Agenda — Roseville City Council, August 3, 2022 (part 1 of 6)

AGENDA
August 3, 2022

CITY COUNCIL
6:00 p.m.

Council Chambers
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California
www.roseville.ca.us
The meeting may be viewed on Comcast channel 14, Consolidated Communications channel 73, and AT&T U-Verse. City Council meetings are also video streamed live on the City’s website at roseville.ca.us/watch and roseville.ca.us/agenda, and the City’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/CityofRosevilleCa.

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact Voice: 916-774-5200, TDD: 916-774-5220. Requests must be made as early as possible.

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WELCOMES YOUR PARTICIPATION
If an agenda item is open to public comment, such public comment shall be addressed to the chair of the meeting.

Public Comment - Speakers have three minutes under Public Comment to speak on issues that are not listed on the agenda and are within the City's jurisdiction. The Brown Act does not permit any action or discussion on items not listed on the agenda.

Consent Calendar - If applicable, the Consent Calendar consists of routine items that may be approved by one motion. Any person can remove an item from the Consent Calendar to be discussed separately.

Agenda Items - Speakers have five minutes to address items that are listed on the agenda.

Americans with Disabilities Act - Notify the City Clerk or Secretary at least 72 hours in advance if special assistance is required to participate in a meeting including the need of auxiliary aids or services.

Audio/Visual Presentations - If making a presentation regarding an agenda item, audio/visual materials must be submitted to the City Clerk or Secretary at least 72 hours in advance.

Security procedures are in place to attend Roseville City Council meetings. All attendees must successfully pass through a security metal detector. Any person with a prohibited item will not be allowed entry. Prohibited items include, but are not limited to: firearms (even with valid CCW), knives, pepper spray/mace, explosives of any kind/ any weapons and/or dangerous devices of any kind, illegal drugs and alcohol.

Roseville City Clerk 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 916-774-5200 TDD 916-774-5220

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. MEETING PROCEDURES

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1. Resolution - Kristi Corral
Commend Kristi Corral for her 26 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.

CONTACT: Melissa Lipp 916-774-5268 [email protected]

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Bids / Purchases / Services

7.1. Traffic Signal Equipment (RFQ 10-3324) - Purchase Orders Memo from Buyer Sue Jessup and Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Dennis Kauffman recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-295 APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-
296 APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-297 APPROVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EQUIPMENT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-298 APPROVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EQUIPMENT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-300 APPROVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EQUIPMENT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-301 APPROVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EQUIPMENT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-302 APPROVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EQUIPMENT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-303 APPROVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EQUIPMENT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-304 APPROVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EQUIPMENT. Staff requests Council authorize purchase orders with AM Signal, LLC., AZCO Supply, Inc., Control Tech West, Inc., Econolite Control Products, Inc., EYEP Solutions, Inc., J A Momaney Services, Inc. dba JAM Services, Inc., McCain, Inc., Tesco Controls, Inc., and Western Systems, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidders for the purchase of traffic signal equipment in response to Request for Quotes No. 10-3324. The Public Works Department will use this bid for ongoing traffic signal needs. Funding is included in the Public Works Department's Traffic Signal capital improvement project budgets and in the Electric Fund budget for maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement.. The estimated total annual spend for FY2022-23 is $840,000.

CC #: 2236
File #: 0203-13-02
CONTACT: Sue Jessup 916-746-1702 [email protected] Resolutions

7.2. Special Inspection and Materials Testing Services - On-Call Professional Services Agreement
Memo from Park Development Project Manager Ken Peterson and Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director Jill Geller recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-289 APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND ENGEO INCORPORATED, AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-290 APPROVING ONCALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND BLACKBURN CONSULTING, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THEM ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. The Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department is projecting a number of capital improvement projects over the next four years, including new and major rehabilitation projects requiring materials testing and special inspection services. These agreements include a one-year base term with the option of three additional one-year extensions. Projectspecific quotes will be obtained prior to the start of any work. The base year total is not to exceed $100,000 for each consulting firm. The optional one-year extensions shall not exceed $100,000 per year per consulting firm, for a total contract amount not to exceed $400,000 for each firm. Funding for services will be provided through capital improvement project budgets, professional services operating budgets, or developer reimbursements.

CC #: 2230
File #: 0704
CONTACT: Ken Peterson 916-746-1233 [email protected]

7.3. Roseville Sports Complex - Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment
Memo from Park Planning and Development Superintendent Tara Gee and Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director Jill Geller recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-287 APPROVING A FIRST

AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT,

BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND VERDE DESIGN,
INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. Staff requests Council approval of the professional design services agreement amendment for the Roseville Sports Complex in the amount of $421,340. The original agreement amount was approved by Council in July 2021 for $826,245. In December 2021, the Council approved a Purchase and Sales Agreement to purchase 20 acres of property directly to the south of the Sports Complex in order to expand the planned six field complex to a ten field complex. With the work already underway, the additional land purchase expanded the scope of services. The total agreement amount will be $1,247,585.

The work will be paid from West Roseville citywide park funds allocated in FY2014- 15 toward this capital improvement project.

CC #: 2228
File #: 0704
CONTACT: Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]

7.4. Solaire Park (WB-50) - Award of Contract
Memo from Park Development Project Manager Joel De Jong and Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director Jill Geller recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-288 APPROVING A DESIGN-ASSIST

CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN CARTER/KELLY,
INC. AND THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE. Staff requests Council award a Design-Assist Construction agreement to Carter/Kelly, Inc. with a total contract award amount of $1,620,438 for the construction of Solaire Park (formerly WB-50). The park is an 8.74-acre park site located in the Westbrook area of Sierra Vista off of Solaire Drive near Silver Spruce Drive. The park master plan was approved by City Council on July 21, 2021. Funding for the park construction is provided through the Westbrook Neighborhood Park Fund and was appropriated in the FY2021-22 budget.

Maintenance of the park will be funded from the Westbrook Community Facilities District No. 2 (Public Services). There will be no General Fund impact.

CC #: 2229
File #: 0704 & 0400-04-12-1
CONTACT: Joel De Jong 916-774-5924 [email protected]

7.5. California Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program – 2023 Directly Allocated Allowance Allocation
Memo from Electric Resources Analyst David Siao and Electric Utility Director Dan Beans recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-305 APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF 334,821 OF CITY’S 2023
GREENHOUSE CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM ALLOWANCES. Staff
requests Council approval for allocating Roseville Electric’s 2023 vintage directly allocated allowances. Staff will file a “Publicly Owned Utility Allocation Distribution Form” with the California Air Resource Board by September 1, 2022, according to the City Council approved allowance allocation. There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the allowance allocation. The value of the allowances is estimated at approximately $8 million and will be used to offset greenhouse gas compliance costs Roseville otherwise would have incurred.

CC #: 2237
File #: 0800-03
CONTACT: David Siao 916-746-1613 [email protected]

7.6. Campus Oaks CO-2 - Final Map and Subdivision Agreement Memo from Assistant Engineer Kerry Andrews and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-294 APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND THE NEW HOME COMPANY

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE; and approval of the Campus Oaks CO-2 final map. The Engineering Division has completed its review of the final map and found that it is in compliance with the approved tentative map. This map will create 49 residential lots and 1 landscape lot. The actions requested have no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund.

CC #: 2234
File #: 0400-04-18-1 & 0400-07
CONTACT: Kerry Andrews 916-774-5346 [email protected]

7.7. Campus Oaks CO-3 - Final Map and Subdivision Agreement Memo from Assistant Engineer Kerry Andrews and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-292 APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND THE NEW HOME COMPANY

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE; and approve the Campus Oaks CO-3 final map. The Engineering Division has completed its review of the final map and found that it is in compliance with the approved tentative map. This map will create 62 residential lots, 1 landscape lot and 2 open space lots. The actions requested have no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund.

CC #: 2232
File #: 0400-04-18-1 & 0400-07
CONTACT: Kerry Andrews 916-774-5346 [email protected]

7.8. Sierra Vista KT-20B - Final Map and Subdivision Agreement Memo from Assistant Engineer Kerry Andrews and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-291 APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA,

LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE; and approve the Sierra Vista KT20B final map. The Engineering Department has completed its review of the final map and found that it is in compliance with the approved tentative map. This map will create 68 residential lots, 2 public landscape lots and 1 designated remainder lot. The actions requested have no fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. CC #: 2231
File #: 0400-04-12-1 & 0400-07
CONTACT: Kerry Andrews 916-774-5346 [email protected]

7.9. COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance Program - Community Development Block Grant Agreement
Memo from Housing Analyst Kristine Faelz and Economic Development Director Melissa Anguiano recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22- 293 APPROVING A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND AMI HOUSING, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. Staff requests Council approval of an agreement with AMI Housing for their COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance program funded by the Community Development Block Grant to help prevent homelessness and provide housing stability to an additional 275 Roseville households, for an additional three months each. The new agreement combines the remaining unspent funds from the prior fiscal year of $200,500 with the 2022-23 program year award of $200,000, which totals $400,500.

Funds for this project will come from the Community Development Block Grant and will not impact the General Fund.

CC #: 2232
File #: 0709-05 & 0214
CONTACT: Kristine Faelz 916-774-5451 [email protected] Ordinances (for introduction and adoption - appropriation/urgency measures)

7.10.Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update - Professional Services Agreement and Budget Adjustment
Memo from Associate Engineer Joe Anderson and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-306 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND TETRA TECH, INC.,

AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE; and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6538 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR
2022-23 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE. Staff requests approval of a professional service agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $199,971 for the purpose of developing the MultiHazard Mitigation Plan Update for the City. Staff also requests a budget adjustment to add $149,943 of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant funds to the project, and return that amount of General Fund resources to fund balance. The remaining General Fund resources in the project will fund the contract balance, as matching funds.

CC #: 2238
File #: 0307-02
CONTACT: Joe Anderson 916-746-1300 [email protected]

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

8. ORDINANCES

8.1. Retiree Medical Insurance Optional Benefit - Roseville Municipal Code Amendment
Memo from Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Dennis Kauffman recommending the City Council introduce for first reading an ORDINANCE OF

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING CHAPTER

3.09 OF TITLE 3 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE. Staff requests Council approve an amendment to portions of Title 3 of the Roseville Municipal Code to enhance the readability and clarity of the provisions describing the City's optional retiree medical benefit, and make one additional code change to specify that notices of future amendments to the ordinance shall be sent by U.S. mail to affected retirees. The amendments to the Ordinance will have no fiscal impact.

CC #: 2227
File #: 0600-03
CONTACT: Dennis Kauffman 916-774-5313 [email protected]

9. SPECIAL REQUESTS/REPORTS/PRESENTATION

9.1. Commercial Corridor Plans Workshop
Memo from Senior Planner Lauren Hocker and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council receive an informational presentation on the Commercial Corridor Plans project, and provide a forum for community input on and discussion of the project and the preliminary draft Specific Plans. No formal action is required or requested. This workshop does not negatively impact the City's General Fund.

CC #: 2235
File #: 0214
CONTACT: Lauren Hocker 916-774-5272 [email protected]

9.2. Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan Memo from the Park Planning & Development Superintendent Tara Gee and Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director Jill Geller recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-309 ADOPTING THE PARKS, RECREATION & LIBRARIES STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN. In July 2021, the Department began a year-long effort to develop a comprehensive strategic master plan that will help guide the Department over the next ten years. The effort started with multiple public outreach efforts, including public workshops, focus group interviews, interviews with the Parks & Recreation Commission, Library Board, Senior Commission and City Council, a statistically valid survey and an online survey. Additional workshops included progress updates on the plan. Funding for this project was approved in the FY2021-22 budget.

Implementation of the plan will occur over the next ten years, with funding requested and included in future budgets as needed.

CC #: 2241
File #: 0704
CONTACT: Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]

10. PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
City Council, when considering the matter scheduled for hearing, will take the following actions:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Open the Public Hearing
Presentation by Staff
Presentation by applicant or Appellant
Accept Public Testimony
Appellant or Applicant Rebuttal Period
Close the Public Hearing
City Council Comments and Questions
City Council Action
In the future, if you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues, which you, or someone else raised orally at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence received by the City or before the hearing Public Hearings listed for continuance will be continued as noted and posting of this agenda serves as notice of continuation.

10.1.Northeast Roseville Specific Plan Parcel 25 - Sutter Parking Garage Expansion Design Review Permit Appeal
Memo from Associate Planner Escarlet Mar and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council adopt the Sutter Parking Garage Expansion Initial Study/Negative Declaration; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-307 DENYING THE APPEAL FROM THE MAY 12, 2022 APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; ADOPTING THE
FOUR (4) FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING THE DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT SUBJECT TO SIXY-TWO (62) CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. The proposed project includes a request for a Design Review Permit to allow construction of a 192,000 square foot six-story parking garage as an expansion to an existing five-story parking garage located on the Sutter Roseville Medical Center campus. This will not result in negative impacts to the City’s General Fund as it will expand an existing parking garage and will be a beneficial use to the Sutter Roseville Medical Center campus.

CC #: 2239
File #: 0400-04-02-1
CONTACT: Escarlet Mar 916-774-5247 [email protected]

10.2.Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel JM-41 and JM-30 - General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendment Memo from Associate Planner Shelby Maples and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council CONSIDER THE

ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22- 310 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-311 AMENDING THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN; introduce for first reading an

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 5428 OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE; consider the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE THIRD

AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND SVC1, LLC RELATIVE TO

THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone to adjust the boundary between Community Commercial (CC) Parcel JM-41 and High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel JM-30. The project will convert 0.44 acres from HDR to CC land use. The request also includes a Development Agreement Amendment to reflect the land use change. The project is not anticipated to result in negative impacts to the City’s General Fund.

CC #: 2242
File #: 0400-02-12-2 & 0400-03 & 0400-04
CONTACT: Shelby Maples 916-746-1347 [email protected]

10.3.2700 N. Hayden Parkway, Fiddyment Ranch F-8A Apartments - Fee Deferral Memo from Economic Development Analyst Gina McColl and Economic Development Director Melissa Anguiano recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-308 APPROVING FEE DEFERRALS FOR THE
2700 N. HAYDEN PARKWAY, FIDDYMENT RANCH F-8A APARTMENTS PROJECT. Staff requests Council approve a fee deferral for the 2700 N. Hayden Parkway, Fiddyment Ranch F-8A Apartments Project consisting of a 330 affordable residential unit apartment complex in an amount not to exceed $4,889,723.52 until final of building permit/building occupancy. An annual interest rate of 1.25%, prorated on the length of the deferral, will be charged on the monies deferred to cover the City's cost of loss of interest income on the fee deferral and an administrative processing fee of $831 is to be charged to each building permit. The requested deferral itself will not result in a loss of impact fees nor earned interest income. The development impact fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permit final/occupancy.

CC #: 2199
File #: 0215-07 & 0709-03 & 0110
CONTACT: Gina McColl 916-774-5452 [email protected]

11. COUNCIL REPORTS / PUBLIC COMMENTS

12. ADJOURNMENT

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2243
File #: 0102-10
Title: Resolution - Kristi Corral
Contact: Melissa Lipp 916-774-5268 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 5.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Kristi Corral for her 26 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,
Melissa Lipp, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution - Kristi Corral

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2236
File #: 0203-13-02
Title: Traffic Signal Equipment (RFQ 10-3324) - Purchase Orders Contact: Sue Jessup 916-746-1702 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions to authorize purchase orders with AM Signal, LLC., AZCO Supply, Inc., Control Tech West, Inc., Econolite Control Products, Inc., EYEP Solutions, Inc., J A Momaney Services, Inc. dba JAM Services, Inc., McCain, Inc., Tesco Controls, Inc., and Western Systems, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidders for the purchase of traffic signal equipment in response to Request for Quotes (RFQ) No. 10-3324.

The bid allowed for four optional renewal years at one-year intervals. Staff requests authorization to continue utilizing the remaining optional renewal years without further Council approvals, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until the contract expires or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City's best interest.

BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department has an ongoing requirement for miscellaneous traffic signal items including, but not limited to, traffic signal boxes and lids, traffic signal cameras and pole mount kits, traffic control cabinets, control cabinet battery back-ups, control cabinet detectors, control cabinet load switches, Ethernet switches, LED (light-emitting diode) signals and LED signal heads, etc.

These items are purchased on an as-needed basis throughout the year for use in the repair, upgrade, and maintenance of existing traffic signals as well as the installation of new traffic signals throughout the City. Vendors were asked to quote a total of 117 items that are stocked in the Traffic Signals warehouse. The contract is awarded on a per line item basis to the lowest responsive bidder for each product.

The GTT Opticom products specified in the bid utilize a multimode priority control system using both infrared and GPS/radio communication. Three of the bid items (two Control Cabinet Discriminators and an Opticom Detector) will be awarded to the second lowest bidder because the units proposed by the apparent low bidder, AM Signal, are only capable of using infrared communication.

A formal bid was issued and the vendor responses are listed on the attached bid summary sheet.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated total annual spend is $840,000 for FY2022-23. Funding is included in the Public Works Department's Traffic Signal capital improvement project budgets and in the Electric Fund budget for maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement.

Spending for future renewals will be contingent upon Council approval of budgets. Estimated spending for the optional renewal years is as follows: FY2023-24, $865,200; FY2024-25 $891,156; FY2025-26 $917,890; FY2026-27 $945,426.

The purchase of traffic signal equipment meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Sue Jessup, Buyer
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-295
Resolution 22-296
Resolution 22-297
Resolution 22-298
Resolution 22-300
Resolution 22-301
Resolution 22-302
Resolution 22-303
Resolution 22-304
RESOLUTION NO. 22-295

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and AM Signal, LLC, has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that four (4) additional one (1) year renewals are hereby approved 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 ofRoseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 22-296

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and AZCO Supply, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

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
RESOLUTION NO. 22-297

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and Control Tech West, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

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
RESOLUTION NO. 22-298

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and Econolite Control Products, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

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
RESOLUTION NO. 22-300

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and EYEP Solutions, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

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
RESOLUTION NO. 22-301

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and J A Momaney Services, Inc. dba JAM Services, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

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
RESOLUTION NO. 22-302

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and McCain, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

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
RESOLUTION NO. 22-303

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and Tesco Controls, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

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
RESOLUTION NO. 22-304

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of traffic signal equipment, between the City of Roseville and Western Systems, Inc., has been reviewed by the Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order renewal approved.

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

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2230
File #: 0704
Title:

Special Inspection and Materials Testing Services - On-Call Professional Services Agreement
Contact: Ken Peterson 916-746-1233 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the Council adopt resolutions to approve On-Call Professional Services Agreements for Special Inspection and Materials Testing Services with Engeo Incorporated and Blackburn Consulting.

Additionally, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute three (3) 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 Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department is projecting construction of many capital improvement projects, including new and major rehabilitation projects, over the next four years. Materials testing and special inspection services is expected to be required for these projects.

In April 2022, the Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide on-call materials testing and special inspection services. Six (6) consulting firms submitted proposals. After thorough review, Engeo Incorporated's and Blackburn Consulting's detailed experience with on-call service contracts with public agencies, the depth and breadth of the type of experiences/projects completed, and their abilities to respond demonstrated they were the most qualified consultants to perform the anticipated project work.

FISCAL IMPACT
The agreements include a one-year base term with the option of three (3) optional one (1) year extensions. Funding for services will be provided through capital improvement project budgets, professional services operating budgets, or developer reimbursements. Project-specific quotes will be obtained prior to the start of any work. The base year total is not to exceed $100,000 for each consulting firm. Optional one (1) year extensions shall not exceed $100,000 per year per consulting firm, for a total contract amount not to exceed $400,000 for each firm.

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 C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Ken Peterson, Park Development Project Manager
Jill Geller, Director, Parks, Recreation & Libraries
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-289
Engeo Incorporated, Consultant Services Agreement
Resolution 22-290
Blackburn Consulting Inc, Consultant Services Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 22-289

APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND ENGEO INCORPORATED, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, an on-call professional services agreement to provide special inspection and materials testing services, by and between the City of Roseville and ENGEO Incorporated, has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said on-call agreement is hereby 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 three (3) 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

RESOLUTION NO. 22-290

APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND BLACKBURN CONSULTING, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, an on-call professional services agreement to provide special inspection and materials testing services, by and between the City of Roseville and Blackburn Consulting, has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said on-call agreement is hereby 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 , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2228
File #: 0704
Title: Roseville Sports Complex - Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment Contact: Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.3.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution to approve the First Amendment to Professional Design Services Agreement for Design and Construction Document Preparation for the West Roseville Soccer Complex with Verde Design Inc., and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

BACKGROUND
The West Roseville Sports Complex is located on Westbrook Boulevard just south of Blue Oaks Boulevard. The original 25-acre park site, combined with a smaller 3-acre park site immediately to the north, was intended to be developed as a regional sports complex featuring up to six multi-use rectangular fields.

In March 2021, a Request for Qualifications/Proposals was issued seeking experienced professional landscape architectural design firms to submit their qualifications and proposals for professional design services for the West Roseville Soccer Complex. Two responses were submitted.

After a panel review and based on the firm’s methodology, sports complex project experience, familiarity with the City standards and development processes and technical expertise, Verde Design Inc. was selected.

The original agreement amount was approved by Council in July 2021 for $826,245.

In December 2021, Council approved a Purchase and Sales Agreement to purchase 20 acres of property directly to the south of the Sports Complex in order to expand the planned six field complex to a ten field complex. With the work already underway, the additional land purchase expanded the scope of services and therefore staff is seeking approval of the Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment of $421,340. Because of the current work, this amendment meets the criteria of a sole source contract as approved by both the City Manager and City Attorney. If approved, the total agreement amount will be $1,247,585.

FISCAL IMPACT
Work performed under this professional design agreement and amendment will be paid from West Roseville citywide park funds allocated in FY2014-15 toward this capital improvement project.

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
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Vicinity Map
Resolution 22-287
Professional Services Agreement Amendment - Verde
Regional Soccer Complex
Vicinity Map
Westbrook Blvd W-50E (3 ac) 1.5 acre W-60A (25 ac) Blue Oaks Blvd W-60B (20 ac) Pistachio Regional Park West Park High School Waste Water Treatment Plant
RESOLUTION NO. 22-287

APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES

AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND VERDE DESIGN, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a First Amendment to Professional Design Services Agreement for the Design and Construction Document Preparation for the West Roseville Soccer Complex Project, by and between the City of Roseville and Verde Design, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said first amendment is hereby 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 , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
1 [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D003\P005\00067579.DOCX:06/03/2022]

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT
Project: Design and Construction Document Preparation for the West Roseville Soccer Complex

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ___ day of __________, 20__, by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Verde Design, Inc., a California corporation (“CONSULTANT”); and
W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT previously entered into a Professional Design Services Agreement dated July 7, 2021 (“Agreement”) regarding design and construction document preparation for the West Roseville Soccer Complex (“Project”); WHEREAS, CITY desires to amend the Agreement to include additional services as described in CONSULTANT’s letter/proposal dated May 3, 2022, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is willing and able to provide such additional services; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. CONSULTANT shall provide additional services as described in Exhibit “A” of this First Amendment to Agreement.
2 [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D003\P005\00067579.DOCX:06/03/2022]

2. Section 2 of the Agreement is amended by adding an additional paragraph to read as follows:
“CITY shall pay four hundred twenty-one thousand three hundred forty dollars ($421,340), in consideration of the additional services as set forth in Exhibit “A” to the First Amendment to Agreement. This brings the total not to exceed contract amount to one million two hundred forty-seven thousand five hundred eighty-five dollars ($1,247,585).”

3. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this First Amendment to Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Resolution No. _________, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the ___ day of ___________, 20__, and CONSULTANT has caused this First Amendment to Agreement to be executed.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a VERDE DESIGN, INC., a
municipal corporation California corporation
BY: _______________________________ BY: _______________________________ DOMINICK CASEY its: _______________________________
City Manager
and
(SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

4 [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D003\P005\00067579.DOCX:06/03/2022] EXHIBIT “A”
May 3, 2022
Mrs. Tara Gee
City of Roseville Parks, Recreation and Libraries
316 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
SUBJECT: Additional Service Request 001- Expansion of Soccer Complex and Accessible Playground Roseville Soccer Complex
Verde Design Project No. 2103801
Dear Tara,
Verde Design has previously been retained to develop a twenty (20) acre parcel for the Roseville Soccer Complex. The City has acquired an additional twenty (20) contiguous acres on the southern end of the site to expand the Roseville Soccer Complex. The City of Roseville is requesting additional design and engineering services related to the design of the larger complex between 8-10 fields, parking to accommodate the added fields, maintenance yard building, and the addition of an all-inclusive playground operating independent of the soccer complex and having a budget of around $3.5 million dollars the overall. Soccer complex has a target budget of around $35 million with this expansion.

Our original scope and contract for the playground was based on a $1 million dollar budget. Our fee was based on past park projects that we had designed for the City of Roseville. The playground elements included an upper and lower age play structure with bark surfacing, site furnishings, shade structure and would be designed on a level elevation. The playground program has now changed to be an all-inclusive design with a budget of $3.5 million dollars.

The larger budget allows for more creative and more complex solution such the use of elevation changes and small hillsides where the kids can climb up and down. There will be various types of surfaces that will be designed and coordinated with the play elements. These materials can be synthetic, rubberized playground surfacing and, and bark the combination of these requires additional detailing. Additional material boards, theming and customization will be needed for review and approval.

To obtain a more holistic design for the play elements this will also require (2) two additional meetings with the district, along with one public meeting to review the style and layout of play components. This will better understand the demographic of the usurers and will meet their needs with well thought out design components. The playground will require intensive through design on multiple layers of accessibility and components and how they relate to the identified programing elements for the end users, the design will also take a longer time to construct. We believe an all-inclusive playground should also have some graduated level of more traditional play elements to allow opportunities for new challenges for user groups as well.

This additional service covers the additional work for Verde Design and our subconsultant team including the electrical, structural engineer, architectural and the surveyor. The survey to include topographic survey, property line, rights of way and easements along with ALTA/NSPS land title survey, underground utility locating services and title report. The fees are broken down on the attached fee sheet but are summarized below
Roseville Soccer Complex
May 3, 2022

Page 2 ends

Expansion of Soccer Complex
Verde Design
Verde Design $181,500
Subconsultant Fees:

Surveyor $ 36,300
Electrical Engineer $ 47,575
Architectural Engineer $ 22,220
Structural Engineer $ 12,090
Subtotal Fee $ 118,185
Total Expansion Soccer Fee $ 299,685
Accessible Playground
Verde Design $ 121,655
TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED FEE $ 421,340
Tara, this proposal is considered an addition to the original contract, if this proposal meets with your approval, please have the authorized representative sign this proposal as identified below. Thank you.

Respectfully submitted, PROPOSAL APPROVED BY:

Verde Design, Inc. City of Roseville Parks, Recreations and Libraries Mark S. Baginski RLA LEED AP Date
Principal
cc: Verde Design Distribution

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2229
File #: 0704 & 0400-04-12-1
Title: Solaire Park (WB-50) - Award of Contract
Contact: Joel De Jong 916-774-5924 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.4.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution to approve a design-assist construction agreement with Carter/Kelly, Inc. for the Solaire Park project, and authorize the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City.

BACKGROUND
Solaire Park (formerly WB-50) is an 8.74-acre park site located in the Westbrook area of Sierra Vista off of Solaire Drive near Silver Spruce Drive. Development of the park is being performed as a Design-Assist-Build contract. This delivery model was chosen in order to achieve a higher level of cost controls, be more efficient in ensuring timelines for completion and to minimize change orders through early collaboration with a contractor.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) for contractors was issued using 30% completion of construction drawings developed by Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. under a separate Design-Assist-Build Professional Design Agreement that was approved by Council at the July 21, 2021 meeting along with the park master plan. The 30% construction drawings included in the RFP for construction include a children’s play and swing area, shaded picnic area, a baseball/softball field, a restroom, a game area with game tables, an exercise pod area, multi-use turf, a perimeter walkway connecting to the adjacent elementary school and educational signs (about the solar system). The Design-Assist Construction RFP is broken into two phases: preconstruction services which include design refinement and value engineering, and the second phase is defined as construction.

Proposals for the RFP were received March 9, 2022, with Carter/Kelly, Inc. submitting the sole response to the RFP, with an estimated Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $1,620,438 based on the City-directed 30% drawings and a City-directed hard cost construction estimate of $1,125,000, plus contractor’s Cost Proposal. Following preconstruction services and further development of the Scope of Work, and when Construction Documents are 90% complete, a revised GMP will be presented for City approval to be incorporated by Change Order.

Given the rise in construction costs and labor and manufacturing challenges, it is anticipated that full build-out of the master plan will not occur. The value engineering component of this contract will help identify what can be constructed within the budgeted amount. Once identified, staff will inform the community of any required changes.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for construction of the park was included in the FY2021-22 CIP budget through the Westbrook Park Development Fund (Fund 3318). The total budget for construction of Solaire Park $1,825,000, including all hard (construction) and soft (permits, design, inspection, etc.) costs. The funding source for maintenance is provided through the Westbrook Community Facilities District No. 2 (Public Services).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Development of the WB-50 Neighborhood/School Park was previously evaluated in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) EIR (certified May 5, 2010, SCH No. 2008032115) and identified in the associated Sierra Vista Specific Plan. As proposed, construction of the WB-50 Neighborhood Park is within the scope of the project covered by the SVSP Final EIR. As discussed in the Specific Plan EIR, the EIR provides environmental analyses of community infrastructure and facilities, including parks, pedestrian bridges, and bike trails, to the extent applicable. Because the project is consistent with the SVSP Final EIR and Specific Plan, no new effects would be expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures from the SVSP EIR will be implemented during the design and construction of the WB-50 Neighborhood/School Park.

Because the proposed project meets the requirements identified in Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no additional CEQA review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Joel De Jong, Park Development Project Manager
Jill Geller, Director, Parks, Recreation & Libraries
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Vicinity Map
Resolution 22-288
Agreement

RESOLUTION NO. 22-288

APPROVING A DESIGN-ASSIST CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN CARTER/KELLY, INC. AND THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WHEREAS, a Design-Assist Construction Agreement for the Solaire (formerly WB-50) Park project, by and between Carter/Kelly, Inc. and the City of Roseville, 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.

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 #: 2237
File #: 0800-03
Title:

California Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program – 2023 Directly Allocated Allowance Allocation
Contact: David Siao 916-746-1613 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.5.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution directing all 334,821 of the City’s 2023 directly allocated allowances under the state's Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program to Roseville’s compliance account for its direct compliance obligation.

BACKGROUND
In 2006, the State of California passed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” This law created the statewide Cap-and-Trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. To address the City’s legal and fiscal responsibilities under the California Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program, Roseville Electric developed a Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program that was approved by City Council in August 2012, and was revised in February 2013. This program defines how Roseville Electric will use the emission allowances it receives from the State each year.

Prior to the first business day of September, the City must allocate the succeeding calendar year’s allowances between those used to meet its direct compliance obligation and those to be auctioned with Roseville receiving the proceeds. Roseville’s direct compliance obligation is accrued from Roseville Energy Park (REP) generation and out-of-state imports of electricity.

Roseville will receive 334,821 allowances of 2023 vintage. Roseville Electric will apply directly allocated allowances to the compliance obligations associated with REP generation as well as outof-state imports of electricity. The combination of Roseville increasing its transmission capacity to the northwest in 2018, and the REP’s increased utilization following Roseville’s 2021 entry into the California Independent System Operator Energy Imbalance Market, has increased the amount of allocated allowances needed for Cap-and-Trade compliance. Accordingly, staff recommends all vintage 2023 directly allocated allowances be directed to Roseville’s compliance account.

Allowances can be banked and do not expire, so any unused allowances can be applied towards future compliance obligations. Under state law, the City is required to allocate its allowances annually.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the allowance allocation. The value of the allowances is estimated at approximately $8 million and will be used to offset greenhouse gas compliance costs Roseville otherwise would have incurred.

The California Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program – 2023 Directly Allocated Allowance Allocation 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,
David Siao, Electric Resources Analyst
Dan Beans, Electric Utility Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-305
RESOLUTION NO. 22-305
APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF 334,821 OF CITY’S 2023 GREENHOUSE

CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM ALLOWANCES
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Roseville Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program in August 2012 and updated said program in February 2013; and WHEREAS, this program defines how Roseville Electric will use the emission allowances it receives from the State each year; and
WHEREAS, each year the City must allocate the following calendar year’s allowances between those used to meet its direct compliance obligation and those to be auctioned with Roseville receiving the proceeds;
WHEREAS, the City’s 2023 allocation of Greenhouse Cap-and-Trade Program allowances is 334,821; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends all 334,821 vintage 2023 directly allocated allowances be directed to Roseville’s compliance account.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that it hereby approves all 334,821 vintage 2023 directly allocated allowances be directed to Roseville’s compliance account.

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

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2234
File #: 0400-04-18-1 & 0400-07
Title: Campus Oaks CO-2 - Final Map and Subdivision Agreement Contact: Kerry Andrews 916-774-5346 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.6.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
It is recommended that the City Council 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, Lot A and all rights of way offered thereon, and adopt a resolution approving the Subdivision Agreement and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.

BACKGROUND
The Development Services Department, 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 49 residential lots and 1 landscape lot.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the Campus Oaks CO-2 Subdivision final map is an action that is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project level CEQA compliance for the Campus Oaks CO-2 Subdivision final map was accomplished with an Addendum to the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (HPMP EIR) which was prepared as part of the analysis for the Campus Oaks Master Plan project (Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Addendum), approved by City Council on August 5, 2015. Because the Campus Oaks CO-2 Subdivision final map is consistent with the project evaluated in the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan EIR and the Addendum, no new effects would be expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures from the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan EIR and the Addendum 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,
Kerry Andrews, Assistant Engineer
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Vicinity Map
Final Map
Resolution 22-294
SubdivisionAgreement

____________________________________ MICHAEL J.CHIARA, P.L.S. 9058 ________________________________ CITY CLERK, CITY OF ROSEVILLE AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,BY: EHC ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, ACCEPTED FOR RECORD AND FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF PLACER COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT ______ MINUTES AFTER ______ O'CLOCK ON THE DAY OF _______________________, 2022, AND RECORDED IN BOOK ____ OF COUNTY RECORDER OF PLACER COUNTY DEPUTY FEE: _______________ BY: ______________________________________________ FILE NO. _______________ _______________________________________ AG EHC II (NWHM) CA, 1, L.P., I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-2" AND FIND IT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE TENTATIVE MAP ON FILE AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND ALL APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. ____________________________________ DATE SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT RECORDER'S STATEMENT OWNER'S STATEMENT DATED ___________________ _______________________________________ ASSISTANT CITY CLERK THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-2" WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AT THE REQUEST OF THE NEW HOME COMPANY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, IN AUGUST, 2021. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-2" SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, AND THAT ALL THE MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, OR THAT THEY WILL BE SET IN THOSE POSITIONS ON OR BEFORE JULY 1, 2024 AND THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE, OR WILL BE, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ROSEVILLE, HAS APPROVED THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-2" AND HAS ACCEPTED, ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS OFFERED HEREON FOR DEDICATION AND HAS ACCEPTED, SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT, LOT A AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY HEREON OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. DATED ___________________ ________________________________________ MARC STOUT, R.C.E. 69879 CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLE LICENSE EXPIRATION DATE: 9/30/2022 I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM SATISFIED THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-2" IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. DATED ___________________ ________________________________________ TIMOTHY G. BLAIR, P.L.S. 8278 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2023 FOR MARC STOUT, CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLE NOTARY'S STATEMENT MAPS, AT PAGE ____, AT THE REQUEST OF MORTON & PITALO, INC. 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. STATE OF _____________________ COUNTY OF ___________________ ON __________________, BEFORE ME, __________________________________,A NOTARY PUBLIC 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. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL _________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF__________________________ PRINT NAME ______________________________________MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS ______________________ COUNTYMY COMMISSION NO. ________________________________________MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________________________ MORTON & PITALO, INC.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 4, AUGUST 2022 SUBDIVISION NO. PL18-0192 SITUATE IN SECTION 20, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M. FINAL MAP CAMPUS OAKS CO-2 PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PERSONS HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN UPON THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-2" AND DO HEREBY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF THIS FINAL MAP; HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES THE FOLLOWING: THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED AS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES: (A) PUBLIC EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ELECTROLIERS, WATER AND GAS PIPES, AND SEWER PIPES, AND FOR UNDERGROUND WIRES AND CONDUITS FOR ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, AND TELEVISION, SERVICES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL APPURTENANCES TOGETHER WITH ANY AND ALL APPURTENANCES PERTAINING THERETO ON, OVER UNDER AND ACROSS THOSE STRIPS OF LAND LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE PUBLIC 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) ASHBROOK STREET, BLUE DOG DRIVE, FORTIFY COURT, FORTIFY STREET, KNIGHTSBRIDGE LANE, AND VECTRA COURT, AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. (B) LOT A, FOR PUBLIC DRAINAGE, PUBLIC LANDSCAPE AND WATER QUALITY PURPOSES. A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN LARGE LOT MAP, FF MAPS 42 EXCECUTED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________________, 2022. ITS AUTHORIZED AGENT STEVEN S. BENSON BY: ____________________________________ ITS MANAGER Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-11 (HPCO CO-02 (50X110))\DWG\SRVY\WORKING\FINAL MAP\130076-S11-FM01.DWG | Saved: 07-07-22 12:51pm MCHIARA OPTIONEE'S STATEMENT THE NEW HOME COMPANY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OPTIONEE AS DISCLOSED BY "MEMORANDUM OF OPTION AGREEMENT" RECORDED MARCH 30, 2022 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2022-0027716, PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF THIS FINAL MAP. THE NEW HOME COMPANY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ______________________________________ JUSTIN WALTERS VP, PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND LAND DEVELOPMENT NOTARY'S STATEMENT 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.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 4, AUGUST 2022 SUBDIVISION NO. PL18-0192 SITUATE IN SECTION 20, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M. FINAL MAP CAMPUS OAKS CO-2 PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN LARGE LOT MAP, FF MAPS 42 Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-11 (HPCO CO-02 (50X110))\DWG\SRVY\WORKING\FINAL MAP\130076-S11-FM01.DWG | Saved: 07-07-22 12:51pm MCHIARA

RESOLUTION NO. 22-294

APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND THE NEW HOME COMPANY NORTHERN 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 The New Home Company Northern California LLC, for the Campus Oaks CO-2 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

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2232
File #: 0400-04-18-1 & 0400-07
Title: Campus Oaks CO-3 - Final Map and Subdivision Agreement Contact: Kerry Andrews 916-774-5346 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.7.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
It is recommended that the City Council 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 and C and all rights of way offered thereon, and adopt a resolution approving the Subdivision Agreement and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the Campus Oaks CO-3 Subdivision final map is an action that is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project level CEQA compliance for the Campus Oaks CO-3 Subdivision final map was accomplished with an Addendum to the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (HPMP EIR) which was prepared as part of the analysis for the Campus Oaks Master Plan project (Hewlett-Packard Campus Oaks Addendum), approved by City Council on August 5, 2015. Because the Campus Oaks CO-3 Subdivision final map is consistent with the project evaluated in the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan EIR and the Addendum, no new effects would be expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures from the Hewlett-Packard Master Plan EIR and the Addendum will be implemented. As such, no additional CEQA action is required at this time.

Description
Vicinity Map
Final Map
Resolution 22-292
SubdivisionAgreement

____________________________________ MICHAEL J. CHIARA, P.L.S. 9058 ________________________________ CITY CLERK, CITY OF ROSEVILLE ACCEPTED FOR RECORD AND FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF PLACER COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT ______ MINUTES AFTER ______ O'CLOCK ON THE DAY OF _______________________, 2022, AND RECORDED IN BOOK ____ OF COUNTY RECORDER OF PLACER COUNTY DEPUTY FEE: _______________ BY: ______________________________________________ FILE NO. _______________ _______________________________________ I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-3" AND FIND IT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE TENTATIVE MAP ON FILE AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND ALL APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. ____________________________________ DATE SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT RECORDER'S STATEMENT OWNER'S STATEMENT DATED ___________________ _______________________________________ ASSISTANT CITY CLERK THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-3" WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AT THE REQUEST OF LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN AUGUST, 2021. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-3" SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, AND THAT ALL THE MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, OR THAT THEY WILL BE SET IN THOSE POSITIONS ON OR BEFORE JULY 1, 2024 AND THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE, OR WILL BE, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ROSEVILLE, HAS APPROVED THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-3" AND HAS ACCEPTED, ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS OFFERED HEREON FOR DEDICATION AND HAS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT, LOTS A, B AND C AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY HEREON OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. DATED ___________________ ________________________________________ MARC STOUT, R.C.E. 69879 CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLE LICENSE EXPIRATION DATE: 9/30/2022 I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM SATISFIED THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-3" IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. DATED ___________________ ________________________________________ TIMOTHY G. BLAIR, P.L.S. 8278 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2023 FOR MARC STOUT, CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLE NOTARY'S STATEMENT MAPS, AT PAGE ____, AT THE REQUEST OF MORTON & PITALO, INC. 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. STATE OF _____________________ COUNTY OF ___________________ ON __________________, BEFORE ME, __________________________________,A NOTARY PUBLIC 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. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL _________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF__________________________ PRINT NAME ______________________________________ MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS ______________________ COUNTY MY COMMISSION NO. ________________________________________ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________________________ MORTON & PITALO, INC. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, AUGUST 2022 SUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0070 SITUATE IN SECTION 20, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M. FINAL MAP CAMPUS OAKS CO-3 PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PERSONS HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN UPON THIS FINAL MAP OF "CAMPUS OAKS CO-3" AND DO HEREBY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF THIS FINAL MAP; HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES THE FOLLOWING: THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED AS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES: (A) PUBLIC EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ELECTROLIERS, WATER AND GAS PIPES, AND SEWER PIPES, AND FOR UNDERGROUND WIRES AND CONDUITS FOR ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, AND TELEVISION, SERVICES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL APPURTENANCES TOGETHER WITH ANY AND ALL APPURTENANCES PERTAINING THERETO ON, OVER UNDER AND ACROSS THOSE STRIPS OF LAND LYING CONTIGUOUS TO THE PUBLIC 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) ELITE STREET, ENVY STREET, FORTIFY COURT, FORTIFY STREET, KNIGHTSBRIDGE LANE, PALO ALTO STREET, AND TERMINAL STREET, AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. (B) LOT A AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND FOR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. (C) LOT B FOR OPEN SPACE, BIKEWAY, DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY PURPOSES. (D) LOT C FOR OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY PURPOSES. CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN LARGE LOT MAP, FF MAPS 42 AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, BY: EHC ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, AG EHC II (NWHM) CA, 1, L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP EXCECUTED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________________, 2022. ITS AUTHORIZED AGENT STEVEN S. BENSON BY: ____________________________________ ITS MANAGER Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-06 (CO 3)\DWG\SRVY\WORKING\FINAL MAP\130076-S03-FM01.DWG | Saved: 07-07-22 12:57pm MCHIARA MORTON & PITALO, INC.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, AUGUST 2022 SUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0070 SITUATE IN SECTION 20, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M. FINAL MAP CAMPUS OAKS CO-3 PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN LARGE LOT MAP, FF MAPS 42 OPTIONEE'S STATEMENT THE NEW HOME COMPANY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OPTIONEE AS DISCLOSED BY "MEMORANDUM OF OPTION AGREEMENT" RECORDED MARCH 30, 2022 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2022-0027716, PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF THIS FINAL MAP. THE NEW HOME COMPANY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ______________________________________ JUSTIN WALTERS VP, PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND LAND DEVELOPMENT NOTARY'S STATEMENT 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.

STATE OF _____________________
COUNTY OF ___________________ ON __________________, BEFORE ME, __________________________________,A NOTARY PUBLIC 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. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL _________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF__________________________ PRINT NAME ______________________________________
MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS ______________________ COUNTYMY COMMISSION NO. ________________________________________MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________________________ Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-06 (CO 3)\DWG\SRVY\WORKING\FINAL MAP\130076-S03-FM01.DWG | Saved: 07-07-22 12:57pm MCHIARA GRAPHIC SCALE 1 in = 80 ft 80 40 0 80 160 MORTON & PITALO, INC. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2022 SCALE: 1"=80' FINAL MAP CAMPUS OAKS CO-3 P.U.E. ......PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT .............DIMENSION POINT, NOTHING FOUND OR SET .............FOUND 1" GALVANIZED PIPE TAGGED "L.S. 7350" PER (1) .............SET 1" IRON PIPE WITH ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "L.S. 9058" LEGEND .............FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED HEREON S.F. ..........SQUARE FEET ............SET BRONZE DISC STAMPED "L.S. 9058" THE MERIDIAN OF THIS SURVEY IS N89°25'40"E, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 5, AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON THAT CERTAIN FINAL MAP ENTITLED, "CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN LARGE LOT MAP" FILED IN BOOK FF OF MAPS, PAGE 42, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS, AND WAS ESTABLISHED BY FOUND MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON. BASIS OF BEARINGS SET IN CITY STANDARD WELL 1. TOTAL AREA OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS 15.880 ACRES, CREATING 62 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THREE LETTERED LOTS. 2.

A DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. __________________. 3. LOT CORNERS FRONTING ELITE STREET, ENVY STREET, FORTIFY COURT, FORTIFY STREET, KNIGHTSBRIDGE LANE, PALO ALTO STREET AND TERMINAL COURT SHALL BE WITNESSED BY A 1-1/4" CENTER-PUNCHED BRASS DISC STAMPED "L.S. 9058" SET 1.0 FEET FROM THE CORNER ON THE PROJECTED LOT LINE, EXCEPT AS SHOWN OTHERWISE. 4. LOT CORNERS ADJACENT TO WALLS SHALL BE WITNESSED BY A 1" IRON PIPE WITH ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "L.S. 9058", SET ON PROPERTY LINE, 3.00 FEET FROM THE TRUE CORNER. 5.

A SOILS REPORT PREPARED BY ENGEO INCORPORATED DATED AUGUST 30, 2021 IS ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS FILE NO. EN21-1122. (1)............ RECORD PER FF MAPS 42 (2)............ RECORD PER ___ MAPS ___ (CO-2) PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO BE DEDICATED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT 275.00'(2) 274.00'(2) 133.00'(2) N00°34'20"W(2) 22.00'(2) NOTES 233.00'(2) N09°38'20"W(1) N89°25'40"E(1)(2) 1008.14'(1)(2) 43.14'
N00°34'20"W(1) 551.24'(1)

51.30'(1) N89°55'15"W(1) 396.00'(1) 350.73'(1)
N00°02'57"W(1) 590.00'(1)
N11°28'16"W(1)
N08°06'38"W(1) 218.04'(1)
N27°02'10"W(1) 151.75'(1)
N36°14'06"W(1) 152.38'(1)
N42°32'42"W(1) 284.26'(1) N09°39'15"E(1) 58.16'(1) N01°30'30"W(1) 35.23'(1) N08°53'16"E(1) 30.02'(1) N46°49'21"W(1) N86°07'57"E(1)
N33°13'08"W(1) N08°50'00"E(1) 7.20'(1)
112.48'(1) 111.07'(1)
112.53'(1)
123.83'(1) FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE TAGGED "L.S. 7576" WITH COPPER COLLAR STAMPED "L.S. 4751" PER (1) FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE TAGGED "L.S. 7576" PER (1) COPPER COLLAR PER (1) STAMPED "L.S 4751" PER (1) 1" BRASS MONUMENT NO STAMP PER (1) COPPER COLLAR NO STAMP PER (1) COPPER COLLAR NO STAMP PER (1) COPPER COLLAR STAMPED "L.S. 4751" N08°50'00"E(1) 7.20'(1) N00°02'57"W(1)
590.00'(1)
N33°13'08"W(1) 112.48'(1)
SEE DETAIL "A"
THIS SHEET FND 3/4" REBAR .............FOUND 3/4" REBAR AS DESCRIBED HEREON .............FOUND 1" BRASS MONUMENT STAMPED "L.S. 4751" PER (1) COPPER COLLAR STAMPED "L.S. 4751" PER (1) N.T.S. DETAIL "A" 50.00'(2) PER (1) COPPER COLLAR STAMPED "L.S. 4751" COPPER COLLAR STAMPED "L.S 4751" PER (1)
L C VECTRA COURT L C BLUE DOG DRIVE L C KNIGHTSBRIDGE LANE 56 5758596061 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17
8 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 49 50 5152 62 55 54 53 LOT ALOT C LOT B ............FOUND BRONZE DISC STAMPED "L.S. 9058" IN CITY STANDARD WELL PER (2) B A S I S O F B E A R I N G S SEE SHEET 5 SEE SHEET 4 56.19' (1)(2) 45.27'(1) BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, SUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0070 SITUATE IN SECTION 20, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M. PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN LARGE LOT MAP, FF MAPS 42 Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-06 (CO 3)\DWG\SRVY\WORKING\FINAL MAP\130076-S03-FM02.DWG | Saved: 07-07-22 12:57pm MCHIARA GRAPHIC SCALE 1 in = 60 ft 60 30 0 60 120 MORTON & PITALO, INC. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2022 SCALE: 1"=60' FINAL MAP CAMPUS OAKS CO-3 275.00'(2) 274.00'(2) 133.00'(2) N00°34'20"W(2) 22.00'(2) 233.00'(2) N09°38'20"W(1) N89°25'40"E(1)(2) 1008.14'(1)(2) 43.14'(1)(2) N00°34'20"W(1) 551.24'(1)

51.30'(1) N11°28'16"W(1)
N08°06'38"W(1) 218.04'(1)
N27°02'10"W(1) 151.75'(1)
112.53'(1) FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE TAGGED "L.S. 7576" WITH COPPER COLLAR STAMPED "L.S. 4751" PER (1) FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE TAGGED "L.S. 7576" PER (1) 45.27'(1) FND 3/4" REBAR 50.00'(2) LC KNIGHTSBRIDGE LANE C VECTRA COURT L C BLUE DOG DRIVE L 262.00'
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 24 23 22 21 20 19 18
8 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 48 40 39 38 37 LOT A N00°34'20"W 200.59'
N00°34'20"W 255.66'

75.00' 70.00' 65.62'
100.62' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 210.62' 110.00' 110.00' 88.00'57.79' 65.00' 65.00' N89°25'40"E 130.00' 110.29' 145.36' N89°25'40"E N89°25'40"E

70.00' 53.00' 53.00'
N00°34'20"W 176.00' 37.00' 65.00' N89°25'40"E 190.00'

50.91' 31.78' N80°02'56"W 20.00' N87°18'35"E
110.00' 90.59'

8.07'
N32°40'37"E N89°25'40"E 7220 S.F. 7150 S.F. 8146 S.F. 7700 S.F. 6704 S.F. 10,464 S.F. 8011 S.F.

C1 N45°34'20"W 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' R=22'
R=52 ' Δ=145°49 ' 2 " L=132 .34 ' N44°05'48"E
9 .41' N72°21'26"W 16.92' Δ=18°43'49" L=17.00' C2
N73°56'51"E 24.60'
Δ=33°14'57" L=24.95'
C3
N43°26'29"W 65.00' 88.00' 65.00'
110.00' 110.00'
123.00' 110.00'

75.00' 145.00' 88.00' 65.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'

53.00' N89°25'40"E N89°25'40"E 530.00'
110.00' 110.00'
110.00' 110.00'
110.00' 110.00'
110.00' 110.00'
110.00' 110.00'
110.00' 110.00'
110.00' 110.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 75.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 53.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 53.00' N00°34'20"W 176.00' N89°25'40"E 596.00' N00°34'20"W 220.00' N00°34'20"W 220.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'

88.00' 88.00'
N00°34'20"W 176.00' N44°25'40"E 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' R=22' 8146 S.F. 15,846 S.F. 7150 S.F. N89°25'40"E 596.00' N45°34'20"W 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' R=22' 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 8146 S.F. 8146 S.F. R=22' R=22' N00°34'20"W 262.00' 160.00' 682.00' N89°25'40"E 842.00' N89°25'40"E 756.00' N89°25'40"E 800.00' 21'
21' 21' 75.00' 65.00' 53.00' 53.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 75.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 53.00'

88.00' 88.00'
N00°34'20"W 176.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 53.00' N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'
N00°34'20"W 220.00'
110.00' 110.00'

88.00' 88.00'
N00°34'20"W 176.00' 7150 S.F. 8146 S.F. 8146 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 8146 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 7150 S.F. 8146 S.F. R=22' R=22' R=22' R=22' N00°34'20"W 262.00'
N00°34'20"W 140.50' C4
21' 21'
C5 R=52 ' Δ=146°29 ' 06" L=132 .95 ' N45°34 ' 20"W 9 .58 ' N89°25'40"E 756.00' 357.30' 484.70' N89°25'40"E 842.00' 262.00'
N44°20'02"E 19.33'
Δ=25°58'42" L=19.50'

27.24'
N36°14'06"W(1) 152.38'(1) LOT B 37,145 S.F. 56 49 50 51 21' 21' 21' 21' 21'
21'
21' 21'
21' 21' C1.......R=43' Δ=59°13'40" L=44.45' N60°57'30"W 42.50' COURSE TABLE C2.......R=27.28' Δ=31°17'33" L=14.90' N74°25'49"W 14.71' C3.......R=22' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' N44°25'40"W 31.11' C4.......R=32' Δ=28°14'33" L=15.77' N14°41'37"W 15.61' N45°34'20"W 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' N44°25'40"E 31.11' N45°34'20"W 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' N44°25'40"E 31.11' N45°34'20"W 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' C5.......R=32' Δ=28°14'33" L=15.77' N13°32'56"E 15.61' SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES, LEGEND AND BASIS OF BEARINGS. NOTE 12.5' P.U.E. N21°56'03"E 43.33' Δ=49°14'55" L=44.70' N72°25'05"E 45.36'
Δ=51°43'09" L=46.94' N44°25'40"E 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' 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. SEE SHEET 5 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO BE DEDICATED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT N15°45'09"E 23.51' Δ=26°07'29" L=23.71' 36.95'

13.05' 56.19' 269.95' 682.00' 21' 21' BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, SUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0070 SITUATE IN SECTION 20, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M. PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN LARGE LOT MAP, FF MAPS 42 Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-06 (CO 3)\DWG\SRVY\WORKING\FINAL MAP\130076-S03-FM03.DWG | Saved: 07-07-22 12:57pm MCHIARA 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 48 40 39 38 37 49 50 5152 5657585960 6162 55 54 53LOT C GRAPHIC SCALE 1 in = 60 ft 60' 30' 0' 60' 120' COURSE TABLE 21' 21'
R=52 ' Δ=146°29 ' 06" L=132 .95 ' N45°34 ' 20"W 9 .58 ' C6 C6.......R=32' Δ=28°14'33" L=15.77' N75°18'23"E 15.61' N00°34'20"W 336.82' N89°25'40"E 253.55' 100.55' 65.00' 88.00' 65.00' 110.00' N89°25'40"E 175.00' 110.00' N00°34'20"W 143.00'
N00°34'20"W 143.00'

75.00' 68.00'

53.00' 68.00'
N00°34'20"W 293.82'

69.93'
N00°34'20"W
N42°32'42"W 247.55' 121.57'

70.86'

55.11'

29.02' 110.00' N89°25'40"E 146.86' N89°25'40"E N47°27'18"E 25.89'

70.00' 70.00' 32.82'
L1 L1........N00°34'20"W 35.89' 6.86' 105.06' N89°25'40"E R=22' N45°34'20"W 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56'

18.08'
C7 C7.......R=329' Δ=8°28'20" L=48.65' N03°39'50"W 48.60' N03°06'37"E 42.26' Δ=7°21'54" L=42.29' C8.......R=329' Δ=1°06'26" L=6.36' N07°20'47"E 6.36' R=45' N31°23'29"E 35.88' Δ=46°58'58" L=36.90' R= 4 3 ' Δ = 2 6 2 ° 2 1 ' 4 5 " L
= 1 9 6 . 9 0 ' N76 ° 17 ' 54 "W
64 . 73 ' N34°34'11"W 86.00' Δ=178°54'18" L=134.27' N21°33'33"E 48.61' Δ=68°50'15" L=51.66' N89°55'15"W(1) 396.00'(1) 350.73'(1) 590.00'(1)
N36°14'06"W(1) 152.38'(1)
N42°32'42"W(1) 284.26'(1) N09°39'15"E(1) 58.16'(1) N01°30'30"W(1) 35.23'(1) N08°53'16"E(1) 30.02'(1) N46°49'21"W(1) N86°07'57"E(1)
N33°13'08"W(1) N08°50'00"E(1) 7.20'(1)
112.48'(1) 111.07'(1)
123.83'(1) 45.27'(1) 357.30' 484.70' N89°25'40"E 842.00'

27.24' N89°25'40"E 91.05'
N00°02'57"W(1) 596.25' 6.25' L2 L2........N00°34'20"W 4.00' R=22' N44°25'40"E 31.11' Δ=90°00'00" L=34.56' N00°34'20"W 293.82'
C8
R=350' Δ=19°03'55" L=116.46' N08°57'37"E 115.93'
C9 C9.......R=371' Δ=10°19'00" L=66.80' N04°35'10"E 66.71' N89°25'40"E

49.00' 70.00' 70.00' 70.00' 34.82'
101.23' 70.00' 70.00' 70.00' 70.00' 70.00' 70.00' 75.00' N89°25'40"E 112.36' N89°25'40"E 111.72' N89°25'40"E 111.08' N89°25'40"E 110.44' N89°25'40"E 111.48' N89°25'40"E 107.35'

55.58' 2.58' N02°08'53"E 35.21' Δ=5°26'26" L=35.23' N07°18'23"E 31.57' Δ=4°52'35" L=31.57' C10 C10.....R=45' Δ=37°13'27" L=29.24' N08°52'03"W 28.72' C11 C11.....R=43' Δ=14°37'13" L=10.97' N20°10'11"W 10.94' 29.93' N34°01'20"W N89°25'40"E 108.53' 21' 21' 12,280 S.F. 9295 S.F. 8146 S.F. 7480 S.F. 12,182 S.F. 8455 S.F. LOT B 37,145 S.F. 7739 S.F. 16,171 S.F. 7907 S.F. 7931 S.F. 7728 S.F. 7753 S.F. 7798 S.F. 7843 S.F. 8261 S.F. 21' MORTON & PITALO, INC. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2022 SCALE: 1"=60' FINAL MAP CAMPUS OAKS CO-3 SEE SHEET 4 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO BE DEDICATED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT 12.5' P.U.E. 12.5' P.U.E. 12.5' P.U.E. 12.5' P.U.E. SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES, LEGEND AND BASIS OF BEARINGS. NOTE 266.18'
21' 17' BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, SUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0070 SITUATE IN SECTION 20, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M. PLACER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CAMPUS OAKS MASTER PLAN LARGE LOT MAP, FF MAPS 42 Dwg: Y:\2013\13-0076-06 (CO 3)\DWG\SRVY\WORKING\FINAL MAP\130076-S03-FM04.DWG | Saved: 07-07-22 12:57pm MCHIARA RESOLUTION NO. 22-292

APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND THE NEW HOME COMPANY NORTHERN 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 The New Home Company Northern California, LLC, for the Campus Oaks CO-3 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

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2231
File #: 0400-04-12-1 & 0400-07
Title: Sierra Vista KT-20B - Final Map and Subdivision Agreement Contact: Kerry Andrews 916-774-5346 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.8.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
It is recommended 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 and B and all rights of way and easements 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 68 residential lots, 2 public landscape lots and 1 designated remainder lot.

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-20B final map is an action that is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project level CEQA compliance for the Sierra Vista KT-20B 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-20B 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.

Description
Vicinity Map
Final Map
Resolution 22-291
SubdivisionAgreement

VICINITY MAP

SANTUCCI BLVD

BASELINE ROAD
SIERRA VISTA KT-20B WATT AVENUE

VISTA GRANDE BLVD

FIDDYMENT ROAD

WALERGA ROAD

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD

SIERRA VILLAGE DRIVE
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-20B"WASPREPAREDBY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECTIONANDIS

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-20B"ANDFINDIT TOBE

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-20B", 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 AND ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT 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 KT-20B" 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-20B"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

CASTLEPEAKCOURT,TWILIGHTPEAKCOURT,CARABALLODRIVE,FLATHEADDRIVE,GARIBALDI

DRIVE,BEARTOOTHWAY, PINALENOWAY, LOT A, LOT B AND THOSESTRIPSOF LAND LYING CONTIGUOUSTO THE RIGHTOF WAY AS SHOWNHEREONAND DESIGNATED"P.U.E."(PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT).
(B) VISIBILITYEASEMENTTO BE KEPT FREE FROM SIGNS, HEDGES, FENCES, STRUCTURES,

NATURALGROWTHOR OTHEROBSTRUCTIONSTO THE VIEW HIGHERTHAN TWO FEET SIX INCHES(2 1/2’)ABOVETHE NEAREST PAVEMENTSURFACE,WITHIN THE AREA OVER AND ACROSS THAT LAND DESIGNATED HEREON AS "V.E." (VISIBILITY EASEMENT).

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

HEREONAS CASTLEPEAK COURT, TWILIGHTPEAK COURT, CARABALLODRIVE, FLATHEAD DRIVE, GARIBALDI DRIVE, BEARTOOTH WAY, PINALENO WAY, LOT A AND LOT B. 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

BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

FINAL MAP OF
KT-20B
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 6 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 & 35, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN.

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
JUNE 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
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.

NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
SS
)
)

COUNTY OF MARICOPA

STATE OF ARIZONA
)
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS __ DAY OF _________, 202__, BY STEVEN S. BENSON, THE MANAGER OF ESSENTIAL HOUSING ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF AG EHC II (LEN) CA 2, L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR AND ON BEHALF THEREOF.

NOTARY PUBLIC

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:

WITNESS MY HAND:

MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS THE
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

MY COMMISSION NO.:

COUNTY OF:

AG EHC II (LEN) CA 2, L.P.

A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BY:

BY: ESSENTIAL HOUSING ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC,

AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

ITS AUTHORIZED AGENT
NAME: STEVEN S, BENSON
TITLE: MANAGER

DESIGNATED REMAINDER

14.04 AC.

VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD
N00°38'13"W 722.30'(1)
N86°18'37"W 120.42'(1) N88°55'34"E 220.00'(1)
R=50' Δ=90°26'13" L=78.92'(1) CB=N45°51'19"W CD=70.98'
N08°49'31"E 60.83'(1)
N00°38'13"W 120.00'(1)
N10°05'57"W 60.83'(1) N04°07'36"E 120.42'(1) N00°38'13"W 220.00'(1) N05°44'21"W 81.32'(1) N89°21'43"E 218.48'(1) N47°42'59"W 494.89'(1)
N47°25'56"W 45.89'(1)
N88°55'34"E 343.41'
L1 C1 L2
L3
L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
C2 L16 C3 L15 L17
C4
L18
4 3 2
27 28
29 30
31 32
34 33
26 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54
52 53
51 50
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25 6
5 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
42 43 44 45 46 47 49
48 41
40 35 36 37 38 39
1 20'x20' B.S.E.(1)
25'
P.U.E.(1)
S32°53'05"W(R)(1)
40'
P.U.E./P.E.(1)
25'
P.U.E./P.E.(1)
AREA R-1 PER DOC # 2015-064321 & 2015-064331
48'
N45°51'20"W 98.62'(1) 61' 71' 71' 61'
N89°21'47"E(R)
SANTUCCI BOULEVARD 71' 71' 61' 61' 61' 71'

27.5'
P.U.E.(1)
(I.O.D./R.O.W.)(1)
(I.O.D./R.O.W.)(1)
CL
CL
N00°38'13"W(1) 606.52' 61' 71' N88°55'34"E 654.42'(1)
N32°33'22"E(R)(1)
P.U.E./P.E.(1)
R=281'(1) Δ=33°31'22"
L=164.41'
CB=N73°52'36"W
CD=162.07'
S63°20'35"W(R) S01°04'26"E(R)
N01°04'26"W(R)

CARABALLO DRIVE

CASTLE COURT PEAK

FLATHEAD DRIVE

GARIBALDI DRIVE BEARTOOTH WAY
COURT

TWILIGHT PEAK
N01°04'26"W 35.00'(R)(1)
N88°55'34"E 2690.57'(1)
N00°06'07"E 59.19'(1)
(BASIS OF BEARINGS)
N00°38'13"W 1557.99'(1) 61' 71'

PINALENO WAY
N00°38'13"W
120.00'(1)
N05°42'12"E 90.55'(1)
N00°38'13"W 186.95'(1) N00°38'13"W 382.50'(1)
N88°55'34"E 68.00'(1)
N84°44'01"W 90.55'(1)
N88°55'34"E 150.17'(1)
N77°36'58"E 50.99'(1)
N88°55'34"E 16.06'(1)

LOT A LOT B
REFERENCES:

BASIS OF BEARINGS:

NOTES:

1. THE TOTAL AREA OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS 24.94 ACRES +/-, GROSS, CONSISTING OF 68 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 2 LANDSCAPE
LOTS AND 1 (14.04 ACRE) DESIGNATED REMAINDER LOT.

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 NOVEMBER 10, 2018; PROJECT
NUMBER WKA NO. 11712.01 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. A PORTION OF THE I.O.D./R.O.W. ON LOT 6 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 IN 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 N 00°38'13" W, AS SHOWN BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS

ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SANTUCCI 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) EE MAPS 6
LEGEND

DIMENSION POINT NOTHING FOUND OR SET

CB CHORD BEARING

CD CHORD DISTANCE
(OA) OVERALL
P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
2 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
JUNE 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
(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
(2) FF MAPS 18
MONUMENT TO BE SET PER (1) COPPERWELD SURVEY MONUMENT WITH CENTER PUNCH IN MONUMENT WELL STAMPED "LS 7944"
4 3
0 50 100 200
SCALE: 1"=100'
P.E. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
B.S.E. BUS SHELTER EASEMENT

LINE TABLE
L1(1) L2(1) L3(1) L4(1) L5(1) L6(1) L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
L18
N41°51'58"W
N35°05'22"E(R) N14°47'59"E
N12°01'03"E
N08°08'42"E
N04°04'51"E
N87°57'05"W
N88°24'47"W
N87°58'30"W
N01°04'26"W
N71°00'42"W
N88°55'34"E
N01°04'26"W
N00°38'13"W
N00°10'45"W
N00°38'13"W
N89°21'47"E(R) N88°55'34"E

60.80'

38.00'

85.11'

44.64'

49.29'

84.00'

42.00'

83.82'

49.87'

45.50'

7.26'

45.00'

57.83'

42.01'

2.66'

42.00'

77.77'

CURVE TABLE
C1(1) C2
C3
C4
521'
22'
22'
22'
02°32'00"
90°26'13"
89°33'47"
26°01'12"

23.04'

34.73'

34.39'

9.99'
N56°10'38"W
N45°51'19"W
N44°08'40"E
N13°38'49"W

23.03'

31.23'

30.99'

9.91'
# BEARING LENGTH
# RADIUS DELTA LENGTH BEARING LENGTH

CHORD CHORD
5 MONUMENT TO BE SET PER (2) COPPERWELD SURVEY MONUMENT WITH CENTER PUNCH IN MONUMENT WELL STAMPED "LS 7944"
FOUND 5/8" REBAR WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED "LS 7944"

PINALENO WAY
V.E. VISIBILITY EASEMENT

VISIBILITY EASEMENT
DETAIL "2A"
N.T.S.

SEE DETAIL "2A"

ON THIS SHEET
N12°00'57"W 50.69'(1) R=31'
Δ=89°33'47"
L=48.46'
CB=N44°08'41"E
CD=43.67'
N01°04'26"W 4.00'
N00°38'13"W 12.50' N88°55'34"E 0.79'
N00°38'13"W 1557.99'(1)
71'(1)
61'(1)
N04°07'36"E 120.42'(1)
N01°04'26"W(R) 4.00' 66.96'

57.04'
N01°04'26"W(R) 4.00'
N47°42'59"W 211.84'(OA)
N00°38'13"W 77.39'
N89°21'47"E

22.00'
N89°21'47"E

80.00'
N89°21'47"E

80.00'
N88°55'34"E 77.92' N00°38'13"W 91.02'
N89°21'47"E 100.16'
N89°21'47"E

82.73'
N89°21'47"E

81.37'
N89°21'47"E

80.00'
N89°21'47"E

81.39'
N89°21'47"E

80.00'
N89°21'47"E

80.01'
N81°15'17"W(R) 83.48'
N72°13'49"W(R) 92.53'
N63°12'21"W(R) 94.29'
N01°04'26"W

12.83'
N30°10'52"E 103.98'
N47°42'59"W 104.16'
N42°17'01"E 146.18'
N88°55'34"E 105.55'
N48°40'15"W 107.87'
N20°31'32"E(R) 129.45'
N00°38'13"W 693.20'
N88°55'34"E 77.77' 412.65' 627.26'
123.48' 77.39'

40.44' 498.98'

57.36'
128.41'
171.40'

90.89'

91.18' 45.00' 43.21'

62.85'

55.00' 45.00' 34.17' 45.00' 45.00' 45.00'

64.38'

16.00' 45.00' 45.00' 50.65' 45.00' 45.00'

81.80' 50.00' 53.20' 45.00'

98.29'

80.00' 135.00' 45.02' 45.00' 50.00' 45.00' 45.00' 45.00' 43.25' 50.00' 14.39'

81.20' 45.00' 45.00' 45.00' 45.00' 50.00' 45.00'

9.24' 45.00'

48.25' 45.00' 48.41' 45.00' 45.02' 41.63' 45.00' 45.00' 69.17' 50.04' 45.65'

45.16' 55.00'
N89°21'47"E 67.80'

24.80'
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 67
68 66
65 64
63 62
61 60
59 58
50 16 17
18 19
20 21
22 43
42 44
45 46
47 49 48
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 LOT A
R=250' Δ=42°29'35" L=185.41' CB=N20°36'34"E
CD=181.19'
R=2
9' Δ=
30°46'10" L
=12

2.9 8' CB=N14°2 '52"E
CD=121.51' R=271' Δ=34°06'45" L=161.35' CB=N16°25'10"E
CD=158.97' R=229' Δ=42°55'14" L=171.54' CB=N69°10'36"W CD=167.56' R=250' Δ=42°55'14" L=187.28' CB=N69°10'36"W CD=182.93' N00°38'13"W 717.26'(OA) 45.33' N88°55'34"E 245.01'

43.00' N00°10'45"W 42.01'
R=22' Δ=89°33'47" L=34.39'
CB=N44°08'40"E CD=30.99'
R=22' Δ=26°01'12" L=9.99'
CB=N13°38'49"W CD=9.91'

57.83'
N00°38'13"W 12.50' N88°55'34"E 9.21' R=31' Δ=90°26'13" L=48.93' CB=N45°51'19"W CD=44.01'
R=22' Δ=90°26'13" L=34.73'
CB=N45°51'20"W CD=31.23' N00°38'13"W 57.83'
N88°55'34"E 343.41' 21.00' 21.00'

21.00' 21.00'
N00°38'13"W 2.66' 23' 23' 19' 19'
61'
61'

61.00' 141.00' 50.24' N01°04'26"W
N88°55'34"E

7.26'
Δ=19°06'35" L=76.38' CB=N79°01'45"W
CD=76.02
Δ=21°45'28" L=86.96' CB=N58°35'44"W
CD=86.44
Δ=09°01'28" L=42.68' CB=N22°16'55"E
CD=42.64
Δ=09°01'28" L=42.68' CB=N13°15'27"E
CD=42.64
Δ
=
0 9°0
0'16" L
=
4 2.5
9' CB
=
N
0 4°14'3
5"E
C
D
=
4 2.5
5 Δ=23°24'31" L=

93.5 6' CB=N10°42'0
3"E
CD=

92.91 Δ07°21'38" L=29.42' CB=N26°05'08"E CD=29.40
Δ
=
5 6°43'39" L
=

42.57' C
B
=
N15°15'05"W
CD
=40.86
R
=
43' Δ=239°59'50" L=180.12'
C
B
=
N59°21'52"E CD=74.48'
5,983 S.F.±
7,228 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
33,984 S.F.±
4,225 S.F.±
4,027 S.F.±
4,000 S.F.±
4,000 S.F.±
3,631 S.F.±
3,692 S.F.±
4,115 S.F.±
4,910 S.F.± 5,260 S.F.±
5,913 S.F.±
4,631 S.F.±
4,397 S.F.±
3,996 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,605 S.F.±
4,633 S.F.± 5,232 S.F.±
6,375 S.F.± 332.27' 785.02' 772.97'
21'
21'
21' 21'
LOT B
901 S.F.± 21' 21' 21' 21'
21'0.89'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21' 21'
CL SANTUCCI BOULEVARD (I.O.D./R.O.W.)(1)

CARABALLO DRIVE

CASTLE PEAK COURT

BEARTOOTH WAY

PINALENO WAY
S46°23'5"W(R)
N76°53'16"W(R)
N07°43'20"W(R)
N74°46'40"E(R)
N89°44'27"E(R)
R=45'
Δ=59°37'50"
L=46.83'
CB=N30°49'08"W
CD=44.75'
S67°35'41"E(R)
S01°24'57"W(R)
N65°29'27"W(R)
S63°20'35"W(R)
N01°04'26"W(R)
S01°04'26"E(R)
N89°21'47"E(R) 42.00'
P.U.E./P.E.(1)

12.5'
P.U.E.

12.5'
P.U.E.
23 C1 C2
C3
C4 C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12 C13
C14
C15 C16

DESIGNATED REMAINER
SEE SHEET 2
21'
21'
21'
N00°38'13"W 150.04'
N01°06'13"E 90.04' N88°55'34"E 0.79' N00°38'13"W 120.00'(1) N00°38'13"W 382.50'(1)
N12°00'57"W

50.69'(1)
3 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
JUNE 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 4
0 20 40 80
SCALE: 1"=40' SEE SHEET 5

CURVE TABLE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
22'
229'
22'
271'
22'
43'
43'
43'
43'
271'
22'
22'
22'
22'
22'
31'
90°00'00"
02°03'10"
81°11'31"
06°40'53"
102°31'03"
17°01'18"
69°09'56"
82°30'01"
14°35'07"
00°22'40"
25°08'46"
64°25'01"
89°33'47"
64°25'01"
90°26'13"
89°33'47"

34.56'

8.20'

31.18'

31.60'

39.36'

12.77'

51.91'

61.92'

10.95'

1.79'

9.66'

24.73'

34.39'

24.73'

34.73'

48.46'
N44°21'47"E
N89°36'38"W
N07°07'14"W
N30°08'06"E
N81°01'29"E
N52°07'34"W
N47°41'42"E
N56°28'20"W
N07°55'46"W
N00°26'53"W
N11°56'10"E
N56°43'03"E
N44°08'41"E
N58°51'55"W
N45°51'20"W
N44°08'41"E

31.11'

8.20'

28.63'

31.58'

34.32'

12.73'

48.81'

56.70'

10.92'

1.79'

9.58'

23.45'

30.99'

23.45'

31.23'

43.67'
# RADIUS DELTA LENGTH BEARING LENGTH

CHORD CHORD
SEE SHEET 2 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, NOTES & REFERENCES

TWILIGHT

PEAK COURT
CL SANTUCCI BOULEVARD (I.O.D./R.O.W.)(1)

GARIBALDI DRIVE
61'(1)
71'(1)
71'(1)
180.25'
N89°21'47"E

22.00'
N47°42'59"W 211.84'(OA)
N28°21'21"W(R) 20.26'
N89°21'43"E 93.58'
N89°21'47"E

80.42'
N89°21'47"E

80.00'
N89°21'47"E

80.00'
N00°38'13"W 693.20'(OA)
N89°21'47"E

95.36'
N89°21'47"E
112.04'
N89°21'47"E
108.07'
N17°32'02"E(R) 115.50'
N26°33'29"E(R) 93.65'
N35°34'57"E(R) 82.41'
N42°17'01"E

80.00'
N42°17'01"E

80.00' N17°32'02"E 216.73'
N88°12'05"W 76.63'
N27°04'47"E(R) 20.49' 53.74'
211.84'
456.29'

40.44'

14.24'

36.14' 45.00'
N81°23'36"W
N70°55'05"W 46.14'

45.00'
171.40'
S32°53'05"W(R) 15.74'

45.00'

37.11' 172.95'

45.00'

11.29'
N24°46'50"E(R) 5.00'

49.55'

45.00'

51.64' 38.00'

45.00'

76.72' 45.00'

45.00'

45.00'
140.01' 45.00'

45.00'

45.00' 50.00'

52.62'

66.37'

45.00'

16.70'

47.36' 45.00'

57.59'

62.98'

45.00'

45.00' 45.00' 50.00'

52.53'

45.00' 44.00' 45.00'

24.80'
N89°21'47"E 67.80'
31 59
58 57
56 55
54 53
52 51
50 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
49 48
41 R=271' Δ=42°55'14" L=203.01' CB=N69°10'36"W CD=198.29' R=250' Δ=42°55'14" L=187.28' CB=N69°10'36"W CD=182.93'
R=43' Δ=240°00'00" L=180.12'
CB=N60°38'13"W CD=74.48'
R=45'
Δ=60°00'00"
L=47.12'
CB=N29°21'47"E
CD=45.00'
R=31' Δ=89°59'56" L=48.69'
CB=N44°21'45"E CD=43.84'
Δ=58°13'11" L=43.69' CB=N33°48'38"W
CD=41.84
Δ=54°15'51" L=40.72' CB=N34°30'4 "E
CD=39.22
Δ=55°26'08" L=41.60' CB=N89°21'43"E
CD=40.00
Δ
=
64°03'49" L
=48.08' C
B
=
N27°19'52"E
CD=45.61
Δ=08°01'01"L=6.02'
CB=N03°22'18"ECD=6.01
R=250' Δ=42°55'18" L=187.28' CB=N69°10'38"W CD=182.93' R=281' Δ=33°31'22" L=164.41'(1) CB=N73°52'36"W CD=162.07'
N89°21'43"E 282.25'
215.71' 66.54'
N89°21'43"E 218.48'(1)
N47°42'59"W 494.89' N47°42'59"W 494.89'(1)
Δ=09°01'28" L=42.68' CB=N58°55'47"W
CD=42.64
Δ=09°01'28" L=42.68' CB=N67°57'14"W
CD=42.64
Δ=
L
0 =
9 4
°33'30" CB=N

5.21' CD
7=
7 4
°1
5 4'43"W
.16
Δ=08°36'45" L=40.74' CB=N86°19'51"W CD=40.70
N47°25'56"W 45.89'(1)
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,846 S.F.±
4,323 S.F.±
5,270 S.F.±
5,721 S.F.±
5,833 S.F.±
5,096 S.F.± 3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
5,353 S.F.±
5,447 S.F.±
4,858 S.F.±
4,578 S.F.±
4,001 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±

31.12'

50.20' N00°38'13"W 220.00'(1)
21'
21'
21'
21' LOT A 33,984 S.F.± 21' 21' 21' 21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
27'
27'
27'
27'
22' 31' 31' 19' 19' N00°38'13"W 2651.10'(OA)(1)
BEARTOOTH WAY 627.26' N00°38'13"W 717.26'(OA)
S07°58'32"W(R)
S24°46'50"W(R)
S85°17'58"W(R)
S50°04'59"E(R)
S82°37'12"E(R)

12.5'
P.U.E.

P.U.E./P.E.(1)

12.5'
P.U.E.

12.5'
P.U.E.
21'
N04°07'36"E 120.42'(1)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6 TWILIGHT PEAK COURT
21'
21'
N47°42'59"W 526.97'(OA)
4 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
JUNE 2022

CURVE TABLE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
228'
223'
271'
22'
45'
45'
16°10'26"
17°30'11"
06°42'03"
90°00'00"
40°33'14"
19°26'46"

64.36'

68.12'

31.69'

34.56'

31.85'

15.27'
N73°18'23"W
N56°28'05"W
N51°04'01"W
N45°38'13"W
N19°38'24"E
N49°38'24"E

64.15'

67.86'

31.68'

31.11'

31.19'

15.20'
# RADIUS DELTA LENGTH BEARING LENGTH

CHORD CHORD
SEE SHEET 3
7,668 S.F.±
N47°42'59"W 211.84'(OA)
N12°15'04"E

19.49'
N21°09'24"E

93.79'
N30°10'52"E 103.98'
N39°12'19"E 81.45'
N84°50'03"W(R) 87.88'
N48°40'15"W 107.87'
N87°58'30"W(R)

83.82'
N14°47'59"E 85.11'(1)
N42°17'01"E

80.00'
N42°17'01"E

78.69'
N42°17'01"E

80.00'
N42°17'01"E

80.00'
211.84'

19.49'
456.29'
N71°00'42"W 45.50'
N42°17'01"E 16.59'

45.00'
171.40' 45.00'

51.53'

74.00' 13.88'

45.00'

56.35'

87.98'

45.00'

70.33'

45.00'

20.55'

32.59'

81.80'

45.00'

34.60' 45.00'

79.32'

45.00'

45.00'
N83°53'13"W(R) 84.00'
N79°49'22"W(R)
N77°44'56"W(R)

84.00'
N87°57'05"W(R)

84.27'

84.00'
N41°51'58"W 60.80'(1)

31.69' N77°44'56"W
4 3
2 1
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
26 21
22 23
24 25
6 5
7 8
9 R=250' Δ=30°01'57" L=131.04' CB=N27°16'02"E
CD=129.5 ' R=271' Δ=19°01'35" L=89.9 '
CB=N26°25'03"E
CD=89.58'
R=2
9' Δ=23°16'08" L=93.0 ' CB=N23°53'07"E
CD=92.36'
R=271' Δ=28°02'00" L=132.59' CB=N61°43'59"W CD=131.28' R=250' Δ=30°01'57" L=131.04' CB=N62°43'58"W CD=129.55' R=229' Δ=27°10'06" L=108.59' CB=N61°18'02"W CD=107.57' R =
80 ' Δ
=10°12'5
2" L
=14

2.6 2' CB
=
N0
7°0
8'3
7"E
C
D
=14

2.4 3'
R=
7 9' Δ
=10°12'0
9" L
=13

8.71' CB
=
N0
7°0
8'5
9"E
C
D
=13

8.5 3' R
=
8 21' Δ
=
0 7°18'5
2" L
=10
4 8.1' CB
=
N0
5°4
0'5
6"E
C
D
=10

4.7 4' Δ
=
0 4°10'2
5" L
=
5 9.8
0' CB
=
N0
7°15'0
9"E
C
D
=
5 9.7
9 Δ
=
0 3°0
8'2
7" L
=
4 5.01' C
B
=
N
0 3°3
5'4
3"E
C
D
=
4 5.0
0 Δ
=
0 4°0
3'5
2" L
=
5 5.2
6' C
B
=
N
0 4°0
4'51"E
C
D
=
5 5.2
5 Δ
=
04°0
3'5
2" L
=
5 5.2
6' CB
=
N08°0
8'4
2"E
CD
=
5 5.2
5 Δ=09°01'28" L=42.68' CB=N64°19'52"W
CD=42.64
Δ=09°01'28" L=42.68' CB=N55°18'25"W
CD=42.64
Δ=21°02'24" L=84.09' CB=N64°21'53"W
CD=83.62 N01°04'26"W 49.87'
N88°24'47"W

42.00'

21.00' 21.00'
° ' "
. ' CB=N29°21'42"E
CD=62.0
Δ=13
08 17
41 26=L
N47°42'59"W 494.89'(OA) N47°42'59"W 494.89'(1)
R=521' Δ=02°32'00" L=23.04'(1) CB=N56°10'38"W CD=23.03' N12°01'03"E

44.64'(1)
N35°05'22"E(R) 38.00'(1) 21.00'

17.00'
R=22'
Δ=91°47'37"
L=35.25'
CB=N81°25'00"E
CD=31.60'
3,890 S.F.±
4,406 S.F.±
4,406 S.F.± 4,054 S.F.±
5,265 S.F.±
5,020 S.F.±
4,139 S.F.±
4,018 S.F.±
5,943 S.F.±
4,761 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,589 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
3,600 S.F.±
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
21'
27' 27'
27'
27'

FLATHEAD

GARIBALDI DRIVE
BEARTOOTH WAY N36°09'18"E(R) S67°12'27"E(R)
N32°33'22"E(R)

12.5'
P.U.E.

C1
C2C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
DRIVE
21'
123.48'

DESIGNATED REMAINER
SEE SHEET 2

12.5'
V.E.

N04°04'51"E 49.29'(1) N08°08'42"E 49.29'(1)
Δ=04°45'27" L=43.26' CB=N55°03'55"W CD=43.25
N47°42'59"W 526.97'(OA)
N42°17'01"E 146.18'(OA)
5 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
JUNE 2022

CURVE TABLE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
500'
500'
500'
521'
22'
271'
22'
779'
22'
271'
271'
229'
00°17'53"
06°53'45"
07°11'38"
02°13'26"
83°38'50"
05°53'18"
88°12'40"
02°04'25"
85°05'21"
06°54'23"
03°04'41"
06°07'42"

2.60'

60.18'

62.78'

20.22'

32.12'

27.85'

33.87'

28.19'

32.67'

14.56'

24.49'
N47°51'56"W
N51°27'45"W
N51°18'49"W
N53°47'55"W
N05°53'35"W
N19°50'54"E
N61°00'35"E
N11°12'51"E
N33°12'19"W
N72°17'48"W
N49°15'20"W
N50°46'50"W

2.60'

60.14'

62.74'

20.22'

29.34'

27.84'

30.62'

28.19'

29.75'

32.65'

14.56'

24.48'
# RADIUS DELTA LENGTH BEARING LENGTH

CHORD CHORD
SEE SHEET 3

DESIGNATED REMAINDER

VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD
4 3 2
27 28
29 30
31 32
34 33
26 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54
52 53
51 50
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25 6
5 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
42 43 44 45 46 47 49
48 41
40 35 36 37 38 39
1 SANTUCCI BOULEVARD

CARABALLO DRIVE

CASTLE COURT PEAK

FLATHEAD DRIVE

GARIBALDI DRIVE BEARTOOTH WAY
COURT

TWILIGHT PEAK

PINALENO WAY
LOT A
LOT B
6 BOOK OF MAPS, PAGE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLACER COUNTY CALIFORNIA

SHEET OF 6 7310.024
JUNE 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
0 50 100 200
SCALE: 1"=100'

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
*
*
*
*
*
* * *
RESOLUTION NO. 22-291

APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND 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 Lennar Homes of California, LLC, for the Sierra Vista KT-20B 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

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2232
File #: 0709-05 & 0214
Title:

COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance Program - Community Development Block Grant Agreement
Contact: Kristine Faelz 916-774-5451 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.9.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff requests that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Agreement between the City of Roseville and AMI Housing, Inc., and authorize the City Manager to execute it.

BACKGROUND
As an entitlement jurisdiction, the City of Roseville receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). On March 27, 2020 the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was enacted by Congress to provide emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CDBGCV funds must be used for CDBG eligible activities that prevent, prepare for, or respond to the COVID-19 virus. The City received two rounds of CARES Act funding, also known as CDBGCV, totaling $1,213,133.

In December of 2020, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) in pursuit of a non-profit agency to administer a program to pay rent for those with arrears in order to keep Roseville residents housed. AMI Housing (AMI) proposed a program to provide housing assistance to lowincome residents through the payment of rent and utilities. In February 2021, Council approved an award of $250,000 in CDBG-CV funds toward this program in order to assist Roseville residents affected by COVID-19 who were at risk of housing instability. AMI’s program would not only help prevent homelessness and potential evictions, but also provide families with stability. Although AMI anticipated that they would be able to expend the award before the end of the fiscal year, they had also received Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG-CV) funds through the State for a similar program, with an urgent spending deadline ending FY2021-22. Since the ESG-CV funds were forced to take precedence, AMI was only able to spend $49,500 of the $250,000 in CDBG-CV funds awarded to them for the rent and utility assistance program prior to the June 30, 2022 deadline. AMI requested an extension to the original agreement in order to allow them to utilize the CDBG-CV funds through the new fiscal year.

A subsequent RFP for the remaining unallocated CDBG-CV funding was released in December of 2021. In order to identify appropriate programs, staff reached out to local nonprofits to determine continuing community need due to COVID. The overwhelming majority expressed that rental assistance for low-income households continued to be of utmost importance. This was echoed by the continued high demand for the State's Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program and the ERA program that Roseville Housing staff administered in 2021. Roseville's ERA program distributed $4.6 million dollars and assisted approximately 500 families with rent, back rent, and utility assistance over an eight month period. Staff determined that AMI's request to continue the current assistance program and add the remaining unallocated funding to toward a new contract was the best use of the remaining funds.

At the May 18, 2022 City Council meeting, Council approved the proposed award of an additional $200,000 in funding to AMI for their rent and back rent homeless prevention assistance program.

The new contract combines the remaining unspent funds from the prior fiscal year of $200,500 with the 2022-23 program year award of $200,000 and totals $400,500. Upon execution of the new agreement, AMI will be able to continue their program and utilize these funds throughout the new fiscal year. It is estimated that AMI will be able to help prevent homelessness and provide housing stability to an additional 275 Roseville households, for an additional three months each.

FISCAL IMPACT
The CDBG funding is provided as a federal grant to the City. These grants are used to offset potential costs to the General Fund and to serve the community. Funding for the AMI Housing COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance program was approved with the adoption of the first amendment to the CDBG 2019 Program Year Annual Action Plan Amendment on February 3, 2021, and the third amendment on May 18, 2022. This item does not impact the City's 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. The approval of a sub-recipient agreement with AMI 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
Respectfully Submitted,
Kristine Faelz, Housing Analyst
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-293
CDBG-CV AMI COVID Homeless PreventionAssistance Program agreement RESOLUTION NO. 22-293

APPROVING A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND AMI HOUSING, INC., AND AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WHEREAS, a Community Development Block Grant Agreement for Covid-19 Homeless Prevention Assistance, by and between the City of Roseville and AMI Housing, Inc., has been reviewed by 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; and
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
1 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022]

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT

FOR COVID HOMELESS PREVENTION ASSISTANCE
Grant No. B-20-MW-06-0043
CFDA: 14.218
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ___ day of ___________, 20__, by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“CITY”) and AMI Housing, a California non-profit corporation (“SUBRECIPIENT”).

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, SUBRECIPIENT is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California and qualifying for federal tax exempt status; and WHEREAS, CITY has allocated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2021, CITY and SUBRECIPIENT entered into that certain Community Development Block Grant Agreement for Covid-19 Homeless Prevention Assistance, approved by Resolution No. 21-120 of the Roseville City Council (the “Prior Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Prior Agreement authorized a grant of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) in CDBG funds to SUBRECIPIENT for Homeless Prevention Assistance; and WHEREAS, as of the date of this Agreement, SUBRECIPIENT has expended forty nine thousand five hundred dollars ($49,500) of the two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) 2 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] authorized by the Prior Agreement, leaving a remaining balance of two hundred thousand five hundred dollars ($200,500) in CDBG funds for Homeless Prevention Assistance; and WHEREAS, SUBRECIPIENT has submitted an Application for Community Development Block Grant Funding Request for 2022/2023 for COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance; as identified on the application, which is dated February 3, 2022; and WHEREAS, CITY and SUBRECIPIENT desire to terminate the Prior Agreement and reallocate the remaining two hundred thousand five hundred dollars ($200,500) from the Prior Agreement to SUBRECIPIENT by way of this Agreement, in addition to a new award of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) based upon SUBRECIPIENT’s February 3, 2022 application;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Termination of Prior Agreement. CITY and SUBRECIPIENT agree that the Prior Agreement shall be terminated upon full execution of this Agreement.

2. Grant. CITY hereby authorizes a grant to SUBRECIPIENT in the amount of four hundred thousand, five hundred dollars ($400,500), representing the remaining two hundred thousand five hundred dollars ($200,500) from the Prior Agreement and a new award of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). The grant shall be payable on a reimbursement basis after execution of this Agreement.

2. Services. SUBRECIPIENT shall perform the services within the limitations of this Agreement as described in its January 7, 2021 Application for Community Development Block Grant Funding Request for 2021/2022 COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance, attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A” and incorporated by this reference, and its February 3, 2022 3 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] Application for Community Development Block Grant Funding Request for 2022/2023 COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance, attached hereto as EXHIBIT “B” and incorporated by this reference. These services shall be performed as modified in EXHIBIT “A-1” and EXHIBIT “B1,” respectively, and in a manner satisfactory to CITY’s Economic Development Director.

3. Term. This Agreement shall be for a period commencing on July 1, 2023, and ending on June 30, 2024.

4. Terms of Agreement Prevail. SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with all the terms and conditions of EXHIBIT “A,” EXHIBIT “A-1,” “EXHIBIT “B,” EXHIBIT “B-1” and this Agreement. In the event of any discrepancy between the terms of this Agreement and those of EXHIBIT “A” or EXHIBIT “B,” the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. In the event of any discrepancy between the terms of EXHIBIT “A” and of EXHIBIT “A-1,” the terms of EXHIBIT “A-1” shall prevail. In the event of any discrepancy between the terms of EXHIBIT “B” and of EXHIBIT “B-1,” the terms of EXHIBIT “B-1” shall prevail.

5. Use of Funds. Use of funds allocated hereunder to SUBRECIPIENT shall be subject to the following express terms and conditions:

A. SUBRECIPIENT shall use all funds provided pursuant to this Agreement exclusively for performing the services detailed in EXHIBIT “A” and EXHIBIT “B,” as modified by EXHIBIT “A-1” and EXHIBIT “B-1,” respectively, and the express terms of this Agreement, based on the details provided in EXHIBIT “A-2” and EXHIBIT “B-2” (Budget), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

B. No funds paid by CITY hereunder shall be used directly or indirectly by SUBRECIPIENT for any lobbying or political activity whatsoever. 4 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] C. SUBRECIPIENT shall use all moneys received pursuant to this Agreement in conformity with the applicable provisions of 24 CFR Part 570, issued by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Administrative Regulations for Community Block Grants) (provided to SUBRECIPIENT electronically) and the applicable provisions of 2 CFR Part 200: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (provided to SUBRECIPIENT electronically), and with the Income Limits as set forth in EXHIBIT “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

6. Funds to be Expended During Current Fiscal Year. The grant shall be payable only from the Community Development Block Grant fund. The grant is made only for the current fiscal year. All funds received by SUBRECIPIENT under this Agreement shall be spent prior to the end of the current fiscal year. All funds not spent within the current fiscal shall be returned to CITY within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion of the current fiscal year.

No other fund of CITY, including without limitation its general fund, shall be liable for any payment under this Grant Agreement, nor is the taxing power of CITY pledged in any manner.

7. SUBRECIPIENT as Independent Entity. SUBRECIPIENT and the agents or employees of SUBRECIPIENT shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees or agents of CITY in performance of this Grant Agreement.

8. Termination.

A. Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice thereof being served on the other party. 5 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] B. In the event that CITY receives communication from the federal government that funds available to CITY under the Community Development Block Grant Program are to be reduced or withdrawn by the federal government, CITY may at its option terminate this Agreement immediately.

C. If, through any cause, SUBRECIPIENT shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if SUBRECIPIENT shall violate any of the covenants, requirements or stipulations of this Agreement, CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving at least five (5) calendar days written notice to SUBRECIPIENT of such termination, specifying the effective date of such termination. In such event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, photographs, and reports prepared by the SUBRECIPIENT under this Agreement shall, at the option of CITY, become property of CITY and SUBRECIPIENT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed hereunder to the date of termination. Notwithstanding the above, SUBRECIPIENT shall not be relieved of liability to CITY for damages sustained by CITY or others by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by SUBRECIPIENT. CITY may withhold any payment to SUBRECIPIENT for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due CITY from SUBRECIPIENT is determined.

9. No Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable by SUBRECIPIENT either in whole or part, without the express written authorization of CITY.

10. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

11. All Terms to be in Writing. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral 6 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either of the parties hereto.

12. Records.

A. SUBRECIPIENT shall maintain all necessary books and records, including property, personnel and financial records, in accordance with requirements prescribed by HUD or CITY with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. Except as otherwise authorized by HUD, such records shall be maintained for a period of four (4) years after receipt of the final payment under this Agreement, or five (5) years after the resolution of any dispute regarding this Agreement, whichever is later.

B. SUBRECIPIENT shall document all expenditures under this Agreement with properly executed payroll, time records, invoices, contracts, vouchers, or other official documentation evidencing in appropriate detail the nature and propriety of the charges. All checks, payroll, invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders, or other documents pertaining in whole or in part to this Agreement shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.

C. SUBRECIPIENT shall, at such time and in such forms as HUD or CITY may require, furnish HUD or CITY statements, records, reports, data and information pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. SUBRECIPIENT shall file Quarterly Reports no later than 30 calendar days after the end of each fiscal year quarter, (October 30, 2023, January 30, 2024, April 30, 2024 and July 30, 2024). SUBRECIPIENT shall provide Quarterly Reports to CITY in the form and manner directed by CITY, and as may be described in EXHIBIT “A-1.” D. Upon request for examination by CITY, SUBRECIPIENT shall, at any time during normal business hours, make available all of its records with respect to all matters 7 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] covered by this Agreement. SUBRECIPIENT shall permit CITY to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from these records.

13. Allowability of Expenditures. SUBRECIPIENT shall accurately document each transaction to permit the determination, through an audit if requested by CITY, of the accuracy of the records and the allowability of expenditures charged to grant funds. If the allowability of an expenditure cannot be determined because records or documentation are inadequate, the questionable expenditure shall be disallowed. In such case, SUBRECIPIENT shall reimburse CITY the amount of any disallowed expenditure. Determination by CITY of the allowability of any expenditure shall be final.

14. Program income. Unless otherwise allowed by amendment of this Agreement, SUBRECIPIENT shall remit all program income received to CITY. SUBRECIPIENT shall remit program income to CITY not less than quarterly. Any program income on hand when this Agreement expires, or received after this Agreement's expiration, shall be remitted to CITY immediately and in full. Program income is gross income received by SUBRECIPIENT directly generated from the use of CDBG funds. Program income includes, but is not limited to, the following:
• Proceeds from the disposition by sale or long-term lease of real property purchased or improved with CDBG funds;
• Proceeds from the disposition of equipment purchased with CDBG funds; • Gross income from the use or rental of real or personal property acquired by SUBRECIPIENT with CDBG funds, less costs incidental to generation of the income;
8 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] • Gross income from the use or rental of real property, owned by SUBRECIPIENT, that was constructed or improved with CDBG funds, less costs incidental to generation of the income;
• Payments of principal and interest on loans made using CDBG funds; • Proceeds from the sale of loans made with CDBG funds; • Proceeds from sale of obligations secured by loans made with CDBG funds; • Interest earned on program income pending its remittance to CITY.

Program income does not include fundraising activities carried out by SUBRECIPIENT or proceeds from the disposition of real property acquired or improved with CDBG funds when the disposition occurs after the applicable time period specified in 20.D. below.

15. Conflict of Interest. No member, officer, or employee of SUBRECIPIENT or its designees or agents, who exercises any function or responsibility with respect to the program during his or her tenure, or for one (1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for activities performed in connection with the program assisted under this Agreement. SUBRECIPIENT shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all subcontracts a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purposes of this Section.

16. Compliance with Governmental Regulations. SUBRECIPIENT shall, at its sole cost and expense, comply with all applicable municipal, county, state and federal requirements now in force, or which may hereafter be in force pertaining to any and all activities contemplated under this Agreement.
9 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with any applicable provisions of 24 CFR 570, which is provided electronically with this Agreement and is available for review in the CITY’s Housing Division Office. SUBRECIPIENT may access and obtain the most current version of the Code of Federal Regulations from the US Government Printing Office at www.ecfr.gov and www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.

17. Fair Employment. SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the provision of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §12900, et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (2 CCR §10000, et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (§§11135-11139.5) and the regulations or standards adopted by the State of California to implement such article.

SUBRECIPIENT shall give advice of its obligation under this Agreement to labor organizations or contractors with which it has collective bargaining or other agreements.

SUBRECIPIENT shall include nondiscrimination compliance provisions similar to those of this Agreement in all subcontracts to perform work under this Agreement.

18. Discrimination Prohibited. SUBRECIPIENT shall not employ discriminatory practices in the provision of services, employment of personnel, or in any other respect on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age or physical or mental disability, as more specifically set forth in Sections 570.602 and 570.601 of the aforesaid HUD Regulations. During the performance of this Agreement SUBRECIPIENT agrees as follows:

A. No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity made possible by or resulting from this Agreement.
10 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] B. SUBRECIPIENT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age or physical or mental disability. SUBRECIPIENT shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age or physical or mental disability. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. SUBRECIPIENT agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this nondiscrimination clause.

C. SUBRECIPIENT will in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of SUBRECIPIENT, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age or physical or mental disability.

19. Uniform Administrative Requirements. This Agreement is subject to the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, a copy of which is being provided electronically with this contract and is available for review in CITY’s Housing Division Office. SUBRECIPIENT may access and obtain the most current version of the Code of Federal Regulations from the US Government Printing Office at www.ecfr.gov and www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.

20. Property Ownership and Procurement.

A. In the event this Agreement is not fully performed to the satisfaction of CITY, any and all non-expendable furnishings, equipment or other personal property purchased 11 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] pursuant to this Agreement and having a useful life or more than one (1) year and a purchase price of three hundred dollars ($300) or more and not consumed in the performance of this Agreement shall become the property of CITY. Such property shall be delivered to CITY upon written notification by CITY to SUBRECIPIENT.

B. The procurement of goods or services with CDBG funds is subject to the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, including: §200.318 General procurement standards; §200.319 Competition; §200.320 Methods of procurement to be followed; §200.321 Contracting with small and minority businesses, women’s business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms; §200.323 Contract cost and price; §200.325 Bonding requirement; and §200.326 Contract provisions. SUBRECIPIENT shall consult with and receive the approval of CITY prior to procuring goods or services to be purchased with CDBG funds.

C. Property acquired in whole or in part with funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be managed in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR Part 200.

D. Upon termination of this Agreement, SUBRECIPIENT shall transfer to CITY any CDBG funds on hand at the time of termination and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. If SUBRECIPIENT ceases to use any asset acquired with CDBG funds for the purpose described in this Agreement, SUBRECIPIENT shall either pay to CITY the fair market value of the asset or transfer control of the asset to CITY.

E. Any real property under SUBRECIPIENT's control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds (including CDBG funds provided to SUBRECIPIENT in the form of a loan) in excess of $25,000 shall continue to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 until five (5) years after expiration of this Agreement, or five (5) years after final payment is issued under this Agreement, whichever is later. CITY may 12 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] establish a longer period of time, as determined to be appropriate. In the event that the use of the acquired or improved real property does not meet one of the national objectives, SUBRECIPIENT shall pay to CITY an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for the acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. No payment will be required after the period of time specified herein.

21. Environmental impact mitigation measures. The use of CDBG funds is subject to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) as implemented by HUD at 24 CFR 58.

Should CITY determine as the result of its review as the Responsible Entity that measures are required to mitigate the environmental impact of actions assisted in whole or in part under this Agreement, CITY shall inform SUBRECIPIENT of such mitigation measures and SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with said measures as a condition of receiving funds. Failure to comply shall be cause for termination of this Agreement and recapture of all funds provided under this Agreement.

22. Federal labor standards and prevailing wages. Construction work assisted in whole or in part with CDBG funds is subject to applicable federal labor standards and the payment of prevailing wages including Davis-Bacon and Related Acts: Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276 a to a.7) as supplemented by Department of Labor Regulations (29 CFR Part 5), Copeland "Anti-Kick Back Act" (18 U.S. C. 876) as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3), and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.). SUBRECIPIENT shall consult with and receive the approval of CITY prior to procuring contracts for construction or employing persons in construction to be funded with CDBG. 13 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022]

23. Indemnification. To the fullest extent allowed by law, SUBRECIPIENT shall defend, indemnify, and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person (including but not limited to workers and the public), or damage to property, resulting from or arising out of SUBRECIPIENT’s willful misconduct or negligent act or omission while engaged in the performance of obligations or exercise of rights created by this Agreement, except those matters arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. The parties intend that this provision shall be broadly construed.

SUBRECIPIENT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law. The defense and indemnity obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement.

24. Insurance. SUBRECIPIENT agrees to continuously maintain, in full force and effect, the following minimum policies of insurance during the term of this Agreement.

COVERAGE LIMITS OF LIABILITY
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate
Personal Injury:
$1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
A. Form. SUBRECIPIENT shall submit a certificate evidencing such coverage for the period covered by this Agreement in a form satisfactory to Risk Management and the City Attorney, prior to undertaking any work hereunder. Any insurance written on a 14 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] claims made basis is subject to the approval of Risk Management and the City Attorney.

B. Additional Insureds. SUBRECIPIENT shall also provide a separate endorsement form or section of the policy showing CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insureds. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of SUBRECIPIENT. The additional insured coverage under the SUBRECIPIENT policy shall be primary and noncontributory, and shall not seek contribution from CITY’s insurance or selfinsurance. In addition, the additional insured coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) CG 20 01 Endorsement. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and limits shall be available to the additional insureds. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the full coverage and maximum limits of any insurance proceeds available to the named insureds, whichever is greater.

C. Cancellation/Modification. SUBRECIPIENT shall provide ten (10) calendar days written notice to CITY prior to cancellation or modification of any insurance required by this Agreement.

D. Umbrella/Excess Insurance. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and excess insurance. Any excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY (if agreed to in a written contract) before CITY’s own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

E. Subcontractors. SUBRECIPIENT agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the 15 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work.

Furthermore, SUBRECIPIENT shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to SUBRECIPIENT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as SUBRECIPIENT is bound to CITY under this Agreement. Additionally, SUBRECIPIENT shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, regardless of tier. A copy of CITY’s indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request.

F. Self-Insured Retentions. All self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability.

Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or CITY. CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.

G. Waiver of Subrogation. SUBRECIPIENT hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of SUBRECIPIENT may acquire from SUBRECIPIENT by virtue of the payment of any loss under a Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability or Automobile Liability policy. All Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability policies shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for all worked performed by SUBRECIPIENT, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

H. Liability/Remedies. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve SUBRECIPIENT of liability in excess of such coverage, 16 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] nor shall it preclude CITY from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provisions of this Agreement or law.

25. Notice. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be delivered or sent by first class mail, United States postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY SUBRECIPIENT
Trisha Isom Jennifer Price
Housing Manager Chief Executive Officer
316 Vernon Street, # 150 P.O. Box 5216
Roseville, CA 95678 Auburn, CA 95604
(916) 774-5446 (530) 878-5088
Either party may amend its address for notice by giving notice to the other party.

26. No Waiver of Breach. No waiver of any breach of this Agreement by CITY shall be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach.

27. Attorney’s Fees; Venue; Governing Law. If either party commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement or the performance hereof, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including but not limited to, court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorney’s fees. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Placer County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

28. Severability. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the remaining provisions or the validity and enforceability of the Agreement as a whole.

29. Integrated Agreement. This is an integrated agreement and contains all of the terms, considerations, understanding and promises of the parties. It shall be read as a whole.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Resolution No. ___ , adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the_ day of _____ , 2022, and SUBRECIPIENT has caused this Agreement to be executed.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a
municipal corporation
BY: --------------

DOM IN IC K CASEY
City Manager
ATTEST:

BY: ---------------

CARMEN AVALOS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ---------------

MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: ---------------

MELISSA ANGUIANO
Economic Development Director
17 AMI HOUSING, a California
non-profit corporation
and
[C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] 18 [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT LIST:

EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “A-1”
EXHIBIT “A-2”
EXHIBIT “B”
EXHIBIT “B-1”
EXHIBIT “B-2”
EXHIBIT “C”
EXHIBIT “D”
EXHIBIT “D-1”
2021/22 CDBG Funding Application
2021/22 Scope of Services
2021/22 Budget
2022/23 CDBG Funding Application
2022/23 Scope of Services
2022/23 Budget
Income Limits for CDBG Program
Federal Register Notice
Duplication of Benefits Spreadsheet
[C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “A”
Powered by ZoomGrants™
Email This Preview Save as PDF Print Close Window A▲▼
City of Roseville
Housing Division
CARES Act CDBG-CV3
Deadline: 1/8/2021
AMI Housing, Inc.

AMI Housing - COVID Assistance
Jump to: Pre-Application Questionnaire Funding Application Program/Project Budget Documents USD$ 300,000.00 Requested
Submitted: 1/7/2021 2:46:01 PM (Pacific)
Project Contact
Jennifer Price
[email protected]
Tel: 530-878-5088
Additional Contacts
none entered
AMI Housing, Inc.

P.O. Box 5216
Auburn, CA 95604
CEO
Jennifer Price
[email protected]
Telephone530-878-5088
Fax 916-848-3642
Web www.amihousing.org
Pre-Application Questionnaire top
Primary Applicant

1. Which type of applicant entity are you?
Select one.

2. Have you received any grant funding from the City of Roseville before?

3. Which grant types has your agency received before?
Check all that apply. From any source or agency.
✔ Non-profit (501c3/c4)
gfedc Public agency
gfedc Multi-agency Collaborative – Non-profit
gfedc Multi-agency Collaborative – Non-profit/Public Agency gfedc Other:
✔ Yes
gfedc No
✔ CDBG
✔ REACH/Citizen’s Benefit Fund
✔ Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing
✔ Other homeless funds (McKinney-Vento or other)
gfedc Other:
gfedc No prior funding
Application Summary Description

4. Briefly describe the proposed program or project.

AMIH will provide homeless prevention funds to Roseville residents for up to 100 days and car expense payments for individuals and families at risk of homelessness due to the COVID pandemic.

Co-Applicant/Collaborating Agency

5. If this is a collaborative application, how many agencies are involved? Tick "0" if this is *not* a collaborative application.

6. List the collaborating agencies (Enter "none" if none.) Enter agency name and DUNS# if assigned
none

7. Indicate the type of activity. You may select only one.

You may submit more than one application. You may submit applications for more than one activity type. If you are not sure which category to select, please consult City staff. You will need to know this for your main application. ✔ 0
gfedc 1
gfedc 2
gfedc 3
gfedc 4
gfedc 5
gfedc 6
gfedc more than 6
✔ Rent and back rent
gfedc Car expense payments
gfedc Project Roomkey
gfedc Educational assistance for homeless children
Funding Application top

1. Indicate the type of activity. You may select only one.

You may submit more than one application. You may submit applications for more than one activity type. If you are not sure which category to select, please consult City staff. Your selection will determine the questions you are required to complete.

2. Describe the program or project. What direct COVID needs will be addressed with this program? What is the service you will provide or the project you will complete? How will it happen and when? What will be the result? Who will benefit and how? What are the goals and objectives? COVID has had an incredible impact on the low income and moderate-income residents of Roseville. This has led to many folks who were already precariously housed being placed at an incredibly high risk of becoming homeless and many are not aware of the guidelines in place to prevent evictions for an inability to pay rent prior to January 31st, 2020. Our agency is uniquely situated to provide housing assistance to the community during this incredibly difficult time. We have spent years developing a team of housing counselors who provide rapid rehousing and homeless prevention support to our community as well as intensive landlord engagement. We have a variety of funding sources for community housing supports, but they are not enough funds for the increase in the anticipated number of residents who will need these supports in the upcoming year.

Through this proposal we are asking for funds for homeless prevention and car expense payments. At this time, we are getting an increasing number of requests for homeless prevention, but some of that is because people are not aware of the current Some answers will not be presented because they are not part of the selected group of questions based on the answer to #1.
✔ Rent and back rent
gfedc Car expense payments
gfedc Project Roomkey
gfedc Educational assistance for homeless children
eviction moratorium. Landlords are also not aware and need to be educated on the proper process for serving evictions for residents who cannot pay rent.

We anticipate that when people with COVID related reasons (such as job loss, infection, child care) are unable to pay their rent we will need to step in to make sure they remain housed or we will see an incredible rise in homelessness and evictions.

With all of these factors to consider, we anticipate that we will assist an estimated two hundred individuals or families over the next year (prior to June 30, 2022) specifically due to COVID. It will take time for the economy to recover after this pandemic, for people to get their kids back in school full time, for jobs to be available again as businesses fully reopen, and for the lowest income earners to have the ability to pay their rent as they once did. The outcomes we hope to achieve are that we don’t see a surge in homelessness, that people remain housed, and that people are able to get back on their feet after this incredibly difficult year.

3. Location(s) where services will be provided or project will be completed.

Include administrative offices if services will also be provided there or from there. Provide street address, city, and ZIP code. 11768 Atwood Drive, Suite 6 Auburn CA.

Remotely through HIPPA compliant Zoom, Telephone, and email.

Services are also provided at the tenants homes when needed and at property management locations.

4. What is the program's/project's current status?
Is it still being planned? Is it underway? Is it ready to receive funding? Is the program or project seasonal? What will need to be done before the program or project can start?
This AMIH program is underway for the entire Placer County region. Funds requested in this application will be specifically for Roseville residents. The project is ready to receive funding and will begin on the first day funded.

5. When will the program or project begin?
If underway as of application, enter “underway.”
underway

6. When will the program or project be completed?
Services must be completed no later than June 30 of the award fiscal year.

Project will be completed by June 30, 2022

7. What are the specific costs to be funded with this request? Identify the types of costs and amounts. Salary, and for whom? Materials, what type and quantity? Equipment, specifications? How will funding these costs meet the goals and objectives described in this request? Homeless prevention, direct salaries for program staff (housing counselors), car expense payments, and administration of program.

8. If this is a collaborative application, describe the collaboration being utilized for the proposed program or project.

Explain how the collaboration improves the provision of services or the competition of the proposed program or project. Attach co-applicant commitment letters to your application to document the collaboration.

N/A

9. Describe your other collaboration with other agencies, including non-profit and public agencies.

Do you participate in the local Continuum of Care (CoC) and/or coordinated entry efforts? Do you provide/accept referrals? Do you participate in other coordinating bodies or work with service/business/government organizations? AMIH has a long history of collaboration with other agencies including: Placer County ASOC, Gathering Inn, Welcome Center, Cirby Clubhouse, PIRS, Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras (HRCS), PCN, Voc Rehab, Campaign for Community Wellness (CCW), Project Go, Turning Point, Placer County Office of Education, and the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, & Auburn.

AMIH is a member of the Roseville and Auburn Chambers of Commerce and works closely with the Placer County Community Foundation.

AMIH is on the board of the HRCS (CoC) and on the leadership team for the CCW (Steering committee for local MHSA funds).

AMIH is actively participating in coordinated entry for Placer County from the planning process to implementation. We receive referrals through coordinated entry and through our housing coordinator who outreaches to the local homeless shelters. We use the "By Name List" for housing placements and referrals as well. In addition our Housing Coordinator is collaborating closely with the Roseville police department.

AMIH began a collaboration called ASSK with Stand Up Placer, Kids First, and St Vincent de Paul. We work in tandem to provide rapid rehousing, homeless prevention, and utility assistance in Roseville and Placer County.

10. Describe your use of volunteers.

How do volunteers contribute to your efforts overall and to this program or project specifically? AMIH's board is a dedicated group of volunteers who meet on a regular basis for community outreach, fundraisers, grants, projects, and overall consumer happiness.

AMIH partners with California State University, Sacramento & Brandman University to provide bachelor and master degree internships in the social work and mental health fields. Interns visit with our residents at their homes to provide education on basic life skills such as cooking, budgeting, personal hygiene, grocery shopping, etc. In addition they work with our case managers to create and implement individual service plans.

Last year volunteers helped by gathering and donating household items for our many programs. In addition, volunteers helped create "Welcome Home" bags for residents which included: hygiene items, a new pillow, sheets, blanket, and other essential items. In collaboration with Toys for Tots a Holiday Party with Santa himself is held in December for the many families enrolled in our program.

11. Describe your history and experience providing services to the community.

Be sure to include the number of years in operation and summary of major accomplishments.

In 1992, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill-Placer County entered into a contract with Placer County Mental Health Department to begin a housing program for its consumers. Housing was provided for Adult System of Care consumers who needed training in basic living skills, before progressing to independent living. In 1995, the collaborative expanded and opened houses in Rocklin, Roseville, and Auburn. Early in 2003, it was decided to place the operation of the housing program under a new organization: Advocates for Mentally Ill Housing, Inc. (AMIH). In August 2003, AMIH received its 501c3 designation.

Since 2003, collaboration with other community based organizations has allowed AMIH to open additional homes in Placer County. AMIH now provides transitional, permanent, rapid rehousing, emergency, peer supported, transitional age youth, and subsidized independent housing. AMIH still contracts with Placer County, but has expanded our program to include families and individuals who are homeless in Placer County. AMIH owns nine homes, a 6 unit apartment complex, a 19 unit studio apartment complex, subsidizes 75 plus independent apartments, and leases five other homes allowing us to serve over 200 individuals every night. In addition, AMIH employs over 20 adults with mental illness through our peer advocacy programs.

12. Describe your experience with this type of program or project.

If this is a new program or project, your experience with similar programs and projects. If this addresses homelessness, what is your knowledge of issues and needs specific to homeless persons, including families and those at risk of homelessness? AMI Housing has provided housing and supportive services in Placer County to low income homeless or at risk of homeless individuals and families for over twenty years. AMIH subsidizes people throughout the community in apartments and houses.

We work with over 150 landlords in the community who know and trust us to help our clients stay housed and to work through any landlord/tenant issues that may arise. Prior to COVID we have supported over 500 individuals per year with rapid rehousing and homeless prevention and we house approximately 300 individuals per year in our own permanent and transitional housing programs in Placer County.

13. Identify staff who will implement and manage the program or project.

Include their experience administering the activity or similar type of activities. If this is a collaborative effort, note the agency for each staff person. Attach resumes and job descriptions or duty statements.

The staff overseeing the program or project will be the AMIH Board, AMIH CEO, AMIH COO, AMIH staff, AMIH-ASOC Collaborative Housing Manager (CHM), peer counselors, Data Analyst, & our Case Manager (CM). The majority of our board is comprised of people with family members who have a mental illness. The board has compassion & life experience working with adults with a mental illness & has been operating this housing program since its inception. Our COO has a Masters Degree in Social Work Public Administration and will provide oversight of this program. We have five housing coordinators or case managers on staff, with varying education levels, but many years of experience in social work and property management. In addition, we employ five peer counselors who will use their own life experience to assist individuals in this program with accessing community services. For over thirteen years, the AMIH CEO has administered AMIH programs and all grants associated with it.

14. Describe your service area. This funding is intended to benefit City of Roseville residents.

If you serve an area less than the entire city, explain. If you serve an area larger than the city, how will you identify costs to serve Roseville residents? How will you assure Roseville residents are referred by outside agencies? AMIH provides housing to Placer & Nevada County residents. Roseville residency is verified prior to acceptance. The recipients of any CDBG funding awarded will be Roseville residents. AMIH will take referrals from any agency and coordinated entry to identify eligible Roseville residents.

AMIH will use HMIS for program demographics. Clients will be given intake, update, and exit forms. This allows us to easily identify Roseville residents.

15. List all City of Roseville funding received within the last three (3) years including funding amount and status.

List as follows: PROGRAM/PROJECT NAME, SOURCE/TYPE, AWARD AMOUNT, AWARD DATE, EXPENDED AMOUNT, STATUS (planned, underway, complete, or canceled)
2020/2021: Housing Support Services. Source: City of Roseville. $15,000. Status: Underway. 2020: Rapid Rehousing & Homeless Prevention - $250,000 for the ASSK program. Source: City of Roseville. Status:

Complete.
2019/2020: Housing Support Services. Source: City of Roseville. $15,000. Status: Complete. 2019/2020: Main Street Solar. Source: City of Roseville. $93,000. Status: Underway. 2019: Rapid Rehousing & Homeless Prevention - $200,000 for the ASSK program. Source: City of Roseville. Status:

Complete.
2018/2019: Housing Support Services. Source: City of Roseville. $15,000. Status: Complete. 2018: Rapid Rehousing & Homeless Prevention - $187,500 for the ASSK program. Source: City of Roseville. Status:

Complete.
2017/2018: Housing Support Services. Source: City of Roseville. $13,355. Status: Complete. 2017: Rapid Rehousing & Homeless Prevention - $143,186 for the ASSK program. Source: City of Roseville. Status:

Complete.

16. Should the City award less than you have requested, how will this impact the program or project? Will you accept a lesser amount? Will goals be reduced? Will the program or project not be feasible? We will adjust the funding so that we can serve as many individuals as possible. We will attempt to find additional funding from other community resources to continue the program for the entire year.

17. Explain how this program or project offers something different from what other agencies may offer, or are currently offering.

Do you coordinate with other agencies to leverage and avoid duplication? What makes you different? Are services targeted to a unique population? Are you uniquely positioned to serve a community because of location, relationships, or staff skills? This program is in direct response to the COVID 19 pandemic. It is not an ongoing program, but a program that will remain in place until all CARES act funds have been expended or June 30, 2022.

18. These funds must be used to benefit low and moderate income persons. You must also collect and report demographic information on persons served. Describe your methods for documenting eligibility for services and collecting demographics.

If you are targeting a low-income area, please describe the area and how you determined it is low-income. If you are serving a population that is presumed to be low-income, please describe. Describe the tools you use to report on persons served.

AMIH utilizes the Homeless Management Information System for all incoming clients. The intake paperwork captures the following data: demographics, income, income source, homeless status, location, and current housing placement or lack thereof. The clients who are admitted into this program must meet the following guidelines:

1. Decrease or loss of income due to COVID

2. At risk of homelessness

3. A resident of the City of Roseville.

Our agency will only serve individuals who meet the above criteria.

19. A duplication of benefits (DOB) occurs when a person, household, business, government, or other entity receives financial assistance from multiple sources for the same purpose, and the total assistance received for that purpose is more than the total need for assistance. How will you ensure no duplication of benefits for the participants of your program?
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

20. In follow up to the previous question, how will you ensure no duplication of benefits for your agency? Please complete the Duplication of Benefits Chart.

The Duplication of Benefits Chart can be found under the 'Documents' tab.

Each person who is assisted with funds for homeless prevention is tracked with our financial accounting tools and through HMIS. Benefits will not be duplicated and reports for outcomes will be available by program.

21. What is your total cost to serve each unduplicated person? Amount funded by this grant? Ignore the automatic total under the table you will see in preview and print.

22. This request will …
Select one

23. Provide any additional information in the space below that you would like to be considered for this proposal.

If none, enter “none.”
none

24. Have you completed the budget tab?

25. Have you uploaded all required documents?
1500 Total cost/person ($)
1500 Cost/person funded by this grant ($)
3,000.00 TOTAL
✔ Result in an increase in the current level of service provided, or increase the capacity of a facility. gfedc Improve access to an existing service, or improve access to an existing facility. gfedc Prevent a reduction in the current level of service provided, or reduction in the current capacity of a facility. gfedc Correct a currently sub-standard level of service, or correct a sub-standard condition in a facility. ✔ Yes
✔ Yes
Program/Project Budget top
Revenue/Sources Prior (Actual) Current (Budgeted) Proposed City of Roseville (this request) USD$ 300,000.00
Total USD$ 0.00 USD$ 0.00 USD$ 300,000.00
Expenses/Uses Prior (Actual) Current (Budgeted) Proposed Direct Salaries with Fringe Benefits USD$ 30,000.00
Homeless Prevention USD$ 195,000.00
Car Expense Payments USD$ 45,000.00
Adminsitration USD$ 30,000.00
Rent
Total USD$ 0.00 USD$ 0.00 USD$ 300,000.00
Current less Prior
Change from Prior (Actual) to Current (Budgeted)
USD$ 0.00
Proposed less Current
Change from Current (Budgeted) to Proposed
USD$ 300,000.00
Documents top
Documents Requested * Required? Attached Documents *
Agency Adopted Budget for current year ✔ Agency Budget
Program/Project Proposed Budget
download template
✔ Program Budget
Current Organizational Chart ✔ Org Chart
Authorized Signatory Page
download template
✔ Authorized Signatory
Collaborator Commitment Letter(s)
Award Letter(s)
Application ID: 329998
Become a fan of ZoomGrants™ on Facebook
Problems? Contact us at [email protected]
©2002-2021 GrantAnalyst.com. All rights reserved.
"ZoomGrants" and the ZoomGrants logo are trademarks of GrantAnalyst.com, LLC.

Logout | Browser
* ZoomGrants™ is not responsible for the content of uploaded documents.

Other documents
Duplication of Benefits Chart
download template
✔ Duplication of Benefits
[C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “A-1”

[C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “A-2”

[C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “B”
Powered by ZoomGrants™
Email This Preview Save as PDF Print Close Window A▲▼
City of Roseville
Housing Division
2022/23 CARES Act CDBG-CV
Deadline: 2/4/2022
AMI Housing, Inc.

AMI Housing - COVID Assistance
Jump to: Pre-Application Questionnaire Funding Application Program/Project Budget Documents $ 250,000.00 Requested
Submitted: 2/3/2022 1:36:11 PM (Pacific)
Project Contact
Jennifer Price
[email protected]
Tel: 530-878-5088
Additional Contacts
none entered
AMI Housing, Inc.

P.O. Box 5216
Auburn, CA 95604
CEO
Jennifer Price
[email protected]
Telephone530-878-5088
Fax 916-848-3642
Web www.amihousing.org
Pre-Application Questionnaire top
Primary Applicant

1. Which type of applicant entity are you?
Select one.

2. Have you received any grant funding from the City of Roseville before?

4. Briefly describe the proposed program or project.

AMIH will provide rental assistance, emergency response, and rapid rehousing to Roseville residents at risk of homelessness due to the COVID pandemic.

AMIH will provide permanent supportive housing at Project Roomkey in Roseville.

Co-Applicant/Collaborating Agency

5. If this is a collaborative application, how many agencies are involved? Tick "0" if this is *not* a collaborative application.

6. List the collaborating agencies (Enter "none" if none.) Enter agency name and DUNS# if assigned
none

7. Indicate the type of activity. You may select only one.

1. Indicate the type of activity.

You may submit more than one application. You may submit applications for more than one activity type. If you are not sure which category to select, please consult City staff.

Rent and Back Rent / Project Roomkey

2. Describe the program or project. What direct COVID needs will be addressed with this program? What is the service you will provide or the project you will complete? How will it happen and when? What will be the result? Who will benefit and how? What are the goals and objectives? COVID has had an incredible impact on the low income and moderate-income residents of Roseville. This has led to many folks who were already precariously housed being placed at an incredibly high risk of becoming homeless. Our agency is uniquely situated to provide housing assistance to the community during this incredibly difficult time. We have spent years developing a team of housing counselors who provide rapid rehousing and homeless prevention support to our community as well as intensive landlord engagement. We have a variety of funding sources for community housing supports, but they are not enough funds for the increase in the anticipated number of residents who will need these supports in the upcoming year while some of the current COVID response programs begin to wind down.

Through this proposal we are asking for funds for COVID rental assistance. We anticipate that when the state/county rental assistance programs come to an end people with COVID related reasons (such as job loss, infection, child care) who are unable to pay their rent will need us to step in to make sure they remain housed or we will see an incredible rise in homelessness and evictions.

Some answers will not be presented because they are not part of the selected group of questions based on the answer to #1.

Project Roomkey will help create permanent housing for low income individuals or families who have been impacted by COVID and are the most vulnerable in our community. Roomkey will provide 86 studio units and immediately permanently house many people experiencing homelessness.

3. Location(s) where services will be provided or project will be completed.

Include administrative offices if services will also be provided there or from there. Provide street address, city, and ZIP code. 3123 Professional Drive Ste 210, Auburn CA 95603. (Admin Office) Remotely through HIPPA compliant Zoom, Telephone, and email.

Services will also be provided at various apartment complexes and community partners offices. Our Housing Coordinators will meet with clients as needed in the most convenient locations for each participant.

The proposed Homekey site is located at 110 N. Sunrise Ave, Roseville CA.

4. What is the program's/project's current status?
Is it still being planned? Is it underway? Is it ready to receive funding? Is the program or project seasonal? What will need to be done before the program or project can start?
This AMIH COVID rental assistance program is underway for the entire Placer County region. Funds requested in this application will be specifically for Roseville residents. The project is ready to receive funding and will begin on the first day funded.

The Homekey collaborative project application was submitted in December 2021 to the State and all parties are expecting an award notification any day now. The project is ready to receive funding and will begin development in the beginning of March if awarded.

5. When will the program or project begin?
If underway as of application, enter “underway.”
underway

6. When will the program or project be completed?
Services must be completed no later than June 30 of the award fiscal year.

Project will be completed by June 30, 2022

7. What are the specific costs to be funded with this request? Identify the types of costs and amounts. Salary, and for whom? Materials, what type and quantity? Equipment, specifications? How will funding these costs meet the goals and objectives described in this request? Rental assistance, deposits, direct salaries for program staff (housing counselors), emergency payments, and administration of program. ($125,000)
Homekey request: $125,000 for operations costs. Homekey operations budget is included in the additional documents section.

8. If this is a collaborative application, describe the collaboration being utilized for the proposed program or project.

9. Describe your other collaboration with other agencies, including non-profit and public agencies.

AMIH is a member of the Roseville and Auburn Chambers of Commerce and works closely with the Placer County Community Foundation.

AMIH is on the board of the HRCS (CoC) and on the leadership team for the CCW (Steering committee for local MHSA funds).

10. Describe your use of volunteers.

AMIH partners with California State University, Sacramento & UMass Global to provide bachelor and master degree internships in the social work and mental health fields. Interns visit with our residents at their homes to provide education on basic life skills such as cooking, budgeting, personal hygiene, grocery shopping, etc. In addition they work with our case managers to create and implement individual service plans.

11. Describe your history and experience providing services to the community.

Be sure to include the number of years in operation and summary of major accomplishments.

Since 2003, collaboration with other community based organizations has allowed AMIH to open additional homes in Placer County. AMIH now provides transitional, permanent, rapid rehousing, emergency, peer supported, transitional age youth, and subsidized independent housing. AMIH still contracts with Placer County, but has expanded our program to include families and individuals who are homeless in Placer County. AMIH owns nine homes, a 6 unit apartment complex, a 19 unit studio apartment complex, subsidizes 150 plus independent apartments, and leases five other homes allowing us to serve over 250 individuals every night. In addition, AMIH employs over 25 adults with mental illness through our peer advocacy programs.

12. Describe your experience with this type of program or project.

We work with over 250 landlords in the community who know and trust us to help our clients stay housed and to work through any landlord/tenant issues that may arise. Prior to COVID we have supported over 500 individuals per year with rapid rehousing and homeless prevention and we house approximately 300 individuals per year in our own permanent and transitional housing programs in Placer County.

13. Identify staff who will implement and manage the program or project.

AMIH Rental Assistance staff: Please see Housing Coordinators org chart attached under the documents tab.

Homekey will use existing executive and administrative staff, in addition to hiring a large amount of new staff. The org chart (last page) has the staffing plan for Homekey.

The staff overseeing the programs or projects will be the AMIH Board and AMIH Leadership teams in collaboration with our City and County partners. The majority of our board is comprised of people with family members who have a mental illness.

The board has compassion & life experience working with adults with a mental illness & has been operating this housing program since its inception. Our COO has a Masters Degree in Social Work Public Administration and will provide oversight of this programs. We have many housing coordinators or case managers on staff, with varying education levels, but many years of experience in social work and property management. In addition, we employ peer counselors who will use their own life experience to assist individuals in this program with accessing community services. For over thirteen years, the AMIH CEO has administered AMIH programs and all grants associated with it.

14. Describe your service area. This funding is intended to benefit City of Roseville residents.

AMIH will use HMIS for program demographics. Clients will be given intake, update, and exit forms. This allows us to easily identify Roseville residents.

15. List all City of Roseville funding received within the last three (3) years including funding amount and status.

List as follows: PROGRAM/PROJECT NAME, SOURCE/TYPE, AWARD AMOUNT, AWARD DATE, EXPENDED AMOUNT, STATUS (planned, underway, complete, or canceled)
2021/2022: Rental Assistance - $250,000 (CDBG CV). Source: City of Roseville. Status: Underway. 2021/2022: Rapid Rehousing & Homeless Prevention - $250,000 for the ASK program. Source: City of Roseville. Status:

Underway.
2021/2022: Temporary rent & utility assistance with supportive services. Source: City of Roseville. $15,000. Status:

Underway.
2020/2021: Temporary rent & utility assistance with supportive services. Source: City of Roseville. $15,000. Status: Complete. 2020: Rapid Rehousing & Homeless Prevention - $250,000 for the ASK program. Source: City of Roseville. Status: Complete. 2019/2020: Housing Support Services. Source: City of Roseville. $15,000. Status: Complete. 2019/2020: Main Street Solar. Source: City of Roseville. $93,000. Status: Underway. 2019: Rapid Rehousing & Homeless Prevention - $200,000 for the ASSK program. Source: City of Roseville. Status:

Complete.

Project Roomkey: additional funding is needed for this program and if the award is less than requested it could impact the viability of the entire project. We will continue to search for additional funding for this project.

17. Explain how this program or project offers something different from what other agencies may offer, or are currently offering.

Do you coordinate with other agencies to leverage and avoid duplication? What makes you different? Are services targeted to a unique population? Are you uniquely positioned to serve a community because of location, relationships, or staff skills? This program is in direct response to the COVID 19 pandemic. The rental assistance portion as it relates to COVID is not an ongoing program, but a program that will remain in place until all CARES act funds have been expended or June 30, 2023.

Project Homekey is a new program that will provide additional permanent supportive housing beds for the Roseville community. This is an expansion of our current permanent housing programs. Lack of affordable low income housing has been identified as a barrier for the homeless population and has lead to chronic homelessness.

1. Decrease or loss of income due to COVID

2. At risk of homelessness

3. A resident of the City of Roseville.

Our agency will only serve individuals who meet the above criteria or meet the qualifications for Project Roomkey.

20. In follow up to the previous question, how will you ensure no duplication of benefits for your agency? Please complete the Duplication of Benefits Chart.

The Duplication of Benefits Chart can be found under the 'Documents' tab.

21. What is your total cost to serve each unduplicated person? Amount funded by this grant? Ignore the automatic total under the table you will see in preview and print.

22. This request will …
Select one

23. Provide any additional information in the space below that you would like to be considered for this proposal.

If none, enter “none.”
none

24. Have you completed the budget tab?

25. Have you uploaded all required documents?
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-
1500 Total cost/person ($)
1500 Cost/person funded by this grant ($)
3,000.00 TOTAL
✔ Result in an increase in the current level of service provided, or increase the capacity of a facility. gfedc Improve access to an existing service, or improve access to an existing facility. gfedc Prevent a reduction in the current level of service provided, or reduction in the current capacity of a facility. gfedc Correct a currently sub-standard level of service, or correct a sub-standard condition in a facility. ✔ Yes
Program/Project Budget top
Revenue/Sources Prior (Actual) Current (Budgeted) Proposed City of Roseville (this request) $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 ESG CV, CDBG 2020/2021 $ 325,000.00
Homekey 2.0 $ 1,325,000.00
Total $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 1,900,000.00
Expenses/Uses Prior (Actual) Current (Budgeted) Proposed Direct Salaries with Fringe Benefits $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 120,000.00 Rental Assistance $ 170,000.00 $ 170,000.00 $ 225,000.00 Emergency Assistance $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 60,000.00
Administration $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 45,000.00
Homekey Operations $ 1,450,000.00
Total $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 1,900,000.00
Application ID: 382889
Become a fan of ZoomGrants™ on Facebook
Problems? Contact us at [email protected]
©2002-2022 GrantAnalyst.com. All rights reserved.
"ZoomGrants" and the ZoomGrants logo are trademarks of GrantAnalyst.com, LLC.

Logout | Browser
* ZoomGrants™ is not responsible for the content of uploaded documents.

Current less Prior
Change from Prior (Actual) to Current (Budgeted)
$ 0.00
Proposed less Current
Change from Current (Budgeted) to Proposed
$ 1,650,000.00
Program/Project Budget Narrative
The funds will be used to provide service coordination/housing coordination, 10% administration (indirect), and the rest will be used for direct services related to homeless prevention and housing retention.

The Homekey funds will be used for the operations of Project Roomkey.

Documents top
Documents Requested * Required? Attached Documents *
Agency Adopted Budget for current year ✔ Agency Budget
Program/Project Proposed Budget
download template
✔ Program Budget
Current Organizational Chart ✔ Org Chart
Authorized Signatory Page
download template
✔ Authorized Signatory
Collaborator Commitment Letter(s)
Award Letter(s)
Other documents Homekey Operations Budget
Duplication of Benefits Chart
download template
✔ Duplication of Benefits
Programs 2022/23 CARES Act CDBG-CV AMI Housing - COVID Assistance Housing Division
2022/23 CARES Act CDBG-CV
$ 250,000.00 Available
Deadline: 2/4/2022
AMI Housing, Inc.

AMI Housing - COVID Assistance
$ 250,000.00 Requested Next Submitted Application
Follow-up
1 Question 6. When will the program or project be completed? (Services must be completed no later than June 30 of the award fiscal year.)
Please confirm that the response "Project will be completed by June 30, 2022" should be June 30, 2023 - thank you! (Edit)
Project will be completed by June 30 2023.
2 The Duplication of Benefits Chart shows $200k but the award of CV funds this current FY is $250k. Please confirm that I can update the chart to show the $250k for the file - thanks! (Edit) You can update the chart.
3 Various question responses say "Roomkey" and others say "Homekey". Is requested funding for Homekey only? (Edit)
The funding is intended for Homekey if awarded, but we would like the option to use it for Roomkey if Homekey is not awarded and Placer County still needs funds as Roomkey winds down. If neither are awarded or needed, then we would use the funds 100% for the rental assistance program.
*Update - we will only use these funds for Homekey or for the rental assistance program. We will not use these funds for Roomkey.
4 Please specify what operations costs specifically are being requested for Project Homekey (Rehab? Direct services to the tenants? etc.) Or is it still unknown? (Edit) We left this vague as the award from Homekey has not been made yet. Our intention is to use these funds for the operations of Homekey, not for the rehab of Homekey. The funds would be for direct services to tenants. Once the award is made, we can provide a better budget for the operations of the project and exactly what operations are funded with the CDBG funds. It will most likely be staff salaries and we will use the Homekey operating subsidy for other costs. 5 It talks about Roomkey and then about Homekey. Is this the same project that is being converted to PSH? If these are two different projects, will CDBG funds serve one, or both? Roomkey would probably be transitional housing (public facility) and rental assistance would not be an eligible expense. Homekey PSH would be rental assistance (basic subsistence). (Edit)
Roomkey is considered emergency housing and then once the hotel is converted in 10 months from the date of award, the units will be PSH and will be considered Homekey.

This request is for Homekey operations (PSH) only. If funding is not awarded, we would like to use the funds 100% for our Powered by ZoomGrants™
City of Roseville
rental assistance program.
6 We would want to see the development budget and operational profoma provided for the Roomkey and/or Homekey grants to ensure that we are not duplicating other funding sources. What source would cover these costs? Did you anticipate applying for Roseville CDBG? (Edit) Under the documents tab, "other documents", we have included the operations budget that was part of the Homekey PSH application to the state. These funds would not be duplicating another funding source. When the application was submitted to the state, we anticipated applying to CDBG and other sources to make the budget complete. 7 Can you describe how this is an increase in services provided? (Edit) The additional 86 studios for PSH that Homekey will provide is a large increase in housing stock for the city of Roseville.

Right now, we have over 200 referrals for housing and we a re lucky if we can house up to ten per month because there is not enough housing stock.
8 If awarded, would AMI accept the full request towards the rental assistance program as opposed to $125k for Project Homekey and $125k for the rental assistance program? (Edit) Yes, if awarded AMIH will accept the full request towards the rental assistance program and will continue to look for funds elsewhere for Homekey operations.
9 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 10 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 11 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 12 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 13 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 14 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 15 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 16 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 17 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 18 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 19 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) 20 Add/Edit Question (for this applicant only, answer type will be paragraphs) [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “B-1”
1 EXHIBIT “A-1”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Agency Name: AMI Housing
Program Title: COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance
Amount of Request: $250,000 Round 1 + $125,000 Round 2
Amount of Award: $400,500 ($200,500 remaining funds from the original award in 2021, plus $200,000 new funding awarded in 2022)
Number/type of annually unduplicated
Persons/Households to Be Assisted:
275 individuals/families
Target date to complete: 06/30/2023
Location: 11768 Atwood Drive, Suite 6 Auburn, CA 95603
Eligible Activity: §570.201 (e) Public services
05Q Subsistence Payments
National Objective: §570.208 (a) (2) LMC Low/mod limited clientele benefit Description of Eligible Activities funded by Grant: COVID has had an incredible impact on the low income and moderate-income residents of Roseville. This has led to many folks who were already precariously housed being placed at an incredibly high risk of becoming homeless. AMI Housing is uniquely situated to provide housing assistance to the community during this incredibly difficult time. They have spent years developing a team of housing counselors who provide rapid rehousing and homeless prevention support to our community as well as intensive landlord engagement. AMI Housing has a variety of funding sources for community housing supports, but they are not enough funds for the increase in the anticipated number of residents who will need these supports in the upcoming year while some of the current COVID response programs begin to wind down.

Through this grant funding, AMI Housing will provide funds for COVID rental assistance. When people with COVID related reasons (such as job loss, infection, child care) are unable to pay their rent, AMI Housing will be able to step in to make sure they remain housed, otherwise there will be an incredible rise in homelessness and evictions.

AMI Housing anticipates serving an estimated two hundred and seventy-five individuals or families over the next year (prior to June 30, 2023) specifically due to COVID. It will take time for the economy to recover after this pandemic, for people to get their kids back in school full time, for jobs to be available again as businesses fully reopen, and for the lowest income earners to have the ability to pay their rent as they once did. The outcomes AMI Housing hopes to achieve is that there is not a surge in homelessness, that people remain housed, and that people are able to get back on their feet after this incredibly difficult year.

Costs requested include rental assistance, emergency assistance, direct salaries (wages, taxes, mileage reimbursement), and administration.

Activity eligibility information: Subsistence Payments: 24 CFR 570.207(b)(4) or 42 USC 5305(a)(8) + 24 CFR 570.482(c)(2): One-time or short-term…emergency payments on behalf of individuals or families, generally for the purpose of preventing homelessness. Examples include utility payments to prevent cutoff of service, and rent/mortgage payments to prevent eviction.

Reporting: AMI Housing will complete and submit quarterly reports using ZoomGrants. Reports are due by the end of the month following the completion of the quarter.

AMI Housing will report on the number of individuals served with the basic subsistence payments. If serving families, reporting will include the number of members per family. 2 Documentation of Eligibility: This activity is eligible for CDBG funding as a public service that serves low income persons. The Subrecipient must collect documentation that shows all persons served are low-income. The Subrecipient must also collect information on the race, ethnicity, and age of those served. Current income limits are published at https://www.hudexchange.info/incomecalculator/ (click on CDBG Income Limits) and are attached.

For the provision at 570.208(a)(2)(i)(C), since the activity will be limited to low and moderate income persons, information on family size and income will have to be collected to ensure that all of the beneficiaries are low and moderate income.

Use of Funds: CDBG funds may only be used to reimburse the Subrecipient for those costs shown in EXHIBIT “A2.” All costs must be directly related to the provision of services. Reimbursement requests must be supported with appropriate documentation. For example, labor costs must be supported with timesheets.

Timely Performance and Expenditure: Progress towards meeting goals for persons served, units of service, and funds expended will follow the schedule shown in EXHIBIT “A-2.” Reimbursement requests will be submitted by the end of the month following the completion of the quarter for all expenses within the quarter.

Duplication of Benefits: Subrecipient shall not carry out any of the activities under this agreement in a manner that results in a prohibited duplication of benefits as defined by Section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 USC 5155) and described in Appropriations Act. The Subrecipient must comply with HUD’s requirements for duplication of benefits, imposed by Federal Register notice on the City, which are:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/20/2020-18242/notice-of-program-rules-waivers-andalternative-requirements-under-the-cares-act-for-community.

For rent and back rent payments, rent paid must not exceed 100 days per family.

In order to ensure duplication of benefits does not occur, Subrecipient will track addresses of individuals/families provided with rental, utility, or mortgage payments, along with the months payment was provided. The City will be administering additional funding for homeless prevention for Roseville residents; therefore, coordination with the City to ensure homeless prevention related payments for individuals/families are not duplicated will be required. [C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “B-2”
City of Roseville
2022-23 CDBG-CV
Estimated Budget
Subrecipient:

Program/project:

Request/Award: 400,500.00 Balance Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
50% 25% 25%
Line item description of cost Total program CDBG Other funds Roseville Rental Assistance 238,000.00 184,875.00 53,125.00 - (184,875.00) (92,437.50) (46,218.75) (46,218.75) Direct Salaries 175,000.00 131,250.00 43,750.00 - (131,250.00) (65,625.00) (32,812.50) (32,812.50) Emergency Assistance 60,000.00 45,000.00 15,000.00 - (45,000.00) (22,500.00) (11,250.00) (11,250.00) Administration 52,500.00 39,375.00 13,125.00 - (39,375.00) (19,687.50) (9,843.75) (9,843.75) - -
Total $ 525,500.00 $ 400,500.00 $ 125,000.00 - - (400,500.00) - (200,250.00) (100,125.00) (100,125.00) Balance of CDBG award (should = 0) - - -
Percent expended 100.0%
Beneficiaries planned/actual/percent 275 275 100.0% 0 275 137.5 68.75 68.75 AMI Housing, Inc
COVID Homeless Prevention Assistance
EXHIBIT A-2
[C:\Users\ayekelly\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MAU0VCBK\00068008.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “C”
Select a different county or county equivalent in
California:

Placer County
Plumas County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Benito County
San Bernardino County
Select county or county equivalent
Select any FY2022 HUD Metropolitan FMR Area's
Income Limits:

Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA HUD Metro FMR Area Select HMFA Income Limits Area
Or press below to start over and select a different
state:

Select a new state
FY 2022 Income Limits Documentation System
HUD.gov HUD User Home Data Sets Fair Market Rents Section 8 Income Limits MTSP Income Limits HUD LIHTC Database FY 2022 Income Limits Summary
Selecting any of the buttons labeled "Click for More Detail" will display detailed calculation steps for each of the various parameters.

FY 2022
Income Limit
Area
Median Family Income
Click for More Detail
FY 2022 Income Limit
Category
Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sacramento-
-Roseville--
ArdenArcade, CA
HUD Metro
FMR Area
$102,200
Very Low (50%) Income
Limits ($)
Click for More Detail
35,500 40,550 45,600 50,650 54,750 58,800 62,850 66,900 Extremely Low Income
Limits ($)*
Click for More Detail
21,300 24,350 27,400 30,400 32,850 37,190 41,910 46,630 Low (80%) Income
Limits ($)
Click for More Detail
56,750 64,850 72,950 81,050 87,550 94,050 100,550 107,000 NOTE: Placer County is part of the Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA HUD Metro FMR Area, so all information presented here applies to all of the Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA HUD Metro FMR Area. HUD generally uses the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) area definitions in the calculation of income limit program parameters. However, to ensure that program parameters do not vary significantly due to area definition changes, HUD has used custom geographic definitions for the Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA HUD Metro FMR Area.

The Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA HUD Metro FMR Area contains the following areas: El Dorado County, CA; Placer County, CA; and Sacramento County, CA.
* The FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act changed the definition of extremely low-income to be the greater of 30/50ths (60 percent) of the Section 8 very low-income limit or the poverty guideline as established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provided that this amount is not greater than the Section 8 50% very low-income limit. Consequently, the extremely low income limits may equal the very low (50%) income limits.

Income Limit areas are based on FY 2022 Fair Market Rent (FMR) areas. For information on FMRs, please see our associated FY 2022 Fair Market Rent documentation system.

For last year's Median Family Income and Income Limits, please see here:

FY2021 Median Family Income and Income Limits for Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA HUD Metro FMR Area

EXHIBIT C
[L:\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2022\CDBG AMI.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “D”

[L:\corres\Kelly\Contracts 2022\CDBG AMI.docx; 6/23/2022] EXHIBIT “D-1”
City of Roseville CDBG-CV Organization Name:

Duplication of Benefits Contact Name:

Proposed Use of Funds
Roseville

CDBG-CV
(2022-23)
Other
Assistance:

ESG CV round
1 Other
Assistance:

CDBG - CV3
(2021-22)
Other
Assistance:

Homekey
Other
Assistance:
(explain
below)
Other
Assistance:
(explain
below)
Paid from
Organization's
own funds Totals
COVID Rental Assistance
$200,000.00 $125,000.00 $250,000.00 $575,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Totals $200,000.00 $125,000.00 $250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $575,000.00 Notes/Explanation:

AMI Housing, Inc
Jennifer Price, CEO
Proposed Source of Funds
$49,495.60 ROSEVILLE CDBG-CV 2021-22
Indicate all funds received for the proposed activity including, federal, State or local government programs since March 1, 2020.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2238
File #: 0307-02
Title:

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update - Professional Services Agreement and Budget Adjustment
Contact: Joe Anderson 916-746-1300 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 7.10.

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

1. Adopt a resolution to approve a professional services agreement between the City of Roseville and Tetra Tech, Inc. for preparation of the City’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) Update and authorize the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City, and

2. Adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment to add $149,943 of grant funds provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the project to complete the MHMP Update.

BACKGROUND
The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2000) requires all local agencies to have an approved Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) in order to receive post-disaster mitigation funds.

The purpose of the federal mandate is to encourage local agencies to plan in advance for any type of hazards or disasters for which the community is at risk and to have programs and projects in place to mitigate the disaster should one ever occur. DMA 2000 requires local agencies to update their hazard mitigation plans on a five-year cycle. The City's 2016 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by Council at their February 15, 2017 meeting, and is therefore due for an update.

Maintenance of a MHMP is also a prerequisite to maintain the City's Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Community Rating System (CRS) Class 1 rating.

Annual reviews/progress reports of the MHMP is required by Section 19.3 of the City's adopted Plan. The annual progress report is also required as one component of the CRS recertification.

The annual review is an opportunity for "continuing public involvement" as required by DMA 2000.

The latest progress report was accepted by Council at their July 21, 2021 meeting. These annual reviews ensure that the Plan remains dynamic and reflects the changing capabilities of the City.

The suggested changes from the annual reviews conducted since the adoption of the 2016 plan will be incorporated into this five-year update.

Staff conducted a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process to solicit consulting support for the MHMP Update. Five responsive proposals were received for the project and Tetra Tech, Inc. was unanimously selected by staff to update the City's MHMP.

Concurrently, knowing the Update was coming due, staff applied for a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant to fund the Update in March of 2020, while continuing to request the typical General Fund appropriations (in the event the grant application was not successful) to fund the update. Staff recently learned the City was awarded $149,943 (approximately 75% of the anticipated cost) to complete the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for all annual review/progress reports and MHMP Updates are generally provided by General Fund resources in an existing Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan project. The FEMA grant award of $149,943 will fund approximately 75% of the anticipated cost of the next Update. The grant requires the remaining 25% be local matching funds. The recommended budget adjustment will add the FEMA grant revenue to the project, move General Fund resources in the amount of the grant award back to General Fund available resources in fund balance, and realign the project's expenditure budget to more closely match expected project expenditures.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Anderson, Associate Engineer
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-306
Tetra Tech PSA
Ordinance 6539
Budget Adjustment
RESOLUTION NO. 22-306

APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND TETRA TECH, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a professional services agreement for a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, by and between the City of Roseville and Tetra Tech, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said professional services agreement is hereby 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 , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO. 6539

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCALYEAR 2022-23

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 2022-23, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the preparation of a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

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

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2227
File #: 0600-03
Title: Retiree Medical Insurance Optional Benefit - Roseville Municipal Code Amendment Contact: Dennis Kauffman 916-774-5313 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 8.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance approving nonsubstantive clean-up amendments to Title 3, Chapter 3.09, of the Roseville Municipal Code to enhance the readability and clarity of its provisions.

BACKGROUND
The City of Roseville (City) offers retiree medical insurance to former City employees through its contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Retiree medical insurance benefits are governed by the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) (California Government Code Section 22750 et seq.). Under the PEMHCA, the City contributes a set amount towards retiree medical insurance premiums on a monthly basis.

The amount of the City’s contribution is the statutory minimum as prescribed by PEMHCA (PEMHCA minimum). Pursuant to Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with various bargaining units, and the Management and Confidential Terms, Conditions and Understandings, the City makes additional contributions to some retirees.

On June 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5496, codified at Chapter 3.09 of the Roseville Municipal Code (RMC), which enacted a new option for retirees concerning the City’s retiree medical benefit. Current and former City employees eligible for Tier 1 or Tier 2 retiree medical contributions (as defined in the applicable MOU under which they retired) are permitted to waive participation in the retiree medical benefit described in their applicable MOU and opt in to the benefit described in Section 3.09.030. Current and former City employees who do not exercise this option remain eligible for and/or continue to receive their Tier 1 or Tier 2 City contribution, as defined by their applicable MOU. Since January 1, 2017, current or former employees described in Section 3.09.020, who sign an Irrevocable Election Agreement, receive benefits under the optional benefit ordinance. An election under Chapter 3.09 is time sensitive and must occur, if desired by a retiree, prior to the City's first retiree medical payment.

In response to requests from the Retired City of Roseville Employees (RCORE) Association, the City intends to make minor clean-up edits to its Retiree Medical Insurance Optional Benefit Ordinance and make one additional code change to specify that notices of future amendments to the ordinance shall be sent by U.S. mail to affected retirees. These recommended amendments do not and are not intended to change, modify or otherwise impact the benefit described in Chapter 3.09. As required by current Section 3.09.040, the City provided notice of the proposed amendments to Chapter 3.09 to retirees; and amendment of Chapter 3.09 requires an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths of the membership of the City Council. The City collaborated with RCORE on the proposed edits and RCORE has assisted with communication to its members regarding the proposed clean-up amendments.

FISCAL IMPACT
The amendments to the Ordinance will have 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. Amendment of the Retiree Medical Insurance Optional Benefit Ordinance 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
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
RMC3.09 Redline

ORDINANCE NO. ____

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS

3.09.030 AND 3.09.040 OF CHAPTER 3.09 OF TITLE 3 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL

CODE REGARDING

RETIREE MEDICAL INSURANCE OPTIONAL BENEFIT
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 3.09.010 of Chapter 3.09 of Title 3 of the Roseville Municipal Code currently and will continue to read as follows:

3.09.010 Retiree medical insurance.

The city offers retiree medical insurance to former city employees through its contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”). Retiree medical insurance benefits are governed by the Public Employment Medical and Hospital Care Act (“PEMHCA”) (California Government Code Section 22750). Under the PEMHCA, the city contributes a set amount towards retiree medical insurance premiums on a monthly basis. The amount of the city’s contribution is the statutory minimum as prescribed by PEMHCA (PEMHCA minimum). Pursuant to Memoranda of Understanding (“MOUs”) with various bargaining units, including the Management and Confidential Terms, Conditions and Understanding resolution, the city makes additional contributions to some retirees. 2 SECTION 2. Section 3.09.020 of Chapter 3.09 of Title 3 of the Roseville Municipal Code currently and will continue to read as follows:

3.09.020 Categories of current and former employees (current retirees) who qualify for the optional benefit.

Current and former city employees eligible for Tier 1 or Tier 2 retiree medical contributions (as defined in the applicable MOU under which they retired) will be permitted to waive participation in the retiree medical benefit described in their applicable MOU and opt in to the benefit described in Section 3.09.030 effective the 2017 Plan Year. Current and former city employees who do not exercise this option will remain eligible for and/or continue to receive their Tier 1 or Tier 2 city contribution, as defined by their applicable MOU.

A. Current Retirees. Generally, members who: (1) have retired from the city on or before December 31, 2015; (2) are currently eligible to receive city retiree medical benefits through the PEMHCA; and (3) qualify for either Tier 1 or Tier 2 retiree medical benefits under their applicable MOU, will be permitted to elect the benefit described in Section 3.09.030 instead of their MOU-defined city contribution. This election must occur prior to or during the open enrollment period for the 2017 Plan Year.

B. Current City Employees/Future Retirees. Current city employees who retire from the city after December 31, 2015, who: (1) qualify to receive PEMHCA medical benefits from the city; and (2) qualify as either Tier 1 or Tier 2 retiree medical benefits under their applicable MOU, will be permitted to elect the benefits described in Section 3.09.030 instead of the 3 applicable MOU-defined city contribution upon retirement. Members must elect to be subject to these benefits prior to the city’s first retiree medical payment.

Those opting to receive benefits under Section 3.09.030 will be required to sign an Irrevocable Election Agreement waiving all rights to their former Tier 1 or Tier 2 city contribution and shall no longer be subject to any future changes to their MOU regarding Tier 1 or Tier 2 contributions. Current and former city employees who elect not to receive benefits under Section 3.09.030 will remain eligible for retiree medical benefits pursuant to state law and their applicable MOU. It is not the intent of this chapter to alter any local, state, and federal tax laws and any individual deciding whether to opt to receive benefits under this chapter is encouraged to consult with their tax advisor.

SECTION 3. Section 3.09.030 of Chapter 3.09 of Title 3 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

3.09.030 Optional retiree medical benefit.

Effective January 1, 2017, current or former employees described in Section 3.09.020, who sign an Irrevocable Election Agreement electing to receive benefits under this section, will receive a monthly reimbursement by the city for retiree medical insurance premiums. asAs described below, the city will reimburse a retiree for health care premiums paid to CalPERS, minus the PEMHCA minimum contribution amount. The PEMHCA minimum contribution is paid by the city directly to CalPERS on the retiree’s behalf. The city does not make any payments on behalf of the retirees or reimbursements directly to retirees to cover any 4 premiums or costs associated with Medicare. Retirees are solely responsible for making any and all necessary payments required for and paid directly to Medicare and the Social Security Administration..

A. Tier 1. Effective Plan Year 2017, retirees who qualify as Tier 1 pursuant to the applicable MOU will receive a city reimbursement for an amount up to $1,296.00 per month for retiree medical insurance premiums less the PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement.

If the retiree medical insurance premium is less than $1,296.00 per month, the retiree will only be reimbursed the amount of the actual premium less the PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement.

For example, in 2017 the city’s reimbursement amount is an amount up to $1,296.00 per month. If the retiree’s medical benefit insurance premium is $800.00 per month, the city’s reimbursement will be $800.00 per month less the PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement.

B. Tier 2. Effective Plan Year 2017, current or former employees who qualify as Tier 2 pursuant to the applicable MOU will receive a city reimbursement for a proportionate amount up to $1,296.00 per month less the
PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement for retiree medical insurance premiums. The proportionate amount of reimbursement is based on total years of credited service as defined in the following chart. If the retiree medical insurance premium is less than the amount the retiree is eligible to receive, the retiree will only be reimbursed the amount of the actual premium less the PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement.

CITY TIER 2 VESTING SCHEDULE
5 Total Credited Years of Service % of City Contribution 10 50%
11 55%
12 60%
13 65%
14 70%
15 75%
16 80%
17 85%
18 90%
19 95%
20+ 100%
For example, in 2017, the city’s maximum reimbursement amount is $1,296.00 per month. A retiree with 10 years of credited service is eligible to receive a reimbursement amount of up to $648.00 per month (50 percent of $1,296.00) less the PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement. A retiree with 15 years of credited service is eligible to receive a reimbursement amount of up to $972.00 per month (75 percent of $1,296.00) less the PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement. If the retiree, with 15 years of credited service, has a medical benefit insurance premium of $800.00 per month, the city’s reimbursement will be $800.00 per month less the PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement.
6 For those opting to receive benefits under this section and effective January 1, 2018 and each subsequent January, the amount of the city’s reimbursement will increase by two percent, rounded to the nearest dollar (for example, on January 1, 2018, the Tier 2 retiree with 10 years of service will qualify for a reimbursement of up to $661.00 less the PEMHCA minimum and any Medicare supplement). Retirees are not eligible to receive any amount in excess of the actual retiree medical insurance premium. To receive and remain eligible for the city reimbursement, the retiree must be enrolled in a CalPERS health plan and subject to PEMHCA at all times.

SECTION 4. Section 3.09.040 of Chapter 3.09 of Title 3 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

3.09.040 Notice of amendment.

For any individual who has submitted a completed Irrevocable Election Agreement pursuant to Section 3.09.020, the city shall provide such individual with a minimum of 60 calendar days advance written notice of any proposed amendment to this chapter. Such notice shall be sent by U.S. mail to the most recent known address of the individual on file with the city’s department of human resources. The notice shall contain a summary of the proposed changes to this chapter. Amendment or repeal of this chapter by the city council shall be exercised by an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths of the membership of the city council.

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.
7 SECTION 6. 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 _______________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2235
File #: 0214
Title: Commercial Corridor Plans Workshop
Contact: Lauren Hocker 916-774-5272 [email protected] Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 9.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
The Planning Division is recommending City Council hear an informational presentation on the Commercial Corridor Plans project, and provide a forum for community input on and discussion of the project and the preliminary draft Specific Plans. No formal action is required or requested.

BACKGROUND
The City adopted a revitalization strategy in 1999 to support improvements to the Historic Old Town, Vernon Street, and other aging areas of the city. This effort resulted in the adoption of the Riverside Gateway Specific Plan in 2006 and the Downtown Specific Plan in 2009. The intent of this investment was to return these areas, which to this day still serve as the center and core of the fabric of the City, to their former prominence. These efforts stimulated reinvestment in these areas, with improved streetscapes, as well as the development of new businesses and housing.

City Council identified further corridor planning and reinvestment as a Council priority, and in 2019 authorized staff to submit a grant application pursuant to Senate Bill 2 for this work. Senate Bill 2 established a permanent source of funding for planning activities that can demonstrate a connection to housing production. In the grant application brought to City Council, staff identified Atlantic Street, Douglas and Harding Boulevards, and Douglas and Sunrise Boulevards as key areas which are connected to each other, to the City’s downtown, to the Downtown and Riverside Gateway plans, and to vital transportation hubs. Staff proposed to develop separate but related Specific Plans for each of the corridor areas, with the purpose of streamlining and incentivizing redevelopment.

City Council’s decision to consider planning activities in these areas was also influenced by several controversial infill projects, including the proposed Dutch Bros coffee kiosk at 1017 Douglas Boulevard and the Old Town Lofts at 241 Nevada Avenue. The Dutch Bros project was denied and the Old Town Lofts project was approved, but a message heard from the community was a concern about sites developing one-by-one without a cohesive plan for the overall area.

The proposed Commercial Corridor Plans project is an opportunity to develop these cohesive policies, design guidelines, and plans for each area.

Preliminary Draft Specific Plans
Based on feedback from the community received during outreach conducted over the last year (see the Public Outreach and Next Steps section of this staff report), work from supporting technical consultants, and internal review and discussion involving all affected City Departments and Divisions, staff has spent the last year developing the land use maps, permitted use tables, streetscape options, and text of the proposed Specific Plans. The preliminary drafts of the three plans were published on July 14, 2022 and are:

Atlantic Street Corridor Specific Plan
Douglas-Harding Corridor Specific Plan
Douglas-Sunrise Corridor Specific Plan
The preliminary draft plans include the following chapters and content:

Chapter 2, Setting and Context – This chapter describes the history of the planning area, major factors that have influenced the design of the Specific Plan, the existing land uses and development patterns, and the existing design and character of the planning area.

Chapter 3, Land Use – This chapter focuses on the existing and proposed land use plan for the area, with an emphasis on the land use goals and overall vision for the area, and a description of the land use designations being used in the Specific Plan. The chapter includes land use maps and a permitted use table.

Chapter 4, Circulation – This chapter describes the pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular pathways within the planning area, defines the vision and goals to support circulation and connectivity in the planning area, and identifies the broader circulation plan and more specific frontage and roadway characteristics for the planning area. The chapter includes existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities maps, and streetscape options.

Chapter 5, Utilities and Infrastructure – This chapter describes the existing utilities and infrastructure which support the planning area, describes the goals to support the existing and proposed systems, and describes the plan to enhance and improve utilities and infrastructure to support the Specific Plan.

Chapter 6, Design Guidelines – This chapter describes the development regulations which will apply to residential and non-residential projects, available incentives to promote reinvestment, and frontage development standards.

Chapter 7, Implementation – This chapter describes how the Specific Plan will be applied to future development and uses within the planning area, including descriptions of the types of entitlements needed for development proposals, and the processes and procedures for revising or amending the Specific Plan.

Key maps, tables, and figures have been included in the preliminary draft Specific Plans, but the drafts are referred to as “preliminary” because additional supporting graphics, imagery, and tables are planned to be included in the next draft of each plan.

Proposed Key Features and Changes
Multifamily residential uses permitted in commercial zones, instead of requiring a Conditional Use Permit.

Land use changes to make land use consistent with existing zone districts.

Replacement of Planned Development zone districts with a standard City zone district.

On a few properties in each corridor, changing both the zone district and land use designation.

Streetscape options to consider as part of future public improvement projects (crosswalks, medians, etc).

Frontage design guidelines to apply to development and redevelopment, requiring improvements to sidewalks, landscaping, etc.

Tailored design guidelines for multifamily developments, based on feedback from the community.

Consistent with other Specific Plans in the City, staff proposes to apply the Special Area (SA) overlay zone district to all properties within each Specific Plan. The overlay zone allows the application of the area-specific standards proposed within each Specific Plan, to modify or supplement the Zoning Ordinance and Community Design Guidelines.

Housing
Along with streetscape improvements and commercial reinvestment and redevelopment, the facilitation of housing – particularly in commercial areas – is a goal of the project. The areas where the City is anticipating housing are underused commercial parking lots, long-vacant commercial buildings, and the few vacant or underused properties. Infrastructure studies for the corridor plans have assumed a total of 50 units could be developed in the Atlantic Street corridor, 200 units could be developed in the Douglas-Harding corridor, and 600 units could be developed in the Douglas-Sunrise corridor. In the original grant application the City anticipated up to 400 units, with up to 50 in the Atlantic Street corridor, 250 in the Douglas-Harding corridor, and 100 in the Douglas-Sunrise corridor. However, the property owner of 201 North Sunrise approached the City interested in the potential to develop a large, market-rate, multifamily project so the anticipated units in the Douglas-Harding corridor was decreased to 200 and the anticipated units were increased to 600 in the Douglas-Sunrise corridor.

Supporting technical studies for the Specific Plans have assumed these units would be located on vacant or commercial properties in the Atlantic Street Plan area, located on South Harding or Harding Boulevard in the Douglas-Harding Plan Area, and on Sunrise Boulevard north of Douglas Boulevard in the Douglas-Sunrise Plan Area. General areas had to be selected for the purpose of pipe system evaluations, but the Specific Plans do not identify any specific sites as the sites where these housing units will or must be built. For commercial property where multifamily housing would be a permitted use, whether housing, commercial uses, or mixed uses are developed would be determined by the property owner and by market conditions.

Staff has also proposed the City’s policy requiring 10% of all new units be affordable not apply on a project-by-project basis. The Specific Plans identify the total number of affordable units needed for all three Specific Plans (up to 85 units, based on up to 850 units of capacity), which would allow the City’s policy to be satisfied by one affordable project, instead of requiring every project to include a few affordable housing units.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NEXT STEPS
May 2021: The community outreach effort for this project was carefully developed and began in earnest in May 2021, when the City distributed notice of the first open house for the project via mail, e-mail, the City's website, the Sacramento Business Journal, and the City's social media.

Over 9,000 postcards with bright designs and graphics were mailed to everyone within the proposed project boundaries and to those within a half-mile walking distance. E-mail notices were sent to over 47,000 recipients on the City's existing e-mail lists. In the first week over 800 people visited the project website, and hundreds signed up on the project e-mail list.

June 2021: The open house was well-attended and intended to outline the City’s objectives for the project and seek early stakeholder input to further refine the scope of the project. The open house included live polling, a question and answer session, and a community values exercise to help develop a draft vision statement for each Plan Area. A recording of the open house is available for viewing here. Following the initial open house, a walking tour was launched to engage residents and community members about what they would like to see improved or added to revitalize the three targeted corridors. The tour was open from June 10 – 25, and could be taken virtually using images from key spots in the corridors, or by physically going to the key locations.

Staff posted lawn signs and flyers at the locations with a QR code, which could be scanned by your phone to access the survey. The survey yielded a total of 648 community responses. A summary of the virtual tour can be found here.

December 2021: Based on feedback from the community, the next several months were spent developing materials for the project. On December 14, 2021 draft land use maps, zoning maps, and permitted use tables were posted to the project website for public review, with responses requested by January 12, 2022. Notice of these materials was sent to the project e-mail list and was posted to the project website.

February 2022: A virtual workshop was held on February 10, 2022. The workshop was advertised through an e-mail to the project mailing list two weeks before and one week before the workshop, was posted to the project website, was advertised on the City's social media (Twitter, Facebook, and NextDoor), and was published in the Roseville Press Tribune. Flyers were also handed out at businesses within the corridors. The first half of the workshop focused on the proposed land use plan, and included a question and answer session that focused heavily on housing. The second half of the workshop focused on streetscapes, and included live polling to get feedback on improvement priorities and public art programs, as well as a question and answer session. The workshop was well attended and included robust community discussion. A recording of the virtual workshop is available for viewing here.

April 2022: A community design guidelines survey was launched on April 25, 2022 and was open through May 8, 2022. The survey included design imagery and asked respondents what general building design styles were appropriate for each corridor. The survey also included a streetscape improvements question asking respondents to prioritize improvements based on cost. The survey had about 300 respondents and was advertised through the project e-mail list and project website.

A letter was then sent to property owners in April informing them of proposed changes to land use and zoning. The letters were specific to individual property owners, with the Assessor's Parcel Number identified and an explanation of the proposed changes provided. The letter also encouraged property owners to call, e-mail, or write us with any comments or questions, and emphasized that we were still early in the process, and nothing was finalized. A second copy of the letter was sent in May to all property owners who had not responded to the first letter. A third and final copy of this letter will be sent in August. The purpose of these letters was to ensure the owners of every property affected by zoning or land use changes received property-specific notice of the proposal, and multiple copies help ensure the letter is not simply overlooked or missed.

June 2022: In June a letter was sent out to every property owner and resident in the Plan Areas describing the proposal to use the Special Area overlay zone for the Specific Plans. We were contacted by some residents indicating that their neighbors had received the letter but they had not. We investigated these concerns and found an area where the parcel data led to some mailing address errors. These errors were corrected.

June/July 2022: City staff subsequently attended two community-led meetings to discuss the project and answer questions. The first meeting was held on June 30, 2022 by Support Our Local Area – Roseville (SOLA-R) from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., and the second was held on July 7, 2022 as part of the Historic Sierra Vista Neighborhood Association regular meeting. Planning staff also staffed a booth at Downtown Tuesday Nights on June 28, 2022 and advertised materials about the project as well as general planning issues. Over 30 people spoke with staff over the course of the evening.

Notice of the release of the preliminary draft Specific Plans, the Planning Commission workshop on July 28, 2022 and this City Council workshop was provided in a postcard to every property owner and resident in the Plan Areas. The postcard notice was mailed on July 12, 2022 and the preliminary draft Specific Plans were published on July 14, 2022, with a request to provide feedback by August 11, 2022. Notice was also publicized on the project website, through the project e-mail list, and on the City's social media (Twitter, Facebook, and NextDoor).

In addition to all of the broad public outreach, through website updates, public meetings, open houses, and other group events and contexts, the project team has emphasized person-to-person communication. The staff team provides detailed and specific responses to the e-mails received in the project inbox at www.roseville.ca.us/corridorplans. Where an individual provides a phone number, our staff respond to the e-mail with a phone call. The letters we mailed also generated many phone calls from individuals wanting to better understand how the project might affect their property or their neighborhood. Engaging in conversation, not just communication, has been an ongoing goal of the project team.

The next steps include incorporating changes into the draft Specific Plans in preparation for the following tentative timelines:

September – Publish revised Draft Specific Plans
October – Planning Commission hearings
November – City Council hearings

FISCAL IMPACT
No formal action is requested by City Council; therefore, this workshop does not negatively impact the City's 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. An informational presentation about the Commercial Corridor Plans Workshop 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 The purpose of the Commercial Corridor Plans project is to ensure well-planned infrastructure and growth, by establishing cohesive design standards, correcting land use discrepancies, and establishing long-term vision, goals, and policies for the planning areas.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lauren Hocker, Senior Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1 - Web Links to Corridor Specific Plans
Corridor Specific Plan Web Links
(click on links to be directed to each specific plan)
Atlantic Street Specific Plan - https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development% 20Services/Planning/Commercial%20Corridors/Atlantic%20Street%20SP%20- %20Preliminary%20Draft.pdf
Douglas / Harding Specific Plan -
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Develo pment%20Services/Planning/Commercial%20Corridors/DouglasHarding%20SP_Preliminary%20Draft.pdf Douglas / Sunrise Specific Plan -
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Develo pment%20Services/Planning/Commercial%20Corridors/Douglas-Sunrise%20SP_Preliminary%20Draft.pdf

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2241
File #: 0704
Title: Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan Contact: Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 8/3/2022
Item #: 9.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution to adopt the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan.

BACKGROUND
In July 2021, the Department began a year-long effort to develop a comprehensive strategic master plan that will help guide the Department over the next ten years. The effort started with multiple public outreach efforts, including public workshops, focus group interviews, interviews with the Parks & Recreation Commission, Library Board, Senior Commission and City Council, a statistically valid survey and an online survey. Additional workshops included progress updates on the plan.

The Strategic Master Plan (Future PRL) is now complete. The plan includes:
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• MARKET ANALYSIS
• COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
• PARK AND FACILITYASSESSMENT
• SPORTS TOURISM STRATEGY
• PROGRAM AND ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
• FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
• STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
Strategic Recommendations include:

PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
GOAL
Provide parks, trails and open spaces that are designed to address the diversity of needs within Roseville, to be the leader in creating memorable public spaces and to maintain these spaces in a safe, clean, and attractive manner.

OBJECTIVES
• Continue to maintain safe, clean, and attractive parks • Design and develop new parks and update older parks to elevate their value and encourage positive use
• Work with City partners to create a more connected trail system and promote trail use to support community health and wellness
• Develop natural trails in open space areas to better facilitate exploration of these areas • Update master plans and work to identify funding sources for future development of large sites, including Pistachio Regional Park and Al Johnson Wildlife Area • Conduct regular park assessments to ensure high quality and elevate all parks on a five-year basis for prioritizing capital investment needs
• Develop a strategy with local and regional partners to mitigate homeless impacts to parks and open spaces

RECREATION FACILITIES
GOAL
Provide public facilities that are designed to address the diverse needs of the community and maintain these in a safe, clean, and attractive manner.

OBJECTIVES
• Create a feasibility study for a large community & aquatic center in West Roseville to serve the growing community
• Invest in multifunctional sports complexes that can be shared by the community and the various user groups
• Develop additional special use recreational amenities to include pickleball courts, a mountain bike course, and skate parks
• Develop a sports tourism strategy, feasibility study and operational plan for the new Regional Sports Complex and for future recreational complexes
• Identify cost recovery expectations for all recreation facilities and develop individual business plans to meet expectations
• Reinvest in existing facilities, including Adventure Clubs • Utilize new GIS participant mapping tools to identify the community usage patterns of each facility
• Enhance aging golf course facilities and develop an improvement plan for each golf course

RECREATION PROGRAMS
GOAL
Develop and expand programs considering new pricing strategies, expanding partnership opportunities, and reinventing certain programs for long term viability that reflect market trends and needs.

OBJECTIVES
• Develop/expand programming in the following areas: Fitness and wellness classes; Cooking classes; Free/low-cost community events; Art, dance performing arts; Education classes. • Outdoor trips (single day); Older adult resources/support; Volunteer programs • Consider establishing dynamic pricing strategies (primetime/non-prime time and weekday/weekend) for reservations, rental of spaces, programs, and events • Establish written partnership agreements with performance measures to ensure accountability • Seek annual feedback from the community regarding quality of programs and unmet needs every 2-3 years
• Evaluate the business structure of Youth Development Programs and consider changes to the operational model, evaluating cost recovery expectations, future expansion viability and facilities repair and replacement

OPERATIONS AND STAFFING
GOAL
Develop systems and strategies that improve efficiencies and effectiveness, culture, and branding, both internally and externally.

OBJECTIVES
• Develop performance indicators to demonstrate desired outcomes applying to all areas of the Department
• Update or create partnership, pricing, and earned income policies to build upon the business mindset in the organization
• Increase brand awareness to better promote the Department’s key focuses and build greater appreciation of parks, recreation, and library resources • Provide ongoing and increased opportunities to enhance staff’s personal and professional growth, provide a better understanding of department management practices, and facilitate a positive work culture
• Develop and implement a comprehensive succession plan and strategies to recruit and retain staff
• Continue to evaluate the department's organizational structure, including:
o identifying new positions needed
o striking an effective balance of full-time, part-time, and seasonal staff o growing the use of volunteers
• Seek and implement efficiencies in the department's HR, IT, and Finance roles

FINANCE
GOAL
Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world through effective use of financial data, partnerships, equity, and positive stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

OBJECTIVES
• Find additional funding sources to support the entire park system • Ensure that partnerships are equitable, provide value to the department, and benefit taxpayers • Quantify and communicate the economic value of PRL
• Ensure that operational dollars follow new capital improvements so as not to impact the rest of the system in a negative manner
• Appropriately invest in the existing system to ensure older parks/facilities are valued the same as new

MAIDU MUSEUM & HISTORIC SITE
GOAL
Preserve and share the cultural heritage of the Maidu through exhibits, education, and cultural experiences.

OBJECTIVES
• Develop new revenue and funding sources
• Cultivate relationships with outside organizations, with an emphasis on Native American tribal organizations
• Create an Interpretive Plan for the Maidu Museum to include a more accurate and inclusive educational experience for visitors
• Increase public awareness and attendance at the Maidu Museum & Historic Site, both through marketing and the development of new programs/exhibits
• Continue to develop and grow the volunteer program to support school tours and museum programming

LIBRARIES & CULTURE
GOAL
Provide equitable access to resources and programs that support lifelong learning and literacy for Roseville and ensure that services are strengthened through increased and alternative funding, new partnerships and services, and establishing new cultural arts opportunities throughout the City.

OBJECTIVES
• Develop and grow funding sources and seek community partnerships • Develop a staffing model that meets the needs and service expectations of the growing community
• Increase overall services and programming to meet community demand, including services outside of library facilities
• Renovate and modernize all three library facilities to provide increased access, improve security, and make better use of existing space
• Maintain and upgrade technology infrastructure to improve access to services, both in library facilities and remotely
• Improve community awareness of library services through targeted marketing campaigns • Create feasibility studies and develop business plans for new facilities, including the Historic Fiddyment House in Pistachio Regional Park, a cultural arts center to serve the community, and a new library facility in west Roseville
Parks & Recreation Commission
The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed and approved the strategic master plan at the August 1, 2022 meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project was approved in the FY2021-22 budget. Implementation of the plan will occur over the next ten years, with funding requested and included in future budgets as needed.

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 Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan 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 Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-309
PRL Strategic Master Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 22-309

ADOPTING THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE PARKS, RECREATION & LIBRARIES

STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, in July 2021 the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department began a yearlong effort to develop a comprehensive strategic master plan that will help guide the Department over the next ten years; and
WHEREAS, the effort included multiple public outreach efforts, including public workshops, focus group interviews, interviews with the Parks & Recreation Commission, Library Board, Senior Commission and City Council, a statistically valid survey and an online survey; and
WHEREAS, the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed and approved the proposed Strategic Master Plan at the August 1, 2022 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan has been reviewed by the Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Strategic Master Plan is hereby adopted.

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

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Roseville City Council
Mayor Krista Bernasconi
Vice Mayor Bruce Houdesheldt
Scott Alvord
Tracy Mendonsa
Pauline Roccucci
Parks and Recreation Commission
Regina Souchek
Sandra Pollack-Cushing
Nick Alexander
Matthew Bridge
Mike Esparza
Andraé Randolph
Roy Stearns
Tanvi Panchal
Library Board
Laxmi RaoEileen Speaker
Kayla Scott
Maria Fisk
Danielle Roe
Amre Abumarkieh
FuturePRL Staff Committee
Jill Geller, Director
Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Jeff Nereson, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Manager
Natasha Martin, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Manager
Rob Nakamura, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Superintendent PRL Leadership Team
Jill Geller, Director
Natasha Martin, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Manager
Jeff Nereson, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Manager
Julie Sparkes, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Manager
Pam Allen, PRL Public Information Officer
Brian Castelluccio, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Superintendent Eric Dexter, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Superintendent Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Kristi LaRoche, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Superintendent Rob Nakamura, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Superintendent Kate Rebello, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Superintendent Kristina McKee, Administrative Assistant
ii
Consulting Group
PROS Consulting, INC.

JK Sweeney and Associates
WRT Design
ETC Institute
Shellito Consulting
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER ONE - MARKET ANALYSIS......................................................................................................8

1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................8

1.2 RECREATION TRENDS ...................................................................................................................15

1.3 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................30

1.4 BENCHMARK COMPARISON..........................................................................................................31 CHAPTER TWO – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ....................................................................................47

2.1 STAKEHOLDER AND FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY........................................................................47

2.2 COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY......................................................................................................51

2.3 STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY....................................................................................................53 CHAPTER THREE – PARK AND FACILITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................68

3.1 INVENTORY ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................68

3.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS .................................................................................................85

3.3 EQUITY MAPPING............................................................................................................................87

3.4 PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT .....................................................................................................99 CHAPTER FOUR - SPORTS TOURISM STRATEGY .............................................................................102

4.1 ROSEVILLE MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD CONCEPT PLAN .............................................................103

4.2 OPERATIONAL PLAN.....................................................................................................................105

4.3 FINANCIAL PLAN – MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD COMPLEX............................................................107

4.4 CONCLUSION AND IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................110 CHAPTER FIVE - PROGRAM AND ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW........................................................111

5.1 RECREATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT....................................................................................111

5.2 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW .........................................................................................................130 CHAPTER SIX – - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS.............................................................................................131

6.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................................131

6.2 FINANCIAL AND USER FEE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................133

6.3 FUNDING AND REVENUE STRATEGIES .....................................................................................133 CHAPTER SEVEN - STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN..................................................................................135

7.1 VISION ............................................................................................................................................135

7.2 MISSION .........................................................................................................................................135

7.3 CORE VALUES...............................................................................................................................135

7.4 CORE COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................................136

7.5 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES...............................................................................................................136

7.6 STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................136 Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
iii
APPENDIX A – CORE VS CASUAL PARTICIPATION TRENDS...........................................................140 APPENDIX B- DETAILED STAKEHOLDER AND FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...........147 APPENDIX C – SCORING SHEET ..........................................................................................................163 APPENDIX D – ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................170 APPENDIX E - FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................175 Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries (PRL) is an organization committed to high quality parks, recreation facilities, programs, events and an exceptional library system. Roseville is a recognized national leader in park and recreation development and management practices. The city has had strong leadership in place to guide the parks, recreation, and library system for the last 50 years through their focus on developing a full-service city that is the leading city in the Sacramento area in California. PRL determined there was a need for a system Strategic Master Plan to guide the Department for the next ten years to service the recreation, park and library needs of all its citizens to continue to make Roseville the city of choice to live, work and play.

PURPOSE OF A STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
The Strategic Master Plan will serve as a road map to guide PRL towards accomplishing its vision and mission, and will provide recommendations to facilitate the successful operation, maintenance and development of Roseville’s parks, open space, amenities, facilities, programs, libraries, museum and services.

BRAND FOR THE STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN

DEPARTMENT HIGHLIGHTS
 Manages nearly 4,000 acres of open space
 Provides THOUSANDS of programs and events each year
 The Department plays a key role in the City’s economic vitality  Neighborhood parks are the backbone of the system, since 60% of developed park spaces are neighborhood parks
 The trails are highly used and desired
 The Department has had strong leadership in place for the last 50 years to guide the system  The Department has many signature parks and facilities that allow for a wide variety of users and needs while providing exceptional experiences
 The library system is well used, and people want to see it continue to grow as the City continues to grow
2 STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN INITIATIVES

STRATEGIC INITIATIVE OUTCOMES

HEALTHY AND LIVABLE COMMUNITY
Roseville is a great place to live and is a more livable and healthy community because of our people, parkland, programs, and facilities.

RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Residents and visitors of all ages benefit from a variety of recreation opportunities in our parks, facilities, and programs.

PARKS AND FACILITIES
Roseville’s developed parks, recreation facilities and amenities contribute to the overall quality of life through a variety of recreational opportunities, and they are well utilized and valued assets by the community because they are safe, clean, and attractive through effective maintenance management practices.

OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Roseville’s open space areas, undeveloped parklands and other natural resources are preserved and protected through responsible stewardship and sustainable maintenance and management practices.

Vision
Mission
Values
Healthy &
Livable
Community
Recreation
Opportunities
Parks &
Facilities
Open Space &
Natural
Resources
Libraries and
Culture
Community
Engagement
Planning and
Development
High
Performing
Organization
Fiscal
Responsibility
Figure 1 - Strategic Master Plan Initiatives
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
3 LIBRARIES AND CULTURE
Our libraries, museum and cultural arts programs and facilities enrich lives by fostering lifelong learning, celebrating our history, and by ensuring that our community has access to a vast array of ideas and information.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Residents are involved in decisions affecting the planning of parks and facilities and the operations of PRL, and are well informed about its parks, programs, and facilities through marketing, promotion and public information efforts.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Roseville plans and develops parks, facilities, and trails in response to the needs and priorities of our residents and reinvests in existing park system infrastructure to make sure it is safe, attractive, accessible, and well utilized.

HIGH PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
PRL is a great place to work because of our commitment to continuous improvement and we develop our people with knowledge and skills to accomplish our vision and mission.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
PRL is managed and operated in a cost effective and efficient manner that provides residents and customers a good value from general fund tax support, development impact fees, assessments, user fees and other revenue.

VISION, MISSION, VALUES & CORE COMPETENCIES
Vision: To be the leader in creating a healthy community through progressive, sustainable, and memorable experiences.

Mission: To enhance lives and the community by providing exceptional experiences.

Values: Diversity & Inclusion – Excellence – Fun & Celebration – Innovation – Integrity – Learning – Teamwork – Respect – Safety – Sustainability
Core Competencies: Focus on people – Build trust – Ensure accountability – Communicate effectively – Collaborate inclusively – Make quality decisions – Be adaptable and agile

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

PARKS AND RECREATION

1. Develop a signature sports complex

2. Develop a new community center/aquatic/library complex in West Roseville

3. Update older parks and facilities in the system

4. Develop a connected trail system throughout the city

5. Open up nature areas for nature trails access

6. Build sustainable funding options to support the system

LIBRARIES AND CULTURE

1. Develop sustainable funding strategies

2. Build staff capacity to fulfill operational needs and community service expectations

3. Enhance and expand programs and services to meet changing community trends

4. Maintain, upgrade and reimagine spaces and facilities to meet changing service and operational needs
4 5. Formulate a technology plan that provides an up-to-date environment

6. Increase community engagement

STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS

OBJECTIVES
 Continue to maintain safe, clean, and attractive parks  Design and develop new parks and update older parks to elevate their value and encourage positive use
 Work with City partners to create a more connected trail system and promote trail use to support community health and wellness
 Develop natural trails in open space areas to better facilitate exploration of these areas  Update master plans and work to identify funding sources for future development of large sites, including Pistachio Regional Park and Al Johnson Wildlife Area  Conduct regular park assessments to ensure high quality and elevate all parks on a five-year basis for prioritizing capital investment needs
 Develop a strategy with local and regional partners to mitigate homeless impacts to parks and open spaces

RECREATION FACILITIES
GOAL
Provide public facilities that are designed to address the diverse needs of the community and maintain these in a safe, clean, and attractive manner.

OBJECTIVES
 Create a feasibility study for a large community and aquatic center in West Roseville to serve the growing community
 Invest in multifunctional sports complexes that can be shared by the community and the various user groups
 Develop additional special use recreational amenities to include pickleball courts, a mountain bike course, and skate parks
 Develop a sports tourism strategy, feasibility study and operational plan for the new regional sports complex and for future recreational complexes
 Identify cost recovery expectations for all recreation facilities and develop individual business plans to meet expectations
 Reinvest in existing facilities, including Adventure Clubs  Utilize GIS participant mapping tools to identify the community usage patterns of each facility  Enhance aging golf course facilities and develop an improvement plan for each golf course

RECREATION PROGRAMS
GOAL
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
5 Develop and expand programs considering new pricing strategies, expanding partnership opportunities, and reinventing certain programs for long term viability that reflect market trends and needs.

OBJECTIVES
 Develop/expand programming in the following areas: Fitness and wellness classes; Cooking classes; Free/low-cost community events; Art, dance performing arts; Education classes; Outdoor trips (single day); Older adult resources/support; Volunteer programs  Consider establishing dynamic pricing strategies (primetime/non-prime time and weekday/weekend) for reservations, rental of spaces, programs, and events  Establish written partnership agreements with performance measures to ensure accountability  Seek annual feedback from the community regarding quality of programs and unmet needs every 2-3 years
 Evaluate the business structure of Youth Development and consider changes to the operational model, evaluating cost recovery expectations, future expansion viability and facilities repair/replacement needs

OPERATIONS AND STAFFING
GOAL
Develop systems and strategies that improve efficiencies and effectiveness, culture, and branding, both internally and externally.

OBJECTIVES
 Develop performance indicators to demonstrate desired outcomes applying to all areas of the Department
 Update or create partnership, pricing, and earned income policies to build upon the business mindset in the organization
 Develop and implement a communications plan to increase brand awareness to better promote the Department’s key focuses and build greater appreciation of parks, recreation, and library resources  Provide ongoing and increased opportunities to enhance staff’s personal and professional growth, provide a better understanding of department management practices, and facilitate a positive work culture
 Develop and implement a comprehensive succession plan and strategies to recruit and retain staff  Continue to evaluate the department's organizational structure, including:
o identifying new positions needed
o striking an effective balance of full-time, part-time, and seasonal staff o growing the use of volunteers
 Seek and implement efficiencies in the department's HR, IT, and Finance roles 6 FINANCE
GOAL
Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world through effective use of financial data, partnerships, equity, and positive stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

OBJECTIVES
 Find additional funding sources to support the entire department  Ensure that partnerships are equitable, provide value to the department, and benefit taxpayers  Quantify and communicate the economic value of PRL
 Ensure that operational dollars follow new capital improvements so as not to impact the rest of the system in a negative manner
 Appropriately invest in the existing system to ensure older parks/facilities are valued the same as new

MAIDU MUSEUM & HISTORIC SITE
GOAL
Preserve and share the cultural heritage of the Maidu through exhibits, education, and cultural experiences.

OBJECTIVES
 Develop new revenue and funding sources
 Cultivate relationships with outside organizations, with an emphasis on Native American tribal organizations
 Create an interpretive plan for the Maidu Museum & Historic Site to include a more accurate and inclusive educational experience for visitors
 Increase public awareness and attendance at the Maidu Museum & Historic Site, both through marketing and the development of new programs/exhibits
 Continue to develop and grow the volunteer program to support school tours and museum programming

OBJECTIVES
 Develop and grow funding sources and seek community partnerships  Develop a staffing model that meets the needs and service expectations of the growing community  Increase overall services and programming to meet community demand, including services outside of library facilities
 Renovate and modernize all three library facilities to provide increased access, improve security, and make better use of existing space
 Maintain and upgrade technology infrastructure to improve access to services, both in library facilities and remotely
 Improve community awareness of library services through targeted marketing campaigns Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
7  Create feasibility studies and develop business plans for new facilities, including the Historic Fiddyment House in Pistachio Regional Park, a cultural arts center to serve the community, and a new library facility in west Roseville

CONCLUSION
The City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries aspires to provide world class services to the community while cultivating a world class organizational culture for its employees. To achieve the vision, mission and goals outlined in this Strategic Master Plan, both internal and external services need to be more data driven to support acting on values and elements in the plan. PRL will develop resiliency and sustainability through organizational-wide systems and processes that ensure consistent employee work practices and alignment across all service areas. Roseville residents can not only expect to receive exceptional service from PRL but will have the opportunity to be engaged in the decision-making process on what is developed in their parks, what facilities and amenities are created and how programs will activate the spaces created. The entire process is continuous, and the outcomes are measurable. So let the process begin! 8 CHAPTER ONE - MARKET ANALYSIS
A key component of the Parks, Recreation and Library Strategic Master Plan (“Plan”) is a Demographic and Recreation Trends Analysis. This provides the City of Roseville’s Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department (“PRL”) insight into the general makeup of the population served and identifies market trends in recreation.

It also helps quantify the market in and around the City of Roseville (“City”) and provide a better understanding of the types of parks, facilities, and programs / services that are most appropriate to satisfy the needs of residents.

This analysis is two-fold – it aims to answer the who and the what. First, it assesses the demographic characteristics and population projections of City residents to help PRL understand who they serve.

Secondly, recreational trends are examined on a national, regional, and local level to understand what the population served wants to do. Findings from this analysis establish a fundamental understanding that provide a basis for prioritizing the community need for parks, trails, facilities, and recreation programs.

1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The Demographic Analysis describes the population within the city. This assessment is reflective of the City’s total population and its key characteristics such as age segments, race, ethnicity, and income levels.

It is important to note that future projections are based on historical patterns and unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the analysis could have a significant bearing on the validity of the projected figures.

1.1.1 METHODOLOGY
Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau and from Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), the largest research and development organization dedicated to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and specializing in population projections and market trends. All data was acquired in December 2021 and reflects actual numbers as reported in the 2010 Census. ESRI then estimates the current population (2021) as well as a 5-year projection (2026). PROS utilized straight line linear regression to forecast demographic characteristics for 2031 and 2036.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
9 1.1.2 CITY POPULACE

POPULATION
The City’s population has experienced significant growth in recent years, increasing 24.2% from 2010 to 2021, or on average 2.2% per year. This is higher than the national annual growth rate of 0.81% (from 2010-2021). Similar to the population, the total number of households also experienced a slight increase of

23.3% over the 11 years, or on average 2.1% annually (national average = 0.80% annual growth).

Currently, the population is estimated at 146,875 individuals living within 55,634 households. Projecting ahead, the total population growth is expected to continue to increase at its current growth rate. By 2036, the City’s population is projected at 189,687 residents (2% annual growth) living within 71,475 households (1.9% annual growth).

Figure 2 - City Population and Households
10 AGE SEGMENT
Evaluating the City’s age segmentation, the population is balanced with the largest age group being that of the 35–54-year-old segment (27.3%). The population has a median age of 37.8 years old which is slightly younger than the U.S. median age of 38.5 years. The city will continue along an aging trend, with the 55- 64, 65-74, and 75+ age segments expected to increase over the next 15 years. By 2036, the 55-64, 65-74, and 75+ segments are expected to represent 29.8% of the total population (a 3.9% increase over 2021) as other major age segments will remain relatively the same or experience a slight decrease.

Figure 3 - Population by Age Segment
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
11 RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS
The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The Census 2010 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; therefore, caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the US population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis.  American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment
 Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam  Black Alone – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa  Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands  White Alone – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa
 Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race
Please Note: The Census Bureau defines Race as a person’s self-identification with one or more of the following social groups: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian, and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, or a combination of these. While Ethnicity is defined as whether a person is of Hispanic / Latino origin or not. For this reason, the Hispanic / Latino ethnicity is viewed separate from race throughout this demographic analysis. 12 RACE
Assessing race, the City’s current population is majority White Alone (73%) and the largest minority is Asian (12%). The predictions for 2036 expect the population to become more diverse, with a 9% decrease in the White Alone population and increases in all other racial segments.

ETHNICITY
The City’s population was also assessed based
on Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, which by the
Census Bureau definition is viewed
independently from race. It is important to note
that individuals who are Hispanic/Latino in
ethnicity can also identify with any racial
categories identified above.

Based on the current 2021 estimate, people of
Hispanic/Latino origin represent 16% of the
City’s population, which is below the national
average (19% Hispanic/Latino). The Hispanic/
Latino population has been increasing slightly since the 2010 census and is expected to grow to 19% of the City’s total population by 2036.

Figure 4 - Population by Race
Figure 5 - Hispanic/Latino Population
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
13 HOUSEHOLD INCOME
As seen below, the City’s per capita income ($46,157) and median household income ($97,103) are both higher than the averages of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that comprises Roseville and other surrounding communities and the U.S. as a whole. The per capita income is that earned by an individual while the median household income is based on the total income of everyone over the age of 16 living under the same roof. Though these above average income characteristics indicate that the average household may have more disposable income, residents are still likely to be price conscious and have a need to understand the value that correlates with quality-of-life indicators.

Figure 6 - Comparative Income Characteristics
$46,157
$37,390 $35,672
$97,103
$77,217
$65,712
Roseville Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom,
CA MSA
U.S.A

COMPARATIVE INCOME

CHARACTERISTICS
Per Capita Income Median Household Income
14 1.1.3 ROSEVILLE DEMOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS
The following implications are derived from the analyses provided above. Each implication is organized by the outlined demographic information sections.

POPULATION
The population is increasing and is projected to experience a 24% population growth over the next 15 years.

This is above the national average over the same time period. With a growing population, parks, recreation, and library services will need to strategically invest, develop, and maintain both indoor and outdoor facilities in relation to current and future residential growth.

AGE SEGMENTATION
Roseville has a balanced age segmentation with the largest group being 35-54. Over the next 15 years, the service area is projected to remain balanced, but also age slightly as the 55+ segment will be 29.8% in 2036.

RACE AND ETHNICITY
A diversifying community will focus the City on providing traditional and emerging programming and service offerings.

HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME
With median and per capita household income averages higher than MSA and national averages, it would be important for the City to prioritize providing offerings that are first class with exceptional customer service while seeking opportunities to create revenue generation.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
15 1.2 RECREATION TRENDS
The Recreational Trends Analysis provides an understanding of national and local recreational trends.

Trends data used for this analysis was obtained from Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA), National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), and Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All trend data is based on current and/or historical participation rates, statistically valid survey results, or NRPA Park Metrics.

1.2.1 NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION

METHODOLOGY
The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report 2022 was utilized in evaluating the following trends:
 National Recreation Participatory Trends
 Core vs. Casual Participation Trends
The study is based on findings from surveys carried out in 2021 by the Physical Activity Council (PAC), resulting in a total of 18,000 online interviews. Surveys were administered to all genders, ages, income levels, regions, and ethnicities to allow for statistical accuracy of the national population. A sample size of 18,000 completed interviews is considered by SFIA to result in a high degree of statistical accuracy. A sport with a participation rate of five percent has a confidence interval of plus or minus 0.32 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level. Using a weighting technique, survey results are applied to the total U.S. population figure of 304,745,039 people (ages six and older).

The purpose of the report is to establish levels of activity and identify key participatory trends in recreation across the U.S. This study looked at 118 different sports/activities and subdivided them into various categories including: sports, fitness, outdoor activities, aquatics, etc.

CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION
In addition to overall participation rates, SFIA further categorizes active participants as either core or casual participants based on frequency of participation. Core participants have higher participatory frequency than casual participants. The thresholds that define casual versus core participation may vary based on the nature of each individual activity. For instance, core participants engage in most fitness activities more than 50 times per year, while for sports the threshold for core participation is typically 13 times per year.

In each activity, core participants are more committed and tend to be less likely to switch to other activities or become inactive (engage in no physical activity) than casual participants. This may also explain why activities with more core participants tend to experience less pattern shifts in participation rates than those with larger groups of casual participants.
16 1.2.2 IMPACT OF COVID-19
Approximately 232.6 million people ages six and over reported being active in 2021, which is a 1.3% increase from 2020 and the greatest number of active Americans in the last 5 years. There were more things to do as outdoor activities thrived, fitness at home became more popular, and team sports started back up after the COVID-19 hiatus.

Americans continued to practice yoga, attend Pilates training, and workout with kettlebells. They were drawn to the ease of pickleball and the competitiveness of tennis. Many started indoor climbing, while others took to the hiking trail. The waterways traffic had an increase of stand-up paddlers, kayaks, and jet skis.

Gymnastics, swimming on a team, court volleyball, and fast-pitch softball benefited from the participation boom created from the Olympics.

Water sports had the largest gain in participation rates. Activities such as kayaking, stand-up paddling, and boardsailing/windsurfing all contributed to the 2.0 percent increase. Outdoor sports continued to grow with

53.9 percent of the U.S. population participating. This rate remains higher than pre-pandemic levels, having

3.2 percent gain over 50.7 percent participation rate in 2019. The largest contributor to this gain was trail running having increased 5.6 percent in one year and 13.9 percent from 2019.

Generationally, fitness sports continue to be the go-to means of exercise for Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials. Over half of the Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z generation participated in one type of outdoor activity. Team sports were heavily dominated by generation Gen Z.

Figure 7 - Total Participation
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
17 1.2.3 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS

PARTICIPATION LEVELS
The top sports most heavily participated in the United States were Basketball (27.1 million), Golf (25.1 million), and Tennis (22.6 million) which have participation figures well in excess of the other activities within the general sports category. Baseball (15.5 million), and Outdoor Soccer (12.5 million) round out the top five.

The popularity of Basketball, Golf, and Tennis can be attributed to the ability to compete with relatively small number of participants, this coupled with an ability to be played outdoors and/or properly distanced helps explain their popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Basketball’s overall success can also be attributed to the limited amount of equipment needed to participate and the limited space requirements necessary, which make basketball the only traditional sport that can be played at most American dwellings as a driveway pickup game. Golf continues to benefit from its wide age segment appeal and is considered a life-long sport. In addition, target type game venues or Golf Entertainment Venues have increased drastically (72.3%) as a 5-year trend, using Golf Entertainment (e.g., Top Golf) as a new alternative to breathe life back into the game of golf.

FIVE-YEAR TREND
Since 2016, Pickleball (71.2%), Golf Entertainment Venues (51.3%), and Tennis (25.1%) have shown the largest increase in participation. Similarly, Basketball (21.4%) and Boxing for Competition (20.7%) have also experienced significant growth. Based on the five-year trend from 2016-2021, the sports that are most rapidly declining in participation include Ultimate Frisbee (-40.4%), Roller Hockey (-26.1%), Volleyball (Sand/Beach) (-23.8%), Squash (-23.5%), Slow Pitch Softball (-21.9%), and Gymnastics (-20.7%).

ONE-YEAR TREND
The most recent year shares some similarities with the five-year trends; with Pickleball (14.8%) and Boxing for Competition (7.3%) experiencing some of the greatest increases in participation this past year. The greatest one-year increases also include Fast Pitch Softball (15.3%), Gymnastics (10.9%), and Court Volleyball (8.1%). Basketball (-2.2%), Flag Football (-1.6%), Indoor Soccer (-0.6%) and Baseball (-0.5%) have shown a five-year trend increase, but a decrease over the last year. This is likely a direct result of coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, other team sports such as Ultimate Frisbee (-5.8%), Slow Pitch Softball (-5.4%), Roller Hockey (-5%), Racquetball (-4.8%) and Beach/Sand Volleyball (-3.1%), also had significant decreases in participation over the last year.

Basketball

27.1 Million
Golf

25.1 Million
Tennis

22.6 Million
Baseball

15.5 Million
Soccer

12.5 Million
18 CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS
Highly participated in sports, such as Basketball, Baseball, and Slow Pitch Softball generally have a larger core participant base (participate 13+ times per year) than casual participant base (participate 1-12 times per year). Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, most activities showed a decrease in their percentage of core participants. However, there were significant increases in the percentage of casual participation for Court Volleyball, Pickleball, Fast Pitch Softball, Gymnastics and Lacrosse in the past year. 2016 2020 2021 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Basketball 22,343 27,753 27,135 21.4% -2.2%
Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course) 23,815 24,804 25,111 5.4% 1.2% Tennis 18,079 21,642 22,617 25.1% 4.5%
Baseball 14,760 15,731 15,587 5.6% -0.9%
Soccer (Outdoor) 11,932 12,444 12,556 5.2% 0.9%
Golf (Entertainment Venue) 8,173 12,057 12,362 51.3% 2.5% Softball (Slow Pitch) 7,690 6,349 6,008 -21.9% -5.4%
Football (Flag) 6,173 7,001 6,889 11.6% -1.6%
Volleyball (Court) 6,216 5,410 5,849 -5.9% 8.1%
Badminton 7,354 5,862 6,061 -17.6% 3.4%
Soccer (Indoor) 5,117 5,440 5,408 5.7% -0.6%
Football (Touch) 5,686 4,846 4,884 -14.1% 0.8%
Football (Tackle) 5,481 5,054 5,228 -4.6% 3.4%
Gymnastics 5,381 3,848 4,268 -20.7% 10.9%
Volleyball (Sand/Beach) 5,489 4,320 4,184 -23.8% -3.1%
Track and Field 4,116 3,636 3,587 -12.9% -1.3%
Cheerleading 4,029 3,308 3,465 -14.0% 4.7%
Pickleball 2,815 4,199 4,819 71.2% 14.8%
Racquetball 3,579 3,426 3,260 -8.9% -4.8%
Ice Hockey 2,697 2,270 2,306 -14.5% 1.6%
Ultimate Frisbee 3,673 2,325 2,190 -40.4% -5.8%
Softball (Fast Pitch) 2,467 1,811 2,088 -15.4% 15.3%
Lacrosse 2,090 1,884 1,892 -9.5% 0.4%
Wrestling 1,922 1,931 1,937 0.8% 0.3%
Roller Hockey 1,929 1,500 1,425 -26.1% -5.0%
Boxing for Competition 1,210 1,361 1,460 20.7% 7.3%
Rugby 1,550 1,242 1,238 -20.1% -0.3%
Squash 1,549 1,163 1,185 -23.5% 1.9%
National Participatory Trends - General Sports
Activity
Participation Levels % Change
Legend: Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Figure 8 - National Participatory Trends for General Sports Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
19 1.2.4 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS

PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Overall, national participatory trends in fitness have experienced strong growth in recent years. Many of these activities have become popular due to an increased interest among Americans to improve their health and enhance quality of life by engaging in an active lifestyle. The most popular general fitness activities in 2021 also were those that could be done at home or in a virtual class environment. The activities with the most participation are: Fitness Walking (115.8 million), Treadmill (53.6 million), Free Weights (52.6 million), Running/Jogging (48.9 million), and Yoga (34.3 million).

FIVE-YEAR TREND
Over the last five years (2016-2021), the activities growing at the highest rate are Trail Running (45.9%), Yoga (30.8%), Dance, Step & Choreographed Exercise (13.3%), and Pilates Training (9.6%). Over the same time frame, the activities that have undergone the biggest decline include: Group Stationary Cycling (-33.5%), Traditional Triathlon (-26.4%), Cardio Kickboxing (-26.1%), Cross-Training Style Workout (-

24.4%) and Non-Traditional Triathlons (-23.5%).

ONE-YEAR TREND
In the last year, activities with the largest gains in participation were those that can be done alone at home or socially distanced outdoors. The top increases were in Treadmill (7.6%), Cross-Training Style Workouts (6.4%) Trail Running (5.6%), Yoga (4.7%), and Stair Climbing (4.7%). In the same span, the activities that had the largest decline in participation were those that would generally take more time and investment. The greatest drops were seen in Traditional Triathlon (-5.3%), Aerobics (-5.1%), Non-Traditional Triathlons (-

4.3%), and Cardio Kickboxing (-3.7%).

CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS
The most participated in fitness activities all had increases in their casual user base (participating 1-49 times per year) over the last year. These fitness activities include: Fitness Walking, Free Weights, Running/Jogging, Treadmills, Yoga, and Recumbent/Upright Stationary Cycling.

FITNESS

WALKING
115.8

MILLION

DUMBBELL

FREE WEIGHTS

52.6 MILLION

RUNNING/

JOGGING

48.9 MILLION

TREADMILL

53.6 MILLION

STATIONARY

CYCLING

32.4 MILLION
20 Figure 9 - National Participatory Trends for General Fitness 2016 2020 2021 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Fitness Walking 107,895 114,044 115,814 7.3% 1.6%
Treadmill 51,872 49,832 53,627 3.4% 7.6%
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights) 51,513 53,256 52,636 2.2% -1.2% Running/Jogging 47,384 50,652 48,977 3.4% -3.3%
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright) 36,118 31,287 32,453 -10.1% 3.7% Weight/Resistant Machines 35,768 30,651 30,577 -14.5% -0.2% Elliptical Motion Trainer 32,218 27,920 27,618 -14.3% -1.1% Yoga 26,268 32,808 34,347 30.8% 4.7%
Free Weights (Barbells) 26,473 28,790 28,243 6.7% -1.9% Dance, Step, & Choreographed Exercise 21,839 25,160 24,752 13.3% -1.6% Bodyweight Exercise 25,110 22,845 22,629 -9.9% -0.9%
Aerobics (High Impact/Intensity Training HIIT) 10,575 10,954 10,400 -1.7% -5.1% Stair Climbing Machine 15,079 11,261 11,786 -21.8% 4.7% Cross-Training Style Workout 12,914 9,179 9,764 -24.4% 6.4% Trail Running 8,582 11,854 12,520 45.9% 5.6%
Stationary Cycling (Group) 8,937 6,054 5,939 -33.5% -1.9% Pilates Training 8,893 9,905 9,745 9.6% -1.6%
Cardio Kickboxing 6,899 5,295 5,099 -26.1% -3.7%
Boot Camp Style Cross-Training 6,583 4,969 5,169 -21.5% 4.0% Martial Arts 5,745 6,064 6,186 7.7% 2.0%
Boxing for Fitness 5,175 5,230 5,237 1.2% 0.1%
Tai Chi 3,706 3,300 3,393 -8.4% 2.8%
Barre 3,329 3,579 3,659 9.9% 2.2%
Triathlon (Traditional/Road) 2,374 1,846 1,748 -26.4% -5.3% Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road) 1,705 1,363 1,304 -23.5% -4.3% National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
Activity
Participation Levels % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%) Legend:

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
21 1.2.5 NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Results from the SFIA report demonstrate strong growth in participation regarding outdoor/adventure recreation activities. Much like the general fitness activities, these activities encourage an active lifestyle, can be performed individually or with proper social distancing in a group, and are not as limited by time constraints. In 2021, the most popular activities, in terms of total participants, from the outdoor/adventure recreation category include: Day Hiking (58.6 million), Road Bicycling (42.7 million), Freshwater Fishing (40.8 million), Camping within ¼ mile of Vehicle/Home (35.9 million), and Recreational Vehicle Camping (16.3 million).

FIVE-YEAR TREND
From 2016-2021, Day Hiking (39.3%), Camping within ¼ mile of Vehicle/Home (36.0%), Skateboarding (35.8%), Birdwatching (27.8%), BMX Bicycling (24.4%), and Fly Fishing (15.5%) have undergone the largest increases in participation. The five-year trend also shows activities such as Adventure Racing (-

39.1%), Traditional Climbing (-14.9%), In-Line Roller Skating (-8.2%), and Archery (-7.1%) to be the only activities with decreases in participation.

ONE-YEAR TREND
The one-year trend shows almost all activities declining in participation from the previous year. The growing activities being Indoor Climbing (2.7%), Day Hiking (1.5%), Archery (1.3%), In-Line Roller Skating (1.0%), Boulder Climbing (0.5%), and over the last year, the activities that underwent the biggest decreases in participation were Recreational Vehicle Camping (-8.2%) and Adventure Racing (-7.1%).

CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION
Most outdoor activities have experienced participation growth in the last five years. Although this a positive trend, it should be noted that all outdoor activities participation, besides adventure racing, consist primarily of casual users.

HIKING
(DAY)

58.6 MILLION

FISHING
(FRESHWATER)

40.8 MILLION

CAMPING
(<¼MI.OF

CAR/HOME)

35.9 MILLION

BICYCLING
(ROAD)

42.7 MILLION

CAMPING
(RV)

16.3 MILLION
22 Figure 10 - National Participatory Trends for Outdoor/Adventure Recreation 2016 2020 2021 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Hiking (Day) 42,128 57,808 58,697 39.3% 1.5%
Bicycling (Road) 38,365 44,471 42,775 11.5% -3.8%
Fishing (Freshwater) 38,121 42,556 40,853 7.2% -4.0%
Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home) 26,467 36,082 35,985 36.0% -0.3% Camping (Recreational Vehicle) 15,855 17,825 16,371 3.3% -8.2% Fishing (Saltwater) 12,266 14,527 13,790 12.4% -5.1%
Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home) 11,589 15,228 14,815 27.8% -2.7% Backpacking Overnight 10,151 10,746 10,306 1.5% -4.1%
Bicycling (Mountain) 8,615 8,998 8,693 0.9% -3.4%
Archery 7,903 7,249 7,342 -7.1% 1.3%
Fishing (Fly) 6,456 7,753 7,458 15.5% -3.8%
Skateboarding 6,442 8,872 8,747 35.8% -1.4%
Climbing (Indoor) - 5,535 5,684 N/A 2.7%
Roller Skating, In-Line 5,381 4,892 4,940 -8.2% 1.0%
Bicycling (BMX) 3,104 3,880 3,861 24.4% -0.5%
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering) 2,790 2,456 2,374 -14.9% -3.3% Climbing (Sport/Boulder) - 2,290 2,301 N/A 0.5%
Adventure Racing 2,999 1,966 1,826 -39.1% -7.1%
National Participatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation Activity
Participation Levels % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend: Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
23 1.2.6 NATIONAL TRENDS IN AQUATICS

PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Swimming is deemed as a lifetime activity, which is most likely why it continues to have such strong participation. In 2021, Fitness Swimming remained the overall leader in participation (25.6 million) amongst aquatic activities, even though most, if not all, aquatic facilities were forced to close at some point due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

FIVE-YEAR TREND
Assessing the five-year trend, no activity has experienced an increase from 2016-2021, most likely due to the accessibility of facilities during COVID-19. While Fitness Swimming and Aquatic Exercise underwent a slight decline, dropping -3.7% and -1.7% respectively, Competitive Swimming suffered a -16.2% decline in participation.

ONE-YEAR TREND
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is seen here as most aquatic facilities were forced to shut down for some part of the year. This caused decreases to Aquatic Exercise (-5.1%) having the largest decline, followed by Fitness Swimming (-0.2%). Participation in Competitive swimming increased by 8%.

CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN AQUATICS
Only Aquatic Exercise has undergone an increase in casual participation (1-49 times per year) over the last five years, however, they have all seen a drop in core participation (50+ times per year) in the same time frame. This was happening before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the large decreases in all participation over the last year have furthered this trend.

SWIMMING
(FITNESS)

25.6 MILLION

AQUATIC

EXERCISE

10.4 MILLION

SWIMMING
(COMPETITION)

2.8 MILLION
2016 2020 2021 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Swimming (Fitness) 26,601 25,666 25,620 -3.7% -0.2%
Aquatic Exercise 10,575 10,954 10,400 -1.7% -5.1%
Swimming (Competition) 3,369 2,615 2,824 -16.2% 8.0%
National Participatory Trends - Aquatics
Activity
Participation Levels % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend: Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Figure 11 - National Participatory Trends for Aquatics
24 1.2.7 NATIONAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS / ACTIVITIES

PARTICIPATION LEVEL
The most popular water sports / activities based on total participants in 2020 were Recreational Kayaking (13.3 million), Canoeing (9.2 million), and Snorkeling (7.3 million). It should be noted that water activity participation tends to vary based on regional, seasonal, and environmental factors. A region with more water access and a warmer climate is more likely to have a higher participation rate in water activities than a region that has a long winter season or limited water access. Therefore, when assessing trends in water sports and activities, it is important to understand that fluctuations may be the result of environmental barriers which can greatly influence water activity participation.

FIVE-YEAR TREND
Over the last five years, Recreational Kayaking (33.3%), Surfing (24%), and Stand-Up Paddling (16.1%) were the fastest growing water activities. White Water Kayaking (1.4%) was the only other activity with an increase in participation. From 2016-2021, activities declining in participation most rapidly were Boardsailing/Windsurfing (-25.3%), Scuba Diving (-20.4%), Water Skiing (-17.4%), Sea Kayaking (-17.2%) Snorkeling (-16.1%), and Sailing (-15.4%).

ONE-YEAR TREND
Recreational Kayaking (2.7%) and Stand-Up Paddling (1.7%) were the activities to grow both over 5 years and in the last one year. Activities which experienced the largest decreases in participation in the most recent year include Surfing (-8.9%), Snorkeling (-5.3%), Scuba Diving (-4.3%), and Canoeing (-4.1%).

CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS/ACTIVITIES
As mentioned previously, regional, seasonal, and environmental limiting factors may influence the participation rate of water sport and activities. These factors may also explain why all water-based activities have drastically more casual participants than core participants, since frequencies of activities may be constrained by uncontrollable factors. These high casual user numbers are likely why most water sports/activities have experienced decreases in participation in recent years.

KAYAKING

13.3 MILLION

SNORKELING

7.3 MILLION

JET SKIING

5.1 MILLION

CANOEING

9.2 MILLION

SAILING

3.5 MILLION
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
25 2016 2020 2021 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Kayaking (Recreational) 10,017 13,002 13,351 33.3% 2.7% Canoeing 10,046 9,595 9,199 -8.4% -4.1%
Snorkeling 8,717 7,729 7,316 -16.1% -5.3%
Jet Skiing 5,783 4,900 5,062 -12.5% 3.3%
Sailing 4,095 3,486 3,463 -15.4% -0.7%
Stand-Up Paddling 3,220 3,675 3,739 16.1% 1.7%
Rafting 3,428 3,474 3,383 -1.3% -2.6%
Water Skiing 3,700 3,050 3,058 -17.4% 0.3%
Surfing 2,793 3,800 3,463 24.0% -8.9%
Wakeboarding 2,912 2,754 2,674 -8.2% -2.9%
Scuba Diving 3,111 2,588 2,476 -20.4% -4.3%
Kayaking (Sea/Touring) 3,124 2,508 2,587 -17.2% 3.1%
Kayaking (White Water) 2,552 2,605 2,587 1.4% -0.7%
Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,737 1,268 1,297 -25.3% 2.3%
National Participatory Trends - Water Sports / Activities Activity
Participation Levels % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend: Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Figure 12 - National Participatory Trends for Water Sports/Activities 26 1.2.8 NON-PARTICIPANT INTEREST BY AGE SEGMENT
In addition to participation rates by generation, SFIA also tracks non-participant interest. These are activities that the U.S. population currently does not participate in due to physical or monetary barriers, but is interested in participating in. Below are the top five activities that each age segment would be most likely to partake in if they were readily available.

Overall, the activities most age segments are interested in include: Camping, Bicycling, Fishing, and Swimming for Fitness. All of which are deemed as low-impact activities, making them obtainable for any age segment to enjoy.

Fishing
Camping
Soccer
Martial Arts
Basketball
6–12-Year-Olds
Fishing
Camping
Working out w/ Weights
Volleyball
Running/Jogging
13–17-Year-Olds
Camping
Fishing
Martial Arts
Volleyball
Kayaking
18–24-Year-Olds
Camping
Fitness Swimming
Bicycling
Fishing
Kayaking
25–34-Year-Olds
Fitness Swimming
Camping
Bicycling
Fishing
Hiking
35–44-Year-Olds
Bicycling
Fishing
Camping
Fitness Swimming
Hiking
45–54-Year-Olds
Bicycling
Fishing
Fitness Swimming
Camping
Hiking
55–64-Year-Olds
Fishing
Fitness Swimming
Bicycling
Birdwatching/Wildlife
viewing
Working out using
machines
65+ Year-Olds
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
27 1.2.9 LOCAL TRENDS – GENERAL SPORTS MARKET POTENTIAL The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data from ESRI. A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service within the city. The MPI shows the likelihood that a resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the US National average. The national average is 100, therefore numbers below 100 would represent a lower-than-average participation rate, and numbers above 100 would represent higher than average participation rate. The City is compared to the national average in three (3) categories – general sports, fitness, and outdoor activity.

Overall, Roseville demonstrates above average MPI numbers. Looking at the three categories (general sports, fitness, and outdoor activity), most every activities’ MPI scores are above to well above the national average. These overall MPI scores show that Roseville has strong participation rates when it comes to recreational activities. This becomes significant when the City considers building new facilities or starting up new programs; giving them a strong tool to estimate resident attendance.

High index numbers (100+) are significant because they demonstrate that there is a greater potential that residents of the City will actively participate in offerings provided by the City.

GENERAL SPORTS MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX
103 106 104
119
128
113
100 100
120
106
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
General Sports
Roseville National Average 100
Figure 13 - General Sports MPI
28 GENERAL FITNESS MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX

OUTDOOR ACTIVITY MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX
112
125
102
119 114
126
113 110
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
Aerobics Jogging/
Running
Pilates Swimming Walking for
Exercise
Weight
Lifting
Yoga Zumba
Fitness
Roseville National Average 100
110 111 117
90 110 109 102
93 111
102 106
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
Outdoor Activity
Roseville National Average 100
Figure 14 - Fitness MPI
Figure 15 - Outdoor Activity MPI
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
29 1.2.10 RECREATION TRENDS SUMMARY
It is critically important for the Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department to understand the local and national participation trends in recreation activities. In doing so, the Department can gain general insight into the lifecycle stage of recreation programs and activities (emerging, stable, and declining) and thereby anticipate potential changes in need and demand for the programs and activities that it provides to the residents of Roseville. Here are some major takeaways for local and national recreation trends:
 Fitness walking remained the most popular activity OVERALL nationally. This activity will likely continue to grow in popularity in Roseville.
 All listed aquatic activities, while affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, continue to experience strong participation, both locally and nationally. Swimming on a team saw significant increases in casual participation.
 Basketball is the most participated in sport nationally while golf is the most participated in sport locally.
 Softball, tackle football and touch football are losing participants both locally and nationally, though MPI numbers are above the national average for each of these activities.  Outdoor recreational activities are on the rise nationally and are also popular locally.  Based on national measurements, income level has a positive impact on activity rate. Higher income households tend to have higher activity rates.
 Age is also a significant factor to inactivity level. Generation Z (age 6-17) had the lowest inactivity rate while the boomers (age 55+) had the highest inactivity rate.  Besides income and age factors, non-participants are more likely to join sports or fitness activities if a friend accompanies them.
30 1.3 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS

1.3.1 PARKS AND RECREATION ASSESSMENT
The Consulting Team and Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries staff identified operating metrics to benchmark against comparable recreation providers. The goal of this analysis is ensuring direct comparison through a methodology of statistics and ratios to provide accurate information and an objective analysis.

Please note, the benchmark analysis is only an indicator based on the information provided. Information used in this analysis was sourced directly from each agency. The information sought was a combination of operating metrics that factor budgets, staffing, and inventories. In some instances, the information was not tracked or not available. The benchmark comparison is also compared to national data from the National Parks and Recreation Association’s (NRPA) Park Metrics database and/or recommended best practice standards (if applicable for the identified metric).

The table below lists each benchmark agency in the study, arranged by population per square mile, and reveals key characteristics of each jurisdiction. Most of the benchmark agencies that participated were city jurisdictions with two agencies that were a district and township designation. Roseville, with a population of 146,875 and a jurisdiction size of 43.05 square miles, ranks in the middle for population density (3,412 residents per sq. mi.).

Due to difference in how each system collects, maintains, and reports data, variances may exist. These variations have an impact on the per capita and percentage allocations within the budget, and the overall comparison must be viewed with this in mind.

The benchmark data collection for all systems was complete as of December 2021. While it is possible that there may have been changes or updates in the data provided, to ensure consistency, the original figures obtained at that time have been used in the benchmark analysis.

The goal was to evaluate how Roseville is positioned among peer agencies as it applies to efficiency and effectiveness practices. The benchmark assessment is organized into specific categories to obtain data that offers an encompassing view of each agency’s operating metrics in comparison to Roseville.

Agency State Jurisdiction Type Population
Jurisdiction
Size
(Sq. Mi.)
Population
per Sq. Mi.

El Cajon Parks & Recreation CA City 105,000 14.20 7,394 Salinas Recreation & Community Services CA City 162,000 23.20 6,983 Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods CA City 212,616 44.80 4,746 Tracy Parks & Recreation CA City 91,416 26.03 3,512
Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries CO City 117,832 34.00 3,466 Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries CA City 146,875 43.05 3,412 Pleasanton Parks & Recreation CA City 79,871 24.11 3,313 Henderson Parks & Recreation NV City 332,258 107.00 3,105 Folsom Parks & Recreation CA City 86,300 30.11 2,866
Provo Parks & Recreation UT City 122,971 43.05 2,856
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation TX Township 119,000 43.27 2,750 Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation CA District 199,326 157.00 1,270 Figure 16 - Agency Overview
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
31 1.3.2 PARKS AND RECREATION BENCHMARK COMPARISON

PARK ACREAGE
The following table provides a general overview of each system’s park acreage. Assessing level of service for park acres, Roseville ranks second with 32.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is also well above the national median of 9.9 acres per 1,000 residents. The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation ranks first with 60.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Agency Population
Total Number
of Parks
Residents per
Park
Total Acres
Owned or
Managed
Total Acres per
1,000
Residents
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 119,000 151 788 7,214 60.6 Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 146,875 79 1,859 4,745 32.3 Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 117,832 64 1,841 3,567 30.3 Folsom Parks & Recreation 86,300 71 1,215 1,662 19.3
Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 79,871 49 1,630 1,437 18.0 Provo Parks & Recreation 122,971 36 3,416 2,195 17.8
Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 212,616 76 2,798 1,621 7.6 Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 199,326 100 1,993 1,156 5.8 Henderson Parks & Recreation 332,258 67 4,959 1,828 5.5 Salinas Recreation & Community Services 162,000 52 3,115 649 4.0 El Cajon Parks & Recreation 105,000 22 4,773 220 2.1
Tracy Parks & Recreation 91,416 85 1,075 - 0.0
NRPA Median 9.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents
NRPA Upper Quartile 17.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents NRPA Lower Quartile 5.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents Figure 17 - Park Acreage
32 TRAIL MILEAGE
The information below explores the types of trails, total mileage, and level of service for trails within each system. By comparing total trail mileage to the population of the service area, the level of service provided to the community can be determined, which is expressed as trail miles for every 1,000 residents.

As seen below, Roseville ranks near the bottom for total trail mileage, offering 36.2 miles of paved trails.

Roseville has the fifth lowest total trail mileage per capita (0.25 miles per 1,000) among benchmark agencies. This level of service for trail mileage is just within the national best practice of 0.25-0.5 mile of trail per 1,000 residents.

Agency Population Soft Trail Miles Paved Trail
Miles
Total Trail
Miles
Trail Miles per
1,000
Residents
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 119,000 25.0 220.0 245.0 2.06 Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 117,832 40.0 80.0 120.0 1.02 Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 79,871 38.2 41.8 80.0 1.00 Folsom Parks & Recreation 86,300 5.3 53.0 58.3 0.67
Provo Parks & Recreation 122,971 - 61.0 61.0 0.50
Henderson Parks & Recreation 332,258 29.0 125.0 154.0 0.46 Tracy Parks & Recreation 91,416 28.4 3.6 32.0 0.35
Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 146,875 - 36.2 36.2 0.25 El Cajon Parks & Recreation 105,000 18.0 - 18.0 0.17
Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 199,326 - 22.0 22.0 0.11 Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 212,616 - 17.0 17.0 0.08 Salinas Recreation & Community Services 162,000 N/A N/A N/A 0.00 Best Practice Agencies 0.25-0.5 Trail Miles per 1,000 Residents Figure 18 - Trail Mileage
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
33 STAFFING LEVELS
This section compares levels of staffing for each system by comparing full-time equivalents (FTEs) to total population. To provide a level comparison of staffing among benchmark agencies, total FTEs are calculated by summing all the hours worked by departmental staff and dividing the total by 2,080, which is traditionally accepted as equivalent to the total annual hours worked by one full-time employee.

Total FTEs per 10,000 residents is a key performance metric that assesses how well each agency is equipped, in terms of human resources, to serve its jurisdiction. Among peer agencies, Roseville ranks third among benchmark agencies, while still exceeding the national upper quartile for staffing levels, with

21.4 FTEs per 10,000 residents. PRL’s numbers include library staff numbers which increases its total FTEs per 10,000 residents where other agencies are only accounting for park and recreation staff.

Agency Population Full-Time
Employees
Part-Time
FTEs
Total
FTEs
FTEs per 10,000
Residents
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 119,000 103.0 241.5 344.5 28.9 Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 79,871 137.0 50.0 187.0 23.4 Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 146,875 127.0 186.9 313.9 21.4 Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 117,832 600.0 - 205.8 17.5 Folsom Parks & Recreation
86,300 61.0 72.7 133.7 15.5
Henderson Parks & Recreation 332,258 204.0 257.5 461.5 13.9 Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 199,326 104.0 106.2 210.2 10.5 Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 212,616 53.0 161.5 214.5 10.1 Tracy Parks & Recreation 91,416 40.0 47.4 87.4 9.6
Salinas Recreation & Community Services 162,000 72.0 34.5 106.5 6.6 El Cajon Parks & Recreation 105,000 34.0 27.0 61.0 5.8
Provo Parks & Recreation 122,971 18.0 26.0 44.0 3.6
NRPA Median 8.2 FTEs per 10,000 Residents
NRPA Lower Quartile 4.5 FTEs per 10,000 Residents
NRPA Upper Quartile 14.9 FTEs per 10,000 Residents
Figure 19 – Staffing Levels
34 The following chart shows an additional breakdown of FTEs for each benchmark agencies by department area.

Agency
FTEs in
Parks, Open
Space and
Trails
FTEs in
Recreation
Facilities and
Programs
FTEs in
Before and
After School
Child Care
FTEs in
Museum
FTEs in
Libraries
FTEs in
Administration
Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 84.9 69.9 106.4 4.2 32.75 15.2 Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 66.03 90.58 31.81 0 0 17.73 Folsom Parks & Recreation 17.5 74.5 8.5 0.5 16 6
Henderson Parks & Recreation 118.02 669 172 0 0 42
Salinas Recreation & Community Services 12 98
incorporated
in the
programs
0 92.5 9
Tracy Parks & Recreation 28 38 8.5 0 2 10
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 52 37 0 0 0 13 Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 135 69 0 0 42 6 Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 36 51.5 32 0 22.5 14.25
Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 44 98.53 61 5 0 6 El Cajon Parks & Recreation 12 17 26 0 0 6
Provo Parks & Recreation 18 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 20 - FTEs Breakdown
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
35 FUNDING SOURCES
The following table is a breakdown of each peer agency’s funding sources along with NRPA’s average distribution of percentages. As seen, Roseville has the highest percentage of earned / generated revenue of any agency (40%) and is nearly twice the NRPA average (23%) which speaks very highly to the agency’s focus on financial sustainability and operating in a business mindset.

Below is also a breakdown of revenue sources for each benchmark agency. Nearly 90% of Roseville’s revenue comes from permit fees (39%), program fees and charges (38%) and golf operations (11%).

Agency
General Fund
Tax Support
Dedicated
Levies
Earned /
Generated
Revenue
Other
Dedicated
Taxes
Other (endowments,
sponsorships, grants,
donations, etc.)
Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 40% 19% 40% 0% 2% Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 11% 35% 27% 0% 28%
Folsom Parks & Recreation 82% 3% 7% 0% 8%
Henderson Parks & Recreation 75% 0% 17% 0% 7%
Salinas Recreation & Community Services 99% 0% <1% 0% <1% Tracy Parks & Recreation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 74% 0% 25% 0% 1% Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 54% 0% 31% 0% 15% Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 64% 0% 36% 0% 0%
Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 0% 7% 0% 0% 16% El Cajon Parks & Recreation 72% 0% 26% 0% 2%
Provo Parks & Recreation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
NRPA Average Distribution 60% 8% 23% 3% 5%
Agency
Facility Entry
Fees /
Memberships
Program Fees
and Charges
Facility Rentals
Facility,
Property, or
ROW Leases
Concessions /
Resale Items
Donations Grants
Sponsorships/
Naming Rights/
Advertising
Permit Fees Golf
Operations
Other
Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 4% 38% 6% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 39% 11% 1% Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 7% 57% 11% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 4% Folsom Parks & Recreation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Henderson Parks & Recreation 4% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% Salinas Recreation & Community Services <1% <1% <1% 0% 0% 0% <1% 0% <1% 0% 0% Tracy Parks & Recreation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 32% 26% 24% 0% 1% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 28% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44% 0% Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 1% 19% 1% 0% 0% 4% 7% 0% 0% 67% 0% Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 0% 6% 13% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 34% 1% El Cajon Parks & Recreation 1% 67% 9% 0% 0% 1% 4% 6% 12% 0% 0% Provo Parks & Recreation 62% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Modesto receives $8.5 million in grants for capital projects only Figure 21 - Funding Source
Figure 22 - Revenue Sources
36 OPERATING BUDGET
Benchmark agencies reported a wide range of annual operating expenditures, from $38.6 million (Tracy) to $5.5 million (El Cajon). Roseville’s total operating expenditures is exceeding NRPA’s higher quartile.

Dividing the annual operational budget to the service area’s population allows for a comparison of how much each agency is spending per resident. Roseville is ranked second among benchmark agencies ($309.88) and surpasses NRPA’s higher quartile for spending per resident. While a lower expense per resident can suggest efficiencies in operation, it can also signal limited program offerings, lower maintenance standards, or lighter marketing efforts, so the evaluation of optimal per capita spending must take into consideration the unique situation and intent of the agency.

Figure 23 - Operating Budget
Agency Population Total Operating
Expense
Operating Expense
per Resident
Tracy Parks & Recreation 91,416 $38,603,351 $ 422.28
Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 146,875 $ 45,514,277 $ 309.88 Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 117,832 $ 28,099,318 $ 238.47 Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 199,326 $ 46,140,920 $ 231.48 Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 79,871 $ 14,489,904 $ 181.42 The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 119,000 $ 20,171,065 $ 169.50 Folsom Parks & Recreation 86,300 $ 14,613,024 $ 169.33
Henderson Parks & Recreation 332,258 $ 53,841,060 $ 162.05 Provo Parks & Recreation 122,971 $ 16,221,272 $ 131.91
Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 212,616 $ 20,179,334 $ 94.91 Salinas Recreation & Community Services 162,000 $ 12,530,829 $ 77.35 El Cajon Parks & Recreation 105,000 $ 5,511,639 $ 52.49 Total Annual Operating Expenditures
NRPA Median $4,898,633 NRPA Median $88.30 per Resident
NRPA Lower Quartile $1,863,016 NRPA Lower Quartile $48.84 per Resident NRPA Higher Quartile $13,839,293 NRPA Higher Quartile $159.07 per Resident Operating Expense per Resident
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
37 The following table reflects the operation cost against the total park acres. Roseville has a lower expense per acre ($9,593) with the second most acres (4,745).

MARKETING BUDGET
Marketing budgets for parks and recreation agencies are typically less than in the private sector, but the industry is beginning to realize the value of investing in marketing and the potential return on investment (ROI) that can be achieved. Compared to peers reporting figures, Roseville ranks first for marketing budget ($600,000) and marketing spending per resident ($4.09). It should be noted that many departments receive marketing support at the City level, and therefore the marketing budgets noted in this chart may not be equitably reflected. It is a recommended standard that the department’s marketing budget be approximately 4% of the department’s overall budget.

Agency Total Acres
Total
Operating
Expense
Operating
Expense per
Acre
Tracy Parks & Recreation 403 $ 38,603,351 $ 95,790
Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 1,156 $ 46,140,920 $ 39,929 Henderson Parks & Recreation 1,828 $ 53,841,060 $ 29,453 El Cajon Parks & Recreation 220 $ 5,511,639 $ 25,053
Salinas Recreation & Community Services 649 $ 12,530,829 $ 19,323 Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 1,621 $ 20,179,334 $ 12,446 Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 1,437 $ 14,489,904 $ 10,083 Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 4,745 $ 45,514,277 $ 9,593 Folsom Parks & Recreation 1,662 $ 14,613,024 $ 8,794
Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 3,567 $ 28,099,318 $ 7,878 Provo Parks & Recreation 2,195 $ 16,221,272 $ 7,390
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 7,214 $ 20,171,065 $ 2,796 NRPA Median $7,556 Operating Expense per Acre
NRPA Lower Quartile $3,586 Operating Expense per Acre
NRPA Upper Quartile $18,346 Operating Expense per Acre
Agency Population Marketing
Budget
Marketing
Budget per
Resident
Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 146,875 $600,000 $ 4.09 Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 117,832 $343,998 $ 2.92 Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 199,326 $432,600 $ 2.17 Folsom Parks & Recreation 86,300 $170,347 $ 1.97
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 119,000 $156,200 $ 1.31 El Cajon Parks & Recreation 105,000 $130,000 $ 1.24
Henderson Parks & Recreation 332,258 $128,800 $ 0.39
Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 212,616 $45,000 $ 0.21 Salinas Recreation & Community Services 162,000 $12,000 $ 0.07 Tracy Parks & Recreation 91,416 N/A $ -
Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 79,871 N/A $ -
Provo Parks & Recreation 122,971 N/A $ -
Figure 24 - Operating Expense per Acre
Figure 25 - Marketing Budget
38 CAPITAL BUDGET
The table below reveals the annual capital budget from 2019-2021, as well as the three-year average budget, for each agency. Roseville is investing approximately $30 million per year in capital improvements.

The typical park and recreation agency has a median of $6 million in capital expenditures budgeted over the next five years.

The following table breaks down capital funding sources for each agency. The majority of Roseville’s capital funds come from parkland development fees (87%).

Agency
Local General
Fund (Tax
Supported
Local NonGeneral Fund /
Dedicated
Funds
Parkland
Development
Fees
Bonds
Other (e.g.
endowment,
grants,
donations, TIF)
Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries 4% 8% 87% 0% 0% Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation 0% 25% 73% 0% 2%
Folsom Parks & Recreation 0% 0% 96% 0% 4%
Henderson Parks & Recreation 0% 11% 29% 0% 40%
Salinas Recreation & Community Services 49% 51% 0% 0% 0% Tracy Parks & Recreation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation 41% 58% 0% 0% 0% Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries 21% 63% 16% 0% 0% Pleasanton Parks & Recreation 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods 0% 0% 19% 0% 81% El Cajon Parks & Recreation 72% 26% 0% 0% 2%
Provo Parks & Recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Agency
Capital Budget
2021
Capital Budget
2020
Capital Budget
2019
Ave Annual
CIP Budget
2019-2021
Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries $30,136,663 $32,029,302 $30,620,006 $30,928,657 Tracy Parks & Recreation $36,032,078 $20,601,911 $20,429,593 $25,687,861 Modesto Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods $20,679,691 $21,078,097 $27,817,790 $23,191,859 El Cajon Parks & Recreation $18,900,000 $22,684,000 $23,000,000 $21,528,000 Henderson Parks & Recreation $23,256,306 $22,578,599 $7,246,309 $17,693,738 Cosumnes CSD Parks & Recreation $16,541,708 $16,294,000 $13,684,000 $15,506,569 Pleasanton Parks & Recreation $14,489,904 $12,163,208 $13,633,268 $13,428,793 Westminster Parks, Recreation & Libraries $8,492,000 $9,549,000 $10,842,000 $9,627,667 Provo Parks & Recreation $9,361,391 $13,734,899 $1,561,818 $8,219,369 The Woodlands Township Parks and Recreation $4,943,253 $4,098,735 $4,575,168 $4,539,052 Folsom Parks & Recreation $5,398,078 $1,090,000 $3,620,000 $3,369,359 Salinas Recreation & Community Services $265,000 $177,500 N/A $221,250 Figure 26 - Capital Budget
Figure 27 - Capital Funding Source
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
39 LEVEL OF SERVICE
The table below provides a snapshot of inventory numbers for the benchmark agencies, as well as a side-by-side comparison of the level of service for each amenity type. The service level is arrived at by comparing each amenity count by the population of the jurisdiction served.

Figure 28 - Benchmark Level of Service
Agency: City of
Roseville
Cosumnes
CSD City of Folsom City of Henderson City of Salinas City of Tracy The Woodlands City of Westminster City of
Pleasanton City of Modesto City of El Cajon City of Provo OUTDOOR AMENITIES (QUANTITY):

Rectangular Multi-Purpose Fields 52.0 47.0 27.0 65.0 11.0 20.0 46.0 43.0 25.0 31.0 6.0 16.0 Ball Diamonds 43.0 51.0 25.0 70.0 9.0 19.0 4.0 39.0 26.0 29.0 13.0 15.0 Basketball Courts 51.0 31.0 12.0 33.0 21.0 36.0 19.0 25.0 26.5 25.5 4.0 4.0 Tennis Courts 21.0 36.0 18.0 58.0 12.0 16.0 50.0 22.0 42.0 37.0 12.0 11.0 Pickleball Courts 8.0 6.0 4.0 13.0 - - 12.0 4.0 - - 4.0 12.0 Sand Volleyball Courts 10.0 7.0 7.0 25.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 11.0 6.0 2.0 - - Skate Parks 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Disc Golf Courses - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 - - 4.0 - - Golf Courses 2.0 1.0 - 1.0 2.0 - - 2.0 1.0 2.0 - 1.0
Splash Pad 2.0 10.0 3.0 16.0 - 3.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 9.0 - 2.0 Outdoor Aquatic Centers 2.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 - 1.0 14.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - INDOOR AMENITIES (SQUARE FOOTAGE):

Recreation/Community Centers 53,996 65,286 34,100 260,697 104,000 10,480 59,000 235,000 - 34,871 186,449 160,000 Libraries 58,042 - 24,050 - 66,000 17,058 - - 30,000 - - Museums/Cultural Centers 15,773 - 1,000 - - 25,520 - - 7,900 27,244 - Senior/Teen Centers - 1,035 35,667 - 5,224 - 30,000 22,000 19,586 18,000 Indoor Aquatic Centers 25,149 - - 115,747 11,000 - - 37,500 - 3,277 - Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
40 Figure 29 - Benchmark Level of Service by Population Agency:

OUTDOOR AMENITIES (QUANTITY):

Rectangular Multi-Purpose Fields 1.00 field per 2,825 1.00 field per 4,241 1.00 field per 3,196 1.00 field per 5,112 1.00 field per 14,727 1.00 field per 4,571 Ball Diamonds 1.00 field per 3,416 1.00 field per 3,908 1.00 field per 3,452 1.00 field per 4,747 1.00 field per 18,000 1.00 field per 4,811 Basketball Courts 1.00 court per 2,880 1.00 court per 6,430 1.00 court per 7,192 1.00 court per 10,068 1.00 court per 7,714 1.00 court per 2,539 Tennis Courts 1.00 court per 6,994 1.00 court per 5,537 1.00 court per 4,794 1.00 court per 5,729 1.00 court per 13,500 1.00 court per 5,714 Pickleball Courts 1.00 court per 18,359 1.00 court per 33,221 1.00 court per 21,575 1.00 court per 25,558 1.00 court per #DIV/0! 1.00 court per #DIV/0! Sand Volleyball Courts 1.00 court per 14,688 1.00 court per 28,475 1.00 court per 12,329 1.00 court per 13,290 1.00 court per 162,000 1.00 court per 18,283 Skate Parks 1.00 site per 146,875 1.00 site per 99,663 1.00 site per 86,300 1.00 site per 83,065 1.00 site per 162,000 1.00 site per 15,236 Disc Golf Courses 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per 199,326 1.00 site per 86,300 1.00 site per 332,258 1.00 site per 162,000 1.00 site per 91,416 Golf Courses 1.00 site per 73,438 1.00 site per 199,326 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per 332,258 1.00 site per 81,000 1.00 site per #DIV/0! Splash Pad 1.00 site per 73,438 1.00 site per 19,933 1.00 site per 28,767 1.00 site per 20,766 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per 30,472 Outdoor Aquatic Centers 1.00 site per 73,438 1.00 site per 66,442 1.00 site per 28,767 1.00 site per 55,376 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per 91,416 INDOOR AMENITIES (SQUARE FOOTAGE):

Recreation/Community Centers 0.37 square feet per person 0.33 square feet per person 0.40 square feet per person 0.78 square feet per person 0.64 square feet per person 0.11 square feet per person Libraries 0.40 square feet per person - square feet per person 0.28 square feet per person - square feet per person 0.41 square feet per person 0.19 square feet per person Museums/Cultural Centers 0.11 square feet per person - square feet per person 0.01 square feet per person - square feet per person - square feet per person 0.28 square feet per person Senior/Teen Centers - square feet per person - square feet per person 0.01 square feet per person 0.11 square feet per person - square feet per person 0.06 square feet per person Indoor Aquatic Centers 0.17 square feet per person - square feet per person - square feet per person 0.35 square feet per person 0.07 square feet per person - square feet per person City of Tracy
Current Service Level based
upon population
Roseville
Current Service Level based
upon population
Cosumnes CSD
Current Service Level based
upon population
City of Folsom
Current Service Level based upon
population
City of Henderson
Current Service Level based
upon population
City of Salinas
Current Service Level based
upon population
Agency:

OUTDOOR AMENITIES (QUANTITY):

Rectangular Multi-Purpose Fields 1.00 field per 2,587 1.00 field per 2,740 1.00 field per 3,195 1.00 field per 6,859 1.00 field per 17,500 1.00 field per 7,686 Ball Diamonds 1.00 field per 29,750 1.00 field per 3,021 1.00 field per 3,072 1.00 field per 7,332 1.00 field per 8,077 1.00 field per 8,198 Basketball Courts 1.00 court per 6,263 1.00 court per 4,713 1.00 court per 3,014 1.00 court per 8,338 1.00 court per 26,250 1.00 court per 30,743 Tennis Courts 1.00 court per 2,380 1.00 court per 5,356 1.00 court per 1,902 1.00 court per 5,746 1.00 court per 8,750 1.00 court per 11,179 Pickleball Courts 1.00 court per 9,917 1.00 court per 29,458 1.00 court per #DIV/0! 1.00 court per #DIV/0! 1.00 court per 26,250 1.00 court per 10,248 Sand Volleyball Courts 1.00 court per 13,222 1.00 court per 10,712 1.00 court per 13,312 1.00 court per 106,308 1.00 court per #DIV/0! 1.00 court per #DIV/0! Skate Parks 1.00 site per 14,875 1.00 site per 117,832 1.00 site per 39,936 1.00 site per 212,616 1.00 site per 105,000 1.00 site per 61,486 Disc Golf Courses 1.00 site per 59,500 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per 53,154 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per #DIV/0! Golf Courses 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per 58,916 1.00 site per 79,871 1.00 site per 106,308 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per 122,971 Splash Pad 1.00 site per 23,800 1.00 site per 58,916 1.00 site per 39,936 1.00 site per 23,624 1.00 site per #DIV/0! 1.00 site per 61,486 Outdoor Aquatic Centers 1.00 site per 8,500 1.00 site per 117,832 1.00 site per 79,871 1.00 site per 212,616 1.00 site per 105,000 1.00 site per #DIV/0! INDOOR AMENITIES (SQUARE FOOTAGE):

Recreation/Community Centers 0.50 square feet per person 1.99 square feet per person - square feet per person 0.16 square feet per person 1.78 square feet per person 1.30 square feet per person Libraries - square feet per person - square feet per person 0.38 square feet per person - square feet per person - square feet per person - square feet per person Museums/Cultural Centers - square feet per person - square feet per person 0.10 square feet per person 0.13 square feet per person - square feet per person - square feet per person Senior/Teen Centers - square feet per person 0.25 square feet per person 0.28 square feet per person 0.09 square feet per person 0.17 square feet per person - square feet per person Indoor Aquatic Centers - square feet per person 0.32 square feet per person - square feet per person 0.02 square feet per person - square feet per person - square feet per person City of Provo
Current Service Level based
upon population
The Woodlands
Current Service Level based
upon population
City of Westminster
Current Service Level based
upon population
City of Pleasanton
Current Service Level based
upon population
City of Modesto
Current Service Level based
upon population
City of Cajon
Current Service Level based
upon population
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
41 CONCLUSION
Findings from this benchmark analysis reveals Roseville is well positioned compared to its peers and NRPA’s park metrics. Benchmarking against peers that are industry leaders provides a sound measuring stick for best practices and innovative approaches that will help Roseville continue to achieve at a high level.

Areas where Roseville demonstrates great strengths include staffing levels, efficiency of operations, and capital investment. Based on operating cost per resident, Roseville has one of the most efficient operations in the study.

The benchmark study also identified some potential opportunities and/or improvements Roseville could explore in the future. Roseville fell short in mileage of trails offered throughout the system. Currently Roseville has 0.25 miles of trail per 1,000 residents. Roseville should continue to look at connecting trails throughout the park system to help meet best practice needs.

The perspective gained through the peer comparison is valuable in identifying areas for improvement and establishing strategic goals to pursue. Roseville should use this analysis as a baseline comparison that provides key information and standards to be tracked and measured over time. These benchmarks help Roseville understand where they stand today and brings forward areas of focus for the department as it continues to move toward its vision of being a world-class organization.

1.3.3 LIBRARY ASSESSMENT
Benchmark organizations are selected because they meet similar demographic, economic, governance or other criteria. These municipal libraries have a similar size service area and operating expenditures and are a good match for comparing with Roseville Public Library:
 Carlsbad City Library
 Daly City Public Library
 Richmond Public Library
 Santa Clara City Library
 Sunnyvale Public Library
 Thousand Oaks Library
 Torrance Public Library
Our neighbors
 Placer County Library
 Yolo County Library
42 OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Performance indicators such as overall collection size and use, expenditures, and staffing show that Roseville provides fewer resources, spends less, and has fewer staff in comparison to its peers. The size of the collection overall is 62% below average, with collections per capita 37% below average. Total operating expenditures are similarly lower than average.

The library's aggregate service transactions are closer to the average, however, resulting in the lowest transaction cost per capita of the group. This would indicate a lean and efficient operation, and this is reflected in lower per capita expenditures. However, in terms of service transactions, the library circulates fewer items and attracts less than half the program attendees of its peers. The library is doing more with less but is not providing a comparable level of service for the size and characteristics of the population.

Figure 30 - Total Operating Expenditures & SPST
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
43 TRANSACTION COST
Cost per SPST is calculated by dividing the total operating expenditures by total SPST. Roseville Public Library has the lowest cost per transaction at $3.36, 42% below the average for benchmark libraries.

Figure 31 - Cost per SPST
44 COLLECTION EXPENDITURES
The amount a library spends on information resources is counted as collection expenditures, shown below in the blue bars. This cost divided by the service population provides the amount spent per person on information resources, shown on the orange line. Roseville Public Library spends about half (53%) the average on resources overall, and 58% less than the average per person.

Figure 32 - Collection Expenditures & Collections Expenditures per Capita Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
45 PROGRAMMING
Programming is one of the most important functions the library provides. Overall attendance divided by population provides a measure of per capita program attendance. Overall program attendance is shown below by the blue bars, with per capita ratio super- imposed on the orange line. Roseville Public Library overall attendance and per capita attendance are both less than half of average benchmark partners.

Figure 33 - Program Attendance Per Capita
46 STAFFING
A comparative measure of overall staffing can be calculated using the number of FTE (full-time equivalent) staff employed for every 1,000 persons in the service population. In the chart below, FTE staff per 1,000 population is shown in the blue bars, from most to least, with the total FTE shown on the orange line. Roseville Public Library employs 31.5 FTE, 41% less than average of benchmark partners.

This equates to .22 FTE per 1,000 population, half the average.

Figure 34 - FTE Staff per 1,000 Population
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
47 CHAPTER TWO – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

2.1 STAKEHOLDER AND FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY
As a part of the Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries system Strategic Master Plan, understanding what the residents in the community know about the PRL system and how well the system meets their needs for park spaces and experiences, recreation facilities and programs, and library facilities and services, PROS Consulting interviewed stakeholders and residents and summarized their answers in this report.

2.1.1 PARKS AND RECREATION STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY Stakeholders interviewed consisted of residents in the community that are leaders / officials in government, business owners, and key employees of the city of Roseville. The stakeholder interviews were conducted with thirteen individuals, one on one by phone. Eleven questions were asked of each interviewee, and everyone was glad to participate and hoped their answers would be helpful in the development of PRL’s Strategic Master Plan. The interviewees were encouraged to be candid in their answers and were told their names would not be used in the master plan document. The questions asked were about their use of trails, visiting parks, funding of the system, and questions about the City of Roseville in general. In Appendix B are the interview questions followed by a summary of all answers that interviewees provided, and a bullet list of representative actual answers.

OVERALL STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY
Blending answers to all questions, there were common perceptions that surfaced. The park system is enjoyed and praised for all it provides to residents of Roseville. Growth is encouraged and problems paralleling the increasing population are well known. Ideas for the park system to implement will make new residents feel welcome and encourage them to visit the parks. There are recognized safety issues of homelessness within the parks and on the trails making people uneasy when they use the parks.

The staff efforts with communication will be well received by newcomers to the city as new programs and events are offered. The trail system is a highly used amenity and provided a valuable outdoor activity during the pandemic. The staff did an outstanding job by allowing areas of the park system to remain open. The community responded well to the opportunity to lessen restrictions and used creative ways to maintain social distancing at activities.

As the parks expand externally to the public and internally in their operations, partnerships need to be sought and developed to add depth to programming, sports, and new amenities. These partnerships are valuable to the lifeblood of the park system and need ongoing attention to maintain a two-way relationship with the Department. The park system has outdoor nature spaces for leisure use and greenspace that is for passive use, and these areas are an important door that is open to everyone to experience Roseville.

The future of the City will include a Parks, Recreation & Libraries System with additional amenities and activities in the realm of new sports facilities, more group gathering spaces and special events that will appeal to new residents and be supported by existing park users. The system will meet challenges, adjust to change, and continue to polish its reputation as an important asset of the City of Roseville.

2.1.2 FOCUS GROUPS INTERVIEW SUMMARY
In addition to the Stakeholder interviews, Focus Group interviews were also conducted with multiple individuals in groups from community organizations, schools, youth sports organizations, the Parks & Recreation Commission, Library Board and City departments to obtain more information from the community about the Parks, Recreation & Libraries System. Their answers to the twelve questions asked will also add perspective of the overall organization and those working or volunteering there. The individuals 48 in the groups provided their answers and they also combined their thoughts to arrive at a collective answer.

Specific, individual answers were noted during the interviews and woven into to the summary. A representative sample of some answers were noted to show the diversity of comments in the groups during the interviews. Members in the groups were asked to provide answers relative to the group they represent and not only from their view as residents in the community.

The Focus Group Interviews were conducted on site with individuals in various job positions of their organizations. The participants were pleased to be interviewed and they provided valuable input for the Master Plan Process. The interviewees were encouraged to be candid in their answers and were told their names would not be used in the plan. The questions spanned topics about park use, trails, visiting parks, funding, and questions about the city of Roseville. In Appendix B are the interview questions, followed by a summary of all answers that interviewees provided, and a representative random sample of specific answers
OVERALL: FOCUS GROUPS INTERVIEWS SUMMARY
Roseville parks are highly valued by the community and are well operated. Safety in the parks is diminished by the presence of the homeless in certain areas throughout the parks, making people feel uneasy and cautious. This problem is not yet causing people to avoid using the parks, but as the City experiences more growth this issue needs to be on the list of priorities for the City to address. The rising population is welcomed by residents and the park system, and it brings more kids and youth to participate in sports, programming, and activities in the parks.

Outdoor spaces, trails, and natural areas are important to residents and are readily accessible by walking or driving a short distance. As the City grows, more trail connections will need to be made for walking and bike riding. The park system is important to the community and more maintenance will also be needed to care for more park spaces and assure that existing amenities, facilities, and park land remain in good condition for all users.

Increasing participation in sports will create a need for more fields, better maintenance of existing fields, and additional staff to care for new fields. New sports are a desire of residents, and the parks will need to find ways to accommodate them with the sports that are becoming mainstream and currently not offered in the system. During the pandemic, some outdoor activities and trails in parks were the go-to source for residents to use when other facilities in the City were closed. The park staff managed restrictions and mandates imposed on them in creative ways and they will emerge from the pandemic well prepared and able to adjust services to fit emerging needs of residents.

News about park activities, programs, events are communicated to Roseville residents through popular and common digital platforms and social media, as well as the easy to produce and distribute ways such as their printed PRL Magazine and mailers. As new ways to share information are developed, the park system is ready to participate and adapt to the future methods the community will be using. Partnerships are realized as a vital means of support to a growing park and library system, and relationships they have now with partners in the community should be strengthened and new ones developed for both the financial health and widening needs of the community. While the city grows physically and with more people moving to Roseville, the parks, recreation programs and facilities, and libraries will be a treasured part of the community by welcoming everyone that visits them.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
49 2.1.3 LIBRARY INTERVIEWS SUMMARY
Thirty library staff members, Library Board, PRL staff, and community stakeholders were interviewed individually or in groups between September 16 and November 9, 2021. A brief summary of responses to each of the interview/focus group questions is provided immediately below. Detailed responses can be found in Appendix B.

SUMMARY

1. What kinds of library services or information resources are needed in Roseville right now? This could be something that the library does not currently offer, or something we need more of. a. Many respondents felt that the library was doing a lot of things very well and those should continue, including programs for children, seniors, teens; more discussion groups, book clubs, and programs that connect seniors with technology. New programs and services that would be great to have include more cultural events, maker spaces, programs and resources for diverse populations, ESL speakers, neuro-divergent children, unsheltered, more literacy-based programs, and more digital materials. Overall, the library needs to provide more service points and more hours. In addition, many respondents believe that much more outreach is needed in the western regions as well as all over Roseville to schools, especially program enrichment to Title I schools, and mobile services to trailer parks, senior communities.

2. What programs, services, amenities or features should the library consider offering that would expand or enhance the customer’s experience?
a. Respondents discussed the need for more technology frequently, including charging stations for devices, more outlets, wireless printing, computers/devices for loan, mobile hotspots, and a computer lab. Overall, the library needs to offer more services available online and onsite 24/7, such as holds pickup. And more self-service options. In terms of the facility spaces, respondents believe the library should offer more study rooms and quiet spaces, more comfortable seating for adults, cozy fun seating for kids, and to make the library more of a community space versus just a library space. Dead and underused spaces need to be rethought and repurposed. Services should be tailored to location because each location has different needs. The library needs to be a destination again, with more hands-on experiences, art installations, educational experiences, with refreshments and coffee nearby.

3. What do you feel are the greatest challenges and/or needs facing Roseville communities in the next five years?
a. Respondents emphasized the challenge of the ongoing population growth: sheer numbers of incoming people and increasing diversity will make it difficult to maintain a sense of community and small town feel despite growth. Traffic congestion is a growing problem.

Communication is needed to tell newcomers about library, city services, and to increase public awareness of issues like COVID. Also important is the need to help people keep up with technology and meeting high expectations of residents and providing access to services and facilities that are already maxed out, such as Riley Library. The growing homeless population needs attention, especially with the high cost of housing and unstable job markets.

4. How should the library respond to those challenges?
a. Respondents frequently mentioned the need to improve communication on existing library services as well as improve customer needs assessments so that services truly match 50 community needs. The library should meet pressing needs by providing technology training and explore providing services in new outlets via kiosks, lockers, storefronts in shopping malls to expand accessibility. The library needs to evaluate its mission and vision and focus resources on core programming. The library should pursue grants, partnerships and alternative funding sources to relieve budget constraints, and grow the volunteer program. Use library spaces for events, fundraisers, etc. for other organizations. The library should explore the potential for joint use/special library district to meet the needs of growing populations in adjacent areas in Placer County. Assess homeless problem and prioritize ways to approach the problem.

5. What are the barriers to meeting these challenges?
a. The most significant barrier is limited funding and low level of staffing. Communication is difficult on many levels, not only in terms of raising awareness of library services but also in regard to its value to the community. The library is competing for funding with other departments.

6. What new partnerships should the library explore in the future? a. Boys & Girls Clubs, schools/education community, school libraries, senior communities, healthcare organizations, nonprofits of all kinds, art community, chamber of commerce, businesses, social services agencies, shelters, technology sector, other libraries, other government agencies.

7. What do you think about customers paying for library services? a. The majority of respondents prefer keeping basic services free. Although many were also opened to consider charging for special events or extra services, there is a strong feeling about providing equitable access to everyone, especially those who cannot afford to pay.

The library should be seen as a community resource, not a privilege available only to those who can afford it. Several respondents noted the difficulty of charging enough for a service to make it worthwhile to provide.

8. If you could change one thing about the library, what would that be? a. The library needs to provide more copies of popular items, and more visible reading suggestions. Expand hours and staffing, update the facilities.

9. Aside from funding, what could the City do to best help the library thrive? a. The City could increase advertising presence for the library to expand public’s awareness, engagement with the library. Expedite the process for building a new library in the west area. Support library growth with city growth. Recognize what the library does and provides to the community and its value. Expand human resources capacity and functionality.

Expand IT services to implement fixes and changes more quickly.

10. Anything else you want to share about the library strategic plan? a. Riley and Maidu libraries are great examples of pulling everything together in one place – playgrounds, sports fields, community center, library, etc. A new library should have a similar approach. Ask the right questions of the community and be sure implementation stays on target.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
51 2.2 COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY
As part of the community input process, the consultant team, in conjunction with the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department, conducted an online survey in January 2022 to gain insight into understanding the preferences and levels of support in relation to parks, recreation and library services. Results of the 1,438 completed surveys are as follows:

2.2.1 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITY – HIGHEST NEEDS

2.2.2 PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS – HIGHEST NEEDS

2.2.3 ART AND CULTURE PROGRAMS – HIGHEST NEEDS
Figure 35 - Facility/Amenity Priority
Figure 36 - Recreation Program/Service Priority
Figure 37 - Art & Culture Events/Programs Priority
52 2.2.4 PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES – LEVEL OF SUPPORT

2.2.5 LIBRARY SERVICES – LEVEL OF SUPPORT
Figure 38 - Level of Support for Parks and Recreation Services Figure 39 - Level of Support for Library Services
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
53 2.3 STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY
ETC Institute administered a Parks, Recreation & Libraries Needs Assessment Survey for the City of Roseville, California. In Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department’s development of a Strategic Master Plan, the launching of this effort began with this survey.

The results of this survey will be used to establish priorities for improvements to the City's park and open space system, recreation opportunities, and library services. The Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department oversees nearly 80 parks, 3,500+ acres of open space, libraries, Maidu Museum, and numerous recreation facilities, and provides thousands of programs and events each year. Data compiled during this survey will help City leaders make decisions that best reflect the desires and needs of the community. 54 2.3.1 METHODOLOGY
ETC Institute mailed a survey packet to a random sample of households in the City of Roseville. Each survey contained a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage-paid return envelope. Households who received the survey were given the option of returning the survey by mail or completing it online at RosevilleSurvey.org.

To encourage participation, approximately ten days after the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute sent emails/text messages to the households that received the survey. The email/text contained a link to the online version of the survey to make it simple for households to complete.

To prevent people who were not a part of the random sample, everyone who completed the survey online was required to enter their home address prior to submitting the survey. ETC Institute then matched the addresses that were entered online with the addresses that were originally selected for the random sample.

If the address from a survey completed online did not match one of the addresses selected for the sample, the online survey was not counted.

The GIS map below is the location map of the City of Roseville. Boundaries are shown by census block groups and completed survey respondents are represented by small red dots. To keep the anonymity of the respondents, the red dots are not the exact location, but down to the longitude and latitude of the block location.

The goal was to collect 400 completed surveys from City residents. The goal was exceeded in a total of 542 surveys being completed. The overall results for a sample of 542 surveys have a precision of at least +/-4.2% at the 95% level of confidence. The red dots in the diagram indicate where the surveys came from for the Strategic Master Plan.

Figure 40 - Survey Location Map
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
55 2.3.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY FINDINGS

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION
 Maidu Community Center was used by the highest percentage of households, out of the other facilities analyzed, in the past two years. Over one-third (37.7%) of households indicated that, in the past two years, they had used Maidu Community Center daily to several times a year and

62.4% indicated they have never used the community center in the past two years.  At least a quarter of households used the Roseville Sports Center (26.8%) and Roseville Aquatics Complex (25.4%), daily to several times per year, in the past two years. Respectively, 73.2% and

74.6% of households indicated they never used the sports center or aquatic complex in the past two years. (Note: while this survey typically asks about use in the past year, due to COVID this particular survey’s questions referenced a timespan of the past two years to account for use preCOVID.)  Households were given eleven various reasons that could be reasons preventing them from using parks and recreation facilities more often. Households were asked to indicate all reasons that are preventing them from using the City's parks and recreation facilities more often and the following were the top three reasons:
o I do not know what is offered (28.0%)
o Lack of time (27.3%)
o Use other private facilities (21.8%)
 The graph below shows how households responded to the questions regarding the reasons that prevent them from using City parks and recreation facilities more often.

Figure 41 - Reasons for Not Visiting Parks and Recreation Facilities More Often 56  Households were asked what their preferred time to take a class or attend a recreation program during the day of the week. The graph below shows how the question was responded for weekdays.

Overall, it appears there are not specific weekdays that households prefer over another. However, for each day, the highest percentage of households indicated the morning (8am-noon) and early evening (4pm-8pm) were their preferred times.
o 64.4% of households prefer to take a class/attend a recreation program between 8AM and 8PM on Monday,
o 64.4% on Tuesday,
o 63.6% on Wednesday,
o 63.1% on Thursday, and
o 62.5% on Friday
Figure 42 - Preferred Time on Weekday
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
57  Households were asked what their preferred time to take a class or attend a recreation program during the weekend. The graph below shows how the question was responded for weekends. o On Saturday, the highest percentage (61.9%) of households prefer to take a class/attend a recreation program in the early morning (5AM) to the late afternoon (4PM). o On Sunday, the highest percentage (54.2%) of households prefer to take a class/attend a recreation program in the morning (8AM) to the early evening (8PM).

Figure 43 - Preferred Time on Weekend
58 CITY OF ROSEVILLE CULTURAL ARTS AND EVENTS
 Households were asked, from a list of thirteen events, which types of events they had attended in the last two years. Fifty-seven percent (56.9%) of households attended Concerts in Town Square,

52.5% Holiday Tree Lighting, and 50.5% Concerts in the Park.  Events where less than ten percent of households indicated they had attended, in the last two years, were:
o Comedy Night (9.0%)
o North Pole Tavern (7.0%)
o Be Well Roseville (6.4%)
o Movie Night Sing Along (5.7%)
o Floating Pumpkin Patch (4.7%)

CITY OF ROSEVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY
 Seven of ten households have at least one member of their household with a Roseville Public Library card. Respondents were asked if they or any member of their household has a library card for the Roseville Public Library and 71.8% indicated "yes," 23.5% "no," and 4.8% "do not know."  In the past year, 5.5% of households visited the Martha Riley Community Library daily to weekly and 20.2% visited monthly. In the past year, 25.7% visited Maidu Library once, 25.5% visited the Downtown Library once, 25.6% visited Maidu Museum & Historic Site once, and 21.5% visited the Martha Riley Community Library once.
 Seventy-one percent (70.9%) of households indicated that in the past year, they never went to the Maidu Museum & Historic Site, 62.0% never went to the Downtown Library, 61.2% never went to the Maidu Library, and 52.8% never went to the Martha Riley Community Library.  Based on households' top three choices, the roles and services of the library and museum that are most important to households are the following:
o Support education and literacy for children and adults (44.8%) o Provide resources for reading/listening/viewing (37.6%) o Provide quiet places for reading and individual study (37.3%) o Serve as a resource of community information (25.5%)
 The two ways that most households use to learn about library and museum events/classes are through the library website and social media. When households were asked what ways they learn about library and museum events and classes, 32.3% indicated they use the library website and

28.2% use social media. Followed by.
o Staff and signage in the library (19.0%)
o Experience PRL Magazine (16.1%)
o Library newsletter (7.4%)
o ENGAGE brochure (6.1%)
o Outreach events (5.9%)
o Maidu Museum website (3.7%)
o In the museum (2.8%)
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
59 USE AND LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF LIBRARY SERVICES
 Forty-eight percent (47.5%) of households use books from the library. At least 51% of households indicated they are aware of the following library services, but do not use these services:
o Audiobooks (61.6%)
o DVDs (69.0%)
o Public computers (78.7%)
 At least 51% of households indicated they were not aware the following library services were offered:
o Chromebooks (52.0%)
o Local history collection (54.8%)
o World Languages (57.4%)
o STEAM kits (62.2%)
o VOX books (65.6%)

USE AND LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF LIBRARY DIGITAL SERVICES
 Over one-fourth (28.2%) of households use the search box on the library home page to find materials/articles. The top five library digital services that had the highest percentage of households indicate they are aware of them, but do not use them, were:
o Check out eBooks (40.7%)
o Read digital magazines (40.3%)
o Read digital newspapers (39.7%)
o Access resources to learn different languages (39.4%) o Download audiobooks (38.9%)
 At least 55% of households indicated they were not aware the following library digital services were offered:
o Digital newspapers (54.6%)
o Digital magazines (55.0%)
o Access resources to learn different languages (57.7%) o Stream educational videos (63.4%)
o Get financial/investment information (66.1%)
o Use study guides and take practice tests (68.7%)
o Access online virtual museum tours and field trips (69.7%)

USE AND LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF LIBRARY PROGRAMS
 Twelve percent (11.9%) of households participate in art exhibits at the library. At least 50% of households indicated they were aware of the following programs, but do not use them. o Summer reading programs (55.0%)
o Adult literacy programs (54.0%)
o Children's literacy programs (53.9%)
o Teen/youth literacy programs (51.55%)
 At least half (50%) of households is not aware the following programs are offered at the library. o Genealogy assistance (75.0%)
o Family STEAM workshops (67.7%)
o Online reading challenges (56.0%)
o Art exhibits (49.7%)
60 LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR ACTIONS THE CITY COULD TAKE TO IMPROVE AND/OR

ENHANCE THE CITY'S PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM
 Households were asked to rate their level of support for actions the City could take to improve/enhance the parks and recreation system in the City of Roseville. Based on the highest ratings of "very supportive" and "supportive," the following potential actions had at least a sum of 51% rating of support and the top seven highest ratings of support. o Add additional walking and biking trails (90.1%)
o Add outdoor fitness and cardio training areas to parks (66.7%) o Develop mountain bike trails (62.1%)
o Add additional new senior center (61.5%)
o Develop a gymnasium (e.g., basketball, volleyball, badminton, pickleball) (59.1%) o Add additional cardio equipment in recreation centers (56.6%) o Add additional splash pads (52.5%)
 The graph below shows the ratings of support that households gave to all actions analyzed.

Figure 44 - Level of Support for Parks and Recreation Services Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
61 LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR ACTIONS THE CITY COULD TAKE TO IMPROVE AND/OR

ENHANCE THE CITY'S LIBRARY AND MUSEUM SERVICES
 Households were asked to rate their level of support for actions the City could take to improve/enhance library and museum services in the City of Roseville. Based on the highest ratings of "very supportive" and "supportive," the following potential actions had at least a sum of 50% rating of support and the top seven highest ratings of support. o Add to the library collection (adding books, DVDs, and other library materials) (66.4%) o Expand offerings available through the website (62.6%) o Add mobile library stops in neighborhoods (51.6%)
o Add additional library programs (50.5%)
o Add library kiosks throughout the City (50.2%)
o The graph below shows the ratings of support that households gave to all actions analyzed.

Figure 45 - Level of Support for Library and Museum Services 62 PARKS AND RECREATION AMENITY AND FACILITY NEEDS
 Households were asked to identify if they had a need for 30 amenities/facilities and rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community that had the greatest “unmet” need for various amenities/facilities. The four amenities/facilities with the highest percentage of households whose needs are currently being partly or not met are listed below. o Indoor walking tracks - 12,321 households (23.2%)
o Walking and biking trails - 11,764 households (22.2%) o Mountain bike trails - 10,938 households (20.6%)
o Outdoor amphitheater - 10,408 households (19.6%)
 The graph below shows the estimated number of households that have unmet needs for each of the 30 amenities/facilities.

Figure 46 - Parks and Recreation Amenity and Facility Needs Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
63 PARKS AND RECREATION AMENITY AND FACILITY IMPORTANCE  In addition to assessing the needs for each amenity and facility, ETC Institute also evaluated the importance that households placed on each one. Based on the sum of households’ top four choices, 64.8% of households chose "walking and biking trails" as the most important amenity/facility to them.
 The percentage of households that selected each amenity/facility as one of their top four choices in shown in the graph below.

Figure 47 – Parks and Recreation Amenity and Facility Importance 64 RECREATION PROGRAM NEEDS
 Households were asked to identify if they had a need for 26 recreation programs and rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community that had the greatest “unmet” need for various recreation programs. The four recreation programs with the highest percentage of households whose needs are currently being partly or not met are listed below. o Fitness and wellness classes - 14,801 households (27.9%) o Cooking classes - 13,753 households (25.9%)
o Free/low-cost community events - 10,750 households (20.2%) o Art, dance, performing arts - 10,679 households (20.1%)  The graph below shows the estimated number of households that have unmet needs for each of the 26 recreation programs.

Figure 48 - Recreation Program Needs
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
65 RECREATION PROGRAM IMPORTANCE
 In addition to assessing the needs for each recreation program, ETC Institute also evaluated the importance that households placed on each one. Based on the sum of households’ top four choices, the following three recreation programs were rated as most important to households. o Fitness and wellness classes (23.3%)
o Free/low-cost community events (20.3%)
o Cooking classes (18.4%)
 The percentage of households that selected each recreation program as one of their top four choices is shown in the graph below
Figure 49 - Recreation Program Importance
66 CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAM AND EVENT NEEDS
 Households were asked to identify if they had a need for 18 cultural art programs and events and rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community that had the greatest “unmet” need for various cultural arts programs and events. The five cultural arts programs and events with the highest percentage of households whose needs are currently being partly or not met are listed below.
o Outdoor concerts - 14,104 households (26.6%)
o Craft/vendor fairs - 13,943 households (26.3%)
o Music performances - 12,142 households (22.9%)
o Downtown events - 11,690 households (22.0%)
o Theatre productions - 10,739 households (20.2%)
 The graph below shows the estimated number of households that have unmet needs for each of the 18 cultural arts programs and events.

Figure 50 - Cultural Arts Program and Event Needs
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
67 CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAMS AND EVENTS IMPORTANCE
 In addition to assessing the needs for each cultural arts program and event, ETC Institute also evaluated the importance that households placed on each one. Based on the sum of households’ top four choices, the following four cultural arts programs and events were rated as most important to households.
o Downtown events (39.0%)
o Outdoor concerts (36.2%)
o Craft/vendor fairs (32.1%)
o Holiday events (27.9%)
o The percentage of households that selected each cultural arts program and event as one of their top four choices in shown in the graph below.

Figure 51 - Cultural Arts Program and Event Importance
68 CHAPTER THREE – PARK AND FACILITY ASSESSMENT

3.1 INVENTORY ASSESSMENT
WRT Design, LLC, as a member of the PROS Team, assessed twenty-five existing parks owned and operated by the City of Roseville. This assessment documents recreation amenities; access and connectivity; condition and function; and experience and sense of safety. Information from the assessment was used to inform recommendations in this plan. This section summarizes the findings of the assessment and provides suggestions for possible park improvements. WRT also noted observations about maintenance and design that may be of interest the Department. The section is supported by a detailed spreadsheet which has been provided electronically to the City.

3.1.1 METHODOLOGY
The 25 parks evaluated by WRT include a range of Neighborhood Parks, Neighborhood/School Parks, and Citywide Parks, using the City of Roseville’s classification system. Six parks completed recently (post-2008) were selected by the City to serve as benchmarks for each park type (two per category). Crabb and Central Parks represented benchmarks for citywide parks, Stizzo and Nichols Parks represented school parks and Roccucci and Phillips represented neighborhood parks. Nineteen parks were selected by the City to represent a sample of the older parks (pre-2009).

Neither City-owned open space nor school yards were evaluated as part of this assessment, though their adjacency was noted in several parks. An initial park tour was conducted on September 8, 2021, led by Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent, and attended by the WRT team. WRT then visited each of the 25 subject parks in person over the course of three days (October 5, 6, and 13) to collect information, evaluate qualities of the park, and take photos. Follow-ups occurred in the office to verify trail connections and proximity to transit.

Park amenity information for a majority of the parks was provided by PRL and integrated into the evaluation table. WRT augmented this information for a select few recent parks where data was not available.

Each park was evaluated under the categories of Access and Connectivity; Condition and Functionality; and Experience and Sense of Safety. Parks were scored on specific metrics within each category. Site assessments considered the observed functionality of park amenities as it might affect user experience.

While the condition and functionality were scored together it is recognized these are separate but related issues. This category can be more thoroughly reviewed by each metric. The assessment did not document condition of every park element i.e., bench, backstop, field, etc. A scoring sheet (Appendix C) served as the guide for determining a score for key metric, summarized as follows:
 Primary categories for evaluation:
o Access and Connectivity
o Condition and Functionality
o Experience and Sense of Safety
 Each of these primary categories included multiple subcategories/metrics, which were scored on a scale from 1 to 5 (larger number representing highest value).  A weight was assigned to each subcategory, as it was recognized that not each subcategory is equal in importance. Consultants and Staff jointly assigned weights.  An aggregate score was determined, and parks were rated poor (2), fair (3), good (4) or great (5).

Additional notes were taken for parks that capture important observations that may have been difficult to quantify. Park observations that applied to several parks or were noted to be helpful to ongoing system Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
69 management are mentioned in this report. Minor observations relating to specific parks led to the rankings outlined in the worksheet (Appendix C).

ASSESSED PARKS

1. Weber Park

2. Garbolino Park

3. Crestmont Park

4. Eastwood Park

5. Lincoln Estates Park

6. Maidu Regional Park

7. Silverado Oaks Park

8. Diamond Oaks Park

9. Kaseberg Park

10. Hillsborough Park

11. Cresthaven (Jack Wallace) Park

12. Wanish Park

13. Buljan Park

14. Mahany Park

15. Misty Wood Park

16. Vencil Brown Park

17. Dietrich Park

18. Doyle Park

19. Lockridge Park

20. Central Park

21. Nichols Park

22. Crabb Park

23. Stizzo Park

24. Phillips Park

25. Roccucci Park
Figure 52 - Site Assessment Map
70 3.1.2 PARK KEY FINDINGS
Roseville should take pride in its commitment to providing high-quality park space. This high standard can be seen throughout the system with substantial renovations and new parks. For example, the recent investment in Royer Park included the addition of bridges over Dry Creek, connecting the park to the town square and Miner’s Ravine trail. This showcases successful integration of traditional parks, historic resources, trails, community advocacy, natural resources, and downtown revitalization. The park is an opportunity to provide neighborhood and community-wide amenities.

CITYWIDE PARKS
The analysis focused on four citywide parks. Crabb Park and Central Park were built in phases, and both were fully completed in 2020-21. Mahany Park is the city’s largest park and is undergoing upgrades. Maidu is older than Mahany. Maidu Regional Park was built in 1990 and has planned upgrades as well.  While the benchmark parks (Crabb Park and Central Park) are in the best condition and provide the greatest universal access within the park; connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods could be improved. Additional signage, gateways, better integration with trail networks, bus stops, and crosswalks/streetscape improvements around the periphery would help provide greater access, visibility, and overall user experience.

Central Park’s gateway is a successful connection to the adjacent retail area. Prominent entrances could be provided at intersections or trailheads around the periphery of citywide parks and could be further improved with park branding/signage.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
71  Signage could be expanded both at park peripheries and within parks to assist with wayfinding and strengthen identity. This is especially true at Mahany Park, where the large play area is not readily found from the primary entrance to the park.
 Maidu and Mahany parks are accessible by transit and have designated Park’n’Ride lots, and bike lockers are installed at Mahany Park. The incorporation of more bike and transit amenities at other citywide parks could encourage a greater variety of access and ease congestion and parking especially during large events.
 Maidu Regional Park ranked highest overall among the 25 assessed parks, notably due to its connection to trails and open space, its variety of recreational uses, mature trees and associated shade coverage, and character of its play structures. Maidu Regional Park will need ongoing maintenance and would benefit from a retrofit of the batting cage, skate park, lighting, and irrigation.

Maidu Regional Park currently has projects underway including renovations to the skate track, softball restroom upgrades, perimeter trail re-surfacing, and periphery irrigation upgrades. Recently completed projects include soccer arena upgrades and soccer complex turf conversion.  Citywide parks may benefit from better accommodations for all age groups, most notably teens and the elderly. Incorporation of hangout-areas next to basketball courts and skate parks could provide for more passive use of areas adjacent to active use areas. These areas could be well shaded and provide a variety of seating options for small to large groups.

Trails could be more integrated into parks, as at Crabb Park above, with trailheads, trailhead amenities, and park branding.
72 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
 Benchmark neighborhood parks have better access and connectivity characteristics, while older parks would benefit from enhanced crosswalks, traffic calming on adjacent streets, better connection to sidewalks and expanded signage and park branding.  Older neighborhood parks lack variety in planting, notably groundcover planting. In comparison, some newer parks featured a palette of low spreading plants with different texture, color, and form.

PRL may want to consider incorporating low water use groundcover plantings that can also give some of the older parks a greater sense of character and seasonal interest.  PRL could consider incorporating bulletin boards in select locations with relevant information relating to events.

Roccucci Park is a good example of character, branding, and signage. Additional signage may need to be expanded at neighborhood parks at all access/entry points.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
73  In many older parks, tree roots have become exposed on the surface, due to compacted soils and reliance on surface irrigation. It is understood these trees originally had bubblers that eventually failed and were removed. These areas could be mulched to prevent tripping hazards, retain soil moisture, and provide a refreshed look. Soil probes and injection systems may also be considered at select locations to encourage development of larger, mature trees. Informal seating such as benches or natural materials in the shade of the tree could also be incorporated.  Four out of the 14 neighborhood parks assessed had complete pathway loops. Several neighborhood parks would benefit from the integration/completion of a looped path to better accommodate for the passive use of parks.
 Unauthorized dog use was observed at several of the parks. This may suggest the need for better enforcement and/or better accommodation of the demand.

NEIGHBORHOOD/SCHOOL PARKS
 Master joint-use agreements are in place between the City and school districts which make outdoor school spaces available for use during evenings, weekends, and non-school days. However, consistency in site management varies based on location, and overall school safety has affected traditional joint-use practices.
 Parks are planned with a school-park campus approach to stretch public funds and offer more variety of recreational opportunities.
 School parks are well equipped with active use through athletic fields and play equipment.

Additional passive uses could be encouraged next to active use areas.  PRL may consider more signage and the ability to have gates open when school yards are open to the public.

Exposed roots at several parks could be improved with mulch and the incorporation of informal seating elements.
74  Consider expanding bike parking where appropriate, including shared bike parking with schools, especially for school parks which are part of trail network or where high bike ridership is observed (i.e., Nichols Park).

3.1.3 ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY
Access and connectivity of parks were evaluated through their adjacent trails, street crossings, sidewalks, park circulation, signage, and general accessibility. Roseville’s many parks are distributed across a variety of suburban neighborhoods developed over several decades. Open space with creek and trail corridors helps provide connections between its diverse array of parks. While automobile access is the dominant form of transportation for citywide parks, biking and walking is critical for both neighborhood and school parks. Access + Connectivity scored highest for the Benchmark Parks, largely due to their proximity to the more recently developed parts of the city which include more connections to the trail network and have better sidewalk access, crosswalks, and more well-defined entry points.  We recommend reviewing ADA standards in older parks related to parking.  Parking at school/neighborhood parks generally have shared parking that supports both the school and park.
 At Mahany Park, the City uses the high school parking lot if needed for events, with overflow lots across the street from and adjacent to the Roseville Aquatics Complex. This speaks to the benefit of partnering with the school district. The adjacency to the high school has occasionally impacted parking at Mahany Park. Maidu Regional Park has overflow parking for events, but there can be parking challenges.

Figure 53 - Access and Connectivity Score
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
75  Parking overall seemed sufficient for normal use, though some parks, especially citywide parks, may experience parking problems during sporting and special events. It is encouraged that PRL continue to integrate with the Alternative Transportation Department to continue to build on the good work that has occurred over the past few decades in providing meaningful connections for alternative transportation which will continue to alleviate pressures of parking for events. Park campus management should continue to be a focus in citywide parks. Events with anticipated high attendance should not occur on the same days or weekends. Tournaments and game day play schedules should continue to provide adequate breaks between games to allow for enter/exit of facilities with the least amount of conflict.
 Many parks of all types lacked appropriate signage at pedestrian paths entering parks. Park access could be encouraged by expanding signage. Signage could be sized appropriately to be visible by car, bike, and pedestrian.
 Neighborhood parks could be of value to residents beyond their immediate vicinity if they are along or nearby a trail or bike network. In the case of parks next to open space or creeks, crossings or trails could help to bridge and serve adjacent communities (for example, bridging across Cirby Creek at Eastwood Park or bridging Dry Creek at Lincoln Estates Park and connecting to Miner’s Ravine Trail).
 Many older parks lacked “edge permeability,” both in terms of access and visibility and natural surveillance. Providing more entry points not only expands access but is a way for increasing park users’ sense of safety.
 Many parks provided clear entrances into parking lots but lacked such clear entrance points for those accessing the park by bike/walking. It is understood that many parks share parking facilities with schools/libraries/community buildings. Additional signage could be incorporated in coordination with these facilities.

The pedestrian crossing through the parking lot at Maidu Regional Park is a good example of providing clear pedestrian access through a parking lot. 76 3.1.4 CONDITION AND FUNCTIONALITY
Parks were evaluated for their condition and functionality as it related to individual and mix of amenities, state and condition of the park, and apparent relevance to serve the needs of current users. The conditions of parks were based on passively observing parks rather than a comprehensive review of maintenance and function.

The Parks Division has ranked the following parks specifically related to overall condition:
 Lockridge - Fair
 Doyle - Fair
 Dietrich - Fair
 Brown – Fair
 Kaseberg – Fair
 Silverado Oaks - Fair
 Crestmont - Fair
 Cresthaven - Good/Fair
 Weber - Fair/Poor
 Maidu - Good/Fair
 Misty Wood - Good
 Buljan - Good
 Wanish - Good
 Hillsborough - Good
 Diamond Oaks - Good
 Lincoln Estates - Good
 Eastwood - Good
 Garbolino - Good
 Mahany - Good
Functionality of parks was reviewed as it relates to the relevance and condition of amenities tied to value.

It is recognized that condition and functionality are separate but related issues, so effort should be taken to review individual scoring metrics rather than the aggregate score. Additionally, water use was evaluated in this category as it relates to irrigation and the condition of the lawn and planting areas. Overall, parks in Roseville were observed to be in great condition and serving their functions well, with only a few parks suggesting the need for significant changes in program and design.  Maidu ranked highly in functionality. This is due to the variety and character of the play areas, the condition of the ball fields, the extensive trails and open space, and recent investments in the soccer complex and workout equipment. Much work has been done to keep the park relevant and in good condition. It is recognized that further investment in certain areas of the park, including the batting cages, skate park, and general hardscape and irrigation, are needed, to improve the overall condition.
 It was observed that much of the ground level vegetation in older parks had been removed or was in poor condition. It is understood that many of these are a result of turf reduction efforts responding to recent drought conditions. Older parks could benefit from subtle upgrades to ground level planting at focal points, entry points, or established passive use zones. Simple addition of mulch below established tree canopies would go a long way in older parks to address tripping concerns from roots and provide a clean finished look.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
77  Wet spots in lawns, exposed tree roots, and signs of ponding/running water in hardscape areas were observed at several parks. Managing water use or retrofitting older parks irrigation systems could improve turf and plant health while also resulting in cost savings. Installing more efficient irrigation systems, optimizing moisture sensors, and changing irrigation practices for water-wise landscape management might also be required.

Figure 54 - Condition and Functionality Score
78  In 2008 aggressive efforts were undertaken to better manage the Department's overall irrigation system, which includes parks and streetscapes. This was based on the 2007 state mandate of reducing water usage by 30% by 2030. Through these efforts, the Department annually averaged 29% water savings and maintained this reduction through the drought of 2015 to 2019. The Department has continued to follow best management practices and methods to maintain annual water use, despite growth. Installation of a system-wide central control system, routine system checks, site walks and daily program adjustments contribute to the continued water conservation effort. Many non-usable turf areas have been converted, current irrigation practices continue a water-wise management approach and park designs incorporate water-wise plantings while limiting turf to usable areas rather than aesthetics. These approaches ensure the Department meets ongoing reductions in water usage established by the City's water department/water conservation division during the 2021 stage 2 drought and beyond.
 Many of the parks with groundcover had exposed drip lines. These could be buried below 3 inches of mulch to help protect them from sun and traffic.
 Several damaged tree trunks were observed at the crown. Most were damaged by maintenance equipment such as trimmers and mowers. Many of these trees will not recover and may require removal. It is understood the Department has standards requiring 6’ tree rings around trees in turf.

Focus on maintaining an adequate buffer around trees as they mature and on-going education on best practices with maintenance staff may also help ensure good health of trees. This will be especially important in more recent parks as trees are small and parks need shade.

Signs of ponding at RG Phillips Park.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
79  It is recommended that the Department take extra effort to protect the root systems of heritage oaks and other mature tree species and expand the practice of fencing off these areas to ensure heavy equipment/traffic does not damage the roots.
 Play areas and picnic areas are generally in good condition however, they could be upgraded to appeal to a greater variety of users. The Department has a comprehensive play structure replacement program (replacing 2-3 structures per year) and should continue this program throughout the City. It was found younger age groups (3-5), as well as those with limited abilities were the least served in parks play areas. Sensory play elements/areas could also be considered for incorporation of future upgrades to keep parks relevant and exciting.  Engineered wood fiber in play areas appear generally sufficient though would benefit from deeper depths next to swings and slides. Rubber surfacing shows some wearing when used (specifically at Maidu Regional Park) and would benefit from patching. Alternative accessible surfacing should be explored to increase accessibility.
 Some of the basketball courts are beginning to show wear with cracks that will affect play. These parks may require re-paving soon.
 Restroom facilities and drinking fountains are largely in good condition and functional.  It is recommended that a full evaluation of site furnishings and program elements be conducted to determine where the department may want to prioritize reinvestment.  Many ball fields have a rough transition, with crabgrass growing between the infield and outfield.

These transitions would benefit from weeding and smoothing of the grades, to help avoid tripping.

Successful tree protection at Diamond Oaks Park
80 3.1.5 EXPERIENCE AND SENSE OF SAFETY
Parks were evaluated for their experience and sense of safety as it relates to visibility/sightlines, active use, lighting, evidence of misuse, ease of navigation, road adjacency, any physical hazards, edges of slopes, and experience of environment. Overall, parks in Roseville were observed to have a very positive experience and sense of safety. Newer parks do a better job of activating the perimeter and providing clear sightlines setting the stage for eyes on the park / natural surveillance while older parks have ample shade through established trees and a greater variety of spaces for passive use. *Based on feedback received through public outreach over the last several years, residents feel that due to the lack of clear sight lines from Main Street and use by homeless persons, Weber Park feels less safe and desirable to use.
 Newer parks have a lack of shade beyond shade structures. While this is largely due to young trees, extra effort could be given to ensure trees are maintained in good health to reach optimal maturity as quickly as possible.
 Shade structures help provide relief from the summer heat and are particularly important in newer parks which lack mature trees. Extra effort could be given to ensure shade structures cast shadows in appropriate locations (taller structures were observed to throw light over picnic seating elements below). It is also recommended that newer parks include a tree palette that incorporates fast growing trees to provide quick shade.

Figure 55 - Experience and Sense of Safety Score
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
81  Many parks lack amenities and a conducive environment for passive use. Passive use (picnics, walking, reading) could be supported by placing benches in shaded areas along walking paths. In particular, benches could be placed to take advantage of views (such as at Crabb Park) or overlook open space to allow for the observation of wildlife. Planting certain areas with seasonal interest, water-wise species, or pollinator plants could provide additional passive enjoyment.  While benchmark parks have clear sight lines, several older parks do not. Some older parks (like Kaseberg) have more variety in topography or subtle berms around the perimeter, which provides nice variety but limits natural surveillance from adjacent sidewalks and homes. Several of the newer parks are adjacent to gated communities which limit the natural surveillance and sense of safety of park users. The incorporation of a perimeter trail loop and the pruning of groundcover vegetation can provide clear sight lines and activate the perimeter, contributing to a greater sense of safety.

Shade structures create comfort in parks.
82  Many of the older parks rate highly for character or uniqueness due to the presence of mature trees, natural topography, or existing heritage oaks or natural areas. Newer parks build character through incorporating elements that tie to the park namesake. Parks lacking character could be improved through thematic planting or upgrading of play areas with a theme. See chart below for scoring of character/uniqueness by park.

Figure 56 - Character/Uniqueness Score
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
83 Natural features provide character (Diamond Oaks Park).

Themed play areas help establish character (Maidu Regional Park). 84 3.1.6 OVERALL PARK SCORE
Our assessment finds most parks to rank high in terms of condition, access, functionality, and experience.

Maidu, Buljan, Kaseberg, Garbolino, Silverado Oaks and Doyle stand out as successful older parks. Several parks fall into the fair category and would benefit from more subtle upgrades addressing access points, the incorporation of a pathway loop, hardscape repair/replacement, and upgraded play areas. These parks are Lockridge, Brown, Misty Wood, Mahany, Lincoln Estates, and Eastwood. Weber Park will require the most significant consideration to address the challenges of its site conditions.

Figure 57 - Overall Park Score
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
85 3.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Level of Service (LOS) standards are guidelines that define service areas based on population that support investment decisions related to parks, facilities, and amenities. LOS standards can and will change over time as the program lifecycles change and demographics of a community change.

Every agency has different needs depending on the demographics of the community, the residents’ interests, the history and culture of the area, as well as the geography and climate. All these issues are factors that need to be considered when evaluating what programs, services, and infrastructure should be included in the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan.

To establish the wants and needs of the community for this strategic master plan, Roseville PRL staff relied on the following data sources and evaluations:
 National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) recommendations for the number of facilities per population.
 A 2021 statistically valid survey conducted for the City of Roseville by ETC Institute that asked a number of questions about park related needs, recreation programming needs and resident overall needs in the City.
 A community online survey powered by Survey Monkey asking similar questions to the statistically valid survey.
 Interviews with Department staff and key leaders.

It is important to note that these LOS standards should be viewed as a guide. The standards are to be coupled with conventional wisdom and judgment related to the situation and needs of the community. By applying these standards to the population of Roseville, gaps or surpluses in park and facility types are revealed.

According to the LOS, there are multiple needs to be met in Roseville to properly serve the community today and in the future. For example, paved and unpaved trail standards have increased due to the community’s wants and needs.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
86 Park Type Total
Inventory
Meet Standard/
Need Exists
Meet Standard/
Need Exists
PARK ACREAGES:

Neighborhood Parks 616.38 4.17 acres per 1,000 3.00 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s) Meets Standard - Acre(s) Regional (City-wide) Parks 422.37 2.86 acres per 1,000 3.00 acres per 1,000 Need Exists 21 Acre(s) Need Exists 38 Acre(s) Total Developed Park Acres 1,038.75 7.03 acres per 1,000 6.00 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s) Meets Standard - Acre(s) Open Space 3,910.00 26.46 acres per 1,000 3.00 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s) Meets Standard - Acre(s) Proposed Open Space 598.55 4.05 acres per 1,000 N/A acres per N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Proposed Parks 168.29 1.14 acres per 1,000 N/A acres per N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Park Acres 5,715.59 38.68 acres per 1,000 9.00 acres per 1,000 Meets Standard - Acre(s) Meets Standard - Acre(s) TRAIL MILES:

Paved Trails 36.20 0.24 miles per 1,000 0.30 miles per 1,000 Need Exists 8.13 Mile(s) Need Exists 9.89 Mile(s) Natural Trails 6.86 0.05 miles per 1,000 0.10 miles per 1,000 Need Exists 7.92 Mile(s) Need Exists 8.50 Mile(s) OUTDOOR AMENITIES:

Picnic Shelters 87.00 1.00 site per 1,699 1.00 site per 4,200 Meets Standard - Sites(s) Meets Standard - Sites(s) Playgrounds 97.00 1.00 site per 1,523 1.00 site per 2,000 Meets Standard - Sites(s) Meets Standard - Sites(s) Adult Baseball Fields 1.00 1.00 field per 147,773 1.00 field per 15,000 Need Exists 9 Field(s) Need Exists 9 Field(s) Youth & Pony Baseball Fields 44.00 1.00 field per 3,358 1.00 field per 8,000 Meets Standard - Field(s) Meets Standard - Field(s) Softball Fields 26.00 1.00 field per 5,684 1.00 field per 8,000 Meets Standard - Field(s) Meets Standard - Field(s) Adult Multi-Purpose Rectangular Fields 21.00 1.00 field per 7,037 1.00 field per 8,000 Meets Standard - Field(s) Meets Standard - Field(s) Youth Multi-Purpose Rectangular Fields 10.00 1.00 field per 14,777 1.00 field per 8,000 Need Exists 8 Field(s) Need Exists 9 Field(s) Volleyball Courts (Grass & Sand) 14.00 1.00 court per 10,555 1.00 court per 12,000 Meets Standard - Court(s) Meets Standard - Court(s) Tennis Courts 22.00 1.00 court per 6,717 1.00 court per 6,000 Need Exists 3 Court(s) Need Exists 4 Court(s) Pickleball Courts 12.00 1.00 court per 12,314 1.00 court per 8,000 Need Exists 6 Court(s) Need Exists 7 Court(s) Basketball Courts (Full & Half) 52.00 1.00 court per 2,842 1.00 court per 2,500 Need Exists 7 Court(s) Need Exists 9 Court(s) Skate Park 1.00 1.00 site per 147,773 1.00 site per 75,000 Need Exists 1 Site(s) Need Exists 1 Site(s) Dog Parks 4.00 1.00 site per 36,943 1.00 site per 40,000 Meets Standard - Site(s) Meets Standard - Site(s) Outdoor Pools 2.00 1.00 site per 73,887 1.00 site per 50,000 Need Exists 1 Site(s) Need Exists 1 Site(s) Splashpads 2.00 1.00 site per 73,887 1.00 site per 40,000 Need Exists 2 Site(s) Need Exists 2 Site(s) INDOOR AMENITIES:

Indoor Recreation Space (Square Feet) 46,600.00 0.32 SF per person 1.50 SF per person Need Exists 175,060 Square Feet Need Exists 183,827 Square Feet Indoor Aquatic Space (Square Feet) 24,548.00 0.17 SF per person 0.50 SF per person Need Exists 49,339 Square Feet Need Exists 52,261 Square Feet Special Use Indoor Recreation Space (Square Feet) 144,487.00 0.98 SF per person 0.50 SF per person Meets Standard - Square Feet Meets Standard - Square Feet 2022 Level of Service Standards 2026 Level of Service Standards Current Service Level based upon
population
Recommended Service Levels;
Revised for Local Service Area
Additional Facilities/
Amenities Needed
Additional Facilities/
Amenities Needed
2022 Inventory - Developed Facilities
Figure 58 - Level of Service Standards
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
87 3.3 EQUITY MAPPING
WRT, as a member of the PROS Team, conducted citywide mapping to reveal patterns and inform policy direction in the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan. This information summarizes the findings and presents a sequence of maps. Maps are based on data about the park system provided by the City of Roseville, and demographic data from the US Census. Maps fall into four categories: (1) Roseville population characteristics; (2) the existing and planned parks and open space system; (3) access to parks, and (4) the distribution of specific recreation amenities. Highlights are summarized below, followed by the maps.

3.3.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Roseville’s population grew by 24% between 2010 and 2021 to a total of 146,875 making it the 11th fastestgrowing city in the state over that period. The population is relatively evenly distributed across developed portions of the city, with lower density appearing in commercial areas and higher densities occurring where there is multifamily or small-lot single family housing.

3.3.2 EXISTING PARKS, PLANNED PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
Including two parks scheduled to be completed in 2022, Roseville has 80 parks totaling 887 acres. Parks range from small neighborhood parks of less than 2 acres to the 148-acre Maidu Regional Park. Most of the City’s parks’ maintenance is funded through the General Fund. However, many of the newer parks, concentrated west of Fiddyment Road and on the far north side, are funded through impact fees with maintenance funded through a Community Facilities District for Service (CFD). When possible, parks are located adjacent to schools. Planned parks will add substantially to the system, especially on the growing west side.

Roseville also has a large network of preserved open spaces, especially in the more recently developed and developing parts of the city. Trails connect through some of these open spaces, and are planned to connect through others, creating an extensive system of off-street multiuse trails in Roseville, but with significant gaps in some central Roseville neighborhoods.

3.3.3 ACCESS TO PARKS
Most Roseville neighborhoods are within a mile of a park, but there are parts of the City that are not within an easier 10-minute (half-mile) walk of a park. Most areas that are outside a half-mile walk from a park are commercial or industrial areas, open spaces, or golf courses. Where residential neighborhoods are more than a ten-minute walk from parks, in some cases planned parks will fill the gaps. Elsewhere, access to open spaces and trails or to school play fields are intended to fill some recreation needs.

3.3.4 RECREATION AMENITIES
Baseball, softball, soccer, and multiuse open fields are widely distributed around Roseville’s parks.

Basketball courts are present in most of the City’s parks; tennis courts are in fewer parks but are welldistributed, with a likely need west of Fiddyment Road. Special features (water features, pools, dog parks, skate parks, libraries, the Maidu Museum & Historic Site and Roseville Utility Exploration Center) are clustered in the large parks with larger catchment areas, especially Mahany and Maidu parks.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
88 Figure 59 - Population Density
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
89 Figure 60 - Youth and Senior Population
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
90 Figure 61 - Roseville Park System
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
91 Figure 62 - Planned Development
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
92 Figure 63 - Parks, Open Space, Trails and Schools
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
93 Figure 64 - Access to Parks
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
94 Figure 65 - West Access to Parks
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
95 Figure 66 - East Access to Parks
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
96 Figure 67 - Sports Fields
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
97 Figure 68 - Sports Courts
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
98 Figure 69 - Special Features
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
99 3.4 PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT
To ensure that the City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department and the City of Roseville continue to meet the needs and expectations of the community, based on our Priority Investment Rating (PIR) Analysis, ETC Institute recommends that the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department and City sustain and/or improve the performance in areas that were identified as High Priority Areas (by the PIR).

The ratings for Parks and Recreation amenities, facilities, recreation programs, cultural arts programs, and events are found below.

3.4.1 AMENITIES AND FACILITIES
The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) was developed by ETC Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be placed on Parks and Recreation investments. The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) equally weighs:
 the importance that households place on each facility/amenity/program and  how many households have unmet needs for the facility/amenity/program.

Based on the Priority Investment Rating (PIR), the four amenities/facilities that were rated as high priorities for investment are:
 Walking and biking trails – 195.5 PIR
 Indoor walking tracks – 121.8 PIR
 Mountain bike trails – 111.2 PIR
 Indoor fitness equipment – 101.3 PIR
The Priority Investment Ratings for each amenity/facility is shown below Figure 70 - Top Priorities for Amenities and Facilities 100

3.4.2 RECREATION PROGRAMS
Based on the Priority Investment Rating (PIR), the eight recreation programs were rated as high priorities for investment are:
 Fitness and wellness classes – 200.0 PIR
 Cooking classes – 171.9 PIR
 Free/low-cost community events – 159.8 PIR
 Art, dance, performing arts – 133.9 PIR
 Education classes – 120.1 PIR
 Older adult resources/support – 112.7 PIR
 Golf programs – 106.9 PIR
 Outdoor trips (single day) – 101.6 PIR
The Priority Investment Ratings for each recreation program is shown below.

Figure 71 - Top Priorities for Recreation Programs
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
101

3.4.3 CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAMS AND EVENTS
Based on the Priority Investment Rating (PIR), the eight cultural arts programs and events were rated as high priorities for investment are:
 Outdoor concerts – 192.8 PIR
 Downtown events – 182.9 PIR
 Craft/vendor fairs – 181.2 PIR
 Music performances (chamber, jazz, etc.) – 126.3 PIR
 Theatre productions (play, musical, etc.) – 115.9 PIR  Multi-cultural events – 105.0 PIR
 Holiday events (tree lighting etc.) – 104.9 PIR
 Museum and historic site tours – 101.4 PIR
The Priority Investment Ratings for each program and event is shown below.

Figure 72 - Top Priorities for Cultural Arts Programs and Events 102

CHAPTER FOUR - SPORTS TOURISM STRATEGY
One of the key objectives of the Strategic Master Plan was to evaluate the need for a sports complex for soccer and rectangular fields in the city. The goal was to determine the need and the economic value that a sports complex could provide to the city to meet the existing needs of residents but also serve as an economic tool for the city to bring in sports tournaments for youth and adults.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
103

4.1 ROSEVILLE SPORTS COMPLEX CONCEPT PLAN
The following image provides an overview of the latest concept plan for a new Roseville multi-purpose field complex: It is assumed in this study that the fields will be constructed with synthetic turf.

Figure 73 - Multi-Purpose Sports Field Concept
104

4.1.1 MARKET ANALYSIS
PROS Consulting, in conjunction with the City of Roseville, identified publicly accessible sports complex providers within a 3-hour drive time of Roseville. The goal of the market analysis task is to evaluate how a Roseville Sports Complex would be positioned in the market and to provide insight on how best to meet the needs of the community in the future.

ROSEVILLE SPORTS COMPLEX SERVICE AREA – 3 HOUR DRIVE TIME  The two primary sports complex facilities in the service area that are most utilized by Roseville residents are the Cherry Island Soccer Complex in Rio Linda, CA and the Davis Legacy Soccer Complex in Davis, CA.
 Other sports complex locations within the service area to be considered as primary competitors include Legacy Fields in Tracy (though this complex is not utilized often for tournaments), Turlock Sports Complex in Turlock and the Fremont Central Park Sports Complex in Fremont. Each of these locations are within a 2-hour drive of Roseville.  Overall, there is not significant inventory that would compete with the City of Roseville’s “ability” to host regional tournaments at its Roseville Sports Complex.

Figure 74 - Service Area
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
105

4.2 OPERATIONAL PLAN

4.2.1 OPERATIONAL STANDARDS
The Operational Standards for a Sports Complex start with a clear philosophy that the City would consider the development of a Sports Complex to achieve three key goals.

1. Meet the local community drop-in play, leagues and tournaments needs for primarily soccer for youth, teens, and adults.

2. A Sports Complex can be an economic driver for local economy by providing local retail operations revenue from the sale of food, lodging and retail purchasing from users who play in the local tournaments and showcases at the facility.

3. Demonstrate to potential residents and businesses that Roseville has a high quality of life and has invested in quality-of-life amenities that will attract people to want to live in the area.

To accomplish these three goals the City must be willing to invest in the capital costs and operational costs and to determine the right management strategy to oversee and maintain a Multi-Purpose Field Complex.

If this is accomplished, a Sports Complex will achieve the expectations outlined in this sports tourism strategy. The City should consider self-operating the facility versus being a facility provider. The PRL Department has the skill set to manage this resource within these standards.

PRL staff must operate a Sports Complex like a revenue center in that they choose to operate the facility through the lens of a business. This will require that the programs, leagues, tournaments, and clinics be priced to market rates and managed to the quality that users will expect when they visit the facility. This would be a “higher” standard by which the facility is operated and much higher than other City parks where multi-purpose fields exist.

The City must strike a balance between local use (drop-in play, leagues, and smaller tournaments) and the attraction of regional tournaments and aggressively market the Roseville Sports Complex as a high-end destination facility. The staff must also track the economic impact of the facility on the local community so that residents can see the value of the investment to the community.

4.2.2 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS OF A MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD COMPLEX The City of Roseville should consider two options for the management of a Multi-Purpose Field Complex.

PREFERRED OPTION - SELF-OPERATE
This would be the preferred option from the Consulting Team’s perspective. Under this arrangement PRL is the operator of the facility and would receive some level of taxpayer funding to manage and maintain the Multi-Purpose Field Complex.

If PRL self-operates, they would develop, manage, and/or host leagues and tournaments for the new site and build public support of the value of offering youth and adult sports on the site. They also can control all the revenues for the site including revenues from the leagues and tournaments held at the Multi-Purpose Field Complex. PRL has an excellent maintenance staff that can manage the site and have best practice operational standards that will allow them to successfully manage drop-in play, programs, leagues, tournaments, and clinics.

One caveat of this operational model is that PRL would contract with private regional tournament organizers for the development and administration of these tournaments and in turn the rental of the fields at the sports complex.
106

ALTERNATIVE OPTION - CONTRACT THE MANAGEMENT OF A MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD

COMPLEX
This option provides the opportunity for the City to contract with a private operator to manage the Roseville Sports Complex for a percentage of the gross. As guided by an operating agreement, the City’s percentage of annual revenue received from this arrangement is 15-25%. The key to this option is finding an operator who has the expertise to manage a Sports Complex to its highest use and is willing to invest in marketing of the site and programming the site year-round. The operator would schedule all games, develop the leagues, clinics and tournaments for the City and manage the concession operations. Risks of this option include the residents of Roseville being charged admission fees and/or parking fees as well as user fees that might be charged higher than those charged by the City if it self-operated the facility.

4.2.3 OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS OF SELF-OPERATED MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD

COMPLEX

CLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS
The following graphic provides a snapshot of the climate variables that need to be taken into consideration for the construction and operations of the sports complex.

Please Note: A synthetic turf field can be utilized up to 1,900 hours annually whereas high quality natural turf fields can be utilized 600-800 hours per year.

Slow growth season for natural turf = high
maintenance costs for high usage during Nov -
March (recommend synthetic turf)
“Rainy” season (recommend synthetic
turf)
Mild Temperatures
Holiday tournaments are popular

SH O U L D E R SE A SO N V A R I A B L E S
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
107

STAFFING MODEL
The following staffing model is provided to give the City an understanding of the staffing investment needed to self-operate the Roseville Sports Complex. The goal of the Roseville Sports Complex is to be as selfsufficient as possible and to become an economic tool for PRL for weekend tournaments while still serving the local community.

The structure recommended for the Roseville Sports Complex is as follows:
 Full-time Sports Complex Superintendent - 1
 Multi-Purpose Field Maintenance Staff – 3
 2,500 hours of part-time seasonal employees
 PLEASE NOTE: Further evaluation will need to be undertaken to determine if expansion of recreation division or executive management staff is necessary, considering the growing parks and recreation system.

4.3 FINANCIAL PLAN – ROSEVILLE SPORTS COMPLEX
PROS Consulting reviewed the concept plans for the Roseville Sports Complex to determine revenue sources to develop, operate and maintain the Roseville Sports Complex. A Sports Complex of this magnitude should use this financial plan as a guideline for the daily operations and revenue management of the site to achieve the desired outcomes of all parties involved. This will include partnership agreements between all entities using the site. The pro forma identifies appropriate levels of staffing, supply and maintenance costs, asset management costs and revenue management requirements desired by PRL.

4.3.1 OPERATIONAL FUNDING COSTS OPPORTUNITIES
Sports Complexes have numerous revenue sources to draw from to support operational and management costs that include long term capital replacement costs. The following are funding options to consider in operations of the site.
 User/Rental fees: User fees to use the Roseville Sports Complex. Fees can range from $100 for reserving a single field, to $2500 or more for the reservation of the facility for a weekend tournament.
 Concessions: Resale of prepacked food and beverage items sold by PRL at the Roseville Sports Complex.
 Admission Fee: An admission fee to an event at the Roseville Sports Complex can be utilized, like those charged by high schools for admittance to their sporting events.  Tournament Fees: Tournament fees for soccer can be assessed for each team who enters a tournament and can range from $150-$800 a team and can vary based on the number of games guaranteed.
 Official Product Sponsors: Official product sponsors for sports equipment, clothing, etc. can be used for the site. The value of the sponsorship can vary by how much exposure is received and the number of sales created. Large video boards can promote official sponsors of the fields as well.  Advertising Revenue: Advertising revenue can come from the sale of ads on banners at the facility. The advertising could include video boards at each field, fencing, scoreboards, covers over picnic tables, and in restrooms.
 Program Fees: Program Fees to support existing programs at each attraction can be employed in the form of lessons, clinics, camps, etc. These types of programs would help support the operations at the Roseville Sports Complex.
108
 Capital Improvement Fee: A Capital Improvement Fee on all programs and events can be added.

The Roseville Sports Complex will require an on-going maintenance endowment to keep the park and amenities updated and positioned for the future. A capital asset fee of $2-$3 on each person who participates in a league, camp, clinic, or program can be incorporated into the cost of the program or event. This fee can also be placed into a sinking fund for all weather field replacement.  Volunteerism: This is an indirect revenue source in that persons donate time to assist a Sports Complex in providing a product or service on an hourly basis. This reduces PRL’s cost in providing the service plus it builds advocacy.
 Special Fundraiser: Many agencies hold special fundraisers on an annual basis to help cover specific programs and capital projects to be dedicated to the Multi-Purpose Field Complex.

4.3.2 THE PARTNERING PROCESS
PRL has developed partnerships over many years that have helped to support the management of parks, recreation facilities and programs, while also providing educational and recreational opportunities for the citizens of Roseville. Partnership opportunities should be explored for a Multi-Purpose Field Complex.

Specific Partnership Agreements appropriate to the project will be drafted jointly. Partnership Agreements may take any of several forms depending on what will accomplish the desired relationships among partners.

The agreements may be in the form of:
o Lease Agreements
o Management and/or Operating Agreements
o Maintenance Agreements
o Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)
o Or a combination of these and/or other appropriate agreements

4.3.3 REVENUE MODEL

REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS
 Organizing three tournaments annually with 64 teams per tournament.  Renting of the complex to outside tournament organizers 12 times per year.  Field rentals to anchor tenant and other users.
 Additional revenues from camps, leagues, and other sources.

Figure 75 - Revenue Highlights
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
109

4.3.4 EXPENDITURE MODEL
Figure 76 - Expenditure Model
110

4.4 CONCLUSION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department is a best practice agency that has demonstrated the value that a high-quality parks, recreation and libraries system brings to the community.

There is an opportunity to bring even more value with the Roseville Sports Complex that serves resident needs and stimulates the economy by attracting regional events.

The recommendations outlined in this report are aligned with the vision, mission and core values of the community and the Department. These recommendations follow what the community has voiced as a priority.

A detailed economic Impact can be found in Appendix D.
.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
111

CHAPTER FIVE - PROGRAM AND ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

5.1 RECREATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department has a professional staff that annually delivers a comprehensive parks and recreation program to Roseville residents. Department staff are responsible for the management and implementation of a diverse array of recreation programs, special community-wide events, and the operation of multiple recreation facilities. Employees are engaged year-round in planning, implementing, conducting, and evaluating programs and events. All functions within the Department combine to provide thousands of offerings. But in addition to the provision of services provided directly by the Department, partnerships with other organizations are utilized throughout the service area. Through formal and informal cooperative relationships, various nonprofit agencies and other community partners assist with delivering select programs and indoor space to provide access for programs.

5.1.1 CORE PROGRAM APPROACH
The vision of the Department is to be a premier parks and recreation system in the State of California, and in the nation, providing all residents access to high-quality programs and experiences. Part of realizing this vision involves identifying Core Program Areas to create a sense of focus around the activities and outcomes of greatest importance to the community, as informed by current and future needs. However, public recreation is challenged by the premise of being all things to all people, especially in a community such as Roseville. The philosophy of the Core Program approach is to assist staff, policy makers, and the public focus on what is most important. Program areas are considered as Core if they meet most of the following categories:
 The program area has been provided for a long period of time (over 4-5 years) and/or is expected by the community.
 The program area consumes a relatively large portion (5% or more) of the agency’s overall budget.  The program area is offered 3-4 seasons per year.
 The program area has wide demographic appeal.
 There is a tiered level of skill development available within the programs area’s offerings.  There is full-time staff responsible for the program area.  There are facilities designed specifically to support the program area.  The agency controls a significant percentage (20% or more) of the local market. 112

ROSEVILLE PRL CORE PROGRAM AREAS
The Department currently offers programs in nine Core Program Areas. These core program areas are listed below:

Figure 77 - Core Program Areas
Core Program Area Brief Description
Athletics Provide physical activities, skill development and competitive sports opportunities for all skill levels and ages.

Aquatics
Provide aquatic classes, programs, events and facilities to promote water safety and skill development for all ages.

Community Events
Provide events that create community and support local vendors and businesses.

Enrichment & Cultural Programs Provide enrichment classes, programs and camps for all ages that promote culture and support wellness and lifelong learning.

Health & Wellness Provide facilities, classes, programs and events that promote and support wellness and healthy lifestyles for all ages.

Library Services/Literacy Provide access to library facilities, services, resources and programs to support learning and enrichment for the community.

Reservations & Rentals Provide opportunities for the reservation and rental of facilities and park amenities for community, regional and national use.

Senior Programs & Services
Provide classes, programs, events and resources for adults fifty and older that support socialization, health and wellness, and education.

Youth Development (Out of School Time)
Provide school age child care and preschool programs in partnership with local school districts to provide before-school, after-school, and out of school time programming at elementary school locations.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
113

ENSURING THE RIGHT CORE PROGRAM MIX
The Core Program Areas provided by PRL currently appear to meet many of the community’s major needs as identified in the survey results, but the program mix must be evaluated on a regular basis to ensure that the offerings within each Core Program Area – and the Core Program Areas themselves – align with changing leisure trends, demographics, and needs of residents. NRPA recommends that six determinants be used to inform what programs and services are provided by the Department. According to NRPA, those determinants are:
 Conceptual foundations of play, recreation, and leisure – Programs and services should encourage and promote a degree of freedom, choice, and voluntary engagement in their structure and design. Programs should reflect positive themes aimed at improving quality of life for both individuals and the overall community.
 Organizational philosophy, mission, and vision – Programs and services should support the City’s and the Department’s vision statements, values, goals, and objectives. These generally center on promoting personal health, community well-being, social equality, environmental awareness, and economic vitality.
 Constituent interests and desired needs – Departments should actively seek to understand the recreational needs and interests of their constituency. This not only ensures an effective (and ethical) use of taxpayer dollars, but also helps to make sure that programs perform well and are valued by residents.
 Creation of a constituent-centered culture – Programs and services reflect a Departmental culture where constituents’ needs are the prime factor in creating and providing programs. This should be reflected not only in program design, but in terms of staff behaviors, architecture, furniture, technology, dress, forms of address, decision-making style, planning processes, and forms of communication.
 Experiences desirable for clientele – Programs and services should be designed to provide the experiences desirable to meet the needs of the participants/clients in a community and identified target markets. This involves not only identifying and understanding the diversity of needs in a community, but also applying recreation programming expertise and skills to design, implement, and evaluate a variety of desirable experiences for residents to meet those needs.  Community opportunities – When planning programs and services, a Department should consider the network of opportunities afforded by other organizations such as nonprofits, schools, other public agencies, and the private sector. Departments should also recognize where gaps in service provision occur and consider how unmet needs can be addressed. 114

COMMUNITY INPUT FINDINGS
The efforts in creating this Strategic Master Plan were based on an evaluation of existing resources and capacity, as well as community input. Thus, a key consideration to creating a roadmap for parks and recreation programming in Roseville is to understand current community values, needs, and interests. The assessment of these values is accomplished by triangulating information generated from focus groups with staff, public input received via the focus group/stakeholder interviews, community meetings, project website input, a statistically valid survey, and reinforced thru electronic surveys. The program and service priority rankings resulting from this analysis are as follows:

Figure 78 - Priority Rankings
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
115

5.1.2 AGE SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The table below depicts each program along with the age segments they serve. Recognizing that many programs serve multiple age segments, Primary and secondary markets were identified.

AGE SEGMENT ANALYSIS – CURRENT SEGMENTS SERVED
Findings from the analysis show that PRL provides a strong balance of programs across all age segments.

All segments are targeted as a primary market for multiple programs.

This balance should be maintained moving forward, and PRL should update this Age Segment Analysis every year to note changes or to refine age segment categories. Given the growing population trend for residents ages 55 and over and the growing demand for services in this age bracket, it is also recommended that PRL further segment this group into 65-74 and 75+. These two sub-segments will have increasingly different needs and expectations for programs and services in coming years, and program planning will be needed to provide differing requirements.

Age Segment Analyses should ideally be done for every program offered by PRL. Program coordinators/managers should include this information when creating or updating program plans for individual programs. An Age Segment Analysis can also be incorporated into Mini Business Plans for comprehensive program planning.

5.1.3 UNDERSTANDING THE FULL COST OF SERVICE
To properly fund all programs, either through tax subsidies or user fees, and to establish the right cost recovery targets, a Cost-of-Service Analysis should be conducted on each program, or program type, that accurately calculates direct (i.e., program-specific) and indirect (i.e., comprehensive, including administrative overhead) costs. Completing a Cost-of-Service Analysis not only helps determine the true and full cost of offering a program but provides information that can be used to price programs based upon accurate delivery costs.

The methodology for determining the total Cost of Service involves calculating the total cost for the activity, program, or service, then calculating the total revenue earned for that activity. Costs (and revenue) can also be derived on a per unit basis. Program or activity units may include:
 Number of participants.
 Number of tasks performed.

Figure 79 - Age Segment
Core Program Area
Preschool
(5 and Under)
Elementary
(6-12)
Teens
(13-17)
Young Adult
(18-34)
Adult
(35-49)
Active Adult
(50-64)
Senior
(65+)
Athletics S P S P P S
Aquatics P P S S S P P
Community Events P P P P P P P
Enrichment & Cultural Programs P P S S S S S
Health & Fitness P P P P P P P
Library Services/Literacy P P P P P P P
Reservations & Rentals P P P P
Senior Programs & Services P P
Youth Development P P S

AGES SERVED
Primary Market (P) or Secondary Market (S)
116
 Number of consumable units.
 Number of service calls.
 Number of events.
 Required time for offering program/service.

Agencies use Cost of Service Analyses to determine what financial resources are required to provide specific programs at specific levels of service. Results are used to determine and track cost recovery as well as to benchmark different programs provided by Roseville between one another. Cost recovery goals are established once Cost of Service totals have been calculated. Department staff should be trained on the process of conducting a Cost-of-Service Analysis and the process should be undertaken on a regular basis.

Currently, the PRL does track revenue, expenditures, and cost recovery goals for each program.

5.1.4 PRICING STRATEGIES
As PRL embarks on the refinement of its pricing policy based on its costs to provide services, it will be necessary to expand upon and implement pricing strategies that will not only increase sales but also maximize the utilization of the City’s parks, programs, recreation facilities and libraries. The following table provides an overview of the pricing strategies that PRL currently utilizes to determine user fees.

By creating pricing options, customers are given the opportunity to choose which option best fits their schedule and price point. It is recommended that PRL explore dynamic pricing strategies such as Prime/Non-Prime Time and Weekday/Weekend that not only create options for the customer but also give PRL the opportunity to maximize both participation in programs/services as well as revenue.

Figure 80 - Pricing Strategies
By
Competition
(Market Rate)
By Cost
Recovery
Goals
Residency By Customer's
Ability to Pay
Group
Discounts By Location
Prime / NonPrime TimeWeekday / Weekend
Core Program Area
Competitors'
prices influence
your price
Cost recovery
goals influence
your price
Different prices
for resident vs
non-resident
Scholarships,
subsidies,
discounted rates
offered for lowincome
Different prices
for groups
Different prices
at different
locations
Different prices
for different
times of the day
Different prices
for different
days of the week
Athletics X X X X
Aquatics X X X X X X
Community Events X X X
Enrichment & Cultural Programs X X X X X
Health & Fitness X X X X
Library Services/Literacy X X
Reservations & Rentals X X X X X
Senior Programs & Services X X X
Youth Development X X X X X X

PRICING STRATEGIES
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
117

5.1.5 PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
A key component of the program assessment is the evaluation of program and service participation. The City of Roseville interfaced 2018-2021 program/service participant information with a GIS mapping tool to evaluate usage patterns for each recreation and library facility. The heat maps on the following pages provide a snapshot of these results:

LIBRARIES
Downtown Library - Overall User Participation
The Downtown Library primarily serves residents that live closest to the facility but is also utilized by residents and non-residents of Roseville.

Figure 81 – Downtown Library Participation
118
Maidu Library - Overall User Participation
The overall utilization of the Maidu Library is by residents that live closest to the facility, but it is also utilized by residents and non-residents of Roseville.

Maidu Library – Youth Enrichment Program Participation
The youth programs offered at the Maidu Library primarily serve residents in Roseville where there is a higher concentration of families living.

Figure 82 - Maidu Library Participation
Figure 83 - Maidu Library Youth Participation
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
119
Riley Library – Overall User Participation
The overall utilization of the Riley Library is by residents that live in the central and western areas of Roseville, but it is also utilized by other residents and non-residents.

Riley Library – Youth Enrichment Program Participation
The youth programs offered at the Riley Library primarily serve residents in West Roseville.

Figure 84 - Riley Library Participation
Figure 85 - Riley Library Youth Participation
120

AQUATIC FACILITIES
Johnson Pool – Overall User Participation
The overall utilization of the Johnson Pool is by residents that live closest to the facility.

Johnson Pool – Swim Lesson Participation
Swim lessons offered at Johnson Pool are primarily participated in by residents that live closest to the facility.

Figure 86 - Johnson Pool Participation
Figure 87 - Johnson Pool Swim Lesson Participation
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
121
Mike Shellito Indoor Pool – Overall User Participation
The overall utilization of the Mike Shellito Indoor Pool is by residents that live closest to the facility as well as residents that live in West Roseville.

Mike Shellito Indoor Pool – Swim Lesson Participation
Swim lessons offered at Mike Shellito Indoor Pool are primarily participated in by residents that live closest to the facility and those that live in West Roseville.

Figure 88 - Mike Shellito Indoor Pool Participation
Figure 89 - Mike Shellito Indoor Pool Swim Lesson Participation 122
Roseville Aquatics Complex – Overall User Participation The overall utilization of the Roseville Aquatics Complex is by residents that live closest to the facility as well as residents that live in West Roseville.

Roseville Aquatics Complex – Swim Lesson Participation
Swim lessons offered at Roseville Aquatics Complex are primarily participated in by residents that live closest to the facility.

Figure 90 - Roseville Aquatics Complex Participation
Figure 91 - Roseville Aquatics Complex Swim Lessons Participation Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
123

RECREATION AND SPECIAL USE FACILITIES
Maidu Community Center – Overall User Participation
The overall utilization of the Maidu Community Center is by residents that live in all areas of Roseville.

Maidu Community Center – Tot Program Participation
Tot programs offered at the Maidu Community Center are primarily participated in by residents that live in West Roseville and other high-density areas of the City.

Figure 92 - Maidu Community Center Participation
Figure 93 - Maidu Community Center Tot Program Participation 124
Maidu Community Center – Youth Camps/Enrichment Program Participation Youth camps and programs offered at the Maidu Community Center are participated in by residents that live in all areas of Roseville.

Maidu Community Center – Senior Program Participation
Senior programs offered at the Maidu Community Center are primarily participated in by residents that live closest to the facility.

Figure 94 - Maidu Community Center Youth Participation
Figure 95 - Maidu Community Center Senior Participation Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
125
Roseville Sports Center – Overall User Participation
The overall utilization of the Roseville Sports Center is by residents that live in all areas of Roseville.

Roseville Sports Center – Tot Program Participation
Tot programs offered at the Roseville Sports Center are primarily participated in by residents that live closest to the facility and in West Roseville.

Figure 96 - Roseville Sports Center Participation
Figure 97 - Roseville Sports Center Tot Program Participation 126
Roseville Sports Center – Youth Camps/Enrichment Program Participation Youth camps and programs offered at the Roseville Sports Center are participated in by residents that live in the highest density areas of the City.

Maidu Museum & Historic Site – Overall Program Participation The overall utilization of the Maidu Museum is by residents that live in all higher density areas of Roseville that are NOT closest to the facility as well as non-residents that live in Rocklin.

Figure 98 – Roseville Sports Center Youth Participation Figure 99 - Maidu Museum and Historic Site Participation Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
127
Maidu Museum and Historic Site – Youth Enrichment Program Participation The overall utilization of the Maidu Museum is by residents that live in all higher density areas of Roseville that are NOT closest to the facility as well as non-residents that live in Rocklin.

Figure 100 - Maidu Museum and Historic Site Youth Participation 128

5.1.6 OTHER KEY FINDINGS
 Program Evaluation: Excellent, pre-, and post-assessment and evaluation tools to measure the success of programs and services are in place.
 Customer Satisfaction and Retention: PRL currently tracks customer satisfaction ratings, but not customer retention percentages.
 Staff Training/Evaluation: PRL has a staff training program and solid evaluation methods in place for all employees (full, part-time, and seasonal employees).  Public Input: PRL does not utilize survey tools to continually gather feedback focused on needs and unmet needs for programming.
 Marketing: PRL utilizes a number of marketing strategies to inform City residents of the offerings of the community; however, it lacks a formalized Marketing Plan which can be utilized to create target marketing strategies.
 Volunteers: PRL has a strong volunteer program.
 Partnerships: PRL utilizes a number of partner providers to deliver programs to Roseville residents and has developed a formal partnership policy, however, needs to formalize many of its partnership agreements.
 Competition: PRL has a general understanding of other service providers.

5.1.7 OTHER KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
 Participation Data Analysis: Through ongoing participation data analysis utilizing the GIS mapping tool, continue to refine recreation program offerings to reduce low enrollment or cancelled programs due to no enrollment.
 Expand programs and services in the areas of greatest demand: Ongoing analysis of the participation trends of programming and services in Roseville is significant when delivering high quality programs and services. By doing so, staff will be able to focus their efforts on the programs and services of the greatest need and reduce or eliminate programs and services where interest is declining. Specific efforts should be made to increase programming in the areas of greatest unmet need as identified in the statistically valid survey.
 Community Feedback - Seek feedback from the community regarding quality of programs and unmet needs every 2-3 years.
 Partnerships - Establish written partnership agreements with performance measures to ensure accountability.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
129

5.1.8 PROGRAM PLAN SUMMARY
The Department is delivering quality programs, services, and events to the community, however, there is opportunity for improvement. The chart below provides a summary of the recommended actions that the Department should implement in developing a program plan to meet the needs of residents Figure 101 - Program Plan Summary
130

5.2 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
The PRL staff desired an organizational review for how best to manage the organization forward based on a functional design that categorizes and aligns functions to eliminate any duplication of efforts and streamline lead and support functions within the organization structure. The following are the results of the work created and the recommendations to make in each functional group. The process including individual meetings with each functional group to determine their existing functional design and determine functions that needed to have more study in relationship to the Departments expectations and outcomes desired, number of staff each functional group included and the span of control each division head was responsible and how each division interfaces with each other. Detailed recommendations for each division can be found in Appendix E.

5.2.1 PRL FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL SUMMARY

o
Figure 102 - Organizational Summary

ADMINISTRATION DIVISION RECREATION DIVISION PARKS & OPEN SPACE DIVISION

DIVISION FUNCTIONAL SECTIONS DIVISION FUNCTIONAL SECTIONS DIVISION FUNCTIONAL SECTIONS Overall Department Administration Aquatics Parks Maintenance Governance Youth & Teen Activities Infrastructure
Planning & Policies Special Events Aquatics Facilities
Leadership & Workforce Facilities & Sports Irrigation & Agronomics Business Development Adult & Senior Activities Contract Administration Youth Development Open Space
MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS Golf Course Operations Urban Forestry Division Administration Division Administration Streetscapes/CFD/LLD Contracts Communications & Community
Engagement
City Buildings & Schools Landscape
Creative Services & Marketing Division Administration

LIBRARIES & CULTURE DIVISION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION

STRATEGIC SUPPORT DIVISION

DIVISION FUNCTIONAL SECTIONS DIVISION FUNCTIONAL SECTIONS DIVISION FUNCTIONAL SECTIONS Maidu Library Operations Planning Budget Administration Downtown Library Operations Design & Architecture Procurement/Purchasing Riley Library Operations Construction Management Funding & Financial Accounting Library Centralized Functions Finance & Funding Human Resources Management Maidu Museum & Historical Site Division Administration Technology & Systems Management Cultural Arts Division Administration
Division Administration
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
131
CHAPTER SIX – - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

6.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The following capital improvement recommendations are broken down into three tiers. These include lifecycle projects which means the asset is at the end of its useful life and needs to be fully replaced or eliminated. Renovation/Enhancement projects are projects to be renovated and updated to meet the current needs of the residents or an enhancement added to the project to serve a wider range of users for that specific amenity or location in the system. Future projects are visionary projects that are completely new projects to keep up with the growth of the City or provide a new amenity that addresses new trends in the park, recreation and library arena that will keep the system advancing in the future to maximize the value and use or the PRL system.

6.1.1 SUMMARY BY TIER
Shown below are projects in each of these tiers that have been determined as priorities. These priority projects and numerous additional projects result in the totals that appear in Figure 103.

6.1.2 PRIORITY PROJECTS

LIFECYCLE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
Tier Estimated Total
Project Cost (2022)
Projected
Funding per FP
Delta
Life Cycle Projects $64,282,615 $10,000,000 ($54,282,615) Renovation/Enhancement
Projects
$64,741,481 $10,000,000 ($54,741,481)
Future Projects $252,420,219 $175,726,024 ($76,694,195) TOTAL $381,444,315 $195,726,024 ($185,718,291)

SUMMARY BY TIER
Project Estimated Capital
Project Cost
Mahany All Weather Field Replacement $1,273,080
Project Play at Maidu $2,086,693
Project Play at Mahany $3,214,428
Continued Play Structure Replacements (@3/year +/-) $3,929,545 SUBTOTAL LIFECYCLE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS $10,503,746

LIFECYCLE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
Figure 103 - Summary by Tier
Figure 104 - Lifecycle Replacement Projects
132

RENOVATIONS/ENHANCEMENT SERVICE PROJECTS

VISIONARY PARK PROJECTS

TOTAL FOR PRIORITY PROJECTS
Project Estimated Capital
Project Cost
Sports Complex (Value shown is 6 fields+/- with support features) $45,000,000 West Roseville Community Center, Library, & Event Center $35,000,000 Historic Fiddyment House $5,000,000
Water/Splash Pad in West Roseville $3,000,000
Natural Trails $900,000
SUBTOTAL VISIONARY PARK PROJECTS $88,900,000

VISIONARY PARK PROJECTS
Figure 105 - Renovations/Enhancement Projects
Figure 106 - Visionary Projects
Figure 107 - Total for All Priority Projects
Project Estimated Capital
Project Cost
Weber Park $3,324,869
Johnson Pool $3,500,000
Saugstad Park $3,000,000
Pistachio Regional Park (Future Phases) $20,000,000
Gibson Park (Future Phases) $10,000,000
Crabb Park Parking Lot $250,000
SUBTOTAL RENOVATION/ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS $40,074,869

RENOVATIONS/ENHANCEMENT SERVICES PROJECTS
GRAND TOTAL RECOMMENDED PRIORITY PROJECTS $139,478,615
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
133

6.2 FINANCIAL AND USER FEE ANALYSIS
The Consulting team did not provide a cost-of-service analysis as part of the Strategic Master Plan process.

However, during discussion on several areas of the assessment and review process user fees were discussed. PRL does a good job of creating earned income within their overall budget which accounts for 40% of their total operating budget coming from earned income. Earned income can come from user fees, permits, reservations, sponsorships, partnerships, rentals, admissions, contractor fees, etc.

The key element that needs to be addressed for the future is for PRL to update their pricing policy based on true cost of service that accounts for direct and indirect costs and then classify their services as core essential, important, and value-added services. This will then help the organization to price services based on a public and private benefit. This should be considered for all services including libraries services.

Once the cost of service is completed and the services are classified then PRL should develop their pricing policy based on a cost recovery goal that is reasonable, understandable, and defensible for all the services they provide in the system. Also, this will help to determine true partnership investments being made and in negotiating partnership agreements what level of investment they are making and what the partners are making.

There needs to be ongoing training in pricing of services for key staff positions in the system. This will help support their operational funding for the future and not increase certain groups of users to become entitled.

All new services offered should incorporate a cost-of-service model prior to the program being provided so that the service is priced correctly the first time.

6.3 FUNDING AND REVENUE STRATEGIES
The City of Roseville has used several funding sources to build the PRL system over the last 40 years.

Primarily the city has used:

1. Dedications and In-Lieu Fees: A mechanism for requiring new residential development to provide park facilities for the residents of a new development. Under the Quimby Act, a city can require a developer to dedicate land or pay in lieu fees to provide park facilities for a new subdivision. The dedication of land and/or the payment of fees is imposed as a condition of approval for the subdivision. The amount of land dedicated, or fees paid, is based on the number of residents in the new subdivision. Park facilities under the Quimby Act do not have to be located within the subdivision that is providing the land or fee, but there must be reasonable relationships between the subdivision and the park facilities as well as reasonable likelihood that the residents of the subdivision will use the facilities.

2. Development Impact Fees: A developer may be required to pay fees to offset the impact of new development on public facilities which include parks.

3. Development Agreements: A city can also seek to obtain land or funds for the creation of parks through development agreements with developers.

4. Bonds are sold to investors: There are two kinds of bonds: General Obligation bonds that are secured by the full faith and credit of the city issuing the bonds and which are paid off by an increase in the ad valorem property tax, and limited obligation bonds that are secured by a particular revenue source often a special tax or assessment. General obligation bonds require two-thirds approval by the electorate.

5. Special Taxes: A special tax provides a relatively consistent and secure stream of revenue. This revenue stream can be used for operations and maintenance a well as to secure bonds that raise capital for park acquisition, development or rehabilitation. A tax is a special tax if its revenues 134
provide a relatively consistent purpose that is specified in the tax law. A tax imposed specifically to fund parks would always be a special tax.

6. Parcel Taxes: Special taxes for parks are commonly imposed as a parcel tax, which are imposed on property owners and collected along with property taxes. Parcel taxes are often imposed through the creation of a community facilities district for service. The revenue from a parcel tax can be used for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation.

7. Sales Tax: Is a transaction tax that can be imposed by the city for local purposes such a parks and recreation. The sales tax can be in the form of a hotel tax dedicated to facilities that create hotel nights in the city.

8. Public-Private Partnership: The city now contracts with private companies to operate the city’s golf courses. The private company pays the city a percentage of gross on the total dollars collected to operate and manage the city’s golf courses.

9. User Fees: Park and recreation revenues can be generated from user fees, which are fees paid for the use of facilities, programs and services. PRL uses this funding source on 40% of the revenues they receive to help offset operational costs to provide the service. Most of the revenues collected by the city are for the direct cost of providing the program and not the indirect costs.

10. Private Nonprofit Hospital Funding: Many agencies across the United States work with hospitals to help develop community centers for health and wellness purposes. This includes development of therapy pools, walking tracks and rehab facilities inside community centers.

Recommendations:

PRL needs to continue to use all the revenue sources listed.  PRL needs to update the developer impact fees to coincide with the true cost of development for new neighborhood parks to continue to provide new parks in the city. This will require some renegotiation of existing agreements in place to ensure neighborhood parks are equitable in quality.  The City needs to look at increasing the sales tax from hotels to support improvements in parks throughout the City, especially where improvements in parks are for users staying in hotels from their involvement in sports tournaments across the City. This revenue source could support a bond for the City for public improvements.
 The City should consider a citywide parcel tax to cover areas of the City that do not have the level of landscape improvements that other areas in the city have.  The City and PRL should consider the development of a conservancy to oversee the development and operation of Al Johnson Wildlife Area.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
135

CHAPTER SEVEN - STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN

7.1 VISION
The following vision presents how the Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department desires to be viewed in the future:
“To be the leader in creating a healthy community through progressive, sustainable and memorable experiences.”

7.2 MISSION
The following mission is how the Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department will implement the vision:
“To enhance lives and the community by providing exceptional experiences.”

7.3 CORE VALUES

7.3.1 DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
Our differences are our strength and we are committed to creating an inclusive environment where everyone can bring their full self to work.

7.3.2 FUN AND CELEBRATION
We celebrate our successes and have fun along the way.

7.3.3 INTEGRITY
We are honest, trustworthy, and accountable for our actions. We do the right thing, even when no one is looking.

7.3.4 RESPECT
We treat all people with dignity. We communicate thoughtfully, value relationships and trust one another.

7.3.5 SUSTAINABILITY
We make decisions that are good for people and the planet. We are responsible stewards of the fiscal, human, physical and environmental resources entrusted to us.

7.3.6 EXCELLENCE
We take pride in our work and strive to achieve exceptional results.

7.3.7 INNOVATION
We encourage new ideas, seek creative ways to solve problems, take strategic risks and learn from our mistakes.

7.3.8 LEARNING
We foster a culture of continuous improvement and encourage both personal and professional growth.

7.3.9 SAFETY
We place safety first, in everything we do.
136

7.3.10 TEAMWORK
We know our impact is always greater when we work together towards a common goal.

7.4 CORE COMPETENCIES
 Focus on people
 Build trust
 Ensure accountability
 Communicate effectively
 Collaborate inclusively
 Make quality decisions
 Be adaptable / agile

7.5 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

PARKS AND RECREATION

1. Develop a signature sports complex

2. Develop a new community center/aquatic/library complex in West Roseville

3. Update older parks and facilities in the system

4. Develop a connected trail system throughout the city

5. Open up nature areas for nature trails access

6. Build sustainable funding options to support the system

LIBRARIES & CULTURE

1. Develop sustainable funding strategies

2. Build staff capacity to fulfill operational needs and community service expectations

3. Enhance and expand programs and services to meet changing community trends

4. Maintain, upgrade and reimagine spaces and facilities to meet changing service and operational needs

5. Formulate a technology plan that provides an up-to-date environment

6. Increase community engagement

7.6 STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS

7.6.1 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
GOAL
Provide parks, trails and open spaces that are designed to address the diversity of needs within Roseville, to be the leader in creating memorable public spaces and to maintain these spaces in a safe, clean, and attractive manner.

OBJECTIVES
 Continue to maintain safe, clean, and attractive parks  Design and develop new parks and update older parks to elevate their value and encourage positive use
 Work with City partners to create a more connected trail system and promote trail use to support community health and wellness
 Develop natural trails in open space areas to better facilitate exploration of these areas  Update master plans and work to identify funding sources for future development of large sites, including Pistachio Regional Park and Al Johnson Wildlife Area Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
137
 Conduct regular park assessments to ensure high quality and elevate all parks on a five-year basis for prioritizing capital investment needs
 Develop a strategy with local and regional partners to mitigate homeless impacts to parks and open spaces

7.6.2 RECREATION FACILITIES
GOAL
Provide public facilities that are designed to address the diverse needs of the community and maintain these in a safe, clean, and attractive manner.

OBJECTIVES
 Create a feasibility study for a large community & aquatic center in West Roseville to serve the growing community
 Invest in multifunctional sports complexes that can be shared by the community and the various user groups
 Develop additional special use recreational amenities to include pickleball courts, a mountain bike course, and skate parks
 Develop a sports tourism strategy, feasibility study and operational plan for the new Regional Sports Complex and for future recreational complexes
 Identify cost recovery expectations for all recreation facilities and develop individual business plans to meet expectations
 Reinvest in existing facilities, including Adventure Clubs  Utilize new GIS participant mapping tools to identify the community usage patterns of each facility  Enhance aging golf course facilities and develop an improvement plan for each golf course

7.6.3 RECREATION PROGRAMS
GOAL
Develop and expand programs considering new pricing strategies, expanding partnership opportunities, and reinventing certain programs for long term viability that reflect market trends and needs.

OBJECTIVES
 Develop/expand programming in the following areas: Fitness and wellness classes; Cooking classes; Free/low-cost community events; Art, dance performing arts; Education classes.  Outdoor trips (single day); Older adult resources/support; Volunteer programs  Consider establishing dynamic pricing strategies (primetime/non-prime time and weekday/weekend) for reservations, rental of spaces, programs, and events  Establish written partnership agreements with performance measures to ensure accountability  Seek annual feedback from the community regarding quality of programs and unmet needs every 2-3 years
 Evaluate the business structure of Youth Development Programs and consider changes to the operational model, evaluating cost recovery expectations, future expansion viability and facilities repair and replacement
138

7.6.4 OPERATIONS AND STAFFING
GOAL
Develop systems and strategies that improve efficiencies and effectiveness, culture, and branding, both internally and externally.

OBJECTIVES
 Develop performance indicators to demonstrate desired outcomes applying to all areas of the Department
 Update or create partnership, pricing, and earned income policies to build upon the business mindset in the organization
 Increase brand awareness to better promote the Department’s key focuses and build greater appreciation of parks, recreation, and library resources  Provide ongoing and increased opportunities to enhance staff’s personal and professional growth, provide a better understanding of department management practices, and facilitate a positive work culture
 Develop and implement a comprehensive succession plan and strategies to recruit and retain staff  Continue to evaluate the department's organizational structure, including:
o identifying new positions needed
o striking an effective balance of full-time, part-time, and seasonal staff o growing the use of volunteers
 Seek and implement efficiencies in the department's HR, IT, and Finance roles

7.6.5 FINANCE
GOAL
Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world through effective use of financial data, partnerships, equity, and positive stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

OBJECTIVES
 Find additional funding sources to support the entire park system  Ensure that partnerships are equitable, provide value to the department, and benefit taxpayers  Quantify and communicate the economic value of PRL
 Ensure that operational dollars follow new capital improvements so as not to impact the rest of the system in a negative manner
 Appropriately invest in the existing system to ensure older parks/facilities are valued the same as new

7.6.6 MAIDU MUSEUM & HISTORIC SITE
GOAL
Preserve and share the cultural heritage of the Maidu through exhibits, education, and cultural experiences.

OBJECTIVES
 Develop new revenue and funding sources
 Cultivate relationships with outside organizations, with an emphasis on Native American tribal organizations
 Create an Interpretive Plan for the Maidu Museum & Historic Site to include a more accurate and inclusive educational experience for visitors
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
139
 Increase public awareness and attendance at the Maidu Museum & Historic Site, both through marketing and the development of new programs/exhibits
 Continue to develop and grow the volunteer program to support school tours and museum programming

7.6.7 LIBRARIES & CULTURE
GOAL
Provide equitable access to resources and programs that support lifelong learning and literacy for Roseville and ensure that services are strengthened through increased and alternative funding, new partnerships and services, and establishing new cultural arts opportunities throughout the City.

OBJECTIVES
 Develop and grow funding sources and seek community partnerships  Develop a staffing model that meets the needs and service expectations of the growing community  Increase overall services and programming to meet community demand, including services outside of library facilities
 Renovate and modernize all three library facilities to provide increased access, improve security, and make better use of existing space
 Maintain and upgrade technology infrastructure to improve access to services, both in library facilities and remotely
 Improve community awareness of library services through targeted marketing campaigns  Create feasibility studies and develop business plans for new facilities, including the Historic Fiddyment House in Pistachio Regional Park, a cultural arts center to serve the community, and a new library facility in west Roseville
140
APPENDIX A – CORE VS CASUAL PARTICIPATION TRENDS

ACTIVITY GROUPS

GENERAL SPORTS
# % # % # %
Basketball 22,343 100% 27,753 100% 27,135 100% 21.4% -2.2% Casual (1-12 times) 7,486 34% 11,962 43% 11,019 41% 47.2% -7.9% Core(13+ times) 14,857 66% 15,791 57% 16,019 59% 7.8% 1.4% Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course) 23,815 100% 24,804 100% 25,111 100% 5.4% 1.2% Tennis 18,079 100% 21,642 100% 22,617 100% 25.1% 4.5%
Baseball 14,760 100% 15,731 100% 15,587 100% 5.6% -0.9% Casual (1-12 times) 5,673 38% 8,089 51% 7,392 47% 30.3% -8.6% Core (13+ times) 9,087 62% 7,643 49% 8,195 53% -9.8% 7.2% Soccer (Outdoor) 11,932 100% 12,444 100% 12,556 100% 5.2% 0.9% Casual (1-25 times) 6,342 53% 8,360 67% 7,586 60% 19.6% -9.3% Core (26+ times) 5,590 47% 4,084 33% 4,970 40% -11.1% 21.7% Softball (Slow Pitch) 7,690 100% 6,349 100% 6,008 100% -21.9% -5.4% Casual (1-12 times) 3,377 44% 2,753 43% 2,729 45% -19.2% -0.9% Core(13+ times) 4,314 56% 3,596 57% 3,279 55% -24.0% -8.8% Football (Flag) 6,173 123% 7,001 121% 6,889 123% 11.6% -1.6% Casual (1-12 times) 3,249 53% 4,287 61% 4,137 60% 27.3% -3.5% Core(13+ times) 2,924 47% 2,714 39% 2,752 40% -5.9% 1.4% Core Age 6 to 17 (13+ times) 1,401 23% 1,446 21% 1,574 23% 12.3% 8.9% Volleyball (Court) 6,216 100% 5,410 100% 5,849 100% -5.9% 8.1% Casual (1-12 times) 2,852 46% 2,204 41% 2,465 42% -13.6% 11.8% Core(13+ times) 3,364 54% 3,206 59% 3,384 58% 0.6% 5.6% Badminton 7,354 100% 5,862 100% 6,061 100% -17.6% 3.4%
Casual (1-12 times) 5,285 72% 4,129 70% 4,251 70% -19.6% 3.0% Core(13+ times) 2,069 28% 1,733 30% 1,810 30% -12.5% 4.4% Football (Touch) 5,686 100% 4,846 100% 4,884 100% -14.1% 0.8% Casual (1-12 times) 3,304 58% 2,990 62% 3,171 65% -4.0% 6.1% Core(13+ times) 2,383 42% 1,856 38% 1,713 35% -28.1% -7.7% Soccer (Indoor) 5,117 100% 5,440 100% 5,408 100% 5.7% -0.6% Casual (1-12 times) 2,347 46% 3,377 62% 3,054 56% 30.1% -9.6% Core(13+ times) 2,770 54% 2,063 38% 2,354 44% -15.0% 14.1% Football (Tackle) 5,481 146% 5,054 144% 5,228 140% -4.6% 3.4% Casual (1-25 times) 2,242 41% 2,390 47% 2,642 51% 17.8% 10.5% Core(26+ times) 3,240 59% 2,665 53% 2,586 49% -20.2% -3.0% Core Age 6 to 17 (26+ times) 2,543 46% 2,226 44% 2,110 40% -17.0% -5.2% Gymnastics 5,381 100% 3,848 100% 4,268 100% -20.7% 10.9% Casual (1-49 times) 3,580 67% 2,438 63% 2,787 65% -22.2% 14.3% Core(50+ times) 1,800 33% 1,410 37% 1,482 35% -17.7% 5.1% Volleyball (Sand/Beach) 5,489 100% 4,320 100% 4,184 100% -23.8% -3.1% Casual (1-12 times) 3,989 73% 3,105 72% 2,918 70% -26.8% -6.0% Core(13+ times) 1,500 27% 1,215 28% 1,265 30% -15.7% 4.1% Track and Field 4,116 100% 3,636 100% 3,587 100% -12.9% -1.3% Casual (1-25 times) 1,961 48% 1,589 44% 1,712 48% -12.7% 7.7% Core(26+ times) 2,155 52% 2,046 56% 1,875 52% -13.0% -8.4% NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Activity
2016
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports 2020 2021
Participation Levels % Change
More Core Participants (56-
74%) Core vs Casual Distribution
Participation Growth/Decline
Mostly Casual
Participants (greater
than 75%)
More Casual Participants
(56-74%)
Evenly Divided (45-55% Core
and Casual)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Mostly Core Participants
(greater than 75%)
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
141

GENERAL SPORTS (CONTINUED)
# % # % # %
Cheerleading 4,029 100% 3,308 100% 3,465 100% -14.0% 4.7% Casual (1-25 times) 2,365 59% 1,931 58% 2,030 59% -14.2% 5.1% Core(26+ times) 1,664 41% 1,377 42% 1,435 41% -13.8% 4.2% Pickleball 2,815 100% 4,199 100% 4,819 100% 71.2% 14.8% Casual (1-12 times) 1,710 61% 2,835 68% 3,454 72% 102.0% 21.8% Core(13+ times) 1,106 39% 1,364 32% 1,365 28% 23.4% 0.1% Racquetball 3,579 100% 3,426 100% 3,260 100% -8.9% -4.8% Casual (1-12 times) 2,488 70% 2,476 72% 2,270 70% -8.8% -8.3% Core(13+ times) 1,092 31% 950 28% 990 30% -9.3% 4.2%
Ice Hockey 2,697 100% 2,270 100% 2,306 100% -14.5% 1.6% Casual (1-12 times) 1,353 50% 1,165 51% 1,206 52% -10.9% 3.5% Core(13+ times) 1,344 50% 1,105 49% 1,101 48% -18.1% -0.4% Ultimate Frisbee 3,673 100% 2,325 100% 2,190 100% -40.4% -5.8% Casual (1-12 times) 2,746 75% 1,476 63% 1,441 66% -47.5% -2.4% Core(13+ times) 927 25% 849 37% 749 34% -19.2% -11.8%
Softball (Fast Pitch) 2,467 100% 1,811 100% 2,088 100% -15.4% 15.3% Casual (1-25 times) 1,198 49% 650 36% 934 45% -22.0% 43.7% Core(26+ times) 1,269 51% 1,162 64% 1,154 55% -9.1% -0.7% Lacrosse 2,090 100% 1,884 100% 1,892 100% -9.5% 0.4%
Casual (1-12 times) 1,153 55% 902 48% 1,009 53% -12.5% 11.9% Core(13+ times) 938 45% 982 52% 883 47% -5.9% -10.1%
Wrestling 1,922 100% 1,931 100% 1,937 100% 0.8% 0.3%
Casual (1-25 times) 1,139 59% 1,239 64% 1,290 67% 13.3% 4.1% Core(26+ times) 782 41% 692 36% 647 33% -17.3% -6.5%
Roller Hockey 1,929 100% 1,500 100% 1,425 100% -26.1% -5.0% Casual (1-12 times) 1,438 75% 1,129 75% 1,088 76% -24.3% -3.6% Core(13+ times) 491 25% 371 25% 337 24% -31.4% -9.2%
Boxing for Competition 1,210 100% 1,361 100% 1,460 100% 20.7% 7.3% Casual (1-12 times) 1,035 86% 1,214 89% 1,262 86% 21.9% 4.0% Core(13+ times) 176 15% 147 11% 199 14% 13.1% 35.4%
Rugby 1,550 100% 1,242 100% 1,238 100% -20.1% -0.3%
Casual (1-7 times) 1,090 70% 807 65% 778 63% -28.6% -3.6% Core(8+ times) 460 30% 435 35% 460 37% 0.0% 5.7%
Squash 1,549 100% 1,163 100% 1,185 100% -23.5% 1.9%
Casual (1-7 times) 1,111 72% 669 58% 720 61% -35.2% 7.6% Core(8+ times) 437 28% 495 43% 466 39% 6.6% -5.9%
Golf (Entertainment Venue) 8,173 100% 12,057 100% 12,362 100% 51.3% 2.5% NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Activity
2016
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports 2020 2021
Participation Levels % Change
More Core Participants (56-
74%) Core vs Casual Distribution
Participation Growth/Decline
Mostly Casual
Participants (greater
than 75%)
More Casual Participants
(56-74%)
Evenly Divided (45-55% Core
and Casual)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Mostly Core Participants
(greater than 75%)
142

GENERAL FITNESS
# % # % # %
Fitness Walking 107,895 100% 114,044 100% 115,814 100% 7.3% 1.6% Casual (1-49 times) 34,535 32% 34,742 30% 39,036 34% 13.0% 12.4% Core(50+ times) 73,359 68% 79,302 70% 76,778 66% 4.7% -3.2% Treadmill 51,872 100% 49,832 100% 53,627 100% 3.4% 7.6% Casual (1-49 times) 23,490 45% 19,549 39% 25,353 47% 7.9% 29.7% Core(50+ times) 28,381 55% 30,283 61% 28,276 53% -0.4% -6.6% Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights) 51,513 100% 53,256 100% 52,636 100% 2.2% -1.2% Casual (1-49 times) 18,245 35% 20,070 38% 21,560 41% 18.2% 7.4% Core(50+ times) 33,268 65% 33,186 62% 31,076 59% -6.6% -6.4% Running/Jogging 47,384 100% 50,652 100% 48,977 100% 3.4% -3.3% Casual (1-49 times) 21,764 46% 24,438 48% 23,441 48% 7.7% -4.1% Core(50+ times) 25,621 54% 26,214 52% 25,537 52% -0.3% -2.6% Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright) 36,118 100% 31,287 100% 32,453 100% -10.1% 3.7% Casual (1-49 times) 18,240 51% 13,249 42% 15,124 47% -17.1% 14.2% Core(50+ times) 17,878 49% 18,038 58% 17,330 53% -3.1% -3.9% Weight/Resistant Machines 35,768 100% 30,651 100% 30,577 100% -14.5% -0.2% Casual (1-49 times) 14,346 40% 10,940 36% 11,954 39% -16.7% 9.3% Core(50+ times) 21,422 60% 19,711 64% 18,624 61% -13.1% -5.5% Elliptical Motion/Cross Trainer 32,218 100% 27,920 100% 27,618 100% -14.3% -1.1% Casual (1-49 times) 15,687 49% 14,403 52% 14,156 51% -9.8% -1.7% Core(50+ times) 16,532 51% 13,517 48% 13,461 49% -18.6% -0.4% Yoga 26,268 100% 32,808 102% 34,347 100% 30.8% 4.7%
Casual (1-49 times) 15,486 59% 19,953 61% 20,110 59% 29.9% 0.8% Core(50+ times) 10,782 41% 13,471 41% 14,237 41% 32.0% 5.7% Free Weights (Barbells) 26,473 100% 28,790 100% 28,243 100% 6.7% -1.9% Casual (1-49 times) 10,344 39% 13,428 47% 12,649 45% 22.3% -5.8% Core(50+ times) 16,129 61% 15,363 53% 15,595 55% -3.3% 1.5% Dance, Step, Choreographed Exercise 21,839 100% 25,160 100% 24,752 100% 13.3% -1.6% Casual (1-49 times) 14,158 65% 16,652 66% 16,622 67% 17.4% -0.2% Core(50+ times) 7,681 35% 8,507 34% 8,130 33% 5.8% -4.4% Bodyweight Exercise 25,110 100% 22,845 100% 22,629 100% -9.9% -0.9% Casual (1-49 times) 9,763 39% 9,581 42% 9,915 44% 1.6% 3.5% Core(50+ times) 15,347 61% 13,264 58% 12,714 56% -17.2% -4.1% Aerobics (High Impact/ Intensity Training) 10,575 100% 10,954 100% 10,400 100% -1.7% -5.1% Casual (1-49 times) 7,135 67% 8,331 76% 8,347 80% 17.0% 0.2% Core(50+ times) 3,440 33% 2,623 24% 2,053 20% -40.3% -21.7% Stair Climbing Machine 15,079 100% 11,261 100% 11,786 100% -21.8% 4.7% Casual (1-49 times) 9,332 62% 6,339 56% 7,332 62% -21.4% 15.7% Core(50+ times) 5,747 38% 4,922 44% 4,453 38% -22.5% -9.5% Cross-Training Style Workout 12,914 100% 9,179 100% 9,764 100% -24.4% 6.4% Casual (1-49 times) 6,430 50% 3,476 38% 4,179 43% -35.0% 20.2% Core(50+ times) 6,483 50% 5,704 62% 5,585 57% -13.9% -2.1% Mostly Casual Participants
(greater than 75%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%) Participation Growth/Decline Large Decrease (less than -25%) Core vs Casual Distribution Evenly Divided (45-55% Core and Casual)
More Casual
Participants (56-74%)
More Core Participants (56-
74%)
Mostly Core Participants
(greater than 75%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Fitness % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Activity
Participation Levels
2016 2020 2021 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
143

GENERAL FITNESS (CONTINUED)
144

OUTDOOR/ADVENTURE RECREATION
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
145

AQUATICS
146

WATER SPORTS/ACTIVITIES
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
147

APPENDIX B- DETAILED STAKEHOLDER AND FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW

QUESTIONS

PARKS AND RECREATION STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS

1. What types of parks and recreation opportunities are needed most in Roseville? This could be something new that Roseville does not have today, or something we need more of.

The opening question in the series prompted many answers from the participants. Adding more sports facilities for baseball, soccer, pickleball, and golf, as well as for individual participation activities like bike trails for running, biking, and walking, swimming facilities, a walking track, and dog parks were popular answers provided to the interview team.

Revenue generated through sports tourism would be good for the local economy and would also create operational revenue for the park system from user fees with the addition of more competitive sports and tournaments held in the city.

The parks are doing a good job currently in providing park related amenities, yet more restrooms in the parks throughout the system are needed. Activities for families are important enough to warrant more programs for them and could include more amenities such as spray grounds for parents and their kids. Art programs and performing arts would be a welcome addition in the parks.

Adding more time slots for a wider variety of recreation programs would be important for busy residents. Adding more park and open spaces to host more events and connecting walking and biking trails at existing parks would be enjoyed by everyone. Events could include 5K runs, family games, and gatherings that would create connectivity with residents. a. Actual comments:
i. I want to feel connected. The Department does lots of good stuff for kids and seniors, but we need more fun things for the adults to do as well. ii. Need more pickleball courts.
iii. They need to add more restrooms at all park sites. iv. Make sure amenities are kept up, are safe, and clean. v. More arts programs in our parks to serve the Roseville Community, and also connect parks and trails, and include performing arts.

2. Are there barriers preventing some residents of Roseville from using the parks and recreation facilities more frequently?
Most interviewees felt there were not really any major barriers since the city provides parks that are accessible and well used by the community. Homelessness is a problem in some areas of the park system while Royer Park has been cleaned up and the problem with homelessness is getting better.

Some people may not use the trails since there are dogs off leashes occasionally. City buses have helped provide transportation to those that otherwise may not visit parks, reducing the travel accessibility problem. Weber Park is the only park mentioned that is not as accessible as it could be. Community awareness and outreach from the parks is not reaching everyone and that can be a barrier for people that do not know what the park system offers. Those people may go elsewhere to use recreational amenities and activities that they know about. a. Actual Comments:
i. Cannot think of any.
ii. Bike trails have dogs off leashes and that can keep people out of parks. 148
iii. No. City busses help bring people to the parks if transportation is an issue for them.
iv. Not that I notice. Royer Park has cleaned up the homeless issue there and it is better now.
v. No, Roseville is on the cutting edge of parks and recreation facilities and services. They provide opportunities for the community through the parks, recreation centers, health related services, softball and baseball are good also.

3. Do you think most residents feel welcome when they visit a Roseville park or recreation facility? What can we do in planning to make them feel more welcome? Overwhelmingly, participants interviewed said they feel welcome in Roseville’s parks and recreation facilities, and many attribute it directly to the staff. The Maidu Community Center often has no one greeting visitors at the front desk area and that is not a good representation of being helpful and friendly. The Park and Recreation system has created a welcome tone that draws people to use the parks and has a reputation for being friendly which adds to the reasons people move to and live in Roseville.
a. Actual Comments:
i. Guest Services has been at the top of their priorities. ii. Yes, they are inviting.
iii. Maidu Community Center has no one at the entry desk- just not very welcoming. iv. I do not have a lot of exposure to this system, but knowing the staff, all is good. v. Yes, I was there on a weekend recently and that really showed me they are welcoming.

4. Do you feel safe when you are using Roseville’s parks and trails? The general theme coming out about safety was that people feel safe, yet those answers were sometimes followed by comments about the problem of the homeless population present in some areas along trails. Those answers where contradictory to a comment made that Roseville has the lowest homeless population in the state. Royer Park and Weber parks were the only parks singled out where homelessness is a problem. One interviewee thought dogs on trails can be an issue for kids, but overall, those interviewed thought the parks and trails were safe. a. Actual comments:
i. There are a few trails that run through areas where there are homeless encampments.
ii. Trails – yes, I feel safe on them.
iii. Absolutely.
iv. Yes, very much.
v. Weber Park constantly has homeless people issues.

5. Do you feel the efforts by the Parks, Recreation & Libraries system to get out the information that citizens need about the services provided is effective through (social media, City Website, Program Guide, Roseville Parks Advertisements, or other means)? How do you want to get information about the park system to you personally? Most participants said the system does well to inform the community using social media and their website, while others felt that printed materials work well too. However, getting communication about parks and recreation services to the newly developed areas of Roseville where the population growth is occurring is not as effective as it should be. The park system does provide good Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
149
information about how to access parks, facilities, and programs to areas in the community. More efforts could be made with community-based organizations and printed literature may be the best outreach to them since people can be overwhelmed with social media. Possibly using a contract marketer like the golf course has in place may reach more residents in all areas of the city. a. Actual comments:
i. Yes, extremely well.
ii. Need a continued dedicated effort to communicate what the city offers. iii. They have a communication contractor like the golf course has in place to assist them in getting more information out to the community about services provided. iv. They do a good job with emails and social media.
v. The city goes above and beyond to get information out into the community.

6. What are the major challenges you see coming to Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries in the next 5 years? How should Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries respond to those challenges?
Growth of the City is welcome to the community, and that growth creates several issues the interviewees felt could be problems for the system in the future. More people in the community equates to more people using parks, golf courses, park related amenities, and park property will need to be maintained thoroughly to keep the parks in great shape as they are now. In addition to increased use of the parks, the growing population will put pressure on the infrastructure of the City with additional traffic, city services, utilities, and increasing use of park facilities by more residents will put a strain on the park system overall. State and federal regulations will need to be evaluated as they pertain to parks, and plans made to sustain the City and parks financially in the event of a downturn in the economy.
a. Actual Comments:
i. Keeping a sound financial base in the city.
ii. Growth is huge. The number of homes can be outgrowing services, amenities, retail operations and gas stations.
iii. The need for everything in parks like bike trails, sports fields, playgrounds, and recreation facilities to keep up with population growth will be needed. iv. Welcome new folks so they feel a part of the City, and the park system is the best department in the City to provide that open invitation. v. Traffic and more traffic will be a big issue.

7. Did your perception and/or use of Roseville’s Parks, Recreation & Libraries system change during Covid? How do you think the impacts from Covid will impact the City’s approach to Parks, Recreation and Libraries in Roseville moving forward? Mandates implemented because of the pandemic restricted park use by closing some parks, while the trail system and golf courses were amenities that were still open, encouraging residents to be outside while they felt obligated to stay inside and adhere to social distancing. Interviewees were pleased with how well the park system dealt with difficult issues where indoor activities were closed due to Covid, and as the pandemic evolved, the staff worked hard to create safe activities while meeting the ever-changing mandates. Because parks are especially important to the City, staff efforts were noticed and appreciated by the community, although some tough measures had to be implemented for public safety. Many interviewees responded that park use, walking and biking on 150
trails, and using open spaces became so prevalent during the pandemic that people will continue to enjoy them as much or more after the pandemic.
a. Actual comments:
i. Golf boomed. It had been in a long, slow decline. Golf courses were open, and people golfed a lot.
ii. Some facilities shut down. People could go outside, but as part of the City government they erred on the side of safety.
iii. No, I ran on the trails the whole time.
iv. No, not really, but roping off some park areas was frustrating. v. Park facilities were closed for too long, but they followed the mandates.

8. What new partnership opportunities should Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries explore in the future? These could be partnerships with local businesses, school district, non-profit organizations, etc.

The topic of partnerships, whether developing new partners or strengthening existing relationships was mentioned by most everyone interviewed. Some felt the parks could do more and the Department has not used partnerships as effectively as they could. Many types of new partnerships were mentioned such as partnerships with hospitals, colleges, hotels / tourism related facilities, schools, corporations, local businesses, the arts, and Veterans organizations. More ways to provide an outreach to these agencies with the parks system could provide economic benefits to the community, as well as increasing services to a growing community. These partners could help activate spaces in the parks and help create new events. Sports teams and tournaments are growing in numbers and could use more sponsorships through naming rights and other partnership methods. A Parks Commission or Friends of Roseville Parks Foundation could increase efforts of connecting with new partners and maintain relationships that can last years into the future. a. Actual Comments:
i. People want to activate the parks (small concerts / sports) for parks that do not have them.
ii. Maybe have a Parks and Recreation Commission.
iii. Reach out to veterans.
iv. They had school districts as partnerships some in the past, but not sure about now. Would be good to keep them if they do have them.
v. Need to pursue partnerships because how the economy will be over the next 5 – 10 years may affect the parks.

9. Is access to and preservation of natural areas and open space important for Roseville? Do you feel that every resident in Roseville should have close-to-home access to nature and open space?
New people coming into town and existing residents should have access to natural areas and the city should work to maintain and preserve them. Comments by participants about the importance of natural areas and open spaces were a unanimous – yes, and the city and park system were praised for doing a good job of including them as part of parks system. The interviewed participants were fans of many outdoor activities in parks that provide leisure use and enjoyment of nature areas yet providing access to everyone may not be realistic. a. Actual Comments:
i. Oh yes.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
151
ii. Walking and biking along the creek system is important to protect and provide access to.
iii. Yes, wherever possible, the more access to natural areas the better for Roseville citizens.
iv. Absolutely for people coming to live in town.

10. If you could change one thing about Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries what might that be?
The community enjoys activities and events where people can gather. Creating a designated person to develop and manage special events would activate the parks and encourage new residents to participate. Parks need to be maintained well with no graffiti and scattered trash so visitors using parks will have a good experience. Encouraging new people to be involved in community service can create the sense of ownership, elevate the positive reputation of the City, and support the reason they moved to Roseville. All changes and additions to the system will require more funding, but caution should be exercised when investing in the future for what residents in the community want and need.
a. Actual Comments:
i. Find a way to improve marketing to let residents know the park system is here for them and they should take advantage of the parks, trails, recreation facilities, programs, and libraries.
ii. Time to reach out to recruit more people to volunteer in a community service type job with the parks system, and more outreach to new people in town could be a real positive for the park system.
iii. More special events for people of all ages in the community is desired. iv. Add more activities for people and the community that bring people together.

Have a “cruise director” type person to book things for families to enjoy in the parks.
v. In all parks, have a monthly event that rotates around to various parks – something that motivates and activates people to visit park more often.

FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

1. What is your favorite park in Roseville and why?
Many parks were named as the favorite among the groups and most predominant was Maidu Regional Park because of the many amenities and activities as well as the natural elements.

Access, location, and size were reasons given for others to be favorite parks. Royer Park was a favorite park for the downtown area, while another participant said it needed more amenities. Crabb Park, Mahany Park, and downtown parks were brought up as favorite parks through the groups involved.
a. Representative Sample of direct responses.
i. Maidu Park and all the activities and amenities provided. ii. Crabb Park – it has good access and is larger than most parks. iii. Royer Park and its location in the city.
152

2. What type of parks and recreation opportunities are needed most in Roseville? This could be something new that Roseville does not have today, or something we need more of.

Adding more sports activities and sports facilities were answers that came from many of the interview participants. Specific facilities such as: a living history museum, spray grounds, pickleball courts, space making, another pool in West Roseville, and tennis courts were mentioned as great additions to the existing system. The desire for more amenities was also mentioned including more bike trails, walking art trails, and the development of pocket parks that would be appreciated as well as new activities the community could enjoy. With Roseville’s population growth and the City being known for its active parks, partnering with other groups to program activities would help colleges and their limited space for competitive sports. The consideration of a joint use facility that would offer opportunities that could be shared were ideas of how parks can become more connected with the city. Baseball and soccer provide opportunities for national tournaments as well as a positive exposure while generating revenue that has not been capitalized on in the past. Cherry Island and Woodland Park have extensive programming and they should be used as model parks to the others in the Roseville park system.
a. Representative sample of direct comments:
i. We have a long history of active parks, and we need some areas just for open space.
ii. A soccer complex is needed the most.
iii. We need to find a joint use facility that we can use for more development of parks and recreation sporting events with other providers in the city.

3. Are there barriers preventing some residents of Roseville from using the parks and recreation facilities more frequently?
Homelessness in the parks make people uneasy and prevents people from visiting certain parks where encampments are more prevalent. Royer Park was mentioned specifically. Communication with residents about park activities and events needs to be in languages other than English. If people cannot speak English, they are unaware of programs, which prohibits them from visiting the parks or joining in on programs or events. Libraries could offer programs to help residents where language barriers prohibit them from understanding information provided by the parks. Sports are extremely popular in the parks, but over programming of games brings additional spectators and may discourage some people from coming to games because of overcrowding and inadequate parking.
a. Representative sample of direct responses
i. Weber Park has a lot of homelessness in the park, and it makes people uncomfortable.
ii. There needs to be better access with language barriers with certain residents. iii. Royer Park feels unsafe at times because of homeless encampments.

4. Do you think most residents feel welcome when you visit a Roseville Park or Recreation Facility? What can we do in planning to make them feel more welcome? Interviewees themselves feel welcome in the parks and when visiting facilities. They also thought other residents do also. Roseville parks, recreation facilities and libraries have friendly staff members that make people want to continue uses the amenities provided. A welcome atmosphere is present throughout the parks by staff members that are readily available and enjoy greeting park guests to enjoy all that is available for visitors and families.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
153
a. Representative of sample direct responses:
i. Yes, I feel very welcome.
ii. I only hear good news and it is a welcoming environment. iii. A lot of people use the parks, and they feel welcome.

5. Do you feel safe when you are using Roseville’s parks and trails? Safety in the parks was recognized as sufficient in all focus groups, although the homeless problem is growing and is causing park users to feel uncomfortable in some areas throughout the system. a. Representative of sample direct responses:
i. Some people do not feel safe because of the homeless issues in some parks. ii. I never feel unsafe in the parks.
iii. The homeless are an issue in parks where encampments are present.

6. Do you feel the efforts by the Parks, Recreation & Libraries system to get the information you need about Roseville’s Parks, Recreation & Libraries’ services effectively through (social media, City Website, Program Guide, Roseville Parks Advertisement, etc.) is working for you? How do you want to get information about the park system? Organizations feel the communication they have with the city has improved, creating a positive relationship for both entities to work together. Small groups, low-income individuals, and residents that do not speak or read English are not being reached with park information and they should be an area of focus for the parks system to improve upon. The parks system uses various modes of communication very well to get information out about events and activities throughout the City and especially to new residents. Social media, the mailer, Facebook, their calendar, email, and the website are all great ways to reach residents in all age groups. The City’s website is a good point of reference, but they do not have an app that residents can use to discover news and events about the parks. New residents are getting information as a courtesy from home builders that provides community information, city amenities, as well as park information – but there is not a “one size fits all” type of communication that will fully apply to the growing population and diversity of cultures locating in Roseville.
a. Representative of sample direct responses:
i. Some builders do an excellent job to inform people of the opportunities in the community by providing them information.
ii. There needs to be more focus on the low-income population and those who do not speak English.
iii. We do not have any communication issues with the city, but the smaller groups have a tough time because they are not established.

7. What are the major challenges you see coming to Roseville in the next 5 years? How should Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries respond to those challenges? Population growth in Roseville is welcome, although more residents create pressure on City amenities and programs the parks provide. Street festivals and events are well received by the community, and how traffic will be routed appropriately is a concern now and will be in the future with more residents attending and participating in the events. Larger parks are expensive to operate, and increased maintenance and funding is also needed to keep older parks in good shape for visitors. Youth and adult sports are becoming more popular and experiencing growth that will require more facilities to provide fields and diamonds or people will travel elsewhere to find facilities and programs that can meet their facility size needs. Sports organizations feel they have plans for 154
their use of the parks that will need to be addressed by the parks staff to keep relationships intact.

Pickleball and soccer specifically need more facilities and possibly a new sports complex to accommodate them and other new sports that are becoming popular. New technology will need to be implemented to communicate with all residents in the City, especially those of diverse cultures where many different languages may not receive information by the existing outreach methods used by the park system now. Climate and environmental issues will need attention in upcoming years because of the increasing population and the additional infrastructure to accommodate it. a. Representative sample of direct response.
i. Sports are becoming year-round activities and people want their kids off phones and in more activities.
ii. There is a need for a soccer complex in the community. iii. There are some new residents in the city that we need to inform them about the process to access parks and recreation facilities and programs and how parks are developed.

8. Did your perception and/or use of Roseville’s parks, recreation and library system change during Covid? How do you think the impacts from Covid will impact the staff’s approach to Parks, Recreation and Libraries in Roseville moving forward? Restrictions resulting from the pandemic closed many parks facilities, yet outdoor activities were used by residents that wanted to come outdoors for exercise and walk on trails. Programs that were held inside previously were moved outside for safe participation by those attending. Parks remained current with restrictions and mandates to open areas of the parks that were safe to use, but small events were required to stay closed due because social distancing was not possible with people in close contact.
a. Representative sample of direct responses:
i. It was very restrictive for folks.
ii. Covid has brought more people out to the parks to be outside. iii. We could do no events in 2020, so it was shut down.

9. What new partnership opportunities should Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries explore in the future? These could be partnerships with local businesses, school district, non-profit organizations, and other groups.

The increasing population and growing sports use of parks has created partnership opportunities that can provide revenue and build relations for using and sharing facilities in the future. Some sports have outgrown facilities they currently use and partnering with other facility providers will create more sponsorships to help support the sports. The City is proactive and stays current on the future with sponsorships and partnerships as a significant piece of their work within the park system. Opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships exist and those relationships must be cultivated, while also seeking and establishing new partnerships that offer a broader range of programs and events. Schools, non-for-profit groups, sports organizations, and health and wellness agencies are some partnerships that will increase the number of visitors to the parks and provide revenue to the community via sports tourism.
a. Representative sample of direct responses:
i. The City is proactive, and we are looking at two to five years out for more sports field development.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
155
ii. We need to partner with the health industry and highlight the amenities available for health-related events.
iii. I think we have a great partnership with the schools and if that can be enhanced, that would be great.

10. Is access to and the preservation of natural areas and open space important for Roseville? Do you feel that every resident in Roseville should have close-to-home access to nature and open space?
Natural areas and open spaces have good accessibility to residents at present, although a Trail Access Standard would provide guidelines that would identify where additional accesses points should be located. The staff need to determine that adequate parking is available for those that drive to use the trails by the development of good trailheads. Working with an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) program would reduce insect pests while keeping environmental requirements intact and make areas and open spaces useable that will encourage visitors to use the parks more. One interviewee stated that 83% of residents have trail access within a 10-minute walk of their home.

Trails make connection areas that are not normally used in the parks, and they could also connect to additional natural areas. Open space required in the parks is driven by the Corp of Engineers, and nine acres per 1,000 residents is an appropriate level of open space for the city. a. Representative sample of direct responses.
i. Make the natural areas more accessible by putting more trails through them. ii. There is a fair number of trails now, and most people have good access. iii. It is an effective use of areas in the parks that we can’t use.

11. If you had one question that you would like to ask on a citizen survey to Roseville residents what might that be?
a. Would you be willing to come out and do a clean-up day? b. What indoor and outdoor activities / events would you like to see added to the parks in the next five years?
c. Would residents want to enhance areas of the city with more CFD’s (Community Facilities District?)
d. Are you willing to pay the maintenance cost for additional amenities and facilities to keep them maintained?
e. Would you be willing to support a budget increase for public art? f. What are your priorities for programming and events?

12. If you could change one thing about Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries what might that be?
Answers directed toward change were primarily about adding facilities, amenities, and programs to the system. The park system has high standards that make the parks appreciated by residents and they are the crown jewel of the City by serving the community well and they should continue to look to find ways they can improve in all parks.

Sports fields are used heavily since the Youth Sports Coalition and other leagues are growing, using fields more, and the fields will require more maintenance to keep pace with heavier use, more practices, games, and tournaments. Parks have struggled with a lack of resources and an evaluation should be done to understand where resources will best be used and then make them available to the staff so they can continue the level of maintenance required to provide a higher level of use in parks.
156
An addition, the biggest changes parks could make would be to address the desire for a large sports complex that would be used for local tournaments and include multi-purpose areas. Sports tourism would benefit the community and could include partnerships with hotels, restaurants, and businesses to generate revenue for the system. With an increased focus on sports and more spectators coming to watch games, food trucks would be appropriate and generate revenue for the parks.

The park system could change their use of areas in the park that are in a flood plain and use them in more effective ways such as providing more educational programming and outdoor experiences for the youth. Roseville has creeks that should also be used in more diverse ways, and to do so they must be maintained better and using new methods for environmental stewardship.

Other positive changes that were mentioned would be a routine financial evaluation for cost of service that could be shared with the City. This would tell the staff story more effectively and assist in adjusting their budget to include new amenities and programs. This would show where the department produces revenue and what expenses are used to operate the parks effectively and justify amenities that are wanted by residents.

A BMX park, skate park, disc golf, and extending bike trails would be welcomed by residents as additions to the current sports and activities present in the parks. More public art could be added through the neighborhood parks and special events would be an attraction for residents and people in nearby communities.

New art opportunities would be an addition to existing art programs for park visitors to enjoy, participate in, and create their own works of art. Changes in the park system will help existing residents and those new to Roseville to become more connected as they use parks and enjoy new experiences that an expanded park system would provide.

Some residents feel that parks have been under resourced for a long time. A multipurpose field house space is needed as well. Adding more maintenance staff needs to be evaluated to ensure the quality of the park experience is not lessened.

LIBRARY DETAILED RESPONSES

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

1. What kinds of library services or information resources are needed in Roseville right now? This could be something that the library does not currently offer, or something we need more of.
a. I’ve been inside the downtown library, but I’m a working 48-year-old with 2 jobs and I’ve got all the information I need available on the internet. In fact, I donate to Wikipedia because that is a huge resource for me. I think libraries are obsolete. We used the library a lot when my kids were young, story times. Seniors need to learn about technology. There is a huge gap in caregivers’ education and services. Seniors were abandoned during COVID.
b. People over 65 who are caregivers are in desperate need for support networks. Did you know 60% of caregivers caring for a loved one with dementia will die before the person with dementia due to stress related conditions, such as illness that attack the heart. They need respite, health nutrition, education, and more. There are 42 million unpaid caregivers in the US.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
157
c. Now that kids are older, don’t have as much time to go to the library anymore so I am not sure what the library has to offer. Pandemic pick up services were helpful. Good hold system. When kids were younger, we went to Mother Goose on the Loose, the kids loved it.
d. Library is doing all they can, but they need to provide more information on what activities are happening. Need to work on how to reach citizens. Library does a lot of things, but people are unaware. Is there an email list? Could send in the mail too. People are missing out.
e. Need more library services out west where the people are. Storytime, children’s programming, all programming, hitting all the bases. Helping seniors learn technology.

Vision for services out west, new library, strip mall? Gives library a chance to grow and change without facilities ownership liability. Space that benefits that side of town.

Community center will be needed too.

2. What programs, services, amenities or features should the library consider offering that would expand or enhance the customer’s experience?
a. Library needs a communications plan to drive people to the library. Intergenerational programming is important, have people over 50 read to 3rd graders to build literacy. I don’t know if Roseville has literacy programs. We also need ESL programs. People don’t read books anymore; we need more digital materials. The Library is already obsolete. b. Supper clubs, brown bag inspirational talks (think Ted Talks), meditation, book clubs.

Libraries traditionally were for brain health to expand the mind, step it to the 21 century and offer brain health. The more you do now to engage people away from blue light devices, the healthier your citizens will be. Our society will save billions in healthcare costs if we are proactive and do things to improve our brains and fight mental health issues as well as other physical illnesses.
c. Digital books are a big draw. My husband would rather pay to get access on a Kindle than buy a print book. eBooks are important. Self-checkout is very helpful, works well. Rooms you can rent, computers you can use.
d. Roseville has good facilities, nice and tidy. How can they bring services to all levels – young people, teens, Current customers are either very young or very old, none in the middle. We need to attract them.
e. More outreach, telling people about the library. Lots of people who like to read but don’t go to the library, it’s a growing population.
f. Book clubs based on genre are very popular on social media. g. Charging stations for devices, inside and outside the library. h. More children’s programming on the west side. Mother Goose on the Loose – got too popular, did not want to promote it. Need another library. Books clubs are good but hard to run.

3. What do you feel are the greatest challenges and/or needs facing Roseville communities in the next five years?
a. Huge influx of people, Roseville is growing rapidly. Communication is needed for new families coming in, to tell them about library services, other City services. Important that people know what is available to them. It can be difficult to create those email lists, difficult to communicate.
b. Mental health issues and dementia are making our residents suffer. 158
c. People are still going outside, half of them are not vaccinated. Hope we never face this again, it’s a very unique situation. Now that so much is digital, we don’t need to drive there, we have no time. Library needs to understand how people prioritize, manage their time.

The population is growing on the west side, we may need another library. d. Adaptation, keeping up with technology, eBooks. Kids need different types of help; their technologies are very complex, and libraries need to watch for this. E.g. – online book with video and other media elements together.
e. Issues with water, drought. City already building new tanks. How to balance city services and climate change.

4. How should the library respond to those challenges?
a. Teach brain health, brain fitness to all ages.
b. Be smart. Be innovative. Be a national leader.
c. Making sure that communication is happening, also through the schools. Target ads to young families with children, maybe a welcome wagon type of thing. Make sure new folks know their options. Maybe a City-wide program. Billboard on the border of small towns - advertising Rotary club, Boys and Girls clubs, etc. Is a 4th branch out west feasible? As population shifts to the west, it gets more difficult to make the trek. When my kids were little, Riley was more accessible, closer, DT was harder to access with a stroller, harder to park. Not going to make the 15 minute drive to a story time with little ones in the car. d. City has a plan for development, housing sites, but at the same time, part of the tax dollars for improving/investing in schools should go to the library funds. Library should be like a school; it is important too. Kids and elderly learn in different ways. Libraries can support this with study groups for example.
e. Libraries should be observing new technologies, using them, figuring out the problems and help fill in the gaps in knowledge that people have on technology. Some technologies are good for some things—e.g., small chunks of videos, sound bites are not good for understanding sequences of events. Things are very fast paced today, I never thought of the library as moving very fast but every time we get a new technology like a smart board, it takes a while to get incorporated. Libraries can help with this.

5. What are the barriers to meeting these challenges?
a. Making the community aware of what the library offers. People get a lot of direct mail, evaluate it quickly and throw it away. Need to use email, Facebook more. How does the library stand out against all the noise? Even if we do develop programs how do we get people to use them? The city is in competition with the health community, offering our own programs but Kaiser is better at customizing the marketing, people sign up for programs and they send reminders.
b. Communication. You need a really good, comprehensive marketing program to reach the entire city. Collaboration is essential for citizen buy in. They have to know about it in order to be excited by any changes.
c. Communication is difficult. Need ways to connect with the community. We have librarians and assistants, but we don’t have sufficient funding support. E.g. math tutors, could charge something, not provide it for free. Parks charge for things. School kids have depression, anxiety, they need mental stability, those are needs that should be met. There are things libraries can do, not at the medical level, but things like meditation, etc.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
159

6. What new partnership opportunities should the library explore in the future? These could be partnerships with local business, school district, non-profit organizations, etc. a. Reach out to where young people are – Girl and Boy Scouts, sports teams. If the library were as popular as sports wouldn’t that be great. Work more with school libraries when kids can’t find what they need.
b. Senior Commission, health centers, schools, employers, cable companies and internet providers.
c. Revisit successful partnerships, Galleria, Fountains story times. d. Boys & Girls Clubs, Title I schools, State grants. Expand after school offerings. Serving seniors who are truly shut in. Mail program. Hospitals, NICU, laundromat story times. Go to where people are hanging out.

7. What do you think about customers paying for library services? What about paying for extra services like special programming?
a. I don’t know. On one level it makes sense, you have basic cable but pay extra for Netflix.

A tiered approach. People would pay for convenience, maybe access to a broader collection. Reserving spots at events, story time so that if you’re late getting there you don’t lose your spot and have unhappy toddlers. People would be more likely to pay a small amount for convenience a bunch of times rather than a larger lump sum all at once. b. Not a good idea, too many other options, we would see a decrease in users. People who need services can’t afford them. Also, can’t charge enough to make it worthwhile. c. Core things should be free – check out a book, resources available in the library. Need to provide resources for people who can’t afford.

8. If you could change one thing about the library, what might that be? a. Frustrating when popular books are not available, e.g., over the summer for kids. Not enough copies to go around. Need better way to suggest other books to read if they one you want is not available.
b. Old, obsolete mindset.
c. Library should have flexible times, at least one should be open 7 days. Different locations have different hours, people need access every day.
d. Create a different atmosphere in the library, a cozier mood, peace and quiet. Winter is coming and we can’t be outside, would like to go to cozy place like Starbucks.

9. Aside from funding, what could the City do to best help the library thrive? a. Increase advertising presence for library. Ad campaigns should include the library. They do a pretty good job of making sure that Parks & Rec programs are advertised, do they do that for the library? People need to know that library is there. City needs to facilitate communication piece if library needs help.
b. Rethink it and give it a much larger advertising budget. Run it like a business. c. City should expedite the process to get a new library built in the west area. d. Get people in the door. Think of it in terms of a business, the product is free, we should be able to sell this.

10. Anything else you want to share about the library strategic plan? a. Riley library is a beautiful building, they did a good job with that design – open, lovely, the Tree in the children’s section. It is a great example of pulling everything together in one place – playgrounds, sports fields, walking trails, community center, exploration center.

Downtown is more like the library I grew up with, on its own. Maidu has a different feel – with the community center and playing fields. You would be more likely to take the kids 160
over to the library as long as you’re there for sports practice etc. If there’s a concept for the 4th library, it should have lots of options, community feel like Riley and Maidu. b. I gave a business plan that I built that I think would be perfect for the library to consider engaging residents.
c. Need to do something to reach out to people who need literacy services. Our facilities are unbalanced – Riley is overwhelmed.

FOCUS GROUP DETAILED RESPONSES
A combined library-museum focus group was conducted on September 16 with nine attendees.  Library used most
o Downtown - class for adult school
o Maidu - close to home, Downtown - Friends
o Riley - close to home, family uses
o Maidu - ebook, audio books, read magazines
o MM&HS - tribal community towards Auburn, Colfax, Cameron Park, Sacramento (families are close and enjoy the use of the grounds)
o MM&HS - family pictures are there
o Maidu - closest. Spends most time at Carnegie
o Libraries - interpretation and connection to tribal communities (can't interpret without talking with these communities)
 Like most about libraries
o Libraries
o A lot of community outreach, accessible for homeless and reaches multiple age groups, book readings at Fountains, spread the love of reading - does good job in reaching variety of people, new technology to be available to people
o Summer reading program, motivating, story time - powerful, variety of materials, amount of people is phenomenal, infrastructure behind the scenes is seamless, handle volume well o Space where community comes to connect with resources, print, social workers connection, tutoring/literacy coordinators has been huge, a great resource for adult learners, putting together resumes/job app/help with entry point of life o Museum
o Hold a lot of ground/preserves sacred land closer to what it was in history, showcase uses and continued uses, demonstrations on how plants can filter water, educate people of local tribal, can help to further educate
o History fascinates kids (old items - Victrola, old phones, toasters, etc.), kids learn about antiques for everyday use, railroad room, archives from late 1800's  Greatest challenges next 5 years
o Growth and expansion
o Hard to remain a community (East vs West vs downtown) o Roseville is mini–Orange County (new age, progressive, restaurants) without a beach but small town. Losing connections and small-town feel
o PRL is huge factor in retaining this feeling
o Progress (growth) will not bring small town back, it is inevitable Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
161
o Prior to pandemic - doing ok/holding. Pandemic has permanently closed museums (volunteers’ shortage, costs increase, can't compete with other sectors). How to reach out more to the community.
o Women's Improvement Club raised funds to purchase Carnegie (used to be a library)  Responding to challenges
o Ensure we are reaching everyone - becoming more diverse (including overcoming language barriers)
o Serve all segments of the community and needs
o People want to connect
o Video to 3rd graders (RHS) about Carnegie, partner with Rotary to pay for school buses o More partnerships
o Great education/interactive programs
o Scout badges (girls/boys) encourage attendance
o Scavenger hunt or walking tours
o Better educate new residents to make them aware of what's available o More financial resource allocations/wants to see more investment from the City  Kinds of library/museum services needed most
o Friends - everything can to support libraries ($40-50K/year) fundraiser/grants o Book stores are more profitable but at Riley/Maidu has the least amount of space to store and sell (turn away donations), want more space
o Tequila Mockingbird event (raises $7-8K) - activity guide but needs help with promoting not charge for advertisement (although donated space - courtyard)  Where do you typically get information about library/museum services o Social media
o Print
 Newsletters
 Flyers
o Booths at community events (hard to do financially and timewise)  What would encourage you to use the library/museum more o Offer special incentives for kids (e.g., reading program won baseball tickets) o Ask those who don't care and see what they think
o Highlight services beyond just reading
o New outdoor activities/organized walks
o Being consistent on opening hours
 Partnership opportunities
o Library and museums should partner more
 Customers paying for library services
o No!!!
o Tragic
o What about extra things/other services? Still no, unless it's not books or magazines  One question for survey
o What do you think Roseville looked like 100 years ago? o What would it take to come to the library?
o What can your libraries do for you do address your needs? Have to give choices o What do you believe libraries offer? (many people have an old perception of library services o Would you support an increased fee/tax to support libraries and museums? 162
 One change
o Income
o More hours, more money, more books, more resources, more volunteers o More space
 Anything Else?
o City needs an outdoor botanical garden, koi pond
o Community garden with outdoor classroom
o Adventure playground - kids build their own play spaces with lumber, tools o Staycation - scavenger hunt at Ikea - do one a couple times a year, take pictures, have a really good prize, explore more than parks and include libraries and museums Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
163
APPENDIX C – SCORING SHEET

METHODOLOGY
This scoring memo was used as a guide in determining a score for key metrics.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Park Name (and ID)

AMENITIES LIST
 Grill
 Bocce Ball
 Dog Park
 Horseshoe
 Playground Tot Lot
 Playground (School Age)
 Shade Structure
 Picnic Table
 Restroom
 Skateboard Park
 Stage
 Trails
 Arena Soccer Court
 Baseball (Adult)
 Baseball (Pony)
 Baseball (youth)
 Basketball (outdoor full court)
 Basketball (outdoor half court)
 Football overlay
 Lacrosse Overlay
 Multi-use field (practice)
 Fitness pods
 Soccer Regulation size
 Soccer Youth
 Softball (Adult, 90' baseline)
 Tennis Volleyball (grass)
 Volleyball (sand)
 Water Feature
 Pickleball
 Walking Trail/ Loop
 Picnic Areas
 Field Lighting
 Dog Friendly
 Natural Area with Trail
164

SCORE CATEGORIES

1. Access and Connectivity

2. Condition and Functionality

3. Experience + Sense of Safety

SCORING INSTRUCTIONS
All items should be scored on a 1 to 5 scale

ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY

EDGE PERMEABILITY
1- Entrances/Access obscured
3- Entrances/Access defined - not noticeable beyond 100 yards 5- Entrances/Access clearly defined - able to be distinguished from a significant distance or multiple entrances not inhibiting access

SIGNAGE, MAPS, AND CITY BRANDING
Quality of signage relative to ‘control park’ for each park type. Locations of sign, wayfinding will be evaluated.
1- No park signage
3- Entrance sign and minimal secondary signs, limited information 5- Well designed signage system - unobtrusive, understandable

ADA ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES / PATHWAYS
Only visual analysis will be conducted.
1- No apparent ADA circulation or in extremely poor condition 3- Limited ADA circulation or in moderate condition
5- Extensive ADA circulation to all major park areas

PRESENCE OF SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
(n/a when park entrance is located along a very small, low-traffic, quiet street) 1- Unsafe crossing relative to street width/traffic volume 3- Standard crossing treatment present
5- Crossing treatment prioritizes pedestrian and/or is directly integrated into park circulation

SIDEWALKS AND SURROUNDING CIRCULATION
1- No sidewalks/ Park entrances do not connect to external circulation/activity areas 3- Sidewalks present/ Park entrances in vicinity of external circulation/activity areas 5- Sidewalks integrated into and enhance park circulation/ Park entrances relate to/act as extensions of external circulation/activity areas
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
165

PATH CONNECTIVITY WITHIN PARK
1- Pathways circuitous/confusing, missing connections
3- Pathways adequate
5- Destinations clearly connected and intuitive - circulation extremely easy to understand

PARKING
Parking to be evaluated per park type. Citywide parks to include on-site parking, school parks to have shared parking, neighborhood parks to have adjacent street parking. Parking to be evaluated based on connectivity between parking and park elements.
1- Insufficient parking, extremely poor connectivity
3- Adequate parking, adequate connectivity
5- Sufficient parking and connectivity

ACCESSIBLE BY BIKE ROUTE
Evaluated using bike map data and verified with Google Maps. 1- No marked bike route connecting near park (within 100 yards) 3- Adequate bike route connects directly to park (Class II, III, or IV) 5- Safe, low-stress bike route connects directly to park (Class I, IV/ Fully Separated)

ADEQUATE BIKE PARKING
Bike parking quantity per size of park and appropriately located. 1- No bike parking observed
3- Bike parking observed / but not conveniently located or adequate 5- Ample bike parking for park and neighboring areas

CONNECTIVITY TO OPEN SPACE / TRAIL
Parks not adjacent to open space or trail will not be rated. Evaluated using GIS data and verify with Google Earth.
1- Park adjacent to open space but lacking connection/trail 3- Park adjacent to open space with minimal connection to trail 5- Park well integrated to adjacent open space with trail connections

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NEARBY
Evaluated using Google Maps.
1- No public transportation within ¼ mile
3- Public transportation within ¼ mile (walkable)
5- Public transportation within 5-minute walk
166
CONDITION + FUNCTIONALITY
*(Only score for features present within the park)

HARDSCAPE
Potholes/ cracks, loose pavers, deterioration, overall attractiveness, and relevance. 1- Poor condition, tripping concerns, not in appropriate locations 3- Fair condition, in appropriate locations
5- Excellent condition and in appropriate locations

PLANTING
No overgrown grass or dirt patches, overall maintenance of planted areas, appropriate pruning, presence of weeds.
1- Poor condition
3- Fair condition
5- Excellent condition

PLAY AREA
Equipment condition (broken/protruding parts, rust), mulch, rubber, etc. Relevance of play equipment, variety of play equipment.
1- Poor condition
3- Fair condition
5- Excellent condition

RECREATION AMENITY AREA
To apply to parks with sports fields / recreation amenities etc. Cracks, weeds, low spots, equipment condition (visual inspection).
1- Poor condition
3- Fair condition
5- Excellent condition

RESTROOMS FACILITIES
Only parks with a restroom will be evaluated. Usable (not locked), sufficient provision for scale of the park, reasonably maintained (no severe maintenance issues)
1- No effective restrooms (not provided for larger parks, inaccessible or strongly undesirable due to cleanliness concerns)
3- Adequate restrooms
5- Well provisioned for the site - bathrooms as amenities Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
167

SEATING / GATHERING AREA
1- Little variety in seating / Poor condition
3- Some seating / Fair condition
5- Sufficient variety in seating / Excellent condition

EXPERIENCE AND SENSE OF SAFETY

EVIDENCE OF ILLICIT USES
Illicit uses such as evidence of camping, littering, graffiti 1- Active evidence of illicit uses, camping, or vagrancy 3- Trace evidence of illicit uses
5- No evidence of illicit uses

ROAD / TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AROUND PARK
For parks adjacent to higher speed roads, parks on calm neighborhood streets will not be evaluated. 1- No traffic calming measures - excessive traffic speed common 3- Limited traffic calming measures on higher trafficked streets 5- Well integrated and designed traffic calming measures that successfully slow traffic

CLEAR SIGHTLINES
Evaluation will only apply to use zones of park, i.e., parks next to open space or creeks will not be negatively scored by the presence of taller/un-maintained vegetation. 1- Overgrown vegetation within 3’-8’, or hidden areas present near use zones 3- Some overgrown vegetation but generally open near use zones within 3’-8’ 5- No overgrown vegetation inhibiting clear sightlines through park within 3’-8’

EYES ON THE PARK / NATURAL SURVEILLANCE
Evaluation of park edges for natural surveillance and amount of activation through sidewalks, neighboring use, stoop conditions, walls.
1- Poor edge condition activation
3- Moderate edge condition activation
5- Excellent edge condition activation

MITIGATION OF VIEWS / NOISE FROM SURROUNDING LAND USES
Effective mitigation of unappealing surrounding land uses, such as industrial facilities, derelict structures, etc. (n/a if no such adjacent uses)
1- Park does not mitigate unappealing surrounding land uses or noise 3- Park has some screening of unappealing surrounding land uses or noise 5- Park completely screens unappealing surrounding land uses, unappealing surroundings, or noise imperceptible
168

ACCESS TO WATER FOR DRINKING
1- No drinking fountain observed on site
2- Drinking fountain exists on site but limited in location/quantity given size of site 5- Ample drinking fountains exist on site and are functional

CLEAR ORIENTATION
Easily and quickly understandable path system and/or park layout 1- Confusing, circuitous, and non-intuitive circulation system 3- Path system present and connects park elements
5- Quickly understandable and intuitive path system
SHADE
Ample amount of distribution of shade on site through evergreen tree canopy or shade structures.

Evaluation will prioritize use zones.
1- No consistent shade present on site
2- Moderate but limited amount of shade on site
5- Ample shade with variety of uses available on site

LIGHTING AT MAJOR AMENITY AREA
Visual inspection to occur during the day, light levels will not be evaluated 1- No light fixtures at major amenity area(s)
3- Light fixtures present but not at all major amenity area(s) 5- All major amenity areas appear to have appropriate quantity of light fixtures

VARIETY OF SPACES FOR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE USE
Ensuring parks have a balanced amount of space for both active and passive uses 1- Park does not provide adequate space for active or passive uses 3- Presence of space for either active or passive use but not balanced 5- Ample space for both active and passive uses

CHARACTER / UNIQUENESS
Does the park have artistic/thematic qualities that make it unique and give the neighborhood identity? This could apply to both the design/customization of physical equipment/structures as well as the planting and quality of natural features such as topography, adjacent open space. 1- Park lacks character / uniqueness
3- Park has moderate amount of character / uniqueness
5- Park has strong character / identity
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
169

VARIETY OF VEGETATION (DEGREE OF VARIETY IS APPROPRIATE TO THE SPACE) Different species, different forms/heights/shapes (trees vs. shrubs vs. herbaceous vegetation), different colors (flowers)
1- Park is devoid of vegetation variety
3- Park has distinct ground cover, understory, and canopy plants 5- Park has large variety of plant types, colors, and seasonal interest

ADDITIONAL NOTES
not factored into score
 Environmental Notes -Vulnerability to flooding, issues with stormwater retention, natural drainage, erosion, fire resiliency, habitat value, steep slopes, extreme heat, potential to accommodate for disaster center (i.e.: cooling center, etc.), community, school, flexible use parking lots.  Additional Notes - i.e., wildlife, special views, aesthetics 170
APPENDIX D – ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROS Consulting performed an economic impact analysis to measure the economic benefit of construction and estimated tourism related to the Roseville Sports Complex improvements IF the community chose to utilize the Roseville Sports Field Complex to increase sports tourism in the City. Economic multipliers used in the analysis are from the Regional Input-Output Modeling System produced by the U.S. Department of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis. A model developed in Microsoft Excel uses survey data and the regional multipliers to present the approximate economic impact on the local economy. The economic impact is expressed in terms of dollars generated in the economy and in terms of the change in the number of jobs. The multipliers in this analysis are for illustrative purposes and not specific the Roseville area.

HOTEL ROOM INVENTORY IN ROSEVILLE
 2,566 Hotel Rooms in Placer Valley
 1,932 of these Hotel Rooms are in Roseville (75%)
 Future Hotel Rooms in Roseville – 241 Future Rooms
 One is a six-story boutique hotel with 127 rooms. Development is anticipated to begin in Spring of 2023.
 One is a six-story extended stay hotel with 114 rooms. Development is anticipated to begin in 2023-

24. HOTEL ROOM OCCUPANCY RATES – CURRENT
 On average, most hotels are profitable with an overall occupancy rate of 61%  Peak profitability is achieved at an occupancy rate of 71.4%.  Most “sports tournaments” occur on the weekend (Friday-Sunday).  Given the current hotel room inventory and occupancy rates in Roseville, the greatest opportunity to achieve economic impact via sports tourism generated by the soccer complex is between November 1 and March 15.

C U R R E N T H O T E L R O O M O C C U P A N C Y R A T E S • On average, most hotels are profitable with an overall occupancy rate of 61%
• Peak profitability is achieved at an occupancy rate of 71.4% Overall
Average
Shoulder Season
Nov 1 – March 15
Peak Season
March 16-Oct 31
Midweek 69% 58% 74%
Weekend 83% 69% 89%
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
171

HOTEL ROOM OCCUPANCY RATES - FUTURE
 The addition of 241 hotel rooms within the next two years, increases the opportunities to achieve a higher level of economic impact via sports tourism generated by the soccer complex.  This opportunity is likely to be limited to the shoulder season (November 1 and March 15).

SOCCER TOURNAMENT ASSUMPTIONS
The projected revenues from the estimated economic impact modeling are based on assumptions of events, attendance, and spending patterns. These assumptions were prepared by PROS Consulting in conjunction with the City of Roseville staff and based on operational experience nationwide.

SOCCER TOURNAMENT EVENT AND ATTENDANCE ASSUMPTIONS
Soccer Tournaments are projected to have 17,280 annual participants. The analysis assumed that 15 tournaments will be held each year with 64 teams consisting of 18 players per team and an average of 1,152 participants per tournament.

PROJECTED REVENUES RELATED TO PROPOSED SOCCER TOURNAMENTS The estimated annual revenues from Soccer Tournaments are shown below. The revenues are projected based on the estimated attendees/visitors shown previously.

Overall
Average
Shoulder Season
Nov 1 – March 15
Peak Season
March 16-Oct 31
Midweek 61% 52% 66%
Weekend 74% 61% 79%
Tournaments-Soccer Participants
15 Tournaments
18 Players Per team
64 Teams
17,280 Estimated Participants
Tournaments-Soccer Revenues
$513,600 Tournament Revenues
Concessions
$37,500 Tournament Revenues
Sponsorships
$15,000 Tournament Revenues
Total Tournament Revenues
$ 566,100 Tournament Revenues
172

PROJECTED OUT-OF-CITY VISITOR SPENDING RELATED TO PROPOSED SOCCER

TOURNAMENTS
The estimated out-of-City visitor revenues from Soccer Tournaments are shown in the table below. Out-ofCity visitors are estimated to be 20% of the total attendees/visitors. The out-of-City visitors are estimated to stay one night with average room rate of $150 per triple occupancy. The meals and retail spending are estimated to be $30 and $10, respectively.

The estimated economic impact revenues estimated to be $735,300 from Soccer Tournaments are shown below.

Local spending was not considered in this analysis as money spent at the Roseville Sports Complex is likely a transfer of resources from one sector (e.g., going to the movies) within the local economy to another sector (e.g., going to the Multi-Purpose Field Complex). The transfer of local spending from one sector to another sector within the local economy is typically accounted for as economic growth neutral.

Total Tournament Revenues
$ 566,100 Tournament Revenues
20% Estimated Percent Out-of-Town Attendees/Visitors
$ 113,220 Estimated Out-of-Town Tournament Revenues
Estimated Out-of -Town Attendee/Visitor Revenues
17,280 Estimated Attendees/Visitors
20% Estimated Percent Out-of-Town Attendees/Visitors
3,456 Estimated Out-of-Town Attendees/Visitors
$ 150.00 Average Cost Per Room Night
3 Occupants Per Room
$ 50.00 Per Person Room Costs
$ 30.00 Daily Spending: Meals
$ 10.00 Daily Spending: Retail, Other
$ 90.00 Daily Attendee/Visitor Spending
2 Average Attendee/Visitor Days
$ 180.00 Average Attendee/Visitor Spending Per Event
$ 622,080 Estimated Annual Average Attendee/Visitor Spending Estimated Total Out-of -Town Soccer Tournament Revenues $ 113,220 Estimated Out-of-Town Tournament Revenues
$ 622,080 Estimated Annual Average Attendee/Visitor Spending $ 735,300 Estimated Total Out-of -Town Revenues
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
173
The Soccer Tournament revenues are shown in the table below, grouped by the economic impact categories used by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

7.6.8 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CITY OF ROSEVILLE SOCCER

FROM TOURISM
The economic impact multipliers used in this analysis are from U.S. Department of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division, Analysis and Special Studies Branch, Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). The multipliers in this analysis are for illustrative purposes and not specific the Roseville area. The table below shows the factors used in the analysis.

Out-of -Town Soccer Tournament Revenues by Category
$ 113,220 Tournament Revenues
$ 345,600 Lodging
$ 69,120 Retail
$ 207,360 Meals
$ 735,300 Estimated Total Out-of -Town Revenues
Industry Segment
Output
(Dollars)
<1>
Earnings
(Dollars)
<2>
Employment
/ $M Sales
(Jobs)
<3>
Finaldemand
Valueadded
(Dollars)
<4>
Directeffect
Earnings
(dollars)
<5>
Direct-effect
Employment
(number of jobs)
<6>
Performing arts, spectator sports, museums, and
related activities 1.5516 0.4508 24.8090 0.9346 1.5513 1.4887 Accommodation 1.5612 0.3952 15.6434 0.8815 0.1566 1.4207 Retail Trade 1.5236 0.4087 16.1219 0.9804 1.4547 1.3434 Food services and drinking places 1.5401 0.4179 23.6217 0.8604 1.4420 1.2095 Direct Effiect
Final Demand
(Impact of Estimated Tourism)
174

7.6.9 ECONOMIC IMPACT FROM OUT-OF-TOWN VISITOR SPENDING RELATED TO

PROPOSED ROSEVILLE MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD COMPLEX
The total direct economic impact of the proposed Roseville Sports Complex tourism is shown in the table below. Column 1 shows the output in terms of dollars and represents the total dollar change in output that occurs in all industries for each additional dollar of output delivered to final demand by the industry corresponding to the entry. Columns 2 and 3 are estimates of the final effect earnings and employment (jobs), on the Roseville area. Column 2 represents the total dollar change in earnings of households employed by all industries for each additional dollar of output delivered to final demand by the industry corresponding to the entry. Column 3 represents the total change in number of jobs that occurs in all industries for each additional million dollars of output. Columns 5 and 6 show the Direct-effect Earnings and Total Jobs, respectively. Column 6 represents the total change in number of jobs in all industries for each additional job in the industry corresponding to the entry. The Final-demand Value-added factors include direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. The economic impact of the proposed Roseville Sports Complex is total output of $1,139,889 and $1,017,817 of final demand effect value-added with a local job impact of 19 full-time jobs.

Industry Segment
Total
Rev/Sales
Captured by
Local Region
Final-demand
Output /1/ (dollars)
Final-demand
Earnings /2/
(dollars)
Final-demand
Employment /3/
(number of jobs)
Final-demand
Value-added /4/
(dollars)
Direct-effect
Earnings /5/
(dollars)
Direct-effect
Employment /6/
(number of jobs)
Sports Complex Revenue
113,220 175,672 51,040 3 164,183 79,178 4
Accommodation 345,600 539,551 136,581 5 475,614 21,394 8 Other Retail 69,120 105,311 28,249 1 103,247 41,094 1
Food services and drinking places 207,360 319,355 86,656 5 274,773 124,958 6 Total Annual Spending $ 735,300 $ 1,139,889 $ 302,526 14 $ 1,017,817 $ 266,624 19 Parks, Recreation & Libraries Strategic Master Plan
175

APPENDIX E - FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are for each functional group to address in the upcoming year to balance out the system as a whole and address issues that need to be addressed in each area of responsibility.

ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
 Create a separate Administration Division to include functions and duties specific to the Director of Parks, Recreation & Libraries, and the Administrative Assistant.  Create a separate Marketing and Communications Section that directly reports to the Director through the Public Information Officer.
 The Administration Division and the Director should expand and enhance teams within the Department to plan and deliver trainings and provide organizational development in a consistent manner. Technical & job skill specific training should continue to be provided at the operational level.
 Update Pricing Policy to reflect cost recovery goals.  Establish a partnership policy as it applies to public/public partnerships, public/not-for-profit partnerships, and public/private partnerships.
 Establish a cost-of-service assessment for facilities, programs, and partnerships.  Establish a business development office to help staff to manage revenue producing facilities and programs, partnerships and earned income opportunities.  Establish a parks foundation to support capital and operational needs of the department.  Establish a parks conservancy to develop and manage the Al Johnson Recreation Area.  Develop new dedicated funding sources for the PRL Department to support capital and operational needs.
 Seek CAPRA Accreditation for PRL in the next five years.

Roseville City CouncilAugust 3, 2022

Roseville City Council
August 3, 2022