Agenda — Roseville City Council, April 20, 2022 (part 5 of 9)

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
460-160-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 17 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 18 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 19 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 20 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 21 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 22 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 23 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 24 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-019-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 25 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-020-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 26 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-021-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 27 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-022-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 28 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-023-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 29 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-024-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 30 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-025-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 31 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-026-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 32 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-027-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 33 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-028-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 34 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-029-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 35 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-030-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 44 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-031-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 45 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-032-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 46 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-033-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 47 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-034-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 48 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-035-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 49 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-036-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 50 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-037-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 51 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-038-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 52 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-039-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 53 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-040-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 54 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-041-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 55 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-042-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 56 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-043-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 57 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-044-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 58 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-045-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 59 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-046-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 60 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-047-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 61 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-048-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 62 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-049-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 63 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-050-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 64 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-051-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 65 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 Willdan Financial Services Page 11 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
460-160-052-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 66 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-053-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 67 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-054-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 68 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-055-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 69 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-056-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 70 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-057-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 71 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-058-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 72 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-160-059-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 73 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 1 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 2 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 3 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 4 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 5 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 6 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 36 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 37 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 38 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 39 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 40 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 41 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 42 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 43 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 74 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 75 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 76 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 77 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-019-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 78 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-020-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 79 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-021-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 80 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-022-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 81 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-023-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 82 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-024-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 83 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-025-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 84 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-026-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 85 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-027-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 86 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-028-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 87 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-029-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 88 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-030-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 89 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-031-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 90 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-032-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 91 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-033-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 92 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 Willdan Financial Services Page 12 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
460-170-034-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 93 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-035-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 94 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-036-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 95 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-037-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 96 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-038-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 97 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-039-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 98 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-040-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 99 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-170-041-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 100 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 1 S-11 460-180-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 1 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 2 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 3 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 4 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 5 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 6 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 7 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 8 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 9 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 10 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 11 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 12 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 13 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 14 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 15 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 16 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 17 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 18 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-019-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 19 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-020-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 20 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-021-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 21 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-022-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 22 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-023-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 23 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-024-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 24 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-025-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 25 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-026-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 26 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-027-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 27 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-028-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 28 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-029-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 29 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-030-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 30 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-031-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 31 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-032-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 32 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-033-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 33 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A Willdan Financial Services Page 13 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
460-180-034-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 34 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-035-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 35 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-036-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 36 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-037-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 37 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-038-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 38 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-039-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 39 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-040-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 40 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-041-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 41 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-042-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 42 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-043-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 43 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-044-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 44 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-045-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 45 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-046-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 46 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-047-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 47 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-048-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 48 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-049-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 49 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-050-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 50 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-051-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 51 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-052-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 52 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-053-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 53 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-054-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 54 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-055-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 55 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-180-056-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 56 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2A 460-190-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 57 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 58 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 59 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 60 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 61 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 62 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 63 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 64 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 65 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 66 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 67 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 68 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 69 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 70 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 71 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 72 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 73 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 74 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 Willdan Financial Services Page 14 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
460-190-019-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 75 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-020-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 76 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-021-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 77 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-022-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 78 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-023-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 79 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-024-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 80 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-025-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 81 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-026-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 82 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-027-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 83 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-028-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 84 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-029-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 85 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-030-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 86 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-031-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 87 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-032-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 88 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-033-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 89 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-034-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 90 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-035-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 91 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-036-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 92 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-037-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 93 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-038-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 94 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-039-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 95 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-040-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 96 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-041-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 97 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-042-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 98 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-043-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 99 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-044-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 100 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-045-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 101 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-046-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 102 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-047-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 103 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-048-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 104 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-049-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 105 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-050-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 106 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-051-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 107 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-052-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 108 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-053-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 109 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-054-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 110 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-055-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 111 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-056-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 112 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-057-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 113 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 460-190-058-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 114 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS PHASE 2B S-54 461-011-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 1 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 Willdan Financial Services Page 15 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
461-011-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 2 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-011-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 3 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-011-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 4 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-011-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 5 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 6 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 7 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 8 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 9 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 12 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 13 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 14 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 15 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 16 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 17 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 18 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 19 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 21 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 22 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 23 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-019-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 24 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-020-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 25 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-021-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 26 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-022-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 27 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-023-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 28 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-024-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 29 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-025-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 30 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-026-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 31 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-027-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 32 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-028-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 33 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-029-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 34 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-030-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 35 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-031-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 36 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-032-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 37 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-033-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 38 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-034-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 39 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-035-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 40 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-036-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 41 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-037-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 42 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-038-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 43 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-039-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 44 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-040-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 45 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 Willdan Financial Services Page 16 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
461-012-041-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 46 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-042-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 47 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-043-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 48 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-044-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 49 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMEDNED) T-38 461-012-045-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 50 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-046-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 51 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-047-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 52 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-048-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 53 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-049-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 54 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-050-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 55 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-051-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 56 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-052-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 57 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-053-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 58 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-054-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 59 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-055-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 60 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-056-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 61 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-057-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 62 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-058-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 63 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-059-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 64 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-060-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 65 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-061-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 66 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-062-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 67 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-063-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 68 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-064-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 69 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-065-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 70 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-066-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 71 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-067-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 72 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-068-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 73 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-069-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 74 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-070-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 75 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-071-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 76 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-072-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 77 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-073-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 78 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-074-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 79 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-075-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 80 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-076-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 81 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-077-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 82 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-078-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 83 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-012-081-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOTS 10 & 11 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-012-082-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 POR LOT 20 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 84 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 Willdan Financial Services Page 17 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
461-013-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 85 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-013-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 86 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-013-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 87 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-013-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 88 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-013-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 89 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS # 4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-013-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 90 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-013-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 91 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-013-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 92 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 1 (AMENDED) T-38 461-013-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 93 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 94 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 95 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 96 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 97 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 98 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 99 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 100 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 101 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-019-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 102 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-020-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 103 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-021-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 104 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-022-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 105 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-023-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 106 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 3 MOR T-39 461-013-024-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 107 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-025-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 108 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-026-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 109 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-027-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 110 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-028-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 111 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-029-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 112 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-030-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 113 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-031-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 114 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-032-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 115 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-033-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 116 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-034-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 117 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-035-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 118 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-036-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 119 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-013-037-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 120 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT 4 T-12 461-013-038-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 121 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS #4 PH 2 MOR T-39 461-021-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 64 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 65 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 66 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 67 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 Willdan Financial Services Page 18 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
461-021-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 68 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 69 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 70 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 71 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 72 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 73 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 74 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 75 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 76 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 77 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 78 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 79 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 80 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-021-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 81 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 82 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 83 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 84 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 85 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 86 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 87 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 88 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 89 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 90 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 91 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 92 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 93 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 94 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 95 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-022-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 96 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 97 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 98 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 99 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 100 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 101 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 102 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 103 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 104 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 105 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 106 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 107 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 108 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 Willdan Financial Services Page 19 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
461-023-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 109 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 110 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 111 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 112 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 113 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 114 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-019-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 115 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-023-020-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 116 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 117 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 118 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 119 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 120 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 121 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 122 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 123 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 124 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 125 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 126 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 127 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 128 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 129 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 130 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 131 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 132 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 133 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-024-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 134 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-001-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 1 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-002-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 2 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-003-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 3 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-004-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 4 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-005-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 5 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-006-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 6 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-007-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 7 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-008-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 8 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-009-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 9 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-010-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 10 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-011-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 11 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-012-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 12 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-013-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 13 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-014-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 14 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-015-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 15 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 Willdan Financial Services Page 20 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
461-025-016-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 16 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-017-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 17 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-018-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 18 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-019-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 19 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-020-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 20 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-021-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 21 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-022-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 22 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-023-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 23 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-024-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 24 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-025-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 25 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-026-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 26 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-027-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 27 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-028-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 28 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-029-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 29 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-030-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 30 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-031-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 31 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-032-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 32 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-033-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 33 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-034-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 34 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-035-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 35 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-036-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 36 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-037-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 37 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-038-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 38 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-039-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 39 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-040-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 40 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-041-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 41 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-042-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 42 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-043-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 43 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-044-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 44 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-045-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 45 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-046-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 46 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-047-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 47 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-048-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 48 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-049-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 49 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-050-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 50 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-051-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 51 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-052-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 52 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-053-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 53 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-054-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 54 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-055-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 55 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-056-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 56 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 Willdan Financial Services Page 21 of 22

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY ZONE CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT

NON-RES

ACREAGE
SF

UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Olympus Pointe Landscaping & Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
461-025-057-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 57 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-058-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 58 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-059-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 59 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-060-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 60 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-061-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 61 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-062-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 62 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 461-025-063-000 SF Residential D 164.88 164.89 0.0 1.0 LOT 63 OLYMPUS HEIGHTS UNIT #3 T-25 Summary Fields Value
ACTIVE PARCELS 868
LEVIED PARCELS 826
CHARGE $208,261.88
MAXIMUM ASMT $428,629.21
NON-RES ACREAGE 530.8045
SF UNITS 654
Willdan Financial Services Page 22 of 22
1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-130

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE,

CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF

ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RIVERSIDE AVENUE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE The City Council of the City of Roseville, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, The City Council has, by previous Resolutions, formed the Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District (hereafter referred to as the “District”) pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”), that provides for levy and collection of assessments by the County of Placer for the City of Roseville to pay the maintenance and services of street lighting, landscaping, and all appurtenant facilities and operations related thereto; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has retained Willdan Financial Services (hereinafter “Engineer”) for the purpose of assisting with the establishment of the assessments, the annexation of territory, and to prepare and file an Engineer’s Annual Levy Report (hereinafter referred to as the “Engineer’s Report”) with the City Clerk in accordance with the act, and in accordance with the California Constitution, Articles XIIIC and XIIID;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY

THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE RIVERSIDE AVENUE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1 Engineer’s Report: The City Council hereby orders the Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk the Engineer’s Report concerning the levy of assessments for the District in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 22622 of the Act.

Section 2 Proposed improvements and any substantial changes in existing improvements: The improvements within the District include: maintenance, servicing, administration and operation of landscape, lighting and streetscape improvements, other public improvements within the street right of way areas and all appurtenant facilities related thereto within the District. The Engineer’s Report describes all new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements.
2 RESOLUTION NO. 22-130
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 2022.
,
Mayor
City of Roseville
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF PLACER) ss.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE)
I, , City Clerk of the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _ was adopted by the City Council of said City of Roseville at a regular meeting of said council held on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville
1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-131

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE,

CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS

FOR THE RIVERSIDE AVENUE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
The City Council of the City of Roseville, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, The City Council has, by previous Resolutions, formed the Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District (hereafter referred to as the “District”), and initiated proceedings for Fiscal Year 2022/2023, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”) that provides for the levy and collection of assessments by the County of Placer for the City of Roseville to pay the maintenance and services of all improvements and facilities related thereto; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has retained Willdan Financial Services for the purpose of assisting with the Annual Levy of the District, and to prepare and file a report with the City Clerk in accordance with the Act; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY

THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE RIVERSIDE AVENUE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3, SECTION 22624 OF THE ACT, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1 Intention: The City Council hereby declares that it is its intention to seek the Annual Levy of the District pursuant to the Act, over and including the land within the District boundary, and to levy and collect assessments on all such land to pay the annual costs of the improvements.

Section 2 Proposed improvements and any substantial changes in existing improvements: The improvements within the District include: maintenance, servicing, administration and operation of landscape, lighting and streetscape improvements, other public improvements within the street right of way areas and all appurtenant facilities related thereto within the District. The Engineer’s Report describes all new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements.
2 Section 3 Boundaries and Designation: The boundaries of the District are described as the boundaries previously defined in the formation documents of the original District. The District is known and designated as:
“Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District”
Section 4 Proposed Assessment Amounts: The proposed assessments are outlined in the Report.

District Assessments are calculated in accordance with the method of apportionment established for the District and do not exceed the assessment rates and annual inflationary adjustment previously authorized by City Council and approved by the property owners in accordance with the provisions of the California State Constitution, Article XIIID.

Section 5 Public Hearing(s): The City Council hereby declares its intention to conduct a Public Hearing annually concerning the levy of assessments for the District in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 22626 of the Act.

Section 6 Notice: The City Clerk shall give notice of the time and place of the Public Hearing by causing the publishing of this Resolution once in a local newspaper not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of this Resolution on the official bulletin board customarily used by the City Council for the posting of notices.

Section 7 Time and Place of Public Hearing: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing on these matters will be held by the City Council on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as feasible in the regular meeting chambers located at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California.
3 RESOLUTION NO. 22-131
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 2022.
,
Mayor
City of Roseville
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF PLACER) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville
1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-132

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER’S ANNUAL

LEVY REPORT FOR THE RIVERSIDE AVENUE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
The City Council of the City of Roseville, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, the City Council has, by previous Resolutions, ordered the preparation of an Annual Levy Report (hereafter referred to as the “Engineer’s Report”) for the district known and designated as the Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District (hereafter referred to as the “District”), pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has retained Willdan Financial Services (hereinafter “Engineer”), for the purpose of assisting with the establishment of the assessments and to prepare and file an Engineer’s Report with the City Clerk in accordance with the Act, and in accordance with the requirements of the California Constitution, Articles XIIIC and XIIID; and, WHEREAS, there has now been presented to this City Council the Engineer’s Report as required by Chapter 1, Article 4, Section 22566 of said Act; and, WHEREAS, this City Council has carefully examined and reviewed the Engineer’s Report as presented, and is preliminarily satisfied with the District, each and all of the budget items and documents as set forth therein, and is satisfied that the assessments, on a preliminary basis, have been spread in accordance with the benefits received from the improvements, operation, maintenance and services to be performed within the District, as set forth in said Engineer’s Report; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE

CITY COUNCIL FOR THE RIVERSIDE AVENUE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1 That the above recitals are all true and correct.

Section 2 That the Engineer’s Report as presented, consists of the following:
a. A Description of Improvements
b. The Annual Budget (Costs and Expenses of Maintenance, Services, Operations and District Administration)
c. The Assessment Roll containing the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Levy for each Assessor Parcel within the District
2 Section 3 The Engineer’s Report is hereby approved on a preliminary basis, and ordered to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk as a permanent record and to remain open to public inspection.

Section 4 That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, and the minutes of this meeting shall so reflect the presentation of the Engineer’sReport. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 22-132
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 2022.
,
Mayor
City of Roseville
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF PLACER) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville

27368 Via Industria
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
T 951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864
F 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
City of Roseville

Riverside Avenue
Landscaping and Lighting District

FY 2022/23 ENGINEER’S ANNUAL LEVY REPORT
Intent Meeting: April 20, 2022
Public Hearing: May 18, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................1 A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 B. COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION ......................................... 2 C. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.............................................. 2 D. IMPROVEMENTS AUTHORIZED BY THE 1972 ACT................................. 2 E. DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE .......... 4 II. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT ......................................................................6 A. GENERAL............................................................................................................ 6 B. SPECIAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 6 C. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY................................................................... 8 D. ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA................................................................ 9 III. DISTRICT BUDGET..........................................................................................11 A. FY 2022/23 BUDGET ..................................................................................... 11 B. FY 2022/23 ASSESSMENT RATES ............................................................ 12 C. FY 2022/23 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION .......................................... 12 D. DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS............................................................ 13 E. REHABILITATION RESERVE – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ........ 17 APPENDIX A – DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP ........................................................19 APPENDIX B — FY 2022/23 ASSESSMENT ROLL ..............................................21 FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 1 I. OVERVIEW
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Roseville (“City”) annually levies and collects special assessments in order to maintain the improvements within the Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District (“District”). The District was formed in January of 2007 and is levied annual assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (“1972 Act”).

The Engineer’s Report (“Report”) describes the District, any new annexations, changes to the District, and the proposed assessments for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. The special benefit assessments are based on historical and estimated costs to maintain the District improvements. These assessments, which provide a direct and special benefit to properties within the District, will provide funding for the operation and maintenance of District improvements.

The word “parcel,” for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) by the Placer County Assessor’s Office. The Placer County Auditor/Controller uses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and specific Tax Code Accounts, to identify on the County’s tax roll, properties assessed for special district benefit assessments.

Following approval of the Report, the City Council will by resolution, order the improvements to be made and confirm the levy and collection of assessments herein pursuant to the 1972 Act. The assessment rates and method of apportionment described in this Report as approved or modified by the City Council defines the assessments to be applied to each parcel within the District for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022/23. The assessments as approved will be submitted to the Placer County Auditor/Controller to be included on the property tax roll for each parcel.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 2 B. COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION
The City Council, pursuant to the provisions of the “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, beginning with Section 22500 (the “1972 Act”); Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIIID”); and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, beginning with Government Code Section 53750 (the “Implementation Act”) (the 1972 Act, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act are referred to collectively as the “Assessment Law”) initiated proceedings for the formation of the District on November 15, 2006 and to levy and collect annual assessments against lots and parcels within the District for FY 2007/08. On January 17, 2007, pursuant to Assessment Law, the City conducted a Public Hearing and tabulated the returned ballots. The City determined that a majority protest did not exist and approved the District’s maximum assessment rate and annual inflationary adjustment factor.

Pursuant to the 1972 Act, an annual Public Hearing is conducted by the City Council to accept property owner and public comments, to review the Engineer’s Annual Levy Report prior to approving the annual assessments to be levied on the County tax rolls. The assessments described in this Report have been prepared in accordance with the1972 Act and Assessment Law.

C. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
The proposed territory within the District consists of all lots, parcels and subdivisions of land as shown on the Boundary Map titled “Boundary Map of Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District” contained within this report in Appendix A-1.

The District is bounded by Douglas Boulevard to the north, Darling Way to the south and includes parcels that front Riverside Avenue. It is centrally located between Interstate 80 and Downtown Roseville and is east of the Union Pacific Railroad.

The District currently has a mix of different types of land uses including automotive related retail and car lots, community/neighborhood retail, offices, services, and residential units.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 3 • The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities. • The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing. • The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.

Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to:
• The cost of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment;
• The costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting and mailing of notices;
• Compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; • Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; • Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements;
• Any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5.
• Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.

The 1972 Act defines "Maintain" or "maintenance" to mean furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including:
• Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. • Providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury.
• The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. • The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 4 • Provide for a temporary advance to the improvement fund from any available and unencumbered funds of the local agency to pay all or part of the cost of the improvements and collect those advanced moneys from the annual installments collected through the assessments.
• Borrow an amount necessary to finance the estimated cost of the proposed improvements. The amount borrowed, including amounts for bonds issued to finance the estimated cost of the proposed improvements.

E. DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE
The District, through the levy of special assessments, is to provide funding for ongoing maintenance, operation and servicing of landscaping and lighting improvements located within the public rights-of-ways and dedicated easements located within the District. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, all materials, equipment, utilities, labor, and appurtenant facilities related to the ongoing maintenance of the improvements. The improvements to be maintained and services are generally described as follows:

Landscaping Improvements
The general landscaping improvements in the District are to be consistent with the improvements on Vernon Street located north of the District, which intersects Riverside Avenue. As a gateway to downtown Roseville, Riverside Avenue’s compatibility with Vernon Street links the downtown area and Riverside Gateway area together.

The landscaping improvements have been designed to enhance the area within the District and may include, but are not limited to ground cover, shrubs and plants, trees, irrigation and drainage systems, ornamental lighting, masonry walls or other fencing, hardscape improvements, monuments and landmarks, mid-block bulbs, bulb-outs, and associated appurtenant located within the street rights-of-way and public areas within the District. Specifically, the proposed landscape improvement areas for this District are:
• Landscaping and hardscape improvements within the public rights-of-way of the streets within the District including, but not limited to, Riverside Avenue including the corners of Riverside Avenue and Second Street, Third Street, Fourth Street, Fifth Street, Sixth Street, Darling Way, Fern Street, Cherry Street, and Bonita Street.
• Decorative banners along Riverside Avenue.
• Transit facilities including bus stop seating and decorative shelters. • Roundabout improvements including plantings, paving, and landmark feature located at the intersection of Vernon St., Douglas Blvd., and Riverside Ave. • A Gateway feature located at the intersection of Darling Way and Riverside Avenue.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 5 • Various amenities associated with the landscape improvements and public areas within the District, including, but not limited to, trash receptacles, street furniture, bike racks, entry signs, sidewalks, fencing, and retaining walls.

Specifically, not included as District improvements are those improvements located on private property, improvements and facilities that are outside the boundaries of the District and/or area funded by other sources available to the City.

Public Lighting Improvements
The lighting improvements may include, but are not limited to, the cost of providing, maintaining and servicing of lighting fixtures, poles, meters, conduits, electrical cable, and associated appurtenant facilities associated with:
• Lighting facilities within the landscaped areas and public areas including safety lights, security lights or ornamental lights installed as part of the District improvements; and
• Public street light improvements located on the streets within the District.

Specifically excluded from the assessment are the street light energy costs.

These costs are to be paid for by the City from other revenue sources.

Detailed maps and descriptions of the location and extent of the specific improvements to be maintained by the District are on file in the Office of Public Works and by reference are made part of this Report.

Description of Maintenance and Services
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of landscaping and street lighting improvements facilities and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping and street lighting improvements, or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping improvements including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, mowing, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.

Servicing means the furnishing of water and electricity for the irrigation of the landscape improvements or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy for the operation of the landscaping improvements or appurtenant facilities. The street lighting improvements shall be maintained to provide adequate illumination; however, the City will be paying the actual energy costs of the streetlights.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 6 II. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
A. GENERAL
The Implementation Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, which include the construction, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping improvements, streetlights and traffic signals.

Streets and Highways Code Section 22573 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than the assessed value. “The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
In addition, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act require that a parcel’s assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost for the proportional special benefit conferred to that parcel. Article XIIID and the Implementation Act further provides that only special benefits are assessable, and the City must separate the general benefits from the special benefits. They also require that publicly owned properties that specifically benefit from the improvements be assessed.

B. SPECIAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
In conjunction with the provisions of the 1972 Act, the California Constitution Article XIIID addresses several key criteria for the levy of assessments, notably:

Article XIIID Section 2d defines District as follows:
“District means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service”;
Article XIIID Section 2i defines Special Benefit as follows:
“Special benefit” means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large.

General enhancement of property value does not constitute “special benefit.” Article XIIID Section 4a defines proportional special benefit assessments as follows:

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 7 “An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.” This District was formed to establish and provide for the improvements that enhance the presentation of the surrounding properties and developments. These improvements will directly benefit the parcels to be assessed within the District.

The assessments and method of apportionment is based on the premise that the assessments will be used to construct and install landscape and lighting improvements within the District as well as provide for the annual maintenance of those improvements, and the assessment revenues generated by District will be used solely for such purposes.

The costs of the proposed improvements have been identified and allocated to properties within the District based on special benefit. The improvements to be provided by this District and for which properties will be assessed have been identified as an essential component and local amenity that provides a direct reflection and extension of the properties within the District which the property owners and residents have expressed a high level of support.

The method of apportionment (method of assessment) set forth in the Report is based on the premise that each assessed property receives special benefits from the landscape and lighting improvements within the District, and the assessment obligation for each parcel reflects that parcel’s proportional special benefits as compared to other properties that receive special benefits.

Proper maintenance and operation of parkway landscaping and streetlights provides special benefit to adjacent properties by providing community character, security, safety and vitality. In addition, these improvements will enhance the ability of property owners to attract and maintain customers as well as increase the viability of commercial development.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 8 Landscaping Special Benefit
Landscaping and appurtenant facilities, if well maintained, provide beautification, shade and enhancement of the desirability of the surroundings, and therefore increase property value. Specifically, they provide a sense of ownership and a common theme in the community providing aesthetic appeal and increased desirability of properties.

Landscaping provides special benefit to those developments that are directly adjacent to the public streets.

Landscaping General Benefit
The Improvements were installed to directly benefit the property owners in the District to enhance business and development opportunities. Therefore, it has been determined that there are no general benefits associated with the landscaping improvements.

Lighting Special Benefit
The operation, maintenance and servicing of lighting along local streets and arterial streets of a development provide the following special benefits:
• Improved security of lots and parcels along the perimeter of the development;
• Improved nighttime visibility for the local access of emergency vehicles; and • Improved safety and traffic circulation to and from parcels.

Street Lights General Benefit
Similar to the landscaping improvements described above, the Improvements were installed to directly benefit the property owners in the District to enhance business and development opportunities. Therefore, it has been determined that there are no general benefits associated with lighting improvements.

C. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To establish the special benefit to the individual parcels within the District, a formula that spreads the costs of the maintenance based on the special benefit must be established. The improvements have been reviewed and a formula has been established to apportion the maintenance costs based on benefit.

The method of assessment is based on the front footage of each parcel located within the District. The parcel’s Front Footage was determined based on Assessor Parcel maps or other sources. Only Front Footage on Riverside Avenue was used.

Based on the above formula, the FY 2007/08 maximum assessment rate approved on January 17, 2007 through a property owner balloting (the “Initial FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 9 Assessment Rate” or the “Base Year Maximum Assessment Rate”) is $6.45 per each foot of frontage.

The following formulas were used to first calculate the District’s Initial Assessment Rate and then each parcel’s FY 2007/08 assessment (proportional benefit):

Step 1:

Balance to Levy ÷ Total Front Footage =
Maximum Front Footage Rate
Step 2:

Parcel Front Footage x Maximum Front Footage Rate =
Maximum Assessment
The Total Front Footage was the sum of all the Front Feet within the District. The Initial Assessment Rate per Front Foot was established by taking the total cost of improvements (Balance to Levy) and dividing that amount by the Total Front Footage within the District. The Initial Assessment Rate per Front Foot, which is also the FY 2007/08 Maximum Front Footage Rate, is then applied back to each individual parcel’s Front Footage to determine the parcel’s proportionate special benefit and assessment obligation (The FY 2007/08 Maximum Assessment).

D. ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA
The purpose of establishing an Assessment Range Formula is to provide for reasonable increases and inflationary adjustment to annual assessment rates without requiring the District to go through the requirements of Proposition 218 in order to get a small increase in assessments. This District provides for an annual adjustment to the Maximum Assessment Rate of the lesser of the percentage change in the area’s Local Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, which is currently the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (the “CPI”) or three percent (3%) (the “Escalation Percentage”).

The CPI in this adjustment shall be determined through CPI data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics from December to December, beginning with the period from December 2006 to December 2007.

In applying this year’s inflationary adjustment, the Escalation Percentage will increase the FY 2022/23 maximum assessment rate by 3% over that of the prior year.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 10 The Assessment Range Formula shall be applied to all future assessments within the District beginning in fiscal year 2008/09. Generally, if the proposed annual assessment rate for the current fiscal year is less than or equal to the calculated Maximum Assessment Rate, then the proposed annual assessment is not considered an increased assessment. The Maximum Assessment Rate is equal to the FY 2007/08 Maximum Assessment Rate, which was approved on January 17, 2007 through a property owner balloting (the “Initial Assessment Rate” or “Base Year Assessment Rate”) and adjusted annually by the Escalation Percentage.

Beginning in the second fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2008/09) and each fiscal year thereafter, the Maximum Assessment Rate would be recalculated, and a new Maximum Assessment Rate established within the District.

The Maximum Assessment Rate is adjusted annually and is calculated independent of the District’s annual budget and proposed annual assessment. Any proposed annual assessment is not considered an increased assessment, even if the proposed assessment is greater than the assessment applied in the prior fiscal year.

Although the Maximum Assessment Rate will increase each year, the actual assessment rate may remain unchanged. The Maximum Assessment Rate adjustment is designed to establish a reasonable limit on assessments. The Maximum Assessment Rate calculated each year does not require or facilitate an increase to the annual assessment rate and neither does it restrict assessments to the adjusted maximum amount. If the budget and assessment for the fiscal year do not require an increase, or the increase is less than the adjusted Maximum Assessment Rate, then the required budget and assessment may be applied without additional property owner balloting. If the budget and assessments calculated requires an increase greater than the adjusted Maximum Assessment, then the assessment is considered an increased assessment and would be subject to balloting.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 11 III. DISTRICT BUDGET
A. FY 2022/23 BUDGET
Fund balance information is reported in Section C on the following page.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 12 B. FY 2022/23 ASSESSMENT RATES
C. FY 2022/23 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 13 D. DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS
Description of the terms used in the preceding Budget, Assessment Rates and Fund Balance tables are listed below:

BUDGET:

DIRECT COSTS
Contract Maintenance - Landscaping - Includes all regularly scheduled contract labor, materials, supplies and equipment required to properly maintain and ensure the satisfactory condition or maintenance of all landscaping improvements, irrigation and related drainage systems, as well as maintenance of appurtenant facilities (the “improvements”).

Repair & Maintenance - Landscaping - This line item includes repairs that are generally unforeseen and not normally included in the annual maintenance contract costs. This may include repair of damaged amenities due to vandalism, storms, etc.

Repair & Maintenance – Lighting - This line item includes bulb replacement and repairs that are generally unforeseen. This may include repair of damaged amenities due to vandalism, storms, etc.

Repair & Maintenance - Streetscape/Signage - This line item includes repairs that are generally unforeseen and not normally included in the annual maintenance contract costs. This may include repair of damaged amenities due to vandalism, storms, etc.

Repair & Maintenance – Tree Work - This line item includes annual costs for tree maintenance not included in the annual contract maintenance portion of the budget. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Utilities - The furnishing of water and electricity required for the operation and maintenance of the improvements.

Rehab Reserve Project Expenditures – Expected costs for installation, replacement or planned upgrades of District improvements for the current year that were previously funded or accumulated in the Rehabilitation Reserve. The Rehabilitation Reserve is used to accumulate funds for costs associated with the future rehabilitation or replacement of District improvements that cannot be conveniently raised from a single year’s assessment. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 14

ADMINISTRATION COSTS
City Administration – Estimated costs incurred by the City Finance Department and other Departments in preparing the annual budget for the Engineer’s Report, together with other financial information required to determine the annual assessment. These costs would also include the preparation, posting and publishing of public notices required for City Council action relating to the District, as well as costs to perform legal review of documents.

Contract Administration – Park’s Dept – Estimated Costs of Park and Recreation Department staff to coordinate and oversee the maintenance contracts and overall repair and maintenance of the District. This amount also includes the cost of the Department’s estimates and analysis of certain budget items, estimated costs and useful lives of certain District Improvements.

County Auditor Fees - A fee of 1% of the total levy amount that is charged to the District by the County for placing assessments on property tax bills.

Consulting and Professional Services – Includes the costs and expenses of contracting with various professionals to provide legal, engineering and district administration services directly related to the District, including the calculation of the annual assessment amounts and the preparation of the Engineer’s’ Report.

Public Hearing Publishing Costs –Includes the out of pocket costs to publish public notices required for City Council action relating to the District.

Total Direct and Administration Costs – The total expected costs of the District.

BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Replenishment/(Use) of Operating Reserve – A “Replenishment” increases the levy in order to replenish the Operating Reserve. On the other hand, a “Use” of the Operating Reserve decreases the levy by drawing funds from the Operating Reserve for current year expenditures. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget. Further information regarding the function of the Operating Reserve is provided under “FUND BALANCE INFORMATION” in the following pages of this Section.

Contribution for /(Use of) Rehab Reserve — A “Contribution” increases the levy in order to generate funding for the Rehabilitation Reserve. This reserve allows for the accumulation of funds for the possible rehabilitation projects or replacements in future years. On the other hand, a “Use of” of the Rehabilitation Reserve provides current year funding of rehabilitation projects or replacements from available funds within the Rehabilitation Reserve. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget. Further information regarding the function of the FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 15 Rehabilitation Reserve is provided under “FUND BALANCE INFORMATION” in the following pages of this Section.

Rounding Adjustment – The necessary rounding adjustment(s) due to limitations of the County property tax system that requires even penny levy amounts to be placed on the secured tax roll.

BALANCE TO LEVY - This is the total amount to be levied and collected through assessments for the current fiscal year for each zone. The Balance to Levy represents the sum of the total District costs together with any applicable adjustments to the budget as described above.

ASSESSMENT RATES:

APPLIED ASSESSMENT RATE
Number of Assessable Parcels - The total number of parcels that are expected to be assessed. Non-assessable lots or parcels include government-owned land, public utility-owned property, land principally encumbered by public rights-of-way or easements, common areas, and/or parcels within the boundaries of the District currently do not benefit from the improvements and are therefore not assessed.

Total Assessable Front Footage - The total amount of assessable Front Footage within the District in accordance with the Method of Assessment Section of this Report.

Applied Assessment Rate - The assessment rate to be applied to the front footage of each non-exempt parcel within the District for the current fiscal year.

Maximum Assessment Rate - The Maximum Assessment Rate per front foot for the current fiscal year.

Potential Maximum Assessment – The total amount that can be assessed against all non-exempt District parcels for the current fiscal year based upon the expected assessable front footage within the District.

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:

OPERATING RESERVE
Beginning Operating Reserve Balance 7-1-2022 (est.) - The anticipated beginning balance of cash and receivables net of any unpaid prior year obligations for each Zone. These beginning balances shall be used to fund each Zone’s expenditures from July 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, as the Operating Reserve is required to compensate for the approximate six-month delay between the start of the District’s fiscal year and the receipt of the collections from the County. All FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 16 Rehabilitation Reserve balances, if any, are excluded from the Operating Reserve balances and shall be shown separately in the Report.

Replenish from FY 22/23 Levy – This amount is added to the FY 2022/23 levy in order to replenish the Operating Reserve. Due to the six-month delay from the District’s receipt of assessment collections, the Operating Reserve balance shall be sufficiently funded to provide for expenditures from the period of July 1, 2022 (the beginning of the Fiscal Year) through December 31, 2022. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Use for FY 22/23 Expenses – The amount of the Operating Reserve to be used to fund FY 2022/23 expenses. Portions of the Operating Reserve may be slated for current year expenditures in order to reduce the Ending Operating Reserve Balance to an amount no greater than the expected District costs for the period of July 1, 2022 (the beginning of the Fiscal Year) through December 31, 2022. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Transfer from/(to) the Rehab Reserve — The amount of Operating Reserve monies to be transferred to or from the Rehabilitation Reserve. Periodically, funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve may be needed to respond to changing maintenance needs of the improvements or other factors. Accordingly, any or all funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve are subject to transfer into the same zone’s Operating Reserve, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department or equivalent, in order to provide for the maintenance and operation of the improvements. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Ending Operating Reserve Balance 6-30-2023 (est.) - This amount represents the anticipated Operating Reserve balance/(deficit) for each Zone as of June 30, 2023. The size of each Zone’s Operating Reserve is limited by Streets and Highways Code 22569 which states that an Operating Reserve shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance, service and incidental expenses from the first day of the fiscal year (July 1) to the date that the Agency expects to receive the first apportionment of collections from the County, which is estimated to be December 31. Therefore, each Zone may retain an Operating Reserve amounting to the District’s first six-months of expenses in order to meet ongoing obligations until the first collections are received from the County. All Rehabilitation Reserve balances, if any, are excluded from the Operating Reserve balances and shall be shown separately in the Report.

REHABILITATION RESERVE
Beginning Rehab Reserve Balance 7-1-2022 (est.) — The projected balance of funds in the Rehabilitation Reserve as of July 1, 2022. Streets and Highways Code 22660 allows the District to generate and accumulate funds over several years to fund District improvements that cannot be conveniently raised from a single year’s assessment.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 17 Collect from FY 22/23 Levy — This amount is added to the levy to accumulate funding of future year rehabilitation projects, replacements, restorations or upgrades of District improvements. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Use for FY 22/23 Rehab Projects – The amount of Rehabilitation Reserve monies expected to be transferred out of the Rehabilitation Reserve to fund the costs of installation, replacement or planned upgrades of District improvements for the current year. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Transfer from/(to) the Operating Reserve — The amount of Rehabilitation Reserve monies to be transferred to or from the Operating Reserve. Periodically, funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve may be needed to respond to changing maintenance needs of the improvements or other factors. Accordingly, any or all funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve are subject to transfer into the same zone’s Operating Reserve, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department, in order to provide for the maintenance and operation of the improvements. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Ending Rehab Reserve Balance 6-30-2023 (est.) - The projected balance of funds in the Rehabilitation Reserve as of June 30, 2023. These funds shall be used to provide for future year rehabilitation projects, replacements, restorations or upgrades of District improvements which cannot be conveniently raised from a single year’s assessment.

E. REHABILITATION RESERVE – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Streets and Highways Code 22660 allows the District to generate and accumulate funds over several years to fund District improvements that cannot be conveniently raised from a single year’s assessment.

The Report provides a five-year Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) which shows projected expenditures related to the rehabilitation, restoration and/or replacement of District improvements, and other allowable costs. The Current Fiscal Year CIP is shown in the preceding Budget Section A. The projected CIP costs for the remaining four years are shown in the table below.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 18 From time to time, funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve may be needed to respond to changing needs due to the condition of the improvements or other factors. Accordingly, any or all funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve are subject to transfer into the District’s Operating Reserve, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department or equivalent, in order to provide for the maintenance and/or operation of the improvements.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 19 APPENDIX A – DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP
The boundary map for the District has previously been submitted to the Clerk of the City in the format required under the Act and is, by reference, hereby made part of this Report. These District Boundary Maps are available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours.

For general reference purposes, a summary of the District’s Boundaries is presented herein.

FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 20 FY 2022/23 Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District Page 21 APPENDIX B — FY 2022/23 ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel identification, for each lot or parcel within the District, shall be the parcel as shown on the Placer County Assessor's map for the year in which this Report is prepared.

A listing of parcels to be assessed within this District, along with the proposed assessment amounts, shall be submitted to the City Clerk, under a separate cover, and by reference is made part of this Report.

Non-assessable lots or parcels may include areas of public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN by the County); dedicated public easements, open space areas and rights-of-ways including public greenbelts and parkways; utility rights-of-ways; common areas; landlocked parcels, small parcels vacated by the County, bifurcated lots, and any other property that cannot be developed. These types of parcels are considered to receive little or no benefit from the improvements and are therefore exempted from assessment.

At the conclusion of the public hearing for the District and the proposed assessments, approval of the Report (as submitted or as modified) confirms the method of apportionment and the assessment rate to be levied against each eligible parcel and thereby constitutes the approved levy and collection of assessments for FY 2022/23. The listing of parcels and the amount of assessment to be levied shall be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller and included on the FY 2022/23 property tax roll for each parcel.

If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the Current Fiscal Year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel or parcels shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Report. Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amount applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT
FRONT

FOOTAGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
014-011-004-000 Assessable $ 768.30 $ 928.76 100.0 L 7 8 THEILE SUB 014-011-008-000 Assessable 1,267.68 1,532.46 165.0 LOTS 2 3 4 FR 1 THEILE SUB 014-011-009-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 LOTS 5 6 THEILE SUBD 014-013-003-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 FR LOT 1 THEILE SUB 014-013-004-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 FR LOT 2 THEILE SUB 014-013-005-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 3 THEILE SUB 014-013-006-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 4 THEILE SUB 014-013-007-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 L 5 THEILE SUB 014-013-008-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 L 6 THEILE SUBD 014-013-009-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 L 7 THEILE SUBD 014-013-010-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 FR L 8 THEILE SUBD 014-024-003-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 L 1 THEILE SUB 014-024-004-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 2 THEILE SUB 014-024-005-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 3 THEILE SUBD 014-024-006-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 4 THEILE SUB 014-024-007-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 5 THEILE SUB 014-024-008-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 6 THEILE SUB 014-024-009-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 7 THEILE SUB 014-024-010-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 8 THEILE SUB 014-033-005-000 Assessable 437.92 529.39 57.0 FR LOT 2 THEILE 2 SUB 014-033-007-000 Assessable 875.86 1,058.79 114.0 POR LOT 4 THEILE #2 SUB C-34 014-033-008-000 Assessable 875.86 1,058.79 114.0 FR LOT 5 THEILE 2 SUB 014-033-009-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 FR LOT 6 THEILE 2 SUB 014-033-014-000 Assessable 875.86 1,058.79 114.0 FR L 3 THEILE #2 SUBD 014-033-025-000 Assessable 437.92 529.39 57.0 PAR A PMOR 22 132 014-033-028-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 FR L 1 THEILE 2 SUBD 014-033-029-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 FR L 1 THEILE 2 SUBD 014-053-003-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 LOTS 1 2 THEILE 3 SUB 014-053-004-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 3 THEILE 3 SUB 014-053-005-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 4 THEILE 3 SUB 014-053-006-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 5 THEILE 3 SUB 014-053-007-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 L 6 THEILE 3 SUB 014-053-008-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 L 7 THEILE #3 014-053-023-000 Assessable 1,110.64 1,342.62 144.56 L 8 THEILES SUBD 014-084-034-000 Assessable 872.94 1,055.26 113.62 FR SEC 11 10 6 014-091-014-000 Assessable 261.22 315.78 34.0 FR LOT 12 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-015-000 Assessable 253.52 306.49 33.0 FR LOTS 11 12 CHERRY GLEN 014-091-016-000 Assessable 253.52 306.49 33.0 FR LOT 11 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-017-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 L 10 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-018-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 9 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-019-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 LOTS 7 8 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-020-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 6 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-021-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 5 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-022-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 4 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-023-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 FR LOTS 1 2 3 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-091-024-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 FR LOTS 1 2 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-141-012-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 12 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-013-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 11 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-014-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 10 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-015-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 9 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-016-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 8 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-017-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 7 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-019-000 Assessable 255.84 309.28 33.3 FR LOT 5 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-020-000 Assessable 255.84 309.28 33.3 FR LOTS 4 5 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-021-000 Assessable 255.84 309.28 33.3 FR LOT 4 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-022-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 3 CHERRY GL TR 014-141-023-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 LOTS 1 2 CHERRY GL TR City of Roseville
Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
Willdan Financial Services Page 1 of 2

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT
FRONT

FOOTAGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Riverside Avenue Landscaping and Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
014-141-026-000 Assessable 192.06 232.19 25.0 FR LOT 6 BLK B CHERRY GLEN 014-141-027-000 Assessable 192.06 232.19 25.0 FR LOT 6 BLK B CHERRY GLEN 014-191-016-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 11 CHERRY GL TR 014-191-017-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 10 CHERRY GL TR 014-191-018-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 9 CHERRY GL TR 014-191-019-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 8 CHERRY GL TR 014-191-020-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 7 CHERRY GL TR 014-191-021-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 LOTS 5 6 CHERRY GL TR 014-191-022-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 LOTS 3 4 CHERRY GL TR 014-191-023-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 FR LOTS 1 2 CHERRY GL TR 014-191-025-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 12 CHERRY GL TR 014-251-011-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 L 6 7 CHERRY GL TR 014-251-012-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 L 4 5 CHERRY GL TR 014-251-013-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 3 CHERRY GL TR 014-251-014-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 LOT 2 CHERRY GL TR 014-251-015-000 Assessable 384.14 464.38 50.0 FR LOT 1 CHERRY GLEN TR 014-251-021-000 Assessable 768.30 928.76 100.0 LOTS 8 9 CHERRY GL TR 014-251-027-000 Assessable 1,152.44 1,393.14 150.0 1.2 AC SEC 11 10 6 472-180-009-000 Assessable 1,157.66 1,399.46 150.68 PARCEL A PARCEL MOR 1 11 Summary Fields Value
ACTIVE PARCELS 76
LEVIED PARCELS 76
CHARGE $38,258.88
MAXIMUM ASMT $46,250.09
FRONT FOOTAGE 4,979.76
Willdan Financial Services Page 2 of 2
1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-133

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE,

CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF

ASSESSMENTS FOR THE VERNON STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE The City Council of the City of Roseville, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, The City Council has, by previous Resolutions, formed the Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District (hereafter referred to as the “District”) pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”), that provides for levy and collection of assessments by the County of Placer for the City of Roseville to pay the maintenance and services of street lighting, landscaping, and all appurtenant facilities and operations related thereto; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has retained Willdan Financial Services (hereinafter “Engineer”) for the purpose of assisting with the establishment of the assessments, the annexation of territory, and to prepare and file an Engineer’s Annual Levy Report (hereinafter referred to as the “Engineer’s Report”) with the City Clerk in accordance with the act, and in accordance with the California Constitution, Articles XIIIC and XIIID;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY

THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE VERNON STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 2 Proposed improvements and any substantial changes in existing improvements: The improvements within the District include: maintenance, servicing, administration and operation of landscape, lighting and streetscape improvements, other public improvements within the street right of way areas and all appurtenant facilities related thereto within the District. The Engineer’s Report describes all new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements.
2 RESOLUTION NO. 22-133
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 2022.
,
Mayor
City of Roseville
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF PLACER) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville
1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-134

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE,

CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS

FOR THE VERNON STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
The City Council of the City of Roseville, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, The City Council has, by previous Resolutions, formed the Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District (hereafter referred to as the “District”), and initiated proceedings for Fiscal Year 2022/2023, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”) that provides for the levy and collection of assessments by the County of Placer for the City of Roseville to pay the maintenance and services of all improvements and facilities related thereto; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has retained Willdan Financial Services for the purpose of assisting with the Annual Levy of the District, and to prepare and file a report with the City Clerk in accordance with the Act; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY

THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE VERNON STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3, SECTION 22624 OF THE ACT, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 2 Proposed improvements and any substantial changes in existing improvements: The improvements within the District include: maintenance, servicing, administration and operation of landscape, lighting and streetscape improvements, other public improvements within the street right of way areas and all appurtenant facilities related thereto within the District. The Engineer’s Report describes all new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements.
2 Section 3 Boundaries and Designation: The boundaries of the District are described as the boundaries previously defined in the formation documents of the original District. The District is known and designated as:
“Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District”
Section 4 Proposed Assessment Amounts: The proposed assessments are outlined in the Report.

Section 7 Time and Place of Public Hearing: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing on these matters will be held by the City Council on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as feasible in the regular meeting chambers located at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, California.
3 RESOLUTION NO. 22-134
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 2022.
,
Mayor
City of Roseville
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF PLACER) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville
1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-135

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER’S ANNUAL

LEVY REPORT FOR THE VERNON STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
The City Council of the City of Roseville, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, the City Council has, by previous Resolutions, ordered the preparation of an Annual Levy Report (hereafter referred to as the “Engineer’s Report”) for the district known and designated as the Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District (hereafter referred to as the “District”), pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has retained Willdan Financial Services (hereinafter “Engineer”), for the purpose of assisting with the establishment of the assessments and to prepare and file an Engineer’s Report with the City Clerk in accordance with the Act, and in accordance with the requirements of the California Constitution, Articles XIIIC and XIIID; and, WHEREAS, there has now been presented to this City Council the Engineer’s Report as required by Chapter 1, Article 4, Section 22566 of said Act; and, WHEREAS, this City Council has carefully examined and reviewed the Engineer’s Report as presented, and is preliminarily satisfied with the District, each and all of the budget items and documents as set forth therein, and is satisfied that the assessments, on a preliminary basis, have been spread in accordance with the benefits received from the improvements, operation, maintenance and services to be performed within the District, as set forth in said Engineer’s Report; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE

CITY COUNCIL FOR THE VERNON STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1 That the above recitals are all true and correct.

Section 4 That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, and the minutes of this meeting shall so reflect the presentation of the Engineer’sReport. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 22-135
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 2022.
,
Mayor
City of Roseville
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF PLACER) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
,
City Clerk
City of Roseville
27368 Via Industria
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
T 951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864
F 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
City of Roseville

Vernon Street
Landscaping and Lighting District
FY 2022/23 ENGINEER’S ANNUAL LEVY REPORT
Intent Meeting: April 20, 2022
Public Hearing: May 18, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................1 A. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1 B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LEGISLATION.................................1 C. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES...............................................2 D. IMPROVEMENTS AUTHORIZED BY THE 1972 ACT .................................2 E. DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE...........4 II. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT ..................................................................5 A. GENERAL ............................................................................................................5 B. BENEFIT ANALYSIS..........................................................................................5 C. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT .......................8 D. ANNUAL INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT.....................................................9 E. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATION..............................................................10 F. DETERMINATION OF FRONT FOOTAGE ..................................................10 III. DISTRICT BUDGET......................................................................................11 A. FY 2022/23 BUDGET ......................................................................................11 B. FY 2022/23 ASSESSMENT RATES .............................................................12 C. FY 2022/23 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION ...........................................12 D. DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS ............................................................12 E. REHABILITATION RESERVE – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.........17 APPENDIX A – DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP ........................................................18 APPENDIX B — FY 2022/23 ASSESSMENT ROLL ..............................................20 FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 1 I. OVERVIEW
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Roseville (“City”) annually levies and collects special assessments in order to maintain the improvements within the Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District (“District”). The District was formed in January of 2001 and is levied annual assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (“1972 Act”).

Following approval of the Report, the City Council will by resolution, order the improvements to be made and confirm the levy and collection of assessments herein pursuant to the Act. The assessment rates and method of apportionment described in this Report as approved or modified by the City Council defines the assessments to be applied to each parcel within the District for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022/23. The assessments as approved will be submitted to the Placer County Auditor/Controller to be included on the property tax roll for each parcel.

B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LEGISLATION
All assessments described in this Report and approved by the City Council are prepared in accordance with the 1972 Act and are in compliance with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID (Proposition 218).

The District has been formed pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. Pursuant FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 2 to the Act, an annual Public Hearing is conducted by the City Council to accept property owner and public comments, to review the Engineer’s Annual Levy Report prior to approving the annual assessments to be levied on the County tax rolls.

The assessments described in this Report have been prepared in accordance with the Act.

Prior to FY 2001/02, the City initiated (Resolution 00-523) and conducted property owner protest ballot proceedings (Resolution 01-22) in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution (“Article XIIID”) for the parcels within the District.

An annual rate escalator was also included in the ballot that allows for an annual inflationary increase equal to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index of the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Area (the “CPI”) of each succeeding year (the “Escalation Percentage”). At the conclusion of the Public Hearing held on January 17, 2001, all property owner ballots returned were tabulated to determine if majority protest existed. The result of the protest proceeding was an approval of the assessment rate and the annual inflationary increase for maintaining the improvements within the District.

Pursuant to the Act, an annual Public Hearing is conducted by the City Council to accept property owner and public comments, to review the Engineer’s Annual Levy Report prior to approving the annual assessments to be levied on the County tax rolls.

C. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
The District is located in downtown Roseville and includes all parcels that front along Vernon Street between Folsom Road and the Riverside/Douglas Boulevard.

See Appendix A for District boundary map.

D. IMPROVEMENTS AUTHORIZED BY THE 1972 ACT
As applicable or may be applicable to a proposed District, the 1972 Act defines improvements to mean one or any combination of the following:
• The installation or planting of landscaping.
• The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities.
• The installation or construction of public lighting facilities. • The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities. • The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing. • The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 3 Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to:
• The cost of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment;
• The costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting and mailing of notices;
• Compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; • Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; • Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements;
• Any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5.
• Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.

Furthermore, the 1972 Act specifies that where the cost of improvements (other than maintenance and operations) is greater than can be conveniently raised from a single annual assessment, an assessment to be levied and collected in annual installments. In that event, the governing body may choose to do any of the following:
• Provide for the accumulation of the moneys in an improvement fund until there are sufficient moneys to pay all or part of the cost of the improvements. • Provide for a temporary advance to the improvement fund from any available and unencumbered funds of the local agency to pay all or part of the cost of the improvements and collect those advanced moneys from the annual installments collected through the assessments.
• Borrow an amount necessary to finance the estimated cost of the proposed improvements. The amount borrowed, including amounts for bonds issued to finance the estimated cost of the proposed improvements.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 4 E. DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE
The District ensures the continued maintenance, servicing, administration and operation of various landscape, lighting and streetscape improvements and associated appurtenances that are required to keep the improvements in a healthy, vigorous, and satisfactory condition. The assessable parcels receive benefit from the above improvements within the District.

Specific improvements include installation, maintenance and servicing of public facilities, including, but not limited to street trees, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking stripes, turf, brick pavers, planters, gateways, benches, bike racks, signage, trash receptacles, and lighting throughout the boundaries of the District (the “Improvements’).

As applied herein, “installation” means the construction of public Improvements, including, but not limited to, land preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks and drainage, lights, equipment, turf, brick pavers, planters, gateways, benches, bike racks and signage.
“Maintenance” means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of any Improvement, including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any Improvement; providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste, and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of Improvements to remove or cover graffiti. “Servicing” means the furnishing of electric current, or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other Improvements; or water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other Improvements.

Plans and specification for the Improvements to be maintained are on file in the office of the Economic and Community Services Director at 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678.

All assessable parcels identified as being within the District share in both the cost and the benefits of the improvements. The costs associated with the Improvements are equitably spread among all benefiting parcels within the District.

Only parcels that receive direct benefit from the Improvements are assessed, and each parcel is assessed in proportion to the estimated benefit received. The funds collected are dispersed and used for only the services and operation provided to the District.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 5 II. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
A. GENERAL
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include the construction, maintenance and servicing of public lights, landscaping and appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act further requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
The formula used for calculating assessments in the District therefore reflects the composition of the parcels, and the Improvements and services provided, to fairly apportion the costs based on estimated benefit to each parcel.

B. BENEFIT ANALYSIS
In conjunction with the provisions of the 1972 Act, the California Constitution Article XIIID addresses several key criteria for the levy of assessments, notably:

General enhancement of property value does not constitute “special benefit.” Article XIIID Section 4a defines proportional special benefit assessments as follows:
“An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 6 imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.”
This District was formed to establish and provide for the improvements that enhance the presentation of the surrounding properties and developments. These improvements will directly benefit the parcels to be assessed within the District.

To identify and determine the proportional special benefit to each parcel within the District, it is necessary to consider the entire scope of the improvements provided as well as the properties that benefit from those improvements. The improvements and the associated costs described in this Report, have been carefully reviewed and have been identified and allocated based on a benefit rationale and calculations that proportionally allocate the net cost of only those improvements determined to be of special benefit to properties within the District. The various public improvements and the associated costs have been identified as either “general benefit” (not assessed) or “special benefit”. The City initiated and conducted property owner protest ballot proceedings in accordance with Article XIIID. Each of the proposed Improvements, the associated costs and assessments were identified and allocated based on special benefit pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID and 1972 Act. Additionally, the Improvements and the annual costs of ensuring the maintenance and operation of the Improvements are of direct and special benefit to the properties.

The City annually levies and collects special benefit assessments in order to maintain and service the District Improvements. The District provides for specific Improvements and services that include the maintenance and operation of landscaping and lighting Improvements and associated appurtenances located within the District’s public rights-of-way and dedicated easements. The annual assessment is based on the historical and estimated cost to maintain the Improvements that provide a benefit to properties within these Districts. The FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 7 Improvements within the District and the costs of those Improvements are identified and budgeted separately, including all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, revenues, and reserves.

All Improvements within the District and the properties associated with those Improvements were reviewed for benefit prior to the formation of the District.

Because the Improvements affront the benefited parcels, it has been determined that there is no measurable general benefit to properties outside the District or to the public at large. In making this determination it should be noted that similar improvements within California are typically maintained by individual property owners, through some type of association or a special district as allowed by State Law since the on-going maintenance of these improvements are a special benefit to the properties associated with those improvements.

The method of apportionment (method of assessment) for the District is based on the premise that each of the assessed parcels within the District receives special benefit from the Improvements maintained and financed by District assessments.

The presence of these Improvements and the close proximity of the Improvements to the properties within the District enhance the desirability and security of properties within the District.

The landscape Improvements provided by the District may include landscaped parkways, perimeters, entryways, local medians, slopes, internal amenities and appurtenant facilities. Street lighting Improvements may include all energy costs and necessary maintenance to the facilities related thereto. The annual assessments outlined in this Report are proposed to cover the estimated costs to provide all necessary service, operation, administration, and maintenance required to keep these Improvements in a healthy, vigorous, and satisfactory condition. The special benefits associated with the local landscaping Improvements are specifically:

The special benefits associated with all landscaping Improvements are specifically:
• Enhanced desirability of properties through association with the Improvements. • Improved aesthetic appeal of properties providing a positive representation of the area and properties.
• Enhanced adaptation of the urban environment within the natural environment from adequate landscaping.
• Environmental enhancement through improved dust and debris control, and fire prevention.
• Increased sense of pride in ownership of property within the District resulting from well-maintained Improvements associated with the properties. • Enhanced quality of life through well-maintained landscaped areas.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 8 • Reduced criminal activity and property-related crimes (especially vandalism) against properties in the District through well-maintained surroundings and amenities including abatement of graffiti.
• Enhanced environmental quality of the parcels by moderating temperatures, providing oxygenation and attenuating noise.

The special benefits of street lighting are the convenience, safety, and security of property, improvements, and goods. Specifically:
• Enhanced deterrence of crime and the aid to police protection. • Increased nighttime safety on streets and roads within the Districts. • Improved ability of pedestrians and motorists to see. • Improved ingress and egress to property.
• Reduced vandalism and other criminal acts and damage to Improvements or property.
• Improved traffic circulation and reduced nighttime accidents and personal property loss.
• Increased promotion of business during nighttime hours in the case of commercial properties.

All of the preceding special benefits contribute to a specific enhancement and desirability of each of the assessed parcels within the District.

C. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
Pursuant to the 1972 Act, the costs of the District may be apportioned by any formula or method that fairly distributes the net amount to be assessed, among all assessable parcels within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by each such parcel from the Improvements. The special benefit formula used should reflect the composition of the parcels, the Improvements and services provided to fairly proportion the costs based on estimated special benefit to each parcel within the District. All assessable parcels within the District shall receive a direct special benefit from the services and Improvements provided by the District.

Article XIIID of the California Constitution specifies that only special benefits are assessable and that the City must separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on any parcel. Since the District is a downtown business area and the Improvements that affront each District parcel primarily attract and retain an increased customer base, these benefits enhance the District parcels and there is no measurable benefit to the public at large. Therefore, 100% of the Improvements are considered special benefit to the District parcels. The cost of FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 9 maintaining the Improvements is therefore identified as special benefit and has been allocated to the special assessments.

It was determined that a uniform assessment rate per foot of frontage upon Vernon Street would fairly distribute the net amount to be assessed due to the following reasons:

1. The assessments are based upon a specific property owner’s special benefit received from the Improvements.

2. The special benefits should be directly related to the extent at which a property fronts the improvements, relative to other properties in the District.

The base assessment rate for the District was $4.59 per linear foot in FY 2001/02 and was determined using the formula below.

Balance to Levy
Assessment Rate Per Foot =
Total Feet of Frontage
The annual assessment amount for each parcel was then determined using the formula below:

Parcel Front Footage x Rate per Linear Foot = Parcel Assessment Amount D. ANNUAL INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT
Commencing with FY 2002/03, the maximum assessment rate is to increase annually by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index of the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward (“CPI”) as of January of each succeeding year (the “Escalation Percentage”). Since the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics does not publish a CPI for January; the CPI for preceding month shall be used since this is the CPI available in the month of January. The District’s starting CPI Index of 184.1, December of 2000, is hereby established as the base CPI (the “Base Year CPI Index”).

In applying this year’s CPI increase, the Escalation Percentage will increase the FY 2022/23 maximum assessment rate by 4.24% over that of the prior year.

If the proposed assessment increases over the prior fiscal year by a percentage no greater than the Escalation Percentage as defined above, then the proposed assessment is not considered an increase. This assessment range formula shall be applied to all future assessments within the District. Generally, if the proposed annual assessment rate for the Current Fiscal Year is less than or equal to the calculated maximum assessment rate, then the proposed annual assessment is not considered an increased assessment.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 10 E. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATION
Any property owner, who believes that the assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment, may file a written appeal with the Finance Director of the City of Roseville or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then Current Fiscal Year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the Director of Housing and Redevelopment or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the Director of Housing and Redevelopment or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. However, if any such changes are approved after the County of Placer’s deadline for adjustments to the tax roll, the Director of Housing and Redevelopment or his or her designee is authorized to approve a refund of the reduction amount to the property owner. Any dispute over the decision of the Director of Housing and Redevelopment or his or her designee, shall be referred to the City Council of the City of Roseville and the decision of the City Council of the City of Roseville shall be final.

F. DETERMINATION OF FRONT FOOTAGE
The front footage of each assessable parcel is subject to revision and/or correction using measurements of front footage found on the then current Placer County Assessor’s Parcel Maps or through direct measurement by City personnel. Any such correction that increases a Parcel Assessment shall not be considered an increased assessment subject to the procedural provisions of Article XIIID.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 11 III. DISTRICT BUDGET
A. FY 2022/23 BUDGET
Fund balance information is reported in Section C on the following page.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 12 B. FY 2022/23 ASSESSMENT RATES
C. FY 2022/23 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
D. DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS
Description of the terms used in the preceding Budget, Assessment Rates and Fund Balance tables are listed below:

BUDGET

DIRECT COSTS
Contract Maintenance - Landscaping - Includes all regularly scheduled contract labor, materials, supplies and equipment required to properly maintain and ensure the satisfactory condition or maintenance of all landscaping corridors, street medians, entryways, irrigation and related drainage systems as well as maintenance of appurtenant facilities (the “improvements”).

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 13 Repair & Maintenance – Landscaping - This line item includes repairs that are generally unforeseen and not normally included in the annual maintenance contract costs. This may include repair of damaged amenities due to vandalism, storms, etc. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Repair & Maintenance – Lighting - This line item includes bulb replacement and repairs that are generally unforeseen. This may include repair of damaged amenities due to vandalism, storms, etc.

Utilities - The furnishing of water and electricity required for the operation and maintenance of the improvements.

County Auditor Fees - A fee of 1% of the total levy amount that is charged to the District by the County for placing assessments on property tax bills.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 14 Consulting and Professional Services – Includes the costs and expenses of contracting with various professionals to provide legal, engineering and district administration services directly related to the District, including the calculation of the annual assessment amounts and the preparation of the Engineer’s’ Report.

Public Hearing Publishing Costs –Includes the out of pocket costs to publish public notices required for City Council action relating to the District.

Total Direct and Administration Costs – The total expected costs of the District.

Contribution for /(Use of) Rehab Reserve — A “Contribution” increases the levy in order to generate funding for the Rehabilitation Reserve. This reserve allows for the accumulation of funds for the possible rehabilitation projects or replacements in future years. On the other hand, a “Use of” of the Rehabilitation Reserve provides current year funding of rehabilitation projects or replacements from available funds within the Rehabilitation Reserve. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget. Further information regarding the function of the Rehabilitation Reserve is provided under “FUND BALANCE INFORMATION” in the following pages of this Section.

Rounding Adjustment – The necessary rounding adjustment(s) due to limitations of the County property tax system that requires even penny levy amounts to be placed on the secured tax roll.

ASSESSMENT RATES:

APPLIED ASSESSMENT RATE
Number of Assessable Parcels - The total number of parcels that are expected to be assessed. Non-assessable lots or parcels include government-owned land, public utility-owned property, land principally encumbered by public rights-of-way FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 15 or easements, common areas, and/or parcels within the boundaries of the District currently do not benefit from the improvements and are therefore not assessed.

Total Assessable Front Footage - The total linear footage of that portion of each assessable parcel’s boundary that is contiguous with Vernon Street.

Applied Assessment Rate per Front Foot - This amount represents the rate being applied to the front footage of each parcel for the Current Fiscal Year.

Maximum Assessment Rate per Front Foot - This amount represents the maximum rate that can be being applied to the front footage of each parcel for the Current Fiscal Year.

Maximum Potential Assessment – The total amount that is expected to be assessed against all parcels within the District for the Current Fiscal Year.

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:

OPERATING RESERVE
Beginning Operating Reserve Balance 7-1-2022 (est.) - The anticipated beginning balance of cash and receivables net of any unpaid prior year obligations for each Zone. These beginning balances shall be used to fund each Zone’s expenditures from July 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, as the Operating Reserve is required to compensate for the approximate six-month delay between the start of the District’s fiscal year and the receipt of the collections from the County. All Rehabilitation Reserve balances, if any, are excluded from the Operating Reserve balances and shall be shown separately in the Report.

Transfer from/(to) the Rehab Reserve — The amount of Operating Reserve monies to be transferred to or from the Rehabilitation Reserve. Periodically, funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve may be needed to respond to changing maintenance needs of the improvements or other factors. Accordingly, any or all FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 16 funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve are subject to transfer into the same zone’s Operating Reserve, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department or equivalent, in order to provide for the maintenance and operation of the improvements. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Collect from FY 22/23 Levy — This amount is added to the levy to accumulate funding of future year rehabilitation projects, replacements, restorations or upgrades of District improvements. If zero, this line item may not be shown in the budget.

Ending Rehab Reserve Balance 6-30-2023 (est.) - The projected balance of funds in the Rehabilitation Reserve as of June 30, 2023. These funds shall be used FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 17 to provide for future year rehabilitation projects, replacements, restorations or upgrades of District improvements which cannot be conveniently raised from a single year’s assessment. Should the District have no Rehabilitation Reserve balances or related activity, no Rehabilitation Reserve information shall be presented in the Report.

From time to time, funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve may be needed to respond to changing needs due to the condition of the improvements or other factors. Accordingly, any or all funds held in a Rehabilitation Reserve are subject to transfer into the Districts’ Operating Reserve, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department or equivalent, in order to provide for the maintenance and/or operation of the improvements.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 18 APPENDIX A – DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP
The boundary map for the District has previously been submitted to the Clerk of the City in the format required under the 1972 Act and is, by reference, hereby made part of this Report. These District Boundary Maps are available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours.

For general reference purposes, a summary of the District’s Boundaries is presented herein.

FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 19 FY 2022/23 Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District Page 20 APPENDIX B — FY 2022/23 ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel identification, for each lot or parcel within the District, shall be the parcel as shown on the Placer County Assessor's map for the year in which this Report is prepared.

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT
FRONT

FOOTAGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
013-070-004-000 Assessable $ 1,855.00 $ 1,855.00 235.61 FR SEC 2 10 6 013-071-001-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 8 BLK 1 013-071-002-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 7 BLK 1 RSVLE 013-071-003-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 6 BLK 1 RSVLE 013-071-004-000 Assessable 787.30 787.30 100.0 L 4 5 BLK 1 013-071-006-000 Assessable 787.30 787.30 100.0 FR LOTS 1 2 BLK 1 013-071-009-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 L 3 2 BLK 1 013-072-008-000 Assessable 787.30 787.30 100.0 POR LOTS 15 & 16 BLK 15 ROSEVILLE TOWNSITE 013-072-010-000 Assessable 787.30 787.30 100.0 LOTS 13 14 BLK 15 013-072-011-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 12 BLK 15 013-072-012-000 Assessable 1,180.96 1,180.96 150.0 L 9 10 11 BLK 15 013-073-011-000 Assessable 1,023.50 1,023.50 130.0 LOTS 1 2 BUTLER SUBD 013-091-003-000 Assessable 1,180.96 1,180.96 150.0 L 1 2 3 BL 3 013-091-010-000 Assessable 1,716.34 1,716.34 218.0 LOTS 4, 5 , 6&7&POR 8 & CITY ST BLK3 TOWN OF RSVL 013-092-005-510 Assessable 196.82 196.82 25.0 FR L 5 BLK 2 013-092-005-520 Assessable 196.82 196.82 25.0 FR L 5 BLK 2 013-092-006-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 FR LOT 4 BLK 2 013-092-007-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 3 BLK 2 013-092-008-000 Assessable 316.88 316.88 40.25 FR LOT 2 BLK 2 013-092-009-000 Assessable 472.14 472.14 59.97 FR LOTS 1 2 BLK 2 013-092-014-000 Assessable 1,180.96 1,180.96 150.0 FR SEC 2 10 6 013-093-003-000 Assessable 787.30 787.30 100.0 FR LOTS 14 LOTS 15 16 BLK 14 013-093-004-000 Assessable 228.32 228.32 29.0 FR LOT 14 BLK 14 013-093-005-000 Assessable 165.32 165.32 21.0 FR L 14 BLK 14 RSVLLE 013-093-006-000 Assessable 598.36 598.36 76.0 FR LOT 12 LOT 13 BLK 14 013-093-007-000 Assessable 1,369.92 1,369.92 174.0 LOTS 9 10 11 FR LOT 12 BLK 14 013-121-002-000 Assessable 1,180.96 1,180.96 150.0 L 4 5 6 BLK 5 013-121-003-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 3 BLK 5 013-121-004-000 Assessable 788.26 788.26 100.12 PAR A PMOR 18 117 013-121-005-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 L 7 BLK 5 RSVLE 013-121-006-000 Assessable 394.12 394.12 50.06 L 8 BLK 5 RSVLLE 013-122-001-000 Assessable 394.84 394.84 50.15 FR L 7 8 BLK 4 013-122-002-000 Assessable 185.02 185.02 23.5 FR LOT 7 BLK 4 013-122-003-000 Assessable 207.44 207.44 26.35 FR L 7 BLK 4 013-122-004-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 L 6 BLK 4 013-122-005-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 5 BLK 4 013-122-009-000 Assessable 710.08 710.08 90.19 L 1 FR L 2 BLK 4 013-122-010-000 Assessable 472.38 472.38 60.0 L 3 FR 2 BLK 4 RSVLLE 013-122-011-000 Assessable 157.46 157.46 20.0 FR L 4 BLK 4 RSVLLE 013-122-012-000 Assessable 236.18 236.18 30.0 FR L 4 BLK 4 RSVL 013-123-017-000 Assessable 867.30 867.30 110.16 PAR 1 PMOR 18 155 013-123-021-000 Assessable 572.76 572.76 72.75 PAR 1 PMOR 32-99 013-123-024-000 Assessable 1,147.04 1,147.04 145.69 1.1 AC PAR 3 PMOR 32-99 013-123-026-000 Assessable 561.04 561.04 71.26 PAR 2 PMOR 32-99 013-124-006-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 16 BLK 13 013-124-007-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 L 15 BLK 13 013-124-008-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 LOT 14 BLK 13 013-124-017-000 Assessable 1,180.96 1,180.96 150.0 LOTS 11 12 13 BLK 13 & POR ALLEY WAY 013-124-018-000 Assessable 611.74 611.74 77.7 LOT 10 BLK 13 & POR CITY STREET & ALLEY WAY 013-151-004-000 Assessable 787.30 787.30 100.0 POR L 7 & 8 BLK 6 013-152-012-000 Assessable 393.64 393.64 50.0 L 11 BLK 10 013-152-017-000 Assessable 787.30 787.30 100.0 PAR A PMOR 21 141 013-152-021-000 Assessable 1,968.28 1,968.28 250.0 LOTS 12-16 BLK 10 ROSEVILLE ORIGINAL TOWN 013-153-013-000 Assessable 1,141.60 1,141.60 145.0 FR L 10 L 11 12 BLK 11 013-153-014-000 Assessable 464.50 464.50 59.0 LOT 9 FR 10 BLK 11 013-153-019-000 Assessable 588.82 588.82 74.79 LOT 13 FR LOT 14 BLK 11 013-153-023-000 Assessable 985.80 985.80 125.21 PAR A & B PMOR 1 1 City of Roseville
Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
Willdan Financial Services Page 1 of 2

ASSESSOR

PARCEL NUMBER
ASMT

CATEGORY CHARGE MAXIMUM ASMT
FRONT

FOOTAGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
City of Roseville
Vernon Street Landscaping and Lighting District
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Preliminary Assessment Roll
013-161-001-000 Assessable 511.74 511.74 65.0 FR L 9 10 BLK 8 013-161-002-000 Assessable 708.58 708.58 90.0 FR LOT 10 11 BLK 8 013-162-001-000 Assessable 3,149.26 3,149.26 400.0 BLK 9 ROSEVILLE 013-250-032-000 Not Balloted - - 0.0 FR SEC 2 10 6
013-250-033-000 Not Balloted - - 0.0 53.6 AC FR SEC 2 10 6 SBE # 872-31-2Y PAR 57 013-250-034-000 Not Balloted - - 0.0 FR SEC 2 10 6 SBE # 872-31-2Y PAR 58 MRO Summary Fields Value
ACTIVE PARCELS 63
LEVIED PARCELS 60
CHARGE $42,284.16
MAXIMUM ASMT $42,284.16
FRONT FOOTAGE 5,370.76
Willdan Financial Services Page 2 of 2

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2015
File #: 0800-03
Title: Utility Billing Field Collection System - Master Sales Agreement Amendment Contact: Jason Kemp 916-746-1284 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.9.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to the Master Sales Agreement with Itron, Inc. Furthermore, staff requests that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute four (4) additional one (1) year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest.

BACKGROUND
The City currently contracts with Itron to provide hardware and software for meter reading and billing purposes. This Second Amendment to the Master Sales Agreement is for the purpose of licensing the Field Tools Advanced software to the agreement. This software provides advanced features needed to support the meter upgrade project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total annual cost of the second amendment is not to exceed $3,905. The first year is prorated and will cost $2,527.92. Funding for this amendment is included in the adopted FY2021-22 Electric Fund budget. This recommendation has no impact on the City's General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)).

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Jason Kemp, Utility Billing and Field Services Supervisor Daniel Beans, Electric Utility Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-095
Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 22-095

APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SALES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND ITRON, INC., AND AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the Master Sales Agreement, regarding licensing for Field Tools Advanced software, between the City of Roseville and Itron, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Second Amendment to the Master Sales Agreement is approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute four (4) additional one (1) year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2030
File #: 0800-03
Title: Load Research System Software - Sole Source Master Sales Agreement Contact: Joanna Cucchi 916-746-1609 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.10.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a three year Master Sales Agreement (MSA) with Itron for three separate software licenses including Load Research System (LRS), MetrixLT, and MetrixND for utility data analytics.

BACKGROUND
Roseville Electric Utility uses Itron’s Load Research System (LRS), MetrixLT, and MetrixND software to accomplish a variety of data analysis tasks. The LRS software is used to analyze customer energy usage at the 15 minute interval level. This data allows the Utility to develop costbased rates and structures by customer group in compliance with the City Council approved ratemaking polices. The LRS software is also used to forecast future energy demand and develop energy efficiency programs.

Itron’s MetrixLT and MetrixND are statistical analysis software packages that allow the Utility to develop forecasts for energy demand and revenue. MetrixND forecasts monthly energy and revenue used in budget planning, financial forecasting, and long term power contracting. MetrixLT translates the monthly forecast into load shapes used for the Integrated Resource Plan and distribution system planning.

Roseville Electric Utility has utilized Itron’s fully integrated electric load analysis tools for load research and forecasting for several years. This relationship has afforded the Utility access to industry best practices and tools, maintained software interface continuity and compatibility, and will support the future development and implementation of time of use rate structures.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for the three year master sales agreement is $86,527.41, which includes licensing for all three software products. The licensing costs for Year 1 is $26,141.24 and funding is available in the approved Electric FY2021-22 budget. Future funding requirements are $28,755.33 for FY2022-23 and $31,630.86 for FY2023-24.

The Master Sales Agreement for software licenses meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joanna Cucchi, Senior Electric Business Analyst
Daniel Beans, Electric Utility Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-108
Itron Master Sales Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 22-108

APPROVING A THREE YEAR SOLE SOURCE MASTER SALES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND ITRON, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WHEREAS, a three year sole source Master Sales Agreement for software licenses, including Load Research System (LRS), MetrixLT, and MetrixND, between the City of Roseville and Itron, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said sole source Master Sales Agreement is approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2016
File #: 0400-04-18
Title: Campus Oaks CO-11, 13, 14 & 16 - Notice of Completion Contact: Danny Jacobo 916-223-7486 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.11.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Campus Oaks CO-11, 13, 14 & 16, CWJ#190166 as complete and authorizing the City Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion.

BACKGROUND
The Engineering Division has made a final inspection of the above project and has found the roadway infrastructure work complete in accordance with the improvement plans and City specifications.

FISCAL IMPACT
The actions requested as part of this action have no impact to the City's General Fund.

Construction costs were paid by the developer.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of a Notice of Completion meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Danny Jacobo, Construction Inspector
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-096
NOC Document
Exhibit A Location Map
Final Map
RESOLUTION NO. 22-096

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC WORK KNOWN AS Campus Oaks CO-11, 13, 14 & 16 PROJECT, APPROVING THE "NOTICE OF COMPLETION", AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO

EXECUTE SAID NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, THEREFORE, AND

ACCEPTING ALL DEDICATIONS OFFERED ON THE RECORDED MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville as follows:

1. The "Notice of Completion" on file in the City Clerk's Department relative to that public work known as the Campus Oaks CO-11, 13, 14 & 16 is hereby approved and the public work accepted.

2. All rights of way and easements as offered on the final map of recorded with Placer County Recorder’s Office Book EE of Maps, Page 86 is hereby accepted.

3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Notice on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 20 , by the following vote on rollcall:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
311 VERNON STREET
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
Exempt from recording fees
Pursuant to Gov’t Code §27383

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public work of improvement known as the Project was completed and
accepted by the City of Roseville on . The location is
situated in the City of Roseville, County of Placer, State of California and is indicated on the attached map, marked as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. The real property herein described is owned by the City of Roseville, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville CA 95678.

The direct/general contractor on said project was .

The surety on said project was
.
___________________________________
City of Roseville
Owner
ATTEST:
________________________________ _
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Placer )
I, , being first duly sworn, depose and say: I am the
of the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation in the State of California, owner of the property described in the above Notice. I am duly authorized to make this verification for and on behalf of the City of Roseville. I have read the Notice of Completion and know its contents and the facts stated therein are true.

___________________________________

City of Roseville
State of California )
County of Placer )
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before
me on this _____ day of ,
20___,
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) who appeared
before me.
____________________________________
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above Signature of Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

ROSEVILLE
PW

CRIMSON RIDGE WY

WOODCRE
E
K
O
A
K
S
B
L
NEW
MEADOW
DR

EXHIBIT A
City of Roseville
Campus Oaks
CO-11, 13, 14 & 16 Subdivision
Project
Location
0 500 1,000
Feet

FIDDYMENT

BLUE OAKS
F
O
O
T
H
LI L
S
WAS
H

NI GTON

PLEASANT GROVE

FAIRWAY

ROSEVILLE
Vicinity Map

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2017
File #: 0400-04-18
Title: Campus Oaks CO-12 - Phase 1 - Notice of Completion Contact: Danny Jacobo 916-223-7486 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.12.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Campus Oaks CO-12 (Phase 1), CWJ#190322 as complete and authorizing the City Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion.

FISCAL IMPACT
The actions requested as part of this recommendation have no impact to the City's General Fund.

Construction costs were paid by the developer.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Danny Jacobo, Construction Inspector II
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-097
Exhibit A Location Map
NOC Document
Recorded Map
RESOLUTION NO. 22-097

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC WORK KNOWN AS Campus Oaks CO-12 (PHASE 1) PROJECT, APPROVING THE "NOTICE OF COMPLETION", AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO

EXECUTE SAID NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, THEREFORE, AND

ACCEPTING ALL DEDICATIONS OFFERED ON THE RECORDED MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville as follows:

1. The "Notice of Completion" on file in the City Clerk's Department relative to that public work known as the Campus Oaks CO-12 (PHASE 1) is hereby approved and the public work accepted.

2. All rights of way and easements as offered on the final map of recorded with Placer County Recorder’s Office Book FF of Maps, Page 29 is hereby accepted.

3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Notice on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 20 , by the following vote on rollcall:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

ROSEVILLE
PW

CRIMSON RIDGE WY

WOODCRE
E
K
O
A
K
S
B
L
Exhibit A: Location Map
City of Roseville
Campus Oaks
(Phase 1) CO-12
(15 Lot) Subdivision
Project
Location
0 500 1,000
Feet

BLUE OAKS
WA
S
HIN
G
T
O
N

FOOTHILLS
Vicinity Map

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
311 VERNON STREET
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
Exempt from recording fees
Pursuant to Gov’t Code §27383

The direct/general contractor on said project was .

___________________________________

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2018
File #: 0400-04-18
Title: Campus Oaks CO-12 - Phase 2 - Notice of Completion Contact: Danny Jacobo 916-223-7486 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.13.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting Campus Oaks CO-12 (Phase 2), CWJ# 190412 as complete and authorizing the City Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion.

FISCAL IMPACT
The actions requested as part of this recommendation have no impact to the City's General Fund.

Construction costs were paid by the developer.

Description
Resolution 22-098
Exhibit A Location Map
NOC Document
Final Map
RESOLUTION NO. 22-098

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC WORK KNOWN AS CAMPUS OAKS CO-12 (PHASE 2) PROJECT, APPROVING THE "NOTICE OF COMPLETION", AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY

ENGINEER TO EXECUTE SAID NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE,

THEREFORE, AND ACCEPTING ALL DEDICATIONS OFFERED ON THE RECORDED MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville as follows:

1. The "Notice of Completion" on file in the City Clerk's Department relative to that public work known as the CAMPUS OAKS CO-12 (PHASE 2) is hereby approved and the public work accepted.

2. All rights of way and easements as offered on the final map of recorded with Placer County Recorder’s Office Book FF of Maps, Page 54 is hereby accepted.

3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Notice on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 20 , by the following vote on rollcall:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

ROSEVILLE
PW

CRIMSON RIDGE WY

WOODCRE
E
K
O
A
K
S
B
L
Exhibit A : Location Map
City of Roseville
Campus Oaks
CO-12 (Phase 2)
(27 Lot) Subdivision
Project
Location
0 500 1,000
Feet

BLUE OAKS

FIDDYMENT F
O
O
T
H
LI L
S

WASHING
T
O
N

ROSEVIL LE

PLEASANT GROVE

FAIRWAY
Vicinity Map

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
311 VERNON STREET
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
Exempt from recording fees
Pursuant to Gov’t Code §27383

The direct/general contractor on said project was .

___________________________________

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2027
File #: 0400-04-12-1 & 0400-07
Title: Sierra Vista KT-1A - Final Map and Subdivision Agreement Contact: Jeff Hendrix 916-774-5463 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.14.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve the final map on file with the City Clerk and accept on behalf of the public the public utility easements offered thereon and accept, subject to improvement, Lots A, B, C and D and all rights of way offered thereon; and

2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the Subdivision Agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.

BACKGROUND
The Development Services, Engineering Division, has reviewed the subject final map and found that it is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all conditions of the tentative map have been met. This map will create 60 residential lots and 4 public landscape lots.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund associated with this approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the Sierra Vista KT-1A final map is an action that is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project level CEQA compliance for the Sierra Vista KT-1A final map was accomplished with preparation of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (Adopted: May 5, 2010) (SCH#2008032017) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program approved by the City of Roseville on June 6, 2012. Because the Sierra Vista KT-1A final map is consistent with the project evaluated in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), no new effects would be expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR will be implemented. As such, no additional CEQA action is required at this time.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jeff Hendrix, Associate Engineer
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-106
SubdivisionAgreement
Final Map
KT-1A Vicinity Map
RESOLUTION NO. 22-106

APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITIES LLC, BY LENNAR HOMES OF

CALIFORNIA, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a subdivision agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and Sierra Vista Communities LLC, by Lennar Homes of California, LLC, for the Sierra Vista KT-1A subdivision, has been reviewed by the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said agreement is approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

LICENSE EXPIRES: SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLE
MARC STOUT, R.C.E. 69879
DATE: BY:

CITY CLERK, CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
R.E.Y. ENGINEERS, INC.

CRAIG E. SPIESS, PLS 7944
EXPIRATION DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2023
DATE:

THISFINALMAPOF "SIERRAVISTAKT-1A"WASPREPAREDBY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECTIONAND IS

BASEDUPONA FIELDSURVEYIN CONFORMANCEWITHTHEREQUIREMENTSOFTHESUBDIVISIONMAP

ACTANDLOCALORDINANCESAT THEREQUESTOF SIERRAVISTACOMMUNITIES,LLC,A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, IN DECEMBER 2019. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLYCONFORMSTO THEAPPROVEDOR CONDITIONALLYAPPROVEDTENTATIVEMAP.ALL

MONUMENTSSHOWN HEREON ARE OF THE CHARACTERAND WILL OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED,ANDWILLBESETBY DECEMBER31,2023ANDTHATTHEMONUMENTSARESUFFICIENTTO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED.

I HEREBYSTATETHATI HAVEEXAMINEDTHISFINALMAPOF "SIERRAVISTAKT-1A"ANDFINDIT TO BE

SUBSTANTIALLYTHE SAME AS THE TENTATIVEMAP ON FILE AND ANY APPROVEDALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONSOF THE SUBDIVISIONMAP ACT AND ALL APPLICABLECITY ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, HAS APPROVED THIS FINAL MAP OF "SIERRA VISTA KT-1A", AND HAS ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC UTILITY

EASEMENTS OFFERED HEREON FOR DEDICATIONS, AND HAS ACCEPTED , SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT,

LOTS A, B, C, D AND ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY OFFERED HEREON FOR DEDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THAT OFFER.

I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM SATISFIED WITH THIS FINAL MAP OF "SIERRA VISTA - VILLAGE KT-1A" IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT.

FOR MARC STOUT, CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLE
DATE:

DATE:

EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2023
TIMOTHY G. BLAIR, PLS 8278
.

THE UNDERSIGNEDHEREBYCERTIFYTHAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PERSONSHAVINGANY RECORD

TITLE INTERESTIN THE REAL PROPERTYINCLUDEDWITHINTHE SUBDIVISIONSHOWNUPON THIS FINAL MAP OF "SIERRAVISTA KT-1A" AND THEY HEREBYCONSENTTO THE PREPARATIONAND

RECORDATIONOF THISFINALMAPANDHEREBYOFFERFORDEDICATIONANDDO HEREBYDEDICATE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES THE FOLLOWING:

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED AS EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:
(A) PUBLIC EASEMENTSFOR THE INSTALLATIONAND MAINTENANCEOF, BUT NOT LIMITEDTO

ELECTROLIERS,WATER AND GAS PIPES, SEWER AND DRAINAGE PIPES, AND FOR

UNDERGROUNDWIRE AND CONDUITS,ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCESFOR ELECTRIC,

TELEPHONEANDTELEVISIONSERVICESANDTRAFFICCONTROLAPPURTENANCESTOGETHER

WITH ANY AND ALL APPURTENANCESPERTAININGTHERETOON, OVER,UNDERAND ACROSS

CLOUDPEAKCOURT,KINGSPEAKCOURT,GARIBALDIDRIVE,BLUERANGEWAY,SIERRAMADRE

WAY, LOT A, LOT B, LOT C, LOT D AND THOSESTRIPSOF LANDLYINGCONTIGUOUSTO THE RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN HEREON AND DESIGNATED "P.U.E." (PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT).

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED IN FEE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:
(A) AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (INCLUDINGIMPROVEMENTSTHEREON)THE STREETSSHOWN

HEREONAS CLOUDPEAKCOURT,KINGSPEAKCOURT,GARIBALDIDRIVE,BLUERANGEWAY, SIERRA MADRE WAY, LOT A, LOT B, LOT C AND LOT D.
(B) PUBLICEASEMENTFORTHEINSTALLATIONANDMAINTENANCEOFSTORMDRAINPIPESANDALL

APPURTENANCESTHERETOON, OVER, UNDER,AND ACROSSTHAT STRIP OF LAND SHOWN HEREON AND DESIGNATED AS "SDE" (STORM DRAIN EASEMENT).
1 OWNER'S STATEMENT

SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT

CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT

CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
DEPUTY
DOCUMENT NO.:

FEE: $ BY:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

RECORDER OF PLACER COUNTY

RECORDER'S STATEMENT
FILED THIS DAY OF ,2022, AT .M. IN BOOK OF MAPS, AT

PAGE ,IN THE OFFICE OF THE PLACER COUNTY RECORDER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT THE REQUEST OF R.E.Y. ENGINEERS, INC.

BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

FINAL MAP OF
KT-1A
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 4 AS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON THAT CERTAIN FINAL MAP ENTITLED "SIERRA VISTA - KT PROPERTIES PHASE 2 LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION NUMBER PL 15-0192", FILED FOR RECORD ON OCTOBER 1, 2020 IN BOOK FF OF MAPS, AT PAGE 18, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS, SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN.

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
APRIL 2022

SIERRA VISTA
SUBDIVISION No. PL17-0305
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors
905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303

NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT

SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITIES, LLC

A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BY: AKT INVESTMENTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
BY: LENNAR HOMES CALIFORNIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BY:

NAME: LARRY GUALCO
TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT
BY:

NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
NAME:

TITLE:

BY:

NAME:

TITLE:

BY:

SS
)
)

COUNTY OF

STATE OF
)

ON BEFORE ME,

PERSONALLY APPEARED,

WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE

NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT

HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY

HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY

OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

PRINTED NAME:

SS
)
)

COUNTY OF

STATE OF
WITNESS MY HAND:
)

ON BEFORE ME,

PERSONALLY APPEARED,

WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE

NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT

HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY

HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY

OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS THE
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

MY COMMISSION NO.:

COUNTY OF:

PRINTED NAME:

WITNESS MY HAND:

MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS THE
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

MY COMMISSION NO.:

COUNTY OF:

NAME:

TITLE:

N77°52'58"W 249.88'(1)
N60°30'20"W
145.64'(1)
N17°53'28"E
139.79'(1)(2)
N80°21'10"W 214.30'(1)
N27°51'11"W
137.31'(1)
N30°33'00"W

66.47'(1)
N36°03'34"W

85.94'(1)
N80°16'09"W
139.50'(1)
N38°17'01"W
178.23'(1)
N08°11'38"W 183.20'(1)
N38°46'13"W
110.83'(1)
N77°22'42"W

19.83'(1)
N12°07'02"E
131.09'(1) 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132133 141
140
139
138
137
136
135
134 148
147
146
145
144
143
142 155
154
153
152
151
150
149 111 110 113 112 114 115 117 116
105 106 107 108 109
104 103 102
101 100 99 98 97 96

VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD

BLUE RANGE WAY

KINGS PEAK COURT

GARIBALDI DRIVE SIERRA MADRE WAY
LOT B
LOT A
LOT C
LOT D
N00°38'13"W 556.17'(1)(2)
N72°06'32"W 17.61'(1)(2)
N17°53'28"E 42.00'(1)(2)
L1
L2
L3
L4 GARIBALDI DRIVE

CLOUD PEAK COURT

STAUNING WAY FAIRWEATHER WAY
N05°06'19"W 166.00'(1)(2)
N05°27'00"W

21.00'(1)(2)
R=2038' Δ=12°33'32" L=446.72' CB=N84°09'44"W CD=445.82'(1) N85°25'13"W

91.21'(1)
N84°53'41"E

74.52'(1)
N73°35'05"E 50.99'(1)
R=2048' Δ=02°07'15" L=75.81'
CB=N85°57'18"E CD=75.80'(1)
2 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
APRIL 2022

SIERRA VISTA
SUBDIVISION No. PL17-0305
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors
905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303
3 4
5 GARIBALDI DRIVE

BLUE RANGE WAY

LINE TABLE
L1(1) L2(1) L3(1) L4(1)N03°04'03"W
N53°21'41"W
N75°29'36"W
N82°56'57"E

14.83'

89.12'

54.95'

14.13'
# BEARING LENGTH
REFERENCES: BASIS OF BEARINGS:

NOTES:

1. THE TOTAL AREA OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS 14.08 ACRES +/-, GROSS, CONSISTING OF 60 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4
LANDSCAPE LOTS.

2. ALL CURVES ARE DIMENSIONED WITH RADIUS, DELTA, ARC
LENGTH, CHORD BEARING AND CHORD LENGTH. CHORD
LENGTHS MAY CONTAIN SOME ROUNDING ERROR. DISTANCES

SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF AND
ARE "GROUND" DISTANCES.

3. A PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY WALLACE
KUHL & ASSOCIATES DATED FEBRUARY 12, 2018; PROJECT
NUMBER WKA NO. 11712.02P AND ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE DEVELOPMENT - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FILE
#308-876.

4. ALL FRONT CORNERS ARE MARKED BY A 1" BRASS MARKER
STAMPED "LS 7944" IN THE SIDEWALK ON THE EXTENSION OF
SIDE LOT LINES 1.00' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.

5. ALL REAR CORNERS AND ANGLE POINTS WILL BE SET WITH A 5/8" REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "LS 7944", WHERE

REAR CORNER FALLS WITHIN A MASONRY RETAINING WALL,
MASONRY SOUND WALL OR CONCRETE FOOTING, A 5/8" REBAR
WITH PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "LS 7944" WILL BE SET ON THE
SIDE LOT LINE 4.00 FOOT OFFSET TO THE REAR CORNER OR A
BRASS TAG STAMPED "LS 7944" WILL BE SET WITH EPOXY TO
THE FACE WALL 2.00 FOOT ABOVE GROUND OR ON TOP OF
WALL WHERE AS OFFSET MONUMENT CANNOT BE SET.

6. THE I.O.D./R.O.W. ON LOT 4 AS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON THAT CERTAIN FINAL MAP ENTITLED "SIERRA VISTA - KT
PROPERTIES PHASE 2 LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION
NUMBER PL 15-0192", FILED FOR RECORD ON OCTOBER 1, 2020 IN BOOK FF OF MAPS, AT PAGE 18, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS,

IS FULLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY SHOWN
HEREON.

7. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING THE LOTS SHOWN HEREON ARE RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO.
2020-0042952 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACER COUNTY.

THE BEARING N84°53'41"E, AS SHOWN BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS

ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN FINAL MAP ENTITLED "SIERRA VISTA - KT
PROPERTIES PHASE 2 LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION NUMBER PL 15-0192", FILED FOR RECORD ON OCTOBER 1, 2020 IN BOOK FF OF MAPS, AT PAGE 18, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS. DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES.
(1) FF MAPS 18
LEGEND
FOUND 5/8" REBAR WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "LS 7944"(1)

DIMENSION POINT NOTHING FOUND OR SET

CB CHORD BEARING

CD CHORD DISTANCE
(OA) OVERALL
P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
(R) RADIAL
S.F. SQUARE FEET
( ) DENOTES RECORD INFORMATION
1 SHEET NUMBER

SET COPPERWELD SURVEY MONUMENT WITH CENTER
PUNCH IN MONUMENT WELL STAMPED "LS 7944"
AC. ACRE

FOUND COPPERWELD SURVEY MONUMENT WITH CENTER
PUNCH IN MONUMENT WELL STAMPED "LS 7944"(1)(2)
0 50 100 200
SCALE: 1"=100'
P.E. PEDESTRAIN EASEMENT
(2) FF MAPS 81
S.D.E. STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
N33°15'31"W(R)
CL N00°38'13"W 500.77'(OA)
N77°52'58"W 89.75' N12°07'02"E

22.00'
N02°29'10"E(R)
N04°08'12"E(R)
110.00'
N05°47'13"E(R)
110.00'
N07°26'15"E(R)
110.00'
110.00'
N09°05'17"E(R) 110.00'
N10°44'18"E(R) 110.00'
N12°07'02"E
110.00'
N12°07'02"E
110.00'
N12°07'02"E

95.00'
N12°07'02"E
103.15'

96.09'
N38°46'13"W 58.63' N64°37'52"W(R) 13.13' N38°46'13"W 110.83'(1) N08°11'38"W 183.20'(1)
N82°56'57"E 14.13'(1) N75°29'36"W 54.95'(1)
N53°21'41"W 89.12'(1)
N03°04'03"W 14.83'(1)
N38°17'01"W 178.23'(1) N79°26'03"E(R) 19.69' 166.29'
N77°00'29"E

20.82' 252.21'

13.54'

60.00'

19.87'

9.88'

56.63'

60.00'

60.00' 118
119
120
121
122
123
124 125 126 127
128
153
152
151
150
149
110
111 112 113
114
115
116 117
105 106 107 108 109
104 103 102
N87°13'52"W

75.15'
N84°41'59"W

62.42'
N04°04'26"E(R) 104.50' N04°04'26"E(R)
N05°36'31"E(R)105.50'
105.00'
N05°36'31"E(R) 105.00'
N83°37'26"W

62.41'
N07°08'36"E
111.80'
N82°05'21"W

62.41'
N07°08'36"E(R) 105.00'
N08°40'42"E(R) 105.00'
N08°40'42"E
113.36'
N80°33'16"W 124.87'
N10°12'47"E(R) 105.00'
N11°44'52"E
168.91'
N11°44'52"E(R) 196.38'106.67'

89.71'

62.46'

62.41'

22.65' 32.30'

30.58'

58.54' 81.94' 84.36'
N77°52'58"W 249.88'(1)
N12°07'02"E 131.09'(1) N77°22'42"W 19.83'(1)
R=2225' Δ=09°13'23" L=358.17' CB=N82°29'40"W CD=357.78' Δ=10°16'25" L=395.19' CB=N83°01'11"W CD=394.67'
N77°52'58"W 249.88'

89.75'
N47°38'27"E(R) 24.08'
Δ
L=
=
01°22'43" CB=N

49.88' CD
7=
8 4
°3

9.4'20"W
88'
Δ=
L
01°39'02" CB
=59.71' =C
N
D
8=
0 5
°0
9 5'13"W
.71'
Δ=01°39'02" C
L=59.71' B=C
N
D
8=
1°5
44'14"W

9.71'
Δ=01°39'02" L=59.71' CB=C
N
D
83°23'16"W
=59.71'
Δ=01°39'02" L=59.71' CB=C
N85°02'17"W
D=59.71'
Δ=01°39'02" L=59.71' CB=N86°41'19"W
CD=59.71'
Δ=01°22'43" L=52.53' CB=N78°34'20"W
CD=52.53'
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N80°05'13"W
CD=62.88'
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N81°44'14"W
CD=62.88'
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N83°23'16"W
CD=62.88'
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N85°02'17"W
CD=62.88'
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N86°41'19"W
CD=62.88'
Δ
L=
=
01°32'05" CB=

59.60' C
N
D
7=
9 5
°9
01'11"W
.60'
Δ
L=01°32'05" CB
=59.60' =C
N
D
8=
0 5
°9
33'16"W
.60'
Δ=01°32'05" C
L=59.60' B=C
N
D
8=
2 5
°05'21"W

9.60'
Δ=01°32'05" L=59.60' CB=C
N
D
83°37'26"W
=59.60'
Δ=01°32'05" L=59.60' CB=C
N85°09'31"W
D=59.60'
Δ=01°10'48" L=45.82' CB=N86°30'58"W
CD=45.82'
Δ=42°04'21" L=31.57' CB=N46°24'18"E CD=30.87'
Δ=34°40'34"
L=26.02'
CB=N84°46'45"E
CD=25.63'
Δ=40°49'57"
L=30.64'
CB=N21°56'35"W
CD=30.00
Δ=95°31'25" L=71.69' CB=N89°52'44"E
CD=63.67'
Δ=45°22'33"
L=35.64'
CB=N79°25'45"E
CD=34.71'

35.00'
35'
38'(1)
38'(1)
16,541 S.F.±
6,940 S.F.±
6,847 S.F.± 6,694 S.F.± 8,222 S.F.±
7,349 S.F.±
6,413 S.F.±
6,397 S.F.±
6,397 S.F.±
6,397 S.F.±
6,449 S.F.±
11,040 S.F.±
9,087 S.F.±
7,882 S.F.±
7,887 S.F.±
6,602 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.±
6,719 S.F.±
6,743 S.F.±
6,743 S.F.±
6,743 S.F.±
6,743 S.F.± 6,743 S.F.±

KINGS PEAK COURT

GARIBALDI DRIVE

CLOUD PEAK COURT
LOT A
32,926 S.F.±
LOT B
566 S.F.±
R=2456' Δ=04°10'50" L=179.20' CB=N86°19'15"W CD=179.16' R C
=B
2=
4 N
3 8
5 5
' Δ=03°07'07" L=132.54' °47'24"W CD=132.52' Δ- 01°25'23" L=60.48' CB=N86°38'15"W CD=60.48'
Δ=01°32'05" L=65.23' CB=N85°09'31"W
CD=65.22'
R=250' Δ=18°45'41" L=81.86' CB=N86°23'19"E CD=81.50' Δ=72°36'53" L=54.50' CB=N25°44'29"E CD=50.92'
LOT C
N88°28'24"E(R) 12.88'
R=45' Δ=60°00'00" L=47.12'
CB=N72°07'02"E CD=45.00'
N22°33'32"W(R) 27.53'
Δ=58°49'59" L=44.15' CB=N88°32'05"W
CD=42.24'
R=271'
Δ=11°27'30"
L=54.20'
CB=N89°57'35"W
CD=54.11'
R=22'
Δ=93°17'16"
L=35.82'
CB=N46°00'25"E
CD=31.99'
S00°23'14"W(R)
N27°57'04"W(R)
R=22'
Δ=86°28'09"
L=33.20'
CB=N43°52'17"W
CD=30.14'
21'
21'
21' 21' 21'
21' 21' 21' S01°50'37"W(R)
21'
21' 21' 21'
21'
21'
21' 21'
N77°52'58"W 129.21'(1)
P.U.E/P.E(1)
VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD (I.O.D./R.O.W.)(1)(2)
R=2000' Δ=17°13'21" L=601.17' CB=N86°29'39"W CD=598.91'(1)(OA) R=2073' Δ=17°13'21" L=623.12' CB=N86°29'39"W CD=620.77'(OA) R=2183' Δ=17°13'21" L=656.18' CB=N86°29'39"W CD=653.71'(OA) R=2204' Δ=17°13'21" L=662.49' CB=N86°29'39"W CD=660.00'(OA)

12.5'
P.U.E.

R
=
43' Δ=240°00'00" L=180.12'
CB
=
N17°52'58"W CD=74.48'

12.5'
P.U.E.

R
=
4 3' Δ=262°07'35" L=196.72'
CB=
N10°10'53"W CD=64.84' C1
C2 C3 C4
C5
C6
C7
21' 153
139.05'

44.16'
R=2038' Δ=12°33'32" L=446.72' CB=N84°09'44"W CD=445.82'(1)(OA) 3' S.D.E.
3 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
APRIL 2022

SIERRA VISTA
SUBDIVISION No. PL17-0305
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors
905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303 SEE SHEET 5 SEE SHEET 2 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, NOTES & REFERENCES 0 20 40 80
SCALE: 1"=40'
BLUE RANGE WAY SEE SHEET 4

CURVE TABLE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
45'
45'
45'
2435'
2225'
45'
43'
36°34'14"
30°29'41"
06°04'33"
00°09'38"
00°22'10"
14°37'27"
26°53'44"

28.72'

23.95'

4.77'

6.83'

14.34'

11.49'

20.18'
N77°24'13"W
N74°21'56"W
N87°20'57"E
N84°18'39"W
N78°04'03"W
N49°25'45"E
N11°55'16"E

28.24'

23.67'

4.77'

6.83'

14.34'

11.45'

20.00'
# RADIUS DELTA LENGTH BEARING LENGTH

CHORD CHORD
N00°38'13"W 497.19'(OA)
N00°38'13"W 500.77'(OA)
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00' N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N05°06'19"W(R) 110.00'
N04°06'56"W(R)
110.00'
N02°27'54"W(R)
110.00'
N00°48'53"W(R) 110.00' N00°50'09"E(R) 110.00' N02°29'10"E(R) 110.00' N00°38'13"W 473.13'(OA)

79.52' 414.41' 447.85'
N05°06'19"W 107.84' 252.21' 60.00' 75.82'

65.00' 60.00' 65.00' 65.00'

24.02' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 65.00' 65.00'

89.99' 54.14' 60.00' 65.00' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 78.09' 60.00' 49.14' 56.94' 60.00' 60.00' 65.00' 60.00' 60.00' 127 128 129 130 131 132
133

24.02' 55.50'
139
138
137
136
135
134
148
147
146
145
144
153
152
151
150
149
110
109
N84°53'41"E(R) 4.00'
R=22'
Δ=25°34'59"
L=9.82'
CB=N72°06'12"E
CD=9.74'
N00°38'13"W 556.17'(1)(2)
R=2073' Δ=17°13'21" L=623.12' CB=N86°29'39"W CD=620.77'(OA) R=2183' Δ=17°13'21" L=656.18' CB=N86°29'39"W CD=653.71'(OA) R=2204' Δ=17°13'21" L=662.49' CB=N86°29'39"W CD=660.00'(OA) R=2225' Δ=04°29'22" L=174.34' CB=N88°27'15"E CD=174.30' Δ=06°48'57" L=262.19' CB=N88°26'08"E CD=262.03'
Δ=01°39'02" L=59.71' CB=N88°20'21"W
CD=59.71
Δ=01°39'02" L=59.71' CB=N89°59'22"W
CD=59.71
Δ=01°39'02" L=59.71' CB=N88°21'36"E
CD=59.71
Δ=01°39'02" L=59.71' CB=N86°42'35"E
CD=59.71
Δ=00°59'23" L=35.81' CB=N85°23'22"E
CD=35.81
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N88°20'21"W
CD=62.88
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N89°59'22"W
CD=62.88
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N88°21'36"E CD=62.88
Δ=01°39'02" L=62.88' CB=N86°42'35"E CD=62.88
Δ=00°59'23" L=37.71' CB=N85°23'22"E CD=37.71
Δ=02°15'11" L=87.49' CB=N89°34'21"E
CD=87.49
Δ=02°14'11" L=86.85' CB=N87°19'40"E
CD=86.84
N84°53'41"E 89.02'
48'(1)
124.52'(1) N84°53'41"E 789.08'(1)
R=22' Δ=85°31'54" L=32.84'
CB=N42°07'44"E CD=29.88'
R=22' Δ=93°09'13" L=35.77'
CB=N47°12'49"W CD=31.96'
6,600 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.±
8,030 S.F.±
8,418 S.F.± 8,232 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.± 7,150 S.F.±
7,150 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.±
7,150 S.F.±
6,743 S.F.± 6,743 S.F.± 6,743 S.F.± 6,743 S.F.± 6,686 S.F.± 7,143 S.F.±

VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD
(I.O.D./R.O.W.)(1)

GARIBALDI DRIVE

SIERRA MADRE WAY

STAUNING WAY
N84°53'41"E 124.52' N84°53'41"E 584.28'(2)
N05°06'19"W 166.00'(1)(2)(BNDY)
R=22' Δ=91°20'09" L=35.07'
CB=N45°01'52"E CD=31.47' 21'
21' 21' 21' 21' 21' 21'
21'
21'
S04°58'21"E(R)
S01°50'37"W(R)
S30°41'18"E(R)
21' 21'
21'
21'
R=2000' Δ=17°13'21" L=601.17' CB=N86°29'39"W CD=598.91'(1)(OA) P.U.E/P.E(1) LOT A
32,926 S.F.±

12.5'
P.U.E.

12.5'
P.U.E. 12.5'
P.U.E.

12.5'
P.U.E.

12.5'
P.U.E.
21'
38'(1)
38'(1) 248.56' 21' 21'
102
BLUE RANGE WAY C1
N05°06'19"W 204.00'(2)(OA)
R=31' Δ=90°00'00" L=48.69'(1) CB=N50°06'19"W CD=43.84'

38.00'(2) 21'
N05°27'00"W 21.00'(1)(2)
R=22' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' CB=N39°53'41"E CD=31.11' 82.00' 19' 19'
19' 19' Δ=64°25'01" L=24.73 CB=N27°06'12"E CD=23.45'
R=2038 74.52' ' Δ=12°33'32" L=446.72'(1)(OA) CB=N84°09'44"W CD=445.82' N85°25'13"W 91.21'(1) R=2048' Δ=02°07'15" L=75.81'(1) CB=N85°57'18"E CD=75.80' N73°35'05"E

50.99'(1)
48'(1)
38'(1)
48'(1)
4 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
APRIL 2022

SIERRA VISTA
SUBDIVISION No. PL17-0305
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors
905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303 SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 2 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, NOTES & REFERENCES 0 20 40 80
SCALE: 1"=40' SEE SHEET 3
Δ=10°16'25" L=395.19
CB=N83°01'11"W CD=394.67

KINGS PEAK COURT

CURVE TABLE
C1 2204' 00°07'58" 5.11' N84°57'40"E 5.11'
# RADIUS DELTA LENGTH BEARING LENGTH

CHORD CHORD
N80°21'10"W 166.98'
N89°21'47"E

17.69'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N89°21'47"E
110.00'
N03°40'05"E(R)
N05°02'52"E(R)
112.67'
111.71'
N01°36'55"E(R) 97.68'
N09°38'50"E
110.00'
N09°38'50"E
110.00'
N09°38'50"E
110.00'
N16°46'30"E(R) 115.14'
N17°53'28"E
127.47'
N00°38'13"W 473.13'(OA)
N38°17'01"W 178.23'(1) N23°59'55"E 19.69'
N79°26'03"E(R) 19.69'
N80°16'09"W 139.50'(1)
N89°09'14"W 109.68'
N36°03'34"W 85.94'(1)
N30°33'00"W 66.47'(1)
N27°51'11"W 137.31'(1)
N80°21'10"W 214.30'(1) 146.81'
151.43'
166.00'
N77°00'29"E

20.82' 252.21' 248.56' 65.00' 87.31' 65.00'

95.00' 89.22'

78.04'

52.62'

30.90' 65.00' 65.92' 72.31' 65.00'

60.00'

12.61'

33.40'

60.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00'

65.98' 108.08'

60.00' 38.27'

63.28' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00'

58.32'

60.00'

31.64'

58.59'
108.60'

60.95'

60.00'

61.25'

85.45' 57.60'

56.63' 50.27' 65.00'

23.44'

35.71'
141
140
139
138
145
144
143
142
155
154
153
152
105
106 107 108 109
104 103 102
101
100
99 98
97 96
LOT D
N00°38'13"W 556.17'(1)(2)
N17°53'28"E 42.00'(1)(2)
N72°06'32"W 17.61'(1)(2)
N60°30'20"W 145.64'(1)
N17°53'28"E 139.79'(1)(2)

21.00'

95.00'

39.05'

22.20'
8,018 S.F.±
7,374 S.F.±
7,237 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.±
6,600 S.F.±
7,040 S.F.±
8,475 S.F.±
11,251 S.F.±
8,896 S.F.±
9,827 S.F.±
7,150 S.F.±
7,150 S.F.±
7,150 S.F.±
7,150 S.F.±
7,150 S.F.±
7,150 S.F.±
8,117 S.F.± 6,910 S.F.±
12,698 S.F.±

GARIBALDI DRIVE

CLOUD PEAK COURT
N72°06'32"W 95.00'
N72°06'32"W 338.86'(2) 218.09'
R=22' Δ=75°23'47" L=28.95'
CB=N35°00'40"W CD=26.91'
R=271' Δ=03°19'27" L=15.72'
CB=N01°01'30"E CD=15.72'
Δ
L=
=
0 5
7 9
°07'40" CB=N
.59' CD
7=
6 5
° 9
4 .7
5 '20"W
5 Δ=01°06'58"
L=9.33'
CB=N72°40'01"W
CD=9.33
R=22' Δ=85°02'43" L=32.66'
CB=N43°09'35"W CD=29.74'
R=32'
Δ=28°14'33"
L=15.77'
CB=N13°29'04"E
CD=15.61'
R=2456' Δ=04°10'50" L=179.20' CB=N86°19'15"W CD=179.16' Δ=01°07'50" L=48.88' CB=N86°53'50"W
CD=48.88
Δ=01°22'46" L=59.64' CB=N85°38'31"W
CD=59.64
R=229'
Δ=08°13'11"
L=32.85'
CB=N88°20'26"W
CD=32.82'
R=45' Δ=48°47'39" L=38.32'
CB=N63°09'09"E CD=37.18'
R=250' Δ=18°45'41" L=81.86' CB=N86°23'19"E CD=81.50'
LOT C
724 S.F.±
(2)
(2)
R=22' Δ=100°17'03" L=38.51'
CB=N49°30'18"E CD=33.78'
Δ=75°14'35" L=56.47' CB=N76°22'37"E
CD=52.50
R=22'
Δ=86°49'32"
L=33.34'
CB=N44°02'59"W
CD=30.24'
21' 21'
21' 21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21' 21' 21'
21'
21'
21' 21' 457.41' N00°38'13"W 497.19'(OA) 447.85' SIERRA MADRE WAY N00°38'13"W 500.77'(OA) 414.41' GARIBALDI DRIVE R=521' Δ=00°36'02" L=5.46' CB=N72°24'33"W CD=5.46'
=115°59'25" L=105.27
C
B
=
N30°23'2 "W CD=88.19
Δ
R=32'
Δ=33°17'21"
L=18.59'
CB=N83°00'10"E
CD=18.33'

12.5'
P.U.E.

R=
4 3' Δ=262°07'35" L=196.72'
CB=
N10°10'53"W CD=64.84'
R
=
52' Δ=141°14'51" L=128.19'
C
B
=
N43°01'05"W CD=98.11'

12.5'
P.U.E.

R=2477' Δ=03°13'55" L=139.72' CB=N85°50'47"W CD=139.70' Δ=00°43'18" L=31.20' CB=N84°35'29"W CD=31.20
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
5 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
APRIL 2022

SIERRA VISTA
SUBDIVISION No. PL17-0305
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors
905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303
SEE SHEET 3
SEE SHEET 2 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, NOTES & REFERENCES 0 20 40 80
SCALE: 1"=40'
SEE SHEET 4

CURVE TABLE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
479'
500'
500'
500'
250'
52'
250'
271'
43'
08°14'38"
08°14'38"
03°35'44"
04°38'54"
11°07'18"
25°15'26"
10°17'03"
05°19'46"
55°26'08"

68.92'

71.94'

31.38'

40.57'

48.53'

22.92'

44.87'

25.21'

41.60'
N76°13'51"W
N76°13'51"W
N78°33'18"W
N74°25'59"W
N04°55'26"E
N78°59'12"E
N85°29'42"W
N83°01'03"W
N38°17'01"W

68.86'

71.88'

31.37'

40.55'

48.45'

22.74'

44.81'

25.20'

40.00'
# RADIUSDELTA LENGTH BEARING LENGTH

CHORD CHORD
118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132133 141
140
139
138
137
136
135
134 148
147
146
145
144
143
142 155
154
153
152
151
150
149 111 110 113 112 114 115 117 116
105 106 107 108 109
104 103 102
101 100 99 98 97 96

VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD

BLUE RANGE WAY

KINGS PEAK COURT

GARIBALDI DRIVE SIERRA MADRE WAY
LOT B
LOT A
LOT C

LOT D GARIBALDI DRIVE

CLOUD PEAK COURT

STAUNING WAY FAIRWEATHER WAY
6 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
APRIL 2022

SIERRA VISTA
SUBDIVISION No. PL17-0305
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors
905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303

EACH RESIDENTIAL DWELLING CONSTRUCTED ON ANY OF THE LOTS INDICATED

SHALL BE FITTED WITH A SEWER BACKFLOW PREVENTER VALVE AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLLE. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OF SAID

DWELLING TO MAINTAIN THE VALVE AND PREVENT DAMAGE FROM OCCURRING THERETO. THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

MAINTENANCE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE VALVE, AND THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OCCURRING TO ANY SUCH DWELLING OR ITS CONTENTS DUE TO FAILURE OF THE VALVE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSE ONLY PURSUANT TO SECTION 66434.2

OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE

DENOTES SEWER BACKFLOW PREVENTER VALVE REQUIRED ON SANITARY SEWER

CONNECTION BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT AND MAINTAINED THEREAFTER BY THE OWNER.

LEGEND
*
0 50 100 200
SCALE: 1"=100'

GARIBALDI DRIVE

BLUE RANGE WAY
*
*
*
*
*
*
N
SIERRA VISTA KT-1A FINAL MAP

VICINITY MAP

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2007
File #: 0206-10-01
Title:

Downtown Roseville Property and Business Improvement District - 2021 Annual Report and 2022 Budget
Contact: Wayne Wiley 916-774-5283 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.15.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution approving the 2021 Downtown Roseville Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report and approve the 2022 Budget for the Downtown Roseville Partnership.

BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2014, the City Council approved the formation of the Downtown Roseville Property and Business Improvement District (DRPBID) for a term of five years commencing January 1, 2015, and terminating December 31, 2019. The overarching goal of the DRPBID was to facilitate improvements and activities that would provide a special benefit to assessed parcels. Based on the success of the DRPBID, on January 9, 2019, Council adopted a resolution renewing the DRPBID and Management Plan. With that approval, the amended documents established the assessment formula, required indemnification terms, insurance coverage limits, and levying of the annual assessments for an additional ten-year period (beginning January 1, 2020 and ending December 31, 2029).

The annual assessment provides funding for a budget that is managed by the established owner’s association, the Downtown Roseville Partnership (DRP). The DRP Board ensures that the budget is applied to activities and expenses defined in the Management Plan/Engineer’s Report accepted by Council as part of the district formation. In addition, the Management Plan includes the following requirement:
“VI. GOVERNANCE
C. Annual Report
The Downtown Roseville Partnership shall present an annual report at the end of each year of operation to the City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650…. The annual report is a prospective report for the upcoming year and must include:
· Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the DRPID or in any benefit zones or classifications of property within the district;
· The improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year; · An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements or activities for that fiscal year;
· The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each real property owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property for the fiscal year;
· The amount of any surplus of deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year; and
· The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this Plan.”
The 2021 DRPBID Annual Report is provided in Attachment 1 of this staff report.

Additional supporting documents that further address the elements required in each annual report to Council are the 2021 financial statements and district map and assessment roll, which are included within Attachments 2 and 3.

Additionally, the 2022 budget is included as Attachment 4 for reference, and has been approved by the DRP Board. No changes to the district boundaries or levying of assessments is proposed and the key elements of this year's budget (totaling $181,200) are broken down into the following service categories followed by the percentage of funds allocated to each sector (consistent with the previous year).

Marketing & Events - 30%
Clean & Safe - 26%
Administration - 21%
Improvements - 18%
Contingency - 5%
It should be noted that the above referenced allocations are not anticipated to significantly change; however, it may be necessary to redistribute funds between categories to provide flexibility in addressing impacts related to the changing economy.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City contributes to the PBID each year in the form of parcel assessments for City-owned property in Downtown Roseville. The 2021 City assessment was $74,220.06 and the total assessment collected for the district was $214,195.32. Receiving the annual report has no impact on the General Fund and a maximum of 2% of the property assessment will be retained by the City to cover the costs of administration of the management agreement.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / JOBS CREATED
The establishment of the Downtown PBID has substantially increased the amount of funding available to market, promote and improve Downtown Roseville.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Adoption of this resolution meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Respectfully Submitted,
Wayne Wiley, Economic Development Manager
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-093
Attachment 1 - 2021 DowntownAnnual Report
Attachment 2 - 2021 DRP Statement of Financial Position Attachment 3 - 2021 DRP PBIDAssessment Map & Table
Attachment 4 - DRP 2022 Budget
RESOLUTION NO. 22-093
APPROVING THE 2021 DOWNTOWN ROSEVILLE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT AND 2022 BUDGET
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2014, the City Council approved the formation of the Downtown Roseville Property and Business Improvement District (“DRPBID”) to facilitate improvements and activities ; and
WHEREAS, the annual assessment provides funding for a budget that is managed by the established owner’s association, the Downtown Roseville Partnership (DRP); and WHEREAS, the DRP Board ensures that the budget is applied to activities and expenses defined in the Management Plan/Engineer’s Report accepted by Council as part of the district formation; and
WHEREAS, the DRP is required to submit an annual report and budget to the City; and WHEREAS, the 2021 Downtown Roseville Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report and 2022 Budget have been reviewed by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that the 2021 Downtown Roseville Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report and the 2022 Budget are hereby approved.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

ANNUAL REPORT

A MESSAGE FROM BOARD PRESIDENT DAVE PICHES
As an architect with an office in Downtown, I am honored to serve as president of Downtown Roseville Partnership and work with an amazing group of dedicated, tireless board members and a caring, astute director, Kat Maudru, to strive for the success of our Downtown district. The word “partnership” cannot be overused when we speak of our work as, every step of the way, we continue to work with the support of City of Roseville, Chamber of Commerce, Blue Line Arts and other local organizations.

Much of our work and resources this past year have been focused on safety and security, as we have received the message that these are the ultimate concerns of our property owners and merchants. Thus, we have made efforts to revitalize our security and our homeless support forces and update our day porter activities.

In the realm of improvement, with our partnership with the City, we continued the Façade Grant Program that provided funding for exterior improvements for Downtown properties. In addition, because of the planning and funding required, we have spent many hours setting the stage for additional projects in 2022 including signage grants that will fund new highquality sidewalk signage for merchants, a reorganization of the Tree Lighting Program to ensure street trees are lighted consistently and harmoniously throughout fall and winter, and a mural program to revitalize the streetscape along the Atlantic Street blocks.

I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that the pandemic has made it another challenging year for our Downtown businesses, especially our restaurants and retail establishments.

Regardless, DRP was the principal sponsor of the new Third Saturday Art Walk orchestrated by Blue Line Arts last summer, Drive-Thru Trick-or-Treat, and the Annual Sylvia Besana Holiday Parade.

Perseverance in 2020 became resilience in 2021 and DRP has been inspired and strengthened in support of our Downtown community because of it. As we hopefully return to a normal business climate, I hope to find new opportunities to forge additional partnerships with groups and organizations that will build on the success of our Downtown and the community.

Sincerely,
Dave Piches, AIA LEED AP
2021 President
Downtown Roseville Partnership Board of Directors
VISION
Downtown Roseville
Partnership is an actionoriented, collaborative
group of volunteers that
champions a vibrant and
authentic downtown.

MISSION
We are proactive in
promoting, marketing
and providing services
that attract businesses
and visitors to the
District and manage the
District’s business affairs
in a transparent, fiscallyresponsible manner.

Tom Carlson (5) is the owner of Carlson Tax Consultants Inc. and a member of the AICPA and the Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce. As a board member with DRP, he is able to serve downtown business and property owners and give back to the local business community.

Mike Esparza (3) is president and CFO of All-Cal Insurance Agency. He owns properties located at 501, 503 and 505
Vernon Street and joined the DRP board to further the future plans and expected growth of the District.

Jamie Hazen (2) is the owner of Jamie Hazen Consulting. She has been active in our community for decades and serves on the board for the Downtown Roseville Merchants, the Roseville Police Activities League, the Performing Arts of Roseville and the Placer Visitors Bureau.

David Herrick (8) is SVP/Controller for Consolidated
Communications, one of the larger employers in
Downtown Roseville. He enjoys supporting the interests
of residents and businesses.

Clarissa Oliveira (9) is DRP’s newest board member. She is a captain and pastor with Salvation Army. She enjoys spending time with family, painting and seeing God’s grace at work. We appreciate her insight and look forward to working with her to make Downtown Roseville a wonderful place to visit.

David Piches (6) founded Piches Architecture at 115 Taylor Street in Downtown Roseville. He has served on many boards including Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce, Roseville Merchant’s Association, Roseville Arts Center and Roseville Urban Forest Foundation. With DRP, Dave works to foster creative design solutions and encourage actions that will maintain existing improvements.

Lisa Peters (7) is CEO and president of Randy Peters Catering and Events Center, a certified woman-owned business, and 105 Noshery. Lisa has been a staple in the business community for decades and brings unparalleled experience as a small business owner.

Mark Vespoli (4) owns several Downtown Roseville properties, including 219, 400, 404 and 601 Vernon Street and 106 Judah Street. He brings to the board the perspective of a property owner and entrepreneur in Downtown Roseville.

Wayne Wiley (1) is the economic development manager for the City of Roseville, where he helps develop and implement economic development initiatives to ensure business enrichment within our community. Wayne has always had a passion for Downtown and enjoys working closely with the merchants, business owners and residents.
*Kat Maudru is DRP’s director of operations and is
instrumental in promoting Downtown through community
and public relations.
2021 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1 2
9 3 4
5 6
7 8
2021 NOTABLES
•To create community and a sense
of place, we installed 20 additional
“We Are Roseville” banners along
Vernon Street.
•We sponsored a variety of artsfocused events such as Blue Line Arts’ Comunidad: Hispanic Heritage Month
Exhibition that included lectures,
educational activities, and a residency
opportunity for regional artists.
•By popular demand, 3rd Saturday
Art Walk was brought back as a
summertime favorite monthly event.
•We partnered on a variety of
community-building events including
8th Annual Family Fest, Roseville Crime
Stoppers Run Crime Out of Roseville,
Placer Breast Cancer Foundation’s
Hot Pink Fun Run, RPAL Bacon and
Brew Bash, and 60th Annual Sylvia
Besana Holiday Parade.
•The holidays were celebrated
beginning with our 2nd Annual
Halloween Drive Thru to the Annual
Tree Lighting and Salvation Army
Christmas Food Basket Program.
•Downtown Roseville is a beautiful
place to be thanks to our Clean and
Safe Program, power washing services
throughout the District, and extended
Vernon Street tree lights.
2021 BUSINESS OPENINGS
Goldfield Trading Post the girls salon
WHAT TO EXPECT IN 2022
Village General Store & Refillery
•Buildings facing Atlantic Street will soon feature
decorative murals in partnership with Blue Line Arts.
•In collaboration with the City, the next round of our
Façade Grant Program will inspire and incentivize
reinvestment into Downtown business storefronts.
•Businesses on Vernon Street can expect new blade
signs to improve foot traffic.
•Mark your calendars for our continued community events:

Downtown Tuesday Nights, 3rd Saturday Art Walk,
additional holiday festivities, and more.
•Look for us on social media as we continue our promotion of Downtown as the place to eat, shop and stay.
2021 ACTUAL SPEND PIE CHART
17%
Advocacy/
Administrative
9%
Maintenance/
Beautification
32%
Marketing
42%
Security Total Gross Budget $ 349,700
2021 Allocation $ 220,000
Adjusted Gross Budget $ 278,793
*Includes $43,793 and $15,000 funded from
Reserves and Grants, respectively.

Downtown Roseville Partnership
P. O. Box 238
Roseville, CA 95678

GET IN TOUCH
Downtown Roseville Partnership
P. O. Box 238
Roseville, CA 95678
916.771.4475

CONNECT WITH US
godowntownroseville.com

MEETINGS
Regular meetings are held on the fourth Wednesday of every month at 3:00 pm at Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce, 650 Douglas Boulevard. The public is always invited to attend.

Downtown Roseville Partnership
Statement of Financial Position
As of December 31, 2021
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash
$
192,523
Total Current Assets
$
192,523
Other Assets, net of amortization

9,099

TOTAL ASSETS
$
201,622

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Liabilities
Accounts Payable $ -
Total Current Liabilities $ -
Loan Payable $ -
Total Long-Term Liabilities $ -
Total Liabilities $ -
Equity
Retained Earnings
$
189,404
Net Revenue
$
12,218
Total Equity
$
201,622

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
$
201,622
Wal n ut St
Je ffe r so n St
Li n co ln St
Was h in g to n Bl v d
S Gr a n t St
Ta y lo r St
Ju d a h St
Bul e n St
Pra tt St
Ve r n on St
Oa k St
Roy e r St
Dou g la s
Bl vd
Downtown
Roseville PBID
±
DRPBID Boundaries
APN FRONTAGE LOT_SIZE Assessment
013093001000 0 15,000 $2,008.50
013093004000 29 2,030 $525.71
013093005000 21 3,150 $605.64
013093006000 76 11,400 $2,191.84
013093007000 174 26,100 $5,018.16
013101024000 0 18,562 $2,485.45
013101026000 0 7,271 $973.59
013101028000 0 8,631 $1,155.69
013121002000 150 15,018 $3,324.16
013121004000 100.12 10,012 $2,217.16
013121005000 50 5,006 $1,108.05
013121006000 50.06 5,006 $1,108.58
013122001000 50.15 7,523 $1,446.39
013122002000 23.5 3,525 $677.74
013122003000 26 3,900 $749.84
013122004000 50 7,523 $1,445.08
013122005000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
013122009000 90.3 13,523 $2,601.31
013122010000 60.15 9,023 $1,734.79
013122011000 20 3,000 $576.80
013122012000 20 3,000 $576.80
013123017000 101.69 16,500 $3,099.65
013123018000 0 18,107 $2,424.53
013123021000 72.75 10,948 $2,102.86
013123027000 0 4,505 $603.20
013131013000 0 4,810 $644.06
013131014000 0 4,116 $551.13
013131016000 0 5,508 $737.52
013151004000 100 7,700 $1,906.53
013152002000 0 8,400 $1,124.76
013152012000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
013152016000 0 6,534 $874.90
013152017000 79.91 7,776 $1,740.82
013152018000 0 7,074 $947.21
013152019000 0 6,000 $803.40
013152020000 0 6,000 $803.40
013153003000 0 7,500 $1,004.25
013153007000 0 6,000 $803.40
013153008000 0 6,000 $803.40
013153009000 0 7,500 $1,004.25
013153013000 140 21,000 $4,037.60
013153014000 59 8,850 $1,701.56
013153019000 75.79 11,212 $2,164.83
013153021000 0 2,500 $334.75
013154001000 0 6,000 $803.40
013154004000 0 6,000 $803.40
013154010000
0 7,500 $1,004.25
0131540140000 6,000 $803.40
013161002000 110.9 5,332 $1,684.88
0131630010000 2,391 $320.15
0131630030000 7,742 $1,036.65
0131630040000 7,481 $1,001.71
0131630050000 9,000 $1,205.10
0131640010000 7,500 $1,004.25
0131640030000 5,000 $669.50
0131640100000 2,500 $334.75
0131640150000 6,750 $903.83
013164016000
0 11,000 $1,472.90
0131640170000 5,500 $736.45
0131710050000 3,000 $0.00
0131710070000 4,500 $602.55
0131710080000 7,500 $1,004.25
013171009000
0 5,000 $669.50
0131710110000 10,890 $1,458.17
0131720200000 14,924 $1,998.32
013250032000 376 32,234 $7,608.01
013072008000 100 11,500 $2,415.35
0130720090000 3,500 $468.65
013072010000 100 15,000 $2,884.00
013072011000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
013072012000 150 22,500 $4,326.00
013092005510 50 3,750 $939.88
013092006000 50 3,750 $939.88
013092007000 50 7,600 $1,455.39
013092008000 40.25 6,118 $1,171.59
013092009000 59.97 4,498 $1,127.32
0130920100000 4,618 $618.35
013121003000 50 5,006 $166.20
013153023000 125.21 18,785 $541.72
0130700010000 2,323 $311.04
013091003000 150 22,909 $4,380.76
0131010250000 9,197 $1,231.48
0131010270000 3,760 $503.46
0131010290000 1,754 $234.86
0131010310000 93,654 $12,540.26
013073011000 118 11,325 $382.42
0132900010000 20,155 $2,698.74
0132900020000 32,775 $4,388.56
0132900030000 6,490 $869.00
013161001000 65 9,661 $279.40
0131640180000 30,000 $602.54
0130730160000 253 $33.88
013093003000 100 17,320 $479.20
013152021000 250 37,500 $1,081.50
0131240230000 23,858 $3,194.58
013162001000 400 126,324 $3,062.52
013091010000 218.9 29,059 $5,807.46
0130940010000 69,696 $9,332.28
013123026000 71.26 10,856 $2,077.50
013124006000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
013124007000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
013124008000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
0131240110000 12,606 $1,687.94
013124017000 150 24,114 $4,542.10
013124018000 77.7 12,663 $2,375.84
0131240220000 14,219 $1,903.92
0131310210000 5,514 $738.32
0132900040000 31,172 $4,173.92
0132900050000 15,125 $2,025.24
013290007000
0 4,491 $601.34
0132900090000 2,853 $382.02
013070004000 250 15,172 $4,220.28
013071001000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
013071002000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
013071003000 50 7,500 $1,442.00
013071004000 100 15,000 $2,884.00
0130710070000 1,875 $251.06
013071009000 50 9,400 $1,696.40
0130710100000 5,776 $773.40
0130920110000 7,500 $1,004.24
013092014000 150 22,500 $4,326.00
013071006000 100 5,625 $244.30
0130720060000 9,173 $184.24
0130720070000 7,100 $142.60
0132500130000 15,923 $2,132.08
0132500140000 15,950 $2,135.70
0131230250000 17714 $2,371.90
$214,195.32
Removed later
because
incorrect use
code applied by
County
Assessor
Downtown Roseville Partnership
2022 Budget by Category and Program
Category Funding %
2022 Allocated
Funding
2022 BOY
Reserves
2022 Reserve
Allocation
Improvements 18% $ 38,284.20 $ 85,574.02 $ 1,914.21
Marketing & Events 30% 63,807.00 15,831.33 3,190.35
Clean & Safe 26% 55,299.40 12,499.06 2,764.97
Administration 21% 44,664.90 24,832.25 2,233.25
Contingency & Reserve 5% 10,634.50 16,352.70 (10,103.28) $ 212,690.00 $ 155,089.36 $ (0.50)
Category Program Total
Improvements
Capital Improvements $ 5,000
Window Clings 1,100
Façade Program 20,000
Other 3,000
Total Improvements $ 29,100
Marketing & Events
Marketing Costs with Elevate $ 21,600
Downtown Tuesday Nights Sponsorship 20,000
3rd Saturday Event 10,000
Total Marketing & Events $ 51,600
Clean & Safe
Day porters (Gathering Inn) $ 18,150
Homeless Navigator 5,000
Power washing 12,000
RSVL Police - Security 15,000
Other Clean & Safe 3,000
Total Clean & Safe $ 53,150
Administration
QuickBooks
Bookkeeping $ 2,830
Memberships 1,200
Annual Report 2,200
Mailing and Communications - Elevate 8,400
Legal Consultation 3,000
Office supplies reimbursements 500
Insurance 2,100
Consultant - Admin 24,000
Other Administration 3,120
Total Administration $ 47,350
Contingency & Reserve $ -
Total 2022 Budget $ 181,200
2022 Total Available
Funding 2022 Budget
Projected 2022
EOY Reserves
$ 125,772.43 $ 29,100.00 $ 96,672.43
82,828.68 51,600.00 31,228.68
70,563.43 53,150.00 17,413.43
71,730.40 47,350.00 24,380.40
16,883.93 - 16,883.93
$ 367,778.86 $ 181,200.00 $ 186,578.86

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2036
File #: 0721 & 0214
Title:

Dry Creek Greenway East Phase 2 (Rocky Ridge Drive to Old Auburn Road) - Active Transportation Program Grant Authorization
Contact: Alison Winter 916-774-5365 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.16.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit an ATP Cycle 6 application to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and to execute all related forms and agreements for the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Phase 2 (Rocky Ridge Drive to Old Auburn Road).

BACKGROUND
The State of California recently released a call for projects for Cycle 6 of the Active Transportation Program (ATP). The ATP is a competitive program that provides funding for projects that encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. Funding for the ATP was augmented in 2017 through the passage of Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act. The City has received funding in prior ATP cycles for the Downtown Bridges, Washington Bike/Ped Project, and Dry Creek Greenway East Phase 1 (Riverside Avenue to Rocky Ridge Drive).

Per the General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan, the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Project is an approved paved multi-use trail along Dry, Cirby, and Linda Creeks from Darling Way/Riverside Avenue to the City limits at S. Cirby Way/Old Auburn Road, a distance of 4.25 miles. The project alignment and a phasing plan were approved by the City Council on March 20, 2019, along with certification of the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH: 2014032087). As noted above, Phase 1 has already received an ATP award in ATP Cycle 3.

The City applied to the ATP Cycle 5 for the construction of Phase 2, Rocky Ridge Drive to Old Auburn Road. The project scored well but did not receive funding. Staff believes that the project has the potential to compete well for ATP Cycle 6 construction funding. If ATP construction funding is approved, staff will return to City Council with an action plan for locally-funded final design, permitting, and right-of-way acquisition to facilitate trail construction as early as 2025. Right-of-way to implement the project is required from nine (9) undeveloped properties in the floodplain. However, staff is exploring an on-street "cycle track" approach along lightly used portions of North Cirby Way and Samoa Way to reduce or eliminate acquisition needs.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated total cost for the Dry Creek Greenway Multi-Use Trail – Segment 2 (from Rocky Ridge Drive to Old Auburn Road) Project is approximately $7.5 million. The estimated cost of Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), permitting, and right-of-way is approximately $850,000, which will be funded through local transportation funds. If the ATP Cycle 6 grant is successful, it will provide up to $6.5 million for construction and non-infrastructure costs (i.e., additional Safe Routes to School Program funding). General fund monies will not be used for the project.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Alison Winter, Alternative Transportation Analyst
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Map
Resolution 22-111

WASHINGTON BL
FO
O
THILLS
BL
WILLS
RD

TAYLOR RD
R
O
C
K
Y
RID
G
E
D
R
E

ROSEVILLE
PW

N SUNRISE
AV

HARDING
BL
FO
O
T
HILLS
BL

DOUGLAS BL DOUGLAS BL

VERNON ST
EUREKA
RD
OAK
ST

ROSEVILLE
PW

PLEASANT

GROVE BL
W

ASHINGTON
BL

ROSEVILLE RD

S CIRBY WY
AUBURN
BL

JUNCTION BL

RIVERSIDE AV
N

SUNRISE AV
EUREKA
RD

ATLANTIC ST

ATKINSON ST
OLD

AUBURN RD

CIRBY WY
G

ALLERIA BL

BASELINE RD

BASELINE
RD

JUNCTION

BL ATLANTIC
ST

SUNRISE AV

SECRET RAVINE PW

PLEASANT

GROVE BL

ROSEVILLE PW
PAGEL

PASS RD
SIE
R
RA
C
OLLE
G
E
BL
I80 W
I80 E
Public Works - Alternative Transportation Division
Dry Creek Greenway Trail
0 0.4 0.8 1.6
Miles
¯
§¨¦80
Dry Creek Greenway
East Trail Phase 2
Dry Creek Greenway
East Trail Phase 1
Dry Creek Greenway
East Trail Phase 2
Dry Creek Greenway
West
Dry Creek Greenway
West
RESOLUTION NO. 22-111

APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION

COMMISSION, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO

EXECUTE ALL RELATED FORMS AND AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, the State of California recently released a call for projects for Cycle 6 of the Active Transportation Program (ATP); and
WHEREAS, the ATP is a competitive program that provides funding for projects that encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking; and WHEREAS, per the General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan, the Dry Creek Greenway East Trail Project is a proposed paved multi-use trail; and
WHEREAS, the project alignment and a phasing plan were approved by the City Council on March 20, 2019; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends City Council approve filing a grant application to the California Transportation Commission in the amount of $6,500,000, to be applied towards the construction and non-infrastructure costs.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby approves filing of the grant application to the California Transportation Commission.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute all related forms and agreements on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2024
File #: 0900-02 & 0201-01
Title: Pleasant Grove Pump Station Modifications Project – Budget Adjustment Contact: Jason Marks 916-342-9573 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.17.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment initiating the Pleasant Grove Pump Station Modifications Project with a total budget of $690,000 using available resources in the Water Rehabilitation Fund.

BACKGROUND
The Pleasant Grove Pump Station Modifications Project (#500227) will provide the City with drought resiliency and improved operational efficiency. The modifications will add variable frequency drives to the pump station allowing operators to maintain pressures in the water distribution system resulting in more optimal use of existing infrastructure. In addition, automating valves will allow City staff to operate the pump station remotely, leading to faster response times in an emergency and improved use of staff resources.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment will fund the Pleasant Grove Pump Station Modifications Project (#500227) with $690,000 ($600,000 for capital outlay and $90,000 for City staff labor) from available resources in the Water Rehabilitation Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of the proposed budget adjustment and pump station modifications meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Jason Marks, Senior Engineer
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6474
Budget Adjustment
ORDINANCE NO. 6474

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR2021-22

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Pleasant Grove Pump Station Modifications Project.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City ofRoseville, this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
3/8/20225:45 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Jason Marks, Senior Engineer FISCAL YEAR: 2022 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Nancy Rothlisberger, Sr. EU Business Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 4/20/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: EU/Water ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6130 6587 84001 500227 600,000
6130 5080 84001 500227 90,000
690,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
690,000

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6130 (690,000)
(690,000)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
Secondary labor for new project 500227
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Capital outlay for new project 500227
Reduce available resources - Water Rehabilitation Fund

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This new project, Pleasant Grove Pump Station Modifications (#500227), will improve the City's drought resiliency. The modifications will add variable frequency drives to the pump station allowing operators to maintain pressures in the water distribution system resulting in more optimal use of existing infrastructure. In addition, automating valves will allow City staff to operate the pump station remotely, leading to faster response times in an emergency and improved staff efficiency. This project's $690,000 budget ($600,000 for capital outlay and $90,000 for staff secondary labor) will come from the available resources in the Water Rehabilitation Fund (6130). The reimbursement for staff secondary labor is already budgeted in the Water Operations Fund and will be programmed in those same budgets for FY2022-23. This project is expected to be completed by the end of FY2022-23.

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING
3/14/22

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2032
File #: 0721 & 0201-01
Title: Zero-Emission Battery Electric Buses - Purchase Order and Budget Adjustment Contact: Ed Scofield 916-869-9109 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.18.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council approve a purchase order for five (5) zero-emission batteryelectric buses for a total purchase price not to exceed $5,408,493 and adopt an ordinance approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $5,587,587.

BACKGROUND
The South Placer Express Transit project is a 3-year pilot program to provide fixed-route bus service between the City of Lincoln, the Westfield Galleria, Kaiser Roseville Hospital, Sutter Roseville Hospital, and the Watt / I-80 light rail station. The project is intended to address mobility and traffic along the State Route 65 and Interstate 80 corridors. This weekday bus route will consist of a 30- minute frequency from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. beginning in 2023.

The project was developed by the Placer Country Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA). Roseville Transit was selected to be the operator. PCTPA, in cooperation with the City of Roseville, has secured grants and other regional funding to support the project's capital and operational costs. This funding includes a $6,000,000 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) grant to purchase five new electric buses and five charging stations, including two overhead chargers installed at the Galleria.

The proposed budget adjustment and authorization to purchase five (5) electric buses is the first step toward implementing this project. Staff has worked with Proterra to select options based on Roseville Transit needs and proposes purchasing five (5) 40-foot ZX5 Proterra electric buses, with a total 660 kWh battery pack each, under the State of California statewide contract for Zero-Emission Transit Buses (CA state contract #1-19-23-17C).

Staff will request separate City Council actions later this year for 1) Construction of the Corporation Yard Charging Depot and; 2) the purchase and installation of chargers for the South Placer Express. The purchase of battery-electric buses and future purchase of chargers are consistent with the Roseville Transit Zero Emission Business Plan accepted by the City Council on May 20, 2020.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed budget adjustment will increase the South Placer Express Bus Service Project budget by $5,587,587. This adjustment will facilitate the purchase of the five electric buses (including a 2% contingency to address potential minor specification adjustments), professional design services for the Galleria on-route chargers, contract inspections by a consultant, final vehicle preparation, and inspections by Roseville's Fleet Services Division, and staff labor.

The sources of funds included in the recommended budget adjustment include:

SCCP Grant $ 4,705,000
Local Transportation Fund (LTF) $ 820,771
South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) $ 136,816 Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (WPCTA) Grant ($75,000) Total $ 5,587,587
The negative $75,000 reflects replacing a previously budgeted WPCTA grant with funding from the SCCP Grant, LTF, and SPRTA.

On behalf of the City of Roseville, Proterra recently applied to the California Hybrid and ZeroEmission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) for vouchers for the buses. If approved, the vouchers will effectively reduce the purchase price of the five buses and reduce the project's reliance on LTF by up to $690,000. Also, staff recently submitted the funding allocation request for the SCCP funds to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). We anticipate approval of the allocation at the CTC's May 18-19, 2022 meeting.

No General Funds are being used for this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The proposed bus purchase meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Ed Scofield, Transit Operations Analyst
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6478
Budget Adjustment
ORDINANCE NO. 6478

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR2021-22

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the purchase of five (5) zero-emission battery electric buses.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City ofRoseville, this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
3/29/20224:07 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Mike Dour, Alt. Transportation Manager FISCAL YEAR: FY2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Ed Scofield, Transit Operations Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 4/20/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: PW - Alternative Transportation ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6511 6552 84001 700029 5,587,587
5,587,587

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6511 4410 84001 700029 4,705,000
6511 4425 84001 700029 820,771
6511 4435 84001 700029 (75,000)
6511 4435 84001 700029 136,816
5,587,587
-

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3601 00000 000000
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Increase expenditure budget for the purchase of five
zero-emission buses (ZEB).

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This Budget Adjustment is recommended to provide funding for the South Placer Express Transit Project as follows: 1) the purchase of 5 (five) battery-electric buses; 2) contract inspection services for the five buses; 3) fleet Services support for final inspection and outfitting of the buses; 4) professional design services for on-route chargers at the Westfield Galleria. Funding for the bus purchase is provided by an SCCP Grant for $4,705,000 and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) resources of $703,493. Bus inspection services will be funded through the LTF, and an SPRTA grant will fund professional design services.

Increase revenue budget for Solutions for Congested
Corridors (SCCP) Grant
Increase revenue budget for Local Transportation
Funds (LTF)

ACCOUNT STRING
Increase revenue budget for South Placer Regional
Transportation Authority (SPRTA) Grant

DESCRIPTION
Decrease revenue budget for Western Placer
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency
(WPCTSA) Grant
TOTAL

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2023
File #: 0214 & 0201-01
Title: Personal Thermal Imaging Cameras - Grant Award and Budget Adjustment Contact: Jason Rizzi 916-774-5802 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.19.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends:

1. City Council accept the award from the Department of Homeland Security - Urban Area Security Initiative to purchase thermal imaging cameras for firefighting operation.

2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Subaward Agreement with the City of Sacramento.

3. Adopt an ordinance to approve the associated budget adjustment of $40,317 in revenue and $40,317 in expenditures related to the grant.

BACKGROUND
The Roseville Fire Department was awarded a $40,317 grant by the City of Sacramento as a subgrantee from the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) for the 2019 Department of Homeland Security Grant - Urban Area Security Initiative to purchase thermal imaging cameras for firefighting operations. The thermal imaging cameras will provide each individual firefighter the ability to improve situational awareness during firefighting operations. Handheld cameras allow firefighting personnel the ability to visualize heat and see through smoke, increasing firefighter safety.

FISCAL IMPACT
No matching funds are required. Maintenance costs for these new thermal imaging cameras are included in the department's existing budget in the General Fund. This is a cost-neutral request with no impact on the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Acceptance of a Grant Award and Budget Adjustment meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Jason Rizzi, Fire Division Chief
Rick Bartee, Fire Chief
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-103
UASI Contract
Ordinance 6475
Budget Adjustment
RESOLUTION NO. 22-103
ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, the Roseville Fire Department was awarded a $40,317 grant by the City of Sacramento as a sub-grantee from the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) for the 2019 Homeland Security Grant – Urban Area Security Initiative for the purchase of Personal Thermal Imaging Cameras; and
WHEREAS, no matching funds are required to accept the grant award.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that as the grant recipient, the City of Roseville agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements related to conduct for the award; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Roseville accepts the grant award from the U.S. Department Homeland Security through the California Office of Emergency Services; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to execute the Subaward Agreement with the City of Sacramento and all other necessary grant documents on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 6475

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR2021-22

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for Personal Thermal Imaging Cameras.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City ofRoseville, this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
3/10/202212:33 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Katrina Rostam, Management Analyst II FISCAL YEAR: 2021-2022 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Katrina Rostam, Management Analyst II COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 4/6/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Fire Department - Support Services ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 5395 84001 700038 40,317
40,317

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 4401 84001 700038 40,317
40,317
-

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Thermal imaging cameras

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

The Fire Department is requesting a budget adjustment to recognize the $40,317 in revenue and $40,317 in expenses related to the purchase of personal thermal imaging cameras. The department has been awarded as a subgrantee through City of Sacramento Fire Department, Urban Area Search Initative a $40,317 in a grant to provide important thermal imaging camera equipment to the department. There are no matching funds required and the net effect to the General Fund is zero.

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Federal Grant

ACCOUNT STRING
March 10, 2022

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2031
File #: 0400-02 & 0400-03
Title:

Second Reading - Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances - Roseville Municipal Code Amendments
Contact: Lauren Hocker 916-774-5272 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.20.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 6476 AMENDING SECTION 19.10.030 OF CHAPTER 19.10 OF TITLE 19 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AMENDING SECTIONS 19.28.040, 19.28.060, AND 19.28.100 OF CHAPTER 19.28 OF TITLE 19 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS, AND AMENDING SECTION 19.60.080 OF CHAPTER 19.60 OF TITLE 19 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6477 AMENDING SECTIONS 18.04.025, 18.04.030 AND 18.04.060 OF CHAPTER 18.04 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL

CODE REGARDING CITY COUNCIL, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE POWERS, ADDING CHAPTER 18.05 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATIONS – MINISTERIAL, AMENDING SECTIONS 18.06.030, 18.06.050 AND 18.06.080 OF CHAPTER 18.06 OF TITLE 18 OF

THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATIONS, AMENDING SECTIONS 18.10.010, 18.10.050, 18.10.060, 18.10.070, 18.10.080, 18.10.090, AND 18.10.100 OF CHAPTER 18.10 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL

CODE REGARDING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS AND VOLUNTARY MERGERS, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18.24.010 AND 18.24.015 OF CHAPTER 18.24 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING APPEALS, for second reading and adoption.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Lauren Hocker, Senior Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6476
Ordinance 6477
ORDINANCE NO. 6476

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTION

19.10.030 OF CHAPTER 19.10 OF TITLE 19 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AMENDING SECTIONS 19.28.040, 19.28.060, AND

19.28.100 OF CHAPTER 19.28 OF TITLE 19 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS, AND AMENDING SECTION 19.60.080 OF CHAPTER 19.60 OF TITLE 19 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 19.10.030 of Chapter 19.10 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

19.10.030 Residential zone general development standards.

A. Residential Development Standards. Permitted uses and associated structures shall comply with the following development standards, in addition to any other applicable requirements of this title:

RESIDENTIAL ZONE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Requirement by Zoning District
R1
RS
with
attached
sidewalk
(10)
RS
with
separated
sidewalk
(8), (10)
R2 R3(2) RMU
Area, interior lot 6,000 sq ft 4,500 sq ft 4,275 sq ft 6,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft None (7)
Area, corner lot 7,500 sq ft 5,500 sq ft 4,710 sq ft 7,500 sq ft 7,500 sq ft Width,
interior
60 ft 45 ft 45 ft 60 ft 60 ft
Width, corner 75 ft 55 ft 50 ft 75 ft 75 ft
Residential Density
Maximum
number of
primary dwelling
units per lot
2 dwellings
(1)
2 dwellings
(1)
2 dwellings
(1)
2 dwellings
(1)
As
provided
by
General
Plan, but a
minimum
of 3
As
provided
by
General
Plan
2 Requirement by Zoning District
R1
RS
with
attached
sidewalk
(10)
RS
with
separated
sidewalk
(8), (10)
R2 R3(2) RMU
dwellings
Maximum
number of
accessory/junior
dwelling units
per lot(11)
Up to 2
dwellings
Up to 2
dwellings
Up to 2
dwellings
Up to 2
dwellings
Up to 2
dwellings
Up to 2
dwellings
See Chapter 19.22 for accessory structure development standards for the following standards Setbacks (minimum)
Front(9) (1)
20 ft for
interior
lots; 15 ft
for corner
lots; 20 ft
minimum
driveway
depth
15 ft to
living
space or
side wall
of garage;

12.5 ft to
porch; 18
ft
minimum
driveway
depth(6)
10 ft to
first floor
living
space or
side wall
of garage;

7.5 ft to
porch, but
in no case
may
encroach
into a
PUE; 15 ft
to second
floor
living
space; 18
ft
minimum
driveway
depth(6)
20 ft for
interior
lots; 15 ft
for corner
lots; 20 ft
minimum
driveways
depth
20 ft
minimum
on all
street
frontages
None(7)
Sides(9) (1)
5 ft
interior; 15
ft street
side on
corner
5 ft
interior;

12.5 ft
street side
on first
floor; 15 ft
street side
on second
5 ft
interior; 10
ft street
side on
first floor;
13 ft street
side on
second
5 ft
interior; 15
ft street
side on
corner
5 ft
interior; 20
ft
minimum
on all
street
frontages
None(7)
3 Requirement by Zoning District
R1
RS
with
attached
sidewalk
(10)
RS
with
separated
sidewalk
(8), (10)
R2 R3(2) RMU
floor floor
Rear(1)
20% of lot
depth;
need not
exceed 20
ft; 10 ft
minimum
(3)
10 ft
minimum
with
minimum
useable
open space
of 700 sq
ft or 500
sq ft where
a usable
front
porch is
provided
(4)
10 ft
minimum
with
minimum
useable
open space
of 500 sq
ft(4)
20% of lot
depth;
need not
exceed 20
ft; 10 ft
minimum
20 ft; 20 ft
minimum
on all
street
frontages
None(7)
Lot Coverage
(primary
buildings)
35% for 2
story; 45%
for 1 story
None(4) None(4) 40% 50% None(7)
Height Limits 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft(5) None(7)
Additions to the
primary
structure
greater than 700
square feet in
area(12)
May only
be
permitted
upon
approval
of an
Administra
tive
Permit
Notes:
(1) Up to two residential units are permitted in the R1 and RS zone districts provided the criteria of 19.10.030 (G) are met. Residential units may be attached or detached in the R1, RS, or R2 zone districts. (2) The general development standards for the R3 district may be modified through approval of a Design Review Permit.
(3) On corner lots, the minimum rear setback may be determined by using an average of three measurements taken at the ends of the structure and a point midway between the ends of the structure. The measurements shall be made perpendicular to the rear lot line.
(4) The rear and side yards may be utilized to meet the minimum usable open space provided the minimum dimension, measured perpendicular to the applicable rear or side yard is 10 feet. Maximum coverage is a 4 function of lot size, required setbacks and usable open space. A minimum usable open space of 500 square feet may be applied where a front porch is provided with minimum dimensions of six feet by 10 feet exclusive of entry way.
(5) Except for residential units immediately adjacent to the R1 and RS zone districts, where the height limit shall be 35 feet.
(6) Minimum driveway depth of 18 feet requires a roll-up garage door. (7) As provided in development standard overlay or special area overlay district. (8) Sidewalk separated from back of curb by five-foot planter strip. (9) Front setback (and side setback where adjacent to street) measured from back of walk. Fence side yard setback is five feet from back of walk where facing a street. In the absence of sidewalk, setbacks measured from the edge of right-of-way.
(10) Variations to the standards and other housing product types may be permitted subject to processing of a Design Review Permit for Residential Subdivision (DRRS) concurrent with the approval of a tentative subdivision map and review of product type.
(11) A combination of up to two accessory dwelling/junior accessory dwelling units are permitted within areas zoned to allow single-family, two-family or multi-family residential use provided the lot contains an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, two-family or multi-family residential unit as defined in Sections

19.08.080(F)(1) and (F)(2) (Residential Use Types) and the accessory dwelling/junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the standards identified in Chapter 19.60 (Accessory Dwelling Units). See Chapter 19.60 for the maximum number and combination of units allowed per lot. For purposes of density, accessory dwelling units shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building or structure and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located. (12) Additions (attached or detached) to primary structures that exceed 700 gross square feet in area may be permitted upon approval of an Administrative Permit, which may include a public hearing as provided in Sections 19.74.010 and 19.78.020. Excludes accessory dwelling units complying with the standards identified in Chapter 19.60 (Accessory Dwelling Units).

B. Clear Vision Triangle, Residential. The following standards shall apply to the installation of structures on corner parcels:

1. On a corner parcel, no fence, wall, sign or other structure, mounds of earth, or other visual obstruction over 36 inches in height above the top of the existing or planned curb elevation shall be erected or placed within a residential clear vision triangle (see Chapter 19.95 Definitions).

2. The foregoing provision shall not apply to public utility poles; trees trimmed (to the trunk) to a line at least eight feet above the elevation of the intersection; saplings or plant species of open growth habits and not planted in the form of a hedge, which are so planted and trimmed as to leave, at all seasons, a clear and unobstructed cross view; supporting members of appurtenances to permanent structures existing on the date that the ordinance codified in this section becomes effective; and official warning signs or signals.

C. Exceptions to Height Limits. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection A, the following structures are permitted to exceed the maximum height limits, as follows:

Architectural features, mechanical equipment, chimneys, vents, and other architectural or mechanical appurtenances on buildings may be a maximum of 15 percent higher than the height limit of the applicable zone.

D. Exceptions to Setbacks. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection A, the following structures are permitted to encroach into the required development setbacks, as follows:
5 1. Architectural features, such as but not limited to: cornices, eaves, canopies, fireplaces and similar features, but not any flat wall or addition creating living space, may encroach up to two feet into any required setback.

2. Covered, unenclosed projections attached to the primary structure may encroach up to six feet into any front yard setback.

E. Manufactured Homes. Manufactured homes are permitted in residential zones provided they meet the following architectural standards:

1. The manufactured home shall be covered with exterior material customarily used on conventional dwellings within the subdivision. The exterior covering material shall extend to the ground as close to grade as allowed by the manufacturer’s recommendation;

2. The manufactured home shall have a minimum of 16-inch roof overhangs and roofing material on the manufactured home shall be compatible with other dwellings existing in the area and shall consist of materials customarily used on conventional dwellings. The roof shall have a minimum 2 1/2 in 12 pitch.

F. Landscaping Requirements in Setback Areas.

1. Single-Family and Two-Family Dwellings—Front-Yard and Street Side-Yard Setbacks.
a. Setback Area Paving Restrictions. A maximum of 50 percent of the required front-yard setback may be paved for off-street parking, driveways, walkways, or uncovered patio use. A maximum of 50 percent of the required street side-yard setback may be paved for off-street parking, driveways, walkways, or uncovered patio use; however, this maximum limitation does not apply to that portion of the street side-yard located behind a fence that is in compliance with the street side fence requirements set forth in Chapter 19.22 of this code. These requirements may be modified with approval of a Design Review Permit for Residential Subdivision (DRRS), as provided for in Article V of this title.
b. Landscape and Maintenance Requirements. The unpaved portion of a frontyard setback and street side-yard setback shall be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained. The landscape shall include grass, annuals, perennials, groundcover, shrubs, trees, or other living vegetation. Synthetic grass or artificial turf may be used if it is permeable and has a minimum pile height of 1.25 inches. Design elements like planters, rocks, mulch, or similar elements are permitted when integrated as part of the landscape. All landscaping materials shall be mowed, trimmed, and maintained as often as necessary to prevent overgrowth and blight.

No junk, debris, or other similar materials shall be stored in the landscaped setback area.
c. Height Restrictions for Landscaping Located in the Clear Vision Triangle.

All landscaping located within the clear vision triangle for corner lots, as defined in Section 19.95.030 of this code, shall not exceed three feet in height, except that trees exceeding three feet in height are allowed if the tree is maintained free of branches eight feet above the curb grade.
6 d. Vehicle Parking Requirements. Vehicles, including without limitation, automobiles, boats, campers, trailers, and other recreational vehicles, must be parked on a paved surface, as provided for in Section 11.20.110 of this code.

Vehicles shall not be parked within the landscaped setback area.

2. Multi-Family Dwellings (Three or More Residential Units)—Front-Yard and Street Side-Yard Setbacks. All minimum front-yard and street side-yard setbacks shall be landscaped, irrigated and maintained with primarily low ground cover or turf.

The landscape shall include grass, annuals, perennials, groundcover, shrubs, trees, or other living vegetation. Synthetic grass or artificial turf may be used if it is permeable and has a minimum pile height of 1.25 inches. Design elements like planters, rocks, mulch, or similar elements are permitted when integrated as part of the landscape. All landscaping materials shall be mowed, trimmed, and maintained as often as necessary to prevent overgrowth and blight. No junk, debris, or other similar materials shall be stored in the landscaped setback area. Driveways and uncovered walkways are permitted to cross over the required front-yard and street side-yard setback. The required front-yard and street side-yard setbacks may not be paved for parking or patio areas.

G. Criteria for Two Residential Units in Single-Family Zones. The City’s singlefamily zones are R1 and RS. Parcels in single-family zones are permitted one residential unit, and may have a second residential unit subject to the following criteria and restrictions:

1. Demolition or Alteration of Existing Housing. The housing development shall not require demolition or alteration of housing:
a. Subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; b. Subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power;
c. That has been occupied by a tenant at any time within the past three years.

Demolition or alteration is permitted if none of the above conditions apply.

2. Use Restrictions.
a. Short term Rentals. Residential units constructed pursuant to this section may not be rented for a period of less than 31 consecutive calendar days.

Accordingly, short-term rentals, as authorized pursuant to Chapter 4.25 (ShortTerm Rentals), are not permitted for residential units constructed pursuant to this section.
b. Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. An accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling shall not be permitted on parcels that have used this section to build two residential units and which are the result of a parcel map pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 18.05. c. Use Classification. Whether they are detached or attached, residential units constructed pursuant to this section shall be considered single-family buildings.

3. Development Standards. The new structure(s) shall be consistent with the development standards of the zone district in which they are located, except:
7 a. Parking Requirements. No off-street parking shall be required for new residential units constructed pursuant to this section if the parcel is located within ½ mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), as may be amended from time to time; or a major transit stop, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3, as may be amended from time to time; or if there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. In all other cases, new residential units constructed pursuant to this section shall provide a minimum of one off-street parking space. Off-street parking shall be designed consistent with the requirements of Chapter 19.26.040. b. Setbacks. No setback shall be required for conversion of an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location (i.e. footprint) and to the same or smaller dimensions as an existing structure. In all other cases, a setback of four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for new residential units constructed pursuant to this section, including any garages, porches, decks, balconies, stairs, and patios which are attached to and for the use of the residential unit.
c. Waivers. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained within this section, a development standard applicable to the zone district in which the proposed residential units are located shall be waived if application of the standard would physically preclude either of the two residential units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.

4. Site Limitations or Restrictions. To qualify for a second residential unit, a parcel shall meet the following criteria:
a. The parcel shall satisfy the requirements specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B) to (K), as may be amended from time to time, including but not limited to not being within a special flood hazard area, a regulatory floodway, and/or a habitat for protected species.
b. Government Code Section 7060 et seq., as may be amended from time to time, to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
c. The parcel shall not be located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, as may be amended from time to time, or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city ordinance.

5. Reasons for Denial of Permit. A building permit for a second residential unit or two new residential units, pursuant to this section, shall be denied by written findings of the building official where, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the building official has determined the housing development would have a specific, adverse impact as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), as may be amended from time to time, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
8 SECTION 2. Section 19.28.040 of Chapter 19.28 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

19.28.040 Eligibility for bonus.

A developer of a housing development containing five or more units may qualify for a density bonus and at least one other incentive as provided by this chapter if the developer does one of the following:

A. Agrees to construct and maintain at least five percent of the units for rental or sale dedicated to very low income households;
B. Agrees to construct and maintain at least 10 percent of the units for rental or sale dedicated to lower income households;
C. Agrees to construct and maintain at least 10 percent of the units of a housing development to be sold to moderate income households, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase;
D. Agrees to construct and maintain a senior citizen housing development, as defined in Section 19.28.020 of this chapter, or a mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the California Civil Code, as may be amended from time to time; E. Donates land to the City dedicated for the construction of very low income units pursuant to Section 19.28.080 of this chapter;
F. Includes a qualifying child care facility as described in Section 19.28.070 of this chapter in addition to providing housing as described in subsections A through C of this section;
G. Agrees to construct and maintain at least 10 percent of the units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, as defined in Section 66025.9 of the California Education Code, as may be amended from time to time, disabled veterans, as defined in Section 18541 of the California Government Code, as may be amended from time to time, or homeless persons, as defined in the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11301 et seq.), as may be amended from time to time, dedicated to very low income households;
H. Agrees to construct and maintain at least 20 percent of the units for lower income students in a student housing development pursuant to Section 19.28.085 of this chapter; or I. Agrees to construct and maintain 100 percent of the units, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, dedicated to lower income households, except that up to 20 percent of the units, including total units and density bonus units, may be dedicated to moderate income households.

SECTION 3. Section 19.28.060 of Chapter 19.28 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

19.28.060 Eligibility and application requirements for incentives.

A. Available Incentives. A housing development qualifying for a density bonus may be entitled to at least one incentive. Incentives may include, but are not limited to:
9 1. A reduction in site development standards such as:
a. Reduced minimum lot sizes and/or dimensions.
b. Reduced minimum lot setbacks.
c. Reduced minimum outdoor and/or private outdoor living area. d. Increased maximum lot coverage.
e. Increased maximum building height and/or stories.
f. Reduced on-site parking requirements.
g. Reduced street standards.

2. A reduction in architectural design requirements.

3. A density bonus greater than the amount required by this chapter.

4. Other regulatory incentives proposed by the developer or the City, which result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions.

B. Parking Requirements. If an applicant qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to this chapter, the applicant may request, in addition to any requested incentive(s), that reduced parking requirements be applied to the project in place of the City’s current parking requirements. The parking requirement is inclusive of accessible and guest parking for the entire housing development, but shall not include on-street parking spaces in the count towards the parking requirement. The housing development may provide onsite parking through tandem or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. In calculating the number of parking spaces required for a development, if the total number of parking spaces is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the following parking requirements shall apply:
a. Zero to one bedroom: one on-site parking space.
b. Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half on-site parking spaces. c. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half on-site parking spaces.

2. If the housing development includes at least 20 percent lower income units or at least 11 percent very low income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then the parking requirement shall be one-half on-site parking space per unit.

3. If a housing development consists solely of rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, with an affordable housing cost to lower income families, as provided in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, then no parking spaces shall be required as long as the development meets either of the following criteria:
a. The development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development; or b. The development is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 62 years of age or older that complies with Sections 51.2 and 51.3 of the California Civil Code and the development has either paratransit service or 10 unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day.

4. If a housing development consists solely of rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, with an affordable housing cost to lower income families, as provided in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the development is either a special needs housing development, as defined in Section 51312 of the California Health and Safety Code, or a supportive housing development, as defined in Section 50675.14 of the California Health and Safety Code, then no parking spaces shall be required. A development that is a special needs housing development shall have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day.

5. Upon the request of the developer, the parking requirement (inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests) shall be 0.5 spaces per bedroom if all of the following are met:
a. The housing development includes at least 40 percent moderate-income units and at least 10 percent of the units of the housing development are sold to moderate-income households, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase; and
b. The housing development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), as may be amended from time to time; and
c. The residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development.

C. Eligibility for Incentives. Incentives are available to a housing developer as follows:

1. One incentive for housing developments that: (a) restrict at least 10 percent of the total units to lower income households, at least five percent for very low income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale; or (b) are for senior housing.

2. Two incentives for housing developments that restrict at least 17 percent of the total units to lower income households, at least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.

3. Three incentives for housing developments that restrict at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.

4. Four incentives for housing developments that restrict 100 percent of the units, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, dedicated to lower income households, except that up to 20 percent of the units, including total units and density bonus units, may be dedicated to moderate income households. If the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, the applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet.
11 5. One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development.

SECTION 4. Section 19.28.100 of Chapter 19.28 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

19.28.100 Findings for approval for density bonus and/or incentive(s).

A. Density Bonus Approval. The following finding shall be made by the approving authority in order to approve a density bonus request:

1. The density bonus request meets the requirements of this chapter.

B. Density Bonus Approval with Incentive(s). The following findings shall be made by the approving authority in order to approve a density bonus and incentive(s) request:

1. The density bonus request meets the requirements of this chapter;

2. The incentive is required in order to provide affordable housing; and

3. Approval of the incentive(s) will have no specific adverse impacts upon health, safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to very low, low, and moderate income households.

C. Denial of a Request for an Incentive(s). The approving authority shall make the following findings prior to disallowing an incentive (in the case where an accompanying density bonus may be approved, or in the case of where an incentive(s) is requested for senior housing or child care facility):

1. That the incentive is not necessary in order to provide for affordable housing costs as defined in Section 19.28.020 of this chapter, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in Section 19.28.020 of this chapter.

2. That the incentive would result in specific adverse impacts upon health, safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to very low, low, and moderate income households.

3. That the incentive would be contrary to State or Federal law.

SECTION 5. Section 19.60.080 of Chapter 19.60 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

19.60.080 Use restrictions.

A. Sales Prohibited, Exceptions. Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold independently of the primary dwelling unit on the lot unless all of the criteria of Government Code Section 65852.26, as may be amended from time to time, are met, including that the accessory dwelling unit or the primary dwelling unit was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation and there are affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the 12 accessory dwelling unit or primary residence that ensure the accessory dwelling unit and primary dwelling will be preserved for low income housing for 45 years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold to a qualified buyer.

B. Rentals. Accessory dwelling units may be rented as long as the rental term exceeds 30 calendar days. Accordingly, short-term rental permits authorized pursuant to Chapter 4.25 (Short-Term Rentals) will not be issued for accessory dwelling units. ( SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of _______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 6477

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS

18.04.025, 18.04.030 AND 18.04.060 OF CHAPTER 18.04 OF TITLE 18 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CITY COUNCIL, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE POWERS, ADDING CHAPTER 18.05 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATIONS – MINISTERIAL, AMENDING SECTIONS 18.06.030, 18.06.050 AND 18.06.080 OF CHAPTER 18.06 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATIONS, AMENDING SECTIONS 18.10.010, 18.10.050, 18.10.060, 18.10.070,

18.10.080, 18.10.090, AND 18.10.100 OF CHAPTER 18.10 OF TITLE 18 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS AND VOLUNTARY MERGERS, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18.24.010 AND 18.24.015 OF CHAPTER 18.24 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING APPEALS.

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 18.04.025 of Chapter 18.04 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.04.025 Design committee.

The design committee is designated as an “advisory agency” as the term is used in the Subdivision Map Act and for the purposes defined herein. As such, the design committee shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny all tentative maps (vesting or otherwise), lot line adjustments, voluntary mergers, minor tentative map modifications, major tentative map modifications involving four or fewer parcels, tentative map extensions (vesting or otherwise), and parcel map waivers involving four or fewer parcels (refer to Table 18.04.030.A) when these permits are processed concurrently with a design review permit, with the following exceptions:

A. The director has the authority to forward the application to the planning commission if the improvements proposed or required will extend beyond the immediate front of the lot, if the project may cause an undue hardship to the adjacent parcels, or if there are potential significant environmental impacts which may result from the project.

B. A parcel map, lot line adjustment, and/or voluntary merger associated with a residential multi-unit (three or more units) or mixed use housing project that provides a minimum of 20 percent of the units as affordable units for low, very-low or extremely low income households and where the applicant agrees to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to issuance of building permits, will be approved though the ministerial engineering permit process.

SECTION 2. Section 18.04.030 of Chapter 18.04 of Title 118 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.04.030.A Notice requirements and required hearings.
2 Application Type
Table 18.04.030.A—Advisory Agency, Notice Requirements and Required Hearings
CityEngineer Director Design Committee PlanningCommission CityCouncil Tentative Maps N** - - H -
Tentative Parcel
Maps
N** A H* H* -
Lot Line Adjustments N** A H* H* -
Voluntary Merger N** A H* H* -
Certificates of
Compliance
N - -
Minor Tentative
Map Modifications
N** A H* H* -
Major Tentative
Map Modifications
- - - H -
Major Final or Parcel
Map Amendments
or Corrections
- - - - H
Reversions to
Acreage
- - - - H
Parcel Map Waiver
(four or fewer
parcels)
N H* H* -
Parcel Map Waiver
(five or more parcels)
- - - H -
Extension of
Tentative Map
Expiration Date
N** A H* H* -
Final Map - - - - N
Parcel Map with
Dedication
- - - - N
Parcel Map without
Dedication

N - - - -
NOTICE TYPES:

Type “H”: PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. NOTICE OF THE HEARING SHALL BE MAILED OR DELIVERED AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE APPLICANT,

PROPERTY OWNER, PROPERTY OWNERS AS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT SECURED ASSESSOR’S ROLL, OF PROPERTY WITH 300 FEET OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE

APPLICATION, AND ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE REQUESTED NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION

18.06.130.
3 Type “N”: NO PUBLIC HEARING OR NOTICE REQUIRED.

Type “A”: THE PUBLIC HEARING MAY BE WAIVED. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPROVE ENTITLEMENT SHALL BE MAILED OR DELIVERED AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO AN ACTION TO

APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE OWNERS, AS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT SECURED ASSESSOR’S ROLL, OF PROPERTY WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN

THE APPLICATION, AND ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE REQUESTED NOTICE, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 18.06.125 AND 18.10.060 OF THIS TITLE.
* WHEN PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY WITH A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, REZONE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ETC.
** FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 18.10 OR SECTION 18.05 SECTION 3. Section 18.04.060 of Chapter 18.04 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.04.060 Director.

The director shall be responsible for providing application forms and processing applications. For all tentative maps, minor and major tentative map amendments, lot line adjustments, voluntary mergers, reversions to acreage, parcel map waivers, tentative map extensions and minor and major parcel or final map amendments and corrections subject to the approving authority of the director (refer to Table 18.04.030.A), the director shall refer all applications to the affected departments and agencies which have an interest in the project. The director shall prepare a report for such applications at least three calendar days prior to action or the public hearing. The report shall have in it a recommended action for the application.

The director is designated as an “advisory agency” as the term is used in the Subdivision Map Act and for the purposes defined herein.

The director shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny all tentative parcel map applications (vesting or otherwise), lot line adjustments, voluntary mergers, minor tentative map modifications, tentative map extensions (vesting or otherwise) subject to the approving authority of the director (refer to Table 18.04.030.A); except that the director has the authority to forward the application to the commission if the improvements proposed or required will extend beyond the immediate front of the lot, if the project may cause an undue hardship to the adjacent parcels, or if there are potential significant environmental impacts which may result from the project.

SECTION 4. Chapter 18.05 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:

18.05 PARCEL MAP APPLICATIONS – MINISTERIAL

18.05.010 Tentative map required.
4 A tentative map shall be required wherever a final map or parcel map is required by the Subdivision Map Act, unless specifically waived by the provisions of this title or the Subdivision Map Act. (Ord. 2747 § 1, 1993.)

18.05.020 Application Required.

Whenever a tentative map is required, the subdivider shall submit to the director a complete tentative map application to be processed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and title. An application shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 18.06 unless it is a parcel map associated with a residential multi-unit (three or more units) or mixed use housing project that provides a minimum of 20 percent of the units as affordable units for low, very-low or extremely low income households and where the applicant agrees to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to recordation of the parcel map (hereinafter Affordable Housing Project), or the application meets the following qualifying criteria for a ministerial parcel map:

A. The parcel is located within a single-family residential zone, which are the City’s singlefamily residential (R1) and small lot residential (RS) zones.

B. The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.

C. Both newly-created parcels are a minimum of 1,200 square feet.

D. The parcel being subdivided has not been established through prior exercise of a parcel map pursuant to this section, nor has the owner or any person acting in concert with the owner previously subdivided an adjacent parcel pursuant to this section.

E. The proposed parcel map would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:

1. Housing subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.

2. Housing which has been occupied by a tenant anytime within the last three years.

3. Housing subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.

4. A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.

F. The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.

G. The parcel is not located on a site that is or contains any of the following, pursuant to Government Code subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4:
5 1. Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction.

2. Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).

3. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.

4. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses.

5. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part

2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.

6. Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. A development may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either of the following are met:
a. The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction. b. The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) 6 and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

7. Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site.

8. Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan.

9. Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).

10. Lands under conservation easement.

18.05.030 Application Materials Required.

Whenever a tentative map is required, the subdivider shall submit to the director a complete tentative map application to be processed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and title.

A complete application shall include the following:

A. Application Form.

1. The application shall be in a form specified by the director and shall be accompanied with the correct filing fee;

2. A description of the applicant’s interest in the property shall be stated on the application form;

3. A dated signature by the property owner, or owners, authorizing the processing of the application, and, if so desired by the property owner, authorizing a representative to bind the property owner on matters addressed in the application.

B. Tentative Map: Preparation, Form and Number of Copies.

1. The tentative map shall be clearly and legibly drawn and prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 7 2. The scale of the map shall be at least one inch equals 40 feet unless otherwise specified by the director. If necessary to provide the proper scale, more than one sheet may be used, but the relation of the several sheets shall be clearly shown on each.

3. No single sheet shall exceed 60 inches in length and 42 inches in width.

4. Full size copies, and one copy reduced to eight and one-half inches by 11 inches (suitable for reproduction) of the tentative map. The number of the tentative map copies shall be specified by the director.

C. The following information shall appear on the face of the tentative map:

1. The proposed subdivision name;

2. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the record owner and subdivider of the land;

3. Name, address and telephone number of the person, firm or organization that prepared the tentative map, and the applicable registration or license number;

4. Date of preparation, north arrow and scale of the map;

5. If the tentative map is based on a survey, the date of the survey;

6. A vicinity map of appropriate scale sufficiently covering adjoining territory to clearly indicate the nearby street patterns, major access streets, property lines, and other adjacent properties in the subdivider’s ownership (north arrow pointing in the same direction as the north direction of the subdivision);

7. A statement of existing and proposed zoning and general plan categories, and existing and proposed uses of the property, with the approximate areas of the proposed uses by type;

8. Boundaries and dimensions of the property(ies) involved in the subdivision, with sufficient information to locate the property(ies), and the total area of the subdivision;

9. A list of all service providers and districts, including water, sewer, electric, natural gas, phone, cable and schools;

10. The name of all adjacent subdivisions, if any, and property lines sufficient to show their relationship to the proposed subdivision;

11. Contour lines at intervals of not more than two feet where the general slope of the property is less than 10 percent, and/or at five-foot intervals where the general slope of the property exceeds 10 percent. Contour lines shall extend beyond the tract boundaries where necessary to show drainage conditions on surrounding property which may affect the subdivision;

12. Topographic information shall be sufficient to fully show the configuration of the land and any and all depressions that present drainage problems;

13. The location and general description of any trees with notations as to their specimen type, and other significant natural features with notations as to their retention or destruction;

14. The location of all structures within the subdivision boundaries, notations if they are to remain or be removed, and their distances from other structures and existing or proposed streets and lot lines;
8 15. The locations, widths and purposes of all existing and proposed easements for utilities, drainage and other public or private purposes, shown by dashed lines, within and adjacent to the subdivision;

16. The location of any 100-year future floodplain. The city engineer may require additional hydrologic analysis to update or determine the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain;

17. Any area of fill or excavation and their respective quantities within the 100-year future floodplain;

18. The locations, widths and names or designations of all existing or proposed streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and other rights-of-way, whether public or private, within and adjacent to the subdivision (including the radius of each centerline curve);

19. The lines and approximate dimensions of all lots, with sequential numbers assigned to each;

20. The total number of lots (listed by phase, if applicable);

21. The total area in square footage or acreage to the nearest one-tenth acre of each lot proposed to be utilized for other than single-family or two-family housing; and

22. A statement on the face of the tentative map declaring that all easements of record are shown on the tentative map and will appear on the final maps.

D. Additional Information and Plans Required With Ministerial Tentative Map Application. In addition, the following plans and information shall be submitted with a tentative map application:

1. A statement of proposed improvements, including all utilities and landscaping; and

2. A preliminary title report issued not more than six months prior to its submission to the city.

3. Except for an Affordable Housing Project, an affidavit signed by the applicant stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the parcel map.

This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is a “community land trust,” as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The affidavit shall further state that the applicant understands that uses allowed on the newly-created lots shall be limited to residential uses.

18.05.040 Prefiling.

Within 30 days of receiving a tentative map application the planning department shall, in writing, determine if the application meets the requirements of Section 18.05.020 and Section

18.05.030. When an application is either ineligible for the ministerial parcel map process or is missing any required information it will not be processed. Prefiling occurs on the date that the application is received with all required information. (Ord. 3286 § 3, 1998; Ord. 2747 § 1, 1993.)

18.05.050 Application referral.
9 Within five days of prefiling the director will refer copies of the tentative map application to any city department, local, state or federal agency, or other individual or group the director believes may be interested in the project. If no response is received within 21 days of the referral date, the director will assume that the outside agency, individual or group has no comments. (Ord. 2747 § 1, 1993.)

18.05.060 Acceptance of application.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65943, a tentative map application shall be accepted as complete by the director if it meets the requirements of Section 18.05.030 of this title.

Within 30 days of prefiling, the director shall send a letter to the applicant indicating:

A. If all of the required information for a tentative map application has been correctly submitted pursuant to Section 18.05.030; and
B. All information necessary to accept a complete application and to clarify, amplify, correct or supplement the application; and
C. Suggested design changes or conditions of approval which may need to be met in order to receive approval.

If the director determines additional information is required, and the additional information has not been received within six months of the letter requesting the information, then the application shall be deemed withdrawn, unless extended pursuant to § 18.06.150. (Ord. 2747 § 1, 1993.)

18.05.070 Application deemed “filed.”
An application shall be deemed filed in accordance with Section 66452.1 of the Subdivision Map Act on the date the tentative map application is accepted as complete as specified in Section 18.05.060. (Ord. 2747 § 1, 1993.)

18.05.080 Approval by City Engineer.

After an application is filed, the City Engineer shall approve the tentative map based upon the minimum findings below, and in accordance with the requirements of this title.

A. The tentative map conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided in this section.

B. The tentative map conforms to objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards, except that conformance is not required where imposition of the standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet, nor shall it be required to correct existing nonconforming zoning conditions. 10 C. The tentative map provides necessary easements for the provision of public services and facilities.

D. The parcels have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.

E. The project will not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

SECTION 5. Section 18.06.030 of Chapter 18.06 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 18.06 TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATIONS – DISCRETIONARY

18.06.030 Application required to process a tentative map.

Whenever a tentative map is required, the subdivider shall submit to the director a complete tentative map application to be processed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and title.

A complete application shall include the following:

A. Application Form.

1. The application shall be in a form specified by the director and shall be accompanied with the correct filing fee;

2. A description of the applicant’s interest in the property shall be stated on the application form;

B. Tentative Map: Preparation, Form and Number of Copies.

1. The tentative map shall be clearly and legibly drawn and prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.

2. The scale of the map shall be at least one inch equals 40 feet unless otherwise specified by the director. If necessary to provide the proper scale, more than one sheet may be used, but the relation of the several sheets shall be clearly shown on each.

3. No single sheet shall exceed 60 inches in length and 42 inches in width.

C. Information Required on a Discretionary Tentative Map. The following information shall appear on the face of the tentative map:

1. The proposed subdivision name;

2. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the record owner and subdivider of the land;

3. Name, address and telephone number of the person, firm or organization that prepared the tentative map, and the applicable registration or license number;

4. Date of preparation, north arrow and scale of the map; 11 5. If the tentative map is based on a survey, the date of the survey;

7. A statement of existing and proposed zoning and general plan categories, and existing and proposed uses of the property, with the approximate areas of the proposed uses by type;

8. Boundaries and dimensions of the property(ies) involved in the subdivision, with sufficient information to locate the property(ies), and the total area of the subdivision;

9. A list of all service providers and districts, including water, sewer, electric, natural gas, phone, cable and schools;

10. The name of all adjacent subdivisions, if any, and property lines sufficient to show their relationship to the proposed subdivision;

12. Topographic information shall be sufficient to fully show the configuration of the land and any and all depressions that present drainage problems;

13. The location and general description of any trees with notations as to their specimen type, and other significant natural features with notations as to their retention or destruction;

14. The location of all railroad rights-of-way and grade crossings; approximate locations of all existing wells, abandoned wells and sumps; and an indication of any physical restrictions or conditions in the subdivision which affect the use of the property;

15. The location of all structures within the subdivision boundaries, notations if they are to remain or be removed, and their distances from other structures and existing or proposed streets and lot lines;

16. The locations, widths and purposes of all existing and proposed easements for utilities, drainage and other public or private purposes, shown by dashed lines, within and adjacent to the subdivision;

17. The location of any 100-year future floodplain. The city engineer may require additional hydrologic analysis to update or determine the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain;

18. Any area of fill or excavation and their respective quantities within the 100-year future floodplain;

19. The proposed method of providing storm water, drainage and erosion control;

20. The locations, widths and names or designations of all existing or proposed streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and other rights-of-way, whether public or private, within and adjacent to the subdivision (including the radius of each centerline curve);

21. Any planned line for street widening or for any other public project in and adjacent to the subdivision;

22. The lines and approximate dimensions of all lots, with sequential numbers assigned to each;

23. The total number of lots (listed by phase, if applicable); 12 24. The total area in square footage or acreage to the nearest one-tenth acre of each lot proposed to be utilized for other than single-family or two-family housing;

25. The boundaries and acreages of existing and proposed public areas in and adjacent to the subdivision, with the nature of each indicated thereon with the acreage thereof;

26. Land to be offered for dedication for park or recreation purposes, for school purposes, for purposes of providing public access to any public waterway, river or stream, or other public purpose, shall be so designated;

27. Any changes to the subdivision design standards requested pursuant to Section

18.08.090 of this title must be shown on the tentative map and shall be clearly labeled and identified;

28. If multiple final or parcel maps are to be filed on portions of the property shown on the tentative map, a clear statement on the face of the tentative map indicating the intent of the subdivider to do so. Except that if a development agreement obligates the subdivider to show proposed phasing of multiple final maps, then the subdivider shall show the phases on the tentative map; and

29. A statement on the face of the tentative map declaring that all easements of record are shown on the tentative map and will appear on the final maps.

D. Additional Information and Plans Required With Discretionary Tentative Map Application. In addition, the following plans and information shall be submitted with a tentative map application:

1. A preliminary grading plan prepared in conformance with the improvement standards;

2. A preliminary soils report shall be submitted with every tentative map application.

The preliminary soils report may be waived by the city engineer if the city engineer determines that, due to the knowledge the city engineer has as to the soil qualities of the subdivision, a preliminary soils analysis is not necessary. If the preliminary soils report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems, including seepage, rocks or liquids containing deleterious chemicals which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects or the deterioration of construction materials, a soils investigation of each lot in the subdivision may be required by the city engineer as a condition precedent to consideration of the tentative map. Any soils investigation done pursuant to this title shall be prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer, engineering geologist or geologist, specializing and recognized in soil mechanics and foundation engineering, and licensed in the state of California.

3. A statement of proposed improvements, including all utilities and landscaping;

4. Sufficient information concerning the existing use of land and water areas in the vicinity of the proposed project, insofar as the applicant can reasonably ascertain.

5. Any alterations proposed to the subdivision design standards shall be accompanied by supporting drawings, statements and other data as required in Section

18.08.090;

6. A preliminary title report issued not more than six months prior to its submission to the city;

7. A traffic study, if required by the criteria established in the improvement standards;

8. A master transportation, grading, and utility plans for subdivisions which exceed 100 acres or 250 parcels, or when required by the city engineer. The plans shall include all 13 necessary supporting technical data and computations as required by the city engineer and the city’s improvement standards; and

9. Any other information the director deems necessary to review the application.

E. Additional Information Required for Vesting Tentative Maps. A subdivider who chooses to submit a vesting tentative map as provided for in this chapter shall also submit the following detailed information with the tentative map application:

1. Height, size, and location of all existing or proposed buildings, or structures;

2. Utility, sewer, water, storm drain, and road details;

3. Detailed grading plans adequate for issuance of a grading permit;

4. Complete applications for all other discretionary entitlements which are necessary for the proposed use(s);

5. Traffic circulation and impact;

6. Floodway control and impact;

7. A description of the proposed use(s) of the land.

SECTION 6. Section 18.06.050 of Chapter 18.06 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.06.050 Application referral.

Within five days of prefiling the director will refer copies of the tentative map application to any city department, local, state or federal agency, or other individual or group the director believes may be interested in the project. If no response is received within 21 days of the referral date, the director will assume that the outside agency, individual or group has no comments.

Comments related to an environmental document for a project may still be accepted and considered during its public review period.

SECTION 7. Section 18.06.080 of Chapter 18.06 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.06.080 Environmental review of application.

A. Within 30 days of accepting a complete tentative map application, the director shall determine the appropriate environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

B. The director shall prepare and circulate for public review and comment the appropriate environmental document in accordance with CEQA. If the tentative map application is exempt from CEQA, a notice of exemption will be prepared.

SECTION 8. Section 18.10.010 of Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.10.010 Applications required.

A. Whenever a lot line is adjusted between two or more lots, where the land taken from one lot is added to another lot, and where a greater number of lots than currently exists will not be created, a lot line adjustment application shall be filed with the director. A lot line adjustment associated with a residential multi-unit (three or more units) or mixed use housing project that provides a minimum of 20 percent of the units as affordable units for low, very-low or extremely 14 low income households and where the applicant agrees to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment, will be approved though the ministerial engineering permit process in lieu of the discretionary lot line adjustment process.

B. Whenever two or more adjacent lots are to be merged voluntarily pursuant to Section 66499.20-3/4 of the Subdivision Map Act, a voluntary merger application shall be filed with the director. A voluntary merger associated with a residential multi-unit (three or more units) or mixed use housing project that provides a minimum of 20 percent of the units as affordable units for low, very-low or extremely low income households and where the applicant agrees to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to recordation of the voluntary merger, will be approved though the ministerial engineering permit process in lieu of the discretionary lot line adjustment process.

C. In accordance with Government Code Section 66499.20-1/2, subdivided lands may be merged and resubdivided without reverting to acreage by complying with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this title. All such requests shall be processed as a tentative map application in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.06.040 et seq. The filing of the final map or parcel map shall constitute the legal merger of the separate parcels into one parcel and the resubdividing of such parcel.

SECTION 9. Section 18.10.050 of Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.10.050 Acceptance of application.

Following the referral period, the director shall send a letter to the applicant stating whether or not all required information for the lot line adjustment or voluntary merger application has been submitted, and itemizing all information necessary to accept the application. For discretionary applications the letter may also include recommended design changes or conditions of approval which may be recommended to the advisory agency.

If the director determines that the application meets the requirements above, then the director shall:

A. For ministerial applications, forward the project to the city engineer for review and approval.

B. For discretionary applications, notice the project and pursuant to Table 18.04.030.A and set a tentative action date. Except that the director has the authority to forward the application to the commission for it to act upon.

SECTION 10. Section 18.10.060 of Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.10.060 Minimum notice of a public hearing.

A. A notice of an intent to approve shall be provided for all lot line adjustment and voluntary merger applications except that no notice of intent shall be required to be provided for 15 a prototype development plan project located within the Riverside Gateway specific plan area or for ministerial projects. Lot line adjustments and voluntary mergers associated with a Riverside Gateway specific plan area prototype development plan project shall be processed as stipulated in the Riverside Gateway specific plan implementation procedures. For all other discretionary lot line adjustments and voluntary mergers, notice of the intent to approve shall be given at least 10 days in advance of the approval as follows:

1. By mailing, U.S. first class postage prepaid, to the applicant, the property owner of the affected property and to the property owners of all property within 300 feet of the affected property as such owners are shown on the last equalized assessment roll of Placer County.

B. Each notice to approve shall contain at a minimum:

1. The name(s) of the applicant(s) and property owner(s) of the affected property;

2. The file number assigned to the application;

3. The location of the affected property, both in text and graphically in the form of a map;

4. A description of the nature of the request;

5. A preliminary environmental determination;

6. Identification of the advisory agency as community development/planning director and the scheduled date for action; and

7. The following statement:
“The purpose of this notice is to inform you that an application for the described project has been submitted to the Roseville Planning Department. The Community Development/Planning Director may act on the application without holding a public hearing, unless a public hearing is requested in writing by you or any individual wanting to comment on the project prior to the scheduled approval date.”

8. A notice that if the decision is challenged in court, the challenge may be limited to raising only those issues which were raised at the public hearing, if a public hearing is requested, or in written correspondence delivered to the community development/planning director at, or prior to, the public hearing; and

9. A discussion of the procedure for requesting a public hearing or filing an appeal.

C. Written notice shall also be given to any person requesting in writing notice of a particular application.

D. In addition to these notification procedures, the city may choose to give notice of the public hearing in any other way it deems necessary or desirable.

SECTION 11. Section 18.10.070 of Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.10.070 Withdrawal by applicant.

Requests for withdrawal of any application pursuant to this title shall be submitted to the director in writing, unless made at the public hearing. Upon receipt of such request, the director shall notify all concerned parties of the withdrawal. A refund of the filing fee shall be made in accordance with adopted resolutions and ordinances in effect at the time the withdrawal is made. 16 SECTION 12. Section 18.10.080 of Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.10.080 Approval, conditional approval or denial by advisory agency.

A. Following the notice, the advisory agency shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in accordance with the requirements of this title. All decisions of the advisory agency may be appealed in accordance with the appeal procedures of Chapter 18.24.

B. The advisory agency shall attach conditions to the approval of a lot line adjustment to facilitate the following:

1. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance for the district in which the parcels are located; except that if the parcels or structures are nonconforming with respect to Zoning Ordinance requirements, the lot line adjustment does not increase the degree of nonconformance;

2. Compliance with the local building regulations, including the UBC; and,

3. The relocation of existing infrastructure or easements.

C. The advisory agency may, for a voluntary merger, attach conditions in addition to those listed above to achieve compliance with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, the Zoning Ordinance, The Roseville Municipal Code, the subdivision design standards in Chapter

18.08, and any other applicable policy or standard adopted by the city council.

SECTION 13. Section 18.10.090 of Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.10.090 Notice of decision.

Within two working days of the action by the advisory agency, the director shall mail a notice of the decision to the applicant at the address appearing on the application, or to such other address designated in writing by the applicant. The notice shall contain the following information:

A. Findings upon which the decision was based;
B. The environmental document prepared and date ratified, unless exempt; C. The action of the advisory agency;
D. Conditions of approval;
E. An application expiration date and renewal requirements; F. Notice of the appeal period and brief description; and G. Notice of need to pursue administrative remedies.

SECTION 14. Section 18.10.100 of Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.10.100 Effective date.

A decision by the advisory agency to approve or conditionally approve a discretionary application shall be effective upon the expiration of the 10-calendar-day appeal period, unless an 17 appeal is received. A decision by the city engineer to approve a ministerial application shall be effective upon the approval date.

SECTION 15. Section 18.24.010 of Chapter 18.24 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.24.010 Appeal authority.

The appeal authority is designated according to Table 18.24.015 to hear appeals from any decision made pursuant to this title, including those relating to acceptance of prefiling materials, and to hear appeals of any decision of an advisory agency as designated in this title. Ministerial applications are not subject to appeal.

SECTION 16. Section 18.24.015 of Chapter 18.24 of Title 18 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.24.015 Appeal authority, notice requirement and required hearing.

APPEAL AUTHORITY, NOTICE REQUIREMENT AND REQUIRED HEARING Appeal from Action or Decision
of
Appeal Authority Notice Requirement
City Engineer Planning Commission H*
Community Development/Planning
Director
Planning Commission H*
Design Committee City Council H*
Planning Commission City Council H*
Notice Type:

Type “H”: Public Hearing—Notice of the public hearing shall be provided consistent with Public Hearing Notice requirement in 18.06.130.

SECTION 17. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

SECTION 18. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of _______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:
18 AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2008
File #: 0600-02
Title: Out-of-State Travel Request - Police Department
Contact: Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.21.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff requests that City Council approve out-of-state travel for three Police Department staff members to attend the Tyler New World Connect Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana, from May 15th to May 18th, 2022.

BACKGROUND
The Police Department uses a variety of Tyler Technology Public Safety software, including the recently deployed Enterprise Mobile Software Stop Data program (formerly known as Brazos) which is being used by the department to collect the state-mandated demographic data for compliance with AB953, the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015. The Police Department’s involvement in the development of Tyler’s Stop Data program resulted in the agency being nominated for and winning the Tyler Excellence Award which will be presented to agency staff onsite at the Tyler Conference. Additionally, the conference programming will allow staff to learn to maximize the use of the public safety products utilized by the agency and to collaborate with the vendor and other users to improve efficiency and increase functionality of the Enterprise Mobile Software Stop Data program.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for travel, lodging, and conference cost is estimated at $3,000 per attendee for a total of $9,000. There are sufficient funds in the FY2021-22 Police Department budget in the General Fund to cover the expenditure. No additional funds are being requested.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of out-of-state travel meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Peinado, Management Analyst
Troy Bergstrom, Police Chief
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2011
File #: 0102-10
Title: Resolution - Lorrie McClain
Contact: Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 7.22.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Lorrie McClain for her 23 years of outstanding service and dedication to the City of Roseville, congratulate her for her many accomplishments, and wish her a long, healthy, and enjoyable retirement.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Ceremonial documents meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Not applicable.

Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution - Lorrie McClain

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2026
File #: 0709-03-02
Title:

Reservation of Affordable Housing Funds for Development of Affordable Housing Projects
Contact: Trisha Isom 916-746-1239 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 8.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to reserve $7.5 million in funding for the following affordable housing projects:

1. Reserve $1,364,239 from the City of Roseville Local Housing Trust Fund and $1,135,761 from the State Local Housing Trust Fund toward the construction of Hampstead’s affordable housing project, Prospera at Fiddyment Ranch; and

2. Reserve $2,500,000 from the City of Roseville Local Housing Trust Fund toward the construction of Mercy Housing’s affordable housing project, Pleasant Grove Apartments; and

3. Reserve $2,500,000 from the City of Roseville Local Housing Trust Fund, Affordable Housing Fund and Low/Mod Fund toward the construction of Bridge Housing’s affordable housing project, 505 Royer Apartments.

BACKGROUND
The California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for approximately $57 million in funds for the Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program on May 3, 2021. This funding provides matching grants to Local Housing Trust Funds established by cities and counties, Native American Tribes and incorporated 501(c) (3) non-profit organizations. The objective of the LHTF grant is to expand funding sources in order to increase the supply of affordable housing. Eligible activities include construction loans and/or permanent financing loans to pay for predevelopment costs, acquisition costs, and other costs associated with the development or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing projects, or emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and affordable homebuyer/homeowner projects.

As part of the application process, applicants must identify the project(s) that will be funded with the local match and LHTF Program funds. HCD’s scoring criteria also provides extra points specifically for Housing Trust Funds that completed a first phase funding process to identify multifamily rental projects. To meet these requirements, the Roseville Housing Division released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) on June 15, 2021 and requested applications from qualified affordable housing developers and project sponsors. The Housing Division received three responses to the NOFA and all three were placed on the City’s Affordable Housing Pipeline Report (Attachment 1) subject to full project underwriting and approval of funding by City Council.

Council authorized staff to complete and submit a LHTF application in July 2021 and an application was submitted to HCD for $5 million in matching funds on August 3, 2021. In December 2021, the City received notice of a successful application and a LHTF program award of $5 million from HCD. Staff sent commitment letters notifying the three developers of full funding awards in early January 2022. Unfortunately, the City was misinformed and in January 2022, HCD issued a corrected award letter reducing the award amount to $1,135,761.

Although the City cannot fully commit to the initial funding amounts requested for each of the affordable housing projects, staff recommends proceeding with an award of $2.5 million to each of the projects listed in the Affordable Housing Pipeline, as shown on Attachment 1. The proposed funding reservations are necessary to demonstrate a commitment of local funds and will support all three projects in qualifying for additional state and federal affordable housing funds.

The City also intends to apply for the 2022 LHTF program utilizing the existing Affordable Housing Pipeline report. If successful, it will allow the City to fully fund all three affordable housing projects as initially requested. Once the projects are successful in securing full funding, staff will bring forward the necessary loan and regulatory agreement documents required for development of the projects for Council review and consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City's Local Housing Trust Fund receives funding from developer in-lieu fees, payoffs from resales and payoffs from developer subsidy loans. The Housing Division has funding available in the Local Housing Trust Fund, Affordable Housing Fund and Low/Mod Fund in the amount of $6.4 million, in addition to the $1,135,761 in state funds, and plans to leverage these funds for this purpose. No General Fund resources will be used for the Local Housing Trust Fund reservation of funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The request for reservation of funds to develop affordable housing meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Respectfully Submitted,
Trisha Isom, Housing Manager
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-105
Affordable Housing Pipeline Reservations
RESOLUTION NO. 22-105
APPROVING THE RESERVATION OF $7,500,000 IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS

FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2021, the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for approximately $57 million in funds for the Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program; and WHEREAS, as part of the application process, applicants must identify the project(s) that will be funded with the local match and LHTF Program funds; and WHEREAS, the Roseville Housing Division released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) on June 15, 2021 and requested applications from qualified affordable housing developers and project sponsors; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Division received three responses to the NOFA and all three were placed on the City’s Affordable Housing Pipeline Report; and WHEREAS, as requested by Council, staff submitted a LHTF application in July 2021 and an application was submitted to HCD for $5M in matching funds on August 3, 2021; and WHEREAS, in December 2021, the City received notice of a successful application and a LHTF program award of $5M from HCD; and
WHEREAS, HCD issued a corrected award letter reducing the award amount to $1,135,761; and
WHEREAS, since the City cannot fully commit to the initial funding amounts requested for each of the affordable housing projects, staff recommends proceeding with an award of $2.5M to each of the projects listed in the Affordable Housing Pipeline; and WHEREAS, the proposed funding reservations are necessary to demonstrate a commitment of local funds and will support all three projects in qualifying for additional state and federal affordable housing funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Roseville, that it hereby approves reserving $1,364,239 from the City of Roseville Local Housing Trust Fund and $1,135,761 from the State Local Housing Trust Fund toward the construction of Prospera at Fiddyment Ranch; reserving $2,500,000 from the City of Roseville Local Housing Trust Fund toward the construction of Pleasant Grove Apartments; and reserving $2,500,000 from the City of Roseville Local Housing Trust Fund, Affordable Housing Fund and Low/Mod Fund toward the construction of 505 Royer Apartments.
.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Development Location
Total #
units in
project
Original
Award
Reservation
Request State LHTF City LHTF
City
Affordable
City
Low/Mod
Hampstead 2801 N Hayden PW 94 2,500,000 $ $ 2,500,000 $ 1,135,761 $ ‐ 1,364,239 $ ‐ $ Mercy 1721 Pleasant Grove 98 4,000,000 $ $ ‐ 2,500,000 $ $ ‐ 2,500,000 $ ‐ $ Bridge 505 Royer 56 3,500,000 $ $ ‐ 2,500,000 $ $ 400,000 $ 700,000 $ 1,400,000Totals 248 10,000,000 $ $ 7,500,000 $ 1,135,761 $ 4,264,239 $ 700,000 $ 1,400,000 City of Roseville Affordable Housing Pipeline
The City of Roseville's Housing Trust Fund is the City's primary tool for supporting new affordable housing development. The City has made funding commitments with the developers listed below to bring new units to our community.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2040
File #: 0102
Title: Council Discretionary Funds - Lincoln Veterans Memorial Coalition Contact: Cary Camilleri 916-746-1350 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 9.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Recommend City Council consider a request from The Lincoln Veterans Memorial Coalition for Council Discretionary Funds. The choice of sponsorship level of any amount is greatly appreciated.

The City Council has $14,509 available at this time in the FY2021-22 budget.

BACKGROUND
The Lincoln Veterans Memorial Coalition for Council Discretionary Funds to help provide funding for the Placer County Veterans Monument at McBean Memorial Park in Lincoln, California. The monument is built and currently includes Roseville veterans. The Lincoln Veterans Memorial Coalition is looking to raise $100,000 for the next phase of the monument. They are not asking for any specific amount, however, the sponsorship request will allow for additional plaques available to purchase for all verified Placer County & Roseville veterans.

The Citizens’ Benefit Fund was established in 1993 with the net proceeds from the sale of the Roseville Hospital. The City Council may, after receiving the recommendation of the Roseville Grants Advisory Commission, annually appropriate up to 90 percent of the annual earnings of the Citizens’ Benefit Fund to improve the quality of life for the citizens of the City of Roseville. In addition, without the recommendation of the Roseville Grants Advisory Commission, the City Council may annually appropriate a minor amount of up to $15,000 of the annual earnings to improve the quality of life in Roseville.

The request is from The Lincoln Veterans Memorial Coalition for materials and labor costs for constructing the Placer County Veterans Monument at McBean Memorial Park in Lincoln, California.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund. Annually the City Treasurer allocates $15,000 of the annual earnings on the Citizens’ Benefit Fund per section 4.06.04 in the Municipal Code and is included in the annual budget along with the Citizens’ Benefit Fund available for appropriation each year. These earnings are restricted for the purpose of improving the quality of life for the citizens in Roseville and appropriated by the City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The award of funds meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Respectfully Submitted,
Cary Camilleri, Management Assistant
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Lincoln Veterans Memorial Coalition

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2010
File #: 0103-22
Title: Measure B Local Sales Tax Citizens' Oversight Committee Report Contact: Dennis Kauffman 916-774-5313 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 9.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council receive an informational report and presentation from the Local Sales Tax Citizens' Oversight Committee on the fiscal year 2020-21 revenue and expenditures of the Measure B sales and use tax.

BACKGROUND
The Local Sales Tax Citizens' Oversight Committee (Committee) was created when Measure B was passed by Roseville voters in the November 6, 2018 election. The Committee is charged with the annual review and report to the City Council on the revenue and expenditures of the Measure B sales and use tax.

As part of the EngageRoseville effort that led to Measure B, the City asked the community about its priorities for city services to help guide the City in developing future budgets. Those priorities, along with Council priorities, were reflected in the FY2020-21 budget as follows:

Services maintained
• Specialized police and fire services
• Fire engine company
• Recreation and library programs
• Street maintenance levels
• Job-creation and business recruitment initiatives
Services restored
• Library hours
• 4th of July fireworks
• Fire training and investigations
• Goat grazing for thatch management in open space
• Park maintenance standards
• Industry training and development
Services added
• Establish new police beat in West Roseville
• Maintenance for three citywide parks, allowing for construction to occur Fiscal health investments
• Build economic stabilization reserve fund
• Pay down CalPERS pension obligation
• Pay down retiree health liability
On November 30, 2021, at the Committee’s request, City staff, with the assistance of an external consulting firm, Management Partners, developed a draft Measure B scorecard to be used as a tool for the committee’s annual evaluation of Measure B revenues and expenditures.

The Committee met on February 8, 2022, and received a presentation on the City’s year-end report from staff. The presentation was a summary of the information provided to the Committee, including the following documents:
o Measure B Scorecard
o 2021 City of Roseville Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) o Fourth Quarter Report FY2020-21
o General Ledger Detail
o General Fund Reserves Policy
o FY2020-21 Annual Budget
o FY2020-21 Year-end Report and Budget Adjustment Council Communication o Roseville Citizens' Oversight Committee Memo March 17, 2021 Final The Committee met again on March 29, 2022, to finalize its annual review and report to the City Council on the revenue and expenditures of the Measure B sales and use tax.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to receiving this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The report to the City Council from the Local Sales Tax Citizens' Oversight Committee meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Pettingell, Budget Manager
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Local Sales Tax Citizens Oversight Committee Report to Council Roseville Local Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Memorandum
To: Roseville City Council
From: Local Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee
Date: March 29, 2022
Subject: Citizens’ Oversight Committee update for April 20, 2022 Roseville City Council Meeting
History of Measure B
• Measure B is a half-cent local sales and use tax to protect Roseville’s essential services and was approved by voters in the November 6, 2018 election, with the expected annual revenue of $16 to $19 million.
• On April 1, 2019, the sales and use tax rate in Roseville increased from 7.25% to 7.75%.

Role of the Citizen Oversight Committee
• The Citizens’ Oversight Committee (Committee) was proposed as an independent citizen oversight on the Measure B funds.
• The Committee was created when Measure B passed in the November 6, 2018 election. • The Committee is charged with the annual review and report to the City Council on the revenue and expenditures of the Measure B sales and use tax.

Current Members Term End
Richard Duffy 6/30/2023
Stephanie Hill 6/30/2025
Kathryn Kitchell 6/30/2023
Meghan Krafka 6/30/2023
John Speight 6/30/2025
Measure B is a General Tax and the monies collected are appropriated to the General Fund where revenues are not allocated and tracked for a specific purpose. The Measure B ballot information stated that “the City may use the funds for any municipal purpose, including but not limited to essential services such as neighborhood police patrols, fire protection, 9-1-1 emergency response; crime suppression/investigation; street and pothole repair; libraries, parks and recreation; and job creation and economic improvement programs.” It is not possible for the Committee to determine the exact programs/services supported by Measure B revenues.

Review of Committee Meetings
• The November 30, 2021 meeting consisted of the following:

Roseville Local Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee o Review of the Brown Act by Joe Mandell, Senior Deputy City Attorney o Presentation by Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer:
• Committee Overview
• Draft Measure B Scorecard
The Measure B Scorecard (Scorecard) was prepared by staff, in conjunction with a consultant, as an additional resource for the Committee in its review of compliance of the use of Measure B Funds with the original purpose for Measure B as stated in the ballot.

The Committee agreed the format of the Draft Scorecard, with some minor changes, is a helpful tool.
• The February 8, 2022 meeting consisted of the following:
o Presentation of the City’s year-end report by Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer. The presentation was a summary of information provided to the Committee as exhibits:
• Year-end Report: Discussion of Fiscal year July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 General Fund revenues and expenditures
◘ Annual Budget overview
◘ Fourth Quarter and Year End results
◘ Memo to City Council proposing a budget adjustment
◘ Status of reserve accounts
◘ General impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
• Final Measure B Scorecard
o Recommendation by the City staff that the Committee designate one or two Committee members to prepare the Committee’s report to the City Council.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee Report of the Funds from Fiscal Year 2020/2021 • Fiscal year 2020/2021 resulted in $24.5M in Measure B revenue which was $5.9M more than budgeted. Actual Measure B revenues exceeded budget primarily due to the conservative approach in budgeting for major tax revenues to compensate for impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and general economic recovery.
• The Committee notes that because Measure B revenue is a general tax comingled with other General Fund revenue and pooled for General Fund expenditures, it is not possible to trace specific expenditures back to Measure B revenue. • General Fund expenditures were $7M less than budgeted. The bulk of this reduction was in Development Services ($1.6M), Public Works ($.83M), and Parks, Recreation and Libraries ($2.62M). The reduction in Parks, Recreation and Libraries expenditures resulted primarily from temporary closures of facilities and services due to the pandemic. • The Police and Fire Departments spent virtually 100% of their budgets. • Actual results for the year indicate a one-time surplus of $28.5M. Staff prepared a memo to City Council requesting the following partial use of the surplus:

Roseville Local Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee o $4.4M for street resurfacing
o $.7M for replacement of a tractor drawn fire truck
o $.3M to replace funds used from the Contingency Fund for replacement of the Roseville Aquatics Center slide and water play structure.

The $23.1M remaining surplus will be discussed at the Council Priorities Workshop. Staff generally suggest one-time surplus amounts be spent on capital expenditures or placed in reserves for future needs.
• The Scorecard (attached) provided the Committee with additional information in determining the level of services in comparison to the base year (FY2020, when a full year of Measure B revenues were collected). The Scorecard indicates that budgeted expenditures, staffing levels, and Economic Stabilization Reserve and Emergency Reserve balances for FY2021 were comparable to those in the base year. • The Scorecard also indicates (through specific reported results of the National Community Survey, a City-wide effort) that the community continues to be generally satisfied with the services provided by the City.
• The Committee concludes that, based on the data provided by City staff and our analysis as described above, police, fire, public works, and parks, recreation and library services were all maintained as evidenced by an increase in expenditures and continued resident satisfaction. The Committee also concludes FY2021 Measure B funds were used for their intended purpose, with the following condition: the Council Priorities Workshop and determination of the use of the $23.1M remaining surplus was not known by the Committee at the time of this report preparation. The Committee suggests the report for FY2022 include a section addressing how the surplus was utilized.

CC: Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Terry Bradley, Recording Secretary
Attachment: Measure B Scorecard
1 Measure B Scorecard
Measure B is a half-cent local sales and use general purpose tax passed by voters during the November 6, 2018 election to protect Roseville’s essential services.

The primary function of Measure B is to maintain essential services. Prior to the passage of Measure B, the City of Roseville faced significant reductions in services, under-funding of long-term obligations, and growing expenses. Revenue generated by Measure B allows the City of Roseville to provide for the continuity of services by restoring and maintaining priority service levels and building and maintaining an Economic Stabilization Reserve Fund as a safeguard for the future.

Roseville’s Measure B scorecard uses a green, yellow, red scoring method to present how Measure B funds have impacted services.
• Green indicates restored or enhanced level of resources. • Yellow indicates maintained level of resources.
• Red indicates diminished level of resources.

Below is a dashboard snapshot; additional details follow.

Category Rating
Fiscal Investment Snapshot
Police
Fire
Parks, Recreation and Libraries
Public Works
Development Services
All other General Fund departments, transfers
Investment in Reserves
Community Indicator Snapshot1
Livability
Public Safety
Parks, Recreation and Library Services
1Community Indicators are part of the National Community Survey report of results from 2021.

Measure B revenues continue to allow the City to maintain current service levels, restore services, and strategically invest in high-priority areas while still achieving a balanced budget. 2 Measure B Priorities
Measure B was passed by voters with the commitment to maintain service levels, invest in high-priority service areas, and build and maintain the City’s economic stabilization reserve fund. Measure B sales tax revenue has helped stabilize General Fund services, protect Roseville’s quality of life, and increase reserves to weather future economic downturns.

Measure B-related investments in Fiscal Year 2020-21:
 Maintained essential services
 Cost of doing business increases
 Specialized police and fire services
 Fire engine company
 Recreation and library programs
 Street maintenance levels
 Job-creation and business-recruitment initiatives
 One additional dispatcher
 Unsheltered camp cleanup
 Library, parks and events stabilization
 Maintenance at citywide parks
 Crabb Park
 Central Park
 Pistachio Park
 Street paving
 Restored services that had been reduced prior to Measure B  Library hours
 4th of July fireworks
 Fire training and investigations
 Goat grazing for thatch management in open space
 Park maintenance standards
 Industry training and development
 Services Added
 Establish new police beat in West Roseville
 One additional police traffic officer
 Maintenance for three citywide parks, allowing for construction to occur  Fiscal Health Investments
 Build an economic stabilization reserve fund
 Pay down CalPERS pension obligation
 Pay down retiree health liability
3 General Fund Department Data
A primary objective of Measure B is to ensure the continuity of services for residents. This is demonstrated by the level of investment in General Fund operating departments. The City seeks to keep pace with growth while maintaining a high level of service and meeting the needs of the community.

This scorecard uses a green, yellow, red scoring method to present how Measure B funds have impacted services.
• Green indicates restored or enhanced level of resources. • Yellow indicates maintained level of resources.
• Red indicates diminished level of resources.

Department
Adopted Expenditures Adopted Staffing
FY 2020 FY 2021 Increase FY 2020 FY 2021 Increase
Police $44,518,481 $46,426,362 4% 201 204 1%
Fire $34,178,936 $34,649,868 1% 119 119 0%
Parks, Recreation and Library $24,677,839 $26,412,290 7% 115 117 2% Public Works $7,204,894 $8,016,401 11% 111 111 0%
Development Services $9,371,317 $10,125,452 8% 70 69 -1% All other General Fund
departments $40,777,385 $40,664,703 -0% 130 136 4%
Total $160,728,852 $166,295,076

3.5% 746 755 1%
Notable Changes
The FY 2020-21 budget was adopted as a primarily status quo budget, given the fiscal uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and included known cost increases for labor contracts and vendor agreements. The Police Department added two positions in FY 2020-21, a dispatcher and a school resource officer, after also adding one position during FY 2019-20. The increase in expenditures for the Parks, Recreation and Libraries Department is due to higher costs for park and open space maintenance, as well as adding two new positions. The increase in Public Works expenditures is the result of lower reimbursements from other funding sources due to the timing of work on multi-year projects. The increase in Development Services expenditures is partly due to adding two limited-term building inspectors to maintain service levels, while the reduction in regular staffing is due to removing a position that had been added temporarily to allow cross training prior to a retirement.

FY 2020-21 actual expenditures were 96% of the adopted budget, with the Police and Fire departments expending 100% of their budgets, and the Parks, Recreation and Libraries Department expending 90% of their budget due to impacts from the pandemic.
4 Investment in Reserves
Through June 30, 2021, the City Council had transferred nearly $16 million received from Measure B to the
Economic Stabilization Reserve. These funds strengthen
the City’s financial position and will help provide for the continuation of essential services during a future
economic downturn.

The adopted FY 2020-21 budget assumed a transfer of
$2.1 million would be necessary to balance the budget
after tax revenues were conservatively estimated based
on impacts from the pandemic. Because of strong sales tax results during the fiscal year, no transfer from the reserve was necessary. In addition, $7.27 million was transferred during the year from the General Fund into the Economic Stabilization Reserve from the FY 2019-20 year-end
budget surplus.

The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends a minimum 17% reserve. The City of Roseville’s total reserves (Economic Stabilization + Emergency) is approximately $41 million per the FY 2021-22 adopted budget, which equates to the Council-adopted policy target of 25% of operating expenditures.

Trending: Sales Tax Revenue
Measure B revenue (shown in red) has steadily increased and enables the City of Roseville to maintain and expand service priorities to meet the needs of a growing population.

Measure B Helps Support Roseville’s High Marks on National Community Survey
In January and February 2021, residents were asked to complete the National Community Survey to benchmark and track resident satisfaction levels and priorities. The National Community Survey (the

56.4 52.7 63.7

4.2 19.7 24.5
FY 2018 - 19
ACTUAL
FY 2019 - 20
ACTUAL
FY 2020 - 21
ACTUAL

DOLLARS (IN MILLIONS)

FISCAL YEAR

SALES TAX REVENUE
Bradley-Burns
Measure B
Measure B Trendline
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
FY 2019-20
Amended
FY 2020-21
Amended

INVESTMENT IN RESERVES
General Fund Stabilization Reserve
General Fund Emergency Reserve
GFOA Recommended Minimum
5 NCS™) is a statistically valid instrument recognized as the nation’s premier community survey. It is developed and provided by the National Research Center at Polco. Invitations to take part in the survey were mailed at random to 3,000 Roseville residents, with 476 residents completing the survey (16%).

This provides a level of confidence of 95% and a margin of error of plus or minus 5%.

Measure B funding has enabled the City of Roseville to not only sustain, but also increase service levels within the city, which aided in making Roseville residents among the most satisfied in the country.

Roseville’s Measure B scorecard uses a green, yellow, red scoring method to present how Measure B funds have impacted services. For purposes of rating public perspective via the National Community Survey, the follow standards have been applied.
• Green indicates a score of 75% or above on the National Community Survey. • Yellow indicates a score between 50% and 74% on the National Community Survey. • Red indicates a score below 50% on the National Community Survey.

Key Community Indicators Relating to Measure B Priorities Facets of Livability
The charts below show the proportion of residents who rated key community facets positively for quality and show the level of importance residents place on the facet for the next two years.

Safety
91% of respondents rated the overall feeling of safety in Roseville as “excellent” or “good.” Additional ratings regarding safety follow.
90%
76%
91%
87%
94%
92%
76%
95%
85%
84%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Economic health of Roseville
Quality of the transportation system
Feeling of safety
Quality of natural environment
Quality of parks and recreation opportunities
Level of Importance Level of Satisfaction
6 Parks, Recreation and Library Services
97%
88%
87%
87%
77%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In your neighborhood during the day
In Roseville's downtown/commercial area during the day
From violent crime
From fire, flood, or other natural disaster
From property crime
Safety: Feeling of Safety (Relates to Roseville as a Whole) Percent Rating "Very" or "Somewhat" Safe
97%
95%
90%
89%
86%
84%
79%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fire Services
Ambulance or Emergency Medical Services
Fire prevention and education
Animal Control
Police services
Crime prevention
Emergency preparedness
Safety: Quality of Services
Percent Rating "Excellent" or "Good"
94%
90%
88%
83%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Overall quality of parks and recreation
opportunities
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes
and paths or trails, etc.)
Availability of paths and walking trails
Recreational opportunities
Parks and Recreation: Opportunties
(Relates to Roseville as a Whole)
Percent Rating "Excellent" or "Good"
7 Additional information and complete survey results can be found here. 90%
87%
86%
92%
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
City parks
Recreation centers or facilities
Recreation programs or classes
Public library services
Parks, Recreation and Library Services: Quality of Services Percent Rating "Excellent" or "Good"

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2041
File #: 0800-03
Title: Western Placer Waste Management Authority - Flow Control Commitment Contact: Devin Whittington 916-774-5783 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 9.3.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement for Delivery of Solid Waste between the Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) and the City of Roseville (Agreement), and all other documents necessary to effectuate said Agreement on behalf of the City of Roseville, concerning our flow control commitment for the delivery of waste materials thereunder.

BACKGROUND
Flow Control Commitments are required by Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) to issue debt. The debt will be used to construct improvements at the WPWMA site to process organics and improve the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Roseville will be required to deliver per fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) a minimum of thirty-eight thousand (38,000) tons of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) tons of co-collected residential greenwaste and foodwaste, and all Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste collected within the geographic jurisdiction of the City of Roseville. This tonnage comprises the median amount of the other WPWMA members, who are Placer County, the City of Rocklin, and the City of Lincoln.

The purpose of median tonnage flow commitment is flexibility – ensuring that the City has options with respect to SB 1383 compliance. The flexibility also allows the City to increase long-term disposal capacity. The City can accomplish this because it owns and operates the solid waste enterprise and directly controls operations. The median threshold amount also allows tonnages and financial impacts to be more equitable among members.

Flow Control Commitments have been the primary source of debt collateral since WPWMA constructed the current MRF and other facility upgrades. The site needs to upgrade infrastructure to process organics to comply with SB 1383. Staff recommends executing an agreement with WPWMA for a minimum of the median tonnage supplied by the other member agencies as described in the attached Agreement.

Flow Control Commitments and Agreement
The primary deal points of the flow control commitment are:

Roseville will commit its equitable portion of waste compared to other WPWMA members for the term of the Agreement.

Roseville will commit this amount of waste until the debt WPWMA secures for facility improvements is repaid.

Roseville retains flexibility by committing a portion rather than all of its waste.

The term of the Agreement will be effective upon execution of the Agreement and last one year after all debt is repaid. The City is committing 38,000 tons of mixed waste, 9,000 tons of comingled food and greenwaste and all construction and demolition tons from the City. WPWMA will need to ensure that it can process comingled food and greenwaste as this will be a key part of the City’s compliance pathway for SB 1383.

The other member agencies, Placer County, the City of Rocklin and the City of Lincoln, all have contingent agreements and have delegated authority to their respective city managers to negotiate and execute agreements. After approval by Council, this Agreement will need to be approved by the WPWMA Board.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact will be the future tipping fee multiplied by the tonnage. The funds will be budgeted in the FY2021-22 Waste Services Operation Fund 6301.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Devin Whittington, Refuse Utility Manager
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-137
Flow Control Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 22-137

APPROVING AN AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND

WESTERN PLACER WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WHEREAS, an Agreement for Delivery of Solid Waste, by and between the City of Roseville and Western Placer Waste Management Authority, has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville, as well as any other documents necessary to effectuate said Agreement on behalf of the City of Roseville, concerning our flow control commitment for the delivery of waste materials thereunder.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

AGREEMENT FOR DELIVERY OF SOLID WASTE BETWEEN

THE WESTERN PLACER WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of ________________2022 by and between the WESTERN PLACER WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (the “WPWMA”) and the CITY OF ROSEVILLE (the "City”).

RECITALS

1. The WPWMA is a public entity organized pursuant to California Government Code Sections 6500 et seq. for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining a materials recovery facility including an organics management facility, and sanitary landfill and related facilities; and

2. The WPWMA owns and operates the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (the "Landfill") and the Western Placer Materials Recovery Facility (the "Materials Recovery Facility”). Collectively, the Landfill and Materials Recovery Facility are referred to as the “Facility”; and

3. The members of the WPWMA are the City of Roseville, City of Lincoln, City of Rocklin, and County of Placer (collectively, the "Member Agencies"); and

4. The WPWMA, in order to assist its Member Agencies in achieving the Solid Waste diversion goals required by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq., (the "Act"), has constructed a Materials Recovery Facility whose functions include the recovery and subsequent marketing of Recyclable Materials such as paper, cardboard, yard and green wastes, wood, glass, metals and plastics, thereby diverting them from land disposal; and

5. An expansion to the Materials Recovery Facility is needed in order to handle anticipated growth Solid Waste diversion goals required by the CalRecycle Short-lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reductions regulations, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3 et seq. (“SB1383”) and the California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 et seq (“CalGreen”); and

6. The WPWMA has determined that, in order to assure the successful and cost-effective operation of the expanded Materials Recovery Facility, it will be necessary to obtain additional long-term contractual commitments from its Member Agencies and other municipalities now using the Facility, that Solid Waste generated within their respective jurisdictions will be delivered to the Facility; and

7. The City wishes to support the WPWMA's efforts to expand the Materials Recovery Facility and recognizes the interrelationship between the assurance of Solid Waste flow (both in terms of quantity and composition) and the successful operation of the Facility.

Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence immediately upon execution by the Parties and shall expire no earlier than one (1) year after full repayment of all financing mechanisms obtained by the WPWMA, or by others on behalf of the WPWMA, for the purposes of modifying the Materials Recovery Facility. This Agreement will remain in full force and effect regardless of whether the City continues to be a member of the WPWMA.

2. MODIFICATION OF THE MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY
The WPWMA shall, provided it receives assurances of Solid Waste deliveries of the type contemplated in Section 1 from its Member Agencies and other Authorized Users of the Facility sufficient in the WPWMA’s sole judgment to successfully and economically operate the Facility, diligently pursue expansion of the Materials Recovery Facility in a manner generally consistent with Request For Proposals 20123, entitled " Material Recovery, Organics Processing, and C&D Debris Recovery Facilities Conceptual Designs and Operational Services".

3. DELIVERY OF SOLID WASTE
The City shall deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the Facility per fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) a minimum of thirty-eight thousand (38,000) tons of Mixed Solid Waste (MSW), a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) tons of co-collected residential greenwaste and foodwaste, and all Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste collected within the geographic jurisdiction of the City (collectively, the “City Minimum Amounts”) by 1) City-operated programs and 2) any franchise or other contractual agreements between the City and a Solid Waste Enterprise. All Solid Waste so collected shall be delivered to the Facility without any Processing after having been collected, except as provided for herein. WPWMA shall provide quarterly tonnage reporting to the City for tracking and verification purposes.

City shall be entitled to deliver co-collected residential greenwaste and foodwaste to another facility if WPWMA is unable to accept such waste. For the purposes of this Agreement, permissible bases for non-acceptance shall be: 1) if WPMWA’s permit to accept and process such waste is conclusively revoked; and, 2) if WPWMA’s equipment to process such waste is significantly damaged or otherwise rendered non-functional by fire or other event.

If, in the future, the City elects to replace the City-operated Solid Waste collection program, in whole or in part, with a program operated by a Solid Waste Enterprise, it shall require such Solid Waste Enterprise to continue to deliver, Unprocessed, all Solid Waste collected to the Facility for the Term of this Agreement.

4. RECYCLING AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
The Parties recognize that assurances of the delivery of minimum quantities of Solid Waste, with a stable portion thereof representing materials with recyclable value, is essential in order (a) to design an expansion to the Materials Recovery Facility and (b) to structure the economic terms of an agreement for its construction and operation by third parties favorable to the WPWMA and, therefore, to its Member Agencies.

The Parties also recognize, however, that Member Agencies may have to conduct, or authorize, source reduction and recycling activities in addition to those conducted by the WPWMA at the Facility to meet the requirements of the Act, SB 1383 and/or CalGreen. For that reason, it is not the intent of this Agreement to preclude all such source reduction or recycling activities by the City but rather to require that such activities be consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

In light of these considerations, the Parties agree:

A. (1) The City shall not initiate additional City-operated or authorized Recycling programs which would have the effect of diverting Solid Waste from the Facility or of reducing the amount of Recyclable Materials in the Solid Waste delivered to the Facility from within the City, except with the prior written consent of the WPWMA. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "additional City-operated or authorized Recycling programs" shall mean any Solid Waste Recycling program or activity not currently operated, approved, or authorized by the City within its boundaries as of the effective date of this Agreement which the City may hereafter operate, approve, permit, franchise, or authorize. The WPWMA may in its sole discretion withhold its consent to the City's engaging in a new Recycling program unless the City demonstrates to the WPWMA's sole satisfaction that such a program is necessary in order for the City to comply with the Act, SB 1383 and/or CalGreen, that the goals of such program cannot be achieved by the City's continued use of the Facility, and that such a program will not materially interfere with the WPWMA’s successful and/or economic operation of the Facility.
(2) Section 4(A)(1) is not intended to apply to programs conducted by City employees in which materials generated in construction and maintenance of City roads and other City-owned property (such as asphalt, concrete, dirt, and wood trimmings) are Recycled and reused. The City shall have sole discretion and responsibility for marketing materials collected through City-operated or authorized Recycling programs.

B. The City shall not authorize, through provisions in a franchise or contract, any Solid Waste Enterprise to engage in the recovery of Recyclable Materials from the City waste stream prior to delivery to the Facility without the prior written consent of the WPWMA. If the WPWMA gives such written consent but thereafter, if the WPWMA's Board of Directors finds, at a public meeting and on the basis of a staff report, that any such recovery program by City-franchised Solid Waste Enterprises is materially interfering with the WPWMA's ability to successfully and/or economically operate its Facility, WPWMA may give notice of such finding to the City, requesting that the City take action to prohibit or regulate such programs.

Upon receipt of a notice containing such a finding and request, the City shall promptly, and to the extent that it determines it has legal authority to do so, modify franchise provisions so as to prohibit such recovery program or to require that materials recovered by such Solid Waste Enterprises be delivered to the Facility without further Processing.

C. The Parties agree that Sections 4(A)(1) and 4(B) shall apply only to the City Minimum Amounts. City agrees to notify WPWMA in writing at least ninety (90) days in advance of any material changes in either quantity or composition of Solid Waste above the City Minimum Amounts delivered to WPWMA.

5. POWERS OF WPWMA
The City agrees that the WPWMA has the power and duty to establish rules and regulations for the use of its Facility including, but not limited to:

A. Fees for the use of the Facility, including the right to refuse entry to the Facility to vehicles of persons to whom credit has been extended who are delinquent in payment.

B. Restrictions or prohibitions on entry to the Facility to vehicles of persons which are violating obligations of their franchise, contract, license, permit or other authorization from the City, after written notification and action by the WPWMA's Board of Directors authorizing enforcement of such restrictions.

C. Determinations of the types of materials which will be accepted for Processing at the Materials Recovery Facility and those which will be delivered directly to the Landfill for disposal.

D. Restrictions and/or prohibitions on the delivery of hazardous waste, medical wastes, designated wastes, and other Solid Wastes which may not, under applicable laws, regulations and permits, be accepted for Processing at the Materials Recovery Facility or disposal of at the Landfill.

6. REGULATION OF WASTE BY CITY
The WPWMA recognizes that the City has limited ability to control the presence of small quantities of Household Hazardous Wastes in the Solid Waste placed for delivery by residents and businesses and collected by the City or Solid Waste Enterprises. The WPWMA acknowledges that the City cannot and does not guarantee that no Household Hazardous Wastes will be delivered by Solid Waste Enterprises and/or members of the public to the Facility.

The City, in turn, recognizes that the cost of operating the Facility will depend, in part, on the effectiveness of programs implemented by the City, the other Member Agencies and the Authorized Users to minimize the presence of Household Hazardous Waste in the residential/commercial Solid Waste stream.

The City has adopted programs and policies designed to exclude the introduction of Household Hazardous Waste into the Solid Waste stream and thus its delivery to the Facility. The City shall maintain these programs and policies in effect and shall use good faith efforts to implement them, to enforce their use by Solid Waste Enterprises operating under a franchise, contract, license, permit or other authorization from the City, and to encourage their use by City residents. The City will likewise encourage its residents to use the WPWMA's Household Hazardous Waste programs.

7. REVENUES FROM SALE OF RECYCLE MATERIALS
In order to facilitate the WPWMA's redevelopment of a Facility, the City hereby relinquishes, waives, and abandons for the term of this Agreement any claim it may now have or may in the future have to any portion of the revenues received by the operator of the Facility and/or the WPWMA from the sale or other disposition of materials (whether source-separated or recovered through on-site Processing) delivered to the Facility.

8. NOTICE
Any notice required by or allowed under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered to the parties by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, addressed as follows:

If to the WPWMA: Western Placer Waste Management Authority 3013 Fiddyment Road
Roseville, CA 95747
Attn: Executive Director
If to the City: City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Attn: City Manager
Either party may change the address to which notices to it are to be sent.

9. EXHIBITS
No exhibits are attached to this Agreement.

10.AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may only be amended by a writing signed by both Parties.

11.DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

A. Authorized Users: means the cities of Auburn, Colfax, and Loomis.

B. City: means the City of Roseville.

C. Disposal: means the management of Solid Waste through landfilling or transformation at permitted Solid Waste facilities.

D. Facility: means the Materials Recovery Facility and Landfill, collectively.

E. Household Hazardous Waste: means waste which meets the definition of Hazardous Waste, but which is of residential origin and exempt from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Household Hazardous Waste includes “Universal Waste” as that phrase is defined in the California Code of Regulations, Division 4.5, Chapter 23.

F. Landfill: means the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill.

G. Materials Recovery Facility: means the WPWMA’s municipal Solid Waste Processing area, construction and demolition debris processing area, organics processing and composting area, self haul material drop-off area, scalehouse complexes and all related and supporting infrastructure.

H. Member Agencies: means the City of Roseville, City of Rocklin, City of Lincoln and the County of Placer.

I. Person: means an individual, firm, association, co-partnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity whatsoever.

J. Processing: means the reduction, separation, recovery, conversion or recycling of Solid Waste.

K. Recycle; Recycling: means the process of collecting, sorting, cleaning, treating and reconstituting materials that would otherwise become Solid Waste and returning them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted products which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace.

L. Recyclable Materials: means materials contained in the Solid Waste stream that can be Recycled after recovery through source-separation and collection or through Processing at a central facility for mixed materials.

M. Solid Waste: means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, demolition, and construction wastes, discarded home and industrial appliances, dewatered, treated, or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not hazardous waste, vegetable, or animal solid and semi-solid wastes and other discarded solid and semi-solid wastes.

Solid Waste includes recyclable materials, and mixed recyclables, which have been discarded or otherwise set aside for collection by the generator thereof.

Solid Waste does not include:
(1) hazardous wastes or low level radioactive waste regulated under Sections 25800 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code;
(2) medical waste which is regulated under Sections 25015 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code;
(3) abandoned vehicles and parts thereof.

N. Solid Waste Enterprise: means any individual, partnership, joint venture, unincorporated private organization, private corporation, public agency or other person which is regularly engaged in the business of providing Solid Waste Handling services.

O. Solid Waste Handling: means the collection, transformation, storage, transfer, or processing of Solid Waste.

P. Source-Separation: means the segregation, by the waste generator, of materials designated for separate collection for some form of materials recovery or special handling.

Q. Transformation: means incineration, pyrolysis, distillation, gasification or biological conversion other than composting.

R. Unprocessed: means without having undergone Processing.

S. WPWMA: means the Western Placer Waste Management Authority. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

WESTERN PLACER WASTE

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
By: By:

Chair City Manager
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

WPWMA Counsel City Attorney

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2039
File #: 0600-01
Title: City Manager and City Attorney Compensation
Contact: Linda Hampton 916-774-5215 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 9.4.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council adopt an ordinance to approve an attached City Council Appointed Positions (CCAP) salary schedule (Appendix P) reflecting a 3% salary increase for the City Manager and City Attorney effective April 23, 2022.

BACKGROUND
The City has an existing employment contract with City Manager Dom Casey and City Attorney Michelle Sheidenberger. The Council has completed the annual performance review of these city council appointed officials and approved a 3% salary increase to recognize a positive evaluation for each official and to address compaction with their direct reports who received a 3% general wage increase in January.

FISCAL IMPACT
From
Current
Salary &
Benefits
Proposed
Salary &
Benefits FTE
Annual
Impact *
Impact
for
remaining
FY 2021-
22 City Manager $465,385 $479,347 1 $13,962 $2,685
City Attorney $401,621 $413,670 1 $12,049 $2,317
$26,010 $5,002
* This amount includes the estimated annual pension cost of $1,819. With the implementation of this change, there will be an impact of $2,685 to the City Manager’s Office budget and $2,317 to the City Attorney’s Office budget, both of which can be absorbed in the current fiscal year budget. The additional annual cost of the salary and benefit increases will be included in the fiscal year 22-23 budget planning.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The proposed salary changes meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Deliver Exceptional City Service
Respectfully Submitted,
Linda Hampton, Human Resources Manager
Stacey Peterson, Human Resources Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6481
2022-04-23 CCAP Salary Schedule
ORDINANCE NO. 6481

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6346 THE SALARY ORDINANCE FOR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED POSITIONS, AS AMENDED BY APPENDIX “P” TO BE EFFECTIVE
APRIL 23, 2022 AS AN URGENCY MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Title and Purpose.

Ordinance No. 6346 the Salary Ordinance for City Council Appointed Positions, is hereby amended as shown on Appendix “P” attached hereto.

SECTION 2. Salary Plan Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall be effective April 23, 2022 as an urgency measure.

SECTION 3. Urgency Ordinance.

This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure, immediately necessary for the public peace, health and safety and shall take effect April 23, 2022. A statement of urgency is as follows:

It is necessary to amend the Salary Ordinance to comply with recently approved changes for the orderly and necessary continuance of operations of the City.

SECTION 4. Posting.

The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the Ordinance Book under the record of the ordinance a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of said publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
CCAP City Council Appointed
Position

City of Roseville

Appendix:P
Effective Date:04/23/2022
Salary Schedule: City Council Appointed Position--
Grade Code Grade Name Step Name Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annual 1235 Acting City Manager Step A 122.5472 9803.78 21241.51 254898.18 1200 City Attorney Step A 128.2549 10260.39 22230.85 266770.19 1240 City Manager Step A 148.6174 11889.39 25760.35 309124.19

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2009
File #: 0800-02
Title: Environmental Utilities Department - Budget Update Contact: Janet Vargas 916-774-5557 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 9.5.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a budget update from the Environmental Utilities Department.

BACKGROUND
This presentation is to provide a budget update from the Environmental Utilities Department.

FISCAL IMPACT
This is an informational presentation and has no fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. An informational update meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Janet Vargas, Environmental Utilities Business Administrator Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2012
File #: 0800-03
Title: Roseville Electric Department - Budget Update
Contact: Eric Campbell 916-774-5626 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 9.6.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council receive an update from Roseville Electric on their budget development.

BACKGROUND
This presentation is to provide a budget development update to City Council from Roseville Electric.

FISCAL IMPACT
This is an informational presentation that has no fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Informational updates meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world.

Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Campbell, Electric Utility Finance Administrator
Dan Beans, Electric Utility Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2020
File #: 0215
Title: Adoption of Master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees Contact: Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected] Dennis Kauffman 916-774-5313 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 10.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends the City Council approve a resolution adopting a Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, and authorize the Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer to make automatic annual inflationary adjustments for various fees identified in the schedule.

BACKGROUND
The City's Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees identifies fees for services and activities provided at the request of, or on behalf of, a single party as opposed to the public at large. The fee schedule is intended to be reviewed annually, with staff conducting bi-annual studies to identify the City's costs of providing fee-related services based on current labor rates and service delivery methods. The proposed fee schedule, effective July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, is based on the results of a user and regulatory fee study completed in March 2022.The report is included as an attachment to this City Council communication. In interim years, fees are authorized to be adjusted based on the CPI change from October to October of the immediately preceding year.

User and regulatory fees are established by the City Council. The prior Council-adopted fee schedule, delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was presented to Council on October 21, 2020, and became effective for the period of January 4, 2021 through June 30, 2021, with an inflationary adjustment in the interim year that took effect July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

PUBLIC HEARING
This item and staff's recommendations are intended to be considered upon completion of a public hearing. The public hearing provides all interested parties with an opportunity to comment or request clarification regarding any of the fees proposed for update. Prior to the public hearing, the City publishes a newspaper notice of the public hearing, and notifies all interested parties that have requested to be notified regarding proposed fee updates.

PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS
The following provides a brief summary of primary changes the City Council is being asked to consider:

No new development fees are proposed
Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged or Increase by Five Percent (5%) or Less Ninety-eight percent (98%) of user and regulatory fees are proposed to remain unchanged or increase by five percent (5%) or less. Any modifications to fees are simply meant to avoid degradation of existing cost recovery levels per hour of City service provided.

Fees Proposed to Increase by More than Five Percent (5%) There are six fees proposed to increase by more than five percent (5%). The fees are listed below.

Electric Fees:

The following changes are intended to capture increased costs of materials, equipment, and personnel:
1) Residential PV Net-Meter:

Current fee: $782; Proposed fee: $857 (100% recovery)
2) Business PV Net-Meter (<10kW system size)
Current fee: $1,659; Proposed fee: $2,029 (100% recovery) 3) Pedestal Meter Fee
Current fee: $332; Proposed fee: $584 (100% recovery)
4) Temp Power Meter Set - Residential
Current fee: $270; Proposed fee: $584 (100% recovery)
Photography & Filming Permits and Special Event Application Fees:

Staff is working to increase cost recovery for these services. The cost recovery increases will be phased-in over a multi-year period. Fees for FY 22/23 are proposed to increase by $25.
5) Photography & Filming Permit Application Fee
For cast and crew up to three persons: Current fee $135; Proposed fee $160 (75% cost recovery)
For cast and crew of four or more persons, or with street closures: Current fee $275; Proposed fee $300 (25% cost recovery)
Note: Non-commercial photography and photography/film not requiring exclusivity does not need a permit. The Department Director may waive fees for bona fide student film/photography projects and non-profit projects. 6) Special Event Permit Application Fee
Event requiring limited site plan review, no street closures, etc.: Current fee $135; Proposed fee $160 (37% cost recovery)
Event that requires, but not limited to, street/parking lot closures, site/plan review, trail use, etc. (i.e., fun runs, festivals, parking garage, etc.): Current fee $275; Proposed fee $300 (17% cost recovery) New Fees Proposed
Three new fees are proposed.
1) Police Department Citation Sign-Off Fee (only applies to sign-offs for nonRoseville issued citations):

The proposed fee is $10. Similar fees are collected by neighboring agencies. Adding a minor fee for service will help offset costs of Roseville staff to sign-off on non-Roseville issued citations; for example, when a driver of a vehicle is issued, in another jurisdiction, a "fix-it" citation concerning a component or aspect of their vehicle, but asks our Police Department to sign off on the citation. Roseville Police Department will continue to review and sign-off for Roseville issued citations free of charge for Roseville residents.
2) Change of Address Fee
The proposed fee is $460. The proposed fee targets full cost recovery.

The fee applies to discretionary actions processed subsequent to initial development. The service is currently provided without a corresponding fee to offset the costs of service.
3) Street Name Change Fee
The proposed fee is $828. The proposed fee targets full cost recovery.

The fee applies to discretionary actions processed subsequent to initial development. The service is currently provided without a corresponding fee to offset the costs of service.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the proposed fee changes is approximately $469,000 annually in additional revenue citywide. It is important to note that while adjusting fees will provide a fiscal impact in the form of additional revenue, the revenue is not intended to be used to fund new services; rather, the revenue is intended to offset the costs of providing existing services that are recoverable from fees. Consequently, while fees may rise annually, typically labor costs (the primary driver of feerelated costs) also rise annually. Recalibration of these fees simply provides an offset of existing expenditures/needs rather than a source of funding for expanded service levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The approval of the resolution meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Jeannine Thrash, Management Analyst
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-100
Exhibit A
Report
RESOLUTION NO. 22-100

ADOPTING A MASTER SCHEDULE OF USER AND REGULATORY FEES, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023
WHEREAS, user and regulatory fees are established by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City recently completed a study to identify the cost of providing various user and regulatory fee-related services; and
WHEREAS, the majority of the City’s fees have been adjusted during the last several years; and
WHEREAS, adopting a master schedule of user and regulatory fees allows for consolidation of the schedule of fees and helps formally continue a pattern on annual review and update, including annual inflationary adjustments; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends adopting the Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees, effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit “A;” and WHEREAS, staff further recommends authorizing the Chief Financial Officer to make annual inflationary adjustments for various fees identified in the Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees based on all-urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-OaklandHayward area; and WHEREAS, inflationary adjustments will be based on the CPI change from October to October of the immediately preceding year; and
WHEREAS, if the CPI does not change or goes down, no change shall be made to the fee schedule for that year unless an adjustment is made to targeted cost recovery levels or fee study findings indicate that an adjustment is appropriate; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said schedule of User and Regulatory Fees, effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 is hereby adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Chief Financial Officer has authority to make annual inflationary adjustments for various fees identified in the Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees based on the all-urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Fee Category Page
1 Administrative Fees 3
2 Revenue and Finance Fees 5
3 Utility Customer Billing, Accounting, and Service Fees 7 4 Planning (Entitlement) Fees 8
5 Development Services Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees 12 6 Trench Cut Recovery Fees 13
7 Building Fees 14
8 Development Impact Fee Deferral Fees 24
9 Housing Fees 25
10 Electric Fees 26
11 Environmental Utilities Fees 27
12 Fire & Life Safety Fees 29
13 Emergency Medical Services First Responder Fee 34
14 Police Department Fees 35
15 Animal Licensing and Permit Fees 38
16 Oversize Vehicle Permit Fees and Building Moving Permit Fees 39 17 Parking Permit Fees 40
18 Special Event, Film, and Banner Permit Fees 41
19 Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Fees 42
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Administrative Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
City-Wide Records
1 Documents
a) 8.5 x 11 - Black and White
i) 0 - 9 Copies No Charge N
ii) 10+ Copies $0.10 per page N
b) 8.5 x 14 and 11 x 17 - Black and White $0.20 per page N c) Color Copies
i) 8.5 x 11 $0.50 per page N
ii) 11 x 17 $1 per page N
iii) 18 x 24 $2 per page N
iv) 24 x 36 $3 per page N
2 Photos $0.50 per copy N
3 Recordings $6 each N
4 Digital Media (e.g. USB Flash Drive) $8 each N
5 Agenda Subscription
a) 6 Months $20 N
b) 12 Months $40 N
6 Budget Book
a) Available on City website No charge N
b) Hardcopy Actual cost
or per page fee
N
7 Requests Requiring Special Programming or Formatting Actual cost [a] N Passport
8 Passport Processing Fee $35 [b] N
9 Passport Photo Fee $12 Y
10 Passport Express Postage Actual postage cost N
Notary
11 Notary Charge $15 each N
Subpoena
12 Subpoena Fees Fees Vary - See Note [b] N
Election
13 Candidate Nomination Filing Fee $25 per filing [b] N 14 Fee for Late Filing of Reports of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures
See Note [c] N
3 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Administrative Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Amplified Sound
15 Sound Permit $25 Y
Franchise Application
16 Franchise Application Fee
a) Refuse Hauler $260 two-year term N
b) Community Antenna Television System $100 N
c) All Others $150 N
[b] Maximum fees established by State/Federal agencies. [c] See Roseville Municipal Code Fine Schedule and/or Roseville Municipal Bail Schedule. [a] Fee for preparation of reports/formats that need to be generated by the City because they are not typically maintained.

Amounts charged will include a pass-through of any vendor costs incurred. 4 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Revenue and Finance Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Finance Administrative Fee - Special Financing District Formation or Annexation
$2,500 per request [a] N
[a] Amount represents initial, upfront fee amount collected. Additional fees will apply depending on district type and requested action.
5 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Revenue and Finance Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Short Term Rental Application Fee $185 per application N 2 Short Term Rental Renewal Fee $85 per application N
3 Delinquent fee (percentage of renewal fee) 60% (or $51) [a] N [a] Delinquent fees are charged if the renewal fee is received more than 30 days past original expiration date. 6 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Utility Customer Billing, Accounting, and Service Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Reestablishment Fee - Residential Electric
a) During Normal Hours $40 N
b) After Hours $85 N
2 Reestablishment Fee - Commercial Electric
a) During Normal Hours $150 N
b) After Hours $175 N
3 Reestablishment Fee - Water $150 N
4 Returned Check/ABD/ACH Fee (for first dishonored check or EFT) $25 N 5 Subsequent Returned Check/ABD/ACH Fee (after the first dishonored check or EFT)
$35 N
6 Late Payment Fee 5% of late balance N
7 Unauthorized Service Reconnect Fee $50 N
8 Utility Bill Reprint Fee $1 N
9 Access Fee $50 N
10 Same Day Service Equal to Reestablishment Fee N
7 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Planning (Entitlement) Fees
Fee Description
FY 22-23
Fixed Fee
FY 22-23
Deposit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Appeals
1 Planning Director's Decision $1,648 [a] Y
2 PC/DC Decision to City Council $1,543 [a] Y
Annexations
1 Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI $20,000 Y
Development Agreements (DA)
1 Adoption of DA $20,000 Y
2 Amendment of DA $20,000 Y
3 Associated with Affordable Housing $3,003 Y
4 Associated with Single Topic Item $6,796 Y
5 Development Agreement Review/Compliance Fee $1,925 [b] Y Environmental Review
1 Exemption Without Initial Study $419 Y
2 Exemption With Initial Study $1,021 Y
3 Negative Declaration with No Mitigation $1,567 Y
4 Tiered Negative Declaration with Mitigation $3,122 Y
5 EIR Deposit $20,000 Y
General Plan Amendment (GPA)
1 GPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text $10,000 Y
2 GPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text $17,000 Y
3 GPA - Text Policy Amend $15,000 Y
Public Utility Easement Abandonment
1 Summary Vacation $3,472 Y
2 General Vacation $5,181 Y
Signs
1 Standard Sign Permit $288 Y
2 Planned Sign Permit Program $1,171 Y
3 Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing Required $2,519 Y 4 Administrative Permit for Sign Exception (Variance) $2,320 Y 5 PSP Minor Modification $329 Y
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)
1 SPA Adoption, Map/Text $30,000 Y
2 SPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text $10,000 Y
3 SPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text $20,000 Y
4 SPA Text/Policy Deposit $15,000 Y
Subdivisions/Condominiums
1 Grading Plan - Minor $3,617 Y
2 Grading Plan - Major $8,000 Y
3 Lot Line Adjustment $3,617 Y
4 Extension to a Tentative Map $3,617 Y
5 Voluntary Merger $3,617 Y
8 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Planning (Entitlement) Fees
Fee Description
FY 22-23
Fixed Fee
FY 22-23
Deposit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
6 Reversion to Acreage $5,282 Y
7 Minor Modification to a Tentative Map $2,000 Y
8 Major Modification to a Tentative Map $10,000 Y
9 Tentative Parcel Map, 4 or Fewer Lots $6,000 Y
10 Tentative Parcel Map, 5 - 99 Lots $11,000 Y
11 Tentative Parcel Map, 100 - 499 Lots $16,000 Y
12 Tentative Parcel Map, 500+ Lots $24,000 Y
Zoning Ordinance Entitlements
1 Administrative Permit $1,445 Y
2 Conditional Use Permit $9,000 Y
3 CUP Modification $5,000 Y
4 CUP Extension $6,419 Y
5 Design Review Permit (DRP) $8,000 Y
6 DRP - Modification $5,000 Y
7 DRP - Extension $5,804 Y
8 DRP - Minor $244 Y
9 DRP - Additions or New Construction (DTSP Only) $244 Y 10 DRP - Façade Improvements (DTSP Only) $244 Y
11 DRP - Predesign (DTSP Only) $244 Y
12 DRP - Residential Subdivision with Other Permit $6,419 Y 13 Flood Encroachment Permit $8,000 Y
14 MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2 $20,000 Y
15 MPP Modification $7,000 Y
16 MPP Stage 2, Extend of Stage 1 and/or 2 $7,000 Y
17 MPP Administrative Modification $1,879 Y
18 Planned Development Permit $11,000 Y
19 TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter $240 Y
20 TP - Req. Public Hearing for SFD or 10 Trees or Less $4,333 Y 21 TP - Req. Public Hearing for DRP/TM or 11+ Trees $6,671 Y 22 Administrative Variance $1,443 Y
23 Variance to Develop Standards - Req. Public Hearing $4,834 Y 24 Variance to Parking Standards $6,081 Y
25 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit $1,200 Y 26 Zoning Clearance $165 Y
27 Zoning Interpretation - Hearing Required $3,832 Y
28 Zoning Interpretation - Non Hearing Item $150 Y
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
1 Ordinance Text Amend (Zoning, Subdivision, Sign) $10,000 Y 2 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10 Acres or Less $10,000 Y
3 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10+ Acres $17,000 Y
9 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Planning (Entitlement) Fees
Fee Description
FY 22-23
Fixed Fee
FY 22-23
Deposit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Other
1 Pre-Application Meetings $4,000 [c] Y
2 New Non-Residential Plan Check 15% of Bldg PC [d] N
3 Commercial Plan Check - TI $184 [d] Y
4 Change of Address Fee $460 Y
5 Street Name Change Fee $828 Y
6 Planning Department Plot Plan Review (Bundles of 10) $184 Y 7 Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area $152 Y
8 Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing $392 Y
9 Farmer's Market Permit $575 Y
10 Home Occupation Permit $165 Y
11 Parking In-Lieu Fee (DTSP Only) $9,680 [e] N
12 In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee (Per Inch) $124 [f] N
13 CUP - Vernon St. and Historical District Only $1,644 Y 14 Technology Fee 3.0% N
As may be required by the Development Services Department for project evaluation or environmental review, all payment for consultant work shall be the responsibility of the applicant. * Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: The Initial deposit amounts will not be inflated annually, but the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers.

Full Cost Deposits and Deposit Replenishment
When more than one Full Cost application is submitted, the sum total of the initial full cost deposit amount can be reduced by 20%.

Applicants for Full Cost Entitlement Applications shall pay for all City staff time required to process the application. A full cost reimbursement agreement shall be included with the project application submittal package. Projects outside the scope of this fee schedule (as determined by the Development Services Director) will be subject to a full cost reimbursement agreement to be approved by the City Council. This reimbursement agreement will include the identification of a work program and will include cost estimates for both City staff time and consultant services based on a defined scope of work.

Initial deposits as shown on the fee schedule will be collected and held by the City in a deposit account at the time the application is submitted. The cost of staff time will be drawn from the deposit account. A positive account balance shall be maintained at all times during the review process. No work will be performed on a project with a negative fund balance. If the deposit is reduced to below 20% of the initial deposit amount, the applicant will be notified and required to supplement the deposit account with an additional amount no less than 50% of the original deposit.

In the event that the deposit account is exhausted prior to final close out, the balance owed to the City will be credited against the plan check and inspection fee deposit at time of improvement plan review. 10 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Planning (Entitlement) Fees
Application fees are not refundable except as follows:
[c] Pre Application Meetings – The City will provide up to 2 meetings with staff to discuss the initial project review and City policies relative to the proposed project. Additional meetings and staff review prior to a formal application shall be billed on a time and material basis. The project proponent will be asked to submit the pre application deposit and a full cost reimbursement agreement.

Staff will record all time against the deposit account. Balances remaining in the deposit account will be applied to the application deposit account or refunded within 60 days. Negative balances will be due in full along with the application deposit or fee at time of Entitlement Application submittal.
[d] Non-Residential - Per Building Code, this includes Commercial and Multi-family developments. Plan Check Fees to be assessed as part of Building Department Plan Check Fee. This fee shall be 15% of the building Plan Check Fee for New Non-Residential construction (Commercial and Multi-family). Fee to be collected with Building's Plan Check Fee. [e] Parking In-Lieu Fee is an optional fee that non-residential uses in the Downtown Specific Plan Area can utilize instead of providing required parking on-site. Fees for the 1st stall will be 10% of the parking in-lieu fee, 2nd stall 25%, 3rd Stall 50%, 4th stall 75% and 5 or more stalls 100% of the in-lieu fee.
[f] In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee for the removal of protected trees is calculated per inch of the diameter at breast height of the tree.

Refund Policy
A. Refund of 100% shall be made if a determination is made by the Development Services Director that the permit and associated fee are not required by the City of Roseville Municipal Code or adopted City Resolution.

B. If an applicant requests to withdraw a fixed fee application prior to the PEM, refund of 50% of the applicable fee shall be refunded.

C. No refund of application fees shall be made after a Project Evaluation Meeting has been held, unless a fee waiver is approved by the Roseville City Council.
[b] Development Agreement Review/Compliance Fee pertains to individual development agreements. Fee will be distributed to landowners on a pro-rata basis.
[a] Appeals - This fee reimburses the administrative costs associated with an appeal. Applicants for Citywide Full Cost Entitlements shall continue to pay for all City staff time and materials, consistent with the full cost reimbursement agreement, required to complete the processing of an application in the event of an appeal. 11 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Development Services Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee
Initial
Deposit
Fee
Paid
Bond
Amount [a] Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Final Subdivision Map Billed hourly based on
total labor hrs
$2,500 plus
$10 per lot
At submittal Y
2 Final Parcel Map
a) base fee $1,528 At submittal [b] Y
b) per lot fee $61 At submittal [b] Y
3 Lot Line Adjustment
(per adjusted line)
$275 At submittal [c] Y
4 Improvement Plan
Check/Inspection
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$1,000 minimum
5% of Eng. cost est.

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval
100% of
improvements
Y
5 Grading Plan
Check/Permitting: a) Subdivision,
Commercial, or
Industrial Sites
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$1,000 minimum
5% of Eng. cost est.

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval
10% of erosion
control and
grading
Y
b) All Other Sites
i) Up to 500 Cubic
Yards
$367 $100 at submittal $100 at submittal
remainder due at
permit issuance
10% of erosion
control and
grading
Y
ii) Greater than 500
Cubic Yards
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$1,000 at submittal $1,000 at submittal
balance due prior
to final signoff
10% of erosion
control and
grading
Y
6 Encroachment Permit:
a) Dumpster $73 At submittal $0 Y
b) Sidewalk 5% of Project Cost
$150 minimum
At submittal $1,000 /
contractor
N
c) Driveway 5% of Project Cost
$150 minimum
At submittal $500/resident
$1,000/c'ntrctr
N
d) Lane Closure $183 At submittal $0 Y
e) Swim Pool Access $183 At submittal TBD by Director Y f) Monitoring Wells 5% of Project Cost
$150 minimum
At submittal $2,000 per well N
g) All Others Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
5% of Eng. cost est.

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan appr'vl;
$1,000 minimum

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan appr'vl
100% of
improvements
Y
7 Technology Fee 3% of permit fee At permit issuance N
[a] Bond amounts paid at permit issuance.
[b] Final parcel map fee collected as base fee plus per lot fee. [c] Lot line adjustment fee is fee for each adjusted line. * Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: The Initial deposit amounts will not be inflated annually, but the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers. 12 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Trench Cut Recovery Fees
Fee Description
FY 22-23
Permit Fee
FY 22-23
Trench Cut Fee
Cut
Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Trench Cuts Requiring Pmt. of Admin. Permit Fee Only
1 Street scheduled for resurfacing within next fiscal year $367 $0.00 Y 2 Proposed excavation includes an overlay $367 $0.00 Y
3 Proposed excavation for a CIP $367 $0.00 Y
4 Street pavement quality index (PQI) 0-4 $367 $0.00 Y
All Other Trench Cuts
5 Longitudinal Cut
a) Cut within 3' of lane line
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 $367 $15.84 per LF Y
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 $367 $21.12 per LF Y
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater $367 $26.40 per LF Y
b) Cut within one lane width
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 $367 $11.88 per LF Y
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 $367 $15.84 per LF Y
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) $367 $19.80 per LF [a] Y 6 Traverse Cut
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 $367 $9.66 per LF Y
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 $367 $12.87 per LF Y
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) $367 $16.08 per LF [a] Y 7 Cut is a Patch
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 $367 $10.69 per LF Y
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 $367 $14.25 per LF Y
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) $367 $17.82 per LF [a] Y [a] Moratorium streets require director approval for trenching. 13 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
Group FY22/23 Valuation Unit
Y'rly
In'fltr
A B
1 A-1 Assembly, theaters, with stage $93.60 $46.80 per SF N 2 A-1 Assembly, theaters, without stage $93.60 $46.80 per SF N 3 A-2 Assembly, nightclubs $93.60 $46.80 per SF N
4 A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls $111.80 $55.90 per SF N 5 A-3 Assembly, churches $93.60 $46.80 per SF N
6 A-3 Assembly, general, community halls, libraries, museums $88.40 $44.20 per SF N 7 A-4 Assembly, arenas $105.30 $52.65 per SF N
8 B Business $88.40 $44.20 per SF N
9 E Educational $94.90 $47.45 per SF N
10 F-1 Factory and Industrial, moderate hazard $49.40 $24.70 per SF N 11 F-2 Factory and Industrial, low hazard $49.40 $24.70 per SF N 12 H-1 High Hazard, explosives $49.40 $24.70 per SF N
13 H-2,3,4 - High Hazard $49.40 $24.70 per SF N
14 H-5 - HPM $79.30 $39.65 per SF N
15 I-1 Institutional, supervised environment $126.72 $63.36 per SF N 16 I-2 Institutional, hospitals $131.29 $65.65 per SF N 17 I-2 Institutional, nursing homes $249.09 $124.55 per SF N 18 I-3 Institutional, restrained $145.80 $72.90 per SF N 19 I-4 Institutional, day care facilities $126.72 $63.36 per SF N 20 M Mercantile $62.40 $31.20 per SF N
21 R-1 Residential, hotels $97.50 $48.75 per SF N
22 R-2 Residential, multiple-family $100.18 $50.09 per SF N 23 R-3 Residential, one- and two-family $110.00 $55.00 per SF N 24 R-4 Residential, care/assisted living facilities $106.60 $53.30 per SF N 25 S-1 Storage, moderate hazard $42.90 $21.45 per SF N
26 S-2 Storage, low hazard $41.60 $20.80 per SF N
27 U Utility, miscellaneous $32.50 $16.25 per SF N
A. Construction Valuation Table - Table A is the construction valuation table adopted for the purpose of establishing permit fees as construction valuation is a factor in the cost of providing permitting services. These valuations correlate to the square footage costs of permitting, plan review, and inspection services based upon the hourly rate for building services identified in this fee schedule.

Table A - Construction Valuation
14 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
1 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 B. Determination of Construction Valuations - The building official shall determine construction valuations as follows:

New Construction. New construction shall be based upon the square footage of the proposed project multiplied by the amount stated in Column A of Table A corresponding to the occupancy group, as determined by the building official, for a total construction value.

Improvements. Improvements to existing buildings shall be based upon the square footage of the proposed improvements multiplied by the amount stated in Column B of Table A corresponding to the occupancy group, as determined by the building official, for a total construction value.

C. Commercial Building Valuations - Minimum commercial building valuations are stated below for the purposes of establishing minimum permit fees to cover the cost of service for the project listed. The higher valuation shall be assessed unless otherwise stated.

Tenant Improvements Processed Over the Counter (OTC Permits). Tenant Improvement OTC permits shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

OTC Permits for Commercial Projects. OTC permits for commercial projects such as demolition, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and other work not otherwise defined shall have a minimum valuation of $3,000.

Cell Towers - Change out of Antennas Only. Cell towers requiring change-out of antennas only shall be considered a TI remodel with a minimum valuation of $3,000.

Cell Towers - Major Remodel. Cell towers undergoing a major remodel shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Shelves and Racking. Permits for shelves and racking shall be considered a TI remodel. Construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $8,000 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the square footage by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the U, Utility, Miscellaneous Occupancy Group.

Tenant Improvements Requiring Plan Submittal. Tenant Improvements (TIs) requiring plan submittal shall have a minimum valuation based upon Column B of Table A. For purposes of this section, a tenant improvement is defined as any improvement, maintenance or other updating on commercial property; improvement, maintenance or other updating on multi-family property; improvement, maintenance or other updating on residential care facilities and model home sales complexes, including sales trailers.

Commercial Photovoltaic. Commercial photovoltaic permits shall be based on a set valuation of $40,000.

Electrical Service Upgrade. Electrical service upgrade permit fees shall have a minimum valuation of $3,000.

Commercial Reroofing. Commercial reroofing permits shall have a minimum valuation of $423.17 per 100 square feet of roof area or a total minimum valuation of $20,000.

Pool Replaster and Repairs. For permits for commercial pool replaster and/or repairs, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $8,000 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the pool square footage by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the U, Utility, Miscellaneous Occupancy Group.

Stucco or Siding on Multi-Family. For permits for stucco or siding on multi-family units, construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $8,000 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the linear footage of exterior home and garage x 1 SF (= remodel SF) by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the R-2, Residential Multi-Family Occupancy Group.

Stair Repair on Multi-Family. For permits for stair repair on multi-family units, construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $8,000 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the square footage of the stair area(s) x number of floors of the building(s) by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the R-2, Residential Multi-Family Occupancy Group.
15 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Electronic Gates. For permits for electronic gates, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $8,000 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the lineal footage of the gate and replacement fence x 1 SF (=SF) by the amount stated in Column A of Table A for the U, Utility, Miscellaneous Occupancy Group.

Facade Remodel. For permits for facade remodel, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $8,000 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the lineal footage of the facade x 1 SF (=SF) by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the Occupancy Group listed on the certificate of occupancy.

Reroof. Reroof permits for residential structures shall have a minimum valuation of $239.49 per 100 square feet of roof area or a total minimum valuation of $2,400.

Custom, Non-listed Patio Covers. Custom, non-listed patio covers shall have minimum valuation based upon new construction valuation of Column A of Table A.

Swimming Pools. Swimming pools shall have a set valuation of $25,000 for the purposes of establishing the building permit fee. The swimming pool construction contract valuation shall be reported on the permit application if such amount exceeds $25,000.

Residential Remodel. Residential remodel permits shall have a minimum valuation based upon Column B of Table A.

Residential Additions. Residential additions shall have a minimum valuation based upon Column A of Table A (new construction).

Spray Booth. For permits for spray booth installation, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $8,000 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the square footage of the booth area by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the F, Factory and Industrial Occupancy Group.

Parking Lot Restriping: Site Work. Permits for parking lot restriping shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

ADA Upgrades. Permits for ADA upgrades shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Barrier Removal. Permits for barrier removal shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Crane install runways. Permits for crane install runways shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Construction Trailer. For permits for construction trailers hooking up to water/sewer and/or electric, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be calculated by multiplying the trailer square footage by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the B, Business Occupancy Group.

Commercial Charging Station. For permits for commercial charging stations, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be based on the construction valuation provided by the applicant with a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Emergency Generator to Cell Site. Permits for emergency generators to cell sites shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Pumpkin Lot/Tree Lot. Permits for pumpkin or tree lots shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Combination of Residential Remodel and Residential Addition. With respect to a permit application for a combination residential remodel and residential addition subsection (D)(3) shall apply with respect to the residential remodel portion and subsection (D)(4) shall apply with respect to the residential addition (new construction) portion for a total construction valuation for the permit.

Photovoltaic. Photovoltaic permits shall be based upon a set valuation of $18,000 for the purposes of establishing the permit fee.

D. Residential Building Valuations - Minimum residential building valuations are stated below for the purposes of establishing minimum permit fees to cover the cost of service for the project listed. The higher valuation shall be assessed unless otherwise stated.

Pre-Engineered, Listed Patio Covers. Pre-engineered, listed patio covers shall have a set valuation of $3,000 for the purposes of establishing the building permit fee. The patio construction contract valuation shall be reported on the permit application if such amount exceeds $3,000.
16 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 Shed. For permits for residential sheds, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $2,400 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the square footage of the shed (= SF) by the amount stated in Column A of Table A for the U, Utility, Miscellaneous Occupancy Group.

Stucco or Siding. For permits for stucco or siding on residential units, construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $2,400 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the linear footage of exterior home and garage x 1 SF (= remodel SF) by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the R-3, Residential, One- and Two-Family Occupancy Group.

Fence or Retaining Wall. For permits for residential fences or retaining walls, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $2,400 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the linear footage of fence or wall x 1 SF (= SF) by the amount stated in Column A of Table A for the U, Utility, Miscellaneous Occupancy Group.

Windows. Permits for residential windows shall have a minimum valuation of $2,400.

Plumbing OTC Permits. OTC permits pertaining to plumbing shall have a minimum valuation of $900.

Mechanical, Electrical, Car Charging Stations, Demolition and Other OTC Permits Not Specified in this Section. OTC permits for mechanical, electrical, car charging stations, demolition, and other permits not specified in this section shall have a minimum valuation of $2,400.

Fire Repair. For permits for residential fire repair, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be calculated in the same manner as a residential remodel.

Deck Repair. For permits for deck repair, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $2,400 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the square footage of the deck area being repaired (= SF) by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the U, Utility, Miscellaneous Occupancy Group.

Freestanding Fireplace. Permits for a freestanding fireplace shall have a minimum valuation of $2,400.

BBQ. Permits for a barbeque (BBQ) shall have a minimum valuation of $2,400.

Pool Replaster and Repairs. For permits for residential pool replaster and/or repairs, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $2,400 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the pool square footage by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the U, Utility, Miscellaneous Occupancy Group. 17 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
Total Valuation
Y'rly
In'fltr
$1 to $500 $61.10 Y
$501 to $1,000 $61.10 for the first $500 plus $2.94 for each add'l $100 or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000
Y
$1,001 to $3,000 $75.82 for the first $1,000 plus $3.24 for each add'l $100 or fraction thereof, to and
including $3,000
Y
$3,001 to $25,000 $140.53 for the first $3,000 plus $12.94 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000
Y
$25,001 to $50,000 $425.23 for the first $25,000 plus $10.59 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $50,000
Y
$50,001 to $100,000 $689.88 for the first $50,000 plus $7.35 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $100,000
Y
$100,001 to $500,000 $1,057.39 for the first $100,000 plus $5.88 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $500,000
Y
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,407.04 for the first $500,000 plus $4.42 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000
Y
$1,000,001 and up $5,616.14 for the first $1,000,000 plus $2.35 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
Y
Total Valuation
Y'rly
In'fltr
$0 to $120,000 $1,445.77 Y
$120,001 and up $1,445.77 for the first $120,000 plus $9.78 for each add'l $11,000 or fraction thereof
Y
E. Permit Fees - Subject to any applicable minimum permit fees stated elsewhere in this schedule, Table B and B.1, shall apply for the purpose of establishing minimum permit fees.

Production Home Permit Fees - Building permits for production homes (those homes that are one and two family homes having an approved master plan, which is a complete set of building plans from which multiple homes may be constructed) shall have a minimum permit fee as calculated in Table B.1.

Table B - Permit Fees
FY 22-23 Permit Fee
Table B.1 - Production Home Permit Fees
FY 22-23 Permit Fee
18 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Permits Requiring Plan Submittal for Review 95% of the Building Permit Fee N 2 Over the Counter Permits Requiring Minimal or No Plan Review 25% of the Hourly Rate or Actual Cost (for time in excess of 1/2 hour)
N
3 Tenant Improvement Environmental Utilities Review
a) Same Use1 $376 Y
b) Change of Use2 $1,026 Y
4 Production Home Permits 37% of the Building Permit Fee N 5 Plans Submitted for the Purposes of Being Mastered 95% of the Building Permit Fee (based on SF valuation of proposed design)
N
6 Emergency Water Heater Repair Exempt From the Admin Fee (allocated one inspection visit. If add'l visits are
required re-inspection fees apply for add'l visits)
N
F. Administration Fee - In addition to the permit fee, an administration fee is established for the city to recover the cost of permit application processing, permit issuance, and plan review and shall be applied as follows:
1 “Same Use” fee applies to any tenant improvement that requires review (by applicable statute) by the Placer County Department of Environmental Health (typical uses include restaurants, hair salons, and medical/dental offices), or tenant improvements that result in changes to equipment such as (but not limited to) triple compartment sinks, sewer lines within kitchen and maintenance areas, grease waste capturing equipment and tanks, water services including fire, domestic and irrigation, and exterior trash enclosures, etc. The fee does not apply to tenant improvements that do not involve new or modifications to existing plumbing. Examples of tenant improvements where the same use fee would not apply include:
addition of new fixtures (sinks, toilets, etc) where no modification to plumbing is proposed, and addition or relocation of interior walls where no new or modification to existing plumbing is proposed. The fee shall also not apply to minor tenant improvements charged the minimum building permit fee based on project valuation. 2 “Change of Use” fee applies to tenant improvements that result in a change from one use to another, such as (but not limited to) office/retail to restaurant, or office/retail to dental/medical office. The change in use fee also applies to plan review of modifications to commercial landscaping for compliance with water efficient landscape requirements.

Determination of Tenant Improvement (TI) Environmental Utilities Review Fee:
19 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Additional Services (1/2 hour minimum) $190 per hour [a] Y 2 Re-inspections (per scheduled stop) $111 per stop [b] Y 3 Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours $190 per hour [c] Y 4 Work Commenced without a Permit $190 minimum [d] Y
5 Certificate of Occupancy (1 hour minimum) $190 per hour [e] Y 6 Permit Extension or Reinstatement of an Expired Permit $190 per hour [f] Y 7 Third Party Plan Review
(fee is in addition to City Administration Fee in Section F) pass through
of consultant fee
[g] N
8 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Schedule Actual Cost [h] N 9 Refunds and Appeals
a) Fees erroneously paid by applicant or collected or
charged by the agency
100% refund [i][l] N
b) When no work has been commenced up to 75% refund [j][l] N c) Expired permit applications and permits 0% refund [k][l] N G. Additional Time and Materials Fees and Refunds and Appeals - Building permits are subject to additional time and material fees where the cost of service provided by city exceeds the amount collected at application. Such fees shall be calculated as follows:

3. Inspections additional to the inspection with respect to emergency water heater permits. [a] Additional Services (e.g. administrative and plan review) Fees shall be assessed at time of permit issuance and/or prior to final inspection at application. Additional service is defined as follows:

1. Plan Reviews in excess of three (3) submittals to city for review and approval.

2. Plan Review by city departments other than the development services department for projects affecting other City services and not covered by any fees set forth in this section.

3. Other staff time and resources for the purposes of facilitating and approving permit applications and permits.

4. Expedited plan review, when available, and additional resources required to facilitate the expedited plan review process, including consultants and/or other city departments and divisions whose assistance is required for plan approval. [c] Inspections outside of normal business hours will be subject to a 2-hour minimum for evening work and a 4-hour minimum for weekend work.
[d] Whenever any work for which a permit is required has been commenced without first applying for a building permit and receiving permission by the building official, a minimum fee for investigation and administration shall be assessed in addition to the full cost of any required permits.
[e] The fee for a certificate of occupancy shall be a minimum of one hour, and any additional costs beyond one hour of staff time to approve such certificates.
[b] Re-inspections may be assessed based on any of the following:

1. Inspections which are not ready at the time of the scheduled inspection, as determined by a city inspector.

2. Failure by applicant to complete inspection items from previous correction notices. 20 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
[k] Permit applications and building permits that have expired as defined in the California Building Code shall not be subject to any refund.
[l] A building permit applicant may, upon payment of the requested permit fees to city and otherwise complying with California Government Code Section 66022, protest the requested amount to the city council by lodging an appeal with the building official.

City staff shall schedule the appeal to be heard by the city council as soon as reasonably practicable. [f] Permit applications and permits shall expire per the provisions of the California Building Code. Reinstatement and extensions may be granted provided that all costs incurred by the city to date of the request are paid for by the permit applicant. For this purpose, cost is defined as the hours expended for review and administration multiplied by the hourly rate. [g] Third party plan review, when available, shall be assessed and paid at time of permit application. The fee for this service is the hourly or flat rate charged by the consulting firm performing the review. This fee is in addition to the permit Administration Fees identified in "Section F" of this fee schedule for the additional resources required to facilitate the process. [h] Fees for services not otherwise listed in this schedule shall be determined by the building official and based upon the actual cost of providing the service.
[i] The building official may authorize refunding of any fee paid, or portion thereof, which was erroneously paid by applicant or collected by city.
[j] The building official may authorize refunding of not more than seventy-five percent (75%) of fees paid when no work has been done under a permit application or an issued permit in accordance with the adopted California Code of Regulations. In no case shall the refund exceed the cost of services provided to date of cancellation of permit issuance. 21 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Technology Fee (applicable to building permits, fire
permits, improvement plan, and entitlement fees)
3% [a] N
2 General Plan Update Fee $0.50 per $1,000 valuation,
not to exceed $20,000
N
3 Strong Motion Impact (SMI) Fee Calculation
a) Residential $0.50 or valuation x .00013 [b] N
b) Commercial $0.50 or valuation x .00028 [b] N
4 Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund (SB 1473) Fee Calculation
Valuation:
a) $1 - $25,000 $1 [b] N
b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2 [b] N
c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3 [b] N
d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4 [b] N
e) Every $25,000 or fraction thereof above $100,000 Add $1 [b] N 5 "SCIP" Administrative Fee
a) Per Single Family Dwelling Permit $515 [c] Y - See Note b) Per Non-Residential Building Permit $1,441 [c] Y - See Note In'fltr [b] Fee set by State.

H. Technology Fee, General Plan Maintenance Fee, Strong Motion Impact Fee, SB 1473 Fee [a] “Building permit” means the permit issued or required by the city for the construction or modification of any structure pursuant to and as defined by the building code. “Fire permit” means the permit issued or required by the city for the construction or ongoing operations of a structure or business pursuant to and as defined by the fire code. “Improvement plan” means the permit issued or required by the city for the construction of any public or private site improvements as defined by the city’s improvement and construction standards. “Entitlement” means those approvals provided under Title 19, Zoning. [c] In accordance with Resolution No. 19-92, the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program "SCIP" Administrative Fee shall increase annually by 2% or the change in the consumer price index from October to October. 22 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
1 One-half (1/2) hour administration time for application and data input 2 1/2 hour administration time for permit issuance and one hour plan review time including up to two (2) submittals 3 Typically 2 inspections at a minimum of 1/2 hour of staff time 4 Other applicable fees assessed by the State of California and by the Roseville Electric Department pursuant to the Roseville Electric Solar Energy Program Meter Upgrade Charges, as amended from time to time I. Findings Regarding Permit Fees for Residential Rooftop Solar Energy Systems - Pursuant to Section 66015 of the California Government Code (Fees for Rooftop Solar Energy Systems), the city council finds that the reasonable cost to issue a permit for a residential rooftop solar energy system exceeds $450 plus $15 per kilowatt (kW) for each kW above 15 because issuance of the permit requires all of the following:

This higher fee results in a quick and streamlined approval process. 23 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Development Impact Fee Deferral and SCIP Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Development Impact Fee Deferral
a) Residential $312 per deferral Y
b) Non-Residential
i) Administrative Fee $873 per deferral Y
ii) Interest Charge on Deferred Fees equal to unearned
interest based on
City's 10-yr avg
pooled interest rate
per deferral [a] N
[a] Fee deferral will result in a loss of interest income on monies deferred over the construction timeframe. The interest charge is intended to cover these costs.
24 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Housing Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Reconveyance Fee $359 per occurrence Y
2 Subordination Fee $417 per occurrence Y
25 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Electric Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Solar Energy Program - Meter Upgrade Charges
1 Residential PV Net-Meter $856.54 N
2 Business PV Net-Meter (<10kW system size) $2,028.76 N 3 Business PV Net & PBI Meter (10-100kW system size,
up to 200amp PBI panel)
$2,756.27 [a] N
4 Business PV Net & PBI Meter (10-100kW system size,
>200amp PBI panel)
$4,535.68 [a] N
5 Variance Review Request $211.40 per hour N
6 Plan Reviews or Field Meets Exceeding the Initial and Subsequent Submittal Limit
$211.40 per hour [b] N
Other Service Fees
7 Pedestal Meter Fee $584.35 N
8 Temporary Power Meter Set
a) Temp Power Meter Set Fee - Residential $584.35 N
b) Temp Power Meter Set Fee - Commercial Actual Cost N
9 Extension of Facilities Actual Cost N
10 Svc Connections and Facilities on Customer's Premises Actual Cost N 11 Meter Test
a) Test - More than six-months since prior test $0.00 N b) Test - Within six-months of meter install or prior test Actual Cost N 12 Overhead-to-Underground Conversion of Overhead Utilities Actual Cost N 13 Small Cell Plan Check Fee $782.12 N
14 Technology Fee 3% N
* Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: For items billed at actual cost or items billed at average labor and material rates, the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers. * All meter upgrade costs must be paid prior to receiving interconnection approval to operate the PV system. [a] Customer is required to supply a dedicated working phone line and monitoring for the duration of the PBI payment term. See the construction standards for phone line requirements. [b] The initial and first resubmittal plan review and the initial and first resubmittal field inspections are included in the basic Meter Upgrade Charge.
26 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Environmental Utilities Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Water
1 Construction Water
a) Fire Hydrant Application Fee $267 Y
b) Usage Rate Current rate per Ccf N
c) Meter and Backflow Rental
i) Monthly Rental Charge $104 Y
ii) Initial Deposit $2,518 Y
2 Meter Installation Actual Cost Y
3 Service Connections Actual Cost Y
4 Tap Actual Cost Y
5 Abandon Water Service Line Actual Cost Y
6 Installation of Facilities in Subdivisions/Other Dev'lpmts Actual Cost Y Water Conservation
7 Water - Water Efficient Landscape Review Actual Cost Y Backflow Prevention Inspection and Cross-Connection Control 8 Backflow Prevention Assembly - Installation, Repair, Replacement Actual Cost [a] Y 9 Backflow Prevention Assembly - Reinspection Fee $71 [b] Y Well Water
10 Well Permit
a) First Well $296 [c] Y
b) Each Additional Well $148 [c] Y
c) Soil Boring (no well) $296 Y
Sewer
11 Private Sewage Disposal System - Plan Review and Inspection Actual Cost Y 12 Building Sewers and Connections
a) Residential and Commercial Service Actual Cost Y
b) Service Establishments Producing Industrial Waste Actual Cost Y 13 Review of Grease, Oil, and Grit Interceptors Actual Cost Y 14 Rate-of-Flow Controller Facility
a) Installation Actual Cost Y
b) Re-inspection Actual Cost Y
15 Industrial Waste Manhole - Plan Review and Inspection Actual Cost Y 16 Closed Circuit TV for Inspection and Warranty Service Actual Cost Y 17 Vactor Service for Cleaning of New Infrastructure for Final Acceptance Actual Cost Y 18 Fabrication of Special Fittings Actual Cost Y
19 Fats, Oils, and Grease Program (FOG) - Costs incurred by the City as a result of required on-site sampling and analysis
Actual Cost Y
20 FOG Program Violation Appeal Cost Reimbursement
a) Public Utilities Commission Actual Cost Y
b) City Council Actual Cost Y
27 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Environmental Utilities Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Recycled Water
21 Recycled Water - Cost of Meter and Installation Actual Cost Y 22 Recycled Water for Construction
a) Fire Hydrant Application Fee $267 Y
b) Usage Rate Current rate per Ccf N
c) Meter Rental
i) Monthly Rental Charge $104 Y
ii) Initial Deposit $2,090 Y
23 Recycled Water - Plan Review and Inspection Actual Cost Y Industrial Wastewater
24 On-Site Sampling Actual Cost Y
Other Fees
25 Plan Review Actual Cost Y
26 On-site Inspections Actual Cost Y
27 Water Warranty Inspections Actual Cost Y
28 Wastewater Warranty Inspections Actual Cost Y
29 Cross Connection Testing Actual Cost Y
30 Cross Connection Testing for Backflows Actual Cost Y 31 Water Continuity Testing Actual Cost Y
32 Spark Testing Actual Cost Y
33 Mapping Actual Cost Y
34 Standby Actual Cost Y
35 Disposal of Chlorinated or Contaminated Water Actual Cost Y 36 Tee Installation Actual Cost Y
37 401 Transition Pipe Actual Cost Y
38 Pipe Coating Actual Cost Y
* Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: For items billed at actual cost, the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers. [a] Installation, repair, or replacement of a backflow prevention assembly shall be performed by a licensed contractor, or with customer approval, by City personnel. The cost to the City for materials and labor at the prevailing wage shall be paid by the owner [b] Reinspection fee is the fee required to be paid upon finding by an inspector that the backflow prevention assembly is defective or not in compliance backflow prevention assembly standards. [c] Fee is 50% refundable if denied.
28 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Permits to Operate (Type of Permit Activity)
1 Amusement Building $356 Y
2 Carnivals and Fairs $356 Y
3 Combustible Dust Operations $356 Y
4 Covered Mall Buildings $356 Y
5 Exhibits and Trade Shows $356 Y
6 Explosives or Blasting Agents $890 Y
7 Mobile Fueling $356 Y
8 Recreational or Bon Fire $180 Y
9 Theatrical Fire Performance $356 Y
10 High Pile Storage $356 Y
11 Hot Work Operations $356 Y
12 Industrial Ovens $356 Y
13 Lumber Yards $356 Y
14 Misc. Combustible Storage $356 Y
15 Places of Assembly
a) Less than 300 occupant load $356 Y
b) 300 - 999 occupant load $534 Y
c) 1,000 or more occupant load $710 Y
16 Commercial Day Care Facility
a) 7 - 49 persons $356 Y
b) 50 - 149 persons $534 Y
c) 150 or more persons $710 Y
17 Institutional
a) Less than 6 patients $356 Y
b) 6 or more patients $534 Y
c) Detention facilities $710 Y
18 Apartments/Hotels/Motels
a) 3 - 16 units $270 Y
b) 17 - 32 units $356 Y
c) 33 or more units $534 Y
19 Large Family Day Care
a) Pre-inspection (at hourly rate) $180 per hour Y
20 850 Inspections
a) 850 Inspection (at hourly rate) $180 per hour Y
21 Residential Care Facilities
a) 7 or more residents $534 Y
b) Pre-inspection (at hourly rate) $180 per hour Y
22 Temporary Membrane Structures (Tents/Canopies)
a) 401 - 1,499 SF $270 Y
b) 1,500 - 2,999 SF $356 Y
c) 3,000 - 5,999 SF $534 Y
d) 6,000 or more SF $710 Y
29 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Plan Review
● Including Inspection Service
● Plan Review Conducted by City Staff
23 Fire Alarm System
a) New Installation $1,596 Y
b) New installation with Two Way Communication $1,596 Y c) Tenant Improvement $710 Y
d) Tenant Improvement: One Device Only $180 Y
e) Large Project > 50 Notification Devices $4,246 Y
f) High Rise $6,366 Y
24 Fire Sprinkler System - New Installation
a) 1 - 99 heads $2,126 Y
b) 100 - 199 heads $2,654 Y
c) 200 or more heads $3,540 Y
25 Fire Sprinkler System - Tenant Improvement
a) < 5 Sprinkler Heads Only $180 Y
b) 6 - 50 heads $710 Y
c) 51 or more heads $1,418 Y
26 Fire Stand Pipe System $1,418 Y
27 Fire Pump System $2,654 Y
28 Hood and Duct System
a) New System $1,240 Y
b) Tenant Improvement $358 Y
29 Special Suppression System (Clean agent, Co2, etc.) $1,772 Y 30 Compressed Gas System
a) Hazardous Material $710 Y
b) Medical Gas $710 Y
31 Smoke Management Systems $4,246 Y
32 Spray Booths (Includes fire protection system) $1,418 Y 33 Radio Amplification System $4,246 Y
Plan Review
● Including Inspection Service
● Plan Review Conducted by City Approved Consultant
34 Third Party Plan Review (fee is in addition to fees shown below in this section)
pass-through of
consultant fee
[a] N
35 Fire Alarm System
a) New Installation $1,076 Y
b) New Installation with Two Way Communication $1,076 Y c) Tenant Improvement $478 Y
d) Large Project > 50 Notification Devices $2,868 Y
e) High Rise $4,296 Y
30 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
36 Fire Sprinkler System - New Installation
a) 1 - 99 heads $1,434 Y
b) 100 - 199 heads $1,792 Y
c) 200 or more heads $2,388 Y
37 Fire Sprinkler System - Tenant Improvement
a) 6 - 50 heads $478 Y
b) 51 or more heads $958 Y
38 Fire Stand Pipe System $958 Y
39 Fire Pump System $1,792 Y
40 Hood and Duct System
a) New System $838 Y
b) Tenant Improvement $242 Y
41 Special Suppression System (Clean agent, Co2, etc.) $1,196 Y 42 Compressed Gas System
a) Hazardous Material $478 Y
b) Medical Gas $478 Y
43 Smoke Management Systems $2,868 Y
44 Spray Booths (Includes fire protection system) $958 Y 45 Radio Amplification System $2,868 Y
Fireworks
46 Fireworks - Public Display (High/Low Level & Ground Devices) a) 200 or less devices $1,066 Y
b) 201 or more devices $1,240 Y
47 Fireworks - Retail Stand $356 Y
48 Fireworks - Special Pyrotechnic Effects $710 Y
Hazardous Materials
49 Flammable or Combustible Liquids/Solids
a) Class I > 5 gal, II or IIIA > 25 gal (inside storage) $356 Y b) ≥ 100 lbs $356 Y
50 Hazardous Materials Storage, Use, or Handling (55 Gallons Liquid, 200 Cu Ft Gas, 500 Lbs. Solid)
[b]
a) Carbon Dioxide System $356 Y
b) 1 - 10 chemicals $356 Y
c) 11 - 20 chemicals $710 Y
d) 21 or more chemicals $1,066 Y
51 Hazardous Waste Generator
a) Hazardous Waste Generator Fee < 55 gal $356 Y
b) Hazardous Waste Generator Fee 55 - 500 gal $534 Y
c) Hazardous Waste Generator Fee 501 - 2,500 gal $710 Y d) Hazardous Waste Generator Fee > 2,500 gal $1,066 Y
31 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
52 Tiered Permitting
a) Permit by Rule (PBR) $1,066 Y
b) Conditionally Authorized $534 Y
c) Conditionally Exempt $534 Y
53 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
a) Annual tank ≥ 499 gal $356 Y
b) Tank installation (plan review and inspection)
i) Commercial $710 Y
ii) Residential $356 Y
54 State of California Surcharge CALARP $270 N
55 State of California Surcharge Hazardous Materials $84 N 56 Review of Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plans $180 per hour Y 57 Review of Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plans $180 per hour Y 58 Hazardous Materials Emergency Spill Response Actual Cost Y 59 Hazardous Materials Oversight of Remediation $180 per hour Y Underground Storage Tanks
60 Annual Permit $1,772 Y
61 Tank Installation (plan review and inspection)
a) First tank $3,540 Y
b) Each additional tank $534 Y
62 Transfer of Ownership $356 Y
63 Tank Removal or Abandonment $1,772 Y
64 System Modification $710 Y
65 UST System Cold Start $356 Y
66 UST Piping Upgrade $1,418 Y
67 State of California UST Surcharge (per tank) $20 N
Aboveground Storage Tanks
68 Annual Permit
a) Annual Permit: 1,320 to 10,000 gallons $356 Y
b) Annual Permit: 10,000 to 100,000 gallons $534 Y
c) Annual Permit: 100,000 to 1,000,000 gallons $710 Y
d) Annual Permit ≥ 1,000,000 gallons $1,066 Y
69 Tank Installation (plan review and inspection)
a) First tank $710 Y
b) Each additional tank $180 Y
70 Transfer of Ownership $356 Y
71 Tank Removal or Abandonment $710 Y
72 System Modification $534 Y
73 State of California APSA Surcharge $26 N
32 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Administrative Fees
74 Copy of Incident Report (per incident) $18 Y
75 Media Reproduction (audio, video, photographic) Actual Cost Y 76 Emergency Response Caused by DUI Actual Cost Y
77 Weed Abatement Administrative Parcel Fee $356 Y
78 Code Appeal (per hour) $180 Y
79 Fire Flow / Hydrant Test $534 Y
80 Fire & Life Safety Division Hourly Rate $180 per hour Y 81 Minimum Intake Fee $180 Y
82 Voluntary Inspection $356 Y
83 Technical Report (alternate material or method request) $710 Y 84 Inspection Requests (after normal business hours) $534 Y 85 Administrative Fee (excessive resubmittals and inspections) $448 Y 86 Expedited Plan Review Fee (per hour) $202 per hour Y 87 Re-inspection Fee $356 Y
88 Administrative Fee (work without a permit) $534 Y
89 Code Review or Design Consultation (per hour) $180 Y 90 False Alarm Fee $448 Y
91 Fire Extinguisher Training $534 Y
92 Late Payment Penalty for Permits
a) 30 days past due $50 N
b) 60 days past due $100 N
c) 90 days past due $200 N
[b] Fee includes Hazardous Waste Generator < 55 gal.
[a] Third party plan review, when available, shall be assessed and paid at time of permit application. The fee for this service is the hourly or flat rate charged by the consulting firm performing the review. This fee is in addition to the permit Administration Fees identified in the "Plan Review (Including Inspection Service) Plan Review Conducted by City Approved Consultant" of this fee schedule for the additional resources required to facilitate the process.

General Information
* All fees or charges shall be calculated at one (1) hour minimum unless otherwise specified. * All fees for specified services shall be calculated by the Fire Department. * When a requester fails to cancel a requested inspection prior to the scheduled time of inspection, the standard inspection fee shall be charged, with a one hour minimum fee.
* When required, no permit or approval shall be issued until facility or process is brought into compliance with applicable codes and the required service fee is paid in full.
33 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Emergency Medical Services First Responder Fee
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Emergency Medical Services First Responder Fee $353.71 Y 34 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Police Department Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Alarm Permit Application
a) Initial permit application $35 for two-year permit N b) Renewal permit application $15 for two-year permit N c) Late Filing Fees
i) Less than 30 days late $5 N
ii) 30 Days $20 N
iii) 60 Days $40 N
iv) 90 Days $80 N
v) 91+ Days
a) Base Fee $80 N
b) Administrative Citation TBD N
c) Fine $100 N
2 Excessive False Alarms:
a) First false alarm
i) Burglary $0 flat fee [a] N
ii) Duress/robbery $0 flat fee [a] N
b) Second false alarm
i) Burglary $60 flat fee [a] N
ii) Duress/robbery $60 flat fee [a] N
c) Third false alarm
i) Burglary $85 flat fee [a] N
ii) Duress/robbery $85 flat fee [a] N
d) Fourth false alarm
i) Burglary $100 flat fee [a] N
ii) Duress/robbery $150 flat fee [a] N
e) Fifth and subsequent false alarms
i) Burglary $150 flat fee [a] N
ii) Duress/robbery $200 flat fee [a] N
3 Appeal of Decision to Deny, Suspend, or Revoke an
Alarm Permit
$75 flat fee N
4 Citation Sign-Off (Non-Roseville Issued Citations) $10 per request Y 5 Traffic Collision Report $10 per request Y
6 Traffic Camera Footage & Photos
a) Footage and Photos $25 per request Y
b) Digital Storage Device $8 per request Y
7 Digital Media Storage Device
a) CD / DVD $2 per request Y
b) Flash Drive $8 per request Y
8 Impounded Vehicle Release Fee $185 per vehicle [b] Y
9 Vehicle Tow Hearing $90 per request Y
10 Criminal Background / Good Conduct Letter
(aka Records Check and Clearance Letter)
$20 per request N
11 Commercial Indoor Firing Range Permit $118 flat fee Y 35 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Police Department Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
12 Retail Firearms Dealer License
a) Initial permit application $118 flat fee Y
b) Renewal permit application $118 flat fee Y
13 Adult-oriented Business
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee $308 flat fee Y
ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 flat fee [c] N
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost flat fee N iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if applicable $17 flat fee [c] N b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee $308 flat fee Y
14 Entertainment Permit
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee $236 flat fee Y
ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 flat fee [c] N
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost flat fee N iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if applicable $17 flat fee [c] N b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee $236 flat fee Y
15 Ice Cream Vendor Permit Application
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee $47 flat fee Y
ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 flat fee [c] N
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost flat fee N iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if applicable $17 flat fee [c] N b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee $47 flat fee Y
16 Massage Business Permit Application [d]
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee $145 flat fee Y
ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 flat fee [c] N
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost flat fee N iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if applicable $17 flat fee [c] N b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee $35 flat fee Y
17 Pawnbroker/Secondhand Dealer
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee $118 flat fee Y
ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 flat fee [c] N
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost flat fee N iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if applicable $17 flat fee [c] N b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee $76 flat fee Y
36 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Police Department Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
18 Taxicab Driver Permit Application
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee $50 flat fee N
ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 flat fee [c] N
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost flat fee N iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if applicable $17 flat fee [c] N b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee $50 flat fee N
19 Range Rental
a) 4 hour rental $212 per 4-hr rental Y
b) 8 hour rental $425 per 8-hr rental Y
20 Noise Violation actual cost of
enforcement
per separate offense
following first citation
Y
21 Extraordinary Law Enforcement Services
(multiple responses to disturbance w/in 12-hrs)
actual cost of
enforcement
per separate offense
following first warning
Y
22 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services
a) Hourly Rates for Police Dept Personnel
i) Community Service Officers $50 per hour Y
ii) Police Officers $86 per hour Y
iii) Sergeants $104 per hour Y
iv) Dispatchers $67 per hour Y
b) Hourly Rates for Marked Vehicles
i) Base Rate $25 per hour N
ii) Per mile rate, for each mile over 50 $0.585 per mile [e] N 23 Concealed Weapon License n/a - issued by Placer
County Sheriff
[f] N
* Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: For items billed at actual cost, the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers. [b] This fee shall be collected only from the registered owner or agent of the registered owner. This fee shall not apply to vehicles impounded as the result of automobile accidents, abatement program, or lien sale, unless the sale is sufficient in amount to pay the lienholder’s total charges and administrative costs. [d] Fee amounts shown are for non-state certified massage therapist applications. There is no fee for State-certified massage therapists/practitioners registering to provide massage services or activities within the City of Roseville. [f] Any Roseville resident wishing to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon shall be directed to the Placer County Sheriff's Office for permit application and the permit process. [a] Fines are determined by the combined number of both burglary and duress/robbery false alarms. Reimbursement may be waived by the police chief where uncommon circumstances not considered an emergency resulted in false alarm and where the permittee has undertaken to correct alarm system deficiencies. [c] This fee is not established by the City of Roseville. It may be collected on behalf of, or directly by, a third party (e.g. vendor; other public agency). The fee schedule is intended to mirror amounts adopted by third parties. If the amount charged by a third party changes, the amounts collected by the City on behalf of the third party are presumed to change simultaneously. Amounts shown in the fee schedule will be updated as soon as practicable after the City receives notice of the fee change. [e] Set to match IRS standard mileage rates.
37 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Animal Licensing and Permit Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Animal License (Dog or Cat)
a) 1 Year
i) Certified altered animal $24 each Y
ii) Non-altered animal $48 each Y
iii) Senior Discount $5 off standard fee each N
b) 2 Years
i) Certified altered animal $47 each Y
ii) Non-altered animal $95 each Y
iii) Senior Discount $10 off standard fee each N
c) 3 Years
i) Certified altered animal $70 each Y
ii) Non-altered animal $142 each Y
iii) Senior Discount $15 off standard fee each N
d) Transfer of active license from other jurisdiction $0 each Y 2 Delinquent Penalty for Failure to Renew License within 15 days of Expiration
a) Altered dog $5 flat fee N
b) Unaltered dog $10 flat fee N
3 Lost License or Tag $5 flat fee N
4 Rabies Test Pass-through of actual
cost
flat fee N
5 Kennel License
a) Initial $127 each Y
b) Renewal $63 each Y
6 Special Animal Permit
a) Initial $63 each Y
b) Renewal $63 each Y
7 Voluntary Disposal Fee
a) Dogs and Other Animals Commonly Considered Pets $42 per animal/litter Y b) Wild Animals $42 per animal Y
8 Appeal of Decision to Destroy Vicious Animal $100 flat fee N * Per RMC 7.16.070, license fees are waived for: service dog owned by a person with a need for assistance; dog used by any law enforcement personnel; dog owned by any government entity or political subdivision 38 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Oversize Vehicle Permit Fees and Building Moving Permit Fees Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Oversize Vehicle Permit
a) Single trip permit $16 per vehicle [a] N
b) Annual permit $90 per vehicle [a] N
2 Building Moving Permit
a) Base Fee $30 per request Y
b) Costs of plan review, utility and street light moving, tree trimming, traffic directing, etc.
actual costs per request Y
[a] Oversize vehicle permit fees set to match fees adopted by California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). * Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: For items billed at actual cost, the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers. 39 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Parking Permit Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Residential Parking Permit $0 per vehicle N
2 Merchant Parking Permit
a) January 1st through December 31st $20 per vehicle N
b) July 1st through December 31st $10 per vehicle N
* Permit is valid only for the calendar year issued. A merchant parking permit is issued to a specific vehicle and is not transferable. A valid merchant parking permit decal must be appropriately displayed on the left rear bumper or left rear window of the permittee's vehicle.
40 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Special Event, Film, and Banner Permit Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Special Event Permit
a) Application Fee
i) Event that requires limited site/plan review, no closures, etc. (i.e. park rentals/activities, misc. events, etc.)
$160 per event [a] Y
ii) Event that requires, but not limited to, street/parking lot closures, site/plan review, trail use, etc. (i.e. fun runs, festivals, parking garage, etc.)
$300 per event [a] Y
b) Service Charges actual costs Y
c) Park/facility rental fee varies by location per event N 2 Photography and Filming Permit
a) Application Fee
i) Cast and Crew Totaling One to Three Persons $160 per permit [a],[b] Y ii) Cast and Crew Totaling Four or More Persons; or with Street Closure
$300 per permit [a],[b] Y
b) Service Charges actual costs
Y
3 Banner Permit $70
Y
[a] Application fees are non-refundable.
* Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: For items billed at actual cost, the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers. [b] Non-commercial photography and photography/film not requiring exclusivity does not need a permit. The Department Director may waive fees for bona fide student film/photography projects and non-profit projects. The permitting process for filming/photography is still applicable for these projects (i.e. permit is required). Service charges are still applicable. 41 City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Fees
Fee Description FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Program, Class, Facility Use, and Service Fees
See Note [a] N
2 Capital Replacement Fee Not to exceed 10% of
program fee
per registration N
[a] See Department for Recreation Guide and Programs, Events, and Classes information, Facility Use, and Service Fees.

Information is updated seasonally. Fees are approved by the Department Director. Fees are established and updated using the Departmental Pricing Policy.
42 City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
- March 2022 -
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1 Legislative Guidance .....................................................................................................................................5 Study Methodology and Data Sources..........................................................................................................6 Appendices....................................................................................................................................................8 Appendix A – Summary of Current and Proposed Fees
Appendix B – Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
Appendix C – Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Pricing Policy 1 Executive Summary
The purpose of this study is to identify the City’s current cost of providing fee-related services and activities and to update the City’s Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees (fee schedule). Any fee updates adopted as part of this study are intended for use during Fiscal Year 2022-23. Recovering the costs of providing fee-related services directly influences the City’s goal of maintaining fiscal stability while continuing to provide high-quality essential services.

The fee schedule is intended to be reviewed annually, with staff conducting biannual studies to identify the city’s cost of providing fee-related services based on current labor rates and service delivery methods. In the interim year, fees are authorized to be adjusted based on the CPI change from October to October of the immediately preceding year.

Annual review and adjustment of fees provides multiple benefits, including:
• Increasing the availability of General Fund revenues to be used for services and activities available to all Roseville residents and businesses, such as public safety services. • Keeping pace with general cost inflation.
• Avoiding fee spikes that are more likely to occur when municipalities leave fees unchanged for a multiyear period.
• Providing fee payers, city staff, and city policymakers with a pattern of consistency that provides information for forecasting and decision-making purposes. • Encouraging generational equity among fee payers by avoiding long-term stagnation of fees followed by significant fee increases.

Fee Categories that Were Examined in this Study Include This study specifically examined the following categories of fees:
• Planning Fees, such as entitlement review and review for compliance with the zoning code • Engineering Fees, such as encroachment and public improvement review • Building Fees, such as permitting of new construction or modifications to existing structures • Utility Fees, such as requests for new water or electric meters • Police Fees, such as vehicle impound and animal licensing fees • Fire Fees, such as annual inspections conducted to ensure compliance with the fire code • Recreation Fees, such as swimming and other sports program related fees • Facility Rental Fees, such as requests for rental of meetings spaces, or picnic shelters 2 Fee/Fine Categories that Were Not Examined in this Study This study specifically excluded examination of the following:
• Assessments
• Development Impact Fees
• Fines or Penalties
• Franchise Fees
• Taxes
• Utility Rates and Services Charges
These items are subject to different approval thresholds or are not subject to the same cost of service limitations as the fees examined as part of this study. Consequently, they are specifically excluded from the scope of this study.

Primary Recommendations for City Council Consideration
The following provides a summary of primary changes the City Council is being asked to consider based on this study.

Table 1 – Summary of Changes to Fees Examined
Description Count Percentage Note
Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged 179 41% [a]
Fees Proposed to Increase by 5% or Less 245 57%
Fees Proposed to Increase by More than 5% 6 1%
New Fees Proposed 3 1%
Total Fees Examined 433 100%
* Amounts in the percentage column are rounded for illustrative purposes. [a] For this table, fees include fee multipliers that City staff may use to aid in the calculation of fees. Modification of fee multipliers directly influences total fees, consequently they are included in this table.

No new development fees are proposed.

Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged or Increase by 5% or Less Ninety-eight percent (98%) of user and regulatory fees are proposed to remain unchanged or increase by five percent or less (5%). Any modifications to fees are simply meant to avoid degradation of existing cost recovery levels per hour of City service provided. 3 Fees Proposed to Increase by More than Five Percent (5%) There are six fees proposed to increase by more than 5%. The fees are listed below Electric Fees
1) Residential PV Net-Meter:
▪ Current fee: $782; Proposed fee: $857 (100% recovery) 2) Business PV Net-Meter (<10kW system size)
▪ Current fee: $1,659; Proposed fee: $2,029 (100% recovery) 3) Pedestal Meter Fee
▪ Current fee: $332; Proposed fee: $584 (100% recovery) 4) Temp Power Meter Set - Residential
▪ Current fee: $270; Proposed fee: $584 (100% recovery) Photography & Filming Permits and Special Event Application Fees Staff is working to increase cost recovery for these services. The cost recovery increases will be phased-in over a multi-year period. Fees for FY 22/23 are proposed to increase by $25. 5) Photography & Filming Permit Application Fee
▪ For cast and crew up to three persons:
• Current fee $135; Proposed fee $160 (75% cost recovery) ▪ For cast and crew of four or more persons, or with street closures:
• Current fee $275; Proposed fee $300 (25% cost recovery) Note: Non-commercial photography and photography/film not requiring exclusivity does not need a permit. The Department Director may waive fees for bona fide student film/photography projects and non-profit projects. 6) Special Event Permit Application Fee
▪ Event requiring limited site plan review, no street closures, etc.:
• Current fee $135; Proposed fee $160 (37% cost recovery) ▪ Event that requires, but not limited to, street/parking lot closures, site/plan review, trail use, etc. (i.e. fun runs, festivals, parking garage, etc.):
• Current fee $275; Proposed fee $300 (17% cost recovery) 4 New Fee Proposed
Three new fees are proposed.
1) Police Department Citation Sign-Off Fee (Only Applies to Sign-offs for non-Roseville issued citations)
▪ The proposed fee is $10. Similar fees are collected by neighboring agencies.

Adding a minor fee for service will help offset costs of Roseville staff to sign-off on non-Roseville issued citations. Roseville Police Department will continue to review and sign-off for Roseville issued citations free of charge for Roseville residents.
2) Change of Address Fee
▪ The proposed fee is $460. The proposed fee targets full cost recovery. The fee applies to discretionary actions processed subsequent to initial development.

The service is currently provided without a corresponding fee to offset the costs of service.
3) Street Name Change Fee
▪ The proposed fee is $828. The proposed fee targets full cost recovery. The fee applies to discretionary actions processed subsequent to initial development.

The service is currently provided without a corresponding fee to offset the costs of service.

Revenue Impact of Proposed Fee Changes
The anticipated revenue impact of the proposed changes included in the fee schedule update is $469,000. This change assumes approximately 5% increase in revenue from the fees included in the City’s fee schedule and expenditure offsets related to deposit-based billings.

It is important to note that while adjusting fees and billing rates will provide a fiscal impact in the form of additional revenue, the revenue is not intended to be used to fund new services, rather the revenue is intended to offset the costs of providing existing services that are recoverable from fees.

Consequently, while fees may rise annually, typically labor costs (the primary driver of fee-related costs) also rise annually. Recalibration of these fees simply provides an offset of existing expenditures/needs rather than a source of funding for expanded service levels. 5 Legislative Guidance
The objectives of the study, the methodology used to complete the study, and the proposed fees were significantly influenced by Article 13C of the California Constitution and Section 66014 of the California Government Code.

Article 13C states that the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor's burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. Additionally, Article 13C identifies the following as items that are not defined as taxes:
1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege. 2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. 3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. 4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.
6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. 7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.

Section 66014(a) of the California Government Code includes the following, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; …the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act…; or planning services…; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue. 6 Study Methodology and Data Sources
The study calculated the estimated reasonable cost of providing fee-related services and activities (services). The majority of these services are commonly identified as development review services.

Broad categories of development review services include, project entitlement review, review of requests for land dedications, parcel mergers, lot line adjustments, encroachment in the public right-of-way, and building permitting, plan review, and inspection services. Additionally, the City collects fees for recreation programs, administrative services, vehicle impound release, etc.

Generally, the estimated reasonable cost of providing the fee-related services and activities examined in the study can be calculated as the product of the estimated labor time required to process a typical request for service and the composite fully-burdened hourly labor rate of the division responsible for providing services. The estimated reasonable cost of service also includes costs or fees imposed by outside agencies or contract service providers used by the City to provide the requested services.

A combination of sources was used to complete the analysis and develop the findings and recommendations of this study. The data sources included, but were not limited to:
• Adopted revenue and expenditures budgets and personnel salary and benefit information. • Historical project volume and revenues from fees.
• Current schedule of fees for each department.
• Citywide cost allocation plan.
• Interviews with City staff.

The following page provides a summary of the steps utilized to complete this study. 7 Summary of methodology used to calculate estimated costs of service and cost recovery levels Step One
Identify annual hours spent providing
fee services for each division
→ This information is developed and tested using a
combination of interviews, questionnaires, historical
project information, and historical revenue information.

Step Two
Identify annual cost of providing fee
services for each division
→ This information is developed and tested using a
combination of information found in the City’s adopted
budget, expenditure history, and the overhead cost plan.

Step Three
Calculate the estimated hourly rate
using information from Steps 1 and 2
→ Annual cost ÷ Annual hours = Hourly rate
Step Four
Estimate labor time required to
process individual request for service
→ This information is developed and tested using a
combination of interviews, questionnaires, commonlyused measures, and information developed in Step 1.

Step Five
Calculate estimated cost of service
using information from Steps 3 and 4
→ Hourly rate * Labor hours = Cost of service
Step Six
Calculate current cost recovery level
for a specific service
→ Current fee ÷ Cost of service = Current
Cost recovery
Step Seven
Use laws, industry standards, goals
and policies, and historical trends to
determine targeted cost recovery
→ Proposed fee ÷ Cost of service = Targeted
Cost Recovery
Step Eight
Test to confirm forecast revenue from
fees will not exceed program costs
→ Use historical permit volume and proposed fees to
forecast anticipated revenue from fees. Forecast
revenues should not exceed program costs.
8 Appendices
The appendices provide detailed analytical findings from the study, including the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the services for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including General Fund revenues. For any fees targeted to recover less than 100% of the estimated reasonable cost of service, it is anticipated that General Fund revenues of the City will fund the difference between the targeted recovery level and 100% recovery of the estimated cost of service unless the fee-related services are provided by Enterprise Funds (e.g. Electric fees and Environmental Utilities fees). These amounts are identified in the appendices.

Appendix A – Summary of Current and Proposed Fees
Illustration of Current and Proposed Fees
Effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023
App. A: 1
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Fee Category Page
1 Administrative Fees 3
2 Revenue and Finance Fees 4
3 Utility Customer Billing, Accounting, and Service Fees 6 4 Planning (Entitlement) Fees 7
5 Development Services Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees 11 6 Trench Cut Recovery Fees 12
7 Building Fees 13
8 Development Impact Fee Deferral Fees 23
9 Housing Fees 24
10 Electric Fees 25
11 Environmental Utilities Fees 26
12 Fire & Life Safety Fees 28
13 Emergency Medical Services First Responder Fee 32
14 Police Department Fees 33
15 Animal Licensing and Permit Fees 36
16 Oversize Vehicle Permit Fees and Building Moving Permit Fees 37 17 Parking Permit Fees 38
18 Special Event, Film, and Banner Permit Fees 39
19 Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Fees 40
App. A: 2
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Administrative Fees
Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
City-Wide Records
1 Documents
a) 8.5 x 11 - Black and White
i) 0 - 9 Copies No Charge No Charge N
ii) 10+ Copies $0.10 $0.10 per page N
b) 8.5 x 14 and 11 x 17 - Black and White $0.20 $0.20 per page N c) Color Copies
i) 8.5 x 11 $0.50 $0.50 per page N
ii) 11 x 17 $1 $1 per page N
iii) 18 x 24 $2 $2 per page N
iv) 24 x 36 $3 $3 per page N
2 Photos $0.50 $0.50 per copy N
3 Recordings $6 $6 each N
4 Digital Media (e.g. USB Flash Drive) $8 $8 each N
5 Agenda Subscription
a) 6 Months $20 $20 N
b) 12 Months $40 $40 N
6 Budget Book
a) Available on City website No charge No charge N
b) Hardcopy Actual cost
or per page fee
Actual cost
or per page fee
N
7 Requests Requiring Special Programming or Formatting Actual cost Actual cost [a] N Passport
8 Passport Processing Fee $35 $35 [b] N
9 Passport Photo Fee $12 $12 Y
10 Passport Express Postage Actual postage cost Actual postage cost N Notary
11 Notary Charge $15 $15 each N
Subpoena
12 Subpoena Fees Fees Vary - See Note Fees Vary - See Note [b] N Election
13 Candidate Nomination Filing Fee $25 $25 per filing [b] N 14 Fee for Late Filing of Reports of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures
See Note See Note [c] N
Amplified Sound
15 Sound Permit $25 $25 Y
Franchise Application
16 Franchise Application Fee
a) Refuse Hauler $260 $260 two-year term N
b) Community Antenna Television System $100 $100 N
c) All Others $150 $150 N
[b] Maximum fees established by State/Federal agencies. [c] See Roseville Municipal Code Fine Schedule and/or Roseville Municipal Bail Schedule. [a] Fee for preparation of reports/formats that need to be generated by the City because they are not typically maintained. Amounts charged will include a pass-through of any vendor costs incurred.

App. A: 3
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Revenue and Finance Fees
Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Finance Administrative Fee - Special Financing District Formation or Annexation
$2,500 $2,500 per request [a] N
[a] Amount represents initial, upfront fee amount collected. Additional fees will apply depending on district type and requested action.

App. A: 4
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Revenue and Finance Fees
Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Short Term Rental Application Fee $185 $185 per application N 2 Short Term Rental Renewal Fee $85 $85 per application N 3 Delinquent fee (percentage of renewal fee) 60% (or $51) 60% (or $51) [a] N [a] Delinquent fees are charged if the renewal fee is received more than 30 days past original expiration date.

App. A: 5
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Utility Customer Billing, Accounting, and Service Fees
Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Reestablishment Fee - Residential Electric
a) During Normal Hours $40 $40 N
b) After Hours $85 $85 N
2 Reestablishment Fee - Commercial Electric
a) During Normal Hours $150 $150 N
b) After Hours $175 $175 N
3 Reestablishment Fee - Water $150 $150 N
4 Returned Check/ABD/ACH Fee (for first dishonored check or EFT) $25 $25 N 5 Subsequent Returned Check/ABD/ACH Fee (after the first dishonored check or EFT)
$35 $35 N
6 Late Payment Fee 5% of late balance 5% of late balance N 7 Unauthorized Service Reconnect Fee $50 $50 N
8 Utility Bill Reprint Fee $1 $1 N
9 Access Fee $50 $50 N
10 Same Day Service Equal to Reestablishment Fee Equal to Reestablishment Fee N App. A: 6
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Planning (Entitlement) Fees
Fee Description
FY 21-22
Fixed Fee
FY 21-22
Deposit
FY 22-23
Fixed Fee
FY 22-23
Deposit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Appeals
1 Planning Director's Decision $1,570 $1,648 [a] Y
2 PC/DC Decision to City Council $1,470 $1,543 [a] Y
Annexations
1 Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI $20,000 $20,000 Y
Development Agreements (DA)
1 Adoption of DA $20,000 $20,000 Y
2 Amendment of DA $20,000 $20,000 Y
3 Associated with Affordable Housing $2,860 $3,003 Y
4 Associated with Single Topic Item $6,472 $6,796 Y
5 Development Agreement Review/Compliance Fee $1,834 $1,925 [b] Y Environmental Review
1 Exemption Without Initial Study $399 $419 Y
2 Exemption With Initial Study $972 $1,021 Y
3 Negative Declaration with No Mitigation $1,493 $1,567 Y 4 Tiered Negative Declaration with Mitigation $2,974 $3,122 Y 5 EIR Deposit $20,000 $20,000 Y
General Plan Amendment (GPA)
1 GPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text $10,000 $10,000 Y
2 GPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text $17,000 $17,000 Y
3 GPA - Text Policy Amend $15,000 $15,000 Y
Public Utility Easement Abandonment
1 Summary Vacation $3,306 $3,472 Y
2 General Vacation $4,934 $5,181 Y
Signs
1 Standard Sign Permit $274 $288 Y
2 Planned Sign Permit Program $1,115 $1,171 Y
3 Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing Required $2,399 $2,519 Y 4 Administrative Permit for Sign Exception (Variance) $2,209 $2,320 Y 5 PSP Minor Modification $313 $329 Y
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)
1 SPA Adoption, Map/Text $30,000 $30,000 Y
2 SPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text $10,000 $10,000 Y
3 SPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text $20,000 $20,000 Y
4 SPA Text/Policy Deposit $15,000 $15,000 Y
Subdivisions/Condominiums
1 Grading Plan - Minor $3,445 $3,617 Y
2 Grading Plan - Major $8,000 $8,000 Y
3 Lot Line Adjustment $3,445 $3,617 Y
4 Extension to a Tentative Map $3,445 $3,617 Y
5 Voluntary Merger $3,445 $3,617 Y
6 Reversion to Acreage $5,030 $5,282 Y
7 Minor Modification to a Tentative Map $2,000 $2,000 Y 8 Major Modification to a Tentative Map $10,000 $10,000 Y 9 Tentative Parcel Map, 4 or Fewer Lots $6,000 $6,000 Y 10 Tentative Parcel Map, 5 - 99 Lots $11,000 $11,000 Y
11 Tentative Parcel Map, 100 - 499 Lots $16,000 $16,000 Y 12 Tentative Parcel Map, 500+ Lots $24,000 $24,000 Y
App. A: 7
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Planning (Entitlement) Fees
Fee Description
FY 21-22
Fixed Fee
FY 21-22
Deposit
FY 22-23
Fixed Fee
FY 22-23
Deposit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Zoning Ordinance Entitlements
1 Administrative Permit $1,376 $1,445 Y
2 Conditional Use Permit $9,000 $9,000 Y
3 CUP Modification $5,000 $5,000 Y
4 CUP Extension $6,114 $6,419 Y
5 Design Review Permit (DRP) $8,000 $8,000 Y
6 DRP - Modification $5,000 $5,000 Y
7 DRP - Extension $5,528 $5,804 Y
8 DRP - Minor $233 $244 Y
9 DRP - Additions or New Construction (DTSP Only) $233 $244 Y 10 DRP - Façade Improvements (DTSP Only) $233 $244 Y
11 DRP - Predesign (DTSP Only) $233 $244 Y
12 DRP - Residential Subdivision with Other Permit $6,114 $6,419 Y 13 Flood Encroachment Permit $8,000 $8,000 Y
14 MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2 $20,000 $20,000 Y
15 MPP Modification $7,000 $7,000 Y
16 MPP Stage 2, Extend of Stage 1 and/or 2 $7,000 $7,000 Y 17 MPP Administrative Modification $1,789 $1,879 Y
18 Planned Development Permit $11,000 $11,000 Y
19 TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter $229 $240 Y
20 TP - Req. Public Hearing for SFD or 10 Trees or Less $4,127 $4,333 Y 21 TP - Req. Public Hearing for DRP/TM or 11+ Trees $6,354 $6,671 Y 22 Administrative Variance $1,375 $1,443 Y
23 Variance to Develop Standards - Req. Public Hearing $4,604 $4,834 Y 24 Variance to Parking Standards $5,791 $6,081 Y
25 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit $1,200 $1,200 Y 26 Zoning Clearance $157 $165 Y
27 Zoning Interpretation - Hearing Required $3,650 $3,832 Y 28 Zoning Interpretation - Non Hearing Item $143 $150 Y Zoning Ordinance Amendments
1 Ordinance Text Amend (Zoning, Subdivision, Sign) $10,000 $10,000 Y 2 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10 Acres or Less $10,000 $10,000 Y 3 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10+ Acres $17,000 $17,000 Y
Other
1 Pre-Application Meetings $4,000 $4,000 [c] Y
2 New Non-Residential Plan Check 15% of Bldg PC 15% of Bldg PC [d] N 3 Commercial Plan Check - TI $175 $184 [d] Y
4 Change of Address Fee $460 Y
5 Street Name Change Fee $828 Y
6 Planning Department Plot Plan Review (Bundles of 10) $175 $184 Y 7 Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area $145 $152 Y 8 Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing $373 $392 Y
9 Farmer's Market Permit $547 $575 Y
10 Home Occupation Permit $157 $165 Y
11 Parking In-Lieu Fee (DTSP Only) $9,680 $9,680 [e] N
12 In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee (Per Inch) $124 $124 [f] N 13 CUP - Vernon St. and Historical District Only $1,566 $1,644 Y 14 Technology Fee 3.0% 3.0% N
App. A: 8
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Planning (Entitlement) Fees
Fee Description
FY 21-22
Fixed Fee
FY 21-22
Deposit
FY 22-23
Fixed Fee
FY 22-23
Deposit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
As may be required by the Development Services Department for project evaluation or environmental review, all payment for consultant work shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
* Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: The Initial deposit amounts will not be inflated annually, but the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers.

Full Cost Deposits and Deposit Replenishment
When more than one Full Cost application is submitted, the sum total of the initial full cost deposit amount can be reduced by 20%.

Funds expended for staff time shall not be dependent upon the City’s approval or disapproval of the application request. The deposit account will be held open for 90 days after project approval for City to complete any miscellaneous clean up items and to account for all project related costs. Any deposit amounts remaining after final project close out will be returned to applicant. In the event that the deposit account is exhausted prior to final close out, the balance owed to the City will be credited against the plan check and inspection fee deposit at time of improvement plan review.

App. A: 9
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Planning (Entitlement) Fees
Application fees are not refundable except as follows:
[c] Pre Application Meetings – The City will provide up to 2 meetings with staff to discuss the initial project review and City policies relative to the proposed project. Additional meetings and staff review prior to a formal application shall be billed on a time and material basis. The project proponent will be asked to submit the pre application deposit and a full cost reimbursement agreement.

B. If an applicant requests to withdraw a fixed fee application prior to the PEM, refund of 50% of the applicable fee shall be refunded.

App. A: 10
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Development Services Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee
Initial
Deposit FY 22-23 Fee
Initial
Deposit
Fee
Paid
Bond
Amount [a] Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Final Subdivision Map Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$2,500 plus
$10 per lot
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$2,500 plus
$10 per lot
At submittal Y
2 Final Parcel Map
a) base fee $1,455 $1,528 At submittal [b] Y
b) per lot fee $58 $61 At submittal [b] Y
3 Lot Line Adjustment
(per adjusted line)
$262 $275 At submittal [c] Y
4 Improvement Plan
Check/Inspection
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$1,000 minimum
5% of Eng. cost est.

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$1,000 minimum
5% of Eng. cost est.

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$1,000 minimum
5% of Eng. cost est.

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan approval
10% of erosion
control and
grading
Y
b) All Other Sites
i) Up to 500 Cubic
Yards
$349 $100 at submittal $367 $100 at submittal $100 at submittal remainder due at
permit issuance
10% of erosion
control and
grading
Y
ii) Greater than
500 Cubic Yards
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$1,000 at submittal Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
$1,000 at submittal $1,000 at submittal
balance due prior
to final signoff
10% of erosion
control and
grading
Y
6 Encroachment Permit:
a) Dumpster $70 $73 At submittal $0 Y
b) Sidewalk 5% of Project Cost
$70 minimum
5% of Project Cost
$150 minimum
At submittal $1,000 /
contractor
N
c) Driveway 5% of Project Cost
$70 minimum
5% of Project Cost
$150 minimum
At submittal $500/resident
$1,000/c'ntrctr
N
d) Lane Closure $175 $183 At submittal $0 Y
e) Swim Pool Access $175 $183 At submittal TBD by Director Y f) Monitoring Wells 5% of Project Cost
$70 minimum
5% of Project Cost
$150 minimum
At submittal $2,000 per well N
g) All Others Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
5% of Eng. cost est.

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan appr'vl;
$1,000 minimum
Billed hourly based
on total labor hrs
5% of Eng. cost est.

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan appr'vl;
$1,000 minimum

2.5% at submittal

2.5% at plan appr'vl
100% of
improvements
Y
7 Technology Fee 3% of permit fee 3% of permit fee At permit issuance N [a] Bond amounts paid at permit issuance.
[b] Final parcel map fee collected as base fee plus per lot fee. [c] Lot line adjustment fee is fee for each adjusted line. * Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: The Initial deposit amounts will not be inflated annually, but the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers.

App. A: 11
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Trench Cut Recovery Fees
Fee Description
FY 21-22
Permit Fee
FY 21-22
Trench Cut Fee
FY 22-23
Permit Fee
FY 22-23
Trench Cut Fee
Cut
Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
Trench Cuts Requiring Pmt. of Admin. Permit Fee Only
1 Street scheduled for resurfacing within next fiscal year $349 $0.00 $367 $0.00 Y 2 Proposed excavation includes an overlay $349 $0.00 $367 $0.00 Y 3 Proposed excavation for a CIP $349 $0.00 $367 $0.00 Y 4 Street pavement quality index (PQI) 0-4 $349 $0.00 $367 $0.00 Y All Other Trench Cuts
5 Longitudinal Cut
a) Cut within 3' of lane line
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 $349 $15.08 $367 $15.84 per LF Y
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 $349 $20.11 $367 $21.12 per LF Y
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater $349 $25.14 $367 $26.40 per LF Y b) Cut within one lane width
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 $349 $11.31 $367 $11.88 per LF Y
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 $349 $15.08 $367 $15.84 per LF Y
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) $349 $18.86 $367 $19.80 per LF [a] Y 6 Traverse Cut
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 $349 $9.20 $367 $9.66 per LF Y
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 $349 $12.26 $367 $12.87 per LF Y
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) $349 $15.31 $367 $16.08 per LF [a] Y 7 Cut is a Patch
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 $349 $10.18 $367 $10.69 per LF Y
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 $349 $13.58 $367 $14.25 per LF Y
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) $349 $16.97 $367 $17.82 per LF [a] Y [a] Moratorium streets require director approval for trenching.

App. A: 12
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
Group FY21/22 Valuation FY22/23 Valuation Unit
Y'rly
In'fltr
A B
1 A-1 Assembly, theaters, with stage $93.60 $46.80 $93.60 $46.80 per SF N 2 A-1 Assembly, theaters, without stage $93.60 $46.80 $93.60 $46.80 per SF N 3 A-2 Assembly, nightclubs $93.60 $46.80 $93.60 $46.80 per SF N 4 A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls $111.80 $55.90 $111.80 $55.90 per SF N 5 A-3 Assembly, churches $93.60 $46.80 $93.60 $46.80 per SF N 6 A-3 Assembly, general, community halls, libraries, museums $88.40 $44.20 $88.40 $44.20 per SF N 7 A-4 Assembly, arenas $105.30 $52.65 $105.30 $52.65 per SF N 8 B Business $88.40 $44.20 $88.40 $44.20 per SF N
9 E Educational $94.90 $47.45 $94.90 $47.45 per SF N
10 F-1 Factory and Industrial, moderate hazard $49.40 $24.70 $49.40 $24.70 per SF N 11 F-2 Factory and Industrial, low hazard $49.40 $24.70 $49.40 $24.70 per SF N 12 H-1 High Hazard, explosives $49.40 $24.70 $49.40 $24.70 per SF N 13 H-2,3,4 - High Hazard $49.40 $24.70 $49.40 $24.70 per SF N 14 H-5 - HPM $79.30 $39.65 $79.30 $39.65 per SF N
15 I-1 Institutional, supervised environment $126.72 $63.36 $126.72 $63.36 per SF N 16 I-2 Institutional, hospitals $131.29 $65.65 $131.29 $65.65 per SF N 17 I-2 Institutional, nursing homes $249.09 $124.55 $249.09 $124.55 per SF N 18 I-3 Institutional, restrained $145.80 $72.90 $145.80 $72.90 per SF N 19 I-4 Institutional, day care facilities $126.72 $63.36 $126.72 $63.36 per SF N 20 M Mercantile $62.40 $31.20 $62.40 $31.20 per SF N
21 R-1 Residential, hotels $97.50 $48.75 $97.50 $48.75 per SF N 22 R-2 Residential, multiple-family $100.18 $50.09 $100.18 $50.09 per SF N 23 R-3 Residential, one- and two-family $110.00 $55.00 $110.00 $55.00 per SF N 24 R-4 Residential, care/assisted living facilities $106.60 $53.30 $106.60 $53.30 per SF N 25 S-1 Storage, moderate hazard $42.90 $21.45 $42.90 $21.45 per SF N 26 S-2 Storage, low hazard $41.60 $20.80 $41.60 $20.80 per SF N 27 U Utility, miscellaneous $32.50 $16.25 $32.50 $16.25 per SF N A. Construction Valuation Table - Table A is the construction valuation table adopted for the purpose of establishing permit fees as construction valuation is a factor in the cost of providing permitting services. These valuations correlate to the square footage costs of permitting, plan review, and inspection services based upon the hourly rate for building services identified in this fee schedule.

Table A - Construction Valuation
App. A: 13
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
1 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 B. Determination of Construction Valuations - The building official shall determine construction valuations as follows:

Tenant Improvements Processed Over the Counter (OTC Permits). Tenant Improvement OTC permits shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Cell Towers - Change out of Antennas Only. Cell towers requiring change-out of antennas only shall be considered a TI remodel with a minimum valuation of $3,000.

Cell Towers - Major Remodel. Cell towers undergoing a major remodel shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

Commercial Photovoltaic. Commercial photovoltaic permits shall be based on a set valuation of $40,000.

Electrical Service Upgrade. Electrical service upgrade permit fees shall have a minimum valuation of $3,000.

Commercial Reroofing. Commercial reroofing permits shall have a minimum valuation of $423.17 per 100 square feet of roof area or a total minimum valuation of $20,000.

Electronic Gates. For permits for electronic gates, the construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $8,000 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the lineal footage of the gate and replacement fence x 1 SF (=SF) by the amount stated in Column A of Table A for the U, Utility, Miscellaneous Occupancy Group.

Parking Lot Restriping: Site Work. Permits for parking lot restriping shall have a minimum valuation of $8,000.

App. A: 14
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Building Fees
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 Stucco or Siding. For permits for stucco or siding on residential units, construction valuation for fee setting purposes shall be the GREATER OF $2,400 OR the construction valuation calculated by multiplying the linear footage of exterior home and garage x 1 SF (= remodel SF) by the amount stated in Column B of Table A for the R-3, Residential, One- and Two-Family Occupancy Group.