CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, January 23, 2024
5:30 PM – Special Meeting/Work Session
American River Room
City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova
The Padre Hotel - Lobby
1702 18th St, Bakersfield, California, 93301
Join the Meeting Via Zoom Link:
https://cityofranchocordova.zoom.us/j/89105736197?pwd=PlfiNuWVWvqa1fz7hkFF16wjODJCow.f5ITRM-KVGKs7GWi
Join the Meeting via the Zoom Phone Number
Zoom Phone Number: +1 669 900 6833, or +1 253 215 8782
Webinar ID: 891 0573 6197
Password: 578969
Instructions to Make Public Comment
Submitting Public Comment via Email
Members of the public who wish to provide public comment via email will need to submit written comments to [email protected] no later than 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 23, 2024. Written comments received no later than 2:00 p.m. will be distributed to the Council, filed in the record, and will not be read aloud. All comments submitted later than 2:00 p.m. will be distributed to the Council.
Listening to a Zoom Meeting by Zoom Video Conference
To make a public comment using the Zoom platform, please use the “raise hand” feature at the bottom center of the screen. Please make sure to enable audio controls once access has been given by the City Clerk’s office to speak. Please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.
Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special Meeting of Tuesday, January 23, 2024
Listening to a Zoom Meeting by Phone Only
You can join a Zoom meeting via teleconferencing/audio conferencing using a cell phone or traditional landline phone. To request to make a public comment by phone press *9 to raise your hand. Please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.
All public comments will be limited to three minutes.
If you have questions related to the City Council Meeting or the use of Zoom, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 before Tuesday, January 23, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, Donald Terry, and Mayor David Sander
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
At a special meeting, citizens wishing to address the Council for any matter on the agenda may do so at the time the matter is discussed. Under the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not on the agenda.
3. SPECIAL MEETING ITEMS
3.1. Subject: 2024 Legislative Update.
Recommendation: Receive presentations by Covino Smith & Simon and Joe A. Gonsalves & Son regarding key 2023 legislation affecting the City, as well as staff update regarding 2024 legislative priorities. Receive presentations and updates; provide direction and/or approval to staff on the City's 2024 legislative priorities.
3.2. Subject: Little League Project Update.
Recommendation: Receive staff presentation on the progress of the Little League Project and provide direction.
4. ADJOURNMENT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Special Meetings listed below are subject to change/cancellation without further notice.
Public documents related to items on the open session portion of this agenda, which are distributed to the City Council less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, shall be available for public inspection at the time the documents are distributed to the Council. Documents are available for inspection at the City Clerk's office located in Rancho Cordova City Hall.
The agenda items are accessible on the City’s website at www.cityofranchocordova.org on Thursdays or Fridays prior to the Special City Council Meeting.
Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Special Meeting of Tuesday, January 23, 2024
UPCOMING MEETINGS
February 5, 2024 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting February 20, 2024 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
February 27, 2024 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
March 4, 2024 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
March 18, 2024 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
March 26, 2024 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
April 2, 2024 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
If you have any technical questions related to the agenda items, please contact City Hall at (916) 851-8700.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Persephonie Riley, Assistant City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cordova, declare that the foregoing agenda for the January 23, 2024, Special Meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council was posted and available for review on January 18, 2024, at City Hall of the City of Rancho Cordova, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, California, 95670. The agenda is also available on the city website at www.cityofranchocordova.org.
Signed January 18, 2024, in Rancho Cordova, California.
Persephonie Riley
Assistant City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2
ITEM 3.1.
DATE: January 23, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Maria Kniestedt, Communications and Public Affairs Director
SUBJECT: 2024 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentations by Covino Smith & Simon and Joe A. Gonsalves & Son regarding key 2023 legislation affecting the City, as well as staff update regarding 2024 legislative priorities.
Receive presentations and updates; provide direction and/or approval to staff on the City's 2024 legislative priorities.
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff would proceed with recommended direction and approval to finalize the City's 2024 legislative program. This includes producing the annual legislative brochure, which the Council and staff use for meetings with legislators and key agencies.
BACKGROUND
There are two elements to the 2024 Legislative Priorities update:
1. Federal Funding Requests
Annually, the City has an opportunity to submit applications for federal and/or state funding. If appropriations opportunities exist for 2024, applications will be submitted through the offices of our elected representatives or appropriate federal agency in Washington, D.C., or through the appropriate state-level process.
In keeping with recommended practices and Citywide goals and priorities, staff is recommending the attached projects to the appropriate federal agencies, as well as elected officials. These projects have been vetted and further the City’s goals of sustaining and improving transportation and connectivity, as well as providing a community where residents live, work, learn and play.
Attachment 1 includes the recommended projects.
2. 2024 Legislative Advocacy Platform
Managing federal funding requests is just one part of the City’s legislative program. The program, founded on a set of policy guidelines that were first approved by the Council in 2007, also directs our advocacy efforts to support or oppose legislation that significantly impacts the City, or to work with legislators through our advocacy partners on amendments.
City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2
Attachment 2 shows the City’s proposed 2024 Legislative Platform, with changes from the previous year highlighted.
FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. 2024 Projects for Federal Funding
2. 2024 Legislative Advocacy Platform
3. Presentation
ITEM 3.1. ATTACHMENT 1 1 2024 Projects for Federal Funding Opportunities
Project Description
Rancho Cordova Parkway
Interchange
This project will construct a new interchange on US Highway 50 between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue, and a six-lane road connecting south to White Rock Road. This project is part of a concerted, regional effort to improve overall mobility and spur economic development, including job creation and affordable housing.
The project accomplishes these goals by strengthening the connection between 65,000+ jobs in the City of Rancho Cordova and surrounding communities. The project has full environmental approval. •Total Project Cost: $154 million
•City Investment: $24 million in local funds
•Future Funding: $40 million
•Federal Funding Request: $90 million for construction
Sunrise Boulevard -
Kiefer Boulevard to State
Route 16 (Jackson
Highway)
This project would widen Sunrise Boulevard from two at-capacity lanes to four lanes from Kiefer Boulevard to State Route 16 (Jackson Highway) and construct intersection improvements at Sunrise Boulevard and State Route 16. The project includes modifications to the bridge on Sunrise Boulevard, Laguna Creek and Folsom South Canal. This project will include raising a portion of Sunrise Boulevard above a local flood plain. When this section of Sunrise Boulevard floods, it cuts off a critical connection to the southeast county. •Total Project Cost: $36.5 million
•City Investment: $8.5 million in local funds
•Federal Funding Request: $28 million
Douglas Road, Sunrise
Blvd. to West City
Boundary
This project will widen Douglas Road from two to four lanes from Sunrise Boulevard to the west city boundary. The scope includes removing the existing bridge over the Folsom South Canal and replacing it with a six-lane bridge. This will be a complete streets project and will provide better access for bicycle and pedestrian mobility. This project will also provide relief to the congestion along Sunrise Boulevard.
•Total Project Cost: $18 million
•City Investment: $2.9 million
•Federal Funding Request: $18 million
White Rock Road
Improvements, Macal
Drive to Eastern City
Limits
This project represents the final phase of the White Rock Road Safety and Congestion Relief parent project. This project is part of an innovative planning effort to alleviate regional congestion, improve roadway safety, nurture economic development, and promote the livability and quality of life in the greater Sacramento region. The proposed project will improve the final 2.0 miles of White Rock Road from Macal Drive to the City limits, provides parallel capacity and be a reliever route to U.S. Highway 50, replace the deteriorating segment of
ITEM 3.1. ATTACHMENT 1 2 roadway, realign and widen the road from two to four travel lanes to add critically needed capacity.
•Total Project Costs: $24 million
•City Investment: $12.5 million
•Federal Funding Request: $11.5 million
Mills Crossing Mixed-Use
Transit-Oriented
Development Project
The Mills Crossing project will revitalize the city’s most underinvested neighborhoods with over 100,000 square feet of community-serving facilities, including a health and wellness center, black box theater, artist gallery and meeting spaces, a community event center, and retail. The project also features over 100 units of new housing and nearly three acres of plaza and accessible open spaces. Located adjacent to a Regional Transit light rail station this project will stimulate mode-switching to transit and active transportation. In addition to creating a new regional destination, this project will be the catalyst for additional transit-oriented development all along the Folsom Blvd corridor.
•Total Project Cost: $107 million
•City Investment: $9.3 million; final city investment anticipated to be $40 million
•Federal Funding Request: $16 million
Mather Veterans Village
Homeless Housing
Development, Phase 4
This project will continue the City of Rancho Cordova’s successful model of housing homeless veterans by creating an additional 60 units of permanent supportive housing adjacent to the previous three phases of the Mather Veterans Village housing project (150 existing units). The city is partnering with Sacramento County, Mercy Housing and Nation’s Finest to bring an additional phase of new housing to continue ending veterans homelessness in our community.
Nationwide, California has the highest number of homeless veterans.
However, this number is decreasing in Sacramento County due to projects like the Mather Veterans Village, which is within walking distance to the regional VA Northern California Medical Center. •Total Project Cost: $29 million
•City Investment: $2 million
•Federal Funding Received: 60 Federal VASH Vouchers or $4 million
•Federal Funding Request: $4 million (through Community Grant Funding)
Mather Veterans Village
Housing and Community
Space Development,
Phase 5
This project will be the fifth phase in the City of Rancho Cordova’s efforts to transform a closed former air force base into housing for homeless and low-income veterans’ households within close proximity to the regional VA Northern California Medical Center. This phase will add 60 units of family-oriented townhomes and apartment units and will expand the Mather Veterans Village to encompass a more wholistic community by adding housing for households successfully moving on from the 150 units of veterans homeless housing adjacent to this project. This phase will also include a 4,000 square feet commercial component that will introduce new uses to the
ITEM 3.1. ATTACHMENT 1 3 neighborhood and act as a central gathering area for residents of all five phases to create a true community.
•Total Project Cost: $39 million
•City Investment: $1 million
•Tax Credits and Other Grant Funding: $31 million
•Federal Funding Request: 60 Federal Project Based Vouchers or $4 million
Capital Southeast
Connector
The Capital Southeast Connector is a vital 34-mile connection between communities in the greater Sacramento region including the City of Rancho Cordova. The first phase within Rancho Cordova and Sacramento County’s shared jurisdiction includes realigning Grant Line Road generally from White Rock Road to Jackson Highway and adding a separated walking and cycling path. The regionally important project will provide critical emergency access routes, improve safety, foster economic growth, and connect communities through active modes of transportation. The project alignment is approximately seven miles long with proposed improvements valued at $100 million dollars.
Environmental is approved with construction expected to begin in 2026.
•Total Project Cost: TBD
•City Investment: TBD
•Federal Funding Request: TBD
ITEM 3.1. ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Legislative Advocacy Platform
The Legislative Advocacy Platform is adopted annually to authorize the city’s active participation in the decision-making process for federal and state legislation and budget issues. It also guides city staff and the city’s advocacy partners in pursuing federal or state funding, and/or to act upon legislative issues.
Using the Legislative Advocacy Platform as a guide, the city will take positions on specific legislation and amendments. The mayor or appointed designee will sign legislative letters based on the city’s identified interests, and Council Members may be actively involved in advocacy efforts. The legislative programs of CalCities, the National League of Cities, and other organizations may also influence city activities when there are common interests.
Areas of support and opposition are stated broadly in most cases to provide the flexibility needed to respond in a timely manner and to serve as a guide for staff in identifying specific issues that are important to the city, as well as to determine interest in specific legislation. In addition, these priority areas will help Council Members, city staff and advocacy partners focus on key issues and funding areas when speaking to representatives.
In addition, the city will evaluate legislation and pursue funding to enhance the community based on specific policy areas, such as transportation and infrastructure, economic development, planning, public safety, and housing.
Generally, the city will evaluate legislation based on the following broad criteria:
▪Protection of local revenues
▪Protection/increase of local government discretion
▪Protection/increase of funding for specific programs or services ▪Support of key programmatic goals
▪Prevention of unfunded mandates
▪Consistency with existing city policy
▪Direct impact upon the city and the region
Based on the above criteria, the following policy positions are recommended.
Brown Act/Elections Code/Political Reform Act/Public Records Act Support:
•Legislation on administration of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act that provides additional opportunities to recover costs.
•Legislation that seeks to protect the City’s ability to obtain confidential advice from legal counsel on items such as anticipated and pending litigation and real estate acquisition. •Legislation that explores the use of virtual meeting technology to provide additional opportunities for meeting participation.
Oppose:
•Additional mandates in this policy area without full cost recovery.
ITEM 3.1. ATTACHMENT 2
•Legislation that would invade the attorney-client privilege and upset the balance between the public's right to know the conduct of its business and a city's need for privileged conversations with legal counsel.
Economic Development
Support:
•Legislation, strategies, and policies that: attract, retain, and expand business; support job creation, retention, expansion, extended opportunity zones, and new redevelopment plans; maximize revenue opportunities; foster place making; support workforce development; and enhance community amenities.
•Legislation that promotes the state as an economically viable and strong destination for businesses to locate.
•Legislation that supports the CHIPS and Science Act.
Oppose:
•Legislation that adversely impacts the ability of communities to attract and retain jobs. •Legislation that creates competitive disadvantages for new and existing businesses. •Legislation that overburdens small businesses with costly and resource-intensive environmental regulations.
Education
Support:
•Legislation that promotes college access, affordability and success.
Environment
Support:
•Legislation that ensures local government representation and participation on state and federal environmental regulatory bodies.
•Legislation to standardize and streamline state and federal environmental regulations. •Legislation that provides the city with the flexibility to enact environmental standards that are stricter than state or federal standards, if the city chooses. •Legislation that increases funding or revenue sources for water quality and stormwater reuse projects.
Oppose:
•Legislation that, under the guise of environmental protection, restricts its land use authority. •Legislation that deletes local government representation and participation on state and federal environmental regulatory bodies.
Housing
Support:
ITEM 3.1. ATTACHMENT 2
•Legislation that provides needed resources and flexibility to local governments to produce housing that meets all socioeconomic needs and local demands. •Legislation that supports and facilitates affordable housing production of special needs populations (e.g., veterans, homeless, seniors)
•Measures that would provide local governments with greater flexibility in the housing element process.
•Legislation that provides or enhances needed federal and state incentives that help facilitate the production and preservation of affordable housing units including, but not limited to, housing bond funds and tax credits, project-based vouchers, and relief from prevailing wage requirements, and CEQA reform.
•Adequate and fair funding for the city and equitable distribution of housing dollars in the region.
Oppose:
•Legislation that eliminates opportunities for public review, project-level environmental review and restricts design review.
•Legislation that eliminates or weakens the low-income housing tax credit, the new markets tax credit, or Community Development Block Grants.
Local Control
Support:
•Legislation that enhances local control of resources and tools that allows the City Council to make decisions that address the needs of residents and businesses within the local jurisdiction they serve, as well as the broader interest of the region.
Oppose:
•Legislation that erodes local control, whether by state or federal legislation, or ballot propositions.
•The Taxpayer Protection & Government Accountability Act.
Mandates
Support:
•Legislation that encourages the use of state and federal incentives for local government action rather than mandates.
•Legislation to enhance local government’s ability to comply with state and federal mandates. •Measures to provide funding for federal and state mandates. •Measures to streamline the process by which local governments are reimbursed by the state for the cost of unfunded mandates.
•Future legislation that repeals previously unfunded mandates.
Oppose:
ITEM 3.1. ATTACHMENT 2
•Legislation that seeks to impose additional unfunded mandates on local governments that produce inequitable burdens and financial and other hardships. •Measures that would further delay reimbursement for unfunded mandates.
Planning
Support:
•Measures that seek to enhance the flexibility of local planning agencies to meet community needs, strengthen local land-use policies and provide community enhancement. •Legislation to resolve ambiguous or unworkable planning and environmental statutes so that local agencies have clear direction from the federal and state governments. •Legislation that provides technical and financial support for streamlining the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act permitting programs.
Oppose:
•Legislation to impose additional mandatory and arbitrary reviews by non-local agencies of local planning documents.
Public Safety
Support:
•Legislation and measures to enhance public safety by providing additional funding for local agencies in their efforts to safeguard the public, increase the quality of life, reduce or prevent crime, educate citizens, and build community partnerships. •Legislation that provides local law enforcement with additional tools to protect the public and prevent crime.
•Measures that establish task forces, which unite multiple public safety resources in an effort to combat criminal acts, which extend beyond the jurisdictional borders. •Legislation to assist local law enforcement in its role as “first responders” to natural and man-made disasters.
Oppose:
•Legislation that limits the public safety policy tools available to local governments to deal with local conditions.
•Measures to reduce subventions and grant programs for public safety. •Legislation that will limit or restrict public safety professionals from the efficient performance of their duties or that limits the law enforcement tools available to local public safety professionals.
•Legislation that provides local enforcement with additional tools to protect the public from substandard housing and dangerous structures.
Revenue Protection
Support:
ITEM 3.1. ATTACHMENT 2
•Measures that give local government greater stability and independence in the state-local fiscal relationship, including full, constitutional protection of all local government revenues. •Legislation that provides additional opportunities for local governments to be financially self- sufficient and oppose legislation that erodes the fiscal independence of local governments. •Legislation that will enhance the state’s fiscal stability and minimize the impact to local governments of state budget deficits.
Oppose:
•Legislation that would give the state or federal government greater control over local revenue sources or in any way reduces or diminishes City authority over local revenues. •Legislation that would result in the permanent loss of City revenues unless it is part of a broader local government revenue protection package.
•Legislation that further exacerbates the state’s long-term budget imbalance and further exposes local governments to the effects of state budget deficits.
Technology and Telecommunications and Cable Franchises
Support:
•Legislation that maintains local control over public rights-of-way; protects local revenues used for essential local services, including public safety; guarantees access to, and funding for, public, educational and government access television. •Legislation that ensures that the public is appropriately compensated by telecommunications providers that use the public’s rights-of-way.
•Legislation that supports the increasing need for cybersecurity and the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Oppose:
•Any legislation that does not adhere to the principles above or includes unfunded mandates.
Transportation and Infrastructure
Support:
•Additional funding for local transportation and other critical unmet infrastructure needs. •Adequate and fair funding for the city and equitable distribution of transportation dollars within the SACOG region.
Oppose:
•Legislation that would reduce the ability of growing communities to address transportation and infrastructure needs with adequate funding (from diversified sources) and with as much flexibility as possible.
•Legislation that would in any way unduly restrict the city’s ability to ensure that necessary public improvements are completed as part of new subdivisions.
1 2024 Legislative Update
Insights, Platform, Funding Priorities
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
2 • Provide presentations from our State and Federal
advocacy partners
• Present legislative advocacy platform and projects
for possible federal funding opportunities
• Outcome: Discussion/Direction/Approval
Tonight’s Discussion
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
3 2023-24 Insights
• Presentation by Joe A. Gonsalves & Son, State
Advocacy Partner
• Presentation by Covino Smith & Simon, Federal
Advocacy Partner
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
4 • 2024 Legislative Platform Updates
• Economic Development
• Education
• Environment
• Housing
• Local Control
• Technology
• 2024 Federal Funding Requests
• Eight Projects
• New: White Rock Road Improvements;
Mather Veterans Village, Phase 5; Capital
Southeast Connector
2024 Legislative Priorities
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
5 2024 Legislative Priorities
Legislative
Program
UpdateQuestions?
ITEM 3.1.
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 1
ITEM 3.2.
DATE: January 23, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Kristine Courdy, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: LITTLE LEAGUE PROJECT UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
Receive staff presentation on the progress of the Little League Project and provide direction.
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff would develop a funding plan for the Little League Project based on Council feedback.
BACKGROUND
The Rancho Cordova Little League Project (Project) has been approved as a Legacy Project under the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund (CEIF). The Project includes upgrading the Rancho Cordova Little League facility at Ahlstrom Park and Cordova Lane Center. City staff have evaluated design alternatives for the Ahlstrom Park site, as well as alternative planning- level layouts and locations, with Project stakeholders including Rancho Cordova Little League (RCLL), Cordova Recreation and Park District (CRPD), and Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD).
The workshop presentation includes an overview of the project history, levels of play and types of facilities, and discussion of Little League trends and delivery alternatives, project alternatives, and next steps for the Project.
FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE
The Little League Project has an $11 million budget allocated from the Community Enhancement & Investment Fund and Park Renovation Fees.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Presentation
1 Little League Renovation
Project
Little League Renovation
Project
January 23, 2024
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
2 Meeting Goals / Outline
Project History Review Levels
of Play & Types
of Facilities
Discuss Little
League Trends
& Delivery
Alternatives
Project
Alternatives &
Next Steps
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
3 Project History
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
4 2015 to 2020
Rancho Cordova Little League Project History
• Prior 2015: Preliminary Analysis
• 2015: RCLL Feasibility Study Request for
Proposal
• 2016-2020: Conducted RCLL Feasibility
Study & Analysis including Stakeholder
Engagement
• June 2020: City Council allocated $1M
CEF Funding for Little League
• December 2020: LPA Contract Award for
RCLL Design at Ahlstrom Park / Cordova
Lane
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
5 Rancho Cordova Little League Project History
2016 Test Fit Diagrams S ite Plans
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
6 2020 Little League Renovation Concept
Rancho Cordova Little League Project History
*2020 Cost Estimate
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
7 • 2021: Refined Site Plan, Community
Outreach & Schematic Design
• Feb 2022: CRPD Board approved
Schematic Design
• Nov 2022: Staff directed to:
• Evaluate Jr. Field at Park
• Discuss Park Safety/Activation
with CRPD
• FCUSD Parking
• Jan 2023: Completed Maintenance
Project for the upcoming season
• 2023: Evaluate Ahlstrom Park
Alternatives & Potential Sites
• $11M Allocated to Date
Ahlstrom Park
Rancho Cordova Little League Project History
Cordova Lane
2 021 to 2023
Rotating the Fields at Ahlstrom Park & Cordova Lane
F
ebruary 2022 design approved by CRPD Board
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
8 January 2023 Completed Maintenance Project
Total Investment
= $160K
Field
Repairs
New Fence Screen
& Topper
Batting Cage
Artificial Turf
Bull Pen
Artificial Turf
Fence Repairs
New Picnic
Tables
Snack Bar
Improvements
New Bleachers
Dugout Shade
Paint
New Signs
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
9 2023: Little League at Ahlstrom Park
$13.8M (BASE PROJECT)
$200K (FCUSD PARKING)
____________________________________________________ _____________ $14M + (TOTAL)
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
10 2023: Little League at Ahlstrom Park with Junior Field $13.8M (BASE PROJECT)
$200K (FCUSD PARKING)
$2.5M (JR FIELD)
____________________________________________________
_____________
$16.5M+ (TOTAL)
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
11 2023: Ahlstrom Park with Junior Field & Park Activation $13.8M (BASE PROJECT)
$200K (FCUSD PARKING)
$2.5M (JR FIELD)
$6.0M (SAFETY/ACTIVATION)
____________________________________________________
_____________
$22.5M+ (TOTAL)
Project only includes conduits for future lights, not field lighting ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
12 Ahlstrom Park
Femoyer Site
2875 Kilgore Road
Rio del Oro
Stone Creek
Center Property
2023: Little League
Potential Sites
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
13 Review Levels of Play
& Types of Facilities
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
14 Key Considerations
• C ity’s long-term goals
• Level of Play
Local Facility
Local League Play
and Practice Only
Local Tournaments
4 to 10 fields
6-20+ acres
Regional Facility
League Practices and
Competitions
Tournaments from +/-
100 mi. radius
10 to 19 fields
50-150 acres
Limited economic
impact
National Facility
League Practices,
Competition and
Specialized Training
National fly-in week
long tournaments
20+ fields
200+ acres
Economic impact is
the driver
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
15 Facilities Level of Play – Local Facility
• Less than 10 Fields
• Fields of varying sizes to appeal to
multiple age groups and levels of
play
• Uses:
• Community Recreational Uses
• Leagues
• Club Training
• Community Tournaments
• Acreage: 6-20+ acres
• Example: Ahlstrom Park/Cordova
Lane, C-Bar-C and Future Roseville
Baseball Complex
Rancho Cordova Little League
7 fields on 6.4 acre site
Ahlstrom Park
C
ordova Lane
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
16 Facilities Level of Play – Local Facility
C-Bar-C Park, Citrus Heights, CA
5 fields on 23-acres site
Future Roseville Baseball Complex
8 fields on 40-acre site
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
17 Facilities Level of Play – Regional Facility
• 1 0-19 Premium fields
• Small Event Venue/Team Rooms
• Common Size Fields to Host
Tournaments
• Typically Multi-Sport
• Uses:
• Large Club(s) Use/Rental
• Competitive Leagues &
Tournaments
• College Exhibitions
• Acreage: 50 to 150 acres
• Example: Woodland Sports Park
and Concord Tournament Sports
Complex
Woodland Sports Park
12 Ballfields + 12 Long
Fields on 100 acres
Concord Tournament
Sports Complex
12 Ball Fields + 20 Long
Fields on 150 acres
PHASE ONE
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
18 Facilities Level of Play – National Facility
• 2 0+ Premium fields
• Event Venue, Clubhouse, Restaurant
• Common Size Fields to Host Tournaments
• Multi-Sport
• Uses:
• Professional Training
• Regional & National Tournaments
• Acreage: 200 acres+
• Example: Tracy Legacy Fields, SoCal, Round
Rock TX, Golden Eagle Sports Park Reno NV
Tracy Legacy Fields
2 3 Ball Fields + 19
Long Fields on 200
acres
PHASE ONE
PHASE ONE
COMPLETE
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
19 Discuss Little League Trends
& Delivery Alternatives
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
20 Little League Participation & Trends
0 20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
City of Rancho Cordova
Projected Little League Growth
Rancho Cordova Little League Signups Rancho Cordova Population Source:
1) Participation from Rancho Cordova Little League
2) State of Play 2023: https://projectplay.org/state-of-play-2023/participa tion 3) National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) national youth sports participation data has remained flat between 2015 and 2022 RCLL Signup Projections
(
Lower Range)
RCLL Signup Projections
(Upper Range)
ProjectionsActuals
2023
Rancho Cordova Population
(Projection)
Rancho Little League Signups
(Projection)
Current Participation in Rancho Cordova Little Leagu
e1:
2017 – 564 players, pop. 73,487
2 018 – 517 players, pop. 74,579
2019 – 475 players, pop. 75,565
2020 – did not play pop. 79,790
2021 – 354 players, pop. 80,413
2022 – 490 players, pop. 80,598
2023 – 472 players, pop. 81,674
Trends:
State of Play 20231:
6% Reduction in Baseball
State of Play 20231: 5% Reduction in Youth Team Sports
NSGA3: Shows national youth participation remaining flat RCAA Goal: 5% Increase in Youth Sports
Future Rancho Cordova Projections:
2030 – Projected pop. 110,892, Signup range 603-674
2 040 – Projected pop. 140,100, Signup range 761-850
Benchmarking – City of Roseville:
Current pop. 160,000 with 3 separate Little League o rganizations, total players 1,050 ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
21 Decentralization versus Consolidation
• C urrent model for Rancho Cordova is Decentralization Decentralization Example
Does not work for Regional Facilities
Ahlstrom Park
T-ball & Major/
Minor Fields
(ages 12-)
Mitchell School Park
Junior/Senior Field
(ages 13+)
Consolidation Example
Consolidation lends itself to tournaments
C-Bar-C Park
T-ball, Major/Minor
and Junior/Senior
Fields all on one site
(all Little League age
groups)
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
22 Baseball Fields around Rancho Cordova (Existing & Future) Ahlstrom Park/
Cordova Lane
7 Existing Fields
Mather Sports
Complex
4 Existing Fields
Mitchell Middle School
1 Existing Field
Rio del Oro
Future Park
Fields TBD
Heron Landing
Park
2 Existing Fields
Hagan Park
3 Existing Fields
Existing Fields
Future Parks
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
23 Decentralization versus Consolidation of Facilities
CONSCONSOLIDATION PROS
Land acquisition challengeEfficiency in maintenance
P
otential traffic impactsRental and tournament capabilities Higher capital cost for constructionMultiple age group interaction Family Convenience, less travel
Higher level of play
Potential for expanded tournament &
rentals
CONSDECENTRALIZATION PROS
Limitations for age group interactionUtilizing exist ing resources to maximum efficiency
Duplicated amenities (minimum
standards at every site)
Neighborhood focus
Less likely to have sports lightingLess new parking need Higher maintenance costs & travel time
Consolidation Example
Decentralization Example
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
24 Project Alternatives
& Next Steps
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
25 Rancho Cordova Little League Alternatives
Project Cost: $22.5M+
11.7 acres, 8 fields
Est. time: Unknown
Local Facility
Consolidated
Maintained by FCUSD,
CRPD and RCLL
Project Cost: $35-$50M+
15+ acres, 7-9 fields
Est. Time: Unknown
Phased Project
Local Facility
Consolidated
~$1.6M annual o/m
Revenue est. ~$500K
~30% Cost Recovery
Project Cost:$250M+
50-150 acres
10-19 fields
Est. time: Unknown
Consolidated
Sample Costs:
~$6-7M annual o/m
Revenue est. ~$4M
~75% Cost Recovery
Plus Econ. Impact
Project Cost: $14M+
6.4 acres, 7 fields
Est. time* 2 yrs
Local Facility
Decentralized
Maintained by FCUSD,
CRPD and RCLL
3) Adding the Junior
Field to Ahlstrom Park
4) Move Little League
to a New Site
5) Construct a Regional
Baseball Facility
*Timeline is for Project Development and Construction. Actual timeline will depend on funding availability. 2) Rotating the Fields
at Ahlstrom Park
1) Project at Ahlstrom
Park within the Budget
Project Cost: $11M max
6.4 acres, 7 fields
Est. time 2 yrs
Local Facility
Decentralized
Maintained by FCUSD,
CRPD and RCLL
A Scope of Work will be
developed within the
$11M approved
funding
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
26 • City Council received a cash flow analysis of available funding for proposed legacy projects over the next five years.
• Council was then asked to prioritize funding for their top three proposed legacy projects which was agreed to as follows:
• Rise Up Theatre
• Mineshaft
• Mills Crossing
• GSEC Program (would require potential reallocation of Measure H/R funding as opportunities arise)
• Little League funding allocation was held at $11 Million. Additional funding could become available depending on timing and cash outflows of the three priority legacy projects.
Legacy Project Prioritization from May 2023
ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1
27 Little League Project Discussion & Next Steps
• C ity Council Action:
• Provide direction to City Staff on the Little League Project • Staff will develop a funding plan for the Project
• Return to City Council for final direction
TimelineFunding
AvailableBudget*Decentralized or
Consolidated
Facility
Type
Acreage & Field
CountDescription Alt
2-years$11M$11M MaxDecentralizedLocal6.4 acres, 7 fi eldsProject at Ahlstrom Park within the Budget1
2-years$11M$14M+DecentralizedLocal6.4 acres, 7 fieldsRotating the Fields at Ahlstrom Park2
Unknown$11M$22.5M+ConsolidatedLocal11.7 acres, 8 fieldsAdding the Junior Field to Ahlstrom Park3
Unknown$7.5M**$35-50M+ConsolidatedLocal15+ acres, 7-9 fieldsMove Little League to a New Site4
Unknown$7.5M**$250M+ConsolidatedRegional50-150 acres, 10-19 fields
Construct a Regional Baseball
Facility5
* Budget will vary with cost escalations over time
** $3.5M in Community Renovation Fund not eligible for new facilities ITEM 3.2.
ATTACHMENT 1