The numerical expression of this requirement for the compliance period beginning January 1, 2025, ending December 31, 2027, is:
(𝐸𝑃2025 + 𝐸𝑃2026 + 𝐸𝑃2027) = 0.4167 (𝑅𝑆2025) + 0.4333 (𝑅𝑆2026) + 0.4500 (𝑅𝑆2027) The numerical expression of this requirement for the compliance period beginning January 1, 2028, ending December 31, 2030, is:
(𝐸𝑃2028 + 𝐸𝑃2029 + 𝐸𝑃2030) = 0.4667 (𝑅𝑆2028) + 0.4833 (𝑅𝑆2029) + 0.5000 (𝑅𝑆2030) 1 “Resource Shuffling” is defined in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 95800) of Division 3 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. means any plan, scheme, or artifice undertaken by a First Deliverer of Electricity to substitute electricity deliveries from sources with relatively lower emissions for electricity deliveries from sources with relatively higher emissions to reduce its emissions compliance obligation. Resource shuffling does not include substitution of electricity deliveries from sources with relatively lower emissions for electricity deliveries from sources with relatively higher emissions resources when the substitution occurs pursuant to the conditions listed in section 95852(b)(2)(A) of the California Code of Regulations.
[17]
The numerical expression of this requirement for the three-year compliance period beginning January 1, 2031, and subsequent three-year compliance periods is:
(𝐸𝑃X1 + 𝐸𝑃X2 + 𝐸𝑃X3) = 0.5000 (𝑅𝑆X1) + 0.5000 (𝑅𝑆X2) + 0.5000 (𝑅𝑆X3) EPX = Electricity products applied to the specified year X toward the RPS procurement target for the compliance period containing year X. This may include electricity products retired for and applied to year X, subject to the Portfolio Content Category 3 limit calculated in section 3204 (c) of the RPS Guidelines, and excess procurement pursuant to section 3206 (a)(1) and historic carryover pursuant to section 3206 (a)(5) that the City of Roseville has applied to year X.
RSX = Retail sales made by the City of Roseville for the specified year X v. If Roseville ElectricRoseville Electric Utility satisfies the conditions of sections
4.D.i-iv, it may reduce its procurement target for the compliance period calculated in section 4.D.iv by the difference between the gas-fired power plant’s actual generation for the compliance period and the amount of generation it could have produced if it had operated at a 20 percent capacity factor on an annual average during the compliance period. vi. The reduction of the procurement target will be calculated using the quantity of qualifying gas-fired generation as reported in accordance with section 3207 (m) of the RPS Guidelines.
vii. This procurement requirement reduction shall be available only until December 31 of the calendar year during which the qualifying gas-fired power plant’s original term of bonded indebtedness expires.
viii. RPS procurement requirements deficits incurred by Roseville ElectricRoseville Electric Utility in any compliance period shall not be added to the RPS procurement requirements of Roseville ElectricRoseville Electric Utility in a future compliance period.
ix. In addition to the applicable reporting requirements in section 3207 (a)-(d) of the RPS Guidelines, starting with the compliance period beginning January 1, 2025, if the City of Roseville reduces its procurement target pursuant to section 3204 (b)(11), it shall submit to the Commission, by the deadline for annual reports specified in section 3207 (c) for the final year of each compliance period, the following information:
a. The quantity, in MWh, of generation from a qualifying gas-fired power plant for each year of the compliance period.
b. Documentation demonstrating that the qualifying gas-fired power plant meets the criteria of Public Utilities Code section 399.33 (a). This documentation may include, but is not limited to: findings adopted by the City of Roseville’s City Council, adopted Ccity Ccouncil resolutions, proof [18]
of facility ownership, financial records, compliance filings, and/or wage schedules or other such documents for facility employees. c. The nameplate capacity of the facility and the City of Roseville’s calculation of the facility’s capacity factor for each year of the compliance period based on the facility’s annual generation for that year. d. Documentation demonstrating the City of Roseville’s efforts to sell the qualifying gas-fired power plant or gas-fired power plant generation to mitigate against the reduction of generation below a 20 percent capacity factor.
e. Documentation demonstrating that additional procurement of eligible renewable energy resources or zero-carbon generation resources resulted in the power plant operating at, or below, a 20 percent capacity factor on an average annual basis during the compliance period.
f. Any additional documentation requested by the Commission necessary to determine whether the City of Roseville meets the criteria specified in Public Utilities Code section 399.33 (a) and satisfied the requirements of section 3204 (b)(11) of the RPS Guidelines.
5. Plan for Roseville’s RPS Requirement
A. Procurement/Retirement Strategy
The City of Roseville ElectricRoseville Electric Utility Utility (Roseville ElectricRoseville Electric Utility, or Roseville) plans to pursue a procurement strategy that maximizes flexibility and allows for retirement and banking of excess renewable energy credits (REC). This strategy will allow Roseville ElectricRoseville Electric Utility to bank excess eligible RECs and apply them to future compliance periods.
Because RECs must be retired within three years of being created, the only way to “bank” an eligible REC for longer periods is to take advantage of the excess procurement optional compliance measure identified later in this document (section
7.A.).
B. Grandfathered and “Other” Resources not Subject to Portfolio Balance Requirements
Roseville ElectricRoseville Electric Utility entered into several contracts prior to June 1, 2010, which makes them PCC0 resources (“other”) that are not subject to the portfolio balance requirements. “Other” resources are defined as those from pre-June 1, 2010, contracts that meet the current RPS requirements, but did not meet the RPS “rules in place” at the time the contract was signed. The following list describes Roseville’s grandfathered resources and “other” resources not subject to the portfolio balance requirements.
[19]
i. Roseville has a contract with the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for a share of the output of the Central Valley Project Base Resource, located in California. A portion of this project is small hydro which qualifies as renewable. ii. Roseville has a contract with Northern California Power Agency for 12% of the Calaveras hydro project, which includes the 6 MW New Spicer power plant located in California. The energy from the New Spicer plant qualifies as renewable. iii. Roseville has contracts with Northern California Power Agency for a combined total of 7.883% of the Geothermal projects output. The projects have a total capacity of 220 MW and are located in California. The energy from these projects qualify as renewable.
C. Portfolio Content Category Resources
In general, PCC1 renewable energy is the most expensive and PCC3 is the least expensive, with PCC2 prices falling in between PCC1 and PCC3 prices. To meet the RPS requirements in the most cost effective way and minimize costs to ratepayers, PCC3 energy should be maximized in order to minimize the amount of PCC1 needed, with the balance met by PCC2 energy.
In September 2012, Roseville entered into a contract with the City of Santa Clara to procure PCC1 energy and RECs.
In July 2013, Roseville entered into a contract with Lost Hills Solar, LLC and Blackwell Solar, LLC to procure PCC1 energy and RECs.
In September 2014, Roseville entered into a contract with Iberdrola Renewables, LLC, to procure PCC1, PCC2, and PCC3 energy and/or RECs.
In March 2015, Roseville entered into a contract with Powerex, Inc., to procure PCC1 energy and RECs.
In February 2021, Roseville extended the Base Resource contract with Western Area Power Administration to continue to procure PCC1 energy and RECs.
In December 2021, Roseville entered into a contract with South Feather Water and Power Agency via NCPA to procure PCC1 energy and RECs.
With the above contracts, Roseville has contracted for sufficient renewables to meet Roseville’s RPS obligations through the year 2024 under the sixty percent (60%) by 2030 RPS standard.
[20]
6. Procurement Process
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 399.30(n), in all manners regarding compliance with the RPS, the City of Roseville shall retain exclusive control and discretion over both of the following:
i. The mix of eligible renewable energy resources procured by the utility and those additional generation resources procured by the utility for purposes of ensuring resource adequacy and reliability.
ii. The reasonable costs incurred by the utility for eligible renewable energy resources owned by the utility.
The Power Supply section regularly analyzes the City of Roseville’s RPS procurement needs. Portfolio supply and demand are assessed. If needed, a solicitation for renewable energy is conducted. Generally, the best offers of each PCC and generator type are identified and short-listed. These offers are the first to be considered. Offers received outside the solicitation process are only considered if they are competitive with the most recent solicitation short-listed offers.
Offers are evaluated for:
i. Direct and indirect costs, including but not limited to: contract price of energy and REC, plus transmission and integration costs
ii. Risk, including but not limited to: cost risk, credit risk, deliverability risk, regulatory risk, and project viability
iii. Portfolio fit (including, but not limited to, such factors as timing, quantity, and PCC type)
Offers are pursued and contracts are negotiated within the cost limitations for expenditures, set in section 7 of this RPS Procurement Plan.
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 399.21(a)(7) and section 3202 of the RPS Guidelines, all RECs will be retired within 36 months from the initial date of generation of the associated electricity.
7. Optional Compliance Measures
Specific optional compliance measures are allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 399.30(d) and section 3206 of the RPS Guidelines. Measures must be adopted by City Council prior to the end of the compliance period in which they will be used. The City of Roseville is adoptingadopts the following optional measures as part of this RPS Procurement Plan. The City of Roseville will submit the rules or rule revisions adopted under section 3206 of the RPS Guidelines to the Commission within 30 calendar days [21]
after adoption. The rules or rule revisions shall be submitted along with all reports, analyses, findings, and any other information upon which the City of Roseville relied in adopting the rule or rule revision.
A. Excess Procurement
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 399.30(d) and section 399.13(a)(4)(B) and section 3206(a)(1) of the RPS Guidelines, the City of Roseville shall be allowed to apply excess procurement in one compliance period to subsequent compliance periods as long as the following conditions are met:
i. If the City of Roseville has applied sufficient electricity products to satisfy its RPS procurement requirements of the compliance period, without using other optional compliance measures (delay of timely compliance, cost limitations, portfolio balance requirement reduction);
ii. Excess procurement accrual will be subject to the following limitations for the Compliance Periods beginning January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020:
a. Electricity products that meet the criteria of section 3202 (a)(1) or section 3202 (a)(3), and are classified in Portfolio Content Category 3 may not be accrued as excess procurement.
b. Electricity products that meet the criteria of section 3202 (a)(1) and that exceed the maximum limit for Portfolio Content Category 3 for the compliance period, as specified in section 3204 (c), must be subtracted from the calculation of accrued excess procurement.
c. Electricity products procured under contracts of less than 10 years in duration in accordance with section 3206 (a)(1)(C)4. shall be subtracted from the calculation of accrued excess procurement, unless the electricity product meets the criteria in section 3202 (a)(2).
d. For purposes of calculating accrued excess procurement for the compliance periods beginning January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020, if electricity products are procured under a contract that has been amended to extend the term, the duration of the amended contract will be calculated from the original contract execution date to the amended contract end date. If electricity products are procured under a contract of less than 10 years in duration that has been amended to extend the total term to at least 10 years in duration, then electricity products generated as of the month and year in which the contract amendment occurs will be eligible to qualify as excess procurement.
iii. Excess procurement accrual will be subject to the following limitations for the compliance periods beginning on or after January 1, 2021:
[22]
a. Electricity products that meet the criteria of section 3202 (a)(1) or section 3202 (a)(3), and are classified in Portfolio Content Category 2 or Portfolio Content Category 3, may not be accrued as excess procurement; b. Electricity products that meet the criteria of section 3202 (a)(1) and that exceed the maximum limit for Portfolio Content Category 3 for the compliance period, as specified in section 3204 (c), must be subtracted from the calculation of accrued excess procurement.
iv. Excess procurement may be accrued no earlier than January 1, 2011. v. Electricity products accrued as excess procurement may be applied toward any future compliance periods, except as specified below:
a. Electricity products accrued in accordance with section 3206 (a)(1)(C) that are classified in Portfolio Content Category 2 may not be applied toward the RPS procurement requirements of a compliance period beginning on or after January 1, 2028.
vi. Excess procurement for each compliance period starting January 1, 2021 shall be calculated using the following formula as specified in the RPS Guidelines, section 3206(a)(1):
𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑥 = 𝐸𝑃𝑥 − (𝑅𝑃𝑆𝑥 − 𝐵𝑥
) − (𝑆3𝑥 + 𝑆𝑇𝐶𝑥)
EPx = Electricity Products retired for the compliance period x RPSx = The RPS procurement target calculated in section 3204 (a) for compliance period X or, if greater than the target, the amount of electricity products applied toward the target. This may include electricity products retired for compliance period X, excess procurement accrued in a prior compliance period, or historic carryover pursuant to section 3206 (a)(5), that the City of Roseville has applied toward the target.
B x = Any excess procurement accrued in a prior compliance period or historic carryover pursuant to section 3206 (a)(5) that the City of Roseville applied toward the RPS procurement target calculated in section 3204 (a) for compliance period X
𝑆3𝑥 = Any remaining retired electricity products that meet the criteria of section 3202 (a)(1) or section 3202 (a)(3), and the definition of Portfolio Content Category 3
𝑆𝑇𝐶𝑥 = Any remaining retired electricity products that meet the criteria of section 3202 (a)(1) or section 3202 (a)(3), and are associated with contracts less than 10 years in duration in accordance with section 3206 (a)(1)(C)4
[23]
B. Delay of Timely Compliance
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 399.30(d)(2)(A) and section 399.15(b)(5) and section 3206(a)(2) of the RPS Guidelines, the City of Roseville shall adopt rules allowing it to determine that conditions beyond the control of the City of Roseville exist to delay timely compliance with RPS procurement requirements, as defined in section 3204.
Roseville’s adopted rules shall limit the determination to one or more of the causes for delay specified in section 3206 (a)(2)(A)1.-4. The City of Roseville’s determination shall include information showing that it would have met its RPS procurement requirements but for the cause(s) of delay:
i. There is inadequate transmission capacity to allow sufficient electricity to be delivered from eligible renewable energy resources, or proposed eligible renewable energy resource projects, to the extent applicable, using the current operational protocols of the balancing authority in which the City of Roseville operates. If the City of Roseville at the time of the determination owns transmission or has transmission rights, it shall include in its determination information showing how the inadequate transmission capacity delayed timely compliance and:
a. That the City of Roseville has undertaken all reasonable measures under its control and consistent with its obligations under local, state, and federal laws and regulations, to develop and construct new transmission lines or upgrades to existing lines intended to transmit electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources in light of its expectation for cost recovery.
b. That the City of Roseville has taken all reasonable operational measures to maximize cost-effective purchases of electricity from eligible renewable energy resources in advance of transmission availability. ii. Permitting, interconnection, or other circumstances have delayed procured eligible renewable energy resource projects, or there is an insufficient supply of eligible renewable energy resources available to the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville will include in its determination information showing how the permitting, interconnection, or other circumstances caused delayed projects or insufficient supply and that the City of Roseville:
a. Prudently managed portfolio risks, including, but not limited to, holding solicitations for RPS-eligible resources with outreach to market participants and relying on a sufficient number of viable projects to achieve RPS procurement requirements.
b. Sought to develop either its own eligible renewable energy resources, transmission to interconnect to eligible renewable energy resources, or energy storage used to integrate eligible renewable energy resources. c. If the cause for delay or insufficient supply was foreseeable, procured an appropriate minimum margin of procurement above the level necessary to [24]
comply with the RPS to compensate for foreseeable delays or insufficient supply. The City of Roseville’s determination shall identify the minimum margin of procurement that the City of Roseville deemed appropriate to compensate for foreseeable delays or insufficient supply. d. Taken reasonable measures to procure cost-effective distributed generation and allowable unbundled RECs.
iii. Unanticipated curtailment of eligible renewable energy resources, if the delay of timely compliance would not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
The City of Roseville’s determination shall include information showing that unanticipated curtailment of eligible renewable energy resources delayed timely compliance and did not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. iv. Unanticipated increase in retail sales due to “transportation electrification,” as defined in Public Utilities Code section 237.5. The City of Roseville’s determination shall include information showing that it considered the following:
a. Whether transportation electrification significantly exceeded forecasts in the City of Roseville's service territory based on the best and most recently available information available to it. Transportation electrification forecasts may include, but are not limited to, information filed with the State Air Resources Board, the Commission, or another state agency, forecasts in the City of Roseville’s integrated resource plan developed pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 9621, or other forecasts developed or approved by the City of Roseville.
b. Whether the City of Roseville has taken reasonable measures to procure sufficient resources to account for unanticipated increases in retail sales due to transportation electrification.
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 399.15(b)(9) and section 3204(e) of the RPS Guidelines, in no event shall a deficit associated with the compliance period be added to a future compliance period.
If the City of Roseville approves a delay in compliance for a particular compliance period, Roseville Electric shall provide a compliance plan within 3 months that identifies actions to ensure future procurement requirements.
C. Cost Limitations for Expenditures
i. Pursuant to Section 3206(a)(3) of the POU RPS Enforcement Regulations and Public Utilities Code Sections 399.30(d) and 399.15(c), Roseville Electric Utility adopts the following rules for cost limitations on the procurement expenditures [25]
used to comply with its RPS procurement requirements to ensure that RPS compliance costs do not result in disproportionate rate impacts. ii. To comply with the cost limitation, Roseville Electric Utility shall not make any financial commitment to procure eligible renewable energy resources prior to evaluating the rate impacts of such procurement utilizing the effective rates adopted by the City Council and published in the City of Roseville Municipal Code, Title 14.
iii. The cost limitation rules are set at a level that Roseville Electric Utility has determined will prevent disproportionate rate impacts.
a. In determining whether RPS procurement will exceed this cost limitation provision, Roseville Electric Utility shall assess the following:
i. The applicable total retail load and renewable energy costs. ii. The City of Roseville Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which provides a strategic framework to ensure RPS procurement aligns with long-term resource planning, cost-effectiveness, rate stability, and regulatory requirements.
iii. The then-current RPS procurement budget established by Roseville Electric Utility, reflects the planned acquisition of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) or renewable resources necessary to meet RPS targets. This budget is based on projected REC shortages and compliance requirements, ensuring the utility meets state mandates while adhering to financial constraints.
iv. Procurement expenditures that approximate the expected cost of building, owning, and operating eligible renewable energy resources. v. The potential that some planned resource additions may be delayed or canceled.
b. In calculating the cost limitation, Roseville Electric Utility shall:
i. Calculate a dollar per kilowatt hour ($/kWh) expected cost based on the total budgeted RPS procurement costs and projected energy delivery costs, ensuring that procurement stays within financial constraints.
ii. For the period ending December 31, 2027, using the rates effective June 1, 2024, as adopted by the City Council and published in the City of Roseville Municipal Code, Title 14, Roseville Electric Utility shall ensure that there are no further customer rate increases attributable to eligible renewable energy procurement. Beginning on January 1. 2028, and for the time period thereafter, Roseville Electric [26]
Utility shall ensure eligible renewable energy procurement costs per $/kWh increases do not exceed 3% average compounded per year, or such other level as may be approved by the City Council. iv. When calculating procurement expenditures under this cost limitation rule, Roseville Electric Utility shall include:
a. The costs associated with eligible renewable energy, renewable attributes, firming and shaping, and/or storage, as needed for intermittent resources; b. Any other costs attributable to meeting the RPS procurement mandate; and The costs associated with the delivery of renewable energy. c.
v. If the projected cost of meeting the renewables portfolio standard procurement requirements exceed the cost limitation threshold established herein, Roseville Electric Utility shall:
i. Review its RPS Procurement Plan to assess whether alternatives are available that would otherwise allow Electric Roseville Utility to meet its renewable energy procurement requirements, which will include evaluation of current procurement commitments, planned procurements, long-term commitments, and the availability of alternative resources in other portfolio content categories; and ii. Seek to implement the other optional compliance measures, such as delaying timely compliance and/or portfolio balance requirement reduction.
iii. Elect to waive the cost limitation adopted in this section. vi. If the projected cost of meeting the renewable portfolio standard procurement requirements exceed the cost limitation provision established herein, and compliance is not attainable based on a review of the elements set forth in Section E7.C.v above, Roseville Electric Utility, in its sole discretion may refrain from entering into new contracts or constructing facilities beyond the quantity that can be procured within the limitation unless eligible renewable energy resources can be procured without resulting in any further customer rate increases for the procurement through December 31, 2027, or beginning on January 1, 2028, and continuing thereafter, Roseville Electric Utility shall ensure eligible $/kWh renewable energy procurement costs do not exceed 3% average compounded per year, or such other level as may be approved by the City Council.December 31, [27]
2027, or a 3% utility customer rate increase attributable to such eligible renewable energy procurement for the period beginning January 1, 2028. i. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 399.30(d)(2)(B) and section 399.15(c) and section 3206(a)(3) of the RPS Guidelines, the City of Roseville shall adopt rules for cost limitations on the procurement expenditures used to comply with its RPS procurement requirements. The adopted cost limitation rules shall be set at a level that the City of Roseville has determined will prevent disproportionate rate impacts.
When applying procurement expenditures under its adopted cost limitation rule, the City of Roseville shall apply only those types of procurement expenditures that are permitted under the adopted cost limitation rule. Adopted cost limitation rules shall include planned actions to be taken in the event the projected cost of meeting the RPS procurement requirements exceeds the cost limitation. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, refraining from entering into new contracts or constructing facilities for eligible renewable energy resources beyond the quantity that can be procured within the cost limitation.
D. Portfolio Balance Requirement Reduction
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 399.16(e) and section 3206(a)(4) of the RPS Guidelines, the City of Roseville shall adopt rules that allow for the reduction of the portfolio balance requirement for Portfolio Content Category 1 for a specific compliance period consistent with Public Utilities Code section 399.16 (e). In applying this provision, the City of Roseville will consider all of the following:
i. The need to reduce the portfolio balance requirements for Portfolio Content Category 1 must have resulted because of conditions beyond the control of the City of Roseville as provided in the Delay of Timely Compliance section. ii. A reduction of the portfolio balance requirement for Portfolio Content Category 1 below 65 percent, will not be considered consistent with Public Utilities Code section 399.16 (e).
iii. The City of Roseville, when reducing its portfolio balance requirements for Portfolio Content Category 1, will adopt these changes at a publicly noticed meeting, and will include this information in an updated renewable energy resources procurement plan submitted to the Commission. The notice to consider the portfolio balance requirement reduction and the procurement plan must include the following information:
a. The compliance period for which the reduction may be adopted. b. The level to which the City of Roseville has reduced the requirement. c. An explanation of how the needed reduction resulted from conditions beyond the control of the City of Roseville as provided in the Delay of Timely Compliance section.
[28]
E. Invoking Optional Measures
Roseville ElectricRoseville Electric Utility plans to invoke the Excess Procurement provision Optional Compliance Measures as described in section 7.A. of this plan, and may invoke other optional measures as needed.
8. Reporting
Pursuant to section 3207 of the RPS Guidelines, the City of Roseville shall submit annual and compliance period reports to the CEC as identified below.
A. Annual Reports
By July 1 of each year, the City of Roseville shall submit an annual report to the CEC that includes the information in sections i. through iv. below for the prior calendar year.
The format for the annual report shall be specified by the Commission, but the information contained in the annual report may be combined with other existing reports that contain the same information and are also supplied to the Commission. If the annual report refers to information provided to the Commission through existing reports, the annual report shall reference the information by identifying the name, submittal date, and page number of the existing report. The annual report shall include an attestation, signed by an authorized agent of the City of Roseville, affirming that the information provided in the report is true and correct. The following shall be included in the report:
i. Identifying information, including: POU name, contact name, mailing address, phone number, and email address.
ii. RPS annual progress information for the prior calendar year, including:
a. Amount of retail sales to end-use customers, in MWh, and projected retail sales for the current compliance period.
b. Amount of procured electricity products retired, in MWh, and total projected electricity products retired for the current compliance period. c. Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS) compliance report for procurement claims in the prior calendar year. For any procurement claims not tracked through WREGIS as permitted by the RPS Guidelines, the City of Roseville shall report procurement claims using the process specified in the RPS Guidelines.
d. An initial, nonbinding classification of retired electricity products qualifying for each portfolio content category or qualifying to count in full in accordance with section 3202 (a)(2) of the RPS Guidelines. e. An initial, nonbinding classification of retired electricity products qualifying as long-term or short-term in accordance with section 3204 (d) of the RPS Guidelines.
f. Information and supporting contract documentation for each of the eligible renewable energy resources with which the City of Roseville has executed [29]
contracts or ownership agreements during the prior year, including but not limited to the contracted amount of MWh or the contracted percentage of the resource’s total output, if applicable; resource fuel type; the execution date of the procurement contract or ownership agreement; the contract or ownership agreement start date; the duration of the procurement contract or ownership agreement in accordance with section 3204 (d) of the RPS Guidelines; the anticipated portfolio content category classification(s) for the electricity products procured through the contract or ownership agreement; the anticipated long-term or short-term classification for the electricity products procured through the contract or ownership agreement; the seller’s name, if the resource is not owned by the City of Roseville; a summary of the resource names and identification numbers; and for long-term contracts, information on how the contract meets the requirements of section 3204 (d) of the RPS Guidelines, including the associated page numbers in the contract where the terms can be located, subject to the following subsections:
(A) Upon request from Commission staff, if the City of Roseville has a long-term contract pursuant to section 3204 (d)(2)(B)2 of the RPS Guidelines, it shall submit documentation showing that the underlying contract(s) meet the requirements of section 3204 (d)(2)(A)-(C) of the RPS Guidelines. For contracts executed prior to July 1, 2020, this documentation may include excerpted contract information, an attestation by the third-party supplier regarding the underlying contract duration or ownership of the RPS-certified facility or facilities, or both.
(B) Documentation demonstrating a long-term contract meets the requirements of section 3204 (d)(2)(A)-(C) of the RPS Guidelines may be submitted directly to the Commission by the third-party supplier or another party on the City of Roseville’s behalf. The documentation may include an attestation by the City of Roseville that the contract with the RPS-certified facility or facilities meets the requirements of section 3204 (d)(2)(A)-(C) of the RPS Guidelines.
An attestation may be submitted only if the City of Roseville possesses records to support the accuracy of the information to which it attests and the City of Roseville agrees to make such records available to the Commission upon request in the event of an audit or investigation.
g. Documentation demonstrating the portfolio content category classification and long-term or short-term classification claimed for all of the City of Roseville’s procured electricity products during the prior year. This [30]
documentation may include contract information, if not previously submitted; interconnection agreements; NERC e-Tag data; scheduling agreements; and firming and shaping agreements.
h. A description of any modifications to contracts, ownership, or ownership agreements previously reviewed and evaluated by the Commission from which the City of Roseville intends to claim long-term procurement, including, but not limited to, changes to contract duration, procurement quantities, addition or substitution of resources or fuel, reallocation between parties of a jointly negotiated contract, and efficiency improvements or facility expansions that change procured generation. The City of Roseville’s explanation shall include documentation supporting the modifications.
i. A description of any identified issues that occurred that have the potential to delay timely compliance with the RPS procurement requirements defined in section 3204 of the RPS Guidelines, and planned actions to minimize the delay of timely compliance. Such issues may include, but are not limited to, inadequate transmission to allow for procurement to be delivered from eligible renewable energy resources, permitting, interconnection, or other circumstances that have delayed the procurement from eligible renewable energy resources, unanticipated curtailment of a contracted or owned eligible renewable energy resource, and higher‐than‐expected costs for the procurement or development of eligible renewable energy resources.
j. A description of the energy consumption by the City of Roseville, including any electricity used by the City of Roseville for water pumping, or any other electricity procured by the City of Roseville for purposes other than supplying its retail sales. The description shall include the purpose of this consumption, the annual amount in MWh associated with the consumption or other end-use, and whether the consumption or other end-use was excluded from the City of Roseville’s retail sales.
iii. Actions taken by the City of Roseville in the prior calendar year and planned to be taken in the current calendar year demonstrating reasonable progress toward meeting its RPS procurement requirements. The information reported shall include:
a. Solicitations released to solicit bid for contracts to procure electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources to satisfy the City of Roseville’s RPS procurement requirements.
b. Solicitations released to solicit bid for ownership agreements for eligible renewable energy resources to satisfy the City of Roseville’s RPS procurement requirements.
[31]
c. Actions taken to develop eligible renewable energy resources to satisfy the City of Roseville’s RPS procurement requirements, including initiating environmental studies, completing environmental studies, acquiring interests in land for facility siting or transmission, filing applications for facility or transmission siting permits, and receiving approval for facility or transmission siting permits.
d. Interconnection requests filed for eligible renewable energy resources to satisfy the City of Roseville’s RPS procurement requirements. e. Interconnection agreements negotiated and executed for eligible renewable energy resources to satisfy the City of Roseville’s RPS procurement requirements.
f. Transmission‐related agreements negotiated and executed to transmit electricity products procured from eligible renewable energy resources to satisfy the City of Roseville’s RPS procurement requirements. g. Other planning activities to procure electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources.
iv. The City of Roseville shall include a description of all actions planned in the current calendar year to demonstrate progress towards achieving its RPS procurement requirements, as specified in the prior section.
B. Compliance Period Reports
At the end of each Compliance period, the City of Roseville shall submit to the CEC a compliance report that provides the following information for the applicable compliance period:
i. The City of Roseville’s RPS procurement target for the compliance period, in MWh.
ii. The amount of draft verified procurement retired, in MWh, for the compliance period that the City of Roseville applies toward the RPS procurement requirements for the compliance period. The City of Roseville shall report the amount of draft verified procurement applied from each portfolio content category or meeting the criteria of section 3202 (a)(2) of the RPS Guidelines. For each portfolio content category, the City of Roseville shall additionally report the amount from each category that is classified as long-term or short-term. iii. The amount of excess procurement, in MWh, accrued in previous compliance periods, if any, and historic carryover, if any, that the City of Roseville is applying to the RPS procurement target for the compliance period. The City of Roseville shall report the amount of excess procurement applied from each portfolio content category or that meets the criteria of section 3202 (a)(2) of the RPS Guidelines or historic carryover. For each portfolio content category, the City of [32]
Roseville shall additionally report the amount that is classified as long-term or short-term.
iv. The amount of excess procurement, in MWh, accrued for the compliance period, if any, that may be applied toward future compliance periods, as determined by applying the calculation in section 3206 (a)(1)(H) or section 3206 (a)(1)(I)6 of the RPS Guidelines, as applicable. The City of Roseville shall report the amount of accrued excess procurement from each portfolio content category or meeting the criteria of section 3202 (a)(2) of the RPS Guidelines. For each portfolio content category, the City of Roseville shall additionally report the amount that is classified as long-term or short-term.
v. If a City of Roseville’s compliance report indicates that the City of Roseville’s RPS procurement requirements were not met, the City of Roseville shall submit copies of its renewable energy resource procurement plan(s) and enforcement program(s) in effect during the compliance period, if not previously submitted to the Commission, and provide documentation to justify the application of any optional compliance measures adopted by the City of Roseville in accordance with section 3206 and 3207(d)(5) of the RPS Guidelines. The documentation shall include all reports, analyses, proposed findings, and any other information upon which the City of Roseville relied in applying the measure, as well as the amount of the shortfall each optional compliance measure is intended to satisfy.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 3660
File #: 0215
Title: Development Impact Fee Reports for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024 Contact: Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected] Dennis Kauffman 916-774-5313 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 12/18/2024
Item #: 8.2.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the informational Development Impact Fee Reports prepared for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2024.
BACKGROUND
California state legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees ("DIF's"). This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the State Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections (GC§) 66000 through 66008 ("Mitigation Fee Act"). GC§ 66006 (b) states the following requirements as pertains to the DIFs: For each separate account or fund established, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:
1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.
2. The amount of the fee.
3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned.
5. An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended.
6. An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
7. A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.
8. The amount of refunds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(e)) due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(f)) due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.
The attached Development Impact Fee Reports are for informational purposes. They are also posted on the City's website.
FISCAL IMPACT
The report is for informational purposes only. There is no impact to 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 Development Impact Fee Reports meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Jeannine Thrash, Management Analyst
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
City Development Impact Fee Report June 30, 2024
JPA Development Impact Fee Report June 30, 2024
Annual Development Impact Fee Report
(JPA and SPWA Funds)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
City of Rancho Cordova
Table of Contents
Reporting Requirements for Development Impact Fees .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Description of Development Impact Fees...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Fund Balance and Project Descriptions
Sewer Connection Fees.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Traffic Mitigation Fees.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Attachment 1 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 City of Rancho Cordova
1 | P a g e
Reporting Requirements for Development Impact Fees
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees (“DIFs”).
This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections (GC §) 66000 through 66008 (“Mitigation Fee Act”). This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989.
GC § 66006(b) states the following requirements as pertains to DIFs:
For each separate account or fund established, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. (F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
(G) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. (H) The amount of refunds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(e)) due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(f)) due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.
GC § 65865(e) also requires that any development agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2004, the City shall comply with GC § 66006 with respect to any fee it receives or cost it recovers.
City of Rancho Cordova
2 | P a g e
Description of Development Impact Fees
Sewer Connection Fees
Sewer connection fees are established pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. Two sewer connection fees are collected when development occurs – a regional sewer connection fee and a local sewer connection fee. The local sewer connection fee is reported in the City of Roseville’s Annual Development Impact Fee Report. Additional fees may be applicable to properties within sewer special benefit assessment areas.
• Regional Sewer Connection Fees - The regional sewer connection fee is charged for each sewer unit required within the Regional Treatment Plan Service Area connected to the city-owned public sewer. The service area includes the City of Roseville and portions of Placer County and South Placer Municipal Utility District.
Traffic Mitigation Fees
In 1988, the City of Roseville adopted a citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee Program, requiring new development within the City to pay traffic impact fees. The fees collected through this program, in addition to other funding sources, allows the City to construct transportation improvements identified in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The fee program assesses fair-share costs to other jurisdictions based on their impact on the individual roadways from new development.
This fee applies to all new development in the City. The developers in Specific Plan Areas have built, or will construct, more than the minimum amount of improvements from their funds and will receive a credit for those improvements. Additional fees collected by the City on behalf of regional fee programs:
• Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program – The cities of Roseville and Rocklin, along with Placer County, formed a joint powers authority for the purpose of funding four interchanges on Highway 65. The interchanges include Stanford Ranch Road/Galleria Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Blue Oaks Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard. The fee program assesses fair-share costs to each jurisdiction based on their impact on the individual improvements from new development. City of Roseville serves as staff to the JPA and administers the fee program.
City of Rancho Cordova
3 | P a g e
Fund Balance Summary
Sewer Connection Fees
Regional Sewer Connection Fees
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
(As restated)
Fees
Collected(1)
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures(2)
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2024
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapters
14.16 Ord.
6100
$171,717,978 46,353,979 6,323,126 - (16,946,397)
Pleasant
Grove UV (3,568,974)
YesStarted
2021
100
PGWWTPEnergy Rec. (634,767)
YesStarted
2019
90 PGWWTPExpansion
2020 (1,097,646)
YesStarted
2019
100
Dry Creek &
Pleasant
Grove WWTP
Capacity
Evaluation (395,090)
YesStarted
2021
100
Regional
Pump Station
26 and Force
Main
Capacity
Impr. (178,156)
YesStarted
2021
100
PGWWTP
Maintenance
Admin and
Shop Building
- SPWA (2,088)
YesStarted
2022
100
City
ofRanchoCordova
4 |Page
Regional Sewer Connection Fees , continued
Dry Creek
WWTP
Capacity
Expansion -
SPWA (8,129)
Yes -
Started
2023 100
PGWWTP
Electrical
Capacity
Expansion
Project -
SPWA (4,620)
Yes -
Started
2023
100
Residential
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
Evaluation -
SPWA (40,630)
Yes -
Started
2023 100
Corridors
Trunk Sewer
Capacity
Improvement
Project -
SPWA (9,016)
Yes-
Started
2024
100
DCWWTP
Operations
and
Laboratory
Building
Construction
Project -
SPWA (477)
Yes-
Started
2024
100
Inflation
Reduction
Act Support
Project -
SPWA (16,027)
Yes-
Started
2024
100
$201,814,754
City of Rancho Cordova
5 | P a g e
Regional Sewer Connection Project Fee Project Descriptions Pleasant Grove UV (Project# 500165) - Due to changes in water quality and regulations, the current Pleasant Grove UV disinfection system is undersized for the projected rated capacity needed after the completion of the Pleasant Grove Expansion Project. This project expands the UV system capacity.
PGWWTP-Energy Recovery (Project# 500166) - Upon completion of the Pleasant Grove Expansion Project, the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant will produce bio-methane from the newly constructed digesters. Absent the Energy Recovery Project, the bio-methane would be burned in a flare, which is not environmentally sound. Once complete, bio-methane produced from the wastewater treatment plant will be conditioned for use in clean air refuse vehicles.
PGWWTP - Expansion 2020 (Project# 500167) - Expand wastewater treatment plant capacity. This project will add primary clarifiers, anaerobic digesters, and solids thickening equipment to the existing PGWWTP treatment process. This will increase the plant's treatment capacity from 9.5 to 12 million gallons per day and is expected to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate growth within the South Placer Wastewater Authority service area through 2035.
Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove WWTP Capacity Evaluation (Project# 500199) - This project is a field study to confirm the computer model capacity predictions contained in the WW System Evaluation project.
Regional Pump Station 26 and Force Main Capacity Improvement (Project# 500200) - This project will Increase available capacity in the Old Auburn Boulevard trunk sewer and associated lift stations.
PGWWTP Maintenance Admin and Shop Building - SPWA (Project# 500306) - This project funds the design and construction of a new maintenance Building at the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Dry Creek WWTP Capacity Expansion - SPWA (Project# 500420) - This Project will increase treatment capacity of the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (DCWWTP) by replacing blowers, adding a new aeration control system, adding mixers in the aeration basins, improving clarifier inlet and baffling, adding a new motor control center and associated electrical improvements to power the new equipment, modifying the existing effluent cooling system, and other associated improvements.
PGWWTP Electrical Capacity Expansion Project - SPWA (Project#500421) - This project will add electrical capacity to the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP). The project includes adding electrical capacity to adequately serve existing, new and planned future loads, building an electrical building to house the new equipment, and adding generator capacity to allow for continued operation during emergencies and power outages to maintain required treatment compliance.
Residential Equivalent Dwelling Unit Evaluation - SPWA (Project# 500422) - Evaluate projected wastewater flows between different residential uses such as age restricted and multi-family developments to determine if a different Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) calculation for these residential uses is warranted in regard to sewer connection fee calculations.
City of Rancho Cordova
6 | P a g e
Corridors Trunk Sewer Capacity Improvements Project - SPWA (Project# 500432) - To meet projected build out demands, this project will divert flow from the Cirby Truck Sewer B by making modifications to Pump Station 25 and extending the existing force main. In addition, this project will upsize an existing 15-inch pipe along Coloma Way and reconnect it to the Cirby Truck Sewer.
DCWWTP Operations and Laboratory Building Construction Project - SPWA (Project# 500433) - Per the 2017 DCWWTP Condition Assessment performed on the existing Operations Building, this project is to re-build and expand the Operations and Laboratory Building, update the surrounding site and utilities, and demolish the existing Operations Building.
Inflation Reduction Act Support Project - SPWA (Project# 500434) - Determine if the PGWWTP Expansion and Energy Recovery Projects are eligible for the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and if so , pursue and file for the federal tax credits.
City of Rancho Cordova
7 | P a g e
Traffic Mitigation Fees
Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2024
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Resolution
No. 90-312
Highway
65-
Galleria/
Stanford
Joint Powers
Agreement
Oct, 15,
1990;
Amended
Aug. 18,
1992 ($5,473,118) 966,018 7,689 - (6,924) ($4,506,335) No 100 The Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Board approved a plan for funding the construction of various Highway 65 Interchange Projects that included the commitment of funds from the Authority along with funds from the Cities of Roseville and Rocklin and the County of Placer. The participants remitted funds to the Authority in advance of the construction. In addition, the City of Roseville constructed projects using City of Roseville funds. The projects were dedicated to the Authority through a reimbursement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the cities and the County will be reimbursed through future traffic mitigation fees collected by the Authority.
Traffic Mitigation Fee Project Descriptions
Highway 65-Galleria/Stanford (Project# 400060) –The proposed project would modify the SR 65 NB ramps at the Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road interchange as well as reconfigure the lanes along Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road. The project would construct the following:
• Dual left turn lanes onto the NB SR 65 slip on-ramp.
• Protected median left turn pockets at the NB and SB ramp intersections, eliminating the inside trap lanes. • Right turn pocket for the SB approach along Stanford Ranch Road to the NB slip on-ramp. • Widened NB SR 65 to NB Stanford Ranch Road slip off-ramp from one to two lanes at the ramp terminus. Off-ramp will include a signalized intersection at Stanford Ranch Road.
• Widened NB slip on-ramp to two metered general purpose lanes plus an HOV preferential lane. • Modified terminus of the NB loop off-ramp to reduce speeds and enhance safety for all modes utilizing the facility. 8| P a g e
Attachment 1:
Fee Ordinances, Resolutions and
Agreements
Sewer Connection Fees:
Regional Sewer Connection Fees
Ordinance No. 6100
Traffic Mitigation Fees
Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program
Joint Powers Agreement
October 15, 1990
As Amended August 18, 1992
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 3677
File #: 0300 & 0201-01
Title: America Rescue Plan Act - Budget Adjustment
Contact: Scott Pettingell 916-746-1306 [email protected] Meeting Date: 12/18/2024
Item #: 8.3.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve adjustments to the fiscal year 2024-25 budget: 1) reducing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding allocated to projects by $5,419,997; 2) offsetting $5,419,997 in Police and Fire Department General Fund expenditures with an equivalent amount of ARPA funds; 3) re-establishing project budgets totaling $5,360,924 in the General Fund, which includes the realignment of $300,000 from the Weber Park Renovations project to the Campus Oaks Park project to address anticipated project overages; and 4) increasing the General Fund contingency budget by $59,073 to address potential project overruns.
BACKGROUND
The City of Roseville received $17.6 million in America Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and, as of November 26, 2024, the City has $5,419,997 in ARPA funding remaining unspent. The ARPA regulations require that all funds be obligated by December 31, 2024, and expended by December 31, 2026. Given the impending obligation deadline, the City will be unable to obligate all of the funds in time although all of the funding has been appropriated by the City Council to projects.
To address this, staff recommends reallocating the remaining unspent ARPA funds to cover eligible public safety personnel costs, specifically costs within the Police and Fire departments.
This strategy aligns with ARPA guidelines, which permit the use of funds for government services (including public safety personnel costs) up to the amount of revenue lost due to the pandemic. While some of the remaining funding is obligated, this approach provides the City additional flexibility to fully utilize the ARPA funds if some of the obligated funds are not spent, e.g., if a project comes in under budget. It also allows for further flexibility in the unlikely event that any ARPA funds remain unspent after 2026.
By reallocating these funds, the City can free up General Fund resources to fully backfill the balances of all ARPA-funded projects, except for the Business Continuity Plan project. This project is anticipated to be completed under budget, resulting in a savings of $59,073. Staff recommends transferring the savings from that project to the General Fund Contingency to address potential overruns in other projects. The recommended budget adjustment also proposes transferring $300,000 from the Weber Park Renovations project to the Campus Oaks Park project. This adjustment is recommended because Weber Park Renovation costs are projected to come in under budget, while Campus Oaks Park costs are exceeding the original budget due to the inclusion of a bike component, that was part of the master plan for this park.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended budget adjustment will not negatively impact the General Fund or ARPA funds, and will ensure that the City complies with applicable ARPA guidelines while providing extended time to obligate and expend the funds. It will not affect the budgets previously allocated for the projects or public safety funding. Surplus funding from the Business Continuity Plan project in the amount of $59,073 will be added to the General Fund contingency and be available to address potential project overruns.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of the recommended adjustments to the FY2024-25 budget meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Pettingell, Assistant Finance Director
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Ordinance 6892
ORDINANCE NO. 6892
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
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 2024-25, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the America Rescue Plan Act.
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 of Roseville, this day of , 2024, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Updated 10/29/2024
Please complete the cells highlighted in yellow.
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: FISCAL YEAR:
PREPARER NAME & TITLE: ORDINANCE:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
DESCRIPTION
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2280 6587 84001 500246 (1,142,901) Weber Park Renovations - eliminate remaining ARPA project budget
2280 6587 84001 500298 (2,867,042) Johnson Pool Renovations - eliminate remaining ARPA project budget
2280 6587 84001 500463 (999,188) Campus Oaks Park - eliminate remaining ARPA project budget 2280 5301 84001 500304 (291,880) Entrepreneurship Center - eliminate remaining ARPA project budget
2280 5080 84001 500537 (59,073) Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan - eliminate remaining ARPA project budget
2280 5301 84001 500537 (59,913) Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan - eliminate remaining ARPA project budget
2280 5911 44040 3,035,198 Appropriate ARPA funding to fund Police Dept. labor costs 2280 5911 48030 2,384,799 Appropriate ARPA funding to fund Fire Dept. labor costs 1001 5912 44040 (3,035,198) Decrease General Fund Police Dept. labor budget 1001 5912 48030 (2,384,799) Decrease General Fund Fire Dept. labor budget 1001 6587 84001 500246 842,901 Weber Park Renovations - increase General Fund project budget 1001 6587 84001 500298 2,867,042 Johnson Pool Renovations - increase General Fund project budget
1001 6587 84001 500463 1,299,188 Campus Oaks Park - increase General Fund project budget 1001 5301 84001 500304 291,880 Entrepreneurship Center - increase General Fund project budget 1001 5301 84001 500537 59,913 Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan - increase General Fund project budget
1001 5670 10001 59,073 Increase General Fund Contingency budget
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL -
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
DESCRIPTION
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN TOTAL -
NET ADJUSTMENT -
FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNT STRING BUDGET ($)
DESCRIPTION
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
3601 00000 000000
FUND BALANCE TOTAL -
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) regulations require that all funds be obligated by December 31, 2024 and expended by December 31, 2026.
As of December 2, 2024, the City has a remaining balance of $5,419,997 in ARPA funds allocated across five projects. Given the impending obligation deadline, the City will be unable to obligate all of the funds in time. To address this, staff recommends reallocating the remaining ARPA funds in these projects to cover eligible public safety personnel costs within the Police and Fire departments. This strategy aligns with ARPA guidelines, which permit the use of funds for government services up to the amount of revenue lost due to the pandemic. While some of the funding is already obligated, this approach provides the City additional flexibility to fully utilize the ARPA funds if some of the obligated funds are not spent. It also allows for further flexibility in the unlikely event that any ARPA funds remain unspent after 2026. By reallocating these funds, the City can free up General Fund resources to fully backfill the balances of the ARPA-funded projects, except for the Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan project. This project is anticipated to be completed under budget, resulting in a savings of $59,073. Staff recommends transferring these funds to the General Fund Contingency to address potential overruns in other projects. The recommended budget adjustment also proposes transferring $300,000 from the Weber Park Renovations project to the Campus Oaks Park project. This adjustment is recommended because Weber Park Renovation costs are projected to come in under budget, while Campus Oaks Park costs are exceeding the original budget due to the inclusion of a bike component, that was part of the master plan for this park.
Scott Pettingell, Assistant Finance Director 2024-25
Scott Pettingell, Assistant Finance Director
Finance/Administration
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 3676
File #: 0103 & 0103-04-03 & 0103-05-03 & 0103-06-03 & 0103-12-03 & 0103-13-03 & 0103-41- 03 &
Title: Board and Commissions Bi-Annual Vacancies
Contact: Katrina Six 916-774-5267 [email protected] Meeting Date: 12/18/2024
Item #: 9.1.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Recommend that the City Council:
Appoint five (5) individuals to the Board of Appeals to terms expiring December 31, 2028 from the applications received from: Jason Douglas, Brandi Kohlhorst, Robert Powell, Howard Rudd, Charles Sandoval, Louise Santiago, Andrea Seminer, and Sandeep Upamaka.
Appoint two (2) individuals to the Library Board to terms expiring December 31, 2026 from the applications received from: Jennifer Krupp, Nora Parella, Kayla Scott, and Vicki Whitlock.
Appoint four (4) individuals to the Parks & Recreation Commission to terms expiring December 31, 2026 from the applications received from: Nick Alexander, Charles Aquino, KhosrowAzad, Jason Blessinger, Matthew Click, Sandra Pollack-Cushing, Kevin Hernandez, Venu Mallesara, Nora Parella, Stephen Stromberg, Laxmi Rao, and Sandeep Upamaka.
Appoint three (3) individuals to the Personnel Board to terms expiring December 31, 2028 from the applications received from: Robert Brittany, Jason Douglas, Prabhakar Maramreddy, and Howard Rudd.
Appoint three (3) individuals to the Senior Commission to terms expiring December 31, 2026 from the applications received from: Kat Janisch, Marsha Keller, Brandi Kohlhorst, Laxmi Rao, and Hannah Wagner.
Appoint two (2) individuals to the Transportation Commission to terms expiring December 31, 2028 from the applications received from Keenan Finney, Jason Probst, Anthony Sabathia, and Stephen Stromberg.
BACKGROUND
Appointments to the Board of Appeals, Library Board, Parks & Recreation Commission, Personnel Board, Senior Commission, and Transportation Commission are due to be made as part of the bi-annual recruitment process. Recruitment for all vacancies occurred in October 2024, video interviews of the applicants were conducted by the City Clerk Department, and the City Attorney’s Office reviewed the Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700) for potential conflicts of interest. The applications, video interviews, and confidential attorney review are compiled and provided to the City Council for consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is 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. The appointment of members to boards or commissions meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.
CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Respectfully Submitted,
Katrina Six, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager