
 Purpose: designed to promote development of new businesses, the expansion of existing businesses that will fill vacant, existing business space and support enterprises that will hire or retain employees in the City thereby contributing to the local economic prosperity.  Roostarz Hot Chicken: 10750 Olson Dr: $50,000 for restaurant equipment.  Oz Korean BBQ: 3343 Bradshaw Rd : $16,500.00 for entrance façade improvements.  Maharab Halal Market: 10437 Folsom Blvd : $16,580.00 for restaurant equipment. 3 4
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 428 of 436 ends

3 Small Business
Recovery
Business License Fee Waivers
1,695 business license waivers issued. Saving small and homebased businesses $174,585.

Utility Assistance
Offered financial assistance to 250 small businesses who fell into arrears on utility payments. Saving Rancho
businesses $241,000.

Recovery Grants
 Grant funds were used to offset or reimburse
businesses for costs related to recovering from
COVID-19:
 General business operations
 Payroll expenses
 Supplier payments
 Rent, lease or mortgage payments for the business property  Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and/or sanitation supplies and equipment
 Investments in software or technology that allow for a shift to online operations
 Equipment purchases that expand and/or modify operations  Retiring high-interest debt secured to cover COVID related capital purchases (e.g., equipment) or business expenses due to the loss of revenue.
58 Businesses Assisted
$1,090,000 approved funding
5 6
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 429 of 436 ends

4 Workforce
Development
Workforce Development Grants
Worked with 4 non-profit organizations to offer
workforce development to business owners and youth.
$196,510 total awarded grant funding.

Workforce Development Training
Funded workforce development training for 215
residents in partnership with 10 training providers.
$2,044,164 total funding allocated.

Workforce Development Grants
MaxReach - Think Like a CEO
Maxreach worked with six Rancho Cordova’s non-
employing business to provide training, support and
funding to help them become employer business. Through
workshops and hands-on experiences , participants are
empowered to make the shift from being self-employed to being employers.

Studio T – Side Hustle Academy
Studio T matched youth with local small businesses in
order to train both on branding, marketing, social
media engagement, and much more. 7 Rancho
businesses received 6 weeks of training and 14 pitch
videos.
7 8
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 430 of 436 ends

5 Workforce Development Grants
CALPAL Youth Apprenticeship Readiness Accelerator
California Police Activities League provided pre-
apprenticeship construction training for 5 Rancho Cordova youth. The youth also experienced college and career
preparedness at Westmont College. The first cohort has
been completed and the second is currently being recruited.

FCCP Professional Pathways
Folsom Cordova Community Partnership
(FCCP) in connection with VSP , provided an 8 hour initiative for youth career readiness and life skills training. The goal was to link the youth of Rancho Cordova with avenues of achieving economic stability, primarily through employment and
educational routes.

Workforce Development Training
9 10
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 431 of 436 ends

6 Workforce Development Training
 Currently Enrolled : 165 residents in 10 training programs  5 programs are a cohort based model
 Training is completed and moving into certificate
obtainment and/or employment assistance
 5 programs allow for continuous enrollment
 Students work through training at their own pace
Chamber of
Commerce
Partnership
11 12
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 432 of 436 ends

7 Business
Retention –
Shop Local App
1325 Registered Users
188 Participating Businesses

13.1X Economic Multiplier
$128,000 in Economic Activity
Minority Business Assistance
Recovery Kickstart
First tier Company
Support / 30
Businesses
First tier Company
Support / 30
Businesses
$45,000 in stipends /
Ten Sessions /
Business
Connections
$45,000 in stipends /
Ten Sessions /
Business
Connections
Three Languages /
Professional
Facilitators (Rancho
instructors)
Three Languages /
Professional
Facilitators (Rancho
instructors)
Training topics included:
• Keys to Effective Business Planning
• Understanding & Building Business Credit
• Best Financial Practices for Managing Your
Small Business
• Funding Options for Your Small Business
• Business Coaching – Session One
• Operating Within Your Jurisdiction
• Media Training: Crisis Communications
• Creating a Compelling Brand & Marketing Strategy
• Strategies for E-commerce, Web, & Social Media
• Business Coaching – Session Two
13 14
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 433 of 436 ends

8 Economic Gardening
Improved online presence
allowing more customers
to locate the company +
plans to expand
Identified two new target
markets, Added two new
positions, & Estimates an increase
in revenue of $500,000
Assessment in progress

IDENTIFY MARKET

TRENDS, POTENTIAL

COMPETITORS, AND

UNTAPPED RESOURCES

MAP GEOGRAPHIC

AREAS FOR TARGETED

MARKETING

RAISE VISIBILITY IN SEARCH

ENGINE RESULTS AND

INCREASE WEB TRAFFIC

TRACK WEBSITES, BLOGS,

AND ONLINE COMMUNITIES TO

BETTER UNDERSTAND

COMPETITORS AND

CUSTOMERS

MAKE INFORMED

DECISIONS ON CORE

STRATEGIES AND THEIR

RESPECTIVE BUSINESS
MODEL

LEVERAGE DATABASE

AND DATA MINING

RESOURCES AND

GEOGRAPHIC

INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Business Needs & Workforce Development
Regional Business Education Collaborative (RBEC) expands work-based learning experiences for community college students to ensure they develop the skills needed to be valuable employees.  Hosted 47 students at a resume writing workshop at the Chamber Business Expo  Several dozen students visited Expo vendors who were hiring (several offers made)  Held a virtual resume writing workshop for 20 Los Rios students  Planning “hospitality” events with Visit Rancho Cordova  Connected several students interested in engineering internships with City staff  Local business Herc hosted an internship webinar
 Careers in construction – Panel w/Teichert & LB Construction – 23 students attended "TPM is A demand-driven, employer-led approach to closing the skills gap that builds talent supply chains aligned to dynamic business needs.” Staff completed TPM training hosted by the US Chamber of Commerce. 15 16
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 434 of 436 ends

9 Programs & Projects for FY 2023-2024
 Continue MBARK – three cohorts with one dedicated to procurement (30 local small businesses)
 Lead the development of an employer-led, data-driven strategy for business retention and workforce development
 The State of Childcare – Respond to the childcare crisis and explore employer-led options  Lack of affordable and availability of child care options  Role and responsibility of public investment & that of employers  Leverage technology to improve access and care
Future Programs and Initiatives
 Economic Development Strategic Plan
 Office Park Study
 Business Expansion, Retention & Assistance
 Design Assistance Program
 Customer Relationship Management Database
 Update/ Refresh Business Incentive Programs
 Develop an Innovation Ecosystem Grant Program
 Child Care Initiative and Grant Program
 Continued Collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce
 Workforce Development Talent Pipeline
 MBARK Program
17 18
ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 435 of 436 ends

10 Questions and
Feedback
Questions and
Feedback
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
19 ITEM 19.4.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 436 of 436 ends

Rancho Cordova City CouncilOctober 2, 2023

Rancho Cordova City Council
October 2, 2023