Rancho Cordova City Council
October 7, 2024

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 8

Project Cost Estimates
The 2006 study does not state the source of the project cost estimates, beyond saying that the Needs List, “… is a compilation of projects and costs identified by the local agency planning and engineering departments.” No further details are provided in the report.

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 9

3. Updates of Key Inputs
The current nexus study offers an opportunity to update the key assumptions underpinning the nexus between new development and the fee. This process is described below.

3.1 Development Growth Forecasts
Land use forecasts are made for a variety of reasons, including preparation of a jurisdiction’s General Plan, air quality conformity forecasts, and planning for transportation and other infrastructure projects, to name just a few. STA therefore commissioned Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to develop growth forecasts specifically for use in the SCTMF nexus update study. The results were documented in a technical memorandum to STA.2
EPS’s development forecasts project short-term and longer-term land use changes for the total STA geography and by individual jurisdiction. The short-term projections focus on a 3-year period – fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024 – while the longer-term development projections identify anticipated development through the remainder of the program (i.e. through 2039).

EPS used several sources when developing their forecasts, including historical building permit data by land use; the development pipeline, including planned and proposed development projects, residential units, non- residential square footage, etc.; and population, household, and employment projections. This data was provided by the seven-member jurisdictions, SACOG, the California Department of Finance, the Construction Industry Research Board, the North State Building Industry Association, and several media outlets.

EPS grouped potential development into three categories:

1. Active Entitled Development. This category includes the remaining residential units and nonresidential square footage for projects that are delivering homes or building infrastructure, including only those residential units and nonresidential square footage where building permits have not yet been issued. Development projects in this category are either developing – with absorption anticipated to continue in the near term – or anticipated to start vertical construction within the next 3 to 5 years.

2. Planned Development. Planned development includes projects that have been approved and have tentative maps, but infrastructure has not yet been initiated. Development in this category is considered likely to develop within the next 5 to 20 years.

3. Conceptual Development. Development classified as conceptual for this analysis includes projects for which planning applications may have been submitted but not yet approved. This category also includes development concepts that may have been reported by the local jurisdiction, developers, or via third-party sources such as the Sacramento Business Journal or other news entities.

Development in this category may not occur within the next 20 years.

Growth forecasts at the county and city levels were used as control totals to limit the growth in the three categories described above to amounts reasonably foreseeable within the life of the SCTMF Program, considering past development performance.

Figure 4 charts the development of single-family dwellings since 2011 and the forecast going forward to the end of the SCTMF Program in 2039. Note the spike in construction in the City of Sacramento after a

2 Technical Memorandum: Sacramento Transportation Authority Development Forecasts, dated August 18, 2021 ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 10

moratorium on development in Natomas3 was lifted, allowing many projects already in the development pipeline to proceed.

Figure 5 shows data for the same period for the development of multi-family housing. There was a surge in units between 2015 and 2020, especially in the Natomas, Downtown, and Midtown areas. This is forecast to drop as the stock of relatively easily developed lots becomes exhausted.

Figure 6 shows the corresponding graphs for non-residential development. In 2016 there was a spike in construction, again due to lifting the moratorium on development in Natomas, but also encompassing major developments in other locations, like Delta Shores.

In each case, the period between 2015 and 2020 appears to represent one-off occurrences of the release of pent-up demand. The forecasts going forward represent a return to long-term average conditions.

3.2 Traffic and Ridership Growth Forecasts
The development forecasts from the previous section must be converted into forecasts for the growth in traffic associated with new development in Sacramento County. The conversion from dwelling units (for residential development) and thousands of square feet (for non-residential developments) to trips was done using the trip generation rates found in the eleventh edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.

The Trip Generation Manual has dozens of land use categories that do not directly correspond to the land use categories used in the land use forecast. For example, the Trip Generation Manual has trip generation rates for 76 types of retail and service establishments aggregated into a single “Commercial, Retail” category in the land use forecasts. This reflects the reality that a commercial building may host a variety of tenants over its service life, so attempting to forecast individual uses, for example, “hair salons,” would be speculative at best. Instead, some representative use sub-categories were combined to generate averages to represent large categories of development. Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 7 show the derivation of the average trip generation rates for the commercial/retail, industrial, warehouse/self-storage, and lodging categories, respectively. Table 7 shows the resulting rates used to forecast the growth in traffic attributable to future development in Sacramento County.

The growth estimates for each category were then multiplied by their respective trip-generation rates to determine the growth in daily vehicle trips generated by new development (see Table 8). A similar calculation was done for the trips generated by existing land uses, with the existing land uses taken from SACOG’s SACSIM travel demand model. Table 8 shows that 5.6% of the trips generated in Sacramento County in 2039, when Measure A expires, would be attributable to new development.

Besides generating new vehicle trips, new development also generates new users for the transit system. This was computed as the percentage of dwelling units in the horizon year that would be built between 2022 and 2039. As seen in Table 8, 8.7% of transit riders in 2039 could be attributed to new development.

3 In the wake of the flooding of parts of New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina, the Federal government imposed a moratorium on development in the Natomas basin until the levees protecting it could be inspected and strengthened. The moratorium lasted 7 years. It was lifted in 2015.

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 11

Figure 4: Forecast for Development of Single-Family Dwellings

0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Single-Family Housing Units
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 12

Figure 5: Forecast for Development of Multi-Family Dwellings

0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Multi-Family Housing Units
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 13

Figure 6: Forecast for Non-Residential Development

5.8 MSF
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 14

Table 3: Computation of Average Rate for Commercial/Retail Uses

Table 4: Computation of Average Rate for Industrial Uses

Table 5: Computation of Average Rate for Warehouse/Self Storage Uses

Table 6: Computation of Average Rate for Lodging Uses

Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Pass-by
Credit
Net Daily
Trip-Gen
Rate
Estimated
% Square
Footage
Weighted
Average
ADT's
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(1-B) (D) (E)=(C)*(D)
Shopping Center (>150k) 820 KSF 37.01 40% 22.21 40% 8.88 Convenience Store* 851 KSF 762.28 56% 335.40 11% 36.89
Fine Dining Restaurant 931 KSF 83.84 44% 46.95 15% 7.04 Fast-Food Restaurant 933 KSF 450.49 55% 202.72 5% 10.14 Automobile Sales (new
vehicles) 840 KSF 27.84 0% 27.84 6% 1.67
Home Improvement
Superstore 862 KSF 30.74 42% 17.83 15% 2.67
Drive-In Bank 912 KSF 100.35 35% 65.23 8% 5.22
Combined Rate 100.00% 72.52
* Pass-by rate taken from land use 945, Convenience Store/Gas Station The Estimated % Square Footage is from the 2006 Nexus Study, Appendix E.

ITE Description ITE
Code Unit
General Light Industrial 110 KSF 4.96
Industrial Park 130 KSF 3.37
Manufacturing 140 KSF 3.93
Average Rate 4.09
Daily Trip-
Gen RateUnitIndustrial Land Uses ITE
Code
Warehouse Uses ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
High-Cube Warehouse 154 KSF 1.40
Self Storage 151 KSF 1.45
Average Rate 1.43
Hotel 310 Room 7.99
Business Hotel 312 Room 4.02
Motel 320 Room 3.35
Average Rate 5.12
Lodging Land Uses ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 15

Table 7: Trip-Generation Rates Used for Forecast of Traffic Growth

Table 8: Growth in Trips Generated in Sacramento County

SCTMFP Land Use Code ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Residential, Single Family 210 DU 9.44
Residential, Multi-Family 220 DU 6.74
Commercial, Retail Mixed KSF 72.52
Commercial, Office 710 KSF 10.84
Industrial Mixed KSF 4.09
Hospital/Medical 610 KSF 10.77
Warehouse/Self Storage Mixed KSF 1.43
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 16

3.3 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
For an impact fee to be collected, there must be a need for capacity improvements that are triggered by new development. Capacity deficiencies are identified using level of service (LOS) thresholds that are established in a jurisdiction’s general plan. The LOS policies of the 7 jurisdictions in Sacramento County are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: LOS Policies of Jurisdictions in Sacramento County Jurisdiction LOS Policy
Sacramento County “D" on rural roadways, “E” on urban roadways City of Sacramento* See note below
Elk Grove Not explicitly stated, but target delay at signalized intersections corresponds to LOS “D”
Folsom LOS “D”, with some exceptions allowed
Rancho Cordova LOS “D”, with some exceptions allowed
Citrus Heights LOS “E”, with some exceptions allowed
Galt LOS “C”, except “D” within ¼ mile of SR-99 interchanges *The City of Sacramento has adopted Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, which identify roadway volume service thresholds that approximate an equivalent LOS C/D threshold for roadway sizing.

As can be seen in Table 9, the predominant approach among Sacramento County jurisdictions is to maintain LOS “D” in most situations. This balances a reasonable degree of mobility with the need to keep the cost of infrastructure at an affordable level.

Table 10 shows the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for the Measure A roadway projects that have not yet been constructed. The volumes assume that the forecast new growth occurs and the capacity assumes that no improvements are made to the roadway network. For context, a V/C ratio between 0.9 and 1.0 indicates LOS “E” and a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 indicates LOS “F.” For every project on the list, new growth worsens the V/C ratio. And in every case but one, the V/C ratio would be worse than the acceptable threshold of 0.90, which is the upper limit of LOS “D”. Based on these results, we determined that new development causes or contributes to the deficiencies triggering every project listed in Table 10 except for A25SC.

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 17

Table 10: Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Measure A Road Projects

Existing Existing +
Growth
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County 1.31 1.32 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County 1.15 1.22 Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove 1.39 1.50 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County 1.40 1.53 Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove 1.11 1.30 Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County 1.01 1.04 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector A16JP1 CSCA JPA 1.09 1.26
Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County 1.01 1.03 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County 1.12 1.16 Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County 1.23 1.25 Madison Av enue: Phase 2 (Hazel Av e – Greenback Lane) A25SC Sac County 0.67 0.71 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County 1.44 1.48 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County 1.43 1.66 Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove 0.98 1.17 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County 0.85 0.99 Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County 1.17 1.22 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County 1.19 1.24 C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 1 from Elk Grov e to US 50 A45CT1 Caltrans 1.05 1.17 I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans 1.26 1.35 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans 1.06 1.10 I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans 1.05 1.11 Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac 0.95 1.02 E. SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP3 CSCA JPA 1.16 1.33 F. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP4 CSCA JPA 1.16 1.33 Volume/Capacity Ratio
Project Name STA
Project # Jurisdiction
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 18

3.4 Project Cost Estimates
As can be seen in the Measure A project list in Table 11, since its passage, 19 Measure A projects have been completed and will need no further funding from the SCTMF Program. Additionally, 7 projects have been dropped from the list for one reason or another, and will also not need SCTMF Program funding.

Member agencies were asked to provide their most recent cost estimates for the remaining projects. These estimates, shown in Column A of Table 11, were developed in different years and were adjusted to reflect current construction prices. Per STA policy, this adjustment used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) overall annual average. Table 12 shows how the construction cost inflator was developed from the price indices for all 20 cities reported in ENR’s survey of construction prices nationwide.

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 19

Table 11: Updated Project Costs

STA
Project # Jurisdiction Most Recent
Cost Estimate
Year of Most
Recent Cost
Estimate
Cost
Inflation
Factor
Updated
Project Cost
(A) (B) (C) = (A)*(B)
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County $5,349,275 2019 1.18 $6,333,993 Antelope Road: Rosev ille Rd - I-80 A02CH Citrus Heights Completed Antelope Road: I-80 - Auburn Blv d A03CH Citrus Heights $26,000,000 2022 1.03 $26,702,045 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County $4,944,101 2009 1.56 $7,706,291 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Del Paso-Ethan Way A04CS City of Sac Not Planned Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove $27,765,597 2022 1.03 $28,515,317 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Florin A07SC Sac County Completed Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County $197,396,000 2009 1.56 $307,677,965 Brucev ille Road: Sheldon-Cosumnes Riv er Blv d A09CS City of Sac Not Planned Cosumnes Riv er Blv d: I-5-Franklin Blv d A10CS City of Sac Completed Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove $6,348,910 2022 1.03 $6,520,342 Folsom Blv d: 65th-Watt A12CS City of Sac Not Planned
Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County $40,698,159 2019 1.18 $48,190,055 Folsom Blv d Streetscape: Phase 1 (Bradshaw to Sunrise) A14RC1 Rancho Cordova Completed Folsom Blv d Streetscape: Phase 2 (Bradshaw to Sunrise) A14RC2 Rancho Cordova Completed Folsom Bridge Crossing A15FS Folsom Completed
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector A16JP1 CSCA JPA $504,000,000 2022 1.03 $517,608,881 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv eA16JP2 CSCA JPA Completed Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County $41,716,000 2022 1.03 $42,842,405 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County $68,500,035 2019 1.18 $81,109,823 Greenback Lane: I-80-Manzanita Av e A20SC Sac County $15,000,000 2009 1.56 $23,380,258 Greenback Lane: (West City Limit to Fair Oaks Blv d) A18CH Citrus Heights Completed Hazel Av enue: Phase 1 (US 50 – Madison Av e) A21SC Sac County Completed Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County $83,121,000 2019 1.18 $98,422,280 Hazel Av enue: (US Highway 50 – Folsom Blv d) A23SC Sac County $105,000,000 2022 1.03 $107,835,183 Madison Av enue: Phase 1 (Sunrise Blv d – Hazel Av e) A24SC Sac County $30,381,000 2022 1.03 $31,201,340 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County $90,411,746 2009 1.56 $140,923,332 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 1 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A27SC Sac County $53,000,000 2022 1.03 $54,431,093 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County $180,111,556 2009 1.56 $280,736,981 Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Rd - Elk Grov e Blv d) A29EG1 Elk Grove Not Planned Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Rd - Sheldon Rd) A29EG2 Elk Grove $2,495,550 2022 1.03 $1,617,116 Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Road – Old Placerv ille Road) A29EG3 Elk Grove Not Planned Sheldon Road: Brucev ille-Elk Grov e-Florin A30EG1 Elk Grove Not Planned Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove 8,551,924 2022 1.03 $8,782,841 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County $33,883,638 2019 1.18 $40,121,087 Sunrise Blv d: (Gold Country Road-Jackson Rd)** A32RC Rancho Cordova Completed Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County $43,518,800 2019 1.18 $51,529,932 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 2 (Greenback Lane – Oak Av e) A35CH Citrus Heights $8,300,000 2022 1.03 $8,524,115 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 1 (Oak Av e - Antelope Rd) A34CH Citrus Heights Completed Sunrise Blv d: Phase 3 (Antelope Rd – City Limit) A36CH Citrus Heights $6,400,000 2022 1.03 $6,572,811 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County $82,909,270 2019 1.18 $98,171,573 Project Name
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 20

Table 11: Updated Project Costs (continued)

STA
Project # Jurisdiction Most Recent
Cost Estimate
Year of Most
Recent Cost
Estimate
Cost
Inflation
Factor
Updated
Project Cost
(A) (B) (C) = (A)*(B)
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Downtown Intermodal Station A38CS City of Sac $400,000,000 2023 1.00 $400,000,000 LRT extension (Meadowv iew Rd. to Cosumnes Riv Blv d) A39RT SacRT Completed Regional Rail Commuter Serv ice A40RT SacRT Not Planned LRT extension to Airport (planning/env iro/design only) A41RT SacRT $7,195,809 2022 1.03 $7,390,108 LRT improv ements in I-80 Corridor A42RT SacRT Completed C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Bus/carpool ramp connection (SR-50E to SR-99S) A43CT Caltrans $300,000,000 2022 1.03 $308,100,524 I-80 Bus/carpool lanes (I-5 to Capital City Fwy) A44CT Caltrans Completed I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 1 from Elk Grov e to US 50 A45CT1 Caltrans Completed I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans $90,000,000 2022 1.03 $92,430,157 Ramp widenings for connectors between SR 50 and I-5 A46CT Caltrans $300,000,000 2022 1.03 $308,100,524 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 1 A47CT Caltrans Completed SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans $128,000,000 2022 1.03 $131,456,224 Central Galt/SR 99 interchange upgrade A48GT Galt Completed Consumnes Riv er Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A49CS City of Sac Completed GrantLine Road/SR 99 interchange upgrades A50EG Elk Grove Completed I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans $177,000,000 2022 1.03 $181,779,309 Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac $115,000,000 2022 1.03 $118,105,201 Sheldon Road/SR99 Interchange Upgrade A53EG Elk Grove Completed Watt Av e/SR50 interchange upgrade A54SC Caltrans Completed E. SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Promotion of transit oriented dev elopment
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP3 CSCA JPA $5,000,000 $5,000,000 F. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM Env ironmental mitigation for Measure A transportation projects Open Space Acquisition
Natural habitat preserv ation
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP4 CSCA JPA $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Total for All Projects > $3,582,819,108
Project Name
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 21

Table 12: Construction Cost Inflator

20-City Annual
Average
2009 8,570 1.56
2010 8,799 1.52
2011 9,070 1.47
2012 9,308 1.44
2013 9,547 1.40
2014 9,807 1.36
2015 10,035 1.33
2016 10,338 1.29
2017 10,737 1.24
2018 11,062 1.21
2019 11,281 1.18
2020 11,466 1.17
2021 12,133 1.10
2022 13,007 1.03
2023 13,358 1.00
Cost
InflatorYear
ENR Construction
Cost Index
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 22

4. Updated Fee Calculation

4.1 Consideration of Residential Floor Area
The State of California has instituted a new policy4 pertaining to fees on residential developments. California Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5), which is new with the enactment of AB 602, states that, “(A) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (B) A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees. (C) This paragraph does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.”
AB 602 applies to impact fee programs generally and was not tailored to fit circumstances specific to transportation impact fees. Web research revealed that there are currently no well-established sources for trip generation rates based on residential unit size. However, data on the number of persons per household can be obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey, and data on the number of trips by household size is available from NCHRP Report 716, Travel Demand Forecast: Parameters and Techniques. This data was combined, as shown in Table 13, to estimate trip generation rates by residential unit size. The residential unit size categories were determined in coordination with the working group including the local agencies that have adopted the SCTMF Program. The data is based on single-family homes; the average size for a single-family home in Sacramento County is 2,255 sq. ft.

As can be seen in Table 13, although the trip generation rate is related to the size of the residence, it is not directly proportionate to the floor area, as is assumed in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A). We recommend that STA therefore find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(i), that it would not be appropriate to use square footage directly as the metric of traffic impacts for the purposes of the SCTMF Program. It should instead find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(ii), that the data supports fees based on the relationships shown in the bottom row of Table 13 for new very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large-sized homes. It should further find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(iii), that these relationships would ensure that smaller units would not be charged disproportionate fees compared to larger units.

4 Assembly Bill 602, signed into law in September 2021.

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 23

CGC Section 66016.5(a)(5)(C) allows agencies to establish different fees for different types of developments. As a matter of policy, STA determined that fees on multi-family housing should be set lower than those of single-family dwellings, in recognition of their low trip generation rates. The rates for multi-family and senior age-restricted housing were therefore calculated based on their respective daily trip-generation rates found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The average size for multifamily units in Sacramento County is less than 1,200 sq. ft., so the ITE rate for them, which represents the average unit, was used to compute the “Small” values for these dwelling types. The ratios between the trip-generation rates for the size categories are found in the bottom row of Table 13.

Table 13: Computation of Average Trip Generation by Dwelling Size Category

Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips
(A) (B) (C)=(B)*Σ(B) (D)=(A)*(C) (E) (F)=(E)*Σ(E) (G)=(A)*(F) (H) (I)=(H)*Σ(H) (J)=(A)*(I) (K) (L)=(K)*Σ(K) (M)=(A)*(L) (N) (O)=(N)*Σ(N) (P)=(A)*(O) 1 4.1 32,110 7,889 55% 2.26 8,648 36% 1.46 6,421 28% 1.15 6,264 20% 0.81 2,888 12% 0.50 2 8.2 40,531 3,737 26% 2.14 8,092 33% 2.74 8,027 35% 2.87 11,767 37% 3.04 8,908 38% 3.10 3 11.2 17,618 1,307 9% 1.02 3,449 14% 1.59 3,618 16% 1.77 5,546 17% 1.96 3,699 16% 1.76 4 16.1 15,389 834 6% 0.94 2,370 10% 1.57 2,837 12% 1.99 4,745 15% 2.41 4,602 20% 3.15 5 18.6 7,046 334 2% 0.43 1,078 4% 0.83 1,267 6% 1.03 2,205 7% 1.29 2,162 9% 1.71 6 18.6 2,625 106 1% 0.14 408 2% 0.31 485 2% 0.39 792 2% 0.46 834 4% 0.66 7+ 18.6 1,476 97 1% 0.13 214 1% 0.16 277 1% 0.22 443 1% 0.26 445 2% 0.35 Total 116,795 14,305 100% 7.06 24,258 100% 8.67 22,933 100% 9.42 31,760 100% 10.22 23,539 100% 11.23 Average
Persons
per
Household 2.07
Sources: Column (A) - NCHRP Report 716, Columns (B), (E), and (H) - American Housing Survey, 2021 National Household Demographics Notes: 1,601-2,400 sq.ft. is assumed to be the SFD Average unit size range, based on average size of single family homes in the United States from various sources including statisa.com Persons
per
Household
Trips per
Household Total
Very Small Small Medium-Small Medium Large

1.64 1.94 2.06 2.19 2.30
≤ 800 sq.ft 801 to 1,200 sq.ft 1,201 to 1,600 sq.ft 1,601 to 2,400 sq.ft > 2,400 sq.ft Trip-Gen Rate as a % of SFD
Average 69% 85% 92% 100% 110%
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 24

Table 13 was then used to compute the dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) for different sizes of single-family, multi-family, and senior age-restricted housing. As with single-family dwellings, the use of size categories accords with the intent of Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(iii) that smaller units are not charged disproportionate fees compared to larger units.

Table 14: Computation of DUEs by Size and Dwelling Type

4.1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
In addition to the considerations discussed above pursuant to AB 602, a separate piece of legislation, SB 13, passed in 2019, establishes a new system for assessing fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). It amended CGC Section 65852.2(3)(A)(f)(3) to read,
“A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
Based on this subsection, if an ADU is smaller than 750 square feet it is exempt from the SCTMF. Fees on ADUs larger than 750 square feet require a two-part calculation. First, the SCTMF that would be charged to the primary dwelling unit is calculated, then the fee on the ADU is computed based on the ratio of its floor area to the primary dwelling unit. For example, if the primary dwelling unit were 2,000 sq. ft. and would be charged a fee of $800, then an ADU 1,000 sq. ft. in size on that property would be charged a fee of $400 (50% of the size, so 50% of the fee).

4.2 Computing the Maximum Allowable Fee
The methodology used to update the fee schedule repeated the first nine steps in the previous nexus study as shown in Figure 2, except that all inputs were updated as described in Chapter 3 of this report.

Table 15 shows how the updated project costs from Table 11 were combined with the updated forecast for new growth from Table 8 to compute the maximum allowable project cost attributable to each vehicle trip generated by new development in Sacramento County. Additionally, Table 15 computes the maximum allowable cost per DUE, based on the Fee per New Vehicle Trip and the trip generation rate of a single- family home from Table 7. Table 15 also reflects that the SCTMF has already spent some funds for projects that are in development but are not yet complete. This reduces the amount of funding needed from future development.

Very
Small
(≤ 800
sq.ft.)
Small
(801-1200
sq.ft.)
Medium-
Small
(1,201-
1,600
sq.ft.)
Medium
(1,601-
2,400
sq.ft.)
Large
(>2,400
sq.ft.)
Single-Family Residential 9.44 100% 0.69 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.10 Single-Family Residential, Senior 4.31 46% 0.32 0.39 0.42 0.46 0.50 Multi-Family Residential 7.32 78% 0.63 0.78 0.84 0.91 1.01 Multi-Family Residential, Senior 3.24 34% 0.28 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.44 Dwelling Type
ITE 11th
Edition Trip-
Gen Rate
(Daily)
Average Unit
as % of
Average SFD
Trip-Gen Rate
Dwelling Unit Equivalents
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 25

Table 15: Calculation of Fee per New Vehicle Trip (for Roads) and Per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (for Roads and Transit)

4.3 Recommended Fee by Land Use Category
The next step is to compute the maximum allowable fee for each unit of new development. For residential uses, this is done by multiplying the DUE rates for each dwelling size shown in Table 14 by the fee per new DUE shown in Table 15.

Table 16 shows both the maximum allowable and proposed fee schedule for residential developments after the size adjustments shown in Table 14 were applied. Per the Measure A Ordinance, fees for uses that are not the average single-family unit (medium size) “shall be proportionate to the trip generation rate of the affected land use relative to the trip generation rate of a single family [sic] unit.” The DUEs presented in Table 14 take into account the trip generation rates proportionate to the average single-family unit. Therefore, the proposed road cost per DUE and proposed fee per unit shown in Table 16 is calculated based on the current fee for the medium size single-family unit (equal to 1.00 DUE).

One notable feature of the table that is worth explaining is that the fees for multi-family dwellings (MFDs) increased more than the rates for single-family dwellings (SFDs). The reason is that trip generation rates for SFDs have decreased since 2006 as the average household size and the average number of working adults have declined for this housing type. On the other hand, the trip generation rate for MFDs has risen over the same period as fewer growing families have been able to move into SFDs due to affordability issues. The result is that MFDs have a relatively greater impact on roadway congestion than in the past.

The fees for non-residential developments are shown in Table 17. The cost per new trip generated from Table 15 was multiplied by the trip generation rates from Table 7 to produce the maximum allowable fee for each land use type. As stated previously, one of the purposes of this nexus study is to ensure that proposed fees are defensible. In other words, that the proposed fees are less than the maximum allowable fees.

The proposed fees, to comply with Measure A, are based on the escalated cost of $1,000 per SFD originally established in 2006. Accordingly, the proposed SFD fee in 2023 dollars is $1,574 per average SFD, which falls in the medium SFD size category in the revised fee schedule. Using the proposed fee per SFD ($1,574 per unit) we can calculate the proposed cost per trip to be $167 based on the daily trip generation rate for a single-family home (9.44). The proposed fee per unit is then calculated by multiplying the proposed cost per trip by the trip generation rate (column A). One noticeable aspect of Table 17 is that the percentage change in fee differs substantially for different development types. This arises from the fact that the trip generation rates for different land use categories have changed over time as travel behaviors and markets evolve.

Maximum
Permissible
SCTMF
Funding
SCTMF
Funding
Already Spent
Maximum
Permissible
Future SCTMF
Funding
(A) (B) (C) = (A) - (B)
Total for Local Arterial Program $107,274,039 $34,738,980 $72,535,059 Total for Connectors and Carpool Lanes $57,224,537 $870,874 $56,353,663 Total for Local Freeway Interchange Projects $12,652,662 $696,441 $11,956,221 Total for All Roadway Projects > $177,151,238 $36,306,295 $140,844,943 Total Number of Vehicle Trips from Future Growth > 760,097 Fee per New Vehicle Trip > $185
Fee per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) > $1,749
Total for All Transit Projects > $35,550,125 $12,095,221 $23,454,904 Forecast Number of New Dwelling Units > 55,825
Fee per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) > $420
Project Class
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 26

Table 16: Fees for Residential Developments

Dwelling
Unit
Equivalent
(DUE)
Maximum
Allowable
Road Fee
per DUE*
Maximum
Allowable
Transit Fee
per DUE*
Total
Maximum
Allowable
Fee per
DUE*
Maximum
Allowable
Fee per
Unit
Proposed
Cost per
DUE**
Proposed
Fee per
Unit
FY 24/25
Fee per
Unit
Change in
Fee
% Change
in Fee
(A) (B) (C) (D)=(B)+(C) (E)=(A)*(D) (F) (G)=(A)*(F) (H) (I)=(G)-(H) (J)=(I)/(H) Single-Family Residential 210
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.69 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,499 $1,574 $1,088 $1,574 ($486) -31% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.85 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,839 $1,574 $1,334 $1,574 ($240) -15% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.92 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,000 $1,574 $1,451 $1,574 ($123) -8% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 1.00 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,169 $1,574 $1,574 $1,574 $0 0% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) 1.10 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,384 $1,574 $1,730 $1,574 $156 10% Single-Family Residential, Senior 251
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.32 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $685 $1,574 $497 $1,260 ($763) -61% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.39 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $840 $1,574 $609 $1,260 ($651) -52% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.42 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $913 $1,574 $663 $1,260 ($597) -47% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.46 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $990 $1,574 $719 $1,260 ($541) -43% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) 0.50 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,089 $1,574 $790 $1,260 ($470) -37% Multi-Family Residential 220
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.63 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,371 $1,574 $995 $1,101 ($106) -10% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.78 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,682 $1,574 $1,221 $1,101 $120 11% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.84 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,829 $1,574 $1,327 $1,101 $226 21% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.91 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,984 $1,574 $1,440 $1,101 $339 31% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.)*** 1.01 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,181 $1,574 $1,582 $1,101 $481 44% Multi-Family Residential, Senior 252
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.28 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $607 $1,574 $440 $943 ($503) -53% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.34 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $745 $1,574 $540 $943 ($403) -43% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.37 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $810 $1,574 $587 $943 ($356) -38% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.40 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $878 $1,574 $637 $943 ($306) -32% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.)*** 0.44 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $965 $1,574 $700 $943 ($243) -26% Accessory Dwelling Units
Very Small (<750 sq.ft.)
Otherwise (>750 sq.ft.)
* Maximum Allowable Cost and Fee Calcaluated for Nexus Study ** Proposed Road Cost per DUE is equal to the medium-sized single family dwelling unit fee for FY 24/25 to comply with Measure A. *** No multi-family units of this size have been built in Sacramento County in the last 5 years Note: For residential uses that are anticipated to have unique trip generation characteristics, such as those near transit or those with restricted parking, see Operating Protocols for fee calculation procedures.

Fee is based on the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to the primary unit, times the fee that would be charged on the primary unit, if the primary unit was being newly built.

Exempt from fee
Development Type ITE
Code
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 27

Table 17: Updated Fees by Non-Residential Development Type

Trip
Generation
Rate
Maximum
Allowed
Cost per
Trip
Maximum
Allowed
Fee per
Unit
Proposed
Cost per
Trip
Proposed
Fee per
Unit
FY 24/25
Fee per
Unit
Change in
Fee
% Change
in Fee
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E) (F) (G)=(E)-(F) (H)=(G)/(F) Office Use 710 KSF 10.84 $185 $2,009 $167 $1,807 $1,890 ($83) -4% Retail Use* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0%
Industrial Use 110 KSF 4.96 $185 $919 $167 $827 $1,260 ($433) -34% Hotel/Motel Mixed sleeping room 5.12 $185 $949 $167 $854 $912 ($58) -6% Extended Stay Hotel/Motel 320 sleeping room 3.35 $185 $621 $167 $559 $810 ($251) -31% Hospital 610 KSF 10.77 $185 $1,996 $167 $1,796 $2,639 ($843) -32% Service Station** 944 Fuel Pump 20.64 $185 $3,825 $167 $3,442 $2,047 $1,395 68% Supermarket* KSF NA $2,624 $1,078.0 $2,362 ($1,284) -54% Warehouse/Self-Storage Mixed KSF 1.43 $185 $264 $167 $238 $394 ($156) -40% Assisted Living Facility 254 bed 2.60 $185 $482 $167 $434 $454 ($20) -5% Congregate Care 253 unit 2.21 $185 $410 $167 $368 $333 $35 11% Child Day Care 565 Student 4.09 $185 $758 $167 $682 $725 ($43) -6% Private School (K-12) 532 Student 2.48 $185 $460 $167 $414 $410 $4 1% Auto Repair/Body Shop* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% Gym/Fitness Center* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% Drive-through Car Wash* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% All Other Trip $185 $167 $167 ($0) 0%
* Fee set by Board policy at 1.5 times the rate for Single-Family Dwellings for 1 KSF of retail ** Trip generation rate includes a reduction for pass-by trips, per ITE Development Type ITE Code Unit
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 28

4.4 Funding from Other Sources
As was discussed in the earlier sections, the SCTMF will provide only a portion of the funding required to implement the Measure A project list. The remainder must come from some other source. As is always the case with decades-long programs like the SCTMF, funding opportunities come and go with the passage of individual infrastructure funding acts, so there is always a degree of uncertainty regarding future funding.

That said, the amount of grant funding provided to the Measure A projects that have been completed provides a general idea of grant funding that may be available in the future.

Table 18 shows the amount of grant funding used for individual projects that have now been completed.

These have been grouped into four programs because the amount of grant funding often differs depending on the type of project. For example, Table 18 shows that local arterial projects have on average received 60% grant funding while transit capital improvements have received 80% grant funding.

Table 19 compares the amount of grant funding needed with the grant funding that has been historically available. In most cases, the amount needed and the amount received are roughly consistent. The sole exception is the Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades program, where STA may need to seek additional funding from local jurisdictions if sufficient grant funding does not materialize.

4.4.1 Funding from Local Jurisdictions
Local funding (jurisdiction funding) is all funding identified for a project that is not grant funding or SCTMF funding. However, this may include Measure A sales tax funding.

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 29

Table 18: Grant Funding for Completed Measure A Projects

Primary Project Sub Project Total Project Cost Third Party Grant Expenditures
Antelope Road Watt Ave to Auburn Blvd. Roseville Rd. to I-80 Phase 1 12,397,000 6,200,000 Bradshaw Rd. Grantline Rd. to Folsom Blvd. Calvine Rd. to Florin Rd. Phase 1 19,547,000 - Folsom Blvd: 65th St. to Sunrise Blvd. Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 1 4,759,152 3,659,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 2 14,667,761 10,805,860 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 3 6,836,770 2,724,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 4 5,062,000 4,838,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 5 6,100,000 5,500,000 Folsom Bridge Crossing Folsom Bridge Crossing 145,851,098 100,152,288 Consumnes River Permanent Open Space Preserve Consumnes River Permanent Open Space Preserve 5,000,000 - Greenback Ln. I/80 to Auburn/Folsom Rd. West City Limit to Fair Oaks Blvd. 19,176,000 16,188,000 Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Folsom Blvd to White Rock Rd 7,735,000 - Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Oak Ave. to Antelope Rd. Phase 1 5,178,000 650,000 Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Greenback Ln. to Oak Ave Phase 2 2,250,000 840,800 254,559,781 151,557,948
Percent of Grant Funding 60%
South Sac LRT Extension South Sac LRT Extension 270,000,000 240,312,246 DNA LRT Extension DNA LRT Extension 49,000,000 14,711,845 LRT I-80 Corridor Improvements LRT I-80 Corridor Improvements 247,200 - 319,247,200 255,024,091
Percent of Grant Funding 80%
I-80 I-5 to Capital City Freeway I-80 I-5 to Capital City Freeway 63,259,688 62,537,000 Hwy 50 Bus/Carpool Lanes Surise Blvd. to Downtown Sunrise Blvd. to Downtown Phase 1 100,406,202 67,612,969 163,665,890 130,149,969
Percent of Grant Funding 80%
Cosumnes Blvd. I-5 Interchange Cosumnes Blvd. I-5 Interchange 85,315,164 31,009,376 Central Galt Interchange Central Galt Interchange 50,641,711 13,962,875 Grantline Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade Grantline Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade 77,400,000 - Sheldon Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade Sheldon Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade 73,470,838 20,801,000 Watt Ave. Hwy 50 Interchange Watt Ave. Hwy 50 Interchange 38,318,000 26,962,680 325,145,713 92,735,931
Percent of Grant Funding 29%
Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades Total Rail Transit Improvements Total
Regional Bus/Carpool Lane Connectors/Extensions Total

LOCAL FREEWAY INTERCHANGE CONGESTION RELIEF UPGRADES
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Local Arterial Program Total
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 30

Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects

STA Project # Jurisdiction Updated
Project Cost
% Attributable
to Regional
Growth
Maximum
Permissible Fee
Cost Based on %
Attributable
Funding from
Local
Jurisdiction
Funding
Needed from
Other Sources
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E)=(A)-(C)-(D)
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County $6,333,993 5.6% $354,704 $2,066,509 $3,912,780 Antelope Road: I-80 - Auburn Blv d A03CH Citrus Heights $26,702,045 5.6% $1,495,315 $0 $25,206,731 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County $7,706,291 5.6% $431,552 $2,000,000 $5,274,738 Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove $28,515,317 5.6% $1,596,858 $11,933,654 $14,984,805 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County $307,677,965 5.6% $17,229,966 $131,578,000 $158,869,999 Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove $6,520,342 5.6% $365,139 $4,886,659 $1,268,544 Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County $48,190,055 5.6% $2,698,643 $13,673,000 $31,818,412 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector* A16JP1 CSCA JPA $517,608,881 5.6% $28,986,097 $25,000,000 $463,622,783 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County $42,842,405 5.6% $2,399,175 $16,716,000 $23,727,230 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County $81,109,823 5.6% $4,542,150 $45,750,000 $30,817,673 Greenback Lane: I-80-Manzanita Av e A20SC Sac County $23,380,258 5.6% $1,309,294 $5,000,000 $17,070,964 Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County $98,422,280 5.6% $5,511,648 $58,121,000 $34,789,632 Madison Av enue: Phase 1 (Sunrise Blv d – Hazel Av e) A24SC Sac County $31,201,340 5.6% $1,747,275 $19,021,000 $10,433,065 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County $140,923,332 5.6% $7,891,707 $60,277,511 $72,754,114 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 1 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A27SC Sac County $54,431,093 5.6% $3,048,141 $29,723,000 $21,659,951 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County $280,736,981 5.6% $15,721,271 $144,000,000 $121,015,710 Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove $8,782,841 5.6% $491,839 $5,541,646 $2,749,356 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County $40,121,087 5.6% $2,246,781 $22,589,092 $15,285,214 Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County $51,529,932 5.6% $2,885,676 $29,027,039 $19,617,217 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 2 (Greenback Lane – Oak Av e) A35CH Citrus Heights $8,300,000 5.6% $464,800 $0 $7,835,200 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 3 (Antelope Rd – City Limit) A36CH Citrus Heights $6,400,000 5.6% $358,400 $0 $6,041,600 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County $98,171,573 5.6% $5,497,608 $55,550,000 $37,123,965 Total for Local Arterial Program $1,915,607,834 $107,274,039 $682,454,109 $1,125,879,686 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 59%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 60%
C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Bus/carpool ramp connection (SR-50E to SR-99S) A43CT Caltrans $308,100,524 5.6% $17,253,629 $290,846,895 I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans $92,430,157 5.6% $5,176,089 $8,500,000 $78,754,068 Ramp widenings for connectors between SR 50 and I-5 A46CT Caltrans $308,100,524 5.6% $17,253,629 $290,846,895 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans $131,456,224 5.6% $7,361,549 $124,094,675 I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans $181,779,309 5.6% $10,179,641 $0 $171,599,668 Total for Connectors and Carpool Lanes $1,021,866,739 $57,224,537 $8,500,000 $956,142,201 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 94%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 80%
Project Name
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 31

Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects (continued)

STA Project # Jurisdiction Updated
Project Cost
% Attributable
to Regional
Growth
Maximum
Permissible Fee
Cost Based on %
Attributable
Funding from
Local
Jurisdiction
Funding
Needed from
Other Sources
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E)=(A)-(C)-(D)
Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades
Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac $118,105,201 5.6% $6,613,891 $25,000,000 $86,491,310 Hazel Av enue: (US Highway 50 – Folsom Blv d) A23SC Sac County $107,835,183 5.6% $6,038,770 $71,456,000 $30,340,413 Total for Local Freeway Projects $225,940,384 $12,652,662 $96,456,000 $116,831,723 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 52%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 29%
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 80%
Downtown Intermodal Station A38CS City of Sac $400,000,000 8.7% $34,905,242 $12,000,000 $353,094,758 LRT extension to Airport (planning/env iro/design only) A41RT SacRT $7,390,108 8.7% $644,884 $0 $6,745,225 Total for All Transit Projects > $407,390,108 $35,550,125 $12,000,000 $359,839,983 * The project cost for this project includes projects A16JP3 and A16JP4, which are mitigation components for project A16JP1. Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 88% Historical Level of Grant Funding > 80%
Project Name
ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1

5. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in the California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008, establishes the framework for mitigation fees in the State of California. The Act requires agencies to make five findings with respect to a proposed fee. These are described in the sections below.

5.1 Purpose of the Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee
The Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee is imposed on new development to ensure that it pays its fair share of roadway improvements, the need for which is triggered in whole or in part by new development.

5.2 Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified
The projects to be funded through the SCTMF were approved by the voters of Sacramento County through Measure A. The projects expected to receive SCTMF revenues in the future are listed in Table 19.

5.3 Use/Type-of-Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “use” relationship, the development being assessed an impact fee must be reasonably shown to derive some use or benefit from the facility being built using the fee. In the case of the SCTMF, the projects to be funded were selected because they performed a regional function and the need for the project was at least partially attributable to new development. The growth in vehicle trips and the increases in congestion at project sites (see Table 10) are evidence that new development contributes to the need for roadway improvements.

The fact that the projects that will be funded by the SCTMF are high-priority roads and transit means that all of the county’s new residents and businesses will benefit in important ways from the maintenance of a reasonable level of service. Most drivers in the new developments can be expected to use these roads regularly, and those that do not will nevertheless benefit because good traffic conditions on the SCTMF-funded roads will keep drivers from diverting to other roads and causing congestion in other parts of the county. Even residents or workers in the new developments who do not drive at all will benefit from access to goods and services made possible in part by the serviceability of the county road network.

5.4 Need/Type-of-Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “need” relationship, the facilities to be financed must be shown to be needed at least in part because of the new development. This was determined by analyzing the forecast traffic demand with the expected degree of new development and comparing that with the demand without ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1

new development. As is shown in Table 10, all of the projects that will receive SCTMF money are designed to address capacity deficiencies due at least in part to new development.

5.5 Proportionality Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed
The “proportionality” relationship requires rough proportionality between the fee charged to each type of development and the cost of the facility being financed. In the case of the SCTMF, the differences in the traffic generated by different types of development were factored into the fee to be charged for each type, as described in Table 17. Within each land use category, the size of the project, i.e. the number of dwelling units constructed or size of the building, is accounted for in assessing the fee. This ensures that projects that generate a lot of traffic and therefore have a greater traffic impact will pay more than other projects that have less impact.

5.6 Residential Floor Area
CGC§ 66016.5(a)(5)(B): A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

CGC§ 66016.5(a)(5) subparagraph (A), which is new as part of AB 602, requires fees on housing development to be proportionate to the square footage of proposed units of the development unless the agency chooses to make the three findings described above. During the course of this study, we found that while the traffic impacts from residential developments are related to the floor area of the unit, the relationship is not one of direct proportionality. We therefore recommend that STA make the following findings with respect to the SCTMF Program:
• That square footage, applied as a direct proportion, is not an appropriate metric for calculating traffic impact fees for residential developments, based on substantial evidence showing that the number of vehicle trips generated by residential units is not directly proportional to the floor area (see Table 13). • That an alternative basis of calculating traffic impact fees, based on the expected number of trips generated by very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large units, but not directly proportional to floor area, would bear a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. This alternative method is supported by substantial evidence from the American Housing Survey and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). • That the differences in trip generation characteristics between single-family residences, multi-family residences, mobile homes in mobile home parks, and age-restricted senior residences, as determined through surveys collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, justify using separate fee levels for these different types of units. • That differentiating between very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large units within each category of housing would ensure that smaller developments are not charged fees disproportionate to their traffic impacts.

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1

ghd.com The Power of Commitment

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution No. XX-2024 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2024

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

OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE AMENDED AGREEMENT ON OPERATING

PROTOCOLS FOR THE SACRAMENTO COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the New Measure A Transportation Sales Tax approved by the County voters in 2004 called for the implementation of a Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Development Impact Fee Program, so that new development paid its fair share of the costs of the transportation improvements included in the Measure A Expenditure plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova was required to implement the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program SCTMFP, also referred to as the Measure A Fee, as a condition of receiving New Measure A sales tax revenues, in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, and the fees went into effect on April 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) staff developed an Agreement on Operating Protocols to apply to all jurisdictions in the County, regarding the obligation to impose, collect, account, and remit the Measure A development impact fees to STA which was approved by the STA Board on August 28, 2008; and
WHEREAS, STA staff coordinated with local jurisdictions to prepare a technical amendment to the Agreement on Operating Protocols in order to update the fee rate schedule to accommodate specific types of land development and which Agreement on Operating Protocols (December – 2008) was executed by the City Manager on February 4, 2009; and WHEREAS, in August 2014, the STA Board approved updates to the SCTMFP Fee Schedule to accommodate additional land use categories, a reduced rate for Retail uses, and a “normalized” rate for land uses not specifically listed on the schedule which Agreement on Operating Protocols (Amended – August 2014) was executed by the City Manager on September 24, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2015, the STA Board adopted a resolution to amend the SCTMFP Operating Protocols Agreements with the County and each city to accommodate “prior-use” trips in the development fee calculation, which Agreement on Operating Protocols (Amended – August 2015) was executed by the City Manager on January 27, 2016; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 24- 0005 approving the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study (“2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study”) with additional land use categories, updated fee amounts and new residential fee structures to align with Assembly Bill No. 602 requirements for fees to be proportional to square footage categories with the new updated rates to be effective January 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024 the STA Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 24-0006 approving an amended Operating Protocols Agreement to utilize the updated

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution No. XX-2024 Page 2 of 2 SCTMFP fee rates and the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study which now includes additional exemptions for ADUs less than 750 square feet, excludes development projects intended for public uses by the County or a City, and has fee reductions for developments in infill areas or with reduced parking availability and transit oriented development.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA that the City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Operating Protocols Agreement (Amended – August 2024), with the STA.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 7th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
David M. Sander, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4

MEASURE A

SACRAMENTO COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM

AGREEMENT ON OPERATING PROTOCOLS
Amended – August 2024
This amended Agreement on Operating Protocols for the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (Agreement) is made by and between the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) and the Entity’s Name (Entity).

RECITALS
A. Sacramento Transportation Authority Ordinance No. STA-04-01 (Ordinance) imposes a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax that is statutorily dedicated for transportation planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance in Sacramento County.

B. The Ordinance establishes the 30-year Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (“SCTMFP”), to be implemented by the County and each incorporated city during the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2039.

C. The Ordinance provides that the County and each incorporated city must, as a condition of receiving its allocation of local street and road maintenance formula funds from the retail transactions and use tax revenues, adopt the 30-year SCTMFP Fee (Fee) for the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2039 in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Sacramento Transportation (STA) Governing Board.

D. The SCTMFP Fee schedule shall be uniform throughout the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County.

E. The Entity has acknowledged its obligations imposed by the SCTMFP.

F. The Entity began implementing the SCTMFP Fee on April 1, 2009 and must remit the SCTMFP Fee revenues to the STA within 60 days of the end of each six-month period ending June 30 and December 31 of each year.

G. The STA shall reallocate the SCTMFP Fee revenues to local jurisdictions to be expended on Measure A capital projects in the impacted areas where the fees were generated in accordance with the SCTMFP and the Measure A Capital Allocation Plan.

H. STA Resolution STA-2006-006 adopting the Sacramento Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP) Nexus Study and Setting SCTMFP Fee Rates Effective April 1, 2009, provides that protocols related to SCTMFP Fee implementation issues, including but not limited to, required dates of Fee remittances to STA and documentation to be submitted by each participating agency, shall be established by future resolution of the STA and contracts between the STA and the participating agencies.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 2
STA & Entity
I. STA Resolution STA-2024-005 adopted the 2024 Sacramento Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP) Nexus Study and Set Updated SCTMFP Fee Rates Effective January 1, 2025.

J. This Agreement, as amended, when approved by resolution of the STA and executed by the Entity, shall constitute the current protocols related to SCTMFP Fee implementation.

K. This amended Agreement is uniform among the County and all incorporated cities.

L. This Amended Agreement replaces and supersedes the prior version of the Agreement in its entirety.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1.0 DEFINITIONS

1.1 “AB 602” means the act to amend Sections 65940.1 and 66019 of, and to add Section 66016.5 to, the State of California Government Code (CGC), and to add Section 50466.5 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to land use, development impact fees, and impact fee nexus studies.

1.2 “AB 1600” means the Mitigation Fee Act set forth in the CGC Sections 66001 – 60025.

1.3 “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means an attached or detached permanent dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities (permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation) for one or more persons and which is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary dwelling.

1.4 "Affordability requirement" means a requirement imposed as a condition of a development of residential units, that the development includes a certain percentage of the units affordable for rent or sale to households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code, or an alternative means of compliance with that requirement including, but not limited to, in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units.

1.5 “Development Project” or “Project” shall have the same meaning as provided in CGC Section 66000(a), as such section may be amended from time to time.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 3
STA & Entity

1.6 “Executive Director” means the Executive Director of the Sacramento Transportation Authority.

1.7 “Expenditure Plan” means the Sacramento County Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan 2009-2039 that was adopted as part of the Ordinance.

1.8 “Governing Board” means the Governing Board of the Sacramento Transportation Authority.

1.9 “Housing Development” means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floorspace is for residential use.

1.10 “Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee” means the committee appointed by the STA Governing Board as required by the Ordinance to supervise Measure A fiscal and performance audits regarding the use of all sales tax funds and to provide independent review to ensure that all Measure A funds are spent in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.

1.11 “Industrial Use” means any Development Project that involves manufacturing, transportation, logistics, or similar uses.

1.12 “Measure A” or “the Ordinance” means Sacramento Transportation Authority Ordinance No. STA-04-01.

1.13 “Multi-Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for two or more dwelling units within one or more buildings, including duplexes, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments, but excluding an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

1.14 “Normalized cost per trip” means the medium-sized single family residential fee rate per Section 2.1 divided by the average weekday trip generation rate for a single family residence (9.44) per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Ed.). The normalized cost per trip is $167 and will be adjusted annually per Section 2.2.

1.15 “Office Use” means any Development Project that involves business activities, associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices, personal services, or similar uses.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 4
STA & Entity

1.16 “Participating Agencies” means the County of Sacramento, the City of Citrus Heights, the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Galt, the City of Isleton, the City of Rancho Cordova, and the City of Sacramento. Each may be referred to individually as “Participating Agency.”

1.17 “Retail Use” means any Development Project that involves retailing of merchandise, generally without transformation, retail food services, and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise at a fixed point of sale.

1.18 “Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program” or “SCTMFP” means the 30-year transportation mitigation fee program established by the Ordinance.

1.19 “SCTMFP Fee” or “Fee” means the fee imposed pursuant to the SCTMFP.

1.20 “Senior Residential Use” means any Development Project that qualifies as housing for older persons pursuant to CGC Section 12955.9.

1.21 “Single Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for only one residential dwelling unit. “Single Family Residential Use” also includes any Development Project that involves one primary dwelling and one Accessory Dwelling Unit on a single lot.

1.22 “Transit station” has the meaning set forth in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of CGC Section 65460.1. That definition reads as follows, “transit station" means a rail or light-rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub, or bus transfer station.” “Bus hub” and “bus transfer station” are defined as:
a) "Bus hub" means an intersection of three or more bus routes, with a minimum route headway of 10 minutes during peak hours.
b) "Bus transfer station" means an arrival, departure, or transfer point for the area's intercity, intraregional, or interregional bus service having permanent investment in multiple bus docking facilities, ticketing services, and passenger shelters.
"Transit station" includes planned transit stations otherwise meeting this definition whose construction is programmed to be completed prior to the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development.

1.23 “Weekday trip generation per ITE” means a technically supportable methodology based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual to calculate the expected average weekday trip generation based on the type(s) and size of new land use set forth in the development application.”

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 5
STA & Entity

2.0 UNIFORM FEE

2.1 Uniform Fee. Effective January 1 st, 2025, the Entity shall collect the applicable uniform SCTMFP Fee, as amended, for each Development Project occurring within the Entity’s jurisdiction. The applicable Fee for each use is as follows:

Single-Family Residential
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $1,088 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $1,334 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $1,451 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $1,574 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $1,730 per unit
Single-Family Residential,
Senior
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $497 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $609 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $663 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $719 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $790 per unit
Multi-Family Residential
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $995 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $1,221 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $1,327 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $1,440 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $1,582 per unit
Multi-Family Residential, Senior
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $440 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $540 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $587 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $637 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $700 per unit
Accessory Dwelling Units
Very Small (<750 sq.ft.) Exempt from fee
Otherwise (>750 sq.ft.) Fee is based on the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to
the primary unit, times the fee that
would be charged on the primary
unit, if the primary unit was being
newly built.

Office Use $1,807 1,000 square feet
Retail Use $2,361 1,000 square feet
Industrial Use $827 1,000 square feet
Hotel/Motel $854 sleeping room
Extended Stay Hotel/Motel $559 sleeping room
Hospital $1,796 1,000 square feet

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 6
STA & Entity
Service Station $3,442 Fuel Pump
Supermarket $1,078 1,000 square feet
Warehouse/Self-Storage $238 1,000 square feet
Assisted Living Facility $434 bed
Congregate Care $368 unit
Child Day Care $682 Student
Private School (K-12) $414 Student
Auto Repair/Body Shop $2,361 1,000 square feet
Gym/Fitness Center $2,361 1,000 square feet
Drive-through Car Wash $2,361 1,000 square feet
Normalized Cost per Trip
(All Other Uses) $167 Per Weekday Trip
Notes:

1. For developments that do not fall into the land use categories above, the normalized cost per trip rate should be used to determine the fee based on the daily trips generated by the development.

2. For mixed-use developments, see Item 2.3 for fee calculation procedures.

3. For developments that are anticipated to have reduced trip generation characteristics, such as those in infill areas or those with restricted parking, see Item 2.4 for fee calculation procedures.

4. For developments in proximity to transit, see Item 2.5 for fee calculation procedures.

2.2 Annual Adjustment. The STA shall annually adjust the SCTMFP Fee schedule to reflect change in construction costs based on the McGraw-Hill Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City Construction Cost Index. The adjustment will take effect July 1, and STA shall notify the Entity of the required annual adjustment at least 60 days in advance of the effective date.

2.3 Calculation of Fee for Mixed Use Projects. For Projects that include two or more different types of uses, the amount of the fee imposed on the entire Development Project shall be proportionally determined based on the relative footprint associated with the various uses.

2.4 Reduced Fees for Reduced Trip Generation. Developments in infill areas or with reduced parking availability, as defined by the Entity, may be subject to reduced fees at the discretion of the Entity. The Entity shall provide the rationale for reduced fees based on a supporting Traffic Study stamped by a licensed Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer.

2.5 Fees for Transit Oriented Development. In accordance with the CGC Section 66005.1, the SCTMFP must provide for an adjustment of the fee for developments that meet certain characteristics typically associated with a Transit Orient Development (TOD). To qualify for the reduction, a development must have all of the following characteristics (see CGC Section 66005.1.(a)):

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 7
STA & Entity
a) Be a housing development located within one-half mile of a transit station with direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length.
b) Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one-half mile of the housing development.
c) The housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.

Additionally, pursuant to CGC 66005.1(b), if a housing development does not satisfy the characteristics in subdivision (a) per above, the local agency may charge a fee that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development.

Residential units satisfying the requirements for this reduction shall have their fee lowered based on a Traffic Study, stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer, which demonstrates the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with a TOD and other similar types of development compared to developments without these characteristics. STA may provide a standard TOD reduction based on studies related to TODs. The applicant could then either use the standard reduction or provide a project-specific study for STA staff to review.

For example, within Sacramento County, a transit station could include, but is not limited to, the Zinfandel Station, Franklin Station, Consumnes River Light Rail Station, and Sacramento Valley Station which serves Amtrak, Bus, and Light Rail (Sacramento Regional Transit), and the future Valley Rail station in midtown Sacramento.

3.0 ENTITY OBLIGATIONS.

3.1 Obligations prior to January 1, 2025. The Entity shall take all necessary steps required by applicable law, including but not limited to CGC 66000 et seq., to enable implementation of the SCTMFP Fee no later than January 1, 2025. This includes advance noticing requirements for and the adoption of such fees by the Entity via a public hearing, as described below:

CGC § 66016.5(a)(7): All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days' notice, and the Entity shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.

CGC § 66016.6(a): Prior to levying a new fee or capacity charge, a local agency shall evaluate the amount of the fee or capacity charge. The

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 8
STA & Entity
evaluation shall include evidence to support that the fee or capacity charge does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing service, in accordance with Section 66013. (b) All information constituting the evaluation shall be made publicly available at least 14 days prior to a meeting held in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 66016.

Failure to meet such legal requirements shall not exempt the Entity from the requirement that SCTMFP Fees be collected as a prerequisite to the Entity’s receipt of Measure A local street and road maintenance formula funds.

3.2 Ongoing Obligations. The Entity shall take all necessary steps required by applicable law for posting the fee schedule, annual fee reports, nexus studies, and total amount of fees collected, to its internet website, pursuant to CGC 65940.1, which states:
(1) A city, county, or special district that has an internet website shall make all of the following available on its internet website, as applicable:
(A)(i) A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by that city, county, or special district, including any dependent special districts, as defined in Section 56032.5, of the city or county applicable to a proposed housing development project.
(ii) The city, county, or special district shall present the information described in clause (i) in a manner that clearly identifies the fees, exactions, and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel. (iii) The city, county, or special district shall post a written fee schedule or a link directly to the written fee schedule on its internet website.
(B) All zoning ordinances and development standards adopted by the city or county presenting the information, which shall specify the zoning, design, and development standards that apply to each parcel.
(C) The list required to be compiled pursuant to Section 65940 by the city or county presenting the information.
(D) The current and five previous annual fee reports or the current and five previous annual financial reports, that were required pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 66006 and subdivision (d) of Section 66013.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 9
STA & Entity
(E) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent, conducted by that city, county, or special district on or after January 1, 2018. For purposes of this subparagraph, "cost of service study" means the data provided to the public pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 66016.
(2) A city, county, or special district shall update the information made available under this subdivision within 30 days of any changes. (3) (A) A city or county shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate was issued. The city or county shall post this information on its internet website and update it at least twice per year.
(B) A city or county shall not be responsible for the accuracy for the information received and posted pursuant to subparagraph (A). A city or county may include a disclaimer regarding the accuracy of the information posted on its internet website under this paragraph.

4.0 COLLECTION OF SCTMFP FEES

4.1 Collection of Fees.
a. The Entity shall collect SCTMFP Fees at the time of issuance of a final building permit for a Development Project, at the same time it collects its own fees, or as otherwise required or permitted pursuant to CGC Section 66007.
b. The amount of the SCTMFP Fees shall reflect the Fee schedule in effect at the time of assessment.
c. SCTMFP Fees shall not be waived or deferred except as provided herein.

4.2 Payment by all Development Projects. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Amended Agreement, the SCTMFP Fee shall be payable by all Development Projects within the jurisdiction of the Entity for which building permits are issued on or after April 1, 2009.

4.3 Fee Reduction Determinations. Determinations by the Entity to reduce the fee pursuant to Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 or 4.5 shall be subject to STA oversight and guidance as described herein. In semi-annual reports to the STA Executive Director, the Entity shall identify each project, if any, that has been granted a fee reduction and the amount of discounted fees. The

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 10
STA & Entity
decisions of the Entity as to fee reductions under this provision shall also be subject to audit by the STA.

The STA Executive Director reserves the right to review the grant of a fee reduction by a local jurisdiction under this provision in circumstances where the above requirements are not clearly met, although the STA Executive Director may not exercise any direct jurisdiction or action in a particular fee protest between Entity and payor pursuant to CGC Section 66020. In the event of a fee protest pursuant to CGC Section 66020, the local jurisdiction shall make the final determination with respect to application of the fee and any potential fee reductions. The Executive Director may subsequently review the fee reduction and, following consultation with Entity, determine, in the Executive Director’s reasonable discretion, that a fee reduction was not supported under the SCTMFP protocols or applicable law and that a corresponding amount of SCTMFP revenue shall be withheld from Entity. The Executive Director’s decision shall have no effect on the amount of the fee charged by Entity to the payor.

At the request of the Entity, the STA Executive Director may resolve questions of interpretation regarding this policy. At the time the fee reductions are assessed, the Entity may request guidance from the STA Executive Director.

4.4 Exemptions from the SCTMFP Fees. The following Development Projects shall not be subject to the SCTMFP Fee:
a. Accessory Dwelling Units less than 750 square feet.
b. The rehabilitation or reconstruction of any residential or non- residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage.

Any increase in square footage shall pay the established applicable fee rate for that portion of square footage that is new. c. New low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and very low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105.
d. Projects intended for public use where the applicant is one of the Participating Agencies.
e. Any development project that is subject of a valid development agreement entered into pursuant to CGC Section 65864 prior to April 1, 2009, that includes a provision exempting it from future fees or fee

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 11
STA & Entity
increases; provided, however, that if the term of such a development agreement is extended after April 1, 2009, the SCTMFP shall be imposed.
f. Any development project for which an application for a vesting tentative map authorization by CGC Section 66498.1 was deemed complete prior to April 1, 2009.

4.5 Re-purposing/Reuse of existing buildings. Fee applicable only to net increase in ADT’s compared to prior established use.
a. Determination of average daily trips (“ADT’s”) for the purpose of comparing previous and proposed uses shall be by reference to trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (“ITE”).
b. A building permit applicant may request a reduction in the otherwise applicable SCTMFP fee in accordance with the following policy:

Where a new project changes the prior established use of an existing building, a reduction may be applied to the SCTMFP fee where the new use increases ADT’s compared to the prior use.
c. Where the Entity determines that a project qualifies for a reduction pursuant to this policy, it shall determine the fee reduction by comparing the rates applicable to the prior and new uses as designated in the SCTMFP Fee Schedule and calculating the resulting offset. In the alternative, where a proposed land use is not clearly listed in the Fee Schedule, the fee shall be calculated as follows: (1) calculate the difference between previous ADT’s and new ADT’s at the property; (2) multiply the result by the normalized cost per trip.
d. Requests for a fee reduction pursuant to this provision shall be made to the Entity. The Entity shall determine whether a project has made the required showing for a fee reduction. There shall be no right to an appeal. At the time the fee reductions are assessed, the Entity may request guidance from the STA Executive Director.

5.0 REMITTANCE OF FEES
The Entity shall remit SCTMFP Fees collected to the Authority on a semi-annual basis, within 60 days after June 30 and December 31 of each calendar year. Each remittance shall be accompanied by a report specifying the fee-generating activity for the reporting period within the Entity’s jurisdiction, including information as to all permits issued by use, square footage, any exemptions or reductions granted, and such other information as may be deemed appropriate by the Executive

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 12
STA & Entity
Director. The Entity collecting the SCTMFP Fees shall hold them in an interest- bearing account and any interest earned shall be remitted to the Authority with the semi-annual SCTMFP Fees. The Executive Director shall separately account for the Entity’s SCTMFP Fees as part of the aggregate SCTMFP account and will prepare annual reports for presentation to the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee and the STA Governing Board.

6.0 AUDIT OF SCTMFP REVENUES
The Executive Director, in coordination with the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, shall establish a program to audit the Entity’s implementation of the SCTMFP and STA’s expenditure of the SCTMFP Fees.

7.0 EXPENDITURE OF FEES
STA shall distribute SCTMFP Fees received, and any proceeds of Fee-based financing(s), to the local jurisdictions for expenditure in accordance with the Ordinance, a 5-year capital program annually updated and approved by the STA Governing Board, applicable resolutions of the STA, Measure A allocation and expenditure contracts between the STA and local jurisdictions, and AB 1600.

8.0 ADMINISTRATION COSTS
The STA and Entity each shall absorb their administrative costs associated with the implementation and administration of the SCTMFP Fee and this Agreement.

The Entity, at its discretion, may impose an additional fee on affected development to pay for administrative costs of implementing the SCTMFP.

9.0 REPORTS
STA shall prepare annual and five-year reports required by CGC Sections 66000 et seq. and AB 602 relating to the SCTMFP Fees. Entity shall provide any necessary assistance and data.

10.0 MISCELLANEOUS

10.1 If any one or more of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

10.2 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 13
STA & Entity

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 4
SCTMFP: Agreement on Operating Protocols 14
STA & Entity

SACRAMENTO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
By
___________________________
Kevin Bewsey
Executive Director
Dated: August 8, 2024
Entity Name
By: ___________________________
(Authorized Officer)
(Title)
Dated:____________
Approved as to Form: Attest:
___________________________ ___________________________

ITEM 16.1. ATTACHMENT 5
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 1 of 3

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2024

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 16.85 OF THE RANCHO

CORDOVA MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARDS TO THE COLLECTION OF FEES FOR

MEASURE A TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Purpose and Declarations.

WHEREAS, on June 7, 2006, by Resolution No. 06-0006, the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) adopted the Measure A Nexus Study, which identified the additional public facilities required by new development and determined the amount of revenue needed from development impact fees to be imposed on a countywide basis, so that all new development pays its fair share of the costs of new public facilities needed to serve such development. The Measure A development impact fee became become effective on April 1, 2009, and extends through March 31, 2039, in order to fund new development’s fair share of the costs of the transportation improvements included in the Measure A expenditure plan needed to serve such development in the future.

WHEREAS, Title 16, Chapter 16.85 was added to the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code to enact the Measure A Mitigation Fee Program as established by the STA.

Implementation of the Measure A Mitigation Fee Program by each jurisdiction within the County of Sacramento was a condition of STA’s approval of the new Measure A sales tax and expenditure plan, which was approved by the voters in Sacramento County in November of 2004. STA’s Ordinance No. 04-01 provides that no revenues from the new Measure A sales tax shall be provided to a local jurisdiction unless it implements the Measure A Mitigation Fee Program.

WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, the STA Governing Board adopted the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study (“2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study”), with an updated project list, includes a Smart Growth Arterials and Corridors program, and updated fee amounts and new residential fee structures to align with AB 602 requirements for fees to be proportional to square footage categories with the new updated rates to be effective January 1, 2025;
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, the STA Governing Board approved a resolution amending the Operating Protocols Agreement to utilize the updated SCTMFP fee rates and the 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study which now includes additional exemptions for ADUs less than 750 square feet, excludes development projects intended for public uses by the County or a City, and has fee reductions for developments in infill areas or with reduced parking availability and transit oriented development; and
WHEREAS, certain amendments to the Title 16 (Building and Construction), Chapter

16.85 Establishment of Development Impact Fees to for Measure A Transportation Improvements are necessary to reflect updates to the 2024 Nexus Study and Amended Operating Protocols Agreement; and

ITEM 16.1. ATTACHMENT 5
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment is to is to incorporate additional land use categories and definitions and incorporate additional exemptions; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2024, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing for this Ordinance and considered all oral and written testimony.

Section 2. Findings: The City Council hereby finds:

CEQA Compliance. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Statutory Exemption Section 15273(a)(4) allow for the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The ordinance amendments are to reflect changes in the newly adopted 2024 SCTMFP Nexus Study to include new land use categories and definitions and additional exemptions to the Measure A Fee. This action clearly meets the requirements of PRC Section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Statutory Exemption Section 15273(a)(4) because it will fund capital improvement projects within the existing service area of the Rancho Cordova City Limits and would not result in the expansion of the transportation system or any other uses or activities.

Therefore, the proposed action is not subject to the provisions of CEQA.

Section 3. Amendments to Title 16 (Building and Construction) The City Council hereby adopts the amendments to Chapter 16.85 Establishment of Development Impact Fees to for Measure A Transportation Improvements of Title 16 (Building and Construction), as shown and incorporated in Exhibit A to this ordinance.

Section 4. Severability
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable.

Section 5. Effective Date
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be published once in the Grapevine Independent, or the Sacramento Bee, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Sacramento County and circulated in the City of Rancho Cordova, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced sixty (60) days after its adoption.

ITEM 16.1. ATTACHMENT 5
Ordinance No. XX-2024 Page 3 of 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the ____ day of ________ 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
David Sander, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Rancho Cordova
Municipal Code
Amendments

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Note to Reader: Only those sections and/or subsections listed within this document are being amended. Unless otherwise indicated, all sections and subsections prior to and after the amended section and/or subsection shall remain, unchanged.

CHAPTER 16.85 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR

MEASURE A TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Section 16.85.020 (Definitions) shall be amended as follows:

16.85.020 Definitions.

Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context in which a term is used, the following definitions shall govern construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:

A. “Automatic annual adjustment” means the automatic annual adjustment of development impact fees based on the inflation factors described in RCMC 16.85.120.

B. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means an attached or detached permanent dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities (permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating. cooking, and sanitation) for one or more persons and which is located on a lit with a proposed or existing primary dwelling.

C. “City code” means the City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code.

D. “Citywide benefit district area” means the real property located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and as said boundaries may be adjusted from time to time.

E. “Development” means the uses to which property will be put, the buildings and improvements to be constructed on it, and the construction activities incident thereto, together with the process of obtaining all required land use entitlements.

F. “Development project” shall have the same meaning as defined by subsection (a) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time.

G. “Dwelling unit” means any building or portion of a building used or designed for use as a residence by an individual or any group of individuals living together or as a family, excepting therefrom any unit rented or leased for temporary residency, such as a motel and hotel room.

H. “Fee” and “impact fee” and “development impact fee” mean the monetary exaction as defined by subsection (b) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time, and shall include, but not be limited to, the fees established pursuant to this chapter.

I. “Fee resolution” means Resolution No. 04-2009, or any subsequent resolution adopted by the city council which implements the provisions of this chapter, including, without limitation, the setting of the amounts of the various fees established hereby and the adoption of provisions for credits, reimbursements and deferral relating to such fees.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
J. “Government Code” means the Government Code of the state of California and any provision thereof cited in this chapter, as such provision exists as of the date of the enactment of this chapter, or as it may thereafter be amended or renumbered from time to time.

K. “Health and Safety Code” means the Health and Safety Code of the state of California and any provision thereof cited in this chapter, as such provision exists as of the date of the enactment of this chapter, or as it may thereafter be amended or renumbered from time to time.

L. “Housing Development” means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floorspace is for residential use.

M.. “Industrial Use” any Development Project that involves manufacturing, transportation, logistics or similar uses.

N. “Low income” and “very low income” housing is defined in Sections 50079.5 and 50105, respectively, of the Health and Safety Code.

O. “Measure A” means Ordinance No. 04-01 adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority on July 29, 2004, which established the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to be implemented by the County of Sacramento and each city within the county by April 1, 2009.

P. “Measure A administration fee” means the fee imposed by the city for the cost of collection, deposit, investment, accounting, remittance and reporting of the Measure A development impact fee.

Q. “Measure A development impact fee” means a development impact fee established to provide funding for public facilities to benefit new development within the city.

R. “Measure A expenditure plan” means the Sacramento County Transportation Expenditure Plan 2009-2039 dated June 10, 2004, as adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority under Ordinance No. 04-01, which specifies the allocation of Measure A sales taxes and Measure A development impact fees for specified public facilities.

S. “Measure A nexus study” means the Development Impact Fee Study dated June 2, 2006, as originally adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority by Resolution No. 06-0006 and updated by the 2024 Nexus Study Update Report dated May 24, 2024 adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority by Resolution No.24-0005.

T. “Multi-Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for two (2) or more dwelling units within one (1) or more building(s) including, without limitation, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums and apartments, but excluding an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

U. “Normalized cost per trip” means the medium-sized single family residential fee rate listed in Section 2.1 of the Protocols Agreement divided by the average weekday trip generation rate for a single family residence (9.44) per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Ed.). the normalized cost per trip is $167 and will be adjusted annually per RCMC 16.85.120.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
V. “Office Use” means any Development Project that involves business activities, associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices, personal services, or similar uses.

W. “Participating Agencies” means the County of Sacramento, the City of Citrus Heights, the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Galt, the City of Isleton, the City of Rancho Cordova, and the City of Sacramento. Each may be referred to individually as “Participating Agency.”
X. “Protocols Agreement” means the New Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Agreement on Operating Protocols, dated August 2024, with the Sacramento Transportation Authority, as approved by the Authority on August 8, 2024, by Resolution No 24-006 or as may be subsequently amended.

Y. “Public facilities” means the public improvements, public services and community amenities as defined by subsection (d) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time. The term “public facilities” only includes transportation improvements and infrastructure to be designed, constructed, installed and acquired to serve the specified benefit district area, as well as the transportation-related public service and community amenities to serve the specified benefit district area, which improvements and infrastructure are described in the applicable financing plan, expenditure plan, and/or nexus study (collectively “plan” or “study”). The costs of the design, construction, installation and acquisition of the specified public facilities, which are to be financed partially by the development impact fee program, is set forth within the plan or study. Where applicable under the plan or study, the term “public facilities” includes the acquisition of land relating to such improvements, infrastructure, public services and community amenities. The term “public facilities” also means a specific public improvement or infrastructure where the context requires a singular meaning.

Z. “Retail Use” means any Development Project that involves retailing of merchandise, generally without transformation, retail food services, and rendering of services incidental to the sale of merchandise at a fixed point of sale.

AA. “Reduced Parking Availability” means a development project where State law requires the City to approve the project with reduced parking, including without limitation, projects pursuant to Government Code Sections 65913.4 and 65915.

BB. “Senior Residential Use” means any Development Project that qualifies as housing for older persons pursuant to CGC Section 12955.9.

CC. “Single Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for only one residential dwelling unit. “Single Family Residential Use” also includes any Development Project that involves one primary dwelling and one Accessory Dwelling Unit on a single lot.

DD. “STA” means the Sacramento Transportation Authority.

EE. “Transit Oriented Development” means a housing development that satisfies all the following characteristics: (a) the housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length; (b) convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, and located within one-half mile of the housing development; and (c) the housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than the onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.

FF. “Transit station” has the meaning set forth in Section 66005.1(d) of the Government Code. [Ord. 1-2009 § 3].

Section 16.85.080 (Exemptions) shall be amended as follows:

16.85.080 Exemptions.

The following shall be exempted from payment of the fees established by this chapter:

A, Accessory Dwelling Units less than 750 square feet.

B. The rehabilitation or reconstruction of any residential or non-residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the established applicable fee rate for that portion f square footage that is new.

C. New low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and very low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105.

D. Projects intended for public use where the applicant is one of the Participating Agencies.

E. Any development project that is subject of a valid development agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 prior to April 1, 2009, that includes a provision exempting it from future fees or fee increases; provided, however, that if the term of such a development agreement is extended after April 1, 2009, the SCTMFP shall be imposed.

F. Any development project for which an application for a vesting tentative map authorization by CGC Section 66498.1 was deemed complete prior to April 1, 2009. [Ord. 1-2009 § 3].

Section 16.85.135 (Adjustment of Fees) is hereby added as follows:

A Calculation of Fee for ADUs.

ADUs greater than 750 square feet shall be subject to a fee hereunder that is equal to the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to the primary unit, multiplied by the fee that would be charged on the primary unit, if the primary unit was being newly built.

B. Calculation of Fee for Mixed Use Projects.

For Projects that include two or more different types of uses, the amount of the fee imposed on the entire Development Project shall be proportionally determined based on the relative footprint associated with the various uses, as determined by the Public Works Director.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Ordinance
C Reduced Fees for Areas with Reduced Parking Availability.

Developments in areas with Reduced Parking Availability may be subject to reduced fees, at the sole discretion of the Public Works Director, if the development project results in reduced trip generation. Any such fee reduction must be supported by a Traffic Study submitted by the Applicant and prepared and stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer and which has been accepted by the City Engineer.

D. Fees for Housing Developments.

1. Generally. The fee imposed pursuant to this Chapter for a Transit Oriented Development shall be set at a rate that reflects a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with that Transit Oriented Development in comparison with non-Transit Oriented Development, unless the City adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that the Transit Oriented Development would not generate fewer automobile trips than a non-Transit Oriented Development. If a housing development does not satisfy the characteristics of a Transit Oriented Development, the City will charge a fee pursuant to this Chapter that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development.

2. Traffic Study.

2.1. Project-Specific Traffic Study. Housing developments seeking a fee adjustment pursuant to this section shall submit a traffic study, stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer (and which has been accepted by the City Engineer), which demonstrates the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with the applicable housing development compared to the Nexus Study.

2.2. Alternative Traffic Study. A Transit Oriented Development may submit to City a traffic study, stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer (and which has been accepted by the City Engineer), which demonstrates the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with Transit Oriented Developments and other similar types of development compared to non-Transit Oriented Developments. In the event a Transit Oriented Development submits the Alternative Study pursuant to this section, the Finance Director, in consultation with STA, may apply a standard Transit Oriented Development fee reduction based on studies related to Transit Oriented Developments unless the applicable Transit Oriented Development elects to provide City with a Project-Specific Traffic Study, as described in RCMC Section 16.85.135(D)(2.1), for the Public Works Director to use in calculating the appropriate fee hereunder.

E Re-purposing/Reuse of Existing Buildings.

A. The fee imposed pursuant to this Chapter for any re-purposing or change in use of existing buildings shall only apply to the net increase in average daily trips attributable to the new purpose or use, as compared to the prior established use.

B. Fees shall be calculated hereunder by comparing the rates applicable to the prior and new uses as designated in the City’s Fee Schedule and calculating the resulting offset. In the alternative, where a proposed land use is not clearly listed in the Fee Schedule, the fee shall be calculated as follows:

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 6
Exhibit A to the Ordinance

1. Calculate the difference between previous average daily trips and new average daily trips at the property. The determination of average daily trips for the purpose of comparing previous and proposed uses shall be by reference to trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Traffic Engineers.

2. Multiply the result by the normalized cost per trip.

C. Requests for a fee adjustment pursuant to this provision shall be made to the City in writing.

The Finance Director shall determine whether a development project has made the required showing for a fee adjustment.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 7
Rancho Cordova
Municipal Code
Amendments

TRACK CHANGES

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 7
Note to Reader: Only those sections and/or subsections listed within this document are being amended. Unless otherwise indicated, all sections and subsections prior to and after the amended section and/or subsection shall remain, unchanged.

CHAPTER 16.85 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR

MEASURE A TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Section 16.85.020 (Definitions) shall be amended as follows:

16.85.020 Definitions.

Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context in which a term is used, the following definitions shall govern construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:

A. “Automatic annual adjustment” means the automatic annual adjustment of development impact fees based on the inflation factors described in RCMC 16.85.120.

B. “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means an attached or detached permanent dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities (permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating. cooking, and sanitation) for one or more persons and which is located on a lit with a proposed or existing primary dwelling.

CB. “City code” means the City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code.

DC. “Citywide benefit district area” means the real property located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and as said boundaries may be adjusted from time to time.

ED. “Development” means the uses to which property will be put, the buildings and improvements to be constructed on it, and the construction activities incident thereto, together with the process of obtaining all required land use entitlements.

FE. “Development project” shall have the same meaning as defined by subsection (a) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time.

GF. “Dwelling unit” means any building or portion of a building used or designed for use as a residence by an individual or any group of individuals living together or as a family, excepting therefrom any unit rented or leased for temporary residency, such as a motel and hotel room.

HG. “Fee” and “impact fee” and “development impact fee” mean the monetary exaction as defined by subsection (b) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time, and shall include, but not be limited to, the fees established pursuant to this chapter.

IH. “Fee resolution” means Resolution No. 04-2009, or any subsequent resolution adopted by the city council which implements the provisions of this chapter, including, without limitation, the setting of the amounts of the various fees established hereby and the adoption of provisions for credits, reimbursements and deferral relating to such fees.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 7
JI. “Government Code” means the Government Code of the state of California and any provision thereof cited in this chapter, as such provision exists as of the date of the enactment of this chapter, or as it may thereafter be amended or renumbered from time to time.

KJ. “Health and Safety Code” means the Health and Safety Code of the state of California and any provision thereof cited in this chapter, as such provision exists as of the date of the enactment of this chapter, or as it may thereafter be amended or renumbered from time to time.

L. “Housing Development” means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floorspace is for residential use.

M.. “Industrial Use” any Development Project that involves manufacturing, transportation, logistics or similar uses.

N. “Low income” and “very low income” housing is defined in Sections 50079.5 and 50105, respectively, of the Health and Safety Code.

OK. “Measure A” means Ordinance No. 04-01 adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority on July 29, 2004, which established the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program to be implemented by the County of Sacramento and each city within the county by April 1, 2009.

PL. “Measure A administration fee” means the fee imposed by the city for the cost of collection, deposit, investment, accounting, remittance and reporting of the Measure A development impact fee.

QM. “Measure A development impact fee” means a development impact fee established to provide funding for public facilities to benefit new development within the city.

RN. “Measure A expenditure plan” means the Sacramento County Transportation Expenditure Plan 2009-2039 dated June 10, 2004, as adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority under Ordinance No. 04-01, which specifies the allocation of Measure A sales taxes and Measure A development impact fees for specified public facilities.

SO. “Measure A nexus study” means the Development Impact Fee Study dated June 2, 2006, as originally adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority by Resolution No. 06-0006 and updated by the 2024 Nexus Study Update Report dated May 24, 2024 adopted by the Sacramento Transportation Authority by Resolution No.24-0005.

T. “Multi-Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for two (2) or more dwelling units within one (1) or more building(s) including, without limitation, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums and apartments, but excluding an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

U. “Normalized cost per trip” means the medium-sized single family residential fee rate listed in Section 2.1 of the Protocols Agreement divided by the average weekday trip generation rate for a single family residence (9.44) per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Ed.). the normalized cost per trip is $167 and will be adjusted annually per RCMC 16.85.120.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 7
V. “Office Use” means any Development Project that involves business activities, associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices, personal services, or similar uses.

W. “Participating Agencies” means the County of Sacramento, the City of Citrus Heights, the City of Elk Grove, the City of Folsom, the City of Galt, the City of Isleton, the City of Rancho Cordova, and the City of Sacramento. Each may be referred to individually as “Participating Agency.”
XP. “Protocols Agreement” means the New Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Agreement on Operating Protocols, dated August 202408, with the Sacramento Transportation Authority, as approved by the Authority on August 28, 202408, by Resolution No 2408-00601, and as amended on December 11, 2008 or as may be subsequently amended..

YQ. “Public facilities” means the public improvements, public services and community amenities as defined by subsection (d) of Government Code Section 66000, as such section may be amended from time to time. The term “public facilities” only includes transportation improvements and infrastructure to be designed, constructed, installed and acquired to serve the specified benefit district area, as well as the transportation-related public service and community amenities to serve the specified benefit district area, which improvements and infrastructure are described in the applicable financing plan, expenditure plan, and/or nexus study (collectively “plan” or “study”). The costs of the design, construction, installation and acquisition of the specified public facilities, which are to be financed partially by the development impact fee program, is set forth within the plan or study. Where applicable under the plan or study, the term “public facilities” includes the acquisition of land relating to such improvements, infrastructure, public services and community amenities. The term “public facilities” also means a specific public improvement or infrastructure where the context requires a singular meaning.

Z. “Retail Use” means any Development Project that involves retailing of merchandise, generally without transformation, retail food services, and rendering of services incidental to the sale of merchandise at a fixed point of sale.

AA. “Reduced Parking Availability” means a development project where State law requires the City to approve the project with reduced parking, including without limitation, projects pursuant to Government Code Sections 65913.4 and 65915.

BB. “Senior Residential Use” means any Development Project that qualifies as housing for older persons pursuant to CGC Section 12955.9.

CC. “Single Family Residential Use” means any Development Project that uses a single parcel for only one residential dwelling unit. “Single Family Residential Use” also includes any Development Project that involves one primary dwelling and one Accessory Dwelling Unit on a single lot.

DDR. “STA” means the Sacramento Transportation Authority.

EE. “ Transit Oriented Development” means a housing development that satisfies all the following characteristics: (a) the housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 7
along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length; (b) convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, and located within one-half mile of the housing development; and (c) the housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than the onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.

FF. “Transit station” has the meaning set forth in Section 66005.1(d) of the Government Code. [Ord. 1-2009 § 3].

Section 16.85.080 (Exemptions) shall be amended as follows:

16.85.080 Exemptions.

The following shall be exempted from payment of the fees established by this chapter:

A. Alterations, renovations or expansion of an existing residential structure where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed;
B. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed or damaged structure with a new structure of the same size and use;
C. Agreements entered into pursuant to Section 65865 of the Government Code (“development agreement”) unless the development agreement expressly provides for the payment of one of more fees established under this chapter. For fees established pursuant to RCMC 16.85.040(A)(1), the development agreement must have been approved prior to April 1, 2009, and the exemption is invalid if the term of that development agreement is extended after April 1, 2009;
D. For fees established pursuant to RCMC 16.85.040(A)(1), a vesting tentative map authorized under Section 66498.1 of the Government Code if the map application was deemed complete prior to April 1, 2009; and
E. For fees established pursuant to RCMC 16.85.040(A)(1), low and very low income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105, respectively.

A, Accessory Dwelling Units less than 750 square feet.

B. The rehabilitation or reconstruction of any residential or non-residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the established applicable fee rate for that portion f square footage that is new.

C. New low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and very low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105.

D. Projects intended for public use where the applicant is one of the Participating Agencies.

E. Any development project that is subject of a valid development agreement entered into pursuant to CGCGovernment Code Section 65864 prior to April 1, 2009, that includes a provision exempting it from future fees or fee increases; provided, however, that if the term of such a development agreement is extended after April 1, 2009, the SCTMFP shall be imposed.

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 7
F. Any development project for which an application for a vesting tentative map authorization by CGC Section 66498.1 was deemed complete prior to April 1, 2009. [Ord. 1-2009 § 3].

Section 16.85.135 (Adjustment of Fees) is hereby added as follows:

A Calculation of Fee for ADUs.

ADUs greater than 750 square feet shall be subject to a fee hereunder that is equal to the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to the primary unit, multiplied by the fee that would be charged on the primary unit, if the primary unit was being newly built.

B. Calculation of Fee for Mixed Use Projects.

For Projects that include two or more different types of uses, the amount of the fee imposed on the entire Development Project shall be proportionally determined based on the relative footprint associated with the various uses, as determined by the Public Works Director.

C Reduced Fees for Areas with Reduced Parking Availability.

Developments in areas with Reduced Parking Availability may be subject to reduced fees, at the sole discretion of the Public Works Director, if the development project results in reduced trip generation. Any such fee reduction must be supported by a Traffic Study submitted by the Applicant and prepared and stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer and which has been accepted by the City Engineer.

D. Fees for Housing Developments.

1. Generally. The fee imposed pursuant to this Chapter for a Transit Oriented Development shall be set at a rate that reflects a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with that Transit Oriented Development in comparison with non-Transit Oriented Development, unless the City adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that the Transit Oriented Development would not generate fewer automobile trips than a non-Transit Oriented Development. If a housing development does not satisfy the characteristics of a Transit Oriented Development, the City will charge a fee pursuant to this Chapter that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development.

2. Traffic Study.

2.1. Project-Specific Traffic Study. Housing developments seeking a fee adjustment pursuant to this section shall submit a traffic study, stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer (and which has been accepted by the City Engineer), which demonstrates the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with the applicable housing development compared to the Nexus Study.

2.2. Alternative Traffic Study. A Transit Oriented Development may submit to City a traffic study, stamped by a licensed Traffic or Civil Engineer (and which has been accepted by the City Engineer), which demonstrates the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with Transit Oriented Developments and other similar types of development compared to non-Transit Oriented Developments. In the event a Transit Oriented Development submits the Alternative Study pursuant to this section, the Finance Director, in consultation with STA, may apply a

ITEM 16.1 ATTACHMENT 7
standard Transit Oriented Development fee reduction based on studies related to Transit Oriented Developments unless the applicable Transit Oriented Development elects to provide City with a Project-Specific Traffic Study, as described in RCMC Section 16.85.135(D)(2.1), for the Public Works Director to use in calculating the appropriate fee hereunder.

E Re-purposing/Reuse of Existing Buildings.

A. The fee imposed pursuant to this Chapter for any re-purposing or change in use of existing buildings shall only apply to the net increase in average daily trips attributable to the new purpose or use, as compared to the prior established use.

B. Fees shall be calculated hereunder by comparing the rates applicable to the prior and new uses as designated in the City’s Fee Schedule and calculating the resulting offset. In the alternative, where a proposed land use is not clearly listed in the Fee Schedule, the fee shall be calculated as follows:

1. Calculate the difference between previous average daily trips and new average daily trips at the property. The determination of average daily trips for the purpose of comparing previous and proposed uses shall be by reference to trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Traffic Engineers.

2. Multiply the result by the normalized cost per trip.

C. Requests for a fee adjustment pursuant to this provision shall be made to the City in writing.

The Finance Director shall determine whether a development project has made the required showing for a fee adjustment.

June 13, 2024
Item # 13 Page 1
JUNE 13, 2024 AGENDA ITEM # 13
RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE 2024 SACRAMENTO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM (SCTMFP) NEXUS STUDY AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2024 SCTMFP NEXUS STUDY, REVISING THE OVERALL SCTMFP PROGRAM ALLOCATION TO ALIGN WITH THE 2024 SCTMP NEXUS STUDY, SETTING THE UPDATED SCTMFP FEE RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2025, AND AMENDING THE LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM TO INCLUDE SMART GROWTH ARTERIALS AND CORRIDORS.

Action Requested: Receive and Provide Direction
Key Staff: Kevin Bewsey, Executive Director
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the STA Governing Board receive a presentation on the 2024 Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP) Nexus Study and then take the following action:

1. Approve A Resolution Adopting the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP) Nexus Study, Revising The Overall SCTMFP Program Allocation to align with the 2024 SCTMP Nexus Study, Setting the Updated SCTMFP Fee Rates Effective January 1, 2025, and Amending The Local Arterial Program To Include Smart Growth Arterials And Corridors.

Background Information
In order to ensure that revenues generated by the Measure A sales tax do not replace local transportation mitigation fees required from new development, the Measure A Ordinance requires the County and each incorporated city to adopt and implement a uniform transportation mitigation fee as a condition of receiving annual Measure A formula funds earmarked for street and road maintenance. Each local fee is required to be consistent with the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP), as adopted by STA. The details from the Measure A Ordinance are summarized as follows:

The SCTMFP fee was set at $1,000 for a new single-family unit, with annual adjustments to reflect changes in construction costs. For all other land uses, the fee is proportionate to the trip generation rate of a single-family unit.

All new low and very low-income housing as defined by the California Department of Housing & Community Development is exempt from this fee program.

The Ordinance provides overall program allocations for the fees collected as summarized ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 8

June 13, 2024
Item # 13 Page 2
below:
 35% Local streets capital improvements and rehabilitation  20% Public transit capital improvements and rehabilitation  20% Local interchange upgrades, safety projects, and congestion relief, including bus and carpool lanes
 15% Smart Growth Incentive Program
 10% Transportation project environmental mitigation
The Authority Board may approve changes in the overall formula allocation above by a 2/3 vote.

All projects and program priorities for use of the SCTMFP shall be included in a five-year program, annually updated, and approved by the Authority Board.

All fees raised under this program must be expended in the impacted area where the fees were generated.

The Measure A Ordinance expressly requires that the Fee Program be consistent with State law.

In June 2006, the STA Governing Board by Resolution #2006-06 adopted the Fee (Nexus) Study for the SCTMFP and confirmed the rates that the County and cities impose on new development.

In August 2008, the STA Governing Board by Resolution #2008-01 approved the SCTMFP agreement on operating protocols needed to implement the fee. In August 2015, the STA Governing Board by Resolution #2015-04 approved an amended SCTMFP agreement on operating protocols to accommodate re-use.

In April 2022, the STA Governing Board authorized a contract with GHD Inc. (GHD) to perform an update of the 2006 nexus study for the SCTMFP and to address Assembly Bill (AB) 602 which requires improved transparency and that fees be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed development.

Discussion
Beginning in April 2022, GHD has been working with STA staff and local agency staff to develop an updated nexus study that validates the fee structure identified in the Measure A ordinance and addresses AB 602 requirements. The 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP) Nexus Study incorporates the input received from local agencies with updated cost information, existing local development fees and overall grant assumptions. The Nexus Study has gone through several reviews and is now ready to present to the STA Governing Board.

Major changes to the Fee Program are as follows:

Updated Project List, the project list from the Transportation Expenditure Plan was updated ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 8

June 13, 2024
Item # 13 Page 3
to remove projects that were either completed or no longer planned and to utilize the most current cost estimates for the remaining active projects.

Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) Change, the only specific project identified in the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) under SGIP was the I5/SR99/SR50 Connector (aka the Capital SouthEast Connector) with $5,000,000 for Environmental Mitigation. STA executed this environmental mitigation contract in May of 2021. The remainder of the SGIP funds were intended for competitive funding for projects that meet certain smart growth objectives but were not specifically identified. This made establishing a nexus to new development challenging. Staff instead is proposing a new but similar program funded with local sales tax funding called the Smart Growth Arterials and Corridors program to effectively replace the SGIP. This new program would be funded out of the Local Arterial Program and at the same level of the SGIP program. The Smart Growth Arterials and Corridors program would fund local arterials and corridors within existing communities that support smart growth principles. The STA Governing Board would also need to adopt a strategy to best utilize these funds to enhance local jurisdiction’s ability to secure state and federal funding for transportation.

The Ordinance designates SGIP to be funded exclusively with SCTMFP revenues, but staff proposes reducing the SGIP SCTMFP allocation as described below. This is allowed with a 2/3 vote of the Board.

Updated Fee Amounts and New Residential Fee Structures. The fees for the various development types were updated using current trip generation rates. In addition, the residential fees were updated to align with AB 602 requirements for fees to be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed development. GHD worked with local agency staff to find the most appropriate square footage categories resulting in the below five categories.
 Very Small (≤800 sq. ft.)
 Small (801-1200 sq. ft)
 Medium-Small (1201-1600 sq. ft)
 Medium (1601-2400 sq. ft)
 Large (>2400 sq. ft.)
The Ordinance calls for a fee of $1,000/single family unit, irrespective of dwelling unit size in square feet, subject to annual escalation based on McGraw-Hill Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City Construction Cost Index. The corresponding instruction to abide by State law, however, requires these new categorizations. Therefore, the medium single family size category, which represents the average size of dwelling units produces in the region, was set as the standard equivalent dwelling unit, and serves as the reference dwelling unit size with respect to maintaining consistency to the Ordinance. These categorizations furthermore represent a step in making more narrowly tailored nexus and proportionality determinations pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Sheetz v.

County of El Dorado (2024), for legislatively adopted impact fees.

Change to the SCTMFP Overall Program Allocation. The updated project list reflects the remaining projects in the Transportation Expenditure Plan that have not been completed and have a nexus to new development. The SCTMFP overall program allocation needs to shift to address the fees ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 8

June 13, 2024
Item # 13 Page 4
collected for these projects. The reduction in the funding for the Smart Growth Incentive Program is reflected below. A similar reduction in the Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation is also included as there is only one related project. However, environmental mitigation is an eligible expense for the projects identified under the remaining program categories. Below is the revised SCTMFP overall program allocation:
 40.76% Local streets capital improvements and rehabilitation  14.28% Public transit for capital improvements and rehabilitation  41.58% Local interchange upgrades, safety projects and congestion relief improvements on the local freeway system, including bus and carpool lane projects  0.34% Smart Growth Incentive Program
 3.04% Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation Staff recommends that the STA Governing Board receive a presentation on the 2024 Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (SCTMF) Nexus Study and then take the following actions:

Approve A Resolution:
(1) Adopting the 2024 Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (SCTMFP) Nexus Study,
(2) Revising The Overall SCTMFP Program Allocation to align with the 2024 SCTMP Nexus Study, (3) Setting the Updated SCTMFP Fee Rates Effective January 1, 2025, and (4) Amending The Local Arterial Program To Include Smart Growth Arterials And Corridors.

Staff anticipates bringing an amended SCTMFP Agreement On Operating Protocols to the STA Governing Board in August 2024 and request authority to execute the amended agreement with local jurisdictions. The amended agreement is needed to address the 2024 SCTMP Nexus Study and Updated SCTMFP Fee Rates Effective January 1, 2025. Additional changes include the following:
 Allowing SCTMF regional fee collections to occur at the same time as a jurisdiction’s own local fee(s) and/or other multijurisdictional fee(s) they may be participants to.  New exemption for development projects where the applicant is the local jurisdiction.  Requiring that the SCTMFP Fees are maintained in an interest-bearing account.  Process for utilizing project specific transportation studies in calculating the SCTMFP Fees.  Process for utilizing local jurisdiction transportation studies in calculating the SCTMFP Fees.
 Reductions for Transit Oriented Development
Fiscal Impact
The recommended action would not significantly change the revenue utilized for the Measure A Capital Improvement Program. The creation of the Smart Growth Arterials and Corridors program would be funded with local sales tax revenue and at a similar amount as the Smart Growth Incentive Program. Staff reviewed the last fourteen years of revenue collected to determine that 0.73% of the 5% Local Arterial Program would provide the same level of funding as the Smart Growth Incentive ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 8

June 13, 2024
Item # 13 Page 5
Program. This essentially changes the type of funding that is used to support Smart Growth goals, but not the amount of funding that is received. The change in funding will result in immaterial changes to the overall funding of the programs.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. 2024 SCTMP Nexus Study

ITEM 16.1.

ATTACHMENT 8

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 1

ITEM 18.1.

DATE: October 7, 2024

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Steve Harriman, Public Works Division Manager

SUBJECT: UPDATE FROM ATLAS DISPOSAL ON IMPLEMENTATION OF

RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND STREET
SWEEPING CONTRACT BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2025

RECOMMENDATION

Receive the presentation from Atlas Disposal.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

The presentation provides an update to the City Council and the community on the implementation of the new contract for residential solid waste collection and street sweeping services beginning January 1, 2025.

BACKGROUND

On March 4, 2024, the City Council approved a contract with Atlas Disposal for residential solid waste collection and street sweeping services. The new contract begins on January 1, 2025, and extends through December 31, 2034. The presentation by Atlas will provide an update to the City Council on the implementation of the new contract, including the public education campaign on the transition of service providers, procurement of new vehicles and equipment, and hiring and training of new employees that will serve Rancho Cordova.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

This item has no impact on the City's General Fund.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Presentation

Residential Solid Waste, Recycling, and
Street Sweeping Transition Update
October 7, 2024
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda
• Implementation Progress
• City and Community Partnerships
• Engaging with the Community
• What’s Next?
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Vehicles
• 13 new side-lo aders and 1 new rear-loader
scheduled for delivery in Early November
• 4 extra trucks to ensure reliable collections
• New vehicles are powered by compressed
nat
ural gas (CNG). Electric vehicles are
being pursued for future procurements
• Big Truck Rental has rental trucks on
sta
ndby in case of late delivery
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Carts
• Remaining inventory of Rancho Cordova carts will be
t
ransferred by the incumbent hauler to Atlas Disposal
at the start of 2025
• New carts have been purchased and will be delivered
t
o Atlas Disposal before the end of 2024
• New SB1383 compliant lid signage is in development
a
nd will be applied to all existing lids before the end of 2026
• New signage lists acceptable materials, which will
r
educe contamination and increase diversion
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Staffing
• 12 new driver positions have been opened
o 6 driver positions have been filled
• Recruiting outreach for existing
resi
dential drivers performed on July 1st,
A
ugust 3rd, and September 25th
• Our goal is to secure as many current
dri
vers as possible
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Staffing
• 6 New Customer Service
Rep
resentatives
o Half are Rancho Cordova residents
• Expanded Accounting, Dispatch, and
S
ustainability Departments
• New Route Manager: Ty Boyle
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Customer Data and Billing
• Established new customer accounts for each resident
• Automatic bill payment is ready for residents to set up now • Later this month, all Rancho Cordova residents will be receiving the
ir new account information as well as instructions for setting up automatic bill pay
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

City Collaboration
• Biweekly Transition Meetings with
P
ublic Works and Communications
Departments
• Met with Operations & Maintenance
D
epartment
• Met with Community Engagement
D
ivision
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

City Collaboration
• Co-D eveloped a Communications Strategic Plan with the Communications and Public Affairs Department
• Developed a set of Strategic Communication Goals, Key Messages, a
nd a Communications Launch Timeline
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Community Partnerships:

Soil Born Farms
• Atlas Disposal is working with Soil Born
Fa
rms to create and host Composting
Workshops
• Exploring opportunities to create composting
ed
ucation and outreach materials together
• 3 Compost Workshops in 2025
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Community Partnerships:

Rancho Cordova Food Locker
• Atlas Disposal has collaborated with the
Ra
ncho Cordova Food Locker to conduct
two food collection events
• June 2025: School’s Out!
• November 2025: Holiday Protein Drive
• Food collections will take place at the Food
Loc
ker’s planned interim facility at Cordova
Neighborhood Church
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Community Partnerships:

Explore Rancho Cordova
• Atlas Disposal will be working with
E
xplore Rancho Cordova to enhance
welcome bags for new residents
• Kitchen-t op Compost Containers will be
provided to new residents
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Community Partnerships:

Cordova Community Council
• Atlas Disposal is a Magic Maker sponsor
• Participating in 9 Community events in 2024
• Presenting sponsor of the Elected Officials
Rec
eption
• Presenting sponsor at the Rancho Cordova
lunc
heon on November 15th
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Community Partnerships:

Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
• Atlas Disposal is a Double Diamond sponsor
• Participating in:
• Business Expo & Job Fair
• The State of the City
• Scramble and Gamble Golf Tournament
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Transition Announcement
Announcement Postcard – June 11, 2024
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Transition Announcement
New Transition Website
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Engaging with the Community

RANCHO CORDOVA FOOD

LOCKER GOLF TOURNAMENT

KIDS DAY IN THE PARK
IFEST
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

SPRING SERVICE DAY – TITLE SPONSORSHIP
Engaging with the Community
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

JUNETEENTH
MOVIES IN THE PARK 4 TH OF JULY PARADE
Engaging with the Community
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

CALIFORNIA

CAPITAL AIRSHOW NATIONAL NIGHT OUT CONCERTS IN

THE PARK
Engaging with the Community
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Upcoming Events
• Good Neighbor Day – October 24th
• State of the City – November 6th
• Cordova Community Council Luncheon –
No
vember 15th
• Community Christmas Tree Lighting –
D
ecember 1st
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Atlas Disposal App
• Atlas Disposal app launched this month
• Residents can set up Automatic Bill Pay, use
“
What goes where” tool, and access educational
resources right now
• Educational tools and quizzes for targeted
o
utreach
• In January, residents can look up their schedule,
s
et up custom notifications, and schedule bulky
pickups
Rancho Cordova, CA
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Upcoming Communications
• Mailer and postcard going to residents this month with billing setup instructions and a QR code to download the Atlas Disposal app
• We’ll be using every channel to educate residents about the transition:
• City newsletter
• Social media posts
• Grapevine articles
• Website
• Advertising
• Emails
• App notifications
• Direct mail
• 2025 Service Guide will be mailed to residents in December ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Transition Timeline
• Effective December 23rd, 2024, Atlas Disposal will begin taking resident r
equests and scheduling Bulky Item Appointments
• Effective January 2nd, 2025, Atlas Disposal will begin all services on a delayed holid
ay schedule following the New Year
• Collection services in 2025 will have the same service days, same carts, and s
ame schedule to minimize resident impact
• Street Sweeping schedule into 2025 will continue as regularly scheduled ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

Education and Outreach Materials
• Resident Newsletter
• School Outreach Plan: Curriculum being developed on Source Reduction, Wa
ste Sorting, and Composting
• Scholarship Program for Rancho Cordova students
• Data-driven educational materials to increase diversion • M
uch More to Come!
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

We Are Ready
• Transition is progressing smoothly
• Atlas Disposal team is actively communicating and engaging with the community • Currently in escrow on a new property in Rancho Cordova to house our operations • Exciting new app, partnerships with local organizations, and new educational m
aterials will create a better customer experience
• Equipment and staffing will be ready for the January 2025 transition.

WE
ARE READY TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF RANCHO CORDOVA!
ITEM 18.1.

ATTACHMENT 1

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 3

ITEM 18.2.

DATE: October 7, 2024

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: David Kwong, Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE JOINING THE SACRAMENTO

PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS

AUTHORITY (SPTC-JPA) AS A MEMBER AGENCY OF THE SPTC-

JPA AND THE CONTINUING FUNDING AGREEMENT

RECOMMENDATION

Consider and adopt the Resolution to approve joining the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority (SPTC-JPA) as a member agency and the continuing funding agreement of $27,500 annually. It is anticipated from SPTC costs will rise to $40,000 annually at the beginning of the next fiscal year.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

The City of Rancho Cordova would be a member agency the SPTC-JPA. The SPTC-JPA would need to amend the Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreement (RUFA) to implement this amendment.

BACKGROUND

The Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority (SPTC-JPA) or JPA, at its August 5, 2024, JPA meeting directed its staff to invite the City of Rancho Cordova as a member agency of the JPA. The JPA owns the rail corridor from 65th Street in Sacramento to Missouri Flat Road in Placerville, fifty-three miles of track.

The tracks were purchased by Sacramento County, Regional Transit, City of Folsom and El Dorado County. The purchase was completed around 1996 and the JPA was formed through a Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreement. In that agreement it identified that a member of each agency would be appointed and there would also be a member at large. The member-at-large has been a member of the City Council of Rancho Cordova although, the City of Rancho Cordova is not a member agency.

Each of the four member agencies contribute equally to the annual operational costs of the JPA. The current annual contribution by each JPA member agency is $27,500. The JPA is governed by a five-member Board of Directors (representatives from Sacramento County, El Dorado County, City of Folsom, Regional Transit and an at large member appointed by the JPA). Each member agency appoints one member to the Board and the Board members appoint a member at large (currently a member of the Rancho Cordova City Council). The

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 3

regular meetings of the Board of Directors are scheduled for once every calendar quarter.

The RUFA governs the JPA’s powers and responsibilities with respect to the Rail Corridor and is structured to preserve home rule by each member agency over its allocated portion. While the JPA is the legal owner of the Rail Corridor, each member agency holds an easement covering its allocated portions of the Rail Corridor that gives the member agency very broad discretion concerning its usage. (RUFA, Section 4.) At present, the allocated portions of the Rail Corridor are approximately as follows (the list progresses from West to East). • Sacramento Regional Transit District: From Brighton (near 65th Street in Sacramento) to the Highway 50 overcrossing of Folsom Boulevard. • Sacramento Regional Transit District and City of Folsom (shared): From the Highway 50 overcrossing of Folsom Boulevard to the Folsom Wye. • City of Folsom: From the Folsom Wye to the White Rock crossing. • Sacramento County: from White Rock crossing to the Sacramento-El Dorado County line.
• El Dorado County: from the Sacramento-El Dorado County line to Placerville.

The JPA has no power to use or transfer any portion of the Rail Corridor without the prior request or consent of the member agency to which that portion has been allocated [RUFA, Section 7(a)]. Conversely, any member agency may direct the JPA to permit a third-party use of its allocated portion, or to transfer part of its allocated portion, provided that the use or transfer will not:
a. Administration, including engineering and legal counsel b. Corridor maintenance/weed abatement
c. Access and use permitting
d. Property management
e. Facilitating development of transportation uses in the corridor f. Preserving continuity of the corridor (administering the RUFA)

Since that time, the JPA has facilitated trans-jurisdictional (regional) uses of the right-of-way by providing a single primary point of contact for the public. The JPA also has facilitated regional uses of the right-of-way by providing a forum for staff to meet and discuss potential projects. In this context, the JPA played a significant role in facilitating the agreement between RT and the City of Folsom for the extension of light rail into the City of Folsom. Finally, the JPA facilitates the preservation of expertise and knowledge of the history of the public ownership of the right- of-way.

What does this mean for the City of Rancho Cordova?

The tracks were acquired before Rancho Cordova became a City so the City of Rancho Cordova was not included in the original purchase. The JPA Board appoints a member at large, which historically has been Rancho Cordova. The JPA Board could decide to appoint a different member at large, resulting in the City of Rancho Cordova losing its seat on the JPA Board. Since the corridor runs through your City, but that section has been allocated to RT, by joining the JPA Board you could secure your seat and voice on the corridor. This action would replace the member at large.

City Council Staff Report - Page 3 of 3

If Rancho Cordova is interested in joining the JPA, an amendment to the RUFA and the Continuing Funding Agreement would be made, to add Rancho Cordova as a member. The JPA is funded by member contributions which have been $27,500 in recent years but will be increasing in the future to approximately $40,000 annually. The JPA is in the beginning stages of a Master Plan in which the City of Rancho Cordova would continue to have voice. Currently, Mayor Sander sits on the JPA as a member of the public at large and Council Member Budge sits on the JPA as a member of the Regional Transit Board. Should the City of Rancho Cordova Council take action to join the JPA, it is anticipated that the City would have one formal seat on the JPA. In conversations with the JPA staff, it is anticipated that the public at-large member would be deleted from the JPA through amendment of the RUFA and the Regional Transit Board would determine the assignment of their representative on the JPA.

Staff involvement would include attending and participating in the JPA’s meeting held in the City of Folsom on a quarterly basis and any corresponding work effort on the JPA’s work or the master plan process and any future potential opportunities for trail sites. The next SPTC JPA meeting is on November 4, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

Annual costs based on the SPTC-JPA Continuing funding agreement is approximately $27,500.

SPTC-JPA is bringing to the JPA an increase in that amount to $40,000 annually in the next fiscal year.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. SPTC-JPA Letter

3. Presentation

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No XX-2024 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2024

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE JOINING THE SACRAMENTO PLACERVILLE

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (SPTC-JPA) AS A MEMBER

AGENCY OF THE SPTC-JPA AND THE CONTINUING FUNDING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority (SPTC-JPA) or JPA, at its August 5, 2024, JPA meeting directed its staff to invite the City of Rancho Cordova as a member agency of the JPA; and
WHEREAS, the JPA owns the rail corridor from 65th Street in Sacramento to Missouri Flat Road in Placerville, fifty-three miles of track; and WHEREAS, the tracks were purchased by Sacramento County, Regional Transit, City of Folsom and El Dorado County and the purchase was completed around 1996 and the JPA was formed through a Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreement (RUFA); and WHEREAS, in that agreement it identified that a member of each agency would be appointed and there would also be a member at large; and WHEREAS, the member-at-large has been a member of the City Council of Rancho Cordova although, the Rancho Cordova is not a member agency and each of the four member agencies contribute equally to the annual operational costs of the JPA member agency is $27,500 but will be increasing in the future to approximately $40,000 annually; and WHEREAS, each member agency appoints one member to the Board and the Board members appoint a member at large (currently a member of the Rancho Cordova City Council); and
WHEREAS, the RUFA governs the JPA’s powers and responsibilities with respect to the Rail Corridor and is structured to preserve home rule by each member agency over its allocated portion; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Sander currently sits on the JPA as a member of the public at large and Councilmember Budge sits on the JPA as a member of the Regional Transit Board; and WHEREAS, if the City of Rancho Cordova Council takes action to join the JPA, it is anticipated that the City would have one formal seat on the JPA; and WHEREAS, the JPA has facilitated trans-jurisdictional (regional) uses of the right-of- way by providing a single primary point of contact for the public. The JPA also has facilitated regional uses of the right-of-way by providing a forum for staff to meet and discuss potential projects. The JPA facilitates the preservation of expertise and knowledge of the history of the public ownership of the right-of-way; and

ITEM 18.2. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No XX-2024 Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, Staff involvement would include attending and participating in the JPA’s meeting held in the City of Folsom on a quarterly basis and any corresponding work effort on the JPA’s work or the master plan process and any future potential opportunities for trail sites.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA approves joining the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority (SPTC-JPS) as a member agency of the SPTC-JPA and the continuing funding agreement.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 7 th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
David Sander, Mayor
ATTEST:

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
_____________________________________________________________________ Member Agencies: City of Folsom / County of El Dorado / County of Sacramento / Regional Transit _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ August 20, 2024
Rancho Cordova City Manager
Micah Runner
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
SUBJECT: Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Mr. Runner,
I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority (SPTC JPA). The JPA owns the rail corridor from 65th Street in Sacramento to Missouri Flat Road in Placerville, fifty-three miles of track.

The tracks were purchased by Sacramento County, Regional Transit, City of Folsom and El Dorado County. The purchase was completed around 1996 and the JPA was formed through a Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreement (Attachment A). In that agreement it identified that a member of each agency would be appointed and there would also be a member at large. The member at large has been a member of your City Council, but Rancho Cordova is not a member agency. There have been five amendments to the RUFA, they are also attached.

The JPA Board supports adding Rancho Cordova as a member. At the meeting of August 5th, 2024, the Board provided directions for me to reach out to the City of Rancho Cordova to ask if you are interested in becoming a member agency? If Rancho Cordova is interested in joining the recommendation would be a straightforward amendment to the RUFA and the Continuing Funding Agreement, to add Rancho Cordova as a member.

The JPA is funded by member contributions which have been $27,500 in recent years but will be increasing in the future (Continuing Funding Agreement Attachment B). I have attached the staff report and minutes regarding the budget from the May 13, 2024, meeting where the budget was approved and the minutes from the August 5, 2024, meeting where the minutes were approved (Attachment C).

The JPA is in the beginning stages of a Master Plan or something similar. This is something as a member agency you would be involved in and have a voice in the process.

This would be the perfect time to become a member as we can insure your contributions to the plan.

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
_____________________________________________________________________

Member Agencies: City of Folsom / County of El Dorado / County of Sacramento / Regional Transit _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The next meeting for the JPA will be November 4th, I would appreciate any information by October 31, 2024, so that I could provide an update to the board.

If you need information, please let me know. You can reach me at 530.306.7649 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Vickie Sanders, Chief Executive Officer
Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority Vickie Sanders
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

STAFF REPORT

Board Meeting Date: May 13, 2024

Motion: Approve Operating Budget for Fiscal Year
2024/2025

AGENDA ITEM
NO. 6a

SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
DISCUSSION:

At the May 8, 2023, JPA Board meeting, the Board adopted the Operating Budget of $110,000 for Fiscal Year 202 3/24. The Operating Budget was funded by a contribution of $27,500 from each of the four member agencies.

At the May 8, 2023, JPA Board meeting, the Board adopted the Capital Improvement Budget of $10,000 for Fiscal Year 2023/24. The $10,000 was for the Nature Trail Project, specifically to provide construction materials needed by the volunteer labor forces and specialist inspections if requested by any of the local agencies. In addition, $66,035 for a consultant services agreement for environmental survey support for the Natural Surface Trail project was adopted by th e JPA Board on May 8, 2023, (Reso. 2023-05-03) which carried forward to Fiscal Year 2023/24. A $100,000 budget authorization was also included as part of the carryforward from the Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the bridge and track inspections (Reso. No. 2022 -08-01) and an additional $29,680 was authorized at the August 7, 2023, JPA Board meeting for a total contract amount of $129,680 with Dokken Engineering for the bridge and culvert inspection services , increasing the total Capital Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 2023/24 to $205,715.

SPTC-JPA Budget Fiscal Year 2023/24

Starting JPA “Bank Account” for FY 2023/24: $ 353,110.69 • Operating Budget 2023/24: $ 110,000.00
• Capital Improvement Program Budget 2023/24: $ 205,715.00 • Annual Agency Contributions 2023/24: $ 110,000.00
• Reserve Account 2023/24: $ 147,395.69

JPA account balance as of 03/31/24: $ 290,630.73

Projected SPTC-JPA Budget Reconciliation Fiscal Year 2023/24

Starting JPA “Bank Account” for FY 2023/24: $ 353,110.69 • Operating Budget 2023/24: $ 88,000.00
• Capital Improvement Program Budget 2023/24: $ 195,715.00 • Annual Agency Contributions 2023/24: $ 110,000.00
• Interest Earned 2023/24: $ 3,683.00
• Reserve Account 2023/24: $ 183,078.69
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

For Fiscal Year 2024/25, staff are proposing modifications to several of the budget line items to better align with actual expenses; however, the total operating budget will increase to $156,000. The proposed changes are shown in the table below.

PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/25

The Operating Budget is separated into seven (7) budget line items to facilitate tracking and managing the budget. The following describes the typical activities associated with each budget line item.

Line Item 1-Administrative
• This line item reimburses the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Deputy CEO, Secretary to the Board , and administrative/technical support consultant for providing the following services:
o Administer the Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreement (RUFA) on behalf of the JPA Board and staff.
o Reviewing and executing official documents on behalf of the JPA. o Preparing for and conducting JPA Board meetings, including Secre tary to the Board’s preparation and approval of the minutes.
o Assisting the public and Member Agencies with the development of transportation uses in the JPA corridor, such as the Natural Trail project. o Coordination with JPA Member Agency staff, including periodic site visits and staff meetings.
o Participating as stakeholder in regional studies or analyses such as the Capital Southeast Connector Project.
o Assisting Member Agencies to administer licenses and access permits or easements.
o Administering contracts with the JPA, including Excursion Rail License Agreement, Executive Officer Reimbursement Agreement, and consultant services agreements.
o Providing business services such as notary, courier, postage, and other administrative activities necessary to conduct the business of the JPA. o Controlling and administering the JPA’s website.
o Providing accounting services to administer the Operating Budget.

Line Item 2 - Legal
• This line item reimburses the JPA legal counsel for providing the following services to the JPA:
o Providing legal advice to the JPA Board and staff.
o Assisting with preparation for and conducting of JPA Board meetings. o Reviewing contractual documents that involve the JPA property. o Addressing legal issues with respect to the corridor as they arise. o Working on special-use projects within the corridor.
o Working with insurance broker to obtain insurance coverage. o Assisting with the License Agreement
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
o Assisting with the Master Plan

Line Item 3 – Audit Fees
• This line item reimburses the JPA’s certified public accountant. • The JPA Agreement requires that an accounting of the JPA’s financial activities be reported by an independent certified public accountant. • This line item provides for CPA services to cover the audit for the past fiscal year.

Line Item 4 – Accounting
• This line item reimburses Sacramento County for treasury services provided to the JPA.
• Sacramento County has provided these services to the JPA since inception.

Line Item 5 – Maintenance
• This line item provides weed abatement services through the JPA for the City of Folsom, Sacramento County, and El Dorado County.
• Weed abatement services will be provided by Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad (P&SVRR) and El Dorado Western Railroad (EDWRR) under contract with the JPA, using volunteer labor, and reimbursement for costs of fuel and materials.
• The line item also provides for trail maintenance, including JPA sponsorship of the corridor segment in EDC’s Adopt a Trail Program.

Line Item 6 – Insurance
• This line item addresses the estimated costs associated with providing General Liability coverage for persons working on a volunteer basis on behalf of the JPA.

Line Item 7 – Contingency
• This line item addresses any costs in excess of the adopted amounts for the budget line items.

Line Item 8 – Natural Trail Project
• This line item addresses any cost for volunteer projects on the Natural Trail.

SPTC-JPA Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2024/25.

Starting JPA “Bank Account” for FY 2024/25: $ 183,078.69 • Annual Agency Contributions 2024/25: $ 110,000.00
• Revenue $ 293,078.69
• Operating Budget 2024/25: $ 201,063.95
• Reserve Account 2024/25: $ 92,014.74

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

OPERATING

BUDGET / LINE
ITEM

ADOPTED
FY 2023/24
BUDGET

EXPENDED
FY 2023/24

TO DATE

FORECASTED

TO EXPEND
(by end of FY
2023/24)

PROPOSED

BUDGET FOR
FY 2024/25

1. Administrative $ 50,000.00 $ 18,578.94 $ 38,000.00 $ 80,000.00

2. Legal $ 17,000.00 $ 12,024.20 $17,000.00 $ 25,000.00

3. Audit Fees $ 9,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $9,000.00 $ 11,000.00

4. Accounting $ 6,000.00 $ 350.00 $6,000.00 $ 7,000.00

5. Maintenance $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 17,000.00

6. Insurance $ 10,000.00 $ 1,492.73 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00

7. Contingency $ 6,000.00 $ 371.77 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00

8. Natural Trail
Supplies $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000.00

9. Natural Trail
Helix * * * $45,063.95
Total $110,000.00 $ 46,817.64 $ 88,000.00 $ 201,063.95
*Previous fiscal years included this budget item under the CIP budget

JPA staff recommends increasing the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 202 4/25 to $156,000. The Operating Budget will be f unded by the Member Agency contributions, which will remain at $27,500 per Member Agency for a total of $110,000 and balancing the budget with use from the reserve account of $46,000. The forecasted surplus would remain in the reserve account. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2025/26, Member Agency contributions will need to increase to $40,000 to fund the Operating Budget fully.

This budget combines the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Budget (CIP) , which were separated in previous years.

BOARD ACTION:

Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Resolution 2024-05-02, approving the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Operating Budget, as proposed above.

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION

CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-05-02

Adopted by the Board of Directors of the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority on the date of:

May 13, 2024

APPROVAL OF FY 2024/25

OPERATING BUDGET

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO-

PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:

THAT, the Operating Budget for FY2024/25 is hereby approved as presented to the Board at this meeting; and

THAT, the Chief Executive Officer is hereby authorized to reallocate budget amounts among the line items in the approved Operating Budget, as he may deem necessary or desirable; provided, however, that the total amount budgeted for FY 2024/25 shall not be increased with the Board’s prior approval.

Passed and Adopted by the Board of the SPTC-JPA, this 13th day of May 2024, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Sarah Aquino, Chair

ATTEST:

Jennifer Thiot, Secretary
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

1 SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors on May 13, 2024

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m.

Roll Call: Present: Directors Aquino, Hidahl, Hume, Sander (left at 9:55 a.m.) and Budge (arrived at 9:40 a.m.)

Absent: Hume

Public Comment: Public comment was made by Bruce Cunha and Jim Harville.

Consent

Items 5a, 5b, & 5c: Approval of Minutes, Meeting Schedule, and Quarterly Financial Report

A motion was made by Director Sander, seconded by Director Hidahl, and passed by unanimous vote that:

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO PLACERVILLE

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVES THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS:

a. Approve Minutes for Regular Meeting of March 11 , 202 4. The following two spelling errors are to be corrected: Kris Payne's and Bruce Cunha’s names. b. Meeting Schedule. The February and May meeting dates say 2024 and must be edited to 2025.
c. Quarterly Financial Report

New Business

Items 6a: Operating Budget

Discussion included a future increase in member agency contributions from $27,500 to $40,000 and the possibility of Rancho Cordova joining as a member agency. A motion was made by Director Hidahl, seconded by Director Budge, and passed by unanimous vote that:

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO PLACERVILLE

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVES THE FOLLOWING ITEM:

• Resolution No. 2024-05-02: Approving the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Operating Budget

Item 6b: Bridge and Culvert Inspection Report Discussion

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

2 SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors on May 13, 2024
A report was presented by Brett Bollinger, CEO, and Tim Osterkamp, from Dokken Engineering.

Public comments were made by Jim Harville , Don Rose, and Kris Payne . Director Hidahl summarized that these inspections are a good first step toward a Master Plan for the Corridor.

Item 6c: Information: Natural Trail Update

Brett Bollinger and Don Rose presented the staff report. Don Rose announced he is retiring, and volunteers are needed to replace him. Public comments were made by Kris Payne and Ginny McCormick.

Item 6d: Approve CEO Appointment and Contract for CEO Services to Transition the CEO from Brett Bollinger to Vickie Sanders

DeeAnne Gillick, Legal Counsel, explained that the contract would need to be approved for one year because not all four member agencies were in attendance. The contract will be revised before signing to be from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. Public Comments were made by Kris Payne and Jim Harville. A motion was made by Director Budge, seconded by Director Hidahl, and passed by unanimous vote that:

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SACRAMENTO PLACERVILLE

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPROVES THE FOLLOWING ITEM:

• Resolution No. 202 4-05-03: Appointing Vickie Sanders Sacramento -Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority CEO and Approving Contract for CEO services

Item 6e: Information: CEO/Member Agency Staff Reports. The following staff members reported on activity along their respective sections of the corridor.

i. Brett Bollinger, CEO/City of Folsom : Provided an update on the PSVRR License agreement. This is a planned item for the August SPTC-JPA Meeting. Public comments were made by Don Rose, Greg Hampton, and Kris Payne.

ii. Mary Cory and Jennifer Franich, El Dorado County: The cost of the chemicals for El Dorado County’s weed abatement program along the corridor has gone up . They remarked that the bridge and culvert inspections have been beneficial to their efforts.

They requested that historic culverts be repaired and not replaced. Jennifer Franich gave an update on the Latrobe Washout.

iii. Matt Darrow, Sacramento County: Matt had no updates

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

3 SACRAMENTO-PLACERVILLE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors on May 13, 2024
iv. Michael Cormiae, Sacramento Regional Transit: Work on the Folsom double track section continues and should be finalized in late July.

Directors Comments

The Board asked that the composition of the Board, including the addition of Rancho Cordova as a member agency, be a future agenda item.

The next meeting will be the Regular Board Meeting on August 5, 2024.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 a.m.

I hereby certify that the Board of Directors approved the foregoing minutes at its Board Meeting on May 13, 2024.

__________________________________
Jennifer Thiot, Board Secretary
JenniferThiot
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 2

1 Resolution Joining the
SPTC-JPA and the
Continuing Funding
Agreement
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

2 Resolution Joining the SPTC-JPA and the Continuing
Funding Agreement
• The Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Authority (SPTC
-JPA) owns the rail corridor from 65th Street in Sacramento to Missouri Flat Road in Placerville, fifty-three miles of track.
• Sacramento County, Regional Transit, City of Folsom, and El Dorado County are the m
ember agencies of the JPA formed in 1996 through a Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreement. They appoint a public member at large. • Each of the four member agencies contribute equally to the annual operational cos
ts of the JPA. The current annual contribution by each JPA member agency is $27,500.
• The RUFA governs the JPA’s powers and responsibilities with respect to the Rail Cor
ridor and is structured to preserve home rule by each member agency over its allocated portion.

Joining the SPTC-JPS
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

3  Sacramento Regional Transit District: from Brighton (near 65th St.
in Sacramento) to the Highway 50 overcrossing of Folsom Blvd.  Sacramento Regional Transit District and City of Folsom (shared): from the Highway 50 overcrossing of Folsom Blvd to the Folsom Wye.
 City of Folsom: from the Folsom Wye to the White Rock crossing.  Sacramento County: from White Rock crossing to the
Sacramento-El Dorado County line.
 El Dorado County: from the Sacramento-El Dorado County line to Placerville.

Additional Information
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

4 Resolution Joining the SPTC-JPA and the
Continuing Funding Agreement
• JPA has facilitated trans-j urisdictional (regional)
uses of the right-of-way by providing a single
primary point of contact for the public.
• JPA also has facilitated regional uses of the right-
of-w
ay by providing a forum for staff to meet and
discuss potential projects.

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

5 Resolution Joining the SPTC-JPA and
the Continuing Funding Agreement
• Tr acks were acquired before Rancho Cordova became a City. • The J PA Board appoints a member at large, which historically has been Rancho Cordova.
• The c orridor runs through your City, but that section has been allocated to RT
• Joining t he JPA Board you could secure your seat and voice on the corridor. This action would replace the member at large. • The J PA is in the beginning stages of a Master Plan in which the City of Rancho Cordova would continue to have voice.

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

6 Recommended Action
• Consider and adopt the Resolution to approve joining the S
acramento Placerville Transportation Corridor Joint
Powers Authority (SPTC-JPA) as a member agency and
the continuing funding agreement of $27,500 annually. It is anticipated from SPTC annual costs will rise to $40,000 annually at the beginning of the next fiscal year.

ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

7 THANK YOU
Questions?
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 18.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

MEMORANDUM

City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 1

ITEM 18.3.

DATE: October 7, 2024

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Russell Ducharme, Neighborhood Services Manager
April Stevenson, Management Analyst I

SUBJECT: ANIMAL SERVICES UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION

Receive information.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

The presentation will provide an update on the Animal Services team and the Animal Services community outreach programs.

BACKGROUND

Periodically, the City of Ranhco Cordova Neighborhood Services Department provides an update on the Animal Services team and the Animal Services community outreach programs.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

The Animal Services team is funded through general funds. The community outreach programs are funded through various grants. This presentation and update will not have an adverse fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Presentation

1 ANIMAL SERVICES UPDATE
OCTOBER 7, 2024
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

2 MEETING GOALS
• ANIMAL SERVICES STAFFING
• ESTIMATED PET POPULATION
• CALLS FOR SERVICE
• PARTNERS
• SPECIAL PROGRAMS
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

3 STAFF & PRIORITY
3 1 1
CSR II

PUBLIC SAFTEY
ANIMAL

WELFARE

RESOURCES

ASO I NST I
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

4 • ~ 82,000 Rancho Cordova Residents
~

2.87 members per home in Rancho Cordova
= ~28,782 homes in Rancho Cordova
• ~ 57% of California homes own pets
• Dogs: 40% of pet owners have dogs = 22.8% homes have dogs in CA

22.8%
x 28.8 RC homes = 6,562 (1.6 avg) = 10,499 dogs in Rancho Cordova • Cats: 22.9% of pet owners have cats = 13.1% homes have cats in CA

13.1%
x 28.8k = 3,772.8 (1.7 avg) = 6,414 owned cats*
~16,913 dogs/cats
~9,340 other

ESTIMATED PET POPULATION
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

5 CALL INTAKE SUMMARY
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

6 CALLS FOR SERVICE
NOT JUST A “DOG CATCHER”
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

7 907 STRAY

AGGRESSIVE
7%

CONFINED
24%

INJURED/SICK
23%TRAP/TIED
4%
ROAM
38%
UNCATEGORIZED 1% HABIT
3%

AGGRESSIVE CONFINED INJURED/SICK TRAP/TIED

ROAM UNCATEGORIZED HABIT
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

8 1,937 INVESTIGATIONS
NOISE

COMPLAINT
4%
BARK
22%

MUNICIPAL
CODES
18%
BITE
27%

INHUMANE
28%

ABANDONED
1%

NOISE COMPLAINT BARK MUNICIPAL CODES BITE INHUMANE ABANDONED ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

9 469 ASSISTS
FIRE
1%
POLICE
4%
OTHER
13%
PUBLIC
82%

FIRE POLICE OTHER PUBLIC
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

10 614 OTHER

WILDLIFE
30%
DOA
57%

OWNER REQ
10%

PROTECTIVE

CUSTODY
3%

WILDLIFE DOA OWNER REQ PROTECTIVE CUSTODY
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

11 • SACRAMENTO SPCA
• C

HAMELEON SOFTWARE
• VCA
• FEDERAL WILDLIFE TRAPPER
• DR. NETHERWOOD
• KOEFRAN
• NOISENET
• CITY NET
• WHISKER WARRIORS
• RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE
DE

PARTMENT
• SACRAMENTO COUNTY
PR

OBATION DEPARTMENT
• SACRAMENTO COUNTY
DIS
TRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
• SAC METRO FIRE
• U

C DAVIS
• CA FISH AND WILDLIFE
• CAL ANIMALS

PARTNERS
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

12 SPCA - 1,378 IMPOUNDS OWNER

SURRENDER
17%

SEIZED/CUSTODY
6%

EUTHANASIA
9%
STRAY
68%

OWNER SURRENDER SEIZED/CUSTODY EUTHANASIA STRAY
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

13 SPECIAL PROGRAMS
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

14 FREE RABIES VACCINE &

MICROCHIP CLINICS
733

ANIMALS
616
RABIES

VACCINES
230

MICROCHIPS

IMPLANTED
489
DAPP

VACCINES
163
FVRCP

VACCINES
233

FLEA/TICK

TREATMENT
7 CLINICS

MEASURE R FUNDS
1549
PET

LICENSES
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

15 ANIMAL SERVICES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(ASAP)
GRANTS RECEIVED OVER LAST 2 YEARS: $323,000
• UC DAVIS
• CAL 4 ALL ANIMALS
• PETCO LOVE
• MADDIE’S FUND
ANIMALS ASSISTED FY 23/24: 116
• MEDICAL FUNDING
• FENCING SUPPLIES
• BEHAVIOR GUIDANCE
OT

HER INNOVATIONS
• TEMPORARY HOLD DOG KENNEL
• FULL -TIME, 2-YEAR TERM, STAFF
F

UTURE PLANS
• PARTNERSHIP WITH THE RANCHO CORDOVA
FO

OD LOCKER
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1

16 THANK YOU
YOU CAN VOLUNTEER WITH US!
CityOfRanchoCordova.org
ITEM 18.3.

ATTACHMENT 1